22 yr old XFL Trainer Dies. Cause of death not released. Take care of yourselves outhere.
- Thread starter jordan2320071698
- Start date
Hey look, the guy finding answers for Sean also happens to be the guy hocking supplements on this website.
I’m sure it’s a coincidence and bostwat isn’t a moron who dumped his life savings in gold and eats horse paste.
I’m sure it’s a coincidence and bostwat isn’t a moron who dumped his life savings in gold and eats horse paste.
Globally, as of 7:25pm CEST, 13 September 2023, there have been 770,563,467 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,957,216 deaths, reported to WHO. As of 10 September 2023, a total of 13,501,307,588 vaccine doses have been administered.
Unvaccinated people were --- get this : 97% more likely to die from COVID -- compared to those who were vaccinated.
Vaccinated people: 100 billion percent more likely to die because they got the jab.
There is a page 5 with nothing on it. Sounds like a massive circle jerk going on.
Must be the same people that stated all sorts of things in 2021 they don't want to be reminded of, let alone all of the new FOIA releases that basically show the US CDC was lying about their own statistics in 2021, even 2022.
So ... they must still be jerking using those same statistics. Just like they probably keep saying kids need to be vaccinated to protect others and "Be a Super Hero!"
Official Misinformation wihle Censoring our own, top experts who still refuse to approve any vaccines for kids, but they were removed so they could no longer block such. I can re-name all the names, and what they did and what they ran at the US FDA, and they will -- not once -- address those top experts, just like they won't address their own comments.
Welcome to the Ministry of Truth. The ****tards of sheepism are still refusing to recognize where the problem is. It's certainly not Boston or myself. The courts have even ordered the US FDA and state boards to clear Ivermectin, per the US FDA's own findings!
Must be the same people that stated all sorts of things in 2021 they don't want to be reminded of, let alone all of the new FOIA releases that basically show the US CDC was lying about their own statistics in 2021, even 2022.
So ... they must still be jerking using those same statistics. Just like they probably keep saying kids need to be vaccinated to protect others and "Be a Super Hero!"
Official Misinformation wihle Censoring our own, top experts who still refuse to approve any vaccines for kids, but they were removed so they could no longer block such. I can re-name all the names, and what they did and what they ran at the US FDA, and they will -- not once -- address those top experts, just like they won't address their own comments.
Welcome to the Ministry of Truth. The ****tards of sheepism are still refusing to recognize where the problem is. It's certainly not Boston or myself. The courts have even ordered the US FDA and state boards to clear Ivermectin, per the US FDA's own findings!
Globally, as of 7:25pm CEST, 13 September 2023, there have been 770,563,467 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,957,216 deaths, reported to WHO. As of 10 September 2023, a total of 13,501,307,588 vaccine doses have been administered.
Twitter rants are now considered to be “top experts.” 😂😂😂😂😂
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not "endorsed" the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19, despite such claims on social media. The posts misrepresent the position of the agency, which has said clinical trials failed to show the drug is safe and effective against the coronavirus
CLAIM
“The FDA is now saying that it is OK to prescribe ivermectin [for COVID-19]”
VERDICT
DETAILS
Misleading: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hasn’t changed its stance on using ivermectin and hasn’t approved the drug for use against COVID-19. The FDA restated the fact that U.S. doctors can legally choose to prescribe ivermectin off-label, as the FDA cannot prevent this practice. In a tweet, the FDA denied any changes to its ivermectin recommendations.
KEY TAKE AWAY
There have been many misleading claims about ivermectin’s effectiveness as a COVID-19 treatment. While recognized for its efficacy against parasites, ivermectin’s antiviral effects remain uncertain, and clinical trials have not shown conclusive benefits for COVID-19. Health authorities caution against its use for COVID-19 due to potential side effects and a lack of reliable supporting evidence. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t changed its stance, contrary to recent social media posts incorrectly claiming otherwise. The agency maintains its position that ivermectin is not approved for COVID-19 prevention or treatment.
Since the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, many misleading claimshave promoted the ability of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence. Recently, social media claims have suggested that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reconsidered its position and permitted ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19. As this review will explain, this new claim is also misleading.
In fact, the FDA doesn’t have the power to prevent medical doctors from prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19. Therefore the claim that it “now” permits ivermectin use for COVID-19 misrepresents the FDA. The FDA still continues to recommend against it and denied the claims in a tweet. Therefore the implication that the FDA now considers the drug effective against COVID-19 is untrue.
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that has been used for decades to treat a range of parasitic infections in both humans and animals. It has proven highly effective against various parasites, including those causing river blindness, strongyloidiasis, and scabies.
Ivermectin received considerable public attention as a potential COVID-19 treatment after studies reported its antiviral effects against SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, in cells in the laboratory[1].
The results of clinical trials investigating ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment have been mixed and inconclusive[2]. Larger studies didn’t see improvements in recovery time for COVID-19 patients compared to a placebo drug[3,4].
Despite these recommendations, ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19 increased significantly. By December 2020, there was almost seven times as much ivermectin prescribed in the U.S. compared to 2019[5].
In 2021, there were many reports of poisonings among people who had taken ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19, having obtained it by prescription or by taking veterinary formulations[6].
The FDA is responsible for evaluating and approving medications for specific uses based on scientific evidence of safety and efficacy. The process involves rigorous preclinical and clinical studies to ensure that a drug’s benefits outweigh its risks.
Off-label prescription refers to using a medication for a purpose not explicitly approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers can legally prescribe an approved medication off-label if they believe it will benefit the patient. This practice is common and allows for medical flexibility, especially when dealing with complex medical conditions.
Ivermectin is FDA-approved for certain parasitic infections, however healthcare providers have the authority to prescribe it off-label if they choose.
During a hearing on 8 August 2023, lawyers for the FDA stated that doctors have the right to prescribe ivermectin and other medications off-label without FDA approval, in keeping with what the FDA previously said publicly. This correctly described the limits of the FDA’s remit, however this statement was misleadingly used to suggest that the FDA had changed its position on ivermectin.
In response to the claims, the FDA tweeted:
“Although FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals, it has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19, nor has the agency stated that it is safe or effective for that use.”
A widely-viewed video posted on Facebook and TikTok, accumulating more than 1.3 million views altogether, claimed that “the FDA is now saying that it is OK to prescribe ivermectin” and referenced its use for COVID-19. This would lead viewers to wrongly conclude that the FDA changed its position on the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19. However, this was not the case; the FDA only restated that doctors have always had the legal right to prescribe the drug off-label.
Similarly, headlines for articles by the Gateway Pundit and Zero Hedgeclaimed “FDA Lawyer Admits Doctors Can Prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19” and “FDA Drops Ivermectin Bombshell”, respectively. The use of the words “admits” or “bombshell” misleads readers to believe that this is new information that the FDA had tried to conceal. In fact, off-label use of medicines is a common practice that is already widely acknowledged, including by the FDA, and the FDA lawyers’ statements weren’t a revelation by the FDA.
“The FDA is now saying that it is OK to prescribe ivermectin [for COVID-19]”
VERDICT
DETAILS
Misleading: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hasn’t changed its stance on using ivermectin and hasn’t approved the drug for use against COVID-19. The FDA restated the fact that U.S. doctors can legally choose to prescribe ivermectin off-label, as the FDA cannot prevent this practice. In a tweet, the FDA denied any changes to its ivermectin recommendations.
KEY TAKE AWAY
There have been many misleading claims about ivermectin’s effectiveness as a COVID-19 treatment. While recognized for its efficacy against parasites, ivermectin’s antiviral effects remain uncertain, and clinical trials have not shown conclusive benefits for COVID-19. Health authorities caution against its use for COVID-19 due to potential side effects and a lack of reliable supporting evidence. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t changed its stance, contrary to recent social media posts incorrectly claiming otherwise. The agency maintains its position that ivermectin is not approved for COVID-19 prevention or treatment.
REVIEW
Since the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, many misleading claimshave promoted the ability of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence. Recently, social media claims have suggested that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reconsidered its position and permitted ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19. As this review will explain, this new claim is also misleading.
In fact, the FDA doesn’t have the power to prevent medical doctors from prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19. Therefore the claim that it “now” permits ivermectin use for COVID-19 misrepresents the FDA. The FDA still continues to recommend against it and denied the claims in a tweet. Therefore the implication that the FDA now considers the drug effective against COVID-19 is untrue.
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that has been used for decades to treat a range of parasitic infections in both humans and animals. It has proven highly effective against various parasites, including those causing river blindness, strongyloidiasis, and scabies.
Ivermectin received considerable public attention as a potential COVID-19 treatment after studies reported its antiviral effects against SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, in cells in the laboratory[1].
The results of clinical trials investigating ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment have been mixed and inconclusive[2]. Larger studies didn’t see improvements in recovery time for COVID-19 patients compared to a placebo drug[3,4].
Ivermectin isn’t considered a safe or effective treatment for COVID-19
Due to the lack of supporting evidence, public health authorities and regulatory bodies, including the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the FDA, and the European Medicines Agency, don’t recommend using ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 except in clinical trials designed for testing these effects.Despite these recommendations, ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19 increased significantly. By December 2020, there was almost seven times as much ivermectin prescribed in the U.S. compared to 2019[5].
In 2021, there were many reports of poisonings among people who had taken ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19, having obtained it by prescription or by taking veterinary formulations[6].
The FDA is responsible for evaluating and approving medications for specific uses based on scientific evidence of safety and efficacy. The process involves rigorous preclinical and clinical studies to ensure that a drug’s benefits outweigh its risks.
Off-label prescription refers to using a medication for a purpose not explicitly approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers can legally prescribe an approved medication off-label if they believe it will benefit the patient. This practice is common and allows for medical flexibility, especially when dealing with complex medical conditions.
Ivermectin is FDA-approved for certain parasitic infections, however healthcare providers have the authority to prescribe it off-label if they choose.
The FDA hasn’t approved ivermectin for COVID-19 or changed its recommendations
A civil suit against the FDA argued that the agency’s public information materials to discourage taking ivermectin for COVID-19 had overstepped its remit and prevented doctors from prescribing it off-label.During a hearing on 8 August 2023, lawyers for the FDA stated that doctors have the right to prescribe ivermectin and other medications off-label without FDA approval, in keeping with what the FDA previously said publicly. This correctly described the limits of the FDA’s remit, however this statement was misleadingly used to suggest that the FDA had changed its position on ivermectin.
In response to the claims, the FDA tweeted:
“Although FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals, it has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19, nor has the agency stated that it is safe or effective for that use.”
A widely-viewed video posted on Facebook and TikTok, accumulating more than 1.3 million views altogether, claimed that “the FDA is now saying that it is OK to prescribe ivermectin” and referenced its use for COVID-19. This would lead viewers to wrongly conclude that the FDA changed its position on the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19. However, this was not the case; the FDA only restated that doctors have always had the legal right to prescribe the drug off-label.
Similarly, headlines for articles by the Gateway Pundit and Zero Hedgeclaimed “FDA Lawyer Admits Doctors Can Prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19” and “FDA Drops Ivermectin Bombshell”, respectively. The use of the words “admits” or “bombshell” misleads readers to believe that this is new information that the FDA had tried to conceal. In fact, off-label use of medicines is a common practice that is already widely acknowledged, including by the FDA, and the FDA lawyers’ statements weren’t a revelation by the FDA.
Conclusion
The FDA’s stance on ivermectin remains unchanged—the drug remains unapproved for COVID-19. Since before the pandemic, doctors have been able to prescribe ivermectin off-label as this is beyond the FDA’s control. In a civil suit, a lawyer for the FDA acknowledged that this practice is legal but did not endorse it.REFERENCES
- 1 – Caly et al. (2020) The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Antiviral Research.
- 2 – Popp et al. (2022) Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
- 3 – Naggie et al. (2022) Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association.
- 4 – Naggie et al. (2023) Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association.
- 5 – Barnett et al. (2022)Association of County-Level Prescriptions for Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin With County-Level Political Voting Patterns in the 2020 US Presidential Election. JAMA Internal Medicine.
- 6 – Temple et al (2021) Toxic Effects from Ivermectin Use Associated with Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine.
With three independent labs confirming DNA contamination, and the implications thereof, one can only believe it's mass genocide. Can't wait until they start biopsy stem cells and give conclusive proof.
USA will ride mRNA into the ground (literally millions of bodies to the ground) and then demonize it with a superior replacement.
And to think because Sean's dad has an association to a group that has been blacklisted, had all their income taken away, and fights for freedom that it's' all fake. Well, let's just say that's bad karma and what goes around comes around. Lil' Jerry Curl may never end up finding out who his father really is at the rate Jerry Sr. is going
But what do you expect? These are the same guys that celebrate people's deaths like they are watching a football game. What a bunch of losers and dorks.
Fatty, there isn't one person who believes you have anyone on ignore. You quote us all the time. We are like a bucket of fried chicken sitting in front of you with your balls hooked up to electrodes. You'll gladly let your jewels get zapped (you rarely use them as it were) just for a succulent bite of juicy bits. Now, STFU and stop killing people.
It’s been 4 years since Covid began. At this point posting tweets of alleged deaths from the vaccine 2 years ago is just a coping mechanism for him to deal with guilt of feeding his mother in law horse paste and forcing her retirement into gold bullion. Anyone reading his posts here has long since been vaccinated. So we will either die and he will be vindicated or we will continue to ridicule him for decades everytime he surfaces with a years old tweet of a vaccine death or when gold pops 3%.
The funniest part of this post is that this was initially in the Dungeon and was then shat out like an undercooked piece of greasy fried chicken from UCFBS’s big ass into the water cooler.
It is fun to watch BS and spare tire boy continually virtue signal each other and embarrass themselves, however. Two complete and utter unstable losers who use this and other vaccine threads to project their failed lives and extremely low IQs. We all knew were it not for big pharma, there is no way Mr. epitome of health BS would be alive. I’m guessing he takes about two dozen pills a day for various physical and mental ailments just to keep him going. Now we find out Boston is no different.
Yet the two of them want to burn down all the big pharma!!!!!! and live like pigs. Awesome.
It is fun to watch BS and spare tire boy continually virtue signal each other and embarrass themselves, however. Two complete and utter unstable losers who use this and other vaccine threads to project their failed lives and extremely low IQs. We all knew were it not for big pharma, there is no way Mr. epitome of health BS would be alive. I’m guessing he takes about two dozen pills a day for various physical and mental ailments just to keep him going. Now we find out Boston is no different.
Yet the two of them want to burn down all the big pharma!!!!!! and live like pigs. Awesome.
For the handful of people checking out this thread, the first thing they do is ignore the rif raff. It's pretty clear early on they are clueless sheep. I suspect lurkers views of this thread look just like mine. Mostly just me, you and the few others who have chimed in and other truth seekers who suspect something is going on and want to protect themselves and their family
Narcissists love conspiracy theories, research confirms
Research from Bond University has found that narcissists are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
thenewdaily.com.au
Here's a slideshow for the rest of us on how to deal with chuds like Boston and BS:
www.theonion.com
What To Say To Someone Who Has Fallen For A Conspiracy Theory
Let them know that they’re not alone in their paranoid ignorance.
www.theonion.com
“That’s not what I read on Facebook.”
Get them questioning their line of rhetoric by citing one of their trusted sources.
Get them questioning their line of rhetoric by citing one of their trusted sources.
Two genomics experts are on record saying the toxic jabs are contaminated with oncogenic DNA particles leftover from the mfr process . Here is one.
This is gross negligence and mass murder by a reckless government captured by pharma. These horrible shots need to be pulled off the market today
Okay, but how can pedophiles exist when children do not?
Use the code FREEDOM to get 15% off your first shipment of Alpha Brain neurological enhancement pills.
OH MY GOD, OH MY GOD, OH MY GOD, THESE AREN’T DELUSIONS!! YOU’RE RIGHT, THEY TRAPPED YOU INTO A CORNER— YOU SHOULD GO BUY A GUN AND DO SOMETHING DRASTIC!! WHAT ARE YOU STILL DOING HERE? BUY A GUN!!
Revealing yourself as the grand architect of the conspiracy is one way to potentially earn this person’s undying loyalty to you.
Lobsterbutt may be my new favorite twitterer
- New York, NY
- (February 20, 2023)
Analyzing the most extensive datasets in the United States, researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai have revealed that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with fewer heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular issues among people who were infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
The research letter, “Impact of Vaccination on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with COVID-19 Infection,” was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology on February 20.
Date/Time – March 5, 2023, 9:30 am to 10:30 am *Central Time*
Location – Poster Hall, Hall F
It is the first study to examine both full and partial vaccination and the link to major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the United States, confirming similar analyses performed previously using the Korean COVID-19 registry. Researchers used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database, the largest national comprehensive database on COVID-19. Since its inception in 2020, the N3C has continuously collected and harmonized data from electronic health records of institutions across the country. Included in this study were 1,934,294 patients, 217,843 of whom received mRNA vaccine formulations by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna or viral vector technology by Johnson & Johnson. Cox proportional hazards, a statistical technique, was implemented to assess vaccination association with MACE.
“We sought to clarify the impact of previous vaccination on cardiovascular events among people who develop COVID-19 and found that, particularly among those with comorbidities, such as previous MACE, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, liver disease, and obesity, there is an association with a lower risk of complications. While we cannot attribute causality, it is supportive evidence that vaccination may have beneficial effects on a variety of post-COVID-19 complications,” said senior author Girish N. Nadkarni, MD, MPH, Irene and Dr. Arthur M. Fishberg Professor of Medicine at Icahn Mount Sinai, Director of The Charles Bronfman Institute of Personalized Medicine, and System Chief, Division of Data Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Department of Medicine.
“To our surprise, even partial vaccination was associated with lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events,” said first study author Joy Jiang, an MD/PhD candidate in the lab of Dr. Nadkarni. “Given the magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 infection worldwide, we hope our findings could help improve vaccination rates, especially in individuals with coexisting conditions.”
Location – Poster Hall, Hall F
It is the first study to examine both full and partial vaccination and the link to major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the United States, confirming similar analyses performed previously using the Korean COVID-19 registry. Researchers used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database, the largest national comprehensive database on COVID-19. Since its inception in 2020, the N3C has continuously collected and harmonized data from electronic health records of institutions across the country. Included in this study were 1,934,294 patients, 217,843 of whom received mRNA vaccine formulations by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna or viral vector technology by Johnson & Johnson. Cox proportional hazards, a statistical technique, was implemented to assess vaccination association with MACE.
“We sought to clarify the impact of previous vaccination on cardiovascular events among people who develop COVID-19 and found that, particularly among those with comorbidities, such as previous MACE, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, liver disease, and obesity, there is an association with a lower risk of complications. While we cannot attribute causality, it is supportive evidence that vaccination may have beneficial effects on a variety of post-COVID-19 complications,” said senior author Girish N. Nadkarni, MD, MPH, Irene and Dr. Arthur M. Fishberg Professor of Medicine at Icahn Mount Sinai, Director of The Charles Bronfman Institute of Personalized Medicine, and System Chief, Division of Data Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Department of Medicine.
“To our surprise, even partial vaccination was associated with lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events,” said first study author Joy Jiang, an MD/PhD candidate in the lab of Dr. Nadkarni. “Given the magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 infection worldwide, we hope our findings could help improve vaccination rates, especially in individuals with coexisting conditions.”
