Ivermectin , covid cure

[essex man]

Why Covid Can Never Be 'Just A Cold'

The science

www.donotpanic.news

You have any words of your own, or do "don't panic news" speak for you.
I have to say that title not really working for you is it?
It's not supposed to though is it, like all this nonsense, the idea "to panic now...a lot!"
Many more clicks and therefore money for that

 

[Cowabunga]

John Campbell is now one of the anti-vaccine grifters who has had their own course of covid vaccination, but now profit from spreading medical misinformation about covid vaccines. He has made his old work available for free, but it is now very dated in format. Students nowadays have access to much more interactive study material ~ and can access formerly hefty, expensive, reference books in electronic form.

He most certainly does know the wisdom of vaccinating seemingly healthy individuals against preventable diseases. He's worked in the third world and seen for himself the damage done by preventable diseases in all ages and degrees of health.

He is a convincing liar. He manipulates his audience into health anxiety whether frightening them away from taking covid vaccines, or frightening them if they've had any covid vaccines. This is a bloke who trained in psychiatric nursing. He knows how to steer.

All his recent "guests" are on anti-vaccine grifts of one type or another. They trace back to HART and GBD. They have a eugenics agenda to reach herd immunity by constant reinfection by a class 3 biohazard without vaccination. This is one of them ~

View attachment 1172192

You are fundamentally wrong about his position on vaccination in general, therefore the rest of your post is, quite frankly, pure rubbish.

 

[essex man]

The thing about this and other Covid threads is, that no-one who has been vaccinated is likely to look for, far less share, info suggesting they were wrong, i.e. that vaccines don't work/are harmful. Conversely anyone who declined vaccination isn't going to look for then share info showing they were wrong to do so. Hence these 'discussions' will go on to the end of time.

Imagine a post-apocalyptic world; mankind is all but wiped out, cities burned to the ground, etc. In the rubble of a fallen building a broken burned mobile phone gives one last pathetic buzz as ollie makes one more retort to essexman.

Correct re vaccine.
I prefer to focus on the widespread non vaccine harms done in the name of covid but actually for personal advantage and enrichment.
Honestly wouldn't bother talking on here if people still didn't peddle this rubbish.
I never initiate but given the harms done to myself,my family and friends, society at large, if people come on trying to justify/continue this c..p i feel compelled to correct them.

 

[primmiemoo]

How many people are actually involved in HART? I've lost count of how many of them have been totally eviscerated by the twitteratti with quite some style. I remember one time how Bridgen was absolutely smashed around the houses in near meme level comments in response to some bilge he had posted, most amusing.

How (or perhaps why is the better question?) in the hell any of these people with academic, particularly science backgrounds ever become embroiled in this I will never know. Even if you had some proper research to publish the second someone like JFK Jr gets associated with it, you might as well have saved yourself the application fee and instead dumped it on Stackexchange.

There are entire subreddits and youtube channels running on maximum debunk mode 24/7 on this sort of material now. It's poetry. I just wish I had time to really read any of it.

Not that many, but they have connections in high places. There's a correlation with the rump of UKIP and the Brexit party in the UK (once someone has bought into one fantasy, they are susceptible to believing in any old carp), and there's enough arrogance in academics who have failed peer review for them to run away into grift out of hurt pride. That's better examined by the peers, I suppose. I've read the X account of a registered GP who's spun down into mental illness and spreads conspiracy theories, so there's that element, too.

For others, fear pays. They have made nice earners from scaring people. Much better than working for a living, and they close their minds to the outcomes from what they do,

 

[primmiemoo]

So the science was all established well before COVID, I accept that, but no-one actually found a use for it in all that time after spending all that money developing it, yet not fully testing it, until COVID came along. Unless you can help Ollie with a name of one of the human vaccines that previously used the mRNA vaccine technology.

Interesting deflection, there. The history of mRNA vaccines is in Wikipedia.

 

[primmiemoo]

You seem to think farmers are less intelligent than you.
As for the science we depend on, it is the sales figures that the manufacturers are far more interested in, way above the scientific benefits, themslves.

As for childish ignorance, sadly you need to wake up!

I'm a farmer. There are very few farmers who lack intelligence. I'm talking about research science. The work that goes on to investigate the world, not the commercial sector. It's possible to go to a farming event in a muddy field and meet world acclaimed scientists with expertise in so many aspects that agriculture needs. I went to one held relatively locally, and came home with much better insight into soil health, carbon sequestration, and sheep health. It's saved the business many thousands of quid since by reducing commercial inputs.

I've no idea what you mean by waking up. My world is real. A sheep's head to the knee bloody hurts. An ice pack and a painkiller helps to start the healing process.

 

[primmiemoo]

You have any words of your own, or do "don't panic news" speak for you.
I have to say that title not really working for you is it?
It's not supposed to though is it, like all this nonsense, the idea "to panic now...a lot!"
Many more clicks and therefore money for that

If you read the article, you may notice the network by which you have been misinformed about covid.

 

[primmiemoo]

You are fundamentally wrong about his position on vaccination in general, therefore the rest of your post is, quite frankly, pure rubbish.

Let's hear St John Campbell at the UK Covid Inquiry, then.

 

[essex man]

If you read the article, you may notice the network by which you have been misinformed about covid.

If you use words you may be able to tell me.
Again, i work stuff out for myself, it's a lot more reliable than anything you point me at or away from

 

[tepapa]

Interesting deflection, there. The history of mRNA vaccines is in Wikipedia.

It is.
First discovered in 1989, plenty of other things done in regards to cancer and rabies in the early 2000's yet still over nearly 20 years later it still wasn't used commercially until it first got approved against COVID in 2020.
So they've had 30 years of trials to try and get something to work with mRNA and you write off ivermectin to combat COVID in less than 4.

 

[ollie989898]

So the science was all established well before COVID, I accept that, but no-one actually found a use for it in all that time after spending all that money developing it, yet not fully testing it, until COVID came along. Unless you can help Ollie with a name of one of the human vaccines that previously used the mRNA vaccine technology.

Have you tried using the forum's own search function because I have discussed this very issue at length several times already?

Messenger RNA-based vaccines: Past, present, and future directions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

mRNA vaccines have received major attention in the fight against COVID-19. Formulations from companies such as Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer have allowed us to slowly ease the social distancing measures, mask requirements, and lockdowns that have been prevalent ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Previously, vaccines for melanoma, rabies, influenza and ebola (also Zika virus) using mRNA technology have been trialled. In the main, they were not successful- because they simply did not generate anything like the level of efficacy required. Researchers had every intention of using these vaccines for human use (because that is where the money is) only they were cut off at the knees because they simply didn't work.

Many other approaches to vaccination have also been trialled. DNA vaccines (sooner you than me) or subunit vaccines have also been tried (they tried this for anthrax: again, sooner you than me). Given the level of virulence in some pathogens it is often highly desirable that we try to avoid using live or merely inactivated versions of them in vaccines. Vaccines using mRNA offer the ability to vaccinate people without ever exposing them to actual pathogens or the toxins they might release. Because mRNA allows you to manufacture exact peptide sequences using the body's own machinery, it is also a highly precise way of training the adaptive immune system.

As I have no said for at least the 10th time: mRNA vaccines are not new. They have been researched a lot. How else do you think any company was able to develop these covid19 vaccines so rapidly? To have started from scratch would have taken years. They didn't need to start from scratch- mRNA vaccine tech was sat on the shelf because no one had yet made them work.

The Oxford/AstraZeneca method was cheating- they used an adenoviral vector to trick cells into manufacturing the goods. It is a lot cheaper and easier to do this as mRNA is fiendishly unstable stuff at the best of times.

Around a dozen companies produced covid vaccines in the end. Some used viral subunits. Others viral vectors. Others inactivated virus itself. They all offer advantages and disadvantages over each other.

 

[ollie989898]

You are fundamentally wrong about his position on vaccination in general, therefore the rest of your post is, quite frankly, pure rubbish.

If that statement was correct then why is he obviously lying?

 

[ollie989898]

Not that many, but they have connections in high places. There's a correlation with the rump of UKIP and the Brexit party in the UK (once someone has bought into one fantasy, they are susceptible to believing in any old carp), and there's enough arrogance in academics who have failed peer review for them to run away into grift out of hurt pride. That's better examined by the peers, I suppose. I've read the X account of a registered GP who's spun down into mental illness and spreads conspiracy theories, so there's that element, too.

For others, fear pays. They have made nice earners from scaring people. Much better than working for a living, and they close their minds to the outcomes from what they do,

Unfortunately true. It is certainly easier (and more profitable) to peddle misinformation than to spend time and effort explaining actual truth.

 

[ollie989898]

It is.
First discovered in 1989, plenty of other things done in regards to cancer and rabies in the early 2000's yet still over nearly 20 years later it still wasn't used commercially until it first got approved against COVID in 2020.
So they've had 30 years of trials to try and get something to work with mRNA and you write off ivermectin to combat COVID in less than 4.

Err mRNA was discovered in the 1960s.

Ivermectin has been trialled extensively: It doesn't work. And as I said right at the start of all of this: the idea of some random 50+ year old antiparasitic drug being the absolute cure for an emerging coronavirus is the stuff of dreams really. Big pharma would have made a killing out of it. Particularly Merck, who are still one of the big producers and could well have the more efficient manufacturing processes. They would have cleaned up.

Your post merely highlights your own less than complete understanding of the complexity of the technology I'm afraid. You are taking 2 + 2 and finding 13. The reality is that no one could get mRNA vaccination to work effectively, because lipid nanoparticle technology hadn't advanced far enough to be viable as an adjuvant.

If mRNA was deadly and causing terrible adverse events constantly- a lot of people would have become very famous in the last 10-15 years publishing articles demonstrating it in human and animal models because it's not like there was any shortage of studies involving both.

 

[essex man]

It is.
First discovered in 1989, plenty of other things done in regards to cancer and rabies in the early 2000's yet still over nearly 20 years later it still wasn't used commercially until it first got approved against COVID in 2020.
So they've had 30 years of trials to try and get something to work with mRNA and you write off ivermectin to combat COVID in less than 4.

Yep, there were a number of advantages commercially...cheaper to produce and adapt.
A number of disadvantages to improving people's health, mostly around the unknown population effect of genetic modification.
Also dose rate.
Also public resistance to GM.
Needed a properly exaggerated, incentivised overreaction to a new cold virus in order to get them approved.
Now the fear of potential health drawbacks have proved well founded, there are unlikely to be any more.
What's more, all vaccination rates now dropping on the back of this and some of them did work(maybe)
More net covid harm done!

 

[merino]

Here we go!
I knew something was coming.

Sorry, I do not agree that he lied.
Why TF would he?

You have your opinions…….
………I have mine.
And he has his!

Get over it!

I agree, it has.
When people resort to blatant rudeness when somebody else disagrees with them, should not be for the likes of TFF.

But when it happens, it is so easy to get sucked in as a response.
In this case it started in trying to defend somebody, who is from a medical background, not connected to farming and who is trying to help people.
Is it a surprise that this attitude comes from folks now involved with medicine and whose prime focus now is not farming?

It smacks of the opinion that farmers are less intelligent and don’t know what they are talking about syndrome.
When the real situation is that opinions are like arse-holes, everybody has got one!

I disagree.

 

[ollie989898]

The thing about this and other Covid threads is, that no-one who has been vaccinated is likely to look for, far less share, info suggesting they were wrong, i.e. that vaccines don't work/are harmful. Conversely anyone who declined vaccination isn't going to look for then share info showing they were wrong to do so. Hence these 'discussions' will go on to the end of time.

Imagine a post-apocalyptic world; mankind is all but wiped out, cities burned to the ground, etc. In the rubble of a fallen building a broken burned mobile phone gives one last pathetic buzz as ollie makes one more retort to essexman.

On the contrary- where people have adopted such staunch beliefs (the vaccine doesn't work, ivermectin is the cure or whatever falsehood de jour they present with today) and then subsequently proven incorrect at every juncture, they are trapped and have no mechanism for a climbdown. No one on this entire forum can explain to me the rationale of becoming so heavily personally invested in a fudging random drug which has been about for 50 years. If I'd started 3 years ago telling folk emphatically that paracetamol is the cure for covid, you'd have assumed I was nuts. Even though it too has been around since Christ rode a camel there was no contemporary evidence that it worked on viruses and no known logical mechanism that it could have worked. If I had said dexamethasone was the cure (it too being around since Christ rode a donkey) there would have been some logic to that belief- it's a drug that has been used in respiratory medicine for decades and costs the NHS pocket change a packet.

How then do you explain the level of zeal so many contributors on this thread have for ivermectin? You can't, even their worshipful devotion to one crack pot doesn't explain it. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. They just can't stand losing face to say so. My hopes for various drugs being found useful were dashed on multiple occasions because I looked for those with a plausible or at least understood mechanism of action in relation to viral diseases. Some very expensive and pretty seriously sharp edge drugs were trialled and found to be next to useless.

At every juncture I have sought data supporting the idea that ivermectin works. None has ever withstood proper scrutiny. And now they are scrabbling around looking for their next 'cure'. Surprise surprise it's Vitamin D. Like none of us ever saw that coming- but that's all part of the conspiracy along with the complete bullship that we were told a vaccine 'stays in the arm', despite 10+ years of work in vivo showing that this demonstrably was never the case.

But settle yourself in: next week it'll be zinc or selenium. Vitamin C the week after that. Maybe eventually some study will turn up some data that shows amitriptyline is useful and they'll seize on that as being part of the falsehood that everyone was acting to conceal the truth all along when the reality is no fudger even thought to try it in the grip of a global pandemic.

 

[melted welly]

It's amazing that farmers, who depend on accurate science at all levels ~ from engineering to crop and stock health ~ don't get that anti-vaccine and anti-science dusrupters are behind their fear and mistrust of very sound measures that preserve life and health in the face of a pathogenic virus that's killing or disabling millions of people worldwide.

Sad to see them regress to childish ignorance. I mean that. It really is.

Or is it that our industry operates in a world dominated by big players who are continually trying to pull our pants down, be that multinationals, pressure groups or HM govt and political operatives of all persuasions, so as a result there is a tendency to question things and do so with a healthy degree of skepticism.

I know a dozen people who suffered adverse reactions to the vaccines, from being bed ridden for a few days to full on hospitalisations from TIAs, my father still has ongoing complications.

I find the dismissive and often mocking nature of yourself and Ollies posts on this thread quite cold hearted in that respect.

 

[tepapa]

Err mRNA was discovered in the 1960s.

We're talking about mRNA vaccine here not mRNA. This is where you think your superior trying to make out no-one else knows what they're talking about. Go on the Wikipedia page and you'll see they mention mRNA technology, shall we call it, was first experimented with in 1989.

 

[ollie989898]

We're talking about mRNA vaccine here not mRNA. This is where you think your superior trying to make out no-one else knows what they're talking about. Go on the Wikipedia page and you'll see they mention mRNA technology, shall we call it, was first experimented with in 1989.

My mistake: I read your post and thought you meant mRNA itself wasn't discovered until the 80s.

At no point have I ever made myself out to be superior to anyone else- all this information is freely available to everyone to access and I have no clue as the personal history, experience or training of anyone on this forum. There are some extremely clever people out there, I am certainly not amongst them nor would I ever have it said I've stated that to be the case.