ANTONY BARNETT: DICHRON INTERVIEW
I couldn't care less about Astra zeneca getting bullied by Pfizer when neither vaccine seems to work and does cause harm.
We, all of us, are paying for an injection that has had no effect on the spread of covid. In fact it may be the major cause in the spread especially in the case of Omicron. And we're testing for it with a PCR test That the CDC says can't tell the difference between covid and the flu. So how do we know there was a pandemic or how many people may have died if the tests we used were horribly inadequate to the point of useless?
So how about some real investigative reporting.
A story on why there have been no double blind clinical placebo studies on the efficacy on any
of these vaccines for a reasonable amount of time would be more helpful especially when now they want our children. They've had two Years!
There is no proof, zilch, that the vaccines work. Maybe you could interview scientists that haven't been bought off by pharmaceutical companies.
More journalists need to focus on the real story, a novel, still not fully tested Injection forced on pain of job loss etc.on the public...With no proof of efficacy and after two years no sign of it being able to prevent in any way the spread of covid.
Don't say you're Brave and responsible until you've done this.
Excellent interview. Thanks for posting this.
Also do note that there are already three vaccines based on the old school inactivated virus technology which have been approved by the WHO. They might be safer if governments are going for booster shots.
I know some people will claim this is all too much speculation, but Andrew Hill's about turn on the Ivermectin evidence right around the time his institution received a $40 million funding is also a very suspicious aspect of this story. I sincerely hope some journalist will someday get to the bottom of it. I read an article about this recently which explained what happened during that time:
Before someone starts objecting, I will be clear that not only am I double vaccinated, but I also don't think Ivermectin works as well as its supporters say (although I think it helps some). But Ivermectin is safer than even Tylenol, so there was no good reason to recommend against off-label use, especially considering that it is cheap and easily available in poor countries. A lot of countries in Africa use it as a prophylaxis against river blindness.
And during the peak of the Delta wave in India, when we had to delay the vaccination for younger cohorts by a good few weeks, doctors were suddenly told by the WHO not to use IVM (that's when Andrew Hill's "revised" analysis came out). Think about that. Even if it didn't work, given the size of the unvaxxed population, what would have been the downside to at least trying it? Of course my mind goes towards the most cynical explanation - the enormous death wave caused a real spectacle, and increased the frenzy for vaccination.
And no, ICMR did not recommend against use of IVM, please do your homework:
Thank you for your reporting on Pfizer's misinformation and profiteering during this pandemic.
I recently sent a letter to the NEJM, publisher of Pfizer's clinical trial papers. I pointed out an error in the number of people discontinued from the trial in the 6 month follow up study. There were less discontinued individuals reported in the 6 month follow up data than in the original trial. This is not possible. The number of discontinued study participants must be equal to or larger than the original trial paper. So far the NEJM is "looking into" this error. The response has been lack luster. I attempted to email the corresponding author and multiple emails bounced back "mailbox full." The head of Pfizer's vaccine clinical research, Dr Judith Absalon, is no longer with the company. Where is the research integrity here? Was the NEJM paper adequately peer reviewed?
Perhaps this error in publication by Pfizer issue is bigger than the capabilities of an epidemiologist like me. My substack post outlines the error if Mr Thacker wishes to take this on.
I know I have raised this here before but what I simply do not understand about Oxford/AZ (J&J, Sputnik) is that it was always known that Adenovirus caused clots https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497120417847?via%3Dihub
None of the jabs are safe. Pfizers documents that were released, have 9 pages of adverse effects with 50-70 effects on each page. How can anyone in their right mind think these are safe?
How much has the UK invested in GAVI, The Global Vaccine Alliance, over the past five years?
The latest document says it's a good ROI, but mentions Covax as its target vaccine for CV19.