COVID-19 / Malicious Medical Quackery
[Ed.: FEAR YOUR DOCTOR! Medicine is a disgraced profession. They cannot (and must not) be trusted any longer! Cultivate Nosocomephobia and iatrophobia. Spread ‘vaccine hesitancy’!]
Defense of Dr. Charles Hoffe Vs. The BC College of Physicians and Surgeons – Part 4 PIERRE KORY, MD, MPA
The College’s expert attacked Dr. Hoffe for misinformation due to his public statements regarding the immense safety of ivermectin. Here is my defense testimony rebutting the College’s “expert.”
JAN 28, 2024 – This is the 4th post of my series defending Dr. Charles Hoffe against the accusations by British Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons that his actions and statements during Covid were in violation of the College’s code of conduct. If you have not read it, I suggest you read Part 1 here for the background and context of his case.
SAFETY OF IVERMECTIN
I strongly agree with Dr. Hoffe’s public statement that ivermectin is “very, very safe, very effective treatments for Covid…” and that it is “unbelievably safe.”
Dr. Corneil instead finds that, “Ivermectin, especially at high doses, can be dangerous for humans and may cause serious health problems such as vomiting, diarrhea, low blood pressure, allergic reactions, dizziness, seizures, coma and even death.”
Dr. Corneil’s opinion characterizing Dr. Hoffe’s statement as incorrect, misleading etc. is easily disproven with the available, extensive data on the nearly unparalleled safety of ivermectin in treatment of both Covid and the 40 years history of global use to treat parasitic diseases.
In response to Dr. Corneil’s claim that ivermectin can cause low blood pressure, in this scoping review of the safety of ivermectin, the author states “A sudden and marked drop in blood pressure, severe skin reaction and liver injury have been mentioned in early safety reviews. The clinical experience accumulated over the years showed these severe adverse events are unequivocally extremely rare. The often-reiterated claim, even today, that ivermectin can be lethal in treated patients only rests on a one-page correspondence to the Lancet published in 1997. This claim is deemed to be unfounded as it has never been further substantiated until today and instead, three subsequent publications repeatedly showed this claim was either incorrect or methodologically inaccurate.”
Another Ralph Baric Lecture JOHN LEAKE
“Imagining the Next Flu Pandemic – and Preventing it!” delivered in 2018
JAN 28, 2024 – Author’s Note: This is my second post in a series about the lectures and papers of UNC professor Ralph Baric. As I mentioned in my first post, Ralph Baric: The JS Bach of Viral Genetic Engineering, Professor Baric has—through extraordinary focus over a thirty year period—become the preeminent authority on coronaviruses and genetically altering them. My title did not imply that Baric’s work bears the same moral and aesthetic qualities as Bach’s. The point of my title was to give the devil his due in terms of diligence, focus, and industry.
The following lecture from 2018 is titled Imagining the Next Flu Pandemic – and Preventing it!. The following passages struck me as notable:
1). At around 10:50 he talks about creating Chimeric SARS-like Viruses in the lab.
Three of these could replicate just fine and use human receptors for entry. … If you took a mouse that has a human receptor instead of the mouse receptor, these viruses are lethal. So they clearly have the potential to create lethal disease.
1). At 19:00 he talks about serial passage of viruses through mice resulting in the virus becoming more pathogenic. E-mails exchanged between Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, and a group of prominent virologists in early February 2020 reveal their concerns that SARS-CoV-2 was the result of laboratory serial passage, though they never mentioned this concern in their papers or other communiques with the public.
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign M. Nathaniel Mead • Stephanie Seneff • Russ Wolfinger • Jessica Rose • Kris Denhaerynck • Steve Kirsch • Peter A. McCullough
January 24, 2024 – Peer-Reviewed
Abstract
Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the interim, problems with the methods, execution, and reporting of these pivotal trials have emerged. Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders. Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards. Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data. The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted. Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits. Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.
Introduction & Background
Our understanding of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccinations and their impact on mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts in December 2020. Early investigations indicated the potential of these biologicals for preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Based on the first randomized controlled trials sponsored by Pfizer-BioNTech ((New York, United States (US); Mainz, Germany) and Moderna Inc. (Massachusetts, US), researchers concluded that there was a noteworthy 95% relative risk (RR) reduction of symptomatic COVID-19 [1,2]. The overlapping finding between the two trials prompted the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow the use of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on December 11, 2020, a decision that was followed by early unblinding and cessation of the trials [3].
Top Peer Reviewed Study Calls for Global Ban on Covid Shots By Pamela Geller
January 27, 2024 – “Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products…”
No media. No mea culpa. They are on a death march.
Think of all those poor souls who lost their jobs, their college placements, their livelihoods for having the temerity to think.
Cureus, Journal of Medical Science, is a web-based peer-reviewed open access general medical journal using prepublication peer review.
My Clinical License is as Good as Gone Jordan B Peterson
1,405,455 views Jan 23, 2024 – Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and his daughter @mikhaila explain the current situation with the College of Psychologists of Ontario.
Over 300 medical journals have been removed. Wonder why? [4:50] Jessica Rojas @catsscareme2021
January 28, 2024 – I’ve noticed this for sure. Almost all of my vaccine science links to medical studies have been moved or removed. These are studies that dare to show vaccines in any sort of negative light.
