Queen Of England Prescribed Ivermectin To Treat Covid-19

originally posted by: just4fun

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: just4fun

Prove it, for goodness' sakes? You saying it don't make it so.

Prove she didnt

There is more proof she did than there is she ddnt

I’m a Green 3 legged lizard god from Venus!

If you can’t prove I’m not then it must be true (which is a little worrying),

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Nothing has ever come across my desk to say that it does more than relieve symptoms of moderate covid. It certainly doesn't act as a prophylactic agent, or reduce your chances of needing critical care.

Maybe not BUT, and this is a HUGE BUT, the side effects are negligible YET they still don't want to let people decide for themselves to give it a try. That should be a huge red flag.
Hospitals will let you try everything under the sun, they are too happy to prescribe opiates etc, but this one little thing, that may or may not help.................................


WHY?

I think we all know WHY!!!!

a reply to: network dude

because it's not "American" politics, it's WORLD politics. The Vaccines are global, not just a US thing. The Emergency Use Authorization for a brand new drug, largely untested (many of them) is a strong deterrent to having anything that may work. I'm not saying it works, I'm saying it MAY work, and rather than passing studies that say "doesn't appear to help", we should be making sure the studies are conclusive. But the same one's doing the studies are benefitting from the vaccines. So that opens another box to look in.

It's a conspiracy, it should be looked at like that.

But the politics in one country are very different from another. Take India for example, its a poor country but it has a big pharmaceutical industry that already produces this drug.

Why would they choose an untried vax made by America which they need to import over a cheap drug that they already produce?

Why would Iran, Russia and North Korea choose different vax, and not this cheap drug that they already have?

Brazil tried it but stopped using it, but didn't pick up the vax very much at all.

a reply to: network dude

the reason it's worthy of discussion is that there is a whole lot of evidence that it works against Covid.

Yeah, I get that.
Which is why there are plenty of other threads devoted to the subject.
People have been discussing this here on ATS more or less since the start of the pandemic.

But this thread was started specifically about QEII receiving Ivermetcin for Covid.
That has been proven wrong.

If other people want to discuss Ivermetcin that's up to them.
Personally I don't understand why they don't do it in any of the mountain of other threads devoted to that subject.....but it matters little what I think.

Again a personal opinion, I've pretty much given up discussing things Covid; most people have their opinions and they're pretty much set in stone now. Its almost impossible to have an open, reasoned and respectful discussion on the subject.
I try to keep an open mind....but there's just so much absolute #e being peddled, on all sides - the OP being a prime example - that I find it better to give threads on the topic a swerve.

originally posted by: glen200376

originally posted by: djz3ro
I remember back in the days where those pushing the Scamdemic line would bave been laughed off ATS simply because the number of people needing to keep the secret for this to even happen is far too big, it just simply wouldn't happen.

You weren't on the same ATS that I've known.
Are you sure it wasn't the Guardian website?
Ha ha ha ha(that's you being laughed off ATS)

Oh I'm sure, been hanging around here since 9/11 and signed up a couple of years later as I was always finding myself back here. Before it took a Goose step to the Right of course.


And no, that's not me being laughed off ATS, it's tbe sound of you laughing at your feeling of self importance...

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: djz3ro

It's not about people keeping a secret - it's about all those people being deceived by false authoritative proclamations, believing the lie, and promulgating the lie out into society, where ever more people believe the lie, and promulgate it, etc, ad infinitum. Only a relative few need to know anything specific. Those liars who know, well, they just know it is a lie, and to follow the party line in all things, if they do so there is a huge groupthink outcome which trickles down to the lower rungs of society.

The people being deceived by false authoratove proclamations are the very same people who think they are truth seekers amid a sea of diainfo.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Nothing has ever come across my desk to say that it does more than relieve symptoms of moderate covid. It certainly doesn't act as a prophylactic agent, or reduce your chances of needing critical care.

Maybe not BUT, and this is a HUGE BUT, the side effects are negligible YET they still don't want to let people decide for themselves to give it a try. That should be a huge red flag.
Hospitals will let you try everything under the sun, they are too happy to prescribe opiates etc, but this one little thing, that may or may not help.................................


WHY?

I think we all know WHY!!!!

Correct, and Tylenol kills way more people than ivermectin.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Back on topic, do you have any evidence for the claims made in your OP?

Given how much this site claims to hate fake news, it sure does peddle a lot of it.

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Given how much this site claims to hate fake news, it sure does peddle a lot of it.

Prove it.

If you can't, guess what that means?

a reply to: poncho1982

The Queen nor her doctor has said what she's taking. Now prove she is.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


That's not how it works.

You claimed it was false.

Prove it.

a reply to: poncho1982

Is it?

So now someone can post any old claim without any actual proof and then it's down to others to prove its false?

No. It's not, is it?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

seems like your normal playbook - Deny everything that goes against the narrative and disappear when your proven wrong.

As has been stated no FACTS exist on what the medication was taken by the Queen, therefore everything is speculation and anything might be true.

a reply to: puzzled2

Hello, again.

Not disappearing at all.

The OP's claim has not been proven and it's not for others to prove an unproven speculative claim wrong, far less, as you claim, have I been "proven wrong".

As you say, it's all "speculation" and yes anything might be true.

For instance, I'm actually a Zhillon from the planet Tharg - prove me wrong.

You see?

But anyway, this may explain how all this "speculation" might have begun:


www.reuters.com...


By "narrative", surely you mean "unsubstantiated speculation".

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: puzzled2

Hello, again.

Not disappearing at all.

The OP's claim has not been proven and it's not for others to prove an unproven speculative claim wrong, far less, as you claim, have I been "proven wrong".

As you say, it's all "speculation" and yes anything might be true.

For instance, I'm actually a Zhillon from the planet Tharg - prove me wrong.

You see?

But anyway, this may explain how all this "speculation" might have begun:


www.reuters.com...


By "narrative", surely you mean "unsubstantiated speculation".

Yes, reuters, the biggest conflict of interest "fact checker" there is.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Surely, a tad better than your sources?

Up to you to prove your claim, not for me to disprove it.

Got any proof?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

What do I see ? From your argument you have to prove you're a Zhillon from the planet Tharg 100% with out the tiniest room for doubt to a honest poster.
But I'm free to believe you or not, so as there is a god and we are not alone in the universe without any proof - welcome Thargey.

Back on topic -
There is no proof she didn't use Ivermectin and there is no proof she did.

What difference is there between you and the OP ? You both are only speculating without proof of anything either way. So just agree to disagree and move on.

Looking forward to her surviving at least another four years, so we can all send her a telegram on her birthday.

a reply to: puzzled2

OK.

So you've given up on your false claim that I was "proven wrong".

Good.

Do, please, move on.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
See your are wrong once again
I said it was your normal playbook to support the narrative and disappear when proven wrong.

As the proof hasn't been released either way yet you're still here trying to argue without any facts, just speculations.

There is as much chance you are wrong as there is the OP being wrong.