Welcome.
Maybe you got here because you followed a link from YouTube, or Twitter, or Facebook. Or maybe you’re already a long-time reader, in which case welcome back.
Below, once you are signed into this site (which requires registration for all newcomers) you will be able to access (for free, of course) today’s video which builds upon and goes further than the one posted to YouTube.
Why are we doing this? Because we cannot risk being deplatformed. We already have had one video taken down by YouTube for our strictly scientific coverage of a review paper of Ivermectin (IVM) put out by some of the most accomplished critical care medical doctors in the world.
It’s nothing personal, their own video of Dr Kory’s testimony to the US Senate was taken down and deleted by YouTube.
But chilling nonetheless. It sucks, and here we are.
Our response? Put relatively benign, non-objectionable content out on YouTube but then put what we actually want to say here, on our own site, and behind a soft wall (registration required).
Why the soft wall? Because our biggest foes are scammers, spammers, bots, and Google’s prying eyes and spiders which will scrape our content and potentially misuse it against us.
Are we over-reacting? No, in fact we may be underreacting. Behind the scenes we are having daily conversations with other content creators who are battling their own waves of censorship that lack both any defensible rationale and a party you could actually talk to on the other end of the social giant machinery.
So what’s down there that’s worth your time? Today I discuss:
- Ivermectin and the war against it.
- The various strategies in play to confuse the public's perception of IVM
- Provide direct actions you can take to inform your doctor about IVM
As always, I provide full links to everything. We’ll also be having a rousing discussion in the comments section, and we’d love to have you so if you’re still on the fence about signing in, why not give it try? Our tribe is welcoming, we’re curious, and we’re very independent minded.
This is how we beat them at their own game. We simply walk away. No longer will YouTube get my best content for free (while taking more and more profits for themselves) while becoming more draconian in squashing ‘unapproved’ ideas.
The War on Truth - Ivermectin and the Battle to Save Lives and Get Back to Life
Now on Rumble.
Today’s Links:
- FLCCC – Dr Kory and Dr Marik’s group
- Dr Borody
- AP – Embarrassing Ivermectin “Fact Checking” that’s mostly wrong
- Herald Review “Fact checking”
- Begins with Ocular symptoms
- IVM Meta analyses (for charts to print out for your Doc)
- Awesome Review Paper on Ivermectin’s Broad Spectrum Antiviral properties
- Country level IVM data science paper
- Ocular effects
______________________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE The information, including but not limited to, text, graphics, images, videos and other material contained on this website are for informational and educational purposes only. No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment and before undertaking a new health care regimen, and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website.This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/war-on-truth/
Do you see what I see? The LATimes has framed things like this;
"The only way to stop Covid is to enter a lockdown. That's settled science. Further, there are no effective treatments that could replace a lockdown, Therefore anybody resisting a lockdown is a danger to society. Oh, and some of them are conspiracy theorists."
Left out of that, of course, is that there's an alternative framing which says:
"Hey, there is an effective set of treatments. Ivermectin alone would plunge the transmission rate by more than 90%. Further we could be smart about the way in which we allow people to live their lives. Maybe younger folks with a 99.96% rate of survival don't need to be locked down. Maybe we should be giving Ivermectin and Vitamin D to our elderly and then being, you know, a bit more careful around them."
But, nope.
The LA Times is clearly on the propaganda bandwagon and is branding people as "resistors" and "conspiracy theorists" for doing things like reading clinical trial results.
You can practically hear tribunals assembling out in a nearby empty stadium...
This needs to be fought. It's unacceptable. This sort of dangerous language and framing by the like of the LA Times is exactly what precedes very bad periods of history.
How about we 'just say no' to that path, mmmmkay?