Pierre Hillard: Aus dem Virus springt die Neue Weltordnung heraus

Mondialisme : "La Bête de l'événement est là et elle arrive" - Egalite et Réconciliation (egaliteetreconciliation.fr)

Frankreich "Non au Passe Sanitaire"

Frankreichs Parlament stimmte für einen Gesetzesentwurf über den Gesundheitspass, in dem es heißt, dass bestimmte Orte nur noch Geimpften zugänglich sein sollten.

"Das ist eine Möglichkeit, gute und schlechte Bürger zu machen, denen man unterschiedliche Rechte gewährt."

Sieh mal an: Sechs Spieler der holländischen Fußballnationalmannschaft lehnen die Impfung ab!

https://www.gmx.net/magazine/s…n-corona-impfung-35850100

Erstaunlich niedrige Fallzahlen. Das Corona-Rätsel von Afrika

Erstaunlich niedrige Fallzahlen: Das Corona-Rätsel von Afrika - n-tv.de

Kein Wort über Raoults HCQ-Therapie und die sensationellen Ergebnisse mit Ivermectin.

Professor Montagnier stellte sich erneut der Truth Challenge, um über seine Forschung zum menschlichen Genom und zur Übertragung von Coronaviren zu sprechen. Obwohl er glaubt, "dass wir [heute] die Fähigkeit zur Selbstzerstörung haben" und gegen den Einsatz von mRNA-Impfstoffen ist, besteht er dennoch darauf, dass der wissenschaftliche Fortschritt auch "uns dienen könnte, im guten Sinne des Wortes".

Zu diesem Zweck arbeitet er mit dem Mathematiker Jean-Claude Perez zusammen und verbindet so die "weiche" Wissenschaft der menschlichen Gesundheit mit der "harten" Wissenschaft der Mathematik. Gemeinsam interessieren sie sich für die harmonischen Sequenzen, die in der Natur zu finden sind und zeigen zum Beispiel, dass die berühmte Fibonacci-Sequenz in den RNA-Sequenzen des Coronavirus zu finden ist.

Auch zeigt er damit, dass das Virus nach der "Freisetzung in der Natur" wieder zu einem natürlichen Element wird. Sie unterliegt also den gleichen Gesetzen wie der Rest und entwickelt sich ständig weiter, insbesondere durch die Impfkampagnen, die das Auftreten resistenter Varianten hervorrufen.

Darüber hinaus kehrte er zu Themen wie Bodenbakterien, Glyphosat oder der Mikrobiota und deren Einfluss auf die Virusentwicklung zurück. Seiner Meinung nach machen wir uns nur noch Sorgen um unsere Generation und nicht mehr um die nächste.

Auf die Fragen von Xavier Azalbert antwortet er, dass er "nicht die Kontroverse sucht, sondern die Wahrheit".

Pr Luc Montagnier au Défi de la vérité : "la vie utilise les virus pour faire de grandes choses" (francesoir.fr)

Luc Montagnier:

Die Injektion eines mRNA-Impfstoffs könne starke Immunreaktionen bis hin zum Tod nach sich ziehen!

"Ich bin skandalisiert, daß man auch Kinder impfen will. Die Injektion eines mRNA-Präparats kann sich auch auf kommende Generationen auswirken, was wir noch nicht genau beurteilen können."

Impfungen seien sehr kostenaufwendig und sinnlos. Um die Coronakrankheit zu behandeln, gebe es sehr einfache und billige Präparate. "Es gefällt mir, daß indische Dorfbewohner sagen, sie werfen sich lieber ins Wasser als sich impfen zu lassen. Man muß mit der Impfung sofort aufhören, die starke autoimmunitäre Reaktionen wie Embolieen und Schlaganfälle auslösen kann. Es sei nicht ausgeschlossen, daß sich Krebserkrankungen entwickeln."

Er lobt die Arbeit seines Kollegen Raoult und dessen Verwendung von Azithromyzin.

Montagnier bestätigt meine Ansicht, daß die veramerikanisierten Deutschen in vielem bei weitem blöder sind als Neger und indische Kuhfladensammler, wobei Blödheit und charakterliche Miserabilität zunehmen, je mehr sich der, die Betreffende an Angloamerikanischem orientiert.

World Tribune.com:

‘Literally criminal’: Suppressing data on ivermectin cost ‘half a million lives’, doctor charges

In a recent Zoom call, Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance outlined numerous details showing the World Health Organization (WHO) knowingly suppressed data on the effectiveness of ivermectin against the virus in order to benefit the vaccine interests of Big Pharma.

“It’s criminal,” Kory said. “It’s literally criminal.” The drug “could have saved half a million lives this year if it had been approved.”

The WHO, Kory contends, is simply taking part in the tactics of a time-worn “Disinformation Playbook.” The term was coined by the Union of Concerned Scientists 50 years ago to describe the strategies corporations have developed over decades to “attack science when it goes against their financial interests.”

It consists of five parts:

1. The Fake – Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
2. The Blitz – Harass scientists who speak out with results reviews inconvenient for industry.
3. The Diversion – Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists.
4. The Screen – Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
5. The Fix – Manipulate government officials or processes to influence policy inappropriately.

In the full Zoom call, since removed by YouTube but available on Bitchute, Kory describes how the five tactics have been deployed against the scientific findings on ivermectin. One example is the corruption of leading medical journals, whose editors refuse to allow ivermectin studies to advance to peer review. The most egregious institutional participant, however, is the WHO.

Kory is the lead author of a scientific review of the studies on ivermectin worldwide, which was published in the May-June edition of The American Journal of Therapeutics.

As reported on the FlCCC website, there have been a total of 56 trials involving 469 scientists and 18,447 patients. Of these, 28 were randomized control trials (RCT), the type of trial considered highly authoritative in the medical community.

Together these have shown an 85 percent improvement as a preventative against the disease when taken before exposure. There has been a 78 percent patient improvement when administered early and a 46 percent improvement when delivered late. A 74 percent improvement in mortality was found and a 66 percent improvement across multiple areas in the 28 randomized control trials.

Within only 10 days of publication the paper on ivermectin was rated number 13 most-read among the more than 200,000 other scientific publications that appeared during that time, Kory reports.

Out of the 17.7 million papers that have been tracked by the rating source since it began, the ivermectin study is already ranked 246.

Kory believes the response to the paper is a good sign, and says he sees “a see change happening.”

Kory notes his team is hardly alone. “Dr. [Tess] Lawrie is one of the world’s experts in making guidelines and doing systematic reviews. Just her group alone and their independent effort, the BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) consortium, they arrived at the conclusion that it should be the standard of care. Our article also arrived at that same conclusion. We are not alone. Prof. [Satoshi] Omura, the Nobel prize winner, his group from Japan, published their paper concluding the same. Another independent group from Spain and Italy” did so.

Most importantly, he said, “the key about all of these groups… is that we are independent expert panels. None of us are conflicted. None of us have any other interests than the oath that we took as physicians which is to the care of our patients.”

Part of the problem is that the WHO’s corporate donors not only provide funds, they determine all aspects of research and even provide the research teams.

“Look at where the money is coming from. Now the money has strings attached,” Kory said. “People give the WHO money, but they say ‘we want you to do this or study that. We want you to use our consultants and our experts, and our scientists.’ Many of them come from pharma. Pharma has pretty much completely infilatrated this organization.”

When “you look critically at the medicine, especially in a pandemic, you can’t help but arrive at an objective conclusion that it is the standard of care,” Kory said. “And it really is doing phenomenal impacts around the world.”

In Mexico and India for example, “the death rates and hospitalizations just absolutely plummeted” where ivermectin was used.

The real problem with the drug, Kory believes, is that in addition to being effective, safe, and easily available, it is very cheap. Ivermectin costs only a few dollars per dose. This pits the drug against financial interests of over 100 billions of dollars to be made from vaccines.

“I can’t imagine in the history of pharmaceuticals, a competing interest as deep and as vast as is arrayed against little ivermectin,” Kory said. “It is truly almost incalculable the interest against it.”

Once trusted healthcare agencies such as the WHO, have become the chief advocates of the interests of their Big Pharma, vaccine-driven donors. As a result, Kory said, the WHO and others, are actively suppressing the vast evidence for ivermectin in order to keep it out of public view.

The evidence for this claim is startling. Looking at the WHO’s panel report on ivermectin, he said, “The stuff that they are doing is not subtle. It is so clear that whoever was in charge of that panel had a nonscientific objective.”

“Number one, there was no protocol for excluding data. So they were basically free throw out any trial that they found inconvenient to their purpose,” Kory noted. “And guess what? They did that. They threw out a lot of the trials that their own Unitaid team had uncovered and amassed over the last few months.”

The most egregious thing, Kory found, is a sentence in the WHO report their researchers did not even bother to defend, “it just simply says, ‘We did not look at randomized controlled trials and the prevention of COVID-19.’ No reason why, no reason not why. We just didn’t do it.”

One of the most important indicators of effectiveness in a drug is dose response data, Kory explains. “They deliberately avoided mention” of dose response data. “They completely omitted really important data, because if that’s there, that’s a huge scientific pillar showing efficacy.”

They also did not include epidemiological studies, such as that by Juan Chamie’s research that has been going on for a year “showing every place that does widespread distribution and adoption you see case counts and death plummet,” and which was presented to the WHO.

“So when I read that, I know this data. My head was in my hands and I was just like these people or criminals. They’re literally are criminals,” Kory said.

When the report examines whether ivermectin is safe or not, Kory remarked, “it’s just absolutely comical.”

Speaking of a drug used for over 40 years with billions of doses delivered and a better safety track record than aspirin or Tylenol, he says, the WHO found three studies that contain a suggestion that there might be adverse effects. The panel then determined, Kory said, “‘it doesn’t work, because we threw out all the data showing that it works. But you know what, we are seeing that it could be harmful. I mean, [it is] absolutely ludicrous what they’re doing.”

By contrast, the WHO allowed remdesivir for COVID-19, which costs between $2340 and $3120, on the basis of a single study performed with 800 patients. That study found remdesivir does not reduce mortality, and reduces length of hospitalization among survivors by an average of two days.

In 2018, the WHO recommended ivermectin for the treatment of scabies on the basis of 10 randomized control trials with only 852 patients. It did the same for ivermectin as a treatment for strongyloides, a parasitic infection, on the basis of five randomized control trials and 591 patients.

However, 28 randomized control trials consisting of almost 3,000 patients have not been enough for the WHO to approve this life-saving therapy for COVID-19.

“The WHO essentially committed a criminal action,” Kory said. “This is clearly not science going on here.”

Prof. Raoult:

*Our series, one of the largest in the world (10,429 patients), has just been accepted in the journal IJID (International Journal of Infectious Diseases) and shows the effectiveness of early dual therapy HCQ + AZ. It includes an up-to-date meta-analysis, done by professionals.*

The infection fatality rate was 0.06% among the 8,315 patients treated with HCQ+AZ. No deaths occurred among the 8,414 patients younger than 60 years. Older age and male sex were associated with a higher risk of death, ICU transfer, and hospitalization. Treatment with HCQ+AZ (0.17 [0.06 – 0.48]) was associated with a lower risk of death, independently of age, sex and epidemic period. Meta-analysis evidenced consistency with 4 previous outpatient studies (32,124 patients – Odds ratio 0.31 [0.20 – 0.47], I2 70 = 0%).

Conclusions

Early ambulatory treatment of COVID-19 with HCQ+AZ as a standard of care is associated with very low mortality, and HCQ+AZ improve COVID-19 survival compared to other regimens. Zinc and anticoagulants are likely to further improve outcomes. Most COVID-19-associated deaths are preventable with early detection and outpatient treatment.*

Preprint: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/w...HU-Preprint.pdf

https://twitter.com/raoult_didier/status/1397941577327259654

*Conclusions. Early ambulatory treatment of COVID-19 with HCQ+AZ as a standard of care is associated with very low mortality, and HCQ+AZ improve COVID-19 survival compared to other regimens. Zinc and anticoagulants are likely to further improve outcomes. Most COVID-19-associated deaths are preventable with early detection and outpatient treatment.*

Daß die Patienten geheilt werden und überleben, muß doch mit allen Mitteln vermieden werden. So, nehme ich an, haben sie sich das vorgestellt:

1. Wir konstruieren im Labor das Virus SARS-COV-2.

2. Setzen es in Umlauf.

3. Fahren weltweit eine hysterische Bedrohungskampagne.

4. Unterdrücken, wo immer möglich Informationen, daß das Virus ungefährlich ist, und die Krankheit problemlos geheilt werden kann.

5. Setzen mit den Möglichkeiten der Desinformation und des Staatsterrors eine Zwangsimpfung durch.

6. Diese Impfung beschert uns, Big Pharma und Politik märchenhafte Renditen.

7. Durch die Impfung werden die Menschen krank und sterben.

8. Damit können wir unter einem medizinischen Vorwand das Völkermordprogramm der Neuen Weltordnung vorantreiben.

9. An den impfinduzierten Krankheiten verdienen wir uns wieder eine goldene Nase.

10. Die infolge der Impfung aufgetretenen Krankheiten und Todesfälle erklären wir mithilfe der Medien, Politik- und Justizhuren als Folge neuer Covid-Varianten.

11. Gegen die neuen Varianten muß natürlich wieder im großen Stil geimpft werden.

Kommen diese satanischen Krankmacher und Menschenausrotter damit durch, haben sie ein Perpetuum mobile für unendliche Morde und unendliche Profite gefunden.

Zerohedge

"I Don't Know Of A Bigger Story In The World" Right Now Than Ivermectin: NYTimes Best-Selling Author

So why are journalists not covering it?

Michael Capuzzo, a New York Times best-selling author , has just published an article titled “The Drug That Cracked Covid”. The 15-page article chronicles the gargantuan struggle being waged by frontline doctors on all continents to get ivermectin approved as a Covid-19 treatment, as well as the tireless efforts by reporters, media outlets and social media companies to thwart them.

Because of ivermectin, Capuzzo says, there are “hundreds of thousands, actually millions, of people around the world, from Uttar Pradesh in India to Peru to Brazil, who are living and not dying.” Yet media outlets have done all they can to “debunk” the notion that ivermectin may serve as an effective, easily accessible and affordable treatment for Covid-19. They have parroted the arguments laid out by health regulators around the world that there just isn’t enough evidence to justify its use.

For his part, Capuzzo, as a reporter, “saw with [his] own eyes the other side [of the story]” that has gone unreported, of the many patients in the US whose lives have been saved by ivermectin and of five of the doctors that have led the battle to save lives around the world, Paul Marik, Umberto Meduri, José Iglesias, Pierre Kory and Joe Varon. These are all highly decorated doctors. Through their leadership of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, they have already enhanced our treatment of Covid-19 by discovering and promoting the use of Corticoid steroids against the virus. But their calls for ivermectin to also be used have met with a wall of resistance from healthcare regulators and a wall of silence from media outlets.

“I really wish the world could see both sides,” Capuzzo laments.

But unfortunately most reporters are not interested in telling the other side of the story. Even if they were, their publishers would probably refuse to publish it.

That may explain why Capuzzo, a six-time Pulitzer-nominated journalist best known for his New York Times-bestselling nonfiction books Close to Shore and Murder Room, ended up publishing his article on ivermectin in Mountain Home, a monthly local magazine for the of the Pennsylvania mountains and New York Finger Lakes region, of which Capuzzo’s wife is the editor.

It’s also the reason why I decided to dedicate today’s post to Capuzzo’s article. Put simply, as many people as possible –particularly journalists — need to read his story.

As Capuzzo himself says, “I don’t know of a bigger story in the world.”

Total News Blackout

On December 8 2020, FLCCC member Dr Pierre Kory gave nine minutes of impassioned testimony to the US Homeland Security Committee Meeting on the potent anti-viral, anti-inflammatory benefits of ivermectin.

A total of 9 million people (myself included) saw the video on YouTube before it was taken down by YouTube’s owner, Google. As Capuzzo exhaustively lays out, both traditional and social media have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep people in the dark about ivermectin. So effective has this been that even in some of the countries that have benefited most from its use (such as Mexico and Argentina) many people are completely unaware of its existence. And this is no surprise given how little information is actually seeping out into the public arena.

"I Don't Know Of A Bigger Story In The World" Right Now Than Ivermectin: NYTimes Best-Selling Author | ZeroHedge

">

If you can prove that the NIH and WHO got their treatment guidelines right, you could win $2M

This is the second in a series of articles arguing that obeisance to constrictive evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatment protocols in a pandemic is causing an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

In my previous article, I showed that the current NIH and WHO treatment guidelines for fluvoxamine and ivermectin don’t fit the evidence at all. A FOR recommendation for both these drugs is a near-perfect fit to all the data.

In this article, I will make it clear to everyone that their recommendations are so indefensible that no qualifying enabler (see list below) will be able to come forward to support these recommendations even if I offer a million dollar incentive for them to do so.

Any drug protocol used for treating COVID early must fall into one of three categories:

1. helpful,
2. neutral,
3. or harmful.

I claim that there has been abundant evidence on the table for at least the past 7 months, all in plain sight, that both fluvoxamine and ivermectin when given early at an effective dose are helpful because a HELPFUL hypothesis is a near perfect fit to all the evidence and that the other two alternatives, neutral or harmful, don’t fit the evidence at all.

To win the $1M prize, all you have to do is to provide a convincing argument to our judges that the NIH or WHO NEUTRAL and AGAINST recommendations on fluvoxamine or ivermectin (existing on May 21, 2021 when I am making this offer) are:

1. more likely to fit the evidence than recommendations FOR these drugs, or
2. more likely to save more lives than recommending FOR these drugs.

Either method of proof is fine: fit the facts or superior cost-benefit. You have two completely independent ways to win each prize.

To qualify for the prize, you must be one of the key enablers of the myth:

1. A professor at any accredited institution of higher learning anywhere in the world
2. A licensed physician anywhere in the world
3. An editor of any peer reviewed medical journal
4. The executive management of Frontiers
5. An employee of the NIH or WHO
6. A member of the mainstream media anywhere in the world (especially in Brazil where they believe that all early treatments don’t work) including newspapers and online,
7. An elected official anywhere in the world
8. A public health official anywhere in the world
9. Any employee at YouTube responsible for the ridiculous YouTube policy banning videos that claim that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19
10. An employee of any social network (including YouTube) who has decision authority for censoring content, suspending accounts, and banning groups related to ivermectin or fluvoxamine
11. A fact checker in any country in the world especially Wikipedia editors who remove content saying that ivermectin works

You must also agree to allow your submission to be made public including your name since this is a matter of great public interest. Also, I request that you check that your work is correct before submitting it. For example, Adrian Hernandez, an open detractor of ivermectin for a year, recently self-published a paper showing that ivermectin didn’t work.

The authors made one tiny error: they transposed the control and ivermectin numbers from the Niaee study probably hoping that nobody would notice. People’s lives are at stake; if your entry has errors like this, you will be disqualified. You only get one entry attempt per person.

Your entry will be judged by a majority vote of a panel of highly respected impartial academic experts who are retired and are no longer dependent on receiving NIH and WHO grants that I will immediately assemble if anyone submits an entry. The first person to submit a winning entry wins the prize, i.e. there will not be more than one winner per drug: $1M for ivermectin, $1M for fluvoxamine.

The entries must consider the 23 early treatment studies of ivermectin and two studies of fluvoxamine.

I am not worried about losing $2M. This is an impossible task because all but one of these studies is positive and the only negative study had a p value of .526 (which is basically no confidence whatsoever and would be tossed from any serious analysis since the p-value was so insignificant and the effect size was computed by algorithm and not directly measured). The evidence also shows that the earlier these drugs are given in adequate dosages, the greater the positive effect. If the drugs are neutral or harmful, that’s impossible, a fact that seems to be lost on our experts from the WHO and NIH.

The evidence today is simply impossible to ignore. Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 – a decline of 84%.

If it wasn’t the ivermectin, then why aren’t the NIH and WHO all over this to find the real cause so they can let the entire world know? They aren’t investigating because they know the cause: the adoption of ivermectin. They do nothing and say nothing. It’s frustrating. More importantly, it’s costing lives because doctors in many parts of the world including Brazil and Tamil Nadu continue to blindly follow the WHO advice.

The purpose of this challenge is two fold:

1. To draw worldwide attention to the fact that none of the enablers of the NIH and WHO are able to credibly defend the indefensible recommendations of the NIH and WHO for these drugs even if offered a huge monetary incentive to do so
2. To show that the current recommendations of these two organizations for these two drugs have cost the unnecessary loss of life of hundreds of thousands of people.

If you qualify and would like to submit an entry, please message me on TrialSiteNews or DM me on twitter.

The reason these absurd recommendations even exist is because the NIH and WHO insist on ignoring any evidence that is not a high quality phase 3 clinical trial published in a peer reviewed journal. Thus, in their view, all these drugs do nothing and since there is no benefit, there is no reason to recommend the drug. This is completely outdated thinking that is inappropriate in a pandemic. They totally ignore the cost of death.

If they were smart, they would look at all available evidence and choose the hypothesis about each drug which is the closest match to all the observed evidence and maximizes the number of lives saved. Because they did not do that, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that they aren’t very smart and that their recommendations for these drugs should be ignored. QED.

Finally, why are Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins still remaining silent about the NIH guidelines for these two drugs? If a computer entrepreneur from Silicon Valley can figure all this out 7 months ago that it’s virtually impossible for these two drugs not to work, why can’t the NIH leadership? It’s even more obvious today with the India numbers. But of course the India numbers aren’t a DB-RCT!

We are also left to wonder why, when David Seftel confirmed the 100% success rate in the original fluvoxamine RCT published in JAMA with a real-world study also with 100% effect size, why did they just ignore it like it never happened? Why didn’t they send a team to investigate if there were any biases or confounders? Instead, they just sat back and did nothing when the news came out. There was no investigation. There wasn’t even a phone call or email to the investigator. Even after 60 Minutes did a story on this miracle at the racetrack, they still did nothing to investigate. They could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if they had acted earlier on the evidence that was hiding in plain sight for at least the past 7 months.

Lastly, to support my claim that this evidence has been in plain sight for over 7 months and that it was clear that the data supported action by the medical community, I offer a simple example that I am intimately familiar with: my own personal efforts to get the world’s attention to both of these drugs. For example, on October 17, 2020, I wrote about both fluvoxamine and ivermectin in a very long article on Medium — a 23-minute read. This was followed with an email to Elemental entitled “Two drugs that can dramatically reduce the hospitalization and death rate from COVID-19… perhaps to zero” and included a link to my article. However, because these recommendations were counter to the recommendations of the NIH and WHO, my Medium account was suspended for life.

And finally, if they got it wrong on ivermectin and fluvoxamine, do you think they might also have got it wrong about other drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, zinc, and other early treatments too? Of course they did. See Do the NIH and WHO COVID treatment recommendations need to be fixed? and Good Science Saves Lives, Bad Science Has Ruined Lives for the evidence of this. Or read this excellent article in Wired about The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped Covid Kill which documents how the WHO ignores expert opinion that disagrees with their narrative.

The sooner these recommendations are changed, the better. The drugs have been sitting on the shelf the whole time. The data has been available to the public for over 6 months. What we lack are leaders with the ability to clearly see the evidence that is hiding in plain sight. The NIH and WHO should either take my money or they should change their guidelines. Lives are at stake. What will they actually do? Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Steve Kirsch is a high-tech serial entrepreneur based in Silicon Valley. He has been a medical philanthropist for more than 20 years. When the pandemic started, he left his day job at M10 and started the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) which funds researchers from all over the world running outpatient clinical trials on repurposed drugs. CETF funded David Boulware’s trials on hydroxychloroquine and the Phase 2 and Phase 3 fluvoxamine trials, among many other research projects. He was recently featured on 60 Minutes which highlighted his work with fluvoxamine. He has no conflicts of interest; his objective is to help save lives. In 2003, Hillary Clinton presented him with a National Caring Award. He wrote this article to share some of what he has learned over the past year about the failure of evidence-based medicine during a pandemic in the hopes that people will realize their mistakes and change their views.

If you can prove that the NIH and WHO got their treatment guidelines right, you could win $2M (trialsitenews.com)

Toulouse, Covid-19-Impfstoffe: Nebenwirkungsmeldungen explodieren

Aufgrund des Einsatzes von Covid-19-Impfstoffen hat das regionale Pharmakovigilanzzentrum in Toulouse, das alle Meldungen über unerwünschte Arzneimittelwirkungen sammelt, seit Januar fünfmal mehr Meldungen als normal registriert.

4000 Meldungen in den ersten vier Monaten des Jahres 2021... So viel hat das Regionale Zentrum für Pharmakovigilanz (CRPV) in Toulouse noch nie erlebt, das die Meldungen über unerwünschte Arzneimittelwirkungen sammelt, bevor es seine Beobachtungen an die Nationale Agentur für Arzneimittelsicherheit (ANSM) weiterleitet.

"Der Anstieg ist beträchtlich, er ist fünfmal höher als im letzten Jahr zum gleichen Zeitpunkt. Wir sind schon in normalen Zeiten überfordert. Hier könnten wir genauso gut sagen, dass wir noch mehr überfordert sind und mit ständigen Mitteln", ironisiert Professor Jean-Louis Montastruc, Direktor des CRPV und Mitglied der National Academy of Medicine.

[...]

Offensichtlich ist die Impfkampagne gegen Covid-19 die Ursache für diesen spektakulären Anstieg. Und auch wenn eine ganze Reihe von Meldungen bereits bekannte unerwünschte Wirkungen betreffen, wie z. B. mögliche Muskelschmerzen, werden alle berücksichtigt.

Schwerwiegende" Auswirkungen bei einem Drittel der Berichte

Denn das Regionale Pharmakovigilanzzentrum registriert nicht nur Meldungen. Außerdem hat sie die lästige Aufgabe, jeden einzelnen von ihnen zu authentifizieren. In Anbetracht des Zustroms seit Anfang des Jahres werden vorrangig schwerwiegende und unerwartete Auswirkungen behandelt, die nach Angaben des Direktors des CRPV derzeit etwa ein Drittel der Meldungen ausmachen.

[...]

Hämophilie, Bluthochdruck, Gesichtslähmung...und natürlich Thrombose. Unter den schwerwiegenden Meldungen musste das CRPV Fälle von Hämophilie, Herzinfarkt, arteriellem Bluthochdruck oder Gesichtslähmung untersuchen. "Das große Novum speziell bei der Impfkampagne sind natürlich die viel diskutierten Fälle von Venenthrombosen", ergänzt der Experte für Pharmakologie.

Toulouse, vaccins Covid-19 : les déclarations d’effets indésirables explosent - Egalite et Réconciliation (egaliteetreconciliation.fr)

Der Artikel ist sogar noch geschönt. Thrombosen heißt in nicht wenigen Fällen Herzinfarkt und Schlaganfall!

Richard Boutry aus der Umgebung von Nürnberg: *Reiner Fuellmich, dieser Held, wird am 3. Juli einen neuen Nürnberger Prozeß wegen Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit in die Wege leiten.* Die Möglichkeit der Todesstrafe erwähnt er auch.

Richard, beim heutigen Châteauneuf-du-Pape geht mindestens ein Glas auf Dein spezielles Wohl!

E&R hat das Video verlinkt:

Richard Boutry – Reiner Fuellmich, ce héros ! - Egalite et Réconciliation (egaliteetreconciliation.fr)

Aube digitale

Ehemaliger britischer Regierungsberater sagt, dass Ratschläge von Google-Mitarbeitern ihn in Richtung Eindämmungsmaßnahmen gelenkt haben

Demis Hassabis, CEO und Mitbegründer des Tochterunternehmens DeepMind von Alphabet Inc., war Berichten zufolge maßgeblich dabei, die britische Regierung zu überzeugen, ihre ursprüngliche COVID-Strategie, den Herdenimmunitätsansatz, aufzugeben. Herdenimmunität ist ein Ansatz, der bei früheren Pandemien verwendet wurde, bei dem man die Krankheit nicht eindämmt, sondern sie sich ausbreiten lässt, so dass ein großer Teil der Bevölkerung immun wird.

In einer Zeugenaussage vor den Ausschüssen für Gesundheit und Soziales sowie Wissenschaft und Technologie des britischen Parlaments hat der leitende Berater des Premierministers, Dominic Cummings, detailliert beschrieben, wie Hassabis und andere ihn davon überzeugt haben, den ursprünglichen offiziellen Plan der Regierung zum Umgang mit der Pandemie aufzugeben.

In den ersten Monaten des Jahres 2020, als sich das Virus in Großbritannien auszubreiten begann, war der Plan der Regierung, die Ausbreitung des Virus im Sommer zu begrenzen, jedoch nicht zu stoppen, in der Hoffnung, Herdenimmunität bis, im- Herbst zu erreichen, wodurch eine zweite Welle während der kalten Monate effektiv verhindert würde.

"Entweder haben Sie im September eine Herdenimmunität nach einem einzigen Peak, oder Sie haben im Januar eine Herdenimmunität mit einem zweiten Peak. Das sind die einzigen beiden Optionen, die wir haben. Das war die ganze Logik all der Diskussionen im Januar und Februar, Anfang März", sagte Cummings den Abgeordneten.

Er beriet sich jedoch mit Hassabis, Tim Gowers und Ben Warner, die die Strategie der Herdenimmunität in Frage stellten.

"Ich habe mich an [Gowers] gewandt und innerhalb einer Woche angefangen, SAGE-Dokumente mit ihm zu teilen... und dann kurz darauf Hassabis, mit dem ich ebenfalls anfing, Dokumente zu teilen und zu sprechen. Sie konnten diese Dinge wirklich verstehen."

"Die Kombination von Marc Warner, Hassabis und Tim Gowers - Sie hatten drei unglaublich sachkundige Leute, die die technischen Aspekte auf eine Art und Weise verstehen konnten, wie ich es nicht konnte, die mir das sagten, und das gab mir die Art von Selbstvertrauen, dem Premierminister zu sagen, dass wir wechseln sollten", sagte Cummings.

Experten argumentierten, dass sich das Virus angesichts der neuen Zahl viel schneller ausbreitet als erwartet. Infolgedessen gäbe es zu viele neue Fälle, die der NHS nicht mehr bewältigen könnte.

"Am Abend von Freitag, dem 13., sitze ich mit Ben Warner... und dem Privatsekretär des Premierministers im Büro des Premierministers. Und wir sagen im Grunde, dass wir uns morgen mit dem Premierminister zusammensetzen und ihm erklären werden, dass wir denken, dass wir den ganzen offiziellen Plan aufgeben müssen und dass wir auf die größten Katastrophen zusteuern, die man seit 1940 gesehen hat", so Cummings weiter.

Allerdings sind sich nicht alle Wissenschaftler in der Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) einig über die Notwendigkeit einer Eindämmung.

"Demis Hassabis kam auf meine Bitte hin. Ich bat] Patrick Valance, ihn herzubringen. Er ist einer der besten Datenwissenschaftler und KI-Experten auf dem Planeten, und vier Leute von SAGE diskutierten mit ihm und sagten: "Sie sehen das alles viel zu simpel. Dann sagte Tim Gowers: "Nein, das ist nicht richtig. Die Wissenschaftler stritten sich noch am 18. und nach diesem Treffen darüber", sagte Cummings.

Schließlich entschied sich Großbritannien, angeblich auf Anraten des Google-Mitarbeiters, für den Containment-Ansatz und führte am 26. März 2020 die erste vollständige Eindämmung durch.

Ceterum censeo, aus Amerika ist noch nie etwas anderes gekommen als infernalische Scheiße. Lüge, Betrug, Raub, Krieg und Völkermord. Diese nicht übermäßig brisante Information bestätigt, was jeder wissen muß, und worüber 1845 das erste Buch geschrieben wurde: Demokratie ist eine Form der Geldherrschaft.

Un ancien conseiller du gouvernement britannique affirme que les conseils d'un employé de Google l'ont orienté vers des mesures de confinement | Aube Digitale

Prof. Perronne:

"Was mich zum Weinen bringt, ist, dass es Franzosen gibt, die glücklich sind, weil sie so daran gewöhnt sind, an der Leine zu sein, dass sie froh sind, dass ihre Leine verlängert wurde. Das ist Bevölkerungsmanipulation. "

"Die Franzosen müssen aufhören, diese Maske zu tragen und aufhören, wie Schafe zu sein, die diesen Empfehlungen gehorchen, die keinen wissenschaftlichen Sinn ergeben. [...] Die Franzosen zwingen, eine Maske zu tragen, was ist das? Es geht nur darum, ihnen Angst zu machen, damit sie den Impfstoff akzeptieren, das ist alles, es gibt keinen anderen Zweck. "

Professeur Christian Perronne : covid, vaccin et mesures liberticides - Egalite et Réconciliation (egaliteetreconciliation.fr)

Die verschiedenen Labersäcke wären gut beraten, sich bei Prof. Perronne zu informieren, der wie nur wenige die Möbel geraderückt und sich ganz klar gegen die (Völkermord-)Impfung ausspricht, obwohl er mal Impfbeauftragter der WHO für ganz Europa gewesen ist.

Bei einer Sterblichkeit von 0,03% (weltweit) und 0,05% (Frankreich), die nicht höher sei als bei üblichen Atemwegsinfektionen, fehle ihm das Verständnis für eine von extremen Risiken begleitete Impfung.

Noch nie habe er von so vielen und dramatischen Nebenwirkungen gehört wie jetzt. Die Nebenwirkungsmeldungen explodierten geradezu und werden von der zuständigen Aufsichtsbehörde gar nicht mehr entgegengenommen.

Dem Video mit Prof. Perronne, der wie sein Kollege Raoult Corona-Patienten geheilt hat, wäre zu entnehmen, hätte man nicht nur drei Pfund Amischscheiße im Schädel, daß es hervorragende Medikamente gibt: HCQ, Ivermectin, Azithromyzin, Vitamin C, D und Zink.

Perronne verweist auf Italien, wo durch die Verwendung von HCQ die Todeszahlen gesunken sind. Als der wie bei uns korrupte Mafistaat HCQ verboten hat, sind sie wieder angestiegen und als HCQ erneut zugelassen wurde, sind sie ein zweites Mal gefallen.

Der Impfkritiker Serge Rader, Teilnehmer der phantastischen Dokumentationn Hold-up, starb nach Covid-bezogenen Krankenhausaufenthalt. Der langjährige Aktivist Serge Rader wurde auf der Intensivstation in Guadeloupe eingeliefert. "Er wurde geheilt, starb dann aber ein paar Tage später an einem Herzstillstand", erzählt seine Familie.

Serge Rader, ein Befürworter umstrittener Behandlungen wie Hydroxychloroquin, hatte zu einem Boykott der Covid-Impfstoffe aufgerufen.

https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/le-pha...YZ7ESGBST5M.php

Seltsam, daß aus Sicht des demokratischen Massen- und Völkermordsystems immer die Richtigen krepieren. Vor dem Hintergrund, daß Prof. Raoult mehrere Morddrohungen erhalten hat, muß man bei Todesfällen, die Systemkritiker betreffen, immer auch an Fremdeinwirkung denken.