The recommended dose of Ivermectin is 150mcg/kg, which is about 1/7th what is being recommended in the OP link. It's on the higher side of a normal dosage, but Ivermectin is well tolerated.
Please take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. I am going off of memory (which is generally faulty, but usually in the ballpark). From what I have found, people trying to overdoes on Ivermectin have failed. It is considered the most well tolerated drug there is. I can't find the link at the moment, but when I was looking into it, there was one single case of "liver damage" in all of medical history. Someone tried killing themselves by overdose and took, if I remember correctly, 400 times the recommended dosage. This person's liver not only recovered in a week or so after the "damage", she was cured of what ailed her, which just so happened to have been a parasitic attack on her liver.
Again, take it with a grain of salt. I may be misremembering the details, but I remember clearly, when I was doing this research, thinking WTF. The Ivermectin propaganda campaign was actually a pretty big indicator to me how deep the corruption went in the medical industry.
A seven times increase in dosage for the purposes of fighting cancer may not be a mistake. I mean, I suggest we apply the process of science to it and see what we see (or don't as the case may be). In any case, it is extremely well tolerated, and I haven't heard anyone else talk about any vision issues (including myself, though I never took more than double recommended dosage, if that). So suggesting that it's bad to take that high of a dosage without evidence to support the claim other than a single anecdote and a test on beagles with fifty times dosage isn't really the path either.
The recommended dosage in the protocol in the OP is 1mg/kg. The recommended dosage according to the link I provided is 150mcg/kg. 1mg = 1000mcg. Thus, it is about a seven times increase in dosage. With many things that would be a big deal. With ivermectin, I have seen no evidence that that is a big deal.
a bunch of blind followers
I have seen not one piece of evidence that suggests that anyone in the history of the planet has been blinded, or indeed, had any permanent eyesight damage from ivermectin. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
They are looking for a way to pull it from the market
"They" will do whatever the fuck they want to do for whatever reason they want to do it. Our actions don't do shit to affect their decisions. They don't wait for "us to make a mistake." If they want a "mistake" done to motivate their solution, they tell a controlled opposition agent to put on a play to justify it. NO action is taken based on organic actions. Don't worry about things like that. It's not a part of our reality. Our reality is motivated purely by false flags and controlled opposition for actions they decided to take long before.
The recommended dose of Ivermectin is 150mcg/kg, which is about 1/7th what is being recommended in the OP link. It's on the higher side of a normal dosage, but Ivermectin is well tolerated.
Please take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. I am going off of memory (which is generally faulty, but usually in the ballpark). From what I have found, people trying to overdoes on Ivermectin have failed. It is considered the most well tolerated drug there is. I can't find the link at the moment, but when I was looking into it, there was one single case of "liver damage" in all of medical history. Someone tried killing themselves by overdose and took, if I remember correctly, 400 times the recommended dosage. This person's liver not only recovered in a week or so after the "damage", she was cured of what ailed her, which just so happened to have been a parasitic attack on her liver.
Again, take it with a grain of salt. I may be misremembering the details, but I remember clearly, when I was doing this research, thinking WTF. The Ivermectin propaganda campaign was actually a pretty big indicator to me how deep the corruption went in the medical industry.
A seven times increase in dosage for the purposes of fighting cancer may not be a mistake. I mean, I suggest we apply the process of science to it and see what we see (or don't as the case may be). In any case, it is extremely well tolerated, and I haven't heard anyone else talk about any vision issues (including myself, though I never took more than double recommended dosage, if that). So suggesting that it's bad to take that high of a dosage without evidence to support the claim other than a single anecdote and a test on beagles with fifty times dosage isn't really the path either.
The recommended dosage in the protocol in the OP is 1mg/kg. The recommended dosage according to the link I provided is 150mcg/kg. 1mg = 1000mcg. Thus, it is about a seven times increase in dosage. With many things that would be a big deal. With ivermectin, I have seen no evidence that that is a big deal.
I have seen not one piece of evidence that suggests that anyone in the history of the planet has been blinded, or indeed, had any permanent eyesight damage from ivermectin. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
"They" will do whatever the fuck they want to do for whatever reason they want to do it. Our actions don't do shit to affect their decisions. They don't wait for "us to make a mistake." If they want a "mistake" done to motivate their solution, they tell a controlled opposition agent to put on a play to justify it. NO action is taken based on organic actions. Don't worry about things like that. It's not a part of our reality. Our reality is motivated purely by false flags and controlled opposition for actions they decided to take long before.