Yes, but for your dishonest political aim you attached bits that just don't apply.
There is tons and tons and years of of evidence for ivermectin, nearly 4 BILLION doses administered to humans, and many many more to animals of many types, so faith is not really a variable more than anything else from science and medicine.Actually much less faith-based than for most medicines.
It is true that faith or trust is involved, always, because we can never actually be 100% sure. Even with non-fraudulent work, the p-vaue is only an indicator of not more than 1 in 20 probability of being wrong. So trust or faith is always a component with medicines, and especially so in Medicine, because it's not science. They cannot allow death or severe harm to the study participants in Medicine, so it isn't science.
That it is not science is shown when they feel the need to give a placebo that isn't salt or sugar...they feel the need to give participants something of value if they are getting a needle in them..so they give a different vaccine. That vaccine has it's own set of bad reactions in some, so things get a little squirrely in medicine if you are comparing to that, instead of comparing to 0% bad reactions.
Afterward they can use the new vaccine as a placebo on the next trial and so on. Building on sand, in a way.
The vaccines never went through the human live virus challenge, either, so efficacy was never actually scientifically shown by live virus up the nose of the vaccinated subjects.
Veterinary medicine IS science.
These vaccines are not even up to Medical Science standards. Not only that, but they are constantly changing parameters..for example who gets tested is now again being changed. They are quitting routine testing of the vaccinate. Shady - they need to at least continually properly sample from the same populations.
journals.lww.com
.
