Jump to content

COVID THREAD

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, top4718 said:

Yeah very plausible, I wonder how much good old B&V paid em for that, it's been proven to be successfully used under oath  

 

 

Think of the profits Merck could make if Ivermectin was a cure for Covid - the other 85% of shareholders would soon outvote Blackrock / Vanguard. Highly profitable seeing as all Research and Development costs had been covered years ago.

 

And what on earth does "proven to be successfully used under oath " mean? Not a sort of clinical test anyone is aware of.

 

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Think of the profits Merck could make if Ivermectin was a cure for Covid - the other 85% of shareholders would soon outvote Blackrock / Vanguard. Highly profitable seeing as all Research and Development costs had been covered years ago.

 

 

 

That’s the clincher.

 

The horse wormer does help against respiratory diseases. It reduces inflammation and makes you feel a bit better. Like Ibuprofen does. 
 

It doesn’t cure covid though. Or help in serious cases. And they are the ones that matter.

 

If it was a magic bullet, we would all know by now. Simply because economics demand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Think of the profits Merck could make if Ivermectin was a cure for Covid - the other 85% of shareholders would soon outvote Blackrock / Vanguard. Highly profitable seeing as all Research and Development costs had been covered years ago.

 

And what on earth does "proven to be successfully used under oath " mean? Not a sort of clinical test anyone is aware of.

 

It wasn't a cure and neither is the vaccine, it eased symptoms very successfully and reduced covid impact where used, the drug was already on the market and cheap, if you think anyone can outvote an investment company worth trillions then you really are on the the fantasy cloud I thought you were, the death jabs didn't have much research and development, they were rushed out and forced onto people.

 

You obviously need things explaining to you in simpler terms I'll remember in future - two doctors in the last few weeks have produced evidence under oath of the successful use of Ivermectin to combat covid, end of.

 

Any explanation why the vaccine is no longer being offered and the AZ one was withdrawn altogether?

Edited by top4718

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, top4718 said:

if you think anyone can outvote an investment company worth trillions then you really are on the the fantasy cloud 

But that is exactly what you are claiming to be the truth.

 

If ivermectin is so effective, how have Blackrock and Vanguard been prevented from promoting Merck’s product? Given that they are major shareholders.

 

Follow the money. Trastrick told you that this morning.

Edited by Prettytom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, top4718 said:

It wasn't a cure and neither is the vaccine, it eased symptoms very successfully and reduced covid impact where used, the drug was already on the market and cheap, if you think anyone can outvote an investment company worth trillions then you really are on the the fantasy cloud I thought you were, the death jabs didn't have much research and development, they were rushed out and forced onto people.

 

 

So 85% of shareholders can't outvote the 15% owners to make huge profits. And why don't B&V want a share of those huge profits?

 

What on earth does "proven to be successfully used under oath " mean?  Can't recall any regulator accepting a drug as being "proved under oath" as oppossed to clinical trials - preferably peer reviewed.

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Longcol said:

So 85% of shareholders can't outvote the 15% owners to make huge profits. And why don't B&V want a share of those huge profits?

 

What on earth does "proven to be successfully used under oath " mean?  Can't recall any regulator accepting a drug as being "proved under oath" as oppossed to clinical trials - preferably peer reviewed.

Obviously not.

 

Not really bothered about regulators, why have the death jab boosters been stopped, any clues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, top4718 said:

 

Not really bothered about regulators,

What does "proven to be successfully used under oath "mean? 

 

Presumably you're happy for a drug to be released "under oath" rather than having succesful peer reviewed clinical trials.

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, top4718 said:

 

 

Not really bothered about regulators,

But you are bothered about Blackrock and Vanguard.


But they part own the company that makes Ivermectin.

 

So, why do you think that they are part of a conspiracy to discredit ivermectin?

 

Seems a bit silly to me.

Edited by Prettytom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, top4718 said:

...

Any explanation why the vaccine is no longer being offered and the AZ one was withdrawn altogether?

    Yes- you are wrong.

    The AZ as with many other approved vaccines are no longer being ordered because the mRNA vaccines(e.g. Pfizer and Moderna) are more effective at boosting protection. Novavax vaccine is still available.

    Because 97% of adults in England have antibodies from infection or vaccination with the highest level of protection amongst those with both, there is currently a strong population immunity. In England an extra booster vaccine is being provided in the spring for a small number of new and specifically vulnerable. In autumn 2023 a larger at higher risk group will be offered a booster vaccine. If there is a autumn winter surge or a new variant emerges will be taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of which information is available to anyone who wishes to apply a little research to the subject rather than choosing to float another boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Prettytom said:

But you are bothered about Blackrock and Vanguard.


But they part own the company that makes Ivermectin.

 

So, why do you think that they are part of a conspiracy to discredit ivermectin?

 

Seems a bit silly to me.

Would be interesting to compare the profit made from vaccines to that made from ivermectin.

The companies mentioned will certainly have done so and that information would be key in any decisions they make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, will have to do a bit of digging.  But as I understand it Mercks patent for Ivermectin ran out in the 90s rendering it dirt cheap which would mean the patent holder could no longer prevent others from using selling or making the drug, follow the money as they say. The big bucks were in the vax. 

 

Also the covid vax could only be used under Emergency Use Authorization (EMA) if there was no other alternative that could be used.....

 

I seem to remember an Australian professor at the beginning of all this doing studies on Ivermectin in India, he was giving away the kits as early treatment, and if i remember rightly if the patients were treated early enough they nearly all recovered, will have to dig it out. 

 

Again he maintained that the key to recovery was early treatment and as someone mentioned above strong anti inflammatories.  Did the NHS have a set protocol for covid treatment and what was it?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
√ó
√ó
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.