COVID-19 Viruses and Vaccines

[Boyst]

4 hours ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Look, I'm skeptical of anti-virals in general, simply because viruses are very difficult things to combat.  You can't block their mechanisms at a cellular level like bacteria; you have to interrupt their mechanisms at a much lower molecular level, which is very difficult.

 

But all the same...whoever wrote that nonsense above either didn't understand or didn't read Pfizer's research.

Like....say....A quantum level?

[Jabba The Hutt]

21 hours ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Look, I'm skeptical of anti-virals in general, simply because viruses are very difficult things to combat.  You can't block their mechanisms at a cellular level like bacteria; you have to interrupt their mechanisms at a much lower molecular level, which is very difficult.

 

But all the same...whoever wrote that nonsense above either didn't understand or didn't read Pfizer's research.

Are viruses alive or no?

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

18 hours ago, Jabba The Hutt said:

Are viruses alive or no?

 

The conventional view is "sort of."

 

I'd probably lean towards the "not" side of the question.  They're specialized little biological machines of limited capability.

[Jabba The Hutt]

30 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

The conventional view is "sort of."

 

I'd probably lean towards the "not" side of the question.  They're specialized little biological machines of limited capability.

I'm on Team Unliving... 

 

Essentially  proteins and proteins are just chains of amino acids. 

 

If viruses are not living this severely calls into question the treatment of Antivirals which I have championed boycotting all along. Scam. How do you "kill" something not living? 

 

Now, I submit to you what would probably be the best course of action against viruses. Enzymes... Essentially you break apart their chains and eliminate through Lymph Nodes and Kidneys like what's meant to happen in your body naturally.

[Fansince88]

49 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

The conventional view is "sort of."

 

I'd probably lean towards the "not" side of the question.  They're specialized little biological machines of limited capability.

 

14 minutes ago, Jabba The Hutt said:

I'm on Team Unliving... 

 

Essentially  proteins and proteins are just chains of amino acids. 

 

If viruses are not living this severely calls into question the treatment of Antivirals which I have championed boycotting all along. Scam. How do you "kill" something not living? 

 

Now, I submit to you what would probably be the best course of action against viruses. Enzymes... Essentially you break apart their chains and eliminate through Lymph Nodes and Kidneys like what's meant to happen in your body naturally.

Never gave it a thought myself but am intrigued by this conversation. Copied from the WWW. 

"So were they ever alive? Most biologists say no. Viruses are not made out of cells, they can't keep themselves in a stable state, they don't grow, and they can't make their own energy. Even though they definitely replicate and adapt to their environment, viruses are more like androids than real living organisms".

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

.

[Cinga]

Ivermectin was a horse pill they criminally wouldn't give people for Covid, now ironically in recent studies it works against the Turbo Cancers we've seen recently that are allegedly caused by the Covid Vax

 

NEW ARTICLE: IVERMECTIN and CANCER Part 2 - Treating Turbo Cancer - 7 new studies released in 2024 show Ivermectin works against CANCER - suggested PROTOCOLS for COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancers

Last year, in October, I wrote one of the most popular articles on Ivermectin (IVM) and Cancer Treatment ever published, which went viral Internationally, with millions of views.

After the article, I was flooded with 1000s of questions, not about mechanisms of IVM action against cancer, but about protocols, doses, formulations - which Ivermectin to use and how to use it, what are the doses, for how long, etc.

This article is the practical approach that addresses all of those questions.

There are 3 types of Ivermectin formulations on the market:

- pills or tablets in 3mg, 6mg or 12mg
- liquid form, usually 1mL per 10mg of IVM
- paste form, usually 6.4g per 120mg of IVM

(always check the dosages when not using pill form)

I propose 4 "Experimental Protocols" for using IVERMECTIN with CANCER (especially in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated Individuals who have developed TURBO CANCER):

The "Dr.Makis Ivermectin Cancer Protocols"

LOW DOSE (<=0.5mg/kg)
- Cancers in remission
- Strong family history
- genetic predisposition
- prophylactic use

MEDIUM DOSE (1.0mg/kg)
- Starting dose for most Cancers, including mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancers (lymphoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, testicular/cervical/ovarian, kidney, etc)

HIGH DOSE (2.0mg/kg)
- Starting dose for aggressive Turbo Cancers, especially Leukemias, pancreatic, brain cancer
- aggressiveness of a tumor is often determined on pathology (Ki67 staining of 80%+ for example)
- some very aggressive rare types (appendix, gallbladder, cholangiocarcinoma, angiosarcoma & other sarcomas)

VERY HIGH DOSE (2.5mg/kg)
- Very desperate situations
- have only days to live
- extreme tumor metastases burden
- extremely poor prognosis
- certain aggressive or very large brain tumors?

Let's run a thought experiment:
A 30 year old teacher (60kg) took 4 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines and has just been diagnosed with Stage 4 Turbo Colon Cancer with a few liver metastases (very common scenario after Pfizer or Moderna).

This person considers a MEDIUM DOSE 1mg/kg/day IVERMECTIN regimen (in addition to standard chemo/rad) which is 60mg of IVM a day

That would be five 12mg pills a day
OR 6 mL of IVM liquid (10mg/1mL) a day

The liquid version is much cheaper and could be as cheap as $1 per day. The cost of pills varies widely and could be anywhere from $10 to $50 a day, depending on where you import them from.

Let's run another thought experiment:
A 25 year old who took 3 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines and has a strong family history of cancer, is very worried about developing Turbo Cancer.

This person wants to take a low dose Ivermectin regimen as prophylaxis. She takes 12mg a day.
She understands that currently there are no human trials looking at Ivermectin as prophylaxis against developing cancer.

Let's run another thought experiment: 
A 45 year old Canadian doctor has taken 8 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines, has been diagnosed with a baseball sized Grade 4 brain tumor (glioblastoma) and has been given weeks to live. He decides to take 2.5mg/kg/day and develops some visual symptoms that go away after a few days. The tumor starts to shrink in size over the course of several weeks and his Canadian doctor colleagues are baffled.

For brain cancers in particular, the issue is getting sufficient IVM across the blood brain barrier to have an impact on brain tumors. So a higher dose is necessary.

In all these cases, Oncologists will be baffled and will send their patients home to die (Canadian doctors will offer medically assisted suicide right on the spot in their office, a procedure they enjoy doing more than anything else). 

In fact, some Oncologists will begin visibly shaking and will hide under a desk in the fetal position, at the mere mention of the word "Ivermectin".

"Save me Dr.Fauci", they will chant repeatedly, while rocking back and forth. They will receive a congratulatory letter from their medical board for not offering IVERMECTIN to their dying patient and their social credit score will increase dramatically.

If you care at all about cancer, you don't want to miss this ground-breaking article.

Article Link in photo to avoid shadowban, just re-type the URL in the 1st photo at the top, into your browser to access

@HighWireTalk
@ClaytonMorris
@TheChiefNerd

@VigilantFox
@joerogan
@TuckerCarlson
@ABDanielleSmith

#DiedSuddenly

[Spartacus]

20 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Ivermectin was a horse pill they criminally wouldn't give people for Covid, now ironically in recent studies it works against the Turbo Cancers we've seen recently that are allegedly caused by the Covid Vax

 

NEW ARTICLE: IVERMECTIN and CANCER Part 2 - Treating Turbo Cancer - 7 new studies released in 2024 show Ivermectin works against CANCER - suggested PROTOCOLS for COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancers

Last year, in October, I wrote one of the most popular articles on Ivermectin (IVM) and Cancer Treatment ever published, which went viral Internationally, with millions of views.

After the article, I was flooded with 1000s of questions, not about mechanisms of IVM action against cancer, but about protocols, doses, formulations - which Ivermectin to use and how to use it, what are the doses, for how long, etc.

This article is the practical approach that addresses all of those questions.

There are 3 types of Ivermectin formulations on the market:

- pills or tablets in 3mg, 6mg or 12mg
- liquid form, usually 1mL per 10mg of IVM
- paste form, usually 6.4g per 120mg of IVM

(always check the dosages when not using pill form)

I propose 4 "Experimental Protocols" for using IVERMECTIN with CANCER (especially in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated Individuals who have developed TURBO CANCER):

The "Dr.Makis Ivermectin Cancer Protocols"

LOW DOSE (<=0.5mg/kg)
- Cancers in remission
- Strong family history
- genetic predisposition
- prophylactic use

MEDIUM DOSE (1.0mg/kg)
- Starting dose for most Cancers, including mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancers (lymphoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, testicular/cervical/ovarian, kidney, etc)

HIGH DOSE (2.0mg/kg)
- Starting dose for aggressive Turbo Cancers, especially Leukemias, pancreatic, brain cancer
- aggressiveness of a tumor is often determined on pathology (Ki67 staining of 80%+ for example)
- some very aggressive rare types (appendix, gallbladder, cholangiocarcinoma, angiosarcoma & other sarcomas)

VERY HIGH DOSE (2.5mg/kg)
- Very desperate situations
- have only days to live
- extreme tumor metastases burden
- extremely poor prognosis
- certain aggressive or very large brain tumors?

Let's run a thought experiment:
A 30 year old teacher (60kg) took 4 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines and has just been diagnosed with Stage 4 Turbo Colon Cancer with a few liver metastases (very common scenario after Pfizer or Moderna).

This person considers a MEDIUM DOSE 1mg/kg/day IVERMECTIN regimen (in addition to standard chemo/rad) which is 60mg of IVM a day

That would be five 12mg pills a day
OR 6 mL of IVM liquid (10mg/1mL) a day

The liquid version is much cheaper and could be as cheap as $1 per day. The cost of pills varies widely and could be anywhere from $10 to $50 a day, depending on where you import them from.

Let's run another thought experiment:
A 25 year old who took 3 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines and has a strong family history of cancer, is very worried about developing Turbo Cancer.

This person wants to take a low dose Ivermectin regimen as prophylaxis. She takes 12mg a day.
She understands that currently there are no human trials looking at Ivermectin as prophylaxis against developing cancer.

Let's run another thought experiment: 
A 45 year old Canadian doctor has taken 8 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines, has been diagnosed with a baseball sized Grade 4 brain tumor (glioblastoma) and has been given weeks to live. He decides to take 2.5mg/kg/day and develops some visual symptoms that go away after a few days. The tumor starts to shrink in size over the course of several weeks and his Canadian doctor colleagues are baffled.

For brain cancers in particular, the issue is getting sufficient IVM across the blood brain barrier to have an impact on brain tumors. So a higher dose is necessary.

In all these cases, Oncologists will be baffled and will send their patients home to die (Canadian doctors will offer medically assisted suicide right on the spot in their office, a procedure they enjoy doing more than anything else). 

In fact, some Oncologists will begin visibly shaking and will hide under a desk in the fetal position, at the mere mention of the word "Ivermectin".

"Save me Dr.Fauci", they will chant repeatedly, while rocking back and forth. They will receive a congratulatory letter from their medical board for not offering IVERMECTIN to their dying patient and their social credit score will increase dramatically.

If you care at all about cancer, you don't want to miss this ground-breaking article.

Article Link in photo to avoid shadowban, just re-type the URL in the 1st photo at the top, into your browser to access

@HighWireTalk
@ClaytonMorris
@TheChiefNerd

@VigilantFox
@joerogan
@TuckerCarlson
@ABDanielleSmith

#DiedSuddenly

it wasn't a vax

[Fansince88]

8 hours ago, Spartacus said:

it wasn't a vax

I have heard that......here. 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

13 hours ago, Spartacus said:

it wasn't a vax

 

No it was turbo cancer. 

[Spartacus]

6 hours ago, Fansince88 said:

I have heard that......here. 

well - it was the CDC that changed the definition of a vaccine

[devnull]

5 hours ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

No it was turbo quantum cancer. 

 

FTFY

[Ann]

 

[Fansince88]

8 hours ago, Ann said:

 

Just keeps on evolving.

Edited April 9 by Fansince88

[Spartacus]

10 hours ago, Ann said:

 

keeping Wuhan in the news as the scapegoat to keep the focus off of the US bio-weapons labs 

[Spartacus]

could be renaming flu as Covid and overhyping it was just the smoke screen to jab everyone and destroy their immune systems 

generating a big boost to the Big Pharma cancer treatment annuity programs

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0141813024022323

 

Mounting evidence indicates that these vaccines, like many others, do not generate sterilizing immunity, leaving people vulnerable to recurrent infections. Additionally, it has been discovered that the mRNA vaccines inhibit essential immunological pathways, thus impairing early interferon signaling. Within the framework of COVID-19 vaccination, this inhibition ensures an appropriate spike protein synthesis and a reduced immune activation. Evidence is provided that adding 100 % of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.

[Spartacus]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-ivermectin-trials-were-designed-fail

 

The use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 is an ongoing debate. The central conflict is that while many doctors have reported success in using ivermectin, some studies published in major journals suggest it is in fact ineffective.

Slection Bias

Many people, including physicians, may not be aware that interventional studies, particularly RCTs, are are prone to numerous biases, with selection bias being one of the most significant. Excluding potentially eligible individuals due to their anticipated group allocation can lead to selection bias.

 

It’s common knowledge that early treatment of COVID-19 is crucial for effective results. The earlier the treatment starts, the more effective it is. These approved antivirals for COVID-19 are used shortly after COVID-19 infection and usually within a few days after symptom onset.

 

For example, Paxlovid and molnupiravir registration trials treated patients within only three to five days of symptom onset.

 

 

However, in the PRINCIPLE trial, ivermectin was used for patients within 14 days of symptom onset, while ACTIV-6 treated patients an average of six days after infection.

 

Patients with severe kidney disease are normally excluded from phase 3 studies, as they are less likely to respond to antiviral treatment. This approach has been taken ny remdesivir (protocol), molnupiravir (protocol), and Paxlovid (protocol). However, such standard exclusion criteria were not taken by the ACTIV-6 or PRINCIPLE study protocols.

 

Why was ivermectin treated so unfairly in these clinical trials?

It is well known that when an RCT is sponsored by Big Pharma, there is often a financial conflict of interest, as the research institutions are usually hired or funded by the pharmaceutical company. In a world where wealth often competes with ethics, how many can resist financial temptation and stay true to moral principles?

 

“Hidden agenda bias” occurs when a trial is conducted to demonstrate a desired outcome, rather than to answer a question. In other words, “Don’t do a trial if it won’t show you what you want to find.”

Proven Without a Profit Motive

Conducting an RCT to get a drug approved by the FDA requires money. Every drug must be managed by a professional team composed of doctors, database managers, and assistants. Professionals must secure funding, recruit a lead investigator, and find hospitals to conduct the study. An operational team must perform the study, analyze the data, and gain FDA approval.

 

Since ivermectin is a generic drug that lacks profitable marketing and a pharmaceutical sponsor, it’s challenging to organize and systematically manage its new application with health authorities, data, and customers.

 

Nevertheless, doctors worldwide have been using ivermectin to help patients and have collected valuable data.

 

The website c19ivm.org has compiled data on 102 clinical trials proving ivermectin’s consistent effectiveness in treating COVID-19. Studies with negative conclusions about ivermectin are also included, such as the the four RCTs with recognized design flaws.

 

Since the beginning of the analysis, ivermectin has consistently shown efficacy. This meta-analysis provides a thorough and transparent real-time analysis of all eligible ivermectin studies.

 

The trials were conducted by 1,139 doctors or scientists from 29 countries with 142,307 patients. Out of the total studies, 86 have been peer-reviewed with 128,787 patients, and 49 were randomized controlled trials with 16,847 patients.

 

In the studies with comparative groups, ivermectin was shown to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection by 81 percent, mortality by 49 percent, ICU admission by 35 percent, ventilation usage by 29 percent, and hospitalization by 34 percent.

 

In comparison to the control groups, the use of ivermectin as a preventive measure before infection reduced the most severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 by 85 percent. When used in the early stage of COVID-19, ivermectin decreased the severity of the disease by 62 percent, and when used in late stages, it reduced the clinical severity by 39 percent. Clinical severity is measured by death, ventilation, disease progression, or hospitalization.

 

A new drug or vaccine cannot achieve an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) status if there is an existing viable therapeutic available. This fact alone may have impacted many decisions.

The NIH website lists only those RCTs that I found to have design flaws (or potential fraud) to justify its recommendation against the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

 

Peer-reviewed studies showing the efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID-19 have been retracted without explanation, and doctors have been demonized, censored, and doxxed for speaking the truth.

 

Legacy media, including The New York Times and CNN, reported incomplete and improperly interpreted trials that failed to present an accurate representation of ivermectin’s effects.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

13 hours ago, Spartacus said:

could be renaming flu as Covid and overhyping it was just the smoke screen to jab everyone and destroy their immune systems 

generating a big boost to the Big Pharma cancer treatment annuity programs

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0141813024022323

 

Mounting evidence indicates that these vaccines, like many others, do not generate sterilizing immunity, leaving people vulnerable to recurrent infections. Additionally, it has been discovered that the mRNA vaccines inhibit essential immunological pathways, thus impairing early interferon signaling. Within the framework of COVID-19 vaccination, this inhibition ensures an appropriate spike protein synthesis and a reduced immune activation. Evidence is provided that adding 100 % of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.

 

"Sterilizing immunity?"

 

Well, that's just a whole new level of bovine excrement there. 

[Nouseforaname]

https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-national-security-official-kash-patel-is-touting-pills-to-reverse-the-covid-vaccine-and-get-healthy/
 

Any news on if they cleanse for turbo cancer ?

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, Nouseforaname said:

https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-national-security-official-kash-patel-is-touting-pills-to-reverse-the-covid-vaccine-and-get-healthy/
 

Any news on if they cleanse for turbo cancer ?

 

That is one of the biggest scams I've ever seen.

 

https://www.mywarrioressentials.com/warrior-1#order-boxes