Categories
Videos

Why are health professionals being silenced? – Australia One Party

Riccardo Bosi interviews health professionals about censorship. Featuring Professor Dolores Cahill and Ros Nealon-Cook

https://www.facebook.com/australiaoneparty/videos/430638731822806

Backup mirrors:

Categories
News

A Message to the UK Government and the BBC – Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Oracle Films

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi: “You are now witnessing the greatest crime that England has ever committed in its history.”

Categories
Videos

Herd Immunity – Professor Sunetra Gupta, Collateral Global

Professor Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University explains herd immunity, highlighting critical details about both the concept and its relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic that are often overlooked in public discussion.

The development of immunity through natural infection is a common feature of many pathogens, and we now know that COVID-19 does not have any tricks up its sleeve to prevent this from happening. If it did, it would have posed a serious problem for the development of a vaccine.

That being said, COVID-19 belongs to a family of viruses that do not typically confer lifelong immunity against infection. Most of us have never heard of the other four ‘seasonal’ coronaviruses that are currently circulating in our communities. And yet, surveys indicate that at least 3% of the population is infected by any one of these corona cousins during the winter months each year. These viruses can – and do – cause deaths in high-risk groups or require them to receive ICU care or ventilator support. Hence, it is not necessarily true that they are intrinsically milder than the novel COVID-19 virus. And like the COVID-19 virus, the other coronas are much less virulent in the healthy elderly and younger people than influenza.

One important reason why these corona cousins do not kill large numbers of people is that, even though we lose immunity and can be reinfected, there is always a sufficient proportion of immune people within the population to keep the risk of infection low for those who might die upon contracting it. Also, all of the coronaviruses in circulation — including COVID-19 — have some features in common, which means that getting one coronavirus will probably offer some protection against the others. This is becoming increasingly clear from work in many labs, including my lab in Oxford. It is against the background of acquired immunity to COVID-19 itself, as well as its close relations, that the new virus has to operate.

It is misleading to speak of “reaching” herd immunity. Herd immunity is a continuous variable that increases as people become immune and decreases as they lose immunity or die. There is a threshold of herd immunity at which the rate of new infections begins to decrease. We do not yet have a clear idea of what this threshold is for COVID-19 as the transmission landscape includes people who are susceptible to it, people who have built up immunity to it, and people who have immunity to other coronaviruses.

Unfortunately, we do not have a good way of telling how many people have been exposed to the new virus, nor how many people were resistant to begin with. We can test for antibodies but, as with other coronaviruses, COVID-19 antibody levels decline after recovery, and some people do not make them at all. Thus, antibody levels will not answer this question. More and more evidence is accumulating that other arms of immunity, like T cells, play an important role.

Indications of the herd immunity threshold having been reached in a given location are visible in the time signatures of epidemics where death and infection curves tend to either “bend” in the absence of intervention or to stay down when interventions are relaxed (in comparison with other locations where the opposite happened). Unfortunately, we do not know how far (or close) we are to that threshold in most parts of the world. This means that we need to make public health decisions based only on limited information and do so in a constantly changing environment.

Focused Protection was initially proposed as a solution for how we could proceed in the face of such uncertainty and it remains relevant now. It suggests that we exploit the fact that COVID-19 does not cause much harm to the large majority of the population and allow those individuals to resume their normal lives, while shielding those who are vulnerable to severe disease and death. We have good information about who falls into these groups and the availability of vaccines, which offer excellent protection for vulnerable populations and guard against hospitalisable illness, provide us with the ideal setting in which to implement such a plan.

Sunetra Gupta is Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology in the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford and a member of Collateral Global’s Scientific Advisory Board.

By Professor Sunetra Gupta
28 May 2021

Backup mirrors:

Categories
Opinion

Major misunderstaning by vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi – Dr. Clare Craig

Dr. Clare Craig points out an error by vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi about what 60% vaccine efficacy means.

  • If vaccines have 60% efficacy that does not mean that 60% cannot be infected.
  • It means that if 90% of unvaccinated household contacts don’t catch it from index case, then if they were vaccinated that rises to 96%.
  • Around 10% of close contacts catch it from an index case. (Source: Public Health England Technical Briefing 15)
  • A vaccine with hypothetical 60% efficacy would reduce the proportion who caught it by 60% – to 4%.
  • 90% would not catch it in either instance.
  • 4% were protected thanks to vaccination.
Categories
Opinion

I have not been silenced – Dr. Malcolm Kendrick

Here is statement from Dr. Malcolm Kendrick which deserves to be archived in full. Links to the to original post and archive can be found below.

Thank you to the many people who have e-mailed me recently and asked if I have been silenced. I have not. I have had letters from Public Health England and the General Medical Council, informing me that I was under investigation for daring to question anything about COVID19, particularly vaccines.

The good news is the investigations ended up nowhere, and were closed down. I have also had irate phone calls from doctors, telling me that I must not question vaccination and suchlike. This has been somewhat wearing and has caused me to remain silent for a while and think about things.

However, I do know how to play the medical regulations game. Don’t make a statement you cannot reference from a peer-reviewed journal. Don’t give direct advice to people over the internet. Provide facts, and do not make statements such as ‘vaccines are killing thousands of people.’ Or suchlike.

Not that I ever would. My self-appointed role within the COVID19 mayhem, was to search for the truth – as far as it could be found – and to attempt to provide useful information for those who wish to read my blog.

The main reason for prolonged silence, and introspection, is that I am not sure I can find the truth. I do not know if it can be found anymore. Today I am unsure what represents a fact, and what has simply been made up. A sad and scary state of affairs.

This is not just true of the mainstream and the mainstream media, which has simply decided to parrot all Government and WHO statements without any critical engagement…or thought. For example, the BBC intones that ‘In the last day, fifty people died within twenty-eight days of a positive COVID19 test…’ Or a hundred, or six. What the hell is this supposed to mean? It means nothing, it is the very definition of scientific meaninglessness.

Especially when it seems that very nearly a half of those admitted to hospital with COVID19 were not admitted to hospital with COVID19. They were admitted with something else entirely, then had a positive test whilst in hospital. In short, they were not admitted to hospital with COVID19, and almost certainly did not die of COVID19. They died with a positive COVID19 test. With, not of.

But the misinformation is equally a problem for those on the other side. Claims are made for the benefits of Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, I believe both drugs may provide some benefit, but not the claimed 90% reduction in deaths that I have seen trumpeted.

So, I have given up on COVID19. It is a complete mess, and I feel that, without being certain of the ground under my feet, I have nothing to contribute. I too am in danger of starting to make statements that are not true.

However, before leaving the area entirely, I would like to make clear some of the things I currently believe to be true, and what I do not believe to be true. If this is of any assistance to anyone. Very little is referenced, because I can very easily find a contradictory reference to any reference I provide. For each fact, there is an equal and opposite fact.

1: SARS-CoV2 exists

Many people have stated, probably correctly, that the SARS-CoV2 virus has never been fully isolated. Whatever exactly that means. Have Koch’s postulates been met? [see a bit later on] I think for viruses, Koch’s postulates are very rarely, if ever, met. Does it matter, not really.

Despite this gap I believe that SARS-CoV2 truly is a ‘new’ virus that did not exist before. So, it must have mutated somewhere, or been mutated somewhere, from another coronavirus… probably. Although it seems that SARS-CoV2 does not mutate. Instead, it creates variants which, somehow or other, is a completely different process to a mutation! I have found that language in this area means little, and words are simply twisted to suit a particular narrative.

I feel it is most likely this mutation occurred within a laboratory in Wuhan during gain of function research. But I don’t suppose we will ever know. It seems unlikely to be something that the Chinese authorities are ever going to admit… ever. As a general rule, the more fervently, and angrily, the Chinese state denies something – the more likely it is to be true.

This is a special case of a general rule that I modestly call the ‘Kendrick reverse meaning law.’ Which developed from P.G. Wodehouse’s observation that ‘When an Englishman says ‘trust me’ it is time to start counting the spoons.’

This reverse meaning was seen clearly when Matt Hancock (UK Health Secretary at the time) stated that ‘Right from the start we’ve tried to throw a ring of steel around our care homes.’ Which actually meant that ‘Right from the start we threw care homes under a bus.’ Unless, what he actually meant was that the ring of steel was put up to stop care home residents escaping. ‘Halt, who goes there….’ Sound of heavy machine gun fire, whistles screeching, attack dogs baying at the leash. ‘Go for the Zimmer frames, that should bring them down.’

2: SARS-CoV2 is generally more deadly than influenza

Of course, SARS-CoV2 is most certainly not deadlier than the influenza epidemic of 1918-19. Which is estimated to have wiped out 2% of the entire world’s population. It is probably not more deadly than the 1957 epidemic, or the 1967 influenza epidemic. But it seems more deadly than anything in the last forty years, or so. So, a bit more deadly than most influenzas that sweep through humanity every year, or so. Give or take.

Currently, SARS-CoV2 is reckoned to have killed four and half million people across the Globe. Which is 0.07% of the world’s population. However, there is an immediate problem here. With influenza, we count for one year, then start again the next year. With COVID19 we have just kept on counting, adding this year figures to last years, and so on!

Eventually, therefore, assuming COVID19 comes and goes like the flu, and we just keep on counting without end, it will end up killing a hundred million. Making it the deadliest virus ever. Far worse than any influenza? At the current rate this will take another thirty years, or so. Within one thousand six hundred and sixty-six years it will have killed everyone. Of course, there will have been a few billion replacement humans created during that time.

What is far more important is to know the infection fatality rate (IFR)? That is, what percentage of those infected with SARS-CoV2 will die? This, I am afraid, we are never going to know, as the definition of what the word ‘infected’ means has flipped this way and that and can never be pinned down.

Does it mean a positive test? Does it mean a positive test plus symptoms? [Which used to be called a ‘case’] Does it mean something else. What does infected actually mean…

Here, I defer to the Master – Lewis Carroll:

‘When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”

Accepting that no-one will define what COVID19 infection actually means, I believe the infection fatality rate is, (using previous used definitions) settling at around 0.15%. At least it was last time I looked. This was never enough to justify the panicked actions that have taken place around the globe. Never.

3: The figures make no sense – and never will

One of the central problems here, form which all other problems flow, is that the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test is the test against which the PCR test itself is tested. We have nothing better. So, we are completely reliant on it being accurate. However, we cannot know how accurate it truly is, because there is no test against which to compare it.

I mentioned Koch’s postulates earlier. These are the tests which can prove if a ‘micro-organism’ is actually causing the disease. The ultimate gold standard:

The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent. And good luck with all of that. The truth is that these postulates can work for bacteria, but not really for viruses. Because it is very difficult to meet them. I am not sure if they have ever been truly met for any virus.

On the matter of finding out if the virus is truly present, in anyone diagnosed with COVID19, here is a letter that was published in the BMJ in October last year

‘We are told that the virus is everywhere – in the air, in our breath, on fomites, trapped in masks – yet public health authorities seem not to be in possession of any cultivable clinical samples of the offending pathogen.

In March 2020, the World Health Organisation instructed authorities not to look for a virus but to rely instead on a genome test, the RT-PCR, which is not specific for SARS-CoV-2 (1) (2).

A Freedom of Information request to Public Health England about cultivable clinical samples or direct evidence of viral isolation has no information and refers to the proxy RT-PCR test, quoting Eurosurveillance (3).

Eurosurveillance states: “Virus detection by reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) from respiratory samples is widely used to diagnose and monitor SARS-CoV-2 infection and, increasingly, to infer infectivity of an individual. However, RT-PCR does not distinguish between infectious and non-infectious virus. Propagating virus from clinical samples confirms the presence of infectious virus but is not widely available (and) requires biosafety level 3 facilities” (4).

The CDC admits that, “no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available”, and used a genetically modified human lung alveolar adenocarcinoma cell culture to, “mimic clinical specimen”(5).

It appears, therefore, that we have public health bodies without clinical samples, a test which is non-specific and does not distinguish between infectivity and non-infectivity, a requirement for biosafety level 3 facilities to even look for a virus, yet we are led to believe that it is up all our noses.

So, where is the virus?’

(1) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/10665-331501

(2) https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2420/rr-5

(3) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/679566/response/1625332/attach/ht…

(4) https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.32…

(5) https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download 1

After reading this, do I still think SARS-CoV2 exists? Yes, I do. I firmly believe that I watched people dying of it, from it. They died in a way I have never seen people do so before, and I have seen a lot of people die. They seemed quite well, then suddenly their oxygen sats dropped like a stone – they still seemed okay otherwise – then they died. The end.

Very strange, and rather disturbing. I started slipping an oxygen saturation monitor onto my finger from time to time. Just in case. 99% is my average reading, if you are interested. It never dropped.

However, getting back to the testing. If you truly want to confirm the presence of a virus in a sample, you need to send it to biosafety level 3 facilities to isolate it, grow it (not really the correct word for a virus), and suchlike. This is never done in the clinical setting.

You could argue that if you wait for antibodies to develop, you can ‘prove’ that someone was infected, or not, and thus work out how accurate the PCR test has been retrospectively. Perhaps…

I speak as someone who needed seven Hepatitis B vaccinations before I produced any detectable antibodies. Did I have immunity after the first six, or not? Am I someone who simply does not make many antibodies, but still have immunity through other mechanisms? Do others simply not produce antibodies, or their level drops so fast, that they effectively disappear?

Yes, serological testing (looking for antibodies), has its own very significant problems.

‘Serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 have accuracy issues that warrant attention. They measure specific antibody responses which may take some weeks to develop after disease onset reducing the sensitivity of the assay. If blood samples were collected during the early stage of the infection, they may produce false negative results. They do not directly detect the presence of the virus. Further, antibodies may be present when SARS-CoV-2 is no longer present giving false positive case diagnosis.’ 2

In reality, we are relying on a PCR test to diagnose SARS-CoV2 infection, the accuracy of which is entirely dependent on believing that the test is accurate. Yes, that is the route to madness.

At present, in the UK, we are doing about one million tests a day 3.

We are getting about thirty thousand ‘positive’ results. Or, about 3% positive. How many of these are truly positive? Well, you can take a wild guess on that one. At one point, the CDC stated that 30% of the PCR tests were false positives. A ‘false positive’ means that test says you have the disease, when you do not. [A false negative informs you that you do not have the disease, when you do] 4.

The thirty per cent cannot be the case currently, because that would mean if you did one million tests, you would get more than three hundred thousand false positives. Instead we are getting thirty thousand, which means that it is impossible for the false positive rate to be higher than three per cent.

So, what is the true rate? Well, if is three percent, then virtually every single positive test is a false positive test. [Three per cent of one million is thirty thousand] Which would mean that no-one in the UK currently has COVID19, and everything we are doing is completely pointless. It also means that people admitted to hospital with COVID19 do not have the disease, they are suffering from, and dying from, something else with a false positive COVID19 false test stamped on their forehead.

Is it possible that no-one actually is infected with SARS-CoV2? Well, it is certainly not impossible. Here is a graph of overall mortality (risk of dying of anything) from England. These figures, unlike most others, are pretty much fully reliable. Someone is either dead, or they are not. It is a difficult thing to get wrong, or manipulate. There can be some delay in registering a death, but this is not normally a major issue.

The graph starts in last quarter 2017. As you can see, a spike in overall mortality in Spring 2020, A spike in Winter 2020/21. Currently, no excess mortality at all. So, if COVID19 is infecting hundreds of thousands of people each week, it is not showing up as any excess deaths… at all 5.

Does this mean that COVID19 has gone, and we are rushing around panicking about false positive tests? Or is it still here? Still here I think… but who knows… who knows.

This is the main reason I have given up. I just don’t know what to believe – apart from overall mortality figures. The figures are spun and massage, twisted and mangled.

Another reason why I have given up trying to make any sense of COVID19 is the enormous differences in overall mortality seen in countries that are virtually identical in life expectancy, healthcare systems, actions taken against COVID19 etc. etc.

Afters studying the figures from England, I looked at the figures from Northern Ireland.

Both countries [yes, Northern Ireland is not actually a separate country, it is part of the UK] did almost exactly the same things when it came to COVID19. They both have the National Health Service, they are as close to each other as can be – in terms of COVID19, and most other things. Here is the graph of overall morality for Northern Ireland.

Which means that something very dramatic happened in England, with regard to COVID19? Yet nothing happened in Northern Ireland. This, to me, is fascinating, although I cannot explain it. However, I know that if you were able explain why these two graphs are so weirdly different, you will be unearthing some critical truths with regard to COVID19.

Of course, no-one is remotely interested in such anomalies. Instead, they point to a country like Norway and say – ‘Look how well they did with their rapid lockdown, and preventing people crossing the border’. No-one points to Northern Ireland and says, ‘look how well they did with all their….’ All their what? All their doing exactly the same as England.

Yes, Northern Ireland does not fit with the approved narrative, so it is ignored. Anything that does not fit with the mask wearing, social isolating, vaccination will save the world narrative is simply ignored.

Or it is shouted down or censored by the self-appointed Fact-checkers. Those mighty intellects who can determine what is true, and what is not. It was thoughtful of them to descend from Mount Olympus to mingle amongst feeble minded humanity and tell us what we should, and should not, be thinking. We must all be eternally grateful that the ‘Truth Gods’ now live amongst us, to firmly inform us all what, and how, we should be thinking. And shut us down if we veer from the official narrative.

Anyway, faced with a situation where there are almost no facts that can be relied upon, from anywhere, I have officially removed myself from all discussions on the matter of COVID19.

Instead, I shall return to other areas where, whilst the truth is constantly battered and bruised, and lying in a bruised heap the corner, it is still breathing … just about alive. Sometimes it is capable of weakly raising its head and whispering quietly into my ear. I shall let you know what it says.

1: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3379/rr-2

2: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-021-01689-3

3: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.38943459.111756282.1590603430-1775824629.1590603430

4: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1411/rr

5: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/09/03/i-have-not-been-silenced/

http://archive.today/2021.09.04-103817/https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/09/03/i-have-not-been-silenced/

Categories
Opinion

OUR GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE HANDLING OF THE COVID PANDEMIC BY GOVERNMENTS OF THE NATIONS OF THE UK – COVID19 Assembly

We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally “smeared” by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.

https://www.covid19assembly.org/doctors-open-letter/

Categories
Videos

Dr. Tess Lawrie Interview – Oracle Films

Dr. Tess Lawrie is a world-class researcher and consultant to the World Health Organisation. Her biggest clients happen to be those who are involved in the suppression of repurposed drugs. She has decided to speak out in protest against the current medical establishment at considerable personal risk.

She co-founded the BiRD Group; an international consortium of experts dedicated to the transparent and accurate scientific research of Ivermectin, with particular emphasis on the treatment and prevention of Covid-19.

Categories
Videos

Dr. Sam White on The James Delingpole Channel

Dr Sam White is a GP in the UK. He was recently suspended by the NHS for speaking out about informed consent, the safety of the vaccine and other safe and effective alternative treatments.

He is now running a campaign to promote his concerns about the vaccine and the plan to vaccinate children.

Categories
Videos

Proof that puts an end to the Sars-CoV-2 Narrative – Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Oracle Films

Some good news and some troubling news, from Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D.

Oracle Films recently produced an interview with Professor Sucharit Bhakdi in collaboration with Oval Media in Germany, for an upcoming documentary.

As an aside to the interview, Dr. Bhakdi emphasised the urgent need to share the following information that has emerged from new scientific literature.

PLEASE take the time to process this presentation. Dr. Bhakdi explains clearly, based on new scientific evidence, why he believes:

* Your immune system is your best defence against SARS-CoV-2, and indeed all coronaviruses. If you have been infected, even if you experienced no symptoms at all, you are immune to all variants.
* We have already reached herd immunity.
* There is no scientific reason to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2. There is simply no benefit and the rollout must be stopped.

Scientific literature references for Dr. Bhakdi’s presentation:

Update: On 17 July 2021, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche posted a response to Dr. Bhakdi’s conclusions. Both agree that mass vaccination should halt but differ on the dangers of variants and whether herd immunity has been reached.

Categories
Videos

Dr. Roger Hodkinson interview – Alison Morrow

The Associated Press recently ran a story they said debunked the dissenting Covid concerns of pathologist, Dr. Roger Hodkinson. In their article titled, “Pathologist falsely claims COVID-19 is a hoax, no worse than the flu,” they misrepresented several of Dr. Hodkinson’s statements. The also wrote specifically saying they were planning to debunk him, not understand what he meant. Dr Hodkinson is a medical specialist in pathology and graduate of Cambridge University, UK. He is a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. He was previously the President of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians, an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Alberta, and CEO of a large community based medical laboratory with a full menu of testing for infectious disease and virology. He is currently the Chairman of an American biotechnology company active in DNA sequencing.

Categories
Opinion Videos

Dr. Robert Malone Interview – Inventor Of mRNA Technology Censored For Speaking Out On Vaccine Risks – The Last American Vagabond

Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA technology used in the COVID-19 injections, discusses his concerns over their safety and how concerns are censored. 

  • “I have been written out of history.”
  • The chairman of the board of Reuters sits on the board of Pfizer.
  • The conflicts of interests are overt…it’s in your face…they have no shame.
  • The big thinkers in the government envy the Chinese model of government.
  • The political spectrum is irrelevant [on the topic of COVID and vaccines].
  • These discussions are forbidden talk so we won’t get to the truth.
  • Detailed discussion on the cytotoxic effects of spike proteins and safety of the new mRNA COVID vaccines at around 40mins.
  • Dr. Malone agrees with many of Dr. Mike Yeadon‘s comments, except Dr. Yeadon’s conclusion of a conspiracy.
  • The figure of 70% uptake of vaccines to reach herd immunity was made up. The data isn’t known. “Somebody is just pulling it out of the air.”
  • The vaccines don’t stop you from getting the virus or spreading it.
  • The early trials were designed to optimise success.
  • You cannot publish stuff outside of the approved memes and that means we can’t do science. People are dying because of this.
  • Other treatments have been suppressed to increase uptake of the vaccine.
  • The fear is bringing out social pathologies and is diminishing our ability to think.
  • We’ve had rampant groupthink in the government, in the WHO and across the world.
  • “I’ve never seen this level of co-ordinated crazy.”
  • “I’m concerned about what’s at the other side of the tunnel.”
  • The new COVID-19 vaccines are still experimental.
  • “Most of us who haven’t drunk the Koolaid” say the risk of COVID to children is remarkably low and the risk of vaccines is not nothing.
  • There is no logic in vaccinating children, adolescents and young adults. There are some risk and they’re not trivial.

Source links can be found at The Last American Vagabond.

Categories
Videos

Dr. Peter McCullough interview by John Leake

Dr. Peter McCullough has been the world’s most prominent and vocal advocate for early outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection in order to prevent hospitalization and death. On May 19, 2021, I interviewed him about his efforts as a treating physician and researcher. From his unique vantage point, he has observed and documented a profoundly disturbing policy response to the pandemic—a policy response that may prove to be the greatest malpractice and malfeasance in the history of medicine and public health.”

Link to interview audio format released by Julian Charles of The Mind Renewed podcast.

Backup mirror:

Categories
Videos

Dr. Roger Hodkinson – Investigative Corona Committee Germany Session 56

Dr Hodkinson is the CEO of Western Medical Assessments, and has been the Company’s Medical Director for over 20 years. He received his general medical degrees from Cambridge University in the UK, and then became a Royal College certified pathologist in Canada (FRCPC) following a residency in Vancouver, BC.

Source: Western Medical Assessments
  • Dr Hodkinson’s interview is at 2h49m.

Find out more about the Investigative Corona Committee Germany.

The video at https://youtu.be/OjhM3XRN5js?t=10145 has been removed from YouTube

Backup mirrors:

A shortened version of the video Session 56 has been uploaded to Bitchute by Coronavirus Plushie.

Categories
Videos

Investigative Corona Committee Germany Session 56 (Full video)

Dr. Michael Dykta, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Professor Arne Burkhardt, Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Roger Hodkinson speak with Dr. Reiner Fuellmich on Germany’s Investigative Corona Committee Session 56.

  • Dr McCullough’s is at around 1h35m.
  • Dr Hodkinson’s interview is at 2h49m.

Find out more about the Investigative Corona Committee Germany.

The full video has been removed from YouTube. You can find a backup mirror below:

Categories
Opinion

I’m a doctor, but Covid’s broken my faith in medical research. I can’t believe anything I read or accept any mainstream facts – Dr Malcolm Kendrick, RT

The main purpose of science is to question and attack. To subject ideas to the greatest scrutiny. Those who decide to shut down and stifle debate – whatever they may believe themselves to be doing – are, in fact, traitors to the cause of science. Stranglers of the enlightenment, assassins of progress.

They are not alone, and things have gotten far worse in the past year or so. Science has taken a terrible battering during Covid-19, though I have always known that dissent against a widely held scientific hypothesis is difficult.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/525071-doctor-covid-medical-research/

Categories
Videos

Dr. Hodkinson Interview – COVID-19 Vaccines, Infertility & Spike Protein Dangers

Dr. Hodkinson, here to discuss the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines, the possibility of infertility, and the very real concerns about the vaccine-induced spike proteins and what new scientific research is clearly suggesting about their risks to your health.

Categories
Videos

Professor Dolores Cahill says that mRNA vaccines enhances the illness and the disease – Asia Pacific Today

Citizens subjected to punitive restrictions on their liberties and movement for more than 12 months, are now being forced into mass, and what will soon be, mandatory vaccination programs to gain back their freedoms. Political leaders continue use the vacuous and dishonest slogan of “following the science” that many still believe, but are they leading us into another form of hell?

The Covid-19 vaccines are new vaccines and only provisionally approved. They are still in the trial phase which ends at earliest in 2023. Brilliant they may well be, and enormously enriching for their investors, but are our Government’s providing the facts for informed choice in vaccination? Are there other risks to their rushed vaccine rollouts, including to front line medical and essential service workers? And why are so many eminent scientists and influential community leaders in our countries being silenced by social and mainstream media?

The Victorian Government recently commissioned a paper entitled Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies. We are not hopeful but will attempt to discuss the paper with one of its authors in another episode.

In the meantime, to talk about mRNA vaccines and Antibody Dependent Enhancement is Professor Dolores Cahill, a renown expert in immunology and the study of immune systems.

Dr. Cahill is a Professor of University College Dublin and was Group Leader of the Max-Planck-Institute in Berlin, Germany from 1995 to 2003. She is an Inventor, Founder and Shareholder of companies and has international Patents with applications for improving the early diagnosis of diseases such as auto immune diseases & cancer.

Dr. Cahill has been an Expert in the EU for some 15 years in Future & Emerging technologies. Professor Cahill’s latest business ventures include the World Freedom Alliance, a worldwide platform of organisations offering access to justice, true dialogue for health science and politics, holding worldwide officials to account under the law. The World Freedom Alliance offers transparent evidence-based solutions and encourages robust debate with media, scientists and governments to ensure fundamental freedoms for people of the world.

Categories
Videos

COVID Vaccine Blood Clot Risk Was Known, Ignored & Buried – Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a Thai-German microbiologist, discusses mRNA vaccines, blood clots and Cerebral Venous Thrombosis. He warned about the vaccine side-effects months before the roll-out and appears to have been proven correct.

Categories
Videos

The Lockdowns Are Creating a New Virus. Then We Have a New Epidemic – Dr Knut Wittkowski

“We have to stop the nonsense. We have entered a vicious cycle. With every new wave, we’re starting a new wave of lockdowns. The lockdowns are creating a new virus. Then we have a new epidemic. We’re starting a new lockdown that creates a new virus.”

Transcript

To guard against censorship, a transcript from https://dryburgh.com has been archived below. Please visit the source in the following link: https://dryburgh.com/knut-wittkowski-lockdowns-are-creating-a-new-virus/

Dr Knut Wittkowski

Dr. Wittkowski received his PhD in computer science from the University of Stuttgart and his ScD in Medical Biometry from the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, both Germany. He worked for 15 years with Klaus Dietz, a leading epidemiologist who coined the term “reproduction number”, on the Epidemiology of HIV before. Around 1990, he was one of the few to predict that HIV would not spread among Caucasian heterosexuals. After teaching epidemiology at the University of Cairo and the American University of Beirut, he was for 20 years head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University, New York.

Dr. Wittkowski is currently the CEO of ASDERA LLC, a company discovering novel interventions against complex diseases from data of genome-wide association studies, including a nutritional intervention to reduce cellular support for virus replication and to improve cardiovascular and metabolic health as a natural strategy to reduce the burden and stop the continuation of the COVID epidemics.

Updates

  1. March 23rd, AP News: Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel “We basically have a new pandemic. Essentially we have a new virus, obviously of the same type but with completely different characteristics. Significantly more deadly, significantly more infectious, and infectious for longer.” (Germany extends virus lockdown till mid-April as cases rise)

Transcript

Host ➝ 00:00

Welcome. Today it’s for anyone who may or may not know me, I am Tania The Herbalist, and today I have the privilege of talking and chatting with Knut Wittkowski. Knut is not any medical expert, actually. He’s got a master’s in biostatistics, a PhD in computer science, a doctor of science and medical biometry, including genetics and epidemiology. And you were former head of research, design and biostatistics at the Rockefeller Foundation.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 00:36

And epidemiology at the Rockefeller University here in New York.

Host ➝ 00:42

Beautiful. Thank you for that. Well, you now have gone viral because of your expertise and your many articles and especially one of your most recent ones about how much lockdown policy does not actually agree with the established epidemiological policy. Because, of course, we know the experts controlling the local policy are motivated by fear and politics. Can you talk about that a little bit for us?

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 01:12

If we go back one year and if you still remember the reason for having a lockdown, people were afraid that the situation in the US, and in particular in New York, at the time would become as dire as in the North of Italy where the hospital system was totally overwhelmed.

And one could understand that even though I didn’t share that fear, but I could understand it. But a month later we had the data from the CDC that there would never be a major problem.

The hospital ship that had anchored in New York left. The Javits center, the conference center that had 2000 beds, was never used. The tents in Central Park put up by Mount Sinai hospital, also not used.

There was a shortage here and there, once in a while, but there was no, not even close to the hospital system collapsing.

So one could have reopened and said, well, it was three, four weeks, too bad. We were overly pessimistic, overly careful, but everybody would have understood that was erring on the side of caution.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 02:52

And then suddenly the game posts shifted. It was not anymore about the hospital system collapsing. Today it’s not either.

We have currently something like less than 15% of all hospital utilization is due to COVID. That is noticeable, but it doesn’t mean that there is a major problem.

Again, there may be a local problem here or there, but that is not, should not be enough to run the whole economy against the wall.

So it became somewhat unclear what the objective of the lockdown should be. Should it be that the country should be locked down until there is no single virus around anymore? Somehow nobody actually explained that. Why should we control the virus? Why should we stop the spread? And could we?

Host ➝ 04:11

Right. So, from your expertise, what is the difference between COVID and influenza?

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 04:22

If we had not the tools to sequence the virus and had learned in late December [2019] or early January [2020], I forgot when it was, that this happened to be a coronavirus, one of those that hit us every now and then, rather than influenza virus that hits us a bit more frequently, we would not have seen any difference between this and the epidemic, for instance, of 2017/2018, which was also a bad flu.

Host ➝ 04:59

Right. And now if we let it run its course the way we do other viruses, how long do you think it would actually be before we could reach herd immunity?

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 05:08

It will take about six weeks and can be shifted a bit in different parts of the country, depending on where the virus gets there [“endemic equilibrium herd immunity”].

So it was here in New York earlier, and the epidemic ended even before the lockdowns started. I mean, that infections went down before the lockdown started. It came later in the South.

So in the South, we have seen the effect of flattening the curve. You are delaying the infections and illnesses and death for a couple of months until you reopen. And then the delayed events happen because lockdowns do not prevent anything from happening. They just delay it a bit.

Host ➝ 05:59

Is there any scientific background behind lockdowns?

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 06:04

Nobody has ever done a lockdown for any disease. So it was not quite clear how this experiment would end.

Host ➝ 06:16

Right, right. And so many are actually are, sorry, go ahead.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 06:22

And what we saw was that it backfired in many ways. So one thing that we have seen, and we know since October, when the viruses in Spain and France had been sequenced, we know that because of the lockdowns giving the virus enough time to mutate, we had escape mutations that started the wave in November. So we are currently experiencing the result of the lockdowns. Without lockdowns, we would not have any COVID right now.

Host ➝ 07:06

Right. And it’s funny because many seem to argue that the lockdown measures is actually what decreased the potential mortalities that could have happened if it wasn’t for these measures. So really, how effective are the measures like social distancing, isolation, things like that.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 07:22

They’re very effective. They have cost many jobs and the economy a lot of money. So they were very effective [sarcasm].

Host ➝ 07:32

Right, right. And here in Ontario, I’m in Canada in Ontario here, we’ve now got a stay at home order. So, you know, even things like going to bargaining and skating and things like that outdoors, they’re almost saying, don’t do, stay at home. Only leave for essentials

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 07:51

Because otherwise, we need that [restrictions breeding variants] urgently, because otherwise we run the risk that there will be no new epidemic in a few months [sarcasm]. Because the lockdowns are essential for the virus to develop new strains.

“because of the lockdowns giving the virus enough time to mutate, we had escape mutations that started the wave in November. So we are currently experiencing the result of the lockdowns. Without lockdowns, we would not have any COVID right now.”

Knut Wittkowski

CEO of ASDERA/Epidemiologist

Our immune system develops typically something like five or six different types of antibodies to protect us from mutations that might happen while we are infected to make sure that even if there is a mutation in one of the epitopes, the targets of the antibodies, if there is a mutation, then there should be other antibodies that still are sufficient to prevent the virus from being replicated and from spreading.

However, if you give the long enough and the virus mutates at a rate of one or two mutations a month. So if you give it three months, there’s a good chance that there will be six consecutive mutations, one for each of these antibodies.

And at the end, the human immunity does not capture the virus anymore. And the virus can spread.

We have, even though it’s technically mostly the same virus, but experience as if it were a totally new virus. And this is what we’re seeing right now.

“Nobody has ever done a lockdown for any disease. So it was not quite clear how this experiment would end.”

Knut Wittkowski

CEO of ASDERA/Epidemiologist

What we have seen since November is a new virus, or actually a family of new viruses, because similar things happened in Spain and France and in the UK and in South Africa and also in the United States. So it’s a very… the common thing, if you give the virus enough time with the lockdowns, it will mutate and you have the next epidemic.

Host ➝ 09:51

Right. And how important is it for us to be outdoors and being with nature and being outside and getting fresh air? Because I think a stay at home orders, I believe could be obviously detrimental, especially for the healthy and the young and children.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 10:07

I mean, I don’t want to go there. It’s too frustrating to see a whole generation of children being deprived of their wellbeing and their development.

The children can not, it’s immunologically dramatic, because they cannot develop the immune responses that they need for the rest of their life.

They don’t have the social contacts that they have in school. They don’t learn.

If you’re taking away one year in the development – and it’s now getting more than that – one year in the development of a child that’s below the age of 10, you’re creating a huge gap and you’re preventing this child from having all the opportunities that they otherwise would have. And the tragic thing here is that there is no reason for it.

Children do not get ill – with very rare exceptions.

Yes, we have had in the United States, something like – I haven’t checked the last week.

So maybe it’s 30 deaths in children from age four to age fourteen. Thirty. We had over 50 from influenza during the same time period. Yes. It happens with every flu, a few children die. And I feel sorry for the families who are affected. For them, it’s a tragedy.

However, should we close down the country of 335 million people in the US, a bit less in Canada, but should we destroy the life of hundreds of millions of people, because there is a risk for some children. And most of these children who die have co-morbidities, have diabetes, have other diseases, other immune diseases. The balance, this is totally out of balance.

Host ➝ 12:51

Yeah. And at what point in time did you realize that these measures are going to kill more people than prevent?

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 13:01

That was known from the very beginning because the measures do not reduce COVID deaths, but they’re causing lots of others.

And so we knew from the very beginning that there would be more deaths because of the lockdowns, unless we are counting the risk that the hospital system would collapse and then we would have many deaths for other reasons.

But as soon as it was clear that the hospital system would not be collapsing – and it still is not collapsing – the lockdowns should have ended.

And the schools should never have been closed, because children, except for the very rare exceptions, don’t develop any severe illness. So they will not end up in a hospital.

Even the young adults don’t end up in hospitals in relevant numbers. We knew that 50% of all people who died, many of them in hospitals, were older than 80 years.

So if you are below the age of 60, your risk of having a severe disease or even dying is irrelevant. I mean, when we cross the street, we can always be hit by a brick and still not everybody wears hard hat all the time, because there is a theoretical risk that you may be hit by a brick.

And here, for those under the age of 60, about, it is a theoretical risk, like the many theoretical risks that we are facing every day in our life.

“That was known from the very beginning because the measures do not reduce COVID deaths, but they’re causing lots of others.”

Knut Wittkowski

CEO of ASDERA/Epidemiologist

And we have to take risks because otherwise we couldn’t live. And that’s what we have right now. We cannot live.

Host ➝ 15:17

Now. I have to ask you, how is the data for COVID being collected now in comparison to previous respiratory infections?

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 15:29

I have been working many years ago on HIV when I predicted correctly that HIV would never spread among the Caucasian heterosexual population, which at that time, politicians and media were very scared of. They thought all of Europe and the United States would become depopulated because of HIV. Didn’t happen.

But there actually, the reporting was good. We knew for every case and then “case” meant you have the disease, you have a problem. So for every case, it was reported, when was it diagnosed, and when was it reported.

So these days, the difference were there. And as epidemiologists, we could use that to make more sense of the data and the definitions were not changed all the time [unlike with COVID-19].

I just learned today that it seems that PCR, the definition of what a positive PCR test is, is being changed from running for 35 cycles to only running for 25 cycles, which makes the test less sensitive.

And then of course, we know that the vaccines are working [sarcasm] because there are fewer infections, except at the same time, the test was changed.

And we had had so many changes. What is a “case”? A case traditionally is somebody who has an illness, and then you find out why that person is ill.

Right now you have people who want to travel or have a job requirement. So they’re standing here on the street to get tested. And if they happened to get tested positive, they are called a case. They’re not ill, they probably will never be. They may not even be infected. They may just have some virus sitting in the nose that never got into the body. And you call them cases? Everything in this epidemic is done upside down. It almost feels like people want to obscure what’s going on because we know that during an epidemic, you don’t change the measures that you take, because then you cannot compare it anymore. And here it happens all the time, which is frustrating.

Host ➝ 18:28

Now I have to ask you because of course I admire your courage and you speaking out against this, but why do you find that more medical experts are not speaking about this, especially when you hear about MDs and even some neurologists, but you’re never hearing about a virologist or an epidemiologist that are really speaking out on this, which, like yourself, are the best people.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 18:50

We have three virologists speaking out in the United States and only virologists. Different areas of science have different objectives. And people are trained for doing different things.

“Everything in this epidemic is done upside down. It almost feels like people want to obscure what’s going on”

Knut Wittkowski

CEO of ASDERA/Epidemiologist

An MD is trained to make a diagnosis with an individual patient, find the treatment, convince the patient that he or she should take the treatment, follow up and see how it works. This is by and large, what an MD is treated to do.

A virologist studies the structure of the virus. What is it composed of and where does it bind? And how does the cell with the virus binds, interact with the cell? How can, what would be potential vaccine? How, what structure, what epitopes would we use? Things like that.

And then there are epidemiologists who study how does the virus spread? What is the most effective thing to do against the spread of the virus? These questions, no MD and no virologist is trained to deal with these questions because you need mathematical models. You need a lot of experience in dealing with large sets of data, and that is something what epidemiologists do, and they were not heard in March or April.

Host ➝ 20:40

Now, one of the last questions that I have to ask you, of course, just to kind of give people a little bit of light because many are starting wake up more and more about the lockdowns kind of being worse than the disease itself, because there’s a lot of implications. What do you think is the proper solution to handle this virus? If you had the option, what’s your solution.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 20:59

Okay. The first thing you already said, let’s reopen schools and the economy. There’s no reason to keep them closed.

Of course, masks can be helpful when worn by those who are vulnerable, and let’s presume masks are effective, and we’re still not quite sure whether they are, but let’s presume that they’re effective. And this would be one of the strategies, the vulnerable, those who have comorbidities and are older can use to pre-protect themselves, to self isolate while the virus is running among the low risk people and taking its natural course, which will have very few severe events and very few deaths. Because as I said, it is mostly the elderly who die.

So masks should be worn by those who are vulnerable and by the people who directly interact with the vulnerable, because if you are helping somebody from the wheelchair into the beds, or the other way around there is physical interactions and close proximity. And these are situations where the risk of transmission is highest. And so to help the elderly or the vulnerable to self isolate, those directly interacting with them should wear a mask.

And also, if possible, try to distance a bit. Everybody else should not because if everybody else does the same thing, then the vulnerable wouldn’t have an advantage anymore. The virus would spread a bit more slowly overall. It would spread at the same rate among the elderly and vulnerable as among the young and healthy.

So if everybody wears a mask and does other ways of distancing, we are increasing the number of deaths.

So just to put the numbers that we have in context. In the United States, we had so far about 400,000 deaths, 200,000 were from COVID-20, since November, which would not have been here without lockdowns.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 23:42

And then among those among 200,000, 40% were in nursing homes. Now the nursing homes – we’ve been talking about protecting the vulnerable. If the vulnerable had been protected better, there would have been much fewer deaths. There may have been about a hundred thousand. A hundred thousand deaths is normal for a flu. It’s at the upper end, but this is nothing unusual for flu.

So we should keep everything open and we should focus on the things that are really dangerous. It’s not dangerous to be coughing or sneezing for a few days while you have a flu or even COVID like many people have.

It gets dangerous when you end up in the hospital, in the emergency room and then you may die. So we have to prevent that. And now I’m talking a bit pro domo. My company is working on something like that. One of these strategies where we are giving people the option to prevent, to reduce their comorbidities.

And without comorbidities, almost nobody dies.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 25:16

And also to reduce the rate by which the virus spreads in the body, within the body. Because we are not dying of the virus itself. We could live with that virus forever. It would produce a couple of viruses on the side, but that’s not a big deal.

“There may have been about a hundred thousand. A hundred thousand deaths is normal for a flu. It’s at the upper end, but this is nothing unusual for flu.”

Knut Wittkowski

CEO of ASDERA/Epidemiologist

What we are dying off is the immune system. When it has the antibodies. After one week of incubation time, the immune system kills all infected cells. And if many cells are infected, like in the lung, then a large part of the lung cells are being killed. Now that’s causing a problem. If people are young and healthy, they can live with it. If they’re old and a bit fragile, that huge wound is killing them. So it’s the reaction of the immune system to the virus that’s killing. And that depends, how dangerous it is, depends on the viral load.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 26:26

So when we can reduce the rate by which the virus replicates it’s by only 10%, then for every seven hour replication cycle. Then after the five days, we have reduced the number of cells that became infected by about 80 to 90%. And then the wound created by the immune system is much smaller and everybody survives it.

So we should not close down schools and the economy, we should focus on helping the elderly and vulnerable to self isolate. And we should also focus on dealing with the one problem that is really important, and that is preparing the immune system better to deal with that infection in a natural way so that the disease is not so severe. And if the disease is not so severe, then what are we talking about?

We are not closing the country down for the common cold. And if we succeed in reducing the severity of that disease to that of a common cold, and I think that is possible. And even if it were to the severity of a regular flu, then why do we need to lock down?

Host ➝ 28:07

All right. Thank you for that information, Knut. Is there anything else that you would want to add to any of this?

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 28:20

I think we covered most of the things. The advice to our politicians is very simple. I am not the only one. If you think of the Great Barrington Declaration that has been signed now by over a million scientists.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 28:45

We have to stop the nonsense. We have entered a vicious cycle. With every new wave, we’re starting a new wave of lockdowns. The lockdowns are creating a new virus. Then we have a new epidemic. We’re starting a new lockdown that creates a new virus.

Einstein defined the word insanity, and said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Doing lockdowns over and over again will have no other results than creating the viruses that are capable of starting a new epidemic. And then we are exactly at the point where we were before.

Although it may be a bit worse because the new virus may also be resistant against some of the cross immunity that we already had from other coronavirus infections. So we may need more people to get infected, to get over the next virus.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 30:13

And then I have one fear.

And that is that every new generation of viruses here, the virus genome gets closer and closer to the human genome because our immune system can make antibodies only against stretches of genetic information on the genome that are unique to the virus.

And just a couple of weeks ago, three weeks or so, a paper was published and there it said less than 10% of the virus genome is available for the immune system to make antibodies against it. And then every generation, the virus mutates and becomes a bit closer to something that is already in the human genome. And then it becomes more and more difficult for the immune system to make antibodies. This situation has never arrised in the whole history of humankind. The lockdowns are creating a problem that has never existed. And for which nature did not find a solution. We should let nature do it. We should adjust. We should adapt. But we should not think that we can control nature.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 32:06

My first name is Knut, and I had a namesake in the 11th century, more or less exactly a thousand years ago. And he got annoyed by people thinking he was so powerful he could do anything.

And so he walked to the beach and told the tide to stay away. Just to show that nature was much more powerful than even the most powerful King at the time. Of course the tide didn’t stay away.

“With every new wave, we’re starting a new wave of lockdowns. The lockdowns are creating a new virus. Then we have a new epidemic.”

Knut Wittkowski

CEO of ASDERA/Epidemiologist

Now, since then, during the last 1000 years, I don’t think there was a single politician who would have said nature is more powerful than I am. Politicians think they know everything better, everything better than nature. And they can control a virus like the tide. We cannot control the tide and we can not control a virus. We can only make it worse.

Host ➝ 33:25

Very well said, very well said. It’s true. Let nature run its course is really the ultimate thing that we can do for proper herd immunity and getting back to some form of normalcy. So I appreciate your wisdom. I appreciate your words. And I appreciate your work, Knut. Where can people find you if they want to connect with you on your website? I don’t know if you’re on social media, where can they connect with you more?

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 33:51

My name is unique. If you look for Knut Wittkowski, you will find me.

“We have to stop the nonsense. We have entered a vicious cycle. With every new wave, we’re starting a new wave of lockdowns. The lockdowns are creating a new virus. Then we have a new epidemic. We’re starting a new lockdown that creates a new virus.”

Knut Wittkowski

CEO of ASDERA/Epidemiologist

Host ➝ 34:00

Right. And, of course, your website is asdera.com. You’ve got lots of information there. So anyone who’s looking for it, interviews, articles, everything that you’ve done.

Knut Wittkowski ➝ 34:18

I will put this there too, as soon as it gets published. So thank you, Tania.

Host ➝ 34:25

Well, thank you so much for your time. Thank you. I appreciate it. And we’ll do this again hopefully soon sometime. Thank you.

Categories
Opinion

The ex-Pfizer scientist who became an anti-vax hero – Reuters

Michael Yeadon was a scientific researcher and vice president at drugs giant Pfizer Inc. He co-founded a successful biotech. Then his career took an unexpected turn.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-s