- MemberJuly 9, 2021 at 3:54 pm
How simple it would be if health choice freedom could be based on the Ninth Amendment and public access to science information to make that freedom of choice was the inverse – 90% science.
(In Thhe search results link below, click on “more results” to see the full search)
The fact-checker apparatchiks and the pharmaceutical narcissists have inverted the information access to 90% psychology. Some of the 90% of information is not for the consensus or the majority to decide, but the patient to decide.
How many facts are there disseminated to the public, concerning the individual patient’s health care choices without the psychological (psy-ops) interference, that can give a clear picture about the risk of current EUA treatments alongside the alternative treatments?
One cannot believe that “there is no current treatment for COVID-19” in perpetuity; the statement that allowed the authorization for pharmaceuticals that qualified as “emergency use authorization” is now archaic.
Simple compound question: How many COVID-19 patients have taken ivermectin for COVID-19 at any stage, including prophylaxis, infection stage and after infection recovery…and have either had long term adverse reactions and/or death vs. how many COVID-19 patients have taken one or more of the several available COVID-19 pharma shots in all the world and have had long term adverse reactions and/or deaths?
This is not a statistical question, it is a question of actual numbers of continuing adverse reactions and/or deaths.
The answer would settle the question of whether we are being given the truth about both treatment choices.
- MemberJuly 10, 2021 at 6:07 am
Yes. Wouldn’t some simple truth be useful right now. Here in Australia the word mandatory is becoming common place.
- MemberJuly 12, 2021 at 5:04 pm
Duckduckgo. Good choice.
Fact checkers are usually part of the “Ministry of Truth.”