One type of blood filtration method has a name, and is available medically already:
plasmapheresis: "is a process of separating plasma from blood cells and replacing it with another solution. [This solution can either be synthetic or a donor plasma] It can be used to treat or prevent autoimmune disorders, infections, neuropathy and organ rejection."
Not medical advice, just noting it for educational purposes.
It will be Negative, as measured by Pfizer and others. Phosphate also makes LNPs Zeta Potential negative. Iron in +2 or +3 oxidation state will coordinate to LNPs altering their ZP as well.
Isn't the -3.3mV (which Ulm disputes Pfizer's accuracy but I couldn't include a third hand comment) only for default state LNPs? Or is it negative attracts negative so it stacks?
The fact the damn things change charge based on pH makes this more complex to deal with.
Quoting Ulm's (unverified but from a trusted source) comment: "i think the zeta potential is no where near -3.13 mV as disclosed by pfizer and that because of this, they in fact are inducing clumping of RBCs by their presence by direct disruption of RBC zeta potential"
That's his opinion. You'll have to forgive me, I said -3.3mV as I was trying to quote off the top of my head (and should have just pulled the source material).
Geoff Pain was the man who originally mentioned the endotoxins stick to LNPs (I asked him after finding out endotoxins interfere with transfection).
Endotoxins are produced by bacteria, not LNPs. So there's no endotoxins within the LNPs. But your point is worth highlighting - some of these treatment modalities are likely *mutually exclusive and/or incompatible with one another*. The endotoxin stickiness model is likely incompatible with the phototherapy ('light') lipid peroxidation model.
Still, I wanted to make sure there was a diverse set on the table. Maybe someone will go 'Aha!' and have an epiphany.
Unfortunately I think you're wrong about that. Iirc the endotoxin is a byproduct of the second manufacturing method, basically poo bacteria to cheapen and scale up the production of the modified RNA.
Seems to me that when the soups packaged it won't be filtering the endotoxin out, I'd have thought it would be packaged for delivery the same as everything wlse in the poison.
Obviously Geoffs the man to answer more definitively, ultimately I'm just going off what I've watched/read.
Big fan of Sonia so I'll use her article -
Beyond Contamination: Pfizer/BioNTech shot rolled out to public was NOT the one tested in clinical trial
This should have required a second clinical trial but the fraud is so blatant that there's nothing else this can be but an attack, more so with how complicit key agencies and people have behaved, the fraud and lies which the entire debacle has been.
China would consider ALL the western liberal western countries a threat just by existing, just our individual freedoms is a massive thread to their countries stability.
I personally believe a global coup is in place if people don't wake up, you'll own nothing and be happy is seeming closer to reality then a few years ago.
I'm a massive fan of Jessica Rose, this incorporates the phrame shifting as well as the potential ramifications tied to this.
Hard because this keeps refreshing and I'm rewriting it all for the second time.
To me I just consider the LNP a carrying agent but slippery as f and it goes everywhere, including the cell nucleus. When it was packaged with the modRNA the contamination was taken up as well. My understanding may be wrong but you'd need to talk to Geoff as I believe he's been ahhead of the game on the endotoxin risks.
Copy paste of my old genetic harms links source information-
A good breakdown of the technology/methodology used-
Others have done work on it but Geoff was good enough to comment and seems legit-
Pfizer knew how to remove Double Stranded RNA Contaminants in 2011 but didn't do it for Covid19
Kevin McKernan, Phillip Buckhaults and Prof. Dr. Brigitte König MMD labs independently analyzed Pfizer jabs and proved contamination above arbitrary "limits". Pfizer saved money by bottling toxic soup
Keep in mind in the Philip Buckhault testimony to the senate enquiry he stated that his students must show they can clense their work and its inconceivable that this was missed. Worse yet they have astronomically increased the likelihood of DNA intergenerational because they metaphorically shredded/blended the DNA contamination into billions of pieces.
Full disclosure mate, I'm a no one that knows any of the above. I respect them though because their hearts are in the right place which I wonder about some.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand and have conflated differing terminologies.
Endotoxins are produced by bacteria. Bacteria is used in the production of DNA. Yes, there are endotoxins *in the shots*, but it is misleading to say the endotoxins are in the LNPs. LNPs cannot carry nor produce endotoxins; LNPs are lipid nanoparticles, not bacteria.
Interesting because the adverse reactions of special interest show dic on there but I was under the impression that only approx 200 people had used this dirty manufacturing method and the rest used the original.
Either the old method also causes this or you have a real safety signal that was ignored (like the rest)
111. Disseminated intravascular coagulation;
112. Disseminated intravascular coagulation in newborn;
Wasn't being smart either and you're correct, I obviously didn't have a good understanding on how the endotoxins came to be. Now I have a little better understanding I still cannot see how it's not packaged and delivered the same as the modRNA.
Obviously I'll take Geoff's word for it that it sticks to the LNPs but you still have product with varying degrees of contamination and if they have made no attempt to dissolve/remove this contamination. If the DNA plasmids were chopped up and mixed all through the product it wouldn't be separated out and while some would stick surely most would be encapsulated within?
I'll have a more in-depth read and follow a few of the links as well.
Maybe but the bacteria used to manufacture the mod rna creates the endotoxin?
The LNP carries the product and it also protects the fragile RNA?
I have a good video on the LNP use and how it packages a product but I'll have to remember where it is, IF I saved it sorry.
By scrambling the plasmids i would assume(terrible) that the bacteria would be disturbed
"are the component of the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria and are released into the circulation upon disruption of the intact bacteria"
I still don't see how it's not a byproduct of the manufacturing process. Even without the chopping up surely there would be disruption to the DNA but to a smaller extent?
So if they didn't clense this poison of the DNA plasmids when the LNPs are "filled" the soup would be contaminated with the endotoxin and this "soup" is what the LNPs are used to "carry"?
Btw I appreciate your time on this, I'm on nights but I understand its late.
Can you provide more details on the "Enders falsified CPE method"? I am not personally familiar with it, myself. If you've got a study or something highlighting the idea I will happily go up and edit in an update on the antiviral activity section.
You'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit slow to respond, stayed up late and didn't get much sleep.
If you want a short overview with references to take you further, I outlined the major issues with virology (circular reasoning and Enders falsified propagation method here: https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/virologys-fatal-flaw
Mark Bailey's long & thorough "Farewell to Virology" is an excellent scholar's overview of all the issues at hand:
Sorry, but I genuinely can't buy this as anything but a discredit attempt. Basically a 'viruses don't exist' and it isn't evidence, they are self-referential works.
Electron microscopy of viruses are available in numerous free videos ('electron microscopy virus' will give you a landslide), so the 'it's too small I can't see it' argument doesn't stack as it relies on ignoring visual spectroscopy showing evidence of viruses.
The usual "rebuttal" is every single person is falsifying the footage somehow, but that accusation can be levied in the opposite direction (as the 'other side' only have speculative writings).
This is why I ask for evidence of objections, because it makes it a straight shot to evaluate them.
If this means losing a paying subscriber, so be it, but I must adhere to what I see evidenced and truthful. I'm strictly in the 'viruses exist' camp because of electron microscopy, and furthermore, saying an antiviral can't work because viruses haven't been proven in the study could be abused maliciously to deny any and all treatment proposals.
I didn't prove cancer existed either. Are you going to doubt that as well?
So I was mistaken. You are completely close-minded about the subject and all falsification of virology's central claims mean diddly squat?
Seriously mate, I answer your "electron microscopy" objection in my Fatal Flaws article. The *first question* still hasn't been answered: "Is it a 'virus' at all?"
"You are completely close-minded about the subject and all falsification of virology's central claims mean diddly squat?"
Close-minded or taking an evidenced stance? I present electron microscopy, and you hand me words. Anybody can write words. I can write words. You can write words. Doesn't mean those words are evidenced or intrinsically true. It is why I go to great lengths to provide citations and references to claims.
I am not seeing that presented by the other side, and being falsely accused of being closed-minded when the other side presents shallow wordy rhetoric and no evidence isn't going to sway me, and will instead earn my ire.
"IS IT A 'VIRUS' AT ALL?"
Yes. Did you not see the video of it destroying a T-cell in time series?
I'm not here to debate word definitions simply because the evidence doesn't fit your worldview. You can toss it out if you want, but that's never going to be a convincing argument for me. The 'it doesn't exist' argument fell flat on 'yes it does', so now a moving the goalposts has occurred in the form 'but is that 'really a virus'?'. Yes, yes it is. Onus is on you to present electron microscopy imagery it isn't.
Hit me up when you've got an electron microscope or two and some *actual evidence* to contend with. If your next response is just words, or a link to a thing that contains even more words (and no evidence), don't be surprised if I just ignore it.
How else can I demonstrate that your precious "irrefutable" electron micrograph "evidence" are methodologically flawed evidence when you refuse to read it?
In my article, which included 29 referenced citations:
1. I define what virology says a "virus" is;
2. I outline how virology methodologically demonstrates that viruses are what they say they are;
3. I demonstrate that there is a missing first step: virology has not demonstrated viruses are what they say they are because they ASSUME what they're trying to prove (circular reasoning/begging the question);
4. I demonstrate that the METHOD virology uses to demonstrate what they say viruses are has been FALSIFIED by Stefan Lanka and can no longer be evoked to its defense;
5. I demonstrate that "virus"electron microscopy is dependent on that selfsame falsified methodology and therefore CANNOT be evoked as "proof" of viruses;
6. Ergo, there is no current, scientifically acceptable evidence supporting virology's functional claims that viruses spread from cell to cell, kill them and thus cause disease in a host organism;
7. I set a number of crucial experiments virology could employ to CORRECT their circular reasoning and falsified methodologies (not many critics go that far!)
And all of that you REFUSE TO READ and accuse me of "handing words; anyone can write words."
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol X – Preparing for Power . . . (((SARS-CoV2)))
❝. . . utterly exhaust humanity with dissention, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the inoculation of diseases. by want, so that the “Goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else.❞
I suppose that would increase availability in the gut, but IV would give you 100% availability (I believe! Don't quote me).
In theory I suppose some folks -could- oral supplement but I'm not sure their gut would ever absorb levels sufficient at a rate sufficient to beat liver clearance. But again, if clinical researchers or medical professionals want to try their own variations or designs I'm not going to stop them.
One type of blood filtration method has a name, and is available medically already:
plasmapheresis: "is a process of separating plasma from blood cells and replacing it with another solution. [This solution can either be synthetic or a donor plasma] It can be used to treat or prevent autoimmune disorders, infections, neuropathy and organ rejection."
Not medical advice, just noting it for educational purposes.
Endotoxin sticks to LNPs, Liposomes etc. altering Zeta Potential and thus Transfection.
My article from last August with links to more references.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/lnps-contaminated-with-endotoxin
Endotoxins modify Zeta Potential? That might pair well with electrostatic filtration.
Do you know if the Zeta Potential of the LNPs is positive or negative after endotoxin modification?
It will be Negative, as measured by Pfizer and others. Phosphate also makes LNPs Zeta Potential negative. Iron in +2 or +3 oxidation state will coordinate to LNPs altering their ZP as well.
Isn't the -3.3mV (which Ulm disputes Pfizer's accuracy but I couldn't include a third hand comment) only for default state LNPs? Or is it negative attracts negative so it stacks?
The fact the damn things change charge based on pH makes this more complex to deal with.
The finished Pfizer Drug Product gave a measurement of -3.13 mV for Zeta Potential with ALC-0315/ALC-0159/DSPC/CHOL at molar ratio
47.5/10/40.7/1.8 with a ratio of cationic lipid to RNA (N/P ratio) of 6.3
Quoting Ulm's (unverified but from a trusted source) comment: "i think the zeta potential is no where near -3.13 mV as disclosed by pfizer and that because of this, they in fact are inducing clumping of RBCs by their presence by direct disruption of RBC zeta potential"
That's his opinion. You'll have to forgive me, I said -3.3mV as I was trying to quote off the top of my head (and should have just pulled the source material).
I am relying on Pfizer official documentation for the Zeta Potential I quoted for the composition above. Not Ulm or anyone else.
Very solid post, thanks.
Got to wonder how ultrasound goes if vibration has an effect?
It could do. I don't know what depth ultrasound could reach and for how long it needs to run for, and at what intensity.
Any reading researchers ought to investigate the impact of ultrasound on mRNA stability.
Also worth touching base with Geoff Pain about the potential risks.
i.e. if you break up the LNPs would you release a potentially fatal dose of the endotoxin held within.
I'm a crane operator so I'm probably talking out my arse but you'd want to be sure. Would the ultrasound also damage the endotoxin.
This is a nightmare that gets darker.
Geoff Pain was the man who originally mentioned the endotoxins stick to LNPs (I asked him after finding out endotoxins interfere with transfection).
Endotoxins are produced by bacteria, not LNPs. So there's no endotoxins within the LNPs. But your point is worth highlighting - some of these treatment modalities are likely *mutually exclusive and/or incompatible with one another*. The endotoxin stickiness model is likely incompatible with the phototherapy ('light') lipid peroxidation model.
Still, I wanted to make sure there was a diverse set on the table. Maybe someone will go 'Aha!' and have an epiphany.
Unfortunately I think you're wrong about that. Iirc the endotoxin is a byproduct of the second manufacturing method, basically poo bacteria to cheapen and scale up the production of the modified RNA.
Seems to me that when the soups packaged it won't be filtering the endotoxin out, I'd have thought it would be packaged for delivery the same as everything wlse in the poison.
Obviously Geoffs the man to answer more definitively, ultimately I'm just going off what I've watched/read.
Big fan of Sonia so I'll use her article -
Beyond Contamination: Pfizer/BioNTech shot rolled out to public was NOT the one tested in clinical trial
https://open.substack.com/pub/soniaelijah/p/beyond-contamination-pfizerbiontech?publication_id=319741&post_id=139977475&isFreemail=true&r=x2a5a&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1NTUzMzc5MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTM5OTc3NDc1LCJpYXQiOjE3MDQ3NTc5OTIsImV4cCI6MTcwNzM0OTk5MiwiaXNzIjoicHViLTMxOTc0MSIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.pAKlOi6ZHwRXQP6LJCfmu2o_CiW4_oQdlNlqTBWRmno
This should have required a second clinical trial but the fraud is so blatant that there's nothing else this can be but an attack, more so with how complicit key agencies and people have behaved, the fraud and lies which the entire debacle has been.
China would consider ALL the western liberal western countries a threat just by existing, just our individual freedoms is a massive thread to their countries stability.
I personally believe a global coup is in place if people don't wake up, you'll own nothing and be happy is seeming closer to reality then a few years ago.
I'm a massive fan of Jessica Rose, this incorporates the phrame shifting as well as the potential ramifications tied to this.
https://rumble.com/v46qun0-the-iron-will.html
But this explains more of the initial finding by Kevin McKernan and also the potential ramifications.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/753JveMR6BCQU2d2gPPBV5?si=J-hWN3OqQXKqzcS_HO_ESQ
Hard because this keeps refreshing and I'm rewriting it all for the second time.
To me I just consider the LNP a carrying agent but slippery as f and it goes everywhere, including the cell nucleus. When it was packaged with the modRNA the contamination was taken up as well. My understanding may be wrong but you'd need to talk to Geoff as I believe he's been ahhead of the game on the endotoxin risks.
Copy paste of my old genetic harms links source information-
A good breakdown of the technology/methodology used-
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/5-ways-to-skin-a-genetically-modified?publication_id=413756&post_id=137412013&isFreemail=true&r=x2a5a
Future generational harms-
Explosive: DNA Modifications Impact The Next Generation
'But it gets worse'
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/explosive-dna-modifications-impact
Philip Altmans early work (before everything went to complete shit) on the immense ramifications intergenerationaly,-
https://phillipaltman.substack.com/p/intergenerational-genetic-damage?publication_id=1301027&post_id=125241647&isFreemail=true
Philip Buckhault testifying to congress in the USA after originally stating he'd debunk Kevin McKernan's findings-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IEWHhrHiiTY&t=2s
Along with these doctors
https://m.youtube.com/@sc4freedom
Others have done work on it but Geoff was good enough to comment and seems legit-
Pfizer knew how to remove Double Stranded RNA Contaminants in 2011 but didn't do it for Covid19
Kevin McKernan, Phillip Buckhaults and Prof. Dr. Brigitte König MMD labs independently analyzed Pfizer jabs and proved contamination above arbitrary "limits". Pfizer saved money by bottling toxic soup
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/pfizer-knew-how-to-remove-double
Keep in mind in the Philip Buckhault testimony to the senate enquiry he stated that his students must show they can clense their work and its inconceivable that this was missed. Worse yet they have astronomically increased the likelihood of DNA intergenerational because they metaphorically shredded/blended the DNA contamination into billions of pieces.
Full disclosure mate, I'm a no one that knows any of the above. I respect them though because their hearts are in the right place which I wonder about some.
"Unfortunately I think you're wrong about that."
I think you fundamentally misunderstand and have conflated differing terminologies.
Endotoxins are produced by bacteria. Bacteria is used in the production of DNA. Yes, there are endotoxins *in the shots*, but it is misleading to say the endotoxins are in the LNPs. LNPs cannot carry nor produce endotoxins; LNPs are lipid nanoparticles, not bacteria.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/endotoxin
Interesting because the adverse reactions of special interest show dic on there but I was under the impression that only approx 200 people had used this dirty manufacturing method and the rest used the original.
Either the old method also causes this or you have a real safety signal that was ignored (like the rest)
111. Disseminated intravascular coagulation;
112. Disseminated intravascular coagulation in newborn;
http://freedonk.com/pfizer-side-effects.html
Potentially this is one of the inadvertent pregnancies and that both mother and child suffered or worse yet two separate cases presented.
Wasn't being smart either and you're correct, I obviously didn't have a good understanding on how the endotoxins came to be. Now I have a little better understanding I still cannot see how it's not packaged and delivered the same as the modRNA.
Obviously I'll take Geoff's word for it that it sticks to the LNPs but you still have product with varying degrees of contamination and if they have made no attempt to dissolve/remove this contamination. If the DNA plasmids were chopped up and mixed all through the product it wouldn't be separated out and while some would stick surely most would be encapsulated within?
I'll have a more in-depth read and follow a few of the links as well.
Maybe but the bacteria used to manufacture the mod rna creates the endotoxin?
The LNP carries the product and it also protects the fragile RNA?
I have a good video on the LNP use and how it packages a product but I'll have to remember where it is, IF I saved it sorry.
By scrambling the plasmids i would assume(terrible) that the bacteria would be disturbed
"are the component of the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria and are released into the circulation upon disruption of the intact bacteria"
I still don't see how it's not a byproduct of the manufacturing process. Even without the chopping up surely there would be disruption to the DNA but to a smaller extent?
So if they didn't clense this poison of the DNA plasmids when the LNPs are "filled" the soup would be contaminated with the endotoxin and this "soup" is what the LNPs are used to "carry"?
Btw I appreciate your time on this, I'm on nights but I understand its late.
A few technical errors.
FAC's alleged antiviral efficacy is flawed, as it uses Enders falsified CPE method for determining viral activity in cell culture.
You should also update your reading on HIV-AIDS; here's a great launching pad if you feel like:
https://rebeccaculshawsmith.substack.com/
This is the kind of criticism the article needs.
Can you provide more details on the "Enders falsified CPE method"? I am not personally familiar with it, myself. If you've got a study or something highlighting the idea I will happily go up and edit in an update on the antiviral activity section.
You'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit slow to respond, stayed up late and didn't get much sleep.
If you want a short overview with references to take you further, I outlined the major issues with virology (circular reasoning and Enders falsified propagation method here: https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/virologys-fatal-flaw
Mark Bailey's long & thorough "Farewell to Virology" is an excellent scholar's overview of all the issues at hand:
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
Mike Stone also has heaps of dense, thorough articles on virology's flawed method and fallacious conclusions:
https://viroliegy.com/category/cell-culture/
https://viroliegy.com/category/purification-isolation/
Thanks for having an open mind to investigate. Cheers!
Sorry, but I genuinely can't buy this as anything but a discredit attempt. Basically a 'viruses don't exist' and it isn't evidence, they are self-referential works.
Electron microscopy of viruses are available in numerous free videos ('electron microscopy virus' will give you a landslide), so the 'it's too small I can't see it' argument doesn't stack as it relies on ignoring visual spectroscopy showing evidence of viruses.
SARS-CoV-2 viruses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MtEv-2yl1w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZvf5NOFHs
HIV with timelapsed electron microscopy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TC35-ssd_0
The usual "rebuttal" is every single person is falsifying the footage somehow, but that accusation can be levied in the opposite direction (as the 'other side' only have speculative writings).
This is why I ask for evidence of objections, because it makes it a straight shot to evaluate them.
If this means losing a paying subscriber, so be it, but I must adhere to what I see evidenced and truthful. I'm strictly in the 'viruses exist' camp because of electron microscopy, and furthermore, saying an antiviral can't work because viruses haven't been proven in the study could be abused maliciously to deny any and all treatment proposals.
I didn't prove cancer existed either. Are you going to doubt that as well?
So I was mistaken. You are completely close-minded about the subject and all falsification of virology's central claims mean diddly squat?
Seriously mate, I answer your "electron microscopy" objection in my Fatal Flaws article. The *first question* still hasn't been answered: "Is it a 'virus' at all?"
IS IT A 'VIRUS' AT ALL?
"You are completely close-minded about the subject and all falsification of virology's central claims mean diddly squat?"
Close-minded or taking an evidenced stance? I present electron microscopy, and you hand me words. Anybody can write words. I can write words. You can write words. Doesn't mean those words are evidenced or intrinsically true. It is why I go to great lengths to provide citations and references to claims.
I am not seeing that presented by the other side, and being falsely accused of being closed-minded when the other side presents shallow wordy rhetoric and no evidence isn't going to sway me, and will instead earn my ire.
"IS IT A 'VIRUS' AT ALL?"
Yes. Did you not see the video of it destroying a T-cell in time series?
I'm not here to debate word definitions simply because the evidence doesn't fit your worldview. You can toss it out if you want, but that's never going to be a convincing argument for me. The 'it doesn't exist' argument fell flat on 'yes it does', so now a moving the goalposts has occurred in the form 'but is that 'really a virus'?'. Yes, yes it is. Onus is on you to present electron microscopy imagery it isn't.
Hit me up when you've got an electron microscope or two and some *actual evidence* to contend with. If your next response is just words, or a link to a thing that contains even more words (and no evidence), don't be surprised if I just ignore it.
How else can I demonstrate that your precious "irrefutable" electron micrograph "evidence" are methodologically flawed evidence when you refuse to read it?
In my article, which included 29 referenced citations:
1. I define what virology says a "virus" is;
2. I outline how virology methodologically demonstrates that viruses are what they say they are;
3. I demonstrate that there is a missing first step: virology has not demonstrated viruses are what they say they are because they ASSUME what they're trying to prove (circular reasoning/begging the question);
4. I demonstrate that the METHOD virology uses to demonstrate what they say viruses are has been FALSIFIED by Stefan Lanka and can no longer be evoked to its defense;
5. I demonstrate that "virus"electron microscopy is dependent on that selfsame falsified methodology and therefore CANNOT be evoked as "proof" of viruses;
6. Ergo, there is no current, scientifically acceptable evidence supporting virology's functional claims that viruses spread from cell to cell, kill them and thus cause disease in a host organism;
7. I set a number of crucial experiments virology could employ to CORRECT their circular reasoning and falsified methodologies (not many critics go that far!)
And all of that you REFUSE TO READ and accuse me of "handing words; anyone can write words."
The words of a lazy man.
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol X – Preparing for Power . . . (((SARS-CoV2)))
❝. . . utterly exhaust humanity with dissention, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the inoculation of diseases. by want, so that the “Goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else.❞
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/protocol-x-preparing-for-power-sars
Please don't spam articles in the comment section. Once is enough.
Off topic but exactly what I'm needing, foraging information and Aussie as well.
No worries mate!
What about taking FAC in liposomal form (special coating that helps it mitigate past stomach acid)?
I suppose that would increase availability in the gut, but IV would give you 100% availability (I believe! Don't quote me).
In theory I suppose some folks -could- oral supplement but I'm not sure their gut would ever absorb levels sufficient at a rate sufficient to beat liver clearance. But again, if clinical researchers or medical professionals want to try their own variations or designs I'm not going to stop them.