It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

for the hundred time/ the vaccine CANNOT STOP OR PREVENT COVID

page: 8
67
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: bladerunner44
...
I've had another look at the proposed mechanisms of Ivermectin, which is not nearly as well researched and tested as HCQ; also because it's harder to test for if you look at the details of these theorized MOA's, you're much more dependent if the theorizing being done is realistic and accurate from the perspective of biochemistry, with HCQ it directly affects viral loads in the cell, which you can test and verify both in vitro and in vivo, as has been done. This video proposes 4 MOA's, I get the impression that none of these have been verified:

Also, none of the MOA's proposed there are supported with a link to a study specifically about testing that MOA (unless I didn't pay attention). They may make perfect sense, and it may very well be that it works that way, but can you take a large enough dosage of ivermectin to have a significant enough effect for all 4 proposed MOA's, or any one of them specifically?

Just to be a little clearer about what I was referring to there...

First, he talks about studies being linked in the description, but there are only videos being linked there, not a link to a study that is specifically relevant to 1 of the 4 "theorized" MOA's he's explaining. Him using words such as "postulated" and "theorized" seems to imply that none of the studies actually verify what is being "postulated". There's one video linked that is somewhat similar to what I mentioned concerning in vitro studies with HCQ and measuring viral load, but then comes the all-important question, can the level of saturation for ivermectin used in this in vitro study also be realistically achieved in vivo (with the normal dosages used in vivo for humans)? Cause it has been my experience that whenever a scientist has a motive for making the drug appear more effective (or their research appear more useful and relevant, that's a better description), they use unrealistically high levels of that drug in vitro that can never be realistically achieved for humans in vivo in the recommended dosages for humans. And they are very good at hiding that little inconvenient detail in their papers, often not even addressing the subject at all. Making it very hard for lay men such as me to find out if that's the case, that the levels used in vitro are so unrealistic that the whole study becomes irrelevant to using that drug (ivermectin in this case) in practice, on humans suffering from Covid-19.

So the video that may be of interest to me is described as such in the description:

"In Vitro on Ivermectin for COVID-19, 99.99% Decrease in Viral Load:"

Well, that's all nice and all, but I would have to go to that video, hope for a link to a study, and then dig through the study in the hopes that they will be clear about whether the amount of ivermectin used in those cells, i.e. the level of saturation of invermectin in those cells, can be achieved for all cells in a complete human taking the dosages that are currently recommended in the treatment of Covid-19 (which is very little, 80 times less than HCQ on the first day, if I go off Grenade's number, who was talking about taking 10mg of ivermectin every day, and Dr. Ban uses 800mg of HCQ on day one, because the drug is much safer to use in those quantities, if you take 800mg ivermectin on day 1 of treatment, you get a massive overdose; of course, no doubt ivermectin doesn't need that much for its effect, but it's still an indicator that exactly what I've been describing for in vitro studies is going on here, unrealistic saturations of ivermectin that can't be achieved with 10mg per day in the treatment of Covid-19 for a full-blown human, affecting all the cells in the same way as the in vitro study does for individual cells, with the same efficacy).

So I'll have a look at that video to see if I can find the right study and then if I can find the right information (which probably won't be in the abstract, and if you can't reach those levels realistically in a complete human, in all the cells*, it's likely that it won't be in there, or at least not spelled out clearly, cause it would show that the study is not relevant to using ivermectin in practice on humans for Covid-19, and that they wasted someone's money on it, not making any significant contributions to researching this drug's efficacy in humans).

*: also HCQ accumulates in exactly the organs that are most under threat from the Corona virus and Covid-19, making it even easier to reach the desired saturation levels in the cells there, without having to take too much HCQ, it's a more targeted approach, going straight there where it's needed most. That doesn't count for ivermectin.

Not readily giving an answer to this all-important question (does the in vitro study really translate well to in vivo for humans, for all cells because it isn't a targeted treatment like I just described for HCQ), doesn't bode well for the notion that it does (translate well). But who knows, maybe ivermectin is so effective that 10mg per day of it achieves the same level of success achieved in this in vitro study.

The rest of the videos linked in the description relevant to the 4 MOA's discussed in that video, seem to be the same type of information as described in the video as "theorized" and "postulated", with no in vitro studies to confirm them. But if there are in vitro studies linked in those videos (or perhaps even in vivo*, that are still focused on confirming a specific MOA, for which you usually use in vitro studies), the same question remains, do they translate to in vivo, in humans, to all cells, with the same effect in all of them, at the same level of efficacy.

*: in my view, the anti-blood clotting function can only be tested in vivo. And then it should be tested on humans, not horses (cause horses can handle a higher dose of ivermectin).

edit: The in vitro study in question is this one:

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro - ScienceDirect

Now this is perhaps the key phrase:

...followed by the addition of 5 μM ivermectin.

Now that's a comment about how much ivermectin was used on the cells being studied. But having not read the rest yet, nor the fineprint, I have no way of telling if the resulting saturation with ivermectin per cell, achieved by this amount, can be achieved in vivo in humans in all cells, with, let's say, 10mg per day (as per Grenade's comment, I don't know what others are recommending as a dosage for treatment for Covid-19, but he probably got that idea from somewhere). Now they also have some graphs where they use numbers such as 2.8 μM, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.2 for a 50% effect (reduction, as opposed to 99.99%), which, first of all is not very interesting cause I have a feeling even zinc + a zinc ionophore can achieve more than 50% reduction. But more importantly, note what the Whiteboard Doctor video says about these amounts after 14:30 (at the very end of the video as a sort of afternote):

Note that he's being very vague about whether these levels of saturation can be achieved in vivo in humans with the recommended dosages currently recommended for Covid-19. Well, mr. Whiteboard Doctor, this is not at all something we can't know already, because Ivermectin has been used for a long while on humans in similar dosages, so why won't you be clear if this 5 micromolars (which is the effect you want in all cells in the human body, not the 50% effect) can actually be achieved in vivo in humans in the normal dosages for ivermectin? Is it because you, or the study authors already know this is unrealistic? I.e. can't be achieved. Maybe with 10mg per day of ivermectin you can only achieve 1 micromolar for every cell in the human body, then the drug is suddenly a lot less interesting as an actual treatment in practice. Why do I have to dig this up first? Why can't you tell me straight away? Especially because it's information you can easily test or is already known. That's the trick I talked about earlier to make it appear certain in vitro studies are useful and relevant, when in practice and in reality, they are not relevant, because we can't realitically achieve 5 micromolar, not even 2 (again, in all cells), with 10mg of ivermectin per day (or even risking 20mg per day, perhaps you need as much as 200mg per day, which you can't do in humans because they can't handle that much). And as expected, the paper itself does nowhere suggest that 5 micromolars can be achieved in every cell in vivo in humans. Actually, it implies the opposite when using normal dosages for ivermectin in humans:

As noted, ivermectin was the focus of a recent phase III clinical trial in dengue patients in Thailand, in which a single daily dose was found to be safe but did not produce any clinical benefit.
And I will be clear about what that implies, is that they didn't reach anywhere near 5 micromolar, or even 2 micromolar in every cell. Which they won't spell out there, but they know. That is what I call dishonest, giving a false impression that this study has relevance and is promising, " worthy of further consideration", as they put it at the end of section "1. Introduction." They won't go further into that subject in the other sections of the article either (since that's what they've been taught how to construct their papers and make them appear as valuable research, as if it's not important to use realistic dosages to get further funding to investigate further into how much micromolar can be achieved realistically in vivo in humans with reasonable dosages).
edit on 16-10-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

There you go, found my answer (5 μM = 5 micromolar):

The Approved Dose of Ivermectin Alone is not the Ideal Dose for the Treatment of COVID-19

Caly et al.1 reported that ivermectin inhibited severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro for up to 48 hours using ivermectin at 5 μM. The concentration resulting in 50% inhibition (IC50 ; 2 µM) was > 35× higher than the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) after oral administration of the approved dose of ivermectin when given fasted. Simulations were conducted using an available population pharmacokinetic model to predict total (bound and unbound) and unbound plasma concentration-time profiles after a single and repeat fasted administration of the approved dose of ivermectin (200 μg/kg), 60 mg, and 120 mg. Plasma total Cmax was determined and then multiplied by the lung:plasma ratio reported in cattle to predict the lung Cmax after administration of each single dose. Plasma ivermectin concentrations of total (bound and unbound) and unbound concentrations do not reach the IC50 , even for a dose level 10× higher than the approved dose. [whereislogic: they can't even reach 2 micromolar without going 10x higher than the approved dosage; it's not like the writers of that other study, or the Whiteboard Doctor doesn't know this, they conveniently left that out, see article in my signature about the habit of leaving out inconvenient facts, cherry-picking only the useful facts to use to sell your propaganda. And we're talking about the 50% effect, not even the 99.99% effect bragged about as if it's really significant.] Even with the high lung:plasma ratio, ivermectin is unlikely to reach the IC50 in the lungs after single oral administration of the approved dose (predicted lung: 0.0873 µM) or at doses 10× higher that the approved dose administered orally (predicted lung: 0.820 µM). In summary, the likelihood of a successful clinical trial using the approved dose of ivermectin is low. Combination therapy should be evaluated in vitro. Repurposing drugs for use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment is an ideal strategy but is only feasible when product safety has been established and experiments of repurposed drugs are conducted at clinically relevant concentrations.

You see, they can't even get close, going 10x higher than the approved dose, they can't even get to 1 micromolar. So what are you doing giving numbers (99.99%, oh wow) that are so totally irrelevant in any realistic scenario in vivo for humans? You can bet your ass that Grenade's dosage of 10mg per day (already not comparable to the numbers of 60mg and 120mg mentioned above), didn't do squat. Because that amount probably doesn't even come close to 0.03 µM, a fraction of the required 5 µM for the 99.99% effect, and even a fraction of the required 2.5 µM (on average for all graphs shown in the study from my previous comment) for the 50% effect. Which I already mentioned, is probably already beaten by zinc + zinc ionophore. Which in turn isn't even close to the effect HCQ can achieve.

So yes, I stand by my earlier analogy of a Ferrari (HCQ) and a Fiat Panda (Ivermectin), although I'd like to change the Fiat Panda to a broken toy car of less than 1cm size now. Also I like to say:

I KNEW IT!!!

This is exactly what I was talking about, the usual marketing/propaganda behaviour (marketing your research as something valuable when it's utterly useless and unrealistic, and keeping other scientists busy debunking something that should have been obvious from the start, so nobody looks into the drug that does work extremely well, and is much better researched: HCQ*).

*: + extras, especially zinc cause HCQ is a zinc ionophore so you might as well make use of that as well (along with the pH increasing function that has already proven to be useful in inhibiting the function of the cell machinery involved in viral replication, or similar machinery in the food vacuoles of malaria parasites, with which it can be easily compared).

And why do all those doctors recommending ivermectin along with HCQ not see or admit to this? (Dr. Been, those doctors from the LA urgent care facility who had such great initial success with HCQ, and then felt the need to promote ivermectin more often, Dr. Elens in my country, etc.) Why does a lay man like me have to dig this up first? Stick with HCQ man, forget about the backlash you're getting over it, stop worrying about yourself and help your patients, like Dr. Ban, who I trusted from the start. What's Dr. Zelenko doing, also promoting ivermectin now? Why do you fall so easily for this? Don't you know these tricks in medical research? Why shi-t on in vitro studies when it's the researchers doing these type of unrealistic in vitro studies that are the problem, not in vitro studies that actually are realistic? This is so frustrating. Scientism is a bitch. Wake up!

P.S. coming back to the line in the article that talks about "the approved dose of ivermectin (200 μg/kg)", that's 16mg if you're 80kg. "the approved dose (predicted lung: 0.0873 µM)", that's 57.27 times less than 5 µM. So for the 99.99% effect (the effect that is worth it, the 50% effect can probably be beaten by zinc + zinc ionophore, available over the counter in supplement stores, you can even use quercetine or green tea as your zinc ionophore) you need to take 57.27 times more than 16mg per day (and we're not even talking about half-lifes here, which is very long for HCQ, and probably not that long for ivermectin). That's 57.27 * 16 = 916.38mg per day (I used a calculator without rounding for the 57.27 number if you're wondering why this number isn't exactly 57.27 * 16). Totally not a realistic dosage. For the 2.5 µM (the 50% effect), it's:

2.5 / 0.0873 = 28.63689 (rounded) times more than the 16mg for someone of 80kg. Which is 16 * 28.63689 = 458mg per day, also unrealistic. And nowhere near what doctors using ivermectin on their patients are actually using. So for any antiviral effect of ivermectin, you don't need to try it, utterly useless in dosages ranging between 10mg - 20mg per day. And don't give people 458mg per day either, cause that's a massive overdose. You still wanna argue that ivermectin has a better safety profile than HCQ in dosages that are actually relevant to any significant antiviral action in Covid-19? And if this research is already presented in such a dodgy way, what about those other MOA's discussed in the Whiteboard Doctor video? The ones that haven't even been tested with an in vitro study but are based on speculation about what it might do, without looking at if any significant effect in terms of these 4 MOA's is achieved with a dosage of 10 - 20mg per day in humans?

Are you beginning to see why I don't trust large studies and RCT's when conducted by scientists whose income is dependent on their company and its clients in the government and pharmaceutical industry? Who encourage this kind of shoddy behaviour cause that's how they do it for the drugs they want to promote over drugs that actually work (HCQ, which also works against other viruses like influenza and Zika)? Maybe I should get paid their salaries for my efforts in exposing these techniques and getting to the bottem of the matter. Instead of a bunch of scientists debunking eachother about something they both already know straight off the bat. And don't even need such detailed numbers for and expensive studies and papers trying to fill the 'publish or perish' requirement in the sciences. Which doesn't produce quality papers. See: Fraud in Science​—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990). And give all in vitro studies a bad name in the process. When it's the large in vivo studies and RCT's that should be getting a bad name when they are conducted by those who do not expose this behaviour in in vitro studies that are moved up to large in vivo studies and RCT's without proper justification. And then miraculously turn out to be effective (what did you really do there? did you give these patients something else as well to make ivermectin look better? Did you fiddle around with the numbers? Totally suspicious the results of positive studies for ivermectin with this data about antiviral action. Perhaps it's doing something else, but then do the proper in vitro studies first to determin the real MOA, which is obviously not antiviral in any significant way.)
edit on 16-10-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
edit: The in vitro study in question is this one:

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro - ScienceDirect

Now let's look at those 4 graphs I was talking about in that article, C, D, E, F. And let's look at if there's any positive antiviral effect below 1 μM. Look at it, no positive antiviral effect whatsoever. And keep in mind, that the actual level of saturation in lung cells is estimated in the other article, for "approved dose of ivermectin (200 μg/kg)", is "predicted lung: 0.0873 µM". Not even close to 1 μM (which already is unrealistic to achieve). Even giving patients 10 times as much only gets you to "predicted lung: 0.820 µM". And that's already a massive overdose. You know what makes it even funnier, graphs C,D,E, and F start with 0.1 µM, so you can't even read off those graphs what 0.0873 µM would do. Then again, you can't go less than nothing anyway. Up to at least 1 μM, you've got no antiviral effect whatsoever, nothing, nada, zilch. So what business do you (Whiteboard Doctor) have in describing this study as "In Vitro on Ivermectin for COVID-19, 99.99% Decrease in Viral Load"? Just adding the term "in vitro" is no excuse to give people the impression that this study is in any way relevant, or that it might give people anywhere near 99.99% decrease in viral load. When you already know that realistic dosages give 0% reduction in viral load, as shown in the graphs for anything below 1 μM saturation, which you already can't get close to (and you and the authors know that).

What's up with all the misleading impressions given to people who don't know any better, your target market for watching these videos; see comments about how enthousiastic people are about ivermectin's supposed antiviral effects* as supposedly shown in this in vitro study which according to the authors makes ivermectin "worthy of further consideration" ( a bold-faced lie, cause they know quite well that that's not what this in vitro study shows, it shows the exact opposite, that it's not worthy of further consideration, at least not for its supposed antiviral effects, and that's how it all started according to Whiteboard Doctor, the first supposedly discovered MOA that he discusses, making the other proposed MOA's equally questionable, even more so actually because those haven't been tested in vitro it seems to me given the usage of words such as "theorized" and "postulated"). And I just wasted my time as well looking into possible efficacy when I already suspected what was really going on here. Ah well, at least I confirmed it now. Ivermectin has no antiviral effects in any sort of realistic dosage for humans in vivo (for Covid-19). So now I don't think it can help alleviate blood clotting either in realistic dosages, or MOA nr. 4 ( a rather complicated mechanism, which is again only theorized and postulated, no verification required anymore these days in the sciences, speculate away, endlessly and neurotically, taking a page out of the book of evolutionary philosophers posing as scientists).

*: that would be the comments in this video, which is only about this specific antiviral MOA and in vitro study that is supposedly relevant and useful (even heard Whiteboard Doctor use the word "impressive" after 14:30):

0% antiviral effectiveness or 0% reduction (after translation to in vivo levels of saturation) is not "impressive". Sorry for linking it twice now.

I'm getting as upset about this as this guy is about another subject (also for a good reason):

Just take a look at the recommended dosages for ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19, I just found this one, which used 12mg per day for 5 days.

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness - International Journal of Infectious Diseases

... A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted...

Ooh, how impressive, the so-called "gold standard" of clinical trials.

... oral ivermectin alone (12 mg once daily for 5 days), oral ivermectin in combination with doxycycline (12 mg ivermectin single dose and 200 mg doxycycline on day 1, followed by 100 mg every 12 h for the next 4 days)and a placebo control group.

Ah, so you're going to say that the ivermectin+doxycycline arm didn't have an effect so you can make the pure ivermectin arm look better with a little fiddling with the numbers, I know how this works...

... Clinical symptoms of fever, cough, and sore throat were comparable among the three groups. ...

Yeah sure, why no commentary in the abstract about improvements in these symptoms after 1 day? With HCQ + extras, Dr. Ban-style, immediate improvement after 1 day for all 3 symptoms is already observed. Seems sort of significant to mention in the abstract if that was also the case for any of the 2 ivermectin treatments doesn't it?

Virological clearance was earlier in the 5-day ivermectin treatment arm when compared to the placebo group (9.7 days vs 12.7 days; p = 0.02), but this was not the case for the ivermectin + doxycycline arm (11.5 days; p = 0.27).

Ah, what a surprise, exactly as I just described. Showing that the first effect they mentioned was coincidence (after all, as already established in the in vitro study, 12mg for 5 days does squat in terms of lowering viral load, so where is this reduction really coming from? Fabrication by fiddling with numbers perhaps and comparing not that well matched groups perhaps?). The patients may have taken some vitamin C or D3 (or depending on their eating habits) at home, when they noticed their treatment was doing squat (or they didn't count some inconvenient stats that would change this number, besides 9.7 days vs 12.7 days is nothing, couldn't you boost the numbers some more with some more fiddling and mismatched groups presented as having well matched severity in symptoms, to get a more significant result?). But of course, we're just going to ignore all that and conclude:

A 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19. Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

I'm calling BS. Based on what? Certainly nothing you mentioned in the abstract. Is this how all the positive larger studies and RCT's are done for ivermectin? I won't be reading the rest to find out how they fiddled with the numbers to make them appear more positive when other factors have actually helped their patients, such as their own measures of dealing with their misery, their eating habits, and their own auto-immune systems having varied results, or starting with different viral loads to begin with, which you conveniently didn't bother to measure to really see if the groups were well matched in that regards (on average, cause nobody has the exact same viral load, just like nobody has the exact same level of effectiveness of their auto-immune system, or the presence of Vit C, D3, and zinc in their bodies based on eating and drinking habits).

One patient from each of the ivermectin + doxycycline and placebo groups and two patients in the 5-day ivermectin group withdrew their consent during the study due to family obligations and unwillingness to be tested further.

And if the results of these patients were added to the statistics without the excuses for why they weren't counted? Does that make the earlier numbers concerning viral clearance any more on par between all the 3 groups? We'll never know, cause they have a nice excuse for not counting them, they dropped out of the study (perhaps some of them in the ivermectin alone group were convinced to do so because of not having the desired results? Who knows, you can't trust anyone these days anymore when it comes to RCT's).
edit on 16-10-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Quinine has similar functions as HCQ (in particular the pH increasing function I mentioned before). But is almost as hard to get as HCQ in sufficient quantities (and you need more for the same efficacy). You may be able to get it prescribed for leg cramps, if you're lucky.
edit on 17-10-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 10:01 AM
link   
The propaganda from our US state media has lulled the populous to the point where trying to explain to someone that they never isolated the covid-19 strain and all the tests and vaccines are based on best guess/archived coronavirus composite samples is now not possible.
They will reflexively yell anti-vaxxer and call the authorities.
Lol, we are all in trouble. We need a gamechanger.


originally posted by: angelchemuel
And almost 2 years later.....they still say they have not isolated the virus...... but they have a jab based on the protein encapsulation.....
Rainbows
Jane



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


Accept that the virus has been isolated many times.

fullfact.org...


andy06shake

I looked at fullfact.org…. and I call FRAUD. It has NEVER been isolated, and even the CDC admitted that.

And the covid 19 vaccines do NOT WORK... they CAUSE harm.

CDC admits NO isolated covid sample

NO PURE covid ISOLATED SAMPLE



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

andy06shake

Oh... and this from the CDC, “On June 7, 2021, the CDC confirmed (again) in writing they do not have any records showing they have ever isolated or purified the virus that allegedly causes the disease called COVID-19.”



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe


You are obviously new to the forum op. Everyone already knows all this, it's been discussed so many times it's getting very boring now.


Nexttimemaybe

I guess that’s why the OP titled the thread, FOR THE HUNDRETH TIME, eh?

Some people can read the information for 18 months and still not get it.



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: YongSu


SARS was beat pretty easily without vaccine. Polio was beaten with water sanitation. Smallpox was beaten because of very visible symptoms and social distancing.


YongSu

I’ve heard and believe that smallpox was eliminated when people began to use hygiene -- as in not using the rivers for their eliminations -- they began to bury their waste and garbage AND they also began to implement more variety of foods into the diet, such as fresh vegetables, fruit.



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation


Where are you at? Don't have to say the hospital but just curious like what region of the states or what state? I'm on the business side of Healthcare and in our 13+ major hospitals across the midwest that is not what we are seeing. 83% of the hospitalizations are unvaccinated, unless of course that is one big lie which I can't truly validate.


HawkeyeNation

Sources please.

And how many of those supposed unvaccinated took the toxic vax within 14 days so the vax peddlers can claim that they were UNvaccinated…... ie... not fully vaccinated.
I call FRAUD



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation


Correct but the reason why the Polio vaccine has worked is because in the US we have roughly 92% of anyone over the age of 2 vaccinated for. The vaccine brings the r value down (replication rate) in an infectious disease.

The r value for Polio is roughly between 4-6 which means, we'll just use 5 as the value, that if you have 80% of people vaccinated for Polio you will not have any huge outbreaks and will have "control" over it.

(1/r-value) take this number and then subtract it from 1 then you take that x 100 to get your recommended vaccine %


HawkeyeNation

Would you like to tell that fraud claim to the THOUSANDS of little children in India that received gates’ special brand of polio vaccine and were immediately crippled with the polio virus ?



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Oldcarpy2


Are you, by any chance, pushing this product for any selfish motive?

Sounds like marketing push to me.


Oldcarpy2

I think you are referring to what is called a Conflict of Interest.... as in :

1) S. Gottlieb, former head of FDA, as in FOOD and DRUG agency... is now in charge of, on the board of directors for Pfizer, a DRUG.

TALK ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST...
from CNBC

MORE evidence conflict of interest

2) ANOTHER FDA commissioner, steve hahn, just joined a venture capital firm behind maderna vaccine

MORE conflict of interest

3) james c smith, CEO of reuters, designed to inform the public about covid vaccine is ALSO recently appointed to the board of directors of pfizers. MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND evidence of FAKE NEWS BULLHORN

wolves directing the sheep

4) And let's not forget our favorite villain, fauci, head of the NIAID and director of the NIH (Institute of Health) and founder of BIOWEAPONS research with US tax dollars in wuhan.

MEANWHILE...

I applaud ANY advertisement of Ivermectin that has SHOWN to heal the (supposed) flu called covid... ask India and Japan... and those 100,000 medical personnel who have filed a class action lawsuit with the American Federal Government for vaccine FRAUD and HARM. Ivermectin does NOT have the dastardly reactions found with covid 19 toxic vax use.



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: andy06shake

andy06shake

Oh... and this from the CDC, “On June 7, 2021, the CDC confirmed (again) in writing they do not have any records showing they have ever isolated or purified the virus that allegedly causes the disease called COVID-19.”



"Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19 | Acta Pharmacologica Sinica" www.nature.com...

Yet the virus' entire genome has been mapped?



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies


It turns out that washing your hands, wearing a mask and socially distancing are all really good ways of avoiding catching the flu.


AaarghZombies

I think even MORE important is one’s health. A person in POOR health and eating for 5 will NOT fare with ANY disease, cold, virus, [… fill in blank …] as well as a person who works hard to maintain a healthy lifestyle and diet.



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: AaarghZombies


It turns out that washing your hands, wearing a mask and socially distancing are all really good ways of avoiding catching the flu.


AaarghZombies

I think even MORE important is one’s health. A person in POOR health and eating for 5 will NOT fare with ANY disease, cold, virus, [… fill in blank …] as well as a person who works hard to maintain a healthy lifestyle and diet.


Lockdowns may have played a part too, no?



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies


I also use hard statistics to debunk various myths about covid and the vax.

For example, I constantly post links demonstrating how very few double vaxxed people get sick or die from Covid, and how the majority of those who are seriously sick are completely unvaxxed.

Like how in 6 months only 640 double vaxxed people died due to Covid in the UK, while at the same time 38,000 unvaxxed died due to covid. That's some disparity, isn't it.

Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source

Anti-vaxxers just hate it when people say that they will "do their own research" and then come across one of my posts, and decide that they will get the vax after all.


AaarghZombies

Statistics are not my current favorite source of evidence because they can be used so easily with clever wording… and I will show YOU why YOUR sources have omitted a KEY point…

The sources you provided, are claiming that being vaccinated relies upon a key word… FULLY FACCINATED.

Meaning… if one has had o vaccine within perhaps the previous 14 days period… that person is considered as UNvaccinated. A LIE

AND… if one has had a vaccine and not a second or third of 50th dose… that person is considered as UNvaccinated. A LIE

NO… try again… NEXT time… let’s see some statistics that include REAL UNVACCINATED people… not pretend ones.



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Oldcarpy2


Lockdowns will do that, too.


Oldcarpy2

The FORCED and ILLEGAL lockdowns have contributed to suicide.... but i guess THOSE deaths don't count, eh?

Kind of like the gov of the state of Maine who was BEGGED by the hospitals to NOT enforce the covid vax mandate or they would lose so many personnel, they may shut down and/or people will not receive adequate health care.

THAT gov does not REALLY care about health or saving lives.... he blandly stated he would still enforce the [[illegal]] vaccine mandate.... and obviously, without regard to how many lives it will affect adversely.

Another situation that indicates the FORCED toxic vax is about CONTROL... NOT health.



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: AaarghZombies


I also use hard statistics to debunk various myths about covid and the vax.

For example, I constantly post links demonstrating how very few double vaxxed people get sick or die from Covid, and how the majority of those who are seriously sick are completely unvaxxed.

Like how in 6 months only 640 double vaxxed people died due to Covid in the UK, while at the same time 38,000 unvaxxed died due to covid. That's some disparity, isn't it.

Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source

Anti-vaxxers just hate it when people say that they will "do their own research" and then come across one of my posts, and decide that they will get the vax after all.


AaarghZombies

Statistics are not my current favorite source of evidence because they can be used so easily with clever wording… and I will show YOU why YOUR sources have omitted a KEY point…

The sources you provided, are claiming that being vaccinated relies upon a key word… FULLY FACCINATED.

Meaning… if one has had o vaccine within perhaps the previous 14 days period… that person is considered as UNvaccinated. A LIE

AND… if one has had a vaccine and not a second or third of 50th dose… that person is considered as UNvaccinated. A LIE

NO… try again… NEXT time… let’s see some statistics that include REAL UNVACCINATED people… not pretend ones.


The vaccine does not provide immunity immediately. For obvious reasons.

A 50th dose?

Got any evidence to back this guff?



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: Oldcarpy2


Lockdowns will do that, too.


Oldcarpy2

The FORCED and ILLEGAL lockdowns have contributed to suicide.... but i guess THOSE deaths don't count, eh?

Kind of like the gov of the state of Maine who was BEGGED by the hospitals to NOT enforce the covid vax mandate or they would lose so many personnel, they may shut down and/or people will not receive adequate health care.

THAT gov does not REALLY care about health or saving lives.... he blandly stated he would still enforce the [[illegal]] vaccine mandate.... and obviously, without regard to how many lives it will affect adversely.

Another situation that indicates the FORCED toxic vax is about CONTROL... NOT health.


Sorry, I don't engage with folk that shout at me in capitals and spread disinformation and blatant guff.



posted on Oct, 17 2021 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: CupcakeKarma

The virus that causes COVID-19 exists no allegedly about it.

And the pathogen identified and isolated multiple times by independent research groups.

healthfeedback.org... oups/
www.nature.com...
apnews.com...:Content:9847920299



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join



viewport: 1280 x 720 | document: 1280 x 21219