Video here, if you'd prefer to click to it: https://rumble.com/vmtkz5-2022-09-22-decades-of-evidence-ignored.html 

Well well....

Project Veritas now has an on-the-record federal HHS employee blowing this whistle.

UAB Hospital in Alabama dropped their vaccine mandate after being threatened with a lawsuit. (They may attempt to play too-cute-by-half with the OSHA rules but if their original position was a loser, so is that one.)

Further, read this:

Don Williamson, president of the Alabama Hospital Association, said most hospitals in the state are not requiring vaccines for employees, WBRC reported. UAB was an exception.

Is that so?

OSHA "rules" are not federal law; they're regulations and if issued illegally are void.

Law is made by Congress and confirmed (if signed) by the President, or if a veto is overruled.  Until that happens it's not law, it's a bill and legally means nothing.  Agencies can issue regulations but they must comport with the statutes -- that is, the law that enables same.   This is why the CDC's mandate was tossed and, I remind you, the courts now have notice that under Biden's administration being handed a "nice" defeat will be met with a middle finger so the odds of a second "nice" rebuke are now zero.

I predicted when this BS started that OSHA would fail in this regard for several reasons.  Chief among them is that it is a major rule impacting millions.  This is not an emergency situation at one company or even within a single industry; it is intended to blast the entire nation's workforce at once with a mandate.  This triggers a whole host of scrutiny requirements which are very unlikely to succeed and will be immediately challenged -- along with filings asking for injunctions to bar enforcement until a ruling on the merits is made.

Said ruling will require hearings, trials, and ultimately likely go before the US Supreme Court.  It will take months if not years to go through that process.  I remind you that an injunction requires:

1. You are likely to win.  OSHA has not issued a rule of this sort of scope in a very long time, and certainly not on an emergency basis.  The entire premise of an "emergency" 18 months into this pandemic is a joke; Congress has had a year and a half to consider legislation and has not.  That standing alone like dooms the rule.  But there's much more -- in order to argue that "the vaccinated" must be protected in the workplace from "the unvaccinated" you have to admit the vaccines don't work!  If you put that admission into writing then you just ate your own tail; the circular logic of that is obvious to anyone.  If you don't then only consenting persons, who choose not to be vaccinated, are at risk.  Then there is the CDC Director's direct testimony before Congress, under oath, in September 2020 in which he said masks were more effective than vaccines -- and he meant surgical masks too as that's what he held up.  When liberty interests are implicated the least-intrusive means to accomplish the goal must be chosen; the government cannot take the most intrusive, and potential permanent harm is certainly as intrusive as it gets.  Having admitted there is a better alternative OSHA will lose on that basis.  There's much more -- but you just need to demonstrate probability of a win.

2. Irreparable injury that cannot be compensated for with money.  Losing a job or worse, permanently damaging your health qualifies.  No problem there.

3. The threatened injury if the order goes into effect exceeds that if not.  The status quo is what that's measured against; this one is somewhat of a tougher call, but likely wins.

4. The injunction is not adverse to the public interest. 100 million Americans are the public interest.  This is not a majority rule question; impacting a huge number of people certainly reaches this threshold.

The courts are not stupid.  Partisan although claimed to not be, yes.  Biased although designed to resist that, yes.  Typically deferential to the Executive (and especially Congress), yes, even though by the Constitution they're all co-equal.  But stupid?  No.

An injunction protects the status quo.  In this case the various courts are very cognizant of the risks of allowing such a mandate through -- whether with legal review or not.  Those risks include a collapse of health care in whole or part, a collapse of supply lines and knock-on effects that could include disruption of basic and necessary commodities and services.  That is a genie that, if it gets out of the bottle, may not be able to be put back in.  It is one thing to allow Congress and the Executive to do this sort of thing (as was done with Obamacare); to allow just the Executive to do it is another thing entirely.

I'll lay odds the injunction issues -- and the reason you haven't heard much from OSHA yet is because they know damn well they're going to lose for the above reasons, and if they don't a significant number of the nation's hospitals may collapse.  If you have a heart attack in that situation you will die.  If any significant union or even just industry presence (e.g. Teamsters, truckers, etc.) strike in response the entire national economy could be destabilized within days or weeks.

There is no means to compel you to work.  Further, the courts are explicitly forbidden, with very few exceptions (the FRA to be specific) to interfere in what is clearly a "strike", whether coordinated or not.  They can't stop you from erecting the middle finger.

The entire clown world game of Biden and the jabs is about to blow up in their face.

That was my prediction originally and I stand by it.

I'll add another prediction: The petulant 2-year-old in the White House will throw a temper tantrum.

It is often said that there is some crazy conspiracy to slaughter -- whether you prefer to call it "genocide" or whatever.  In the context of medicine, including the current pandemic, I argue 99% of the time its simpler.

It's nothing more than greed.

Greed is not necessarily bad.  In measured and rational amounts it drives innovation.  I developed a crap-ton of software and designed a network around it that became MCSNet, a successful Internet company in the 1990s because of greed.  That is, by doing so I expected that I could make a lot of money.  That was not the first time I tried to make a lot of money, but it was the time it worked.  Most people who are entrepreneurs (and honest) will tell you that for every success there are three, five, sometimes ten or more failures.  "Failure" means you lose some or, in many cases all of your investment.

But unchecked greed is bad.  It becomes exploitive, even murderous.

What stops unbridled greed in the ordinary case?

Liability.

If I might otherwise claim a vial full of saline has medicinal properties and can cure a disease what will stop me is the threat of being bankrupted or even thrown in prison.

Now enter an epidemic or any other emergent crisis.

Florida and other states have laws constraining greed in times of crisis.  You can't charge someone $10/gallon for gas when a hurricane is coming for this reason.  There are people of the libertarian pursuit that argue these laws are immoral because the invisible hand of supply and demand would otherwise come into play.  They're only right until duress shows up.

They know it too.  Ask any of those libertarians how they feel about it if the gas station owner could see your fuel gauge, knew you were nearly out and couldn't reach the next station and then had his pump charge you $10/gal.  Or worse, he pulls a gun on you once you pull into the station and now you have no choice but to pay the grossly-inflated price.  Is not the hurricane a gun?  That the owner of the station doesn't pull it changes nothing; the question is about taking advantage of duress not who applies it to you.

Now let's look at epidemics and pandemics, since both certainly count as duress, especially if you're infected -- or being led to believe you will be absent something you do (or don't do.)

The last "serious" one before Covid that actually materialized in the US was HIV/AIDS.  What was Fauci's proclaimed miracle drug for HIV?  AZT.

What was AZT?  A failed cancer drug -- it not only didn't work it had a nasty safety profile.  In fact it damaged immune response including that in the bone marrow, which is where long-term immunity tends to migrate to and, by being present there, results in very durable, even lifetime protection.  We knew this going in because it had been previously tested and failed in cancer patients -- in fact it killed people in those trials.  In other words it was one of the overwhelming majority of molecules that drug companies invent, they look promising in test tubes and initial study, and then fail either due to ineffectiveness or outright harm when actually trialed.  Indeed what AZT had produced in those earlier trials looked an awful lot in terms of immune impact like AIDS!

But now we have a "epidemic" with no known effective treatments so off the shelf it comes and into people's bodies.  It appears to sort of work -- it delays, in some people, symptoms.  Or does it?  We're not sure, even today, because the "placebo" arm of the trial wasn't really blinded.  The people in the study could taste the difference between the real medication and the placebo.  Thus they knew which they were getting and this destroys the integrity of the study.  Nonetheless the drug, under heavy pressure from Fauci, was approved and used for a long time.

It didn't actually work but the toxicity was real.  While in those years AIDS was a death sentence because the therapies we have now, which suppress (but do not eradicate) the virus in your body, didn't exist the fact remains that a hell of a lot of money was made.  At the time AZT was the most-expensive medicine ever prescribed.

What's worse is that in the late 1970s we discovered that a cheap, off-patent two-drug antibiotic cocktail known as Bactrim prevented PCP, a nasty and very deadly pneumonia, in children undergoing cancer treatment for leukemia.  People with AIDS often got PCP as well; it is an opportunistic infection that almost-never causes disease in immune-competent individuals, but among those who are being treated for cancer and thus severely immune-suppressed it often did, and frequently killed them.

Anthony Fauci argued vehemently that there was insufficient safety data to recommend the use of Bactrim by AIDS patients as a prophylaxis to prevent PCP, even though they were getting the disease and dying by the thousands.  Whether this was linked to his vehement promotion of AZT is, of course, unknown -- but reasonable to assume.  What is known is that his advocacy against the use of said drug, which we knew worked and had saved countless leukemia patients from a nasty, choking death, resulted in 30,000 AIDS patients in American alone being shoved in the hole before the decision to bar its use in said people was overturned.

AZT was, by the facts, functionally worthless.  For every person temporarily "helped" one or more got screwed by the side effects and statistically zero people had the course of disease interrupted either way on a durable basis.

But it sure was profitable.

Now enter Covid-19.  Fauci runs an unproved line of crap on Remdesivir, claiming "clear-cut evidence" that it helps people recover from the disease.

What was Remdesivir?

It was a three-time loser!  It had been trialed as a drug against both Hepatitis-C and RSV, a viral disease that usually attacks young children and can be fatal in them.  It failed both trials.

Next it was tried against Ebola and failed there too.

But this time, with very limited evidence that it might shorten hospital stays and in fact zero evidence that it cut mortality, because we were in a pandemic that very limited evidence and no evidence that it prevents death allowed it to be given an EUA.  It's quite-expensive too since it's on-patent -- about $3,000 to be precise for the usual course of administration plus thousands more in charges by the hospital to administer it since it is an IV medication.  Any hospital using it makes a crap-ton of money giving it to you.

Further trials occurred over the next months with the most-important one arguably being SOLIDARITY, a very large multi-national in-hospital trial that covered multiple drugs.  It failed there too; it not only had no statistical benefit on outcome it wasn't the only one; indeed, zero of the trialed drugs when used in the hospital setting, that is, presumably late in the disease, worked -- including HCQ.  I was not surprised by any of those outcomes; HCQ, for example, would not be expected to work in the hospital because at that point viral replication is complete and its mechanism of action, such as it is claimed, was against viral replication.

The problem is that Remdesivir was developed and sold as an antiviral so why did anyone think it would work in the hospital under the same circumstance -- viral replication having completed -- where HCQ fails?

Yet even today it will be given to you if you check into a hospital with Covid-19.  It is part of the "official protocol."

It is, on the data, a useless drug just makes people money at your expense.  But most failed drugs aren't just useless since all drugs have potential harms associated with them.  This one is especially nasty because one of the side effects that came out of the early trials was a roughly 1-2 in 10 risk of at least temporarily damaging or destroying kidney function.  

Now think about this for a minute.  You're in the hospital fighting a potentially-deadly infection.  You get a drug that, 10-20% of the time on the data damages or destroys your kidney function.  Most people think the kidneys are all about removing uric acid and thus creating piss.  That's only part of what they do.

In addition they:

• Control the acid/base balance of your blood.  This goes out of range, you die.
  
  
• Control the water balance of your blood.  Guess what happens if that goes out of range?  Uh huh.  Specifically, that can cause acute pulmonary edema and compromise lung function.  You weren't already choking to death before that happened by chance, were you?
  
  
• Controls electrolyte balance.  While some of that is survivable even wildly out of whack there are specific parts of electrolyte balance that you cannot survive being materially-disrupted -- to name one, potassium which is utterly crucial for neural conduction.  That being out of range can literally give you an immediate heart attack by interrupting or damaging the neural signaling from your brain to your heart muscle.  I think you can figure out what comes next if you suffer cardiac arrest.
  
  
• Removes toxins. Not just uric acid; a whole host of other things including many drug byproducts.  Needless to say poisoning by excess levels of many of those results in.... yeah, you got it, death.
  
  
• Control of blood pressure. Yeah, that ain't good if it goes out of range, right?
  
  
• Controls the process of red blood cell production in the marrow by producing a hormone called erythropoietin.  No red blood cells, no oxygen transport.  You die (granted, probably not fast enough for it to be in play here.)
  
  
• And a critical part in the metabolic pathway by which Vitamin D is used by the body.  What do we know is associated with bad Covid-19 outcomes?  Severely deficient serum Vitamin D levels.

Anyone who runs dialysis for other people as a nurse or who has had to have it done knows damn well that the process is not just about removing what would otherwise be piss.  Oh sure, that's part of it -- but it's a complex dance when you try to replace that which the body does on its own with external process and doing so requires a crap-ton of attention and replacement of those functions.  When you are under severe disease stress the odds that this sort of dysfunction and the inability to match natural response artificially, even in the short term and the best of skill, will kill you is quite high.

As a result it is entirely reasonable to expect that if you give Remdesivir, with a known 10-20% rate of significant kidney disruption rate to a group of people who are ill enough to be hospitalized it might well kill 10% of those it was given to via this toxicity.  Therefore in order for the drug to be considered worth the risk it would have to save statistically more people than it harms by enough to produce a hazard ratio that was materially in favor of the treatment and the confidence band would have to conclusively show that.

The data from SOLIDARITY said that isn't the case.

It gets worse.

Death from the above can be determined at autopsy.  Dysregulation of the first several of those items will produce differentiated edema, particularly in the lungs.  That is, excess fluid.  This is immediately obvious on autopsy and is wildly different than what is apparent if coagulation killed the patient, which is typically what results with Covid pneumonia that leads to death.

They aren't looking, on purpose, and in fact people who have specifically asked for autopsies are being refused.

If you did 100 of them on Covid hospitalized deaths, all of which got Remdesivir and found half of them had evidence of systemic harm from the drug well......

History rarely repeats, but it frequently rhymes.  Fauci, at the same time arguing for Remdesivir, an on-patent and expensive medication along with mandatory vaccination, argued against, and continues to argue against the early use of Ivermectin, HCQ and even Budesonide, three drugs for which we have decades of safety data and which are used routinely by huge numbers of people -- we have history on close to 4 billion human doses consumed for Ivermectin, millions of RA and Lupus sufferers use HCQ daily and Budesonide is commonly prescribed as a maintenance drug for daily use by asthmatics.

Speaking of vaccination we've known for decades that "leaky" vaccines -- that is, ones which do not sterilize you against infection and thus allow you to "carry" a disease and not get sick are dangerous.  If used when a disease is present in the community they turn vaccinated people into carriers and spreaders of the disease who have no idea they're passing the love around to others.  Eventually the disease finds a person it can make sick, whether their vaccine failed or they are not vaccinated.

We learned this the hard way decades ago with DTP.  Virtually every child was -- and is -- vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.  Pertussis, otherwise known as "whooping cough" is a nasty disease that frequently kills infants -- and is dangerous to basically anyone who gets it.  Anyone who is symptomatic for it is instantly obvious due to its characteristic and violent coughing and "whoop" respiratory disturbance, which is also frequently associating with vomiting.

The DTP shots had a fairly nasty adverse effect profile and, what's worse, there were quality control problems with insuring the correct amount was in a given dose.  There were suspicions that the pertussis component caused permanent brain injury in children.  People sued.  The manufacturers withdrew the DTP vaccine, liability insurance became prohibitively expensive and the manufacturers threatened not to make any more of the shots -- ever.

What did Congress do in 1986?  Immunize the manufacturers from liability.  Instead VAERS (which we have today) was established, alleged "mandatory reporting" (which we know is a joke in the context of Covid-19 shots) was instituted for health  providers that administered vaccines and an arbitration system was established for alleged injury claims.

But what happened with pertussis itself -- you know, the disease?

Well, on the data, the vaccines were working.  There were only 1,010 cases of pertussis across the entire United States in the mid 1970s.  Rather than solve the quality control problems the industry, now immune from lawsuit, in full cooperation with the CDC changed the vaccines to "DTaP", which is what is given today.  That change  was broadly rolled out through the 1990s in the United States.  "a" stands for acellular; in other words, not containing the actual material of the disease.  DTaP was easier to make and, while somewhat more-expensive also did not suffer from the quality control challenges of DTP.

That's good, right?  Improve the product!  Why VAERS and everything that came from the lawsuits and such is a victory!

Uh, no, it isn't.

“The second generation of vaccine turned out to have an unanticipated limitation, and that has been probably the main engine driving the resurgence,” says Gill, who is lead author on a review article on the resurrection of whooping cough, published in the journal F1000 Research. Gill and his colleagues suspect that the vaccine, while preventing symptoms from pertussis infections for some time, has little impact on preventing people from becoming “colonized” with the bacteria, meaning they are asymptomatic carriers of the disease and are still capable of infecting others.

Why we would never do the same stupid thing again, not with an endemic disease that comes around here and there and screws some people, but rather into the maw of an epidemic that is screwing people by the score, right?

Oh wait -- we did exactly that and what's worse is that we are now mandating such abject stupidity for health care workers and enlisting countless people, including but certainly not limited to them, in marching around virtue signaling others to get jabs that history tells us will make the situation worse! 

Of course profit and the removal of liability from the manufacturers has nothing to do with this, right?  Why if they were liable then you could sue and introduce as evidence that we have known for decades on the data that when we did the same thing with pertussis we screwed people and turned a nearly-eradicated disease into one that makes a hell of a lot of people sick!

Now I want you to look in here.  Get out Excel, you're going to need it.

Or just look at my county and the latest figures off the CSV file.

358 people total hospitalized and of them 227 died thus far.

Sixty-three percent of the people who go into that hospital (there's only one in this county) for Covid-19 come out in a box?

How about Knox?

1,707 hospitalizations and 784 deaths.

Forty-six percent of those who go into one of the several hospitals in that much-larger county for Covid-19 come out in a box?

By the way on March 1st -- before Delta -- our hospital had killed 61% on a run-rate basis so no, this is not a "Delta" problem.

It is a post-vaccine acceleration at a gross rate, however: On January 1st, when statistically zero people had gotten vaccines, they had killed 43% of those who went in with Covid-19.

Indeed in Sevier County if you take the May 1st number of hospitalizations as a "baseline" (291) and deaths (175) and subtract that off you find that from May 1st to now 127 people went into the hospital for Covid-19 and 52 came out in a box thus far for a "kill rate" of 41% since the "advent" of Delta.  How you like those odds?  4 out of 10?

How about from July 1st to now, when basically everything is allegedly "Delta" and the vaccines may be either wearing off or worse, promoting more-severe disease?

304 in the hospital, 179 dead on that day.  In other words 54 hospitalizations in total and of them 48 died thus far.

THE *******S AT OUR COUNTY HOSPITAL SENT 89% OF ADMISSIONS HOME IN A BOX SINCE JULY 1ST!  You think there's no SIGNAL in there?

Yes, this is a bit unfair as there's overlap; that is, if you die the second day of the 2-month window you probably were infected and admitted some time previous. Can we correct for that?  Yes; offset the two by 10 days, which likely gets you into the median area for admission .vs. death (that is, on average it likely takes you about 10 days to die if you're going to die.)

So let's do that; we'll go with June 20th for the start date for admissions.  That's 304 and, on deaths, still 179 -- in fact on June 21st Sevier County recorded its previous one death.

I still get 54 admissions from June 20th to the 16th of September and 48 deaths, for a kill rate of.... 89%.  And this understates the rate, in all probability, since if I cut off admissions on the 16th I should carry forward deaths for another 10 days,  If we go back 10 days on admissions to the 6th, however, we get an identical count so we shall see if the deterioration gets worse over the next  week.   Oops.

Now do you understand why I was willing to do whatever I had to early, often and hard to avoid giving those pieces of crap a nearly 9 in 10 crack at killing me when I got infected at the beginning of August?  I succeeded, obviously, or you would not be reading this.

If I had to go and the option was this county rather than just laying down and being murdered so I could be held up as another "unvaxxed death" on CNN I might have chosen instead to do something that could send my soul to Hell.  When facing St. Peter this is what I would have told him:

"See all these souls immediately in front of me? I intentionally made them come here today because they were, with a 90% certainty, imminently going to commit murder upon both my person and others in addition to those who they murdered before me.  I did it to terminate that 90% kill rate, ending their orgy of death along with my life which I willingly spent.  I'm well-aware of God's commandment "thou shalt not murder", the serious nature of violating that law and the just and eternal punishment for doing so, but I submit that it is not murder to stop someone who is actively committing homicide, even if it results in their death.  This is especially true when the net number of lives that are ended decreases as a result of your actions, and a 90% slaughter rate across dozens of people over a couple month's time, which they can no longer continue, meets that criteria.  On the evidence I sincerely believe these people could have kept half or more of those souls who preceded mine here alive and their failure to do so was not an accident -- they did it on purpose out of willful ignorance, arrogance, spite, promoting a political agenda and greed.  Given that you have absolute knowledge of whether I am right or wrong then if I was wrong and my actions did violate the 5th Commandment, a mortal sin, I humbly accept my just punishment in eternal Hellfire."

You think I have any respect for anyone who claims that "oh this is so terrible" when they've done nothing about the Elephant in the room -- they own and execute those protocols for these patients and it is absolutely clear they are either doing nothing to save people or worse, actively killing them!

That's like asking me if I had respect for Jeff Dahmer because a few of the people he targeted managed to figure out what he had in mind and escaped having their heads wind up in his refrigerator.

How's Knox County (much larger and right next door) look?  1707 HX, 784 dead as of 9/16.  What was it on 7/1?  1434 and 649, respectively.

273 more hospitalizations and 135 more deaths, or a slaughter rate of 50%.  Better odds than my county?  Yeah, now its a revolver with three cartridges in it out of six holes instead of nine out of ten.  Oh by the way their rate of death from the start of the pandemic to January 1st was 343/960 or 36%.  That's going the wrong way too, isn't it -- and not by a little either.

How is it that with all these vaccines injected across susceptible people who are most-likely to get whacked by this virus we've gone from roughly 4 in 10 people dying who are admitted to more than double that rate and near-certain death?  Why is it that a much-larger county right next door with multiple medical centers, while doing better, is still going the wrong way?  Given that the data out of every place with reasonable statistics says that Delta is somewhat less lethal on a case fatality rate basis, and that all the really easy to kill people are already dead as they died either in early 2020 or the winter what the Hell is going on here?  We already know one hospital (but not in this area) was caught deliberately trying to lie for that purpose as someone taped the Zoom call where it happened and leaked it online.

It isn't because we wildly deployed a vaccine strategy that is identical to the one that failed for pertussis and we knew why it failed before this pandemic began, was it?  Isn't it lovely that we exempted everyone from liability for doing something that on the data was demonstrably dangerous and now, on the objective evidence as documented by the percentage of hospital admissions ending in a pine box is blowing up in our face?

Oh, and since we're talking about failed strategies, has anyone updated the adverse event risk on Remdesivir?  Nope.  What if those original trial results were skewed by illness severity and in fact the drug is a lot more dangerous than it appears?  What if, under increasing levels of systemic stress, that drug kills the majority or even nearly all of those people?

Given that the data continually has shown there is no mortality benefit where is the data from hospitals that do not use it and how do those compare on a matched-cohort basis with those that do?  Do such hospitals in the United States exist?

I cannot find a single scientific publication that lays this out; if you have it I'd love to see a link to it in the comments.

Do we have a bunch of people dying of secondary bacterial pneumonia and not Covid-19 at all yet again, nobody is looking because there is a playbook and it does not include looking for and treating anything else if the person has a positive Covid-19 test?  The use of steroids is shown to help dampen inflammatory response (and thus is common and helpful in hospitalized Covid patients) but systemic steroids also set up the potential for bacterial colonization by suppressing immune response.  Is "The magic PCR 8-ball" saying "POSITIVE!" a barrier to looking for anything else that may be going on?  Since nobody is doing autopsies you will never get caught if you don't bother looking -- is that why all these people are dying?

What the hell is going on here?  Is it simply that we were stupid with our jabs because we couldn't come up with a sterilizing vaccine for a coronavirus as there has never been a successful one before so the do something, even if it might harm in the interests of "Warp Speed" won and now we're screwed and yet nobody can sue over that which, objectively examined, was STUPID?

This sort of bull**** would never work absent the PREP Act's liability shield and the actions of HHS in the first weeks of the pandemic that specifically exempted hospitals, physicians and others from liability provided they use drugs and protocols the FDA and CDC list as approved whether under regular order or EUA -- and nothing else.   I remind you that not only did Trump's HHS do that but Biden has refused to rescind it -- and he has the power to do so immediately by direct order.

But for that liability shield the relatives of the deceased would order an autopsy be performed and if in fact evidence was present Remedesivir and not Covid-19 killed Granny, or the hospital refused to look for anything else once the PCR test came back positive and in fact she died of bacterial pneumonia they didn't look for and did not treat everyone involved would be sued to beyond the orbit of Mars.

Would we have even gotten beyond publication of the SOLIDARITY trial when it was conclusively demonstrated across a very large data set that statistically speaking it did not keep anyone from dying before that the thrice-failed drug was labeled a four time loser and binned?

Given what we know about this drug and the history of using dangerous and net-harmful pharmaceuticals that our "wonderful" health care system, regulators and others all the way down to doctors and nurses running around with virtue-signaling bull**** on their T-shirts promote and even demand go into patients what sort of possible reason would there be to not autopsy some representative sample of those who die and find out with reasonably medical certainty what's going on, especially when death rates for those hospitalized in certain areas have more than doubled in the last couple of months?

Other than "health care professionals" being made more self-absorbed in their virtue signaling while the hospital and drug company collects $3,000 per corpse for a drug that actually may have killed them, that is.

The math on this is nasty, the basic biological functionality of the kidneys and this drug's known harm to same strongly suggests serious trouble and yet I cannot find one hospital that has sought to discover the truth via autopsy and either prove or disprove that this drug is in fact killing and killed a huge percentage of those who died in the hospital with Covid-19 -- or whether something other than the virus was responsible for their death.  If you have said study and autopsies let's see them.  I've looked and can't find any evidence they exist.

It's all about the money and "virtue" of those nurses and doctors once again -- isn't it?  Just like the original Tik-Tok dancing nurses?

The more death the more "virtuous" they believe they are in doing "God's Work"?

FACTS THAT ARE TRIVIALLY DISCOVERABLE BUT INTENTIONALLY NOT LOOKED FOR BE DAMNED.

We knew, very early on with Diamond Princess that a very material portion of the population had pre-existing immunity to Covid-19.  There were multiple instances in which a couple occupying a cabin had one person get very seriously ill and the other not only didn't so much as sneeze they never tested positive either.  They were clearly immune; these were people cooped up in a 10x10 cabin unable to leave the room for weeks while sharing the same bed.

Also very early on someone very close to me had his grandfather killed by Covid-19; he went from first symptom to dead in about five days.  He was old and had several existing health problems, so that a nasty virus got him is not exactly a surprise.  What was a surprise is that his wife, who lived with him and still slept in the same room, never even sneezed.  Again, this is wildly implausible unless an enormous percentage of people had serious resistance and perhaps even complete immunity to Covid-19 before it began.

There was some work done on this, and indeed there was evidence that 8 out of 10 people, in general, had at least some immune recognition to the virus.  Sufficient to protect?  Not proved.  Never was, and is very hard to prove.  How heterogenous that resistance is also is difficult to determine.  Is some (or even most) of it genetic?  Or is it from previous coronavirus viral exposure say, to OC43?

We don't have answers to those questions.  But that this resistance existed in early 2020 is fact.  There is no other explanation for what was seen not only on Diamond Princess but in myriad other places including nursing homes where there was no PPE and no means to provide any sort of airspace separation between people.

Yet the data, all the way to May of 2021, held.

How do we know this?  Because the virus followed the exact expected pattern; in point of fact the peak for infections occurred this winter before the first needle went in the first arm from a statistical point of view.  Vaccination did not, in fact, terminate the winter surge; it was already over.

So what happened this summer?

If immunity was pre-existing in March of 2020 it certainly didn't all become acquired in the previous 12 months.  It likely had been acquired over years or decades, and bleeds off slowly if at all.  Likewise, for Covid-19 recovered people Cleveland Clinic has documented that of those who actually had the virus, not just those claimed "positive" by PCR test, zero of their employees were re-infected.

That shouldn't surprise either.  A study was done early on with Covid-19 with people who had SARS and survived; the intent was to find if they were already protected, since the two viruses are related.  SARS protection post-infection was found to be durable seventeen years later, which should have been the end of the discussion until and unless proof showed up that it didn't apply here.  In addition a large percentage, in fact, the majority of the population who never had SARS had at least partial immune recognition to Covid-19 -- likely sufficient to prevent a severe or fatal outcome.

The recent JAMA article makes clear several things.  First, likely as many as half of those who got a positive PCR test never had Covid-19 at all.  The antibody counts they documented in that study do not square with the claimed infection rate nor the low-symptom prevalence where the person in question never sees a doctor and is never tested.  Back in the fall of 2020 the folly of the so-called "tests" was laid bare on the table when Elon Musk took four in sequence on the same day and got two positive and two negative results -- nothing better than a coin-toss.  How many more people were labeled as "diseased" when they either had the flu, some other virus, or nothing?  The data from JAMA strongly suggests the answer is "a huge percentage, likely roughly half of so-called positive tests, were in fact not from actual positive Covid-19 individuals."

The danger of telling someone they had something when they didn't is they have every reason to think they're safe when they're not and thus they are likely to put themselves at severe risk of getting hammered.  That's stupid and contrary to every principle of medicine, say much less ethical behavior.

But antibody presence is dispositive.  Pre-existing immunity is very, very hard to determine the presence of, since cross-reaction requires you know what you're looking for -- and we don't.  We didn't do the work, beyond SARS.  We didn't want to do the work because discovering what it was (1) made possible a potential easy infection that would confer actual immunity (e.g. if it's OC48 which usually causes colds, well, go get inoculated with it on purpose!) and (2) instantly deflates the fear porn, drive for vaccines and every single screaming idiot in the government, social media and on TV.

But then this summer something odd happened.  Despite the presence of antibodies sufficient to suppress a virus with an R0 of nearly 6, twice that of the original strain and equal to that claimed for Delta, which I remind you is unsubstantiated and the data from the UK in fact suggests Delta is not materially more-infective than the original wild strain (it only has to be a bit more-so to out-compete, of course), we had a wild outbreak of disease anyway.

Much worse is that in Britain it is impossible for there to be widespread communicable disease even for a a virus with an R0 worse than measles:

Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 97.7% of the adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 18.1% that have antibodies from infection alone.

It is impossible for Britain to have any material Covid-19 infectious activity among adults given this level of prevalence unless the jabs are largely or entirely worthless, or much worse, enhance infection.

That which is impossible is, well, impossible.  Like it or not since we know prior infection confers resistance on a sterilizing basis you're left with only one possibility.

It's a hypothesis that fits the facts and you can bet not one single penny of government money will go toward proving or disproving it as if it was to be proved then what do you do with all the vaccine companies and every involved government at all levels, local, state and federal, who literally slaughtered their populations with their advocacy and even in some cases attempted mandates for these jabs.

Do we have any independent medical science folks remaining, anywhere in the world, who will take this challenge on and prove it up?

We'll see.

But whether they do or not you can't change facts and the facts are that either the jabs destroyed existing immunity, creating susceptible people out of resistant ones, or the virus has evolved to largely-evade the protection the jabs provided.  Which it is doesn't matter to the person who believed they were safe, and now learns -- especially the hard way -- that they are not.

This is very simple folks when it comes to health-care workers and Covid-19 vaccines.

The current mantra (which by the way is blowing up and likely to detonate in everyone's face within the next few months -- the UK data is especially bad the last couple of weeks) is that the vaccines greatly reduce the odds of you getting seriously sick, including being hospitalized or dead.

Ok.  Let's say that's true.

Do you vaccinate the doctors and nurses?

HELL NO!

Why not?

Contemplate this situation.

During flu season all nurses and doctors are to take two Tylenol or aspirin at least one hour before beginning their shift.  All nurses and doctors will be screened with a non-contact thermometer before clocking in.  Anyone with a temperature over 99.5F will be denied entry.

What outcome would you expect from this?  You would kill many more vulnerable people!

Why?

Because the Tylenol or aspirin will suppress any fever that the staffer might otherwise have.  Thus they will "pass" the screening where they otherwise would not and, being contagious to others, will infect their patients either directly during their interaction or indirectly by expelling infectious particles into the air or onto surfaces.

This is exactly what the Covid-19 vaccines are claimed to do by said medical professionals!  They do not prevent infection or contagion.  This is admitted by the CDC.  They still claim they reduce symptoms, perhaps to zero so you do not feel ill either subjectively or objectively, such as by measurement of temperature.

Vaccinating health-care workers intentionally places the patients at risk.  Nobody goes to a hospital for treatment unless they are already compromised.  By definition you are deliberately increasing the risk of serious disease or death to every single person who is already compromised that enters the building.

If I know I'm ill and work in health care I will stay home.

Suppressing symptoms without sterilization against infection makes you more dangerous to others.  This is why when we switched from DTP (sterilizing) to DTaP (non-sterilizing) in the 1990s what was a rate of 1,010 pertussis (whooping cough) cases when DTP was being used -- a nuisance -- skyrocketed by a factor of 20, and in one fairly recent year was fifty times higher (yes, over 50,000 cases!) than when we were using DTP.  People got pertussis, didn't know it, and gave it to others who also didn't know it -- that continues until someone who can be made sick by it is reached and they get screwed.

By contrast Covid-19 natural infection and recovery, by the data, produces sterilizing immunity.  Not in every single case -- but in nearly every case.  Those people are the ones who should be treating all who are not infected with Covid-19 and are at high risk as they are presumptively safe -- and without question are much less-likely to screw a compromised patient.

It's that simple folks.

You don't need a medical degree to be able to figure this out which means these people, including the doctors and nurses themselves who are prancing around with "Vaccinated" T-shirts on, advocating being jabbed and accosting those who disagree know damn well what they're doing.

It's not an accident.