I did see that too rather the 0.2 mg/kg.
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Covid 19 mrna Vaccines...Yes/No?
- Thread starter gaiusmarius
- Start date
I did see that too rather the 0.2 mg/kg.
the product sold for livestock is not even the same formulation as that intended for humans from my reading. you cannot use products intended for animals & call those being vaccinated "sheep"...LOL!
and once again.don't take medical advice from a pot growing website.....unless it's "smoke more pot"
M
member 505892
Trying to cancel you or just rolling their eyes and laughing?
You don't really think you are influencing anyone, do you?
Medication for animals are produced under a less strict guidelines than for humans, but when doctors can not prescribe it like in my own country, because they have the chance to get a fine of €150.000, people will try to find other ways to get it.
You must smoke dispensary dope.
Aldous Huxley “There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution” The Great Deception
Aldous Huxley “There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution” The Great Deception
Well it seems Folks don't realize that it was a doctor on video pleading for help from China that made the Internet News rather that News(Virus) making it into the Television News.
Now we have the same thing all over again,this time from feedbacks from many people on the Internet News.
Now the stuff they are using is used or have been used by 3.9 billion people and has won a Nobel Peace Prize.....Either we have a troll that never reads feed backs before buying anything or he got a placebo shot and thinks he's fascinated,I meant,Vaccinated.
For worms and bot flies.
Doctors report drug ivermectin proving effective as treatment against COVID despite media backlash
https://generaldispatch.whatfinger....eatment-against-covid-despite-media-backlash/
https://generaldispatch.whatfinger....eatment-against-covid-despite-media-backlash/
Poll: Over One-Third Believe Health Officials Lying About Safety of Coronavirus Vaccines
Over one-third of Americans believe public health officials are lying about the safety of coronavirus vaccines, a Rasmussen Reports survey released Friday found.
The survey asked, “Do you believe public health officials are lying about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines?”
Forty-four percent said no, but over one-third, 37 percent, believe they are lying. Another 19 percent remain unsure.
Opinions are sharply divided on party lines. A majority of Republicans, 53 percent, believe public health officials are lying, compared to 26 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of independent voters who say the same.
The survey also found that viewers of conservative news outlets “have a better understanding of the risk of death from COVID-19 than do viewers of liberal channels.”
As Rasmussen reported:
The survey, taken August 26 and 29, 2021, among 1,000 U.S. adults, has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is perhaps one of the most vocal public health officials, flip-flopping his positions throughout the pandemic, particularly on the efficacy and use of masks and U.S. funding of the Wuhan lab.
An Economist/YouGov survey released last month found the vast majority of unvaccinated Americans indicated they remain firm in not getting vaccinated for the Chinese coronavirus.
Over one-third of Americans believe public health officials are lying about the safety of coronavirus vaccines, a Rasmussen Reports survey released Friday found.
The survey asked, “Do you believe public health officials are lying about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines?”
Forty-four percent said no, but over one-third, 37 percent, believe they are lying. Another 19 percent remain unsure.
Opinions are sharply divided on party lines. A majority of Republicans, 53 percent, believe public health officials are lying, compared to 26 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of independent voters who say the same.
The survey also found that viewers of conservative news outlets “have a better understanding of the risk of death from COVID-19 than do viewers of liberal channels.”
As Rasmussen reported:
According to Johns Hopkins University, the COVID-19 case-mortality rate – the percentage of diagnosed patients who have died from the disease – is 1.6% in the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 30% of American Adults correctly estimate the rate as being less than 2%, while 20% believe the rate to be between 2% and 5%. Seventeen percent (17%) estimate the mortality rate to be in the 5%-10% range and 19% believe the rate is more than 10%. Another 14% say they’re not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
More viewers of Newsmax (40%) and Fox News (34%) correctly estimated the COVID-19 mortality rate than viewers of CNN (22%) or MSNBC (24%). Twenty-one percent (21%) of One America News (OAN) viewers correctly estimated the coronavirus mortality rate. Among Americans who say they don’t watch cable news at all, 38% correctly estimated the mortality rate as less than 2%.
More viewers of Newsmax (40%) and Fox News (34%) correctly estimated the COVID-19 mortality rate than viewers of CNN (22%) or MSNBC (24%). Twenty-one percent (21%) of One America News (OAN) viewers correctly estimated the coronavirus mortality rate. Among Americans who say they don’t watch cable news at all, 38% correctly estimated the mortality rate as less than 2%.
The survey, taken August 26 and 29, 2021, among 1,000 U.S. adults, has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is perhaps one of the most vocal public health officials, flip-flopping his positions throughout the pandemic, particularly on the efficacy and use of masks and U.S. funding of the Wuhan lab.
An Economist/YouGov survey released last month found the vast majority of unvaccinated Americans indicated they remain firm in not getting vaccinated for the Chinese coronavirus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZALh4gBldFQ
Ivermectin And COVID-19 Prevention: 83% Decrease In Infections With Ivermectin Prophylaxis?
271,776 views
Premiered Feb 28, 2021
Ivermectin, traditionally used as an anti-parasitic medication, has gained more and more attention as a potential preventative or treatment measure for COVID-19. We discuss the evidence behind these uses with a focus on COVID-19 prevention using Ivermectin. Specifically, a study on several thousand healthcare workers that reported an 83% decrease in COVID-19 infections in those that took two doses of Ivermectin. The institution then published a protocol for how they recommend utilizing prophylactic Ivermectin including doses and duration. What does this mean and what are the limitations? Check out the video for all these details and more!
Ivermectin And COVID-19 Prevention: 83% Decrease In Infections With Ivermectin Prophylaxis?
271,776 views
Premiered Feb 28, 2021
Ivermectin, traditionally used as an anti-parasitic medication, has gained more and more attention as a potential preventative or treatment measure for COVID-19. We discuss the evidence behind these uses with a focus on COVID-19 prevention using Ivermectin. Specifically, a study on several thousand healthcare workers that reported an 83% decrease in COVID-19 infections in those that took two doses of Ivermectin. The institution then published a protocol for how they recommend utilizing prophylactic Ivermectin including doses and duration. What does this mean and what are the limitations? Check out the video for all these details and more!
"Man is so intelligent that he feels impelled to invent theories to account for what happens in the world. Unfortunately, he is not quite intelligent enough, in most cases, to find correct explanations. So that when he acts on his theories, he behaves very often like a lunatic." Aldous Huxley
aw snap,hux burn!
maybe https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709596/
How about we open our minds a bit folks?
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
American Journal of Therapeutics: July/August 2021 - Volume 28 - Issue 4 - p e434-e460
doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402
https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...ment_of.7.aspx
I have some in the garage. I use it for bot flies. I’ve handled it a lot. Never had any bad reactions.
There have been few studies and it does show promise on its use against Covid infection. Most studies are still ongoing.
Claims of being horse medicine are correct and it does make “good” press making it the butt of many jokes. As I’m sure you’re aware, a lot of medicine is good for man or beast.
If it does have value, the pharmacists are on it. It will be found out and known.
All medicine comes with precautions. Many would throw precaution to the wind, while quite possibly overstating it’s actually value. Without discounting many folk remedies, there is a danger of Internet doctoral advice from those known as Doctor D, or h.h. or anybody else on a politically motivated dope site.
There are a few studies suggesting value. There is no peer excepted evidence that it works as of this date.
that's a preliminary study. there are no peer reviewed studies on ivermectin as far as i'm aware. the largest study on the efficacies of IVM and C19 to date was redacted due to falsified data. the FDA and the producer of the drug have both said not to take it for C19 as well....
wow that was tough....
https://c19ivermectin.com/
Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 113 studies, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups. FLCCC provides treatment recommendations. Submit updates/corrections.
from another site....
Preclinical studies of Ivermectin's activity against SARS-CoV-2
Since 2012, a growing number of cellular studies have demonstrated that ivermectin has antiviral properties against an increasing number of RNA viruses, including influenza, Zika, HIV, Dengue, and most importantly, SARS-CoV-2.[SUP]9–17[/SUP] Insights into the mechanisms of action by which ivermectin both interferes with the entrance and replication of SARS-CoV-2 within human cells are mounting. Caly et al[SUP]18[/SUP] first reported that ivermectin significantly inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication in a cell culture model, observing the near absence of all viral material 48 hours after exposure to ivermectin. However, some questioned whether this observation is generalizable clinically given the inability to achieve similar tissue concentrations used in their experimental model using standard or even massive doses of ivermectin.[SUP]19,20[/SUP] It should be noted that the concentrations required for an effect in cell culture models bear little resemblance to human physiology given the absence of an active immune system working synergistically with a therapeutic agent, such as ivermectin. Furthermore, prolonged durations of exposure to a drug likely would require a fraction of the dosing in short-term cell model exposure. Furthermore, multiple coexisting or alternate mechanisms of action likely explain the clinical effects observed, such as the competitive binding of ivermectin with the host receptor-binding region of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, as proposed in 6 molecular modeling studies.[SUP]21–26[/SUP] In 4 of the studies, ivermectin was identified as having the highest or among the highest of binding affinities to spike protein S1 binding domains of SARS-CoV-2 among hundreds of molecules collectively examined, with ivermectin not being the particular focus of study in 4 of these studies.[SUP]27[/SUP] This is the same mechanism by which viral antibodies, in particular, those generated by the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The high binding activity of ivermectin to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could limit binding to either the ACE-2 receptor or sialic acid receptors, respectively, either preventing cellular entry of the virus or preventing hemagglutination, a recently proposed pathologic mechanism in COVID-19.[SUP]21,22,26–28[/SUP] Ivermectin has also been shown to bind to or interfere with multiple essential structural and nonstructural proteins required by the virus to replicate.[SUP]26,29[/SUP] Finally, ivermectin also binds to the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), thereby inhibiting viral replication.[SUP]30[/SUP]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
https://c19ivermectin.com/
Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 113 studies, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups. FLCCC provides treatment recommendations. Submit updates/corrections.
from another site....
Preclinical studies of Ivermectin's activity against SARS-CoV-2
Since 2012, a growing number of cellular studies have demonstrated that ivermectin has antiviral properties against an increasing number of RNA viruses, including influenza, Zika, HIV, Dengue, and most importantly, SARS-CoV-2.[SUP]9–17[/SUP] Insights into the mechanisms of action by which ivermectin both interferes with the entrance and replication of SARS-CoV-2 within human cells are mounting. Caly et al[SUP]18[/SUP] first reported that ivermectin significantly inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication in a cell culture model, observing the near absence of all viral material 48 hours after exposure to ivermectin. However, some questioned whether this observation is generalizable clinically given the inability to achieve similar tissue concentrations used in their experimental model using standard or even massive doses of ivermectin.[SUP]19,20[/SUP] It should be noted that the concentrations required for an effect in cell culture models bear little resemblance to human physiology given the absence of an active immune system working synergistically with a therapeutic agent, such as ivermectin. Furthermore, prolonged durations of exposure to a drug likely would require a fraction of the dosing in short-term cell model exposure. Furthermore, multiple coexisting or alternate mechanisms of action likely explain the clinical effects observed, such as the competitive binding of ivermectin with the host receptor-binding region of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, as proposed in 6 molecular modeling studies.[SUP]21–26[/SUP] In 4 of the studies, ivermectin was identified as having the highest or among the highest of binding affinities to spike protein S1 binding domains of SARS-CoV-2 among hundreds of molecules collectively examined, with ivermectin not being the particular focus of study in 4 of these studies.[SUP]27[/SUP] This is the same mechanism by which viral antibodies, in particular, those generated by the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The high binding activity of ivermectin to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could limit binding to either the ACE-2 receptor or sialic acid receptors, respectively, either preventing cellular entry of the virus or preventing hemagglutination, a recently proposed pathologic mechanism in COVID-19.[SUP]21,22,26–28[/SUP] Ivermectin has also been shown to bind to or interfere with multiple essential structural and nonstructural proteins required by the virus to replicate.[SUP]26,29[/SUP] Finally, ivermectin also binds to the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), thereby inhibiting viral replication.[SUP]30[/SUP]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
did you bother to read it?
bold section says....works in a petri dish,doses that large would fuck you up
