Tuesday, March 28, 2023

Ivermectin vs. COVID-19

Ivermectin vs. COVID-19



This is a collection of papers and resources I accumulated about the drug Ivermectin and its use against COVID-19.  I stopped updating this page when the subject became so politicized that even the science couldn't be trusted.  The drug is safe, cheap (patent-expired), widely available, FDA approved for many uses, and classified by the WHO as "essential medicine" (but not for COVID).  I think it became quite obvious that the vaccine manufacturers enlisted their scientists and media to discredit the drug.  Just look at their quarterly reports to understand why. 

I also became frustrated with the pro-ivermectin crowd when they completely ignored the genetic mutation that inhibits metabolism of Ivermectin (see this study for more details.)  This mutation occurs in a significant percentage of the population (16% in the small study).  Additionally, those who have this mutation often develop side effects with ivermectin use.  (These side effects cease when use stops.)  All of my attempts to bring this to the attention of the 'heavy-hitters' pushing ivermectin were met with stone silence.   This was personal for me as ivermectin had no effect on my wife.  I was very frustrated and confused about this until I found out about the mutation.

If Ivermectin doesn’t work for you, you may want to try Fluvoxamine.

For my page of Ivermectin news articles, click here.

For Ivermectin videos, click here.

For Ivermectin resources, click here.

While collecting these links, I also ran across numerous papers showing Ivermectin to be effective against cancer. 

Meta-analyses

Clinical Trials

Completed trials

Prophylaxis (Prevention)

Hospitalized and Outpatient

Reply to “Ivermectin Treatment May Improve the Prognosis of Patients with COVID-19”

COVID-19 Papers

Papers on other diseases (for more on Ivermectin vs. Cancer see here .)




Posted by at 22 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 2, 2022

Is Quantum Entanglement Evidence that the Universe is an Open System?

 


 

 The laws of thermodynamics basically state that in a closed system; 1) energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only be converted to other forms, 2) entropy is always increasing, and 3) things tend towards equilibrium. These laws would require that the universe in the past had far more free energy and far less entropy and equilibrium than it has today. But how could it have gotten that way without violating those very laws?

   One explanation I’ve heard is that the laws are tied to space and time, and that space and time are tied to the universe itself, so the laws didn’t apply until the universe came into existence at the Big Bang. I think that’s true, but it still leaves a lot of unanswered questions about where the initial energy came from. I think there is a simple solution, however.

   What if the universe is not all there is but is rather part of a larger system - essentially making it an open system? That would essentially negate the laws of thermodynamics since the universe would be able to receive input from another source. 

   I propose two coexisting parallel systems: the material universe tied to space/time, and an immaterial system not tied to space/time. It is from this immaterial system that the material universe initially received its energy with its low entropy. The immaterial system is not subject to material laws, not tied to space/time and therefore perpetual and permanent while the material system is subject to material laws and therefore is ‘winding down‘. 

   There is evidence of a possible tie between these two systems in quantum entanglement - where two quantum particles, separated by great distances, are inexplicably tied together and will change states at the same time. If they are tied together in the immaterial system—outside the constraints of space/time—then their ability to change states at the exact same time, even thousands of miles apart, is comprehensible.

   This differs from the multiverse, with its innumerable parallel material universes, which suffers from the obvious flaw that other material universes must be both observable and detectable.  It may even fit the math better. I don’t know, I am no physicist, and these are just the musings of a curious mind. I’m hoping that people more knowledgeable than myself will critique this and tell me what they think.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)