Covid 19:  is Remdesivir a death protocol in hospitals?

The statement

“How is it possible that the United States of America, one of the top industrialized nations in the world, including in our healthcare systems, how is it possible that we still lead the world in COVID-19 deaths?

There’s only one thing we’ve done from the beginning that no one else was doing – and it was Anthony Fauci’s death protocol in hospitals using a drug called remdesivir that he knew would kill either a quarter to 30 percent of all people he gave the drug to in hospitals in five to 10 days.”


The source 

Dr Bryan Ardis, on the Pete Santilli Show, 24 March 2022 ( )

See also Dr Ardis’ testimony to a senate hearing on 4 March 2022 )

My take on it

Dr Ardis’ thesis is that people being hospitalised for Covid-19 are being treated routinely with a proven-unsafe drug that attacks the kidneys, resulting in multiple organ failure and often death.; and that emergency care physicians are thinking that they are witnessing the progression of disease when in fact they are witnessing the toxic effects of an expensive pharmaceutical drug.

Dr Ardis referred to mortality data that he provided to lawyer Thomas Renz for analysis:

“According to CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) data, almost 26% of people put on Remdesivir die. But it is a huge moneymaker for the government and Big Pharma.”



Dr Paul Maric, one of the best ICU doctors in America, testifies about the dangers of remdesivir and the corruption in our medical system for prescribing it. Though it is deadly, doctors are being incentivized to use it on patients. Remdesivir killed more than 50% of the animals during its clinical trials. Yet the FDA still approved it.” ( 14 April 2022)

Further damning evidence comes from the horrific performance of Remdesivir in a human clinical trial against Ebola. In that study Remdesivir had an over 50% death rate. ( from 1h15m)

“The Palm Study Group investigated four drugs for the use of Ebola. The results were published on December 12, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine. That date is particularly important because that signaled the beginning of Covid. The Data Safety Monitoring Board of that study terminated the study of Remdesivir. TERMINATED, because Remdesivir INCREASED THE RISKS OF DEATH AND RENAL FAILURE. It was SUCH A TOXIC DRUG the Data Safety Monitoring Board terminated the use of REMDESIVIR.” ( )

Australia? As to designated treatment for Covid-19 post hospitalisation, basically the same story. Remdesivir was the first drug approved by the TGA for treatment of Covid-19 disease, for ‘adults over 18 years of age with severe COVID-19 symptoms who have been hospitalised’. It was approved on 10 July 2020, six months after the first confirmed case. (Prior to Remdesivir, no drug had been approved for this application, and the suggested use of hydroxychloroquine had been resolutely opposed.) Thirteen months after Remdesivir the first of a succession of monoclonal antibody drugs was approved, and then some others, generally for pre-hospitalisation application or for prophylaxis.

The jab:  insane coverup of adverse events reporting?

The statement

“Someone needs to hold them accountable and get the data from CMS [The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ] that Stephen Anderson at the CBER Division of the FDA said is where they are going to be pulling what they call Rapid Cycle Analysis every 7 to 10 days from December 14th 2020.  They are supposedly pulling reviews every 7 to 10 days of reported symptoms and adverse events to the shots. Have any of you seen any of these?  Not one have I ever seen.  The cover-up and corruption is insane.”

The source

Dr Bryan Ardis, in panel testimony to a Pennsylvania Senate Hearing on 4 March 2022 (from 1h13m14s )

My take on it

The transcript of Dr Ardis’ opening remarks is reproduced below for your convenience:

“In 2010 Harvard did a review for three years on VAERS data.

And they actually proclaimed in their document 2010 that less than 1% of all Adverse Events to vaccines were reported to VAERS.

Do you want to know why?  They said the Number One reason: doctors didn’t even know it existed, to report injuries to it.

Number Two: they said it got in the way of … the flow of their clinical day.  Not only were they going to write down the Adverse Events in their notes; they then had to go sit at a computer and do it secondarily again.  So it was just too tedious to take the time to go do that.

That was 10 years ago. 

Harvard asked the CDC to allow them to create a program to make it automatic and improve the speed at which it took to report Adverse Events to VAERS nationally.

The CDC took the consultant from Harvard who was assigned for three years, said ‘You no longer can talk to Harvard’, and they never heard from him again.

Six months of waiting.  They then published their review, from Harvard, after the CDC refused to help them improve the reporting. That was in 2010, just so you know.

Someone needs to hold them accountable and get the data from CMS [The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] that Stephen Anderson at the CBER Division of the FDA said [on 22 October 2020] is where they are going to be pulling what they call Rapid Cycle Analysis every 7 to 10 days from December 14th 2020.  They are supposedly pulling reviews every 7 to 10 days of reported symptoms and adverse events to the shots.

Have any of you seen any of these?  Not one have I ever seen.  The cover-up and corruption is insane.”

The Harvard VAERS Study referred to by Dr Ardis, the so-called Pilgrim Study, is viewable here:

It wouldn’t be hard to improve the reporting of adverse events. The technological task is trivial. The lacking ingredient is the will to do it. The motivation, and the incentivisation, and the ignorance, are tilted against us. If medical practitioners were under as much regulatory pressure to report adverse events, as they currently are (in the case of the jab) not to report them, or to hide them, we would all know what is really happening.

Why, after 800-plus deaths in Australia alone following the jab, are we even having this conversation?

The jab: The deadly evidence is unequivocal

CE 530 - From Evidence to Causality: How do We Determine Causality?

The comment

“It is beyond any shadow of a doubt, it’s unequivocal, the vaccines are causing large numbers of deaths.”

The source

Dr Peter McCullough , 1 April 2022 ( )

My take on it

Following introduction of the Covid injection program, relevant agencies have been monitoring the incidence of adverse events, including deaths, following the injection. As always, the question has been asked, Are these adverse events caused by the injections; or are they simply associated with them?

In these circumstances there is an established set of criteria that can be applied in order to prove or disprove causation. They are called the Bradford Hill causation criteria .

In Australia 801 deaths have thus far been associated with the introduction of the Covid injection program, according to the latest (24 March) Weekly Report of Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The TGA attributes just 11 of these deaths to the effects of the injections. Is that a reasonable conclusion? Is it based on comprehensive autopsies, for example? (No it’s not.) Is it based on the Bradford Hill criteria? (No it’s not.)

Dr McCullough applied the criteria. His conclusion is not a throwaway line, but the application of best practice.

It behoves the TGA to ‘go and do likewise’. To do any less is culpable negligence.

This report alone should be sufficient for those responsible to call an immediate halt to the injection program, based on the precautionary principle.

But will they?

The Jab: Why is graphene in there?

The statement

“We present here our research on the presence of graphene in covid vaccines. We have carried out a random screening of graphene-like nanoparticles visible at the optical microscopy in seven random samples of vials from four different trademarks, coupling images with their spectral signatures of RAMAN vibration. By this technique, called micro-RAMAN, we have been able to determine the presence of graphene in these samples, after screening more than 110 objects selected for their graphene-like appearance under optical microscopy. Out of them, a group of 28 objects have been selected, due to the compatibility of both images and spectra with the presence of graphene derivatives, based on the correspondence of these signals with those obtained from standards and scientific literature. The identification of graphene oxide structures can be regarded as conclusive in 8 of them, due to the high spectral correlation with the standard. In the remaining 20 objects, images coupled with Raman signals show a very high level of compatibility with undetermined graphene structures, however different than the standard used here.”


The source

‘Detection of Graphene in COVID19 Vaccines by Micro-Raman Spectroscopy’, a report by Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, Associate Professor at the University of Almeria in Spain, published 2 November, 2021


My take on it

It’s early days.

Or is it?

The internet abounds with video clip of CV injection sites manifesting magnetism; and it is logical to ask why.

Many months ago a Dr Campra at the University of Almeria in Spain was commissioned to do an initial exploratory analysis of a single vial, by some fellow countrymen who asked Why, and who postulated the presence of graphene. Dr Campra reportedly confirmed the presence of graphene oxide in that vial, and invited other researchers to continue the investigation..

(When an element exists in more than one crystalline form, those forms are called allotropes. Graphene is a carbon allotrope, as are diamond and graphite. Graphene, which is isolated from crystalline graphite, is a flat monolayer composed of single-atom-thick, two-dimensional sheets of a hexagonally arranged honeycomb lattice. Because of its unique structural, specific surface area and mechanical characteristics, the functions and applications of graphene have gained considerable attention since the discovery of the material in 2004.

The graphene family of nanomaterials (GFNs) is known to be toxic in the human body:

“GFNs can be delivered into bodies by intratracheal instillation, oral administration, intravenous injection, intraperitoneal injection and subcutaneous injection . GFNs can induce acute and chronic injuries in tissues by penetrating through the blood-air barrier, blood-testis barrier, blood-brain barrier, and bloodplacenta barrier etc. and accumulating in the lung, liver, and spleen etc. For example, some graphene nanomaterials aerosols can be inhaled and substantial deposition in the respiratory tract, and they can easily penetrate through the tracheobronchial airways and then transit down to the lower lung airways, resulting in the subsequent formation of granulomas, lung fibrosis and adverse health effects to exposed persons.” (Ref )

A more recent paper by Dr Campra referenced at ResearchGate covers four main brands and 7 separate vials. It indicates that graphene-like structures were definitely present in 4 of the 7 injection vials sampled, and quite possibly in 2 others.The closing comment of the researcher seems appropriate in the circumstances:

“This research remains open and is made available to scientific community for discussion. We make a call for independent researchers, with no conflict of interest or coaction from any institution to make wider counter-analysis of these products to achieve a more detailed knowledge of the composition and potential health risk of these experimental drugs, reminding that graphene materials have a potential toxicity on human beings and its presence has not been declared in any emergency use authorization. We leave a link to download this report at the end of this video.”

Some months ago another researcher, a Dr Andreas Noack in Austria, reported finding graphene hydroxide in some CV vaccine vials. Dr Noack had a PhD in this area and claimed to be the only expert who knew the science behind graphene (Hydr)oxide in Europe. He was arrested while making his video report ( He finally published the video interview on the 23rd of November 2021 ( and was killed 2 days later in a brutal assault.

In the circumstances I conjectured that Dr Campra’s request for further independent research on the potential toxicity of an undeclared ingredient in an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) vaccine may well fall on deaf ears.

Not so. In an interview posted on Telegram on 28 January, an NZ doctor, Matt Shelton, reported that a local group of scientists had examined a vial from one of the major manufacturers and found (as did he) the same sorts of nano-scale ingredients reported by others (“tiny, tiny but very complex nanoscale technology … what appears to be machinery or circuitry”. ( ) In Dr Shelton’s view, “It needs investigating by the professional regulators charged with protecting the public.” Indeed it does.

Since then the presence of graphene in three leading brands has been confirmed by a UK lab. On February 7 lawyer Lois Bayliss handed in a petition requesting an urgent public scientific review, regarding the safety, legitimacy and ethical implications of the ingredients and the biotechnology that are making people magnetic post-COVID-19 vaccination. (Ref :// A Case Briefing Document has also been lodged with UK Police, accusing the three manufacturers and four arms of government of Corporate Manslaughter and Gross Criminal Manslaughter; and therein reminding the police that their first duty is to protect public safety. (Ref )

If the Precautionary Principle means anything, this global injection program should have been halted long since, on multiple grounds. Those who sustain it have been duly warned.