Exposes World’s Most Dangerous Lie Collusion Big Tech, Big Pharma & Big Government

Exposes World’s Most Dangerous Lie The First Bio-Weapon AIDS & AZT & Covid-X-24 Collusion Big Tech, Big Pharma & Big Government Death To All America People And Wide World Scam-Demic Today. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’, a New York Times bestseller, is now a full-length feature film by Jeff Hayes. The Real Anthony Fauci reveals how "America's Doctor" launched his career during the early AIDS crisis by partnering with pharmaceutical companies to sabotage safe and effective off-patent therapeutic treatments for AIDS.

Show more

Tony From the Land of Baloney is Dr. Death is a Mass Murderer and a Prolific Serial Killer As always, please do your own research and feel free to use my links to do so if you wish.

People that go in to the hospital these days may as well be on death row…..
Dr. Fauci has decided that ALL hospitals across the entire United States are to treat ALL patients diagnosed with “covid” with Remdesivir, Deximethazone and Vancomycin. This “FAUCI DEATH COCKTAIL” shuts your kidneys down causing your lungs to fill up with fluid which is called pulmonary edema.

This usually happens within 5 days of being treated with the cocktail. The patients end up in ICU on the ventilator and they literally drown in their own fluids. It’s not pneumonia – it’s pulmonary edema! The hospitals will not allow you to have Hydroxichloroquin or Ivermectin which are safe and are curing THOUSANDS of people who can get them.

Hospitals won’t give you these cures, instead they will tell you they have to follow their strict guidelines. Every single doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, and the rest of the demons pushing Fauci’s Kill Cocktail as a treatment should lose their medical licenses because in my opinion they are committing premeditated first degree mass murder/genocide. I think Canadian hospitals might be pushing similar protocols.

Dr. Robert Malone in his interview with Joe Rogan says hospitals are reimbursed around $3,000 for every covid-19 diagnosis. Treatment protocols are withheld because the hospitals are further incentivized to use remdesivir and ventilators, which are linked to renal failure, lung damage, and deadly nosocomial infection.

It doesn’t matter why the individual was initially hospitalized, whether they were suffering from underlying conditions, mediation errors, delayed surgeries, etc. If the hospital “suspects” covid-19 or can get a positive reading on a high cycle threshold PCR test, the hospital can fraudulently declare a covid-19 diagnosis and be reimbursed for their medical fraud and malpractice.

There’s HUGE $$$ in this and hospitals worldwide are doing it. From public officials covering up known early treatments – to serious conflicts of interest between the medical elites and those who are supposedly holding them accountable – all the way up to federal cash bribes to healthcare facilities in exchange for Covid death receipts.

KILLINGS CONTINUE: Hospitals doling out DNR notices like candy, effectively killing patients that could still be saved It is now common to give out a blanket "Do Not Resuscitate" notice for patients, from young people with learning disorders to seniors becoming more dependent on others in the majority of care homes in the United Kingdom.

This practice started a while ago, and it was heavily discussed online for some time, with people sharing stories of patients being asked to sign DNR forms or having these forms signed on their behalf.

General practitioners have also been contacting their elderly patients and those who have chronic health disorders about DNR notices and whether or not they agree to putting such notices in their files.

The wordings were also kept positive, and are designed to elicit a positive response, in a tricky form most commonly used by pollsters and insurance salesmen. One GP in surgery sent out a letter to a home that catered to autistic adults, saying that the carers should put in place plans to prevent their patients from being resuscitated if they become critically ill.

Others also sent out similar letters to establishments caring for the elderly and the disabled.

Blanket decisions were also made for residential homes that are caring for patients with learning difficulties. This practice is not entirely new, and while light has been shed in the wake of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this has been happening long before the pandemic began. For instance, a 51-year-old man with Down's Syndrome was given a DNR because of his disability, and the hospital he was admitted to was given instructions that there will be no attempt to resuscitate him in case of a cardiac or respiratory arrest.

https://deathbyhospitalprotocol.com/danielles-last-forty-days/

(Related: Grieving father reveals how hospital COVID protocols led to maltreatment and death of his disabled daughter.) However, no consent form was signed, and there had been no agreement with the patient or his relatives regarding this action.

The medical director for the relevant part of the National Health Service said their policy complied fully with the national guidelines from professional bodies. A head of a large charity also said they believe DNR orders were frequently being placed in patients who have learning disabilities without their knowledge or the agreement of their families. These actions were in fact, illegal. The U.K. High Court ruled in 2015 that the carers for patients with mental illnesses should be consulted before hospitals apply DNR notices. However, due to the coronavirus, there had been a flood of cases of underreporting.

Individuals were given DNR notices for other usually treatable or preventable conditions if they indicate in their records that they have contracted the Chinese virus.

For COVID-19 cases, hospitals indicate that DNRs were released because CPR was said to present at least two practical dangers in the pandemic. Researchers claim that invasive CPR procedures expose first responders to bodily fluids and can put them at high risk for infections.

Responding to patients in cardiac or respiratory arrest also requires hospitals to burn through their protective gear at a time when many were in dire need of masks, head coverings, air purification systems and other necessary equipment.

Doctors should "sensitively discuss" possible DNRs The U.K. has the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which is the official advisory body in health care. NICE said that doctors should "sensitively discuss a possible DNR with all adults with CFs of 5 or more." (Related: KEEP ON KILLING: UK health officials ordered care homes to place "do not resuscitate" orders on ALL residents.)

A CF, or clinical frailty of 5 means that a patient is mildly frail and may need help with heavy housework, shopping and preparing meals. CF 6 means moderately frail, or people who will now need help with bathing. CF 7 means severely frail, or those who are dependent for personal care, and so on. Doctors and nurses were also instructed that they should review critical care treatment when a patient is no longer considered able to achieve the desired "overall goals."

Others could argue that if a patient is clearly dying, then it would be cruel and pointless to attempt resuscitation. This is why DNR notices were devised. However, they were originally for patients who only have hours to live, as it was not considered fair to those who continue to "strive to keep officiously alive."

Follow Hospital Homicide.com for more information about questionable practices in healthcare facilities around the world. Watch the video below for more information about how hospitals are killing.

What Happened in Hospitals During Covid? Hospitals should be places you can trust to provide comfort and healing when you’re most vulnerable. But that trust may have been shattered by brutal Covid protocols that critics claim turned many hospitals into hellscapes of systematic medical murder.

The victims’ stories have been muffled by the mainstream media, but they’re starting to break through. For one thing, lawsuits against three hospitals have been filed in California by 14 bereaved families who claim their loved ones were killed by a deadly protocol. Meanwhile, activist organizations like Protocol Kills, the Former Feds Group Freedom Foundation, and American Frontline Nurses are collecting and documenting stories from bereaved families about what happened to their loved ones when they entered a hospital hoping for healing and, instead, were led to bizarre and tortured deaths.

I find it heartbreaking to read their stories, which share a haunting similarity, a feeling of being trapped in a highly organized nightmare. The ritual progresses in predictable stages: first, the patient is isolated from family, who are unable to advocate for their loved one or monitor what’s happening.

Next, the patient is diagnosed with Covid-19 or Covid pneumonia, even if they came to the hospital because of a broken arm. Then, they’re bullied into getting remdesivir, a highly toxic drug which killed 53 percent of Ebola patients who had the misfortune to take it. Next, according to the California lawsuit, “They are placed on a BiPap machine at a high rate, making it difficult for them to breathe. Their hands are often tied down so they can’t take the BiPap machine off their face.”

I know this is getting unbearably painful to read, but stay with me to the bitter end to memorialize the victims’ suffering. As the patients writhe in agony, psychiatrists are brought in to diagnose them with agitation and sedate them. Now, shot up with remdesivir, sedated with drugs that make it tough to breathe against the BiPap ventilator, and strapped down in restraints, the victims are denied food and sometimes even water.

Should they try to summon help, they may find the hospital played a vicious trick on them, placing their phone and call button for the nurse out of reach. In the final stages, they are intubated and slowly die alone, left to rot into a skeletal corpse with bed sores. Is this America?

It’s almost impossible to comprehend the magnitude of this moral collapse. How did doctors and nurses who spent years studying so they could help people all of a sudden turn into ruthless sadists, presiding over enforced deaths?

How did hospitals metastasize from places of healing into chambers of horror? According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), the answer is quite simple: money. The federal government incentivized this protocol with massive payouts to the hospitals. AAPS writes, “Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become “bounty hunters” for your life.”

AAPS explains that two Covid emergency acts from the government created this catastrophic loss of life. The CARES Act, a $2 trillion stimulus package, was passed in 2020, purportedly to ease the financial impact of Covid on American families. It provided gigantic bonuses to hospitals to institute federal protocols on Covid, ensuring that Covid would be massively diagnosed and treated with deadly combinations of remdesivir, ventilators, and other lethal methods.

Now that this top-down death protocol was bought and paid for, the government made sure that patients and their families were helpless to fight against it. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) granted waivers to hospitals allowing them to remove critical patient rights. Your ability to give informed consent, receive visitors, and be free from solitary confinement – gone! Vanished, obliterated with a single magical government “waiver.”

These actions destroyed the ability of doctors to make independent judgements based on their patients’ needs and turned highly trained medical staff into killer robots obeying the federal government’s commands.

If you want to understand the enormity of the government money gusher, here’s AAPS on what the hospital payments included:

A “free” required PCR test in the Emergency Room or upon admission for every patient, with government-paid fee to hospital.
Added bonus payment for each positive COVID-19 diagnosis.

Another bonus for a COVID-19 admission to the hospital.
A 20 percent “boost” bonus payment from Medicare on the entire hospital bill for use of remdesivir instead of medicines such as Ivermectin.

Another and larger bonus payment to the hospital if a COVID-19 patient is mechanically ventilated.

More money to the hospital if cause of death is listed as COVID-19, even if patient did not die directly of COVID-19.

A COVID-19 diagnosis also provides extra payments to coroners.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans may have died due to these protocols, and we urgently need an investigation into this butchery. Who designed this protocol, which forbade safe drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and incentivized known toxins like remdesivir?

Who enforced it? Were hospital administrators personally rewarded for their participation in this scheme? Were patients illegally deprived of their constitutional rights and defrauded with phony medical information? Why were patients denied nutrition and water? How was hospital staff forced to comply? Where’s the money trail? Who signed off on it?

Understanding what happened in the hospitals is a crucial piece of solving the Covid puzzle. A vast ecosystem of confusion, manipulation, and artificially induced panic was created by the government and their media lackeys to stampede the public into welcoming soul-crushing lockdowns and dangerous experimental injections.

Hospitals were shut down for elective surgeries, depriving them of their usual income and making them more desperate for government payouts. Covid patients were forced into nursing homes, immediately killing thousands of frail victims and terrifying the public with the skyrocketing death count. Safe, widely used drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were demonized, and studies were fabricated to lie about their effectiveness. Doctors and scientists who tried to speak the truth were fired, investigated, and censored. Why?

We’re living through a time of historic crimes against humanity, rife with atrocities that once would have been unimaginable in America. We don’t yet know how many innocent people were killed in the hospitals during Covid, but whatever that number is -- some experts estimate hundreds of thousands -- it’s too many. Every one of those innocent dead was someone’s son, daughter, mother, father, husband, wife, friend.

For all the faceless dead, let’s pause for a moment to pay tribute to Grace Schara, a sweet 19-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who died on October 13, 2021, at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Appleton, Wisconsin. Grace was injected with a lethal mix of sedatives and as she sank into death, her sister was prevented from seeing her by an armed guard. Her parents begged over Facetime for the nurse to save her, but they were told that Grace was coded DNR (Do Not Resuscitate), although they had ordered the hospital to take all life-saving measures.

Alone, uncomprehending, and in pain, Grace slowly died as her parents watched on Facetime. Her father, Scott Schara, is now suing the hospital to “pave the way for thousands of other victims’ families to file similar claims.” Grace was loved. May her memory be a blessing and an inspiration.

Biological warfare and bioterrorism a historical review Because of the increased threat of terrorism, the risk posed by various microorganisms as biological weapons needs to be evaluated and the historical development and use of biological agents better understood. Biological warfare agents may be more potent than conventional and chemical weapons. During the past century, the progress made in biotechnology and biochemistry has simplified the development and production of such weapons. In addition, genetic engineering holds perhaps the most dangerous potential.

Ease of production and the broad availability of biological agents and technical know how have led to a further spread of biological weapons and an increased desire among developing countries to have them. This article explains the concepts of biological warfare and its states of development, its utilization, and the attempts to control its proliferation throughout history.

The threat of bioterrorism is real and significant; it is neither in the realm of science fiction nor confined to our nation.

EARLY USE OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
Infectious diseases were recognized for their potential impact on people and armies as early as 600 bc. The crude use of filth and cadavers, animal carcasses, and contagion had devastating effects and weakened the enemy. Polluting wells and other sources of water of the opposing army was a common strategy that continued to be used through the many European wars, during the American Civil War, and even into the 20th century.

Military leaders in the Middle Ages recognized that victims of infectious diseases could become weapons themselves. During the siege of Caffa, a well-fortified Genoese-controlled seaport (now Feodosia, Ukraine), in 1346, the attacking Tartar force experienced an epidemic of plague. The Tartars, however, converted their misfortune into an opportunity by hurling the cadavers of their deceased into the city, thus initiating a plague epidemic in the city. The outbreak of plague followed, forcing a retreat of the Genoese forces. The plague pandemic, also known as the Black Death, swept through Europe, the Near East, and North Africa in the 14th century and was probably the most devastating public health disaster in recorded history. The ultimate origin of the plague remains uncertain: several countries in the Far East, China, Mongolia, India, and central Asia have been suggested.

The Caffa incident was described in 1348 or 1349 by Gabriel de Mussis, a notary born in Piacenza north of Genoa. De Mussis made two important claims: plague was transmitted to the citizens of Caffa by the hurling of diseased cadavers into the besieged city, and Italians fleeing from Caffa brought the plague into the Mediterranean seaports. In fact, ships carrying plague-infected refugees (and possibly rats) sailed to Constantinople, Genoa, Venice, and other Mediterranean seaports and are thought to have contributed to the second plague pandemic. However, given the complex ecology and epidemiology of plague, it may be an oversimplification to assume that a single biological attack was the sole cause of the plague epidemic in Caffa and even the 14th-century plague pandemic in Europe. Nonetheless, the account of a biological warfare attack in Caffa is plausible and consistent with the technology of that time, and despite its historical unimportance, the siege of Caffa is a powerful reminder of the terrible consequences when diseases are used as weapons.

During the same 14th-century plague pandemic, which killed more than 25 million Europeans in the 14th and 15th centuries, many other incidents indicate the various uses of disease and poisons during war. For example, bodies of dead soldiers were catapulted into the ranks of the enemy in Karolstein in 1422. A similar strategy using cadavers of plague victims was utilized in 1710 during the battle between Russian troops and Swedish forces in Reval. On numerous occasions during the past 2000 years, the use of biological agents in the form of disease, filth, and animal and human cadavers has been mentioned in historical recordings.

Examples of biological and chemical warfare use during the past 2000 years.

Time Event
600 bc - Solon uses the purgative herb hellebore during the siege of Krissa.

1155 - Emperor Barbarossa poisons water wells with human bodies in Tortona, Italy.

1346 - Tartar forces catapult bodies of plague victims over the city walls of Caffa, Crimean Peninsula (now Feodosia, Ukraine).

1495 - Spanish mix wine with blood of leprosy patients to sell to their French foes in Naples, Italy.

1675 - German and French forces agree to not use “poisones bullets”.

1710 - Russian troops catapult human bodies of plague victims into Swedish cities.

1763 - British distribute blankets from smallpox patients to Native Americans.

1797 - Napoleon floods the plains around Mantua, Italy, to enhance the spread of malaria.

1863 - Confederates sell clothing from yellow fever and smallpox patients to Union troops during the US Civil War.

World War I - German and French agents use glanders and anthrax.

World War II - Japan uses plague, anthrax, and other diseases; several other countries experiment with and develop biological weapons programs.

1980–1988 - Iraq uses mustard gas, sarin, and tabun against Iran and ethnic groups inside Iraq during the Persian Gulf War.

1995 - Aum Shinrikyo uses sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system.

Another disease has been used as an effective biological weapon in the New World: smallpox. Pizarro is said to have presented South American natives with variola-contaminated clothing in the 15th century. In addition, during the French-Indian War (1754–1767), Sir Jeffrey Amherst, the commander of the British forces in North America, suggested the deliberate use of smallpox to diminish the native Indian population hostile to the British. An outbreak of smallpox in Fort Pitt led to a significant generation of fomites and provided Amherst with the means to execute his plan. On June 24, 1763, Captain Ecuyer, one of Amherst's subordinate officers, provided the Native Americans with smallpox-laden blankets from the smallpox hospital. He recorded in his journal: “I hope it will have the desired effect”. As a result, a large outbreak of smallpox occurred among the Indian tribes in the Ohio River Valley. Again, it has to be recognized that several other contacts between European colonists and Native Americans contributed to such epidemics, which had been occurring for over 200 years. In addition, the transmission of smallpox by fomites was inefficient compared with respiratory droplet transmission.

The description of these historical attempts of using diseases in biological warfare illustrates the difficulty of differentiating between a naturally occurring epidemic and an alleged or attempted biological warfare attack—a problem that has continued into present times.

Claims that people were being killed by zidovudine (AZT) instead of AIDS are unsubstantiated One time in the 80’s-90’s, people died from AZT and not the actual AIDS virus; Anthony Fauci pushed this treatment.

Unsupported: Zidovudine, or AZT, was the first HIV drug approved by the U.S. FDA in 1987. Due to the drug’s fast-track approval and toxicity, zidovudine was controversial. However, the claim that more people were killed by zidovudine rather than AIDS comes from a speculative quote by an AIDS denialist in a 1989 article about zidovudine.

Lacks context: During the early years of HIV treatment when few drugs were available, zidovudine was given to patients by most doctors. As the main spokesperson on AIDS for the federal government, Fauci was often the government official who spoke about HIV treatments, including promoting zidovudine, however, Fauci was not the only doctor or government official recommending zidovudine, nor was he instrumental in the recommendation.

Zidovudine, also known as AZT, was the first FDA-approved HIV drug; it received approval after it was shown to lower AIDS mortality at least in the short term. Due to its high toxicity, fast-tracked approval, and the development of viral resistance when zidovudine is given as a monotherapy, the drug is controversial although it is still used today in combination HIV therapy. The claim that more people were killed by zidovudine than AIDS itself during the 80s and 90s comes from a speculative quote in a 1989 article by an AIDS denialist. Anthony Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), became the face of the U.S. government when it came to the AIDS epidemic, which included speaking to the media about zidovudine and its benefits. As the first FDA approved HIV drug, zidovudine was prescribed by many doctors treating HIV patients, and Fauci wasn’t the only doctor to promote zidovudine.

FULL CLAIM: Remember that one time in the 80’s-90’s when people died from the AIDS treatment (AZT) and not the actual AIDS virus? Remember that one doctor [Anthony Fauci] who promoted that treatment?”

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Anthony Fauci, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and President Joe Biden’s chief medical advisor on COVID-19, has been the target of attacks primarily from those who oppose emergency measures; these attacks have only become more intense and conspiratorial.
Two recent Facebook posts with the same claim (see here and here), are representative of certain claims aimed at discrediting Fauci. Both mention a period in the 80s and 90s “when people died from the AIDS treatment (AZT) and not the actual virus,” and include an image of a younger Fauci speaking on C-SPAN, who the posts claimed was “that one doctor who promoted that treatment.” One of the Facebook posts cited a 1989 article in Spin, a former music magazine-turned-webzine, written by journalist Celia Farber as the source for this claim. The version of the article that can be found online is a 2015 reprint with an introduction by Spin’s founder Bob Guccione Jr.

As we’ll explore below, the claim is unsupported, lacking context about the early years of zidovudine and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment, and making unsubstantiated claims that are not supported by the 1989 article used as a source.

A short history of Zidovudine (AZT)
There are currently more than 30 HIV drugs, also known as antiretroviral drugs, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These drugs target HIV via a number of strategies, keeping the virus responsible for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) from making countless copies of itself. This is critical, since if HIV is left to replicate unchecked, the infection will develop into AIDS.

For a period in the late 80s, however, there was only one HIV drug available: zidovudine, also known as AZT (azidothymidine). An abandoned cancer drug, zidovudine works by mimicking nucleosides, the building blocks of DNA. When the HIV virus enters a cell, one of the first steps it takes is to convert its RNA genome into DNA, which then gets inserted into the human genome. If these decoy nucleosides get incorporated into the newly-forming strand of HIV DNA, the formation of the DNA is terminated.

When zidovudine was approved by the FDA in 1987, it had been six years since the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an article describing five cases of a rare pneumonia in young men in Los Angeles; this was the first official report of the condition that would later be called AIDS[1]. By December of 1987, the World Health Organization (WHO) had reported 71,571 thousand cases of AIDS worldwide (47,022 just in the U.S.), and had estimated that there were between five and ten million people living with HIV worldwide. By the end of 1987, 40,849 deaths from AIDS had been reported in the U.S. since the beginning of the epidemic, and for AIDS activists there was growing frustration and anger with the federal government’s lack of urgency about the epidemic. It was in this scenario that zidovudine was approved, with public pressure fast-tracking the drug’s approval process.

Zidovudine has been a controversial drug since day one. People criticized the cost of the drug, which at $8,000 a year in 1989 dollars was prohibitively expensive for many AIDS patients. Many were worried about zidovudine’s side effects, which varied from patient to patient. While some who took it described renewed energy and weight gain, in others it caused nausea, vomiting and anemia. And many others, such as AIDS activist Larry Kramer in a 1987 op-ed in The New York Times, criticized the quick approval of AZT (25 months from demonstration in the lab to approval) when other drugs that were considered less toxic were not yet available.

One of the criticisms of zidovudine was that it seemed to decrease mortality—until it didn’t. In 1989, the manufacturer of zidovudine, Burroughs Wellcome Company, mailed a letter to American doctors about resistant HIV strains found in 11 patients who had taken the drug for over six months. The development of viral resistance to zidovudine was seen in other studies, and these helped the HIV community realize that monotherapy–treating HIV with a single drug–was not a solution for managing HIV infections.

When HIV replicates, it accumulates mutations. These mutations can happen anywhere in the virus’ genome, but in a situation where an individual is taking a single HIV drug—as was the case in the first years of zidovudine—the drug will kill off the susceptible viruses, while the viruses that carry mutations that allow them to evade the drug’s effect, continue to replicate and eventually become the dominant strain; this is how resistant HIV strains emerge. According to the WHO, “all current antiretroviral drugs, including newer classes, are at risk of becoming partly or fully inactive because of the emergence of drug-resistant virus strains.”

The solution HIV researchers found for this issue is combination therapy, which The New York Times called a “clear watershed in the treatment of AIDS”. Combination therapy involves using three or more different HIV drugs instead of just one. Using a combination can delay and prevent the appearance of HIV drug resistance. Early studies into combination therapy combined zidovudine with two other HIV drugs.

Zidovudine is still used in combination with other drugs to treat HIV. Due to its toxicity, the drug is often replaced with newer HIV drugs with fewer side-effects, but some patients are still prescribed combinations that include zidovudine.

Claims in Facebook post about AZT are unsubstantiated and lack context
The main claim in the Facebook posts is that “people died from the AIDS treatment (AZT) and not the actual virus” for a period in the 1980s and 1990s. This claim is repeated in Farber’s 1989 article in Spin. Farber asked one doctor, Harvey Bialy, “if he thought it was possible that people have been killed as a result of AZT poisoning rather than AIDS,” and Bialy answered that “it’s more than possible.” Bialy, who died in 2020, was an AIDS denialist. The claim is also repeated in the introduction written by Guccione Jr for the 2015 reprint of Farber’s article, who described zidovudine as “a drug that was worse than the disease, and killed faster than the natural progression of AIDS left untreated.”

From Farber’s article, it’s clear that the claim is in reality speculation from one individual (and an AIDS denialist at that), and no evidence is provided for this speculation in either the Farber article or the 2015 introduction. As mentioned previously in this review, studies found that zidovudine, at least in the short term, decreased mortality. An Anglo-French study that began in 1988 with 1,750 participants, called the Concorde, concluded in 1993 that early treatment with zidovudine didn’t halt the progress of AIDS nor did it lengthen the life of study participants[2]. As such, while zidovudine alone does not decrease mortality in the long-term, there is no evidence that it was the treatment’s toxicity that killed people rather than AIDS.

The second claim in the Facebook posts is that Fauci promoted zidovudine. While this is true in a strict sense, it provides no context for the time and suggests that Fauci was alone in promoting zidovudine. In 1984, Fauci became the director of NIAID, an institute within the U.S. National Institutes of Health that both conducts and supports basic and applied research into infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases. In 1986, NIAID created an AIDS program to coordinate research in HIV/AIDS. With this, Fauci became the one of the main government scientists focused on AIDS, appearing in the media to discuss the epidemic. “My face was the face of the federal government,” Fauci told Michael Specter in a 2020 profile in The New Yorker.

Neither NIAID nor Fauci approve HIV drugs; approval of zidovudine and other HIV drugs was and continues to be done by the FDA. Articles that examine the history of zidovudine, such as this one by TIME and this one by VICE, never mention Fauci.

Still, Fauci did speak of and promote zidovudine and other HIV drugs in the media. Articles related to zidovudine in The New York Times archives, contain a handful of examples in which Fauci provided journalists with comments about the drug, such as this one about Burroughs Wellcome Company’s letter on resistant strains—where Fauci urged caution on the results—and this 1992 article about growing doubts about zidovudine’s effectiveness. In the 1992 article, Fauci told science journalist Gina Kolata that he believed the data was still sound enough to advise zidovudine for individuals whose immune system had begun to fail. At the time, most doctors remained in favor of zidovudine’s usage.

Conclusion
Facebook posts concerning the use of zidovudine in the 1980s and 1990s, and Fauci’s promotion of the drug, misleads in two ways. It claimed that the AIDS drug zidovudine, more commonly known as AZT in the 1980s and 1990s, killed more people than AIDS itself. However this is unsubstantiated, and the source given for this claim is in reality speculation from an AIDS denialist in a 1989 article.

The second claim about how Fauci promoted zidovudine lacks context. As the director of NIAID, Fauci became one of the main faces of the government in discussions about public health, and therefore was involved in commenting and promoting zidovudine after it was approved by the FDA in 1987. However, Fauci wasn’t the only one to do so; based on the scientific evidence available at the time, many doctors at the time were also in favor of using the drug.

HIV/AIDS: A Brief History of AZT – Part One
AZT (Azidothymidine a.k.a Zidovudine) was the first drug approved to target HIV. Consequently, it has a very special – and quite controversial – place in the history of HIV/AIDS. It’s for this reason that I’m going to try and provide a brief overview of its development and its early days as the only antiviral drug available.

In Part One I aim to develop a broad timeline of the main clinical trials that influenced how it was used. This will include links to additional references. In Part Two I will look at the controversies and other issues that surrounded the use of AZT. I don’t claim that either post will be comprehensive, not least because of my limited knowledge of clinical issues. Therefore I heartily welcome comments, criticisms and other input. (Although I won’t accept abusive language, so play nice!)

Full Disclosure
I am not a clinician, so if you’re expecting a clinical paper then you will be disappointed. But I do have some relevant professional experience. When it was introduced I was working as a social worker in Australia’s largest AIDS unit in St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney. So I saw, up close, what AZT was – and wasn’t – doing to people.

But I should add that I have never used AZT myself, as I am HIV negative. So my experience of the drug is what I’ve seen it do to people using our services, what other people have told me, and what I’ve read about it. So it’s personal inasmuch as it rarely left my consciousness in the 80s and 90s because of my work. But it’s not too personal because AZT was never part of my personal routine.

Setting the Scene
It’s important to understand the context in which AZT appeared. Most particularly, that it had been almost six years between the first AIDS diagnosis and the licensing of the drug. For our community that was six very long years during which we lost lovers, friends, family members and community activists. Six long years during which we were subject to the most hideous forms of vilification – from the media, politicians and moral entrepreneurs. And six long years during which we wondered if there would ever be an end to the loss and the pain.

It’s no under-statement, then, to say that we were desperate. So it was understandable that there may have been some reluctance to question this drug – this possible magic bullet – too hard. It had to work.

But AZT did come with a number of questions, which I’ll try and identify here. And while I shall do this as a non-clinician, it will still require a little medical knowledge on your part. In particular, you will need to know what CD4 cells are and what the significance of CD4 counts is. This Wikipedia article should help.

AZT wasn’t developed specifically for use against HIV. It was actually developed as an anti-cancer drug at the Michigan Cancer Foundation in 1964. But it didn’t work, so it was shelved until 1984 when drug company Burroughs Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKlein) began testing it, along with a number of other drugs, as a possible anti-HIV drug. In November 1984 Burroughs Wellcome sent samples to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for confirmation that it worked against the virus in test tubes.

The FDA confirmed that AZT worked in test tubes, so the next step was to test in on humans. This occurred in July 1985, when 19 patients were given the drug. (1) The results were deemed to be of sufficient statistical significance to justify a larger trial.

That larger trial began in 1986 (2). 282 people with AIDS were randomly assigned AZT or a placebo. No one – patient or clinician – was supposed to know who had been given what. The trial was supposed to run for 24 months. However, early analysis of the data showed significant differences between the two groups. Consequently, the trial was stopped and all participants were put on AZT. The data was reported to the FDA, who deemed it to be so significant they gave formal approval for the drug to be used on people with AIDS from March 20th 1987. It was also approved for use in the UK and Australia around this time. [Note: The objectivity of the trial was subsequently brought into question. This is covered in Part Two.]

The apparent success of this trial led researchers to explore whether the drug may be of benefit to people who were HIV positive but had yet to develop symptoms of AIDS. In July 1987 the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) began a two-part trial of asymptomatic people with HIV. One study (3) involved people with CD4 cell counts of fewer than 500 per cubic millimetre. The other (4) involved people with CD4 counts greater than 500 per cubic millimetre. Both trials came under the heading ‘ACTG Protocol 019’. And both were ‘double-blinded’; that is, neither researchers nor participants knew what they were receiving.

The first arm of the study (people below 500 CD4 cells) involved 1,338 people. 438 were given a placebo; 453 were given 500 mg of AZT a day and 457 received 1500 mg a day. After 55 weeks, 33 members of the placebo group had developed AIDS, as had 11 of the 500 mg group and 15 of the 1500 mg group. When researchers reported their findings in April 1990 they concluded:

“…Zidovudine is safe and effective in persons with asymptomatic HIV infection and fewer than 500 CD4 cells per cubic millimetre. Additional study will be required to determine whether such treatment will ultimately improve survival of persons with HIV.”

The FDA approved the use of AZT in asymptomatic HIV+ people with fewer than 500 CD4 cells in response. The second arm of the study had 1,637 participants, all with CD4 counts greater than 500. 547 were given the placebo, 549 were given 500 mg a day and 541 received 1500 mg a day. In 1989 the study was modified so that any participants whose CD4 cells dropped below 500 were offered open-label AZT at the dose of 500 mg per day. In 1995 researchers concluded: “Treatment with AZT slows the decline in CD4 counts but does not significantly prolong either AIDS-free or overall survival.”

These findings echoed those of a similar study of that time. The Concorde Study (5) involved 1,749 participants in the UK, Ireland and France. Participants received either 1,000 mg of AZT a day or a placebo, taken in four daily doses. Like the ACTG 019 trial, participants could switch to open label AZT if their CD4 cells fell below 500.

But when the data were analysed, there was very little difference between the outcomes of the two groups. For example, 92% of those who started AZT immediately survived, compared to 93% of those on the placebo. The most noticeable difference was the slower rate of decline in CD4 count in those who began AZT immediately.

Five years later, a meta-analysis of research on AZT (6) reached a similar conclusion: “Zidovudine does not increase a person’s chance of AIDS-free survival in the long-term, although it does reduce disease progression in the short-term.”

And so it was that the real effect of AZT was finally, clinically, described. Not really what we had hoped for. But the disappointing news was tempered by a more positive observation. And that was that AZT was significantly more effective when used in conjunction with one of the new antivirals that had been developed. In effect, what this statement was recognising was that we had just turned a significant corner in the treatment of HIV – combination therapy.

HIV/AIDS: A Brief History of AZT – Part Two
In my last post I outlined the clinical tests that led to the approval of AZT/Zidovudine as the first anti-HIV drug.

What I want to do now is look at some of the non-clinical issues that surrounded the approval and use of the drug. I’m sure this list is far from exhaustive so I’m more than happy to hear about other issues.

1) An Expensive Distraction
Not everyone believed that HIV was the cause of AIDS (see, for example, here). So, for them, any pursuit of anti-HIV treatments simply distracted attention – and, more importantly, funding – from research into the real cause(s) of AIDS.

2) Approval Process
AZT was approved for use on people with AIDS in a remarkably short time frame. In the late 1980s, the US drug approval process normally took around 8 years. AZT was approved in 20 months.

Central to this approval was a 1986 trial of the drug on 282 people with AIDS. Half were randomly allocated AZT, the other half were given a placebo. Neither the participants nor the researchers knew who was allocated what.

The researchers concluded the trial prematurely on the grounds that early data had demonstrated conclusively that the drug worked. All of the participants were then put on AZT. Shortly afterwards, on March 20th 1987, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the drug for use on people with AIDS. We began using it in Australia shortly thereafter.

Understandably, after nearly six years of fear and hopelessness, the arrival of AZT was welcomed with some optimism. Even if it did come with one or two problems.

The first was the requirement that it be taken every four hours, day and night. Consequently it was impossible to get more than four hours unbroken sleep. And the second issue was its toxicity, which often caused problems such as anaemia. We saw a lot of this in Sydney, and ended up bringing most of our guys in for regular blood transfusions.

But then, in June 1987, journalist John Lauritsen wrote a long and highly critical article about AZT in the New York Native. Lauritsen had obtained documents relating to the 1986 drug trial under the Freedom of Information Act and he claimed that these demonstrated serious irregularities with the trial.

For example, he claimed that the toxicity of AZT had been understated in order to get FDA approval. Almost half of the people receiving AZT had required numerous blood transfusions because their bone marrow and immune systems were being damaged. A few had been taken off the drug altogether because they couldn’t tolerate its side effects.

He went on to make a number of other claims about irregularities in the trial. These included:

* Some patients increased their chances of getting AZT by pooling their medications with others on the trial

* The trail had been ‘unblinded’ prematurely so researchers knew who was getting AZT

* There had been a sudden increase in deaths after the trial was ended after 16 weeks

Unsurprisingly then, he questioned whether the trial really had proven the benefits of AZT. He argued that the drug did more harm than good and declared: “Recovery from AIDS will come from strengthening the body, not poisoning it. Do not take, prescribe or recommend AZT.”

In April 1989, Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer also undertook a lengthy investigation of AZT, including the 1986 drug trial. His findings pretty much echoed Lauritsen’s.

He claimed that the trial had ended just as the side effects of the drug were beginning to kick in and that few patients were able to take the drug long-term. He also claimed that both doctors and patients knew what they were taking and their treatments had been adjusted accordingly.

But despite Lauritsen’s article – three months after AZT became available – many people with AIDS chose to take the drug. It wasn’t as if they had a great deal of choice. Facing a possible death sentence – and an unpleasant one at that – it’s not easy to accept the idea that the one glimmer of hope might be bad for you.

Even if you could acknowledge its toxicity, the risk was worth taking if it extended your life, hopefully until a better drug came along. After all, there was already talk of new drugs on the horizon. And even if the drug turned out to be snake oil, it was still something after a wait of nearly six years.

And so some people chose to take AZT whilst others didn’t. I even knew a man in Sydney who actively urged others not to take it – while continuing to take the drug himself!

3) Access
So taking or not taking it was not simply a black or white matter. Ultimately, there was a general consensus that everyone had the right to take it if they so chose. Certainly that was the view of AIDS activist group ACT UP, who decided to step in when Burroughs Welcome priced AZT beyond the reach of many people with AIDS in the US.

From March 1987, AZT was the only anti-HIV drug available to people living with AIDS around the globe. That, in itself, gave the company a huge market. Consequently, the company’s share price rose dramatically from the moment the drug when on the market, rising 40% in just over two years.

And yet, in their rush to optimise their profits, they priced AZT at $10,000 a year. They reluctantly agreed to drop the price to $8,000 when threatened with a congressional enquiry. But it was still one of the most expensive drugs available.

The cost was beyond the reach of many people living with AIDS. Even for those with health insurance, it quickly exceeded the limits that health insurance providers would pay. And, of course, for those without health insurance, it made access to the drug almost impossible.

ACT UP tried a range of strategies to have the price lowered. In the first instance they met with the company – but without success. Then they invaded, then barricaded themselves into, Burroughs Wellcome’s North Carolina offices Still no change.

Then they met with the company again – this time with 15 other AIDS organisations. When this failed to bring about any change, they called for a boycott of Burroughs Wellcome products. The company still refused to change its position.

So, on September 14th, 1989, some of ACT UP’s members infiltrated the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street just before opening time. After chaining themselves to the VIP balcony they threw fake hundred dollar bills onto the trading floor. Then they unfurled a banner that read SELL WELLCOME.

Their final act was to set off foghorns, drowning out the ringing of the opening bell, and disrupting a decades only tradition. Four days later, Burroughs Welcome dropped the price of AZT to $6,400 a year.

Meanwhile, on 9th October 1987, under a banner reading “Give people the choice”, London’s Capital Gay newspaper reported, , “Hundreds are still denied AZT”.

The reason, as Dr Charles Farthing from St. Stephen’s Hospital explained, was that the government wasn’t giving the National Health Service enough money to buy enough of the drug. The money was only about one quarter of what was needed.

I was living in Australia at that time so don’t know any more details about this. It certainly doesn’t surprise me, given the moral as well as the fiscal climate of Margaret Thatcher’s government. Thatcher herself was a major obstacle in the UK’s response to the AIDS crisis. If anyone can tell me what happened with this I’d be very grateful.

Fauci's AIDS-AZT Fraud The CoVid “pandemic” was orchestrated to be a Big Pharma payday — that much was clear to me on February 1st, 2020.

Fauci already set a precedent for this in the 80s with the HIV/AIDS fraud and the drugs that were approved as the “official treatments” then.

But in this June 2nd, 2020 report I also called out a disturbing trend related to these drugs.

As you’ll see in the video below — whether with AZT for AIDS, or Remdesivir for CoVid-19 — Fauci has a track record of endorsing drugs that seemingly cause the conditions they are meant to be preventing.

Thank you to everyone who is a paid subscriber, you’re helping offset the significant amount of time, effort, and resources it takes to write and produce this material.

Faced with the burgeoning HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, NCI’s intramural program developed the first therapies to effectively treat the disease. These discoveries helped transform a fatal diagnosis to the manageable condition it is for many today.

Faced with the burgeoning HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, NCI’s intramural program developed the first therapies to effectively treat the disease. The NCI efforts drew upon its established expertise in virology, tumor biology and the immune system and was enabled by the inherent flexibility of the NIH intramural research program to respond quickly to new crises. The discoveries of NCI researchers in the early days of HIV/AIDS were vital in transforming HIV infection from a fatal diagnosis to the manageable condition it is for many today.

Patients with the mysterious immune disorder now known as AIDS had been arriving at the NIH Clinical Center since 1981. When the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was identified by Luc Montagnier, M.D., at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, and then shown by NCI’s Robert Gallo, M.D., in 1984 to be the cause of AIDS, NCI scientists were poised to rapidly act on the discoveries.

At the time, there were almost no effective antiviral drugs for any disease, and it was unclear whether stopping HIV from replicating was feasible or would allow patients’ immune systems to recover from an infection. But NCI’s Samuel Broder, M.D., Hiroaki Mitsuya, M.D., Ph.D., and Robert Yarchoan, M.D., searched for compounds that inhibited viral growth in the laboratory and then immediately initiated first-in-human trials at the NIH Clinical Center to test them in patients. NCI’s strong industry collaborations helped speed patient access to the new drugs.

The NCI researchers first focused on a viral enzyme called reverse transcriptase that HIV needs to multiply. They developed an assay to test the utility of drugs against HIV and gathered a number of promising compounds to test. Azidothymidine (AZT), a compound first synthesized by Jerome Horowitz, Ph.D., in 1964 as an anti-cancer drug, was among the drugs initially tested. In a preliminary clinical trial done largely in the NIH Clinical Center, NCI scientists showed that AZT could improve the immune function of AIDS patients. In a randomized trial, it was subsequently shown to improve survival of AIDS patients. In 1987, it became the first drug approved by the U.S. FDA for treatment of the disease. AZT was subsequently shown to markedly reduce the perinatal transmission of HIV.

Because AZT was not entirely effective by itself, NCI scientists continued to develop and test other drugs to treat AIDS, including the reverse transcriptase inhibitors didanosine (ddI) and zalcitabine (ddC). These became the second and third drugs approved by the FDA for AIDS. Combining AZT with one of these drugs improved the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy.

Unfortunately, patients often developed resistance to these drugs. As researchers learned more about HIV in the following years, they were able to develop drugs that attacked the virus in new ways. NCI scientists helped map out the structure of another essential viral enzyme, the HIV protease, to guide the design of a new class of HIV drugs. When combined with reverse transcriptase inhibitors, protease inhibitors, developed in the mid-1990s, dramatically suppressed replication of the virus, often reducing it to undetectable levels.

The number of AIDS-related deaths in the U.S., which exceeded 40,000 in 1995, declined rapidly after the introduction of this combination therapy, called highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). HAART has dramatically reduced AIDS mortality and transmission of the virus in many parts of the world where there has been ready access to the medication. It has also markedly reduced the development of the many AIDS-related cancers that are associated with immunodeficiency. CCR scientists have continued to study the virus, including malignancies such as Kaposi sarcoma that are related to and influenced by HIV infection, and patients living with HIV today have even more treatment options.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230226151842/https://www.exposingtheirlies.com/post/some-covid-19-horror-stories-you-may-have-missed

Nobody sees this as a way to make billions of dollars."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements

Anthony Fauci’s Hospital Protocols For Covid are Killing Thousands From the Land of Baloney is Dr. Death is a Mass Murderer and a Prolific Serial Killer.

https://therealtruthnetworkcom.wordpress.com/2022/02/04/are-hospital-covid-protocols-killing-people/

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin: A synergistic combination for COVID-X-24 chemoprophylaxis and treatment? Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has spread all over the world. While awaiting a vaccine, we need effective drugs to treat or, even better, prevent coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Two drugs classically used by dermatologists are being examined in the fight against COVID-19: hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and, very recently, ivermectin. We hypothesize that HCQ and ivermectin may show a consequential and synergistic action if administered simultaneously both for chemoprophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19.

COVID-X-24 Blood and Non Vaccines Blood and Secret Pedophile's Blood Bank U.S.A. - https://rumble.com/v2dye2c-covid-19-blood-and-non-vaccines-blood-and-secret-pedophiles-blood-bank-u.s..html

Blood Feasting Pedophiles, Parasitic Monsters Literally and Predatory Feeding Off the 9.6 Million Children Gone Missing Each Year Around the World… Top Secret “Pedophile” has reverberated throughout America.

The nation’s roiling tensions over vaccination against covid-19 have spilled into an unexpected arena: lifesaving blood transfusions.

https://dearpandemic.org/vaccines-and-donating-blood/

With nearly 60% of the eligible U.S. population fully vaccinated, Its getting hard to find a clean blood supply that is covid free. so now more people in 33> different county are now asking for clean blood supply from other nation’s blood supply is now coming from donors who have been inoculated, experts said.

That’s led some patients who are skeptical of the shots to demand transfusions only from the unvaccinated people, for a clean blood supply now, an option blood centers insist is neither medically sound nor operationally feasible.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjh.17842

The American Red Cross declared the first-ever national blood crisis in January, and desperately needs donations. Whole blood donations from people who are O+ or O- and platelet donations are especially needed.

https://www.redcrossblood.org/local-homepage/news/article/covid-19-vaccination-guide-blood-donation.html

https://dearpandemic.org/blood-in-short-supply/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138208/

Absolutely. Some of these studies used plasma very late; other studies used insufficient plasma. The WHO did not have access to the Hopkins data. We are hopeful that since they are physician-scientists and rigorous people, they will issue new recommendations in the future.

https://ccpp19.org/index.html

You Will Never Trust Another Celebrity After Watching This Corrupt U.S.A. Governments - https://rumble.com/v2kq5mw-you-will-never-trust-another-celebrity-after-watching-this-corrupt-u.s.a.-g.html

Once you see this you'll have no faith in these people again! The system-serving airheads that should be tried and imprisoned for crimes against humanity like most politicians, oligarchs, globalists and most medias. So many innocent people of all age groups have died or been severely injured for life after listening to the advice of Hollywood celebrities, talk show hosts and politicians regarding the vaccine for covid-19.

Click on the links below for the full story and or Type it into a Web Base Search ! https://web.archive.org/web/20230226151842/https://www.exposingtheirlies.com/post/some-covid-19-horror-stories-you-may-have-missed

Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated People Will Threaten The Live Of Vaccinated People? - https://rumble.com/v2qf2nk-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated-people-will-threaten-the-live-of-vaccinated-pe.html

Nobody Is Safe From People's Republic Of The Tyrannical U.S.A. Government And Death To The Unvaccinated America People And American Nation CDC director says coronavirus outbreak ‘becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated’ How the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated people of the world for a darwinian perspective. As of 27 May 2023, the 10 leading causes of death accounted for 74.5% of all U.S. deaths in 2021, according to the NVSS. The US has recorded more than 47.7 million confirmed COVID-19 cases and more than 771,500 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University data. The global total for COVID-19 cases and deaths is more than 257.8 million cases and 5.15 million deaths, according to the CDC. More than 196 million Americans, 59.1% of the population, are fully vaccinated. The disease was reported as the underlying cause of death or a contributing cause of death for an estimated 377,883 people in 2020, accounting for 11.3% of deaths, according to the CDC. P.S. Exposing U.S.A. Gov. Their Lies!

Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) is a rare event that occurs in adults whose hearts suddenly stop pumping, causing sudden cardiac arrest and possibly death. SADS is a loosely defined umbrella term for a series of cardiac syndromes that cause sudden cardiac arrest and possibly death. Some of these syndromes are the result of structural problems in the heart, while others may be the result of irregularities within the electrical channels. Sudden loss of consciousness or death often occurs during physical exercise or emotional upset. Young people with a particular family history are being urged to get their hearts screened even if they are fit and healthy, as they could be at risk of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS). The most common SADS conditions include genetic arrhythmia syndromes such as long QT syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), and Brugada syndrome.

Healthy Athletes Dropping Dead of Cardiac Arrest for No Reason A New Bioweapon ?

https://rumble.com/v2dvl62-healthy-athletes-dropping-dead-of-cardiac-arrest-for-no-reason-a-new-biowea.html

A New Bioweapon Globally As Of This Date 16 March 2023, there have been 760,360,956 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,873,477 deaths, reported to WHO. As of 14 March 2023, a total of 13,232,904,667 vaccine doses have been administered. 6,033,218 Injured Recorded in Europe and USA Following COVID Vaccines with 4,358 Fetal Deaths in U.S. as of July 4 2022 -To date, the coronavirus disease 2023 (COVID-19) pandemic has taken more than 6.8 million lives. Many of these deaths have been attributed to misleading information that fragmented a coordinated effort to mitigate loss of life.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230224153841/https://healthimpactnews.com/2022/76789-deaths-6089773-injuries-reported-in-u-s-and-european-databases-following-covid-19-vaccines/

The unvaccinated are a risk to all of us. Why COVID-19 Shot Is Not Safe ? Nuremberg Code ? Agent Orange ? Anthrax Vaccine ?

https://rumble.com/v2affqe-why-covid-19-shot-is-not-safe-nuremberg-code-agent-orange-anthrax-vaccine-.html

U.S. Government said and or told Us - We The People - COVID-19 Shot Are Safe ? LIE's ? So Per the Nuremberg Code ? Agent Orange ? Anthrax Vaccine ? Paraquat Pot ? 1920 Poisoned Alcohol ? Now Mandatory COVID-19 Shots caused adverse reactions in most recipients all part of a series of massive government cover-ups.
The Pentagon's mandatory anthrax shots caused adverse reactions in most recipients and helped prompt many Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard members to transfer to other units or leave the military between 1998 and 2000, according to a survey by Congress's General Accounting Office (GAO).

The survey indicated that 85% of troops who received an anthrax shot had an adverse reaction, a rate far higher than the 30% claimed by the manufacturer in 2000, when the survey was conducted. Sixteen percent of the survey respondents had either left the military or changed their status, at least in part because of the vaccination program.

Pedophile Bill Gates Is Lying To You On Vaccine Patent Protection # WO2020060606A1 - https://rumble.com/v2bvqos-pedophile-bill-gates-is-lying-to-you-on-vaccine-patent-protection-wo2020060.html

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (brand name: Comirnaty) was granted full Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in August 2021 for people ages 16 and older. It was the first COVID-19 vaccine to receive FDA Emergency Use Authorization.

The technology would enable instant tracking and access to a person’s medical history.

COVID-19 Vaccines Will Kill You? Animation What Happens If You Get Coronavirus Effect - https://rumble.com/v2dt6zk-covid-19-vaccines-will-kill-you-animation-what-happens-if-you-get-coronavir.html

No question that the mRNA vaccines should be withdrawn with immediate effect” An independent analysis of the accumulated Yellow Card data, finally released 18 months after the first FOI request, shows unequivocal safety signals linking the mRNA vaccines to serious damage to the lymph system, the heart, and female reproduction 'Health regulator failing to keep public protected from mRNA shots' IN the UK, three Covid-19 vaccines - AstraZeneca (AZ), Pfizer (PF) and Moderna (MO) - have been used in a nationwide inoculation programmed aimed at preventing harm from the so-called SARS-CoV2 virus.

This is probably the key to everything. For the Vaxxed, for the Unvaxxed. Here is an explanation of the natural and synthetic parasites we are facing, and a guide to the three things you need to do to protect yourself and your family.

Real Parallel Worlds Today - NAZI vs U.S.A. - COVID-19 - ANTIFA - SS vs FBI vs DEATH - https://rumble.com/v3g2oan-real-parallel-worlds-today-nazi-vs-u.s.a.-covid-19-antifa-ss-vs-fbi-vs-deat.html

Death To You And Your Family... Its For The Greater Good. Death To You And America... Its For The Greater Good. Its A Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated People Will Threaten The Live Of Vaccinated People... Yes Its For The Greater Good. You Will Never Trust Another Celebrity After Watching This Covil-19 Corrupt U.S.A. Governments... Yes Its For The Greater Good. Yes Its A Plandemic For New World Order... Yes Its For The Greater Good.

World Economic Forum Great Reset Medical Tyranny, Woke Culture, Green Agenda - https://rumble.com/v3jfm06-world-economic-forum-great-reset-medical-tyranny-woke-culture-green-agenda.html

The Great Awakening Another Powerful Documentary From What If Everything You Were Taught Was A Lie? Yes Its For The Greater Good. Yes Thank You For Killing Yourself Too... We The Sheeple People's Republic Of United State Of America... Yes Its For The Greater Good. With Love From Your Uncle Sam... Yes Its For The Greater Good, Greater Good, Greater Good, And God Bless You ALL... Yes Its For The Greater Good.

Show less