Am I being fair to be peeved off and giving up?

I guess everyone reaches a point in a debate or argument when they just want to give up.

I’ve been in a debate, if I can call it that, about Ivermectin. As I see it if WT7 was the smoking gun of 9/11, then Ivermectin is that for the Covid “vaccine”. In short they would never have been able to get emergency authorisation and hence indemnified if there had been a viable alternative. I’m not discounting HCQ but without Trump’s endorsement Ivermectin is less politically charged. Well less easy to dismiss anyway. Plus there’s Dr Pierre Kory’s new book The War on Ivermectin.

Yet I have come to the sad conclusion that my friend would rather die then admit he’s been wronged. Indeed if he carries on taking these boosters he is risking his health and is completely uninformed of the risks, whilst believing himself to be superior in his knowledgeable.

In in a recent communique he asked why Merck hasn’t pushed Ivermectin to make billions from it. Indeed their website cites Ivermectin is not recommended for the treatment of Covid. He has rejected all the studies showing Ivermectin, as part of a treatment plan, to have had positive outcomes, especially when applied early on and in prophylaxis. They are all to small, and he has honed in on the couple that have proved to be faked.

Meanwhile he sees no criticism to be had of the large, pharma backed studies. I even shared with him the FLCCC’s page entitled the totality of evidence which breaks down exactly why and how Ivermectin performs well as part of a treatment protocol to fight Covid.

Merck's new Covid pill

In the next letter he raises again the question of why Merck contends Ivermectin is not useful. It felt like he was repeating the question as if he had found the fatal flaw in my argument! I didn’t go into Merck’s own money making schemes in the plandemic, but I suggested he might want to do his own research (reasoning that you trust information more when you have looked into it for yourself), and even pointed him in the right direction by mentioning the term generic and what that could mean for manufacturing rights.

This is the reply I got back;

I suspect Merck say ivermectin is not an effective treatment for Covid because they have read the research that wasn’t faked. I suppose I could make up something much more suspicious sounding but it’s not something I want to spend much time on to be honest.

Maybe I’m too sensitive? Especially when it comes to this topic, but I felt really peeved off by this answer. Not only does he not do the barest of research which would have yielded him an answer that would not conform to his bias, he openly states his view is based purely on his suspicion. In other words “the act or an instance of suspecting something on little or no evidence”.

Again you can see he has honed in on the two faked studies and rejects the 200 that weren’t. His wording also implies that the mainstream science was sound. I have told him that although the research wasn’t faked it was set up to fail. The studies “proving” Ivermectin to not be effective did this in two ways; they gave Ivermectin as a stand-alone (instead of part of a treatment protocol) and they gave it when patients were already on ventilators and near death’s door.

To add insult to injury he writes that he could make up something suspicious sounding which to me is a clear indicator that that is his reasoning for my own position. He doesn’t come right out and say it, but knowing that in the propaganda it has been framed that those of us criticising the mainstream narrative are only doing so because we are “crazy conspiracy theorists”, leads me to this conclusion.

What I like about my friend is that he is a well read person and I would have said erudite at one point. Unfortunately in the current time period being well read counts for little if what you are consuming is the propaganda. I find this particularly so with older people, they have come to trust sources of information that no longer serve the purpose they once did. Of course one could say they were always organs of propaganda but I would have it that it’s never been this ubiquitous, this heavily controlled in a non-totalitarian society.

When we first started conversing he seemed ignorant of the censorship that was going on. Now he has had to except it exists but argues for it, setting up straw men to convince himself censorship is needed. I wonder if I had said 5 years ago that we would be living in an age of mass censorship, propaganda and where the government would have a "Ministry of Disinformation", would he have believed me, let alone thought he would be a proponent?

Minister launches new strategy to fight online disinformation

Finally, I guess I felt completely dismissed by the “it’s not something I want to spend much time on”. It may seem childish but I feel ok then I shall stop wasting your time trying to dissuade you from taking the Covid “vaccine”. Having followed it closely for three and a half years I feel like I have a degree in the subject but my well studied and reasoned opinions have had no impact at all. Everything I have presented to him has either not been understood or/and criticised and argued against.

Perhaps I have read too much into his small comment but it feels like the end of a futile journey.