The three authors of the GBD are contemptible deceivers of the worst kind. Measured words designed to deceive into influencing us to believe we should protect the vulnerable and elderly with measures now proven to be deadly. But not just deadly to the vulnerable and elderly, ALL of us.
Still no shame as they keep taking the money from the pharma cartel.
I'm very disappointed in Jay Bhattacharya and his colleague at Stanford John Ioannidis - in spite of their laudable opposition to lockdowns - for their support of the vaccines and their failure to support rational early treatment proticols. Ioannidis loves to say there is "no evidence" for early treatment of 'Covid'. He proudly accepts nothing but RCTs as evidence - an absurd position - even though response of an individual patient is perfectly good evidence in a clinical context that a treatment is worth pursuing. Rather than try something that is logical and promising, he would prefer to let the patient die on a respirator. He refuses to condemn Remdesivir, which is an obvious failure on his criteria. The vaccines cannot be supported on his criteria - as he must know - yet he will not say so.
These people will never accept the truth---that there is no such thing as "covid" and, possibly, no such thing as viruses and/or infectious disease epidemics. Their careers and incomes are threatened by these truths. By the middle of the 20th century improvement in the standards of living and antibiotics had virtually eliminated the problems of widespread illness and epidemics. Specialists in infectious disease and "public health" had outlived their usefulness. But there are an awful lot of government agencies, research scientists, pharmaceutical companies, and others whose very existence is dependent upon the viral and communicable disease narrative. So despite the fact that covid (or any other virus) has never been physically isolated and experiments designed to demonstrate the communicability of viral illness have uniformly failed, they continue to support the narrative that supports them.
I still don’t know exactly what to believe when it comes to the virus-no virus debate, but the longer this diabolical shit show from our so-called “healthcare experts” continues, the more I’m inclined to distrust absolutely EVERY single alleged truth they spout … there is far more to be gained from healthy diet, lifestyle, exercise, fresh air, sunshine, and just being a decent human being than taking any drugs.
I have become somewhat agnostic on the virus question but am now leaning heavily to the "no virus" side. I had always accepted what I was taught in medical school---that viruses were these particles that caused infections on a roughly seasonal basis and that you couldn't do much about it but the body's natural immune system would take care of it. Through 40 years of medical practice I didn't give it much thought since it wasn't a large part of my particular specialty. But when the covid episode started, I smelled a rat right away because the news that was being broadcast about crowded hospital wards and such was demonstrably absent from my large community hospital here in southern California as well as others in the nearby areas. I began researching the whole virus question and stumbled upon some articles that questioned even the existence of viruses. Many of the arguments supporting the no virus position made sense from a biological standpoint so I went to the virology literature in order to see if they had effective counter arguments or evidence and found that they had none and, seemingly, just ignored the challenges presented by the people who argued against the very existence of viruses.
You did come across quite clearly. I am not enamoured of the word 'professional' although is does contain the anagram 'passion'.
But then again it also contains the word 'poisoner'!
But amateur, considered the opposite of professional, is derived from the Latin 'amator' meaning 'lover'. An amateur is a lover and in this case we can say especially a lover of the truth re COVID.
So if you write what you do for that reason I think it is a good thing you are not a professional writer!
Bad guys pretending to be "good guys" are far worse than the out there bad guys by way of their fake sincerity. Dave asks pertinent questions that require answers. Instead, as the guilty/ sociopaths often do, they attack the person instead of the questions. Dave 1, Jay 0.
Excellent push-back by David. How many of the GBD authors have spoken about the Scottish COVID-19 inquiry truthbombs in 12 months? THAT as always is a dead giveaway. eg- That they are unconsciously attatched to a false reality or are consciously pushing an agenda (i think the latter). You can repeat this with the World Council for Health and many more. Jonathan, perhaps ask Dr.Jay why as a doctor that claims to be all about EVIDENCE yet he has nothing to say over Scottish COVID inquiry revelations? THE WORLD'S ONLY official inquiry to lift the lid on the ''COVID pandemic'' and THE BEST EVIDENCE to date.
It was always perplexing to me that Dr. B was able to survive at Stanford, the intellectual center of the campaign against misinformation.... But if his message is just the other side of the culling campaign's message, it all begins to make sense.
Having just looked again at The GBD when it was put out on October 4th 2020 ( pre jab roll out)it is evident the authors were trying to 'move the dial' against the blanket lockdowns. They did propose and argue for Focused Protection, and gave an example for people in care homes. They suggested staff should undergo regular testing and staff rotation kept to the minimum. Professor Gupta, one of the authors, was sceptical about the alleged virulence of (what was called) Covid-19 and flagged up the collateral damage was doing for all sections of society.
Then, in 2020, it was still the thick of the government's agenda, Statutory Instruments rmultiplying to constrain normal life, Tiers established, slavish reporting of 'exponentially' rising cases...the GBD tried for a much less restrictive approach, which was howled down by many, ridiculed for encouraging herd immunity, its authors dismissed. It carried no weight.
I don't believe in October 2020 they were "contemptible deceivers". I don't think they will step forward now and people should not set so much store by them. They are the past but there are many others now who can be depended upon to keep calling out the disaster of lockdowns and the not "safe and effective" jabs.
Some individuals and/ or groups will persist in exposing the ruination of the 'covid' agenda, others will fade from the scene, or disappear completely, for multiple reasons. I don't think it is helpful to focus on such types....negative energy, division only result, ( something to please those pulling the strings these days).
They promulgated the plandemic when it was blindingly obvious there wasn't one. There has never been one.
The promulgated isolation of the most vulnerable to the effects of being isolated.
They promulgated the use of killzines against the mythical plandemic. Killzines which were developed at "warp speed" without even the pretence of safety and efficacy testing.
Not that any killzines has proven safety nor efficacy and all three like killzines.
The three authors of the GBD are contemptible deceivers of the worst kind. Measured words designed to deceive into influencing us to believe we should protect the vulnerable and elderly with measures now proven to be deadly. But not just deadly to the vulnerable and elderly, ALL of us.
Still no shame as they keep taking the money from the pharma cartel.
I'm very disappointed in Jay Bhattacharya and his colleague at Stanford John Ioannidis - in spite of their laudable opposition to lockdowns - for their support of the vaccines and their failure to support rational early treatment proticols. Ioannidis loves to say there is "no evidence" for early treatment of 'Covid'. He proudly accepts nothing but RCTs as evidence - an absurd position - even though response of an individual patient is perfectly good evidence in a clinical context that a treatment is worth pursuing. Rather than try something that is logical and promising, he would prefer to let the patient die on a respirator. He refuses to condemn Remdesivir, which is an obvious failure on his criteria. The vaccines cannot be supported on his criteria - as he must know - yet he will not say so.
Simply because they make more money by killing us. It's not about the "science".
These people will never accept the truth---that there is no such thing as "covid" and, possibly, no such thing as viruses and/or infectious disease epidemics. Their careers and incomes are threatened by these truths. By the middle of the 20th century improvement in the standards of living and antibiotics had virtually eliminated the problems of widespread illness and epidemics. Specialists in infectious disease and "public health" had outlived their usefulness. But there are an awful lot of government agencies, research scientists, pharmaceutical companies, and others whose very existence is dependent upon the viral and communicable disease narrative. So despite the fact that covid (or any other virus) has never been physically isolated and experiments designed to demonstrate the communicability of viral illness have uniformly failed, they continue to support the narrative that supports them.
I still don’t know exactly what to believe when it comes to the virus-no virus debate, but the longer this diabolical shit show from our so-called “healthcare experts” continues, the more I’m inclined to distrust absolutely EVERY single alleged truth they spout … there is far more to be gained from healthy diet, lifestyle, exercise, fresh air, sunshine, and just being a decent human being than taking any drugs.
I have become somewhat agnostic on the virus question but am now leaning heavily to the "no virus" side. I had always accepted what I was taught in medical school---that viruses were these particles that caused infections on a roughly seasonal basis and that you couldn't do much about it but the body's natural immune system would take care of it. Through 40 years of medical practice I didn't give it much thought since it wasn't a large part of my particular specialty. But when the covid episode started, I smelled a rat right away because the news that was being broadcast about crowded hospital wards and such was demonstrably absent from my large community hospital here in southern California as well as others in the nearby areas. I began researching the whole virus question and stumbled upon some articles that questioned even the existence of viruses. Many of the arguments supporting the no virus position made sense from a biological standpoint so I went to the virology literature in order to see if they had effective counter arguments or evidence and found that they had none and, seemingly, just ignored the challenges presented by the people who argued against the very existence of viruses.
Well said.
Thank you for the kind words. I am not a professional writer and, therefore, glad that it came across in an understandable way.
You did come across quite clearly. I am not enamoured of the word 'professional' although is does contain the anagram 'passion'.
But then again it also contains the word 'poisoner'!
But amateur, considered the opposite of professional, is derived from the Latin 'amator' meaning 'lover'. An amateur is a lover and in this case we can say especially a lover of the truth re COVID.
So if you write what you do for that reason I think it is a good thing you are not a professional writer!
Bad guys pretending to be "good guys" are far worse than the out there bad guys by way of their fake sincerity. Dave asks pertinent questions that require answers. Instead, as the guilty/ sociopaths often do, they attack the person instead of the questions. Dave 1, Jay 0.
Excellent push-back by David. How many of the GBD authors have spoken about the Scottish COVID-19 inquiry truthbombs in 12 months? THAT as always is a dead giveaway. eg- That they are unconsciously attatched to a false reality or are consciously pushing an agenda (i think the latter). You can repeat this with the World Council for Health and many more. Jonathan, perhaps ask Dr.Jay why as a doctor that claims to be all about EVIDENCE yet he has nothing to say over Scottish COVID inquiry revelations? THE WORLD'S ONLY official inquiry to lift the lid on the ''COVID pandemic'' and THE BEST EVIDENCE to date.
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquirycare-home
It was always perplexing to me that Dr. B was able to survive at Stanford, the intellectual center of the campaign against misinformation.... But if his message is just the other side of the culling campaign's message, it all begins to make sense.
Having just looked again at The GBD when it was put out on October 4th 2020 ( pre jab roll out)it is evident the authors were trying to 'move the dial' against the blanket lockdowns. They did propose and argue for Focused Protection, and gave an example for people in care homes. They suggested staff should undergo regular testing and staff rotation kept to the minimum. Professor Gupta, one of the authors, was sceptical about the alleged virulence of (what was called) Covid-19 and flagged up the collateral damage was doing for all sections of society.
Then, in 2020, it was still the thick of the government's agenda, Statutory Instruments rmultiplying to constrain normal life, Tiers established, slavish reporting of 'exponentially' rising cases...the GBD tried for a much less restrictive approach, which was howled down by many, ridiculed for encouraging herd immunity, its authors dismissed. It carried no weight.
I don't believe in October 2020 they were "contemptible deceivers". I don't think they will step forward now and people should not set so much store by them. They are the past but there are many others now who can be depended upon to keep calling out the disaster of lockdowns and the not "safe and effective" jabs.
Some individuals and/ or groups will persist in exposing the ruination of the 'covid' agenda, others will fade from the scene, or disappear completely, for multiple reasons. I don't think it is helpful to focus on such types....negative energy, division only result, ( something to please those pulling the strings these days).
They promulgated the plandemic when it was blindingly obvious there wasn't one. There has never been one.
The promulgated isolation of the most vulnerable to the effects of being isolated.
They promulgated the use of killzines against the mythical plandemic. Killzines which were developed at "warp speed" without even the pretence of safety and efficacy testing.
Not that any killzines has proven safety nor efficacy and all three like killzines.
I'll stand by my comments.
Hi. Can you point me to a source (video, article etc) where Dr Gupta expressed skepticism about the virulence of SARS-CoV-2? Thanks!
It's no wonder the twitter account republishing details of the Scottish Covid Inquiry has been suspended for many weeks now. Uggh.