The U.S. military, through DARPA, knew since 2016 that Ivermectin was the best product to use in the event of a pandemic.

Natural News

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that the U.S. military, specifically through DARPA, knew since 2016 that Ivermectin was the best product to use in the event of a pandemic has been circulating in various forms. This article aims to review this claim and provide a thorough analysis based on available scientific evidence and reliable sources.</p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>Ivermectin is an antiparasitic medication that has been used for decades to treat various parasitic infections. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been significant interest in its potential as a treatment for COVID-19. However, the scientific community has been divided on its efficacy and safety for this purpose.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<p>The claim suggests that DARPA, the research arm of the U.S. military, had identified Ivermectin as the best product for a pandemic as early as 2016. This claim is attributed to Dr. Christopher Shoemaker, an emergency and general hospital medicine doctor in Canada.</p>
<p>To evaluate this claim, it is essential to examine the available scientific literature and statements from reputable organizations.</p>
<h3>Scientific Evidence</h3>
<p>A study published in the journal <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z">Antiviral Research</a> in April 2020 suggested that Ivermectin could inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. However, subsequent studies and meta-analyses have yielded mixed results. A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the <a href="https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</a> concluded that the evidence for Ivermectin's efficacy in treating COVID-19 is uncertain.</p>
<h3>Statements from Reputable Organizations</h3>
<p>The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have both issued statements cautioning against the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials. The FDA has explicitly warned against using Ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19, citing a lack of sufficient evidence and potential safety concerns.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that the U.S. military knew Ivermectin was the best product for a pandemic since 2016 is largely unsubstantiated. While there is some preliminary evidence suggesting Ivermectin's potential antiviral properties, the scientific consensus remains uncertain. Reputable organizations such as the WHO and FDA have cautioned against its use for COVID-19 due to insufficient evidence and potential safety concerns. Therefore, this claim should be approached with skepticism.</p>
<p>It is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed scientific studies and statements from reputable organizations when evaluating claims related to medical treatments, especially during a global health crisis.</p>

Claim Review: U.S. Military Knew Ivermectin Was Best for Pandemics Since 2016

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose claims that the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the World Health Organization (WHO) employ 200 fortune tellers to find the pathogen that could cause the next pandemic. This claim is misleading and inaccurate. Let's delve into the details to understand the truth behind this claim.</p>
<h2>Understanding the Claim</h2>
<p>The article suggests that CEPI and WHO are using unscientific methods, akin to fortune-telling, to predict the next pandemic pathogen. It also implies that these efforts are driven by the vaccine industry and individuals like Bill Gates.</p>
<h2>The Truth Behind the Claim</h2>
<p>CEPI and WHO are indeed involved in efforts to prepare for future pandemics. However, these efforts are based on scientific research and collaboration, not fortune-telling. The WHO R&amp;D Blueprint for Epidemics is a global platform for research and development collaboration, focusing on medical countermeasures, including vaccines.</p>
<p>The report mentioned in the article is the result of a meeting held in May 2024, where over 200 scientists from more than 50 countries collaborated to evaluate the evidence related to 28 Viral Families and one core group of Bacteria, encompassing 1,652 pathogens. The goal is to investigate entire families of pathogens that can infect humans, develop knowledge and tools for entire pathogen families, foster research that generates knowledge, tools, and countermeasures that can be rapidly adapted to emerging threats, and encourage globally coordinated research efforts.</p>
<h2>Scientific Basis</h2>
<p>The approach taken by CEPI and WHO is grounded in scientific principles. Pathogen prioritisation is a process aimed at categorising pathogens according to their public health importance, antimicrobial resistance, and potential for epidemic or pandemic spread. This is not fortune-telling but a systematic and evidence-based approach to prepare for future health threats.</p>
<p>For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0895-3">Nature Medicine</a> discusses the importance of preparedness for future pandemics through scientific research and collaboration. The study highlights the need for a proactive approach to identify and mitigate potential pandemic threats.</p>
<h2>Addressing Misconceptions</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose misrepresents the efforts of CEPI and WHO by comparing them to fortune-telling. This is a misleading analogy that undermines the scientific basis of these efforts. The claim that these efforts are driven by the vaccine industry and individuals like Bill Gates is also unfounded. While it is true that CEPI was co-founded and co-funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, among others, this does not imply that the efforts are unscientific or driven by profit motives.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that CEPI and WHO employ 200 fortune tellers to find the pathogen that could cause the next pandemic is false. The efforts of CEPI and WHO are based on scientific research and collaboration, aimed at preparing for future pandemics through a systematic and evidence-based approach. The misleading and inaccurate claims in the article from The Expose should be disregarded.</p>

Claim Review: CEPI and WHO Employ 200 Fortune Tellers to Find the Pathogen That Could Cause the Next Pandemic

<p>The recent claim that the United Nations (UN) has ambitions to become a world government with its own military power has sparked considerable debate. This claim was made in an article published by The Exposé on September 10, 2024, which cited a hidden camera recording of Jorge Paoletti, a legal affairs official in the UN Treaty Section.</p>
<p>Paoletti was recorded stating that the UN aspires to be a globalist world government and that it should have its own military power. However, it is crucial to examine this claim critically and consider the broader context of the UN's mission and structure.</p>
<p>The United Nations was established in 1945 with the primary goal of maintaining international peace and security, promoting social progress, fostering better living standards, and encouraging economic development. The UN Charter explicitly states that the organization is based on the sovereign equality of all its member states. This means that the UN operates through the cooperation and consensus of its member countries, rather than as a sovereign entity with its own military.</p>
<p>While the UN does have peacekeeping forces, these are composed of troops contributed by member states on a voluntary basis. The UN does not have a standing army of its own. The purpose of UN peacekeeping missions is to help countries torn by conflict create the conditions for lasting peace. These missions are authorized by the UN Security Council and operate under strict guidelines.</p>
<p>The claim that the UN aims to become a world government is not supported by the organization's official statements or actions. The UN's focus is on strengthening global governance and cooperation, not on becoming a sovereign entity. The Pact for the Future, mentioned in the article, is a non-binding agreement that encourages member states to work together on global challenges such as climate change, poverty, and inequality.</p>
<p>It is also important to note that the UN spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, dismissed Paoletti's remarks as not representing the official position of the UN. Dujarric emphasized that Paoletti was a junior staffer and was not speaking on behalf of the organization.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that the United Nations has ambitions to become a world government with its own military power is largely unfounded. While the UN seeks to strengthen global governance and cooperation, it does not aim to become a sovereign entity with its own army. The UN's mission and structure are based on the principles of international cooperation and the sovereign equality of its member states.</p>
<p>For further reading on the UN's mission and structure, you can refer to the official UN website: <a href="https://www.un.org/en/">UN Official Website</a>. Additionally, you can find more information on UN peacekeeping missions here: <a href="https://peacekeeping.un.org/en">UN Peacekeeping</a>.</p>

Claim Review: UN Aspires to Become a World Government with Military Power

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that Australia's future pandemic response will focus on targeted, individualised surveillance, quarantines, and mandates rather than large-scale lockdowns has been circulating. This article aims to review this claim, providing a thorough analysis based on available evidence and reliable sources.</p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>The claim originates from an article published on The Expose, which discusses a report funded by philanthropic foundations outlining future pandemic responses in Australia. The report suggests a shift towards targeted surveillance and compliance orders, leveraging technology such as digital IDs.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<h3>Targeted Surveillance and Quarantines</h3>
<p>The idea of targeted surveillance and quarantines is not new and has been discussed in various contexts. For instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) has emphasized the importance of targeted measures to control outbreaks. A study published in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293850/">The Lancet</a> discusses the effectiveness of targeted interventions in managing pandemics.</p>
<h3>Digital IDs and Data Sharing</h3>
<p>The use of digital IDs and data sharing for pandemic management is a contentious issue. While proponents argue that it can enhance efficiency and coordination, critics raise concerns about privacy and civil liberties. A report by the <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/05/19/necessary-and-proportionate/ensuring-human-rights-covid-19-response">Human Rights Watch</a> highlights the potential risks associated with digital surveillance during pandemics.</p>
<h3>ESG Scoring and Social Impact Investing</h3>
<p>The claim also mentions the role of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scoring and Social Impact Investing in shaping pandemic responses. ESG criteria are increasingly being used by investors to evaluate companies' sustainability and social impact. However, the extent to which ESG scoring influences pandemic management policies is not well-documented.</p>
<h2>Evidence and Sources</h2>
<p>To evaluate the claim, we reviewed several sources, including:</p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293850/">The Lancet</a> - Study on targeted interventions for pandemic management.</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/05/19/necessary-and-proportionate/ensuring-human-rights-covid-19-response">Human Rights Watch</a> - Report on digital surveillance and human rights.</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-similarities-and-differences-with-influenza">World Health Organization</a> - Guidelines on pandemic management.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that Australia's future pandemic response will focus on targeted surveillance and mandates rather than large-scale lockdowns is partially true. While targeted measures can be effective, the implementation of digital IDs and data sharing raises significant concerns about privacy and civil liberties. The role of ESG scoring and Social Impact Investing in shaping pandemic policies is less clear and requires further investigation.</p>
<p>Overall, the claim warrants a rating of 3 out of 5, indicating that it contains elements of truth but requires context and further scrutiny.</p>

Claim Review: Australia's Future Pandemic Plan

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "The U.S. military, through DARPA, knew since 2016 that Ivermectin was the best product to use in the event of a pandemic." is Mostly False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: