Well, considering smallpox killed more of them than wars between tribes and against settlers, I'll keep a decent dose of skepticism. But you definetly should study it if it interests you that much.
Damn right it did... until they figured out how to fight it. And Influenza (covid) probably killed millions more. It for sure killed 8 soldiers for every one killed by a bullet or bomb in WWI.
Doesnt mean we didnt eventually figure out that ivermectin kills that shit, huh?
I’m pretty sure ivermectin does not ‘kill’ inert particles, so no, we did not figure that out. I’m with you apart from your choice of word, kill. We’re in a language war. Accuracy matters now. Language is how we share truth.
My apologies for being so.... common... in the presence of grandeur, but it is an unsettled biological argument whether a virus is alive or not. It completely depends on which, of the various accepted versions of the definition if 'alive', you consider to be accurate. You'll find this conundrum is a comfortably debated topic in any BIO 101 class.
Based on everything I have read, Ivermectin does not kill COVID. It does not do anything to the virus directly. What it does do is indirectly interfere with and prevent viral replication so the virus cannot make more virus particles while the immune system takes care of the ones that are already present.
Well, considering smallpox killed more of them than wars between tribes and against settlers, I'll keep a decent dose of skepticism. But you definetly should study it if it interests you that much.
Damn right it did... until they figured out how to fight it. And Influenza (covid) probably killed millions more. It for sure killed 8 soldiers for every one killed by a bullet or bomb in WWI.
Doesnt mean we didnt eventually figure out that ivermectin kills that shit, huh?
I’m pretty sure ivermectin does not ‘kill’ inert particles, so no, we did not figure that out. I’m with you apart from your choice of word, kill. We’re in a language war. Accuracy matters now. Language is how we share truth.
My apologies for being so.... common... in the presence of grandeur, but it is an unsettled biological argument whether a virus is alive or not. It completely depends on which, of the various accepted versions of the definition if 'alive', you consider to be accurate. You'll find this conundrum is a comfortably debated topic in any BIO 101 class.
From Wikiepedia, but thats all the effort Im going to expend on this; There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. Other definitions sometimes include non-cellular life forms such as viruses and viroids.
Based on everything I have read, Ivermectin does not kill COVID. It does not do anything to the virus directly. What it does do is indirectly interfere with and prevent viral replication so the virus cannot make more virus particles while the immune system takes care of the ones that are already present.
Just say state 0 or state 1....don't bother arguing semantics
WELL AKCHUALLY.JPG
DoritosNeckBeardDust.png
Quantum-Language-Parse-Syntax-Grammar