Truthbomb: Doctor McCullough Joe Rogan podcast was just released

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

So you trust a Joe Rogan pod cast over medical health trained professionals. LoL

Presented with the evidence, from 3 different sources.

Computer says you cannot or refuse to read.

What you want to believe son is nonsensical right wing lunatics.

There is a published doctor talking on that show that actually treats patients. Have you listened?

originally posted by: Thenail

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Is this the same Dr. McCullough per-chance?

"US cardiologist makes false claims about Covid-19 vaccination"

factcheck.afp.com...

Your fact checking site is garbage . I would trust a random guy on the street then your fact checkers . Are you sure the owners of Pfizer and our gov and chinas government don’t also own the the fact checking . Your source is garbage

Facebook just admitted in court that there is no such thing as a fact checker. It’s just simply opinion. So read the information. Listen to the podcast and then make choices and stand up for the rights of others to make there’s. I don’t care if you don’t want to take this guys protocols but I want the right to take it and live my life freely if I don’t want to take the jabs for the greater good of the Arian race.

a reply to: chr0naut
in order July
More than 1.5 million ivermectin pills have already been distributed in Itajaí

Treatment with ivermectin is another Itajaí strategy in the fight against COVID-19. In addition to the 126,000 people who adhered to the medication, another 60,869 have already withdrawn the second and third doses to continue the treatment.

More than 1.5 million ivermectin pills have already been distributed in Itajaí
In all, 126 thousand people adhered to the prophylactic treatment to COVID-19
DATE OF INCLUSION: 07/31/2020 15:36

That was all pre-vaccine the cases in July to August did drop by 50% in the period of the ivermectin roll-out was in use.


So your quote doesn't say why they stopped taking it, perhaps because they didn't need it or all had a mild case or were they all dead?

Seems that you assume they have to have 5 doses to feel better. But theory in January was have a mild case you had natural immunity.
Perhaps they didn't feel the need to take the preventive action to be adopted periodically and in conjunction with other non-pharmacological measures. Perhaps people stockpiled the pill for the first sign of illness or brought it over the counter were it was cheaper than a doctors visits for a prescription.

Jabbing the vulnerable and boosting the individual immune system for optimal health would have been a better solution
but not enough profit in that so here we are today jab crazy waiting for our daily dose of man-made immunity.

Nothing wrong with that eh? Never got the science wrong in any man-made chemical injections before have we.

a reply to: puzzled2

Go look at Brazils vaccination rate and caseload

That poster is pushing an agenda not supported by fact but framed in very certain way with outdated information and much rhetoric.

It is not mentioned why Brazil stopped but due to the covid cases and low vaccination rate, you can draw a very educated guess

It worked.

a reply to: chr0naut

I know, it’s a bit dry and boring and it’s bitchute.

Try and give it a watch. He is definitely onto something and is fairly reasonable in his view that most of the vaccines are fairly harmless.

The patterns in his spreadsheets are an eye opener.

www.bitchute.com...

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

Then your "published doctor" is prescribing Ivermectin for people when its only FDA approved at very specific doses and for some parasitic worms as well as head lice.

Ivermectin isn't an antiviral.

And has only shown promise where COVID 19 is concerned under specific laboratory conditions.

Even then the problem is not even with doctors prescribing Ivermectin to patients.

But from people the who cannot get prescriptions who then go on to find it in the likes of feed stores or purchase it online from spurious sources.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

Then your "published doctor" is prescribing Ivermectin for people when its only FDA approved at very specific doses and for some parasitic worms as well as head lice.

Ivermectin isn't an antiviral.

And has only shown promise where COVID 19 is concerned under specific laboratory conditions.

Even then the problem is not even with doctors prescribing Ivermectin to patients.

But from people the who cannot get prescriptions who then go on to find it in the likes of feed stores or purchase it online from spurious sources.

www.sciencedirect.com...


From the article.


“Ivermectin as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 in humans has already been approved in a number of states and countries, including the Republic of Peru [44] and Northeastern Beni region of Bolivia [45]. Importantly, close to 70 trials worldwide are currently testing the clinical benefit of ivermectin to treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2 (see Table 3); these include variations on dosing regimens, combination therapies (preliminary results for NCT04523831 in Table 3, #45) [46,47], and prophylactic protocols. With respect to the latter, preliminary results from recently completed study NCT04422561 (Table 3, #22, and footnote) examining asymptomatic family close contacts of confirmed COVID patients, reveal that two doses of ivermectin 72 h apart result in only 7.4% of 203 subjects reporting symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in stark contrast to control untreated subjects, of whom 58.4% reported symptoms, underlining ivermectin’s potential as a prophylactic.“


It would seem that there is merit in these studies and there are some positive results.

Why the pushback I wonder…

Subsequently, only 8,312 people took the fourth and fifth doses. That is, there was no fortnightly continuity of the use of ivermectin, as recommended."

a reply to: chr0naut

f the more than a hundred thousand that took first doses of ivermectin, fewer than 9,000 bothered to finish the course. How could a treatment regimen that less than 9% adhered to, provide such incredible results?

Chr0 ? Mate your looking at this information all wrong . How could you be so blind ?

The Virus does not last for ever .

1- Patients take the Medicine .
2- Patients improve on the Medicine .
3- Patients discontinue the medicine because the symptoms have subsided .

Why would they continue taking a Medicine when they are no longer sick ? Ivermectin and HydroxyQ are treatments not preventatives , the Vaccine is supposed to be the Preventative.

It's the same situation as an Antibiotic , Doctors have to specifically tell the patient to take all of the Antibiotics because Patients have this habit of discontinuing medicine when they get better

Thankyou for providing this information and proving the medicines work

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: chr0naut

I know, it’s a bit dry and boring and it’s bitchute.

Try and give it a watch. He is definitely onto something and is fairly reasonable in his view that most of the vaccines are fairly harmless.

The patterns in his spreadsheets are an eye opener.

www.bitchute.com...

While the patterns are probably worth looking at, his assumption that higher numbers of adverse reactions represent 'toxic batches' is somewhat of a stretch.

There could be many reasons for variability in adverse reaction numbers, such as normal patterns of people attending vaccination sites over a week and variations in numbers of people being vaccinated on different days/weeks.

To really be indicative of toxicity by batch, all other contributory factors need to be smoothed out of the data, so the only thing that such patterning could possibly show is only attributable to toxicity, and nothing else.

An example of such an other factor could be that on a particular day or week, the numbers of vaccinations may have been very low and subsequently there would most likely be fewer adverse reactions for the batches that were valid only during those periods. This does not mean that a batch used during that period was less toxic than a batch used when vaccinations, and therefore subsequent adverse reactions, were higher.

The VAERS numbers could simply be a reflection of vaccination numbers within the period.

As well as vaccination numbers, also how much of each batch was used, and how much had to be wasted (i.e. for not being kept adequately refrigerated, or simply because the vaccine batch had passed its 'use-by' period), is also a factor.

Any data analysis that neither accounts for, or even makes mention of, alternate reasons for those outcomes, is poisoned by cognitive bias in interpretation, and you have to admit, from the language this guy is using, there is clear cognitive bias.

a reply to: chr0naut

Thanks for the reply and yes, I agree that it’s not a multi factor analysis.

I think it does support more investigation and lends credence to the theory that some vaccines are creating adverse events which are displayed in a pattern that shows the injury reporting is not random.

It also suggests that random bad batches could be the reason that we all know many people that don’t experience negative effects while other people know many that have.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

Subsequently, only 8,312 people took the fourth and fifth doses. That is, there was no fortnightly continuity of the use of ivermectin, as recommended."

a reply to: chr0naut

f the more than a hundred thousand that took first doses of ivermectin, fewer than 9,000 bothered to finish the course. How could a treatment regimen that less than 9% adhered to, provide such incredible results?

Chr0 ? Mate your looking at this information all wrong . How could you be so blind ?

The Virus does not last for ever .

1- Patients take the Medicine .
2- Patients improve on the Medicine .
3- Patients discontinue the medicine because the symptoms have subsided .

Why would they continue taking a Medicine when they are no longer sick ? Ivermectin and HydroxyQ are treatments not preventatives , the Vaccine is supposed to be the Preventative.

It's the same situation as an Antibiotic , Doctors have to specifically tell the patient to take all of the Antibiotics because Patients have this habit of discontinuing medicine when they get better

Thankyou for providing this information and proving the medicines work

Most stopped after taking just two tablets. That's two days.

I wonder why they wouldn't even recommend it to their family and friends afterwards?

Most stopped after taking just two tablets. That's two days. I wonder why they wouldn't even recommend it to their family and friends afterwards?

a reply to: chr0naut

Two days ? You think they took the medicine for two days and surmised it was not working ?

Simple answer is , Either they were not that sick to begin with or they got better .

A truly sick person would take the Medicine they were provided and then some and would not draw a conclusion so quickly .

Come over the light side chr0 we can begin your Jedi training , We need to Balance the Force perhaps you are the chosen one .

I see a small percentage of members on this site that continue to deny the clear facts about the vaccination and will argue day and night about it’s efficacy. I’m pretty puzzled why anyone would argue for something that’s completely ineffective.

“ Cornell University is shutting down its Ithaca, N.Y., campus and is moving to "alert level red" — its highest alert level — due to what officials say is a rapid spread of COVID-19 cases among students.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the campus reported 469 active student cases of the coronavirus and that, for the week of Dec. 6, about 3% of tests were positive among the students tested, according to Cornell's online COVID-19 dashboard.”

"Virtually every case of the Omicron variant to date has been found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot. We have not seen evidence of significant disease in our students to date," he added.”
www.npr.org...

Cornell University 97% vaccinated
They are reporting that 26,008 students are vaccinated and 13,311 faculty members are vaccinated. Information taken directly from Cornell

Cornell University vaccine data

originally posted by: Liquidiron
I see a small percentage of members on this site that continue to deny the clear facts about the vaccination and will argue day and night about it’s efficacy. I’m pretty puzzled why anyone would argue for something that’s completely ineffective.

“ Cornell University is shutting down its Ithaca, N.Y., campus and is moving to "alert level red" — its highest alert level — due to what officials say is a rapid spread of COVID-19 cases among students.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the campus reported 469 active student cases of the coronavirus and that, for the week of Dec. 6, about 3% of tests were positive among the students tested, according to Cornell's online COVID-19 dashboard.”

"Virtually every case of the Omicron variant to date has been found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot. We have not seen evidence of significant disease in our students to date," he added.”
www.npr.org...

Cornell University 97% vaccinated
They are reporting that 26,008 students are vaccinated and 13,311 faculty members are vaccinated. Information taken directly from Cornell

Cornell University vaccine data

I think we know the answer when people are continuously presented with evidence but either deny it or pretend it doesn't exist. I think these people should be ignored.

originally posted by: RMFX1
I just got done watching this. Fantastic interview.

Just as an aside though, I think it's remarkable, even admirable in a way that a certain poster seems to have an incredible talent for turning every thread that they post in to sh!t. I'd recommend that others do as I do and skip said posts. I just wish that they'd stop changing their avatar purely because it makes identifying said poster a little harder and by the time I read the name, I may have already been poisoned by their BS contributions.

Shame we don't have an inbuilt ignore feature.

Indeed.
For all we know : they might get paid by the amount of replies they generate.

Also worthwhile to your reading experience, to think that Trills-and-Sholls may sometimes work in teams of 2, 3, 4 etc.
So sometimes the 'good-guy'- that keeps responding to them, and keeps misdirecting the thread : may be a part of the party...

Not the guys that reply a few times, then write them-off.

Not everything is as it seems...

I just finished listening to the podcast, and I have to pipe in with a huge WOW...

What an interview! There was so much information, this was truly one of Joe's best.

I encourage everyone, give it a listen, 20 minutes in, you'll be hooked.

It certainly didn't feel like three hours.

a reply to: chr0naut

Actually, there have been several studies that have shown the effectiveness of both Hydroxychloraquin and Ivermectin especially in conjunction with other treatments.

And to say no one is is blocking monoclonal antibodies and just an outragious lie as even Biden's administration advertised he would limit supplies to certain states. You can attempt to justify his meaning behind it, but to state monoclonal antibodies have not been blocked just wrong and misrepresenting actual facts.

And with new studies coming out now nearly daily, showing that your risk for myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia's is actually greater than that of the actual disease, yet we have states forcing this into children. In many cases, irreparable damage is occurring to minors to which COVID has nearly zero risk.

www.nature.com...

www.publichealthontario.ca...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

Then your "published doctor" is prescribing Ivermectin for people when its only FDA approved at very specific doses and for some parasitic worms as well as head lice.

Ivermectin isn't an antiviral.

And has only shown promise where COVID 19 is concerned under specific laboratory conditions.

Even then the problem is not even with doctors prescribing Ivermectin to patients.

But from people the who cannot get prescriptions who then go on to find it in the likes of feed stores or purchase it online from spurious sources.

Can you quote the mechanism by which the proponents of the anti parasitics are said to help with the virus. What they say it does and why you believe they are wrong? If you don’t understand what they are saying I don’t think you can critically propose objections.

Also since the vaccine doesn’t stop infections nor does it stop you from spreading it why can’t everyone choose there methods of protecting themselves?

Also did you know that the cdc has been unable to produce one verifiable case of re infection meaning once you have had this you done forever with it?

I understand that there are paid proponents Of the vaccine out there trolling message boards and voicing opinions no matter how crazy they sound. With that being said why are you even here where you are not wanted? Honestly you should be somewhere else where the censors help your opinions.

Why are you against you being able to take the vaccination and me being able to take the kitchen sink protocol since your vaccination doesn’t stop the spread?

A drug doesn't have to be an anti viral to have anti viral properties. Drugs are used off label all the time and off label use is encouraged by the FDA. It just so happens Ivermectin has 3 mechanisms that inhibit corona virus. Water is used to cool nuclear power plants, does that mean we shouldn't drink it?

The FDA is a captured agency anyway, as is the CDC.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0


And ironically, Mercks's COVID pill molnupiravir which works very similarly to Ivermectin (however appears more dangerous) received a green light from the FDA. Money talks, considering Ivermectin is .30¢ a pill while molnupiravir is $712 per dose!