I would hope this would revoke all of this EUA bullshit (& mandates!) because isn’t an EUA based on the alleged fact that there were NO available treatments / alternatives?
This needs to be trumpeted everywhere to force all of the people, entities & social media who viciously have attacked the concept into retreat. Why isn’t it happening??
Of course EUAs and all the rest are unconstitutional on their faces, since the federal government was never given these powers by the states in the constitution…but you know, “details” and stuff…
As evidenced by the totalitarian abuse & loss of freedoms of the past 2+ years, I’m afraid the Constitution has lost a great deal of power to protect us 😢
They can't get rid of the EUA. Without it, the vaccine companies have liability. Unless they can get it on the children's schedule. Then, once again, no liability.
Plausible deniability since Ivermectin is listed under the "clinical trial" setting? Even the NIH shows it as an Outpatient Repurposed Drug "under study":
Speaking of humane beings (and an impossible amount of seriously good substacks, found this gem, "Reporting for Beauty", who uses the term "humane being". Good analysis of the roles of psychopaths and enablers ~ https://reportingforbeauty.substack.com/ )
And speaking of horse medicine, Merck's Molnupiravir was originally developed for equine encephalitis. Of course.
I finally signed up for a paid subscription with you. I appreciate the amount of work you do and that you don't present a strong opinion but more of a questioning.
I also really appreciate the discussions your writings generate.
This is all so sickening, it isn't any wonder that many can't open their eyes to it.
Ivermectin was also listed on the FDA website well over a year ago for covid treatment. I will have to go way back in my history to find the evidence. The FDA and CDC have changed the information on their websites constantly to align with the narrative. Both agencies need a thorough cleansing of corrupt personnel.
It doesn't always work but often enough doing a search in Wayback will give you content that has paywalls and other tech hurdles IF someone saved it. Here's the pdf
Ivermectin, besides as we know working very well against Covid, is also extremely safe. Some stupid people tried committing suicide by swallowing a lot of ivermectin, ended up hospitalized but did not die.
The site is Infectious Diseases Society of America. Under 'Overview of Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines all the treatments listed on the Pfizer paper come from here.
Or perhaps this is a slightly honest paper from them, acknowledging that ivermectin has been in use around the world in many countries on a massive scale, often with the consent of that country's or that state's government. Not to mention how all those deplorable types in the USA ran straight to Tractor Supply to get tubes of pony paste to treat themselves. AFAIK, there are a few ivermectin trials running here and there, and there certainly have been dozens of them completed in other countries since Spring 2020. So it is a treatment obviously, whether it works or not, whether it's under the radar in USA or not. I took the 1% liquid livestock kind, it worked for me.
Recall Winston Smith. His job in the Ministry of Truth was to rewrite historical documents so that they matched the current version of truth and reality defined by the State. We are now seeing a version of this take place with Covid. The perpetrators of the Covid Democide now wish to expunge the historical record of everything that has taken place, and replace it with a new version of the truth. They are keenly aware that they only have 2 years worth of history to rewrite, a manageable affair in their mind. The goals are both near term, as in the 2022 US election, and longer term, as in Nuremberg 2.0, where the Defense could present documents indicating that “no such thing as the prosecution asserts ever occurred”, as the conflicting prosecutorial documents would indicate, and that that the conflicting evidence is so widespread as can only result in a mistrial, ending the proceedings.
100 IQ is AVERAGE. But it's also nothing absolute... It follows that if you're reasonably intelligent, you'll soon be able to discern whether someone else is, too. ;)
If you want to, you can look up the IQ scores of the persons convicted at the Nuremberg trials, as they were all subjected to interviews and testing before the process in order to ascertain that they were fit for trial an sentencing.
Your response seems a bit defensive-- Let me clarify. "Reasonably intelligent" in my mind is the ability to discern what is good for you and what is a threat; it's the ability to size up a situation and deal with it; it's the ability to use critical thinking, question what one is told, and come up with a rational decision. Etc.
The so-called "IQ Test" is a test devised by well-educated men who likely have, or had, a fairly similar background, raised in similar circumstances, and I would guess every single one of them is/was white. There's not much in there about "street smarts," or reactions in emergencies, or how to build a house, or raise children, or fix a clock, or devise a means of irrigation... It's pretty good in some ways, but it's pretty limited in others. That's all I'm saying, not trying to start an argument with you. Everything is relative, no?
Sorry, I came across harsher than intended. I was going for 'nudge nudge know what I mean'-sarcasm at the notion of average equlling smart, not you.
Just to amp up the fun quotient and to point out the inherent difficulty of discussing the thing itself using itself as the tool for disussing (recursion alert!), the statement "Everything is relative" is an absolute, and as such isn't relative, thereby disproving itself, the statement being part of "everything".
My point? When I was helping in conducting intelligence testing of Asperger/autistic students, and comparing these with normal students' scores and results, it became very clear that IQ wasn't enough, which is why we started over using a wide array of different tests, some harder like the classic Raven matrice, and some looser like sorting pictures in sequences and interviewing the student as to why a particular sequence had been decided upon.
Yes, we are pretty much aligned I think, it's just me having the occasional hissy fit due to IQ and intelligence testing being regarded as unsicentific fascism by my peers in the swedish teacher's community. The vast and dominant majority of them actually argue - for real - that intelligence cannot be measured, compared or even said to exist.
Hey, no worries. We've been trained by Corporate Think to be on guard for "enemies" to attack at any moment, and of course, when there's only type, and no facial expression or nuance in tone of voice... and sooo many who are itchin' for a bitchin', so to speak... well.
You sound as if you have far more experience with this than I do... I am one of those people who is insatiably curious, and interested in many, many things, and so I have an overview of a lot of topics, and perhaps not so much details, depending on the subject matter. Perhaps your colleagues have a point about the measure of intelligence, in a way. I could see that, maybe if we are talking about a few tests, created by "scientists" or whatever they are, lol, to make some kind of judgment on someone at one point in their lives, and assuming they have no test anxiety, are fully rested on Testing Day, are getting enough vitamins in their diet, and are not upset or distracted about something or other... So many variables. But, I think I'd be more apt to join those on your side of the fence, as it were. What I object to is this tendency to catalogue and pass judgment on everyone, and then use it to limit people or make life decisions for them, as if we can know all the profundity of a human being by looking at these tests. I do think they are very useful, to a point. I completely disagree that there can't be any measure, comparison, or even existence, though!! And forgive my very general thoughts from a layperson. If I could spend all my time studying things like this, I'd be quite happy about it!
As for "unscientific fascism," well-- don't get me started, LOL!! We live in "interesting times," my friend. Cheers.
"...itchin' for a bitchin..." Bwa-ha-hah! Ain't that the truth some days!
Don't know if you've read it, but I'd recommend the Dunning-Kruger report and Kahneman's 'Thinking: fast and slow' - not because they are some kind of absolute truth but because they both offer interesting perspectives of when high intelligence creates worse outcomes.
But look @ all the People who acquiesced to every bit of it w/ little-to-no protest, including allowing themselves to be willing injected w/ poison. They outnumber us, I think
We keep finding more that they are evil. Really evil which means they lie. Sometimes finding more evidence feels like remarking that Antarctica has ice. That New York had hot dogs. That Hawaii had another wave. Yah. I gotta DO more.
I despise Pfizer more every day
Check this out:
https://tritorch.com/criminal
Good old Pfizer, the "habitual offenders", along with their partners in crime, the CDC, FDA, and NIH.
I would hope this would revoke all of this EUA bullshit (& mandates!) because isn’t an EUA based on the alleged fact that there were NO available treatments / alternatives?
This needs to be trumpeted everywhere to force all of the people, entities & social media who viciously have attacked the concept into retreat. Why isn’t it happening??
Of course EUAs and all the rest are unconstitutional on their faces, since the federal government was never given these powers by the states in the constitution…but you know, “details” and stuff…
Exactly right. Only when there’s no other effective treatment can an EUA be created.
As evidenced by the totalitarian abuse & loss of freedoms of the past 2+ years, I’m afraid the Constitution has lost a great deal of power to protect us 😢
Well it is supposed to be the People who ensure the government follows the Constitution, or it is worthless.
They can't get rid of the EUA. Without it, the vaccine companies have liability. Unless they can get it on the children's schedule. Then, once again, no liability.
It can also be not EUA due to the fact that there is less than 50% efficacy if there is any...
Whatever supposed efficacy fails very quickly, from my understanding
Plausible deniability since Ivermectin is listed under the "clinical trial" setting? Even the NIH shows it as an Outpatient Repurposed Drug "under study":
https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-clinical-trials
Thank you for this.
Are you reading Francis Leader, here on substack?
Yes thanks, I try and read as many different substacks as humanely possible!
humanely, huh? either a Freudian slip or intentionally pretty funny! or just a typo...
I'll go for intentionally funny!?
Speaking of humane beings (and an impossible amount of seriously good substacks, found this gem, "Reporting for Beauty", who uses the term "humane being". Good analysis of the roles of psychopaths and enablers ~ https://reportingforbeauty.substack.com/ )
And speaking of horse medicine, Merck's Molnupiravir was originally developed for equine encephalitis. Of course.
I finally signed up for a paid subscription with you. I appreciate the amount of work you do and that you don't present a strong opinion but more of a questioning.
I also really appreciate the discussions your writings generate.
This is all so sickening, it isn't any wonder that many can't open their eyes to it.
I don't know how you hold it. :-(
Thanks, I appreciate it!
Yes, I think a stronger opinion would probably get more readers but I would rather people think for themselves and discuss with everyone here.
I love your approach, NE. You have come to be a trusted voice for me. Thank you!
Don't trust me! Just look into the things I post for yourself!
See! Just proves my point -- case closed!! :) That's exactly what I love about your approach--you're NOT saying "just trust me."
But yes! I DO look into the things you post. I ALWAYS look at first-source material before I spread it.
Your tactic is beautiful.
I fluctuate on that... Read mine sometime if you feel like it! I just posted a strong one, lol.
Give me a try sometime :) https://newsa.substack.com/p/our-first-step-think-locally-impact?r=zdjvg&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
What else do you read on substack?
I add any good ones to my must-reads posts.
Ivermectin was also listed on the FDA website well over a year ago for covid treatment. I will have to go way back in my history to find the evidence. The FDA and CDC have changed the information on their websites constantly to align with the narrative. Both agencies need a thorough cleansing of corrupt personnel.
If you remember the site location and find URL you can use Wayback to find the original screenshot. https://archive.org/web/
I remember this as well.
https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/18th_EML.pdf
SEE page 6
It comes up as a blocked plug in for me, but I remember seeing this as well.
It doesn't always work but often enough doing a search in Wayback will give you content that has paywalls and other tech hurdles IF someone saved it. Here's the pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20220221211142/https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/18th_EML.pdf
Fact checkers. Political hacks.
Well done NE!
Ivermectin, besides as we know working very well against Covid, is also extremely safe. Some stupid people tried committing suicide by swallowing a lot of ivermectin, ended up hospitalized but did not die.
I don't think they're going to make it that easy for us. In that section on page 17, they give a reference #8. That reference at the bottom gives a link with a date. Here it is on Wayback. https://web.archive.org/web/20210302032139/https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-treatment-and-management/
The site is Infectious Diseases Society of America. Under 'Overview of Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines all the treatments listed on the Pfizer paper come from here.
Well, notably they list it only within clinical trials. 🤷🏼♀️
Or perhaps this is a slightly honest paper from them, acknowledging that ivermectin has been in use around the world in many countries on a massive scale, often with the consent of that country's or that state's government. Not to mention how all those deplorable types in the USA ran straight to Tractor Supply to get tubes of pony paste to treat themselves. AFAIK, there are a few ivermectin trials running here and there, and there certainly have been dozens of them completed in other countries since Spring 2020. So it is a treatment obviously, whether it works or not, whether it's under the radar in USA or not. I took the 1% liquid livestock kind, it worked for me.
Horse apple flavored paste is 17 bucks and worked just fine with us.
Recall Winston Smith. His job in the Ministry of Truth was to rewrite historical documents so that they matched the current version of truth and reality defined by the State. We are now seeing a version of this take place with Covid. The perpetrators of the Covid Democide now wish to expunge the historical record of everything that has taken place, and replace it with a new version of the truth. They are keenly aware that they only have 2 years worth of history to rewrite, a manageable affair in their mind. The goals are both near term, as in the 2022 US election, and longer term, as in Nuremberg 2.0, where the Defense could present documents indicating that “no such thing as the prosecution asserts ever occurred”, as the conflicting prosecutorial documents would indicate, and that that the conflicting evidence is so widespread as can only result in a mistrial, ending the proceedings.
It figures.
So where are we, those of us keeping score? Is it 20-nil between "conspiracy theorists" vs "follow the science"?
If we ever needed further proof that IQ 100 means normal, not smart, well there it is.
100 IQ is AVERAGE. But it's also nothing absolute... It follows that if you're reasonably intelligent, you'll soon be able to discern whether someone else is, too. ;)
And what would "reasonably intelligent" mean?
If you want to, you can look up the IQ scores of the persons convicted at the Nuremberg trials, as they were all subjected to interviews and testing before the process in order to ascertain that they were fit for trial an sentencing.
You might be surprised by their scores.
Your response seems a bit defensive-- Let me clarify. "Reasonably intelligent" in my mind is the ability to discern what is good for you and what is a threat; it's the ability to size up a situation and deal with it; it's the ability to use critical thinking, question what one is told, and come up with a rational decision. Etc.
The so-called "IQ Test" is a test devised by well-educated men who likely have, or had, a fairly similar background, raised in similar circumstances, and I would guess every single one of them is/was white. There's not much in there about "street smarts," or reactions in emergencies, or how to build a house, or raise children, or fix a clock, or devise a means of irrigation... It's pretty good in some ways, but it's pretty limited in others. That's all I'm saying, not trying to start an argument with you. Everything is relative, no?
Sorry, I came across harsher than intended. I was going for 'nudge nudge know what I mean'-sarcasm at the notion of average equlling smart, not you.
Just to amp up the fun quotient and to point out the inherent difficulty of discussing the thing itself using itself as the tool for disussing (recursion alert!), the statement "Everything is relative" is an absolute, and as such isn't relative, thereby disproving itself, the statement being part of "everything".
My point? When I was helping in conducting intelligence testing of Asperger/autistic students, and comparing these with normal students' scores and results, it became very clear that IQ wasn't enough, which is why we started over using a wide array of different tests, some harder like the classic Raven matrice, and some looser like sorting pictures in sequences and interviewing the student as to why a particular sequence had been decided upon.
Yes, we are pretty much aligned I think, it's just me having the occasional hissy fit due to IQ and intelligence testing being regarded as unsicentific fascism by my peers in the swedish teacher's community. The vast and dominant majority of them actually argue - for real - that intelligence cannot be measured, compared or even said to exist.
Apologies, and best of.
Hey, no worries. We've been trained by Corporate Think to be on guard for "enemies" to attack at any moment, and of course, when there's only type, and no facial expression or nuance in tone of voice... and sooo many who are itchin' for a bitchin', so to speak... well.
You sound as if you have far more experience with this than I do... I am one of those people who is insatiably curious, and interested in many, many things, and so I have an overview of a lot of topics, and perhaps not so much details, depending on the subject matter. Perhaps your colleagues have a point about the measure of intelligence, in a way. I could see that, maybe if we are talking about a few tests, created by "scientists" or whatever they are, lol, to make some kind of judgment on someone at one point in their lives, and assuming they have no test anxiety, are fully rested on Testing Day, are getting enough vitamins in their diet, and are not upset or distracted about something or other... So many variables. But, I think I'd be more apt to join those on your side of the fence, as it were. What I object to is this tendency to catalogue and pass judgment on everyone, and then use it to limit people or make life decisions for them, as if we can know all the profundity of a human being by looking at these tests. I do think they are very useful, to a point. I completely disagree that there can't be any measure, comparison, or even existence, though!! And forgive my very general thoughts from a layperson. If I could spend all my time studying things like this, I'd be quite happy about it!
As for "unscientific fascism," well-- don't get me started, LOL!! We live in "interesting times," my friend. Cheers.
"...itchin' for a bitchin..." Bwa-ha-hah! Ain't that the truth some days!
Don't know if you've read it, but I'd recommend the Dunning-Kruger report and Kahneman's 'Thinking: fast and slow' - not because they are some kind of absolute truth but because they both offer interesting perspectives of when high intelligence creates worse outcomes.
But look @ all the People who acquiesced to every bit of it w/ little-to-no protest, including allowing themselves to be willing injected w/ poison. They outnumber us, I think
To be fair, it does say clinical TRIAL setting.
It's still listed under Current therapies at a time when you would have your Twitter account suspended just for mentioning it.
No, it is very clearly listed as the following:
Clinical Trial Setting:
-Convalescent Plasma
-Famotodine (H2 Blocker)
-Ivermecin (Anti-parasitic)
Under the heading of Current therapies
We keep finding more that they are evil. Really evil which means they lie. Sometimes finding more evidence feels like remarking that Antarctica has ice. That New York had hot dogs. That Hawaii had another wave. Yah. I gotta DO more.