This reminds me of something I heard YEARS ago: Conservatives think liberals are insane. Liberals think conservatives are evil.
Drug names ending in -ab are likely Frankenstein drugs. Biologic drugs. They are starting to appear everywhere. It was suggested to me last Spring to use one and I changed doctors and went with traditional treatment.
I think that this could be because they are still in trial phases and the adverse events get listed later in the trial - but a doctor would have to confirm this, but as a reminder, here are the trial dates for Moderna (completion date October 2022) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427?term=NCT04470427&draw=2&rank=1 and Pfizer (completion date May 2023) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1 I know that in other classic shots, the full list of adverse events are not all listed on the inserts that come with the vaccines - at least that is the case on the individual vaccines that we get in pharmacies here. To get the full list of adverse events, you have to go looking for the full insert online.
Latest Update From UK Funeral Director John O'Looney: He Says That Omicron is From Vaccine Injury https://rumble.com/vqdg1r-latest-up...tor-john-olooney-he-says-that-omicron-is.html British Funeral Director John O'Looney gives his latest update on what he is seeing in his funeral home as is related to the ongoing Coronavirus deaths. He also is concerned about the number of deaths that are being related to common illnesses that are killing people due to their immune system being compromised from the double jab and now the booster.
Isn’t this the script we’ve thought they’d follow all along. I pray this is wrong, but I fear that it’s not. They want us all vaxxed so there is no control group to prove how sick folks get from the long term negative side affects of the vaccine as compared to those who don’t get vaxed. The medical community has been so mute regarding vax injuries because the medical facilities that employ them have intimated them into silence. I pray as this progresses, there are more physician’s who have the moral integrity to join the current group to finally break with the “ system “. There was a recent article on this that suggested that this would be the cause of the medical system eventually breaking. If those who were vaxed become ill in large numbers, the medical system isn’t large enough to handle the incoming….it will be stretched beyond its limits. This would affect everyone of us who access doctors, hospitals, rehabs, etc. No one would ever want this senecio to be true. Regardless if you were vaxed or not, it could affect all of us. Dear Lord, don’t let this be true. All of us have loved ones vulnerable to this and the prospect of this potentially being true is heartbreaking. WE’RE APPROACHING A MILLION VACCINE INJURIES IN THE U.S.’ https://rumble.com/vqby92-were-appr...m_campaign=The+HighWire+with+Del+Bigtree&ep=2
Yes Jason…I hoping more doctors have the courage in light of these studies to finally speak the truth regardless of the personal secular consequences…they’ll at least be able to live with themselves.
Some questions to ponder for all. 1. Have you noticed that ever since these vaccines have come forward we are now seeing countless new articles and campaigns around blood clots and heart problems? Here are just a few. Climate change will cause increased heart problems. The isolation from the pandemic is leading to blood clots and heart problems in our youth. Cannabis use by our young people will lead to increased heart problems and blood clots. The Omicron variant has new symptoms including blood clots and heart problems. Add campaigns everywhere about how young people get strokes and heart attacks too. 2. When has myocarditis ever been a minor problem? It is being downplayed now like never before. Some fast digging into this and you will see that myocarditis has a death rate of 50% within 5 years of diagnosis. 3. When in all of history has there ever been a campaign to push so hard for vaccines? This has been the hardest sales effort ever to the point now where it is no longer selling us to get this vaccine but now mandating us. All for a virus that has a 99.97% survival rate for most who get it. How is it if people are uneasy about this vaccine that it is conspiracy theory? When has it ever been science to not be allowed to question and ask for proof and facts? Why can't we know what is in the vaccines? Why are its contents hidden from us? What if one is allergic to something in the ingredients? Don't they have a right to know? Why are medical exemptions not being allowed now? I am not allowed to get the vaccine. I actually have a medical exemption from my dr. There are places I can't go now because I am unvaccinated. Soon I bet I won't be able to get on a plane anymore. How is this even right? I am sorry but there is something very dark and sinister going on in the world over a virus that has a 99.97% survival rate for most people who get it.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...uppress-ivermectin-rfk-jr-s-new-book-reveals/ This article includes a transcript of a recorded conversation last January between "Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and Dr. Andrew Hill, author of a favorable analysis of ivermectin studies." "He had subsequently performed a “neck-wrenching” U-turn on the issue, claiming the studies comprised “low certainty” of value and that more trials were needed. "Lawrie was trying to persuade Hill to participate in and co-author an immediate review of all published ivermectin studies in the medical literature, to be conducted by the eminent Cochrane Network, which uses thousands of volunteers to make high-quality, independent treatment recommendations. “It was an exciting opportunity,” Kennedy writes. “Under normal circumstances, Hill should have pounced on this chance to serve as lead author with some of the world’s most prestigious researchers. He was nevertheless noncommittal. "Kennedy writes in his book: “The following week, she spoke to Hill again, this time by Zoom. The Zoom call was recorded. “Dr Lawrie asked Hill to explain his U-turn on ivermectin, which his own analysis found overwhelmingly effective. ‘How can you do this?’ she inquired politely. ‘You are causing irreparable harm.’ Hill explained that he was in a ‘tricky situation’ because his sponsors had put pressure on him. Hill is a University of Liverpool virologist who serves as an adviser to Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation. He told me his sponsor was Unitaid. “Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several countries — France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea and Chile — to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals for distribution to the African poor. “Its primary purpose seems to be protecting the patent and intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies — which, as we shall see, is the priority passion for Bill Gates — and to ensure their prompt and full payment. About 63 percent of its funding comes from a surtax on airline tickets. “The BMGF holds a board seat and chairs Unitaid’s Executive Committee, and the BMGF has given Unitaid $150 million since 2005. Various Gates-funded surrogate and front organizations also contribute, as does the pharmaceutical industry. “The BMGF and Gates personally own large stakes in many of the pharmaceutical companies that profit from this boondoggle. Gates also uses Unitaid to fund corrupt science by tame and compromised researchers like Hill that legitimizes his policy directives to the WHO. “Unitaid gave $40 million to Andrew Hill’s employer, the University of Liverpool, four days before the publication of Hill’s study. Hill, a Ph.D., confessed that the sponsors were pressuring him to influence his conclusion. When Dr. Lawrie asked who was trying to influence him, Hill said, ‘I mean, I, I think I’m in a very sensitive position here …’” Actual recorded conversation in next post...
Here’s the transcript of the conversation between Lawrie and Hill: Lawrie: Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine. Hill: Well … Lawrie: This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin. Hill: There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply … Lawrie: We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with looking at the data and reassuring everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin. Hill: Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials … Lawrie: It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies … we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day and being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative … that is a sensitive position. So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work. Hill: I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival. Lawrie: No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that? Hill complains again that outsiders are influencing him. Lawrie: You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death. Hill: Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved. Lawrie: But, Andy — know this will come out. It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts. Hill protests that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will not agree to recommend ivermectin. Lawrie: Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby. Hill: That’s not something I know about. Lawrie: Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played. Hill: I don’t think so. Lawrie: Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together. Lawrie points out that Hill’s study ignores a host of clinical outcomes that affect patients. She scolds Hill for ignoring the beneficial effects of ivermectin as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to testing negative for the virus, on the need for mechanical ventilation, on reduced admissions to intensive care, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful. This is bad research … bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know … you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you. Hill: Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation. Lawrie: No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth. How can you deliberately try and mess it up … you know? Hill: It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies. Lawrie: So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily – up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then? Hill: Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO [World Health Organization]and the NIH [National Institutes of Health]and the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and the EMA [European Medicines Agency]. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough. Lawrie: How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good. Hill: Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future … at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there. Lawrie: It’s already nailed. Hill: No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA. Lawrie: You’d rather risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent [British National Health Service doctors and nurses] people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying. These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works. It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people … I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So … we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do. I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do. Lawrie then asks again: Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO? Hill: It’s Unitaid. Lawrie: All right. So who helped to … Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed? Hill: Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it … Unitaid … Lawrie: I think that . . . it needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged? Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write? Hill: Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah. Lawrie: Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence? Hill: Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t … Lawrie: So they have a say in your conclusions. Hill: Yeah. Lawrie: Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it? Hill: Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name … but I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance … Lawrie: Who are these people? Who are these people saying this? Hill: Yeah … it’s a very strong lobby … Lawrie: Okay. Look, I think I can see kind of a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy. I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.
Continued... Hill: You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard. Lawrie: Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground … You’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable. And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry … As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow. Hill promises he will do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she will give him six weeks. Hill: Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible. Lawrie: So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate go on? Hill: From my side. Okay … I think end of February, we will be there, six weeks.’ Lawrie: How many people die every day? Hill: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day. Lawrie: Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks … because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby. Hill: My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum … Lawrie: You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, “I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion any more, and I’m going to tell the truth.” Hill: What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible. Lawrie: Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of … everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it. Hill: Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ. Lawrie: Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly. "Kennedy adds that at the conclusion of a Jan. 14 conference on ivermectin, Lawrie declared that had the drug been employed in 2020, “when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end.”
So as you can see in the above transcript and explanation, Bill Gates-funded Unitaid gave $40 million to Dr. Hill's employer 4 days before Dr. Hill was going to publish a positive report on Ivermectin. He was poised to save countless lives all over the world, but was blackmailed/bribed with $40 million to change his report to dissuade governments from promoting/allowing Ivermectin. Why? Well the most obvious reason is that the vaccine couldn't be emergency-approved if there were effective remedies on the market. So many lies, so much corruption, so many lives lost so that these vaccines could be forced on the entire world. I'd like to ask any honest person: If they really want to save you with this vaccine, if they really care about your health, if they're just so benevolent that they'll take away your right to enter a grocery store and buy food for your family so you'll be forced into "protecting yourself" with their vaccine...then why would they pay someone $40 million to lie about Ivermectin so people will die instead of being allowed to take it? I'm very genuinely interested in hearing an honest Covid vaccine-supporter's thoughts on this.
Horrible. Speaking about the medical system on a local level, it is already on the road to a breakdown. Appointments are very hard to come by, they are booking well into June 2022, and beyond. Primary care offices are sending patients to urgent care locations, or to the ER. Area hospitals and medical offices are understaffed. The vaccine mandate forced many out of their jobs, and the exorbitant cost of housing has forced others to relocate. In the aftermath of the lockdown, individuals who could work from home and afford to purchase homes in rural areas fled their cities, putting a strain on both housing and healthcare in their new locations. With the stage set, it's not hard to imagine vaccine injuries placing a tremendous burden on healthcare.
Oh one more question I forgot to ask. Why after 30 years in practice, we now discount and completely discredit the VAERS system? Keep thinking people, keep searching and keep asking questions. When it smells like rotten garbage, looks like rotten garbage, 9 times out of 10 it is rotten garbage.
You nail it Jo. Around here things are jammed up horribly. You simply can't get an appointment with your MD. If your lucky you may be able to talk by phone to a care team nurse. A year ago it was not this way.
Thank God we have Robert Kennedy Jr. to expose the truth about Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci and the vaccines....
In the last week, 11,321 new breakthrough cases -- infections in people who have been vaccinated -- were reported, with 273 more vaccinated people hospitalized, Massachusetts Department of Public Health officials said Tuesday. It's a 71% increase in the rate of new breakthrough cases in Massachusetts -- last week saw 6,610 new COVID infections in vaccinated people. The new report brings the total number of breakthrough cases to 88,968, and the death toll among people with breakthrough infections to 647. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...ass-nearly-double-last-weeks-total/ar-AARzFtm This is ADE...
