I just wanted to post this here. There is a man that goes to church w/ my mom full blown cancer. They told him they couldnt do anything else for him at the cancer hospital here and sent him to MD Anderson. They tried treatments on him at MD to no avail. They basically sent him back home to die. He started taking ivermectin and the cancer is gone 100%. Shocked the Drs when he went in for a check up. My Mom was shocked even though I had told her last year that ivermectin cures all kinds of stuff. He stood up at church on Sunday and let them all know 😉 The Truth is coming my friends! Hang in there!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
There are some research papers that say that Ivermectin targets mitochondria -- in a good way. It can kill cells with dysfunctional mitochondria.
Thomas Seyfried has shown that cancer is the result of cellular mitochondria becoming dysfunctional (probably from the toxic world we live in, though he does not get into the "why" of it).
btw ...
Tom Cowan has a theory on cellular mitochondria. He and his team have proven that viruses do not exist, and he has other seemingly radical theories, but a good track record. So, his ideas are worth considering.
According to Cowan, most of what doctors think they know about the human body and how it works is wrong. This is due to false education in medical school. This would explain why doctors do not even believe in curing anything. They have been indoctrinated into believing that cures do not and cannot exist.
Cowan's theory is that at the cellular level, there exists ONLY a membrane, mitochondria, DNA, and water (the "cytoplasm"). The rest of it does not actually exist. Things like ribosomes, mRNA, etc. are only theoretical concepts and have never been shown in reality or proven.
His theory says that the role of mitochondria is not for "energy," which is the common understanding. Rather, it sends signals to the water to tell the water what to do. The water then makes the proteins, which make up the building blocks of the human body.
If this theory is more or less correct, it would tend to confirm Seyfried's idea of dysfunctional mitochondria being the cause of cancer. If the mitochondria is dysfunctional, then it cannot send the signals, and the cell itself would become "mutated." It could still divide and create more cancerous cells, but could not function the way a normal, healthy cell should.
Perhaps oxygen is used by the mitochondria not to produce energy, but simply to function itself, so that it can act as the general contractor to tell the cell what to build. If it can no longer run on oxygen, then it must resort to a prehistoric method of fermentation, which is why Seyfried focuses on glucose and glutamine, since they are the two fuels for the mitochondria when it becomes dysfunctional.
Adding Ivermectin and/or other similar substances might help speed up the process of killing the cancer cells -- thus, "curing cancer."
And then followed by sucralose!
"Rather, it sends signals to the water to tell the water what to do. The water then makes the proteins, which make up the building blocks of the human body.
If this theory is correct, ...."
I am a biochemist. His premise is not correct. Water in and of itself contains no carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, etc. - water does not make protein.
As a biochemist have you studied the intrinsic nature of water and it’s properties? I don’t think we fully understand water. Or light for that matter- both a particle and a wave. But how is that possible? Maybe because mag didn’t use words like ‘cohesion’ and ‘adhesion’ and like terms that you found it dismissible? Try: QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter Richard P. Feynman
If one knows Feynman's work one also knows of his passion for identifying "first causes." Does Feynman claim that water is the first cause of protein? Does he claim that water in and of itself gives rise to carboniferous macromolecules? Have you studied Feynman closely enough to know yourself?
I consider that to be a problem. You dismiss without learning because you think your indoctrination was valid.
If you want to check out his ideas, in his words (since mine might be incomplete), then get back to me.
If you do not have the ability to communicate on a level that shows you even understand Feynman, you are merely employing the argumentative fallacy of appealing to authority. When you say, "If you want to check out his ideas, in his words (since mine might be incomplete), ...," you have effectively admitted that you have no competence of your own to rely on to be able to hold up your side of a debate.
It has been <40 years since Feynman published his 4 lectures in "QED" and you can find a copy of it on the internet today for $1.55. But in spite of what he wrote the periodic table still exists today, as do principles of atomic theory, even as they did before Feynman was even born.
You have purloined the reputation of Feynman to buttress our own in this discussion, So why don't you, then, do some intellectual heavy lifting for a change and get back to me with where you think Feynman claims that water in and of itself gives rise to protein, even as you have claimed. We'll see if you have interpreted him correctly, and we can go from there.
Or his learning is more complete than yours. As well as mine is more complete than yours.
Water is H2O, period. That's a molecule bro. I'm sorry you didn't pay attention in school. Anything that someone tells you that water creates something else, is a fucking nut. The only thing water can do is degrade into [H]ydrogen and [O]xygen.
Spontaneous generation does not exist.
Now, if you want to be like some of these deranged people that claim "nothing is as it seems", that's fine, but we're done here, because there is no fucking reason to even postulate that kinda bullshit, because then obviously faggots can be women and men at the same time, and paedos are just fine, because "nothing is as it seems".
See how stupid that sounds, when you start developing context around it?