Posts by Bob#2

Quote from THHuxleynew

Bob#2 do you agree that you seem very sure which side is right, on the basis of this mixed evidence, and the expected divide between most doctors (over-hopeful) and most regulatory authorities (over-cautious)? There are respectable reasons for both trends - no need for these experts to be evil or stupid. Just they take a slightly different view of what is most important when things are unclear.

And again, you seem to think regulatory authorities should be more cautious over vaccines, but less cautious over drugs. Why the difference? The vaccines are proven highly effective. The drugs we don't know. The first one, HCQ, has proved to be positively harmful according to your liked treatment protocol here from doctors. Yet it got great non-RCT positive evidence and even some positive RCTs. Is it wrong to take that as a cautionary tale and be cautious on Ivermectin?

THH,

Either we just cannot communicate or one of us is being specious.

You keep stating "And again, you seem to think regulatory authorities should be more cautious over vaccines, but less cautious over drugs.".

Will you ever acknowledge that the current mRNA COVID vaccines have NEVER went through ANY long term testing?

That prior mRNA vaccines were stopped due to horrid effects?

That HCQ and Ivermectin have been used for decades, with NO adverse effects worth mentioning while the mRNA vaccines are already showing more bad side effects as time goes along.

You bring up the HCQ "positively harmful" yet this is unsupported, MUCH less than the evidence that Ivermectin is positive and even HCQ is positive. Again, you take one "negative study" and place higher value on it than many positives.... it supports the main stream agenda.

Again, all my posts revolve around that mRNA vaccines are not known to be long term safe. That more and more evidence of the harmful effects are popping up. Yet you keep lumping them in with attenuated virus vaccine history and have never admitted the difference.

AND.... Ivermectin was available a YEAR ago as HCQ and the data shows it works.... you never disputed the evidence from the link I gave....

So my point is not that "experts sometimes disagree" or that "this is a small issue". HCQ and Ivermectin was vehemently apposed and railed against early on. This is not some minor "disagreement".... it costs millions of lives.

And again, why was D, C, Zn not promoted?...... all without risk and known to be extremely helpful?

Your answers often spell out a lot of "info" which seems to avert the actual questions, that you rarely actually answer.

So again as I have before:

1) mRNA vaccines have no long term safety. NONE. Yes or No.

2) The evidence for Ivermectin is actually quite strong, decades of safety and readily available. Yet the push against is is not as you put it "most regulatory authorities (over-cautious)". These same people approved Remedisvir? Yes or No? How "over cautious were they on that? Yet there is out and out dissention on anything that is not vaccine. No D, C or Zn.

3) That this point is NOT the "here and now" but what has been buried the past year, when no vaccines were even available! Yet this coverup seems to be swept under the run and the same people that swept it should be trusted now? This was ACTIVE resistance, not simply difference of opinion.

4) After all the positive evidence, the lack of a truly well designed RCT will not be done... it will endanger the vaccines.

5) Last but no least, you never actually said if the linked Covid site I provided should be ignored or not. This was an accredited medical school... so you should be able to say "Yes, they have the credentials" or "No, they are outliers and their credentials should not be trusted". There really is no in between. It could be so if it was some unknown doctor or group, but this is an accredited medical school. Are they valid or not?

Quote from Mark U

You can be sure that the certification on the SKLed will have nothing to do with nuclear energy or supposed vacuum energy. So of course I agree, certification of a Rossi device will have nothing to do with whether it is an energy producer or not.

Mark,

You miss my point. You cannot have a "safety certificate" for a nuclear powered device! There are no standards to certify too! Rossi was saying that the had a safety certificate for his LENR device... as putting this out as some "proof" that he had a device at all!

He certainly did NOT have a safety certificate for ANY device. It was a self certification check list for some electrical enclosures and switches. It had NOTHING to do with ANY DEVICE that produce HEAT, or ELECTRICITY or LIGHT. It was a total sham. So much that SGS sent a cease and desist order on him.

Again, "certificates" (plural) have been mentioned. I have never been able to find one from Veritas. Can you provide a copy? I doubt it.

The whole point is that Rossi lies, he lies constantly, he lies about everything.... fake invoices, fake customers, fake factories and fake certificates. Can you not see this?

Show me where any point of the above is not absolutely true....... I can show you the solid evidence that that above IS TRUE. It is just that it was all done in the past and I am not going to take the time to dig it all back up again. Not that it matters with you it seems.... you will believe whatever Rossi spews.... I do not understand why..... you have never provided any credible information on why you believe him.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The point is that medicine is an inexact science. Single RCTs, like this one, can be misleading. When testing drugs it is always possible that some other dose regime would work better, or some combination therapy work, etc, etc.

The problem is that many, (perhaps you) continue to look at ivermectin as if only ONE positive rct was ever done and is not to be believed, but then believe one other rct that shows a negative result, even though it is flawed. This is blind.

I do not know if you will truly look at this link, hopefully you will examine it as thoroughly. Will you?

https://www.evms.edu/media/evm…are_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf

This is from a school of medicine. Not some quack internet site.

This is a full published protocol that ALSO LISTS it supporting evidence. See appendixes towards the end.

It has a lot of support, however will you acknowledge any of it? Or is it all to be ignored? Truly... do you say it should be ignored?

This protocol has multitudes that have reported extremely high success rates when followed. Certainly not reported in the main stream media however. This actually gets censored, even though it is from an accredited medical school. I suppose some here will try to castigate the school's credentials simply because they are not "Vaccine warriors"... ie. there can be no remedy other than the current vaccines! Don't like the message.... shoot the messenger.

So again, I would ask.... what do you find in error with this school of medicine's protocol.....or are they simply to be dismissed because MERCK or Fauci does not sing their praises. This published medical facility should be ignored because it is, as you have said, "an outlier" and not to be trusted..... Yet, if this school would have published an anti-ivermectin report, I am sure it would have been hailed as "solid evidence" that should be held in esteem. Has the message became more important than the truth?

Does not ivermectin warrant a well designed rct using this protocol? Or do we ignore it because someone ran an rct that was designed to a known failure rate?

"Trust people who acknowledge limitations -"

I do not see you post against Remedisvir....or even question it's use. Even though some here have posted about it. It being used across the US as an approved treatment but disapproved by WHO....and many reports stating not only does it not work.... and it has serious side effects..... Why? You seem one sided in your scientific skepticism?

The "Experts" say Remedisvir is "good" and ivermectin is "bad". Do you trust these people?

I do not.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The certifications were not bogus. Rossi's factory (one of them) was i'm sure safe. Rossi's use of the certifications in a context that made it seem like they implied a working device, or (getting them) excused delay in selling it, were bogus.

It is quite of amazing how old stuff resurfaces anew...!

The certifications where absolutely "bogus" the way Rossi portrayed them. I should have been more clear i guess. Yes, SGS issued a "certiffication". I published the actual one here a long time ago.

However, it was "bogus" in that Rossi was stating he had a safety certificate for his eCat. At the time, he was reporting it as an LENR device, a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction device. Not only is the NO standard for certifying and LENR device, the "Certifications" Rossi had was not even for public display, much less claiming public safety. They were indeed bogus for what Rossi was portraying them to be. Anyone is free to look up the SGS cert in the past posts.... I am not looking them up again as this case was closed long, long ago!

As for the mythical Veritas certification, I am still waiting to see a copy of it from anyone! I personally do not believe it exists.... but I can be proven wrong.

Mark's excuse that agencies have "rules" and that certifications are not to be published is a bit ironic. The ONLY reason a certification is granted, is to tell others that the device meets a standard.... They are not trade secrets of any kind and agencies will not say they must be kept private. HOWEVER, as in Rossi's exact case, an agency may say a certification is not to be used for any sales, advertising or promotion because the certification was a "self certification", one that a person conducts before sending units to be truly certified.

The one Rossi had was for some elementary electric switch controls and electrical box enclosures. It had ZERO to do with any NUCLEAR standards.

Please.... look it up if you do not believe me!

Quote from AlainCo

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcen…0.1186/s12879-021-06348-5

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) has changed our lives. The scientific community has been investigating re-purposed treatments to prevent disease progression in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients.

Objective

To determine whether ivermectin treatment can prevent hospitalization in individuals with early COVID-19.

Design, setting and participants: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in non-hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 in Corrientes, Argentina. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 positive nasal swabs were contacted within 48 h by telephone to invite them to participate. The trial randomized 501 patients between August 19th 2020 and February 22nd 2021.

Intervention

Patients were randomized to ivermectin (N = 250) or placebo (N = 251) arms in a staggered dose, according to the patient’s weight, for 2 days.

Main outcomes and measures

The efficacy of ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations was evaluated as primary outcome. We evaluated secondary outcomes in relationship to safety and other efficacy end points.

Results

The mean age was 42 years (SD ± 15.5) and the median time since symptom onset to the inclusion was 4 days [interquartile range 3–6]. The primary outcome of hospitalization was met in 14/250 (5.6%) individuals in ivermectin group and 21/251 (8.4%) in placebo group (odds ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.32–1.31; p = 0.227). Time to hospitalization was not statistically different between groups. The mean time from study enrollment to invasive mechanical ventilatory support (MVS) was 5.25 days (SD ± 1.71) in ivermectin group and 10 days (SD ± 2) in placebo group, (p = 0.019). There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes including polymerase chain reaction test negativity and safety outcomes.

Limitations

Low percentage of hospitalization events, dose of ivermectin and not including only high-risk population.

Conclusion

Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.

Display More

Where do these trials come from and who designs them? Seriously! I am not a doctor, but even I know that this test to supposedly "TEST IVERMECTIN FOR COVID" did not follow any proposed guidelines "FOR COVID"

So how was ivermectin administered here? :

"The dose of ivermectin used was the approved dose in Argentina for the treatment of other diseases, such as parasitic diseases, and it was staggered according to weight. Those weighing up to 80 Kg received 2 tablets of 6 mg (mg) each at inclusion and another 2 tablets of 6 mg each 24 h after the first dose (total 24 mg). "

They gave the amount for parasites, not COVID! They gave only TWO doses! Not amount that has been tested to work!

Ivermecting IMASK protocol:

0.2–0.4 mg/kg per dose (take with or after meals) — one
dose daily, take for 5 days or until recovered* (amount would have been 24mg not 12 and 5 days not 2 emphasis mine)

Use upper dose range if: 1) in regions with more aggressive variants;
2) treatment started on or after day 5 of symptoms or in pulmonary
phase; or 3) multiple comorbidities/risk factors.

https://covid19criticalcare.co…plus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf

In my opinion, this test was trash. It was not designed to test if ivermectin could fight Covid. It was designed to see if a "parasite treatment" could fight covid. That is NOT the same thing!!! If they really wanted the truth, they would have followed such as the IMASK protocol. But they did not! Why? This is so crazy.... NO ONE states that the ivermectin parasite protocol is what works with COVID!

Seriously! If someone was truly serious about finding truth, they would have designed this test with valid parameters. If they were simply looking at an agenda.... setting it up as they did and the proclaim "Ivermectin does not work" is simply BS.

This is like saying aspirin does not work for headaches!!!!! If a test using the "aspirin protocol for heart attack prevetion" of 80 mg was used to test relief of a headache, it certainly would not work, as the dosage for headaches can be 500mg! Would anyone say that aspirin is not effective ???

This is report appears to be :

1) Intentionally misleading and total rubbish.

or

2) The test architect was totally ignorant and had zero knowledge of ivermectin COVID treatment.

If #2 above, why would he not do a little research on the subject? I would think this totally unlikely for an educated and half smart person designing a test would not research what should be tested.

So that leaves option #1.... what else would it be? This is crazy!

Quote from Fm1

“Like all medications, ivermectin has side effects,” Tanna said. “Ivermectin can interact with other medications. It can cause gastrointestinal symptoms like nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, low blood pressure and allergic reaction.”

Really? This is the kind of misinformation that causes people to distrust these "experts"! She reports that Ivermectin should not be used because it might cause diarrhea? Really?

How about she read what the FDA says about the covid vaccine?

https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download

Side effects that have been reported with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine
include:
• severe allergic reactions
• non-severe allergic reactions such as rash, itching, hives, or swelling of the face
• myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle)
• pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart)
• injection site pain
• tiredness
• headache
• muscle pain
• chills
• joint pain
• fever
• injection site swelling
4 Revised: 25 June 2021
• injection site redness
• nausea
• feeling unwell
• swollen lymph nodes (lymphadenopathy)
• diarrhea
• vomiting
• arm pain
These may not be all the possible side effects of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
Vaccine. Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials

WAIT!!! HOLD THE PRESSES!!! The vaccine can cause diarrhea!!!!!! STOP USING IT IMMEDIATELY!!!

Now compare the above to Ivermectin! This safety meme is total BS, yet they have to resort to this as the increasing hard science is starting to expose them.

As many have stated here time and time again... the "agenda", either intentional or simply herd mentality, is to discredit or diminish anything that takes away from the vaccines. Something is certainly afoul!!

Zinc - many good reasons (even other than covid) to encourage the use of Zinc and there are zero risks. Does main stream inform or push zinc? NO

Vitamin D - many good reasons (even other than covid) to encourage the use of Vit. D and there are zero risks. Does main stream inform or push Vit. D? NO

Vitamin C- many good reasons (even other than covid) to encourage the use of Vit. C and there are zero risks. Does main stream inform or push Vit. C? NO

Quercetin - many good reasons (even other than covid) to encourage the use of Quercetin and there are zero risks. Does main stream inform or push Quercetin? NO

Masks - Some benefit to masks and several studies showing that forcing kids to wear them hours a day and wearing outside do more harm than good. Best case, high quality masks help but the majority of masks worn by the public do ZERO benefit... knit neck scarfs, masks worn under the nose, masks with ear band twisted to open up the sides.... all have zero impact....

YET... the main stream media and medical profession spent MILLIONS of dollars advertising masks, pushing masks, legislating masks, shaming, accusing etc. etc.....

YET.... no push for truly helpful Zn, D, C and Quercetin.

And now Ivermectin is buried because they think it might cause diarrhea???? AND in the face of a very large amount of RCT and other studies showing positive Covid effect, from world wide, various institutions and qualified doctors and scientists..... ALL with NO PROFIT to gain unlike those pushing the vaccines!

People who argue this are simply blind...... just like those on ECW.... they have a religion and they will not depart from it!

Again, I will state clearly as the "vaccine warriors" will accuse me of being an anti-vaxer. I am not. I have taken vaccines and had my children vaccinated.

I AM stating that the mRNA vaccines have ZERO long term safety studies, early versions have very serious complications, have NEVER been approved for humans (and still have not been) and that we simply do not know what long term health problems these might cause.... all while Ivermectin is readily available and inexpensive... and has been since the start. It could have saved many, many lives.....

Yes, I strongly disagree with some here on this forum..... mRNA vaccines cannot be lumped in with attenuated vaccine safety. That is not science.

Quote from Mark U

I don't know what you mean by 'self certification'. The 2012 and 2013 certifications by SGS and Bureau Veritas on the Ecat plant and Ecat HT were safety certifications. These types of agencies have many rules on what you do with their certifications in terms of disclosing how they were done, or how their name is used. You appear to be saying those certifications were bogus, without evidence, to promote the idea that the certification Rossi is waiting on for the SKLed is also bogus. I don't believe your viewpoint, but we'll see what happens in November.

Mark,

You can look in history if you want. I posted the actual SGS certification online.

Yes, it most certainly was a self certification.... SGS never saw a single piece of equipment. Rossi answered questions from a "survey" sheet that he sent in. This type of questionnaire is provided by agencies so companies can do a check list before sending equipment in for actual certification. Thus the very explicit wording on the paper that it was not to be used for anything.... no sales... no advertisements.... no claims what so ever. Also, this so called certification was for industrial electrical controls and electrical boxes only! It explicitly states what standard the survey was adherent to.. I listed that as well... and it had nothing to do with an unknown nuclear based device... much less even a ordinary heater! It meant absolutely nothing about an eCat. I could pay some money, fill out the survey and obtain the very same thing for my imaginary pink, flying unicorn as MY used to state! Please look!

As for what one can do with a certification...it is apparent you are not familiar with this! You state "These types of agencies have many rules on what you do with their certifications in terms of disclosing how they were done, or how their name is used."

You are correct in some ways, but not what you are stating. Yes they have rules to prevent fraud, thus the statement on the actual cert that stated it could not be used for anything as it was a self certification. Yet Rossi pushed it as something of merit. Please note... certifications are MEANT to be given out as they are the seal that a device has passed standards testing. Every UL listed item has a UL label! Not some secret code! You can look up the item to see what standard UL tested it to. Check out :

https://www.thayerlightinginc.com/is-it-ul-certified/

Interesting enough, this website is about Chinese fake UL markings on LED lights! Perhaps Rossi has taken note!

Again, I could look the "Certification" up for you, but you are capable and I am not going to spend anytime on a closed subject..... the so call certification was indeed nothing... and you probably will not believe it even if you see it in writing.... which is available.

As far as the BV certification... please provide a copy! To my knowledge and I certainly searched at the time... no one ever saw such a thing. So if you have a copy, it would be of great interest...please provide. As far as I know, this is another Rossi myth.

and as always..... the eCat faithful have the mantra they always say......

"wait until November.... or wait until next spring... or wait until next year... or wait until......"

Again, you are intelligent... look at what you are defending!

Quote from Mark U

2) small modifications to the SKLed yet to be done, based on a certification process that is not complete yet.

Come on Mark... I have heard this invalid excuse for 12 years (or more). Certification! What certification? Name me a certification that would apply to this so called SKLED.

Filament bulb ? no

Fluorescent ? no

LED ? no... it is some novel, completely new nuclear device!

He is not waiting for ANY certification because there is NO SPECIFICATION published by UL, NIST or any other organization for such a device. Any one who latches on to this meme does not understand nor know about certifications. If you go to UL and say "please certify this SKLED", the first question they will ask is "what standard do you want it certified to?" Of course there are none! There would have to be a standard written first, and that would require working knowledge of a working device. Rossi will not ever give that out as he has no working device nor knowledge to give.

And this is a telling black mark against Rossi. He keeps stating certification, certification, certification, yet.... he will NEVER state what STANDARD or WHO is doing the certification. This would not be giving any IP away yet he refuses. Why. UL does not care , that is their business to certify. Yet Rossi will not say, again why.... it is all a lie.

Then the one time he stated he had a certification, it turned out to be completely unrelated to the eCAT, the actual certification stated it was a self certification and that it was not to be used for advertisement, production or sales. It was truly bogus. Yet Rossi continued to state he had "safety certification" !

Pure BS and yet here you are again, swallowing the whole "certification" bait all over again.

You have intelligence.... simply look at the facts.

Quote from truth

News by the magician:

Based on the above bullshit he has one hundred of rooms where will made presentation...

hmmmm.... OR.... he made a mental slip and stated the number of "regular" LED's he is going to use to get the lumens he promised! Most likely none of it will happen anyway.... why wait until November???? His unit is supposedly working marvelously now!

Of course any sensible person knows the reason......

Quote from Shane D.

The FLCCC has their "I-MASK+" protocol for COVID preventative, and early outpatient care. Their "MATH+" is for those hospitalized. Ivermectin is listed as the "core medicine" for both. I just got this flyer in the mail:

https://doctorsstudio.com/i-mask-covid-19-protocol/

They are advertising phone consultations to prescribe Iver for $249 (add their Vitamins to the order for only an extra $318 ) .

Not sure if this is a scam capitalizing off the FLCCC's popular I-MASK+ protocol, or legit, but thought it was interesting. Goes to show, if you make it hard for someone worried about their health to get a safe, probably effective drug, someone else will find a way to make money off of it.

Display More

While not an exhaustive search, I could find no connection between "doctors studio" and FLCCC. Neither FLCCC nor DoctorsStudio websites reference the other nor members associated. The IMASK protocol has been freely published so, it looks as if an unrelated group has latched on and is using it.

For good intent or money? Who knows.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Bob - you are mistaking my fixed view of poor reporting, with a fixed view of content.

Do you think that I am taking a Youtube video as a "report" or a technical write up" ? That is clearly preposterous of course. As you state, a 5 minute video is likely to contain very little significant data within itself.

However, they CAN be an efficient method to summarize a subject and to provide summarized findings. If this is what you mean by "PR", perhaps there is a bit of truth in it. However, good "PR" videos WOULD link or list the studies, RCT's and data sources referenced by them so one can do further research if desired. Not all have automatic or free access to journals or research papers.

Your approach is similar to this : "I will never listen to or take seriously any newscast. They are not experts, they are all "PR" with an agenda and do not contain any substantive or detailed data. Therefore they are useless and should not be viewed".......

So if a video is written up by "Joe Blow" , from his apartment, while wearing his underwear and he has NO credentials nor links ANY supportive data sources, I would take anything he said with very little confidence and probably would not look deeper into his subject.

However, if like FLCCC or some of other researchers, they ARE known, have credentials and provide sources, then I CAN have a measure of how confident I am in their presentation...... still needing confirmation by further research. However, I would not label these as PR, but more PSA... public service announcements

Some here will swallow anything Merck or pharma has to say (with their incentive to make huge dollars) and yet discredit legitimate and qualified scientists who publish PSA that go against main stream medias grain and DO NOT HAVE monetary interest at stake. The only motive for them is to save lives. Yet their are labeled as "PR". Again.... PR for what? None of these videos I have references are anti-vaxers, anti-medicine, tin foil hat, UFO, or anything even close. They are all respected, long term, qualified doctors and scientists. Yet they are being lumped into the prior batch simply because they are not kow towing to main stream.....

That is not science.

Quote from THHuxleynew

#Bob - one more thing.

Perhaps the difference is this. you trust experts more than me !!!! which is strange, because generally I trust experts (to be generally honest and good intentioned) except when they are outliers with weight of opinion against them, or behave in unprofessional way.

I do not trust anyone.... even you! And myself sometimes even less.

That is why I look at many things, certainly NOT ONLY what main stream says. Outliers? You must be joking!

Outliers are the only ones who will bring up corruption, greed, crime and deceit. I realize they can also be tin foil hat types, but not scarily by default.

Remember... ANYONE who brings up a subject outside "mainstream" is an outlier. Such as Einstein or the Wright Brothers.

No, these videos I references are not PR in my opinion... but PSA's trying to get helpful information out that is being resisted against....

Quote from THHuxleynew

#Bob -

on the subject of PR videos from doctors about IVM.

I will take you up on your challenge, but it will take me some time to watch the video (which i resent) and then to do a good job some more time to marshal all of the hard research evidence and point out the weaknesses of the material quoted in the PR video.

I am not saying that I know IVM does not help. Just that the jury is out at the moment. That is because i have learnt over this pandemic paying attention to how things go that even apparently quite good non RCT evidence on COVID tends to be wrong. For the good reasons that we have explained many times (strong age dependence, over-reporting of positive results relative to negative, confounders not controlled). Population evidence tends to be worthless because of large uncontrolled confounders and the fact that countries with less comprehensive infection and case reporting systems tend to be those adopting IVM.

Perhaps, when I revisit this and answer you (it will maybe not be for a week) there will be new evidence out from trials that alters my previous view. You may be sure however that watching a video per se will not do this. except as a very slow way to reference serious trial data. I don't understand why people here make scientific or medical judgments on the basis of videos rather than reports or papers. the videos invariably have less content and more spin.

THH

Display More

THH,

I am unfortunately disappointed.

To follow science, one must enter a project with a non-biased and without preconceived determination of the outcome. You know this. While skepticism is not bad in itself, it going in, it clouds the eyesight, you wind up with ECW and like followers. Make no mistake, one can be just as "cult' minded on the skeptical side of an issue as the "cult followers". Could this be such a case? Normal scientific approach is to go into a project with an attitude that you are going to "disprove" your own theory.... in this case, you would go in with an attitude that you will disprove your own prejudice against the subject!

Your post above shows little reason why you should watch the video. You have already pre-determined it to be a PR video and not only invalid, but intentionally misleading. That is PR. PR for what, I am unsure. These are qualified people in their field. They are not selling product nor will they make money on their proposals. Although you state "perhaps", it is clear your mind is made up. Not good science here.

The real question I think needs to be asked with you is "who is the jury" going to be? Merck? Johnson and Johnson? There ARE studies, both RCT and meta data analysis that conclude Ivermectin works, done by qualified people in their own fields. Yet you reject the studies simply because they do not follow the mainstream narrative. I have have read only a couple of studies that conclude Ivermectin does not work and those studies look more suspect to bias (to me) than the positive ones. NONE report danger of use which is circulating the PR media. (Yes, I feel confident in saying that) However, overall, MANY more positive studies than negative. However it appears you will not read the positive ones as they have been predetermined to be PR..... PR for what again, I must ask?

So, if you want, watch the video... however it appears it is of little use. You seem that you are not taking a scientific approach to it. Again, these people are qualified... if you think not, then you should state why. Is trumpeting Ivermectin sole reason enough for you to cast them as unqualified and uneducated?

I hope not.

Quote from Fm1

FLCCC weekly update

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

THH,

I have not watched this video. I have watched a couple before that were presented by FLCCC, but I have not kept close track of them nor have a close affinity. The couple of videos I watched before seemed fairly solid though and the people do have various qualifications.

So I am not watching this video yet. I would like to ask you to watch it first and then report back what specific issues you have with it....if any. I will then watch the video, having noted your questions / concerns. I would like to do this to see if my opinion is guided. Since I know these people are certainly "pro-ivermectin" and the title contains "irrefutable", if I watched it now, I probably would find it quite positive.

Having your critical review (critical is not a bad thing) before hand, it might allow me to see your thoughts more clearly. Would you do this?

Thank you.

-Bob

Quote from THHuxleynew

Bob - let us divide this stuff up:

(1) non-vaccine drugs are being suppressed, rather than juts not approved because they have no good evidence, and no plausible mechanism. There is no evidence of this, and lots of evidence that the popular liking for such cheap repurposed drugs is no more than that. And there is strong evidence that everyone has been looking seriously at repurposed drugs and will continue to do so.

You keep stating there is no evidence that ivermectin works and lots that state that it does not. Yet many here have posted many links and a quick google search will find many more. You state "NO EVIDENCE". Are you sure you want to take such a stand?

https://ivmmeta.com/

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_version_v12_-_6_Jan_2021

And I could give many many more. Sure there are studies done that do not show positive results.... many with bias or uneducated in ivermectin use.

But to say no evidence is beneath you I would say.

You also say it is not being suppressed. I challenge you to go to a doctor and ask for him to prescribe it. When he does not, ask him why he will not.... if he personally thinks it does not work or simply it has been warned against by the FDA (and thus insurance) that Ivermectin is NOT to be used for Covid.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/…treat-or-prevent-covid-19

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/…-cure-risk-losing-license

(2) graphene tubes in mRNA vaccines deliver 5G mind control. Why is this stuff being posted here? We need a joke thread.

I know nothing of mind control and have never brought it up......why do you confuse my points with others? I do not do the same to you. My points are not tin foil hat issues and I think you know this.

(3) mRNA vaccines might have specific problems. well, this is reasonable. But the chaces of those being serious (e.g. high chances of getting it) long-term problems that do not show up in the 6 months + data so far is very very small.

How do you say very small? Where is your science? mRNA vaccines have NOT been long term tested. Early tests showed very bad problems. Current vaccines have NOT been passed under standard practice. We do not even know what these vaccines are made from to a great extent, publicly at least. There is ZERO safety record concerning long term effects..... and yet know six months later.... there ARE issues starting to pop up. Bells palsy, cardiac and others. So I do not think you can say "do not show up"... we may just be starting to see it. This statement is just as logical.

So please tell me how you know the chances are very small? 6 months is nothing... standard drug trials take up to 10 years...... so please show me how you can state "very very small". Seriously.

https://www.antidote.me/blog/h…linical-trial-phases-take

(4) mRNA vaccines have problems - cardiac, blood clot, etc. Very likely. it is par for the course. but these side effects are incredibly minutely tracked and analysed, and thus far blood clots (no) cardiac problems (yes, but at low rate, and not serious).

Not serious? We do not know yet. Long term testing has not been done. For you to say "not serious" is no more founded than me saying "they are serious". THE SCIENCE says neither of us know as testing has not been done yet! I know you want people to have confidence, but do not sacrifice scientific integrity making these claims about long term safety. We do not know.

And "par for the course"? are you serious? That I would expect a vaccine to have cardiac complications?

You can put a different spin on this - but to get beyond spin shall we look at calculations of numbers affected by these things? There is some data, which the regulators use, and it looks very low in terms of numbers when compared with the likelihood of problem due to catching delta variant COVID if not vaccinated.

Let us focus on that - are the vaccine risks more or less than the long COVID risks if unvaccinated? I'd welcome numbers.

Well, in my case, I had Covid. I do not have any long Covid. I took D, Zinc and ivermectin. Prove me wrong. Those are facts.

The problem with "numbers" is that you can make them what ever you want. There are many trials and meta analysis's that state the numbers show Ivermectin works.... yet you refuse to acknowledge the likely hood that it does. You even state "no evidence"

I do not believe you can show me "the numbers" that the risk of long covid is worse than someone taking D3, Zinc, Quercetin and Ivermectin. As a matter of fact, there are studies showing that these reduce Covid in many ways.... yet you do not believe those numbers. Yet you have made statements without any numbers, such as the risk of long covid if unvaccinated. What do you say my risk is? What are the numbers? I have natural immunity, take D, Zinc and have ivermectin. So unless you can show me the numbers of where my risk is higher than a vaccinated person, you have no standing. You have opinion, but it is not science as you have no "numbers" to prove it. I can link, have linked and others here have linked to many reports, trials, RCT's and meta analysis of Ivermectin results. You seemingly refuse to believe only the fewer ones that report negative. You cannot give me any numbers showing that I am at higher risk.

I will ask one more time...

why do you lump long term mRNA vaccine safety in with attenuated virus vaccine safety? What science at any level can you lump these together? They are as different as day and night, yet you continue to place them in the same safety statements. Again, these vaccines would normally take 5- 10 years to pass current safety standards and they have not.... yet you are stating they are safe as if you have scientific data behind that statement. I do not believe you do. You cannot "look at the numbers" for long term mRNA vaccine issues yet.... there are none! yes or no?

It took over 5 years to acknowledge that Thalidomide caused severe birth defects to possibly over 100,000 babies.

https://www.thalidomidetrust.o…0than%203%2C000%20survive.

Yet you are sure that mRNA vaccines have a very, very small chance of danger! Please show me the long term studies. There are no numbers to look at!

Yes, we should follow the science, not the hype.... from either side. mRNA vaccines do not have any long term safety record or studies. There are NO numbers. .... can you follow this science?

Sincerely,

Bob#2

THH

Display More

Quote from Curbina

This source is beyond controversial and I don’t like linking to it at all, but is the only one in English that has picked up the Spanish claims, and might help get a grasp of what has been claimed and speculated. I can’t say I agree with all the conclusions of these Spaniards, but the graphene claim is very conclusive.

https://www.henrymakow.com/202…liver-graphene-oxide.html

And thus we should lump mRNA vaccine safety in with all other attenuated virus vaccine history.......

(If this is found to be confirmed.)

To repeat as some will state I am an anti-vaxxer. I am not. I have had all the childhood vaccines and I had my children vaccinated. I get tetanus shots about every 10 years. However, I do try to "follow the science"!

So far, the science seems to say that mRNa vaccines do help against the Covid virus.

It seems to say that they are relatively safe on a short term scale, however it is now known that blood clots, Bells palsy and cardiac issues can arise in the short term. (With in weeks). It would also seem that these are being grossly under reported. To what extent, is unknown. Perhaps a little, perhaps a lot.

That there is a concerted effort (not necessarily formally organized) against / dismiss ANYTHING that might help fight COVID that is not the vaccine. Vitamin D, Zinc, HCQ, and others.... especially Ivermectin.

For a prime example, some here consistently post that "evidence is slight and nonclusive" that Ivermectin works and thus should NOT be promoted. However, that very same person has NEVER posted that Remedisvir has a much WORSE profile, so much that the WHO states not to use it. Yet he never posts negative words about it. Hmmm.... nor even acknowledges that there IS significant and legitimate trials that show Ivermectin does work! Those are swept under the rug because they do not "fit" the agenda.

What agenda.... if there is a cheap, plentiful available and WORKING alternative to the current vaccines, it will greatly stall the vaccine rollout. This worry may come from very legitimate concerns... I do not imply that people are of evil intent. Some truly think vaccines is the ONLY remedy to this pandemic. Perhaps so.... but under that future cost? Is mRNA vaccines really safe long term and if Ivermectin works as seemingly so, why the huge campaign against it?

mRNA safety, in my opinion and a growing list of experts, should NOT be automatically bundled in with attenuated virus vaccine safety. The current mRNA vaccines have not went through long term effect studies. These possible new revelations of graphene is a prime example.... we simply do not know and this is entirely unexplored territory.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n627

One of the creators of mRNA vaccine has concerns:

https://trialsitenews.com/tuck…ing-voices-such-as-yours/

For a point, it took over 5 years for Thalidomide to be determined the cause of birth defects!

https://helix.northwestern.edu…rug-safety-and-regulation

Quote from Fm1

Stop vaccinating kids!!!!

The WHO Says Children Should Not Receive COVID-19 Vaccines

https://www.precisionvaccinati…ive-covid-19-vaccines?amp

The World Health Organization (WHO) published revised advice on June 21, 2021, clarifying which populations should receive COVID-19 vaccines. The WHO's website now states, 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.'

Furthermore, the WHO says 'There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults.'

'However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.'

Additionally, the WHO confirmed 'COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 18 years and older, including those with pre-existing conditions of any kind, including auto-immune disorders. These conditions include hypertension, diabetes, asthma, pulmonary, liver, and kidney disease, as well as chronic infections that are stable and controlled.'

'While a COVID-19 vaccine will prevent serious illness and death, we still don’t know the extent to which it keeps you from being infected and passing the virus on to others. The more we allow the virus to spread, the more opportunity the virus has to change.'

This WHO advice conflicts with the U.S. FDA's authorization on May 10, 2021, to include people 12 years old in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination program.

Display More

Interesting.

Same with Remedisvir, WHO says no, FDA says yes.

Some here say "follow the science" or "the experts say" this and that. That Ivermectin is not "proven" because studies, i.e. the experts say (they read only the studies by those biased against it) is not to be used.

Well, who follows "the science"? WHO or FDA? Who follows "the experts" ? The WHO or FDA.

The large number of positive studies on Ivermectin ARE done by experts and qualified scientists / doctors. Just because they are not part of WHO or FDA does not disqualify them.

So the arguments againstt Ivermectin are unsubstantiated. There is far, far more reports positive than questioning ivermectin and those questioning have strong bias and conflict of interests. The above proves "it is not a clear cut case" of who to believe. (pun intended?)

And now the WHO states not to vaccinate kids for Covid at this time. I believe a wise decision. However, the US is plunging ahead recklessly with this. So someone here will say "the experts say to vaccinate kids". Well the "WHO experts" say do not! hmmmm... not so clear cut is it.

The whole issue of Ivermectin is solely political / financial. Sorry THH, I usually respect most of your opinions, but on this, I do not believe you have read or studied any Ivermectin reports and trials but are only cherry picking one or two biased "anti-ivermectin" published reports.

I make this strong point because it looking more each week that Ivermectin can make a HUGE difference. The fact it was available a year ago and has been effectively subverted may have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. And why? This is a major, major negligence and possible crime.

Still waiting on the response as to why mRNA vaccine safety is being lumped in with attenuated vaccine safety records.... "vaccines are safe and have a long history of safety" type of comments. Standard vaccines going through standard safety protocols have most often been proven safe....

mRNA vaccines have not went through long term safety trials, are completely different than attenuated vaccines AND have had a very bad safety record in recent past attempts to use.

Why are some here still lumping mRNA safety with attenuated vaccine safety..... and then also push the "follow the science"..... where is the science in lumping these together? Still waiting...

Thanks,

Quote from Dennis Letts

Colleagues,

I must provide my impression of IH:

IH and the people I have met are of the highest integrity. I have done business deals for nearly 50 years and I've never been associated with a finer collection of human beings.

I get to research quietly and receive modest but adequate funding. I funded my own LENR research from 1992 to 2015, when I joined IH as a consulting researcher. Their moral and financial support has allowed me to contribute more to the field of LENR than I could have done on my own. My lab would not have its current capabilities without IH.

With IH support, I have made progress but more work is needed to solve the ultimate puzzle.

I will be happy to respond to any questions you might have about my work that is already publicly known. I have a few new triggering and materials methods that I can't reveal until they have been tested and confirmed.

Yes, there are patent concerns because our system of capital investment requires we have profit as well as philanthropic motives. IH's leaders are environmentally philanthropic by choice and profit-centered by necessity. A free-market system works best for these efforts - if there is a better working model, please tell me where.

Best to all,

Dennis Letts

IH Research Consultant

Austin, Texas

Display More

I too want to thank you for the update, it is appreciated. I am sure the work you and others are conducting with IH is top notch. No claims from your group of "end of the fossil fuel age within months" made and then disappear from sight like some others have done! It is sad they get support from some here while IH gets consistent shade thrown at them, all simply because of a political / socio-economic difference in world view. No real first hand facts in throwing the shade, but what do facts matter now a days anyway? To some "capital venture firms" are evil by very definition, it does not matter what the real track record is! Sad indeed.

I hope that you can continue to post progress and insights along the way. It will likely be legitimate researchers such as yourself that finally break the LENR code if it is to be broken. Best wishes and we look forward to hearing about your work!

P.S.... is it possible to list the group that is working with you / IH? At one time I thought Bob Higgins was and a couple of others. If not public, I understand. Thanks.

Quote from stefan

The spike protein problematics is not clear cut as deduced form this fact check not sure what to think though when it comes to young individuals. Certainly if there is a big issue with it we should have tons of nations flagging that the vaccine has problems. I know Sweden independently is monitoring the vaccine and if there is a dramatic effect it should be known by now.

I hope you are correct about "known by now". However, I do not think enough time has elapsed yet. I personally will give it about six more months. Issues such as cardiac, bells palsy and other issues are just now coming to light. Some of these issues such as spike proteins may not manifest for may months. Again hopefully not.

I am not an anti vaccine person. However I also know that no mRNA vaccines have ever been approved for humans before and the current ones only under emergency use. They have not went through standard protocols yet. Six months should tell, I hope.

Also, having had Covid, I should have natural protection as I have seen little evidence that the vaccines are proven to provide more protection than natural I am no more danger than others nor am I dangerous to others. Although some vaccine proponents will argue this, they can provide good positive tests to prove it, not just hear say.

It is interesting how they dismiss actual Ivermectin studies because they are not from big pharma, but accept unproven theory about vaccines being better than natural protection.......

It is interesting how statistics can be made to "prove" almost any point one wants to make..... or is there actual substance?

Now everyone here knows that the "vaccine warriors" here have trumpeted the prior administrations Covid efforts as being responsible for 300,000+ deaths. (See posts made here by some.... I do not need to point out who!) and that all the troubles were solely the prior presidents and not governors such as Cuomo.

Yet this graph, from World o Meter which has been approved by the vaccine warriors, show the daily new count in the US actually higher than about this time last year... and the daily new case count higher on average since Jan. 20 than last year, even though a new administration that "follows the science" was in place AND the vaccine was rolled out.

World o Meter states the US has 616,148 deaths since Feb. 15, 2020. The prior administration left office after 340 days and a horrid toll of 420,544 deaths. Although NO vaccines available. This averaged to 1254 deaths per day! Very sad.

The new administration, having a vaccine available and "following the science" when they took office, has seen 189,604 perish since. Very sad, or an average of 1289 per day....... what???? Higher than the previous.... that cannot be right!!!!!!!

I do hope the downward trends continue but we have seen them before. Perhaps they will, but I am keeping my supply of Ivermectin handy anyway!

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. - Aaron Levenstein

(In case some get offended.. this whole post is sarcasm.... at least mostly )

Quote from Curbina

Well, you are not considering that it only sticks to the jab spot, and not any other part of their bodies. Anyway they are really done with the issue, they don't want even to talk about it, I think they are really angry to have found out about it.

Thanks, I understand.

I was curious. Having dabbled (very lightly) in close up magic in the past, some tricks are done by using various surface cohesion of various materials. Spoons tricks are a prime example.

I know that skin varies quite significantly from one body area to another and that body hair will break surface cohesion. So (in my case at least ) nothing would stick to my legs or lower arms due to body hair, while my shoulder is free from it. Also, my shoulder is one of the flatter areas as well.

In any case, I am not trying to dispute the connection to the vaccine. In my reasoning, more likely than a magnetic function, is that the shot could easily cause the area to possibly be one or multiple of the below conditions:

1: The area might become slightly more hardened (inflamed) which can increase cohesion.

2: The area might secrete a body fluid, not necessarily sweat, but I am thinking more of an oil. Again, increasing surface cohesion.

3: Some shots cause a welt or "bump" on the skin. I wonder if this shot might cause the opposite such as a slight indentation or contraction. I.E. creating almost a "suction cup" situation.

Anyway, again, not to dismiss the vaccine connection or that something odd is happening. My engineering background has me doing cause and effect analysis!

Thanks again.