Candace Owens Goes ABSOLUTELY NUCLEAR On Australia And The Lying Media

[Markinsa]

[caddieman]

Was going to watch the video until I looked her up! Wow she is a doozy! Obviously she is the clickbait Queen!

 

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/candace-owens/

[PrehistoricMan]

14 minutes ago, caddieman said:

Was going to watch the video until I looked her up! Wow she is a doozy! Obviously she is the clickbait Queen!

 

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/candace-owens/

Um, politifact is a liberal run site.  Of course they would lie about Candace.

[Markinsa]

6 hours ago, caddieman said:

Was going to watch the video until I looked her up! Wow she is a doozy! Obviously she is the clickbait Queen!

 

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/candace-owens/

 

I was going to watcH?  It seems the MSM was successful, because "if" you had watched the video she would had told you that is EXACTLY what the MSM wanted.  I take it you have a list of people the MSM has told you not to watch, so you don't, that is why you never hear the truth.

 

You do know Australia is in complete lockdown.  No one can go anywhere unless they are vaccinated.  Citizens who were out of state, cannot return to their home state unless they are vaccinated.  You cannot attend a funeral of relatives unless you are vaccinated and no more than 5 people, you have to get approval from the State before you go anywhere.  Pretty sad...

 

.

[Markinsa]

[caddieman]

5 hours ago, Markinsa said:

 

I was going to watcH?  It seems the MSM was successful, because "if" you had watched the video she would had told you that is EXACTLY what the MSM wanted.  I take it you have a list of people the MSM has told you not to watch, so you don't, that is why you never hear the truth.

 

You do know Australia is in complete lockdown.  No one can go anywhere unless they are vaccinated.  Citizens who were out of state, cannot return to their home state unless they are vaccinated.  You cannot attend a funeral of relatives unless you are vaccinated and no more than 5 people, you have to get approval from the State before you go anywhere.  Pretty sad...

 

.

Anything that is slightly left leaning is 100% lies………Blah Blah Blah. Anything or anyone that doesn’t fit the narrative is lying. Blah Blah Blah. Any website that gives facts to the truth if it’s against the conspiracy theories is all lies. Blah Blah Blah. The brain washing has been done by the conservative right not the other way around. My opinion only!

11 hours ago, PrehistoricMan said:

Um, politifact is a liberal run site.  Of course they would lie about Candace.

 

[Markinsa]

38 minutes ago, caddieman said:

Anything that is slightly left leaning is 100% lies………Blah Blah Blah. Anything or anyone that doesn’t fit the narrative is lying. Blah Blah Blah. Any website that gives facts to the truth if it’s against the conspiracy theories is all lies. Blah Blah Blah. The brain washing has been done by the conservative right not the other way around. My opinion only!

 

 

The difference between you and I is I read both sides. 

 

When one side presents evidence and the other doesn't, it usually means that side that presents the evidence is telling the truth.  When one side has to repeatedly retract news articles and place those retractions on page 50 of their publications, it means they are lying to you. 

 

That means almost every single MSM organization is lying to you, while I don't recall a single prominent Right Leaning Organization having to retract anything.

 

Of course you knew that, but you don't care, it fits your narrative.

 

OH blah, blah, blah...

.

[caddieman]

17 minutes ago, Markinsa said:

 

The difference between you and I is I read both sides. 

 

When one side presents evidence and the other doesn't, it usually means that side that presents the evidence is telling the truth.  When one side has to repeatedly retract news articles and place those retractions on page 50 of their publications, it means they are lying to you. 

 

That means almost every single MSM organization is lying to you, while I don't recall a single prominent Right Leaning Organization having to retract anything.

 

Of course you knew that, but you don't care, it fits your narrative.

 

OH blah, blah, blah...

.

Oh I read both sides I also fact check everything that I read. I also watch just as much Fox News as I do CNN. My guess is you watch zero of CNN or CBS or NBC news.
Do you fact check what you post here to see if it is following a shred of truth. I do…….but you won’t like it!
I know, I know every fact check sight that has ever been created is liberal lying hacks. 🤔

[stt]

CNN no wonder 

[Markinsa]

10 minutes ago, caddieman said:

Oh I read both sides I also fact check everything that I read. I also watch just as much Fox News as I do CNN. My guess is you watch zero of CNN or CBS or NBC news.
Do you fact check what you post here to see if it is following a shred of truth. I do…….but you won’t like it!
I know, I know every fact check sight that has ever been created is liberal lying hacks. 🤔

 

Ok, let's test that.  What is your stance on Covid Vaccine Mandates their Efficacy?

 

.

[caddieman]

22 minutes ago, Markinsa said:

 

Ok, let's test that.  What is your stance on Covid Vaccine Mandates their Efficacy?

 

.

My stance is you look at the science. You look at the true numbers and determine what the course of action should be taken to protect all citizens. Covid is not a political issue. It’s a virus that effects everyone. Here is an email I got just today from my health care provider. 
 

How common are breakthrough cases and are vaccines still effective? 

Breakthrough COVID cases remain relatively rare and are expected as more patients become vaccinated. Unfortunately, vaccine skeptics are using high-profile deaths as fuel to support the narrative that vaccines don’t work.

While it’s true that COVID-19 vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, they have been proven to significantly reduce the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death. Evidence of this can be found in the fact that more than 90% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients are unvaccinated, and nearly all COVID deaths occur among the unvaccinated.

Studies show that vaccinated patients are 8 times less likely to contract COVID-19 and are 25 times less likely to experience hospitalization or death

https://www.novanthealth.org/healthy-headlines/what-colin-powells-death-tells-us-about-covid

[Markinsa]

42 minutes ago, caddieman said:

My stance is you look at the science. You look at the true numbers and determine what the course of action should be taken to protect all citizens. Covid is not a political issue. It’s a virus that effects everyone. Here is an email I got just today from my health care provider. 

 

What is the need for a vaccine when viable effective treatments are available?  Take note of India, they have states/provinces that have almost eliminated Covid by having everyone take  Doxycycline and Ivermectin?

 

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-v-the-secret-revealed/article_9a37d9a8-1fb2-11ec-a94b-47343582647b.html

 

But, It's ok you rather participate in a mass experiment.  You have to ask yourself why the push?  Why the mandates?  With the viable treatments I mentioned above, there is no need to push these experimental vaccines.  "Especially on Children!"

 

.

[caddieman]

20 minutes ago, Markinsa said:

 

What is the need for a vaccine when viable effective treatments are available?  Take note of India, they have states/provinces that have almost eliminated Covid by having everyone take  Doxycycline and Ivermectin?

 

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-v-the-secret-revealed/article_9a37d9a8-1fb2-11ec-a94b-47343582647b.html

 

But, It's ok you rather participate in a mass experiment.  You have to ask yourself why the push?  Why the mandates?  With the viable treatments I mentioned above, there is no need to push these experimental vaccines.  "Especially on Children!"

 

.

First of all there is not one study that says Ivermectin is effective against Covid. Secondly Doxycycline is an antibiotic. Antibiotics don’t work on viruses. This is something being spread by anti vaccine sights. 
The need for vacation is that 90% of covid patients in the hospital are unvaccinated. How did we stop Polio…..by vaccination!

[Longtimelurker]

2 minutes ago, caddieman said:

First of all there is not one study that says Ivermectin is effective against Covid. Secondly Doxycycline is an antibiotic. Antibiotics don’t work on viruses. This is something being spread by anti vaccine sights. 
The need for vacation is that 90% of covid patients in the hospital are unvaccinated. How did we stop Polio…..by vaccination!

Fauci did a study in 2005 testing hydroxychloroquine against covid. Fauci came to the conclusion that it is effective against covid.

[Markinsa]

7 minutes ago, caddieman said:

First of all there is not one study that says Ivermectin is effective against Covid.

 

Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

 

 

[caddieman]

21 minutes ago, Markinsa said:

 

Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

 

 

Ongoing Clinical Trials Will Decide Whether (or Not) Ivermectin Is Safe, Effective for COVID-19

By Catalina Jaramillo

Posted on September 16, 2021

 

Studies on whether ivermectin is beneficial in treating COVID-19 patients haven’t been conclusive, and health officials have warned people not to self-medicate. But multiple large trials are continuing to assess the antiparasitic drug. Yet, Sen. Rand Paul reportedly said researchers were “unwilling to objectively study” it because of “hatred” for Donald Trump. He later acknowledged studies are being done. Here we review the research.

 

Both the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Healthhave not recommended the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, citing insufficient evidence. The Infectious Diseases Society of America also suggested against the use of the drug outside of a trial, since there is a “very low certainty of evidence” and “concerns with risk of bias (i.e., study limitations) and imprecision” on 15 studies reviewed by the end of July.  

On Sept. 1, worried about an alarming increase of calls to poison control centers after ivermectin ingestion, the American Medical Association, American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists called for an “immediate end to the prescribing, dispensing, and use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial,” adding that the use of the drug for this purpose “has been demonstrated to be harmful to patients.” 

“My recommendation is, if people are interested in ivermectin and helping prove what its effect is — and is there a benefit or is there not a benefit —  participate in a clinical trial,” Dr. David Boulware, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and a practicing infectious disease physician, told us in a phone interview. “That will help our society get the answers, you know, as quick as possible.” 

Preliminary Results from International Trial

Researchers in the U.S. and across the world have shown great interest in trying to find out if ivermectin, a cheap and widely used antiparasitic drug, could be effectively and safely used to treat COVID-19 patients. As of now, there are 77 studies assessing the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 registered in clinicaltrials.gov, and 139 trials listed in the WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. 

“Everybody wanted to do what they could when COVID first struck,” said Edward Mills, a Canadian researcher co-leading one of the largest clinical trials on repurposed treatments to be completed yet. “And those of us working in clinical research, we did what we could too.” Mills was speaking on Aug. 6 while presenting the results for the first time during an event sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

The Together trial, co-led by Mills, professor of health research methods, evidence and impact at McMaster University in Canada, and Dr. Gilmar Reis, associate professor of medicine at Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, Brazil, started in June 2020 and was set in 10 cities in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. This randomized adaptive platform trialstarted looking at the effectiveness of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 among high-risk adult 

nonhospitalized patients on Jan. 15, 2021. The study analyzed whether patients’ health became worse and required hospitalization or more than six hours of observation in an emergency room, within 28 days of randomization. 

According to the preliminary results presented by Mills, the study found no indication of benefit on the use of ivermectin — nor with hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir, or metformin. The ivermectin arm had 1,500 patients: 677 of them received a daily dose of the medication, and 678 others were given a placebo, for three days.  

“We found that it had no effect whatsoever on our primary outcomes,” Mills said.

According to the results presented, 86 patients in the ivermectin group required extended emergency room observation or hospitalization versus 95 in the placebo group. Both the differences in relative risk and mortality relative risk between the two groups were not statistically significant. These results have not been peer-reviewed yet. 

“In our specific trial, outpatient, we do not see the treatment benefit that a lot of advocates believe should have been” seen, Mills said. 

The study did find benefits in the use of fluvoxamine, an inexpensive antidepressant, which reduced the relative risk for hospitalization and extended emergency room attention by 29%, with 77 patients needing either in the fluvoxamine group compared with 108 in the placebo. 

Boulware, who provides advice for two large, ongoing clinical trials in the U.S., told us hearing these results changed his opinion on ivermectin. 

“Whereas before I was kind of very open-minded, now I’m sort of the proof is really, is starting to generate that there may not be much of an effect at all,” he said in a phone interview.

Enthusiasm around the use of the drug started last year when researchers found that ivermectin inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in cell cultures. Countries without access to vaccines or other treatments started using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 last year, and disinformation about ivermectin as a miracle cure spread all across the world, as we’ve reported. But according to the NIH, studies suggest that to achieve the plasma levels needed to replicate the antiviral effect detected in petri dishes in the human body “would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.”

And even though some studies on ivermectin and COVID-19 have presented promising results, the NIH says most of the studies completed as of July 19 “had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations.” 

One of the papers that increased the hope for ivermectin, which included 400 people with symptoms of COVID-19, was retracted on July 14, after concerns about plagiarism and inconsistencies in the data. According to Nature, before being withdrawn, the paper was viewed more than 150,000 times, cited more than 30 times and included in several meta-analyses, creating a ripple effect of misinformation. Researchers, experts and health officials agree on the need for more data and larger trials to really understand the effects of the use of the drug in COVID-19 patients.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/scicheck-ongoing-clinical-trials-will-decide-whether-or-not-ivermectin-is-safe-effective-for-covid-19/

[Markinsa]

33 minutes ago, caddieman said:

The need for vacation is that 90% of covid patients in the hospital are unvaccinated. How did we stop Polio…..by vaccination!

 

BTW, you got your statistic wrong, the vaccinated are the ones in the hospital.  Yeah and we stopped polio by a tested vaccine that didn't kill or maim thousands of people during testing, which we are doing now.  But the world's governments are mandating an untested vaccine.

 

https://sarahwestall.com/unvaccinated-hospital-staff-only-ones-telling-the-truth-regarding-vaccine-injuries-as-they-prepare-to-leave-the-medical-system/

 

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/insanity-rules-in-the-u-s-as-hospitalizations-and-deaths-among-vaccinated-breakthrough-cases-surge-while-health-authorities-blame-the-unvaccinated/

.

[Markinsa]

5 minutes ago, caddieman said:

Both the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Healthhave not recommended the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, citing insufficient

 

Both the WHO and NIH said that Covid didn't start in China too, the NIH funded Gain of Function in China, and the WHO lied to President Trump and the World about the origins of Covid.  And yet you're going to believe what they tell you.

 

Here's your sign! 

.

[caddieman]

37 minutes ago, Longtimelurker said:

Fauci did a study in 2005 testing hydroxychloroquine against covid. Fauci came to the conclusion that it is effective against covid.

Well my friend you got to show me that one! As a matter of fact I will show mine first.

 

 

 

The claim: Dr. Anthony Fauci knew of and approved hydroxychloroquine as a cure for coronaviruses in 2005

Widely shared social media posts claim Dr. Anthony Fauci has known for years that hydroxychloroquine — an immunosuppressive and anti-parasitic drug used to treat malaria, lupus and arthritis — could treat coronaviruses.

One post on Facebook is a photo of a headline that reads, "Deadly cover up: Fauci approved hydroxychloroquine 15 years ago to cure coronaviruses. 'Nobody needed to die.'"

That headline is from a story on TruePundit.com, which has no byline and redirects to a guest column from Bryan Fischer on One News Now. The headline there reads, "Fauci knew about HCQ in 2005 — nobody needed to die."

Multiple websites published the piece with that same headline. A screenshot of text in the column from the site nw-connection.com has been widely shared, without any attribution or headline.

The primary claim of the column is based on inaccuracies. It references a studypublished in the Virology Journal in 2005, which concluded that chloroquine, a similar drug, was "effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture." The study is archived in the National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine, which Fischer connects to Fauci.

A spokesperson for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease told USA TODAY that the claim that Fauci approved hydroxychloroquine is "patently false."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/19/fact-check-fauci-did-not-approve-hydroxychloroquine-cure-2005/5559347002/

[Longtimelurker]

Just now, caddieman said:

Well my friend you got to show me that one! As a matter of fact I will show mine first.

 

 

 

The claim: Dr. Anthony Fauci knew of and approved hydroxychloroquine as a cure for coronaviruses in 2005

Widely shared social media posts claim Dr. Anthony Fauci has known for years that hydroxychloroquine — an immunosuppressive and anti-parasitic drug used to treat malaria, lupus and arthritis — could treat coronaviruses.

One post on Facebook is a photo of a headline that reads, "Deadly cover up: Fauci approved hydroxychloroquine 15 years ago to cure coronaviruses. 'Nobody needed to die.'"

That headline is from a story on TruePundit.com, which has no byline and redirects to a guest column from Bryan Fischer on One News Now. The headline there reads, "Fauci knew about HCQ in 2005 — nobody needed to die."

Multiple websites published the piece with that same headline. A screenshot of text in the column from the site nw-connection.com has been widely shared, without any attribution or headline.

The primary claim of the column is based on inaccuracies. It references a studypublished in the Virology Journal in 2005, which concluded that chloroquine, a similar drug, was "effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture." The study is archived in the National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine, which Fischer connects to Fauci.

A spokesperson for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease told USA TODAY that the claim that Fauci approved hydroxychloroquine is "patently false."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/19/fact-check-fauci-did-not-approve-hydroxychloroquine-cure-2005/5559347002/

I read the actual report by fauci from 2005. It is available online.

[Longtimelurker]

2 minutes ago, caddieman said:

Well my friend you got to show me that one! As a matter of fact I will show mine first.

 

 

 

The claim: Dr. Anthony Fauci knew of and approved hydroxychloroquine as a cure for coronaviruses in 2005

Widely shared social media posts claim Dr. Anthony Fauci has known for years that hydroxychloroquine — an immunosuppressive and anti-parasitic drug used to treat malaria, lupus and arthritis — could treat coronaviruses.

One post on Facebook is a photo of a headline that reads, "Deadly cover up: Fauci approved hydroxychloroquine 15 years ago to cure coronaviruses. 'Nobody needed to die.'"

That headline is from a story on TruePundit.com, which has no byline and redirects to a guest column from Bryan Fischer on One News Now. The headline there reads, "Fauci knew about HCQ in 2005 — nobody needed to die."

Multiple websites published the piece with that same headline. A screenshot of text in the column from the site nw-connection.com has been widely shared, without any attribution or headline.

The primary claim of the column is based on inaccuracies. It references a studypublished in the Virology Journal in 2005, which concluded that chloroquine, a similar drug, was "effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture." The study is archived in the National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine, which Fischer connects to Fauci.

A spokesperson for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease told USA TODAY that the claim that Fauci approved hydroxychloroquine is "patently false."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/19/fact-check-fauci-did-not-approve-hydroxychloroquine-cure-2005/5559347002/

Stop using fact checking sites lol. 

[Pitcher]

1 hour ago, Markinsa said:

Take note of India, they have states/provinces that have almost eliminated Covid by having everyone take  Doxycycline and Ivermectin?

I have a friend in India who has confirmed this to be very true.  I asked him about it after I read an article about the effectiveness of Ivermectin in India.  
 

In America they ban it or run articles and TV news stories ridiculing doctors who want to use it.  I wonder why that is?  Mmm. Pfizer, J&J, and Moderna all reported quarterly profits in the 10-25 Billion range. Do a little research into the cozy relationship these Big Pharma Companies have with the leaders of the DNC/GOP and it will make you puke.   Criminals all of them.   

[Longtimelurker]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/

[Longtimelurker]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15351731/

[caddieman]

12 minutes ago, Markinsa said:

 

BTW, you got your statistic wrong, the vaccinated are the ones in the hospital.  Yeah and we stopped polio by a tested vaccine that didn't kill or maim thousands of people during testing, which we are doing now.  But the world's governments are mandating an untested vaccine.

 

https://sarahwestall.com/unvaccinated-hospital-staff-only-ones-telling-the-truth-regarding-vaccine-injuries-as-they-prepare-to-leave-the-medical-system/

 

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/insanity-rules-in-the-u-s-as-hospitalizations-and-deaths-among-vaccinated-breakthrough-cases-surge-while-health-authorities-blame-the-unvaccinated/

.

Call any hospital in the country you want, anyone. They will tell you 90% of hospital stay for covid are the unvaccinated. 8 of my friends are working or family members working in the hospitals all around the country. Everyone of them say the vast majority of covid patients are unvaccinated. One told me every single covid patient in the hospital his daughter works in are unvaccinated. Whenever I meet someone in the medical field that’s the first thing I ask them. Everyone of them say most are unvaccinated. You should do the same to get the real truth from the front lines.