Nm
- Thread starter KNIGHTTIME^
- Start date
IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE HORSE PASTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Publicly he didn’t announce that he did or didn’t. But I assume he along with all the politicians and rich celebrities privately got vaxxed. Even if he outwardly is broadcasting support for the “freedum of choice” movement.
Weird. So a guy that got vaccinated is also an anti-vaxxer.
That's like calling the white guy that married a black woman a racist because he thinks George Floyd was guilty of resisting arrest.
You can be vaccinated and still play to the anti-vax crowd. I don't know if he is vaccinated or not, but I do know that he has discouraged people from taking the vaccine.
No, but that's what people have been calling him because he said young healthy people may not need to get vaccinated.
Oh. Well I think he’s probably vaccinated. Unless he said he was refusing it. Probably why it had little impact on him. Also he’s a pretty fit guy.
Pretty sure he wasn't vaccinated. He said he took the monoclonal antibodies, the paste, and a bunch of antibiotics. Sounds way harder than just getting the vaccine.
He said he threw the kitchen sink at it. I think he probably is vaccinated, but who knows. Monoclonal antibodies is definitely more experimental than the vaccine. Also more of a pain in the ass and expensive. My grandparents were vaccinated and still had the monoclonal antibodies after getting Covid to cover all the bases. They are in their mid 80s with various health issues and avoided the hospital and are now recovered from Covid. Meanwhile 30-40 year olds without the vaccine are dying.
I don't think you really have an answer to that. It is possible they help him, it is possible they make no difference what so ever.
It isn't a fascination from the left. I think I (and many others) think it is odd how people don't trust the vaccine, but are ok putting all of this other stuff into their bodies that they don't even know if it works. I think the proper question, is why are some on the right so fascinated with avoiding the vaccine?
Florida is barely over the average, but how many doses have been recent after shit hit the fan?
Anecdotally, not as many as you would think. Our state is still doing mobile vax clinics and they came to our YMCA on the 31st. I figured the parking would be horrible but they really only had a line of 4 or 5 people the 5 or 6 times I had to run back and forth to/from the car. I haven't noticed a bunch of people getting vaccines at the pharmacies or groceries stores either and that was very evident a couple of months ago.
My wife is getting her shots at one of the local hospital systems and they are shutting down their vax sites as well for lack of demand. Honestly, if we're all going to have to go through multiple rounds of boosters, you'd think that we would maintain a good portion of our delivery capability. Hopefully they can ramp it back up quickly.
It's not about 'freedom-of-choice,' it's 'freedom-of-no-opt-in' pre-FDA approval.
I don't think people understand the history of most early vaccines, even today! That's why when they use Smallpox and Polio as examples, they look very ignorant of not only their early history, but what Smallpox vaccines still do today.
The quite significant, enlarged heart complication rate of mRNA direct vaccines are very similar to Smallpox vaccines of very healthy-fit, young military servicemen, sometimes higher -- 1 in a few thousand.
It's one case where the more first you are, the less chance you will have issues with SARS-CoV-2 itself, but the greater chance you will have issues with the mRNA direct vaccines!
The 'horse paste' crowd is saying it didn't help, and credited everything else.
The question is: why did he get all the other stuff if the horse paste is so effective?
Monoclonal Antibodies most likely. Although if Ivermectin really did prevent SARS-CoV-2 binding in his body, like was shown with HIV prior, then that would have kept any new viruses from replicating. The combination could explain a lot of things.
^^^ This 100%
Remember, Joe got sick when Monoclonal Antibodies didn't have as much broad support as they do now, and various narratives about GOP Politicans and Pharma behind them 'being in cohorts,' were rampant.
Now that the attitude has changed, we see people like Don Lemon pushing that 'Horse Paste' didn't help, the FDA says it shouldn't be used, but at least he admits Monoclonal Antibodies do work, and were likely what helped him.
But I don't think we can rule out that there is the possibility that Ivermectin could have prevented binding so SARS-CoV-2 couldn't replicate as the Monoclonal Antibodies defeated those already in his system. There is no proof, of course, but it has been shown in some independent studies, while disproved in others -- both being peer-reviewed.
In any case, at least Ivermectin is proven safe by the FDA in certain dosage, and has decades of independent verification, even if it's not proven to be anti-viral other than in select HIV and, now SARS-CoV-2 studies.
This is wholly unlike EIDD-2801 (Molnupiravir) that is still under heavy NDA, we have no data when it was marketed as an anti-flu anti-viral. We only have the non-peer reviewed Pharma studies themselves, and that will be the case for some time.
Just because it's being marketed as an effective anti-viral doesn't mean it's proven safe as something that is not proven to be effective, but has been proven safe. That's why it's important to be objective in all cases, and not political.
In any case, at least Ivermectin is proven safe by the FDA in certain dosage, and has decades of independent verification, even if it's not proven to be anti-viral other than in select HIV and, now SARS-CoV-2 studies.
This is wholly unlike EIDD-2801 (Molnupiravir) that is still under heavy NDA, we have no data when it was marketed as an anti-flu anti-viral. We only have the non-peer reviewed Pharma studies themselves, and that will be the case for some time.
Just because it's being marketed as an effective anti-viral doesn't mean it's proven safe as something that is not proven to be effective, but has been proven safe. That's why it's important to be objective in all cases, and not political.
Last edited:
Nothing is FDA approved effective, which is why 'protocols' exist, both 'preventive' and 'treatment,' as a set of combinational mitigations. That's just simple defense-in-depth and risk mitigation.
Everyone needs to stop with this absolutive assertion that we use only one thing and one thing only. No one does that at all, especially when we still have so many attack vectors that remain open and not mitigated.
We don't just have seat belts or seats rated to X G-forces in aircraft, because they serve different purposes. We have both because they are complementary, in addition to other safety systems.
In the same regard, Monoclonal Antibodies are clinically proven to actively fight infection, while Ivermectin is clinically proven to prevent select viruses, from HIV to SARS-CoV-2, from binding so they cannot replicate - the combo of killing existing and preventing new.
Now you'll also find clinical studies proven both have no or only limited effectiveness as well. And that's the thing... we haven't narrowed down the factors and situations where things do and don't work.
But Ivermectin is proven safe to use, independently and over decades, in doses. There is a lot of discussion, and consternation, about overdoses and how dangerous they are, and if it's required to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 as an anti-viral, which means there is far more risk and should not be considered safe.
This debate is hardly new with SARS-CoV-2, as it was with HIV prior. ddC and ddl also had similar debates, especially since they weren't as proven as safe as Ivermectin in approve dosages. Ivermectin was used initially to fight parasites, was shown to have an added binding inhibitor benefit in AIDS patients with no evidence of parasites. It just ended up not being as effect be as ddC and ddl, or AZT for that matter, at least in already proven, safe dosages... but it was at least proven safe.
So we can either choose to discuss and debate these details, or we can be 3rd graders and make statements that 'why did we use Y, if X does everything?!'
This debate is hardly new with SARS-CoV-2, as it was with HIV prior. ddC and ddl also had similar debates, especially since they weren't as proven as safe as Ivermectin in approve dosages. Ivermectin was used initially to fight parasites, was shown to have an added binding inhibitor benefit in AIDS patients with no evidence of parasites. It just ended up not being as effect be as ddC and ddl, or AZT for that matter, at least in already proven, safe dosages... but it was at least proven safe.
So we can either choose to discuss and debate these details, or we can be 3rd graders and make statements that 'why did we use Y, if X does everything?!'
Ivermectin isn't being used because it's an antibody solution or support.
That's like saying you don't need a firewall at your network border, because you have an intrusion prevention system on your system, in the IT world.
It is being used because there is enough clinical evidence that it does prevent binding, and can inhibit replication. How much and at what doses, especially at higher doses than what has been proven safe, is the debate.
Which means we still need Monoclonal Antibodies or something else to actively fight the existing viruses. This stuff is really easy to understand in the medical journals, which are often written for non-doctor technicians even lower than RNs/LPNs.
Last edited:
And you called me an idiot when you asserted vaccines work better at stopping variants and the spread from them than natural immunity.
That vaccines based on the spike protein from old Wuhan-1 are more effective and will reduce the spread better than recovering from Wuhan-1, let alone Alpha or Gamma, when it comes to preventing and reducing the spread of Delta?!
Do you have any credibility left in this thread?
Similar threads
