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 ( https://www.brighteon.com/5d2350df-0e57-492f-95a5-672f768928a7 )

See also Dr Ardis’ testimony to a senate hearing on 4 March 2022 https://rumble.com/embed/vu8503/?pub=4 )


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.” ( https://drsircus.com/general/pharmaceutical-murder-with-remdesivir/ 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. (https://senatormastriano.com/medicalfreedompanel/ 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.” (https://drsircus.com/general/pharmaceutical-murder-with-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

https://senatormastriano.com/medicalfreedompanel/ (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: https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

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?

Masking: No pro’s, just cons

The statement

“More Than a Dozen Credible Medical Studies Prove Face Masks Do Not Work Even In Hospitals!

The medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.”

The source

Arthur Firstenberg writing in Vision Launch Media (August 15, 2020)

( https://visionlaunch.com/more-than-a-dozen-credible-medical-studies-prove-face-masks-do-not-work-even-in-hospitals/ )
 

My take on it

First, the pro’s.

The main argument used to support masking as a public health measure is that they stop or significantly impede transmission of the virus from one person to another.The science does not support that argument.

I have also heard NSW Chief Medical Officer Kerry Chant say words to the effect that (notwithstanding the case against them) masks are still helpful as a reminder to the public to be on their guard. In all the circumstances that statement is ignorant, insensitive, and condescending. And against the public interest..

The cons?

Expired air is a waste product of bodily function. As Martin Geddes pointed out, to re-breathe our expired air makes as much sense as eating our own scat, or drinking our own urine or sweat.

Atmospheric air contains about 20.9% oxygen.  Expired air contains about 16%.  Atmospheric air contains about 0.04% (400ppm) carbon dioxide.  Expired air contains 4%, a hundred times more.

So the re-breathing of our expired air deprives our bodies of life-sustaining oxygen, and intoxicates them with CO2. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Some of my earlier posts indicate how bad.

And then there are the adverse impacts on social interaction, and particularly on childhood formation.

For a more detailed treatment , may I recommend The Case Against Masking by Dr Judy Mikovits.