"But if you're like 21 years old, and you say to me, 'Should I get vaccinated?' I'll go no."

This is pretty much a risk benefit analysis. Its not an in depth one but the facts support it. All the data we have now says a healthy 21 year old is at much greater risk. Even you implicitly sort of cop to this :

I think now that there are over 3 million deaths, it's pretty clear that the correct way forward is to try to kill off the virus, rather than try to guess whether the price is worth the risk for a particular demographic.

I.e. Dont do a risk benefit analysis, you 21 year olds.

Lets say I accept your number 8000 covid deaths in the under 40 category. That is over 15 or 16 months of covid. With a mandatory reporting system where all doctors/coronors are explicitly encouraged by the CDC to enter a covid death code for any death even remotely suspected to be covid related.

Compare that to a non-mandatory VAERS system and no guidance from the CDC on how to handle possible vaccine deaths, yet we already know there are several hundred in that age group alone in only FOUR MONTHS of vaccination. See where we’ll be in a year!

No fancy internet trackers provided by state and federal government to monitor adverse events or vaccine deaths. Its all buried. Because these politicians and bureacrats are bought off by big pharma through wall street and you know it. These bastards stand to make a trillion dollars.

If 8000 young people died of severe covid and not a car accident while having a possitive PCR test, let me assure you that 99% of them had serious underlying health issues mostly immune related. Which is why they should have received antivirals immediately.

But the young people that die of this vaccine will be paradoxically the healthiest people because it is the strong immune response to the vaccine that is causing severe platelet destruction and inflammation of vascular endothelium. They know this is happening.

Why do we not have data on the typical drop in platelet count of vaccine recipients? If these fuckers were transparent you can bet we would know. Could it be because a large share —possibly the majority— of young vaccine recipients are becoming clinically thrombocytopenic?

At least one high profile person is dying from the vax every week. They tried to pass off the Dan Kominsky death to diabetes but diabetics have a much greater risk of hypercoagulation and multiple vaccine recipients are suddenly suffering from diabetic ketoacidosis, even with no history of diabetes!

Nobody knows how bad the clotting issue is because the government refuses to study it properly and release the relevant data.

I looked at your NIH “selected studies” (Reminder: NIH funded the creation of SARS COV2 in the laboratory across the street from the wet market that is the supposed origin of the disease). Now here’s mine

https://files.catbox.moe/njmd1c.jpeg

That center line is an odds ratio of one showing no increased survival due to ivermectin. Every dot to the left indicates a peer reviewed study that showed improved odds ratio with ivermectin. There are 50 studies on that graph. Only one late stage covid study shows no improvement due to ivermectin. The data is crystal clear. You don’t get more evidence than this in the medical world. Feel free to look up each of these studies here:

https://c19ivermectin.com

Ivermectin has a safety profile similar to ibuprofen and has never killed a person in about 50 years and a billion doses.

It is proven that ivermectin inhibits sars cov 2 in vitro at 2uM and an MOI ( multiplicity of infection, a measure of virus quantity) of .1.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340404159_The_FDA-approved_Drug_Ivermectin_inhibits_the_replication_of_SARS-CoV-2_in_vitro/fulltext/5e872c7292851c2f527843c7/The-FDA-approved-Drug-Ivermectin-inhibits-the-replication-of-SARS-CoV-2-in-vitro.pdf?origin=publication_detail

There are similar studies showing dozens of cheap safe FDA approved drugs inhibit SARS Cov 2 in vitro.

They will all inhibit the virus in a given concentration for a given MOI (amount of virus). If you don’t understand that the effectiveness of a standard “safe” dose of any one of these antivirals is dependent on the quantity of virus ( the viral load) in the body then you might have been swayed by some non randomized studies on late stage covid patients that had so much virus on average throughout their body that the inhibitory concentrations cannot be reached with the standard doses. Many times higher doses of these drugs are prohibitively dangerous ( though not so with ivermectin)

The key is early treatment with antivirals. On the day patients first become symptomatic the viral loads are still at very treatable levels, but around that time the exponential growth rate of the virus begins to kick in for some people. Doxycylcline, any of the tetracylines, azithromycin or other macrolides, ritonovir, remdesivir, lopanavir, quinolones like hydroxychloroquine and quinine will all suppress the replication of the virus while the viral load is still low. The earlier they are given the better they will work.

Because all these drugs work on a whole bunch of related viruses. Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit flu and dengue fever and zika and hiv and a few bacterium like leprosy and TB. Most of the drugs used on covid are broad spectrum antivirals. They will work on most flu like viral illnesses if given early enough. Hydroxychloroquine works. Its just that I believe ivermectin works faster and is safer. Virutally no one needs to die.

It is a fundamental misunderstanding of how viral infections work and how antivirals work that the scientific establishment has used to trick people into thinking that there is “no cure”. There is only no cure if the government prevents you from getting antivirals in the first few days of the illness. You can cure early stage covid with $7 worth of medicine. But they can’t make money that way. They can’t steal elections that way. They cant destroy small businesses and get rid of half a million medicare recipients in one fell swoop.