Mounting evidence suggests that there are therapeutics that
- reduce COVID symptoms,
- prevent hospitalizations,
- drastically reduce sick time, and therefore,
- save lives.
If these therapeutics do indeed accomplish those things, then there seems no other conclusion possible that millions around the world could have been saved, if public health authorities hadn’t been so incredibly, fatally incompetent, stupid, braindead and grotesque.
These therapeutics are things like monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. It appears that ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, if prescribed early, have had great success in bringing relief to very symptomatic people in a very short time. After which the improvement continues, and the virus then lasts a very short time.
My question: How is it not criminal — in every sense of the word — to have censored the discussion of these therapeutics? And when I say “criminal,” one could argue that these people — people who have no medical expertise whatsoever — aided and abetted in the slaughter of millions around the world!
Incredibly, these were non-medical people telling you and me what medical information you and I could hear and read!
How on earth is that even remotely possible?!?
The Social Media platforms are, now, the default means of transmission of information everywhere around the world. To suppress information about effective therapeutics is to deny life-saving information from millions who need it.
How is this not criminal?
Names? Sure: Fauci, Zuckerberg (Facebook/Meta), Dorsey (Twitter), Sundar Pichai (Google/YouTube), Bezos (Amazon). I’m absolutely serious in suggesting that maybe these people ought to face charges of the most serious nature.
The very real possibility that these therapeutics could save tens upon tens upon tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of lives, has been known for a very long time now.
In many jurisdictions, if you encounter an emergency in which a person is in peril, you can face criminal charges if you refuse to try to assist.
Other jurisdictions have Good Samaritan laws in which if you do try to assist, and accidentally make things worse, you’re immune from prosecution or liability. Many jurisdictions, you see, would like to encourage passers-by to assist when encountering emergencies.
Well, was Covid not an emergency? And did anyone — honestly — think that everyone among the public health authorities knew absolutely everything that could be known about this virus when it first surfaced? Obviously not. (Remember “two weeks to flatten the curve?“) So, it seems obvious from the get-go, then, that censoring anything at all could be… killing people. By the millions! And, as it turns out, it’s seeming more and more and more likely that… it was.
More to the point, very early in this thing, and as time went on, it became very quickly obvious that the prevailing public health authorities knew very little about what to do to prevent Covid deaths. (Side Note: if they were actually trying to cause millions of Covid deaths, then the public health authorities were very competent indeed!)
How is the censorship of these discussions not criminal? Like Nuremburg-style Crimes Against Humanity criminal? Honest answer: It seems to me that it is.