You threw a whole lot of different examples of dissent against the prevailing ‘narrative’ about covid and suggested a binary choice, mixing videos from Bitchute and some more serious articles. I welcome the latter including the article by Matt Taibbi and the ivermectin controversy. These are genuine dilemmas and mixing them up with all sort of other denialists nonsense is supposed to catch us out?
As to the latter, yes ivermectin seems to have some action but a panel from the WHO has reviewed the evidence and decided that the existing data is not sufficient to include ivermectin in its recommendation for treatment and that carefully conducted RCTs are needed to do so. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials
That was a debate amongst scientists. It may still be the case that ivermectin works unlike chloroquine, it is not potentially dangerous at least if people do not start taking the veterinary preparations.
Yes we need serious discussions but we have to select our sources. I am still not sure what you believe in, in the side you have picked, and it is important for us to know. Do you believe that the virus exists and is a serious threat? Do you believe that the PCR is a reliable test or as some websites proclaim ignorantly that it has a 90% false positive rate?
Clark and I have disagreed in the past in other threads especially about whether the virus was a lab escape. We have exchanged opposite views but without accusing each other of ulterior motives. In fact as new evidence comes Clark may be right but who knows. Do not be like George Bush please and translate everything into “you are either for us or against us”.