Some material pertaining to ivermectin for covid treatment

Some material pertaining to ivermectin…

"… this pandemic could be brought to an end quickly."

Bret Weinstein, PhD evolutionary biologist on his podcast Dark Horse, at the end of a 146-minute interview with ivermectin advocate doctor Pierre Kory: “Thanks so much, doctor Pierre Kory. People can look you up on your website, they can find these protocols, and if your doctor hasn’t heard of this stuff, [i.e., ivermectin] talk to them. Point them to this podcast. Give them a pdf [of the protocol] anything it takes for people to become aware that there is a tool, that it does work, that the evidence is overwhelming, and that this pandemic could be brought to an end quickly. Let’s do it, folks. Thanks so much.” (1 June 2021)

from The Puzzling Story of Ivermectin and How It Was ‘Ignored’ [not ignored so much as suppressed]

“While Covid-19 can be fatal and inexplicably and ominously complex, the two most obvious plot inconsistencies apparent almost since the outset of this saga are that a) Covid-19 is survivable by 99.7 per cent of people who encounter it; and b) the average age of death from it is 82 years old. If this were fiction, those two facts alone would be enough to have the scriptwriter sent back to her desk to come up with something with more dramatic potential which posed a real threat to a larger section of the populace, and one that might justify hitherto-inconceivably extreme measures inresponse. / / Instead, we unthinkingly masticate on the false underlying premise that SARS-CoV-2 presents such an acute danger to every single one of us that it justifies the wholesale shutting down of our social, educational, economic, artistic and spiritual systems, and from this erroneous assumption follow all the ghastly ramifications of our warped response.” (Helen Gray, 13 July 2021)

Most of what she says about Ivermectin is also true of the Hydroxychloroquine-plus-Zinc treatment.


American tax payers paid for the work that produced Covid-19. Why? If research into gain-of-function needed to be done, why not here in the US? And if it had to be done abroad for some unimaginable reason, why in China of all places?


Good questions. It was banned here. So Fauci did it anyway, in China, using our money. He didn’t care that there were good reasons for it being banned. He’s above the law.


I didn’t know it was banned here. Thanks for the info, Liz.


Yes, I remember reading that during Obamas administration they banned the gain of function research here, so he did that to get around it.