What Do I Think About Ivermectin and HCQ?
Something to think about...
What Do I Think About Ivermectin and HCQ?
Part of the Op, sorry to say
A friend sent me this article about Ivermectin for my reaction.
It’s an interesting read with intriguing details that demonstrates (yet again) how Drug Lords & their Funders are forever in search of for-profit purposes their drugs can serve.
When it comes to Ivermectin and other “early treatment” drugs for COVID-19, my position is more straightforward and sidesteps the efficacy question altogether:
There was no new disease or cause of death caused by a novel coronavirus that came on the scene in late 2019/early 2020. The WHO lied when it created Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Because there was no new disease and nothing unique about the associated symptoms - no new repurposed treatments were needed.
Hydroxycholoquine and Ivermectin were part of the government’s dual-sided Op/Counter-Op in a staged pandemic. Besides profit, the utility of these drugs is in preserving the “new novel spreading virus and new disease” narrative.
As far as I know there have been no Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) involving either drug versus chicken noodle soup, a warm blanket, and hug (as
has recommended) - or any of the remedies offered by post-war Brits in this 1959 video.Any “treatment” that spares someone testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 from being admitted to the hospital and subjected to a euthanasia protocol or neglect is going to perform pretty well in a study.
The largely test-dependent COVID case definition means that patients in IVM and HCQ studies could have any number of symptoms or conditions for which the drugs are beneficial (or at least not harmful).
“But Ivermectin/HCQ really worked for me and my grandma!” someone might say.
Okay. So it didn’t make worse whatever unremarkable illness you & grandma had, and possibly spared you from things which might have made it much worse. That’s neither proof a novel disease or the efficacy of the drug.1
Maybe you’re thinking, “But HCQ was suppressed!”
The “battle” over the drug was a highly politicized affair involving circus-like Pro/Con factions.2 What better way is there to create demand for a product, and direct questions away from whether a new deadly pathogen is suddenly spreading, than to have one group saying a drug works for the disease it allegedly causes and another, bigger and louder group saying it doesn’t? Peter McCullough versus Anthony Fauci, covered by The Wall Street Journal in April 2020 is illustrative:
It’s easier to see in retrospect that Early Treatment was implicitly presented as an alternative to Hospitalize & Oxygenate or Sedate/Ventilate, without directly challenging the idea that a new disease was going to send a good number of people to the ICU who needed to be intubated.
James Todaro and two colleagues, for example, were very quick with a Chloroquine paper the same day the U.S. declared a National Emergency. Saying things like “it might slow the pandemic” and “give extra time to develop a vaccine” affirmed the WHO’s claims and the federal government’s embrace thereof. There’s no anti-establishment stance here.
The idea that the government & vaccine developers would try to keep repurposed drugs or mundane remedies from the public during a Deadly Pandemic Event is not only a predictable storyline but also straight out of the movie Contagion. I tip my hat to the agencies that pulled it off in real life using a range of unwitting and witting players.
They prevented much of the populace from questioning the pandemic - and saved some chickens too.
Personal experience isn’t a great test for novelty to humankind: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-sickest-ive-ever-been
Some of the “Pro” faction in summer 2020: https://x.com/Wood_House76/status/1778088729740988424
Source: Wood House 76
