Dosages of μg/kg refer to a dose per kilo of bodyweight. If we take a person weighing 75 kg (used for the rest of these examples), a dose of 200 μg/kg would be 15 mg.
The LD50 dose of 50mg/kg which you specified would, in comparison, be 3,750 mg, or 250 times greater than what Caravallo suggested.
And your figure of 1.2 mg/kg (causing 30+ % to drop out of trial) would be equivalent to 90 mg, significantly larger than the proposed dosages.
I've stumbled upon your site and it's been an interesting read. I sense you're dangerously close to falling into a world of complete delusion, and this is where it's hard to do away without a little discussion with your peers. I agree you should not idolize any hero, but walking "alone" doesn't work either, because you fall victim to your own circular logic, fallacies, and stupidity.
I have some comments for you, because I am periodically running into the same problems:
1) One of the major problems will all of your analysis is your usage of selective picking of unreliable resources to prove points. BuzzFeed is not a reliable source. You cannot use newspaper articles (especially from propaganda outlets) to prove a claim, because you will easily find any newspaper article to support any pre-conceived idea or notion. As per your own study, you can also usually find scientific papers to back any narrative, as required. The best elements of your exploration hinge on broad facts -- who met with whom, where did the money flow, who profits, who has what motive, who has what to lose, etc. These are things that overarch any of the theater we are showered with. They are more fundamental in nature. They are the equivalent of Aristotle's "metaphysics" to philosophy.
You write: "When Dr. Mike Yeadon first came on scene, he promoted shady narratives, blending politics with medicine. So I stopped listening."
But are you not doing the same thing? You are promoting shady narratives. You should not stop listening for 2 reasons:
1) Even wrong information, or disinformation, provides you with information. The information provided is indirect -- it tells you something about the source (see The Philosophy of Information - Luciano Floridi). Not to mention, inconsistency should be expected. People can be just... wrong. Have you never been wrong? I argue that a source which is "never wrong" should be viewed with greater scrutiny, since it's completely implausible. A truly reliable source, which is truly interested in the TRUTH will be happy to concede its errors. A more reliable indication of real disinformation will always be monetary funding and ulterior motives.
2) I believe that most of us significantly overestimate the degree to which any single human holistically understands anything at all. Yeadon, for example, may be very knowledgeable in a certain field, and highly intelligent, but, in another area, he's just trying to put pieces together. You are no different. You may have a unique awareness or understanding of something, and be completely clueless, or completely wrong, about something else. You being way off base about something isn't in itself a sudden indication that you are a shill, or controlled opposition - yet another source of bunk intended to clutter all the information that's out there. In such cases it's useful to invoke pragmatism / Occam's Razor. A much simpler explanation is that you, as any human, just happened to be convinced of something which was untrue. I know this to be true, because I have been wrong about many things (unquestionably -- by way of contradiction), and I'm not paid by any government agency, and I do not have a platform to spread my "information" 😂.
Btw. If chlorine dioxide is ONLY bleach (a question you could not answer literally 3 days ago but now you KNOW IT AAAAAAAAAALL yeah? Hahahahaha), then I guess water is ONLY engine coolant fluid. Do molecules have ONLY ONE EVER USE AND NOTHING ELSE? No you absolute fucking retard. Indeed CDS kills "viruses", bacteria and fungi.
So, umm, duuuh, is that a good thing or bad thing retard boy? Did I recommend you drink a gallon of it? My god you truly are a special kind of retard. Go ahead and delete my messages. Can't have people reading any common sense now can we? Something that is used for water purification and kills most known pathogens cannot possible be used for a human (who is mostly water) and has a lot of pathogens in them.
Oh no no no, that is crazy talk. If it's used for water purification then it will REGARDLESS OF DOSAGE lead to the water inside the human body to turn into black goo, nano tech, retard brain matter like you seem to be made up of judging only by your retarded programmed, mainstream bullshit? My god you absolute fucking moron. Record level stupidity. I am actually amazed that someone can be THIS stupid.
"Oh I see it purifies water and kills almost all pathogens."
"THIS MUST BE VERY VERY BAD because it has the word Chlorine in it"
"Air contains hydrogen. If I breathe ONLY hydrogen, I die. Conclusion, if I breathe I die". <- That's how fucking retarded you are dude!
Yo. SuperSaber here. I did not try to disprove anything by asking a question about another molecule you moron. What kind of low IQ shit is that? Me talking about one molecule does not prove ANYTHING about a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT molecule. You are mentally handicapped and draw WILD, INSANE conclusions.
I was testing your knowledge and clearly it's CNN levels. Keep devoting your life to talking shit about other people, lying about them, pretending like you can read their minds and intentions and then draw huge all encompassing conclusions all the while pretending like you actually look at the science and behave scientifically.
Meanwhile the links to your "scientific studies" are on Tim Truth, not actual scientific journals. The first one was some amateur crap tested on THREE WHOLE PEOPLE. Wow. Well that certainly breaks the BILLIONS of other people's results in thousands of other actually published studies huh?
I wonder how many of the adverse events were from vaccinated people vs unvaccinated. Can't tell, because it's a joke fraud "study" you use. What was the dosage in your extremely large 3 whole people test? No one knows because it's a joke sham of a study.
No method, no hypothesis, no analysis, no details, barely any experiment but loads and loads and loads of conclusions. My god you truly are a special kind of retard. Keep devoting your life to writing about me. Makes me feel very special. Thanks. Now go F your mom.
Your Ivermectin calculations are wrong:
Dosages of μg/kg refer to a dose per kilo of bodyweight. If we take a person weighing 75 kg (used for the rest of these examples), a dose of 200 μg/kg would be 15 mg.
The LD50 dose of 50mg/kg which you specified would, in comparison, be 3,750 mg, or 250 times greater than what Caravallo suggested.
And your figure of 1.2 mg/kg (causing 30+ % to drop out of trial) would be equivalent to 90 mg, significantly larger than the proposed dosages.
I've stumbled upon your site and it's been an interesting read. I sense you're dangerously close to falling into a world of complete delusion, and this is where it's hard to do away without a little discussion with your peers. I agree you should not idolize any hero, but walking "alone" doesn't work either, because you fall victim to your own circular logic, fallacies, and stupidity.
I have some comments for you, because I am periodically running into the same problems:
1) One of the major problems will all of your analysis is your usage of selective picking of unreliable resources to prove points. BuzzFeed is not a reliable source. You cannot use newspaper articles (especially from propaganda outlets) to prove a claim, because you will easily find any newspaper article to support any pre-conceived idea or notion. As per your own study, you can also usually find scientific papers to back any narrative, as required. The best elements of your exploration hinge on broad facts -- who met with whom, where did the money flow, who profits, who has what motive, who has what to lose, etc. These are things that overarch any of the theater we are showered with. They are more fundamental in nature. They are the equivalent of Aristotle's "metaphysics" to philosophy.
You write: "When Dr. Mike Yeadon first came on scene, he promoted shady narratives, blending politics with medicine. So I stopped listening."
But are you not doing the same thing? You are promoting shady narratives. You should not stop listening for 2 reasons:
1) Even wrong information, or disinformation, provides you with information. The information provided is indirect -- it tells you something about the source (see The Philosophy of Information - Luciano Floridi). Not to mention, inconsistency should be expected. People can be just... wrong. Have you never been wrong? I argue that a source which is "never wrong" should be viewed with greater scrutiny, since it's completely implausible. A truly reliable source, which is truly interested in the TRUTH will be happy to concede its errors. A more reliable indication of real disinformation will always be monetary funding and ulterior motives.
2) I believe that most of us significantly overestimate the degree to which any single human holistically understands anything at all. Yeadon, for example, may be very knowledgeable in a certain field, and highly intelligent, but, in another area, he's just trying to put pieces together. You are no different. You may have a unique awareness or understanding of something, and be completely clueless, or completely wrong, about something else. You being way off base about something isn't in itself a sudden indication that you are a shill, or controlled opposition - yet another source of bunk intended to clutter all the information that's out there. In such cases it's useful to invoke pragmatism / Occam's Razor. A much simpler explanation is that you, as any human, just happened to be convinced of something which was untrue. I know this to be true, because I have been wrong about many things (unquestionably -- by way of contradiction), and I'm not paid by any government agency, and I do not have a platform to spread my "information" 😂.
Looking forward to read some of your other posts.
You missed my dosage deep dive: https://ungoverneable.substack.com/i/147942909/dosage
Btw. If chlorine dioxide is ONLY bleach (a question you could not answer literally 3 days ago but now you KNOW IT AAAAAAAAAALL yeah? Hahahahaha), then I guess water is ONLY engine coolant fluid. Do molecules have ONLY ONE EVER USE AND NOTHING ELSE? No you absolute fucking retard. Indeed CDS kills "viruses", bacteria and fungi.
So, umm, duuuh, is that a good thing or bad thing retard boy? Did I recommend you drink a gallon of it? My god you truly are a special kind of retard. Go ahead and delete my messages. Can't have people reading any common sense now can we? Something that is used for water purification and kills most known pathogens cannot possible be used for a human (who is mostly water) and has a lot of pathogens in them.
Oh no no no, that is crazy talk. If it's used for water purification then it will REGARDLESS OF DOSAGE lead to the water inside the human body to turn into black goo, nano tech, retard brain matter like you seem to be made up of judging only by your retarded programmed, mainstream bullshit? My god you absolute fucking moron. Record level stupidity. I am actually amazed that someone can be THIS stupid.
"Oh I see it purifies water and kills almost all pathogens."
"THIS MUST BE VERY VERY BAD because it has the word Chlorine in it"
"Air contains hydrogen. If I breathe ONLY hydrogen, I die. Conclusion, if I breathe I die". <- That's how fucking retarded you are dude!
Nothing about Ivermectin?
Yo. SuperSaber here. I did not try to disprove anything by asking a question about another molecule you moron. What kind of low IQ shit is that? Me talking about one molecule does not prove ANYTHING about a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT molecule. You are mentally handicapped and draw WILD, INSANE conclusions.
I was testing your knowledge and clearly it's CNN levels. Keep devoting your life to talking shit about other people, lying about them, pretending like you can read their minds and intentions and then draw huge all encompassing conclusions all the while pretending like you actually look at the science and behave scientifically.
Meanwhile the links to your "scientific studies" are on Tim Truth, not actual scientific journals. The first one was some amateur crap tested on THREE WHOLE PEOPLE. Wow. Well that certainly breaks the BILLIONS of other people's results in thousands of other actually published studies huh?
I wonder how many of the adverse events were from vaccinated people vs unvaccinated. Can't tell, because it's a joke fraud "study" you use. What was the dosage in your extremely large 3 whole people test? No one knows because it's a joke sham of a study.
No method, no hypothesis, no analysis, no details, barely any experiment but loads and loads and loads of conclusions. My god you truly are a special kind of retard. Keep devoting your life to writing about me. Makes me feel very special. Thanks. Now go F your mom.
You seem more worried about being right than Ivermectin?