Summary
➡ The article discusses the history and controversy surrounding a disease called river blindness, believed to be caused by black fly larvae. Despite numerous studies and experiments, no clear link was found between the larvae and the disease. The medicine Ivermectin, created to treat this disease, is questioned due to the lack of evidence supporting the initial cause. Despite the lack of proof, measures like relocating communities and poisoning rivers were taken to combat the supposed cause, but these actions did not stop the disease.
➡ A Japanese scientist discovered a bacteria in a toxic golf course that could potentially create a powerful anti-parasitic drug. This led to the creation of Ivermectin, a chemically modified derivative of a substance produced by the bacteria. Despite its success and profitability, concerns have been raised about its toxicity, with evidence suggesting it can harm aquatic life, cause fertility issues, and potentially damage the unborn child. It’s also been linked to neurological problems in animals, raising questions about its safety and long-term effects.
➡ The article discusses the use of Ivermectin, a drug initially created for a parasite-caused disease, in treating COVID-19. The author suggests that Ivermectin may not actually kill the virus, but instead, it might halt the body’s healing process, making people feel better temporarily. The author warns about the potential long-term health risks of using such drugs and encourages understanding the body’s natural healing processes instead of relying on pharmaceutical products.
Transcript
So everybody will have a little bit of a break on the Wednesdays and yeah, go from there. The next thing I wanted to say is we were really thrilled and moved by the interest that people showed in the announcement that I said last week that we were looking for investment partners for a new venture that we may be getting into. And I don’t know exactly the number, but I think there was over 20 people who contacted us interested, and that was probably way more than we thought. So if we haven’t got back to you as of yet, it’s not because we don’t appreciate your interest and it’s not because we didn’t get it.
It’s just because we didn’t know we were going to get that many. So we will get back to you as Asher. We’ll get back to you. And if you’re still interested, there’s still time to let us know and set up a conversation with Asher. You can contact us at Customer service and we. And they will put you in touch. And we just really want to thank everybody who’s even shows any interest in working with us. It’s very gratifying to have all that support. And I’m not sure what’s going to happen. And I don’t know any of the details of the investment.
So I’m not the person to really talk about that. Okay, so what do I talk about? So I talk about things like Ivermectin. And so why would I talk about Ivermectin? So there’s a few reasons. One is because it’s a. A quote, medicine pharmaceutical product that is a drug that we get a lot of questions about a customer service. Even people contact the clinic to see if we could guide them in the use of Ivermectin or prescribe Ivermectin. So it’s something that we hear about in the clinic and in our business, a fair amount. I also hear a fair amount from the people Who I know in my, in my physical location, especially the people in the so called freedom community.
Many of them are either taking Ivermectin or have taken Ivermectin or tout Ivermectin as a kind of wonder drug. And so that’s another reason why it’s still in the consciousness of the people. So it’s another reason to keep going with that subject. And there’s another reason too, which is the story of Ivermectin is, is, is an example, let’s say, of something I keep saying is they’re playing chess and we’re playing checkers. So who’s they and who’s we? Well, they are the people who have organized, run, planned, implemented the COVID scam and a whole lot of other scams and the sort of rulers quote of the world.
And we are the people. And the we also includes the people who are trying to resist. And I keep saying this, but as long as they’re playing chess and we’re playing checkers, in other words, they’re running a sophisticated game and we don’t understand the game. We, we end up being suckers. And personally I don’t like being a sucker. It sort of irritates me. And it happens to everybody. It happens to me. Everybody else I know, we get taken for a ride and we believe things and that we shouldn’t. But I, I don’t like doing that. And I’m trying to do that for myself as little as possible.
And that, I think is one of the reasons I do these webinars. And I don’t think there’s any more sophisticated example of the game that was played on in this case, particularly the we who are part of the so called freedom community than the Ivermectin story. And so that’s another reason why I wanted to take another look at that. And I’m not saying that the people in the, quote, freedom community who are selling the Ivermectin story have nefarious interests or know what they’re doing. Just like I don’t think all the doctors or even most of the doctors or hardly any of the doctors who promote vaccines or all the other stuff that they do.
They’re not actually trying to hurt people. It’s not like that’s the intention. They’re just basically ignorant. And I think that’s probably the case here. I have no doubt there may be some people who are not ignorant and have this was a deliberately intentional scheme, but that’s not really that relevant. And it’s not so important to what I’m going to say. So with that introduction, let me just give a short hang on list of some of the people who have promoted Ivermectin. I’m sure you know most of these names, but I just put a few here. Number one, hopefully you can see this.
Dr. Pierre Corey, quote ivermectin, one of the safest medicines in the history of medicine. Guy named Dr. Paul Merrick explains why it’s antiviral, works against a host of RNA viruses, very powerful anti inflammatory drug. Remember that quote when we come back to it stimulates a process called autophagy which I think is getting rid of dead cells. A healing mechanism that allows the body to get rid of the spike protein, improves the microbiome. So they’re pretty dramatic claims. This is a quote that is attributed to Kennedy. The federal emergency use authorization statute says that you cann issue an emergency use authorization to a vaccine if there is an existing medication that has been approved for any purpose that is demonstrated effective against the target illness.
So they had to destroy ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and discredit it. And they had to tell everybody it’s not effective because if they acknowledged that it’s effective in anybody, the whole $200 billion vaccine enterprise would have collapsed. And so that is a summary of the narrative. In other words, the motive. That’s not the narrative. The motive behind the discreditation of Ivermectin because it’s obviously a safe and effective medicine. It kills viruses, it cures Covid and they couldn’t possibly let that fact be known otherwise they couldn’t do their vaccine scam on us. So that’s the narrative. And here’s another example of that.
So it turns out there was a short documentary of all the harmful misinformation spread over the past couple of years. One of the most disturbing false narratives was targeted at the Nobel prize win human medicine, Ivermectin. What you’re about to see will reveal the motive behind the smear campaign against one of the safest and most effective medicines of this era. A medicine that according to the numerous top scientists I’ve interviewed this year, could have ended the pandemic before it began. So things are clearly bad, but they’re being made even worse by people who have refused to take the vaccine and instead are swallowing horse paste, horse dewormer.
There’s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works. It goes beyond that. We actually know that it doesn’t work. Ivermectin is ineffective against Covid, but could put you in a coma. It can kill you. All right, so there we have the narrative there. So this is by a interesting father and filmmaker. It’s not just a filmmaker. He’s a father, which means there’s certainly to be trusted. And so he outlines the motive you have to get rid of this safe and effective medicine. And the esteemed scientists are going to tell us all about that. And then he trots out the obvious bad guys.
There’s Fouchy and there’s a bunch of others. So these are the bad guys. So if they’re the bad guys and they’re against Ivermectin, so then the people who are for Ivermectin, they’re obviously like us, they’re the good guys, and so therefore we should believe them. This is another example of what I’ve talked about before, which I heard originally from Chomsky. Now, just to say, just because I’m referring to Chomsky, I understand that Chomsky has a lot of things that I certainly wouldn’t agree with. And he may be whatever he is, but in this case, I think he was correct.
And so it is possible, I think we have to admit that, that some people who get a lot of things, almost everything wrong and may not even be on our side, but they still do get some things correct. And I think that’s the example with Chomsky. And he said the way to control a population is to control both sides of the narrative and have a vigorous debate between those sides. So that’s exactly what we’re seeing here. There’s the narrative that there is a pandemic. So you have to believe that the pandemic is caused by a virus.
And then there’s some bad guys who want to injure you, and then there’s the good guys who want to save you with Ivermectin. So that’s the narrative. So I found this is one of the reasons I this provoked me to do this. And this was a sub stack. I don’t know how it came to my attention, but it did. I don’t know this guy. Or maybe I do, but I don’t know that I know him. And I don’t know who he is or what he believes necessarily. But I like the way he wrote this article. And for me, in a way, that’s all that matters.
I don’t know what he thinks otherwise. And if somebody says he thinks this or that and we don’t agree with him, all I’M looking at here is what he said in this article. And the most important thing for me is he starts at the beginning. And as everybody, I think, knows by now, the whole key in understanding anything in science and medicine is start at the beginning. And so he starts, you know, you guys aren’t going to like this. And I’m. This is like the sacred cow. So. But he says, okay, let’s start at the beginning.
So what is the beginning? The beginning is how did this medicine come into being? And this is a story that I only knew a little bit. And I don’t even know how to say the, the name for river blindness. I heard it in medical school on co circus, onco circuses, maybe that may be the way to say it. So the problem was in these people living in fertile river valleys. So I’m going to go through this article and also check some of the references to see if they add up. So. So that’s how I’m going to introduce this subject or relate this subject.
So there’s this problem in all these different places, Mexico, Guatemala, Africa, Yemen, Brazilian Amazon, of people getting eye symptoms and skin symptoms. And apparently they would go blind. And they called it river blindness. And so there’s the medical term. And then they even made a creepy, as he says, postage stamp that had to do with it from Nigeria, I guess. And so he did the thing that, I don’t know that anybody else has done. And this has seemed very appropriate to me given that we’ve just gone through the whole parasite issue and we’ve looked at whether protozoa are real, which I think the, the, the agent of river blindness, it was, as he says, so nobody knew was causing it.
They suggested it was black flies that were biting them and transmitting some insect larvae into the bloodstream. And the insect larvae, not. It’s not a parasite, sorry, were actually responsible for the disease called river blindness. So that was the problem that needed to be solved. Let me say that again. There was a, a illness that is called river blindness. People apparently living in fertile river valleys. So they started it in the late 1800s, early 1900s. They had a theory that it was caused by the larvae of black flies somehow hatching or living inside the bloodstream of, of people who lived by the.
Lit by the rivers. And then it actually migrated and caused all these symptoms, including blindness. So the reason this is relevant is this was the disease, the situation that birthed ivermectin, that ivermectin was meant to, to fix. And in fact, we’re told, did Fix. So then he refers to a handful of scientific experiments to determine if the black flies were actually the cause of these symptoms. And then he refers to, he has links to different studies. So I pulled out these studies and here’s one of them here. And interesting. So here you get to the pathogenic effect of the worm.
And the examination revealed that in the Kono population, the eyes did not suffer notably from either toxic or other effects produced by the worms. Here’s another one, the skin, that’s another site of the disease. The conclusion was that the infection with the worm, with the larvae, does not connote obvious disease of the skin, although it may coexist with it. Here’s with swollen glands, it may be said that on whole, this investigation did not yield definite evidence of pathogenic effects on the glands. And they go on to essentially demonstrate that in all of these investigations, there was no determined relationship between the worms and any illness.
And so then there was another reference here, and I got this, and here you can read. They were actually looking for these egg larvae in the people who they claimed had river blindness. And there’s a bunch of studies. And by the way, for those who want to see all these, you can go to this guy’s sub stack and you can click on the links just like I did, and you can then find all these studies. And they. So these were studies, a whole bunch of them, looking for the egg larva in the blood of the people suffering from this illness, which is exactly the claim that you should be able to find the eggs there.
And so it says in the blood they have rarely been found. And here’s examinations made by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, completely negative results. In other words, of all the people, they looked for the larvae, the eggs in the people suffering from, quote, river blindness, none of them could they see it. And then they said that one guy out of 2000 examinations, he found one person who he squeezed powerfully the finger and then he made the blood smear. And then he found the larva of the, of the black fly. And then he couldn’t reproduce the results.
And so that was the only case that he actually found this, this larvae of the infecting agents. So in other words, with these thousands of people who were said to be infected with this illness, in essentially none of them could they find the actual larvae, except maybe one which they couldn’t reproduce. And that may have been an artifact because they had to squeeze his skin a whole lot. So I is one of my favorite expressions these days, but that’s weird. So we go on. So that’s the first thing to note is the, in the beginning, the illness that this medicine was meant to deal with, they actually could not prove that the cause of it was the black flies depositing eggs that go through the bloodstream.
And so that was a disproven hypothesis. And so one has to wonder if the purpose of Ivermectin was to, you know, address this problem, how could it do that since that wasn’t the cause of the problem? And then they talk about how they allow in other experiments they allowed the black flies to bite them, but they never were able to reproduce the illness. And so then they tried it, of course, with monkeys. And they, in this study, two monkeys were given injections of advanced stage fly larva which the scientists claimed to have extracted from the head of dissected flies who were deemed to be carrying the infection.
As of two months after injecting the monkeys, they showed no signs of the disease. And here you can read the findings to this. Two months have elapsed since the first animal was inoculated. It’s too early to express an opinion as to the ultimate result, but what we saw was basically nothing. So then they tried a whole bunch of other tests, using endorsal fins, removing slices of skin. And just like the same story we hear over and over again to try to figure some way to see if we can get this polio virus, which they can’t find, but in this case they can actually see a black fly and inject that in and try to transmit the disease.
And uniformly they failed. So that’s the first weird thing about the ivermectin story is the rationale for making up, making this disease, this, finding this medicine for treating a disease that had a certain parasitic and, you know, cause actually turns out not to be true. And that wasn’t the problem. So as again, the story that we’ve heard so many times, they of course never believe the science. They don’t believe they have a theory that it’s caused by black fly larvae. They disprove that theory, but that doesn’t mean anything. So they keep going with the theory. And so the next step was to tell the citizens that the only way they could save themselves was to move away from the river, which has devastating impact on their community, as you would expect.
And that relocation did not stop the disease the black flies were causing. So of course then the only recourse that the powers that be ever have is to start poisoning the river. And so they use these diethyl carb Carba. Carba mazine. I don’t know how to say that. And cerumen to poison the river to. And here you can see a picture of them spraying toxic chemicals in the river to kill the black flies to which allegedly would stop river blindness. But obviously it did not stop because the black flies were obviously not the cause. And so then you have to say you have to do the same thing they do with virology and everything else.
That’s of course, because the black flies became immune or resistant. Immigrant flies began to reinvade treated rivers. And some flies develop resistance to the insecticides used in the program, even though they repeatedly poisoned the river, which didn’t stop the disease. In fact, the disease kept going and seemingly got worse. No surprise, because now the people were displaced, their whole livelihood was disrupted and furthermore their water supply and food supply was being poisoned by some deadly chemicals. And that seems to be the way it goes. And so into this comes the story of ivermectin. So this is not some sort of natural medicine or some non pharmaceutical product.
This was started by Japanese guy, here’s his name. And they asked him to search for something that would be a therapeutic for a disease which they had the wrong cause of. He was contacted by Merck to work for them. And he goes out to a golf course, which is probably one of the most toxic places you can imagine. He finds a undiscovered bacteria and the bacteria is said to kill the parasites in the soil. So then they created a concoction in the lab. They called it avermectin. And ivermectin is a chemically modified derivative of ivermectin B1, which is allegedly more potent than any existing parasite medicine.
So essentially what they did was found a bacteria in the soil in a toxic golf course that they hadn’t seen before. They alleged that this bacteria, new bacteria, could make a very potent anti parasitic drug. They could chemically modify it to make it from the chemical that the bacteria make into what’s called ivermectin. And then they could treat this river blindness, which they had already proved wasn’t caused by a parasite. So that’s the story. They also realized this could be an extremely profitable medicine. In fact, as he says, Within 25 years, sales of ivermectin would be one of its best selling products, over a billion dollars.
And I think it’s even more now, way more, because it’s apparently vets give it to all animals, dogs, cats, farm animals, on a sort of prophylactic basis. So in 19. In 2006, Merck, out of the kindness of their heart, donated over 69 million doses. So the question then, how is it made? So they say there’s this bacteria that was found in the soil by the Japanese guy. And then so here you start with a bacterial strain and then you add yeast extract, malt, glucose to feed the bacteria and then you add ethymine. D, well let’s call it etbr, a non radioactive marker used to stain DNA, commonly used in molecular biology labs to detect nucleic acid.
So that’s a toxic chemical that they put into the mixture and then they have to use another one. It’s a called ems, a commonly used chemical mutagen, that means it causes birth defects, used in experimental genetics. This is also put into the mix with the bacteria and then they have, they use ultraviolet radiation to stimulate the growth of the bacteria. And then they have a whole lot of other possible ingredients that you can see here. And they’re going. All these ingredients result in the production of avermectins, which they call industrial derived mutants. But this product is a quote, deadly insecticide.
It’s extremely toxic against a broad spectrum of nematodes and arthropods, which are things like butterflies, lobsters, crabs, scorpions, spiders, etc. So here you can see a picture of them. About 84% of the known species are members of this. So this concoction that’s made with these chemicals is poisonous to 84% of the life on earth. But not just that, it’s also poisonous to blue crabs, which I think are part of the, of the arthropods. But this, it’s also kills different worms and it’s an insecticide, it’s toxic to cockroaches. Not sure if they’re part of an arthropod. So you can see a ivermectin based or avermectin, abamectin, they’re all the same family of chemicals as cockroach bait and then ant killer, etc.
And then you look at, and then people will say, yeah, but ivermectin that’s used for people is much more purified and clean and doesn’t have all these other nasty chemicals in it. So here’s the spec sheet for veterinary product which they say is toxic to the central nervous system in particular. It’s a Class 1 danger and actually interesting causes a host of skin issues which look curiously similar to what they call river blindness, which we’ve seen this before. That the treatment with chemicals and pharmaceutical products inevitably causes almost Identical symptoms to what the, the original disease is supposed to look like.
So here you can see different names of diseases which are confused with river blindness. So here you see more of the composition of the components of the ivermectin and you can see some of the toxic components. Propylene glycol, which is, has acute kidney injury, sepsis like condition which is basically a poisoning misclassified as an infection. So and here’s other things. And even the purest Ivermectin there is has a whole host of interesting toxic effects which are part of the, the pro, you know, the, the investigation of it. And one of the most important ones is may cause fertility damage fertility or damage to the unborn child.
This is the pure Ivermectin. You will see it is labeled as hazardous, damages fertilities and causes harm in the unborn baby. Which means and It’s a category 1A, which is known human reproductive toxicant, meaning it does cause harm, not just a suspect, it’s also toxic to aquatic life. And again he goes over even the purest. This is the safety data sheet from the purest chemical, Ivermectin, still a category 2 or 3 toxic chemical orally and to the skin. And acute toxicity means exposure to a single dose of the chemical may be toxic or fatal if inhaled or swallow or come in contact with the skin.
This is from the purest form of Ivermectin on the market. And so as he recaps, the animal version of Ivermectin is a hazardous toxin. The lab use only version is a hazardous toxin. And even if you spend money to buy the absolute best, top shelf, cleanest ever Ivermectin, it is still a hazardous poison that is quote, as they say, very toxic as swallow if swallowed. And there you see what a spec sheet for the mechanism of reproductive toxicity. And this is in mammals. They say that Merck says that primates are less sensitive, but there’s many studies that actually show that that’s not true.
And he finally links up a video that I watched and I think everybody who’s interested in this subject and there’s, there’s two of them, but one of them, the first one, this one has to do with the reproductive toxicity of ivermectin. And you see this in many different animal studies, rabbit studies and other mammal studies. So the idea that it’s only toxic to arthropods, crabs, et cetera, cockroaches, is not true. It is a well proven and well known reproductive toxic substance to many different kinds of mammals. And then the next one is another video on the neurotoxic effect of Ivermectin.
And I know vets who talk about the routine use of ivermectin and the continual use of ivermectin resulting in all sorts of neurological problems, seizures, and other degenerative neurological disease. So if you’re interested in that subject, I would follow up with that. So the summary is he couldn’t find any evidence that black flies transmit larvae, which actually causes the disease. So it’s very similar to many of the other things that we said. He also gets into the role of parasites, which is similar to what we found, that parasites are there to suck the toxins, especially heavy metals, from people or animals.
And so, yeah, okay, I think that’s that. I wanted to also take a look at this claim. Let me get this. Because one of the things that has to do with COVID was that ivermectin is an antiviral. And you hear that a lot. In fact, that’s something that we got thrown at us a lot of how come we’re saying ivermectin cures Covid and yet we’re saying that there’s no virus? It doesn’t. The fact that ivermectin has been proven to cure viruses prove that Covid is a viral illness. And so I went to two of the papers which were referenced.
One called the antivirus effectiveness of ivermectin on dengue virus type 2 in, I think this some sort of mosquito. I’m having trouble pronouncing these today. So what did they do? We, of course, go to the method section. So how do all these papers, I looked at, probably 10 of them, prove that ivermectin is a antiviral substance? I’ve been over this before, many times, but here it is in black and white. So they get some different cell lines, they run their cell cultures. They have the fetal bovine serum and the penicillin and the streptomycin. They incubated, put a bunch of chemicals in, and then some of them, they put ivermectin in.
And the ivermectin seems to inhibit for a short time the breakdown, the cytopathic effect in the cell lines. And therefore they claim that that means it killed the virus. That is about as anti scientific as you can get, because it’s possible that this chemical somehow stabilizes the cells or breaks down something or does something to the cell line to keep it alive for a little bit. And that’s exactly what they did here. And there’s no virus, there’s no virus in this experiment and there’s no killing of a virus or showing that it doesn’t kill the virus or does kill the virus.
There’s no virus in this experiment. And here’s another one that had to do with same thing. The title was FDA Approved Drug Ivermectin Inhibits the Replication of SARS CoV2 in Vitro, meaning in a petri dish. So this is widely used as one of the rationales for using Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID So what did they do? We go to the Vera the method section and once again they take the Vero H slam cells, that’s the monkey kidney cells, they put it in minimum essential medium, they reduce the fetal bovine serum, they put in a bunch of other chemicals in some cells they put some ivermectin in and some they don’t.
And the ones they put ivermectin in they live a little bit longer. And then they do the PCR on the breakdown and they find a little bit more breakdown RNA in the cells that lines that they didn’t put ivermectin. So that proves to them that ivermectin killed the virus. And this by the way, I think was done by the same Leon Callie. Yeah. Who is the one who did the first paper with the isolation of SARS COV2 outside of China. And he couldn’t get it to look like a coronavirus until he put trypsin in to digest the outside and then lo and behold it looked like coronavirus.
So he’s certainly up for the anti scientific Emmy award of the year. And this is another paper. There’s no virus anywhere in this paper. There’s just a bunch of inbred cells that may or may not be breaking down more or less, depending on what else you put in it. So there is no evidence to summarize, there’s no evidence that the disease that they formulated Ivermectin for or discovered ivermectin 4 was actually caused by a parasite. Probably had much more to do with the toxic chemicals that they eventually sprayed in the river and the displacing the people and probably from before that they were probably doing, mining and using toxic chemicals that those populations had never been exposed to, setting up all kinds of problems.
And like always they blame it on an infection because if you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And then they found this toxic chemical which kills just about everything and is responsible for neurological problems and fertility problems. And they thought this would be good for the developing world and the freedom people. That’s probably an important part of this story. So if we don’t get you with the vaccine, and we want neurological problems and fertility problems, of the people who are smart enough to not take the vaccine, we have another pharmaceutical product which is just the thing for this imaginary disease called Covid.
And so that’s where they came up with the Ivermectin story. And so it became the other side of the debate and sold to you by the typical freedom people. And that’s how we got to where we are today. Now, I know there will be people who say, yeah, but I was sick with something, or they think maybe it’s Covid or I had tumors or something. And I took Ivermectin, the pure one, and I felt much better. So remember there was a comment that ivermectin seems to be a potent anti inflammatory chemical, in other words, something like prednisone.
And this is why it helps to have a little bit of scientific understanding and wisdom when you’re thinking about whether to take a toxic chemical like ivermectin, because some of them, like prednisone, will act as anti inflammatory agents and they will stop the healing process. In other words, you’re sick because you were poisoned or because of, you know, fear or all the other things we talk about. You start breaking down as your body is, is essentially remodeling you and getting rid of the dead and dying tissue. And that’s when you feel sick. So the time when you’re feeling sick is the time when your body is doing the cleanup, the sort of detoxification, the getting rid of the stuff that doesn’t belong, that has been poisoned or damaged or broken down.
And so then you use your detoxification and sweating and pooping and all the other things to get this stuff out of you. And it is true that you can use chemicals, prednisone for one, and apparently Ivermectin for another, to stop this process. It may even work the same with tumors, which again is another process of your body developing a mechanism for resolving the underlying toxic issue. Whether it’s toxic, emotional conflict, poisons, you know, insecticide, chemicals, whatever, whatever started this process, your body will encapsulate it in tumors or get rid of it through the process that we call being sick, that we unfortunately call an infectious process.
And it is possible to find chemical agents which will stop that and make you think that you are better. I mean, every doctor knows that you can take somebody who’s sick and give them a high dose of prednisone to stop their inflammatory processes and they will feel much better immediately. And if they continue to take it, because they say, well, I feel much better when they take it, we know that they’re on the road towards cataracts and diabetes and all sorts of other really nasty problems. In this case, I would expect it’s basically the same, that they somehow came upon a different sort of chemical which stops the healing process.
Whether it’s a so called acute healing process with elimination of dead and dying cells, or a more chronic poisoning which is essentially what we call tumors, it can help stop that healing process. You feel like you’re getting better because you’re not going through this elimination or breakdown process. And therefore what you end up doing is leaving all the toxic debris in you. Of course, that’s the only thing possibly that can happen and end up suffering the consequences of that mistake on your part, maybe for the rest of your life. So that’s how I see Ivermectin. I’m not saying necessarily that, just like I’m not saying there’s never any use for prednisone.
I can hardly think of one now. And certainly it would be a last resort of everything else that you could try to help your body do what it’s already trying to do, which is to heal, that is in 99.9% of the time that will take care of the problem. You have to understand what the process is, understand that these things that we call diseases are poisoning and your body’s response to them. And all of the strategies of pharmaceutical medicine are to stop you from healing. Ivermectin is no exception to that. Prednisone is no exception to that.
They seem to work in very similar ways. And I think it’s really important to understand for people who think that this is the antidote to the tyranny, to understand the history of how ivermectin got in, to understand that this was an incredibly clever gambit to make you think that these were the two sides of the issue. The bad guys want the vaccine and the good guys want you to take ivermectin. We need to reconsider that and wonder if they’re really good guys wanting you to take a yet another pharmaceutical product who’s one of whose main affects is reproductive toxicity, including in mammals.
And why is this happening in particularly the parts of the world in the fertile places of people who were already told from other sources may be somehow undesirable. That’s not my words. Those are their words. I would just. That’s not what I’m saying. That’s what they’re saying. And so it start, the whole process starts to make sense of a reproductive, essentially toxic drug to formulated for a disease that was not interpreted properly and then sold to the freedom community as the alternative narrative. And that’s how we got to where we are now. So I think I can stop there.
I think everybody gets the point and it’s a little bit of a, maybe a downer note for the Christmas spirit or the holiday spirit, but if you think about the holiday spirit as looking for the truth, and maybe this will help at least one person decide that’s not the way I want to go about my life relying on pharmaceutical products, especially with this kind of history, then it was worth it to do this. So again, thanks everybody for joining me. I hope you have a wonderful holiday with your family again. If you’re interested in the investment, contact us.
If you’ve already done so, hopefully we will contact you soon. And we really appreciate all the people who showed interest in working with us. So take care and be well.
[tr:tra].
See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.
Author
