forcry

>your holy CDC and WHO high priests who live in the pockets of big pharma.

Even you are wrong. Because they are not in the pockets, but they are the big pharma. They are the marketing arms of big pharma that are just a much more convincing version of the person in a lab coat in a toothpaste commercial. They just appear to do enough good stuff to not blow their cover, just like an undercover cop might go along with the baddies just enough to not blow their cover.

So if you think CDC/WHO can be "fixed" by changing the funding, you would be very wrong.

Is there some evidence to show that people are given RNA tests in the same manner irrespective of vaccination status.

I have seen some articles that put forword the "issue" of "needlessly" testing vaccinated people...

>Simpson’s paradox explains the risks of comparing data without taking all variables into account

Unless of course, when you are counting covid-deaths.

>Before the vaccine program started there were ~4000 deaths per day in the US, now there are ~100. Clearly it is very effective at reducing death.

Changing the way you categorise death can do wonders..

> Q Can you talk about your concerns about deaths being misreported by coronavirus because of either testing or standards for how they’re characterized?

> DR. BIRX: So, I think, in this country, we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality, and I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks. Prior to that, when there wasn’t testing in January and February, that’s a very different situation and unknown. There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem — some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now, we’re still recording it, and we’ll — I mean, the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to mark it as COVID-19 infection — the intent is, right now, that those — if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.

Now, imagine if, after vaccine rollout, we counts those deaths as cause by a heart condition. Boom. Drop in covid deaths! Vaccines worked! Hail pharma!

>To save itself, WHO will have to forgo the easy path of private funding and appeasing the rich. It will have to return to democracy, to advocacy for the mass populations it was designed to serve

I don't think private funding is the problem, the problem is centralisation of power. So to save itself WHO should denounce its power to issue medical guidelines for the world.

>It's a shame that the discourse around this drug has been horribly mangled by conspiracy theorists..

Do you think companies that are developing vaccines and other costly treatments for Covid does not have an incentive to discredit Ivermectin?

If you say, yes they have an incentive, but there is no evidence that they are doing so, then it becomes quite subjective. If you think it is not possible for the researchers and media to work towards a narrative, then of course that is an outrageous possibility, but if you think that is possible, then not so much so..

True. Got confused.

> The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.