Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

A Vaccination Card Could Be Your Ticket To Freedom Soon


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Aren't you the one who believes in a womans right to choose? What's the difference?

 

All I'm really saying is that you're not considering the worst possible outcome of your thought Matrix. In the end I suspect you would see the error of your beliefs and be distraught with remorse. 

 

The people propagating such thoughts are pure evil. You are not. I am only attempting to get you to consider where those leading such beliefs are most likely going. 

 

You and I will never agree on certain issues concerning abortion, like incest, rape, a woman's health.....so choice yes, but not in the classic sense you believe it to be....I'm not willing to tell a woman she has to die so her unborn child can live, not my place to say, nor yours.  You wish to control women in every aspect of pregnancy, I simply believe differently.  It always confuses me when really really staunch anti abortion people insist on every single fetus being brought to term....and then some of those same people turn their back on them when they need help later in life....It's like, get them born, then they're on their own.  I'm not lumping you in with these people, because I know you and what you stand for....but the others, it's just so perplexing.

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

I'm not willing to tell a woman she has to die so her unborn child can live, not my place to say, nor yours.  You wish to control women in every aspect of pregnancy

As I understand your position.

 

However, I do not wish to control a woman as I understand full well the futility of such an effort. I simply understand the way of life and that it's a baby. Let God make the decision. 

PLEASE don't think for a second that such a statement by me is flippant, as you well know that last year God made the decision to take my baby girl from right out of my hands. Do you really think that was easy for me to deal with? And if my Beloved wife were to be pregnant again and the Doctor said it's his belief one of the two would die I would change my mind?

I would not. At what point do we actually believe in the power of God and not our own? And if my wife were to die at childbirth would I regret my choice, NEVER. 

Would I feel 10 times the pain in my soul I feel today for my baby girl. YOU BET YOUR AZZ I would. And so much more. 

 

But I will raise my girls to Love the Lord their God with all their hearts and NEVER turn their backs on him. I know I can NEVER understand why she had to die in my arms, but by the Grace of God I will NEVER NEVER EVER DOUBT MY SAVIOR'S WISDOM. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

As I understand your position.

 

However, I do not wish to control a woman as I understand full well the futility of such an effort. I simply understand the way of life and that it's a baby. Let God make the decision. 

PLEASE don't think for a second that such a statement by me is flippant, as you well know that last year God made the decision to take my baby girl from right out of my hands. Do you really think that was easy for me to deal with? And if my Beloved wife were to be pregnant again and the Doctor said it's his belief one of the two would die I would change my mind?

I would not. At what point do we actually believe in the power of God and not our own? And if my wife were to die at childbirth would I regret my choice, NEVER. 

Would I feel 10 times the pain in my soul I feel today for my baby girl. YOU BET YOUR AZZ I would. And so much more. 

 

But I will raise my girls to Love the Lord their God with all their hearts and NEVER turn their backs on him. I know I can NEVER understand why she had to die in my arms, but by the Grace of God I will NEVER NEVER EVER DOUBT MY SAVIOR'S WISDOM. 

 

Understood, and I still feel your pain, just as I did when your beautiful daughter was taken home to be with the Lord.  I simply believe many children of God have risen to a calling and attained a medical degree, also by the grace of God.  He would not have allowed that to happen had He not wanted those folks to help heal His children on Earth.

 

GO RV, then BV 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

INSIDER

You don't need to quarantine after traveling if you're vaccinated, health experts say, but you should still take precautions

 
 
Monica Humphries,Andrea Michelson
Thu, March 25, 2021, 4:50 PM
 
 
Family with children and face masks outdoors by hotel in summer, holiday concept. - stock photo
 
A family wearing masks enters a hotel room. Halfpoint Images/Getty Images
  • More Americans are vaccinated and taking trips, but do they need to quarantine once they arrive?

  • Health experts told Insider that it might not be necessary to quarantine after a trip or vacation.

  • But if you live with unvaccinated people or visited crowded indoor places, it's smart to be careful.

  • Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.

As more Americans are fully vaccinated, tourism is on the verge of a booming comeback. But is it necessary is to quarantine after your bucket-list vacation or visit to family if you're fully vaccinated?

"I have a straightforward answer: No, it is not necessary to quarantine after travel," Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, told Insider about fully vaccinated people.

At the time of writing, the CDC hasn't issued specific travel guidance for fully vaccinated people, and it continues to urge people not to travel.

However, Wen pointed to the CDC's most recent guidance that says vaccinated people do not need to quarantine when exposed to a person with coronavirus. The CDC considers someone fully vaccinated two weeks after they receive their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine and two weeks after the single-shot Johnson and Johnson's vaccine.

"If you've been around someone who has COVID-19, you do not need to stay away from others or get tested unless you have symptoms," according to the CDC's guidance for vaccinated people.

Dr. Carlos del Rio, a distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, agreed that quarantining might not be necessary, but he said he encourages testing before, during, and after traveling.

"I think increasingly the answer is no," he told Insider in an email about the need to quarantine post-travel. "At this time, however, and due to the fact that there is still a lot of community transmission, I continue to believe testing is important."

He said vaccinated travelers should get a test a few days before the trip, four to five days after you arrive at a destination, and once again when you get back home.

What you do on your trip affects your need to quarantine

Couple enjoying the empty Pantheon in Rome, wearing protective face masks during COVID-19 pandemic - stock photo
 
A duo explores the empty Pantheon in Rome, Italy. Kathrin Ziegler/Getty Images

Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer at the University of Michigan, told Insider that what you're doing when you travel matters more than your vaccination status.

She's taking a low-risk trip soon, where she'll drive to visit family and stay at their house overnight, and is not planning to quarantine upon her return to Michigan. The whole group has been taking precautions, she said, and some of them - herself included - have gotten the vaccine.

"If you're fully vaccinated and you're being very careful on your trip, and when you come back, you continue to be careful, and you're not having symptoms, there's likely very little benefit to having you quarantine," Malani said.

Even if you're vaccinated and opt to not quarantine yourself after a trip, it's still important to stay cautious in public spaces, Malani said.

You have some freedom when you're in private residences with other vaccinated people (or with a single household of low-risk, unvaccinated folks), but you should mask up and social distance if you're out in public at a restaurant, for instance.

Wen also said vaccinated travelers should continue to avoid crowds and indoor dining. For example, she urged travelers to opt for a park or museum over an indoor bar or concert.

"It's not the transit itself, it's what people do after that," Wen said. "If people are then going to their destinations and they're eating out in restaurants, going to bars, going to concerts, that's when the risk begins to accumulate."

Avoiding crowds, wearing a mask, and social distancing will make your trip safer and ultimately reduce your need to quarantine.

If you're traveling with a partially vaccinated group, it's best to err on the side of caution

Woman listening to music while flying on an airplane wearing a facemask - stock photo
 
A person wears a face mask while flying on an airplane. Hispanolistic/Getty Images

Wen encouraged people to think about their family or household when assessing the need to travel. If you're coming back from a trip to a household that includes vaccinated and unvaccinated people, it might be best to quarantine.

"I think that people should use an abundance of caution and think about the risk in their own family," Wen said. "You don't want to be spreading coronavirus to the unvaccinated members of your family."

Malani also recommended taking time to quarantine if you're traveling with a partially vaccinated group.

"The biggest thing is, are the vulnerable people in that household or in that bubble vaccinated? And for the folks who aren't vaccinated, can you quarantine ahead of travel, at least for a week, so you're trying to limit that exposure?" she said.

As more people get vaccinated, destinations are beginning to adjust their quarantine rules, but travelers should still follow local quarantine guidelines when arriving at a destination or returning home from a trip.

If you're on the hunt for a destination open to US travelers, this map outlines the international and domestic destinations open and welcoming American visitors.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dont-quarantine-traveling-youre-vaccinated-205026718.html

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2021 at 7:54 AM, Shabibilicious said:

 

Can't travel abroad without a passport either....or vote without i.d.....or drive without a license....or shop at Sam's Club without being a member....or enter a Moose Lodge alone without membership....or checkout a book without a library card....or pay at the pump without a credit card....or join the military without being inoculated in basic training.....just sayin.   :peace:

 

GO RV, then BV 

Man Shabs, you missed the boat on this one. It just went right over your head I guess. Let’s see here,

can’t travel without a passport, Yep..right on that. I have no desire to go out of the country now, my choice.

cant vote without ID, yep, that’s done to prevent fraudulent voting. Seems like a lot of that occurred recently.

can’t drive without a license, yep, driving is a privilege, not a right.

cant shop at Sam’s without being a member, yep, again my choice if I want to pay or not.

cant enter a moose lodge, yep, see above.

cant check out a book without a library card, yep. Don’t need one, I have the internet..😂

Can’t fill up at the pump with a credit card, yep, I can go in and pay cash. 
join the military and get inoculated, yep, you belong to Uncle Sam at that point and are then government issue..😂. Don’t want to get inoculated, don’t join.

 

I have a choice in those things you listed. Mandating people to carry a card saying that you have been vaccinated is wrong on so many levels. It will open up more discrimination, it will take freedoms away. I am against it 100%. Maybe they can make us put a cloth patch on our clothing for quick recognition. Again, It seemed to work in the past.

 

image.jpeg.5ba44972e91a86b48b5f8c7d3538dcbf.jpeg


image.gif.c99e72104c4a4965f8745a639325bef0.gif

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Pow! 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2021 at 5:55 PM, 8th ID said:

Man Shabs, you missed the boat on this one. It just went right over your head I guess. Let’s see here,

can’t travel without a passport, Yep..right on that. I have no desire to go out of the country now, my choice.

cant vote without ID, yep, that’s done to prevent fraudulent voting. Seems like a lot of that occurred recently.

can’t drive without a license, yep, driving is a privilege, not a right.

cant shop at Sam’s without being a member, yep, again my choice if I want to pay or not.

cant enter a moose lodge, yep, see above.

cant check out a book without a library card, yep. Don’t need one, I have the internet..😂

Can’t fill up at the pump with a credit card, yep, I can go in and pay cash. 
join the military and get inoculated, yep, you belong to Uncle Sam at that point and are then government issue..😂. Don’t want to get inoculated, don’t join.

 

I have a choice in those things you listed. Mandating people to carry a card saying that you have been vaccinated is wrong on so many levels. It will open up more discrimination, it will take freedoms away. I am against it 100%. Maybe they can make us put a cloth patch on our clothing for quick recognition. Again, It seemed to work in the past.

 

image.jpeg.5ba44972e91a86b48b5f8c7d3538dcbf.jpeg


image.gif.c99e72104c4a4965f8745a639325bef0.gif

 

 

 

 

When it's all said and done, enough Americans will get vaccinated to protect those who don't.....so, no worries.  :peace:

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

When it's all said and done, enough Americans will get vaccinated to protect those who don't.....so, no worries.  :peace:

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Nope, still don't get it. Without the card nobody will be able to do anything that means being near others. Work, travel, sports or others.

It will be used as a weapon against people. Your ok with it because you got yours.

  • Upvote 2
  • Pow! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

 

Nope, still don't get it. Without the card nobody will be able to do anything that means being near others. Work, travel, sports or others.

It will be used as a weapon against people. Your ok with it because you got yours.

 

That will all go away after herd immunity is reached, which is the point of vaccinations in the first place.

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

The very title of this thread says it all.

Without a vaccination card a person won't be free.

 

I personally have no problems with people not getting a vax, as long as they mask up for the benefit of those around them.  And the article doesn't say a vax card requirement is a foregone conclusion....it's simply being discussed.  It has about as much chance of becoming a law as meaningful gun safety legislation does.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nstoolman1 said:

Ivermictin kills the virus and stops the spread. Harmless to humans, deadly to the virus.

 

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

COVID-19. We’ve been living with it for what sometimes seems like forever. Given the number of deaths that have occurred from the disease, it’s perhaps not surprising that some consumers are looking at unconventional treatments, not approved or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

Though this is understandable, please beware. The FDA’s job is to carefully evaluate the scientific data on a drug to be sure that it is both safe and effective for a particular use, and then to decide whether or not to approve it. Using any treatment for COVID-19 that’s not approved or authorized by the FDA, unless part of a clinical trial, can cause serious harm. 

There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin to treat humans with COVID-19. Ivermectin is often used in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals.  The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.

Here’s What You Need to Know about Ivermectin

  • FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).
  • Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm. 
  • If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed. 
  • Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans. 

What is Ivermectin and How is it Used?

Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical (on the skin) forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea. 

Some forms of ivermectin are used in animals to prevent heartworm disease and certain internal and external parasites. It’s important to note that these products are different from the ones for people, and safe when used as prescribed for animals, only.

When Can Taking Ivermectin Be Unsafe? 

The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway. Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too.

There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong. 

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death. 

Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People

For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which can weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. 

Moreover, FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients. Many inactive ingredients found in animal products aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body.

Meanwhile, effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to be to wear your mask, stay at least 6 feet from others who don’t live with you, wash hands frequently, and avoid crowds.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/former-pfizer-vp-to-aflds-entirely-possible-this-will-be-used-for-massive-scale-depopulation

 

Vaccination Passports are just another scheme to get people Vaccinated. Be prepared for future Vaccine schemes for whatever the PTB dream up... 

LifeSitenav

OPINION FREEDOM

It’s ‘entirely possible’ vaccine campaigns ‘will be used for massive-scale depopulation’: Former Pfizer VP

It’s ‘entirely possible’ vaccine campaigns ‘will be used for massive-scale depopulation’: Former Pfizer VP Dr. Mike Yeadon Arshad Ebrahim / YouTube

Mordechai Sones

Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 2:42 pm EST

  

Introduction by LifeSiteNews journalist Patrick Delaney.

March 29, 2020 (America’s Frontline Doctors) –  Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer, spoke with great urgency to America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) late last week warning that the drive to inject the largest possible portion of the population with experimental COVID-19 vaccines is “madness,” involves “evil,” includes “crimes against humanity” and may have the intention of “massive-scale depopulation.”

Yeadon’s comments are also made in the broader context of a sharp debate over theories offered by Geert Vanden Bossche, a vaccine expert associated with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who, with the appearance of a “whistleblower” has also warned of a “global catastrophe without equal” due to the way these vaccines have been utilized.

Advertisement

In short, Vanden Bossche fears these experimental vaccines, which do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus, will foster the development of “dangerous variants” that will be far more lethal to the unvaccinated and vaccinated alike, who, for different reasons, will not have sufficient immunity to protect them.

In addition to the immediate halting of the current vaccination campaign, Vanden Bossche’s proposed solution is yet another worldwide vaccination of a different type.

While Yeadon also fears terrible consequences due to these vaccination campaigns, he strongly disagrees with Vanden Bossche’s theory, and with the proposed solution of more vaccination.

“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect,” Yeadon said. “There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.”

Last December, Yeadon, a British national, filed a petition with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to immediately suspend testing on these experimental vaccines due to many safety concerns, including pathogenic priming, which involves “an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, ‘wild’ virus after vaccination.”

In their white paper on the topic, AFLDS warned that such reactions, which can be fatal, “are difficult to prove,” as they are often interpreted as infection with “a worse virus,” or, perhaps, a more dangerous variant.

Having maintained that there is “no need of vaccines” for COVID-19, Yeadon emphasizes below, “PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.”

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

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.

At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said: “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the world’s population.

“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.

“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.

“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.

“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.

“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.

“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?

“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else. Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.

“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”

INTERVIEWER: In a talk you gave four months ago, you said:

The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.

The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.

So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.

In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.

The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?

DR. YEADON: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2. The study is from one of the best labs in their field.

“So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not ‘high throughout’ and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.

“However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non-vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.

“Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.”

INTERVIEWER: My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.

For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.

Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.

Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19?

Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case?

And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?

Advertisement

DR. YEADON: “I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.

“As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous.

“No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.

“It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity”.

“Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.

“The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.

This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.

“I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.

“The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).

“The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”

INTERVIEWER: Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma? In what ways does big pharma get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?

DR. YEADON: “Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA. Always good quality interactions.

“Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.

“So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.

“The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.

“You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s ‘Corona Committee’ online.

“So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless.

“Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.

“Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.

“I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator.

“I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.

“PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.

“As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.

“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the world’s population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it.

“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”

Reprinted with permission from America’s Frontline Doctors.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 

RELATED

Former Pfizer VP: ‘No need for vaccines,’ ‘the pandemic is effectively over’

Priest on COVID vaccine: ‘The risks far outweigh the benefits’

At least nine countries pull AstraZeneca’s vaccine over blood clot reports

‘Healthy’ 28-year-old mom dies suddenly following second Pfizer shot

Portuguese mother, 41, dies two days after taking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

39-year-old nurse aide dies ‘within 48 hours’ of receiving mandated COVID-19 shot

‘Very healthy’ Miami obstetrician, 56, dies 16 days after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

Johns Hopkins scientist: ‘A medical certainty’ Pfizer vaccine caused death of Florida doctor

 
  • Thanks 1
  • Pow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, caddieman said:

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

COVID-19. We’ve been living with it for what sometimes seems like forever. Given the number of deaths that have occurred from the disease, it’s perhaps not surprising that some consumers are looking at unconventional treatments, not approved or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

Though this is understandable, please beware. The FDA’s job is to carefully evaluate the scientific data on a drug to be sure that it is both safe and effective for a particular use, and then to decide whether or not to approve it. Using any treatment for COVID-19 that’s not approved or authorized by the FDA, unless part of a clinical trial, can cause serious harm. 

There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin to treat humans with COVID-19. Ivermectin is often used in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals.  The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support system" rel="">support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.

Here’s What You Need to Know about Ivermectin

  • FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).
  • Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm. 
  • If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed. 
  • Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans. 

What is Ivermectin and How is it Used?

Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical (on the skin) forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea. 

Some forms of ivermectin are used in animals to prevent heartworm disease and certain internal and external parasites. It’s important to note that these products are different from the ones for people, and safe when used as prescribed for animals, only.

When Can Taking Ivermectin Be Unsafe? 

The FDA has not reviewed data to support system" rel="">support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway. Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too.

There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong. 

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death. 

Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People

For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which can weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. 

Moreover, FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients. Many inactive ingredients found in animal products aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body.

Meanwhile, effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to be to wear your mask, stay at least 6 feet from others who don’t live with you, wash hands frequently, and avoid crowds.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

 

 

First off taking drugs meant for animals can be really stupid.

 

Next, someone needs to tell the Drs in Austrailia who have been taking it as a preventive and cure for their patients.

Anytime a cure for something that does not benefit big pharma is going to discouraged or slandered. 

If the drug does not fit the narative being sown it is talked down. 

They did it when DT said it about Hydroxychloroquine and later recanted after he was out of office.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Week

The Daily Show's Trevor Noah explains 'vaccine passports,' explores why Fox News hates them so much

Peter Weber
Wed, April 7, 2021, 2:21 AM
 
 
4d5b3284648d0e6688de0d6ac573d8af

"As more and more people get vaccinated, it's going to get safer for all sorts of places to open up again," Trevor Noah said on Tuesday's Daily Show. "But the question is, how will businesses know which of their customers have actually been vaccinated?" One idea is gaining traction and making talking heads explode. "Yes, welcome to the world of 'vaccine passports,' which I think are a great and simple way to show that you're immune from corona," Noah said. "I mean, I've just been going around yelling that I've been shot, and you'd think people would relax knowing that I've been vaccinated, but they always seem to freak out. People are weird."

Vaccine passports "can help give businesses peace of mind," Noah said. "American businesses want to know that the customers legally carrying assault rifles into their store aren't going to sneeze on anyone." Carrying around proof of vaccination "may sound like a novel idea, but it's really nothing new," he added. "People already have to prove that they've been vaccinated for a ton of reasons," but "just like most things in America, vaccine passports aren't without controversy. In fact, Republican governors in Texas and Florida have already banned businesses in their state from requiring one. And the very idea of vaccine passports has Fox News so freaked out, they've started standing up for the undocumented."

Noah showed some Fox News clips and tried to inject some calming humor. "First of all, this is not 'the end of human liberty in the West' — that happened in 2001, when they shut down Napster," he joked. "And look, they can say that this is Nazi Germany, but nobody's forcing you to get a vaccine passport. Like, if you don't want one, don't get one. You'll just have to pay a coyote to sneak you into Dunkin Donuts."

"Just because Fox News is being dramatic doesn't mean that there aren't some legitimate concerns around a vaccine passport — especially if that passport ends up being a smartphone app," Noah noted. "Not everybody has a smartphone ... but paper vaccine passports could have all kinds of issues, too. They can be forged, they can get lost, a girl could trick you into writing your phone number on it, and now she's vaccinated." Watch his suggested solutions below.

More stories from theweek.com

 

https://news.yahoo.com/daily-shows-trevor-noah-explains-062100271.html

 

GO RV, then BV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.