RE: https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=221601

Bonnie.

Concerning what you wrote:

It is impossible to say with certainty why your daughter was ill, therefore it is equally impossible to say that ivermectin helped her. These are concrete statements that cannot be argued.

There is a third statement. It cannot be said with certainty that you did not heal your daughter, at least in part and possibly aided by ivermectin faith crutch, by the exercise of faith and natural healing authority.

If you can prove that you did not exercise any faith or healing authority then it becomes believable that ivermectin _may_ have helped her, but that help is not a fact as there is no certainty as to why she was ill.

So, forgive me for being curious. Did you exercise any conscious or other intent to heal your daughter?

If you do have healing abilities then that would put you a step farther away from chemical and technological slavery and a step closer to Freedom4ever. This is part of the intent of the article that I posted. I apologize for not being more clear.
-------------------------------------

Hello Spaceman.

Thank you for your time.

The basis of the article that you posted is placebo effect. Placebo effect in simplest form is exercise of authority by one person and the submission to that authority by another. The effect is similar in animals. (Plenty of information. Easy to find.)

The exercise of authority by a doctor or medical researcher is creative, even though most of them are not aware fully of why that is so. Wellness is created, accepted and manifested. It works this way with animals as well as with people. Creative authority is not bound by space and time. An interesting percentage of animals, like people, will manifest wellness by placebo. So, unless you have an absolutely blind test you cannot say that ivermectin, or any chemical, is actually having this or that effect on people or animals.

Also, the articles you have posted appear to date from about 2015, roughly. Ivermectin has been around for about 30 years longer than that and widely used. In that time it did not accrue any meaningful reputation beyond antiparasitic. Someone would have noticed additional properties during 30 years. People tend to try all manner of things.

But all of this is completely beside the point. That point is why be so deathly focused on a chemical savior when creative healing authority is right there begging to be explored, developed and used? This is part of the intent of the article that I posted. I apologize for not being more clear.
-------------------------------------

Hi j.

I live in a very populated county in Texas. The health order for my county and two adjacent counties were word for word identical. They were patterned from the state health order. All health orders at all levels are reviewed by legal boards and health boards to make sure that nothing and no one can be sued out of existence. Trillions of dollars ride on these legal/medical assessments.

All three county health orders had an exemption clause that stated that if wearing a mask had adverse effect on your mental or physical health then you were exempt from masking. It was a personal decision with no qualifications beyond that. The order prohibited any enforcement against the exemption. Commercial entities that refused service without providing comparable service faced a $1,500.00 per incident fine. (Comparable means apples to apples.) And there was more, but this is enough to prove that there was no pandemic.

You cited India as an example of ivermectin being antiviral. If the Indian government withdrew it's murder for profit medical and economic weapons while substituting an antiparasitical it would look like ivermectin was effective. Wouldn't be the first time a government butchered it's own population under pretenses and then let itself off of the hook.

Anyway, the evidence in Texas adds up to no pandemic at all with excess deaths attributable to a variety of calculated causes. The covid19 business model skewed all testing and diagnosis to the point that none of the data can be believed, except of course for the documented profits. In the end without some rather expensive pathology procedures for each death we can't be sure of who died of what.

The entire pandemic deception was so well done that no one has been convicted for all of the murder and mayhem.
--------------------------------------

Hello Reader C.

Ivermectin was first marketed in the late 1970's and early 1980's. You may have ivermectin mixed up with something else.
-------------------------------------

Hi Hobie.

I need to direct you up to the Hello Spaceman article above.

To enlarge on that article if enough people were to decide to, or be deceived into believing a thing then that thing could become real. Ivermectin could become an actual cure for influenza, and even more. If it were marketed effectively it could become the king of cures outperforming all else and curing everything. That is entirely possible in today sales climate.

And then whoever owned the ivermectim would own the health of the world.

The smart phone has pretty much annihilated our ability to know over distances without tithe and submission to technology. Biological integrations of some sort will finish destroying that ability. This ivermectin thing is a step in that same direction towards a common dependency on chemical savior for health. It is the precise opposite of learning and practicing the internal, natural healing abilities inherent in the individual and which lead towards freedom and not chemical and technological slavery. Its a trap.

The ivermectin issue appears harmless enough on the surface, but so does quicksand.