MD, PhD, MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

Yesterday, it was reported that one of Austria’s best-known opponents of vaccination has died as a result of coronavirus infection. He vehemently refused treatment in hospital. Instead, he insisted on treating himself – and tragically, he is not an isolated case.

Miracle Mineral Solution” (MMS) is being promoted as a treatment for all kinds of diseases – including, of course, the coronavirus. But MMS is nothing more than the bleach and disinfectant chlorine dioxide, or CDL for short. It made headlines when Donald Trump suggested it as a remedy against Covid-19. Subsequently, CDL became highly popular amongst the anti-vax brigade.

Johann Biacsics was one of the leading figures of the anti-vaccination scene in Austria. On 11 November, he was seen in a Vienna hospital with an acute corona infection. At this stage, he had already taken chlorine dioxide because of fever complaints. Biacsics was, of course, not vaccinated and refused treatment. He was firmly convinced that he had already overcome the infection thanks to his treatment with chlorine dioxide.

The senior physician at the Vienna hospital saw things differently. His condition was “life-threatening”, she said. But instead of accepting treatment in hospital, Biacsics discharged himself and said he would rather treat himself. Once home, Biacsics put in an IV line with chlorine dioxide and sodium chloride. Two days later he was dead.

Only two weeks before his death, Biacsics had demonstrated in Vienna against the Austrian Corona measures. In a television interview from September, he can be seen in front of the parliament. “There are mainly vaccinated people in the intensive care units. 67 percent of them are vaccinated,” he said on camera at the time. When the reporter corrected him, he only replied that he had “inside information”.

His followers are now suggesting that he was poisoned. And for once they are, of course, correct. He basically poisoned himself with MMS. His family, meanwhile, blames the hospital and claim that he did not die of COVID, nor that Biacsics’ death is the result of treatment with chlorine dioxide.

Biacsics is not the first Austrian Covid patient who has refused treatment or used “alternative remedies”. And he is not the first who has died as a result. Self-treatment is booming among vaccination opponents and Corona deniers. It was even propagated in the Austrian parliament. For weeks, FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl (who also is COVID-positive) and his party colleagues have been promoting the deworming drug ivermectin – despite warnings from doctors, scientists, and the manufacturer.

All too often, the consequences are fatal: In Styria, two patients died from poisoning with ivermectin, in the district of Rohrbach in Upper Austria, a Corona patient left the intensive care unit in critical condition and died. He had also relied on ivermectin and refused other treatments.

 

90 Responses to A well-known opponent of vaccination has died of COVID after self-treatment with MMS

  • “A well-known opponent of vaccination has died of COVID after self-treatment with MMS”
    One word comes to mind: ‘Darwin’

    • I’ve been using MMS for years. I’ve been sick once and only once (average was about 3 times a year before). It is super cheap and sooooo versatile (Depending on how strong / diluted one makes it)

      Little fun fact/s for those that are poo-pooing it.

      It was (in some places it’s still being used) used for water treatment.
      Some hospitals / restaurants still use it to sterilize surfaces.

      I have used it for everything from my bathroom all the way to even treating myself and my pets as well as their water. None of us has been in better condition. It would seem that all you folks on this site just swallow what the mainstream presents without looking to what they are not telling you. That’s very foolish. People like myself look at all things presented (including claims from the alternative media, because there’s a lot of gatekeepers / opportunists as well). Any claims made must be backed up. So do yourselves a favor and look at the other side of the coin as well. There’s more than enough credible doctors and scientists advocating for MMS / HCQ / Ivermectin etc etc <<All the things the mainstream poo poo's. Look to americasfrontlinedoctors.com as a start. If I remember correctly they are more than 10 000 in America alone (The one's in Europe has a similar number but their names escape me). Are all of them quacks? Or are they concerned about what the MSM is spewing? So be a fool (or a gatekeeper) or do yourselves a favor and at least look at the flipside

  • There is a grim air of Darwinism about this.

    • It worked for me. I went to a party and a friend showed up feeling sick… after a few hours she went home. The next day she tested positive for covid and got very sick. Along with everyone else… because they all caught covid and all got very sick. Most were vaccinated. Though I’m not vaccinated. I took Turmerichai 3 times a day and mms for 6 days and whilst everyone else were properly sick the only thing happened to me iwas a slight headache and loss of appetite. Tested positive first day and negative the next. Mms was a cure for covid for me ….the Turmerichai tasted great made me feel nurtured possibly helped with the loss of appetite and strengthening my immune system. The rest of the party were still sick for many more days.

        • A perusal of credible online news sources in the UK suggests that the vast majority of Covid-19 patients in critical care units in the UK are unvaccinated.

          There is mounting concern over the number of unvaccinated people becoming ill with Covid-19, who are taking up hospital beds, including critical care beds, which could have been used for patients on waiting lists for other treatments, and patients experiencing other emergencies.

          • These comments by a Consultant Intensive Care doctor in the UK are telling:

            “We know vaccination is vital if we are to minimise the loss of life. Most Covid patients we are seeing in ICU have not been vaccinated. Those who are often have immunity problems which make them more vulnerable. The NHS doesn’t discriminate when it comes to treatment, and we mustn’t judge those who were too anxious to get the vaccine, or who listened to bad advice. It’s heart breaking that so many unvaccinated Covid patients change their mind, only to be told we can’t vaccinate them until they recover.”

            The quotation is from an article at https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/london-hospitals-are-seeing-the-brunt-of-the-omicron-covid-wave-but-it-will-soon-spread-around-the-uk/ar-AAS3Rps?ocid=uxbndlbing

          • This didn’t age well. Drunk too much of the kool-aid son?

          • I beg your pardon?

          • The worm has certainly turned in 2.5 years. The inefficacy of the vax has even been opening admitted by the ” authorities” who were pushing this poison from the beginning…

          • How arrant, how inaccurate, can nonsense get?

          • And still the tinfoil-hatted antivax loons continue to hoot their idiocy. Run along, child. You’ve nothing new to bring to the show.

          • Comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated from April 2021 to April 2022 during the Delta and Omicron surges Vaccinated individuals had a 1.9 X reduced risk of contracting COVID and a 6 X reduction in risk of death from COVID compared to the unvaccinated. But of course it’s a great experiment which doesn’t work and is part of a depopulation agenda yadda yadda.

            The thing is, when these forecast deaths fail to materialise (As per for example the predictions of the QAnon loons) will they admit that they were wrong?

            No. They won’t.

            These are people impervious to logic or evidence. Antivax is a religious faith.

          • @striketheroot

            I was able to test myself free of isolation with a rapid antigen test today. Since I am vaccinated and boostered, I only had a mild cold and no other symptoms of Covid-19.

            Conclusion: As predicted, the “poison” against Corona helps, even if you Corona deniers and vaccination opponents stamp your foot, cover your ears and sing Mimimi.

  • When I was a boy, several (cough) years ago a neighbour had a fascinating book on the history of P;atient medicines in the USA titled One for Man, Two for Horse.

    We are now seeing a slightly new version of this. With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic we first saw legitimate drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin repurposed, now we are seeing the worst of the worst of the quack cures being repurposed. What next? Gwyneth Paltrow’s jade eggs?

    BTW, how fanatical can a doctor be to give himself a bleach IV? It beggars belief.

    • @jrkrideau

      how fanatical can a doctor be to give himself a bleach IV?

      Was Biacsics a doctor? I can’t read that anywhere.

      Anyway, I’d be interested in the definitive cause of death – I can think of several causes, all self-inflicted:
      – Covid-19 complications
      – acute haemolytic anemia (in which red blood cells are basically bleached out of existence)
      – acute kidney failure (as a result of the previous point in combination with elevated blood chlorite levels)
      – acute hypernatremia (excessive sodium blood level, resulting in a host of neurological problems)

      Maybe others can come up with even more possible causes? No doubt, I missed several more possible detrimental effects from taking bleach IV’s with Extra Salt.

      • he was a gardener.
        the cause of death is unknown to me but the range might be wider, as he also used bleach in high concentration for enemas.

      • Thanks, because somehow I also got the impression that he was a doctor–maybe the part about the IV line could have led to that. Anyway, I’m happy to be corrected and happy to know there wasn’t another deluded doctor out there as we have far too many already.

      • What the medical cause of death may be, is irrelevant, I think. The underlying cause was stupidity.

        • @HTM ter Beek
          You are of course right. The main reason for speculating on these distinct causes is to establish the various risks involved in introducing bleach into the body. This information may then be used to hopefully further discourage people from using bleach as a medicine.

          There is also another reason to be interested: surprising as it may initially sound, the medical world has rather limited knowledge about the toxicity and mechanism of action of various substances, especially in vivo – simply because it is of course utterly unethical to test poisons on actual living humans. Experiments in vitro and even animal testing only provide limited information, because every organism has their own array of enzymes and other mechanisms to deal with toxic substances – or simply said: what it highly toxic for one animal, may be mostly harmless for an other animal (although it is safe to say that bleach is universally harmful).
          Case reports such as this one may provide lots of new information.

          • When I was a medical student, about 1960, I was working in an ICU, where people were treated for various kinds of intoxications. There was a database, consisting of a box with cards, with names and chemical formules of all the substances that were ingested over the years. We made many phonecalls to all kinds of factories about the compounds in their products. It was interesting.

    • One for a Man, Two for a Horse: A Pictorial History, Grave and Comic, of Patent Medicines (1961) by Gerald Carson.

    • This article gave misinformation. He didn’t use bleach.

      • @Rebekka

        This article gave misinformation. He didn’t use bleach.

        ?? Sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide are both used primarily as industrial bleach products, which fully justifies the categorization as ‘bleach’. Another use is disinfection, but with the same mode of action as bleach: destroying organic molecules – and, by extension, living cells and pathogens.

        Anyway, whatever you may choose to call this bleach product, it most certainly cannot be called ‘medicine’, and people promoting it as such should be punished for endangering the health of others.

    • the sun is a bleach, vodka is a bleach. Stop parroting mainstream propaganda. I’ve been using it for years. Haven’t been sick since (and I got the flu yearly). What they DON’T tell you little spoonfed idiots is that it IS safe to use (depending on concentration). Some restaurants and hospitals use it. It’s used on food in the food industry, water purification etc etc. It is a safe oxidizer and kills bad pathogens and bacteria. Try having an original thought of your own before repeating what the mainstream tells you. I bet you have ZERO input of your own on this and yet you feel the need give an opinion

  • In this post I saw ” It made headlines when Donald Trump suggested it as a remedy for Covid-19″. I recall the news conference where Trump demonstrated his ignorance of biology and disregard for expert advice when he suggested that since the virus could be killed by bleach that maybe it should be considered as a treatment. However a brief Internet search did not find that he recommended MMS. Only articles that MMS supporters were pleased.
    As opposing sides are 10X more prone to notice their opponents mistakes than their own sides, we should be carful to avoid misstatements. If on the other hand your about statement about Trump was true it would have been better to include a reference.
    I am thank full for bloggers like you who oppose quackery.
    Jim

  • Oh Edzard, you can do better than repeat the tired old phrase “anti-vax” surely? The world is not black and white in the context of covid vaccination. You regularly make these simplistic comments that are really quite juvenile.
    There are also folks described as being “vaccine hesitant” – which is a not very subtle hint they are incapable of being decisive … they dither and have no critical thinking skills.
    FACT CHECK: These so called covid ‘vaccines’ are more accurately described as anti-covid drugs. They trick the body into producing an unknown number of antibodies – a typical ‘one-drug-same-dose-fits-all’ strategy.
    The regulators will not have received the normal safety and efficacy data from the drug manufacturers until the year 2023 at the earliest. This means that we should not section off the un-jabbed as all anti-vax. Like myself, they are better described as “VACCINE-CAUTIOUS” – those peeps who are conducting due diligence and wish to make an informed decision whether to get inoculated with a synthetic cocktail of chemicals humans have not experienced historically and proven to be safe. I’m sure my comments will be fiercely attacked by most contributors to this forum.

    • “I’m sure my comments will be fiercely attacked by most contributors to this forum.”
      NOT FIERCELY, BUT RIGHTLY!

    • @Mike Grant

      those peeps who are conducting due diligence….

      Their numbers keep dwindling for some reason:
      https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

      Perhaps that is due to the toxins that are in the vaccines they are NOT taking?

      • Appalling. Wake up antivax sheeple. Don’t walk calmy, blindly, foolishly into the dark.

        Listen to science. Listen to reason. Listen to medicine. Save your lives.

        You do not know better than science knows.

        You do not.

    • @Mike Grant

      FACT CHECK: These so called covid ‘vaccines’ are more accurately described as anti-covid drugs.

      Nope, they’re absolutely vaccines.
      FACT CHECK:
      – They are administered to people BEFORE they fall ill, whereas most drugs are given to people AFTER they fall ill.
      – They PREVENT a full-blown infection, whereas drugs TREAT an existing infection.
      – They present the immune system with a harmless part of the actual virus, so that it can make matching antibodies and activate memory cells for that particular viral part; drugs do NOT do anything to the immune system, they try to target the virus directly.

      The regulators will not have received the normal safety and efficacy data from the drug manufacturers until the year 2023 at the earliest.

      The regulators have received ALL safety data long ago already, and most of the efficacy data. However, especially the latter is subject to change, as it takes time to fully evaluate how well a vaccine works, how fast its protection wanes etcetera. This is why the efficacy data is officially considered ‘preliminary’. But for all intents and purposes, these vaccines are just as safe as any other vaccine, and quite effective at preventing serious disease.

      Like myself, they are better described as “VACCINE-CAUTIOUS”

      Um, no. They are best described as ‘ill-informed stubborn vaccine-decliners’. Covid-19 vaccines are proven to be extremely safe and very effective, and it is astronomically unlikely that they turn out to have any serious side effects after all, both short-term or long-term. In spite of all this, you refuse to trust millions of scientists, doctors and other experts worldwide, AND you even refuse to trust the fact that well over 5 billion vaccination have been administered by now, without any significant problems.

      But I have a question: do you travel outdoors at all? If so, then how can you blindly trust all those thousands of anonymous people out on the road not to kill you by making mistakes or by being drunk or perhaps even suicidal? Why do you blindly trust the air plane manufacturer that their newest plane is safe? Or do you wait for 10 years before boarding any new type of plane, just to make sure there are no hidden, long-term defects? And oh, how you check if the pilot is sober and mentally stable? And how can you be sure that no bomb is on board? Or are you indeed “TRAVEL-CAUTIOUS”?
      The same of course goes for many more things. Do you do groceries? And are you “FOOD-CAUTIOUS”? After all, you don’t know exactly where that cauliflower came from. For all you know, it could be laden with, in your words, “a synthetic cocktail of chemicals”, even though the label says it’s 100% organic – but then you only have the grocer’s word for it to trust.

      Face it: every single day, you blindly trust lots of complete strangers not to harm you, deliberate or by negligence or otherwise. Then why distrust the millions of scientists and experts who unanimously say that Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective – and who have a huge body of data to back this up?

      • Ahh, I was expecting someone to respond with that attitude. It’s a common affliction known as UNCONSCIOUS BIAS for which there is no known remedy. Good luck with your narrow minded thinking.
        Bye the way, traditional ‘vaccines’ given in early childhood (even yours perhaps) for measles, mumps and other infectious diseases don’t need two jabs plus additional ‘boosters’ within a 12 to 18 month period. Traditionally, real vaccines last for the lifetime of the recipient and they contain either a dead (non-active) or significantly reduced version of the original virus – whereas these anti-covid drugs contain neither -I’m sure you know that?
        Many immunologists agree with me, but you already know that I suspect.

        • Mike Grant:

          Bye the way, traditional ‘vaccines’ given in early childhood (even yours perhaps) for measles, mumps and other infectious diseases don’t need two jabs plus additional ‘boosters’ within a 12 to 18 month period.

          Really?

          From the Australian vaccination schedule (vaccine schedules vary between countries, but Australia’s isn’t particularly unusual):
          MMR: 12 mo, 18 mo
          DPT: 2 mo, 4 mo, 6 mo, 4 yr, 12-13 yr
          Hep B: at birth, 4 mo, 6 mo
          Rotavirus: 2mo, 4mo
          Pneumococcal: 2mo, 4mo, 6mo, 12mo

          Further vaccines with similar frequencies are given to people from vulnerable populations.

          https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/10/national-immunisation-program-schedule-for-all-people.pdf

          • And still not enough:
            German RKI recommends a “booster” against tetanus and diphtheria every 10 years.

            Lifelong? My Ass…

        • Traditionally, real vaccines last for the lifetime of the recipient and they contain either a dead (non-active) or significantly reduced version of the original virus – whereas these anti-covid drugs contain neither

          Holy smoke Mike Grant! What a revelation! Who would have thought a 1970s Mini and 2021 Tesla are both cars. Traditionally, cars run on gasoline, but a Tesla runs on batteries and is much faster than Mini. Hence Tesla should be classified as anti-gasoline land rocket.

          traditional ‘vaccines’ given in early childhood (even yours perhaps) for measles, mumps and other infectious diseases don’t need two jabs plus additional ‘boosters’ within a 12 to 18 month period.

          What! Only one jab for measles! I can’t believe that we have vaccines that can prevent disease with just one JAB! STOP THE PRESSES!

          Surely measles virus spreads and mutates at the same rate as coronavirus, who would forget the great measles outbreak of 1980s that killed more than 5 million people in under 2 years. Many virologists and epidemiologists would agree with me.

        • @Mike Grant

          Ahh, I was expecting someone to respond with that attitude.

          What attitude? Addressing your mistakes about vaccines not being vaccines, and about regulatory bodies not getting any safety and efficacy information about those vaccines for several years to come?
          Sorry, but this is not ‘attitude’, it is called ‘science’, where we try to understand the world around us as best we can, by continuous improvements and corrections in our collective knowledge. And yes, criticizing people who claim things that are wrong is an integral part of this (albeit not always the most pleasant part).

          It’s a common affliction known as UNCONSCIOUS BIAS …

          Isn’t most bias unconscious? If someone consciously and perhaps even deliberately skews or misrepresents facts, data and results, it would no longer be called ‘bias’, but ‘fraud’ and ‘deception’. But feel free to explain to me what kind of bias I’m supposedly suffering from, because I have no idea (as this bias would – of course – be unconscious).

          Bye the way, traditional ‘vaccines’ given in early childhood (even yours perhaps) for measles, mumps and other infectious diseases don’t need two jabs plus additional ‘boosters’ within a 12 to 18 month period.

          You seem to have no idea how wrong you are. Or otherwise I’m beginning to suspect that you’re merely trolling. As prl already showed, almost all childhood vaccines are administered in the form of several doses, spread out over anything between a few months and 10 years, depending on what research finds is the most effective schedule – which varies between vaccines and the diseases they prevent.Many Covid-19 vaccines have shown to be most effective with at least a month between the first two jabs. The decision to provide booster shots is based on the observation that immunity appears to be somewhat waning after a year, in combination with the emergence of new, more infectious virus varieties. All this, BTW, belies your previous suggestion that authorities have no idea how safe or efficacious the vaccines are, and are idly waiting for this information to be provided in 2023.

          Traditionally, real vaccines last for the lifetime of the recipient …

          And once again, you are plain wrong. Many vaccines show waning protection over the years, with the pertussis vaccine as a notable example: waning immunity can occur after only a few years of the last jab. Tetanus vaccines also only offer protection for about 15 years, after which time period a booster shot is recommended.

          … and they contain either a dead (non-active) or significantly reduced version of the original virus.

          Yes, this is mostly correct for traditional viral vaccines. But some bacterial vaccines (diphtheria and tetanus vaccines) have a different mechanism of action: they do not contain the pathogen or parts thereof, but an inactivated form of the toxins that these bacteria produce. So in case of an infection, the immune system immediately eliminates the highly dangerous toxins, with the pathogens taken care of rather slower. But I won’t hold this against you, as most laypeople don’t know these details, and you are very much a layperson on this subject.

          … whereas these anti-covid drugs contain neither.

          Ah, I think I understand now: you are using your own made-up definition of ‘vaccine’ in order to deny that these Covid-19 vaccines are indeed vaccines. So you say that a vaccine must by definition contain pathogens or parts thereof. Well, the aforementioned tetanus and diphtheria vaccines already prove you wrong.
          Anyway, a vaccine is defined by Encyclopedia Brittanica> as “suspension of weakened, killed, or fragmented microorganisms or toxins or other biological preparation, such as those consisting of antibodies, lymphocytes, or messenger RNA (mRNA), that is administered primarily to prevent disease.” Other sources have similar definitions, none of which suggest that the presence of pathogens is a necessary characteristic.
          In case you note that this definition has been changed quite recently to include mRNA vaccines: well yes, that is true. This is how scientific information works, including definitions: things are updated to reflect new findings.
          Anyway, it is quite simple really: the defining characteristic of a vaccine is that it stimulates the immune system in order to protect the organism against an infectious disease. The defining characteristic is NOT that it contains pathogens or parts of pathogens – otherwise raw sewage would also be a ‘vaccine’.

          Many immunologists agree with me

          I seriously doubt it. Can you show me one (just one) immunologist who actually agrees with anything you say here? Please note that you are making a statement of fact here, and it is therefore your obligation to provide supporting evidence – especially given that your statements are completely at odds with prevailing scientific and medical insights.

          • To all

            The protocol for giving the vaccines designed for children with subsequent doses is quite different matter from vaccines that did not last for the designed specified time. Get your fact straight
            Covid vaccines (mRNA) were designed and sold to us as two dose jabs…. period. If the vaccine can provide efficacy for 12 months, boosters can be a legitimate solution. However, a flu jab that is effective for less than a year is a failed vaccine.
            Even many of the best vaccine advocates don’t agree with being jabbed every six months.

          • @Roger Ruthy

            Covid vaccines (mRNA) were designed and sold to us as two dose jabs…. period.

            Well, yes, because pre-market clinical testing in tens of thousands of test subjects showed that two doses with at least 28 days in between was the most effective schedule.

            You almost make it sound as if it is somehow a bad thing that these vaccine indeed worked as expected …

            However, a flu jab that is effective for less than a year is a failed vaccine.

            Where can I find information about this definition of ‘failed vaccine’? You sound an awful lot like this Mike Grant person, making up your own definitions as you go along in attempts to argue that Covid-19 vaccines aren’t much good.

            Even many of the best vaccine advocates don’t agree with being jabbed every six months.

            First of all, you are making a statement of fact without proper evidence. Or actually, you are stating three things as a fact: 1) that from now on, everyone is supposed to get booster vaccinations regularly, 2) that these booster jabs are supposedly necessary every six months, and 3) that many vaccine advocates are adverse to these very frequent booster shots.
            Ad. 1: At the present, there are no actual plans to offer these booster vaccinations on a regular basis; they are advised on an ad-hoc basis, simply because the whole course of the pandemic is largely unpredictable.
            Ad. 2: The real time period between the first vaccinations and the currently offered booster shots is not six months, but rather nine months or more. Here in the Netherlands, I can probably get my booster in the course of March, or eleven months after my first vaccination.
            Ad. 3: As with your ‘failed vaccine’ definition, I strongly suspect that you also made up this claim that many vaccine proponents speak out against (frequent) booster shots. Can you provide some examples where prominent vaccine proponents say the things you claim?

            Anyway, again you make it sound like it is somehow a Bad Thing to vaccinate the population against a potentially deadly disease – which also very frequently turns out to have serious long-term sequelae for those surviving the infection.
            The alternative to vaccination is to accept far more strain on healthcare, plus of course a significantly larger number of dead people, combined with more economic damage as a result of all those sick people.
            I’d gladly accept even a vaccination every six months if that’s what it takes to keep the maximum number of people healthy, active, and happy – me included, of course :-).

            So what is the downside, in your view?

          • Ruthy:

            The protocol for giving the vaccines designed for children with subsequent doses is quite different matter from vaccines that did not last for the designed specified time. Get your fact straight.

            That’s not what I was addressing in my post. I was addressing Mike Grant’s claim that:

            Bye the way, traditional ‘vaccines’ given in early childhood (even yours perhaps) for measles, mumps and other infectious diseases don’t need two jabs plus additional ‘boosters’ within a 12 to 18 month period.

            Which is a completely different thing from what you are talking about.

      • you don’t know exactly where that cauliflower came from. For all you know, it could be laden with, in your words, “a synthetic cocktail of chemicals”, even though the label says it’s 100% organic – but then you only have the grocer’s word for it to trust.

        Or rather than “a synthetic cocktail of chemicals”, it may be loaded up with 100% organic listeria: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/recall-frozen-cauliflower-listeria/

      • give me a list of scientists that says so. You mistake a few $cientist$ on tv for the real thing

        • Why should he? Do the work and get your own list. Or are you suggesting that no scientists think Covid vaccines are vaccines?

          • Bar the J&J one, yes. Because any of the other one’s uses MRNA technology which by definition is not a vaccine (They tried to change the definition in the dictionary recently, hoping no one would notice). A better / closer description would be Gene therapy.

            Let’s just be clear, the doctors alone that disagrees with what’s presented on tv numbers over 17 000 (These are just the ones that are brave enough to speak out. Most are silent, because of threats to lose their practicing license ). Anyways I don’t have to try to convince you, everything will be shown via a streaming service to the International Criminal Court and I invite you and all the naysayers on this site to have a look and then you can come back and run your mouth all you want. This won’t be theories. It will be experts with proof. You don’t go to the ICC court with the allegations that are made if you do not have a solid case

            https://odysee.com/@GrandJury:f/Grand-Jury-1-EN:0

            Link is the Opening Statements, made on 5 Feb 2022

          • “(They tried to change the definition in the dictionary recently, hoping no one would notice).”

            Which dictionary? Published by whom? Who tried? What evidence do you have of this attempt?

          • CDC did not change the definition. They added a supplement as mRNA-vaccines a novel type of vaccine.

          • RPGNo1

            Yes, an addition to the definition IS a change.

            https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-976069264061

            Why did they see a need to change the definition ?

          • because science has moved on

          • Please state which dictionary you are referring to, published by whom?

          • Merriam-Webster dictionary

            and yes, apart from the J&J jab, the other ones should actually be called gene therapy. That is a much more accurate description of how an mrna jab works <<this ties into why they changed the definition

          • @VillageIdiot:
            It is irrelevant how antivaccine people such as you choose to (re)define the names of scientific principles.

            Gene therapy alters DNA in body cells order to cure or treat a particular existing condition.
            Vaccines prevent illness and death resulting from infectious diseases.

            mRNA vaccines do not alter DNA, but they do prevent illness and death. Therefore they are vaccines, not gene therapy.

            BTW: there are lots of viruses that insert their genetic information in our DNA. This too is of course not ‘gene therapy’, as those changes in our DNA do not treat conditions; they are simply the way the virus manages to survive.

    • “Fact check”

      “Due diligence”

      You Use Those Words, I Do Not Think They Mean What You Think They Mean.

    • And you people are dying in large numbers because you won’t get the vaccine. Do you know what’s in all that stuff they will pump into if you go into the hospital with Covid? Have you done you’re own “research?”

      • Do you know what’s in all that stuff they will pump into if you go into the hospital with Covid?

        A cocktail of ivermectin and bleach, I suppose 😉

  • The former AfD district chairman of Lower Franconia, Gottfried Walter and his wife probably died of Corona. Both were unvaccinated and over 70 years of age and were considered corona deniers and vaccination opponents.

  • What a complete bunch of BULLSHIT..LOL

  • Sympathy = nil.

  • So many lies in this article. I will address one: Ivermectin

    Ivermectin has shown itself to be a highly effective preventative, and early treatment agent.

    Almost 4 Billion Doses of This Drug Administered: Side Effects are MINIMAL.

    AP reported 70% of poison calls in Mississippi were for ivermectin. The true number is reportedly 1.4%. Other contributing factors unknown.

    1987: 3.7 BILLION DOSES Administered Since Inception in 1987
    An Unparalleled Safety Profile – With Almost No Side Effects

    The only side effects attributed – are those considered to be a part of the
    diseases they treat – which is the ridding of the parasites.

    60% of Sub-Sahara Africa Takes on a Yearly Basis…

    Time in Use: Over 35 Years
    1996: Patent Ended / FDA Approved
    2015: Nobel Prize Winning Therapy

    ⠂An Unparalleled Safety Profile
    ⠂Side Effects Next to None
    ⠂60% of Sub-Sahara Africa Takes on a Yearly Basis

    Summary: PROVEN

    Ivermectin is FDA-approved in humans for other uses.
    The ‘vaccines’ for Covid-19 are NOT FDA-approved for Covid-19. IF one had been fully approved – none of the other EUAs could be used.

    Off-label use, prescription of medicine by a doctor for other maladies is common in the U.S. and is legal.

    Research the rest. To the writer of this garbage – you too will be held accountable. Stop lying and stand for humanity. People are suffering and dying; we’ve yet to see the repercussions of this genocide. There is no question – we are AT WAR – WWIII – Against Humanity. Weapons we cannot see, propaganda we can barely avoid. Psyops is everywhere – and apparently, well ingrained in the motive of this article.

    References
    The Safety of Ivermectin: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

    Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19: PMID: 34466270 / https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/

    Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19

    ScienceDirect; New Microbes and New Infections; Volume 43, September 2021, 100924: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297521000883?via%3Dihub

    Keep Searching For Truth… and You Will Find It
    NEVER GIVE UP – KEEP FIGHTING BACK
    Godspeed All…

    • “Ivermectin has shown itself to be a highly effective preventative”
      NOT TRUE!
      and the links you provided are not backing up this statement

    • any more ‘lies’ that you want to disclose?

      • My goal is to share truth; to save lives; to educate. Perhaps I could have refrained from assuming your article a ‘lie’ – when, indeed, it may have been a lack of information; and for that – I apologize.

        Ivermectin is only one of the alternative treatments you speak on that I have or will address on this post, that we disagree on – with a plethora of supporting documents. I have been working tirelessly around the clock to inform people to potentially save lives. Time is of the essence – people are dying; I simply do not have the time to debate you. Please, be diligent with your research – seeking nothing but the truth; you may, indeed, save a life.

        The information I provided, as well as the links, provide 100% clarity & confirmation on the efficacy and effectiveness of Ivermectin. Please see the following for further confirmations:

        Additional Evidences:
        Leah Willingham of the Associated Press (AP) joins Rolling Stone in having to correct an embarrassing error, as propagandists try to controversialize the medicine ivermectin to treat Covid-19: https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/09/another-ivermectin-story-and-false-reporting-this-time-by-ap/

        August 26, 2021 | Cureus
        “Ivermectin as a SARS-CoV-2 Pre-Exposure Preventive in Healthcare Workers: a Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study” :

        https://www.cureus.com/articles/63131-ivermectin-as-a-sars-cov-2-pre-exposure-prophylaxis-method-in-healthcare-workers-a-propensity-score-matched-retrospective-cohort-study

        A study from doctors who continued to use Ivermectin to subdue COVID-19 with great success in the Dominican Republic. IVM as a Covid Pre-Exposure Preventive: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IVM-as-a-Covid-Pre-Exposure-Preventive…pdf

        Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial can be found at the following link:
        https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1

        For an up-to-date overview of all published studies on ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19: https://c19ivermectin.com/

        In addition, a meta-analysis of all studies can be found at https://ivmmeta.com/
        (constantly updated).

        A majority of the studies (until January 12, 2021) were included in a comprehensive Review of the Emerging Evidence Supporting the Use of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

        A brief summary of the studies at that time can be found in the accompanying One-page summary of the scientific review on ivermectin: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/One-Page-Summary-of-the-Clinical-Trials-Evidence-for-Ivermectin-in-COVID-19.pdf

        Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

        Global Ivermectin Adoption for Covid-19 – 37%: https://ivmstatus.com/

        In closing…
        The untruths you are spreading may be costing people their lives. In the event that you truly believe in what you have shared, ‘we forgive you.’ ~ Luke 23:34

        In the event that you are blatantly attempting to dissuade people from treatments that work… you have gone to far, and will one day be held accountable.

        Unlike you, and others adamantly opposing life saving treatments, we – on the side of humanity, are more than willing to look at any and all supporting documents that support your claims.

        No matter what you or I say now… in the end, God Wins. We will all one day be accountable to Him. Godspeed.

        • sorry, but none of the links you provided is evidence in a scientific sense

          • No apologies necessary… as you walk in your own understanding.
            I stand firmly by submissions.

            Just Because you say it, does not make it true. You speak foolishly, and clearly have not reviewed the submitted evidences.

            ~ Proverbs 1:7 May you find your way to truth.
            ~ Proverbs 14:7-8 Done here, Godspeed.

          • you can stop trying to convince me that you are a moron. I believe you

          • Yeah, because double blind placebo controlled studies don’t count scientifically. What a joke.

          • they do, but ALL of them need to be assessed CRITICALLY to generate a reliable picture.

        • @Jemma

          The topic being discussed on this post is MMS. What does ivermectin have to do with MMS?

          No matter what you or I say now… in the end, God Wins. We will all one day be accountable to Him.

          Why can’t god punish the untruthful people right now with a bolt of lightning from the sky? After all you were saying the untruths are killing people. Have you thought of how many people the god would save if he acted now rather than some unspecified time in future? Wouldn’t it be productive if you were to pray harder to convince god to act now and save people rather than repeatedly post nonsense here? Think about it. Perhaps critical thinking skills are not your strong suite, but there is nothing wrong in trying.

          • As stated – I was addressing one falsity claimed in this post.
            I will not be silenced or bullied. I stand by all submissions.
            It is clear where you stand. You will not win this.
            It is clear you are not open to understanding.
            ~ Proverbs 1:7 May you find your way to truth.
            ~ Proverbs 14:7-8 Done here, Godspeed.

          • @Jemma

            I am still not sure what falsity you are addressing because the blog post isn’t about ivermectin. I think you have your wires crossed, because spouting nonsense in the name supernatural beings is certainly a symptom.

            Maybe popping ivermectin pills will fix that. I heard it is a Nobel prize winning therapy.

          • Jemma,

            “A mild answer turns away rage, but a harsh word stirs up anger” Proverbs 15:1

            “The naive person believes every word, but the shrewd one ponders each step” Proverbs 14:15

            “Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person”. Colossians 4:6.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories