OK, so it is dangerous to assume herd immunity will be helpful because there "is no data" to support that idea, yet it is 'safe' to inject people with an experimental gene therapy that has no data to support its long-term effects? So which is it? Why can one idea NOT require data and the other does? Could it possibly be because the drug idea is worth a lot of money while the herd immunity idea makes none? THINK about it for a while and I trust you will see the deception being pulled here.

Add to that the fact that Ivermectin, a cheap, safe and proven effective drug is being withheld from the public in many countries speaks volumes about the real agenda here.