Ivermectin Is A Toxic Mutagenic Depopulation Agent- Discussion Call In Debates

Video Transcript:

Alright, let's start the show with this article from The Lancet. Deaths associated with Ivermectin treatment of scabies by Barkwell and Shields. This is from 1997. Winchworth Lodge is a 208-bed fully accredited long-term care facility. And it goes on about the facility and how it's affiliated with McMaster University. In the lodge there is a 47-bed closed unit for residents with behavioral problems or wandering tendencies. Most are demented. Residents in this unit are younger, meaning 73.4 years on admission versus 83.8 for other areas. From June to November 1995 there was an outbreak of scabies on this ward, which we were unable to control with the usual topical agents. All residents were treated with Cro-Tamitin and Lindane. Several individuals with symptoms subsequently had repeated topical applicants of Lindane and or Permethrin. Finally, on November 10, 1995, all residents were treated with a single oral dose of Ivermectin. Between 150 and 200 micrograms, kilogram of body weight. So this is tiny compared to what is being recommended by certain groups for the current excuse of why they're trying to push Ivermectin on people. You know what I'm talking about. Within five days, all rashes and symptoms had cleared and no further treatment was needed. But wait, it's not over. Over the succeeding six months, there was a pattern of excess deaths among the 47 residents who had received Ivermectin. We retrospectively constructed a 47 patient cohort of those who had not had scabies for comparison purposes. We matched for age and sex of 47 patients who had received Ivermectin with all other residents of the lodge. In every case in which there was more than one match, if one of the matches died in the six months under study, that resident was added to the control cohort. We deliberately maximize the number of deaths in the comparison group. Between November 10th, 1995 and May 10th, 1996, 15 of the 47 who had received Ivermectin died. 15 out of 47 who had received Ivermectin died compared with five of the age matched and sex matched cohort. So that's time's three death rate. The figures show the time course of deaths in the two groups. So you can see up here the white bars, columns, the control group, and then the Ivermectin group is the darker colored bars. You see how the Ivermectin deaths in these months after the Ivermectin was given tower over the control levels when there are control levels that is deaths, the five deaths in the control arm. The Ivermectin death curve for lack of a better name continues well off into, I mean the tail kind of tapers off into the future here compared to the control group's deaths. So very, very concerning to see so many deaths for these Ivermectin users. What happened? So I was keeping reading here. The figure shows the time course of deaths in the two groups. Final cause of death showed no pattern. But those in the Ivermectin group developed a sudden change in behavior with the lethargy, anorexia, and listlessness, which preceded death. Indeed, it was the pattern that led us to study these deaths. So they noticed this pattern and that was the only reason they really keyed in on this. That people were becoming lethargic, anorexic, and experiencing listlessness. Indeed, it was this pattern. Okay, we read that these data subjected to Fisher's exact test was significant to P equals 0.001 and relative risk was three. We also analyzed historical death rates for the three year period, November 1992 to November 1995 compared with the six months period, November 1995 to 1996 May. Ivermectin has been used extensively in the past. So it goes on. The question is, why did all these people die? That's horrifying. For 47 people receiving Ivermectin in this nursing home and we have 15 deaths. So I wanted to start with this because I find this extremely concerning. Now they were treated with this other substance here because now I'm honed in on what enhances the Ivermectin toxicity, namely the PGP inhibiting one's PGP, the permeability glycoprotein. And let me just show you what I found here. So it says they were treated with crotomitin and lindane and also per methrin. So let's see which one matched here. Here is lindane. And if we scroll down here, according to this, what is this NIH insight drugs, if we scroll down here it says that it inhibits, well it induces CYP 3, 4, which is interesting. But I'm pretty sure it also said it inhibits, maybe that was the other one. Remember it says something else here. Let's search PGP. Okay, well it's not, maybe it was the different drugs. So I stay corrected. I don't know if this one is in fact a PGP inhibitor. But it begs the question, why did all these people die in that nursing home? They sound genuinely concerned. They even went to such extent as to publish an article in the Lancet. This is pure review. So I find this extremely concerning now, why did they have such a high death rate? And why was it offset a little bit? Because this is hugely relevant to the people who, let's say, well these people who take the Ivermectin on their deathbed live a little bit, right? That they, for the length of the study, performed better. Well, what about the months after the study? I think this calls that into question. Of course, just like the basic toxicology of Ivermectin calls that into question, if you can't even promise me that it's not carcinogenic, when we see time after time that it's mutagenic, cytotoxic. Now this is another more recent set of data that I find very interesting. This is Florida deaths in a 2021 and 2022. So the orange line here is Florida deaths in 2021. And then the green is the Florida deaths in 2022. And what we see for the green, actually for both of these, is this very anomalous spike. I mean, if you look at the x-axis, this isn't over time. This is by age bracket. So I'm not even sure if we would, if drawing a line between these data points makes sense because it's not really a continuation of one age bracket into the next. But what we see here that's very concerning is the peak, it looks like it peaks here between 30 and 50 years old. And on the y-axis for these two solid lines is on the left, the dotted lines y-axis is on the right. So what is the solid line y-axis? Percent change all cause deaths. So if you don't know, we're seeing huge numbers of excess deaths, just skyrocketing deaths off the charts, it's really disturbing, no matter how you explain it. My difference from the way I differ from most people who are kind of tangential to the work I'm doing is I hear a lot of people just blanket statement saying, well, all these deaths must be from the vaccine because we gave the vaccine to so many people and I've seen deaths. Well that's clearly not the only variable here. And I would disagree. I think there are a lot of deaths resulting from the vaccine. But I also think there's a lot of deaths around the reckless Ivermectin pushing and all these PGP inhibitors that were being pushed. So I'm trying to tease out exactly how many people died from all the different poisons that were pushed on this recklessly, which doesn't seem to be a popular topic, but that's not how I choose what to cover. But look at this chart. Okay, so there's other data on here that I find very interesting as well. In addition to this big peak that we see for the 30 to 50 year olds in Florida deaths. I mean, look at how high this orange line is for 2021. This is up to plus 50% over plus 50. I would say this is like plus 55% and these are the deaths for 30 30 year olds right here up 50. Let's call it 53% and for 40 year olds up 55%. Look at the older age brackets. Still seeing excess death right tragically, but it's not nearly as elevated and pronounced as this middle hump. Can we blame it on the vaccine? Well, let's see. If we look at these dotted lines here, you see on the right percentage who received the number of vaccines that each line indicates for each of these age brackets. So what we see is basically the older people tend to get the vaccine more, which is something I've seen in my personal life with my family. And it looks like there's a pretty strong correlation probably because people, older people trust the traditional sources of news, which just kept repeating ad nauseam about how great and miraculous these vaccines were. But what's interesting is, okay, why don't we see the percent change all cause of deaths? Correlate with the number of vaccines that were taken if it is a depopulation shot and that's the reason for all the excess deaths. Now there's different things that people might say. They might say that it targets the younger males with more testosterone or the young athletes or whatever. That's possible. But another explanation here that makes a lot of sense is that this group was way more targeted by the Ivermectin, whereas the older people were targeted by the vaccine. So this raises a huge question to me as to how many people have the Ivermectin crusaders killed with their poison pushing? How many people have Ivermectin killed? Or I should say has Ivermectin killed. So those were the two studies that I wanted to start with. Actually this isn't really a study. This is just CDC data, which of course we should question, right? It's government data. I'm not saying people should trust government data. But if this is factual, why do we see this hump between 30 and 50 year olds especially? All right, let's continue. So I realized that there's been a number of half-written sub-stack articles that I put together but not published. I haven't published them yet. So I thought it'd be a good idea to share some of the studies that I find very monumental, very important that I haven't had time to really convey to people. And also we are taking phone calls. If anybody wants to call in, I want to open up the phone lines. I don't think anybody's going to call in because the Ivermectin crowd doesn't seem to be too articulate. And outspoken, let's say. But I still want to open up the phone lines just to demonstrate to people that they refuse to call in. I've also given out my email numerous times. I'll give it out again. TimTruth at protonmail.com. I want to have conversations with people about this. I'm willing to do it offline, off the record. If any of these big-name people want to see what I've found and show me the errors in my ways, or we can do it live in front of everybody. That's what I would prefer. Everyone can benefit from the exchange and the dialogue. So let's continue here. Studies on Ivermectin toxicity. This is an article that I started putting together back in, actually it doesn't say. But I want to highlight this. This is one of the most concerning side effects that's listed. You can just go to drugs.com for Scramectal, which is Ivermectin's brand name. And let's just search here. This medicine may cause serious brain and nerve problems. That is horrible sounding. And then it proceeds to list this huge laundry list of possible things that could happen if you take Ivermectin. Now I find it insulting. I find it patronizing and borderline criminal. I would say, yeah, full-on criminal for people to call Ivermectin safe and effective and not mention these. How can you call a drug safe and not even inform the people that you're misleading of the side effects? Like that's basic 101, what you need to tell people in terms of toxicity of a drug. You can't just say it's safe and lie to their face and tell them to take a toxic bacteria, a toxin. Point them. I'm not going to stand idly by while people are misled. And I really try to sit and meditate and contemplate what people are experiencing these days. You know, perusing rumble and bit shoot and Twitter. And what are people hearing and what are the connotations and what do people think about Ivermectin? Because I could really see how somebody would think it's just totally safe and it's a miracle drug and you won't get sick. And all these things that these big name Ivermectin pushers say just over and over again, these talking points that are repeated. But it's not true. So I'm trying to be the guy who says, hey guys, you've been misled, you've been hoodwinked. And I'm trying to get you the information for you to make up your mind. Now if you don't care about the side effects and you are intrigued by the benefit of the drug, I'm not stopping anybody from doing anything. But I am going to contest terrible medical advice being propagated with mass media to people who were never examined. Right? They were never diagnosed. And they certainly weren't informed of this drug's risk. And this is a drug that people can buy off Amazon. Right? It's horrifying to me. I think this whole thing was set up as a depopulation campaign because how do people get Ivermectin once they're lied to over and over again and they believe the lies that it's a safe and effective miracle? Well, you either sign your rights away and go to one of these tele Ivermectin providers who makes you check a little box saying that you agree to hold them harmless or even more cowardly puts it in like the fine print of the terms and service of their terms of service of their website. By using this site, you agree to hold us harmless. No, I fucking don't. Don't tell me what I do. If you get to slip that in there, it's like, yeah, guys, take poison, take poison. By listening to me, you agree to hold me harmless. Who says that? So the other option is you go to Amazon, right? That's what people are doing and people pretend like that's not happening in mass. I mean, just read the comments underneath Ivermectin for sale on Amazon. Like people are clearly taking tons of this stuff. Okay. So let's continue here back to this article. According to Merck's own Ivermectin fact sheet, quote, causes damage to organs, central nervous system if swallowed. Let me show you this. So this is Merck product name, Ivermectin formulation. Acute toxicity oral category five. Single exposure specific target organ toxicity category one, central nervous system. And then we hear all these people claim like, oh, well, the blood brain barrier protects our brain cells from the neurotoxicity of Ivermectin. Actually, we had a phone call shoot. I just saw somebody trying to call in. Try calling back in if you were calling in. I just just saw that. Okay. So so what was trying to call in, try again, I had to I mute the sounds because it dings at me and stuff when I'm about to time out. So we'll let you on right away if you click that link. Okay. So hazard statements may be harmful if swallowed, causes damage to organs if swallowed. So very concerning to me, all these warnings that are not related to the end user. Okay. And also on the Ivermectin fact sheet, long term studies in animals, long term studies in animals have not been performed to evaluate the carcinogenic carcinogenic genetic. I don't know why I can't say this carcinogenic potential of Ivermectin. Also it says Ivermectin has been shown to be teratogenetic, teratogenic in mice, rats, and rabbits when given in repeated doses of point two, 8.1 and 4.5 times the maximum recommended human dose. The teratogenicity was characterized in the three species tested by cleft palate, clubbed forepaws, and additionally observed in rabbits. There are however no adequate and well controlled studies in pregnant women. Did the Ivermectin people ever pass that along? Do you ever get any warnings from the Ivermectin pushers? Janus says my 30 year old daughter took a lot of Ivermectin, she has not been well mentally. I hope there is a remedy. I'm so sorry Janus, that is horrifying. And I just want to be very clear, I've taken Ivermectin too. Back a long time ago, I was just trying to doubt, I saw all these memes, people saying it like changed their life and they've never felt better and I took it, I felt really drowsy. I slept a bunch. I think it took a toll on my mental acumen. And it also I think messed up my throat. I can't say for sure, but thankfully it's all healing up with time, but the higher the dose the more it's going to seep in. And they say like, that's what I was saying, they say the blood brain barrier protects from it's seeping too much into our brain. But there's still trace amounts that get in, even if you have a pretty strong blood brain barrier, so I can show you on this article I put together. If we scroll down here, where is it? This is a really interesting study that they did, they looked at these two types of mice with different genetics. One group had the positive positive, MDR, what MDR, one A gene which corresponds to the PGP expression and the other depicted here on the red had the negative negative polymorphism which meant a lot less PGP protections. But we see even for blue, there is a certain amount that gets into the brain. You can see here 1.5. I don't know the units at the moment, but you can see it's very small compared to say most of these other data points. But it's still there, right? And what is this doing to people? I mean, if you look at the side effects, a lot of them come down to central nervous system disorders. Lack of energy, lack of movement ability, colmas, deaths, and a... Territogenic is really nasty too. A territogen is any agent that causes an abnormality following fetal exposure during pregnancy. I thought it's totally safe cancer cure. Why doesn't it just cure everything of cancer? If that's all it does, it's clearly not all it does. So I'm getting pretty sick of people pushing this stuff, to be honest. At least do your due diligence and pass along all the risks and unknowns. Like that's a low bar. Okay, so let's continue. And also they don't actually quantify how much it could work. They just say, oh, it works. It works. What else do we hear works? People tell us the vaccine works. Does anyone who actually cares about language, it's such a slap in the face. Anyone who cares about logic too? Okay, so let's continue here. Here's a acute toxicity of Ivermectin in rat study. The study was called comparative evaluation of acute toxicity of Ivermectin by two methods after single subcutaneous administration in rats. By the dark car, at all. So the quote here. Only after drug administration, all the rats receiving high dose exhibited swelling at the side of injection cage side observations indicated immediate local scratching of the area where the drug was administered, which led to mutilation of variable degree in individual rats. Mutilation was manifested for two to three hours, which caused bruises and oozing of zero sanguiness fluid. But the rats exhibited depression, staggering, attack, incordination, loss of writing, prostration, bradycardia, and death in that order. Where are the ferret advocates when you meet them? The rats exhibited breeding. Did I say that wrong? The rats exhibited bleeding from medial campus of eyes. So the rats started bleeding from their eyes. And those which survived showed depression, but only for the first 24 hours. The degree of depression was directly proportional to the dose administered. And here's the chart of rat mortality based off the dose. As the dose increases from 40 to 60 mg per kilogram, the death increases. Until all the rats died. I don't hear that meme going around with the Ivermectin crew. I hear all the ferrets died for the vaccine trials, even though I don't think that's even what happened. Isn't it also interesting there's a certain group of people who just say things? And they never actually back it up with, I don't know, the papers, evidence of their claims. The LD50 of the test formulation of Ivermectin was found to be 51.5 mg per kilogram. 50% population death at just one dose of 51.5 mg per kilogram. And then of course there's also the PGP aspect with the deficiencies from genetics and also PGP inhibition. This is a concerning study. I think I've got to pull up in this tab here. Acute Ivermectin toxicity, a report. So this is a woman who tried to kill herself by ingesting a lot of Ivermectin, 100 milliliters of Ivermectin, which I'm trying to think of how much that even is, 100 milliliters of Ivermectin. It's hard to tell. It was identified by medical professionals from the empty bottle, the empty bottle which was brought by patient and relatives. She was transferred from local hospital to our emergency unit with nausea vomiting and altered consciousness, four hours after acute ingestion. Upon examination her coma scale was 10 out of 15. It's the Glasgow coma scale. 10 out of 15 in her bilateral pupils were five milliliters with sluggish reaction to light. She had so, so, so, so, of both eyes. She was a taxic and unable to walk. This is horrifying. The rest of her examination was unremarkable. It says, um, so that's what happens when you take too much of this stuff or and then you have to wonder like, okay, why would I take any of this stuff? What's this doing to your central nervous system? What's this doing to, you know, all the cells that it's, you know, breaking the DNA and possibly causing micro-nuclei malformations? Let's continue here. I just wanted to show that study. There's also, you know, the big push to give this drug to a bunch of Africans. And it seems to do, in my opinion, correlate with the, what's it called? MSSM200 Kissinger Report. Or they talk about basically genocide in the world to keep the population at 8 billion. It's horrifying. So this section is called hundreds of comas in DNC, the Congo, the, what is it called? Democratic nation of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, reported to Ivermectin's passive reporting system. It's kind of like Vars. So in a study called analysis of severe adverse effects following community-based Ivermectin treatment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, by Bof et al. Researchers queried a passive reporting system for Ivermectin. So of course, we always have to consider the under-reporting factor oftentimes huge under-reporting factors that go into these types of systems. It says, quote, some factors such as being a male, being over 18 years of age, alcohol consumption and hemp cannabis intake, 24 hours before Ivermectin administration was associated with the occurrence of severe adverse events. So here again is this connection with maybe the CBD or the THC of cannabis, which we've covered, inhibits the PGP activity, and also the CYP3A4 activity, which is the enzyme, which metabolizes Ivermectin. So that's horrifying. Also the alcohol consumption part. So and I think we have a chart here scrolling down. There's this other study which is concerning. We covered this last time I think, but severe adverse events by age bracket. Look at this curve and tell me this isn't remarkably similar to how we started the show talking about this Florida data. Why were there so many deaths in the 30 to 50-year-old cohort when the Vax uptake was much, much less than these older age brackets? And the other thing is I think that the mass Ivermectin uptake by people who didn't take the vaccine actually allows the establishment to pretend like their vaccine is more effective because they can say, well, these people didn't take the vaccine and these people did. And there's a higher death rate in the unvaxed. Now I'm not sure exactly what the data says behind the scenes, but we hear those types of claims levied all the time. And I don't even know if they're right or not. Now I disagree with the assessment that it's, you know, group A being saved by the vaccines. I think it's more that group B is being killed by the Ivermectin. That's my personal hunch. But isn't it interesting that we have this big spike in both the Florida excess death percent change for the 30 to 50-year-old age bracket? And then if we look at the data from Africa, if I can find right here, look where the hump is, 15 to 30, 30 to 45, and then it tapers off, less still for the 45 to 60. And then it goes down even more. Let's continue. So I'm going to go back to that other study we were looking at. Severe adverse effects reported after Ivermectin treatment. 594 coma reports. 594 coma reports. 235 severe headache reports. 13 paralysis reports. And 476 motor deficit reports. And these were just some that I picked out. I mean, almost 600 reported comas. Think about that. And I'm supposed to go along with your lie that this has been successfully deployed for 40 years in Africa. Spare me. Then there's this case report called agricultural Avermectins. In uncommon, but potentially fatal cause of pesticide poisoning. There were 18 cases they looked at of patients with Aiba-Mectin exposure in one case related to Ivermectin. So this is an interesting article in I think the toxicology publication. Let's just read the results. 18 patients with Aiba-Mectin exposure in one with Ivermectin ingestion were identified. There were 14 male and 5 female patients ranging in age from 15 to 83 years. Most patients were exposed as a result of attempted suicide. That's 14 of them. Oral ingestion for 15 was the most common route to exposure. Four patients were asymptomatic and eight had minor symptoms after a mean ingestion of 23 milligrams per kilogram Aiba-Mectin. Or after dermal inhalation contact. Seven patients manifested severe symptoms such as coma. I think it's saying seven people put into comas. Aspiration with respiratory failure for and hypotension three. One patient died 18 days later as a result of multiple organ failure. So it's a drug that people use to try to kill themselves in some parts of the world. Aiba-Mectin. Then in mice we've talked about this. There's gene mutation, MDR1A negative negative dies at just 1% of the Ivermectin required to kill the positive positive. I just find this horrifying. Next we have a rabbit study of Ivermectin-induced liver damage. The study is called biochemical and histological alterations of the liver due to repeated administrations of Ivermectin alone or with the combination of vitamin C. Actually I think this is the one that we talk about with try this. Actually no, I think this is different. So let's just look through there. Look through here, see what jumps out. So 48 mature female rabbits divided into eight groups of equal number. The first group was administered 0.9% normal saline S-C which acts as a control. The second, third and fourth group were treated with Ivermectin respectively. And the fifth group treated with vitamin C only. The sixth, seventh and eighth groups were administered 50 milligrams per kilogram vitamin C in addition to Ivermectin respectively. So let's just look for the liver keyword here. So they were looking at liver enzymes. Here's the results section. The results in the study clearly clarify significant decrease in GPT level in the third, fourth, seventh and eighth groups. So it gets into some nitty gritty liver enzyme information. It says the decrease in GPT enzyme occur maybe due to hepatotoxic effect of Ivermectin on the liver. So I don't know enough about the, let's look at the histology. This might be interesting. So the light microscopy of the liver in the third group which was 1 milligram per kilogram Ivermectin revealed evidence of this, which is kind of hard to say, parin-chimal foci of inflammatory cell, bile duct proliferation, centauri, lobular enlargement of hepatocyte, periportal fibrosis, septal fibrosis. In addition to liver section in the fourth group which was 2 milligrams per kilogram Ivermectin showed bile duct with periductal fibrosis. Paraportal centrelobular vaculation of hepatocyte with congestion of central vein. It just goes on and on. Paraportal fibrosis, septal fibrosis, and paraportal fibrosis with inflammatory cell. I mean it just goes on and on. In conclusion, Ivermectin caused hepatic damage and altered liver enzymes as well as histopathological changes in liver has been noticed. And then you know these are always interesting where it looks at the photos. But you know I need to delve through this and figure out exactly what's being said. We don't have time to really unpack this all right now. And I've just sat, you know I've read so many of these studies it's just never ending. And I don't do a great job of explaining everything I've seen because obviously I can only publish a percentage you know a subset of what I've read and I'm always reading more. So trying to play ketchup. There's another study here that I have a quote from. Nutriofil activation in Ivermectin treated oncicerecylcius patients. It should be noted that in the present study a high incidence of adverse reactions was observed only 20% of the patients did not experience side effects. Seven of the 13 patients 43.75% experienced severe side effects. And there's other studies I'm still trying to get to. Let's just see if anything else jumps out. There's more histopathology, histopathology analysis, blood work, etc. If you look at the Vigie base adverse event database as this group of researchers did in an article called Adverse Drug reactions associated with Ivermectin use 4 COVID-19 reported in the WHO's Pharmacovigilance database by Campilo et al. It's a day that there are six reported deaths to which Ivermectin was the single suspect just for people using Ivermectin in an attempt to fight COVID. Vigie access gives us some insights from the WHO's adverse event database. Of note is the list of adverse drug reactions including 43 coma reports and 25 seizures. Which if we go back to the drug bank article I'm going to close it in mentioned seizure as a possible side effect. This is horrifying. 43 coma's like how many people has Ivermectin put into a coma? We'll never know. It's not going to stop unless somebody stops it unless a lot of people stop it. Let's continue here. This is an interesting quote from this other analysis of the serious adverse reactions, serious adverse events in Africa after Ivermectin. For more than half of the cases, so 118, which is 57%, the severe adverse event occurred following their first exposure to Ivermectin. The mean time from Ivermectin treatment to onset of symptoms was 2.2 days. So for 43%, the first time they took Ivermectin wasn't the big issue and then the next time they took it or one of the subsequent times they took it. So you never know even if you had one experience that wasn't too bad from Ivermectin, you might not fare as well from the next round of Russian roulette. So it says of the cases with altered mental status when first encountered by a clinician, n equals 106, 52 were confused, uptunded, or lethargic, while 16 presented with stupor and 38 presented in frank coma. The top 10 presenting symptoms were difficulty or inability to stand or walk, feverishness, headache, general malays, general myalgia, fatigue, etc. It says the clinical outcome of the severe adverse event cases was documented for 137 of the 207 total cases, 66%, as shown in their table for those whose outcome is known the majority of cases recovered fully. That's a low bar. The majority recovered. There was a total of 28 deaths corresponding to a cumulative case fatality rate of 20.4% if only the cases where outcome is known is included in the analysis. So this one I feel looks interesting. Let's just go check this one out. This is called Territogenic and cytogenetic effects of Ivermectin and its interaction with peak-like-a-protein inhibitor. That sounds really interesting. I mean there's so many studies. This is gnarly, let's see what these say. A uterus, a female rat treated with Ivermectin plus a verapimil, showing resorption at different embryonic stages with growth retardation. That's a hard to look at. Or B, rat fetus treated as in C, showing subcutaneous hemorrhage and abnormal attachment with the placenta. And C, shows rat fetus from dams treated with Ivermectin alone, showing normal attachment to the placenta. D-E-N-F, rat fetuses from dams treated with Ivermectin plus a verapimil, showing incomplete ossifications of, wow, that sounds horrifying. What is ossification? The natural process of bone formation. So when they took Ivermectin plus a verapimil, showing incomplete ossifications of vertebrae, ribs and skull. Now, this is horrifying because there's a lot of these other products like K2, green tea, curcumin, turmeric. There's so many I could list out that act in a similar way to verapimil. Now, I'm not sure exactly the relative amounts and of course dose plays a big role here, but it's not hard to imagine somebody taking different supplements or just from their diet, if they're drinking grape rejuice or if they're drinking green tea, et cetera, et cetera, to have this level of depressed peak-like protein and or COIP 3 or 4. That's horrifying. Now I do think we've talked about this study before in terms of, actually, I'm not exactly sure. I think this is the study I talk about a lot when it comes to the verapimil plus Ivermectin resulting in way more abnormal sperm, way more chromosomal aberrations in the sperm. What's the other thing? The sperm count decreasing, the sperm motility decreasing. So let's look at table 3. These are external visceral and skeletal abnormalities of rat fetuses obtained from Ivermectin and or verapimil treated dams at 6th to 15th day of gestation. So I think the dam would be like the mother. So they dose the female rat and then it was made with, I guess, an untreated male rat. There are other studies that treat the male and then look at how many rats, pups, are sired. I can pronounce it correctly once I learn. I pronounce these things correctly if other people were talking about it, but I guess I'm the only one. So I make mispronunciations from time to time because I only read this stuff, which says something. Okay, so let's see. Number of fetuses in the control is a little hard for me to make sense at this at the moment. Number of fetuses, number of litters affected external observation. So stunned growth, there was, there were two, which is 1% from reading this correctly in terms of what's in the parentheses being the percentage. I think so. Let me just make sure. Ah, maybe not. External alterations 90. So I don't know what the total size of the group is. Actually, I would guess this is percentage. I don't know for sure though, but we see control, there was 1% stunted growth. For Ivermectin alone, there were two percent. So it doubled the percentage of stunted growth just with Ivermectin. And there's no change when they were given just the vericum of the PGP inhibitor. But when they combined Ivermectin and vericum of this goes up to 65. 10%. I should be clear, not 65%. It goes up to 65 incidents, which is 10%. But compared that to the 1% control, 2% with Ivermectin up to 10% with Ivermectin plus a vericum mill. Like how is this not the biggest story in our spot, you know, in our place on the internet? I think it is the biggest story. So what about subcutaneous hemorrhage? Well, no incidents until you combine Ivermectin and vericum of it goes up to 5%. Maintial, multiple facial anomalies, 3% with Ivermectin plus vericum mill, and no other cases. A dilated cerebral ventricles, 0 in the control, 1% with Ivermectin alone, 1% with vericum mill alone, 3% when you combine the two. And there's other cases similar to that, for example, heart. Well, let's read these one at a time. Heart hypoplasia. Ivermectin alone had 1% control, had 0%. If vericum mill alone had 0%, but when you combine it, it goes up to 3%. I mean, we're seeing trends here. What about school? I'm not sure why it says school by itself. Are these following lines related to schools? Oh, maybe this was all one row here. School delayed ossifications. Okay, I see. School delayed ossifications. 0 in the control, 1% for Ivermectin, and 4% when you combine Ivermectin and vericum mill. What about vertebrae delayed ossifications? 0 in the control, 1 in the vericum mill. Where are we? 1% for Ivermectin, 1% for Ivermectin alone, but with combined, 4%. So there's a lot of these different examples here. Very concerning. What about the micro-nuclei? Embryo-mitotic, let's see, embryo micro-nuclei. In the control, it's 1. The vericum mill alone, it's 1.1. For Ivermectin, it's 2. Double the number of micro-nuclei, which is not a good abnormality. We're supposed to have like 1Vic nuclei per cell, not a bunch of little micro-nuclei. But when you combine the two, it creeps up even higher to 2.1. But I think in this case, the big one that jumps out is just Ivermectin alone doubles the embryo micro-nuclei. You also see this sizeable increase for the maternal micro-nuclei when they're dozed. So from control 1.3, it goes up to 2 for vericum mill alone, up to 1.8 with Ivermectin alone, and when you combine them, it's up to 4.3. Yeah, I'm going to pass on the micro-nuclei. So there's a lot in this paper, but it's too much to read through all at once here while we're live, so we'll continue. Here's another study called Ivermectin induced the lineness in a dog. This is well documented how there are certain colleagues based on their genetics who react very badly to Ivermectin. The researchers, and I agree, think it has to do with the PGP levels being much lower. But in this case, this is one where the dog didn't even have a PGP deficiency, if I remember correctly. A female neutered jack Russell Terrier was examined for acute onset of apparent blindness, ironic that they tell us that it cures river blindness, right? Head for acute onset of apparent blindness after being exposed to Ivermectin the previous day. The dog appeared to be blind during the initial examination. Papillary late reflex, menis response, and dazzle reflex were not present in either eye. Diminished activity shown in both eyes. Ivermectin was present in the serum when they looked for it in toxicological, let's see. So they did find something that actually seemed to help. I'm not sure what I, okay, intravenous lipid therapy might have alleviated these symptoms. But what's interesting, the dog was tested for the multi-drug resistance gene mutation and was unaffected. So it's not just dogs with this mutant gene making the way more susceptible to Ivermectin toxicity. There's cases like this one of a dog going blind. Thankfully it was temporary because they were able to reverse it with, it sounds like intravenous lipid therapy. But it's not just the genetic deficiency of PGP. And with humans, you know, the one huge difference between humans and all these lab animals is that humans consume different diets, right? Some of us, I hate to say, I'm one of them, I'm trying to kick it, you know, drink way too much coffee, caffeine. Some of us, you know, eat graferoids, drink green tea. I mean, there's a time when I was working in an office for a company, a couple of year, you know, multiple years ago. And they had a machine where you could just take a little packet, put it in, it's green tea, and I was just, I hate to say it, but I was just drinking it all the time. Like just way too much of it. And I didn't think it was, you know, dangerous. I looked at it compared to coffee and I'm like, okay, well, I'm not drinking coffee. But there's caffeine in it and there's also, I forgot what they're called, but a component of the green tea's a potent PGP inhibit or also CYP3 if where I believe if my memory serves me. Let's continue. This article has more, this one's called central and peripheral neurotoxic effects of hypermectin in rats. But rats treated with 10 milligrams per kilogram of hypermectin demonstrated sleepiness. That's what happened to me when I took it. Not, I would not recommend it to say the least. And I don't even know half, I don't even know 1% of what I know now. If I knew 1% of what I know now, I would have never taken it. And I still hold a grudge against the people who tricked me into it. I look at it as fraudulent to tell somebody it's safe and not pass along the obvious, you know, blaring sirens, the flashing red lights and the red flags and the alarms going off. All right, let's see what happened here. They demonstrated sleepiness and staggering during the 10 to 40 minutes after the drug administration. However, the highest tested dose of hypermectin, 15 milligrams per kilogram, caused central nervous system depression, very similar to general anesthesia. The mean sleeping time in treated rats was longer than four hours, but three rats died. They just put like at the end of the sentence, yeah, they averaged to sleep longer than four hours comma, but three rats died. Which is something we keep seeing in these studies, like the ones with the pigs, the quircetin and de-Joxin study. Two thirds of the pigs just died suddenly to quote the authors. Then there's the other study that's pulled this one up. Okay, this is what I was remembering. So earlier, I was looking at the wrong drug. Okay, let's just loop back to this. Earlier, I had this page open, Lindane, talking about the deaths in the funeral or actually the deaths in the nursing home, where a huge proportion of the people died. It's in like a third of the people died. And it was staggered, like they had some immediate benefits from hypermectin, it seemed, like the rash went away. But they died in huge numbers. Now is this study here we started with. That's associated with the Ivermectin treatment of scabies where we see here of the 47 treated patients. 15 of them died. I think in the six months after. And so I was looking into what else they were being treated with. You see here it says they were on. Lindane and or Perithrin. Per-per-merithin. I can't pronounce that. Per-merithrin. And if we go to this, this was the page I was looking for when we were talking about this. NIH Insight Drugs. Per-matherin. If we scroll down here, we see it inhibits PGP. And it's a substrate for CYP 304. So that jumps out at me as one possible explanation as to why these people had such an elevated toxic reaction where so many people died. But there's other factors as well like what if grape fruits were popular in the clinic? What if they served certain foods or green tea or something? We've talked before about this 13 year old boy who was sent to the hospital in a coma after just one Ivermectin pill, tragic. But let's continue here. There's more I want to cover. Three rats died of the 15 treated rats in this 15 milligram per kilogram group. Which is interesting too because they tell us the LD50 for rats is... Well, it says here, significantly, theality was observed in mice and rats after single doses of 25 to 50 milligrams per kilogram. But in this other case, you know, one fifth, 20% of them died. It just... Let's see. 15. And it's a very low bar to not die. Like that does not equate safety to not die. And which is something looking back that I should have noticed about how people push marijuana as being safe. They're like, yeah, have you ever heard of someone overdosing on marijuana as if that's the single litmus test of whether a drug safer not if it just kills people? And if it doesn't just kill people then, oh, it's totally safe. Okay, let's look at crabs. So actually, cats, excuse me, not crabs. There was an interesting paper by Muhammad et al, which looked at three case studies. The article was called Use of Neo-Stigmine in Massive Ivermectin Toxicity in Cats. So in the first two case studies, someone ejected their two kittens with 15 milligrams of Ivermectin each. And here we find one kitten only got a half dose. Both cats experienced major negative effects. Both kittens became comatose and died. Quote, after about two hours the kitten became comatose, started salivation and died after half an hour. Quote, the presented kitten also started salivating after about two hours of the Ivermectin administration, developed a taxia but retained some consciousness and rightening response. The next morning it was found comatose. The coordination revealed mild salivation, myjrasis, coma, slight fever, 102.4 in an accelerated respiration rate. Severe tockycardia, the heart rate became almost uncountable. It died 12 hours later. In the third case study in the paper, a larger older cat was injected with 15 milligrams of Ivermectin. Here's a quote, excessive salivation, wet chin, lacrimation, dehydration, myjrasis with poor pupillary reflex, protrusion of third eyelid, and increased respiration, 42 breaths per minute, and heart rates of 128 per minute. Staggering gate and tremors, a taxic. By five days after the injection of Ivermectin, and treated for its toxicity, the cat fully recovered. Thankfully. What about bats? Let's go to the fruit bats. The paper is called Ivermectin Toxicosis after a topical administration in dog-faced fruit bats. 38 bats were administered one drop of quote, propylene glycol Ivermectin solution for use in cattle on the skin of the chest. So like these, workers like disrupt a drop into the chest of a bat. The following morning, 11 of the bats had fallen from their purchase and were lying either on the ground or in their food bowl, unable to move. Six bats recovered within 24 to 48 hours. Two days later, another animal was found in a food bowl. Quote five adult male dog-faced fruit bats, the sudden onset of generalized paralysis. Quote three bats died and one was euthanized. One day after admission, and bat E evaluated five days after the Ivermectin treatment because of severe weakness, died spontaneously seven days after topical Ivermectin treatment. Quote bats A, B, and C revealed histologic signs of mild to moderate acute tubular necrosis with evidence of tubular epithelial regeneration. Bat C had a proliferative glomer, ulifridus, sorry for butchering that, with marked cortical tubular distension. Burst tubular protinase osus, along with severe hemorrhagic gastroenteritis and intralisional fungal organisms. Bat E had super-perative bronchonemonia. Why did these bats experience such a bad fate? Will peak like a protein might have played a role? Quote, it's possible that these bats toxicoses, related to a deficiency of peak or ulifridus, peak like a protein, a protein transporter that excretes Ivermectin out of tissue cells. Alright, so let's go to another article I haven't released yet. I plan to get this out so make sure you subscribe, timtruth.substac.com, it's totally free, unless you want to support and get any exclusive supporter-only articles I might put out. This next paper was in Spanish. Ivermectinus, evaluation, de su efecto delitario, mediante en saios de genotoxic dad. I'm told I sound like Borat when I speak Spanish. Quote, when the cometase was employed, both Ivermectin and Ivermect, were able to induce DNA single strand breaks. Again, why are we not being warned that this stuff is mutagenic and breaks DNA? I find that so reprehensible that people push this as safe and just ignore all the signs. Or they are very keenly aware, and this is why it's being pushed on us. That's another disturbing possibility that I more and more have to kind of side on. The cell lines they looked at here, CHOK1 and CCL126, both compounds induced marked alterations in the cell cycle kinetics and in the metotic index of both established cell lines and human lymphocytes, cultured in vitro. Finally, a marked cytotoxicity was highlighted by specific colorometric assays such as MTT and neutral red, showing cytotoxicity depending on the cell type and the different cell or the different culture systems we employed. Overall, the results evidence that Ivermectin present a similar pattern of cytotoxic and genotoxic damage than that induced by Ivermect. Our results demonstrated that Ivermectin has the ability to induce damage in the DNA molecule. At least in the CHOK1 and CCL126 cells, but also highlight a highly cytotoxic capacity as the major deleterious effects of this antibiotic they call it. Again, this was translated from Spanish. And I need to go through this paper. It's very interesting. I don't think I've really... I mean, it's 116 pages. Super interesting. I need to really wrap my head around everything that they're putting forward. It says here, this is probably the key thing that jumps out at me. It's widespread use talking about Ivermectin. Would seriously jeopardize the organisms that are usually treated with Ivermectin, including human beings. Quote, both compounds Ivermectin and Ivermectin produced alterations in the kinetics of cell proliferation evidenced by the elongation of the cell in a decrease in mitotic activity in both cell lines established. We might have already read that. Ivermectin induced a significant reduction in the cellular activity evidenced by alterations in lysosomal activity and in energy metabolism in mammalian cells, CHOK1. So CHO I know from my research is Chinese hamster ovary cells. As well as in insect cells, so CCL126 is the insect cell line they're used. It says Ivermectin has the ability to induce damage not only at the DNA level of different cell types employed, but in addition, produces various effects cellular or that are basically different various deleterious effects on cells. Let's say that way. From all of the above, we can conclude that Ivermectin could be considered as an agent with a certain genotoxic potential and a marked cytotoxic capacity. The later being the most outstanding characteristic of this anti-parasitic compound. So the latter being the marked cytotoxic capacity. And it's also interesting. What is the common buzzword, let's call it? What's the common accusation of the vaccine from the people pushing Ivermectin? They call it a bio-weapon. Which always seemed kind of weird to me. Like let's look up the definition of bio-weapon. Because Ivermectin is much more of a bio-weapon, I would say, than the vaccine. And why do I say that? Well, not because I'm saying that the vaccine is more safe than the Ivermectin. I'm not sure which one's more dangerous. You know, we have a lot of research for Ivermectin very little. About the vaccine other than just people's horror stories that we hear on social media. And the VAR system, etc., etc. Like there's a lot, there's also studies showing... We've covered a lot of studies about the vaccine. I'm not saying it's safe, I'm not saying it's effective. I think it's dangerous and ineffective. And there's huge unknowns that they never related to people. Which is the same thing I say about the Ivermectin. But what I'm bringing up here is I think Ivermectin is much more of a bio-weapon than the vaccine. Now, I'm not sure exactly what's in the vaccine. That's a huge unknown, right? But Ivermectin is a toxin put out by bacteria. So if we look here at the definition of bio-weapon, biological and toxic weapons are either microorganisms like virus, bacteria, or fungi, or toxic substances produced by living organisms that are produced and released deliberately to cause disease and death in humans' animals or plants. Which one fits the bill better? I think Ivermectin. But I'm always open to debates on this type of claim. Okay, let's look at the Chinese mitten crab. Genotoxicity in the Chinese mitten crab. This is Avermectin. Which I thought Avermectin was the class of the products. So I'm not sure exactly which Avermectin they use. That could be either Avermectin or Ivermectin. Are the two major players inside this Avermectin class? It's hard sometimes keeping up with Avermectins. Here's a quote from the paper, Avermectin induces the oxidative stress. Actually, no, this is the title of the paper. Avermectin induces the oxidative stress. Genotoxicity and immunological responses in the Chinese mitten crab. Good. Avermectin or its family members can induce oxidative and immunological damage. As well as genotoxicity in mammals, birds, and fish. The 48 hour and the 96 hour LC50s, so the lethal concentration to kill 50 percent, of Avermectins on e-synestis, which is this Chinese mitten crab. We're 1.663 milligrams per liter and 0.954 milligrams per liter. So, obviously, if the crab has to be soaked in this stuff for an additional however many hours that is, I guess that's twice as many hours from 48 to 96, it takes a smaller concentration to kill, makes sense. Another quote from the paper, very disturbing, Avermectin induces DNA damage in hemosites, if I'm saying that right. Which, according to my search here, immune effector cells that participate in cellular defenses. Now, this chart's very concerning. What is this? Relative of DCF fluorescence. Let's just read some of these quotes. Avermectin induces MN frequency, so that's the micro-nuclear. Remember, we want one nuclei per cell, a large standard nuclei. Not a bunch of little micro-nuclear aberrations. Avermectin induces micro-nuclear frequency in hemosites. An obvious increase in micro-nuclear frequency was observed at high concentrations, especially at 0.48 milligrams per liter from 48 hour exposure. And at 96 hours there is a significant difference in concentration groups of 0.12, 0.24, and 0.48 milligrams per liter compared to the control. The MN test was developed as a simple and practical in vivo cytogenetic screening method for mutagens. In the present study, MN frequency, micro-nuclear frequency increased significantly in high concentration groups from 48 hours. So why do you think they're ignoring all of my posts that I put out, all these videos for I'm sounding the alarm that it's a mutagen? You think maybe because they can't deny that it's a mutagen? That's what I think is the reason why they're ignoring me. They don't want to address this. They want me to go away. That's why I think that's one reason why I have so many thumbs down in all these videos. But I don't let people control me. I control myself. Thank you. There is an interesting study I want to show. This is a different type of study, not Ivermectin. This is a mind control study. I'm writing a book working title is called controlling minds and behavior, subliminal conditioning and the weaponization of psychology. So obviously it's not like a how-to guide to how to control people's behavior. This is how behaviors are controlled and how you can defend yourself is the thinking here. But if we go down here, there's a section where I go through the animal experimentation where they looked basically and how to weaponize psychology against humans. And there's this study here which I find interesting. Waitin and Ailsworth Rat Conditioning Experiment from 1927. Experimenters tested to see if rats would be more conditioned to positive response. Or actually me basically positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement which trains the rats better. So they had three experiments rewards only, punishments only, and rewards and punishments. And the fastest learning occurred in rewards and punishments. Which is interesting. So the rewards in this case were some food. I think it was bread, soaked in milk. If they went down the correct hallway, which was the dark hallway. And if they went down the light hallway, the one with the light on, they were shocked. Now which one is more of a drive? I'm not sure. A lot of times with these animal experiments, like with BF Skinner, they keep these animals like starving. So the hunger drive is so much more pronounced than for us humans who just oftentimes can just eat whenever we're hungry. You know, the hunger drive doesn't really get us as much. Now that's not entirely true. There's a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck and they exploit these same drives that they do in these lab animals and humans. That's why they study these rats in amaze so they can apply to humans typically. But what's interesting is these learning curves. So if we see here the reward only is the first chart. The punishment only is the second chart. And the reward and punishment is the third chart. And you can see just by how long the charts are. That it gets to 100% just all of their behaviors correct with reward and punishment after just, I don't know, 15 or so cycles rounds. But when they only reward the positive behavior, by the end of this, the rats are still making mistakes at the end of this trial, which they kept at a certain point. I find that very interesting. So the hunger drive only goes so far and the rats just likes to explore. I mean, freedom and exploration is a drive as well. When they did just the shocking punishment, you can see the learning was much more significant. They actually end with all correct behavior. And this upward arc is much faster. So my point here is I'm not going to let people exploit psychology on me and applaud, you know, when I don't talk about it and then do me and thumb me down when I do talk about this so that I don't talk about it. Like I understand, I understand the psychology of play here more or less. And I refuse to have somebody tell me what to say. So I just kind of want to do a little sidebar there since we're talking scientific literature. That's how I see all the thumb down brigade. And I'm not going to let them win. Okay, let's continue. Did we read these quotes yet? Let's read this one here. The micronucleid test was developed. Actually, we did read that. It says in the present study, micronucleid frequency increased significantly in high concentration groups of 48 hours. Micro-nicly are not good. Okay, so let's continue here. I had another article that I'm working on. We already talked about the fruit bats. Actually, we already talked about these. Great. So one thing that I think really jumps out is the possibility I'm pretty convinced myself that this is being used as a depopulation agent. And why do I say that? Well, let me just kind of walk through my work here. And this is all available on my substack, Tim Truth and on substack.com free for all these Ibermectin articles. If we scroll down, and I also have a video if you want to have the video walk through explanation. Okay, but in 1974, Kissinger announced the world population plan of action under Nixon's presidency. His document called NSSM 200, the National Study Memorandum, National Security Study Memorandum 200, is nothing short of a nutritious secret government document talking about capping the world's population at 8 billion people. And where do we find ourselves now? 8 billion people. And what are they doing? They're flattening the curve. Which curve? I think you know which curve. And what are the odds that this term that they were using as they were quote flattening the curve? What was the other buzzword they were using? The new normal. The new normal matches exactly with the word depopulation. Alphabetic order where a is one, z is 26, reverse alphabetic order where z is one, a is 26. Then there's the Fox equals 666, which is kind of interesting with who's that celebrity, something Fox with two X's. Jamie Foxx who you know is all the rage right now. People talking about his reported medical condition. But I find it impossible to believe that this phrase that was repeated ad nauseam. I have just, I was going to say highlight real, but just a clip real, let's call it, of news reporters and mainstream media pundits talking about the new normal, the new normal, the new normal. And meanwhile, they were also talking many times in the same sentence about flattening the curve. Well, honestly, I think that a lot of this is about depopulation. And specifically, this overarching plan that runs through the United Nations, the sustainable development, the families like the Rockefellers, and the Gates's, and this document, NSSM 200, which says, right here, black and white, world policy and programs in the population field should incorporate actions to keep the ultimate level as close as possible to 8 billion. So it's just like that movie population for 36, where they, the city, this evil crazy cult city, keeps their population at 436, or maybe was seven. And actually, interestingly, interestingly in that movie, they talk about numerology and do this cipher like the FOX equals 666 cipher, where you just start reducing the numbers. And what was the city name in that movie? Rockwell Falls. You can't make the stuff up. Rockwell Falls, so you know, Stark similarity to Rockefeller, who's a big name in the United Nations. And what's interesting is in this document, they talk about the WHO, the United Nations population fund, the United Nations Children's Fund, and the World Bank being, you know, this group that's going to work together to encourage further action by lesser developed countries, governments, and institutions to work towards this goal of basically genociding us to keep us at this population of 8 billion. Which, which countries are they concentrating on? India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia. Why? Because they were the fastest growing countries. And we see this big push in many of these countries to get people to take lots of item acting. It says here, together, these countries account for 47% of the world's current population increase. It should be recognized that at present, aid bilateral assistance to some of these countries may not be acceptable. bilateral assistance to the extent the funds are available will be given to other countries considering such factors as population growth, need for external assistance, and willingness to engage in self-help. And then they again reference the UN population fund. And you know, I've got so many different projects I'm working on, but what I'm working on is I want to connect all these groups and just really like, I need to build a database to chart all the nodes, like all the different groups and all the edges between them, like who's giving money to who? For example, there's this group called the Population Council that was set up by Rockefeller and a eugenicist, what's his name? Frederick Osborne. Population Council. And if you look at what they're into, it's like all about like contraceptives and worse, right? And who donates these people every year? The United States federal government, the CDC donates the USA to donates, the FDA, I think donates. I mean, just the craziest groups are donating to this Rockefeller, like the Population Council, or should I mean the Population Council. So I find this very interesting. Of course, also we're talking about Kissinger here, pictured right with Rockefeller. People say all the time that Kissinger was kind of a prodigy working for the Rockefellers or with the Rockefellers. And I believe it. Now, where has Ivermectin been mass administered? Well, according to an article from Merck, they have shipped four billion doses of one version of their Ivermectin product called Mectizen to people of poor countries. Here's the quote from the article. Let's just go straight to it here. This is mectason.org. If we search here, billion. The program reaches more than 300 million people annually. Over 11 billion Mectizen, three milligram tablets have been shipped to endemic countries by Merck. That's 33, right? Since the inception in 1987. Okay, so that's concerning, right? You know what's amazing is when I quoted them earlier, the number was that 400 million people annually by the program with over four billion Mectizen, three milligram tablets being shipped. Now it's up to 11 billion. They changed this. Now what's interesting here is it mentions this group, which we're going to talk about in the second. The task force for global health located in Atlanta, Georgia. Right where CNN is and Ted Turner. So it says, MDP, which is the Mectizen donation program, helped create a dedicated public private partnership, or can to coordinate technical and operational activities among WHO and its regional offices. So we have Merck, the WHO, and the task force for global health. Now who's the task force for global health? The task force, this is their Wikipedia page, works in partnership with ministries of health and hundreds of organizations, including major pharmaceutical companies that donate billions of dollars annually in essential medicines. Major funders include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the CDC, the WHO, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the BMont Foundation, United States Agency for International Development, that's USAID, site savers, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, and Glaxo Smith Klein. The task force was initially launched to foster collaboration. Under the leadership of Dr. Fogue, the task force brought together the World Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations Development Program, the WHO, UNICEF, and WHO to raise childhood immunization rates. So I see such a stark similarity between eye vermectin and the vaccines. And I'm calling them both out and people are saying I'm a show for Big Pharma, it literally makes no sense. Now what about fertility reduction of eye vermectin? We talk about salonzo, I kind of want to breeze through this just for the record for completeness sake. But here's an article called adverse effects of repeated doses of eye vermectin alone or with a combination of vitamin C on reproductive system of female rabbits by Jawad et al. The results of fertility study revealed adverse effect of eye vermectin therapy on fertility and blocked the pregnancy in all treated groups except for the fifth group which administered vitamin C only as compared with the control group. In conclusion, eye vermectin has adverse effects on reproductive efficacy on female rabbits. Bombshell, where are the ferret advocates? Where are the ferret advocates? Now this char