Cycling. Health. Covid. Diet.

Sep 13, 2020
56
20
At work, we've noticed one thing, and that is to do with the side effects of the vaccine, especially the Oxford AZ. The side effects tend to be much much worse in those who have had covid, than in those who haven't.

As for ivermection, I've heard that it works as a prophylactic and a treatment. What I don't get is why it's not been more widely used/publicised.

Covid itself seems a weird illness in that it makes some desperately ill, and even kills them, whereas others are barely affected at all - if at all. That isn't always age dependent either. I've often wondered if a genetic factor is present.
 

nigelbb

Pedelecer
Sep 19, 2019
211
188
At work, we've noticed one thing, and that is to do with the side effects of the vaccine, especially the Oxford AZ. The side effects tend to be much much worse in those who have had covid, than in those who haven't.

As for ivermection, I've heard that it works as a prophylactic and a treatment. What I don't get is why it's not been more widely used/publicised.

Covid itself seems a weird illness in that it makes some desperately ill, and even kills them, whereas others are barely affected at all - if at all. That isn't always age dependent either. I've often wondered if a genetic factor is present.
One very unusual feature is that if you are male your chances of dying are about 50% higher than if you are female. I know of no other infectious disease that demonstrates this gender disparity.

BTW The reason that Ivermectin isn't used is because there is no good evidence that it works. As far as I can see it's just this year's Hydroxychloroquine & just as useless.
 
Sep 13, 2020
56
20
One very unusual feature is that if you are male your chances of dying are about 50% higher than if you are female. I know of no other infectious disease that demonstrates this gender disparity.

BTW The reason that Ivermectin isn't used is because there is no good evidence that it works. As far as I can see it's just this year's Hydroxychloroquine & just as useless.
Well, you say that, but in some countries, the mortality rate from covid is higher among women - link

For me the jury's still out on ivermectin. I'm not sure any of us know enough about it to make anything other than an inspired guess. Given that some seem convinced of its efficacy, I'd seriously like to see more evidence one way or the other.
 

GLJoe

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 21, 2017
606
269
UK
For me the jury's still out on ivermectin. I'm not sure any of us know enough about it to make anything other than an inspired guess. Given that some seem convinced of its efficacy, I'd seriously like to see more evidence one way or the other.
There are a number of sources out there. I'll see if I can dig some links out later when I have time.
For now probably worth looking at this (might be some links in this as well), and do it ASAP - because it will be pulled in the next day or so (why that is the case, is a travesty in its own right, but maybe more on that later).
 

GLJoe

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 21, 2017
606
269
UK
At work, we've noticed one thing, and that is to do with the side effects of the vaccine, especially the Oxford AZ. The side effects tend to be much much worse in those who have had covid, than in those who haven't.
That's an interesting observation. But it confirms some discussions I heard way back at the start of all of this, when certain medical researchers were warning that could be the case.
What I don't understand is - if you have already had Covid (and thus would have acquired natural immunity), why would you then want to get the jab AS WELL ??
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
48,819
26,486
if you have already had Covid (and thus would have acquired natural immunity), why would you then want to get the jab AS WELL ??
Getting Covid-19 doesn't confer full immunity, nothing like it. Many have already caught it more than once. The jabs greatly reduce the effects of Covid when it is caught, meaning far less risk of hospitalisation so they are well worth having.

However, it's already being noticed the the jabs benefit is wearing off over time, so that may be what is happening with the antibodies we make after catching Covid. This would explain why it can be caught more than once, our bodies attempts at immunity fading as the months go by.
.
 

GLJoe

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 21, 2017
606
269
UK
As for ivermection, I've heard that it works as a prophylactic and a treatment. What I don't get is why it's not been more widely used/publicised.
Well ... that is the million dollar question. Or more accurately, the multi billion dollar question!

For those people who haven't been following the (often suppressed and/or censored) discussions on this, then strap on your conspiracy theory hat and know that:
All of these Covid jabs that have been rushed to market, have not gone through the normal testing methodology, don't have normal approval, and the only way they could be rolled out was under EUA (emergency use authorization) which is designed for extreme situations, such as a a biological weapon being deployed in a war etc.
However even in these extreme circumstances, some safeguards have been written in to the EUA because of the foreseen dangers of using untested therapies.
One of these, is that you cannot have EUA for an untested therapy such as these mRNA injections if there already exists an alternative therapy that does have approval and could be repurposed.
Therefore if the governments admitted that Ivermectin was effective, then that would invalidate the EUA on the mRNA vaccinations and they couldn't be used until they had gone though the usual years and years of testing.

Worth noting that Ivermectin had been issued to humans literally billions of times over decades and decades of use and thus is known to be extremely safe. And also worth noting that its been out there such a long time, then the patent on it has expired, therefore the drug companies can't make huge profits from selling it as its now a generic drug and it can be made for pennies a tablet.

All of the above is fairly easily confirmed, but for myself, I'd not seen it discussed or debated in the British press. I had to find it out from alternative sources.
 

StuartsProjects

Pedelecer
May 9, 2021
207
104
From the WikiPedia page on Ivermectin;

Ivermectin has antiviral effects against several distinct positive-sense single-strand RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. Subsequent studies found that ivermectin could inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 in monkey kidney cell culture with an IC50 of 2.2–2.8 μM. Based on this information, however, doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect. Aside from practical difficulties, such high doses are not covered by current human-use approvals of the drug and would be toxic, as the antiviral mechanism of action is considered to operate by the suppression of a host cellular process, specifically the inhibition of nuclear transport by importin. Self-medication with a highly concentrated formula intended for horses has led to numerous hospitalizations, and overdose can lead to death, possibly due to interaction with other medications. To resolve uncertainties from previous small or poor-quality studies, as of June 2021, large scale trials are underway in the United States and the United Kingdom.

...................................

The viral social media misinformation about ivermectin has gained particular attention in South Africa where an anti-vaccination group called "South Africa Has A Right To Ivermectin" has been lobbying for the drug to be made available for prescription. Another group, the "Ivermectin Interest Group" launched a court case against the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), and as a result a compassionate use exemption was granted. SAPHRA stated in April 2021 that "At present, there are no approved treatments for COVID-19 infections."

Despite the absence of high-quality evidence to suggest any efficacy and advice to the contrary, some governments have allowed its off-label use for prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Countries that have granted such official approval for ivermectin include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Mexico, Peru (later rescinded), India (later rescinded), and the Colombian city of Cali.
 

GLJoe

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 21, 2017
606
269
UK
For those people who haven't been following the (often suppressed and/or censored) discussions on this....
BTW - if anyone is interested and wants to know a little bit more about the back story to all of this, I'd strongly recommend watching/listening to this episode of Dr Brett Weinstein's Dark Horse Podcast:
"COVID, Ivermectin, and the Crime of the Century - DarkHorse Podcast with Pierre Kory & Bret Weinstein"

https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/COVID-Ivermectin-and-the-Crime-of-the-Century-DarkHorse-Podcast-with-Pierre-Kory-Bret-Weinstein:f

Note - this is a LONG video. And you need to skip forward to the 5 min mark to start as it was originally a live broadcast on youtube so there is 5 min of nothing. I think he did that deliberately as he guessed it might get pulled, and yup - it did! Except if you do end up listening to the whole thing, you should end up being very, very frightened of what's going on in the world, because if straightforward, intelligent scientific discussion like that gets pulled and censored, well then you know that very shady things are afoot in the world!

You might be able to get the episode as an audio podcast - that's how I first heard it, as I subscribe to Brett's channel. His intellect and calm headed approach to matters really inspire me, as do those of his wife Dr Heather Heying who also is often on the Dark Horse Podcast.
Note that they are both Evolutionary Biologists - its not primarily a medical channel, but they've recently been compelled to discuss various contemporary issues because ... well ... they might actually be a matter of life and death !!
 

GLJoe

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 21, 2017
606
269
UK
From the WikiPedia page on Ivermectin;
We need to stop right there and know that at this point in history, you cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable, unbiased source of information when it comes to a number of topics, and unfortunately medical ones are right there at the top.

Sad but true.
 
Sep 13, 2020
56
20
That's an interesting observation. But it confirms some discussions I heard way back at the start of all of this, when certain medical researchers were warning that could be the case.
What I don't understand is - if you have already had Covid (and thus would have acquired natural immunity), why would you then want to get the jab AS WELL ??
They were advised to.

One of them had tested negative with the PCR, but thinks she did the test wrong as it was more or less chucked at her through the car window by a guy in a hazmat suit at a testing centre in Banbury. It was only later when she read the instructions properly at home that she thought she'd done it wrong. But she'd said at work she'd lost her sense of taste and smell and felt lousy for a couple of weeks after. She should ideally have been self isolating, but continued at work.
 

GLJoe

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 21, 2017
606
269
UK
For me the jury's still out on ivermectin. I'm not sure any of us know enough about it to make anything other than an inspired guess. Given that some seem convinced of its efficacy, I'd seriously like to see more evidence one way or the other.
There is lots and lots of data out there if you look.
Here is one free paper to get you started.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3765018

BTW, I seem to recall the UK government dismissed considering Ivermectin, giving the reason that they were concerned about its safety.

Let me give you a quote from a research paper, published I believe back in 2010 (Effect of ivermectin on Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes fed on humans)

"...Ivermectin has a wide antiparasitic activity with long veterinary use. When ivermectin’s activity against Onchocerca volvulus was discovered it was licensed for human use and used in successful mass drug administration programs to control river blindness, being administered to over 80 million adults and children. The drug has proven to be safe. Doses up to 10 times the approved limit are well tolerated by healthy volunteers. Adverse reactions are few and usually mild."

Guess who one of the three authors of that paper was?

No?

A certain gentleman called Christopher Whitty.

Its not as if the government didn't have that information.
 

GLJoe

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 21, 2017
606
269
UK
There is lots and lots of data out there if you look.
...
Its not as if the government didn't have that information.
Well well ... I've just been doing a bit of surfing to catch up.
Fascinating stuff. Seems the Government has been contacted directly some time ago:

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36858/pdf/

And if you'd rather a very straightforward and to the point video with the Author of the report, Dr Tess Lawrie, here it is (I'd thoroughly recommend it BTW, and I'm a bit shocked its still up on youtube!! mind you, hasn't been a month yet ...)


I'd be surprised if you can watch that video, read up on all the evidence, and then not come to the conclusion that something is very, very wrong.
 

soundwave

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 23, 2015
11,467
4,718
mrna vaccines was first developed in 1992 to cure such things as cancer not viruses they spent 5 billion in development and was a failed project in 2017 and was dumped! as to little and does nothing and to much it is toxic to human beings.

if you take this treatment and it causes disability all you will get is 120k if you can prove to the dwp it has made you more than 60% disabled at a tribunal and prove it under law! it is not compensation and will affect any benefit you receive and paid buy the tax payer.

like the usa you cant sue these company's and any compensation comes from the tax payers and they had to make it this way because they was all going to get sued out of existence.

and if you watch tv in the usa every other advert is trying to sell you some fantastic new treatment that can make you live longer and the list of side effects wont fit on a bog roll.

yet in this country this vaccine has killed more ppl in history than any other b4 it yet they over rule the jcvi to give it to 12-15 year olds because of mental health like a gold star to say look at me pi$$ing in the girls toilets at school.


 

vfr400

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 12, 2011
9,800
3,899
Basildon
At work, we've noticed one thing, and that is to do with the side effects of the vaccine, especially the Oxford AZ. The side effects tend to be much much worse in those who have had covid, than in those who haven't.

As for ivermection, I've heard that it works as a prophylactic and a treatment. What I don't get is why it's not been more widely used/publicised.

Covid itself seems a weird illness in that it makes some desperately ill, and even kills them, whereas others are barely affected at all - if at all. That isn't always age dependent either. I've often wondered if a genetic factor is present.
You have to understand how your imune system deals with new viruses, which it gets very frequently. It's like locks and keys. Your imune system needs a key that fits the lock to unlock it and eliminate it. Some locks are very complicated and others are simple, so just like a locksmith, the easy standard keys are tried first, then he has to try other known methods. That's what your imune system does, but when that doesn't work, it will start producing many random keys and continue doing that until it finds one that fits the lock. Once it knows what key fits the lock, it can start producing loads of them to deal with the virus invasion. It never forgets the key, which is why you can't get infected by the same virus twice.

Now to answer your question: Some people might have had a similar virus before, so the immune system starts producing keys that are close to the solution, and it has a better chance of producing the right one sooner. Other people might be just lucky, in that the first random key fits. Some people have strong immune systems that can produce more keys than others, so they randomly get the right key sooner. One important factor, like any bodily function is that immune sytems that are very active work better than ones that aren't, like running: Somebody that runs everyday has little trouble running 20 miles, but somebody who hasn't run at all in 10 years has not much chance of running for a bus.

Some virologists/immunologist argue that you must keep getting exposed to viruses to keep your immune system strong., so they don't recommend lockdowns and masks because it brings higher risks of catching other virus diseases or getting worse symptoms.
 

vfr400

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 12, 2011
9,800
3,899
Basildon
Last edited:

nigelbb

Pedelecer
Sep 19, 2019
211
188
Some light reading for you. I would have thought, as a GP, you'd know about this:


I'm not a GP & while I hadn't read that paper before it doesn't contradict what I said. This paper is from 2004 & mainly discusses AIDS, Malaria, schistosomiasis etc in developing countries. It also discusses health risks in pregnancy.

The death rate in males from COVID-19 is about 50% higher than females & I know of no other infectious disease that demonstrates this gender disparity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richtea99

nigelbb

Pedelecer
Sep 19, 2019
211
188
There is an excellent discussion of Ivermectin in the BBC Radio Four programme 'More or Less' "Is Ivermectin a Covid ‘wonder drug’?" The conclusion is that there is no good evidence that Ivermectin is effective in prevention or treatment of COVID-19. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2dk5

There is reference to the new Oxford trial that will hopefully settle the matter. https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/ivermectin-principle-trial-covid/

The UK has been a world leader in COVID-19 clinical trials eg the RECOVERY trial which confirmed the effectiveness of Dexamethasone & that Hydroxychlorquine was useless. https://www.recoverytrial.net
 

vfr400

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 12, 2011
9,800
3,899
Basildon
There is an excellent discussion of Ivermectin in the BBC Radio Four programme 'More or Less' "Is Ivermectin a Covid ‘wonder drug’?" The conclusion is that there is no good evidence that Ivermectin is effective in prevention or treatment of COVID-19. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2dk5

There is reference to the new Oxford trial that will hopefully settle the matter. https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/ivermectin-principle-trial-covid/

The UK has been a world leader in COVID-19 clinical trials eg the RECOVERY trial which confirmed the effectiveness of Dexamethasone & that Hydroxychlorquine was useless. https://www.recoverytrial.net
For Christ's sake, did you not look at who's funding those trials? We already know that the BBC is corrupt as hell and just a propaganda and misinformation machine. When the biggest investors and shareholders in the vaccine fund a trial, what do you think the conclusion is going to be?
 

Related Articles

Advertisers