May 31, 2022
Author: Sharon
Incoming White House COVID Response Coordinator Called Great Barrington Declaration âjunk scienceâ, Authors ‘clowns’
The Foegen effect: A mechanism by which facemasks contribute to the COVID-19 case fatality rate
Feb 18, 2022
By Fögen, Zacharias MD
Editor(s): Shalaby., Mohammed Nader
CONCLUSION: This study revealed that wearing facemasks might impose a great risk on individuals, which would not be mitigated by a reduction in the infection rate. The use of facemasks, therefore, might be unfit, if not contraindicated, as an epidemiologic intervention against COVID-19. Proving or disproving the âFoegen effectâ using experimental studies as described above should be a priority to public health scientists.
NY TIMES: Bioterror Researchers Build A More Lethal Mousepox (Published 2003)
Published Oct 31, 2003
[ Interesting read from nineteen years ago… ]
Scientists have created a highly lethal virus in an effort to develop stronger protections against supervirulent forms of smallpox that terrorists might turn on humans, researchers said yesterday.
The genetic engineering involved a virus known as mousepox, which infects mice but is not known to hurt people. Into that virus the scientists spliced a single gene that made it superlethal, then tested it on mice treated with different combinations of a smallpox vaccine and drugs.
The scientists said the results showed that the best defenses proved quite effective in preventing deadly disease not only in mice, but probably in humans exposed to customized smallpox of similar design.
This type of research has been debated for years, with critics arguing again yesterday that superviruses created in laboratories could inspire terrorists to create their own deadly diseases. The mousepox scientists countered that the research could help deter terrorism by demonstrating the emergence of more potent medical defenses.
The mousepox research was done at St. Louis University as a project financed by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases meant to find new protections against smallpox, which kills one in three victims.
Kim Iversen: Pfizer’s Paxlovid Covid REBOUND Problem Is Confusing Scientists
May 17, 2022
Kim Iversen reacts to Stephen Colbert’s Covid diagnosis. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an EUA for the emergency use of Paxlovid for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults and pediatric patients with positive results of direct severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral testing, and who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. The 5-day treatment course of PAXLOVID should be initiated as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made, and within 5 days of symptom onset. Should a patient require hospitalization due to severe or critical COVID-19 after starting treatment with PAXLOVID, the patient should complete the full 5-day treatment course per the healthcare providerâs discretion. According to clinical trial data, Paxlovid had an 89% reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death. The CDC says the risk for covid increases steadily as you age, and itâs not just those over the age of 65 who are at increased risk for severe illness.
Neil Oliver’s Speaks on Modern Society
May 7, 2022
‘Is someone out there using Orwellâs work as an ownerâs manual?’ says Neil Oliver
Is the COVID Pandemic about to Get Ugly? – American Thinker
Vaccinated Women – concerning pregnancy & breastfeeding
March 25, 2022
CDC now admit officially problems with PAXLOVID
May 26, 2022
“COVID-19 rebound has been reported to occur between 2 and 8 days after initial recovery and is characterized by a recurrence of COVID-19 symptoms”
Confronting Dr. Andrew Hill’s Refusal to Support His OWN Recommendation of Ivermectin to W.H.O.
March 4, 2022
In October 2020 Dr Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.
But on January 18th 2021, Dr Hill published his findings on a pre-print server. His methods lacked rigour, the review was low quality and the extremely positive findings on ivermectin were contradicted by the conclusion. In the end, Dr Hill advised that âIvermectin should be validated in larger appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.â
The researcher seeking a global recommendation on Ivermectin had instead recommended against it. A media onslaught against the medicine ensued. What were Dr Hillâs reasons for doing so? Were his conclusions justified? Or were external forces influencing his about-face?
One year on, this film recalls exactly what happened from the perspective of somebody that experienced it first hand; Dr Tess Lawrie; also featuring contributions from Dr Pierre Kory and Dr Paul Marik who worked closely with Dr Hill during the same time frame.