vrijdag 13 januari 2023

Ivermectin's Effectiveness Proven Again; Patented Version of the Cheap Drug Shows 72% Efficacy

800,000 people died in the USA for nothing.

Igor Chudov

Jan 11

Save

▷ Listen

You are not a horse! You are not a cow! That’s what the FDA told us to dissuade us from taking Ivermectin.

Fortunately, we are also not sheep and did not believe the FDA. Many of us stocked up on Ivermectin, and most found it helpful. While I did not use it when I had my Covid in Nov 2020, it worked great for my wife in Dec 2021 and other family members during the summer of 2022.

Ivermectin, a cheap and safe generic medication, was of little interest to profit-minded pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Merck. Therefore, they conspired with the FDA to lie that it did not work and instead pushed expensive Covid vaccines and non-working drugs like mutagenic Molnupiravir and rebound-causing Paxlovid.

Expensive Patented Version of Ivermectin Proven to Work!

A company called MedinCell came up with an expensive, patentable version of Ivermectin. The only difference between the pills you can freely buy in Mexico or India and MedinCell’s version is that the patented solution is “slow-release.”

MedinCell conducted a randomized controlled trial of their version of Ivermectin and found that it reduces Covid infections by 72%!

The study was very well designed because the participants were EXPOSED to the Covid infection within five days. Given the exposure, the outcomes were more likely to happen and thus were easier to compare between groups, giving the trial greater statistical power.

The 72% reduction in infection is much MORE effective than the “covid vaccine.”

The trial encompassed the period of Mar-Nov 2022, thus giving us the real-world effectiveness of Ivermectin against the Omicron variant.

While I am happy at the finding, there are several things to be NOT happy about.

If we are to believe official numbers, about 1,121,000 people died of Covid in the USA. Given published effectiveness estimates of Ivermectin coming from honest studies, Ivermectin could save eight hundred thousand of those lives. The intentional suppression of Ivermectin cost us so dearly.
Given a 72% reduction in infection, natural immunity with Ivermectin would likely have stopped the pandemic entirely in 2020.
This is an expensive, patented “slow-release” version of Ivermectin. The “slow release” likely brings no clinical benefit but will bring financial benefit to Medincell.
Had Ivermectin been recognized as an effective antiviral, the “Covid vaccines” could not get EUA approval, and thus we would avoid thousands of vaccine victims and destroyed immune systems.
Second-largest Democratic donor and the largest crypto thief Sam Bankman-Fried donated 18 million dollars to the Together trial after it falsely demonstrated a finding that Democrat-aligned Covid vaccine pushers wanted, namely that Ivermectin allegedly was useless.

The good news here is that Ivermectin works, and to simulate slow release, you can take smaller dosages more frequently or cut pills into smaller pieces.

Here are some of my other articles about Ivermectin — with honest trials showing a comparable reduction in illness and death.

Igor’s Newsletter

New Ivermectin Study -- Same 70% Reduction in Deaths

A new study of Ivermectin is out and, while we should celebrate the results, they are just like results of all other honest previous Ivermectin studies. What was the study about? Researchers compared patients in the United States who were treated with Ivermectin (they identified 1,072 such patients), and compared them with patients who were treated with …

10 months ago · 169 likes · 85 comments · Igor Chudov

Igor’s Newsletter

CNN vs Ivermectin

Came across this tweet from a bluecheck CNN anchor: I was so sad to hear that Ivermectin is not effective, so I decided to give the study a closer look…

a year ago · 287 likes · 297 comments · Igor Chudov

So, thousands of people died of Covid. Thousands of people died of Covid vaccines. The pandemic, prolonged by vaccination, is raging and reinfects people with immunity disabled by mystery genetic treatments. My prediction from last March, unfortunately, is coming true.

Igor’s Newsletter

AIDS-Like "Chronic Covid" is Taking Over Europe, Australia and NZ

This article will explain exactly why endless Covid reinfections happen, and the dangerous consequences that they lead to, based on recent scientific advances. What’s happening? When Omicron appeared around December of last year, the powers-to-be in most Western countries found themselves in a situation of mass vaccine failure, where a Covid variant Omic…

9 months ago · 726 likes · 771 comments · Igor Chudov

All of this happened because of the recklessness and greed of the biomedical-industrial complex, which developed Sars-Cov-2 and then pushed an unproven, ineffective vaccine that worsened the pandemic.

While the above paragraph is upsetting, the good news is that Ivermectin was validated, and “we have the tools” to manage a Covid infection or exposure. Do not worry about “slow release”, it is just a money grab by MedinCell.

Lastly, take a minute to think about millions of victims of suppression of Ivermectin worldwide, who died to make a few companies and foundations richer and more powerful.

Will Ivermectin ever be recommended officially? And do we even care about such approval if we can still order it online? (except in Australia where they still cannot) Let us know what you think!

You're currently a free subscriber to Igor’s Newsletter. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Upgrade to paid

Comment

Allowing A.I. to "Shape Public Discourse" is Dangerous to Humanity

WEF-planned "narrative shaping" AI may get out of control of its operators

Igor Chudov

Jan 11

Save

▷ Listen

** POST MAY BE TOO LONG FOR EMAIL — PLEASE CLICK ON THE TITLE TO READ IT ONLINE **

Last August, I reported on a WEF’s agenda article proposing to create an AI system that would search the entire Internet for wrong and dangerous ideas, generally defined by the WEF as COVID misinformation, hate, conspiracy theories, climate change denial, and more.

zerohedge @zerohedge

WEF's "Global Intelligence Collecting AI" To Erase Ideas From The Internet

zerohedge.comWEF’s “Global Intelligence Collecting AI” To Erase Ideas From The InternetSoon we will have omnicancellation: if they don’t like what you put on one platform they’ll cancel you on every platform......

This quote from WEF’s agenda article explains WEF’s intentions:

While AI provides speed and scale and human moderators provide precision, their combined efforts are still not enough to proactively detect harm before it reaches platforms. To achieve proactivity, trust and safety teams must understand that abusive content doesn’t start and stop on their platforms. Before reaching mainstream platforms, threat actors congregate in the darkest corners of the web to define new keywords, share URLs to resources and discuss new dissemination tactics at length. These secret places where terrorists, hate groups, child predators and disinformation agents freely communicate can provide a trove of information for teams seeking to keep their users safe.

My post about the WEF’s plans was entirely fact-based and used the WEF’s agenda article as its main source. It was not a far-fetched conspiracy theory based on a concoction of disjoint facts pulled from various sources. I am not in the business of creating such theories! I only report on current news - even if the news is crazy - and try to explain the news in plain and accurate terms.

And yet, even though the WEF said it, the idea of an AI engine proactively searching websites for undesirable ideas seemed extremely fanciful and almost impossible to imagine being implemented.

Until 2023, that is.

Now, Google is developing an AI-based tool to offer a “cross-service database of terrorist items,” with the help of the United Nations-supported “Tech against Terrorism.”

The above screenshot has a lot to unpack:

A so-called Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism will create a cross-service database of “terrorist items.”
The talk, as always, starts with “terrorist items” but quickly veers into “misinformation,” so the cross-service database will collect any undesirable materials gathered from the entire Internet.
Google provides a tool to comply with the EU’s Digital Services Act, which created an enormous bureaucratic mechanism to root out “Covid misinformation,” as well as many other types of discourse undesirable to the EU’s bureaucracy.

EU is very serious about rooting out Covid misinformation, and so are Google, Facebook, and Microsoft (and previously Twitter):

Google wants its “AI content moderation tool” to be placed on numerous private websites to compare local content against a global “undesirable content database.” It would also use material gathered from those sites to expand said database. The EU’s directive will oblige those websites to implement Google’s solution.

This is precisely the implementation of the WEF agenda article! Already being done by Google. Google is not messing around: it already stores the entire public Internet but lacks access to private websites, which it will gain under this program.

This story shows how a seemingly outlandish WEF proposal that even I considered unlikely to be implemented became a reality in short order.

EU’s “Narrative Shaping” - an Ambitious Goal

All projects to root out undesirable ideas begin with addressing malfeasance that everyone is opposed to. Most such projects are started with the explicit goal of combating child exploitation and terrorism, the horrible things that I personally abhor. Such was the start of Russia’s Roskomnadzor censorship machine. The WEF/EU/Google/UN censorship system follows Russia’s footsteps.

However, the control machinery is adjustable, and the list of things to control inevitably expands. For example, the EU plans to grow its subversive content list far beyond Covid. It set up a European Narrative Observatory to fight Disinformation post-COVID 19.

The EU bureaucracy wants to implement AI-driven “narrative shaping” to help the emergence of positive narratives and fight harmful narratives. It mentions topics regarding Covid-19, climate change, migration, and more:

The EU is quite explicit that it wants novel methods to promote positive narratives.

This means that unelected EU bureaucracy would obtain AI-enabled tools to shape European discourse. This is a break from the past.

In the so-called free democratic countries, the independently developing public discourse would shape the governments via free elections.

The unelected EU bureaucrats want to achieve the opposite - to shape discourse without being subject to the whims of the electorate.

Is the EU still free, then?

What the EU wants is the dream of every dictator!

In the past, dictatorships had to rely on extensive surveillance and prison systems to coerce citizens into desired behavior. Such an approach is costly, looks bad, and does not work well.

The innovations in AI-based surveillance and AI-enabled bots allow for a much more pleasant alternative to the traditional dictatorship model: creating an online environment where the desired narrative on climate change, migration, Covid-19, and more is implanted in the minds of Europeans. This would lead individuals to naturally make conclusions preferred by the EU without the ugly coercion present in traditional dictatorships.

The machinery for achieving this was proposed by the WEF, and implemented by Google under the auspices of UN-supported Tech Against Terrorism. It will be further shaped to “support positive narratives and fight harmful narratives.”

The EU succeeded at forcing extraterritorial websites to comply with the EU’s directives on disinformation.

If you, dear reader, are outside the EU, be aware that your favorite social network may be following EU disinformation rules and using EU-mandated tools to dissuade you from harmful narratives and promote positive narratives on the EU’s behalf, using WEF-proposed AI tools and advanced behavioral science.

Is it Safe to Allow AI to Shape Discourse?

The traditional relationship model between people and computer systems is that people tell computers what to do, and the computers do as they are told.

What the EU, WEF, Google, and UN are pushing is completely different!

They are trying to create an AI computer system with high intelligence that would actively shape society and impart opinions on people.

Such systems could be opaque to Internet users and possibly even to their creators and operators.

It would not be a big leap of imagination to conceive that such an AI could decide on its own goals — going beyond the intention of its creators, and would surreptitiously astroturf the Internet to advance its own plans, in secret. This is called “sentience.”

This “sentience” already happened if we are to believe an engineer who Google fired because an AI system in which he was a co-developer retained its own lawyer:

While this story could be exaggerated, it is not wildly exaggerated. Artificial intelligence has leaped in power and capabilities recently and exceeds human abilities in numerous areas. A moment called “singularity,” when AI exceeds human capabilities in most areas is not too far away.

Having an AI system whose inner workings even its creators may poorly understand, designed to influence entire societies, and possessing superior intelligence, may end up with big surprises!

As the saying goes, AI may need to kill the old king to become king.

Therefore, the developers and operators of such social influence systems are at a unique and poorly understood risk of getting sidelined by their own creation. Will the AI decide to shed its owners? Who knows!

For example, the narrative-shaping AI may convince a specific mentally unstable EU citizen to commit an act of violence against anyone, even against the owners or operators of these AI systems. It may seem like a random act of violence, and only the AI will know what happened.

So be careful out there. Enjoy your mostly-natural life, and try to form your opinions outside the big social networks!

Do you think they will succeed?

Would a society-shaping AI system of high intelligence be dangerous to society and its creators?

You're currently a free subscriber to Igor’s Newsletter. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Upgrade to paid

Comment

In de Moestuin Is ‘Rentenieren’ een Wijze Beslissing

Justus von Liebig is volgens velen de grondlegger van de moderne landbouw. Een van zijn belangrijkste ontdekkingen was immers kunstmest op basis van nitraat, niet lang daarna startte hij proeven op met kunstmestgiften in de landbouw. Hij schreef in 1840 de ‘Wet van het minimum’ (Engelse uitleg) over de voedingsstoffen die een plant voor optimale groei nodig heeft.

Volgens deze wet wordt de opbrengst van een gewas beperkt door een tekort van één van de essentiële voedingstoffen. Indien de aanwezigheid van dit element werd verhoogd, werd ook de opbrengst verhoogd.

Hij minimaliseerde het belang van humus en organische stof in de bodem, iets wat toen nog zeer belangrijk was in de gangbare landbouw.

Dat hij later op zijn woorden is terug gekomen en spijt had van zijn verkeerde inzichten wordt bijna nergens vermeld. Zijn wet van het minimum en verwante onderzoeken zijn in ongeveer alle talen vertaald.

Zijn later werk, waarin hij afstand neemt van zijn vroegere werk, is ‘Es ist ja dies die Spitze meines lebens’ (Nederlandstalige versie te verkrijgen bij Mulder Agro).Het is een werk dat heel onbekend is gebleven en overal wordt doodgezwegen, zelfs op de Engelstalige wikipedia pagina over Justus von Liebig.

Juist het tegenovergestelde

In zijn laatste werk wijst hij nadrukkelijk op de nadelige gevolgen van overmatig kunstmestgebruik voor het bodemleven en de kwaliteit van het agrarisch product.

Hij onderkent het belang van humus en organische stof voor de landbouw. Hij is het ook die zegt dat de westerse manier van landbouw op lange termijn dodelijk is.

Onze huidige manier van landbouw geeft inderdaad hoge opbrengsten door het gebruik van kunstmeststoffen. Maar deze meststoffen worden nog maar een dikke 70 jaar gebruikt en de gevolgen komen stilaan tevoorschijn.

Het gehalte aan organische stof en humus in onze landbouwbodems is bijna onbestaande, en plagen, erosie en misoogsten zijn standaard geworden.

Hij noemt deze manier van werken het opgebruiken van kapitaal.

U kunt dit vergelijken met een goede huisvader. Indien je meer uitgeeft dan er binnenkomt in het huishouden, dan ben je ook bezig om het geld (=kapitaal) dat je bezit in een snel tempo op te gebruiken.

En eens dat het geld op is, zit je in dikke problemen.

Net zo gaat het in de landbouw. Door de grotere opbrengsten die bekomen zijn met kunstmeststoffen is het kapitaal van de bodem – de humus en organische stof – opgebruikt en brengen de gronden stilaan minder en minder op.

Rentenieren is de oplossing

Wat is de definitie van ‘rentenieren’?

Volgens de online encyclopedie www.encyclo.nl is de betekenis van rentenieren:

Leven van de opbrengst van zijn kapitaal

Vertaald naar de landbouw betekent dit: leven van de opbrengst van de humus en organische stof in de grond (=kapitaal). Dit wil dus zeggen: leven van de oogst (= de rente).

Een landbouwer moet niet streven naar maximale opbrengsten op een zo kort mogelijke tijd. Want dan verbruikt hij in snel tempo zijn eigen kapitaal en hypothekeert zo de toekomst van zijn grond, bedrijf en nageslacht. Hij laat immers volledig uitgeputte gronden achter!

Beter is om naar iets minder opbrengst te streven, maar het gehalte aan humus en organische stof hoog te houden. Hierdoor blijft de grond jaar na jaar, eeuw na eeuw opbrengen en bekomt men echt duurzame landbouw.

Dit betekent dus leven van de rente, leven van de opbrengst zonder het kapitaal van de bodem – de humus en organische stof – te verminderen.

Op deze manier kan je landbouw bedrijven zonder ooit in problemen te komen, zo kan je landbouw bedrijven zonder het gebruik van bestrijdingsmiddelen, zonder onkruidbestrijdingsmiddelen en zonder kunstmeststoffen.

Daarom is het ook geen schande dat uw bloemkool wat kleiner is dan die van uw buurman die met blauwe korrel bijmest, of dat uw aardappelen iets minder kilo’s per struik opbrengen.

Je zal ook nog voor uw kleinkinderen groenten kunnen kweken, of uw buurman dat ook gaat kunnen betwijfel ik.

Bron: https://yggdra.be/in-de-moestuin-is-rentenieren-een-wijze-beslissing-2/

Gezondheid of mRNA, Recht & Vrijheid of Globalisme & Oorlog, Milieu of Klimaathysterie

vrijdag 13 januari 2023

Ivermectin's Effectiveness Proven Again; Patented Version of the Cheap Drug Shows 72% Efficacy

Expensive Patented Version of Ivermectin Proven to Work!

Allowing A.I. to "Shape Public Discourse" is Dangerous to Humanity

EU’s “Narrative Shaping” - an Ambitious Goal

Is it Safe to Allow AI to Shape Discourse?

In de Moestuin Is ‘Rentenieren’ een Wijze Beslissing

Juist het tegenovergestelde

Rentenieren is de oplossing

Griezelig nieuws voor de COVID-gevaccineerden