by Dagny Taggart and Josh Taylor
“We have lost our minds. We have said goodbye to any semblance of rationality or assessment of data and said hello to illogical alarmism. A virus we should have been diligent and cautious about has turned into a virus we should fear, give up our liberty for, and fundamentally alter our lives to avoid.” – Alyssa Algren
We are living in interesting and troubling times.
Believe Science. Unless They Tell You Not to.
The people pushing Covid-19 vaccines on everyone tell us to “trust the science” and “believe science.” But if you dare to mention the recently published peer-reviewed paper on Ivermectin: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection, you’ll likely be met with scorn and ridicule.
After sharing the link on my Facebook page people commented things like “Ew, quackery” and various anti-Ivermectin/pro-vaccination comments. It is important to note that the people criticizing the study didn’t read it because, hey, why bother? Everyone has an (uninformed) opinion these days, and they aren’t afraid to show it.
In the article Do You Believe Science? former scientist John McLaughlin aptly states:
Believe science has become a comforting social media slogan amid the past year’s chaos, but this platitude has an undertone that runs contrary to the true spirit of scientific inquiry. All too often believe science means obey authority and is used as a way to shut down debate. Science is assumed to reign supreme.
Question. Every. Thing.
Science is asking questions, observing, experimenting, hypothesizing, and testing. Science is continuous learning and acquiring new knowledge. It is never “finished” or “settled.” Science gathers data and evaluates it to form and refine theories. What is believed to be “truth” today does not guarantee contradictory evidence will present tomorrow.
For the past year and a half, we have received conflicting and contradictory information regarding the virus. (To be expected during an ever-changing event involving a new and unfamiliar pathogen.) However, “experts” are permitted to change the narrative as things progress. Meanwhile, the rest of us are expected to “trust” their guidance. Questions and skepticism are discouraged.
In What If We’re Wrong? evolutionary biologist and author Dr. Heather Heying poses the following questions:
- What if SARS-CoV2 leaked from a lab?
- What if there are long-term effects of mRNA vaccines?
- What if Ivermectin is safe and effective as both a prophylaxis against and a treatment for COVID-19?
These are reasonable questions worthy of exploration to seek answers.
Big Tech’s Big Desire to Silence Dissent
Dr. Heying points out, those who ask questions like the ones above are called conspiracy theorists, “and worse”:
Our intentions have been questioned. We have been told to keep quiet. Some have self-censored, and others have been brought to heel by Big Tech. The powers that be at Google, for instance, had an official policy as of May 2021, which includes this line: “YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.”
This policy fundamentally misunderstands science—local health authorities and the WHO can be wrong, as can we all. Being wrong is no crime (although prevaricating to further your own agenda when lives are on the line is tantamount to one). Shutting down the voices of those who question your conclusions—while not criminal—is antithetical to science.
When scientific thinking and a careful analysis of the scientific literature leads to a different conclusion than the declarations of the authorities, what path does #followthescience suggest? Science does not operate by authority, but #followthescience is being used as a bludgeon to silence people into compliance. Freedom of expression is required if science is to function. Those who are engaging in silencing are doing neither science, nor humanity, any favours.
YouTube’s Official Policy Could Sacrifice Global Health
Dr. Heying continues:
YouTube’s official “COVID-19 medical misinformation policy” further prohibits any claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. This despite abundant evidence that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19, including from countries where it was already in widespread prophylactic use against other pathogens.
If the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, suggested by many peer-reviewed scientific papers, is borne out, YouTube will be revealed to have been playing a very dangerous game indeed. How much health—individual and economic—will be sacrificed globally on this altar? It’s censorship in science’s clothing. Look closely, and you will find that this has little to do with science. A censor wearing a lab coat is still a censor, and censorship is fundamentally incompatible with science.
Furthermore, even if Ivermectin proves to be little help against COVID-19, the game being played by those who stand opposed to free expression is still dangerous. Policies like that of YouTube, which quash discussion and silence debate, pretend to be pro-science, but they are the opposite. This is a new orthodoxy stamping out heterodoxy, yet again.
YouTube is Not the Only Platform Engaged in Information Suppression
Facebook has slapped various warnings and disclaimers on posts that dare to mention Covid. Write a post containing the V words (virus, vaccines, vaccination), and drugs like Ivermectin and you will receive warning.
However, Facebook also slaps those warnings on posts with NOTHING to do with Covid. I experienced this last month because of a post I wrote that had nothing to do with the virus, vaccines, or Ivermectin. Or ANYTHING related to the pandemic, for that matter. The platform attached a warning to my post anyway.
So, I wrote a post about Facebook putting a warning on a non-Covid post. Warnings were also applied to that post. If it weren’t so disturbing, it would be amusing:
Speaking of Ivermectin
It turns out peer-reviewed scientific papers that support its use as both a prophylactic and treatment for Covid DO EXIST. One was published recently. Here’s the conclusion from that study:
Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC Alliance) shares information on various Covid-19 treatment protocols. The Alliance has been doing so since March 2020. The FLCCC was formed by “a group of highly published, world-renowned Critical Care physician/scholars – with the academic support of allied physicians from around the world – to research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness.”
- Their protocols include the use of Ivermectin. Here is FLCCC’s page on Ivermectin
- One of the founders, Dr. Pierre Kory, testified before Congress in December 2020
Is it Safe or Isn’t it, Merck?
As far back as early February, multinational drug company Merck contributed to the demonization of Ivermectin with statements to the effect of:
- ) there is no evidence that Ivermectin works for COVID-19
- ) there is a “concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies,” suggesting that the drug may be unsafe.”
For a drug that has a “lack of safety data” and which “may be unsafe,” Merck had no problem donating billions of doses of Ivermectin to fight river blindness in plagued third-world countries.
So either it isn’t safe, and Merck has no problem sending unsafe medications to third-world countries. Or it is safe, and Merck intentionally tries to hide a potentially effective treatment for COVID from the world.
Wait. There’s a Bit More to the Story.
Merck may have a financial interest in hiding Ivermectin’s safety and effectiveness. Why? Because Merck has developed and subsequently entered into a supply agreement with the US government for Molupiravir, an “investigational oral antiviral” drug.
Just read Merck’s website:
Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today announced it has entered into a procurement agreement with the United States government for molnupiravir (MK-4482). Molnupiravir is currently being evaluated in a Phase 3 clinical trial, the MOVe-OUT study, for the treatment of non-hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and at least one risk factor associated with poor disease outcomes. Merck is developing molnupiravir in collaboration with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics.
“Merck is pleased to collaborate with the U.S. government on this new agreement that will provide Americans with COVID-19 access to molnupiravir – an investigational oral therapy being studied for outpatient use early in the course of disease – if it is authorized or approved,” said Rob Davis, president, Merck. “In addition to this agreement with the U.S. government, we are actively engaged in numerous efforts to make molnupiravir available globally to fulfill Merck’s commitment to widespread access.”
Through the agreement, if molnupiravir receives Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Merck will receive approximately $1.2 billion to supply approximately 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir to the United States government. Merck has been investing at risk to support development and scale-up production of molnupiravir and expects to have more than 10 million courses of therapy available by the end of 2021.
Are the people that shame, pressure, and bribe with “freebie incentives” (beer, donuts, mixed drinks, cheesecakes, and other unhealthy “rewards”) aware that safer treatments/preventatives exist? (Ivermectin) And are those people aware of the dangers associated with vaccines?
I’d say it’s likely that they are.
Breakthrough Cases Among the Vaccinated
The CDC stopped counting “breakthrough cases” (cases of infection in vaccinated individuals) unless severe disability or death occurred. Only 45% of the eligible population is fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. There was a spike in the vaccination rate in April. Since then, doses given have dramatically decreased, as shown in this graph from the CDC.
From The New York Times article: Many scientists agree: Collecting more data is always preferable to collecting less. “The virus is constantly changing, and we need to stay three steps ahead of it,” said Michael Kinch, an immunologist and associate vice-chancellor of the Centers for Research Innovation in Biotechnology at Washington University in St. Louis.
“What if a variant arises that is less responsive or, Lord forbid, unresponsive to the vaccines?” he said. “The way you stop it is good old-fashioned epidemiology, which the C.D.C. has historically done very well. But if you don’t see it coming, you can’t stop it.”
The Mainstream Is Getting on Board a Little Tiny Bit
A couple of things have recently appeared in more mainstream outlets that suggest – maybe – just maybe – Ivermectin works. This one on Yahoo refers to it as a “cheap hair lice pill from the UK” as though it hasn’t been readily available across the US for years. This article from a less mainstream source suggests the suppression of Ivermectin is nothing less than criminal.
How many dead loved ones might have lived if we’d actually “followed the science?”
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Backlogged
VAERS, a notoriously difficult system used to classify vaccine injuries as what they are, was backlogged back in May. VAERS only covers the United States and the reports represent a fraction of actual adverse reactions. The backlog got to the point where many people reported issues with the system itself, receiving error messages, reports failing to submit, etc.
There are many limitations to obtaining accurate up-to-date information from VAERS. First, VAERS website data is almost never current — reported adverse events and deaths are often backlogged, rarely entered in a timely fashion. In fact, the website even details its own limitations: “The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines… data are subject to limitations of under-reporting, reporting bias, and lack of incidence rates in unvaccinated comparison groups.” VAERS cannot demonstrate causation. Despite these known limitations, VAERS is the only vaccine adverse event reporting system available to the public.
9 New Vaccine Billionaires
Despite available potential treatments for COVID and the drastic number of vaccine injuries from the COVID vaccine, the shot fundamentally created a new billionaire class out of developers, manufacturers, and sellers of the vaccines.
A new report shows the global push to develop a vaccine for COVID-19 has spawned nine new “vaccine billionaires” who have amassed a combined net wealth of $19.3 billion.
In addition to the nine new “vaccine billionaires,” the coalition of health and humanitarian organizations, world leaders, and economists said “eight existing billionaires — who have extensive portfolios in the COVID-19 vaccine pharma corporations — have seen their combined wealth increase by $32.2 billion.”
Here’s a List of the 9 Billionaires
The article lists the 9 Vaccine Billionaires and their current net worth in billions. (B)
- Stéphane Bancel – CEO Moderna: $4.3 B
- Ugur Sahin – CEO | Co-founder BioNTech: $4 B
- Timothy Springer – Founding Investor Moderna: $2.2 B
- Noubar Afeyan – Moderna Chairman: $1.9 B
- Juan Lopez-Belmonte – Chairman Rovi: $1.8 B
- Robert Langer – Founding Investor Moderna: $1.6 B
- Zhu Tao – Co-founder | Chief Scientific Officer CanSino Biologics: $1.3 B
- Qiu Dongxu – Co-founder | Senior Vice President CanSino Biologics: $1.2 B
- Mao Huihua – Co-founder | Senior Vice President CanSino Biologics: $1 B
Ivermectin is one of several potentially safe and effective treatments for COVID known to the scientific community. But, for the reason cited above, no one else knows. Monopolies upon monopolies. It is astounding how much money a corporation makes when masses of consumers are terrified or forced into buying its products.
We should be enraged over how many people may have died because of a coordinated and deliberate effort to suppress research that did not benefit Big Pharma and a forcible vaccine agenda.
The Brave New World is here. It is time for Americans to take a stand before it is too late. The door of opportunity will soon close.
Other useful links you will want to check out!
- YouTube took this video down! Excellent podcast featuring Dr. Kory and Bret Weinstein
- Here are the latest results on using Ivermectin in various countries.
- This link is a good resource for real-time info on Ivermectin use/studies.
- And here’s another article by Dr. Joseph Mercola, suggesting that Ivermectin could have saved millions of lives had it not been shamefully censored and demonized.
- Bret Weinstein’s Dark Horse podcast with guests Dr. Robert Malone (creator of mRNA tech) and engineer/philanthropist Steve Kirsch: How to save the world, in three easy steps
- Steve Kirsch’s documents on the vaccines.
Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of a professional journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.