How many more people have to die to scorn Donald Trump?

Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy: We Can’t Vaccinate This Pandemic Away.

What is difficult to understand is the groupthink acceptance of the mantra promoted by so-called experts, and by many professionals. In part this is due to the power vacuum in medical leadership that has occurred in recent years, but it may also reflect in part processes known to psychiatrists as cognitive dissonance and mass hysteria.

The story of how ivermectin was fraudulently blackballed is disturbing. Read it all at Quadrant.

This entry was posted in COVID. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to How many more people have to die to scorn Donald Trump?

  1. jupes says:

    Just wow. (Almost) unbelievable the amount of lies we are being told at great risk to millions of Australians’ health.

    They will need to build more jails to hold all the evil spivs, bureacrats, doctors and politicians if there is to be any justice in this country.

  2. jupes says:

    In my opinion, the deliberate withholding of the most effective medicine, is the most egregious crime committed during the entire, sordid ‘pandemic’ response.

    Pure fucking evil.

  3. Entropy says:

    It should not be an either/or scenario. You can get the vaccine and still want to have IVM available to further ameliorate the bug.

    I am also pretty sick of the carry in about the vaccine, there have been 6.47 billion doses administered around the world. Any risk is clearly low.

    The issue isn’t the vaccine, it is the stasi demand to show your papers to anyone that wants to see them.

  4. Perfidious Albino says:

    Gallows, Jupes, gallows.

  5. Lee says:

    Gallows, Jupes, gallows.

    +1000

    And there should be many heading for them, including Australians.

  6. Shy Ted says:

    Well, the 13 year old with meningitis and Convid wouldn’t have been saved by IVM. The 20 year old who suicided with Convid wouldn’t have been saved by IVM. And, I suspect, the very many more frail, sick, elderly, kept alive every day by a cocktail of medications might have only been gifted a few extra days or weeks. IVMs day will come when the vaxxed with damaged immune systems and the masked re-infected need something for the opportunistic infections.
    I can’t see the bit where Prof C says here’s the proof that SARS Cov2 exists, here, isolated from these samples. Doesn’t excuse the behaviour and decisions of the powers that be though.
    An alternative theory might be that after being schmoozed by big pharma with all those conferences in exotic places, wined and dined til mid-evening and then encouraged to fraternise with scantily clad young people at establishments like Scores or even the hotel casino and the security cameras, for people’ protection of course, filmed what was never intended to be filmed, these elites might have come to an understanding with big pharma, perhaps for a parcel of shares, that such footage would never see the light of day. Couldn’t have happened of course because gummint officials always behave with propriety even in their workplaces.
    I think the payback for big pharma from this scamdemic, just from AUs, is in the order of $35bill. Nice work if you can get it.

  7. C.L. says:

    Ted, I get the feeling that most of the West’s leaders now work for corporations and have a very fixed gaze on their post-political careers.

  8. Ed Case says:

    I am also pretty sick of the carry in about the vaccine, there have been 6.47 billion doses administered around the world. Any risk is clearly low.

    How do you know that?
    Has there been any study that followed up the health outcomes of the Jabbees?

    The issue isn’t the vaccine, it is the stasi demand to show your papers to anyone that wants to see them.

    Of course the issue is the vaccine..
    Most people don’t want to take it.

  9. Ed Case says:

    The issue isn’t not being able to attend sporting events.
    The vast majority aren’t nnterested

    The issue isn’t not being allowed to travel.
    Outside of those living next to borders, most people want to stay home.

    The issue isn’t kids not being able to attend school.
    What sad sort of kid wants to attend school.
    The issue is:
    Most people don’t want the vaccine.

  10. Entropy says:

    Ed, we crack 80% for 16+ in five days, 12+ four days after that. NSW is already at 94% first dose. I reckon that quite clearly says that most people do want to take it, or at least are prepared to. Like any vaccine, every now and again there are complications, but it is clearly very low risk. The issue is is that (very low vaccine risk + catching Covid vaccinated) higher or lower that the risk of catching Covid unvaccinated? It would seem so.

    Now, IVM and HCQ availability it seems would definitely help as well. It isn’t an either/or to me.

  11. Ed Case says:

    The issue is is that (very low vaccine risk + catching Covid vaccinated) higher or lower that the risk of catching Covid unvaccinated?

    Thanks for your reply.
    That’s not an issue either.
    If it makes no difference whether or not a person is vaccinated against the disease for the person to get the disease, well, okay, the vaccine didn’t work.
    That’s not a huge issue, though it is grounds for questioning the point of the vaccination program in the first place.
    Which is the issue.
    Even if the risk of death or disabling injury was only 1 in 10,000, why play Russian Roulette with your life for no payout?

  12. Chris M says:

    Harvard scientists – the Covid vaccine does diddly-squat. AKA no statistical effect.

  13. John H. says:

    Thanks Chris M. That is a very important and troubling study.

  14. Eyrie says:

    Entropy,

    A lot of people have been coerced into taking the vax. They got it not because they wanted it but because they needed to to keep their jobs.
    As for low risk, there is a pile of dead bodies you haven’t accounted for. Kids with myocarditis (look up their 10 year survival chances), lots of people with other bad reactions, shingles and arthritis flaring, neuropathy etc.
    One bloke I know got a really bad reaction to AZ. Of 5 mates he knows all did with one death and one long stay in ICU.
    You also have NO IDEA of long term risk. Nobody does including governments, the manufacturers, the doctors etc. Informed consent it ain’t.

  15. Entropy says:

    I suggest you are all getting you risk calculations out of whack.
    And life is never about avoiding risk, it is about rationally choosing which risk is least.

  16. Eyrie says:

    Entropy, you can’t do a risk calculation when you have no idea of the risk on one side. It is really that simple.
    Get the Ivermectin and supplemental drugs out there and the risk from the coof goes down while the natural immunity is better and longer lasting than from the vax.
    At best the vax works for a few months to slightly lower your risk of going to hospital where the health system will do its best to kill you while it depresses your immune system for everything else. The numbers of excess deaths coming out OS are alarming or should be.
    Once you get the clotshot you have made an irrevocable decision and have accepted ALL the risks of the vax. You might never even get the coof even if exposed as you may already have immunity, or get a very mild case. Overwhelmingly you will likely survive.
    Look at absolute risk rather than relative and you’ll see the vax is next to useless.
    Is your news source the ABC and the commercial channels? There’s lots of information on the internet thingy.

  17. Twostix says:

    It’s a weird tell we keep seeing from people who are vaccinated, one is their need to tell everyone, announce it formally – that whole public ritual, the other is then to say “I’m sick of people talking about it”, to people who don’t want it.

    But here you are entropy, seeking out people talking about it. Perhaps you are not quite so sure of yourself.

  18. Twostix says:

    I suggest you are all getting you risk calculations out of whack.

    Lol.

    Is this a joke? Let us know the ‘risk’ calculation for any person under 50 from catching covid thanks.

  19. Not Trampis says:

    quadrant eh. another ‘high quality journal.
    If ivermectin was effective then the agencies would be saying it with sirens blaring.
    It is laughable in the extreme to believe that all major world agencies did not approve of ivermectin merely to spite Trump.

  20. rosie says:

    I suppose if the PRINCIPLE trial demonstrates the effectiveness of ivermectin it will be a windfall for Merck.

  21. dover_beach says:

    I suppose if the PRINCIPLE trial demonstrates the effectiveness of ivermectin it will be a windfall for Merck.

    Not at all. Ivermectin is off-patent as I and others have been saying all year. Anyone can produce it. BTW, all the PRINCIPLE trial will demonstrate is the effectiveness of ivermectin at that dosage given over three days. Most of the studies I’ve seen have run a course of at least five days for Ivermectin as a therapeutic.
    I’d like hear what the dosage and course was for those treated successfully in Australia.

  22. Lee says:

    If ivermectin was effective then the agencies would be saying it with sirens blaring.

    Tell that to Uttar Pradesh, India, genius.

  23. dover_beach says:

    The issue isn’t the vaccine, it is the stasi demand to show your papers to anyone that wants to see them.

    I don’t think that is true. The two go hand in hand. The latter depends upon the bold assertions made about the efficacy and the safety of the vaccines. Without those bold assertions, that have crumbled progressively as the vaccines became widely used -we’ve seen a continued retreat from the efficacy in spreading infection, to now merely ameliorating severity which also appears to be declining too and we don’t even know if the mass vaccination of the population will be counterproductive in the medium to long term because of original antigenic sin – vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, and the like would have been unthinkable.

  24. Lee says:

    Not Trampis knows more on this topic than Robert Clancy, Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle Medical School, and a member of the Australian Academy of Science’s COVID-19 Expert Database.
    Of course! (insert eye-roll)

  25. Boambee John says:

    If ivermectin was effective then the agencies would be saying it with sirens blaring.

    Non Compos Mentis rejects the practical experience in India, possibly because it wasn’t an RCT, but seems to be an enthusiastic participant in a widespread trial of vaccines which missed the RCT phase.

    As for the “agencies”, perhaps Non Compos Mentis could compose his mentis for long enough to investigate the links between the TGA, CDC, and the major pharma companies? Or would that put too much strain on him?

  26. rosie says:

    I understand that Dover but the Merck brand is still marketed and prescribed by here and in the United States as Stromectol. Why wouldn’t they benefit from increased sales just because other companies can manufacture it, which is already the case?

  27. Not Trampis says:

    It is the TGA here which makes decisions.

    Still awaiting evidence they do not allow the ‘medicine’ because of trump. That is trumpism in itself

    And of course more conspiracy stories from deplorables. Never any evidence only conspiracies

  28. Boambee John says:

    Non Compos Mentis

    It is the TGA here which makes decisions.

    Would that be the TGA which follows the FDA lead on these matters? That seems not to have sought detained test data from the pharmaceutical companies, or from the FDA? The TGA which implies publicly that the “vaccines” have full approval, but on its website or when pressed before a Parliamentary committee, acknowledges that they have only provisional approval? That TGA???

    Poor silly Non Compos Mentis, still trying to win by offering insults. We proud Deplorables hold your ilk in well deserved contempt.

    Congratulations on focusing on the punctuation this time. Unfortunately, better punctuation doesn’t improve the quality of the drivel you post.

  29. dover_beach says:

    I understand that Dover but the Merck brand is still marketed and prescribed by here and in the United States as Stromectol. Why wouldn’t they benefit from increased sales just because other companies can manufacture it, which is already the case?

    The margins would be similar to Paracetamol or ibuprofen; tiny.

    The business insider article is cherry picking.

  30. rosie says:

    Nothing wrong with high volume low margin.
    Current retail in Australia is $22.99.
    I can’t see it being sold over the counter like panadol either.

  31. Ed Case says:

    So Invermectin alleviates the seriousness of the Flu.
    That’s a good thing, but how many times does anyone get the Flu in one lifetime?
    Twice, and the second time is fatal?

  32. Rex Anger says:

    That’s a good thing, but how many times does anyone get the Flu in one lifetime?
    Twice, and the second time is fatal?

    I wouldn’t know about that, but I do know that you are a walking billboard for the dangers and appalling consequences of gypsum-poisoning, Grigory…

  33. dover_beach says:

    Rosie, a course of Ivermectin would cost about 53 cents. A package of 100 12mg tablets would cost just under $3. It would be like Panamax vs Panadol. Sure, they could make a small profit because the generic version is going to do the bulk work, and they’d prefer the big returns from their patented drugs.

  34. rosie says:

    Dover.
    53 cents?
    Manufacturing, distribution, retail margin, dispensing fees?
    It will not be over the counter, it isn’t now for scabies etc.
    And despite everything people still buy panadol and advil etc brands
    Pharmaceutical companies will take profits where they find them else they wouldn’t bother with the off patent products at all.
    All I’m saying is if the principle trial is a success at no cost to merck , they’ll take the additional profits from increased sales of stromectol.
    I don’t know why this is controversial.

  35. rosie says:

    Is this a vaccine or invermectin position?
    I prefer the Swiss cheese model, vaccine first, invermectin or monoclonal antibodies or whatever the next line is should you get a breakthrough infection.
    Seems to me vaccines, even if boosters are required are the smartest first line of defence, as long as taking them is optional.
    I remember lots of cat people demanding vaccines be banned for people’s own good.
    I’m very much a personal choice person.
    Astrazeneca is also a very cheap drug, even Australia only pays $5 a dose so I’m not convinced by the but big pharma argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.