– The HCQ story repeated itself almost identically with another cheap and well known medication: Ivermectin.
Ivermectin is a decades old antiparasitic drug which has been used billions of times and is considered one of the safest out there. Their inventors even received the Nobel price. Like HCQ ivermectin was found in vitro to have potential benefits against the virus. Also, like HCQ it was tested by thousands of doctors who mostly confirmed a positive effect. Papers started to appear describing these hopeful results and, later, confirming them (here, here, here).
However, the “empire” was not happy with another cheap and not patent protected drug appearing to help against Covid. The problem obviously was that Big Pharma and their allies were now pushing a revenue generating vaccine.
Again, the lackeys in the media were in the forefront of the fight against this cheap and easily accessible potential cure for Covid. They called it a “horse dewormer” (it is used in a formulation for animals too). They kept describing it as “dangerous” (and in the same time pushed the untested vaccine!).
The medical and political authorities, not surprisingly, were with them in the arena. The FDA advised against its use. In several countries the off-label prescription of ivermectin was banned. Doctors faced legal actions if they still offered it to their patients. Pharmacies were not allowed to fulfil prescription for off label use. The social media banned the discussion of ivermectin as a drug against Covid.
Thus, one of the safest drugs used regularly by millions and millions was not available anymore. Desperate patients used the much higher dosed animal formulations – and promptly suffered from poisoning. These instances (not that many) were then used by the same authorities which made the drug unavailable to warn against its use. They even used the argument to employ drastic measures against scared parents for giving the drug to their kids.
I am not aware of any of the (sometimes questionable) publications used by the authorities to warn against the off label prescriptions to demonstrate any negative effects of the drug in regular tests. They (and there were few compared to those showing positive effects) just did not find any effect at all.
Why, then, was so much effort put into fighting a cheap drug which was extremely well known and had no serious negative side effect when taken according to the prescription. Which, on the other hand, had an overwhelming number of observations that showed positive effects on Covid patients?
The same authorities used all their power to push a vaccine based on a new technology which was minimally tested. Which, from the beginning, showed a huge number of adverse effects as reported in the VAERS database and whose long-term effects were totally unknown.
It seems rather obvious: People had to die because the potential vaccine business of Big Pharma could not be compromised. The WEF idea of public-private partnerships was working (as planned?).
3. The vaccine
In 2020 the global health systems were confronted by a new type of virus which spreads extremely fast. Fighting viruses with drugs has always been a challenge. Mostly, medications would only reduce the symptoms and leave it to the immune system to overcome the virus infection. Therefore, preparing the immune system through vaccination has become the established method against viral diseases.
Accordingly, immediately after the coronavirus was identified as the cause of the disease the discussions started about how to develop a vaccine. The major issue was time. A regular vaccine development process usually takes years. Part of it is the technical development. A lot of time, however, has to be invested in the safety testing.
With thousands dying and the pandemic expanding it was clear that we did not have this kind of time. Thus “Operation warp speed” in the USA and similar public private partnership initiatives elsewhere were started.
Governments offered billions in support of the development and relaxed the safety requirements. As a consequence of the reduction in the safety testing the governments had to protect the involved pharmaceutical companies against potential liability issues.
The pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, joined forces with smaller technology providers and used their knowhow to develop a new type of vaccine. In parallel they built the production capacity to allow immediate delivery of the vaccine after approval.
Pfizer together with BioNTech and Moderna together with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) formulated each an mRNA-based vaccine within months. In record time they completed the phase 3 clinical trial (by Nov. 16, 2020, Moderna. by Nov. 18, 2020 Pfizer).
Dec. 2, 2020 the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the U.K. authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for emergency use. On Dec. 11, 2020 the FDA followed suit for Pfizer and on Dec. 18, 2020 for Moderna.
This was an incredible achievement. It was only possible because the mRNA vaccine technology had been tested in the laboratories before. The phase 3 trials were done to get some first preliminary information about their efficacy and safety. Based on these preliminary data the emergency use authorizations (EUA) were granted.
It made sense to offer the new vaccines first to the most vulnerable part of the population. Thus, most countries restricted the application of the limited supply to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. This provided also the opportunity to collect further information about the side effects and the efficacy under real world conditions.
However, after this first stage of the introduction of the vaccines disturbing observations started to emerge over the coming months.
Almost immediately after the launch of the vaccines the adverse effects database (VAERS) in the US started to show strong signals. Since the vaccines were using a new and not well tested technology questions about the safety of the vaccines started to emerge. Still the FDA moved forward and on Aug. 23rd 2021 granted full authorization to the Pfizer vaccine for people age 16 and older.
Now alarm bells started to go off. Scientists and medical researchers analysed the published Pfizer data and found quite a few open questions. Accordingly they requested the full data which were used to grant the authorizations. The FDA stalled and proposed a timeframe of > 70 years for the full release of the documents. What created concerns in addition, was the fact that the actual vaccines were not identical with those used in the trial where the data came from. The first commercial batches for example had clearly a lower quality. Later, it was confirmed that the vaccines were contaminated with DNA and other materials (here, here, here, here).
On Oct. 28th 2021 the FDA granted an EUA for children 5 to 11. This despite the fact that children had almost no risk of becoming seriously ill from Covid (here, here, here, here, here). The only potential reason to vaccinate children was to prevent transmission from them to more vulnerable people. However, the FDA itself admitted on Dec. 11, 2020 that there was no evidence that the vaccine prevented transmission. As did Pfizer.
In parallel, the discussion about the safety of the vaccines and their risk/benefit profile accelerated dramatically. The VAERS database showed an increase in heart problems after vaccination. Finally, end of 2022 after 18 months of administering the vaccine and earning billions Pfizer and Moderna started a study on possible long term risks for young men (with the FDA claiming to know the outcome already). Around the same time the Australian and the Danish governments stopped a 4th shot to under 30 resp. 50 year olds. In addition, end of 2022 a paper concluded that the risk benefit analysis did not support a booster mandate at universities. Beginning of 2023 a renowned MIT professor even asked for the immediate suspension of vaccination with the mRNA vaccines.
One word of caution, though. It is very difficult to understand the size of the risks as described in many publications. The major issue is the use of relative risk vs. absolute risk. At low absolute risk the relative risk easily exaggerates the danger. At high absolute risk the relative risk easily understates the danger. E.g.: if the risk of getting a certain reaction is 1 per 1 Million an increase to 2 per Million represents an increase of 100%. Thus a 100% increase has no meaning when the absolute risk is not known. At which level an absolute risk is inacceptable can only be estimated against an agreed standard.
Over the first year of vaccination more reports started to appear which hinted at a basic problem with the mRNA vaccines. More questions were raised. What happened if the mRNA vaccine entered the blood stream? How long would the cells produce the spike proteins? How would the spike proteins be distributed in the body? How long could they be found in the body? How would the immune system react to them (here, here, here,here)? Valid questions as later papers in 2023 showed clearly that the response of the immune system was not really understood. More boosters might just lead to a collapse of the immune response itself.
Still the governments urged people to get vaccinated. More and more companies required their employees to get the shots. Cities started to mandate proof of vaccination for many activities where you met other people.
In Sept. 2021 Biden announced executive actions to enforce a vaccine mandate for all federal employees. The administration then tried to use the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). It should force all companies of > 100 employees to demand vaccination or weekly testing. Many US states followed the lead. Dozens of countries all over the world demanded vaccination for a wide range of activities. Borders were closed to people without vaccination. Many mandates included children too. Millions lost their job or quit because they refused to take the shots. The economic consequences can be felt until today.
There was an immense pressure on people to take the shots. And not only one. At least two. And then a booster. And another booster (since the efficacy went down with each additional shot)
The vaccines were forced even on people which had Covid already and thus had a natural immunity! Some governments – e.g. USA – just simply did not accept natural immunity as a valid reason not to take this experimental vaccine. (Later it was shown that people vaccinated after recovery experienced even more adverse effects.) This means some government just refused the idea of natural herd immunity against all scientific knowledge in order to force a never ending stream of vaccinations on the population. The EU, a positive example, accepted natural immunity and, therefore, really “followed science”.
Clearly at the end of 2021 many facts were already well known:
- Vaccinated people infected with the virus were transmitting it as much as the unvaccinated.
- Vaccination did only little or even not at all protect against infection. States and countries with high vaccination rates did not have lower infection rates.
- Natural immunity did protect against reinfection at least as well as the vaccines or even better.
- Children and young adults had a very low probability of becoming seriously ill from Covid. And their natural immunity was higher than after vaccination. Thus, their vaccination was all risk and no benefit
- The VAERS and the related Australian database were overwhelmed with adverse effect reports so that they could not function anymore as designed.
- Many reports were about heart problems – manly in young male (here, here, here, here, here, here)
- There were two safe and potentially helpful drugs out there. However, doctors risked their licence if they prescribed or dispensed them as treatment against Covid.
Thus, already end of 2021 it was clearly known that for many groups, maybe even a majority, the vaccine provided a very minimal or no benefit along with an only partially known and potentially major risk. Nevertheless, the immense pressure to vaccinate anyone and everybody, from the toddler to the 90-year-old, from the healthy athlete to those with pre-existing conditions continued. To support its position the CDC even manipulated data. And they did their best to suppress information exposing their dirty game.
Do we have to be surprised that over time more and more reports started to appear about observations of seemingly negative consequences of the Covid shots?
More miscarriages, menstrual abnormalities (here, here, here), spike proteins found in mother milk, reemergence of stable cancers (here, here, here), induced multiple sclerosis (here, here), necrotizing encephalitis (here), risk of retinal vascular occlusion, reduced male sperm quality, a post vaccine syndrome (here, here) and others.
We might add here that the US government after actively preventing the use of HCQ and ivermectin for the treatment of Covid recommended the drugs Paxlovid (Pfizer), Molnupiravir (Merck) and Remdesivir (Gilead).
All of these drugs were new and much less known in their full effect profiles. Remdesivir had questionable testing results with Covid. Molnupiravir has potentially long term harmful side effects and Paxlovid had only an emergency use authorization. But all of them certainly were making a lot of money for their inventors. Pavloxid was to cost between 500 and 1400 USD per treatment. Molnupiravir was to cost > 700 USD per treatment and made 2022 close to 20 billion USD for Merck. Remdesivir’s price was > 2000 USD.
Summary and Conclusion
It is a very sad tale and should open the eyes of all of us. The combined might of political and corporate power supported by the media and globalist organizations like UN and WHO probably killed tens of thousands and hurt millions alone in the US.
- Shutdowns were implemented far beyond what was necessary – an economic disaster.
- Cheap and safe drugs which according to thousands of doctors seemed to help Covid patients were prohibited without offering a helpful alternative.
- An experimental vaccine with unknown side effects and which did not work as promised was forced on millions which did not need it.
There is hardly a rational explanation for these observations besides corruption. Power and money for a few were the only gains versus a heavy price in lives and wellbeing for the societies.
This tale of Covid 19 reveals the ugly face of the future of our world as envisioned by the WEF and its allies in governments, corporations and global organizations.
And: don’t hold your breath. The next phase is in the making. Climate change is the keyword. For years we have seen the same actors flying their jets to conferences and trying to take away our freedom and our money. They don’t mind to condemn billions to a life of poverty and hunger by taking away their only option for development: cheap energy. Climate change will be the subject of the next post in this blog.