Zero evidence to support his claims. The only study that had any data to indicate ivermectin was related to infertility was a small one conducted by Nigerians and they claimed it made men infertile. Much larger studies were done involving pregnant women and nothing happened to the women or the gestating children. This guy is chasing relevancy now that his career is dead. He will never work for another drug company, so he pursues the wingnut market instead.
"Strong fertility inhibitor" would be a more scientific way to say it. That seems more designed for drama.
I don't know this 'doctor' making the claim, but there have been a lot of studies on ivermectin prior to the covid hoax that mentioned nothing about it affecting fertility. Did he say he plans to follow up with some kind of evidence supporting his claim?
[ - ] doginventer [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 08:21:32 ago (+1/-0)
Wiki pedes hate him so he’s got that going for him. Also he stood against his employer Pfizer when it counted. As for the papers he’s referring to, I don’t know.
Michael Yeadon is a British anti-vaccine activist[1][2][3] and retired pharmacologistwho attracted media attention in 2020 and 2021 for making false or unfounded claims about the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.[4][2]The Times has described him as "a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists"[5] and "a key figure in the antivax movement".[6] Until 2011, he served as the chief scientist and vice-president of the allergy and respiratory research division of the drug company Pfizer, and is the co-founder and former CEO of the biotechnology company Ziarco. Michael Yeadon - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yeadon
I think “strong fertility inhibitor” is softer than what is indicated by “Violent Fertility Toxins” and that does seem to be what he is describing.
I think its like the difference between an ugly chick and a troon :)
[ - ] Sector2 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 09:17:41 ago (+1/-0)
“strong fertility inhibitor” = pregnancy fails in some way
“Violent Fertility Toxins” = pregnancy results in convulsions and death
Although maybe I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt, since actual pregnancy isn't mentioned, just the possibility of pregnancy that fertility conveys. That's a strong claim, given that the vast majority of people are fertile during their breeding years.
Have fertile ivermectin users really been experiencing those effects?
From Comments : SRHarville 20 hours ago This guy sounds suspiciously like a Pharma troll. He didn’t cite any studies, or explain why 50 years of Ivermectin use hasn’t produced fertility precautions. Not to mention that millions of dogs get Ivermectin monthly for heart-worm prevention, yet have puppies fluently. 2 likes Reply ‹ Hide 1 reply RAVries Admin 9 hours ago Good point you're making there.. Thanks. He is of course an ex vice-president of Pfizer.. This globalist syndicate is brutal, and merciless on anyone that poses a threat to their advancements/objectives.. Who knows, they might have got'n Yeadon back under their control again. 0 likes
[ - ] doginventer [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 15:53:01 ago (+1/-0)
Further: Is ivermectin really a genocidal tool of the globalists? - TESS LAWRIE, MBBCH, PHD AUG 19, 2024 https://open.substack.com/pub/drtesslawrie/p/is-ivermectin-really-a-genocidal-f19 This is an interesting piece from Dr Tess Lawrie. I don’t disagree with quite a bit of what she said. But we’ve exchanged messages on some areas where I am unable to get a response, which isn’t opinion but evidence based & which matter fundamentally. 1. There’s been no pandemic. Nor is “covid19” a new & defined illness. WHO are not fortune tellers. There must have been increases in all causes mortality especially in the frail elderly PRIOR to WHO calling a pandemic. That did not happen, anywhere. Professor Denis Rancourt (a qualified epidemiologist among other things) & team have published many reports showing the absence of evidence of a pandemic. I agree that early treatment for all illnesses should be considered. I’m absolutely not against this principle. The objection I have is to the specific phrase “early treatment for covid19”, because the evidence is that it’s a deliberate misattribution to a non existent, claimed-to-be viral illnesses that existed before 2020 (See note at end about viruses). 2. Ivermectin may well have uses as Tess outlines in parasitic infestations. It’s derived from a natural product that’s extremely toxic to insects. It appears not acutely toxic to humans. We’re not seeing this part differently. However, there’s an extensive body of evidence in multiple species (mice, rats and rabbits at least) all showing adverse effects in reproduction. It’s not a case of “insufficient evidence to condemn it”. I am in the camp that I need to be sure I’m not harming people. We lack definitive evidence of safety in this regard and there’s much troubling information. The rule of thumb (which is underscored by conserved biological mechanisms at play) is that a drug that shows similar toxicity in two or more species is considered likely to do the same in humans. I assure you, that’s the basic assumption that all regulators would have, if they hadn’t gone rogue in recent years. The point about dose levels. Almost all toxicity testing is done at multiples of the anticipated human blood levels. If a drug isn’t safe at 10x or 30x human levels, you are unlikely to get a pass from regulators. Why? Because some people will achieve higher blood levels than the average. And some of those will be more sensitive to potential adverse effects. This isn’t hard. There’s clearly a risk. Why take that risk? Western populations aren’t suffering parasitic infestations. You’re left with a claim for benefit in a disease that doesn’t exist. If it exists, it failed to raise all cause mortality despite allegedly spreading through a population replete with frail, elderly people. It cannot be ignored that there is another potential cause for harms to fertility. Like many drugs, ivermectin is cleared (removed / eliminated / excreted / detoxified) from the body by various biochemical processes. One is called “pgp”. It turns out that several highly promoted supplements interact with pgp in such a way as to block the ability of your body to clear ivermectin. It would not be surprising if some people taking ivermectin were also taking some of these supplements (which are also unnecessary). Readers may judge if a public debate it needed. Obviously I don’t think it is. I’ve laid out the basis upon which I advise people not to use ivermectin for alleged covid19 especially if you’re also taking supplements. We are at war. Tess and I agree that globalist “elites” are encroaching on our freedoms with a view to digital, totalitarian control and both of us believe there’s already sufficient evidence that an objective from this is their intention to murder a large proportion of us. I have famously analysed the claimed composition of the not-vaccines, which are gene-based injections. Specifically, I’ve shown that there are multiple, independent, unnecessary and (to me) obvious mechanisms of harm in humans. They’re designed intentionally to injure, kill and reduce fertility in survivors. I wasn’t wrong about this (how I wish fervently that I was).
It seems there is an adverse effect on spermatogenesis. Its not clear to me from this study how much ivermectin these subjects (africans with onchocerciasis) were actually taking or how long after ivermectin use the semen was studied. It seems that similar findings were made in livestock studies.
I think the spermatogenesis problem here is probably only affecting sperm produced during a limited time frame after drug use and I doubt the drug can cause a permanent sterility problem once its been eliminated from the body. I haven’t read the animal studies cited in it. But trace amounts of this drug could hang around in the body for weeks.
This drug is also known to cause birth defects at higher doses so it should not be taken by pregnant women or women who might be pregnant.
I think taking this drug a few times when you have the flu is still a pretty good idea if are older/not in shape/have a hard time bouncing back from flus and colds. But as a weekly prophylactic against the coof (what my dad was doing during covid) I would say dont take it if you are trying to have children. Healthy young people shouldnt really need it anyway.
Well I learned something new from this video. However I think Yeadon is pretty paranoid. Ive seen him say some crazy stuff before. Every drug with a negative side effect is not a plan by the illuminati. That is just nuts.
Ivermectin has been used heavily on livestock for decades and if it had severe impact on fertility, animal husbandry industry would know it by now.
As to the discussion on drug/nutriceutical interactions with ivermection through the PGP and other pathways (CYP3a4 is the main one I think), he is grossly exagerating the facts. Lots of drugs/nutriceuticals have interactions along these pathways. He is probably refering to quercetin which is a PGP suppressor (PGP forms a barrier which keeps Ivermectin from reaching the brain, where it is neurotoxic.) but the margin of safety for ivermectin is so wide that the chance of harming yourself in this way is virtually nil unless you are taking retarded high doses. The majority of interactions with ivermectin are mild and simply increase the time your body takes to eliminate it.
He is acting like it is some sort of smoking gun that quercetin and IVM interact on the PGP pathway. Maybe 5-10% of drugs do. Even more drugs interact on the CYP3a4 pathway. Those are really common interactions. Most of these interactions are mild and negligable. Doctors co-prescribe things that interact all the time. This is hardly a gotcha. Ivermectin has a reputation for having minimal drug interactions among the people who study them. @sector2
[ - ] Sector2 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 14:12:08 ago (+1/-0)
I got the horse paste (per @PostWallHelena) back when, but was going to wait to actually get the flu before taking it. Last flu was 12-14 years ago and sucked so bad I vowed to never get it again. Pretty much haven't had colds since then either.
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 0 points 9 monthsAug 25, 2024 05:09:26 ago (+0/-0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8hBU5Vsty4
Here are a few articles to get you started in your search for ivermectin truth:
https://timtruth.substack.com/p/p-glycoprotein-deficiency-genetic
https://timtruth.substack.com/p/clastogenic-18-studies-highlighting
https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ultimate-guide-to-anti-fertility
https://timtruth.substack.com/p/the-deadly-toll-of-ivermectin-blindness
[ + ] Spaceman84
[ - ] Spaceman84 4 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 14:39:41 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus 0 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 17:08:59 ago (+0/-0)
Brought to you by the same dindus who will claim that an evil sorcerer has stolen their penis.
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 3 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 07:16:15 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 0 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 08:04:46 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 4 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 08:11:20 ago (+4/-0)
I don't know this 'doctor' making the claim, but there have been a lot of studies on ivermectin prior to the covid hoax that mentioned nothing about it affecting fertility. Did he say he plans to follow up with some kind of evidence supporting his claim?
[ + ] Althea
[ - ] Althea 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 08:15:55 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 08:21:32 ago (+1/-0)
As for the papers he’s referring to, I don’t know.
Michael Yeadon is a British anti-vaccine activist[1][2][3] and retired pharmacologistwho attracted media attention in 2020 and 2021 for making false or unfounded claims about the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.[4][2]The Times has described him as "a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists"[5] and "a key figure in the antivax movement".[6] Until 2011, he served as the chief scientist and vice-president of the allergy and respiratory research division of the drug company Pfizer, and is the co-founder and former CEO of the biotechnology company Ziarco. Michael Yeadon - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yeadon
I think “strong fertility inhibitor” is softer than what is indicated by “Violent Fertility Toxins” and that does seem to be what he is describing.
I think its like the difference between an ugly chick and a troon :)
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 09:17:41 ago (+1/-0)
“Violent Fertility Toxins” = pregnancy results in convulsions and death
Although maybe I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt, since actual pregnancy isn't mentioned, just the possibility of pregnancy that fertility conveys. That's a strong claim, given that the vast majority of people are fertile during their breeding years.
Have fertile ivermectin users really been experiencing those effects?
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 3 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 14:00:52 ago (+3/-0)
SRHarville 20 hours ago
This guy sounds suspiciously like a Pharma troll. He didn’t cite any studies, or explain why 50 years of Ivermectin use hasn’t produced fertility precautions. Not to mention that millions of dogs get Ivermectin monthly for heart-worm prevention, yet have puppies fluently.
2 likes Reply ‹ Hide 1 reply
RAVries Admin 9 hours ago
Good point you're making there.. Thanks. He is of course an ex vice-president of Pfizer.. This globalist syndicate is brutal, and merciless on anyone that poses a threat to their advancements/objectives.. Who knows, they might have got'n Yeadon back under their control again.
0 likes
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 09:40:28 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 15:53:01 ago (+1/-0)
Is ivermectin really a genocidal tool of the globalists? - TESS LAWRIE, MBBCH, PHD AUG 19, 2024
https://open.substack.com/pub/drtesslawrie/p/is-ivermectin-really-a-genocidal-f19
This is an interesting piece from Dr Tess Lawrie. I don’t disagree with quite a bit of what she said. But we’ve exchanged messages on some areas where I am unable to get a response, which isn’t opinion but evidence based & which matter fundamentally.
1. There’s been no pandemic. Nor is “covid19” a new & defined illness. WHO are not fortune tellers. There must have been increases in all causes mortality especially in the frail elderly PRIOR to WHO calling a pandemic. That did not happen, anywhere. Professor Denis Rancourt (a qualified epidemiologist among other things) & team have published many reports showing the absence of evidence of a pandemic. I agree that early treatment for all illnesses should be considered. I’m absolutely not against this principle. The objection I have is to the specific phrase “early treatment for covid19”, because the evidence is that it’s a deliberate misattribution to a non existent, claimed-to-be viral illnesses that existed before 2020 (See note at end about viruses).
2. Ivermectin may well have uses as Tess outlines in parasitic infestations. It’s derived from a natural product that’s extremely toxic to insects. It appears not acutely toxic to humans. We’re not seeing this part differently. However, there’s an extensive body of evidence in multiple species (mice, rats and rabbits at least) all showing adverse effects in reproduction. It’s not a case of “insufficient evidence to condemn it”. I am in the camp that I need to be sure I’m not harming people. We lack definitive evidence of safety in this regard and there’s much troubling information.
The rule of thumb (which is underscored by conserved biological mechanisms at play) is that a drug that shows similar toxicity in two or more species is considered likely to do the same in humans. I assure you, that’s the basic assumption that all regulators would have, if they hadn’t gone rogue in recent years.
The point about dose levels. Almost all toxicity testing is done at multiples of the anticipated human blood levels. If a drug isn’t safe at 10x or 30x human levels, you are unlikely to get a pass from regulators. Why? Because some people will achieve higher blood levels than the average. And some of those will be more sensitive to potential adverse effects. This isn’t hard. There’s clearly a risk. Why take that risk? Western populations aren’t suffering parasitic infestations. You’re left with a claim for benefit in a disease that doesn’t exist. If it exists, it failed to raise all cause mortality despite allegedly spreading through a population replete with frail, elderly people.
It cannot be ignored that there is another potential cause for harms to fertility. Like many drugs, ivermectin is cleared (removed / eliminated / excreted / detoxified) from the body by various biochemical processes. One is called “pgp”. It turns out that several highly promoted supplements interact with pgp in such a way as to block the ability of your body to clear ivermectin. It would not be surprising if some people taking ivermectin were also taking some of these supplements (which are also unnecessary).
Readers may judge if a public debate it needed. Obviously I don’t think it is. I’ve laid out the basis upon which I advise people not to use ivermectin for alleged covid19 especially if you’re also taking supplements.
We are at war. Tess and I agree that globalist “elites” are encroaching on our freedoms with a view to digital, totalitarian control and both of us believe there’s already sufficient evidence that an objective from this is their intention to murder a large proportion of us.
I have famously analysed the claimed composition of the not-vaccines, which are gene-based injections. Specifically, I’ve shown that there are multiple, independent, unnecessary and (to me) obvious mechanisms of harm in humans. They’re designed intentionally to injure, kill and reduce fertility in survivors. I wasn’t wrong about this (how I wish fervently that I was).
Ultimate Guide To Anti-Fertility Ivermectin Genocide: 14 Studies Showing It Wrecks Fertility
https://open.substack.com/pub/timtruth/p/ultimate-guide-to-anti-fertility
Tim Truth: Ivermectin Is A Hideous DEPOPULATION POISON; Many Studies Expose Its Anti-Fertility - Tim Truth [57.26]
https://rumble.com/v5bp3bh-tim-truth-ivermectin-is-a-hideous-depopulation-poison-many-studies-expose-i.html
Tim Truth: Ivermectin Is A Hideous DEPOPULATION POISON; Many Studies Expose Its Anti-Fertility Effects - JUST THINK HOW THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA WAS PUSHED THIS POISON? - HOW MANY OF US WERE DECEIVED? - HOW MANY OF US ACTUALLY TOOK IT? - Yeah, Over The Counter Purchase is Africa... *** 1,648 views August 20th, 2024 Tim Truth - All these studies are linked in full here: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ultimate-guide-to-anti-fertility - Interested in learning more about ivermectin harms? The Deadly Toll of Ivermectin: Blindness, Comas & Deaths Induced By The Neurotoxic, Genotoxic Poison: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/the-deadly-toll-of-ivermectin-blindness "CLASTOGENIC" - 18 Studies Highlighting Ivermectin Induced DNA Breakage, Damage & Related Disorders: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/clastogenic-18-studies-highlighting Ivermectin, WHO, UN, Merck, The World Bank & Kissinger's World Population Plan Of Action: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ivermectin-merck-the-world-bank-and Pig Study Raises MAJOR Questions Of Dangers Of Combining Quercetin & Ivermectin: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/pig-study-raises-major-questions 2 Concerning Studies: CBD & THC Enact Potent P-Glycoprotein Inhibiting Effects, Raising Very Concerning Questions About Heightened Ivermectin Toxicity For Marijuana Users: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/2-concerning-studies-cbd-and-thc: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/studies-find-nattokinase-and-quercetin Studies Find Quercetin & Natto K2 INHIBIT P-Glycoprotein; Will This Increase Ivermectin Toxicity Susceptibility?! https://timtruth.substack.com/p/studies-find-nattokinase-and-quercetin P-glycoprotein Deficiency (Genetic Or Drug Induced) & Increased Ivermectin Toxicity: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/p-glycoprotein-deficiency-genetic - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES - Mirrored From: https://old.bitchute.com/channel/timtruth/
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 15:45:19 ago (+1/-0)
https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf
It seems there is an adverse effect on spermatogenesis. Its not clear to me from this study how much ivermectin these subjects (africans with onchocerciasis) were actually taking or how long after ivermectin use the semen was studied. It seems that similar findings were made in livestock studies.
I think the spermatogenesis problem here is probably only affecting sperm produced during a limited time frame after drug use and I doubt the drug can cause a permanent sterility problem once its been eliminated from the body. I haven’t read the animal studies cited in it. But trace amounts of this drug could hang around in the body for weeks.
This drug is also known to cause birth defects at higher doses so it should not be taken by pregnant women or women who might be pregnant.
I think taking this drug a few times when you have the flu is still a pretty good idea if are older/not in shape/have a hard time bouncing back from flus and colds. But as a weekly prophylactic against the coof (what my dad was doing during covid) I would say dont take it if you are trying to have children. Healthy young people shouldnt really need it anyway.
Well I learned something new from this video. However I think Yeadon is pretty paranoid. Ive seen him say some crazy stuff before. Every drug with a negative side effect is not a plan by the illuminati. That is just nuts.
Ivermectin has been used heavily on livestock for decades and if it had severe impact on fertility, animal husbandry industry would know it by now.
As to the discussion on drug/nutriceutical interactions with ivermection through the PGP and other pathways (CYP3a4 is the main one I think), he is grossly exagerating the facts. Lots of drugs/nutriceuticals have interactions along these pathways. He is probably refering to quercetin which is a PGP suppressor (PGP forms a barrier which keeps Ivermectin from reaching the brain, where it is neurotoxic.) but the margin of safety for ivermectin is so wide that the chance of harming yourself in this way is virtually nil unless you are taking retarded high doses. The majority of interactions with ivermectin are mild and simply increase the time your body takes to eliminate it.
He is acting like it is some sort of smoking gun that quercetin and IVM interact on the PGP pathway. Maybe 5-10% of drugs do. Even more drugs interact on the CYP3a4 pathway. Those are really common interactions. Most of these interactions are mild and negligable. Doctors co-prescribe things that interact all the time. This is hardly a gotcha. Ivermectin has a reputation for having minimal drug interactions among the people who study them.
@sector2
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 0 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 15:56:01 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Rowdybme
[ - ] Rowdybme 0 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 09:28:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 0 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 09:36:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ModernGuilt
[ - ] ModernGuilt 0 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 09:10:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] doginventer
[ - ] doginventer [op] 0 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 09:14:34 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ModernGuilt
[ - ] ModernGuilt 2 points 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 09:48:24 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 1 point 9 monthsAug 20, 2024 14:12:08 ago (+1/-0)