What is arguably as concerning as the cause or causes of the unprecedented number of COVID "vaccine" adverse effects is the dismal failure of public health agencies to investigate this extrememly concerning global phenomenon.
When the reckoning comes, as it surely must, those elected specifically to guard the public against the historical rapaciousness and criminal behavior of the pharmaceutical industry must not be permitted to escape just retribution for their blatant and ongoing dereliction of duty.
Unfortunately as time goes on there will be even less incentive to find answers. It's sort of a double-edged sword with wanting these things removed from the market, as removing them doesn't provide researchers a reason to figure out what's going on.
What researchers? Most of those in agencies we pay to protect public health have their heads so deeply buried in "vaccines are safe and effective" bovine ordure that all you can see is their fat overpaid arses pointing skywards.
The "vaccines" are not a cure for anything. They are bioweapons, as independent researchers worthy of the name (Dr David Martin, Sasha Latypova, Katherine Watt, Karen Kingston et al) have demonstrated with convincing documentary studiously ignored by the corporate/establishment captured mass media.
Your double-edged sword allusion smacks of sophistry. There is already more than enough damning empirical evidence in the public domain to justify retribution against those responsible for the carnage of the past three years and its ongoing appalling economic and social consequences.
How am I being a sophist? The problem that the vaccine skeptic movement is having is that they are not digging deeper into why these issues of adverse reactions are occurring. Instead, many people are just taking to posting some adverse reaction in the literature and saying, "Here's a case of myocarditis. See, vaccines bad!"
Okay, but WHY is this person experiencing myocarditis from the vaccines? What is happening in this person's body to cause that? You're not getting those answers when you just report that someone had an adverse reaction. Not many people seem to be bothered to look into the adverse reactions from the adenoviral vaccines, and now that they are being removed why would anyone care? Have you seen the discussion within the vaccine skeptic community ever bring up anything deeper with respect to these vaccines aside from the blood clots?
All of this falls into the same issues I posted on my post from yesterday. People are far too entrenched into the WHAT and not being curious about the WHY or HOW. Irrespective of whether you call this a vaccine or a bioweapon, it's doing something in the body. We need to figure out exactly what is going rather than just saying "people hurt; vaccines bad."
We clearly have different priorities. I am sure the creators of this bioweapon would love us all to scurry down the endless how-why-what rabbit hole. Personally, like the investigators I named in my previous posting, I'm more concerned with identifying the perpetrators of this crime against humanity and bringing them to justice. If smirking vaccines' messiah Bill Gates' is right about there being even deadlier pathogen in the pipeline, time is not on our side.
It really is nice to see someone trying to connect the dots. She follows the "I had symptom X, I read something about Y, so is X related to Y somehow?" That approach to evidence is really needed in order to find answers.
Since the adverse reactions are pretty extensive, and these hot jabs were mandated with vastly exaggerated claims of efficacy, there's an effort to hide what is known, leaving the afflicted patients abandoned.
On the other hand, the bogusness of studies purporting that alternative treatments for COVID were very dangerous, is now being revealed. Haphazard accumulation of electronic medical records, by medical staff racing against the clock , adds massively to the onerous data crunching and group matching that is required for real data analysis. This casts huge doubt on studies that have amplified safety concerns about such things as HCQ plus azithromycin.
That's very interesting. I'd like to look more closely and see how they collected the data. From what I can gather from a molecular standpoint both HCQ and azithromycin may both show endolysosomotropism, and so the pairing may have some sort of synergistic effect. However, the use of them together would be rather strange in the long term. As to the authors, it may depend on how journals are organized. Some do it based on tier, so PI will go first even though they may never actually touch the study and decreases in hierarchy until you reach the end with the glassware-cleaning interns. It may be alphabetical, or it may be organized based on who actually worked on the paper.
I covered HCQ a while back and may have looked at this study but not too deeply so I may consider taken another look if I have the time. But overall, it wouldn't be surprising to see if a lot of the data collection for many of these studies was extremely poor. In fact, maybe in a year or so we'll see a lot of preprints not make it because their data and methodology may have been extremely flawed.
You won't watch it over one point of contention, even though the interview was about the interviewee, her adverse reactions, and her search for answers? You can criticize him for being a staunch vaccine critic at the beginning but that doesn't argue against the fact that Michelle is doing a ton of work and is getting her perspective out there.
Isn't the ability to adjust one's opinions in the face of new evidence a quality rather than a vice?
The use of the phrases such as "the anti-vax bandwagon" are usually trotted out by individuals whose minds are already made up and unamenable to change.
I've mentioned this before (and this isn't pertaining to Liz at all, but more of an observation I've seen around in other Substacks), but I'd argue that the vaccine critic/skeptic group of people has become far too insular. The things that are repeated are echoing back to the base rather than trying to persuade anyone who may have been either indifferent or staunch vaccine critics.
What is arguably as concerning as the cause or causes of the unprecedented number of COVID "vaccine" adverse effects is the dismal failure of public health agencies to investigate this extrememly concerning global phenomenon.
When the reckoning comes, as it surely must, those elected specifically to guard the public against the historical rapaciousness and criminal behavior of the pharmaceutical industry must not be permitted to escape just retribution for their blatant and ongoing dereliction of duty.
Unfortunately as time goes on there will be even less incentive to find answers. It's sort of a double-edged sword with wanting these things removed from the market, as removing them doesn't provide researchers a reason to figure out what's going on.
What researchers? Most of those in agencies we pay to protect public health have their heads so deeply buried in "vaccines are safe and effective" bovine ordure that all you can see is their fat overpaid arses pointing skywards.
The "vaccines" are not a cure for anything. They are bioweapons, as independent researchers worthy of the name (Dr David Martin, Sasha Latypova, Katherine Watt, Karen Kingston et al) have demonstrated with convincing documentary studiously ignored by the corporate/establishment captured mass media.
Your double-edged sword allusion smacks of sophistry. There is already more than enough damning empirical evidence in the public domain to justify retribution against those responsible for the carnage of the past three years and its ongoing appalling economic and social consequences.
How am I being a sophist? The problem that the vaccine skeptic movement is having is that they are not digging deeper into why these issues of adverse reactions are occurring. Instead, many people are just taking to posting some adverse reaction in the literature and saying, "Here's a case of myocarditis. See, vaccines bad!"
Okay, but WHY is this person experiencing myocarditis from the vaccines? What is happening in this person's body to cause that? You're not getting those answers when you just report that someone had an adverse reaction. Not many people seem to be bothered to look into the adverse reactions from the adenoviral vaccines, and now that they are being removed why would anyone care? Have you seen the discussion within the vaccine skeptic community ever bring up anything deeper with respect to these vaccines aside from the blood clots?
All of this falls into the same issues I posted on my post from yesterday. People are far too entrenched into the WHAT and not being curious about the WHY or HOW. Irrespective of whether you call this a vaccine or a bioweapon, it's doing something in the body. We need to figure out exactly what is going rather than just saying "people hurt; vaccines bad."
We clearly have different priorities. I am sure the creators of this bioweapon would love us all to scurry down the endless how-why-what rabbit hole. Personally, like the investigators I named in my previous posting, I'm more concerned with identifying the perpetrators of this crime against humanity and bringing them to justice. If smirking vaccines' messiah Bill Gates' is right about there being even deadlier pathogen in the pipeline, time is not on our side.
The Zimmerman interview is fascinating given the extent of her injury, her knowledge base and her ability to analyze the data.
It really is nice to see someone trying to connect the dots. She follows the "I had symptom X, I read something about Y, so is X related to Y somehow?" That approach to evidence is really needed in order to find answers.
Since the adverse reactions are pretty extensive, and these hot jabs were mandated with vastly exaggerated claims of efficacy, there's an effort to hide what is known, leaving the afflicted patients abandoned.
On the other hand, the bogusness of studies purporting that alternative treatments for COVID were very dangerous, is now being revealed. Haphazard accumulation of electronic medical records, by medical staff racing against the clock , adds massively to the onerous data crunching and group matching that is required for real data analysis. This casts huge doubt on studies that have amplified safety concerns about such things as HCQ plus azithromycin.
I recommend this Twit thread, based on knowing what the EMRs look like. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1659772628012527617.html
That's very interesting. I'd like to look more closely and see how they collected the data. From what I can gather from a molecular standpoint both HCQ and azithromycin may both show endolysosomotropism, and so the pairing may have some sort of synergistic effect. However, the use of them together would be rather strange in the long term. As to the authors, it may depend on how journals are organized. Some do it based on tier, so PI will go first even though they may never actually touch the study and decreases in hierarchy until you reach the end with the glassware-cleaning interns. It may be alphabetical, or it may be organized based on who actually worked on the paper.
I covered HCQ a while back and may have looked at this study but not too deeply so I may consider taken another look if I have the time. But overall, it wouldn't be surprising to see if a lot of the data collection for many of these studies was extremely poor. In fact, maybe in a year or so we'll see a lot of preprints not make it because their data and methodology may have been extremely flawed.
Again, great reading- really appreciate your research work- I will become a paid subscriber!
Thank you Harris! It does really help a lot, so I really appreciate it!
I won’t watch that Dr Mobeen. Up until two minutes ago he has been recommending the vax. Now he’s jumping on the anti-vax bandwagon. Hes a bad actor.
You won't watch it over one point of contention, even though the interview was about the interviewee, her adverse reactions, and her search for answers? You can criticize him for being a staunch vaccine critic at the beginning but that doesn't argue against the fact that Michelle is doing a ton of work and is getting her perspective out there.
Isn't the ability to adjust one's opinions in the face of new evidence a quality rather than a vice?
The use of the phrases such as "the anti-vax bandwagon" are usually trotted out by individuals whose minds are already made up and unamenable to change.
I've mentioned this before (and this isn't pertaining to Liz at all, but more of an observation I've seen around in other Substacks), but I'd argue that the vaccine critic/skeptic group of people has become far too insular. The things that are repeated are echoing back to the base rather than trying to persuade anyone who may have been either indifferent or staunch vaccine critics.
.
The Vaccinated
Are Starting To Realize
That Once They Get Sick
They Are Not Going To Get Better.
The Freak-Out Has Begun.
.