| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Virus Prophylaxis and Treatment, exDemMom wrote: |
I don't do internet searches for medical literature. I use Pubmed (www.pubmed.gov), which is a database containing citations, usually along with abstracts, and sometimes with the full text of the article. Yes. I use Pubmed too. But for the article I found via the internet search, it was a pubmed article. Pubmed's search engine is so poor I wasn't able to find documents I wanted until I searched the Internet for pubmed articles. The advantage of using Pubmed is that only legitimate medical and scientific journals are catalogued there. You pharmas have to get your stories straight. WHen I posted a pubmed article from a doctor saying that the pharmas had not provided informed consent to their trial patients for the Covid 'vax', the trolls whinged that Pubmed lets any old yahoo post whatever they want. I knew they were lying, but I'm pointing to a lack of consistency in your pharma disinformation ranks. Sure, I can search the internet and find all kinds of stuff claiming miracle cures for anything. But if it's not published in the accepted medical literature, I take it with a huge grain of salt. So, let's take a look at the paper you found, "The Anti-Cytokine Storm Activity of Quercetin Zinc and Vitamin C Complex" PMID: 35721668. I'm wondering if you know the 'PMID' in the article of mine you cite is its PubMed identifier, because it's a PubMed article? This was a study in mice. That's all. The biology of mice is different than humans, meaning that we cannot simply extrapolate the results of mouse studies to humans. And yet I don't recall you complaining when the Covid bivalent vax was tested on 6 mice. I guess it's time for you to pretend that medicine just never tests on mice? You know, all the animals tested with the mRNA platform in the run-up to the plandemic sickened and died after being vaxxed and then exposed to the virus being tested. Their immune systems overheated - cytokine storm. Why do your scientific requirements vary so much? It's like you only criticize content that exposes the lies of Fauci, vax adverse events, lack of efficacy etc. and turn a blind eye to all of medicine testing on mice (bivalent Covid vax) or failing to pass animal trials until the vax is rolled out worldwide. Before we can even test a drug in humans, we generally do studies in more than one animal species, from fish to rodents to rabbits to non-human primates. And only if we see the desired results in all of those animals, we move on to human studies. And even then, no matter how promising the animal studies were, the results might not pan out in humans. 'Scientists' and 'pharmas' were not deterred when the various species of animals tested with the mRNA platform (upon which Covid 'vaccines' are based) prior to Covid sickened and died, meaning the mRNA platform never made it to human trials until actively injected during a PCR-is-FAKE-TEST plandemic. Who said 'all the indoor air is filtered'? No one. Ah, you read into my words something that I did not say. I never said that all indoor air is filtered. I said that if you want to avoid catching an airborne pathogen, you would have to stay inside where the air is filtered. Obviously, staying inside where the air isn't filtered won't help. The air should be filtered through HEPA filters, although I did not state that previously. That's a pathetically weak dodge. Lockdowns happened without a single mention of 'filtered' air; people were confronted if they didn't stay indoors or had limited access to outdoors. You just throw stuff against the wall and make up stupid deflections if questioned. We all watched the vaccinated get Covid again and again and again - you're one of the few who are still trying to claim the 'vaccine' will prevent infection. Let's try to understand how the immune system works. I already understood it long ago - you should have studied up before you began pharma trolling the Covid plandemic. If someone who is vaccinated keeps catching Covid over and over, it means that their immune system is impaired. False, Sherlock. Science doesn't work that way. Science doesn't say, "well the experimental vaccine tested for a few weeks must work so therefore this is proof the patient's immune system is defective here."
The CDC became aware that the public was getting reinfections and hurriedly changed the definition of 'vaccine' online (seriously) to mean vaccines 'help' you not become as ill. Our elites were claiming to catch Covid 'over and over' and they didn't say 'oh my immune system is impaired' they said, "I'm so glad I had the vaccine or this would be so much worse'. Were you just out of the country when the reports came out showing the Covid 'vaccines' were never tested for 'infectivity' or prevention? Yeah - never tested for that. Then BMJ's Peter Doshi noticed that Pfizer just ignored data that showed the vaccines were not nearly as effective as claimed - it really wouldn't have earned Pfizer the EUA if the actual trial data was published to begin with - I think it was 18% effective over a period of weeks, which says nothing about the vax effectiveness over months - that was never tested. A vaccine is not a shield, it is a training program to teach the immune system how to respond to the pathogen without actually being exposed to it. 'Vaccines' used to be defined as prevention until the Covid vax failed on a global scale and then the CDC changed the definition of a vaccine to more of a 'training program'. But that idea is trash too - because the Covid 'vaccine' is based on a 'related corona virus'. That's right - the Chinese developed a computer model of the Covid virus because they said isolated samples of the Covid virus were 'unavailable.' Yeah, and even though the medical regime lied when it said the Covid virus was classified as 'novel' and therefore none of us would have any immunity to it, they memory holed that false claim when they said they based the PCR, and the model of the Covid Virus, and hence the Covid vaccines, not on the actual 'unavailable' Covid virus, but instead on the related corona virus they said didn't exist (had Covid really been a 'novel' virus). The Covid 'vax' training program is based on failed toxic logic. The spike protein 'trains' the body to attack spike proteins which are distributed throughout the body of a vaxxed person. Then some patients experience autoimmune illnesses as a result of the body attacking spikes on vital organ tissues. I'm fully vaccinated and had the experience of driving a laboratory-confirmed Covid patient to the doctor then to the pharmacy. HINT - the laboratory confirmed means nothing since the PCR assay was not based on the actual Covid virus, but on a 'related corona virus'. WHo knows what your 'patient' actually had, if anything. So, there I was, in a confined space with a symptomatic Covid patient. And I did not catch Covid. I tested myself twice. Nope, no Covid. My immune system learns very well from vaccines. Means nothing except your understanding of science is tremendously poor. Covid was not a 'novel virus'. Dr. Yeadon explained that a researcher tested original SARS patients with SARS again, over a decade later, and the patients' immunity held - they did not get SARS. That researcher then tested the former SARS patients with 'Covid' and they did not become ill. We don't have to be exposed to every single virus - the SARS and Covid viruses (whatever was being called Covid with a fake PCR) had enough in common for the patients to resist intentional exposure to 'Covid'. Corona viruses are so common that most of us have had exposure to them at one time or other in our lives. That's how immunity functions. Many people were exposed to Covid and never became ill. The fake 6ft zone and masking didn't help - people really were exposed and many didn't become ill, BEFORE the 'vaccine'. Who knows what your immune system has learned and WHEN it learned it, and from whom. There's zero proof the 'vaccine' protected you - if you understand what proof is, of course. They don't need to be the same or even similar. Quercetin and Zinc work together well to mitigate Cytokine storm and other aspects of illness, and improve absorption of Zinc. Only in mice. And quercetin and (H)CQ are different enough to tell me that they do not interact with the same targets. Look at those structures. The CQ has a chlorine side group, which is negatively charged, but it contains three nitrogens that are positively charged. Thus, it has an overall positive +2 charge. The addition of the hydroxy group to make HCQ reduces the charge to +1 and makes it more water soluble. On the other hand, the quercetin has five hydroxy groups and two other oxygen atoms, giving it an overall negative charge of -7. Chemically, those negative charges mean that it cannot interact with the same targets that the positively charged (H)CQ interacts with. And if they are not interacting with the same targets, they are not interchangeable. That's ridiculous - you really are claiming if the structure of the molecules are different, then the wealth of studies indicating better zinc uptake resulting from Quercetin WITH Zinc are wrong. All that people are saying is Quercetin helps increase zinc uptake. You have zero credentials sitting next to your anonymous screen name, and those like Zelensky effectively treating seriously ill patients put their names and reputations next to their words. The combination of ZINC and Quercetin was safely tested on patients throughout the Covid plandemic and it worked. Human testing was safe and it worked. SOME zinc is not absorbed by SOME cells Nope. Zinc is a necessary ion for all cells. There is no need to take any supplements to increase zinc uptake, since all cells will transport it inside when they need it. Zinc uptake in foods is relatively low and therefore many benefit from supplementation. Quercetin helps zinc uptake per blood testing. Patients are tested for zinc, read low, given Quercetin alongside zinc and later zinc levels read 'in the zone'. This is among the easiest supplementation protocols to understand, but you pretend that Querceitin has to have the same molecular structure as HCQ or people shouldn't take it. Zinc levels had a significant impact on patient health, whether you like it or not. ALL OF THE ANIMAL STUDIES OF THE mRNA platform 'didn't pan out' because the animals sickened/died. Um, animal studies of mRNA vaccines did not cause the animals to die. All living things contain mRNA, so the suggestion that it is somehow toxic is nonsensical. Let me try to simplify this for you since you are ignoring the word 'platform', in my phrase 'mRNA platform'. mRNA platform refers to the mRNA 'vaccine' development which I read up on starting with the late 1999's to early 2000's. That mRNA platform always failed miserably, with test animals sickening and exhibiting ADE and cytokine storm. The animals never survived to the point that the mRNA platform could ever be tested on people, until the failed mRNA platform was utilized for the Covid 'plandemic' in progress. That mRNA PLATFORM pleased Fauci so much he said that all vaccines going forward would be based on the mRNA PLATFORM. Furthermore, if an experimental drug proves toxic in animals, the FDA won't allow testing in humans. We had a rabbit die after dosing it with our experimental drug. The FDA would not allow us to continue development on that drug until we could explain to them how the rabbit died and could assure the FDA that the problem was due to rabbit physiology and does not apply to humans. Our development effort was set back at least six months and tens of thousands of dollars because of that rabbit death. And you have no problem with the fact that mRNA PLATFORM 'vaccines' were tested for years and never made it past animal trials until Covid. The fact that the bivalent Covid 'vaccine' was tested only on 6 mice before administration is fine in your book. But you're here pushing an experimental an inadequately test gene therapy. I say that because the FTC filing for the Covid 'vaccines' stated that these were gene therapy but would be allowed to be marketed as 'vaccines' in order to avoid 'vaccine hesitancy'. I cannot find any verification of this. If you have a link to the FTC filing, post it. Scientifically, an mRNA vaccine cannot be a gene therapy agent because it does not interact with or alter DNA. In order for something to be classed as gene therapy, it must either be made of DNA or interact with DNA in such a way as to alter the DNA. Experts Discover Over 200Billion DNA Fragments in a Single Dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA VaccineScientists STUNNED by First Proofs of Contaminated DNA Getting Absorbed into Human Cells –“Sunak Better Watch Out” says Dr BhakdiSV40, a DNA Altering, Carcinogenic Contaminant, found in Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccines#PlasmidGate: Biotechnician raises plasmid DNA contamination in covid injections during Austrian TV talk showIt is unfortunate that people understand so little of molecular biology that they don't even know that RNA and DNA are different and have different properties. If only people understood that, no one would believe the lie that mRNA is a gene therapy. We understand they are different and have different properties. Moderna said the mRNA PLATFORM was gene therapy in its quarterly report here:
The FDA knew the Covid 'vaccines' were gene therapy:
Great article at the link: https://dailyclout.io/report-95-mrna-covid-19-shots-vaccines-or-gene-therapy-products-part-1/ I don't know if anyone ever told you, but Vitamin D is commonly sold in unit of 5,000 U. Seems like you need to rush around and tell the industry not to sell those supplements. You should probably tell the public that if they follow your toxic advice and stay indoors to avoid exposure, they won't get enough sunlight to produce Vitamin D- just a thought. Lots of vitamins are sold in doses that are far higher than the actual daily requirement. The research is only beginning in the area of effects of consuming mega quantities of necessary vitamins. The FDA does not usually step in to control the quantities of vitamins and minerals in supplements until there is a large body of evidence to warrant such control. The concept of getting sunlight to induce vitamin D production is a bit problematic. The UV in sunlight directly damages DNA, and this DNA damage can eventually lead to carcinogenesis. So, a fair-skinned person who avoids sun exposure because of concerns about skin cancer might not be able to get enough vitamin D. The latitude also matters (a lot) since people in northern latitudes might not be able to get sufficient vitamin D through sun exposure alone. The only safe way to supplement vitamin D is through monitoring of blood serum vitamin D levels. When I moved from Maryland to Texas, my serum levels of vitamin D shot up and I had to cut back on the supplements. Supplementation with Zinc and Quercetin proved to be safe and effective throughout the plandemic unlike the heavily propagandized alternatives. |
