...It became known that Diethylcarbamazine and Suramin were causing serious harm, simultaneously, Big Pharma was searching for their next big hit. Suddenly, out of the blue, a Merck contractor stumbled across a new deadly dirt bacteria in the soil of a golf course. The scientist brought it back to his lab where a chemically modified variation of it was developed. The new concoction was “25 times more potent” than any existing parasite medication… the new concoction was Abamectin (Ivermectin).
Ivermectin was originally peddled as a cure for animals, to save them from dangerous parasites (yet another tragic hoax based on decades worth of lies). The issue with it was, because it is insecticide (poison), it was killing animals. In fact, it was so good at killing animals that it became a way to euthanize them (just like “vitamins” which are also insecticides, herbicides and rodenticides).
dassar 1 points 1 month ago
Yeah, Everything has a risk vs benefit ratio and pointing out exceptions to the rule in those selected msds doesn't prove a negative risk to the overwhelming majority that are provided a benefit. One of the first msds was about 'three horses dying after ivermectin use' - three!!!.
Plus 'long term side effects' - what are those again? - i think i missed them and is that after a single application or from continual repeated chronic over-usage.
Again, fully informed consent is a thing for a reason.
Need to see the actual COD of those and the exact raw number of deaths, and then if it were solely from ivermectin toxicity (and not compounding comorbidities) vs the hundreds of thousands / millions that routinely use ivermectin in the Third world, again comes down to risk/ benefit analysis for each Indvidual.
Just because someone is allergic to paracetamol that doesn't then prove paracetamol has no benefit for the vast majority of recipients'.