Do the Authorities Want As Many Dead 'from' COVID as possible?
Serious question. New study on Ivermectin shows it could have saved millions
A new study of nearly 90,000 people was just published in the journal, Cureus. Entitled, Regular Use of Ivermectin as Prophylaxis for COVID-19 Led Up to a 92% Reduction in COVID19 Mortality Rate in a Dose-Response Manner: Results of a Prospective Observational Study of a Strictly Controlled Population of 88,012 Subjects, it’s results show that this nobel-prize winning drug could have saved millions worldwide.
The study concludes by saying:
Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. T
In Australia, as in many pharma-obligated developed nations, early treatment was criminalised in order to enable emergency-use authorisation or provisional approval for experimental genetic modification injections.
It seems that authorities were perfectly happy to allow these deaths to occur in order to facilitate the jab’s monopoly use.
Quick question - what is the punishment for genocide these days?
It's difficult to grasp, isn't it? In a Dolores Cahill interview, she tried to raise the issue of who is culpable and who should be forgiven - for murder. Every doctor and every nurse who administered a jab is culpable. Every doctor who failed to prescribe life saving drugs to the dying is culpable. Every business that required jabs of their staff is culpable. But where do we draw the line? These people may be culpable in their own right, but not as culpable as those who gave them the orders. The ones giving the orders are first tier, and those applying the orders are second tier.
I think Dolores was trying to raise the issue of forgiveness for the second tier. We have to forgive the brainwashed, who honestly thought they were doing the right thing, particularly if they have now woken up to their crime. The only thing we should ask from them is an admission that they were wrong and an apology. If we could do that, and mean it, how many of the previously brainwashed would come across to our side of the fence?
In this system, though, where do we draw the line? Where do we draw the line between the brainwashed and the brain-washers? I think we can allow the culpable to determine that for themselves. One of them admitting fault and apologizing is worth gold. So if even Brett Sutton was to wholeheartedly admit fault and apologise, would we or should we forgive him? I think yes, because the bigger the crime they have committed, the more significant their defection to our side of the fence and the more people they will bring with them.
It is a difficult question but one I believe we have to ask.
It really IS the wonder drug from Japan..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/#:~:text=Discovered%20in%20the%20late%2D1970s,of%20billions%20of%20people%20throughout