quote:

Graphene Oxide Is the Main Ingredient in Covid Jabs Says Former Pfizer Employee

“ Imagine what would happen if Pfizer were to not include a key ingredient, especially one that comprised 99% of the vaccine, on the ingredient lists submitted to the FDA and CDC. Such an omission could put Pfizer at major legal risk and jeopardize their entire business. The FDA also conducts periodic evaluations of the manufacturing processes involved in producing the vaccines. So slipping in an undeclared ingredient wouldn’t be that easy? Besides, what would be the purpose? Murder?“

https://www.forbes.com/sites/b...-unsupported-claims/


“ Our ruling
An Instagram post claimed that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is "99% graphene oxide," which is "toxic to the human body and causes a number of problems."

Pfizer said it does not use the material, and it is not shown in a federal list of ingredients in the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use in the U.S.

We rate the post False.”

“ The post, which uses abbreviations for the word vaccine, states:

"99% Graphene Oxide in Pfizer V4X? Spanish scientists obtain vial of Pfizer v4xin3 and find that 98-99%."

Graphene oxide, the post continues, "is toxic to the human body and causes a number of problems."

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

A Pfizer spokesperson told PolitiFact that while graphene oxide — a material made by the oxidation of graphite — is used in some vaccines, it is not used at Pfizer.

The video with the post
The video with the post contains clips of statements made by Jane Ruby, whose Twitter account identifies her as "Dr. Jane Ruby." Ruby, is not a medical doctor, describing herself as a health economist and "New Right political pundit" with a doctorate in psychology. “


https://www.politifact.com/fac...xic-pfizer-covid-19/

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
Dr. Robert Young - Scanning & Transmission Electron Microscopy Reveals Graphene in CoV-19 Jabs...

Robert O Young DSc, PhD, Naturopathic Practitioner

AKA

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
Dr. Robert Young - Scanning & Transmission Electron Microscopy Reveals Graphene in CoV-19 Jabs...

Robert O Young DSc, PhD, Naturopathic Practitioner

AKA

FUCK A DUCK.
Sigmonkey goes on record saying NO Graphene in the jabs.

Next they will be telling us that graphene oxide has "magnetic" properties.....

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Graniteguy,

So a judge has ruled that Gov Desantis of FL exceeded his authority by ordering a ban on mask mandates in schools in his state, but it's OK for other governors, like PA's Wolf to mandate masks for K-12.
https://www.foxnews.com/politi...-mandate-ban-schools

I don't know about how other states do it, but in PA, if you enrolled your kid in cyber school, whatever school district you're in has to pay for your kid's cyber school, or a very large part at least. So I know what I'd do if I had kids in school & my state mandated masks. The school districts & teachers unions would throw a big fit if all their money was going to cyber schools.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:

Candace Owens was denied a COVID test by a clinic because the clinic said she was a conservative

True? Rumor? Any documentation?

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:

Candace Owens was denied a COVID test by a clinic because the clinic said she was a conservative

True? Rumor? Any documentation?

True. She was on Tucker last night talking about it.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:

Candace Owens was denied a COVID test by a clinic because the clinic said she was a conservative

True? Rumor? Any documentation?

The lab that told her to pound sand put out a statement admitting to it without apology.

Well I guess Pfizer has not made enough money
yet !

Pfizer, Merck launch new trials of oral COVID-19 drugs
(Reuters) -Pfizer Inc and Merck & Co Inc announced on Wednesday new trials of their experimental oral antiviral drugs for COVID-19 as the race to develop an easy-to-administer treatment for the potentially fatal illness heats up.

Pfizer said its latest mid-to-late-stage trial will enroll 1,140 non-hospitalized adults diagnosed with coronavirus infection who are not at risk of severe illness. Patients in the trial will be given Pfizer's pill, known as PF-07321332, and a low dose of ritonavir, an older medication widely used in combination treatments for HIV infection.

Pfizer's drug is designed to block the activity of a key enzyme that is needed for the coronavirus to multiply.

Merck said its new trial will study experimental drug molnupiravir for the prevention of COVID-19 among adults in the same household as someone diagnosed with symptomatic coronavirus infection. Merck and partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics are already conducting a late-stage trial of the treatment in non-hospitalized patients to see if it reduces the risk of hospitalization or death.

Molnupiravir is a type of antiviral designed to introduce errors into the RNA of the virus that eventually prevent it from replicating.

Pfizer began in July a different trial of PF-07321332 in adults with COVID-19 infection who are at high risk of becoming severely ill due to underlying health conditions such as diabetes. The company said it expects initial results from that study some time this fall.

Rivals Pfizer and Merck, along with Swiss pharmaceutical Roche Holding AG, have made the most progress in developing what would be the first antiviral pill to treat, or possibly prevent, COVID-19.

To date, Gilead Sciences Inc's intravenous drug Veklury, known generically as remdesivir, is the only approved antiviral treatment for COVID-19 in the United States.

Roche and partner Atea Pharmaceuticals in June said early data from a trial of their experimental oral antiviral AT-527 showed that it lowered viral load in hospitalized patients.

Merck said in June that the U.S. government agreed to pay about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir, if it is proven to work and authorized by regulators. The company said it expected to file for U.S. emergency use authorization of molnupiravir in the second half of 2021 at the earliest.

Pfizer said in July if the PF-07321332 trial was successful, it would file for a potential emergency use authorization in the fourth quarter.
LINK

quote:

Japanese Health Minister Norihisa Tamura on Tuesday said that the foreign matter found in the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine vials in the southern prefecture of Okinawa was likely caused when needles were inserted into the vials.

So... it wasn't contaminated until they put the needles into the vials to draw it out...
Yeah! That's the ticket! Rigghhht...

The doctor is worried about his license even talking about ivermectin:

Why all the fuss about Ivermectin?
By Brian C. Joondeph

First hydroxychloroquine, now ivermectin, is the hated deadly drug de jour, castigated by the medical establishment and regulatory authorities. Both drugs have been around for a long time as FDA-approved prescription medications. Yet now we are told they are as deadly as arsenic.

As a physician, I am certainly aware of ivermectin but don’t recall ever writing a prescription for it in my 30+ years’ medical career. Ivermectin is an anthelmintic, meaning it cures parasitic infections. In my world of ophthalmology, it is used on occasion for rare parasitic or worm infections in the eye.

Ivermectin was FDA approved in 1998 under the brand name Stromectol, produced by pharmaceutical giant Merck, approved for several parasitic infections. The product label described it as having a “unique mode of action,” which “leads to an increase in the permeability of the cell membrane to chloride ions.” This suggests that ivermectin acts as an ionophore, making cell membranes permeable to ions that enter the cell for therapeutic effect.

Ivermectin is one of several ionophores, others including hydroxychloroquine, quercetin, and resveratrol, the latter two available over the counter. These ionophores simply open a cellular door, allowing zinc to enter the cell, where it then interferes with viral replication, providing potential therapeutic benefit in viral and other infections.

This scientific paper reviews and references other studies demonstrating antibacterial, antiviral, and anticancer properties of ivermectin. This explains the interest in this drug as having potential use in treating COVID.

Does ivermectin work in COVID? I am not attempting to answer that question, instead looking at readily available information because this drug has been the focus of much recent media attention. For the benefit of any reader eager to report this article and author to the medical licensing boards for pushing misleading information, I am not offering medical advice or prescribing anything. Rather, I am only offering commentary on this newsworthy and controversial drug.

What’s newsworthy about ivermectin? A simple Google search of most medications describes uses and side effects. A similar search of ivermectin provides headlines of why it shouldn’t be taken and how dangerous it is.

The Guardian describes ivermectin as horse medicine reminding readers considering taking the drug, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow”, saying it’s a medicine meant for farm animals. The FDA echoed that sentiment in a recent tweet, adding “Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” their word choice making it obvious who the tweet was directed to.

Perhaps the FDA didn’t realize that Barack and Michelle Obama often used the term “y’all” and that some might construe the FDA tweet as racist.

The FDA says ivermectin “can be dangerous and even lethal,” yet they approved it in 1998 and have not pulled it from the market despite it being “dangerous and lethal.” Any medication can be “dangerous and lethal” if misused. People have even overdosed on water.

It is true that ivermectin is also used in animals, as are many drugs approved for human use. This is a list of veterinary drugs with many familiar names of antibiotics, antihypertensives, and anesthetics commonly used by humans. Since these drugs are used in farm animals, should humans stop taking them? That seems a rather unscientific argument against ivermectin, especially coming from the FDA.

And healthcare professionals are not recommending or prescribing animal versions of ivermectin as there is an FDA-approved human formulation.

Does ivermectin work against COVID? That is the bigger question and worthy of investigation, rather than reminding people that they are not cows.

A study published several months ago in the American Journal of Therapeutics concluded,

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

To my knowledge, these 18 studies have not been retracted, unlike previous studies critical of hydroxychloroquine which were ignominiously retracted by prestigious medical journals like The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Yet the medical establishment refuses to even entertain the possibility of some benefit from ivermectin, castigating physicians who want to try it in their patients. 18 studies found benefit. Are they all wrong?

Podcaster Joe Rogan recently contracted COVID and recovered within days of taking a drug cocktail including ivermectin. Was it his drug cocktail, his fitness, or just good luck? Impossible to know but his experience will keep ivermectin in the news.

Highly unvaccinated India had a surge in COVID cases earlier this year which abruptly ended following the widespread use of ivermectin, over the objections and criticism of the WHO. In the one state, Tamil Nadu, that did not use ivermectin, cases tripled instead of dropping by 97 percent as in the rest of the country.

This is anecdotal and could have other explanations but the discovery of penicillin was also anecdotal and observational. Good science should investigate rather than ignore such observations.

The Japanese Medical Association recently endorsed ivermectin for COVID. The US CDC cautioned against it.

There is legal pushback as an Ohio judge ordered a hospital to treat a ventilated COVID patient with ivermectin. After a month on the ventilator, this patient is likely COVID free and ivermectin now will have no benefit, allowing the medical establishment to say “see I told you so” that it wouldn’t help.

By this point, active COVID infection is not the issue; instead, it is weaning off and recovery from long-term life support. The early hydroxychloroquine studies had the same flaw, treating patients too late in the disease course to provide or demonstrate benefit.

These drugs have been proposed for early outpatient treatment, not when patients are seriously ill and near death. Looking for treatment benefits in the wrong patient population will yield expected negative results.

Given how devastating COVID can be and how, despite high levels of vaccination in countries like the US, UK, and Israel, we are seeing surging cases and hospitalizations among the vaccinated, we should be pulling out all the stops in treating this virus.

Medical treatment involves balancing risks and benefits. When FDA-approved medications are used in appropriate doses for appropriate patients, prescribed by competent physicians, the risks tend to be low, and any benefit should be celebrated. Instead, the medical establishment, media, and regulatory authorities are taking the opposite approach. One has to wonder why.

https://www.americanthinker.co...bout_ivermectin.html

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Japanese Health Minister Norihisa Tamura on Tuesday said that the foreign matter found in the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine vials in the southern prefecture of Okinawa was likely caused when needles were inserted into the vials.

So... it wasn't contaminated until they put the needles into the vials to draw it out...
Yeah! That's the ticket! Rigghhht...

Sounds good for me too. Let's go with that.
We don't want to be labeled "conspiracy theorists".

quote:

Originally posted by StoneCold:
I tried the powder thing and no difference.

I will try to post a video in the next few days.

How's it comin' with that video?

What is the powder thing?

Talcum powder. The powder prevents objects from sticking to your skin. If magnetism is the actual force causing the adherance, talcum powder will have no effect on the sticking.

https://www.managedhealthcaree...rial-is-set-to-begin


"Johnson & Johnson (J&J) this week announced that its experimental HIV vaccine that uses the same technology as its COVID-19 vaccine was not effective at preventing infection in women. The phase 2b Imbokodo study, which included more than 2,000 women in southern Africa, assessed whether the HIV vaccine could reduce the risk of infection by half, finding that the vaccine was able to lower infection rates by 25.2%.

The announcement is the latest blow to the development of a vaccine that can effectively prevent HIV infection, which has evaded researchers since the start of the HIV/AIDS pandemic four decades ago."

Well, isn't that a fine how-do-you-do?

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:...Sigmonkey goes on record saying NO Graphene in the jabs. ...

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:...Sigmonkey goes on record saying NO Graphene in the jabs. ...

I like it!

Donald Trump Jr. Posts Four Words that Every Freedom-Loving American Should Echo

That ivermectin anti-Covid trial in Argentina, publication made available June 18,2021:

https://www.thelancet.com/acti...-5370%2821%2900239-X

Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial (emphasis mine)

The whole publication is available at that link.

The abstract:

"ABSTRACT
Background: There are limited antiviral options for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Ivermectin
(IVM), a macrocyclic lactone with a wide anti-parasitary spectrum, has shown potent activity against SARSCoV-2 in vitro. This study aimed at assessing the antiviral effect of IVM on viral load of respiratory secretions
and its relationship with drug concentrations in plasma.
Methods: Proof-of-concept, pilot, randomized, controlled, outcome-assessor blinded trial to evaluate antiviral
activity of high-dose IVM in 45 COVID-19 hospitalized patients randomized in a 2:1 ratio to standard of care
plus oral IVM at 0¢6 mg/kg/day for 5 days versus standard of care in 4 hospitals in Argentina. Eligible patients
were adults with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days of symptoms onset. The primary
endpoint was the difference in viral load in respiratory secretions between baseline and day-5, by quantitative RT-PCR. Concentrations of IVM in plasma were measured. Study registered at ClinicalTrials.gov:
NCT04381884.
Findings: 45 participants were recruited (30 to IVM and 15 controls) between May 18 and September 9, 2020.
There was no difference in viral load reduction between groups but a significant difference was found in
patients with higher median plasma IVM levels (72% IQR 5977) versus untreated controls (42% IQR 3173)
(p = 0¢004). Mean ivermectin plasma concentration levels correlated with viral decay rate (r: 0¢47, p = 0¢02).
Adverse events were similar between groups. No differences in clinical evolution at day-7 and day-30
between groups were observed.
Interpretation: A concentration dependent antiviral activity of oral high-dose IVM was identified at a dosing
regimen that was well tolerated. Large trials with clinical endpoints are necessary to determine the clinical
utility of IVM in COVID-19."


The trial ( with a very small number of subjects) did not show a correlation of viral load reduction when comparing the control group against the whole group treated with ivermectin.
However, not all individuals in the control group achieved same plasma levels of ivermectin.

When they compared the control group to the smaller group of high plasma ivermectin level individuals there WAS a significantly faster rate of viral load decay during the time period.

Thus, their conclusion that ivermectin showed promise in treating Covid disease but that much bigger trial groups are needed.