yea, all good points and questions...

No one threatened NIH to post it,

source? i mean... you seem pretty sure of yourself on this one. are you able to back-up this claim in some way?

so why do so?

until you can reasonably show me otherwise:

1. someone threatened the NIH (not likely)

2. organic procedure (more likely)

Only creates animosity.

Exactly.

And therefor, we can reasonably conclude it's not "part of the act".

I view this re-acknowledgement of ivermectin as evidence of organic process / pressures on the (multiple and often competing) acts at play.

So why?

because not everyone is in on it...

Fauci (and inner circles) made ivermectin illegal to treat COVID™ because of one or two "new" studies that cast some doubt of ivermectin's efficacy.

But now those studies are being officially debunked - by authentic academics outside of DC - because not everyone is in on it.

lies need to be maintained, otherwise truth surfaces pretty naturally.

#winning - by default :)

yea, all good points and questions...

No one threatened NIH to post it,

source? i mean... you seem pretty sure of yourself on this one. are you able to back-up this claim in some way?

so why do so?

until you can reasonably show me otherwise:

1. someone threatened the NIH (not likely)

2. organic procedure (more likely)

Only creates animosity.

Exactly.

And therefor, we can reasonably conclude it's not "part of the act".

I view this re-acknowledgement of ivermectin as evidence of organic process / pressures on the (multiple and often competing) acts at play.

So why?

because not everyone is in on it...

Fauci (and inner circles) made ivermectin illegal to treat COVID™ because of one or two "new" studies that cast some doubt of ivermectin's efficacy.

But now those studies are being officially debunked - by authentic academics outside of DC - because not everyone is in on it.

lies need to be maintained, otherwise truth surfaces pretty naturally.

#winning