Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)  (Read 910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monka966

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
  • Reputation: +94/-43
  • Gender: Female
A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
« on: November 05, 2021, 08:59:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #1 on: November 05, 2021, 09:11:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Well if you cannot force them to get vaccinated, and they
    want inexpecsive Ivermectin, then you outlaw Ivermectin,
    and create a patented Ivermectin pill and sell it for lots of
    money.

    What's in it ?  They won't say or they will lie.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41859
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #2 on: November 06, 2021, 05:27:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • This is Pfizer's desperate attempt to cover up the fact that jab doesn't work.

    If everyone's taking Ivermectin, they won't catch COVID and the "success" rate of the jab goes up.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4187
    • Reputation: +2431/-557
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #3 on: November 06, 2021, 06:01:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 06, 2021, 05:27:19 AM
    This is Pfizer's desperate attempt to cover up the fact that jab doesn't work.

    If everyone's taking Ivermectin, they won't catch COVID and the "success" rate of the jab goes up.

    Also, they may be backing off a bit due to the resistance against the “safe and effective” [sic] clot shot.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31176
    • Reputation: +27093/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #4 on: November 06, 2021, 09:04:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: apollo on November 05, 2021, 09:11:34 AM
    Well if you cannot force them to get vaccinated, and they
    want inexpecsive Ivermectin, then you outlaw Ivermectin,
    and create a patented Ivermectin pill and sell it for lots of
    money.

    What's in it ?  They won't say or they will lie.

    How will they get rid of the existing "out of patent", basically open source, Ivermectin?  How is that even possible?

    That would be like me coming along, taking an open source project, adding a few inconsequential details and then charging big bucks for it, while ALSO somehow shutting down the original open source project.

    I know that wouldn't be possible. So why is it possible with regards to Ivermectin?
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9532
    • Reputation: +6252/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #5 on: November 06, 2021, 10:57:35 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on November 06, 2021, 09:04:08 AM
    How will they get rid of the existing "out of patent", basically open source, Ivermectin?  How is that even possible?

    That would be like me coming along, taking an open source project, adding a few inconsequential details and then charging big bucks for it, while ALSO somehow shutting down the original open source project.

    I know that wouldn't be possible. So why is it possible with regards to Ivermectin?
    Until we see (((Pfizer's))) patent, we can only speculate whether or not it is an Ivermectin congener. The article says (((Pfizer's))) new drug is a "protease inhibitor," so probably the new drug is not chemically related to Ivermectin (a glutamate-channel blocker).

    For as long as I can remember, (((Big Pharma))) has been playing the patent game. All a company has to do is make a slight change in the chemical structure and, voila!, a new patent.

    If a company has a ₪₪₪successful₪₪₪ drug, other companies follow with a congener in short order. Typically they will make some claim of "better" that is insignificant or later proven false. For example, Demerol™ (another (((Pfizer))) product, generic name of the narcotic is meperidine) was initially marketed as "not addictive." Well, it is addictive and, after decades of problems and plenty of ₪₪₪profit₪₪₪, it's side-effect profile means almost nobody uses it anymore. Meanwhile (((Pfizer))) has ₪₪₪profited₪₪₪ well beyond their initial investment.

    In the 1990's (((drug companies))) were griping that the $2B it cost to get a pill to market was a big barrier. They announced in the ₪₪₪financial press₪₪₪ that they would be shifting development to "biologicals," then a mostly untapped market.  I saw the result of that shift while paralyzed in a hospital bed subjected to incessant ads for "biologicals" on the TV. Sickening. Also with that shift, mandatory school vaccines went from about a dozen shots (series of DPT and MMR) to about 70 shots. Big shekels for Satan's tribe and goyim suffer.
    Logged

    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +789/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #6 on: November 06, 2021, 11:31:14 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on November 06, 2021, 10:57:35 AM
    Until we see (((Pfizer's))) patent, we can only speculate whether or not it is an Ivermectin congener.

    Not Pfizer, but probably the closest "patented" drug related to Ivermectin as a treatment for covid.

    https://www.freepatentsonline.com/11007187.pdf

    There are only four claims, and they appear rather straightforward and quite broad, with claims 1, 3 and 4 including use of ivermectin (however, all claims require aprotinin):

    1. An intranasal COVID-19 medicine, comprising the combination of: aprotinin; hydroxychloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate; and ivermectin.

    2. An intranasal COVID-19 medicine, comprising the combination of: aprotinin; hydroxychloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate; and bafilomycin.

    3. An intranasal COVID-19 medicine, comprising the combination of: aprotinin; hydroxychloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate; ivermectin; and bafilomycin.

    4. An intranasal COVID-19 medicine, comprising the combination of: aprotinin; ammonium salt; and one or more of ivermectin or bafilomycin.
    Logged

    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +789/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #7 on: November 06, 2021, 11:36:00 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on November 06, 2021, 09:04:08 AM
    How will they get rid of the existing "out of patent", basically open source, Ivermectin?  How is that even possible?

    It's not.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9532
    • Reputation: +6252/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #8 on: November 06, 2021, 11:45:04 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Bonaventure on November 06, 2021, 11:36:00 AM
    It's not.

    That's a fact that we can "take to the bank." :-)
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9532
    • Reputation: +6252/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #9 on: November 06, 2021, 11:59:56 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Having never heard of aprotinin or bafilomycin, I looked them up.

    Aprotinin is a protease inhibitor, specifically an antifibrinolytic, so slows the breakdown of clots. You know, clots as in "clot shot." Interesting, too, that bleeding complications resulted in aprotinin being globally pulled off the market.

    Bafilomycin is a "macrolide," the same general class as ZPAK™/azithromycin (that is already in some recommended COVID treatment protocols). Bafilomycin is described as a "vacuolar-type H+-ATPase": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1218484/ ATP (adenosine tri-phosphate) is not a protein, but a substance necessary for energy processes, hence not the "protease inhibitor" mentioned in the OP's linked article.
    Logged

    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +789/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #10 on: November 07, 2021, 05:50:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on November 06, 2021, 11:59:56 AM
    Aprotinin is a protease inhibitor, specifically an antifibrinolytic, so slows the breakdown of clots. You know, clots as in "clot shot." Interesting, too, that bleeding complications resulted in aprotinin being globally pulled off the market.

    One other thing to note: The patent linked to above was filed in May, 2020.  That's just a mere few months into the pandemic, and many months before any vaxx was introduced.  Which makes it all that more interesting that the one commonality between all four claims, aprotinin, breaks down blood clots.

    Also, it could easily be argued that it was known quite early in the game of the beneficial effects of ivermectin, but to this very day the MSM abjures its use, pejoratively referring to it as "horse dewormer."  :facepalm:
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9532
    • Reputation: +6252/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #11 on: November 07, 2021, 08:19:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Bonaventure on November 07, 2021, 05:50:37 PM
    … aprotinin, breaks down blood clots. …

    This is actually a very complicated matter. Any trauma attracts platelets and a clotting cascade is initiated. A competing system usually ensures that the unnecessary clots are broken down ("fibrinolyzed"). "Usually" is the rub.

    There are a variety of clotting disorders some involving factors in the cascade, others of the immune variety, still others from certain pathogens. Oddly, clotting can lead to an inability to clot (clotting factors get used up in the wrong spot and then necessary clotting cannot occur where it is needed).

    Forgive the pun: It's a bloody mess!

    I have not done a deep dive on this, but my first hypothesis would be that the spike protein of the virus and the spike proteins manufacturers by the mRNA gene therapy ("vaccine") injure the vascular endothelium (lining cells of blood vessels) and so attract platelets and a clotting cascade is initiated thereby blocking off circulation to vital organs (lungs, heart, brain, or, in the case of virus deniers, the rectum).

    To be candid, some things are just not worth a deep dive. It's enough to know the basics:
    1. the virus is a mild illness for most, but deadly and disabling for others.
    2. the mRNA gene therapy ("vaccine") is all risk and no benefit, especially when compared to natural immunity.

    The lay press (not "peer reviewed," though the filter value of "peer review" is dubious at best) published their study of Adverse Reactions and Death and had some rather interesting findings: specifically that some lots of "vaccines" had very high rates of fatalities and adverse reactions, while other lots had none. All manufacturer's "vaccines" displayed that variability. Who is surprised that "red" states got the deadly lots and "Jєω"… I mean "blue" states did not get the deadly lots. Go figure.

    100% of Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths were caused by just 5% of the batches produced according to official Government data
    by The Exposé, October 31, 2021
    https://theexpose.uk/2021/10/31/100-percent-of-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-caused-by-just-5-percent-of-the-batches-produced/
    Logged

    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +789/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #12 on: November 10, 2021, 09:04:58 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Video concluding that Pfizer’s new drug is virtually the same as Ivermectin.

    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 977
    • Reputation: +409/-77
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #13 on: November 10, 2021, 11:30:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The new Pfizer drug is likely a more direct homologue for Quercetin, not Ivermectin. Both the Pfizer drug and Quercetin inhibit the same 3CL Protease molecule. Quercetin is simply a flavonoid, a plant pigment created by God in His lab called Heaven. 

    https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-018-1023-6


    Quote
    Quercetin can effectively prevent EV71-induced cell injury with low toxicity to host cells. Quercetin may act in more than one way to deter viral infection, exhibiting some preventive and a powerful therapeutic effect against EV71. Further, quercetin potently inhibits EV71 3Cproactivity, thereby blocking EV71 replication.


    So it's worse than these people, Pfizer, creating a patent drug to replace another now off-patent drug (Ivermectin). These people are creating a patent drug that performs the exact same function as an over-the-counter "antioxidant."

    Buy Quercetin while you still can.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9532
    • Reputation: +6252/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A rebranded Ivermectin (most likely)
    « Reply #14 on: November 10, 2021, 01:46:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Excellent! Rare is the video worth the time to watch it, I found the video content especially interesting starting at time stamp 18:00 where he introduces this article:

    Eweas AF, Alhossary AA, Abdel-Moneim AS. Molecular Docking Reveals Ivermectin and Remdesivir as Potential Repurposed Drugs Against SARS-CoV-2. Front Microbiol. 2021 Jan 25;11:592908. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.592908. PMID: 33746908; PMCID: PMC7976659.
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.592908/full

    Apparently Ivermectin blocks both the receptor site and the spike protein—always better to have more than one effective action because it is less likely a pathogen will simultaneously mutate two work-arounds.

    Also interesting, though structurally dissimilar, both quercetin and hydroxychloroquine are Zinc ionophores, facilitate entry of Zinc into host (our) cells where the Zinc interferes with the RNA-polymerase necessary for COVID-19 replication—and the replication of RNA viruses in general (HIV?).

    This seems likely to benefit not only those exposed to bioweapon itself, but possibly also those forced to take the mRNA jab. If so, the moral calculus needs to be re-calculated.

    Hypothesis: The Moral Principle of Double Effect is established in Catholic doctrine. The most common example are the cases of abortion and sterilization, normally forbidden if the intents are to kill the baby and be sterilized. BUT a woman whose life is in danger from a tubal pregnancy is morally able to accept (and the Catholic surgeon to perform) a "salpingectomy," surgical removal of the affected tube (salpinx) and the ectopic baby (who does indeed die—baptize the baby immediately!).

    Applying that principle to the mRNA jab: Use of therapies (begging the question, "Is it really a therapy?") developed from aborted babies is forbidden EXCEPT in dire circuмstance. The mRNA jab (absent Ivermectin, quercetin, Zinc) is also forbidden because it is a disproportionate risk to the person jabbed. Taking Ivermectin, quercetin, and Zinc may eliminate or significantly reduce the risk of "self-harm," so the moral judgement then hinges only (mostly?) on whether or not the risk of harm from not taking the jab outweighs the risk of taking the jab.

    At that point a good priest's moral guidance is needed.  If a jab is mandated for the family's sole breadwinner to continue working and feeding/housing the family, does that mitigate the problematic source of the jab?  I don't know the answer to that and the answer may vary widely depending on family circuмstance.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2
    « previous next »