Unpopular opinion: The jab was, on balance, beneficial. It kinda worked, but it was way oversold, and mandating that people take it was utterly fascist.
The EUA for the jabs was maintained by demonizing Hydroxychloroquine, and the protocol of HCQ/Zithro/ZInc, and by deriding Ivermectin as a veterinary medicine along with the IVM/Doxy/Zinc regimen, both of which were shown to have value when administered, especially at early onset, as treatments.
Studies conducted on HCQ waited until patients were admitted or in ICU and did not administer the full regimen. The strategy was to disrupt viral replication, and even the full regimen would be less effective in the late stages of the disease than at the onset.
Zinc was known to disrupt the original SARS,
in vitro and
in vivo, since 2005. HCQ and IVM served as ionophores to get the Zinc into the cells, and the macrolide antibiotics mitigated the immune response to prevent cytokine events as well as warded off opportunistic bacterial infections.
Had those regimens been given fair assessment, the EUA would have been pulled for shots which did not prevent infection, and did not prevent spreading COVID, shots for which the definition of a vaccine had to be changed to include them.
We routinely decry quackery, yet hundreds of billions went down that rathole, just because the pin in it had allegedly reputable pharmaceutical companies' names on the flag.
In contrast, the IVM/Doxy/Zinc regimen was being sold in India on the streets for about $2.25 USD--not just a dose, but the whole course of medication, which would put the US price somewhere under $50, and after which the patient would have acquired natural immunity, something "The Science" also decried, but which existed.
Who benefited most? The "vaccine" providers, who,
without risk made well over $100 Billion in profits. (The EUA included a liability waiver.)
