Former Chief Science Officer for Pfizer Dr. Mike Yeadon: The COVID Lies

munkle

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2012
4,718
7,864
1,930
Yeadon bio. and work: Dr Mike Yeadon | Totality of Evidence

Q355FBSICLODRN4VU7VW.jpg



“The corona crisis is one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experience over the last 2000 years. - Klaus Schwab, “COVID-19: The Great Reset.”

The Covid Lies

The Covid Lies

By Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Chief Science Officer and VP at Pfizer


THE NARRATIVE POINT

SARS-CoV-2 has such a high lethality that every measure must be taken to save lives.

Note: Covid-19 is the disease resulting from infection with the virus, SARS-CoV-2. They are often used interchangeably. Sometimes it doesn’t much matter, but the confusion was sowed deliberately.

IMPORTANCE

Essential to claim high lethality in order that unprecedented responses may seem justified. To “pep up” the claim, recall “falling man” in Wuhan? The person was allegedly sick but walking about, before falling dead on his face. That was never real. It was theatre.

THE REALITY

Early estimates of lethality were very high with, in some reports, an “infection fatality rate” (IFR) of 3%. Seasonal influenza is generally considered to have a typical IFR of 0.1%. That means some seasons, IFR for flu may be 0.3% and other times, 0.05% or lower.

In practise, and this was usual, estimates of IFR for Covid-19 were revised downwards repeatedly and now are generally recognised as in the range of 0.1–0.3%. It cannot now be argued that it is significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics. Why, then, have we all but destroyed the modern world over it?

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

The perpetrators knew that lethality estimates of new respiratory viral illnesses ALWAYS start high and reduce. This is because, early on, we do not have any estimate of the number of people infected but not seriously ill and the number infected with no symptoms at all.

They created the impression of extreme danger, which was never true. This is such a crucial point, for once one sees it for what it is, the rest of the narrative is superfluous.

Dr. John Ioannidis is one of the world’s most-published epidemiologists and he has been scathing about the inappropriate responses to a novel virus of not particularly unusual lethality. Like most respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 represents no serious health threat to those under 60 years of age, certainly not children, and is a serious threat only to those nearing the end of their lives by virtue of age and multiple comorbidities.¹

Dr. Ioannidis’s current estimate of global IFR is around 0.15%. For reference, a typical seasonal influenza outbreak has a typical IFR of around 0.1%, but can be markedly worse in bad winters.²




THE NARRATIVE POINT

Because this is a new virus, there will be no prior immunity
in the population.

IMPORTANCE

Seems reasonable, doesn’t it? This remark, made repeatedly early on, aimed to squash any notion that there was a degree of “prior immunity” in the population. Prior immunity and natural immunity are only now, two years in, not considered “misinformation”.

THE REALITY

Within a few months, multiple publications showed that a large minority (ranging from 30%–50%, some later said even more) of the population had T-cells in their blood which recognised various pieces of the viral protein (synthesised, as no one seemed to have any real virus isolates to use).

While some people argued that recognition by T-cells didn’t mean functional immunity, really it does.
We were prevented from learning that we already knew of six coronaviruses, four of which cause “common colds,” which in elderly and infirm people can cause death.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

This was a straight lie. It’s pretty much never true that there’s no prior immunity in a population. This is because viruses are each derived from earlier viruses and some of the population had already defeated its antecedents, giving them either immunity or a big head start in defeating the new virus. Either way, a sizeable proportion of the population never had cause to worry.
!is article includes all the important peer-reviewed articles to mid-2020, with many showing at least 30%–50% having prior immunity (it depends upon the measure used to assess it).³




THE NARRATIVE POINT

This virus does not discriminate. No one is safe until everyone is safe.

IMPORTANCE

Intention was to minimise the numbers who might reason they’re not “at risk” people.

THE REALITY

This claim was always absurd. The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

In short, almost no one who wasn’t close to the end of their lives was at risk of severe outcomes and death. In middle-aged individuals, obesity is a risk factor, as it is for a handful of other causes of death.
!is intriguing review details how the initial modelling induced fear and provided the excuse for heavy-handed measures, especially “lockdowns”.ª It was, however, just that: an excuse. All experienced public health experts knew that lockdowns were absurd, ineffective, and hugely destructive. There’s no way to sugar-coat this. It was wrong before it was ordered, and it’s necessary to examine why those who knew did not protest. It’s almost as if they were complicit.




THE NARRATIVE POINT

People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others: asymptomatic transmission.

IMPORTANCE

This is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you. Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.

THE REALITY

The best evidence comes from a meta-analysis of a larger number of good studies, examining how often a person testing positive went on to infect a family member (they compared as potential sources of infection people who had symptoms with those who did not have symptoms). ONLY those WITH symptoms were able to infect a family member at any rate that mattered.‘

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It’s not necessary to argue it never happens; it’s enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth measuring.
In this video, we also have Fauci and a WHO doctor telling us exactly this.ª Also, I show why it is like it is. It’s very clear.




THE NARRATIVE POINT

The PCR test selectively identifies people with clinical infections.

IMPORTANCE

This is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can confirm the presence of genetic information in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle after cycle of amplification, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and often criticised Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was inappropriate.

THE REALITY

In a “dirty” clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus which might replicate. There are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and more. It’s not possible unequivocally to know, if a test is judged “positive” after many cycles, what it was that was amplified to give the signal at the end that we call “positive”.

In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called “positive controls” through the chain of custody. That’s diagnostic testing 101. It’s a deception.

Every test has an “operational false positive rate” (oFPR), where some unknown percent of samples turns positive, even if there is no virus present. A good oFPR would be less than 1%, but is it 0.8% or 0.1%? If you test 100,000 samples daily, and the oFPR is 0.8%, you will get 800 positive tests or “cases,” even if there is no virus in the entire community. Often, the “positivity,” the fraction of tests that are positive, is in that range, sub-1% or low-single-digit percent. I believe much or all of that can be caused by false positives. Note, criminals can manipulate the content of the test kits because there are very few providers in a territory, often just one. The conditions for running the test are also subject to variation by the authorities, like the CDC.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. There is no lower limit of true detection below which you’d be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It’s an absurd idea.
You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are swept together and called “confirmed Covid-19 cases”. If you die in the next 28 days, you’re said to be a “Covid death,” no matter what the cause.

Those using the test kits provided commercially are what are called “black box”. They are unable to say what is in the kit, because this is proprietary. The original “methods paper” was published in 48 hours, making a mockery of claimed peer review, by a Berlin lab headed by Professor Christian Drosten, scientific advisor to Angela Merkel of Germany. The paper was comprehensively rebutted by an international team.’

The WHO released a series of guidance notes on PCR,8 and it was clear that their technical staff did not approve of mass testing the population, because it’s possible to return wholly false positives. Indeed, at times of low genuine prevalence, that’s all they can be.

I often wonder if this 2007 real-life example of a PCR-based testing system which returned 100% false positives, yet convinced a major hospital that they had a huge disease outbreak for weeks, might have been the inspiration for the untrustworthy methods used in the Covid-19 deception?ª

Drosten also led the TV publicity around the idea of asymptomatic transmission. One lucky scientist is at the centre of the two most important deceptions in the entire Covid-19 event!

Professor Norman Fenton here presents a multi-part lecture with two main elements.¹º First, he describes how mass testing of people with no symptoms unavoidably drives up the proportion of positive PCR test results that are false. The second part deals with the possibility that data fraud entirely accounts for the apparent efficacy of the vaccines, while attempting to hide vaccine deaths, by classifying them as unvaccinated for 14 days after injection.

THE NARRATIVE POINT

Masks are effective in preventing the spread of this virus.

IMPORTANCE

This is mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others’ masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you’re told, even if the measure is useless.

THE REALITY

We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.

Cloth masks definitely don’t stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.

Some people speak of “source control,” catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

It’s not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don’t do anything.

Many don’t know that blue medical masks aren’t filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that’s all.

This is a good review of the findings with masks in respiratory viruses by a recognised expert in the field. No effect.¹¹

Neither masks nor lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. This review summarizes 400 papers.¹²

THE NARRATIVE POINT

Lockdowns slow down the spread and reduce the number of cases and deaths.

IMPORTANCE

The most impactful yet wasteful intervention, accomplishing nothing useful.

Useful to the perpetrators, however, wishing to damage the economy and reduce interpersonal contacts. This measure was surprisingly tolerated in many wealthy countries, because “furlough” schemes were put in place, compensating many people for not working, or requiring them to work from home.

THE REALITY

The measure, though among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a democracy, was intuitively reasonable to many. This is an example of how far off-course uninformed intuition can be.
The core idea was simple. Respiratory viruses are transmitted from person to person. Reducing the average number of contacts surely reduces transmission? Actually, it doesn’t, because the transmission concept is wrong. Transmission is from a SYMPTOMATIC person to a susceptible person. Those with symptoms are UNWELL. They remain at home in most cases with no action from the government. Transmission occurred mostly in institutions where sick people and susceptible people were forced into contact: hospitals, care homes, and domestic settings.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

A general lockdown had no detectable impact on epidemic spreading, cases, hospitalisations, or deaths.
This is now widely accepted, after a meta-analysis by Johns Hopkins University (interestingly, as the JHU repeatedly features as an actor in a documentary about pandemic-related fraud by German journalist Paul Schreyer).¹³

This is because those involved in the vast bulk of human-to-human contacts are fit and well and such contacts didn’t result in transmission. Essentially, if you’re fooled by the “asymptomatic transmission” lie, then lockdown might make sense. However, since it is epidemiologically irrelevant, lockdowns can never work, and of course, all the voluminous literature confirms this.

This concept is unequivocally known to multiple public health scientists and doctors.
This is why “lockdown” had never been tried before.

Importantly, WHO scientists drafted a detailed review of all the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in 2019 and distributed copies of the report to all member states.¹ª
This means that ALL member states already knew, late in 2019, that masks, lockdowns, border restrictions, and business or school closures were futile. Only “stay home if you’re sick” works at all, and people don’t need to be told this, for they are too unwell to go out.


THE NARRATIVE POINT

There are unfortunately no treatments for Covid beyond support in hospital.

IMPORTANCE

Reinforced the idea that it was vital to avoid catching the virus.
Legally, it was essential for the perpetrators bringing forward novel vaccines that there be no viable treatments. Had there been even one, the regulatory route of Emergency Use Authorisation would not have been available.

THE REALITY

In my opinion, while all these measures were destructive and cruel, active deprivation of access to experimentally applied but otherwise known safe and effective early treatments led directly to millions of avoidable deaths worldwide. In my mind, this is a policy of mass murder.

Contrasting with the official narrative, the therapeutic value of early treatment was already understood and demonstrated empirically during spring 2020. Since then, a sizeable handful of well-understood, off-patent, low-cost and safe oral treatments have been characterised.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

The official position was that the disease Covid-19 could not be treated and the patient only “supported,” often by mechanical ventilation. Ventilation is wholly inappropriate because Covid-19 is rarely an obstructive airway disease, yet has a high associated morbidity and mortality. An oxygen mask is greatly preferred.

In my view, due to the very large amount of empirical treatment and good communication, Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever. We knew in the first three months of 2020 that hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin were empirically useful, provided treatment was started early and tackled rationally.¹‘

It’s very important to note that it has been known for a decade and more that elevating
intracellular zinc acts to suppress viral replication.¹ª

There is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that so-called “zinc ionophores,” compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals to cross cell membranes, were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This is a starting point for all of the clinical trials in Covid-19,¹’ including especially
ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (which are zinc ionophores).¹8

It should be noted that using known safe agents for experimental purposes as a priority has always been an established ethical medical practice and is known as “off-label prescribing”.




THE NARRATIVE POINT

It’s not certain if you can get the virus more than once.

IMPORTANCE

The idea of natural immunity was flatly denied and the absurd idea that you might get the same virus twice was established. This ramped up the fear, which might otherwise have passed swiftly.

THE REALITY

Those with even a basic grasp of mammalian immunology knew that senior advisors to government, speaking in uncertain terms on this question, were lying. Certainly, in the author’s case, it was a pivotal point. I shared a foundational education in UK universities at the same time as the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. This shared education meant we’d have had the same set texts. I reasoned that he knew what I knew and vice versa. I was as sure as it is possible to be that it wouldn’t be possible to get clinically unwell twice in response to the same virus, or close-in variants of it. I was right. He was lying.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

There have been scores of peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic.¹ª Very few clinically important reinfections have ever been confirmed.

Beating off a respiratory virus infection leaves almost everyone with acquired immunity, which is complete, powerful, and durable.

You wouldn’t know it for the misdirection around antibodies in blood, but such antibodies are not considered pivotally important in host immunity. Secreted antibodies in airway surface liquid of the IgA isotype certainly are, but most important are memory T-cells.²º
Those infected with SARS in 2003 still had clear evidence of robust, T-cell mediated immunity 17 years later.²¹

THE NARRATIVE POINT

Variants of the virus appear and are of great concern.

IMPORTANCE

I believe the purpose of this fiction was to extend the apparent duration of the pandemic—and the fear—for as long as the perpetrators wished it. While there is controversy on this point, with some physicians believing reinfection by variants to be a serious problem, I think untrustworthy testing and other viruses entirely is the parsimonious explanation.

THE REALITY

I come at it as an immunologist. From that vantage point, there is very strong precedent indicating that recovery after infection affords immunity extending beyond the sequence of the variant that infected the patient to all variants of SARS-CoV-2.

The number of confirmed reinfections is so small that they are not an issue, epidemiologically speaking.
We have good evidence from those infected by SARS in 2003: they not only have strong T-cell immunity to SARS, but cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is very important because SARS-CoV-2 is arguably a variant of SARS, there being around a 20% difference at the sequence level.

Consider this: if our immune systems are able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 as foreign and mount an immune response to it, despite never having seen it before, because of prior immunity conferred by infection years ago by a virus which is 20% different, it’s logical that variants of SARS-CoV-2, like delta and omicron, will not evade our immunity.

No variant of SARS-CoV-2 differs from the original Wuhan sequence by more than 3%, and probably less.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

Normal rules of immunology apply here.²² Despite the publicity to the contrary, SARS- CoV-2 mutates relatively slowly and no variant is even close to evading immunity acquired by natural infection.
This is because the human immune system recognises 20–30 different structural motifs in the virus, yet requires only a handful to recall an effective immune memory.²³

The variants story fails to note “Muller’s Ratchet,” the phenomenon in which variants of a virus, formed in an infected person during viral replication (in which “typographical errors” are made and not corrected) trend to greater transmissibility but lesser lethality. If this was not the case, at some point in human evolution, we would have expected a respiratory viral pandemic to have killed off a substantial proportion of humanity. There is no historical record for such an event.

I do not rule out the possibility that the so-called vaccines are so badly designed that they prevent the establishment of immune memory. If that is true, then the vaccines are worse than failures, and it might be possible to be repeatedly infected. This would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.



THE NARRATIVE POINT

The only way to end the pandemic is universal vaccination.

IMPORTANCE

This, I believe, was always the objective of the largely faked pandemic. It’s NEVER been the way prior pandemics have ended, and there was nothing about this one that should have led us to adopt the extreme risks that were taken and which have resulted in hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wholly avoidable deaths.

THE REALITY

The interventions imposed on the population didn’t prevent spread of the virus. Only individual isolation for an open-ended period could do that, and that’s clearly impossible (hospital patients and residents of care homes have to be cared for at very least and additionally, the nation has to be supplied with food and medicines).

All the interventions were useless and hugely burdensome.

Yet we have reached the end of the pandemic, more or less. We would have done so faster and with less suffering and death had we adopted measures along the lines proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration and used pharmaceutical treatments as they were discovered, plus general improvements to public health, such as encouraging vitamin supplements.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it.

It’s simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the time period any pandemic can last.

Those who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of crimes against humanity.

It quickly became apparent that natural immunity was stronger than any protection from vaccination,²ª and most people were not at risk of severe outcomes if infected.²‘

Even children who were immunocompromised are not at elevated risk from Covid-19, so advice that such children should be vaccinated is lethally flawed.²ª

These agents are clearly underperforming against expectations.²’




THE NARRATIVE POINT

The new vaccines are safe and effective.

IMPORTANCE

I feel particularly strongly about this claim. Both components are lies. I outline the inevitability of the toxicity of all four gene-based agents below.

Separately, the clinical trials were wholly inadequate. They were conducted in people not most in need of protection from safe and effective vaccines. They were far too short in duration. The endpoints only captured “infection” as measured by an inadequate PCR test and should have been augmented by Sanger sequencing to confirm real infection. Trials were underpowered to detect important endpoints like hospitalisation and death.

There’s evidence of fraud in at least one of the pivotal clinical trials. I think there is also clear evidence of manufacturing fraud and regulatory collusion. They should never have been granted emergency use authorisations (EUAs).

THE REALITY

The design of the agents called vaccines is very bothersome. Gene-based agents are new in a public health application. Had I been in a regulatory role, I would have informed all the leading R&D companies that I would not approve these without extensive longitudinal studies, meaning they could not receive EUA before early 2022 at the earliest. I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the infected-recovered. Point blank. I’d need years of safe use before contemplating an alteration of this stance.

The basic rules of this new activity, gene-based component vaccines, are: (1) to select part of the virus that has no inherent biological action—that rules out spike protein, which we inferred would be very toxic, before they’d even started clinical trials;²8 (2) select the genetically most stable parts of the virus, so we could ignore the gross misrepresentations of variants so slight in difference from the original that we were being toyed with via propaganda—again, this rules out spike protein; (3) choose parts of the virus which are most different from any human proteins. Once more, spike protein is immediately deselected, otherwise unnecessary risks of autoimmunity are carried forward.
That all four leading actors chose spike protein, against any reasonable selection criteria, leads me to suspect both collusion and malign intent.

Finally, let nature guide us. Against which components of the virus does natural immunity aim? We find 90% of the immune repertoire targets NON-spike protein responses.²ª I rest my case.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

These agents were always going to be toxic. The only question was, to what degree? Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design.

Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events, including death.

There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including, for the mRNA “vaccines,” that lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations leave the injection site and home to the liver and ovaries,³º among other organs,³¹ but this evidence is enough to get started.

See this interview for evidence of clinical trial and other fraud, publicised by Edward Dowd, a former BlackRock investment analyst.³²

See this video for evidence of official data fraud (UK Office of National Statistics): especially at 2min 45sec for the heart of the matter.³³

See here for evidence of manufacturing fraud.³ª The same methodology was used to obtain regulatory authorisations, and so it is my contention that there is also regulatory fraud.

In the Pfizer clinical trial briefing document to FDA, which was used for issuing the EUA (on p. 40 or thereabout), there is a paragraph stating that there were approximately 2,000 “suspected unconfirmed Covid cases”—meaning people were sick with symptoms but were not tested (otherwise, it would be stated that the tests were negative). Of these, in the first seven days after injection, there were 400 in the vaccine arm and 200 in placebo. These subjects were excluded from the dataset used to assess efficacy. It’s as clear evidence of fraud as you can get; they admit to it in the FDA briefing! Nobody paid any attention to this that I am aware of.

There’s also evidence of data fraud in that clinical trial as summarised by Dr. Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal).

Though many people refuse to accept or even look at the evidence, it is clear that the number of adverse events and deaths soon after Covid-19 vaccination is astonishing and far in excess, in 2021 alone, than all adverse effects and deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the previous 30 years. Here is a simplified view of Covid vaccine-related mortality reports from VAERS.³‘

This excellent presentation by a forensic statistician, well used to presenting analyses for court purposes, dismantles the claims that the vaccines are effective and shows how toxicity is hidden (see the second half of the recording).¹º

Another paper published by the same group questions vaccine efficacy.³ª

FULL PAPER AND REFERENCES The Covid Lies
 
Last edited:
Yeadon bio. and work: Dr Mike Yeadon | Totality of Evidence

Q355FBSICLODRN4VU7VW.jpg



“The corona crisis is one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experience over the last 2000 years. - Klaus Schwab, “COVID-19: The Great Reset.”

The Covid Lies

The Covid Lies

By Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Chief Science Officer and VP at Pfizer


THE NARRATIVE POINT

SARS-CoV-2 has such a high lethality that every measure must be taken to save lives.

Note: Covid-19 is the disease resulting from infection with the virus, SARS-CoV-2. They are often used interchangeably. Sometimes it doesn’t much matter, but the confusion was sowed deliberately.

IMPORTANCE

Essential to claim high lethality in order that unprecedented responses may seem justified. To “pep up” the claim, recall “falling man” in Wuhan? The person was allegedly sick but walking about, before falling dead on his face. That was never real. It was theatre.

THE REALITY

Early estimates of lethality were very high with, in some reports, an “infection fatality rate” (IFR) of 3%. Seasonal influenza is generally considered to have a typical IFR of 0.1%. That means some seasons, IFR for flu may be 0.3% and other times, 0.05% or lower.

In practise, and this was usual, estimates of IFR for Covid-19 were revised downwards repeatedly and now are generally recognised as in the range of 0.1–0.3%. It cannot now be argued that it is significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics. Why, then, have we all but destroyed the modern world over it?

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

The perpetrators knew that lethality estimates of new respiratory viral illnesses ALWAYS start high and reduce. This is because, early on, we do not have any estimate of the number of people infected but not seriously ill and the number infected with no symptoms at all.

They created the impression of extreme danger, which was never true. This is such a crucial point, for once one sees it for what it is, the rest of the narrative is superfluous.

Dr. John Ioannidis is one of the world’s most-published epidemiologists and he has been scathing about the inappropriate responses to a novel virus of not particularly unusual lethality. Like most respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 represents no serious health threat to those under 60 years of age, certainly not children, and is a serious threat only to those nearing the end of their lives by virtue of age and multiple comorbidities.¹

Dr. Ioannidis’s current estimate of global IFR is around 0.15%. For reference, a typical seasonal influenza outbreak has a typical IFR of around 0.1%, but can be markedly worse in bad winters.²




THE NARRATIVE POINT

Because this is a new virus, there will be no prior immunity
in the population.

IMPORTANCE

Seems reasonable, doesn’t it? This remark, made repeatedly early on, aimed to squash any notion that there was a degree of “prior immunity” in the population. Prior immunity and natural immunity are only now, two years in, not considered “misinformation”.

THE REALITY

Within a few months, multiple publications showed that a large minority (ranging from 30%–50%, some later said even more) of the population had T-cells in their blood which recognised various pieces of the viral protein (synthesised, as no one seemed to have any real virus isolates to use).

While some people argued that recognition by T-cells didn’t mean functional immunity, really it does.
We were prevented from learning that we already knew of six coronaviruses, four of which cause “common colds,” which in elderly and infirm people can cause death.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

This was a straight lie. It’s pretty much never true that there’s no prior immunity in a population. This is because viruses are each derived from earlier viruses and some of the population had already defeated its antecedents, giving them either immunity or a big head start in defeating the new virus. Either way, a sizeable proportion of the population never had cause to worry.
!is article includes all the important peer-reviewed articles to mid-2020, with many showing at least 30%–50% having prior immunity (it depends upon the measure used to assess it).³




THE NARRATIVE POINT

This virus does not discriminate. No one is safe until everyone is safe.

IMPORTANCE

Intention was to minimise the numbers who might reason they’re not “at risk” people.

THE REALITY

This claim was always absurd. The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

In short, almost no one who wasn’t close to the end of their lives was at risk of severe outcomes and death. In middle-aged individuals, obesity is a risk factor, as it is for a handful of other causes of death.
!is intriguing review details how the initial modelling induced fear and provided the excuse for heavy-handed measures, especially “lockdowns”.ª It was, however, just that: an excuse. All experienced public health experts knew that lockdowns were absurd, ineffective, and hugely destructive. There’s no way to sugar-coat this. It was wrong before it was ordered, and it’s necessary to examine why those who knew did not protest. It’s almost as if they were complicit.




THE NARRATIVE POINT

People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others: asymptomatic transmission.

IMPORTANCE

This is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you. Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.

THE REALITY

The best evidence comes from a meta-analysis of a larger number of good studies, examining how often a person testing positive went on to infect a family member (they compared as potential sources of infection people who had symptoms with those who did not have symptoms). ONLY those WITH symptoms were able to infect a family member at any rate that mattered.‘

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It’s not necessary to argue it never happens; it’s enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth measuring.
In this video, we also have Fauci and a WHO doctor telling us exactly this.ª Also, I show why it is like it is. It’s very clear.




THE NARRATIVE POINT

The PCR test selectively identifies people with clinical infections.

IMPORTANCE

This is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can confirm the presence of genetic information in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle after cycle of amplification, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and often criticised Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was inappropriate.

THE REALITY

In a “dirty” clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus which might replicate. There are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and more. It’s not possible unequivocally to know, if a test is judged “positive” after many cycles, what it was that was amplified to give the signal at the end that we call “positive”.

In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called “positive controls” through the chain of custody. That’s diagnostic testing 101. It’s a deception.

Every test has an “operational false positive rate” (oFPR), where some unknown percent of samples turns positive, even if there is no virus present. A good oFPR would be less than 1%, but is it 0.8% or 0.1%? If you test 100,000 samples daily, and the oFPR is 0.8%, you will get 800 positive tests or “cases,” even if there is no virus in the entire community. Often, the “positivity,” the fraction of tests that are positive, is in that range, sub-1% or low-single-digit percent. I believe much or all of that can be caused by false positives. Note, criminals can manipulate the content of the test kits because there are very few providers in a territory, often just one. The conditions for running the test are also subject to variation by the authorities, like the CDC.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. There is no lower limit of true detection below which you’d be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It’s an absurd idea.
You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are swept together and called “confirmed Covid-19 cases”. If you die in the next 28 days, you’re said to be a “Covid death,” no matter what the cause.

Those using the test kits provided commercially are what are called “black box”. They are unable to say what is in the kit, because this is proprietary. The original “methods paper” was published in 48 hours, making a mockery of claimed peer review, by a Berlin lab headed by Professor Christian Drosten, scientific advisor to Angela Merkel of Germany. The paper was comprehensively rebutted by an international team.’

The WHO released a series of guidance notes on PCR,8 and it was clear that their technical staff did not approve of mass testing the population, because it’s possible to return wholly false positives. Indeed, at times of low genuine prevalence, that’s all they can be.

I often wonder if this 2007 real-life example of a PCR-based testing system which returned 100% false positives, yet convinced a major hospital that they had a huge disease outbreak for weeks, might have been the inspiration for the untrustworthy methods used in the Covid-19 deception?ª

Drosten also led the TV publicity around the idea of asymptomatic transmission. One lucky scientist is at the centre of the two most important deceptions in the entire Covid-19 event!

Professor Norman Fenton here presents a multi-part lecture with two main elements.¹º First, he describes how mass testing of people with no symptoms unavoidably drives up the proportion of positive PCR test results that are false. The second part deals with the possibility that data fraud entirely accounts for the apparent efficacy of the vaccines, while attempting to hide vaccine deaths, by classifying them as unvaccinated for 14 days after injection.

THE NARRATIVE POINT

Masks are effective in preventing the spread of this virus.

IMPORTANCE

This is mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others’ masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you’re told, even if the measure is useless.

THE REALITY

We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.

Cloth masks definitely don’t stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.

Some people speak of “source control,” catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

It’s not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don’t do anything.

Many don’t know that blue medical masks aren’t filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that’s all.

This is a good review of the findings with masks in respiratory viruses by a recognised expert in the field. No effect.¹¹

Neither masks nor lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. This review summarizes 400 papers.¹²

THE NARRATIVE POINT

Lockdowns slow down the spread and reduce the number of cases and deaths.

IMPORTANCE

The most impactful yet wasteful intervention, accomplishing nothing useful.

Useful to the perpetrators, however, wishing to damage the economy and reduce interpersonal contacts. This measure was surprisingly tolerated in many wealthy countries, because “furlough” schemes were put in place, compensating many people for not working, or requiring them to work from home.

THE REALITY

The measure, though among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a democracy, was intuitively reasonable to many. This is an example of how far off-course uninformed intuition can be.
The core idea was simple. Respiratory viruses are transmitted from person to person. Reducing the average number of contacts surely reduces transmission? Actually, it doesn’t, because the transmission concept is wrong. Transmission is from a SYMPTOMATIC person to a susceptible person. Those with symptoms are UNWELL. They remain at home in most cases with no action from the government. Transmission occurred mostly in institutions where sick people and susceptible people were forced into contact: hospitals, care homes, and domestic settings.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

A general lockdown had no detectable impact on epidemic spreading, cases, hospitalisations, or deaths.
This is now widely accepted, after a meta-analysis by Johns Hopkins University (interestingly, as the JHU repeatedly features as an actor in a documentary about pandemic-related fraud by German journalist Paul Schreyer).¹³

This is because those involved in the vast bulk of human-to-human contacts are fit and well and such contacts didn’t result in transmission. Essentially, if you’re fooled by the “asymptomatic transmission” lie, then lockdown might make sense. However, since it is epidemiologically irrelevant, lockdowns can never work, and of course, all the voluminous literature confirms this.

This concept is unequivocally known to multiple public health scientists and doctors.
This is why “lockdown” had never been tried before.

Importantly, WHO scientists drafted a detailed review of all the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in 2019 and distributed copies of the report to all member states.¹ª
This means that ALL member states already knew, late in 2019, that masks, lockdowns, border restrictions, and business or school closures were futile. Only “stay home if you’re sick” works at all, and people don’t need to be told this, for they are too unwell to go out.


THE NARRATIVE POINT

There are unfortunately no treatments for Covid beyond support in hospital.

IMPORTANCE

Reinforced the idea that it was vital to avoid catching the virus.
Legally, it was essential for the perpetrators bringing forward novel vaccines that there be no viable treatments. Had there been even one, the regulatory route of Emergency Use Authorisation would not have been available.

THE REALITY

In my opinion, while all these measures were destructive and cruel, active deprivation of access to experimentally applied but otherwise known safe and effective early treatments led directly to millions of avoidable deaths worldwide. In my mind, this is a policy of mass murder.

Contrasting with the official narrative, the therapeutic value of early treatment was already understood and demonstrated empirically during spring 2020. Since then, a sizeable handful of well-understood, off-patent, low-cost and safe oral treatments have been characterised.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

The official position was that the disease Covid-19 could not be treated and the patient only “supported,” often by mechanical ventilation. Ventilation is wholly inappropriate because Covid-19 is rarely an obstructive airway disease, yet has a high associated morbidity and mortality. An oxygen mask is greatly preferred.

In my view, due to the very large amount of empirical treatment and good communication, Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever. We knew in the first three months of 2020 that hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin were empirically useful, provided treatment was started early and tackled rationally.¹‘

It’s very important to note that it has been known for a decade and more that elevating
intracellular zinc acts to suppress viral replication.¹ª

There is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that so-called “zinc ionophores,” compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals to cross cell membranes, were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This is a starting point for all of the clinical trials in Covid-19,¹’ including especially
ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (which are zinc ionophores).¹8

It should be noted that using known safe agents for experimental purposes as a priority has always been an established ethical medical practice and is known as “off-label prescribing”.




THE NARRATIVE POINT

It’s not certain if you can get the virus more than once.

IMPORTANCE

The idea of natural immunity was flatly denied and the absurd idea that you might get the same virus twice was established. This ramped up the fear, which might otherwise have passed swiftly.

THE REALITY

Those with even a basic grasp of mammalian immunology knew that senior advisors to government, speaking in uncertain terms on this question, were lying. Certainly, in the author’s case, it was a pivotal point. I shared a foundational education in UK universities at the same time as the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. This shared education meant we’d have had the same set texts. I reasoned that he knew what I knew and vice versa. I was as sure as it is possible to be that it wouldn’t be possible to get clinically unwell twice in response to the same virus, or close-in variants of it. I was right. He was lying.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

There have been scores of peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic.¹ª Very few clinically important reinfections have ever been confirmed.

Beating off a respiratory virus infection leaves almost everyone with acquired immunity, which is complete, powerful, and durable.

You wouldn’t know it for the misdirection around antibodies in blood, but such antibodies are not considered pivotally important in host immunity. Secreted antibodies in airway surface liquid of the IgA isotype certainly are, but most important are memory T-cells.²º
Those infected with SARS in 2003 still had clear evidence of robust, T-cell mediated immunity 17 years later.²¹

THE NARRATIVE POINT

Variants of the virus appear and are of great concern.

IMPORTANCE

I believe the purpose of this fiction was to extend the apparent duration of the pandemic—and the fear—for as long as the perpetrators wished it. While there is controversy on this point, with some physicians believing reinfection by variants to be a serious problem, I think untrustworthy testing and other viruses entirely is the parsimonious explanation.

THE REALITY

I come at it as an immunologist. From that vantage point, there is very strong precedent indicating that recovery after infection affords immunity extending beyond the sequence of the variant that infected the patient to all variants of SARS-CoV-2.

The number of confirmed reinfections is so small that they are not an issue, epidemiologically speaking.
We have good evidence from those infected by SARS in 2003: they not only have strong T-cell immunity to SARS, but cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is very important because SARS-CoV-2 is arguably a variant of SARS, there being around a 20% difference at the sequence level.

Consider this: if our immune systems are able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 as foreign and mount an immune response to it, despite never having seen it before, because of prior immunity conferred by infection years ago by a virus which is 20% different, it’s logical that variants of SARS-CoV-2, like delta and omicron, will not evade our immunity.

No variant of SARS-CoV-2 differs from the original Wuhan sequence by more than 3%, and probably less.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

Normal rules of immunology apply here.²² Despite the publicity to the contrary, SARS- CoV-2 mutates relatively slowly and no variant is even close to evading immunity acquired by natural infection.
This is because the human immune system recognises 20–30 different structural motifs in the virus, yet requires only a handful to recall an effective immune memory.²³

The variants story fails to note “Muller’s Ratchet,” the phenomenon in which variants of a virus, formed in an infected person during viral replication (in which “typographical errors” are made and not corrected) trend to greater transmissibility but lesser lethality. If this was not the case, at some point in human evolution, we would have expected a respiratory viral pandemic to have killed off a substantial proportion of humanity. There is no historical record for such an event.

I do not rule out the possibility that the so-called vaccines are so badly designed that they prevent the establishment of immune memory. If that is true, then the vaccines are worse than failures, and it might be possible to be repeatedly infected. This would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.



THE NARRATIVE POINT

The only way to end the pandemic is universal vaccination.

IMPORTANCE

This, I believe, was always the objective of the largely faked pandemic. It’s NEVER been the way prior pandemics have ended, and there was nothing about this one that should have led us to adopt the extreme risks that were taken and which have resulted in hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wholly avoidable deaths.

THE REALITY

The interventions imposed on the population didn’t prevent spread of the virus. Only individual isolation for an open-ended period could do that, and that’s clearly impossible (hospital patients and residents of care homes have to be cared for at very least and additionally, the nation has to be supplied with food and medicines).

All the interventions were useless and hugely burdensome.

Yet we have reached the end of the pandemic, more or less. We would have done so faster and with less suffering and death had we adopted measures along the lines proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration and used pharmaceutical treatments as they were discovered, plus general improvements to public health, such as encouraging vitamin supplements.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it.

It’s simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the time period any pandemic can last.

Those who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of crimes against humanity.

It quickly became apparent that natural immunity was stronger than any protection from vaccination,²ª and most people were not at risk of severe outcomes if infected.²‘

Even children who were immunocompromised are not at elevated risk from Covid-19, so advice that such children should be vaccinated is lethally flawed.²ª

These agents are clearly underperforming against expectations.²’




THE NARRATIVE POINT

The new vaccines are safe and effective.

IMPORTANCE

I feel particularly strongly about this claim. Both components are lies. I outline the inevitability of the toxicity of all four gene-based agents below.

Separately, the clinical trials were wholly inadequate. They were conducted in people not most in need of protection from safe and effective vaccines. They were far too short in duration. The endpoints only captured “infection” as measured by an inadequate PCR test and should have been augmented by Sanger sequencing to confirm real infection. Trials were underpowered to detect important endpoints like hospitalisation and death.

There’s evidence of fraud in at least one of the pivotal clinical trials. I think there is also clear evidence of manufacturing fraud and regulatory collusion. They should never have been granted emergency use authorisations (EUAs).

THE REALITY

The design of the agents called vaccines is very bothersome. Gene-based agents are new in a public health application. Had I been in a regulatory role, I would have informed all the leading R&D companies that I would not approve these without extensive longitudinal studies, meaning they could not receive EUA before early 2022 at the earliest. I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the infected-recovered. Point blank. I’d need years of safe use before contemplating an alteration of this stance.

The basic rules of this new activity, gene-based component vaccines, are: (1) to select part of the virus that has no inherent biological action—that rules out spike protein, which we inferred would be very toxic, before they’d even started clinical trials;²8 (2) select the genetically most stable parts of the virus, so we could ignore the gross misrepresentations of variants so slight in difference from the original that we were being toyed with via propaganda—again, this rules out spike protein; (3) choose parts of the virus which are most different from any human proteins. Once more, spike protein is immediately deselected, otherwise unnecessary risks of autoimmunity are carried forward.
That all four leading actors chose spike protein, against any reasonable selection criteria, leads me to suspect both collusion and malign intent.

Finally, let nature guide us. Against which components of the virus does natural immunity aim? We find 90% of the immune repertoire targets NON-spike protein responses.²ª I rest my case.

CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

FALSE

These agents were always going to be toxic. The only question was, to what degree? Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design.

Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events, including death.

There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including, for the mRNA “vaccines,” that lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations leave the injection site and home to the liver and ovaries,³º among other organs,³¹ but this evidence is enough to get started.

See this interview for evidence of clinical trial and other fraud, publicised by Edward Dowd, a former BlackRock investment analyst.³²

See this video for evidence of official data fraud (UK Office of National Statistics): especially at 2min 45sec for the heart of the matter.³³

See here for evidence of manufacturing fraud.³ª The same methodology was used to obtain regulatory authorisations, and so it is my contention that there is also regulatory fraud.

In the Pfizer clinical trial briefing document to FDA, which was used for issuing the EUA (on p. 40 or thereabout), there is a paragraph stating that there were approximately 2,000 “suspected unconfirmed Covid cases”—meaning people were sick with symptoms but were not tested (otherwise, it would be stated that the tests were negative). Of these, in the first seven days after injection, there were 400 in the vaccine arm and 200 in placebo. These subjects were excluded from the dataset used to assess efficacy. It’s as clear evidence of fraud as you can get; they admit to it in the FDA briefing! Nobody paid any attention to this that I am aware of.

There’s also evidence of data fraud in that clinical trial as summarised by Dr. Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal).

Though many people refuse to accept or even look at the evidence, it is clear that the number of adverse events and deaths soon after Covid-19 vaccination is astonishing and far in excess, in 2021 alone, than all adverse effects and deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the previous 30 years. Here is a simplified view of Covid vaccine-related mortality reports from VAERS.³‘

This excellent presentation by a forensic statistician, well used to presenting analyses for court purposes, dismantles the claims that the vaccines are effective and shows how toxicity is hidden (see the second half of the recording).¹º

Another paper published by the same group questions vaccine efficacy.³ª

FULL PAPER AND REFERENCES The Covid Lies
Wow. That is a really long post.

It's to long to read but does it talk about Trump's COVID vaccine?
 
Wow. That is a really long post.

It's to long to read but does it talk about Trump's COVID vaccine?

Sorry about your attention span problem. Yes Trump is partly responsible,so you can drop that gaslight.
 
Sorry about your attention span problem. Yes Trump is partly responsible,so you can drop that gaslight.
If you agree he is at least partly responsible, how is it gaslighting?

Regardless, holding a president "partly responsible" for actions his actions as president is pretty weak.

Do you agree Jordan should subpeana Trump and big pharma and figure out what went wrong? Where the money went?
 
If you agree he is at least partly responsible, how is it gaslighting?

Regardless, holding a president "partly responsible" for actions his actions as president is pretty weak.

Do you agree Jordan should subpeana Trump and big pharma and figure out what went wrong? Where the money went?
Fuck Trump. The problem is far bigger. The entire establishment was complicit in the biggest psyop ever committed on the world’s population. Head’s should rolled, but I doubt they will.

Did you fall for the lies and take the obviously phony vax?
 
Fuck Trump. The problem is far bigger. The entire establishment was complicit in the biggest psyop ever committed on the world’s population. Head’s should rolled, but I doubt they will.

No. Trump was president.

He ignored Fauci's advice on the EUA, threw billions in socialist money at big pharma and bullied his own agencies to approve the vaccine because he had an election to win.

Did you fall for the lies and take the obviously phony vax?
Yeah. I wasn't mandated but I believed Trump. He said it was great...one of mankind's greatest achievements. He lied.

Trump needs to be held accountable.
 
No. Trump was president.

He ignored Fauci's advice on the EUA, threw billions in socialist money at big pharma and bullied his own agencies to approve the vaccine because he had an election to win.


Yeah. I wasn't mandated but I believed Trump. He said it was great...one of mankind's greatest achievements. He lied.

Trump needs to be held accountable.
Hey I have no problem with Trump being held accountable, but not for anything related to the mass murderer Fauci. Trump should have fired his ass day one, but he’s dumb and supports the establishment.

There are many others who lied repeatedly and covered up the truth. It’s a very big group of criminals.

Would it surprise anyone the establishment did this on purpose?
 
Hey I have no problem with Trump being held accountable, but not for anything related to the mass murderer Fauci. Trump should have fired his ass day one, but he’s dumb and supports the establishment.

Why would you fire Fauci? He worked for Trump. Trump was in charge. Using that logic we would never hold a president accountable for anything because they always blame someone else.

There are many others who lied repeatedly and covered up the truth. It’s a very big group of criminals.

Trump is the one who told Woodward how dangerous the virus was while telling America it was no big deal.

Would it surprise anyone the establishment did this on purpose?
Not Trump supporters. They will eagerly believe it.
 
Why would you fire Fauci? He worked for Trump. Trump was in charge. Using that logic we would never hold a president accountable for anything because they always blame someone else.



Trump is the one who told Woodward how dangerous the virus was while telling America it was no big deal.


Not Trump supporters. They will eagerly believe it.
Trump is an idiot. Just like Genocide Joe. Are you too?

Fauci may be the world history’s greatest serial killer.
 
Trump is an idiot. Just like Genocide Joe. Are you too?

Fauci may be the world history’s greatest serial killer.
I thought Trump was the world's greatest serial killer? He bullied his own agencies and ignored Fauci's advice on the EUA. What gives?

It's his vaccine. Jordan needs to subpeana him and big pharma. Follow the money!

Why was Trump praising Xi? Why did he lie about his Chinese bank account. How did Ivanka get those patents from China so fast? This was all near the pandemic.

Something is going on here and it's being ignored by Republicans.

We need action, not platitudes or blame.
 
I thought Trump was the world's greatest serial killer? He bullied his own agencies and ignored Fauci's advice on the EUA. What gives?

It's his vaccine. Jordan needs to subpeana him and big pharma. Follow the money!

Why was Trump praising Xi? Why did he lie about his Chinese bank account. How did Ivanka get those patents from China so fast? This was all near the pandemic.

Something is going on here and it's being ignored by Republicans.

We need action, not platitudes or blame.
If it’s his vaccine why do we have members here who hate Trump, yet fully support the vax. Like otto105 and Grumblenuts?
 
If it’s his vaccine why do we have members here who hate Trump, yet fully support the vax. Like otto105 and Grumblenuts?
I am not sure how those two posters somehow remove culpability from Trump of the vaccine he had developed during his presidency, praising Xi, throwing socialist money at big pharma, bully his own agencies, ignore Fauci's advice on the EUA, get patents in record time etc.

Can you explain that in more detail please?
 
I am not sure how those two posters somehow remove culpability from Trump of the vaccine he had developed during his presidency, praising Xi, throwing socialist money at big pharma, bully his own agencies, ignore Fauci's advice on the EUA, get patents in record time etc.

Can you explain that in more detail please?
You’ll have to ask them. I can’t get down to their level of ignorance.
 
These guys who pushed for this so hard just can’t live with their conscience and they are coming clean
 
Science experts lied about Covid to protect Biden and Fauci. About 50 "intelligence" officers lied about Hunter's laptop to protect Biden. How long is the media going to continue to cover for these people?
 
Science experts lied about Covid to protect Biden and Fauci. About 50 "intelligence" officers lied about Hunter's laptop to protect Biden. How long is the media going to continue to cover for these people?
Forever.
 
You’ll have to ask them. I can’t get down to their level of ignorance.
Hilarious

The convict did all those things and still the vaccine worked because actual science was used to develop them.

And it was a better alternative to drinking bleach or disinfectant.
 
Last edited:
I thought Trump was the world's greatest serial killer? He bullied his own agencies and ignored Fauci's advice on the EUA. What gives?

It's his vaccine. Jordan needs to subpeana him and big pharma. Follow the money!

Why was Trump praising Xi? Why did he lie about his Chinese bank account. How did Ivanka get those patents from China so fast? This was all near the pandemic.

Something is going on here and it's being ignored by Republicans.

We need action, not platitudes or blame.
Even if it is true, we do not live with great men anymore as leaders. We have sniping 24 hours a day and it is endless. Progs do it a lot better than non progs. Progs could have worked with Trump. The media/entertainers could have also. Instead, it was the usual insults and deriding agendas. Fauci changed his forked tongue spewisms nearly every week. Progs vaccinated were delirious against those who were not. Even now we still debate what COVID is. And that means a lot of lies have passed over the years on it. It was a biological weapon purposely released to affect a Presidency that was having success.
 

Forum List

Back
Top