CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

Of course LP will know better, even better than the inventor of the mRNA mechanism, but that's ok, we should all bow in the presence of greatness.,

Your willingness to misrepresent the position of Dr Robert Malone by association with Kirsch and Weinstein exposes your willingness to deceive in this debate.

For those interested but haven't time to listen to the full debate, this was a "What if" COVID can be driven to extinction, based on Weinstein's premise that Ivermectin is safe, cheap and effective.

Firstly, even in the debate they refer to Ivermectin use as part of a complimentary drug regime, not in isolation. Secondly, in the regime Weinstein profligates, the cost of Ivermectin is 500% more than the vaccines and must be ongoing on an annual basis, even without the cost$ of the complimentary drugs required. Like Remdesivir, some but not all of the complimentary drugs are hundreds or thousands of dollars per dose. You can hear this at about the 1:49 min mark.

Secondly, the very concept of the debate, extinction of Sars-CoV-2 is laughable. Dr Malone doesn't describe to that, it's a fairy tale scenario, and Kirsch and Weinstein basically talk over him to shut that point down. Sars-CoV-2 is endemic, that means it in the environment not just humans, you can't just treat humans and make it extinct, because for example it is in birds, bats, cats, dogs and any other number of viral vectors.

Weinstein keeps referring to all the anti-viral alternatives as "cheap and safe" ignoring that most aren't cheap at all, and not necessarily safe either. For example he talks about the complimentary use of Ivermectin and Fluvoxamine in one moment, then later warns of the Fluvoxamine cognitive side-effects, while Kirsch argues for Fluvoxamine use in children while claiming it's safe over a 14 day treatment period, yet 14 days won't get the extinction job done. The safety of these drugs is based on the concept they are administered to a small portion of the population(patients), and so the side-effect risk is low, but in the prophylactic regime that Weinstein promotes it is required to issue them to billions of healthy people on an ongoing basis.

Kirsch is correct in one point, Sars-CoV-2 is so complex there is no one correct safe solution, but Ivermectin boosters can't use Kirsch's arguments as support because he states multiple times in this debate that Ivermectin as anti-viral is of minimal benefit.

Weinstein always refers to Ivermectin's use in some kind of reasonable combination, without discussing the combination $ or the side-effects of those combinations! Some of the combinations Weinstein discusses will result in ongoing cost$ 1000% higher than the cost of the vaccines, some with serious well known long term side-effects if used long term which are far worse than the vaccine side-effects.

When the large scale studies become available, due in the 4th Qtr of this year, the outcome will be of interest to everyone, but until that data is available it's a coin toss if any of these drugs have any real benefit.