0 8 min 11 mths


An article for those who are not yet convinced (such as all members of Congress and the mainstream media). My regular readers won’t find anything new or surprising here.

I wanted to start a placeholder article with examples of corruption and / or incompetence in our favorite agencies with 3 letters. The list is likely to grow much longer over time.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, no one in Congress is interested in looking into it. They all prefer to look the other way and pretend there is no problem. You refuse to discuss any of these points.

Suggest your favorite examples in the comments and I’ll build them into the main text. These are just examples to get you started. Hyperlinks will be added shortly.


Janet Woodcock, FDA interim chief, promised to look into Maddie de Garay’s paralysis (12-year-old child paralyzed in Pfizer study of 12-15 year olds). Nothing happened.

We tried to get Steven A. Anderson, the senior FDA officer in charge of vaccine safety oversight, to meet with a member of my team to discuss safety signals in VAERS. Dr. Anderson ignored all attempts.

The FDA claimed my VAERS fatality analysis was wrong but could not identify a specific error in the methodology or the data (since they used the CDC methodology it would be difficult to do and they provided the data). You don’t want to officially comment on it.

The FDA rejected our EUA for fluvoxamine on the grounds that we didn’t have enough data. It’s funny that the workers at Golden Gates Fields racetrack could see exactly that the drug was working, even though most of them didn’t have a college education. Maybe the FDA should stop them instead?

The FDA was unable to cite a confounding factor or bias that could alter the result. If they are not corrupt, then they are incompetent. It cost thousands of lives and we wasted a year doing a clinical trial to prove we were right. Obviously to normal people. Not obvious to the FDA experts.

The FDA has claimed we are spreading misinformation but refuses to provide anyone for a recorded discussion with us to help put us on the right track.

She approved the Alzheimer’s drug, which was so bad that she stopped clinical trials.

I’m sure the FDA will approve molnupiravir soon, even though the clinical study showed it didn’t work. How can you allow molnupiravir but refuse fluvoxamine (which is now in John Hopkins’ practice guidelines and will soon be in many others). Deliberately introducing mutations into the viral RNA could spawn a more dangerous version of SARS-CoV-2, the critics said. Worst of all, however, “in the second group, there was almost no difference between the results of those who received the antivirus and those who received the placebo”.


You should review the child vaccine safety plan every 2 years. They didn’t do that. Even after losing in court.

They claim no one died from the COVID mRNA vaccines. Is that serious? Then how can you explain Peter Schirmacher’s study, which has been confirmed by other German pathologists?

They claim masks work, citing a poorly done study and ignoring the only two randomized trials that both showed that masks made no difference at all.

The CDC experts cannot find a safety signal in VAERS to save their lives. They admitted that it was the Department of Defense that found the safety signal for the vaccine’s myocarditis. They ignored the other 9,000 increased symptoms caused by the COVID vaccines. What about deaths? Cardiac arrest? Intracranial Bleeding? Pulmonary embolism? Paralysis? Menstrual cramps?

Refuse to calculate the VAERS URF for these vaccines. You do not pass the URF on to anyone. You specify URF = 1 in your presentation, although you know exactly that this is wrong.

You can’t explain the increase in VAERS deaths this year with evidence.

They refuse to discuss with us.

They have never carried out a risk-benefit calculation for the vaccines that shows the “societal benefit”. How many lives do you save a year if you get vaccinated and where is the evidence of that? T

Toby Rogers’ risk-benefit analysis for the age group 5 to 11 shows that the vaccines kill 117 children for every life saved. Where is the CDC’s risk-benefit analysis? Where’s the mistake of Dr. Roger? Nobody could find him.

Continue to misrepresent the risk of myocarditis. I know a doctor with 1,200 patients who has 5 cases of myocarditis in men and women aged 30 to 50 years after vaccination. If myocarditis is as rare as the CDC claims, how do you explain it? These are not selected dates. These rates are consistent with the rates in VAERS once a reasonable URF (greater than 41) is applied to the reports.

What is in Simpsonwood happens?


Fluvoxamine was detected in phase 2 studies (Lenze study, published in JAMA) and then in a real study on Golden Gate Fields (Seftel study). It’s impossible to explain the results if the drug hadn’t worked. I offered $ 1 million to anyone who found a bias or confounding factor that could explain the outcome if the drug didn’t work. Nobody answered. The precautionary principle is that they should have recommended the drug.

Even after fluvoxamine passed Together’s Phase 3 study, which showed a 12-fold reduction in deaths, the NIH refused to adjust its recommendation. However, Johns Hopkins defied the NIH and included fluvoxamine in his treatment guidelines. Someone is not telling the truth and it’s not Johns Hopkins. I tried to get the leading fluvoxamine researchers to comment publicly on the NIH recommendation, but they refused. That tells you all you need to know, doesn’t it?

They refused to fund early-stage treatment studies. They didn’t even want to fund the fluvoxamine phase 3 study after the phase 2 study was 100% successful. There is something very corrupt here.

Any Democratic committee chairman can request Fauci’s unredacted emails. If the NIH were really acting in the public interest, they would urge Congress to do so in order to expose the corruption. These emails are guaranteed to expose the corruption, but the Democrats refuse to solicit them.

The NIH has also rejected ivermectin. However, there are several published meta-analyzes and systematic reviews for Ivermectin for use with COVID. The precautionary principle requires the NIH to recommend ivermectin unless they have evidence that the risks outweigh the benefits. They don’t.

Fareed and Tyson reached out to the NIH in March 2020 to tell them about their amazing early treatment protocol that kept everyone out of the hospital. The NIH ignored them. Today they treated 7,000 patients, there were only 4 hospitalizations (people who were late) and no deaths among those who were treated early. The NIH is still ignoring them. This cannot be explained if the treatment protocol did not work. But the NIH doesn’t even answer their calls.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *