Great outdoors
Active member
Well in the real world it is generally used for dogs, cats and horses.
https://www.petplace.com/article/dr...vermectin-ivomec-heartgard-for-dogs-and-cats/
My dog gets it twice a year.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Covid 19 mrna Vaccines...Yes/No?
- Thread starter gaiusmarius
- Start date
Well in the real world it is generally used for dogs, cats and horses.
https://www.petplace.com/article/dr...vermectin-ivomec-heartgard-for-dogs-and-cats/
My dog gets it twice a year.
You need to hang around speakers corner more. Forget the deep end, some of these folks have slipped off the edge of the flat earth. Hope the tin foil hats save them.
LMAO.. It is used as a treatment for parasites in pets and livestock. AKA a dewormer
Was he talking about polio?
Three Berries
Active member
Millions around the world use it every day. In some countries it is an over the counter medicine. In some countries the government provides it for every citizen. Take your BS somewhere else.
Three Berries
Active member
So you are saying it is not effective or approved for human consumption? Have you ever heard of the active ingredient in D-Con rodent killer?
Were did anyone say that?. Your reading made up stuff again lol.. It is FDA approved as a DEWORMER lol.
Three Berries
Active member
You keep bring up horses.
The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011
Highlights
•Ivermectin is an inhibitor of the COVID-19 causative virus (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro.
•A single treatment able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in virus at 48 h in cell culture.
•Ivermectin is FDA-approved for parasitic infections, and therefore has a potential for repurposing.
•Ivermectin is widely available, due to its inclusion on the WHO model list of essential medicines.
100% BS.. where did I bring up even 1 horse. More reading imagery stuff from you. People with common sense don't take a dewormer for covid. If that's what you have chosen to do good luck.
Three Berries
Active member
A horse is considered livestock around here.
https://www.icmag.com/forum/talk-ab...-mrna-vaccines-yes-no?p=18067367#post18067367
If you bothered to look up ivermectin it states it's used for livestock, not people. Around here livestock is cows.. I've never posted anything about horses as you indicated. As always you read what you want to read.
Last edited:
wow, are you guys really asserting that ivermectin is only a veterinary drug? Ivermectin is a miraculous anti-parasite, anti-viral drug for humans and non-humans animals that was such a breakthrough - FOR HUMANS - that the inventor got the Nobel Peace Prize. Use for Covid is "off-label" which is a typical way of using prescriptions, I just read that something like 20% of all prescriptons are off-label.
We didn't like Ivermectin for Covid because it's gone out of the patent period and is now a cheap generic. Just like the feds fought against Vitamin D use for cancer in the 90's. Pharma doesn't like cheap preventives.
Gee, can anyone think of another cheap, safe drug, that works on cancer, that was banned and demonized because it couldn't be patented and monetized by Pharma? A drug that every single federal health agency lied about for 90 years? Hmmmm.......can't thimk of anything! I'll have to keep trying.....
We didn't like Ivermectin for Covid because it's gone out of the patent period and is now a cheap generic. Just like the feds fought against Vitamin D use for cancer in the 90's. Pharma doesn't like cheap preventives.
Gee, can anyone think of another cheap, safe drug, that works on cancer, that was banned and demonized because it couldn't be patented and monetized by Pharma? A drug that every single federal health agency lied about for 90 years? Hmmmm.......can't thimk of anything! I'll have to keep trying.....
Absolutely not. It does take much to use google. Its main purpose is a dewormer in humans and livestock. As I've said many times. If anyone prefers to use ivermectin to treat a virus good luck, that's their choice. There is zero data that it has any anti viral properties.
tens of millions of Africans think you're full of sh*t.
Malaria is deadly, and those who use Ivermectin as prophylactic/treatment think you're full of horsesh*t.
pretty F'n irresponsible to insinuate it's something unhealthy.
but that's what i've come to expect from your ilk.
go smoke some road apples dude....
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=does+ivermectin+treat+malaria
Malaria is deadly, and those who use Ivermectin as prophylactic/treatment think you're full of horsesh*t.
pretty F'n irresponsible to insinuate it's something unhealthy.
but that's what i've come to expect from your ilk.
go smoke some road apples dude....
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=does+ivermectin+treat+malaria
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
There is NOT "zero data that it has any anti viral properties." It seems there have been many studies over the decades that showed that it was highly effective against viruses. The cure was withheld from the people. Millions of lives were lost due to this fact. In the end, when it is all summed up, the body count will make the Holocaust look like a puppy show!
NOT BY ANY CREDIBLE SOURCE. Why this is even an issue no clue.. If anyone wants to use ivermectin to combat a virus have at it.. You won't find me doing that. It all boils down to our choices. You make yours ill make mine.
studies show in vitro effect, not so in human bodies. tricky, where has anyone said that it is not used RE malaria. malaria is, by the way, NOT a viral infection. in the end, when it is all summed up, The Chump will have cost uncountable thousands of American lives because he wanted to get re-elected instead of doing his damn job. we are not yet to a million in this country...yet. do you have any idea how many people died during the holocaust? any idea at all? ivermectin WAS used in some other countries, with the same result it got here in human studies - not shit. it is NOT a "cure", in spite of your claims to the contrary. those that say they survived only because of its use would most likely have survived regardless. you need to make up your minds, folks. either it IS a dangerous disease, or it's not, and ivermectin is not needed. which one is it gonna be? you don't get it both ways when it suits you...you can't claim it saves lives if lives are not in danger. taking ivermectin for a mild case is like throwing a life preserver to someone walking down the street in a gentle shower for fear they'll drown...
fucking useless.
Heart Problems After Covid Are Much Worse for the Vaccinated, Nature Study Shows – But It’s Hidden in the Appendix
Nature published a comprehensive study this week on cardiovascular risk including a total of over 11 million patients that has made a few headlines. The aim was to identify the cause of increased cardiac pathology. It should have been a very simple study comparing four groups:
Instead, the following groups were compared:
There were serious biases in the paper which need addressing but first let’s look at the critical question of myocarditis (heart inflammation).
Because of the known risk of myocarditis from vaccination it is worth looking particularly closely at the data presented on this. Oddly, for the issue of the day, the data on myocarditis was all hidden in the supplementary appendix to the paper.
The risk of myocarditis appears to be an autoimmune (the immune system attacking the heart after interaction with the spike protein) rather than direct damage by the virus/vaccine spike protein. Therefore, myocarditis could result from the virus or the vaccine. The key question that needs answering is whether vaccination protects or enhances the risk from the virus.
The authors report 370 per million risk of myocarditis after Covid infection in the unvaccinated. The contemporary control rate was 70 per million and the historic one was 40 per million. What was wrong with the contemporary controls?
They made it clear they removed those who had been vaccinated from the calculation in the Covid arm but they did not state they did this for the control arm. Did vaccination lead to a 30 per million increase in myocarditis in the control arm? Given the cohort appears to be old and we know myocarditis incidence is worse in the young a one in 30,000 incidence is significant.
What about those who were vaccinated and had Covid? Once vaccination (and modelling) were included, the rate rose to 500 per million. It is not entirely clear whether supplementary Table 22 excludes those who were not vaccinated, but given that it does not state the unvaccinated were excluded from this data it is fair to assume the 500 per million relates to the whole population.
Given the higher risk of myocarditis after vaccination one might wonder whether this study showed protection from infection due to vaccination, as this would lower risk from the virus. Hidden in the legends of the supplementary tables the authors reveal that 62% of the Covid patients had been vaccinated compared to 56% of the non-infected controls (not a great advert for vaccine effectiveness against infection).
Using the fact that 62% of the Covid cohort were vaccinated and that the unvaccinated had a rate of 370 per million, to get to an overall rate of 500 per million the vaccinated 62% must have had a rate of 580 per million (580×0.62 + 370×0.38 = 500). Therefore, in those with Covid and vaccination the rate (even after modelling) was 210 per million higher (58% higher) than the unvaccinated with Covid. (If supplementary Table 22 did exclude the unvaccinated the incidence of myocarditis after Covid would have been 35% higher in the vaccinated.) An extra 210 per million works out as an additional risk from vaccination of one in 5,000 among a relatively old population. How high was it for the younger men? This critical question was left unanswered.
The data comprised medical records for U.S. veterans who were 90% male, three quarters white and had a mean age of 63 years.
Two control groups were selected:
There was a significant bias between these two control groups and those who tested positive.
The Covid patients (not just those who were sick with it – all those who tested positive) were more obese, saw doctors more often, had more cancer, kidney disease, lung disease, dementia etc.
Comparison of risk factors from supplementary Table 1
There are two ways to deal with such biases. One is to match the 150,000 Covid patients with similarly sick patients from the over five millions controls. This reduces the size of the control group but when it is already so large this should not be a concern. Instead, the authors modelled the data until the groups seemed similar. Using an algorithm they claimed the same total number of people were present in the Covid cohort, but whereas 49,407 actually had diabetes in the raw data, 11,903 (24%) no longer had diabetes according to the weighted data. Similarly, 14% were ‘cured’ of lung disease, 14% of cancer and a full 35% of the dementia patients no longer had dementia.
There was no discussion in the paper about the reasons for this unhealthy bias among the Covid patients. All positive test results were included and anyone can catch SARS-CoV-2, so the factors that increase the risk of serious disease and hospitalisation should not have biased a dataset based only on infection. Instead the authors discuss the hypothetical issue of people in the non-infected control group having Covid but not getting tested such that the damage caused by Covid could be worse than the paper reports.
It has been well established that hospital transmission dominates as a source of spread and SAGE has reported that up to 40.5% of cases could be traced back to hospital spread and a majority of hospitalised patients in June 2020 were linked to hospital spread. In Scotland, in December 2020, 60% of the acutely ill with Covid acquired the infection in hospital. Patients accessing hospital are highly likely to be less healthy than the general population. Indeed, we know that the Covid patients in the study accessed hospital more frequently than the controls. If the bias was related to hospital acquired infection then the whole study is called into question, as people who attend hospitals are more likely to be sick.
The authors picked some control conditions to attempt to show they had not introduced a bias.
Given the study was about cardiovascular diseases, including those that are an immediate threat to life and those that are very common, I would have picked conditions that might kill you within a year, like lung, pancreatic or oesophageal cancer and common conditions e.g. urinary tract infections, diabetes or prostate cancer.
The authors chose three rare malignancies, all with a one-year survival rate of over 80%, and pre-invasive melanoma – why not include invasive melanoma? They then included rare conditions and odd selection of: hypertrichosis (‘werewolf syndrome’ with excessive facial hair), sickle cell trait and perforated ear drums. When the choices are so niche it begs the question of what the results would have been if more obvious choices had been selected.
The group that tested positive for Covid did badly: 13% ended up in (or began in) hospital and 4% in ICU. The mean age was 63 years which may explain part of the high percentage of sick Covid patients, but it does, again, suggest this group may have been more vulnerable than the control.
They then compared the risk of various cardiac outcomes against the controls. However, they used the same control to compare non-hospitalised patients as patients who had received ICU care. Of course, people who have needed ICU care will be more likely to have cardiovascular complications. Indeed, many of the patients may still have been in the ICU when the measuring period began 30 days after the positive test. A fair study would have only compared the ICU outcomes with the sickest people within the control group, not the average of the whole control group.
The risk to the non-hospitalised Covid patients was low for almost all the cardiovascular risk factors.
The risk to the hospitalised was higher (but remember the controls had significant biases).
Those on ICU had a much higher risk. What is not clear is how much of this is because of the virus.
Figure 10 from the paper shows the different risks of cardiovascular problems in covid patients compared to the controls. Note the scale on the x-axis which exaggerates the small risks.
It is not a surprise for people who have had an ICU stay to be unwell for some time afterwards. The risk of ICU admission for Covid was higher than for influenza, but it is important to understand how much of the cardiovascular risk resulted from the virus and how much from the stay in intensive care per se. How do these Covid ICU patients compare to other ICU patients? The paper did not say.
Similarly the paper makes no attempt to unpick how many of the Covid patients tested positive only after being admitted to hospital. If, as in other studies, a significant proportion acquired Covid in hospital, then a higher risk of being diagnosed with other conditions would be highly likely.
Having failed to examine the above two questions – how much cardiovascular disease was a confounder of hospital transmission and how much is secondary to ICU harm – the overall risk of consequent cardiovascular problems included all the above cardiovascular conditions and thereby inflated the average for the Covid population as a whole.
Nature has published this paper which presents data in an obtuse way that should never have passed peer review. The results were presented as showing how dangerous the Covid virus was for cardiovascular complications without suitable controls to enable that conclusion to be drawn. The evidence on vaccination risks was hidden and not presented in a meaningful way for different age groups. Even then, they demonstrated a significant risk of myocarditis after vaccination, particularly after then encountering the virus but this key finding was hidden in the supplementary appendix. Why?
Dr. Clare Craig is a Diagnostic Pathologist and Co-Chair of HART.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/09...e-study-shows-but-its-hidden-in-the-appendix/
Nature published a comprehensive study this week on cardiovascular risk including a total of over 11 million patients that has made a few headlines. The aim was to identify the cause of increased cardiac pathology. It should have been a very simple study comparing four groups:
- Not infected and never vaccinated
- Not infected and vaccinated
- Infected but not vaccinated
- Infected and vaccinated
Instead, the following groups were compared:
- Not infected and never vaccinated data from 2017
- Not infected, including vaccinated and not vaccinated
- Infected but not vaccinated
- Infected with vaccinated people included but using modelled adjustments
There were serious biases in the paper which need addressing but first let’s look at the critical question of myocarditis (heart inflammation).
Because of the known risk of myocarditis from vaccination it is worth looking particularly closely at the data presented on this. Oddly, for the issue of the day, the data on myocarditis was all hidden in the supplementary appendix to the paper.
The risk of myocarditis appears to be an autoimmune (the immune system attacking the heart after interaction with the spike protein) rather than direct damage by the virus/vaccine spike protein. Therefore, myocarditis could result from the virus or the vaccine. The key question that needs answering is whether vaccination protects or enhances the risk from the virus.
The authors report 370 per million risk of myocarditis after Covid infection in the unvaccinated. The contemporary control rate was 70 per million and the historic one was 40 per million. What was wrong with the contemporary controls?
They made it clear they removed those who had been vaccinated from the calculation in the Covid arm but they did not state they did this for the control arm. Did vaccination lead to a 30 per million increase in myocarditis in the control arm? Given the cohort appears to be old and we know myocarditis incidence is worse in the young a one in 30,000 incidence is significant.
What about those who were vaccinated and had Covid? Once vaccination (and modelling) were included, the rate rose to 500 per million. It is not entirely clear whether supplementary Table 22 excludes those who were not vaccinated, but given that it does not state the unvaccinated were excluded from this data it is fair to assume the 500 per million relates to the whole population.
Given the higher risk of myocarditis after vaccination one might wonder whether this study showed protection from infection due to vaccination, as this would lower risk from the virus. Hidden in the legends of the supplementary tables the authors reveal that 62% of the Covid patients had been vaccinated compared to 56% of the non-infected controls (not a great advert for vaccine effectiveness against infection).
Using the fact that 62% of the Covid cohort were vaccinated and that the unvaccinated had a rate of 370 per million, to get to an overall rate of 500 per million the vaccinated 62% must have had a rate of 580 per million (580×0.62 + 370×0.38 = 500). Therefore, in those with Covid and vaccination the rate (even after modelling) was 210 per million higher (58% higher) than the unvaccinated with Covid. (If supplementary Table 22 did exclude the unvaccinated the incidence of myocarditis after Covid would have been 35% higher in the vaccinated.) An extra 210 per million works out as an additional risk from vaccination of one in 5,000 among a relatively old population. How high was it for the younger men? This critical question was left unanswered.
The data comprised medical records for U.S. veterans who were 90% male, three quarters white and had a mean age of 63 years.
Two control groups were selected:
- Patients who had used healthcare in 2017 and were still alive in March 2018.
- Patients who had used healthcare in 2019 and were still alive in March 2020.
There was a significant bias between these two control groups and those who tested positive.
The Covid patients (not just those who were sick with it – all those who tested positive) were more obese, saw doctors more often, had more cancer, kidney disease, lung disease, dementia etc.
There are two ways to deal with such biases. One is to match the 150,000 Covid patients with similarly sick patients from the over five millions controls. This reduces the size of the control group but when it is already so large this should not be a concern. Instead, the authors modelled the data until the groups seemed similar. Using an algorithm they claimed the same total number of people were present in the Covid cohort, but whereas 49,407 actually had diabetes in the raw data, 11,903 (24%) no longer had diabetes according to the weighted data. Similarly, 14% were ‘cured’ of lung disease, 14% of cancer and a full 35% of the dementia patients no longer had dementia.
There was no discussion in the paper about the reasons for this unhealthy bias among the Covid patients. All positive test results were included and anyone can catch SARS-CoV-2, so the factors that increase the risk of serious disease and hospitalisation should not have biased a dataset based only on infection. Instead the authors discuss the hypothetical issue of people in the non-infected control group having Covid but not getting tested such that the damage caused by Covid could be worse than the paper reports.
It has been well established that hospital transmission dominates as a source of spread and SAGE has reported that up to 40.5% of cases could be traced back to hospital spread and a majority of hospitalised patients in June 2020 were linked to hospital spread. In Scotland, in December 2020, 60% of the acutely ill with Covid acquired the infection in hospital. Patients accessing hospital are highly likely to be less healthy than the general population. Indeed, we know that the Covid patients in the study accessed hospital more frequently than the controls. If the bias was related to hospital acquired infection then the whole study is called into question, as people who attend hospitals are more likely to be sick.
The authors picked some control conditions to attempt to show they had not introduced a bias.
Given the study was about cardiovascular diseases, including those that are an immediate threat to life and those that are very common, I would have picked conditions that might kill you within a year, like lung, pancreatic or oesophageal cancer and common conditions e.g. urinary tract infections, diabetes or prostate cancer.
The authors chose three rare malignancies, all with a one-year survival rate of over 80%, and pre-invasive melanoma – why not include invasive melanoma? They then included rare conditions and odd selection of: hypertrichosis (‘werewolf syndrome’ with excessive facial hair), sickle cell trait and perforated ear drums. When the choices are so niche it begs the question of what the results would have been if more obvious choices had been selected.
The group that tested positive for Covid did badly: 13% ended up in (or began in) hospital and 4% in ICU. The mean age was 63 years which may explain part of the high percentage of sick Covid patients, but it does, again, suggest this group may have been more vulnerable than the control.
They then compared the risk of various cardiac outcomes against the controls. However, they used the same control to compare non-hospitalised patients as patients who had received ICU care. Of course, people who have needed ICU care will be more likely to have cardiovascular complications. Indeed, many of the patients may still have been in the ICU when the measuring period began 30 days after the positive test. A fair study would have only compared the ICU outcomes with the sickest people within the control group, not the average of the whole control group.
The risk to the non-hospitalised Covid patients was low for almost all the cardiovascular risk factors.
The risk to the hospitalised was higher (but remember the controls had significant biases).
Those on ICU had a much higher risk. What is not clear is how much of this is because of the virus.
Figure 10 from the paper shows the different risks of cardiovascular problems in covid patients compared to the controls. Note the scale on the x-axis which exaggerates the small risks.
It is not a surprise for people who have had an ICU stay to be unwell for some time afterwards. The risk of ICU admission for Covid was higher than for influenza, but it is important to understand how much of the cardiovascular risk resulted from the virus and how much from the stay in intensive care per se. How do these Covid ICU patients compare to other ICU patients? The paper did not say.
Similarly the paper makes no attempt to unpick how many of the Covid patients tested positive only after being admitted to hospital. If, as in other studies, a significant proportion acquired Covid in hospital, then a higher risk of being diagnosed with other conditions would be highly likely.
Having failed to examine the above two questions – how much cardiovascular disease was a confounder of hospital transmission and how much is secondary to ICU harm – the overall risk of consequent cardiovascular problems included all the above cardiovascular conditions and thereby inflated the average for the Covid population as a whole.
Nature has published this paper which presents data in an obtuse way that should never have passed peer review. The results were presented as showing how dangerous the Covid virus was for cardiovascular complications without suitable controls to enable that conclusion to be drawn. The evidence on vaccination risks was hidden and not presented in a meaningful way for different age groups. Even then, they demonstrated a significant risk of myocarditis after vaccination, particularly after then encountering the virus but this key finding was hidden in the supplementary appendix. Why?
Dr. Clare Craig is a Diagnostic Pathologist and Co-Chair of HART.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/09...e-study-shows-but-its-hidden-in-the-appendix/
No man, I'm sorry there over 100+ studies published in medical journals on the efficacy of Ivermectin on Covid-19, and they outnumber the studies that didn't find a positive effect. I'd go find a link and post it but I'm getting tired of doing this stuff. You can find this info in seconds with an internet search.
I'm fit and healthy and personally I would not take Ivermectin, it's got some toxicity. But the studies I've seen absolutely show a positive effect on Covid-19. It is totally common and typical for prescription meds, or any med, to work on things other than what it was designed for. Look at the history of Viagra, which was developed for chest pains from angina. So many others. We don't sneer at people taking Viagra for ED and say you're taking chest pills for your dick!
The debate on Ivermectin is fine with me, it's fine if people don't see enough evidence to use it. The problem here is that doctors' right to prescribe whatever med they choose for a patient is being taken away. You don't want that type of control over doctors. This is exactly the policy that brought us the "Drug War'.
Medicine is being changed if doctors are no longer able to write prescriptions for off-label use, and not for the better. If doctors are controlled that way, our health care and treatment options will be conceded to the political or corporate crusade du jour. One day cannabis is wrong, the next dozens of pharma companies are seeking to develop it. Even today, millions of chronic pain patients have lost their access to opiates, because of a failed, sanctimonious crusade against recreational drug users. Medicine is a personal choice. The government should never get in between doctors and patients.
studies show in vitro effect, not so in human bodies. tricky, where has anyone said that it is not used RE malaria. malaria is, by the way, NOT a viral infection. in the end, when it is all summed up, The Chump will have cost uncountable thousands of American lives because he wanted to get re-elected instead of doing his damn job. we are not yet to a million in this country...yet. do you have any idea how many people died during the holocaust? any idea at all? ivermectin WAS used in some other countries, with the same result it got here in human studies - not shit. it is NOT a "cure", in spite of your claims to the contrary. those that say they survived only because of its use would most likely have survived regardless. you need to make up your minds, folks. either it IS a dangerous disease, or it's not, and ivermectin is not needed. which one is it gonna be? you don't get it both ways when it suits you...you can't claim it saves lives if lives are not in danger. taking ivermectin for a mild case is like throwing a life preserver to someone walking down the street in a gentle shower for fear they'll drown...
show us all where i said ivermectin should be used.
you cannot because i didn't.
what i have advocated for is truth, and the truth is ivermectin is a safe and effective alternative to being poisoned by an injection of gene therapy.
ever heard of placebo effect? sure you have.
the mind is a very powerful weapon against insult to physical wellbeing when combined with a compound considered safe and effective and in global use for decades. same i would propound for cannabinoids populating ACE2 receptors and denying entry to cell interior.
you would promote mRNA inoculation with serious harmful side effects. sad
‘80% Of Serious COVID Cases Are Fully Vaccinated’ Says Ichilov Hospital Director
https://tsionizm.com/science-technol...ital-director/
Dr. Ryan Cole: “Cancers that were formerly manageable are now taking off like wildfires”
https://generaldispatch.whatfinger.c.. .ike-wildfires/
Military lawyer says genetic changes from vaccine are creating new human 'species' under the law
https://rumble.com/vttj3w-military-l...-human-sp.html
Doctors are testifying that COVID-19 vaccines are giving people cancer and AIDS
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/doctors-a...ncer-and-aids/
New Data: Covid Was Never More Dangerous to Young Adults and Children Than Seasonal Flu
https://trendingpolitics.com/new-dat...rce=whatfinger
Office For National Statistics: Pfizer COVID Shot Increases Children’s Risk Of Death By 5,100%!
https://thewashingtonstandard.com/of...death-by-5100/
Massive Cover-up as Governments Lie about Vaccinated Deaths and Label Them Unvaccinated
https://thenewamerican.com/massive-c...-unvaccinated/
When kids are told they don’t have to wear the Leftist face diapers – this was in Israel….
https://twitter.com/SebGorka/status/...565?ref_src=tw src%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembe d%7Ctwterm%5E14911026971975065 65%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10& ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgenerald ispatch.whatfinger.com%2Fwhen-kids-are-told-they-dont-have-to-wear-the-leftist-face-diapers-this-was-in-israel%2F
oh, and hippy, more people have died under this administration than under President Trumps administration, chew on that.
