I have challenged numerous ivermectin-promoters to provide or cite valid scientific evidence to back up their "safe and effective" claims and no one was able to. This includes Tess Lawrie and Mark Trozzi of "World Council for Health".
Stiil trying to find information on contraceptive/fertility research at Merck in 60s/70s. I found this from 2011: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/at-merck-an-undercover-video-and-40-deaths-plague-nuvaring-birth-control-brand/. "About 40 women have died using Merck (MRK)'s Nuvaring contraceptive device, according to a Swiss report, as the company faces 730 lawsuits in U.S. courts. Separately, Merck staff were videotaped leading a group European ob/gyns in a pop-music singalong promoting Nuvaring at a boozy event that was supposed to be educational, according to an Estonian business daily. The two events suggest Merck's Nuvaring troubles may yet become a PR headache for the company."
"The World Health Organization also took the lead in pursuing a hormonal contraceptive for men. Beginning in the 1970s, the World Health Organization sponsored a worldwide network of chemical laboratories, located mainly in developing nations, to research male methods and later organized large multisite clinical trials to test the most promising of these methods."
Just a few thoughts, questions. . How much difference is there between a nematode and a sperm? If you put Ivermectin and sperm together in a petri dish, what would happen? Could nematode screening have been a cover for a male contraceptive program?
The least I can think is that all the "good Samaritans" in this story are from the wrong side. Why would they do something good for the human beings if they all are eugenics? A miracle?
I can’t be sure because I have never taken ivermectin hider, but I truly doubt.
I think this is simply part of a scare mongering campaign to stop people from taking a product which among others, told to destroy cancer cells and toxins from the poisonous shots.
Antibiotics are most likely far worst.
As I regularly do my weal, I can tell you that after antibiotic treatment the sperm is pretty much dead for at list one to two weeks after the treatment.
Looses all its consistency color and power.
Note also that in the box of your antibiotics, it is also written that beside sterility, it can also result into impotence as side effect.
What I would like to know is if there is the same warning on the ivermectin’s box or not?
"Some antibiotics cause fertility problems in men who take them for a long time. Antibiotics affect both the quantity and quality of sperm. They may reduce the number of sperm a man produces, and make the sperm he does produce swim more slowly. These are some of the antibiotics that could affect sperm quantity and movement:
Erythromycin
Gentamicin (Garamycin)
Neomycin
Nitrofurantoin (Macrobid)
Tetracyclines
One large study linked the use of antibiotics with an increased risk for miscarriage. The drugs that seemed to increase this risk were:
I haven't read the studies, but neither you nor Celia Farber in her article, reported how long after the treatment the sperm damage was tested, and whether there were later follow up studies. When you take any powerful anti-parasitic, particularly in those who are heavily infested, it puts stress on the entire body. Was the body given time to recover from the assault of a gazillion dead parasites?
Question 2
What is the motivation to mess with male fertility? Male fertility, whilst it might matter to the individual man, does not play a part in population control. Female fertility does. Population is controlled by the number of babies a woman chooses or is forced or is able to have in her reproductive lifetime, not how many million sperm a man has.
Of course, bad sperm resulting in damaged babies is not a good idea, which is why we need to know the answer to the first question - does the man recover? Do women need to avoid men who have taken ivermectin for a short period of time or for life?
I have a similar thought, in that I would think that a huge population decrease in those areas where Ivermectin has been distributed "for free" should be apparent, if it were the Ivermectin causing problems. The counter-argument is that any adverse events might be hidden by a coordinated effort of governmental bodies and MSM (C19, anyone?).
My research into this has produced an interesting bit of information that you, or other readers, might find interesting: According to essentially all of the studies that have looked into this topic, ALL antibiotics cause a *temporary* drop in fertility in males, via a reduction of both sperm numbers and its mobility. What the studies have not found is an increase in sperm abnormality.
Please note that I am fully aware that Ivermectin is an anti-parasitical, not an antibiotic. Thus, a similar result might not occur with Ivermectin. Of course, other results suggest that it could or might be likely. There are several (suspect) studies that conclude that Ivermectin *does* cause reductions in both total sperm count AND mobility and, at least one, that claims that there was also an increase in sperm abnormality (at least, in sheep).
Of course, the studies that *do* purport to show that Ivermectin causes fertility issues, *might* be correct -- although they did not investigate whether that effect is TEMPORARY, thus muddying the waters. What better way to set the alternative movement into a self-destructive controversy?
After my research, I remain unconvinced either way. Ivermectin, obviously, does a lot of good, for a lot of conditions, under a lot of circumstances. (I have been convinced of those benefits and have taken it, myself, although NOT for C19.) There is some evidence for depopulation potential, but it is not solid. My current thought is that, regardless of its potential inherent issues, might the current focus, by the MSM, on Ivermectin's benefits versus disease (look to Chris Cuomo's sudden change of heart) be aimed at getting us to take Ivermectin that is now being adulterated, perhaps with, say, vaxx-similar ingredients?
I do not know. I just wonder. There seems to be more to wonder about, as time goes by.
My goodness, you really have it in for me. You are definitely trolling me for some sick motive, whether you are a personal or a professional troll, so this is my last answer, after which I will block you.
I agree with all three thoughts that you raise. I *might* have an answer for Question 2:
In a family-oriented society, individual male fertility could become an issue or, at least, it could be seen as a potential targeting point by those wishing to inflict involuntarily population control efforts onto a society, because the loss of fertility inflicted on an individual man also creates a loss in fertility, by association, in an individual female, where a society values the family unit. While alternative measures certainly exist for creating families, those are, usually, only resorted to, after the problem becomes obvious, creating a slow-down in the production rate of offspring, compared to situations that do not involve infertility issues.
My thought is, obviously, not a primary answer, given alternatives, but, if there is an evil body attempting to reduce the world's population, it would make sense that they would attack that goal from many, if not all, possible, angles, so a "partial slowdown" would still become a logical attack point, from their perspective.
The only thing wrong with this answer, we no longer live in a family oriented society. Don't you see that? Puppet Masters been working on that for quite a few years, letting the trans movement kick it all the way down.
We live in interesting times, I agree. According to what I understand, we are still a family-oriented society, but you are correct in that much damage has been done to that, especially in the younger generations. (The proof of your point is the percentage of people, within each age group, that identify as trans.) I certainly agree that we are much less family-oriented, as a concept, but the idea is complicated. For example, another "dividing line" for that metric is urban-vs-rural locations. I am living in a quite rural area and this area is, as are most rural areas (or so I understand), still dominated by people who are, most definitely, family oriented (and "country" oriented and "conservative" oriented...).
So, I am *not* trying to disagree with you about the changing nature of this society. I am simply raising the thought that, much like so many other areas in our current, "modern" society, it is not, necessarily, an either-or situation, at the moment. Different areas will be/are affected differently because of the fragmentation of our society (especially given the efforts of the Puppet Masters, which you are also correct about).
My thought in the comment was that an "all avenues" approach by evil people with, essentially, an unlimited budget would cause them to attack *all* oppositional groups, which means that rural areas that might still be family oriented (and conservative and "gun-toting") would be a logical attack point, as would, actually, even non-family-oriented areas -- anywhere that males and females might decide to follow the monogamous line of thought, which is another attack point for the Puppet Masters, as you point out, via the attack on the sexual mindset (trans, gay, bi, etc. -- anything that increases the "polysexual" thinking of a group).
In short, while I agree with your statement, overall, I still believe that my point is valid because my focus was on the idea of the Puppet Masters attacking their "goal from many, if not all, possible, angles". All groups, even those being reduced by other efforts of the Puppet Masters, are still logical attack points, given, essentially, unlimited resources.
How long do people have to take ivermectin before it reduces fertility? Surely taking it for a week wouldn’t cause it? That’s the usual dose people take for Covid.
As for cancer I think a possibility of reduced fertility would be much better than a slow painful death. But since I’m no longer wanting kids the decision would be easy for me.
Another point, I wanted to look up if Merck was conducting any fertility studies in the 60s and 70s, but Google wouldn't let me limit search results by date. "This function is not currently available." They are sure doing a lot of it in recent years.
Thank you for your work Mr. Wright!.. as well as your balanced approach.
The question I have is one of *method of administration* AFAIK everyone taking IVM recently is taking it in pill form.
Many if not all of these studies involve injection, it seems. Is that correct? And the 4B doses of IVM to central Africa were administered by… pill or injection?
I imagine there may be a significant difference in the action of the drug.
Your thoughts? Thanks in advance if you have the time. And thank you again for your research.
I think there would be a significant difference between injections and oral consumption. About the only way to understand it is to do some simple before and after tests.
So many conspiracy theories are now truth. But you hit the issue spot on. Saying there’s not enough evidence either way is fair and good enough because that’s just the way it is. One can still weigh risks and benefits.
If I had worms or malaria I would sure take something. I'd probably go with wormwood though. I bought some after the Plandemic began. It stopped a fever within hours once. I wonder how well it would work on onchoworns. But yeah kill the parasites for sure. It's just a question on the best choice.
Oh yes, I may have already said this, both founded by Fauci who incidently refused to study 2 meds back in the day for AIDS, instead kept pushing the AZT, which was killing gay men. They marched on NIH. MAYBE they would march on Washington w me!.
I'm not any type of ologists, however one doesn't need to be. I believe a chymera was made using parts of other viruses. HIV, FLU, not sure what the other may be but something to do with clots. See SARS I was made along with a shot for it..it petered out too quickly, so he made SARS II. Nobody has to believe ME. I'm positive of this, especially since I got covid in December. Have some issues from it.
I'm not sure what you are asking me. If you are asking how they made, or what it's made of! I'm not researcher, or any kind of ologists. They made a chymera using c3rt
Why does it matter? People got sick before the jabs. Unjabbed people got sick after the jabs. Although a lot of "the sickness" is down to jabs, by no means all of it is. What matters is what fixes the damage done by "the sickness", to those who survive "the sickness", long term and what fixes the damage done by "the jab", to those that survive "the jab" long term.
There should be two very clearly distinct fields of study, long covid which is about how "the sickness" impacted the unjabbed, and long vax which is about how "the jab" impacted on the jabbed.
Then and only then can the crossover between the two be studied, which symptoms are common in both, which symptoms are more prevalent in one over the other, what evidence there is of shedding between the jabbed and unjabbed etc. But we MUST study them separately first.
The word virus is a red herring. It does not matter what caused "the sickness". The only thing that matters is what will heal the damaged bodies of both the unjabbed and the jabbed.
First of allaam, I CARE. Bc I know whence and where this was orchestrated. And it matters so that one can be as prepared as possible for the next bullshit that the Puppet Masters throw at us. You don't seem to understand that this was planned. Just like trans movement, race issues popping back up in 2014..vet pivotal year. COVID was a test to see how people comply. Who didn't comply. Pawns, everything is a distraction our here, so that your attention is elsewhere, except where it should be focused. Which is 18 days from now when WHO meets w Joe and a treaty is supposed to be signed.
All treaties by our CONSTITUTION IS TO GO BEFORE CONGRESS. BUT that never happens..Another date is in Sept with UN and aother treaty with them and is. Captured , every single last one of them. Federal gov including all 3 letter agencies. You should look into the 4th branch of govt who answers to nobody..
I was not aware that there were 2 separate categories of ppl suffering from long covid. Long vax you called it, is that new.
I've been clamoring for a shot count with those folks.
1) Long-covid could just be the previously uncommon but ubiquitous fibromyalgia, of which I hear absolutely nothing in recent years. Anyone believing in long-covid will simply assume it’s long-covid and rule out all other potential causes, of which there may be many, both natural and man-made origin.
2) Save for a few outliers, everyone on the planet -and throughout history - has been laid-low for days and sometimes weeks with a *nasty cold*. Yet During the *pandemic*, most simply assume that whatever illness they had must have been from SARS-2, even without the fraudulent positives kicked out by the PCR procedure (as it is not at all a test for diagnosis)
3) The mind is a powerful thing. That’s why the science is supposed to be rigorous and falsifiable. The well-known influence of the placebo effect is just one example. Less-known is the nocebo effect: convince people they’ve been exposed to a nasty pathogen, and voila, their brain can think themselves into being sick, even very sick. Evidence of this abounds in every day life.
Humans, in their hubris, just may have created a deadly virus that does exactly all the things that are claimed by the believers. Yet it’s just as possible that humans have never been able to do any such thing, and all those GOF labs are really just covers for creating good old-fashioned bioweapons like mustard gas and injectable poisons.
In any case, I wish you well and I by no means am saying that everyone’s recent illnesses are *all in their heads*…. It’s just that there are far more questions than answers at this point, IMHO.
Yours is an excellent article. In response to your question of "Lilly", above, I offer the following Substack article by Meryl Nass -- not in defense of the "virus exists/doesn't exist" argument, but as an interesting discussion that someone, who IS convinced that it exists, uses to answer your question.
They told her the truth in the comments section. It's good to see the public stand up for the truth. She's a biowarfare researcher. I only got in one comment before I was blocked.
I have challenged numerous ivermectin-promoters to provide or cite valid scientific evidence to back up their "safe and effective" claims and no one was able to. This includes Tess Lawrie and Mark Trozzi of "World Council for Health".
Stiil trying to find information on contraceptive/fertility research at Merck in 60s/70s. I found this from 2011: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/at-merck-an-undercover-video-and-40-deaths-plague-nuvaring-birth-control-brand/. "About 40 women have died using Merck (MRK)'s Nuvaring contraceptive device, according to a Swiss report, as the company faces 730 lawsuits in U.S. courts. Separately, Merck staff were videotaped leading a group European ob/gyns in a pop-music singalong promoting Nuvaring at a boozy event that was supposed to be educational, according to an Estonian business daily. The two events suggest Merck's Nuvaring troubles may yet become a PR headache for the company."
Says here the World Health Organization took the lead in developing male contraceptives in the early 1970s. Looking for more info on that. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464843/#bib10
"The World Health Organization also took the lead in pursuing a hormonal contraceptive for men. Beginning in the 1970s, the World Health Organization sponsored a worldwide network of chemical laboratories, located mainly in developing nations, to research male methods and later organized large multisite clinical trials to test the most promising of these methods."
Just a few thoughts, questions. . How much difference is there between a nematode and a sperm? If you put Ivermectin and sperm together in a petri dish, what would happen? Could nematode screening have been a cover for a male contraceptive program?
In addition to causing male fertility, Ivermectin causes blindness and a host of other deadly illnesses.
https://open.substack.com/pub/timtruth/p/the-deadly-toll-of-ivermectin-blindness?r=1v80x0&utm_medium=ios
No it doesn't. What is wrong w you?
Prove it. And what is wrong with you? 🤔
The least I can think is that all the "good Samaritans" in this story are from the wrong side. Why would they do something good for the human beings if they all are eugenics? A miracle?
What good did they do for humans?
I can’t be sure because I have never taken ivermectin hider, but I truly doubt.
I think this is simply part of a scare mongering campaign to stop people from taking a product which among others, told to destroy cancer cells and toxins from the poisonous shots.
Antibiotics are most likely far worst.
As I regularly do my weal, I can tell you that after antibiotic treatment the sperm is pretty much dead for at list one to two weeks after the treatment.
Looses all its consistency color and power.
Note also that in the box of your antibiotics, it is also written that beside sterility, it can also result into impotence as side effect.
What I would like to know is if there is the same warning on the ivermectin’s box or not?
I didn't know that. I looked it up. For antibiotics, not only do they reduce fertility in males, but potentially cause miscarriage. https://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/antibiotics-fertility
"Some antibiotics cause fertility problems in men who take them for a long time. Antibiotics affect both the quantity and quality of sperm. They may reduce the number of sperm a man produces, and make the sperm he does produce swim more slowly. These are some of the antibiotics that could affect sperm quantity and movement:
Erythromycin
Gentamicin (Garamycin)
Neomycin
Nitrofurantoin (Macrobid)
Tetracyclines
One large study linked the use of antibiotics with an increased risk for miscarriage. The drugs that seemed to increase this risk were:
Azithromycin (Zithromax)
Clarithromycin
Metronidazole
Quinolones
Sulfonamides
Tetracyclines
I am quite sure.
As I told you, I follow the gnostic tradition of drinking my own semen “when I am not using it for making children”
Hence I have not only seen with my own eyes the effect of antibiotic, but taste it too.
It is devastating, and it takes weeks of good diet to get back to normal.
Since I have discovered homeopathic, I decide I will stick with that.
Organic diet and enough exercise, and I stil got my six pack.
Question 1
I haven't read the studies, but neither you nor Celia Farber in her article, reported how long after the treatment the sperm damage was tested, and whether there were later follow up studies. When you take any powerful anti-parasitic, particularly in those who are heavily infested, it puts stress on the entire body. Was the body given time to recover from the assault of a gazillion dead parasites?
Question 2
What is the motivation to mess with male fertility? Male fertility, whilst it might matter to the individual man, does not play a part in population control. Female fertility does. Population is controlled by the number of babies a woman chooses or is forced or is able to have in her reproductive lifetime, not how many million sperm a man has.
Of course, bad sperm resulting in damaged babies is not a good idea, which is why we need to know the answer to the first question - does the man recover? Do women need to avoid men who have taken ivermectin for a short period of time or for life?
Good questions, yet I don’t think much damaged sperm ever make it to an egg. Usually fertility just drops
This is nonsense. If it were true, a non scientific common sense approach.. If ivermectin impeded sperm in whatever way ...
The numbers in the area where river blindness is prevalent would have dropped. Don't you think ?
I have a similar thought, in that I would think that a huge population decrease in those areas where Ivermectin has been distributed "for free" should be apparent, if it were the Ivermectin causing problems. The counter-argument is that any adverse events might be hidden by a coordinated effort of governmental bodies and MSM (C19, anyone?).
My research into this has produced an interesting bit of information that you, or other readers, might find interesting: According to essentially all of the studies that have looked into this topic, ALL antibiotics cause a *temporary* drop in fertility in males, via a reduction of both sperm numbers and its mobility. What the studies have not found is an increase in sperm abnormality.
Please note that I am fully aware that Ivermectin is an anti-parasitical, not an antibiotic. Thus, a similar result might not occur with Ivermectin. Of course, other results suggest that it could or might be likely. There are several (suspect) studies that conclude that Ivermectin *does* cause reductions in both total sperm count AND mobility and, at least one, that claims that there was also an increase in sperm abnormality (at least, in sheep).
Of course, the studies that *do* purport to show that Ivermectin causes fertility issues, *might* be correct -- although they did not investigate whether that effect is TEMPORARY, thus muddying the waters. What better way to set the alternative movement into a self-destructive controversy?
After my research, I remain unconvinced either way. Ivermectin, obviously, does a lot of good, for a lot of conditions, under a lot of circumstances. (I have been convinced of those benefits and have taken it, myself, although NOT for C19.) There is some evidence for depopulation potential, but it is not solid. My current thought is that, regardless of its potential inherent issues, might the current focus, by the MSM, on Ivermectin's benefits versus disease (look to Chris Cuomo's sudden change of heart) be aimed at getting us to take Ivermectin that is now being adulterated, perhaps with, say, vaxx-similar ingredients?
I do not know. I just wonder. There seems to be more to wonder about, as time goes by.
My goodness, you really have it in for me. You are definitely trolling me for some sick motive, whether you are a personal or a professional troll, so this is my last answer, after which I will block you.
I agree with all three thoughts that you raise. I *might* have an answer for Question 2:
In a family-oriented society, individual male fertility could become an issue or, at least, it could be seen as a potential targeting point by those wishing to inflict involuntarily population control efforts onto a society, because the loss of fertility inflicted on an individual man also creates a loss in fertility, by association, in an individual female, where a society values the family unit. While alternative measures certainly exist for creating families, those are, usually, only resorted to, after the problem becomes obvious, creating a slow-down in the production rate of offspring, compared to situations that do not involve infertility issues.
My thought is, obviously, not a primary answer, given alternatives, but, if there is an evil body attempting to reduce the world's population, it would make sense that they would attack that goal from many, if not all, possible, angles, so a "partial slowdown" would still become a logical attack point, from their perspective.
The only thing wrong with this answer, we no longer live in a family oriented society. Don't you see that? Puppet Masters been working on that for quite a few years, letting the trans movement kick it all the way down.
We live in interesting times, I agree. According to what I understand, we are still a family-oriented society, but you are correct in that much damage has been done to that, especially in the younger generations. (The proof of your point is the percentage of people, within each age group, that identify as trans.) I certainly agree that we are much less family-oriented, as a concept, but the idea is complicated. For example, another "dividing line" for that metric is urban-vs-rural locations. I am living in a quite rural area and this area is, as are most rural areas (or so I understand), still dominated by people who are, most definitely, family oriented (and "country" oriented and "conservative" oriented...).
So, I am *not* trying to disagree with you about the changing nature of this society. I am simply raising the thought that, much like so many other areas in our current, "modern" society, it is not, necessarily, an either-or situation, at the moment. Different areas will be/are affected differently because of the fragmentation of our society (especially given the efforts of the Puppet Masters, which you are also correct about).
My thought in the comment was that an "all avenues" approach by evil people with, essentially, an unlimited budget would cause them to attack *all* oppositional groups, which means that rural areas that might still be family oriented (and conservative and "gun-toting") would be a logical attack point, as would, actually, even non-family-oriented areas -- anywhere that males and females might decide to follow the monogamous line of thought, which is another attack point for the Puppet Masters, as you point out, via the attack on the sexual mindset (trans, gay, bi, etc. -- anything that increases the "polysexual" thinking of a group).
In short, while I agree with your statement, overall, I still believe that my point is valid because my focus was on the idea of the Puppet Masters attacking their "goal from many, if not all, possible, angles". All groups, even those being reduced by other efforts of the Puppet Masters, are still logical attack points, given, essentially, unlimited resources.
Messing with female fertility would still be much better value for money. And we have at least 2 jabs doing that - very effectively.
Agreed.
You used google for results, lmao
How long do people have to take ivermectin before it reduces fertility? Surely taking it for a week wouldn’t cause it? That’s the usual dose people take for Covid.
As for cancer I think a possibility of reduced fertility would be much better than a slow painful death. But since I’m no longer wanting kids the decision would be easy for me.
Also thanks for covering this. Good write up.
Omg this is totally ridiculous , lie upon lie😈
Which part?
How many layers to the deception and will we ever get to the very bottom of that rabbit hole?
Another point, I wanted to look up if Merck was conducting any fertility studies in the 60s and 70s, but Google wouldn't let me limit search results by date. "This function is not currently available." They are sure doing a lot of it in recent years.
Thank you for your work Mr. Wright!.. as well as your balanced approach.
The question I have is one of *method of administration* AFAIK everyone taking IVM recently is taking it in pill form.
Many if not all of these studies involve injection, it seems. Is that correct? And the 4B doses of IVM to central Africa were administered by… pill or injection?
I imagine there may be a significant difference in the action of the drug.
Your thoughts? Thanks in advance if you have the time. And thank you again for your research.
I think there would be a significant difference between injections and oral consumption. About the only way to understand it is to do some simple before and after tests.
Thanks for those referenced studies. Rumor has it that IVM is a problem when used for prolonged period of time causing male sperm counts to decline.
I think we need to trust the pharmacutical industry and doctors again...if they aren't incentivised...That never happens though...lol.
These students are blarney. There is a gold standard of science . Double blind randomized.
You can also do a similar trial with rat poison. We put folks on blood thinners all the time, many with fatal results.
I'm pretty sure I could teach you..
I don't need you to tell me about anticoagulants. I have been on one since '08. I took myself off of it about 6 months ago.
So many conspiracy theories are now truth. But you hit the issue spot on. Saying there’s not enough evidence either way is fair and good enough because that’s just the way it is. One can still weigh risks and benefits.
That's all I'm asking. Weigh the risks and benefits. We're getting there.
The Robert McNamara reference caught my attention.
https://barneyrubble.substack.com/p/are-discussions-about-depopulation
I'll be damned. Yeadon reads LaRouche. No doubt that his organization made some ground-breaking reporting.
Now that hostages are back in the news: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1989/eirv16n18-19890428/eirv16n18-19890428_028-irangate_the_secret_government_a.pdf
And here's the Franklin Cover-up: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1997/eirv24n05-19970124/eirv24n05-19970124_066-nebraska_pedophile_scandal_is_re.pdf
Rockefeller's takeover of voting machines: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1997/eirv24n05-19970124/eirv24n05-19970124_066-nebraska_pedophile_scandal_is_re.pdf
Etc. https://larouchepub.com/
If I had worms or malaria I would sure take something. I'd probably go with wormwood though. I bought some after the Plandemic began. It stopped a fever within hours once. I wonder how well it would work on onchoworns. But yeah kill the parasites for sure. It's just a question on the best choice.
Does it stop never isolated SuperCoronaviruses too?
Again there are countless randomized clinical trials that prove that it both does and does not cure the fake virus. Trust the Science.
I can tell you that there is a virus, man made 100% that is contagious.
The shot did not phase it, however, it has and continues to kill/debilitate people.
And bc these people who made the virus are diabolical the the shots/covis shed their madness .
How in your estimation was the SAR-CoV-2 virus sequenced?
Oh yes, I may have already said this, both founded by Fauci who incidently refused to study 2 meds back in the day for AIDS, instead kept pushing the AZT, which was killing gay men. They marched on NIH. MAYBE they would march on Washington w me!.
I'm not any type of ologists, however one doesn't need to be. I believe a chymera was made using parts of other viruses. HIV, FLU, not sure what the other may be but something to do with clots. See SARS I was made along with a shot for it..it petered out too quickly, so he made SARS II. Nobody has to believe ME. I'm positive of this, especially since I got covid in December. Have some issues from it.
I'm not sure what you are asking me. If you are asking how they made, or what it's made of! I'm not researcher, or any kind of ologists. They made a chymera using c3rt
@Charles Wright
Why does it matter? People got sick before the jabs. Unjabbed people got sick after the jabs. Although a lot of "the sickness" is down to jabs, by no means all of it is. What matters is what fixes the damage done by "the sickness", to those who survive "the sickness", long term and what fixes the damage done by "the jab", to those that survive "the jab" long term.
There should be two very clearly distinct fields of study, long covid which is about how "the sickness" impacted the unjabbed, and long vax which is about how "the jab" impacted on the jabbed.
Then and only then can the crossover between the two be studied, which symptoms are common in both, which symptoms are more prevalent in one over the other, what evidence there is of shedding between the jabbed and unjabbed etc. But we MUST study them separately first.
The word virus is a red herring. It does not matter what caused "the sickness". The only thing that matters is what will heal the damaged bodies of both the unjabbed and the jabbed.
First of allaam, I CARE. Bc I know whence and where this was orchestrated. And it matters so that one can be as prepared as possible for the next bullshit that the Puppet Masters throw at us. You don't seem to understand that this was planned. Just like trans movement, race issues popping back up in 2014..vet pivotal year. COVID was a test to see how people comply. Who didn't comply. Pawns, everything is a distraction our here, so that your attention is elsewhere, except where it should be focused. Which is 18 days from now when WHO meets w Joe and a treaty is supposed to be signed.
All treaties by our CONSTITUTION IS TO GO BEFORE CONGRESS. BUT that never happens..Another date is in Sept with UN and aother treaty with them and is. Captured , every single last one of them. Federal gov including all 3 letter agencies. You should look into the 4th branch of govt who answers to nobody..
I was not aware that there were 2 separate categories of ppl suffering from long covid. Long vax you called it, is that new.
I've been clamoring for a shot count with those folks.
Some things to consider.
1) Long-covid could just be the previously uncommon but ubiquitous fibromyalgia, of which I hear absolutely nothing in recent years. Anyone believing in long-covid will simply assume it’s long-covid and rule out all other potential causes, of which there may be many, both natural and man-made origin.
2) Save for a few outliers, everyone on the planet -and throughout history - has been laid-low for days and sometimes weeks with a *nasty cold*. Yet During the *pandemic*, most simply assume that whatever illness they had must have been from SARS-2, even without the fraudulent positives kicked out by the PCR procedure (as it is not at all a test for diagnosis)
3) The mind is a powerful thing. That’s why the science is supposed to be rigorous and falsifiable. The well-known influence of the placebo effect is just one example. Less-known is the nocebo effect: convince people they’ve been exposed to a nasty pathogen, and voila, their brain can think themselves into being sick, even very sick. Evidence of this abounds in every day life.
Humans, in their hubris, just may have created a deadly virus that does exactly all the things that are claimed by the believers. Yet it’s just as possible that humans have never been able to do any such thing, and all those GOF labs are really just covers for creating good old-fashioned bioweapons like mustard gas and injectable poisons.
In any case, I wish you well and I by no means am saying that everyone’s recent illnesses are *all in their heads*…. It’s just that there are far more questions than answers at this point, IMHO.
Best wishes
Yours is an excellent article. In response to your question of "Lilly", above, I offer the following Substack article by Meryl Nass -- not in defense of the "virus exists/doesn't exist" argument, but as an interesting discussion that someone, who IS convinced that it exists, uses to answer your question.
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/my-three-is-the-virus-real-articles
They told her the truth in the comments section. It's good to see the public stand up for the truth. She's a biowarfare researcher. I only got in one comment before I was blocked.
Now, about that moon landing...
;-)
Probably. Lets make up a batch!