2024-11-18
Do the Covid-19 "medical interventions" cause deaths?
Obviously if they are "safe and effective" - that is, safe for humans to accept and effective at preventing severe disease/death, then they should not.
A paper authored by a number of concerned real-world medical practitioners (as opposed to pharmaceutical companies and medical regulators) was withdrawn by the Lancet and by Elsevier due to various reasons including "lack of factual support for the conclusions" and "the study's conclusions are not supported by the methodology".
The paper has however now reportedly been accepted peer-reviewed and published by SCIENCE, PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY AND THE LAW.
Given the serious nature of the conclusions, the rushed nature of the Emergency Use Authorisation, the skipping of the usual rigorous safety checks, and the potentially vast downside risks of continuing to roll out a possibly unsafe product globally, one might have thought that the precautionary principle might have been invoked and the "safe and effective" mantra subjected to some serious review by the regulators, but if it was then the evidence seems to be elusive.
Will the new leadership across the pond now address this issue?
Come to that, will our own MHRA steal a march on the US by doing that for itself, and perhaps salvaging some residual shred of respectability by so doing?
NB: This does not detract from this site's assertion that Covid-19 was a psy-op and not a virus at all. Which poses the additional question - what was the purpose of those medical interventions? After all, it is reasonable to suppose that so many pharmaceutical companies would not have invested in such products without a serious purpose.
