Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?

[bigredfish]

And the lies continue to be exposed to light....

COVID Propaganda Roundup: Pfizer Knew mRNA Shots Sicken Infants in April 2021
COVID Propaganda Roundup: Pfizer Knew mRNA Shots Sicken Infants in April 2021 | ZeroHedge

The latest updates on the “new normal” – chronicling the lies, distortions, and abuses by the Public Health™ authorities.

Per internal Pfizer documents forced into the public domain by court decree, we know now that the company knew way back in April 2021 of the risks its mRNA gene therapy posed to infants.

Via Pregnancy and Lactation Cumulative Review:
“ [Pfizer’s] safety database was searched for all BNT162b2 vaccine cases reporting any exposure to vaccine during pregnancy (mother and/or baby) or exposure to baby via lactation from all time through 28 February 2021. A search of the Pfizer safety database identified 673 case reports. …
Of the 673 case reports identified in the search, 458 involved BNT162b2 exposure during pregnancy (mother/fetus) and 215 involved exposure during breast-feeding…
In 174 of the 215 reports, there was no AE reported other than ‘Exposure via breast milk/maternal exposure during breast feeding’. In the remaining 41 cases, AEs were reported in the infants following BNT162b2 exposure via lactation.”

Doing some quick math, this means that Pfizer documented adverse effects in no less than 19% of the babies – almost 1 in 5 — that it observed to be exposed to the spike proteins produced by their mRNA shot.

None of these findings, of course, were voluntarily disclosed by Pfizer, the Public Health™ authorities, or the corporate state media that the biomedical state effectively owns.

To this very day, as a matter of fact, the CDC recommends that all pregnant women get shot up, as does the legacy media.

 

[Oceanslider]

Joe Rogan horse dewormer…

 

[gwminor48]

And the lies continue to be exposed to light....

COVID Propaganda Roundup: Pfizer Knew mRNA Shots Sicken Infants in April 2021
COVID Propaganda Roundup: Pfizer Knew mRNA Shots Sicken Infants in April 2021 | ZeroHedge

The latest updates on the “new normal” – chronicling the lies, distortions, and abuses by the Public Health™ authorities.

Per internal Pfizer documents forced into the public domain by court decree, we know now that the company knew way back in April 2021 of the risks its mRNA gene therapy posed to infants.

Via Pregnancy and Lactation Cumulative Review:
“ [Pfizer’s] safety database was searched for all BNT162b2 vaccine cases reporting any exposure to vaccine during pregnancy (mother and/or baby) or exposure to baby via lactation from all time through 28 February 2021. A search of the Pfizer safety database identified 673 case reports. …
Of the 673 case reports identified in the search, 458 involved BNT162b2 exposure during pregnancy (mother/fetus) and 215 involved exposure during breast-feeding…
In 174 of the 215 reports, there was no AE reported other than ‘Exposure via breast milk/maternal exposure during breast feeding’. In the remaining 41 cases, AEs were reported in the infants following BNT162b2 exposure via lactation.”

Doing some quick math, this means that Pfizer documented adverse effects in no less than 19% of the babies – almost 1 in 5 — that it observed to be exposed to the spike proteins produced by their mRNA shot.

None of these findings, of course, were voluntarily disclosed by Pfizer, the Public Health™ authorities, or the corporate state media that the biomedical state effectively owns.

To this very day, as a matter of fact, the CDC recommends that all pregnant women get shot up, as does the legacy media.

Yes, I saw that on mainstream media - NOT!

 

[David L]

Joe Rogan horse dewormer…

If its good enough for my dog its good enough for me

 

[Sybertiger]

We now know the first three people to get COVID worked in the Wuhan lab: Will the US government act?

The first 3 people sickened by COVID-19 were scientists experimenting with SARS-like coronaviruses.

nypost.com

 

[bigredfish]

It originated at UNC Chapel Hill. It was then outsourced to WIV due to a ban on gain of function research here.

It’s a US born bio weapon.

Fortunately it didn’t have the fatality rate they’d hoped for. Like most things farmed out for manufacturing in China, it turned out to be cheap low quality garbage.

 

[sdkid]

Im still trying to read through the study on dosage....

Looks like
"This exploratory analysis of a prospective observational study involved a program that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days, for 150 days. Regularity definitions were as follows: regular users had 180 mg or more of ivermectin and irregular users had up to 60 mg, in total, throughout the program. "


I've been taking 12-18mg every week once a week. Which according to the table is about right (16mg) I have 6mg pills. Never got the WuFlu


The latest updated FLCCC protocol calls for
Ivermectin: 0.2 mg/kg – start treatment with one dose, take second dose 48 hours later, then 1 dose every 7 days (weekly).
Those at high risk of contracting COVID-19 can consider dosing twice a week. See Table 1 for help with calculating correct dose.

*Due to a possible interaction between quercetin and ivermectin, these drugs should be staggered throughout the
day. For COVID treatment, ivermectin is best taken with a meal or just following a meal, for greater absorption.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...I-PREVENT-Protection-Protocol-V1-June2022.pdf

View attachment 138869

* For those following the FLCCC protocol, make note of the possible interaction with quercetin

The Link you provided to the dosage page pdf on that site is gone now. I am betting they got scolded, and the site organization is based in DC.
THANK YOU for the screenshot of that table!!

 

[bigredfish]

They have tweeked their protocol over the past year as they learn more about it but it’s still very close to the original.

They have discontinued Ivermevtin for the Preventative phase, but still recommend it along with Hydroxychloroquine for early treatment. It’s always been about early treatment. Once you’re in hospital on a vent and they’re pumping you full of Remdisivir (also known to nurses as RunDeathisNear) they say it’s too late for IVM and HCQ

This page is long but has the full protocol and tables for treatment

I-CARE: Early COVID Treatment

I-CARE is a protocol focused on the early treatment of COVID-19, developed by the medical experts in The FLCCC Alliance.

covid19criticalcare.com

 

[sdkid]

They have tweeked their protocol over the past year as they learn more about it but it’s still very close to the original.

They have discontinued Ivermevtin for the Preventative phase, but still recommend it along with Hydroxychloroquine for early treatment. It’s always been about early treatment. Once you’re in hospital on a vent and they’re pumping you full of Remdisivir (also known to nurses as RunDeathisNear) they say it’s too late for IVM and HCQ

This page is long but has the full protocol and tables for treatment

I-CARE: Early COVID Treatment

I-CARE is a protocol focused on the early treatment of COVID-19, developed by the medical experts in The FLCCC Alliance.

covid19criticalcare.com

Thanks for that link...
That is REALLY weird that they dropped preventative application. That's what brought ivermectin into awareness in the first place-- all those African countries that had nationwide ivermectin programs to fight parasites were just not having the COVID outbreak seen everywhere else-- preventative effect!

 

[bigredfish]

Actually its sorta kinda still there, just found this
I-PREVENT: COVID, Flu and RSV - FLCCC | Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance

Ivermectin: In the current situation of abundant natural immunity along with the recent circulation of less severe and more highly transmissible variants, chronic weekly or Twice weekly ivermectin prophylaxis is no longer applicable to most people.

The following prophylaxis approaches with ivermectin can be considered and applied based on patient preference, comorbid status, immune status, and in discussion with their provider:

1. Twice weekly ivermectin at 0.2mg/kg; can be considered in those with significant comorbidity and lack of natural immunity or immunosuppressive states or those with long COVID or post-vaccine syndrome who are not already on ivermectin as treatment
2. Daily ivermectin just prior to and during periods of high possible exposure such as travel, weddings, conferences, etc.
3. Immediate initiation of daily ivermectin at treatment doses (0.4mg/kg) upon first symptoms of a viral syndrome

How to prevent infection if you have potentially been exposed

• Naso-Oropharyngeal hygiene (Nasal Spray and Mouthwash): 2-3 times daily
  The combination of nasal antiseptic sprays and oropharyngeal mouthwashes is strongly suggested. Choose a nasal spray with 1% povidone-iodine (for example Immune Mist™, CofixRX™ or Ionovo™) and a mouthwash containing chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride (e.g., Scope™, Crest™ or Act™), or the combination of eucalyptus, menthol, and thymol (Listerine™).
• Elderberry: four times daily as per manufacturer’s directions for 1 week (gummy, supplement, or syrup)
• Vitamin C: 500-1000 mg four times daily for 1 week
• Elemental Zinc: 50-90 mg daily for 1 week
• Melatonin: 2-5 mg at night (slow/extended release)
• Resveratrol/Combination Flavonoid supplement: 500 mg twice daily
  A flavonoid combination containing resveratrol, quercetin and pterostilbene is recommended.
  Optional with documented exposure to COVID-19 (positive test):
• Ivermectin: 0.4 mg/kg immediately, then repeat second dose in 24 hours;
  AND
• Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ): 200 mg twice a day for 5 days.
  OR
• Nitazoxanide: 500-600 mg twice daily for 5 days

 

[bigredfish]

I've backed off normal preventative doses of IVM to conserve my supply.

Seems the big preventative focus is still D3 and Zinc and C which I do a bunch of

 

[Perimeter]

I've backed off normal preventative doses of IVM to conserve my supply.

Seems the big preventative focus is still D3 and Zinc and C which I do a bunch of

Have you ever had Covid-19 so far?

 

[bigredfish]

I think I may have in Dec of 2019 but we didn’t know about it then, no tests, no public knowledge. Can’t be certain.

A girl I worked with had just returned from SE Asia with her family on a 2 week trip (they are Pilipino) I remember her being in my office with a horrible cold and told her to go home. I came down with the worst flu I can ever recall for about a week.

Since then no. I have been exposed 2X that I’m sure of in close sustained contact in ‘late 21 and early 22 with my wife who had it confirmed and my daughter. Can’t recall exactly when I first started IVM (Fall of 21) but I was an early adopter of D3/Zinc and the FLCCC protocol. I quit using it (IVM) as a preventative last Dec but still follow the rest of the protocol pretty closely.

 

[bigredfish]

I do maintain a healthy supply of IVM, HCQ, and Fluvoxamine

 

[Perimeter]

My point is, if you have not had it (and I assume you are not vaccinated), then you better get it sooner than later. The older you get, the higher the "first contact" risk will be. You'll have to ride that thing eventually. And the current version is relatively harmless in comparison. When my wife had it the second time, we took absolutely no precautions any more - it is here to stay. I didn't catch it again then.
Overall, I tested positive 3 times but only once did I actually feel ill. There is likely more danger lurking behind your backyard.

 

[bigredfish]

So yeah Im pretty sure I had the original strain in Dec 2019, and no I've not been jabbed and dont intend to as the risk/reward ratio is upside down.
Can't begin tell you how many people I know played the full bingo card of jabs and still got the flu. My boss is a good example. Had all 4 jabs/boosters, had the WuFlu...wait for it.... 4 times

99% survival rate and average age of death attributed to it, 83. (same as current avg life expectancy, funny how that works)

 

[bigredfish]

Then there's this....

Study Reveals 23 Percent Lower COVID Risk in Those ‘Not Up-to-Date’ With Vaccinations
Study Reveals 23 Percent Lower COVID Risk in Those 'Not Up-to-Date' With Vaccinations

In a compelling counter-narrative to prevailing views on COVID-19 immunization, a recent study from the Cleveland Clinic Health System reveals that individuals not considered “up-to-date” with their COVID-19 vaccinations, as per the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) definition, may have a lower risk of contracting the virus compared to their “up-to-date” counterparts.

This unexpected finding emerges as the dominant XBB lineages of the virus circulate, leading researchers to question the efficacy of bivalent vaccines against these new variants and the existing CDC guidelines for determining vaccination adequacy.

 

[mat200]

Then there's this....

Study Reveals 23 Percent Lower COVID Risk in Those ‘Not Up-to-Date’ With Vaccinations
Study Reveals 23 Percent Lower COVID Risk in Those 'Not Up-to-Date' With Vaccinations

In a compelling counter-narrative to prevailing views on COVID-19 immunization, a recent study from the Cleveland Clinic Health System reveals that individuals not considered “up-to-date” with their COVID-19 vaccinations, as per the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) definition, may have a lower risk of contracting the virus compared to their “up-to-date” counterparts.

This unexpected finding emerges as the dominant XBB lineages of the virus circulate, leading researchers to question the efficacy of bivalent vaccines against these new variants and the existing CDC guidelines for determining vaccination adequacy.

DrBeen recently did a video covering the yet to be published paper on it .. was very interesting

bottom line .. Natural Infection currently provides best resistance to the current variants out there vs vaccinations which covered the prior versions.

 

[David L]

 

[mcapeed]

Then there's this....

Study Reveals 23 Percent Lower COVID Risk in Those ‘Not Up-to-Date’ With Vaccinations
Study Reveals 23 Percent Lower COVID Risk in Those 'Not Up-to-Date' With Vaccinations

In a compelling counter-narrative to prevailing views on COVID-19 immunization, a recent study from the Cleveland Clinic Health System reveals that individuals not considered “up-to-date” with their COVID-19 vaccinations, as per the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) definition, may have a lower risk of contracting the virus compared to their “up-to-date” counterparts.

This unexpected finding emerges as the dominant XBB lineages of the virus circulate, leading researchers to question the efficacy of bivalent vaccines against these new variants and the existing CDC guidelines for determining vaccination adequacy.

Would be interesting to see the risk of those who didn’t get the vax! The “pandemic of the unvaccinated” was complete BS. Seems like those who got the jab were no more protected than those who didn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk