Myocarditis and pericarditis are not aortic aneurysms. I don’t dispute the vaccines carry a small increased risk of these in certain populations. Neither do the vaccine manufacturers. There are even a small number of deaths confirmed from vaccine induced myocarditis. Not in dispute.
Now that's funny. The Israel studies of their VAERS data, performed by outside virologists hired by the Ministry of Health...utterly contradicted the MoH's claims that serious side effects were rare, short term and transient.
After analyzing the reports received over a period of 6 months, the research team found that many serious side effects were in fact long-term, including ones not listed by Pfizer, and established causal relations with the vaccine.
The Israeli Ministry of Health (MoH) was informed by their own hand-selected outside expert group headed by Prof. Mati Berkowitz that the COVID vaccines are not as safe as the MoH had been claiming to the Israeli people. It was just the opposite: instead of mild, short term events, the events were serious and long-lasting. For neurological side effects, in 65% of the cases, these did not go away at all (see the first video below); the 65% is at 3:09) and the researchers admitted they had no clue if they would ever go away.
As I said in the original post about this, this study did NOT focus on heart related issues, MOH had them only focus on 5 areas of side effects. If these 5 areas were all substantially worse, well.
An autopsy was performed by the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office. Grant died from the rupture of a slowly growing, undetected ascending aortic aneurysm with hemopericardium. The chest pressure he experienced shortly before his death may have represented the initial symptoms. No amount of CPR or shocks would have saved him. His death was unrelated to COVID. His death was unrelated to vaccination status. There was nothing nefarious about his death.
This statement maybe be absolutely true, but it's not a fact, only an opinion.
I previously listed a few medications that were taken off the market after receiving full FDA approval, because of serious side effects. The difference between those products and the mRNA vaccine is that they were not political. I doubt any serious study will be done, in this county at least. Until the vaccine is fully studied (perhaps never) the narrative will continue to be prove it, no, you prove it.
The best we can hope for is no longer having bureaucrats dictating our health choices.
Aneurysm listed in Pfizer's own documents that they tried to hide for 75 years that were forced public by court order. 55,000 documented side effects in...again...Pfizer's own documents.
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
Now granted that is a pseudoaneurysm (where blood leaks from a vessel, typically associated with damage to a vessel by IVs, etc. Which makes one say wtf? How does a vaccine cause blood vessels to actually leak?)
An aneurysm is swelling of the vessel (any blood vessel, including the aorta) resulting in a bulge (like a hernia of the vessel if you will).
Now consider causes of aneurysms. One of the big ones is "thrombosis" - which can weaken and damage vessel walls leading to other problems (like aneurysms, or even rupture of the vessel if it gets weak enough) - what happened to Grant when his aorta ruptured.
Huh.
Does the Pfizer vax cause thrombosis, which can cause aneurysms? There's a mere 105 references of thombosis in the 55,000 Pfizer side effects.
None of this proves Grant died from a vaccine injury. It also says it's a possibility the vax could have led to it as well.
From your article: 401,887 people reported to have side effects after getting Pfizer BioNTech Covid Vaccine.
Among them, 6 people (0.0%) have Aortic aneurysm rupture.
6 people out of the hundreds of millions who got the vaccine. How does this compare to the incidence of aortic aneurysms in people prior to the vaccine?
You Are All Heart Heroes! We want to honor and thank our UNC Heart & Vascular team members in Vascular Surgery during American Heart Month.
news.unchealthcare.org
According to this article about 15000 people in the US die from ruptured aortic aneurysms every year. But I guess these 6 and Grant Wahl must have been caused by the vaccines.
These are great examples of exactly how vaccine disinformation works.
Fully disagree. Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's disinformation. When it's common, like heart-related issues, you dismiss them by calling them small and normal - 'people die'. So we'll never meet in the middle on this topic.
You believe the vaccines are now useless, but also not dangerous.
I believe they are useless and dangerous. To each their own.
By the way, from the article he posted, it says:
It is created by eHealthMe based on reports of 401,887 people who have side effects when getting Pfizer BioNTech Covid Vaccine from the CDC and the FDA, and is updated regularly.
You realize this 400K of reports go beyond VAERS right? The 400K likely includes VAERS data (from the CDC) as well as data reported to the FDA. Omitted are reports made to CMS and others. So this 400K is still just a massive subsegment of all adverse events given such low reporting from the field.
From your article: 401,887 people reported to have side effects after getting Pfizer BioNTech Covid Vaccine.
Among them, 6 people (0.0%) have Aortic aneurysm rupture.
6 people out of the hundreds of millions who got the vaccine. How does this compare to the incidence of aortic aneurysms in people prior to the vaccine?
Aneurysm listed in Pfizer's own documents that they tried to hide for 75 years that were forced public by court order. 55,000 documented side effects in...again...Pfizer's own documents.
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
Now granted that is a pseudoaneurysm (where blood leaks from a vessel, typically associated with damage to a vessel by IVs, etc. Which makes one say wtf? How does a vaccine cause blood vessels to actually leak?)
An aneurysm is swelling of the vessel (any blood vessel, including the aorta) resulting in a bulge (like a hernia of the vessel if you will).
Now consider causes of aneurysms. One of the big ones is "thrombosis" - which can weaken and damage vessel walls leading to other problems (like aneurysms, or even rupture of the vessel if it gets weak enough) - what happened to Grant when his aorta ruptured.
Huh.
Does the Pfizer vax cause thrombosis, which can cause aneurysms? There's a mere 105 references of thombosis in the 55,000 Pfizer side effects.
55,000 noted from the manufacturer's own internal documents. As I've said before, where there's smoke, there's fire. If there were 500 adverse event reports, most would be concerned. There are 55,000.
It's safe!
Meanwhile growing voice are saying there's more harm than good from the vaccines. Harm comes from side effects of the vaccines.
Really encourage you and everyone to go through this in detail. What's wrong, and what went wrong. Why people like @Confluence harp on the vaccines not being properly tested. Fully depicted within. Some screenshots to highlight, but it is lengthy.
A landmark peer-reviewed study appears to be the first of its kind to provide hard data on the “excess risk” of adverse side effects of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines in an independent “randomized clinical trial.” The results of the accepted scientific study confirm that the concerns...
“In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000 participants),” the study found.
“In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants),” the study added.
Can you post the Pfizer document that cited aortic aneurysms as a side effect of the vaccines? Are you talking about VAERS reports, which are reports of things that happened to people after getting vaccines? Which unless they are happening more often than in the background population, are meaningless? Or do you have some data that shows aortic aneurysms occurred at a higher rate in vaccinated populations?
Can I “prove the vaccines didn’t cause it?” Of course not. I can’t prove a peanut butter sandwich didn’t cause it. That’s not how scientific study works. The way you prove possible causation is by showing that something happens more often with x than it does without x. There’s no way to prove something didn’t cause something else.
This was timely. Just reading my news feed. Oooh, ooh, it came from Substack. Yeah.
Dr. Paul Alexander. Paul Elias Alexander is a Canadian health researcher and a former Trump administration official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the COVID-19 pandemic.
You asked for links between the vaccines and aneurysms. I pointed out Thrombosis can cause it. Now, more links to what can cause it below, that are linked to the vaccines.
You can no more say the vaccines didn't cause his death than I can say they did.
Moral of the story: These incidents should be investigated thoroughly. They are NOT. Let's get to the truth. I hope, again, Ron Desantis and Florida start exposing some truths.
A real possibility; I think media & medical community's silence is deafening alike the silence over the near 100 Canadian doctors who have dropped dead post COVID vaccine; we need to know societally!
palexander.substack.com
Study 1:
What does this study say? Its showed that persons with giant cell arteritis (GCA) have ‘a markedly increased risk of developing thoracic aortic aneurysms (AA)’. Yet is it due to Aortitis?
Study 2:
What does this study say and can we link it (aneurysm) to the the mRNA vaccines he took? Yes, we can.
Look at this study by Liozon et al. on the link between the influenza vaccine and giant cell arteritis ( GCA):
Now look at this Anzola et al. study in 2022 pointing to a potential direct link between the COVID mRNA gene injection and GCA:
Anzola et al. reported that ‘one of the hypotheses on the pathophysiology of GCA highlights the role of an infectious agent. This conjecture derives from the seasonal incidence of the disease, viral antigens on temporal artery biopsies, and several reports regarding viral entities such as varicella-zoster [9] and, more recently, SARS-COV-2 as possible GCA triggers. Likewise, a relationship with the influenza vaccine has been described [10]. In a recently published case of GCA related to the mRNA vaccine, a similar observation was made regarding these vaccines and their ability to induce cross-reactivity and trigger self-recognition using different mechanisms [2].
Anzola went on to say that while ‘the overall incidence of vaccine-triggered autoimmunity is low, vaccinations should continue as planned.’ These researchers are calling on rheumatologists worldwide to recognize this risk and to be aware of autoimmune diseases as a new potential adverse event of mRNA vaccines.
What do you conclude now? See the link? Do you think we can connect the dots here? Is there a potential that he was multiple vaccinated given his words and his wife’s statements? Do you think the vaccines as per studies above, could have caused his death?
I think almost certainly. It cannot be ruled out! All involved have a vested interest to deny the roll of the vaccine, his wife certainly. Sad as this may be, this is wrong and she must come clean. Yet, likely we will never know the truth.
In China, speech is censored online just like what is described in a post above this. Over there they call it the 50 cent army. They are paid 50 cents for each post that is censored. The CCP censored online speech in the same way its being done here. It appears that many Americans are OK with this practice. I suppose repealing the first amendment is next.
I think she is just making a counterpoint, which is fine. I doubt there will ever be a definitive answer to this, too much money involved and too much power to lose.
Then why post them? Serious question. If these vaccines really are factually dangerous why not stick to facts and stop posting irrelevant scare tactics?
Yes there is a concerted effort to push these vaccines on people, there is also a concerted effort to fearmonger people away from them. Neither is right or ok.
The covid shots are not safe or efficacious.
Pfizer & Moderna ( who were one of the firms Pfizer stole from) fraudulently mis-represented this to global governments.
Please prove me wrong, and I will retract and apologize.
We’re at the point where this debate is pretty much irrelevant. While I don’t believe there is widespread vaccine injury and death, the fact remains that the vaccines are no longer effective in any meaningful way. I personally don’t need another reason to stop getting them.
Serious question? Serious answer. All of those that I post are in question.
Can you provide "the facts?" You claimed, erroneously, the CDC was 'studying VAERS reports.' You were wrong. They were not. If they are not studying them, what facts are there to study? Serious question.
I posted factual evidence today that Israel likewise wasted more than a year NOT studying their reports. When they did, they found some very bad data.
So what facts do you propose we stick to? The "talking points" that vaccines are safe when there have been no clinical trials, no true studies on adverse events, no autopsies? What are these facts you speak of we should point to? You're asking us to just 'accept' what we've been told minus data/facts.
You throw around the word 'facts' as if there is established science. There is not. Look at how much has changed in the past 2.5 years. You do realize the biggest spreader of misinformation to date has been Governments? 6 feet of social distance, masking, the vaccines prevent spread, Fauci encouraging people to hook up via Tinder, natural immunity doesn't work, the vaccines have 92% efficacy, children are at risk from dying from Covid.
So seriously, what bank of facts do you actually subscribe to?
Agreed. Do you now support the CDC actually (not figuratively) analyzing VAERS data? Doing autopsies on people who die within days of vaccination? I mean, like Ron Desantis is planning to do....real studies and not just Government-hired PR firm talking points?
Tim,
Why wouldn't all vaccine pushers, like OFTB was before she wasn't (facts didn't change, just the transparency did), want an open review of all Covid policies and spending to demonstrate the pros and cons of how Covid was handled?
Start with this simple fact Tim. Do you have a credible study with control groups that shows mortality rates greater in vaccinated people than in unvaccinated ones of comparable ages? Because there are literally dozens of studies out there showing the opposite.
I know 3 people who HAVE been harmed by getting the vax. And I live in a pretty small world. Coincidence? Maybe. But no one is ever going to convince me take that poison.
Tim,
Why wouldn't all vaccine pushers, like OFTB was before she wasn't (facts didn't change, just the transparency did), want an open review of all Covid policies and spending to demonstrate the pros and cons of how Covid was handled?
I don't put OFTB in the 'vaccine pusher' bucket. Floggy and Tibs and others? Yes. I don't think she ever was. Even early on, she was a supporter of it being personal choice. OFTB won't do boosters or let her kids get them etc and she's always been against mandates and says it should be a choice. Her position has been a) there's no cover up, we just didn't know enough then and made mistakes, and b) the vaccines are safe (or not as dangerous as we think they are). And she did fall for the assumption that the CDC was investigating VAERS reports, and I think we all thought they were as well....until we found out they weren't. We've all made mistakes on this stuff.
So, why don't vaccine zealots want transparency?
I honestly think I know the answer and the reasons. And it's simply "so as not to be wrong and not to be on the wrong side of history."
First, MANY of these people are from the Everyone Gets a Medal generation. They are never wrong and don't know how to lose. Couple that with the following....
Second, the government made this political and divided us on it, as they have divided us on so many issues so effectively for decades now. Compare it to Hunter Biden. Can you find one Democrat you may know who will say "The Hunter story is bad. Joe and Hunter should be investigated, Hunter's a scumbag and the suppression of his story was election tampering." You're more likely to find a purple unicorn farting gold nuggets.
Third, I think the side that supports/supported the vaccines so hard subconsciously or consciously are afraid of waking up on the wrong side of history. Imagine being a Nazi supporter when the fresh, new face of Adolf Hitler came on the scene, living through his horrors, and WWII and looking back on the atrocities he committed. Imagine you were a Nazi zealot at the time supporting the Nazis until the fall. That you supported them totally before you knew what evil you were supporting? Could you own up and say "I enabled the Nazis?" Likewise, the vaccine zealots need the vaccines to be proven safe. Or they need the continual suppression of studies and data. So they won't be on the wrong side of history and be labeled the dangerous sheep that supported mass death/injury.
Couple the last with "we are never wrong" and I think many of the sheep are absolutely, consciously ok with deceit and cover ups so as not to be wrong.
Those are my theories.
Sheep supported Stalin, and Hitler, and Mussolini, etc. There are and will always be a majority of us who will be followers and will believe what we are told. They are the enablers of the suppression of vaccine data and studies.
Look at what is happening with the Twitter releases. Smoking gun data comes out - 80 FBI employees worked at Twitter, the FBI met weekly with Twitter to censure people and organizations, and Twitter followed the FBI's direction (they were the boss). Democrats? So what.
Hunter. "We have Hunter's laptop and emails and a factual trail showing Hunter was selling access to his father to China." Democrats? So what.
We have found the vaccines are killing more people than it should be. So what?
I don't put OFTB in the 'vaccine pusher' bucket. Floggy and Tibs and others? Yes. I don't think she ever was. Even early on, she was a supporter of it being personal choice. OFTB won't do boosters or let her kids get them etc and she's always been against mandates and says it should be a choice. Her position has been a) there's no cover up, we just didn't know enough then and made mistakes, and b) the vaccines are safe (or not as dangerous as we think they are). And she did fall for the assumption that the CDC was investigating VAERS reports, and I think we all thought they were as well....until we found out they weren't. We've all made mistakes on this stuff.
So, why don't vaccine zealots want transparency?
I honestly think I know the answer and the reasons. And it's simply "so as not to be wrong and not to be on the wrong side of history."
First, MANY of these people are from the Everyone Gets a Medal generation. They are never wrong and don't know how to lose. Couple that with the following....
Second, the government made this political and divided us on it, as they have divided us on so many issues so effectively for decades now. Compare it to Hunter Biden. Can you find one Democrat you may know who will say "The Hunter story is bad. Joe and Hunter should be investigated, Hunter's a scumbag and the suppression of his story was election tampering." You're more likely to find a purple unicorn farting gold nuggets.
Third, I think the side that supports/supported the vaccines so hard subconsciously or consciously are afraid of waking up on the wrong side of history. Imagine being a Nazi supporter when the fresh, new face of Adolf Hitler came on the scene, living through his horrors, and WWII and looking back on the atrocities he committed. Imagine you were a Nazi zealot at the time supporting the Nazis until the fall. That you supported them totally before you knew what evil you were supporting? Could you own up and say "I enabled the Nazis?" Likewise, the vaccine zealots need the vaccines to be proven safe. Or they need the continual suppression of studies and data. So they won't be on the wrong side of history and be labeled the dangerous sheep that supported mass death/injury.
Couple the last with "we are never wrong" and I think many of the sheep are absolutely, consciously ok with deceit and cover ups so as not to be wrong.
Those are my theories.
Sheep supported Stalin, and Hitler, and Mussolini, etc. There are and will always be a majority of us who will be followers and will believe what we are told. They are the enablers of the suppression of vaccine data and studies.
Look at what is happening with the Twitter releases. Smoking gun data comes out - 80 FBI employees worked at Twitter, Twitter met weekly with Twitter to censure people and organizations, and Twitter followed the FBI's direction (they were the boss). Democrats? So what.
Hunter. "We have Hunter's laptop and emails and a factual trail showing Hunter was selling access to his father to China." Democrats? So what.
We have found the vaccines are killing more people than it should be. So what?
I don't put OFTB in the 'vaccine pusher' bucket. Floggy and Tibs and others? Yes. I don't think she ever was. Even early on, she was a supporter of it being personal choice. OFTB won't do boosters or let her kids get them etc and she's always been against mandates and says it should be a choice. Her position has been a) there's no cover up, we just didn't know enough then and made mistakes, and b) the vaccines are safe (or not as dangerous as we think they are). And she did fall for the assumption that the CDC was investigating VAERS reports, and I think we all thought they were as well....until we found out they weren't. We've all made mistakes on this stuff.
So, why don't vaccine zealots want transparency?
I honestly think I know the answer and the reasons. And it's simply "so as not to be wrong and not to be on the wrong side of history."
First, MANY of these people are from the Everyone Gets a Medal generation. They are never wrong and don't know how to lose. Couple that with the following....
Second, the government made this political and divided us on it, as they have divided us on so many issues so effectively for decades now. Compare it to Hunter Biden. Can you find one Democrat you may know who will say "The Hunter story is bad. Joe and Hunter should be investigated, Hunter's a scumbag and the suppression of his story was election tampering." You're more likely to find a purple unicorn farting gold nuggets.
Third, I think the side that supports/supported the vaccines so hard subconsciously or consciously are afraid of waking up on the wrong side of history. Imagine being a Nazi supporter when the fresh, new face of Adolf Hitler came on the scene, living through his horrors, and WWII and looking back on the atrocities he committed. Imagine you were a Nazi zealot at the time supporting the Nazis until the fall. That you supported them totally before you knew what evil you were supporting? Could you own up and say "I enabled the Nazis?" Likewise, the vaccine zealots need the vaccines to be proven safe. Or they need the continual suppression of studies and data. So they won't be on the wrong side of history and be labeled the dangerous sheep that supported mass death/injury.
Couple the last with "we are never wrong" and I think many of the sheep are absolutely, consciously ok with deceit and cover ups so as not to be wrong.
Those are my theories.
Sheep supported Stalin, and Hitler, and Mussolini, etc. There are and will always be a majority of us who will be followers and will believe what we are told. They are the enablers of the suppression of vaccine data and studies.
Look at what is happening with the Twitter releases. Smoking gun data comes out - 80 FBI employees worked at Twitter, Twitter met weekly with Twitter to censure people and organizations, and Twitter followed the FBI's direction (they were the boss). Democrats? So what.
Hunter. "We have Hunter's laptop and emails and a factual trail showing Hunter was selling access to his father to China." Democrats? So what.
We have found the vaccines are killing more people than it should be. So what?
And less we ALL forget, to some of Tim’s points above…..
When this all first began, and Trump was in office, EVERY SINGLE Trump hater said they weren’t taking to vax, that everyone should be leery of the vax being pushed through without proper vetting/testing/trials, and that we shouldn’t trust any vax under the Trump administration.
What changed other than the president of the country? This vax was still developed and released to the public under Trump.
Why in January of ‘21 did they ALL change their tune?
How did it magically become a safe and effective vax and their questioning and skepticism dissipate?
And less we ALL forget, to some of Tim’s points above…..
When this all first began, and Trump was in office, EVERY SINGLE Trump hater said they weren’t taking to vax, that everyone should be leery of the vax being pushed through without proper vetting/testing/trials, and that we shouldn’t trust any vax under the Trump administration.
What changed other than the president of the country? This vax was still developed and released to the public under Trump.
Why in January of ‘21 did they ALL change their tune?
How did it magically become a safe and effective vax and their questioning and skepticism dissipate?
Elite colleges universities across the country are imposing COVID-19 bivalent vaccine mandates on students returning to campus for the spring 2023 semester.
Yale University, Fordham University, Harvard University, University of Notre Dame, Tufts University and Wellesley College all require students to receive a bivalent booster shot, which protects against the original and omicron variant, in order to return to campus after winter break, the schools announced. However, some students are opposing the schools’ continued reliance on mandates.
Notre Dame students are required to submit proof of their bivalent shot or granted exemption to continue enrollment for the 2023-2024 academic year, according to its website. The mandate applies to all undergraduate, graduate and professional students, even if they are “studying or performing or researching remotely.”
Charles Yockey, a Notre Dame student, told the DCNF that while he does not have to get the booster because he is graduating, he feels “that mandating successive rounds of booster shots each time one is developed is not necessary to protect the campus community and constitutes an unwarranted intrusion in students’ lives.”
“I think it’s important to use data to inform institutional responses to COVID — Notre Dame hasn’t articulated empirical targets to inform their response this semester, so it’s not clear to students what objectives the university would like to achieve or how the bivalent booster is necessary for accomplishing them,” he said.
The average cost of tuition at Notre Dame for the 2022-2023 academic year is $80,211, according to its website.
Notre Dame student Connor Tsikitas told the DCNF that he has seen “general confusion regarding the new mandate” about why it was necessary. He said that “most people seem to feel as if it’s just another mandate like the ones imposed previously.”
Yockey claimed that “Students feel beleaguered and have come to accept domineering COVID policies, handed down without justification.” He further alleged that these mandates are “an inevitable part of university life in 2022.”
Yale University’s policy requires all students to receive a bivalent shot by Jan. 31; however, faculty and staff are only encouraged, according to its website. Students who do not comply with the mandate could be referred to the Compact Review Committee and threatened with “administrative action.”
Fordham University students enrolled in in-person classes are required to receive a bivalent vaccine, its website states. Students can request a medical or religious exemption but may be removed from classes should confirmed cases increase on campus.
At Harvard University, students who do not comply with the bivalent booster mandate cannot enroll in classes, according to its website. Faculty are not required, but are encouraged, to be fully up-to-date on their COVID-19 vaccinations.
Wellesley College students were required to comply with the bivalent booster mandate which went into effect Dec. 1.
Tufts University requires all students and faculty to receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster shot by January 31, 2023. The deadline was moved back from its originally set date, which was Dec. 2.
“We disavow the university’s continued intrusion on the personal medical decisions of the student body,” Trent Bunker, a student at Tufts University and President of Tufts Republicans, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “As it currently stands, the vaccine will not prevent transmission, though it may protect from serious illness. However, this should clearly render it optional, as personal noncompliance creates no public health risk.”
The average cost of attendance at Tufts University for the 2022-2023 academic year is $82,000, according to its website. In addition to the COVID-19 bivalent booster, students are required to get the flu shot while faculty are only encouraged, according to a September announcement.
Bunker said that while he has tried to talk with administrators about COVID-19 decisions, his attempts have been unsuccessful.
“Unfortunately, nothing is being done against the mandates aside from the massive noncompliance which in many ways is an act of protest,” he said.
Yale University, Fordham University, Harvard University, University of Notre Dame, Tufts University and Wellesley College did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
@AshaLogos: Remdesivir should be one of the greatest scandals in recent medical history - and this is now a very high bar, so this is saying something. Scores of people killed unnecessarily, *for profits*.. there do...…
threadreaderapp.com
Remdesivir should be one of the greatest scandals in recent medical history - and this is now a very high bar, so this is saying something.
Scores of people killed unnecessarily, *for profits*.. there doesn’t seem to be any other just/accurate perspective here.
To recap..
Ivermectin, one of the most exhaustively tested and definitively safe medications in the world, was labeled dangerous ‘horse paste’, with the help of media and late night talk show hosts.
Remdesivir was a gamble: deadly, and expensive - and touted/pushed everywhere.
news.unchealthcare.org
beckernews.com
palexander.substack.com
dailycallernewsfoundation.org
threadreaderapp.com
