Logical Suprise
If there was a deadly pandemic...
If there was a deadly pandemic, and the goal was to save as many people as possible...
Then:
Wouldn't there be advertisements telling people to do everything they can to save themselves?
"Take your vitamins! There's people dying in the streets!"
"Take vitamin C, Take vitamin D, Take Zinc!"
"We don't know how well it works, but do EVERYTHING you can to save yourselves!"
Ads would be everywhere! On television, news and billboards: “Every little thing can help save lives!”
If the government was doing everything it can to prevent deaths, wouldn't a drug proven to be safe be a logical choice?
Even if it only reduced deaths by 1%, in a country of 35 million, that would be 350,000 lives saved!
Over 30 years of use, proven safety even in pregnant women and children, what could possibly be a reason not to try ivermectin?
Ivermectin passports!
Ivermectin mandates for businesses!
Restaurants with signs, "No Ivermectin, No Intry!"
This was a deadly pandemic, correct?
One so deadly that people had to do everything they could to save lives?
A global illness so serious that human rights could be abrogated in the interest of public health?
If so then why?
Dead silence about vitamins.
Demonization of one of the safest medications in history.
Threats to doctors if they did not withhold this life saving drug, they would be severely punished.
So:
1) Either there was a deadly pandemic, and the government stopped everyone from doing everything they could to stay alive.
OR
2) There was not a deadly pandemic and sales of an unprofitable drug had to be reduced for some reason.
Scenario #1.
There is a pandemic so deadly that the government must force the use of an experimental injection, the COVID 19 "vaccine".
(However, using vitamins and safe medications is not possible!)
OR
Scenario #2.
The pandemic is not deadly, but an injection must be forced upon people anyway.
(If so, what is the actual purpose of the injection?)
Within emergency management circles there is a cycle type algorithm often used. Variations of this cycle exist. But they typically compose of the following stages.
Reduction: What can we do to reduce the likelihood of any impact. Eliminate or minimize.
Readiness: In order to respond to any event what do we need ready? What training, what systems, what materials?
Response: How do we best respond to this emergency.
Recovery: How do we most effectively recover after the emergency.
Anyway... This process is fairly basic. I find working backwards is actually better than forwards. Starting with where you want to be and then breaking it down into how you actually get there.
Many steps during the pandemic response have been missed. If you follow the process you will notice there was no expansion of hospitals or clinics, number of medics or various treatment options.
There was no consideration for holistic health interventions like diet and nutrition. No consideration for psychological stress which is known to affect your immune system in nasty ways. No strong utilization of ventilation or other engineering controls. No consideration for other harms beyond physical harm. Eg economic and finance. No significant consideration of freedoms, religious exemptions or of social needs. All of which are needs and or forms of harm.
It was a prime example in my opinion of putting all your eggs in the one basket.
Something that is essentially risk management 101. Exactly what not to do.
The pandemic was the negativity 24/7 from governments, medical puckacrats and the lying media on how many people died or had a flu