Sitting around watching the puppies play allows time for reflection on various hypothetical scenarios.
Here is one:
Assume your country is engaged in a war where the enemy plans to use fear and bio-weapons (like a virus) to shut down your country for two plus years until a “vaccine” is formally approved for use on ALL citizens to be followed by a “vaccine passport.”
Would it be a brilliant tactical move to rush to the public a non-mandatory vaccine for adults on an emergency basis to prevent the collapse of the country from fear and an economic meltdown with all attendant consequences?
Which scenario would minimize casualties of the war?
Asking for a friend.
Ivermectin binds to the spike protein, so after that the spike protein cannot bind to ACE2 receptors... it therefore neutralizes both the virus and the injections that contain just the spike protein - or use mRNA to cause people's cells to produce the spike protein.
No matter which way they occur, Ivermectin binds to the spike proteins... period. That is what will save people.
Thank you for the explanation!
It sounds like ivermectin could help people with the vaccine to some extent, although it also seems like there may be a lot of negative side effects other than the direct impact of the spike.
The nanoparticles are disturbing...