• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some people are just too special to use an off-the-shelf solution. And taking a vaccine is the same as admitting that you might get sick.
Only physically, morally or financially weak persons would take a free vaccine.
 
Penicillin has successfully been used to treat billions of people, Tippit.
Would you suggest using it for COVID-19?

Since Penicillin is an antibiotic and doesn't function as a protease inhibitor (to my knowledge), it probably won't directly affect Covid. However, since bacterial co-infections sometimes occur in Covid patients, I'm sure they get treated with antibiotics all the time, probably even Penicillin.

It's also one of the most commonly prescribed veterinary medicines...

Was this some kind of retarded attempt at a trap?
 
It's been used to treat people with parasitic infections, not viruses.

It's been successfully used to treat people with Covid, which is a disease caused by the Sars-CoV-2 virus. It's also been demonstrated to be a protease inhibitor in vitro. It's been railroaded like every other protocol which seeks early treatment for Covid, because that doesn't square with the Emergency Use Authorization that the multi-billion dollar experimental gene therapy conspiracy is contingent on.
 
Since Penicillin is an antibiotic and doesn't function as a protease inhibitor (to my knowledge), it probably won't directly affect Covid. However, since bacterial co-infections sometimes occur in Covid patients, I'm sure they get treated with antibiotics all the time, probably even Penicillin.

It's also one of the most commonly prescribed veterinary medicines...

Was this some kind of retarded attempt at a trap?

And yet you claim that ivermectin must be the best treatment for COVID-19 because it's being used mainly to treat something very different.

Simple question: is it better than getting a vaccine before, or monoclonal antibodies after infection?
 
And yet you claim that ivermectin must be the best treatment for COVID-19 because it's being used mainly to treat something very different.

Uh, show where I claimed that Ivermectin is the "best treatment" for Covid. I suspect that Ivermectin is effective at treating Covid, but there is a lot of conflicting information. Unlike you, I don't know everything, so I have to operate on some assumptions.

Simple question: is it better than getting a vaccine before, or monoclonal antibodies after infection?

Since I think that VAERS is dramatically under-reported with adverse events being suppressed by the media and in social media, and the experimental gene therapy is toxic, and with unknown future side effects, and since the disease has a 99.76% infection survival rate (I've already survived it at least twice now with a simple vitamin protocol), and since I think Covid is treatable in the vast majority of people, there is no reason to consume the vaccine once or twice, let alone boosters in perpetuity.

Monoclonal antibodies seem to be a fairly effective treatment. So why is the Federal Government reducing monoclonal antibody treatments?
 
Last edited:
I get it: you don't want a drug that about everyone is getting - you need something special!

Still no answer on monoclonal antibodies vs. ivermectin..
,
 
The prisoners should have been fully informed and given consent before any medical treatment, but prescribing relatively unharmful treatments in spite of the Orwellian Ministry of Health should not be illegal.

The FDA has said it does not recommend using ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. Misuse of this drug, intended to treat some parasitic worms, can have serious consequences.
https://thehill.com/changing-americ...inmates-unknowingly-given-ivermectin-to-treat


As it stands today the law permits the violation of rights of the incarcerated so long as the prison policy is reasonably related to legitimate penologic interests.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/forced-medication-prison-inmates/2008-02

It seems black and white. It does not matter if a drug is not harmful but rather it has to have a reasonable connection to prison management and no such reasonable evidence existed.
 
It also has a well-established safety profile, even at high doses:

Safety of high-dose ivermectin: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you even bother to read your own references? From that page:

"Conclusions: Although within this review the safety of high-dose ivermectin appears to be comparable to standard doses, there are not enough data to support a recommendation for its use in higher-than-approved doses."

That's far from any scientific consideration of "well-established".
 
It appears that the prisoners survived their Covid infections. They probably would have survived them with or without Ivermectin given the fact that the disease has a 99.76% infection survival rate. Were they harmed by the Ivermectin?

Yes, they were. Did you not read the link? Do you not bother to read anything else about this incident?
[T]he inmates suffered from side-effects that included vision issues, diarrhea, bloody stools and stomach cramps.

Then there's the financial harm:
The inmates were also subject to payment of fees for medical examinations that they sought after experiencing the side-effects from the drug.



If not, the lawsuit seems frivolous, given the non-experimental and safe aspects of the drug. If you're going to argue that the doctor is guilty of malpractice for prescribing it in spite of "US health officials", then that is baseless, since there was apparently no harm done.

Malpractice would also include lying to your patients, no?

Karas told the inmates that the prescribed drugs “consisted of mere ‘vitamins’, ‘antibiotics,’ and/or ‘steroids’”. It added, “Had plaintiffs been informed that the drugs they were given included the dewormer ivermectin and informed of its nature and potential side-effects, they would have refused to take it.”
Furthermore, you claim the use of Ivermectin for Covid treatment is 'non-experimental'. Have you got a citation for that?

The prisoners should have been fully informed and given consent before any medical treatment, but prescribing relatively unharmful treatments in spite of the Orwellian Ministry of Health should not be illegal.

Now I've spoonfed you the evidence, would you like to reconsider that conclusion?
 
Since I think that VAERS is dramatically under-reported with adverse events being suppressed by the media and in social media, and the experimental gene therapy is toxic, and with unknown future side effects, and since the disease has a 99.76% infection survival rate (I've already survived it at least twice now with a simple vitamin protocol), and since I think Covid is treatable in the vast majority of people, there is no reason to consume the vaccine once or twice, let alone boosters in perpetuity.
[/URL]?

Think what you want, but the vaccine is NOT gene therapy, and any future side effects are negligible, as all indications are that there will be none. From:
https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resour...de-effects-of-covid-vaccines-3-things-to-know

(QUOTE)
2. Vaccine side effects show up within weeks if at all
That is not to say that there have never been safety issues with vaccines. But in each instance, these have appeared soon after widespread use of the vaccine began. "The side effects that we see occur early on and that's it," Goepfert said. In virtually all cases, vaccine side effects are seen within the first two months after rollout.

The only vaccine program that might compare with the scale and speed of the COVID rollout is the original oral polio vaccine in the 1950s, Goepfert says. When this vaccine was first introduced in the United States in 1955, it used a weakened form of the polio virus that in very rare cases — about 1 in 2.4 million recipients — became activated and caused paralysis. (Compare this with the 60,000 children infected with polio in the United States in 1952, and the more than 3,000 children who died from the disease in the U.S. that year.) Cases of vaccine-induced paralysis occurred between one and four weeks after vaccination. None of the COVID vaccines uses a weakened form of the SARS-CoV-2 virus — all train the body to recognize a piece of the virus known as the spike protein and generate antibodies that can attack the virus in case of a real infection.

In 1976, a vaccine against swine flu that was widely distributed in the United States was identified in rare cases (approximately one in 100,000) as a cause of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, in which the immune system attacks the nerves. Almost all of these cases occurred in the eight weeks after a person received the vaccine. But the flu itself also can cause Guillain-Barré Syndrome; in fact, the syndrome occurs 17 times more frequently after natural flu infection than after vaccination.

In 1999, a vaccine against rotavirus, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea in infants, was pulled from the market after more than a dozen cases of bowel obstruction were reported in the first six months of use. (After an extensive review of records, the case rate was determined to be about one case per 10,000 doses.) The greatest risk was found to be within three to seven days after the first dose of the vaccine. "When they gave it to millions of kids, they discovered this very rare effect of intussusception, or bowel obstruction, which occurs with rotavirus as well," Goepfert said. “And the vaccine was quickly removed from use.”
(UNQUOTE)

Also, like most misinformaneers, you dwell on the death rates, and completely ignore the severity differences between unvaccinated persons and those with breakthrough infections. Moreso, your bias is blind to the conditions of long COVID and the actual, as well as unknown, long-term effects the disease can have.

From: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...th/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351

"COVID-19 symptoms can sometimes persist for months. The virus can damage the lungs, heart and brain, which increases the risk of long-term health problems."
 
Structure of the protease and the inhibitor

One of the compounds within Paxlovid is a bespoke protease inhibitor. Medicinal chemist Derek Lowe has written about it here and at In the Pipeline. The crystal structure of the inhibitor bound to its target protease is described here. Not all protease inhibitors are created equal, but PF-07321332, the protease inhibitor portion of Paxlovid is the real deal.
EDT
A podcast with some comments from Derek Lowe is found here.
 
Last edited:
I really think it's all about "I want some special treatment, not what the unwashed masses get".

That's consistent with my assessment of conspiracy theories as gnostic cults that allow adherents to imagine being among the rare few too clever to be fooled. Their construct says that they're special, so it must be maintained at any cost. Why wouldn't they insist on a special treatment that sets them apart from the great masses of inferior sheeple? Sadly, to them, the scientific method is just another authority figure to be contradicted.
 
Last edited:
Something interesting I've noticed is that conspiracy theories, in general, typically have different adherents promoting mutually contradictory components of the theory. Yet it's rare to see them openly challenging other conspiracy theorists.

We've had Tom Palven and CE, for example, telling us that COVID-19 isn't even real, and that it's either the flu or a bad cold that people are experiencing. Tom has gone so far as to claim that deaths from "COVID" are actually the psychosomatic result of the unfounded fear of COVID.

At the same time we have Tuppet telling us that COVID-19 is real, but that it should be treated with an anti-parasitic instead of vaccines. But something tells me that we won't see either side of this issue openly contradicting each other here.
 
Something interesting I've noticed is that conspiracy theories, in general, typically have different adherents promoting mutually contradictory components of the theory. Yet it's rare to see them openly challenging other conspiracy theorists.

We've had Tom Palven and CE, for example, telling us that COVID-19 isn't even real, and that it's either the flu or a bad cold that people are experiencing. Tom has gone so far as to claim that deaths from "COVID" are actually the psychosomatic result of the unfounded fear of COVID.

At the same time we have Tuppet telling us that COVID-19 is real, but that it should be treated with an anti-parasitic instead of vaccines. But something tells me that we won't see either side of this issue openly contradicting each other here.

The spelling police will come down hard on you for that one :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom