"You could tell me that you acknowledge the science."

What science, the science of coercing people to take untested vaccines and placing gag orders on doctors under threats of fines and banned from practice and firing all the nurses who don't want the jab either putting more strain on the health system which was killing patients with the ventilators?

Why don't I just go Baaaaaaa like a good little sheep to please the do-gooders who don't care who drops dead from vaccine side effects?

Why don't I just go and stand in front of a bus.

Hard pass.

You have your jibby jabby, and don't try to impose your beliefs on others.

My body my choice is perfectly fine if you want to kill your own unborn child, just not ok if you don't want to take an untested vaccine with side effects magnitudes above other vaccines.

It's not my fault the federal government couldn't quarantine the country from an outside contagion.
Not my fault that stupid scientists were involved in gain-of-function research that was making the worst viruses transmissible to humans
Not my fault that lab protocols for containment were as lax as gay people spreading monkeypox and HIV at the mardi gras.

This whole saga has been the lunatics taking over the asylum acting like their own little Hitlers.

http://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1679177280025772046

Armchair Critic

I see you have fulfilled Godwin's Law.

You appear quite frustrated and towards the end of your disjointed discussion, quite powerless.

One of the urban dictionary definitions of "jibby jabby" is a large marijuana joint (as well as an anti-vax definition that you may be using in this case).

Maybe it's time for you to light up a jibby jabby and chill man.

In all seriousness, though, are you O.K?

Ivermectin might be useful against the dreaded WuFlu and might not. The science is now so utterly corrupted and politicised that we'll probably never know.

OTOH, we do know that Ivermectin is entirely safe for human consumption which begs the question why the authorities were so anxious to ban it in the early stages of the great lockdown hoax. It seems to me that there are only two possible reasons, neither of which bode well for our future health needs..... 1. Trump supported it therefore all 'right thinking' people opposed it; 2. it was cheap and not especially profitable for Big Pharma whereas its alternatives were wildly profitable

mhaze

The reasons for the ban has already been explained but in case you missed it.

Why the ban then?

Firstly, there were safety fears about the doses being advocated for its use to treat COVID.

Secondly, there was a health risk associated with people taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent infection rather than getting vaccinated. This was viewed as a risk to the person as well as the wider public.

Thirdly, it was feared an increase in prescriptions would lead to a shortage for those who needed the medicine to treat scabies and parasite infections.

Yes we already knew that it was safe when prescribed properly and in the correct dose.

The problem early on was that in the U.S. in particular there was poisoning from this drug when self-medicated for prevention of CV-19.

One can only guess as to why but I have possible explanation.

In one study reported by The New England Journal of Medicine "most were older than 60 years of age".

Once again there is a probable explanation for this.

There where many drugs and supplements tested early on in the pandemic.

Lysine was one of these that showed some promise, for example.

The fact that cheap as chip aspirin is prescribed as a blood thinner and lysine for some viral infections indicates that not everything is a Big Phama conspiracy.

"Firstly, there were safety fears about the doses being advocated for its use to treat COVID."

The drug had already long been approved for human use. We don't ban aspirin or ibuprofen even though they are often overused. This looks more like an excuse than a reason.

"Secondly, there was a health risk associated with people taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent infection rather than getting vaccinated."

The ban was instituted long before the so-called vaccine was available. I explained this above. This isn't a reason for banning it, its an excuse after the fact.

"it was feared an increase in prescriptions would lead to a shortage"
Rubbish. The drug is manufactured in the billions and could easily have been scaled up if needed. This is definitely just an excuse after the fact.

"not everything is a Big Phama conspiracy."

No, just some things. Was the vaccine designed to stop the recipient from getting the virus. We were originally told it was. Then they owned up. Some conspiracy theories turn out to be facts.

mhaze says:

"This is definitely just an excuse after the fact".

As stated before this is information supplied from the TGA.

If you do not accept this as a credible source then provide a rebuttal from a different source so that its position and credibility can be assessed.

If you do not believe the TGA then I suggest that you interrogate their data and their findings and get back to this thread with your analysis.

If this is just an evidence-lacking opinion then it only has significance to you and perhaps just a few others.