Ivermectin, Wonder Drug, strikes again.

[bambino]

Covid-19 vaccines don’t work and are unsafe. The inhibition of RNA dependent RNA polymerase by the zinc / zinc Ionophore approach will stop ALL the variants.

This has always been the correct approach. The stakeholders in this global crime have done everything to suppress this information.

This is because it undermines the fear and isolation narrative and allows people to return to normal living without codependency on global sociopaths.

It also turns out that the inhibition of RNA dependent RNA polymerase stops all the strains of influenza virus.

This means that a $10 a person treatment can destroy the entire flu shot and contact tracing business. The stakeholders will lose 250 billion a year.

This explains why the devolved pagans such as Bill Gates, etc oppose this lifesaving information.

Vladimir Zev Zelenko MD

[1blackman1]

Bambi I’m sure you have zero clue what you pasted and likely didn’t read a bit of it.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Bambi I’m sure you have zero clue what you pasted and likely didn’t read a bit of it.

I understand it. Did you actually read it? Maybe a video is better for you


https://www.bitchute.com/video/JGTg7WzcYTLT/

[texassapper]

ivermectin has been used to treat humans for parasitic infections for more than three decades. As Wisconsin critical care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory and his colleagues affiliated with the Memphis VA Medical Center-University of Tennessee, University of Texas Health Science Center, Hackensack School of Medicine and Eastern Virginia Medical School noted in a recent literature review published in the peer-reviewed medical journal the American Journal of Therapeutics:

"Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, (ivermectin) soon made historic impacts in human health, improving the nutrition, general health, and well-being of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat onchocerciasis (river blindness) in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, given that it was highly effective, broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated, and could be easily administered. Although it was used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, it was most known as the essential mainstay of 2 global disease elimination campaigns that has nearly eliminated the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases."
That's right. Billions of humans around the world have taken ivermectin (approved by the FDA and considered an "essential medicine" by the World Health Organization) under mass distribution programs to eradicate onchocerciasis (river blindness) and other tropical diseases. Ivermectin has also been shown to inhibit a broad range of viruses in laboratory studies, including HIV, influenza, West Nile virus and other RNA viruses. In 2018, more than 130,000 patients in the U.S. were prescribed the drug. It is a human drug, no matter how many times the mad cows in the media try to fear-monger you into believing otherwise.

So, should ivermectin be pursued as a treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19?

The COVID-19 control freaks don't even want you to ask the question out loud or debate it on the internet. But unlike farm animals, you can exercise your free will and search for the evidence yourselves:

A study in the peer-reviewed journal Antiviral Research reported that ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and concluded that "ivermectin is worthy of further consideration as a possible SARS-CoV-2 antiviral."
An analysis published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents in November 2020 found that "countries with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic chemotherapy including ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19. ... Prophylactic use of ivermectin against parasitic infections is most common in Africa and we hence show that the reported correlation is highly significant both when compared among African nations as well as in a worldwide context. ... It is suggested that ivermectin be evaluated for potential off-label prophylactic use in certain cases to help bridge the time until a safe and effective vaccine becomes available."
A small, pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in Spain and published in The Lancet in January didn't find statistically significant differences in COVID-19 viral loads but did find "a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower (antibody) titers which warrants assessment in larger trials."
A systematic review of ivermectin's antiviral effects published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature found that it "could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses."
A study in the peer-reviewed journal Chest found statistically significant lower mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients prescribed ivermectin (along with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or both) compared with patients without ivermectin in Broward County, Florida.
You can find more related studies on ivermectin and COVID-19 in PubMed, the federal scientific database, and weigh all the costs and benefits for you and your families. Remember: "Misinformation" simply means information that the powers that be want you to miss.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Tiny you are definitely one of the most congenial posters on this board for as long as I've been snooping around. I commend you. Some of these guys can be pretty trying, myself included.
I'd have preferred not to have included Bannon in my clip as he seems really greasy to me so I'll reserve further comment.
My point is that the natural resistance gained from the disease is shown to be greater than resistance from the vaccine. Supported by these two studies. Results are for the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine.
https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/...-israel-finds/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....24.21262415v1

Different numbers but they are statisically significant, I believe.
I think I've also been writing "mRNA" backwards in here. That's dick move.

I also did a piss poor job of explaining what I meant about the virus' evolution being driven by inefficient vaccines. I'll take another crack. The virus will naturally automatically create some mutations. If they express in the phenotype it can change the characteristics of how the virus functions, including how transmittable it is. A highly effective vaccine kills off both resulting phenotypes while a less efficient one doesn't, missing the ones that replicate more easily in new hosts and therefore selecting for a more infectious virus. That's as succinctly as I can put it. The vaccines don't spawn variants but shape their evolutionary development. The organism will be rewarded for evolving in it's own interest.

The Atlantic piece doesn't prove much in my estimation. It says numerous times that Malone's work was early and important. Seminal was one description I remember. The fact that he might rub some colleagues the wrong way in disagreement or diminish they're contribution doesn't change the import of his work. Hell, I think it was Watson of Crick and Watson was widely regarded as a real horses ass. Could be the other way round. Leibniz claimed for a good portion of his career that Newton stole calculus from him. Turns out Leibniz' writings recently discovered, prove differently.
As far as the clotting issues, I don't know anything about it as I haven't read anything honestly. I won't comment till I have.

Cheers!

Well, I'll commend you Ducbutter for being the best informed person here on your side of the fence in the vaccine debate. I ran across the paper you linked to, but nothing that's explained it as well as the ZME science link. Yes, you look to be right, natural immunity offers better protection than vacccine induced immunity. Still ZME makes a very strong case for getting vaccinated.

I believe you're right, a highly effective vaccine would be better, among other reasons because if you could get it into the majority of peoples' arms in a hurry we'd really put a dent in the mutations.

A big part of the problem is not just the mutations, but that immunity wears off too. This happens with natural immunity, but is a bigger problem with the vaccines. I read yesterday, maybe in your ZME link, that people vaccinated in April were holding up better then those vaccinated in January. Ergo the boosters.

A couple of other things I ran across, one in seven children in the UK aged 11 to 17 who tested positive for COVID in England were experiencing three or more symptoms 15 weeks after infection -

https://www.ft.com/content/31c30156-...6-a1b93ccf91a0

Here's one hot off the press, about kidney damage in people infected by COVID,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...g-hauler-study

The points I'm getting at, this is not necessarily just a disease the old, fat and diabetic need to worry about. It's looking like the benefits of getting vaccinated outweigh the risks for most people. I suspect the CDC's emergency approval for ages 12 and up was wise . Yes though, you and Malone have a point. In the young maybe natural infection is a better way to reach immunity than vaccines.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

The natural resistance gained from the 650,000 dead is impressive. They never got sick again. From anything.

Lol. This is like counting up all the people who've died of heart disease, cancer, and everything else under the sun and saying they died from the vaccine. If your time frame is long enough, you can say with some confidence that everyone who gets vaccinated will die.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Lol. This is like counting up all the people who've died of heart disease, cancer, and everything else under the sun and saying they died from the vaccine. If your time frame is long enough, you can say with some confidence that everyone who gets vaccinated will die.

Hey Tiny, I have the solution to all this bullshit. Move to NoKo!!!!

https://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-r...170012333.html

Rocket man says zero infections. They don’t need no stinking vaccines!!!!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

This is so stupid. The vaccines work. Almost ALL the people being hospitalized and dying from COVID are unvaccinated. Less and less people are objecting to the vaccine. If anyone chooses to not get the vaccine, that is their choice.

Ivermectin may work in treating the symptoms of COVID but it is as of yet unproven. I have read/heard about people who were given it by doctors and swear by it.

"Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials."



https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/

I find it ironic that the same people who won't take the various COVID vaccines because they believe they will be dangerous long-term are supporting the use of a drug that has absolutely no track record outside of a few people saying it has worked for them.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

This is so stupid. The vaccines work. Almost ALL the people being hospitalized and dying from COVID are unvaccinated.

Well as long as they didn't die within two weeks of getting the vaccine lol... they are still considered unvaxxed at that point. It's funny because Israel is having just the opposite experience... in the #2 vaxxed nation on the planet, 80% of all hospitalized patients are fully vaccinated... but they are 2-3 months ahead of the US in the vaxx timeline... so we can expect to see ass tons of vaxxed patients come Nov December... LOL.. we will see what tune everyone is singing then...

*Ivermectin has been used safely for decades. It may or may not be effective... but there is an ABSOLUTE reason for declaring it ineffective... it means that the EUA is void and all those profits for big pharma would be gone... Now do you think if it were effective there isn't a reason for the FDA/pharma to downplay that effectiveness?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Well as long as they didn't die within two weeks of getting the vaccine lol... they are still considered unvaxxed at that point. It's funny because Israel is having just the opposite experience... in the #2 vaxxed nation on the planet, 80% of all hospitalized patients are fully vaccinated... but they are 2-3 months ahead of the US in the vaxx timeline... so we can expect to see ass tons of vaxxed patients come Nov December... LOL.. we will see what tune everyone is singing then...

*Ivermectin has been used safely for decades. It may or may not be effective... but there is an ABSOLUTE reason for declaring it ineffective... it means that the EUA is void and all those profits for big pharma would be gone... Now do you think if it were effective there isn't a reason for the FDA/pharma to downplay that effectiveness?

You are incorrect on Israel. 78% of Israelis are fully vaccinated.

"The sheer number of vaccinated Israelis means some breakthrough infections were inevitable, and the unvaccinated are still far more likely to end up in the hospital or die. But Israel’s experience is forcing the booster issue onto the radar for other nations, suggesting as it does that even the best vaccinated countries will face a Delta surge."

https://www.science.org/news/2021/08...t-defeat-delta

Another report said 59% of hospitalized patients were vaccinated. Even if you take this number as true. the unvaccinated are being hospitalized at a higher rate than the vaccinated. Do the math. Most of those hospitalized were over 60 which supports what I've said, that a booster shot is necessary after about 8 months.

No one I've read about is claiming ivermectin PREVENTS covid. That would take a study similar to the one done by Pfizer -- 43,000 people around the world divided into 2 groups, one receiving the drug and the other a placebo, and their health monitored for several months to see if there is a difference between the 2 groups.

[oeb11]

Bottom Line - DPSTs prefer their politicians to guide their medical care
Advice in a patient physician relationship is anathema to big medicare only DPST control freaks.

That medical care suffers under such political supervision and control by DPST ideologues committed to marxist ideology - bothers the minions not at all.

You deserve what U voted for DPSTs - the rest of the country is disgusted by the antics and anti representative democracy marxism of teh CCP beholden DPST party.



Nov 2022 Cometh!


Noe cometh screeches and howls of Xinn inspired indignation from the indoctrinated sheeples.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I find it ironic that the same people who won't take the various COVID vaccines because they believe they will be dangerous long-term are supporting the use of a drug that has absolutely no track record outside of a few people saying it has worked for them.

Haha! Yes, why would you take a medication that kills worms, every day, and not get the vaccine? You're supposed to take one dose, I think, when you've got worms, not take it every day.

Don't get me wrong, if I were spending the weekend at the Hong Kong Club in Tijuana and had human Ivermectin I'd probably take it, in the correct dose, along with vitamin D, zinc, vitamin C, quercetin and melatonin. But then I'd also get a booster shot or wear a mask when the CDC was telling me not to.

While they're in the minority, you've got people in the medical community who favor use of Ivermectin, including as a prophylaxis for people at high risk, like health care workers for example. It's got a lot more support than hydroxychloroquine.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by bambino

Hey Tiny, I have the solution to all this bullshit. Move to NoKo!!!!

https://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-r...170012333.html

Rocket man says zero infections. They don’t need no stinking vaccines!!!!

They also have the highest per capita consumption of cement in the world. I understand their GDP growth and life expectancy are just phenomenal, off the charts.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Tiny

They also have the highest per capita consumption of cement in the world. I understand their GDP growth and life expectancy are just phenomenal, off the charts.

Ya can’t have it all. But if you try sometimes, you get what you need!!!!!

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Well, I'll commend you Ducbutter for being the best informed person here on your side of the fence in the vaccine debate. I ran across the paper you linked to, but nothing that's explained it as well as the ZME science link. Yes, you look to be right, natural immunity offers better protection than vacccine induced immunity. Still ZME makes a very strong case for getting vaccinated.

I believe you're right, a highly effective vaccine would be better, among other reasons because if you could get it into the majority of peoples' arms in a hurry we'd really put a dent in the mutations.

A big part of the problem is not just the mutations, but that immunity wears off too. This happens with natural immunity, but is a bigger problem with the vaccines. I read yesterday, maybe in your ZME link, that people vaccinated in April were holding up better then those vaccinated in January. Ergo the boosters.

A couple of other things I ran across, one in seven children in the UK aged 11 to 17 who tested positive for COVID in England were experiencing three or more symptoms 15 weeks after infection -

https://www.ft.com/content/31c30156-...6-a1b93ccf91a0

Here's one hot off the press, about kidney damage in people infected by COVID,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...g-hauler-study

The points I'm getting at, this is not necessarily just a disease the old, fat and diabetic need to worry about. It's looking like the benefits of getting vaccinated outweigh the risks for most people. I suspect the CDC's emergency approval for ages 12 and up was wise . Yes though, you and Malone have a point. In the young maybe natural infection is a better way to reach immunity than vaccines.

I appreciate the compliment.
The side of the debate I'm on might surprise you to some degree. I'm fully vaxxed with two Moderna jabs but no booster. No side effects other than a case of some intestinal distress shall we say, maybe. I have an immune system that is the size of an elephant's. I'll explain sometime but you'll have to trust me for now. I likely wouldn't have gotten it but my daughter is immuno-compromised and was pregnant so I felt it was the best decision for me and my family. I now have the most beautiful grandchild on the planet and I'm glad I got the vaccine. All I want is for people to have access to all the information about the vaccines that I had to make a well informed decision for themselves. And that includes all the information that's not so favorable to the vaxx. And I want to hear that from someone who I believe doesn't have a financial stake in a particular outcome. I also don't want legitimate areas of research to be squelched just because it could be perceived as conferring some kind of credit upon Trump cause he pulled some bullshit out of his ass while riffing. I also want the same you and yours, to do what makes the most sense for you and your family. But I'm not for mask or vaccine mandates. My health is not your responsibility. I don't want you to wear a mask, unless you want to. Same with a vaccine. Get all you want or feel you need. Everyone has a different tolerance for risk. It's an aspect of peoples personality that's as ingrained as anything we do. Have you ever played with other vehicles on LA freeways at speeds north of 150? On two wheels? Jumped out of airplanes? I can guarantee you that people on this board have done that. People take these risks and more and accept the consequences of their choices. If I don't feel safe leaving the house I'll stay home, I will mask, I will vaccinate. I'm not putting that on you or anyone else.
Sorry to ramble.