"Evidence-Based Medicine: Why it’s important and why it's controversial" - Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan interviewed by Lucy Johnston
IMO: a curate's egg.
In their latest substack article, Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan post a video of an interview they gave to Lucy Johnston in Oxford, which you can find via the article, or by clicking the below.
The interview starts off pretty well.
Early on Lucy asks (paraphrased and edited for clarity):
We recently had a novel virus; as we didn't have evidence for how it would spread and what its impact would be, why did you not think at that time it was best to follow the models that we had in helping us inform our decision making?
Tom responds (again, paraphrased and edited for clarity):
It’s an assumption there was a novel virus, but was it new, or newly identified? See the difference?
Indeed. That idea (that the only novel thing about 2020 was a response) is a hypothesis which I,
and have been putting forward repeatedly.From that point on, the discussion becomes rather mixed, though interspersed with occasional reusable gems - such as Tom’s great phrase “social butchery”.
Amongst the things mentioned with a level of credence which I take issue with are the following (my comments in square brackets):
previous pandemics [socio-political constructs]
seeding infections into nursing homes [cover for dystopian protocols]
people “got it” in hospital [what is “it”?]
localised outbreaks [of what? - testing is meaningless]
doing things better next time [do we really accept / believe we just had a “pandemic”?]
testing for acute respiratory infections [most infections are associated with unidentified / multiple patghogens with no useful one-to-one relationship, plus nasopharangeal swabbing has nothing to do with lung infections]
cases [are we accepting these meant anything at all?]
doing a trial of masks "next time" in children [no comment required]
Sweden did well [unnuanced - they still essentially killed people in care homes and blamed it on a virus, cited natural immunity in eschewing lockdowns then forgot about it when coercing all age groups to be injected with novel gene therapy]
In addition to the above, there were things not mentioned at all, which in my view cannot be omitted by anyone serious about analysing the essential nature of the “covid pandemic”.
The more obvious ones are:
The Scottish Inquiry, despite mentioning the London one
Euthanasia protocols, DNRs etc and several other dystopian responses to “positive tests” (though some aspects are mentioned)
The role of the nocebo effect
The implausibility of the December 2019 / January 2020 emergence timeline
The significance of finding “it” in so many places dating from before the emergency was declared, without having caused any excess deaths or clusters of unusual illness
The implausibility of the N Italy and NYC narratives which essentially drove the narrative, and the now copious evidence of likely data fraud
The upshot of the above is that the overall output of the conversation became a half-truth along these lines:
We panicked and caused a lot of harm through unevidenced measures; we must do better next time.
In my view it’s about time people who have the analytical skills, standing, experience and access to data stand up and properly demolish the narrative pushed by governments since 2020:
Have a listen and let me know what you think.
“In my view it’s about time people who have the analytical skills, standing, experience and access to data stand up and properly demolish the narrative pushed by governments since 2020.”
My view too!
It seems ‘COVID-19’ was common respiratory symptoms - What exactly is 'COVID-19'? https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/what-exactly-is-covid-19
And ‘they’ used this manufactured crisis to deliberately terrorise and exploit the people of the world.
‘Our’ systems were used against us - political, medical, scientific, legal, media…even the churches!
Wow…the treachery…
Biggest crime in history.
Now how to bring the perpetrators to account…
What causes a cold or respiratory dis-ease? No virus is required.
The established model of lung physiology FAILS under scrutiny. I’ll explain why HYDRATION and not oxygenation underpins our physiology. Understanding this destroys the sickness industrial complex and big pHARMa’s power.
A cough is a sign of respiratory dehydration not a virus or a bacterial infection. A runny nose is a sign of respiratory dehydration. Shortness of breath and difficulty breathing is a sign of respiratory dehydration. To understand this concept you need to know the extremely important difference between air and oxygen.
We breathe air not oxygen. The difference between air and oxygen is their moisture content, nothing else.
Air is measured by its moisture at a given temperature, humidity.
Oxygen is measured by its DRYNESS in parts per million of water contamination.
Oxygen has zero humidity. Air at the summit of Mt Everest has 1% humidity. Cold air holds the least moisture.
The lungs require inhaled air to be in the range of 30-50% humidity.
The lung alveoli requires air reaching it to be at 100% humidity, that is dew point or drop point.
Can you see the deadly mis-match?
Oxygen is manufactured by stripping air of moisture. Oxygen is a product of air NOT a constituent of air. Plants and trees do not produce oxygen.
There is no wild/natural oxygen in air. Oxygen becomes nitrogen or black oxygen with the addition of carbon particles to become non-flammable oxygen. I have a link to a brilliant demonstration of this on my stack, a home oxygen concentrator is used. You’ll learn how to test for air, oxygen and nitrogen.
The air we breathe has zero oxygen or nitrogen or the other 1% of ‘gases’. This is a schooled daze program.
The lungs are responsible for re-hydrating the red blood cells as they pass through the alveoli capillaries with salt water. The red blood cells are salt water carriers. The saline intravenous drip rehydrates red blood cells as they pass through the fluid. The saline IV is a hospital's no 1 remedy for very good reasons.
The insult that causes respiratory dis-stress is dehydration. It’s seasonal because cold air holds the least moisture and indoor room air often dries out with heating.
The dry mucosa must re-establish itself and the production of mucus goes into overdrive. The mucosa requires salt and moisture and it will move both from any bodily reserves. This causes pain as the extraction process goes into motion.
Now you know why the old remedies are successful.
Salt water gargles, nasal irrigations/inhalations and chicken soup / bone broth soups.
Sanatoriums were built along coastlines to take advantage of sea spray because it was known to heal injured lungs.
It is time we reclaimed the knowledge of hydration and healing.
Hydration equals salt plus water.
Healing begins with hydration.
Oxygen on release from containment wants to return to its natural state, air. Oxygen extracts moisture from its surroundings to do this. Oxygen released inside the respiratory tract extracts moisture and dehydrates the mucosa and the delicate alveoli sacs. Oxygen’s toxicity is directly related to its power to dehydrate. Reactive oxygen species ROS describes damage due to dehydration.
Oxygen is a prescribed drug. It is primarily prescribed for the terminally ill. Palliative care is not kind. Notice the portable oxygen tanks have no humidifier to mitigate oxygen’s well known ability to dehydrate.
Humidity is monitored in anaesthesia and mechanical ventilation. Even CPAP machines have humidifiers included. But the terminally ill are left with straight oxygen, to dry up inside, to endure immense suffering, so they wish for their own demise. The first sign of oxygen toxicity is a cough, then sternum pain.
We all need to comprehend the difference between air and oxygen. Read the material safety data sheets for oxygen and nitrogen. Both have unconsciousness and not breathing listed under inhalation.
There is more, I tip over a few sacred cows, get ready to revisit all you think you know. Click on my blue icon to read my 3 articles.
Curiosity will free your mind from the schooled daze programming.