Assume for the moment that Covid-vaccine hesitancy is unfounded: Now imagine there is a safe, cheap and effective alternative that actually could quickly reach and protect the world (including from breakthrough cases) but it is aggressively portrayed as dangerous and ineffective.
This isn’t a challenge @clairlemon. I’m hoping that she too will see the bigger picture.

Big Pharma plays dirty under normal circumstances. Given a crisis, immunity from liability and a major new (possibly permanent) market for novel products, we should anticipate deception.
Emergency Use Authorization requires no safe and effective alternative. And we are aggressively told none exists, and that the large body of evidence that suggests otherwise is all flawed.

Given the concentration of conflicts of interest on the Pharma side, proceed with caution.
From a public health perspective it makes no sense to ignore evidence for the effectiveness of Ivermectin. Whether it’s used to reach poor countries, treat breakthrough cases, or as an alternative for those who (right or wrong) fear the vaccines, it’s a vital tool against Covid.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Bret Weinstein

Bret Weinstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BretWeinstein

2 Jul
The Oxford study looks designed to return weak, positive results allowing the ridiculous current narrative to move to higher ground while killing public interest in Ivermectin and preserving the EUAs on which Big Pharma’s Covid portfolio depends. Everyone wins, except the public.
Collecting more evidence is great. But current evidence is more than strong enough to administer this very safe drug to patients for whom no useful alternative exists. Awaiting more evidence is a delaying tactic. And testing on patients late in disease makes no sense. Obviously.
If you want to know how well the drug works to treat Covid, administer it on exposure or first symptoms.

Of course the elephant in the closet is the failure to use Ivermectin to PREVENT Covid. Want to save lives across the globe and drive SARS2 to extinction? #IvermectinWorks
Read 5 tweets
25 Jun
Much of the anger in the replies to my tweet--some of it from friends and others I respect--is due to the sense that COVID-vaccination is a life and death issue. I don’t disagree. I too am motivated by that sense.
I don’t, however, think the matter is simple, though I’d agree that the vaccines appear to have saved many more lives than they have cost so far--by a lot. I’ve explored the question with nuance on my podcast and elsewhere, but on Thurs. my nuance gave way, to very bad effect.
Much of the problem surrounds my claim that my informal sample was disturbingly full of “scary” vaccine reactions. But ‘scary’ is a conclusion resting on a stack of priors that, without saying what they are, can’t help but sound alarmist. Here's the problem tweet:
Read 16 tweets
18 Jun
The DarkHorse Podcast has been hit with a strike by @YouTube. It prevents us from livestreaming in the usual spot, Sat. at 12:30pm Pacific. They'll be surprised to discover that their censoring us has activated an army. We won't be intimidated or deterred. #FollowTheSilence
Steps you can take:

+ Subscribe to our channel…
+ Follow @HeatherEHeying and me
+ Keep an eye out for announcements throughout the the day
+Retweet the anti-censorship hashtag #FollowTheSilence ('Silence' not 'science')
+ Spread the word!
One more thing: note the failure of the hashtag to autocomplete or trend. @Twitter appears to regulate this, making our point about censorship. Perhaps well deserved embarrassment will cause them to relent.

Read 7 tweets
6 Jun
Incredible. An economist delights in mocking the possibility that a cheap and all but harmless drug is responsible for *spectacular* reductions in Covid-deaths everywhere it has been tried. Why? Because other measures were also applied.

At worst: (drug+measures) = rapid success
This is true, even if the drug is ineffective.

If there was no *other* evidence the drug worked, you would indeed have to wonder if it was a real contributor to the effect. But, in this case, there is LOTS of other evidence that the drug works, and a clear mechanism of action.
And there is LOTS of evidence that the other measures are inadequate on their own.

Consider this: lock-downs without this drug are likely to have multiple effects, some negative, decreasing spread BETWEEN homes and increasing it WITHIN--unless you add the drug as prophylaxis.
Read 4 tweets
24 May
Events since Nicholas Wade's lab-leak article look different to people who were tracking the story over 2020. Everything "new" is actually not new. What changed is that the official narrative has been forced into acknowledgement.

Damage control is clearly in full swing.
This paragraph is from @SharriMarkson's report, in March, in The Australian. Why does the @WSJ story read like a scoop? Why was it treated as one? Why was Nicholas Wade's article treated as if it cracked the case?

It's not like #DRASTIC's work isn't public.
It's not like @JamieMetzl, @joshrogin and I haven't explored the evidence with @joerogan. Not like @HeatherEHeying and I didn't discuss it with @billmaher. Not like @SteveHiltonx hasn't covered it repeatedly. Not like @mattwridley, @Ayjchan, @nicholsonbaker8 didn't survey it...
Read 7 tweets
18 May
The race is on to immunize the corrupt people and institutions that got the COVID's origin question upside down. @davidfrum pins the fault squarely on Trump who (violating the rules by being closer to right) forced the inherently good/correct people to double down on being wrong.
The most maddening thing about attempts to fictionalize the history is the way they assert: those investigating and publicizing the lab leak hypothesis were all Trump supporters pushing a wild eyed version of the "theory" until Nicholas Wade opened our eyes to the sober version
There's a hint of what likely happened in this. The establishment and their sources ignored the discussion (because they had higher priorities than their official titles imply) until Wade, Baltimore and Baric forced them awake. What occurred as they slept is taken as immaterial.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!