It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Dalamax
Inspires more confidence then the drug pushers on tele. Anonymity is a defence against misinformation.
a reply to: chr0naut
originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: chr0naut
LOL, boy oh boy do you live in La La Land! The drug companies on TV are held to truth in advertising standards by government regulatory bodies! OMG are you naive.
Prior to 1996 when Bill Clinton signed off on Rx drug advertising to the public (which had been prohibited prior to his action) you MIGHT have had a point.
Not no more, no sir.
The drug companies own the regulatory agencies. Wee tiny proof of that is that Pfizer has pleaded guilty to medical fraud TWICE, 2004 and 2009.
Do you know what medical fraud is? In case you don't, we have been immersed in it for years, especially the last two.
(c)Criteria for issuance of authorization
The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if, after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1)), the Secretary concludes—
(3)that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;
originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: chr0naut
I don't think you understand....well, maybe you do understand, maybe you are just toooo trusting.
You have to follow the money.
If ivermectin was studied, and shown as a treatment for covid, before the FDA approved a vaccine then ALL vaccines under a EUA would be null and void- See 21 U.S Code 360bbb-3 (C)(3).
(c)Criteria for issuance of authorization
The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if, after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1)), the Secretary concludes—
(3)that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;
www.law.cornell.edu...
This was one of the main reasons the FDA approval was rushed. Data was coming in from all over the world about the benefits of ivermectin.
Think of the money Pfizer, the FDA and some in the US government would have lost......
Quad
originally posted by: Dalamax
Your reasoning is faulty.
What about, what about, what aboutism.
Your government hates you.
Corporations hate you.
The whole scenario is a fiction designed to do one thing, put their product into your body.
It is always about control.
a reply to: chr0naut
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Dalamax
Your reasoning is faulty.
What about, what about, what aboutism.
Your government hates you.
Corporations hate you.
The whole scenario is a fiction designed to do one thing, put their product into your body.
It is always about control.
a reply to: chr0naut
I'm a contributor to my government, but truthfully, I don't think they, or large corporates, particularly have any emotional response to me. How could they?
originally posted by: Quadrivium
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Dalamax
Your reasoning is faulty.
What about, what about, what aboutism.
Your government hates you.
Corporations hate you.
The whole scenario is a fiction designed to do one thing, put their product into your body.
It is always about control.
a reply to: chr0naut
I'm a contributor to my government, but truthfully, I don't think they, or large corporates, particularly have any emotional response to me. How could they?
How could they?
Because....
You are only a $ sign to them.
Love is an emotion.
They LOVE money.
Simple.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Quadrivium
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Dalamax
Your reasoning is faulty.
What about, what about, what aboutism.
Your government hates you.
Corporations hate you.
The whole scenario is a fiction designed to do one thing, put their product into your body.
It is always about control.
a reply to: chr0naut
I'm a contributor to my government, but truthfully, I don't think they, or large corporates, particularly have any emotional response to me. How could they?
How could they?
Because....
You are only a $ sign to them.
Love is an emotion.
They LOVE money.
Simple.
But surely they would try and woo me and the rest of the populace to try and get all that extra ca$h that they want so badly?