• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Ivermectin/ Covid Kit Thread

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
12,192
Almost everyone recovers from covid so a doctor would have to treat thousands of patients to get a statistcally significant result

Dr. Zelenko.
 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
12,192
So who do we trust? I use PubMed studies a lot. If the studies on Pubmed are correct there are other things that disrupt virus replication beside ivermectin. So now what :(

There are doctors who have treated hundreds of patients successfully with HCQ and/or Ivermectin in conjunction with zinc, vitamin c, etc. Not fly-by-nights trying to make a quick buck. Actual doctors who have personally leveraged their reputations on making their patients well.

At some point, the anecdotal is no longer anecdotal.
 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
12,192
did they start early and use entire protocol. Early intervention seems critical Ivermectin wont save everyone but it does seem to help

Dr. Zelenko used the stuff on every stage of the infection. So did that Dr. in South Africa to mention two.
 
Last edited:

lukdiver

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,322
Reaction score
3,075
did they start early and use entire protocol. Early intervention seems critical Ivermectin wont save everyone but it does seem to help
Disaster scenario from what I read of it, taking supplements prior but ran out of IVM so not able to dose for atleast several days after Day 1. YKKS. I know that really rings your bell Avalon: HAVE MEDS ON HAND!!! I'll finish reading later but doesn't sound like used mouthwash per iMask and the virus got ahold of stomach/gastro-interestinal track (big inoculum?) as the symptoms sounded that way. He just left the hospital in his thread and day 22??? BAD BAD but he survived. I haven't read how his wife faired but better than him?. There's a ton of knowledge to be gleaned over on the Surviliast Boards as I didn't find this thread till searching his posting history. The Board I follow is only for IVM.
EDIT: he did end up in hospital second time on 02 but not vented luckily. One of the other guys who's knowledgeable stated he got hammered as NOT running prophylaxis (supplements?) and too late/too little on IVM and mouthwash,etc. Wife did much better than him.

 
Last edited:

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
2,437
This isn't really a surprise. Even un-biased "science" is done pretty poorly lately. They don't understand statistics well, they don't properly design the experiments, and some are clearly biased. There was a Harvard study that looked in general and found like 60-70% (yes I pulled this "stat" out of my .... memory). of the papers did not really measure what the authors believed.


So who do we trust? I use PubMed studies a lot. If the studies on Pubmed are correct there are other things that disrupt virus replication beside ivermectin. So now what :(
Various thoughts.

1. The more boring / less political a study is, I'm guessing the less likely it is to be ginned up in some way. That won't help with covid studies though.

2. Strong results from large studies are more likely to be accurate than weaker results from small studies.

3. If you read a study carefully, it is possible to spot signs that it has been manipulated. For example the mask study I quoted above instantly made me suspicious because of the way they cut out 64 of 72 studies from their analysis - that screams cherry picking to me. No it's not proof, but it's more than enough for me to want a great deal more info before I trust that study.

4. When it comes to covid stuff there's a lot of info out there for most treatments on both sides of the debate. If you look at all the information in both sides of a debate, these issues are usually brought up by one side or the other and you can decide who seems more believable. Here's a really good example of a comparison of two natural immunity studies: https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-covid-immunity-studies/

5. Look for the opinions you don't agree with. I always look at "fact checker" debunks when I come across something that seems believable. In many cases the "fact check" is so bad that it helps make the opposite case. This works for all sorts of things - in fact the thing that convinced me more than anything else that there was something to pizzagate was the complete lack of debunking in all the articles entitled "debunking pizzagate".

But there is no magic bullet - a lot of today's science is BS, and there's not much you can do about it.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
2,437
Dr. Zelenko.
Sure - but there may have been twenty doctors who tried the same thing and the others did not experience the same results. Dr. Zelenko is just the one who got lucky and so he's the one who thiks he has discovered a miracle cure.

Or Dr. Zelenko is different from the norm in other ways - perhaps he is such a good doctor that all his patients are much healthier than average in the first place. Or he's an orthodox *** and most of his patients are orthodox Jews and none of them have been vaccinated, or kosher food is also somehow protective against covid, or a million other things.

By the way I'm not saying that any of these things are the case - just that the reason science depends on RCTs is that they are the only way to know for sure.
 

Avalon

The most courageous act is to think for yourself
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
9,845
Reaction score
22,844
Location
NC
Various thoughts.

1. The more boring / less political a study is, I'm guessing the less likely it is to be ginned up in some way. That won't help with covid studies though.

2. Strong results from large studies are more likely to be accurate than weaker results from small studies.

3. If you read a study carefully, it is possible to spot signs that it has been manipulated. For example the mask study I quoted above instantly made me suspicious because of the way they cut out 64 of 72 studies from their analysis - that screams cherry picking to me. No it's not proof, but it's more than enough for me to want a great deal more info before I trust that study.

4. When it comes to covid stuff there's a lot of info out there for most treatments on both sides of the debate. If you look at all the information in both sides of a debate, these issues are usually brought up by one side or the other and you can decide who seems more believable. Here's a really good example of a comparison of two natural immunity studies: https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-covid-immunity-studies/

5. Look for the opinions you don't agree with. I always look at "fact checker" debunks when I come across something that seems believable. In many cases the "fact check" is so bad that it helps make the opposite case. This works for all sorts of things - in fact the thing that convinced me more than anything else that there was something to pizzagate was the complete lack of debunking in all the articles entitled "debunking pizzagate".

But there is no magic bullet - a lot of today's science is BS, and there's not much you can do about it.
When the pandemic first started I looked at a lot of old studies done on SARS. I'm glad I did because the studies and data soon became tainted with covid politics. I feel like those large studies done on masks years ago concerning SARS were at least in part correct. The concussion I drew after reading the study was unless your wearing a properly sealed N-95 with a shield or a Airmax helmet a mask is fairly useless. They can be of some value for droplets if a person is sneezing or coughing but the size of the virus goes through the mask. I also got a lot of herbal data on COVID very early. It was mostly from China where villages were having good luck with herbal remedies in small villages. Now the data is all skewed. I know trusting Doctors treating covid is not a perfect science but I do trust them way more than profit driven mainstream medicine.

I have stepped into the waters of looking at studies I don't agree with. Ill admit mentaly its not easy to detach and be impartial. One conclusion I came to from those was remdesivir was fairly useless and dangerous. It did open my mind to using budesonide inhalers. Another interesting thing was that the use of ibuprofen and its value has been demonized by Fauci early one. Rebel, you are a good fact checker. Some of us get emotionally tied in and you have the ability to put that aside and look strictly at the data. We need that especially if we are sharing things with the outside world. The last thing we need is to give a reason to people to discard good data because of unchecked information. The problem is life has become such a lie and so bizarre that its hard to tell the difference.
 

Avalon

The most courageous act is to think for yourself
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
9,845
Reaction score
22,844
Location
NC
Disaster scenario from what I read of it, taking supplements prior but ran out of IVM so not able to dose for atleast several days after Day 1. YKKS. I know that really rings your bell Avalon: HAVE MEDS ON HAND!!! I'll finish reading later but doesn't sound like used mouthwash per iMask and the virus got ahold of stomach/gastro-interestinal track (big inoculum?) as the symptoms sounded that way. He just left the hospital in his thread and day 22??? BAD BAD but he survived. I haven't read how his wife faired but better than him?. There's a ton of knowledge to be gleaned over on the Surviliast Boards as I didn't find this thread till searching his posting history. The Board I follow is only for IVM.
EDIT: he did end up in hospital second time on 02 but not vented luckily. One of the other guys who's knowledgeable stated he got hammered as NOT running prophylaxis (supplements?) and too late/too little on IVM and mouthwash,etc. Wife did much better than him.

I can not stress enough that you HAVE to have the stuff at home. Virus replication is very fast with covid and you have to hit it hard and stop replication from day one. Ivermectin wont save everyone but its important people do the whole protocol if they stand a chance,. With ivermectin being more scarce and NAC being banned you can't get them quickly so they have to be stocked at home. I hope everyone is stocking up on basic over the counter meds and fish antibiotics too.
 

Avalon

The most courageous act is to think for yourself
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
9,845
Reaction score
22,844
Location
NC
Dr. Zelenko used the stuff on every stage of the infection. So did that Dr. in South Frica to mention two.
The female Doctor who just got her hospital privilege's revoked said she had treated a lot covid and had no hospitalizations.

 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
12,192
Sure - but there may have been twenty doctors who tried the same thing and the others did not experience the same results. Dr. Zelenko is just the one who got lucky and so he's the one who thiks he has discovered a miracle cure.

Or Dr. Zelenko is different from the norm in other ways - perhaps he is such a good doctor that all his patients are much healthier than average in the first place. Or he's an orthodox *** and most of his patients are orthodox Jews and none of them have been vaccinated, or kosher food is also somehow protective against covid, or a million other things.

By the way I'm not saying that any of these things are the case - just that the reason science depends on RCTs is that they are the only way to know for sure.

There are other doctors in Texas, Arizona, etc. Who are having similar results. Social media has banned them for our own good of course.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
2,437
There are other doctors in Texas, Arizona, etc. Who are having similar results. Social media has banned them for our own good of course.
Sure - but

1. Dr Zelenko himself may have now treated enough patients (my guess is that this requires that a doctor treats at least 1500 - 2000 patients including a population similar percentage of at risk patients) to have a statistically significant result.

2. How many of these other doctors have treated that many patients, and how many have treated just a few hundred? Because a doctor who treats 300 patients, or even 500 patients, and no-one dies hasn't really proved anything.

3. Do these doctors actually know how many untreated patients would die? If they believe some of the BS we've been fed about the fatality rate they may well attribute their "superior results" to the treatment, when in fact their results aren't actually superior to no treatment at all.

4. Even if a number of these doctors have achieved statistically significant results it still means nothing, because even if the drug is completely useless 5% of all doctors using it will achieve statistically significant results. If the drug is actually something like 20% - 30% effective (my current guess) then a much higher number of doctors (maybe 25% or more) are going to see statistically significant results where it appears that the drug is much more effective than it is. And it is these doctors who will shout loudest because they believe they have found a cure.

None of this means that ivermectin doesn't work of course. It just means that a bunch of doctors seeing results doesn't prove it does work. Which is why you have to run tests. And I'm not bothered by the fact that Bill Gates' test doesn't show a big benefit - of course it didn't because it was designed not to do so. But I am worried by the fact that tests run by people who appear to have badly wanted the drug to succeed (so badly they cheated) were obviously sufficiently unsuccessful that they decided they needed to cheat.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,674
Reaction score
16,906
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Because a doctor who treats 300 patients, or even 500 patients, and no-one dies hasn't really proved anything.
Once you reach those numbers, they should have had at least one death.
....but it also depends on the age of their patients, too.

If all they treat are younger people, it's possible they'd have had no deaths no matter the treatment, but if many of the patients are oldsters, they certainly should have had at least some deaths out of 500 patients.
The death rate for older patients is over 1%
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
2,437
Once you reach those numbers, they should have had at least one death.
If we assume 1 death per every 400 patients, we would expect fully 37% of doctors treating 400 patients to see zero deaths. So zero deaths amongst 400 patients is not a statistically significant result. In fact you need to treat ~1200 patients and see zero deaths before the result would be considered statistically significant by the usual definition.

My guess is also that a doctor who treated 400 patients and saw only 1, or even 2 deaths, would claim success which would mean that the vast majority of doctors would claim success even if the drug were doing nothing.

....but it also depends on the age of their patients, too.


If all they treat are younger people, it's possible they'd have had no deaths no matter the treatment,
Indeed. My guess is that oldsters tend to be concentrated in nursing homes and therefore do not appear in regular doctors surgeries in the same proportion as they do in the general population, and I also suspect that the ones who do are in general healthier than the ones who don't. These are just guesses though.

but if many of the patients are oldsters, they certainly should have had at least some deaths out of 500 patients.

The death rate for older patients is over 1%
The average death rate is what matters for a doctor with an average set of patients. And if there are reasons to believe that doctors often do not have "average" sets of patients (because old people are concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of doctors who, for example, are associated with nursing homes), the higher the death rate amongst oldsters is, the lower it is for everyone else and the more doctors will see zero deaths.
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,674
Reaction score
16,906
Location
Instant Gratification Land
If we assume 1 death per every 400 patients
I think that assumption is too low.

Of course, it depends entirely on the age group and overall health of the people.

In my own case, I know of one person who died of it (was severely sick, so I am pretty confidant he didn't merely die with it), but I have not known more than two dozen people who have had it.
.....and none were geriatrics. Max age of anyone I've known who have had it was mid 60's. Youngest was 20.

So who the f' really knows one way or the other?

It's almost impossible to get good clean data on any of this stuff.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,674
Reaction score
16,906
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Indeed - and that is by design. You may be correct that the number is more than 0.25%. Still I'd be very surprised if it were as much as 0.5%.
Without good data, what it comes down to is, you either blindly buy what they''re sellin', or you're on your own.
 

the_shootist

Checked out! Good luck!
Eagle
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
81,142
Reaction score
181,599
It's almost impossible to get good clean data on any of this stuff.
^^^BINGO^^^ I try not to quote or otherwise validate the 'statistics' put out on the internet. Most, if not all are, at some level, fake, phony and false
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
2,437
Without good data, what it comes down to is, you either blindly buy what they''re sellin', or you're on your own.
Sure - but you can look at the data we do have, including examples like the diamond princess (2% death rate, treatment probably involved venting, average age over 70), and make reasonable adjustments for the manipulations we know are occurring and for people who were vented to death. And some countries have cleaner data than others.

For example there were antibody prevalence studies that suggested that about 1 in 3 people in the US had been exposed and had antibodies by October 2020. At that time 105,000 were listed as dying from covid and pneumonia (that's my proxy for people who actually died from covid or something caused by covid and it usually runs about 50% of the with-covid total). That would give a fatality rate of ~0.1%, less if you subtract 30-40k deaths for the death-by-venting/nursing home numbers from NY and NJ. If you assume that only half that number had actually been infected, and every case that died "with covid" was a fatality then you get 0.4%.

As another example, the overall age adjusted mortality in the UK in 2020 was the same as 2008, and lower than almost all prior years, and you have to assume that the lockdowns themselves caused some deaths - so how many can covid really be causing?

I periodically look at new data and run these types of calculation - and my estimates usually end up between 0.1% - 0.5% - with my best guess being 0.2% - 0.3%.
 
Last edited:

the_shootist

Checked out! Good luck!
Eagle
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
81,142
Reaction score
181,599
Sure - but you can look at the data we do have, including examples like the diamond princess (2% death rate, treatement probably involved venting, average age over 70), and make reasonable adjustments for the manipulations we know are occurring and for people who were vented to death. And some countries have cleaner data than others.

For example there were antibody prevalence studies that suggested that about 1 in 3 people in the US had been exposed and had antibodies by October 2020. At that time 105,000 were listed as dying from covid and pneumonia (that's my proxy for people who actually died from covid or something caused by covid and it usually runs about 50% of the with-covid total). That would give a fatality rate of ~0.1%, less if you subtract 30-40k deaths for the death-by-venting/nursing home numbers from NY and NJ. If you assume that only half that number had actually been infected, and every case that died "with covid" was a fatality then you get 0.4%.

As another example, the overall age adjusted mortality in the UK in 2020 was the same as 2008, and lower than almost all prior years, and you have to assume that the lockdowns themselves caused some deaths - so how many can covid really be causing?

I periodically look at new data and run these types of calculation - and my estimates usually end up between 0.1% - 0.5% - with my best guess being 0.2% - 0.3%.
Clear as mud! :oriental:
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
2,437
Clear as mud! :oriental:
No - it's better than that. If you perform similar calculations several times with different inputs and the result is always similar, then you can draw a reasonably firm conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Uglytruth

Mother Lode Found
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
22,251
Reaction score
55,487
Sure - but

1. Dr Zelenko himself may have now treated enough patients (my guess is that this requires that a doctor treats at least 1500 - 2000 patients including a population similar percentage of at risk patients) to have a statistically significant result.

2. How many of these other doctors have treated that many patients, and how many have treated just a few hundred? Because a doctor who treats 300 patients, or even 500 patients, and no-one dies hasn't really proved anything.

3. Do these doctors actually know how many untreated patients would die? If they believe some of the BS we've been fed about the fatality rate they may well attribute their "superior results" to the treatment, when in fact their results aren't actually superior to no treatment at all.

4. Even if a number of these doctors have achieved statistically significant results it still means nothing, because even if the drug is completely useless 5% of all doctors using it will achieve statistically significant results. If the drug is actually something like 20% - 30% effective (my current guess) then a much higher number of doctors (maybe 25% or more) are going to see statistically significant results where it appears that the drug is much more effective than it is. And it is these doctors who will shout loudest because they believe they have found a cure.

None of this means that ivermectin doesn't work of course. It just means that a bunch of doctors seeing results doesn't prove it does work. Which is why you have to run tests. And I'm not bothered by the fact that Bill Gates' test doesn't show a big benefit - of course it didn't because it was designed not to do so. But I am worried by the fact that tests run by people who appear to have badly wanted the drug to succeed (so badly they cheated) were obviously sufficiently unsuccessful that they decided they needed to cheat.
Ask those same questions about the jab results...........
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
2,437
Ask those same questions about the jab results...........
The best analysis of the jab results I have seen is a professor who looked at all cause mortality in the UK where you can link to the jab status of everyone who dies no matter what the cause. Even there it's not perfect because the total population is not known for sure, so the number of unvaccinated (calculated as the total population - the vaccinated population which is a known number) is uncertain.

In any event it appeared that there is a big spike in mortality post the first jab - such that people die at about 6 times the usual rate for a couple of weeks, but that mortality after the second jab is similar to the unjabbed. There is some reason to believe that the population is higher than was assumed in these calculations and therefore that mortality in the double jabbed is also somewhat higher than the unjabbed.

All that says nothing about side effects which do not cause death however.

Somebody linked to a discussion of these results here on this board a couple of weeks back.
 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
12,192
The best analysis of the jab results I have seen is a professor who looked at all cause mortality in the UK where you can link to the jab status of everyone who dies no matter what the cause. Even there it's not perfect because the total population is not known for sure, so the number of unvaccinated (calculated as the total population - the vaccinated population which is a known number) is uncertain.

In any event it appeared that there is a big spike in mortality post the first jab - such that people die at about 6 times the usual rate for a couple of weeks, but that mortality after the second jab is similar to the unjabbed. There is some reason to believe that the population is higher than was assumed in these calculations and therefore that mortality in the double jabbed is also somewhat higher than the unjabbed.

All that says nothing about side effects which do not cause death however.

Somebody linked to a discussion of these results here on this board a couple of weeks back.

Depending on the definition of "vaccinated" and how it evolves to exclude, evade, and/or cover up the honest numbers of how many folks are being terminated by "mild" myocarditis.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
2,437
Depending on the definition of "vaccinated" and how it evolves to exclude, evade, and/or cover up the honest numbers of how many folks are being terminated by "mild" myocarditis.

Here is a link to the discussion of Professor Fenton's work: https://thinkingslow1.wordpress.com/statistics/

Discussed in that video is the following paper: https://www.researchgate.net/public...mparisons_between_vaccinated_and_unvaccinated. This paper alleges that the UK ONS is underestimating the unvaccinated possibly by as much as ten million people. If correct, that means that the unvaccinated mortality rate should be half what is suggested in the first discussion - and that therefore not only is there a huge spike on mortality following the first jab, and double jabbed people die at a rate which is quite a bit higher than the unvaccinated.
 

lukdiver

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,322
Reaction score
3,075
Disaster scenario from what I read of it, taking supplements prior but ran out of IVM so not able to dose for atleast several days after Day 1. YKKS. I know that really rings your bell Avalon: HAVE MEDS ON HAND!!! I'll finish reading later but doesn't sound like used mouthwash per iMask and the virus got ahold of stomach/gastro-interestinal track (big inoculum?) as the symptoms sounded that way. He just left the hospital in his thread and day 22??? BAD BAD but he survived. I haven't read how his wife faired but better than him?. There's a ton of knowledge to be gleaned over on the Surviliast Boards as I didn't find this thread till searching his posting history. The Board I follow is only for IVM.
EDIT: he did end up in hospital second time on 02 but not vented luckily. One of the other guys who's knowledgeable stated he got hammered as NOT running prophylaxis (supplements?) and too late/too little on IVM and mouthwash,etc. Wife did much better than him.

Went thru the 9pgs he posted. Basically no prophylaxis IVM, then after Day 5 he finally received IVM and dosed too little and then quit after he ran out (just three tubes between wife and him). He's big guy (#255) so heavy doses really ate thru his supply!!! Couple of knowledgeable guys over there commented (tough love) about this: general advice was Aquirre calls for IVM past the 5-days when symptoms clear. He also nebulized but again too little/too late and no HP. One commentor told him to NOT prone sleep when infected!, also 2hrs. between Vit C & B10, also 2hrs between vitC & zinc? He also quite quercetin at some point?. He's home after 2 runs to hospital and 2nd they put a tube into lungs after he had lung collapse when home. Don't be this guy!!!

Also checked latest Jeff Prather and his show was short (30min) and wife in room as he has a nasal O2 but says on-mend. Said Deep State didn't kill him in 2009 so he'll survive.
https://jeffreyprather.com/exclusive-us-to-sneak-into-afghanistan/
 
Last edited:

AurumAg

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Survivor
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,848
Reaction score
21,046
Location
The State of Jefferson
Good news on the emedsmart shipment of HCQ and IVM:

Your item arrived at our USPS facility in SAN FRANCISCO CA INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTER on December 2, 2021 at 2:36 pm. The item is currently in transit to the destination.

Now I just need to BOLO for porch pirates. My wife and I spotted one roaming the neighborhood today.
 

Casey Jones

Train left the station...
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
10,162
Reaction score
16,504
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
Good news on the emedsmart shipment of HCQ and IVM:

Your item arrived at our USPS facility in SAN FRANCISCO CA INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTER on December 2, 2021 at 2:36 pm. The item is currently in transit to the destination.

Now I just need to BOLO for porch pirates. My wife and I spotted one roaming the neighborhood today.
Is there a neighbor, or father-in-law you can pay to sit on your porch and drink coffee all day?

That's what it's coming to.
 

dacrunch

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
10,714
Reaction score
17,258
If you think that's a long time in shipping...

November 8th my son mailed me a first class tracked registered letter from a town in New England to my town in France.

3 ounces, $33

2 days for it to reach Boston.

13 days later it arrives in Jamaica, New York, then to Newark Airport.

Arrives in Paris Airport in one day, then SITS THERE for 8 days before getting shipped out (this afternoon).

2 weeks from Boston to Newark? Did they take it there on foot? ;)

Over a week in Paris Airport? Covid quarantine? ;)

Both places, government agencies with their oh-so-efficient "service"... never having to worry about "job productivity" or a performance related layoff.

Well, it might not be "lost in the mail", but it sure is having a hard time finding its way through it...
 

AurumAg

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Survivor
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,848
Reaction score
21,046
Location
The State of Jefferson
I got the HCQ and IVM today:

US Customs opened the package, taped it back up and sent it on it's way.

What a relief!
 

lukdiver

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,322
Reaction score
3,075
I'm hopefully 2 weeks behind you with another dozen Ziverdo Kits. That would be my third order and getting itchy feet to do another order of just 12mg IVM pills?
 

ABC123

Mother Lode Found
Midas Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
12,072
Reaction score
27,742
1638593530697.png

Link to article:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/dying-covid-19-patient-recovers-after-court-orders-hospital-to-administer-ivermectin_4130754.html



My New Twitter

https://t.co/aFFTbdZyGI



https://t.me/GrasshopperChannel/790
 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
12,192
View attachment 235462
Link to article:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/dying-covid-19-patient-recovers-after-court-orders-hospital-to-administer-ivermectin_4130754.html



My New Twitter

https://t.co/aFFTbdZyGI



https://t.me/GrasshopperChannel/790

Just anecdotal evidence at best.
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
6,377
Reaction score
18,026
Location
On a mail train.
I was taking ivermectin, measuring it out by my weight , took it every month for five days for 4 months and still got sick as a dog with the wuhu China flu..it kicked my arse

got sick around the 9th of November...finally broke down and went to ER and got monoclonal antibiotics treatment along with a magnesium drip for my migraines , went home 5 hours later

gf was taking ivermectin longer than me and she was really sick

so I don’t know why the prophylaxis prevention didn’t keep me from getting it

I am stumped and still have residual symptoms

Zgood luck out there
 

lukdiver

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,322
Reaction score
3,075
Perhaps why the Zelenko Protocol is calling for the use of HCQ if IVM isn't working? Of course you were taking the quercetin & zinc? There is info out there about not taking them at the same time. You used the mouthwash as per iMask Protocol to lessen inoculum? Nebulized with HP? IF you got a large inoculum its possible even therapeutics might not beat it back. You're continuing the IVM? Trying NAC? Good move on the monoclonal antibodies and everyone should check their local source as I'm finding it hard to find it for California relatives but luckily I've got it here in SW Washington State.

 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
2,437
I was taking ivermectin, measuring it out by my weight , took it every month for five days for 4 months and still got sick as a dog with the wuhu China flu..it kicked my arse

got sick around the 9th of November...finally broke down and went to ER and got monoclonal antibiotics treatment along with a magnesium drip for my migraines , went home 5 hours later

gf was taking ivermectin longer than me and she was really sick

so I don’t know why the prophylaxis prevention didn’t keep me from getting it

I am stumped and still have residual symptoms

Zgood luck out there
Aside from antibiotics for bacterial infections, I think there are very few, if any, miracle cures out there for any disease, especially cold/influenza type diseases. There are drugs that can help a bit, and in some cases, and that's the extent of it.

In the case of covid the majority of people don't experience serious, or even any, symptoms even without any treatment at all. Some do.

For those that do, ivermectin may help some, and some won't see much benefit. My guess is that the greatest benefit comes from taking care of your immune system. Get outdoors, get exercise, and make sure you have enough vitamin D. Put yourself in the best possible condition to fight the disease off anyway and then stop worrying about getting sick - anxiety will do more harm than taking the drugs will do good.

And then, if you do get sick, take zinc, ivermectin and an antibiotic and get plenty of rest. You've maximized your chance of coming through without too many problems - but there are no miracles and no guarantees.

Put your faith in God, not medicines.
 
Last edited:

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
12,192
I was taking ivermectin, measuring it out by my weight , took it every month for five days for 4 months and still got sick as a dog with the wuhu China flu..it kicked my arse

got sick around the 9th of November...finally broke down and went to ER and got monoclonal antibiotics treatment along with a magnesium drip for my migraines , went home 5 hours later

gf was taking ivermectin longer than me and she was really sick

so I don’t know why the prophylaxis prevention didn’t keep me from getting it

I am stumped and still have residual symptoms

Zgood luck out there

My family was taking the preventative protocol. The adults got over it quickly. Less than three days. Children didn't even get the sniffles. Taking the zinc, vitamins, etc. are crucial. They work with the ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,452
Reaction score
12,192