Tread carefully – the Courts view “C19 vaccines” as safer and more effective than Zinc and Vitamin D
From here:
“In a complaint filed on April 15, 2021, the government alleged that the defendants made misleading and unsubstantiated advertising claims that their Vitamin D and Zinc supplements could be used to treat or prevent COVID-19, and in fact provide equal or better protection against COVID-19 than the available COVID-19 vaccines. The complaint also alleged that the defendants had mischaracterized the results of scientific studies to support some of their claims.”
“Nutritional supplement company Quickwork LLC and one of its managers, Eric Anthony Nepute, have agreed to injunctions and to pay civil penalties to resolve a lawsuit alleging they deceptively marketed vitamin supplements during the COVID-19 pandemic, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act. The resolution of this lawsuit follows an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on July 19, awarding partial summary judgment to the government.”
Sounds a little shady but you do wonder a couple of things – for example, does the term “C19 vaccines” include the withdrawn JnJ/Janssen viral vector shot that was quietly withdrawn? How did the judge decide that Zinc + Vitamin D was worse than the C19 mRNA injections.
At the least, there is a warning to be careful how non-C19 treatment protocols are marketed. Seems like protocols for cures might be ok, but preventions? The Court in this case sided with the (non-legally binding) advice/recommendations of the FDA/CDC.
The defendant paid a million dollar fine because it violated the FTC act and the C19 Consumer Protection Act.
I guess now the Public Health Emergency is over, the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation or diagnosis of C19 people can engage in a deceptive act or practice? I know, I know, but check out this paragraph.
From here:
“For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declared pursuant to section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), this Act makes it unlawful under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act for any person, partnership, or corporation to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID–19 or a government benefit related to COVID–19. The Act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under Sec. 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act.”
Onwards
Please upgrade to paid, or donate a coffee (I drink a lot of coffee) - “God Bless You!” if you can’t or don’t want to contribute. Coffee donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan Buying just one Ko-Fi a week for $3 is 50 bucks more than an annual $100 subscription!
I thought I got to choose my course of action-I didn't think it was compulsory. Imagine choosing to rely on my own immune system too. And choosing to think I might survive a virus with a 98+% survival rate for my age group. Where have I been--
WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT IGNORING THE MASK DISCLAIMERS?
I find this interesting in light of these requirements for mandatory MASKING! Remember when Collins got on TV and said that these masks are protective? But he never read the DISCLAIMER that accompanies all of these masks that consumers never see because it is in the bulk packaging. It clearly states that "masks do not mitigate or prevent the transmission of any viruses and in particular CV19." It goes on to state that masks are not to be worn by children. Overall the DISCLAIMER makes it quite clear that these masks are worthless.