It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

for the hundred time/ the vaccine CANNOT STOP OR PREVENT COVID

page: 7
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: YongSu
a reply to: spacemanjupiter

It is debatable vaccine can reduce infection rate and spread. Unvax are likely to get sick and stay home, preventing others from catching it. Vax have very little symptoms if any and when infected they will not stay home and infect others. This year cases numbers are much higher than last year. The only explanation is vax has helped the virus spread. Keep in mind the virus mainly spreads asymptotically to counter symptom warning system which humans evolved over millions of years to counter virus by warning others they are infected so stay away.


I agree with most of what you say, however, I disagree with your comment regarding asymptomatic spread. There has never been a study regarding asymptomatic spread. That was one of the many, many lies that have been spread around as complete disinformation. It would be impossible to complete a study of this nature. 100% impossible.

There is only 1 reason and 1 reason alone for the massive increase in cases. Artificial escalated spread of the virus via mass vaccinations. As an example if you have 1,000 people who have no current infection as many as 15% will develop enough viral load after their vaccination to get sick to the point where they become infectious. They then spread it to the others both with and without the vaccine.

A vaccine does not prevent viral infection.
A vaccine does not cure a viral infection.
A vaccine does not kill a virus.

Getting sick has to do do with two unmeasurable variables.

A person's current immune system strength and the viral load of an infected individual and their level of viral shedding.

If person A (the healthy one) has a 10 rating on their immune system strength and person B (the infected person) has a 4 rating on their viral shed then person A will still contract the virus, however, because their immune system is a 10 their immune system will quickly eradicate the virus and the spread stops there. They may only experience minor symptoms like a mild fever, runny nose and fatigue for a day.

Now reverse those numbers where person A has a 5 rating on their immune system because they have had multiple prior history infections and person B has a viral shed rating of a 10 because they are full blown sick. Person A will become equally as sick and they will then become equally as infectious.

You can pick either one to play the role of "vaccinated" and it will not change the fact they either will not or will spread the virus.

Mass vaccinations (i.e. artificial spread) is the sole cause of the massive increase in cases. A virus with a 99.98% survival rating does not spread at this rate around the globe. It is due entirely and exclusively to artificial spread.

I.E. - Mass vaccinations.



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Local 5 o’clock news. They also said that they are checking against a J&J booster versus getting the Pfizer or Moderna second dose as a booster.
edit on 13-10-2021 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: scrounger

It's true that it doesn't stop you from transmitting the virus, nor does it shield you 100% from catching it. However, the reason they are pushing for it in many countries is because they say - If you are vaxxed, and you catch covid, you will most likely not get nearly as sick as opposed to if you were not vaxxed.



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation

originally posted by: CrazyWater

originally posted by: spacemanjupiter
a reply to: scrounger

Here, you dropped your tin foil hat.

I'm not sure who is claiming the vaccine prevents the spread or infection. Not the sources I read or watch. However, the vaccine does lessen the infection rate and spread. It also has a much higher chance of keeping you out of the hospital and alive than if you're unvaccinated.

The virus doesn't need to be killed. Ya can't kill the flu either, otherwise it would be extinct by now. However, your immune system can be 'trained' to handle it better.

"A VACCINATED PERSON CAN TRANSMIT THE VIRUS THE SAME AS AN UNVACCINATED PERSON CAN."
That's not true. A vaccinated person does not transmit the virus as easily as an unvaccinated person. The vaccines do work, and it has been proven.

My advice would be to stop watching garbage fake news networks such as Faux, OAN, and that other trash network, can't remember the name, but you probably know which one. 700K are dead now. This isn't just another 'flu'. The vast majority of people dying are among the unvaccinated, not the vaccinated. Young, seemingly healthy people are also dying from it. Those are facts, and all the people here pushing conspiracy theories and not getting vaccinated are only putting others at higher risk of being infected and possibly dying from it. Seat belts are the law. Do you complain about that too?

Here, do yourself a favor.
Covid FACTS

Science. It's out there, and it's free.


I'm a covid floor charge nurse.

You're wrong on all accounts ts and you're just eating up what's being fed to you.

What the media and these "exoerts" are saying is what they are told and paid to say or threatened with their careers .

There is plenty of evidence ( I have 5 fully vaxed patients on my floor 2 of which on forced vent) that the vaccine had minimal impact on whether you get covid or not.

Over the past year at least half of the people admitted to my floor were vaccinated

Full stop

Stop buying the bs and go seek out the truth


Where are you at? Don't have to say the hospital but just curious like what region of the states or what state? I'm on the business side of Healthcare and in our 13+ major hospitals across the midwest that is not what we are seeing. 83% of the hospitalizations are unvaccinated, unless of course that is one big lie which I can't truly validate.


Here is a fact that you can validate and it contradicts your un-validated numbers. For the last week of September 70% of the deaths in England were fully vaccinated. That is documented. I know you're talking hospitalizations, but it's the deaths that matter. ADE is starting to drive hospitalizations and deaths in England now, it will begin to build here in the US this winter. The data also show that the unvaxxed show a 2x better survival rate over vaxxed in all age groups over 40. If you're vaxxed bend over grab your ankles.... well you know the rest.
edit on 13-10-2021 by bladerunner44 because: spell



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: FatherQuinlan
a reply to: scrounger

It's true that it doesn't stop you from transmitting the virus, nor does it shield you 100% from catching it. However, the reason they are pushing for it in many countries is because they say - If you are vaxxed, and you catch covid, you will most likely not get nearly as sick as opposed to if you were not vaxxed.



with respect thats NOT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING / pushing.

if they were saying that AND no vaccine mandates (with continued covid mandates) they may get more people to look at the vaccine.

Im sorry but all i can find is "vaccine mandates to stop the spread" (or other phrases to that theme) and "the unvaxxed are causing vaccinated to get infected/ passing it on" (or other phrases to that theme).

look let me clarify something here....

i dont think people who WILLINGLY take the vaccine are idiots/unthinking/ect.
if you look at all the information and make that decision.. thats ok by me

my issue is the CONTINUED LYING on what the vaccine does and using it to FORCE people to be vaccinated.
to the point of you WILL loose your job, cant travel, cant go to school and the biggest... no matter how many are vaccinated we still have MANDATORY COVID RESTRICTIONS and NOW TRYING TO MANDATE A BOOSTER SHOT...

scrounger



posted on Oct, 14 2021 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: YongSu

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: scrounger

Your reasoning is weak, and faulty. If we were to use it we would arrive at the following conclusion:

1. Police does not stop terrorists with bomb belts.
2. Police just mitigate the wide spreading of terrorist attacks with bomb belts.
3. Anyone can become a terrorist, hence...
4. it is stupid and futile to combat terrorism.

Your turn.


Let's rewind, shall we?

Polio vaccine does NOT stop polio.

Measles vaccine does NOT stop measles.

Mumps vaccine does NOT stop mumps.

Rubella vaccine does NOT stop rubella.

Rabies vaccine does NOT stop rabies.

What if that was history? Except it isn't.....all of those vaccines actually WORKED...

-------------------------

Do you see a disconnect here?

One of these things is NOT like the other? (Remember Sesame Street?)

Pepperidge Farm, remembah's....F'N right it does....


SARS was beat pretty easily without vaccine.

Overall this is true i believe


Polio was beaten with water sanitation.

um NO.. thats cholera. it was eraticated by THE POLIO VACCINE


Smallpox was beaten because of very visible symptoms and social distancing.


DUDE ARE YOU SERIOUS? "social distancing" ? wow thats would be the most ignorant comment except for what you said first "beaten byecause of veyr visbile symptoms" . so "seeing it" prevented passing it? so contaminated surfaces and vectors in the enviroment played no part? wow even ray charles can see your ignorance from here.

I dont know whats worse...
He and others believe the hype of covid mandates mania
or that they post such ignorant drivel in age of the internet where such FACTS as i have stated can be found in .025 seconds google search...

scrounger



posted on Oct, 14 2021 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ahabstar

Just in, where? Source?

www.reuters.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2021 @ 07:01 AM
link   


the biggest is THE VACCINE CANNOT PREVENT YOU FROM CATCHING OR TRANSMITTING THE VIRUS.
a reply to: scrounger

I have been telling people the non-logic of this non-vaccine. I even had discussions with doctors in hospitals (who where not wearing masks anywhere - Netherlands). Whenever i brought these points up together with the question to these doctors "Where did the regular flu go then? Since those are zilch all of a sudden". They did not want to discuss it anymore.

Another point i would make in this discussion is that if people can still get COVID and spread it but we are A-symptomatic that would make the vaxxed super spreaders to everyone , vaxxed and not vaxed. It really is that simple. People can still get it but dont know that they have it so they will spread it around without knowing they have it. not visible to anyone.



posted on Oct, 14 2021 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: bladerunner44

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation

originally posted by: CrazyWater

originally posted by: spacemanjupiter
a reply to: scrounger

Here, you dropped your tin foil hat.

I'm not sure who is claiming the vaccine prevents the spread or infection. Not the sources I read or watch. However, the vaccine does lessen the infection rate and spread. It also has a much higher chance of keeping you out of the hospital and alive than if you're unvaccinated.

The virus doesn't need to be killed. Ya can't kill the flu either, otherwise it would be extinct by now. However, your immune system can be 'trained' to handle it better.

"A VACCINATED PERSON CAN TRANSMIT THE VIRUS THE SAME AS AN UNVACCINATED PERSON CAN."
That's not true. A vaccinated person does not transmit the virus as easily as an unvaccinated person. The vaccines do work, and it has been proven.

My advice would be to stop watching garbage fake news networks such as Faux, OAN, and that other trash network, can't remember the name, but you probably know which one. 700K are dead now. This isn't just another 'flu'. The vast majority of people dying are among the unvaccinated, not the vaccinated. Young, seemingly healthy people are also dying from it. Those are facts, and all the people here pushing conspiracy theories and not getting vaccinated are only putting others at higher risk of being infected and possibly dying from it. Seat belts are the law. Do you complain about that too?

Here, do yourself a favor.
Covid FACTS

Science. It's out there, and it's free.


I'm a covid floor charge nurse.

You're wrong on all accounts ts and you're just eating up what's being fed to you.

What the media and these "exoerts" are saying is what they are told and paid to say or threatened with their careers .

There is plenty of evidence ( I have 5 fully vaxed patients on my floor 2 of which on forced vent) that the vaccine had minimal impact on whether you get covid or not.

Over the past year at least half of the people admitted to my floor were vaccinated

Full stop

Stop buying the bs and go seek out the truth


Where are you at? Don't have to say the hospital but just curious like what region of the states or what state? I'm on the business side of Healthcare and in our 13+ major hospitals across the midwest that is not what we are seeing. 83% of the hospitalizations are unvaccinated, unless of course that is one big lie which I can't truly validate.


Here is a fact that you can validate and it contradicts your un-validated numbers. For the last week of September 70% of the deaths in England were fully vaccinated. That is documented. I know you're talking hospitalizations, but it's the deaths that matter. ADE is starting to drive hospitalizations and deaths in England now, it will begin to build here in the US this winter. The data also show that the unvaxxed show a 2x better survival rate over vaxxed in all age groups over 40. If you're vaxxed bend over grab your ankles.... well you know the rest.


Explain to me how your numbers are more validated then mine? The reason I say that is because I get the info from someone else, which is the same thing you are doing right? So neither of us are truly validated but we are trusting the source. That's my mine reason for saying that I can't (me personally) because I am getting the data/info second hand. Now, I do trust that source of course. I also agree with what you wrote as well.
edit on 14-10-2021 by HawkeyeNation because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2021 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: everyone



the biggest is THE VACCINE CANNOT PREVENT YOU FROM CATCHING OR TRANSMITTING THE VIRUS.
a reply to: scrounger

I have been telling people the non-logic of this non-vaccine. I even had discussions with doctors in hospitals (who where not wearing masks anywhere - Netherlands). Whenever i brought these points up together with the question to these doctors "Where did the regular flu go then? Since those are zilch all of a sudden". They did not want to discuss it anymore.

Another point i would make in this discussion is that if people can still get COVID and spread it but we are A-symptomatic that would make the vaxxed super spreaders to everyone , vaxxed and not vaxed. It really is that simple. People can still get it but dont know that they have it so they will spread it around without knowing they have it. not visible to anyone.



Is there an answer they could give you that would make you believe them anyways, just curious. Generally people have their mind made up already about the everything Covid. You go to some other sites and they believe they are infecting us with HIV. My guess, is your doctor has tried to answer this a thousand times and it does no good.



posted on Oct, 14 2021 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

"I brought these points up together with the question to these doctors "Where did the regular flu go then? Since those are zilch all of a sudden". They did not want to discuss it anymore."

Can't say that I blame them.....



posted on Oct, 14 2021 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation




Where are you at? Don't have to say the hospital but just curious like what region of the states or what state?


Washington State



posted on Oct, 14 2021 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AaarghZombies
It sure doesn't work like that where I am.

I know two families that are fully vaccinated and one person in each family got covid and infected their entire family.
I also know a 21 year old lad and 8 of his friends all caught it from each other.....all fully vaccinated.
That's 16 fully vaccinated people altogether, that caught and transmitted covid......that I actually know.


Don't bother trying to respond to this dolt (AaarghZombie) He lives a lonely miserable life and trolling posts with inane statements that deify any logical interpretation is how affirms he is alive. poor fool



posted on Oct, 14 2021 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: CANONCITYPATRIOT
If anyone is still looking for Ivermectin you can get the Austro brand Ivermectin 6 mg tablets at reliablerxpharmacy.

www.reliablerxpharmacy.com...

They are going fast, so stock up while you can.


Are you, by any chance, pushing this product for any selfish motive?

Sounds like marketing push to me.


Just get some Ivermectin wherever you can find it: because all the ferrets died



posted on Oct, 14 2021 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: CANONCITYPATRIOT
If anyone is still looking for Ivermectin you can get the Austro brand Ivermectin 6 mg tablets at reliablerxpharmacy.

www.reliablerxpharmacy.com...

They are going fast, so stock up while you can.

I would prefer to get my hands on HCQ. Can anyone think of a good analogy to compare something that's very effective (HCQ) to something that is much less effective (Ivermectin)? I was thinking about a Fiat Panda (Ivermectin) and a Ferrari (HCQ). But Ferraris are luxury items. I guess Ferraris are more effective at reaching higher top speeds than Fiat Pandas. HCQ is also much more versatile than Ivermectin. HCQ can do more useful functions in the treatment and prophylaxis of Covid-19 (inhibiting viral entry, viral transport, viral replication, viral shedding and the cytokine storm by targeting IL-6), whereas Ivermectin does only one function if it works as advertized (inhibiting viral replication, which I guess in the end also affects viral shedding, but not directly like HCQ inhibits the machinery involved specifically with the viral shedding step). In that sense, Ivermectin is much more like zinc+zinc ionophore (to get the zinc into the cell), which also only inhibits viral replication.

I have to say though, that I haven't really looked into whether Ivermectin can also do more than only inhibiting viral replication, as soon as I got that impression (which was after I studied the mechanism of HCQ and realized how effective and versatile it was), I sort of lost interest (when I was watching Dr. Been's video about ivermectin's mechanism of action*).

*: I wanted to link the video here but it seems it has been removed from his channel, which does seem to suggest that it works as advertized for Covid-19 (inhibiting viral replication) cause youtube only removes videos with useful information concerning medications that are a threat to the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry (their puppets at hospitals, laboraties and research companies and such), i.e. medications that work too well so we don't need crap like Remdesivir or 'vaccines' that are only beneficial for a short while anymore. Not sure exactly how long the vaccines have some decent benefit (in giving you a head start on the virus as explained in my earlier commentary).

Oh yeah, and Azithromycin (Zithromax; or Doxycycline, also not available over the counter), cause that does seem to enhance the effectiveness of HCQ in the treatment of Covid-19 quite a bit (see Marseille study of around March 17-20 2020, where they compared HCQ vs HCQ + Azithromycin).


I have both HQC and Ivermevtin. I and my family are currently using Ivermectin prophylactic-ally. I am not going to cite all the studies done comparing these 2 drugs. Your silly car analogy is totally incorrect. Both work, but Ivermectin has a better safety profile (less chance of dosing side effects) and it is more efficacious. The studies are out there to substantiate this . Perhaps you can find them if you try. Just get some Ivermectin, because all the ferrets died !!!



posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bladerunner44
I find it so unfair that those who don't even understand the true value of HCQ can get it when I can't. Don't you find it a bit excessive to use Ivermectin for prophylaxis when none of the proposed mechanisms of action (MOA) for ivermectin that I've seen suggest that it can prevent or inhibit viral entry into the cell (like HCQ can)? These theorized MOA's for Ivermectin all affect later stages of the viral pathway (i.e. after infection, they are not proposed to be able to prevent infection), as well as alleviating symptoms like blood clotting (I was under the impression first that it inhibited viral replication, but apparently that's not really it, or at least not in the way that I thought).

I've had another look at the proposed mechanisms of Ivermectin, which is not nearly as well researched and tested as HCQ; also because it's harder to test for if you look at the details of these theorized MOA's, you're much more dependent if the theorizing being done is realistic and accurate from the perspective of biochemistry, with HCQ it directly affects viral loads in the cell, which you can test and verify both in vitro and in vivo, as has been done. This video proposes 4 MOA's, I get the impression that none of these have been verified:

I know the source above also to be unreliable in how they talk about the negative RCT's for HCQ, which are obviously affected by bias and manipulation by means of things such as horrible hospital protocols that make things worse for those patients getting HCQ in those trials.

Also, none of the MOA's proposed there are supported with a link to a study specifically about testing that MOA (unless I didn't pay attention). They may make perfect sense, and it may very well be that it works that way, but can you take a large enough dosage of ivermectin to have a significant enough effect for all 4 proposed MOA's, or any one of them specifically? With HCQ, the main beneficial function, increasing pH in cells, endosomes and lysosomes to inhibit viral entry, viral transport, viral replication and viral shedding, has been wel tested in the treatment of malaria. For malaria it increases the pH in the food vacuole of the malaria parasite, inhibiting the function of the biomolecular machinery there, which functions the same way with how it increases pH in cells, endosomes and lysosomes to inhibit the function of the biomolecular machinery there, which includes the machinery responsible for viral replication and the other 3 steps in the viral pathway I mentioned, and the level of HCQ saturation used in in vitro tests can easily be achieved in vivo as well, without risking overdosage. I have not been able to determin what in vitro tests to determin MOA for ivermectin have been done, and more importantly, if the level of saturation with ivermectin used in vitro, can be achieved in vivo as well (especially because I see the in vivo dosages being very small amounts of ivermectin).

Again, I'd like to stress that I'm not assuming that ivermectin doesn't work the way it's described in the video, or that it doesn't work in vivo; I just need to know more. I think the research into ivermectin is a bit behind HCQ (because the MOA for HCQ for malaria has been well studied over the years and concerns the same functionality, mainly the pH increasing function). On top of that, if ivermectin functions the way proposed in the video above, it does not directly affect the virus in terms of inhibiting viral entry, viral transport, viral replication and viral shedding. It also doesn't inhibit IL-6 (involved in the cytokine storm) like HCQ does (which is the part that makes HCQ so versatile, both prophylactically, early treatment, mid treatment and late treatment). If ivermectin functions the way described in that video (and if its function is limited to those 4 MOA's), then it comes into play later into the disease (mechanism 1 seems to be the one that is the most important early on, but does not directly inhibit viral replication, but allows your own immune system to make antiviral proteins unobstructed by the viral protein interfering with the production of antiviral proteins inside the nucleus, which they talk about there; which perhaps is testable with in vitro tests that measure the amount of antiviral proteins compared to a cell that does not have ivermectin in it. But that video doesn't link an in vitro study for checking for that specific MOA.

Anyway, I'm not that interested in RCT's or large studies anymore, finding them to be wholly unreliable based on people doing them with a conflict of interest and bias, I would much prefer to see case studies from honest doctors using ivermectin on their patients (without HCQ of course) and seeing direct results that can be easily attributed to the ivermectin; which again seems hard to me. Because take for example the anti blood clotting MOA or function discussed in the video. How could you tell from a case study from a doctor prescribing ivermectin to his patients? That's much harder to do cause the patient doesn't know any better, whereas with HCQ, the effect on fevers disappearing within 24-48 hours is easily noticed, as well as the improvement in breathing and coughing symptoms related to Covid-19, which happens within hours. I've heard one doctor say that their patients reported improvement in that regards within 4-5 hours*; in the video above ivermectin is not proposed to have a direct effect on those symptoms. Similarly it's easy to test for viral loads in vitro, whether HCQ is affecting that, but can you test for antiviral protein loads that easily? I don't know, and I haven't seen an in vitro study doing that with realistic levels of ivermectin applied that can also be achieved in vivo without overdosing patients. Which is the main reason why some scientists always feel the need to point out that in vivo studies are better (more useful) than in vitro, but that's not really true if some people weren't so biased (a desire to make the drug appear more effective than they would be in vivo with more realistic dosages) that they use unrealistic levels of a drug in vitro that do not translate to in vivo because you can't use that amount of that drug in vivo because of side effects (or unwanted effects). So if everyone doing in vitro tests would just stick to realistic levels of a drug that they know can also be achieved in vivo, as was done with HCQ, than in vitro studies can be much more informative and relied upon.

*: this doctor, at 1:13 she talks about the "lung restriction", seeing improvement in her patients in 4 to 5 hours (this is the most important symptom, having to do with the cytokine storm causing damage to the lungs, and other causes for the damage):

So again, I'm not saying ivermectin doesn't work (at all), but do you know of any case studies for ivermectin like these ones (for HCQ) that see (near) immediate improvement to various symptoms that would be illogical to attribute to the normal operation of the auto-immune system (indicating that it's primarily the HCQ+extras treatment that is causing this improvement, also because it fits with the MOA research into HCQ, it makes sense to see these improvements if it works as described in the MOA studies and videos I've seen):


I've looked into Grenade's experience with Covid-19 and using ivermectin + vit C + D, but I can't tell from his experience if it's the ivermectin doing most of the function that led to his improvement (or whether it's his auto-immune system doing most of the job, as he says so himself that he can't be sure it was the ivermectin). With HCQ+extras (Dr. Ban's treatment above), there's just no doubt, when someone has had a fever for 10 days, with no improvement in sight, and the fever is gone after 1 day of Dr. Ban's HCQ+extras treatment, it's clearly Dr. Ban's treatment that is causing that. Especially if it happens again, and again, and again (all his patients, without a single exception). The fever disappearing is the first sign that it's working (especially if that fever has already lasted a long time with no sign of improvement; otherwise you could attribute it to coincidence and the normal operation of the body's auto-immune system).
edit on 16-10-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

"I brought these points up together with the question to these doctors "Where did the regular flu go then? Since those are zilch all of a sudden". They did not want to discuss it anymore."

Can't say that I blame them.....


It turns out that washing your hands, wearing a mask and socially distancing are all really good ways of avoiding catching the flu.



posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: bladerunner44

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AaarghZombies
It sure doesn't work like that where I am.

I know two families that are fully vaccinated and one person in each family got covid and infected their entire family.
I also know a 21 year old lad and 8 of his friends all caught it from each other.....all fully vaccinated.
That's 16 fully vaccinated people altogether, that caught and transmitted covid......that I actually know.


Don't bother trying to respond to this dolt (AaarghZombie) He lives a lonely miserable life and trolling posts with inane statements that deify any logical interpretation is how affirms he is alive. poor fool


I also use hard statistics to debunk various myths about covid and the vax.

For example, I constantly post links demonstrating how very few double vaxxed people get sick or die from Covid, and how the majority of those who are seriously sick are completely unvaxxed.

Like how in 6 months only 640 double vaxxed people died due to Covid in the UK, while at the same time 38,000 unvaxxed died due to covid. That's some disparity, isn't it.

Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source

Anti-vaxxers just hate it when people say that they will "do their own research" and then come across one of my posts, and decide that they will get the vax after all.



posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

"I brought these points up together with the question to these doctors "Where did the regular flu go then? Since those are zilch all of a sudden". They did not want to discuss it anymore."

Can't say that I blame them.....


It turns out that washing your hands, wearing a mask and socially distancing are all really good ways of avoiding catching the flu.


Lockdowns will do that, too.



posted on Oct, 16 2021 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bladerunner44

Both work, but Ivermectin has a better safety profile (less chance of dosing side effects) ...

What side effects are you thinking of concerning HCQ that makes it less safe then ivermectin? Since HCQ does not cause any significant QT prolongation (as falsely claimed by those trying to make HCQ appear less safe than it is), also not in combination with Azithromycin (referred to as Zpack and Zithromax by Dr. Ban), and even if it did, one can easily switch to Doxycycline cause it's the Azithromycin that may possibly be the main culprit (as discussed by Dr. Ban in the 2nd video I shared of him in my previous comment).

Also HCQ short-term usage for Covid-19 in the dosages used by Dr. Ban does not cause any significant retinopathy (damage to the eyes, the retina). It also doesn't have the same side effect as CQ that is worth mentioning involving a deficiency of G6PD (which counts mostly for Africans).

Other side effects of any note for HCQ in normal dosages I'm not aware of. Since Ivermectin is used in such small dosages compared to HCQ, it appears that it's easier to overdose on ivermectin for negative effects. Bringing us back to my question, can you really take enough ivermectin for any significant enough effect in terms of the proposed and theorized MOA's, causing the effectiveness you believe in because of large studies and RCT's that I don't trust anymore? Case studies by honest doctors who care more about their patients than their careers or reputation or income from clients such as the government and phramaceutical companies (those funding RCT's and large studies) should be "the gold standard"; as RCT's are currently described. Just like the youtube source I used for ivermectin's MOA's does for RCT's, one major reason I don't really trust that source to be very capable of seeing through the phenomena of scientism and fraud (scams) in science, cause it's a marketing term, "gold standard", with which researchers, doctors and other scientists in the medical industry have been brainwashed. An RCT is about as far away from "gold standard" as a Ferrari is from a Fiat Panda in terms of top speed. The Ferrari being the type of case studies I just described. Is that a better analogy for you? Or has the brainwashing and indoctrination already affected you as well concerning biased and manipulated RCT's (and other large studies) because they are performed by those whose revenue and income is dependent on the funds received from governments and pharmaceuticals (those are the clients of research laboratories and hospitals doing research into drug efficacy), unlike with Dr. Ban, whose income is dependent on how pleased his patients are with his treatment? Nor does he seem to care as much about how much money he's making as he cares about providing his patients with the best care he can think of.

Here's another one falling for the notion that RCT's and large studies are more useful then case studies from honest doctors like Dr. Ban, at least she can be honest about HCQ not causing any significant QT prolongation (related to commentary about arrhythmia side effects):

HCQ Not Associated with QTc Length in SLE and RA Patients: Dr. Janet Pope

And here's another one of those types of scientists (victims of scientism, with too much trust in those performing large studies and RCT's) admitting that even long term usage of HCQ does not mean one has to be concerned about Retinopathy (so it's definitely not a concern for short term usage as in the Dr. Ban treatment for Covid-19, or other similar short term treatment with the right dosages for Covid-19):

Risk of HCQ Retinopathy: Dr. Kathryn Dao

Those were the main concerns for HCQ as hyped by those trying to give people the impression that HCQ is not that safe, yet these doctors using HCQ in the treatment of Rheuma don't seem to see a problem there (and that's long term usage, so if it's really a problem, it would show up there first; and then you can think about whether that means the problem would also occur with short term usage, which obviously it won't, exactly because it's short term, not nearly as much HCQ is used as for Rheuma patients).

P.S. to be frank (without intending to offend or insult you), it doesn't sound like you've been able to do very effective research into the safety profiles or effectiveness of HCQ compared to ivermectin, making your statement a bit of a statement out of ignorance; actually that somewhat counts for your entire comment. It also sounds like you have an unhealthy trust in large studies and RCT's, posiibly thinking they are superior over case studies by a doctor like Dr. Ban (whose videos were removed from youtube, why hasn't that happened with the Whiteboard Doctor videos who sounds like someone who hasn't treated any patients with Covid-19? And if he did, where are his case studies? Doesn't he see the value in those? Especially in today's climate in the medical industry).

The ivermectin video I used in my previous comment is from the channel "Whiteboard Doctor" in case you didn't notice. His videos are conveniently never removed from youtube, could that be because they are not as threatening to those feeding off the rather large Corona pie?

Watch those dr.Ban videos fast, before they're gone because I linked them here (one part in that video series that I used more often on ATS is already gone, the 2 I used now I haven't used that often on ATS, making it less likely for someone here to report them to the youtube overlords; that all changes now that I've linked them here).
edit on 16-10-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join