Rule number one of citing primary research to prove a thesis: always read the source material first and be sure that it actually supports your argument.
Perhaps they wanted to get their info out at warp speed and that is why they didn't read the source material' Linking today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
I believe Merck had the original patent on IVM but that timed out. Now they want to dis their own past successful money maker and well working treatment and come up with one that is increasingly showing might be causing more viral mutations/varients. I read something on that yesterday on substack . Very clear that is happening.
More than fraudulent. It's malfeasance.
Perhaps they wanted to get their info out at warp speed and that is why they didn't read the source material' Linking today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Seems to me that if someone is going to comment on the "available data" they ought to at least have a working familiarity with said "available data".
They were stupid and lazy no matter what.
Quick question: what's the difference between "Faucist" and "fraudulent?"
Faucist is a noble lie for ideological reasons
Fraudulent is a crass lie for simple greed
Both motivations are on display at the FDA.
I believe Merck had the original patent on IVM but that timed out. Now they want to dis their own past successful money maker and well working treatment and come up with one that is increasingly showing might be causing more viral mutations/varients. I read something on that yesterday on substack . Very clear that is happening.
The patents have run out on ivermectin, which means anyone can make and sell it.
The FDA's statement is simply false.
In short, they lied, and are still lying.
They lie about ivermectin.
They lie about face masks.
They lie about the mRNA inoculations
They lie about the virus itself.
That is the main takeaway: they are lying to you, and the "available data" proves that beyond any and all doubt.
Depopulation program = slander /ban effective treatments.