Endlessness, your second link seems to be broken. Also the first study you cite on HCQ never used Zinc, which seems to be the most important part of the HCQ + Zinc treatment. Zinc is what is doing the heavy lifting against Covid-19, but Zinc cannot get into the human cell by itself, it needs low dose of HCQ to act as an ionophore to push the zinc into the human cell. Zinc seems to be the silver bullet that kills the virus by inhibiting an enzyme associated with viral replication inside the cell. The antibiotic azithromycin is given to prevent bacterial pneumonia and other secondary bacterial infections that are common in COVID-19. This treatment has been used in at least 60 different countries and seems to have great success.

I posted a video about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin months ago, and not right biased, and was attacked, cursed at and called names by moderator here on social media. Thanks guy. Why is this all suddenly legit to discuss without resorting to name calling etc?

The media has poisoned good people.

I don't really care to speculate about vaccines vs drugs etc too far. We should probly just explore both and stop making a pandemic political.

I'm sorry Jaimie. That sucks and it makes it hard to want to interact in this capacity. I understand. The more volatile a situation and emotions become the more difficult it gets for people to have actual productive discussions versus unproductive banter and frivolous debate.

I have both of my shots but am also in the camp that other medicines should be taken into account as well. I think that because of the nature of the current scientific paradigm with regard to medicine, the most promising and generally accepted ideas by the medicinal scientific community are the first to be studied and developed. With rapid progress over the past century relative to vaccines, that's always the first to get analyzed. There are also other hoops such as funding. If something is viewed as not as accepted (for any variety of reasons) then the powers that be don't necessarily feel confident in investing money in that avenue.

I think that certain influential people in the media poison good people, but not necessarily the media as a whole. But that's me, and we're all entitled to our own views.

One love

I think most of the people don't like this hyperpoliticized climate we're living in right now either.

But i've experienced myself that any call for moderacy to either the woke left or the rightwingers who believe that they have taken the red pill, will only be met with agression, bullying, intimidation, scapegoating, and wicked sophistry.

People on both sides will always point the finger at the other side to justify their own insanity. They will twist and bend the truth to justify their insane positions or actions. There is a totall lack of critical reflection on either side. Openness to criticism is considered a weakness.

On both sides, people claim they want to change the world. But i don't believe any of that to be honest.

I think that on both sides, people just want to continue to live their relatively privileged and relatively luxury little lives, enabled by the very structures they claim they want destroyed.

I think they just like the conflict. I think they thrive on it because it gives them an adrenaline rush and the feeling of a cause. And they don't want anything to realy change because they don't ever want their fight to end.

They're like angry teenagers. There is nothing more to it than that. Just angry teenagers.

But if any of the two sides would ever truly rise to power, they would both behave in exactly the same way. There is no real difference between the tyranny of far-right or far-left regimes. Both have slaughtered and brutally oppressed millions of people, started senseless wars, sucked their own people dry while fully endulging in luxury themselves, and subjected too many people to sadistic torture.

We could have a nice little semantic discussion on whether they could both be labeled "fascist", but you could just ask yourself for the both of them: if these people would ever have total and absolute power, what would they do to people asking critical questions? What would they do to journalists refusing to blindly copy-paste their propaganda? What would they do to anybody who doesn't share their views?

And again, we allready have the answer to that question, either by their own admittance or the halfheartedness of their denials, or just by looking at the regimes they share their ideologies with.

And you can call it whatever you like, but it is what it is.

My observation has been that anything can become politicized. It appears to be a combination of many mechanisms and factors that leads to such. Just look at the whole Kapernick taking a knee situation. However, observing and accepting this allows me to have more tempered responses.

I personally have yet to be attacked in regards to this issue and I think it's largely because despite any potential disagreement I may have with an individual, I approach them with understanding before voicing my stance. If I find what I feel are flaws in their reasoning and thinking I try to careful highlight and address it, often with some argument of analogy or bringing in a parameter they may have overlooked.

We all have had different life experiences that have led to and influenced different neural structures that shape our overall prose, perspective, and beliefs. We all have various convictions. I think a big issue is lack of overall self awareness, such as not noticing cognitive biases, which by definition are subconscious, thus takes steady work to notice and even more so to change.

All the same, most people never grow up, so yes, some just thrive off of conflict. One of the few ways in which they can introduce a little excitement into their lives.

And though change appears to be constant, we are creatures of habit, and struggle with change unless we are actively working to accept and assimilate it.

I love you all despite your stance. We're here because we love self-improvement, psychedelics (DMT in particular), and want to connect with others with regard to these ideals. I think it's important to keep that in mind. I also appreciate how much passion and resolve we all seem to express.

One love

Yeah, i admit i got a little carried away there and strayed a bit from the actual topic of this thread.

But i have had some simmilar experiences myself as the one jamie described.
And the thing is...it is actually kind of hard not to radicalise yourself when such a thing happens to you. I could have easily become either very woke, or redpilled myself after my encounters with those at the farside of the political spectrum, because of how antagonizing, unreasonable, dishonest and agressive those people can sometimes be.

If you don't watch out, it can get under your skin very easily. It is actually kind of a struggle not to let that happen.

I find that very understandable. It's reactionary, which rises from the subconscious. It's like a flipped switch. I think the difficulty of recognizing and acknowledging incidents that can lead one to radicalization is a factor in the "Capitol Riot" in the U.S.

One love

Thank you for the further details and clarifications regarding the previous posts, I confess I did not read them



This however is where the conflicting interest of our institutions, politics, shareholders, big pharma, etc. It is not coincidence that the leaders of pandemic response (fauci) and the leader of the origin investigation (Peter Daysak) both have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to gain of function research with coronaviruses in Wuhan. Not to mention they just received more funding to do even more of it. If you pool the way they treat data in their interest, vs data outside of their interest, it becomes painfully obvious just what is going on. Many scientists and doctors have spoken up when after they rang alarm bells or cheered on the amazing results found with ivermectin, only to be met with crickets or worse. Meanwhile our institutions that we are supposed to 'trust' NIH, FDA, etc are more than willing to completely ignore strong evidence if its against their interest and peddle flawed studies as long as it fits the institutional narrative. The nature paper that came out early after the pandemic which we were all reassured that the virus must be of natural origin. And everyone believed it, because it was published in the prestigous journal Nature. By none other than our Peter Dasayk! Everything is out in the open now that the emails were leaked, but nobody is up to date on that. It was clear something was very wrong from the beginning.

an acquaintance of mine is a medical professional with multiple decades of experience who follows the world of medicine, viruses etc very closely. in the summer of 2019 she told me there is going to be a major viral outbreak in the next 6 months. i wont go into detail about what exactly she said she knew, but she was not predicting nature.
i even made a note on my phone when she said it, with a timestamp too. but i guess the timestamp can be manipulated, so doesn't really hold up as proof.

Your honesty here is admirable. You guys are awesome. It's not easy for individuals to discuss any of this without becomming a target. Thanks.

I've gotten the first of the two Pfiser vaccines. Sore arm for a day or two, that's all. I went to the big vaccination/testing site on Mill Plain Blvd in Vancouver. They had the whole parking lot of the dshs building set up as emergency covid center. It was crazy. I had my acoustic with me and did some flatpicking, sang some grateful dead while I waited. They fed me a hot lunch, mac and cheese.
I love it when people work together to get thru adversity.

big if true

I think the e-mails that where leaked where quoted a bit too selectively by some of the media though, to create a spectacle and suggest all kinds of things that wheren't realy there.

There still is no strong evidence that the virus was man-made as far as i know.

Although you could say ofcourse, that if the chinese government realy wouldn't have anything to hide, they also shouldn't have any reason to object any further investigation into the origins of the virus.

Firstly, I'd like to thank Endlessness for his post that did a very good job of reading between the lines towards my actual thoughts that I was too lazy/wound up/inept to articulate myself.
Secondly, I'd like to extend further thanks again to both Endlessness and, I think, Dithyramb for giving me the idea of trying Syrian rue tea for its antiviral effects. I've no evidence it was covid in either case (which I may even have had back in January 2020 anyhow) but on two separate occasions I've used Syrian rue tea at the onset of flu-like viral symptoms and both times I've recovered fully within 48 hours. This is anecdotal, it is not medical advice, Syrian rue contains monoamine oxidase inhibitors which should not be combined with any other medications. There is no scientific evidence that Syrian rue can be used to treat CoVID19, nor in all likelihood any other illness or disease because it's far too cheap.

Far better to buy a smart phone and get the tracking app. Obvs.

This meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ivermectin was just released a week ago:

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection
A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

Therapeutic Advances:
Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.

Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Here is the full PDF article:

https://covid19criticalc...d_Treatment_of.98040.pdf


The FDA, WHO, etc are recommending against the use of ivermectin at this time because there are no large scale rigorous studies on its effectiveness. Note that their reasoning is not that it is proven ineffective - rather there "isn't enough evidence yet".

But we've suspected for at least a year that ivermectin can be effective in preventing/treating covid. So given the unquestioned safety profile of ivermectin and its dirt cheap price, why haven't any large scale studies been done by now? We've had plenty of time and money to do so.

Answer contained in question?

Meant to say earlier, this is exactly the situation I found myself in on this topic. It's like my thoughts get thrown in a washing machine.

Working for a government agency inadvertently conditions even the best of people to start thinking like a bureaucrat.

That may have cost many lives during this pandemic.
I'm personally almost sure of it that it has.

There are too many examples. The potential to safe lives that evaporated when the use of ivermectin to treat covid infections was disrecommended is just one of them.

Science has triumphed, but governments have failed.

Suggested reading: Uncommon Sense: The State Is Out Of Date (Links direct to pdf, newer paper editions available) by Greg Sams - founder of Whole Earth Foods and "inventor of the veggieburger".

All these plants I harvested from nature and took daily:

Freshly harvested Syrian rue seeds (I ate 4-5g daily. The fresh seeds have an extraordinary potency...), Viscum album (antiviral, antiinflammatory, immunomodulatory), Pinus sylvestris cone infusions, Artemisia taurica. I recovered from all symptoms except anosmia in 8 days. İt took another week to fully recover my sense of smell. It was very strange and scary to completely lose all my sense of smell, not just have it weakened.

After recovery I started an ongoing daily regime of infusions of Cistus creticus (Cistus species show extraordinary antiviral properties, inhibiting viruses such as ebola and HIV), olive leaves (also noted for antiviral and immunomodulating effects), and Pinus brutia needles (look up the medicinal properties of pine cone and needles, you will be surprised). And I drink strong doses of Syrian rue a few times a week.

Please further look up the medicinal properties of all these plants. There is no magical reason for nature to help with many ailments but somehow be at a loss to offer any help against COVID-19. Mainstream society cannot operate with natural products for various reasons, so don't expect widespread dissemination of any critical information on natural healing methods.

İt was interesting to find out that Bufotenine has antiviral properties, at least against the rabies virus.

Responsibility is important. it may mean simply being vaccinated for the majority, but there should be room for a minority of people whose life circumstances put them in a position for different, and subjectively more meaningful or healthy choices. And why not be vaccinated AND go deep into other modalities of protection of self and others. Being active and perhaps contributing different gifts unto the toolkit. I personally believe we are wasting a huge resource by overlooking nature.

Truth/Reality does not need scientific papers to be as it is. Science is a discovery process with certain limitations and impurities (as in the suspicious Nature paper claiming that sars-cov-2 cannot be man made). Tides turn. In the beginning of the pandemic, people suggesting that the virus can be lab made were marginalized, now this is a mainstream and hot topic. If the Chinese government successfully destroyed all direct evidence, does that mean we have to accept the virus comes from nature? Likewise, if there is no political incentive or big profit in revealing the healing potential of plants, does that mean it does not exist? Actually, there is still a surprisingly rich body of research of medicinal properties of plants for those interested to dig deep.

Its a pleasure if I contributed anything of value to your health practices, dear DWZ.

I don't know the details of this, but I can offer some general thoughts, whether they're relevant to this case or not.

If someone suggests something without showing any evidence or good arguments, marginalizing them is the way to go. Anyone can make up any sensational story and we don't have the time / resources to consider them all. I could say there are reptilians on the moon beaming telepathic signals at us to control our minds; how much of the budget would you spend on investigating such a proposition?

In the Covid case, if there were people proposing it was (or could have been) man made and providing good argumentation, they should have been heard. But if the idea was coming from the kind of people that believe the Earth is flat, or in other words, people talking out of their rear ends, they should have been ignored.

Let's say it turns out the virus was man-made. You could say the conspiracy theorists were right. But they were right by coincidence; they made up a story and accidentally it turned out to be reality. They were right like a broken clock is right twice a day.
Another way of looking at it is that they were wrong, because they were making unsubstantiated claims about objective, verifiable reality, and that is wrong.