Yup, big pharma is quite upset about all of the money it's losing to the second coming of naturopathic and homeopathy approaches to healing - once the mainstay of medicine in the US before the Rockefellers pulled a rabbit out of the hat and got us onto pharmaceuticals. Clearly, pharmaceuticals have been/are a disaster. There is also the increasing popularity of orthomolecular medicine (supplements). They can't have any of that. Gotta keep everyone sick and coming in for highly profitable patented drugs. So, get the lever pullers behind the curtain to manipulate the set in their favor.
I really get your aggravation, but have a hard time following your logic. Ivermectin is actually made by "big Pharma", so if it really helped prevent COVID, it would be a big money-maker for them. No clinical trials have proved it's efficacy "in vivo" only some promising results." in vitro". The amount extrapolated from the test tube experiment needed to possibly prevent virus replication in actual living people was found to be prohibitive. I hope you are not encouraging people to act as unsupervised guinea pigs in this latest effort to booster a prejudice against science and established public health policy
Don't get me wrong, I agree that a lot of health policy can be influenced by politics. I know there is money at stake and lobbyists weigh in on every policy that may or may not improve public health. I choose to pick battles that are supported by actual science. For instance, the obscene spectacle of big tobacco using phony science to claim their product was not addictive. I hate that Purdue was allowed to say Oxycontin was a non-addictive wonder drug instead of legal, deadly heroin.
So, your question is, do vaccines work, or do they work 109%?
Well, the vaccines obviously do not work 100%, not was that ever claimed. So, again, using this fact to argue against vaccines us using a "straw man" argument.
Do vaccines substantially prevent severe disease and death? The data says yes if you accept that likelihood of hospitalization and death us decreased by 90% is considered substantial
I m not going to cite all the stats as I'm sure you are aware of the numbers.
That Malone interview is really excellent. I'm sharing it with friends. Thanks for all your great work Tessa. Both your own writing and your research.
Yup, big pharma is quite upset about all of the money it's losing to the second coming of naturopathic and homeopathy approaches to healing - once the mainstay of medicine in the US before the Rockefellers pulled a rabbit out of the hat and got us onto pharmaceuticals. Clearly, pharmaceuticals have been/are a disaster. There is also the increasing popularity of orthomolecular medicine (supplements). They can't have any of that. Gotta keep everyone sick and coming in for highly profitable patented drugs. So, get the lever pullers behind the curtain to manipulate the set in their favor.
Thank you so much for your research. I share with appropriate friends. the vascular damage thing prompted me to search. Found this, about pine needle oil https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/05/15/how-to-guard-against-the-spike-protein-contagion-caused-by-the-covid-vaccinated/
I really get your aggravation, but have a hard time following your logic. Ivermectin is actually made by "big Pharma", so if it really helped prevent COVID, it would be a big money-maker for them. No clinical trials have proved it's efficacy "in vivo" only some promising results." in vitro". The amount extrapolated from the test tube experiment needed to possibly prevent virus replication in actual living people was found to be prohibitive. I hope you are not encouraging people to act as unsupervised guinea pigs in this latest effort to booster a prejudice against science and established public health policy
Don't get me wrong, I agree that a lot of health policy can be influenced by politics. I know there is money at stake and lobbyists weigh in on every policy that may or may not improve public health. I choose to pick battles that are supported by actual science. For instance, the obscene spectacle of big tobacco using phony science to claim their product was not addictive. I hate that Purdue was allowed to say Oxycontin was a non-addictive wonder drug instead of legal, deadly heroin.
So, your question is, do vaccines work, or do they work 109%?
Well, the vaccines obviously do not work 100%, not was that ever claimed. So, again, using this fact to argue against vaccines us using a "straw man" argument.
Do vaccines substantially prevent severe disease and death? The data says yes if you accept that likelihood of hospitalization and death us decreased by 90% is considered substantial
I m not going to cite all the stats as I'm sure you are aware of the numbers.