Vaccine coercion/bribery

[DoggyDaddy]

View attachment 156935

I have 90 double rolls of toilet paper in my garage. Bring it!!

 

[rhamersley]

Oh so not all flu will be labeled as Covid this year?

 

[Tombs]

It ended up being about addressing the question of whether one should wait to get the flu shot within 14 days after getting the Covid vaccine. Now they're saying to go ahead and get them both at the same time if you want to.

I'm sure that's perfectly safe and healthy for your immune system.

 

[Tombs]

Wrong. All those stupid stories about the ER being full of people using ivermectin is a lie. So you have to ask yourself. Why are they hiding it and lying about it?

Because it's big $$$ for big pharma.

That's why big pharma is trying to push for a twice daily pill to use in conjunction with booster shots for covid. It's all about how far they can milk public sentiment and tax payer handouts.

On our current trajectory, I think big pharma could push anything with complete and total public acceptance. Astonishing how all these people who railed on for years about how the health care industry in the US is the devil, and that big pharma is the ultimate bad guy, yet they're now all bending over backwards for every syllable that comes out of their mouth.

A cheap 4 decade old medicine that you can buy at a local feed and seed shop presents a HUGE threat to their bottom line. They don't own exclusive rights to it and aren't getting a big check from tax payers for it, so they want to make it disappear. Manufacturing it wouldn't make them much money compared to things that they own exclusive rights to, and have contracts for.

For the record I'm not saying I believe ivermectin is perfectly safe. But at least it's a known quantity, unlike the pills and shots being pushed by big pharma. The shots 'could' be harmless, but we won't know for a couple years.

 

[buckwacker]

Oh so not all flu will be labeled as Covid this year?

No, flu and covid are getting married and will have a billion babies by the fall. Their progeny will be the mostest scariest plague in the history of mankind, and big pharma will save us by developing a weekly jab, the most wonderfulest and safest ever, in two months.

 

[NKBJ]

Depending upon who you think brewed up the bank bug a new threat being bandied about could be a scary thing to ponder.

 

[actaeon277]

I don't think a government worker with almost 50 years of limiting freedom under his belt should be thinking he understands freedom.

Wait, let me go ask King George about freedom.

Kinda the same.

 

[actaeon277]

Watching a piece on WTHR right now talking about flu shots and a possible "twin-demic" with flu and Covid.

Gotta keep amping up the fear.
Control and advertising clicks depend on it.

 

[jsharmon7]

I have a question about the ivermectin hush conspiracy...

At this point they know a significant portion (20-30%) aren’t going to take the vaccine for whatever reason. Why would Merck NOT want to sell ivermectin to that group, if it did work? The theory I keep hearing is profit, but Merck could be making money off of it. Besides, they don’t have a vaccine to sell anyway. The logic doesn’t seem to hold up.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I have a question about the ivermectin hush conspiracy...

At this point they know a significant portion (20-30%) aren’t going to take the vaccine for whatever reason. Why would Merck NOT want to sell ivermectin to that group, if it did work? The theory I keep hearing is profit, but Merck could be making money off of it. Besides, they don’t have a vaccine to sell anyway. The logic doesn’t seem to hold up.

Because by admitting ivermectin works it takes away any desire to take a rushed vaccine.

 

[jsharmon7]

Because by admitting ivermectin works it takes away any desire to take a rushed vaccine.

That’s my question, though. The people who are willing to take it have already taken it. The other 20-30% will never take it. Why not grab the dollars you can when you have people already wanting it?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

That’s my question, though. The people who are willing to take it have already taken it. The other 20-30% will never take it. Why not grab the dollars you can when you have people already wanting it?

Because part of that 20-30% have already had, and beat, the virus. They won’t take either one because they already have the antibodies and are far superior to any prescription/shot. Sure, some will get the vaccine too, but majority won’t. The ones left, like me, won’t take the vaccine until it’s had years of studies, and if I test positive for Covid I’ll start a ivermectin dose if my doctor recommends it.

 

[Drewski]

I have a question about the ivermectin hush conspiracy...

At this point they know a significant portion (20-30%) aren’t going to take the vaccine for whatever reason. Why would Merck NOT want to sell ivermectin to that group, if it did work? The theory I keep hearing is profit, but Merck could be making money off of it. Besides, they don’t have a vaccine to sell anyway. The logic doesn’t seem to hold up.

https://babylonbee.com/news/pfizer-releases-popular-new-drug-pfivermectin

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I personally will not accept anyone into my home who hasn’t had the 132,639,548th booster shot. Sorry. Unless you’re “fully” vaccinated you’re just a walking blob of germs.

 

[Tombs]

Wait, let me go ask King George about freedom.

King George would call these people insane tyrants.

If King George was president, we'd think we were living in a country run by libertarians, compared to what we're used to.

 

[Tombs]

I have a question about the ivermectin hush conspiracy...

At this point they know a significant portion (20-30%) aren’t going to take the vaccine for whatever reason. Why would Merck NOT want to sell ivermectin to that group, if it did work? The theory I keep hearing is profit, but Merck could be making money off of it. Besides, they don’t have a vaccine to sell anyway. The logic doesn’t seem to hold up.

Because it isn't government mandated and they don't control exclusive rights to it.

It can be made generic. Therefor it has very little profit margin compared to the covid specific medicine.

 

[jsharmon7]

Because it isn't government mandated and they don't control exclusive rights to it.

It can be made generic. Therefor it has very little profit margin compared to the covid specific medicine.

I feel like all the responses so far just circle around my question. Why not make SOME money on it rather than NO money? Merck abandoned their vaccine attempt and I know of no other treatments they’re selling. If ivermectin was effective they could still make a few million from it.

This isn’t an argument for or against ivermectin. The conspiracy angle just doesn’t add up to me.

 

[Tombs]

I feel like all the responses so far just circle around my question. Why not make SOME money on it rather than NO money? Merck abandoned their vaccine attempt and I know of no other treatments they’re selling. If ivermectin was effective they could still make a few million from it.

This isn’t an argument for or against ivermectin. The conspiracy angle just doesn’t add up to me.

I've not heard them make any big statements for or against it.

I'm going to take a guess and say they aren't sure themselves about recommending it at this point, because there's not sufficient data. And unlike pfizer, if they do market it for covid and someone is hurt, they can be sued.

We know as a factual matter that the lab tested and proven dosage effective against covid is too high to be safe. But the effectiveness of it at much lower doses is a question mark.

We're into a similar situation as we were with hydroxy, where there's been tons of successful usage of it, but there's still a great degree of apprehension towards using it professionally.

 

[rhamersley]

Because part of that 20-30% have already had, and beat, the virus. They won’t take either one because they already have the antibodies and are far superior to any prescription/shot. Sure, some will get the vaccine too, but majority won’t. The ones left, like me, won’t take the vaccine until it’s had years of studies, and if I test positive for Covid I’ll start a ivermectin dose if my doctor recommends it.

Have a feeling that if everything eventually comes to light, there’s going to be a collusion between government, healthcare entities and big pharma that makes the cosa nostra look like the Mickey Mouse club. There are a lot of people getting rich off of this “crisis”…

 

[jsharmon7]

I've not heard them make any big statements for or against it.

I'm going to take a guess and say they aren't sure themselves about recommending it at this point, because there's not sufficient data. And unlike pfizer, if they do market it for covid and someone is hurt, they can be sued.

We know as a factual matter that the lab tested and proven dosage effective against covid is too high to be safe. But the effectiveness of it at much lower doses is a question mark.

We're into a similar situation as we were with hydroxy, where there's been tons of successful usage of it, but there's still a great degree of apprehension towards using it professionally.

That’s a fair response. They issued a statement saying there was no evidence it was effective. Maybe they’re just covering themselves since it’s too early to tell. Still, the conspiracy angle just doesn’t add up.