“Subscribe

Hopefully it’s the start

AFCDorset

Season Ticket Holder
Sadly, that sort of thing is never going to happen in this country, the perpetrators of the murderous scamdemic are too well protected.

The people have no honest or legal way of challenging them and if they try and do so in the media for example they are quickly shut down, their lives ruined in some cases. A few higher profile people continue to make the effort but have nothing like the exposure given to the 'official' narrative.

An awful lot of people still believe that the vaccine program is good for their health and will accept any lie that reinforces that.
 

Richardvanles

Season Ticket Holder
Sadly, that sort of thing is never going to happen in this country, the perpetrators of the murderous scamdemic are too well protected.

The people have no honest or legal way of challenging them and if they try and do so in the media for example they are quickly shut down, their lives ruined in some cases. A few higher profile people continue to make the effort but have nothing like the exposure given to the 'official' narrative.

An awful lot of people still believe that the vaccine program is good for their health and will accept any lie that reinforces that.
We had someone on here the other day not quite grasping the fact that folk are turning to alternatives rather than the vaccine and ridiculing the fact and not understanding the difference between proper measured dosage etc and unable to because of the barriers placed in the way by big pharma and governments.
I won’t name him but let’s just say he moved to a place that rather than pay for treatment for dying elderly relatives they would rather employ someone to knock fuck out of them with a hammer. A practice still used up until the 1970’s.
Maybe he believes that in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
Backward.
 

Yorkfox

Season Ticket Holder
I think personally that there is a very strong likelihood that treatments including Ivermectin have been suppressed because of vested interests but for good measure here is a copy and paste of one of those factcheck articles on the case in question:

The Indian Bar Association, a private voluntary organization of lawyers, has no jurisdiction to charge the scientist with murder.
Articles claiming that India has charged World Health Organization (WHO) scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, with mass murder are doing the rounds on social media.
In May 2021, an entity by the name of the Indian Bar Association (IBA) served a legal notice to Swaminathan for spreading "disinformation" about the effectiveness of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. The entity alleges that ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, is effective in treating COVID-19. WHO doesn't recommend ivermectin.
The Mumbai-based IBA has no statutory or regulatory status in India and should not be confused with the Bombay Bar Association, which is the official association of lawyers practicing in the Bombay High Court. Furthermore, it is important to note that sending a legal notice is not the same as charges being filed in a court of law.
IBA describes itself as “an association of lawyers who are united in the cause of bringing in transparency and accountability in Indian judiciary." In its 51-page long notice, IBA alleges that Dr. Swaminathan has “intentionally ignored” and “deliberately chosen” to ignore the research and findings of fellow doctors and physicians such as U.S.-based Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Panel, which claim that ivermectin is useful as a prophylactic and for treating COVID-19.
FLCCC has been notorious for promoting ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. It has falsely stated that ivermectin is “effectively a ‘miracle drug’” that could obliterate COVID-19 transmission and prevent illness, and an article written by its members was taken down from the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Pharmacology for making unsubstantiated claims.
There isn’t satisfactory evidence that ivermectin can prevent or treat COVID-19. As the Washington Post has stated, “it’s possible ivermectin has some clinical benefits in treating the coronavirus. It’s just that the data is highly inconclusive — and some of the most oft-cited studies in favor of the drug have holes in them."
In February, an ivermectin manufacturer, Merck, stated that the company’s research analysis identified that there is no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies and that there is a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies coming out in support of ivermectin.
Earlier in June, the Directorate General of Health Services under the Union Health Ministry in India updated its COVID-19 guidelines to exclude ivermectin from its recommended drugs for the treatment of COVID-19.
In its response to the legal notice against its senior scientist, a WHO spokesperson said that “WHO’s assessment of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 is based on the current state of scientific evidence. WHO guidelines are developed by an independent global guidelines development group and are updated regularly when new data becomes available."
The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to a lot of potentially dangerous misinformation. For reliable advice on COVID-19, including symptoms, prevention, and available treatment, please refer to the World Health Organization or your national healthcare authority.
 

Richardvanles

Season Ticket Holder
I think personally that there is a very strong likelihood that treatments including Ivermectin have been suppressed because of vested interests but for good measure here is a copy and paste of one of those factcheck articles on the case in question:

The Indian Bar Association, a private voluntary organization of lawyers, has no jurisdiction to charge the scientist with murder.
Articles claiming that India has charged World Health Organization (WHO) scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, with mass murder are doing the rounds on social media.
In May 2021, an entity by the name of the Indian Bar Association (IBA) served a legal notice to Swaminathan for spreading "disinformation" about the effectiveness of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. The entity alleges that ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, is effective in treating COVID-19. WHO doesn't recommend ivermectin.
The Mumbai-based IBA has no statutory or regulatory status in India and should not be confused with the Bombay Bar Association, which is the official association of lawyers practicing in the Bombay High Court. Furthermore, it is important to note that sending a legal notice is not the same as charges being filed in a court of law.
IBA describes itself as “an association of lawyers who are united in the cause of bringing in transparency and accountability in Indian judiciary." In its 51-page long notice, IBA alleges that Dr. Swaminathan has “intentionally ignored” and “deliberately chosen” to ignore the research and findings of fellow doctors and physicians such as U.S.-based Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Panel, which claim that ivermectin is useful as a prophylactic and for treating COVID-19.
FLCCC has been notorious for promoting ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. It has falsely stated that ivermectin is “effectively a ‘miracle drug’” that could obliterate COVID-19 transmission and prevent illness, and an article written by its members was taken down from the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Pharmacology for making unsubstantiated claims.
There isn’t satisfactory evidence that ivermectin can prevent or treat COVID-19. As the Washington Post has stated, “it’s possible ivermectin has some clinical benefits in treating the coronavirus. It’s just that the data is highly inconclusive — and some of the most oft-cited studies in favor of the drug have holes in them."
In February, an ivermectin manufacturer, Merck, stated that the company’s research analysis identified that there is no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies and that there is a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies coming out in support of ivermectin.
Earlier in June, the Directorate General of Health Services under the Union Health Ministry in India updated its COVID-19 guidelines to exclude ivermectin from its recommended drugs for the treatment of COVID-19.
In its response to the legal notice against its senior scientist, a WHO spokesperson said that “WHO’s assessment of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 is based on the current state of scientific evidence. WHO guidelines are developed by an independent global guidelines development group and are updated regularly when new data becomes available."
The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to a lot of potentially dangerous misinformation. For reliable advice on COVID-19, including symptoms, prevention, and available treatment, please refer to the World Health Organization or your national healthcare authority.
I wouldn’t wipe my arse on these fact check articles. Financed by the very people who want information to be suppressed in a lot of cases.
 

Yorkfox

Season Ticket Holder
Well the webpage says you can download the free fact check app 'Logically' on Google Play and Apple Store, that is if you're ever wondering what you should think :D
 

Richardvanles

Season Ticket Holder
Yes really, I know a lot of individuals who question why celebs are being paid to promote a vaccine that no one can conclude what the long term effects may be and are baffled by the shutting down of any sort of questioning of the Covid vaccine. Don’t think they are “anti vaxers” I’m all for vaccinations to save lives and make ours lives better after due diligence of trials have taken place. Don’t think it makes me an anti vaxer, well not in my eyes anyway. Makes me sensible.
 

SteveYork

Season Ticket Holder
I wouldn’t wipe my arse on these fact check articles. Financed by the very people who want information to be suppressed in a lot of cases.
But much of that particular article - specifically its explanation of the legal 'case' - is surely uncontentious?
 

Richardvanles

Season Ticket Holder
But much of that particular article - specifically its explanation of the legal 'case' - is surely uncontentious?
If you believe what’s being written is true. I only had to read the last paragraph to dismiss the whole article out of hand as any sensible person would (I hope)
 

SteveYork

Season Ticket Holder
If you believe what’s being written is true. I only had to read the last paragraph to dismiss the whole article out of hand as any sensible person would (I hope)
But the first sentence of that para is entirely uncontentious, albeit that people have different ideas about what constitutes "dangerous misinformation" :)
 
“Subscribe
“Subscribe
Top