In reply to Jonathan Berry's message of Sat, 11 Sep 2021 14:30:37 +1200:
Hi,
[snip]
>I think it is possible they wanted it easily defeated because even those
>who want to kill want to save themselves and others they need.
Yes that's what I was getting at. If someone releases such a plague, they
I don't thin the Ivermectin approach will stop this virus; indeed it's
just a sideshow for the delusional beliefs of a few. In a month or so,
this fad will pass as just as the hydrochloroquin fad did and something new
that is politically correct for the denier crowd will refill the shoes.
On
Robin, were you trying to imply they wouldn't allow for there to be an easy
cheap cure, or were you arguing that maybe it was meant to be easily
defeated?
I think it is possible they wanted it easily defeated because even those
who want to kill want to save themselves and others they need.
On
Well think about it, they are going to be exposed to it too.
They need an effective cheap safe antidote.
There are a LOT of suppressed cures for Cancer, including guess what,
Ivermectin!
I have long studied repressed Cancer cures but never knew of Ivermectin.
My point is is one of the biggest
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 11 Sep 2021 01:17:18 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
[snip]
>On 11.09.2021 01:02, Robin wrote:
>
>> Hypothetically - a bio-warfare designed virus, might be created with a cheap
>> and commonly available "off switch" such as
>> Ivermectin??
>
>
>
>You mix up virus
On 11.09.2021 01:02, Robin wrote:
Hypothetically - a bio-warfare designed virus, might be created with a cheap and commonly
available "off switch" such as
Ivermectin??
You mix up virus and in cell replication. Ivermectin basically stops in
cell replication of CoV-19 and of a dozen of
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 10 Sep 2021 23:21:19 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
Hypothetically - a bio-warfare designed virus, might be created with a cheap
and commonly available "off switch" such as
Ivermectin??
>On 10.09.2021 22:09, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> As I said, if ivermectin
On 10.09.2021 22:09, Jed Rothwell wrote:
As I said, if ivermectin could have this effect, this would be clear
from the double-blind clinical testing.
If Jed would once read a paper and not just spread, what his FM buddies
forward him, then he could see that it works!
I sent the link some
Jonathan Berry wrote:
It is not marginal, look at Africa, the places where they give Ivermectin
> routinely has basically no Covid death spikes, the places where they don't
> have the familiar looking waves.
>
These effects are more easily explained by demographics (many young people)
and by
It is not marginal, look at Africa, the places where they give Ivermectin
routinely has basically no Covid death spikes, the places where they don't
have the familiar looking waves.
If it is taken preventatively and in enough dosage it is basically perfect,
almost no one dies and COVID rapidly
The largest study of Ivermectin prophylaxes has been made in Argentina:
http://pharmabaires.com/1739-resultados-positivos-del-%20protocolo-iver-car-en-la-profilaxis-de-los-agentes-de-salud.html
I usually take high dose V-D3 and zinc as a preparation. this is the
best and most simple proven
Jonathan Berry wrote:
Jed, You point me to a study where it was tested this way suitably, I
> suspect it will have been highly flawed if that was the result.
>
I suspect you will say that any result you disagree with is flawed by
definition.
But you are missing my point. Even if we assume the
Jed, You point me to a study where it was tested this way suitably, I
suspect it will have been highly flawed if that was the result.
I will make a post about Ivermectin a bit later.
On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 14:04, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jonathan Berry wrote:
>
>
>> But effectiveness is
Terry Blanton wrote:
If you are truly interested, there are currently 76 clinical studies either
> on-going or completed for the efficacy of ivermectin on SARS-CoV-2.
>
76 is a lot of studies! I think we can be confident that if it has any
efficacy, that will be determined. A reliable,
Terry Blanton wrote:
> But effectiveness is absolutely conclusive
>>>
>>
>> No. If that were true, it would show up in the double-blind tests.
>>
>
> Many things work in vitro but not in the body, e.g.:
>
That's true too. It is important. But I was talking about a clinical
double-blind test
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:49 AM Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:04 PM Jed Rothwell
> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Berry wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But effectiveness is absolutely conclusive
>>>
>>
>> No. If that were true, it would show up in the double-blind tests.
>>
>
> Many things work
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:04 PM Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jonathan Berry wrote:
>
>
>> But effectiveness is absolutely conclusive
>>
>
> No. If that were true, it would show up in the double-blind tests.
>
Many things work in vitro but not in the body, e.g.:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM CB Sites wrote:
>
> Ivermectin is just one more of the big lies like Hydroxychloroquine or
> even injections of 'sodium hypochlorite'. Remember that crazy one that
> the science community had to be put down as fast as possible before people
> killed
Jürg Wyttenbach says;
"Ivermectin gives a 100% protection from a COV-19 infection. Start dose is
2 days normal dose then weekly once for 100% protection for 90% protetion
every 2 weeks."
And you know this to be true? So are you following your own treatment
plan? The best I've seen on this are
You cannot teach Jed
As member of the FM the ruling USA sect he has to spread, what his
buddies tell him else he will get problems.
Others would say it more rigorously. In case of the Mizuno LENR protocol
he intentionally did spread wrong details. So he is a professional cheater.
We know
20 matches
Mail list logo
