The Chloroquine Wars Part C
This won’t be over until it is societally acknowledged through life insurance applications having a box for Covid-19 Vaccination and a “yes” check results in higher premiums for the applicants.
A new kind of war. Information war against the people. From the corporate media side but increasingly from the destruction of science and medicine as well.
Where is the outrage from scientists and doctors?
Assuming, assuming, the data are legitimate, vitamin D3, or sunshine, fresh air and warm climate must somehow control the outbreak of rowuhan. Why do I say that?
Look at the vax rates in Queensland, Western Australian. Canberra, South Australia, Victoria, NSW, Tasmania, and NZ. Although their rates have not yet reached the levels of NSW and Victoria, there is no logical explanation for days of zip cases in WA, SA. and Qld. Canberra had cases in the teens yet it was the first place to reach double vax rate of 90%. In contrast, cold and wet Europe have massive increases despite having lower vax rates than in Australia.
Seasonality and regionality, combined with the weakened immune caused by the vaxes and the vaxes themselvesa re the causes of the European outbreaks. Without the introduction of the vaccines, their cases would be lower and milder due to acquired immunity from 2020!
A reminder that "cases" mean nothing if people don't need medical care and die.
I have a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, am I in the at-risk group? (in case I die before you publish your detailed findings.) Thanks for all you do especially in the circumstances.
Thanks for this good overview. There is one more thing showing that the Pfizer trial was not random. Hidden in the appendix of the preprint of the second publication that goes over the 6 month data is the statement that the placebo group had a 10 fold higher frequency of "previous negative covid19 medical history or negative test on 1. visit". Now, if they were random, this is impossible. So either they tested them 10 times more than the vaccine group on the day of the 1. visit (seems to be vaccination visit but the preprint is not exact here), or they picked subjects 10 times more likely to get tested for Covid19 in their environment for placebo. Both is impossible if the participants were randomly distributed. But it is a good method to get 10 times more cases in the placebo group if covid19 is mainly detected by test, not by symptoms. Which it is.
"Oh, was there one? I don't think so, but post it in the comments if you like." I don't think so, as well.
Admit haven't finished reading but thought this was pertinent, Mike Mutzel just reviewed a (well designed/executed) study on the impacts of sodas (and other sweetened beverages) on our immune system's response to Covid. It was a government funded study using soldiers.
I'm not a scientist or doctor, but I have been trying to follow vaccine and SARS-COV-2 related issues as closely as I can manage.
With respect to autoimmunity, many had talked about how the potential biodistribution of the mRNA or adenovirus vector might influence the development of autoimmune as the immune system inadvertently becomes trained to attack parts of the cells expressing spike protein. This seems like a valid theory for exploration but there may be more to the story.
Now, browsing James Lyons-Weiler's substack (https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/if-you-read-one-thing-on-sars-cov) my attention was drawn to this study:
Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible
Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines
In which there is a section "Pathogenic Priming, Multisystem Inflammatory Disease, and Autoimmunity" reviewing several studies that identified portions of SARS-COV-2 that have homology to human proteins. I think anyone investigating autoimmune disorders and COVID-19 vaccines should read through this. As far as I understand it, it is possible that antibodies formed against the spike protein itself may also target human proteins. This raises the threat of the vaccines even higher as their repeat administration may give multiple opportunities to form these autoimmune reactive antibodies and also will cause floods of antibody production of antibodies that may be reactive to human body proteins.
Matthew, thanks for the amazing work!
The propaganda and deception is so obvious at this point.
Just regarding efficacy/mortality benefits,
I'm still a bit torn since there is so much conflicting data out there!
Can you help me with this one: https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1463119478099693571?t=yodZMwpLcY7B9mWjcd3QjA&s=19
oh i think they are highly effective
I watched your interview with Steve Kirsch last night and had a couple of questions:
1) When you say that you think most (or all perhaps) Covid deaths are in those with autoimmune diseases, are these in particular types of autoimmune diseases, such as diabetes, but are some autoimmune diseases not included or not so problematic? I ask as I know two people with autoimmune diseases, one with Hashimoto's who has not had the jab as is aware of issues with it, but is fearful of getting the virus, and one who has had Graves disease (in remission) who has taken the two jabs but has not had any health issues yet. Just wondering if these types of autoimmune diseases are not as problematic with Covid-19 or the jab? Can you elaborate a bit more please.
2) With the rise in athletes dying of heart attacks or having myocarditis, I've been wondering if we are seeing this more in athletes because they push their hearts more than ordinary people on a regular basis. If you are sedentary, then maybe it takes longer to notice any heart issues - so not as obvious correlation as we see in athletes. It could be a disaster waiting to happen as people realize their hearts are damaged - they may not relate it to the jab either.
Pfizer and other drug companies also sneakily made it impossible for those at highest risk to enrol, which is why there are so few over 80 year olds with dementia and other complications in these trials. This reduces the likelihood of detecting serious side effects and decreases risk of death from vaccines in the trials. Of course, it also makes it practically impossible to show efficacy in terms of lives saved, hospital and ICU admissions prevented and disability reduced, but since that was never the primary goal I guess they don't care about that.
They made electronic diaries part of the protocol. Which naturally means that in order to participate you must own an electronic device (smartphone, tablet or computer) and have wifi. Both of these are fairly expensive for a cohort of people who are at least 80 years old in 2020. Because the average 80 year plus person retired last millennium and has been living on a pension ever since. Those most at risk are probably only receiving a state pension.
In context, they probably retired at least 7 years before the first iPhone came out. And over 80 year olds are often less familiar and comfortable with using technology.
They also need to be able to remember username and password details and that they need to log their symptoms in the electronic diary every day for a week after each dose. At a time when they are experiencing increased inflammation which will certainly increase cognitive impairment for anyone with pre-existing cognitive issues.
Even if you didn't know that dementia is the number 1 comorbidity associated with COVID mortality in the UK and other countries, the drug companies which have been trying to develop drugs to combat Alzheimer's for decades surely know that about 1 in 5 eighty year olds and about half of ninety year olds are already diagnosed with dementia. And that the top killer in the UK and a major killer in most westernised countries is Alzheimer's. Certainly not a group you'd consider using an app for.
Then there are the issues about people in the studies needing to be able to access their standard healthcare services to be assessed for serious symptoms following vaccination. During a "pandemic" when outpatients were cancelled, labs and radiology were reduced, and it was almost impossible to arrange a face-to-face consultation with a GP or primary care provider. And any doctors they were likely to see had no training or expertise in assessing for complications of novel mRNA drugs.
Meanwhile, in the USA, there's the added hurdle of having to negotiate with insurance companies to have assessments done +/- pay out of pocket for expensive testing.
And the clock was ticking to get emergency authorisation from regulatory authorities within weeks of people receiving the drugs which meant that diagnoses were rushed through without adequate assessment and late effects/chronic conditions weren't assessed at all.
Those issues are on top of all the other appalling study design problems. You couldn't design these studies any worse if what you genuinely wanted to do was detect side effects and assess for potential lives saved. Of course, if what you really wanted to do with these trials was impress people with sheer numbers of people enrolled and pretend that you were planning on running RCTs when you knew you were really going to unblind them early from the outset while obfuscating hazards, the study designs are wonderful.
How did they get these numbers? Less all cause deaths in the vac group.
Finally! Two of my biggest questions answered in one post. I breathed a sigh of relief after I read this. 1. The seemingly random nature of severe disease response to infection has puzzled me. We all heard about the elderly person getting by with only sniffles, the healthy man in his late 30s who died, and the obese person with comorbidities that didn't need hospitalization. All of those contradictions to what we would expect the victim of severe disease to resemble. Most who have died from covid19 had some type of immune dysfunction. Aha!
2. I have found myself particularly annoyed every time I hear that the 'vaccines' prevent you from/lower your risk of severe disease, hospitalization and/or death. It made no sense how anyone was making that conclusion, and that it was merely parroting of Big Pharma's lines. The 'vaccines' never worked (and are likely to cause much more harm down the road than anyone imagined). It was the illusion of the innately immune, studies showing up to 80% of household members won't contract the virus with a positive member under the same roof, or the vast amount of people with sufficient immune response- the folks who were always going to be immune, asymptomatic or experience a mild symptoms. Thank you, Mathew.
Hi Matthew, I'm doing some research on VAERS deaths and PE and have a statistical question. I've been very impressed by your work. Can you share your email address with me? email@example.com
Are there credible all cause mortality statistics available for covering that period between first vax shot and being classified as vaccinated? If all cause mortality is seemingly down for the vaccinated then there would have to be a big spike in the numbers during that partially vaccinated period for the survivor bias idea to hold up, or am I missing something?