I am reading the book "What the Nurses Saw" by Ken McCarthy and it clearly illustrates (in interviews with nurses and a respiratory therapist who were in deadly NYC hospitals in the peak of the panic) that the availability of respiratory therapists makes a huge difference to the potential harm caused by ventilators. Some hospitals in NYC were extremely short of RTs, which made ventilation deadly where it may not have been otherwise. So, to answer Devon Brewer's comment about the % usage of ventilators per facility not correlating to % excess mortality, any analysis should take into account the number of RT's per patient in each facility.
Check out "Undercover Epicenter Nurse". A Florida nurse travels to NYC to work in the hospital there on the front lines. She wore a recording device in her glasses. It will change your view of "hospitals" and "doctors" forever. Peace.
A nurse in NZ admitted to me that she had given patients with severe respiratory issues fatal doses of Midazolam --- she said that they were suffering horribly and that this was a necessary kindness... which is true ... she was putting them out of their misery ... however what she failed to mention was that they were not given the usual drug protocols that would normally be given to prevent the severe symptoms....
The medical system is itself diseased ... and disgusting ... here is my experience with a vet
David M.. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger, Anthony S. Fauci, Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 198, Issue 7, 1 October 2008, Pages 962–970, https://doi.org/10.1086/591708 ]
Well our vet was a fine and intelligent person. She came to our home when a beloved dog was dyeing of old age and in pain and euthanized him. It was a gift for us and the dog. He could have lingered on for weeks not even being able to walk. She also would provide shots for large animals as some of our neighbors had horses and she would come and give some sort equine mosquito type shot for very little money. She was far from greedy.
Anyway, to condemn an entire large group of individuals as "immoral and sadistic" sounds mentally ill. Medical doctors on the whole, are conformists and love discipline, rules and yes, drugs. Drugs may be needed in some situations but when a healthy strong body and immune system are your aims, drugs mask symptoms and create chemical imbalances that result from eating denatured food laden with dyes and chemicals and preservatives.
Our local vet is not a piece of shit.... he said when I informed him of the $5000 test...'but that's a test for cancer - I don't understand why they suggested this if you said you would not treat cancer if that was the diagnosis'... it was a rhetorical question ... he knows
Stress – immune suppression – anxiety/fear – death
Neuroimmunologist Christian Schubert explains how much our immune system suffered from COVID measures – leading to collective immune suppression. Immune cells are fundamental to the defense against all types of diseases. It has been proven that these immune cells are reduced by stress/anxiety. They are depleted. Risking death. This can also be measured in amino acids. Immune cells are built from amino acids, primarily methionine and lysine. These are measurably reduced by stress.
Above all, many people have fallen ill and even died because the constant stress and fear propaganda weakened their immune system.
It should also take into account the fact that forced ventilation of damaged lungs can be - and was - deadly. I am a retired RN (2008) who worked in the VA system, and have heard from nurses I know in various states (NY, CA, OR, FL) that ventilators were misused and were - in their opinions, which I share - actually causative of deaths on their units, ICU and so-called Covid wards. Not simply from a dearth of RTs (I am sure that didn't help) but from what I understand took place in the lungs of those Covid patients who actually HAD a severe respiratory infection, not simply a "positive" PCR . The damage done by the inflammation caused by "cytokine storm" made forced ventilation - especially at high pressures - deadly. Several of my fellow RNs told me being put on a ventilator was a death sentence. Several of them quit due to the protocols being used.
My belief is that far more patients died from Covid hospital "one-size fits all" protocols than from the disease itself. I think even more have died from the improperly manufactured and improperly tested toxic injections marketed as "vaccines" for Covid.
Then searching who got the contracts for manufacturing ventilators would be in order. Providing equipment with no training seems to me ready for a major class action lawsuit. I know of an attorney that specializes in those against corporations.
Just a note here that by mid 2020 the FDA denied an EUA request for use of Hyperbaric oxygen for treatment. Buried clinical trial showed 90% plus success in clearing lungs.
Yes, the FDA did all it could to deny useful, safe, and effective treatments and deny them. Both high-volume and Hyperbaric O2 was indicated by a number of physicians in place of forced ventilation, and was found to be very effective. The FDA - a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Pharma - couldn't allow that.
2007 the American Public Health Schools association did their pandemic response plan and only came out with response of personal protection equipment, social distancing, drugs and mechanical ventilators. The last item they already recognized there was going to be shortages in the fall requiring triage.
My searches in 2021 showed prior to the pandemic that the companies owning and and making ventilators changed hands a lot with major increases in price. It would make sense that profiteering would take place especially as I recall two major auto companies would then receive the contracts for production...lots of this post 9-11 and the rise of the Bush Jr. biosecurity state.
Thank you Teresa for this important comment. It matters little how a treatment is ideally administered on paper or in a controlled environment for a scientific paper. It matters more, in terms of harm, what the actual practice was, especially for such a dangerous invasive treatment on the most frail individuals... I so agree with you.
Devon states in his Reply: "I found several articles with results consistent with my inferences that do indeed falsify the harmful healthcare interventions hypothesis, at least with respect to invasive mechanical ventilation." Devon: I would invite you to explore why your found articles do not "falsify" the mechanical ventilation part of our hypothesis.
Hi Denis, as I've stated in other replies, this represents a revision in the hypothesis. You have cited high ventilation rates in particular places with excess mortality as consistent with the hypothesis. However, you neglected to cite the same high rates in places with no excess mortality, which are wholly inconsistent with (falsify) the hypothesis. If the key factor is not ventilation, but improper ventilation, then the hypothesis changes and with it the burden of assessing it appropriately with systematic empirical evidence across places and times with varying levels of excess mortality. So this revised hypothesis represents a new round of speculation that awaits empirical evaluation.
Select observations at select hospitals filtered into published papers can be "inconsistent" at face value. But "inconsistent" is not "incompatible", nor does it "falsify" the hypothesis that a relatively aggressive and larger scale (larger hospitals) drive toward dangerous interventions caused part of the hotspot mortality peaks. You incorrectly claim to have disproved a hypothesis. Falsely believing that this hypothesis is disproved is harmful to a continued enquiry. Your belief is bad science. Good discussion, but bad science.
You criticize "select observations at select hospitals filtered into published papers," which I presume you mean those I cited. Yet you and your colleagues disregarded those and likely many other such reports and cited "select observations at select hospitals filtered into published papers" for those areas with high mortality only. Without indications that particular sources are untrustworthy, irrelevant, or unsound, good scientific practice is to acknowledge, consider, and explain the full range of sources on a matter. By citing sources on ventilation rates yourself, you imply that you take such evidence as valid.
My limited literature search yielded reports of ventilation rates that are inconsistent with the harmful treatment protocols hypothesis as you have stated and implied it in your report. As Richard Feynman said, "If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong" (The Character of Physical Experiment; see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman). In the context of his comment, "experiment" applied to empirical observation generally. If an hypothesis is inconsistent with the evidence in a main prediction or implication, then it does seem falsified. Consistency between hypothesis and evidence is the basis for judging the merit of an hypothesis.
Science is, among other things, the business of falsifying hypotheses, especially one's own, not rescuing or protecting hypotheses. Feynman expressed this well, urging scientists to "bend[ing] over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong" (https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm). From your responses, it's not clear to me whether you think the stress and harmful treatment protocols hypotheses are falsifiable, or if so, how you think they could be falsified. I suggest that in future work, you operationalize your hypotheses precisely, so that you and others can know how consistent results are (or are not) with the hypotheses. As a further guard against fooling oneself and others, I recommend especially pre-registering analysis and study protocols (e.g., see https://osf.io/registries).
You have my feedback. Do with it what what you will. I encourage you to continue your research, and I look forward to your future results.
Thank you, Teresa. Availability of respiratory therapists is a separate hypothesis from invasive mechanical ventilation. And there would need to be systematic data, not just anecdotes, for evaluating the availability of respiratory therapists as an hypothesis. It's not an hypothesis that I'm proposing or investigating, but others can if they feel it has promise. Proposing an hypothesis does not negate another hypothesis, and it certainly does not negate the systematic evidence I cited about the lack of a correlation between invasive mechanical ventilation rates and excess mortality. If I recall correctly, some of the sources I cited also included information about mortality in ventilated patients. If my memory serves, mortality was high regardless of the hospital/city/region the ventilation occurred.
I don't think it's separate, but rather a nuance of the existing hypothesis. Ventilation isn't a simple thing that any trained medical professional can do, yet demands were made for many ventilators and extra nurses, but never for any RT's.
I highly recommend to everyone to read the book I mentioned, as it contains information I haven't seen anywhere else, from people who witnessed first hand what really went on.
Supporters of an hypothesis that is inconsistent with the evidence, once that evidence becomes known, often suggest revisions. As far as I know, Denis and his colleagues did not specify that revision ("it's not that ventilation is lethal, but just ventilation by unqualified staff"). And a revised hypothesis is a new hypothesis, which again places the burden of investigation on those who propose it.
Thank you -- I used my description as a shortcut, but I agree that you didn't say that. To evaluate the revised "ventilation + unqualified staff" hypothesis requires specification of how much more lethal ventilation becomes with unqualified (vs. qualified) staff and then investigating the relationship between variation in modified ventilation harm and variation in excess mortality across times and places. That's all a task for those who think the revised hypothesis has merit.
Ventilation under ideal application has consequence. "Ideal" here meaning promoting life and long-term recovery (not hospital reimbursement or politically manipulating 'pandemic' stats.)
Correct, they did not specify that "revision", because it was simply a comment by me to add more context to the discussion. Nothing more.
This is why I normally don't comment on Substack, in fact I originally just replied by email to Denis, and he encouraged me to post it as a comment because it was relevant.
I think it's great you offered the hypothesis. I am just commenting as I would in any scientific discussion. All I am saying is that proposing a revised hypothesis resets the process for evaluating the hypothesis. Scientists and non-scientists alike often invoke new or revised hypotheses as explanations, but then never evaluate them rigorously, as the mere conjuring of an "explanation" is enough to relieve them of the emotional threat to their favored ideas. I'm not saying you are doing this in any way -- you are just suggesting a thoughtful hypothesis. You may not be a researcher, which is fine -- no one should have to be to offer thoughts. But for an hypothesis to have any legs, someone has to evaluate it empirically. That's why I'm following up with what would be necessary in such an evaluation.
Devon, do you really believe what you are saying when those of us who have worked in the medical field are aware of how poorly doctors - and hospital administrators - take to any hypothesis which counters their own fixed beliefs? The harassment of doctors and researchers (and even lowly RNs) who question protocols, who express a different view is widely known and widely practiced. Most of the "revisions" I have seen are when a new hypothesis is made, questioning dogma, and a researcher, doctor, statistician is "encouraged" (forced) to rescind his findings. YMMV.
Midazolam can slow or stop your breathing, especially if you have recently used an opioid medication, alcohol, or other drugs that can slow your breathing. Your caregivers will watch you for symptoms such as weak or shallow breathing.
Tell your medical caregivers right away if you have:
cough, wheezing, trouble breathing;
slow heart rate;
a light-headed feeling, like you might pass out;
tremors; or
confusion, agitation, hallucinations, unusual thoughts or behavior.
Richard, I didn't watch your link, but I must add here that I have never learned, in my education or reading, of a time in US history when hospital deaths were incentivized by paying MORE for a patient who dies than for one who is saved. Forgive my crude response, but it must have been a hospital administrator's "wet dream". Your comment on incentives reminded me of this.
I left the VA in 2008, but even before that they were fond of tacky little self-congratulatory tags like that. My wife (medical technologist of 40+ years) showed me a T-shirt printed up by the VA at one time and distributed to staff (some actually wore it, for laughs). It said "Caring Is Our Specalty". I guess the PR crew was short-handed as well - no proof-readers. And that was before so many places went "open-DEI".
(I had to check what I wrote for typos) My thinking is that the hospital was in on it, before "it" was a fake pandemic.
At the very least it was high level propaganda - associating the soon-to-be unquestionable facts about experimental injections with the "prestigious" academic medical center.
Or maybe it was just pure, purely innocent, coincidence.... Knowing what we know on the whole 'N all.
Invasive treatments, especially those requiring a lot of staff time/attention, do tend to be expensive/reimbursed at high levels, and these treatments tend to be used selectively for patients in the worst conditions. Hospitals, even non-profits, are businesses, and they certainly do promote expensive and often unnecessary care, but usually within certain limits -- that is, in response to patient conditions. Vaccines represent a sort of ideal from a reimbursement and incentive perspective as they usually get promoted as universal interventions, applicable to everyone.
But the broader point is that, generally, the treatment (even if harmful) follows the condition. And furthermore, the focus on healthcare settings leaves out spiking mortality at home. Denis and colleagues hypothesize that variations in stress across time and space correlate with and cause variations in excess mortality (both at home and elsewhere), but they have not presented any systematic evidence of that relationship. That doesn't negate the hypothesis, but as I mentioned, that expectation seems to be counter to the experience of many in North America and Europe. So the hypothesis lacks solid evidence with which to evaluate it and represents speculation only.
Devon, the expense of treatments can be abused, but it was worse during Covid, as additional income was earned - and I use the word fully understanding what it means - by the deaths of patients. If you can state with a straight face that this fact was never a concern, I'm afraid you have greatly disappointed me in your attempts to apply reason to your arguments.
Let me be a little clearer: my comment was not meant as a slur on your integrity. You have proven that by what you suffered staying true to yourself during the whole debacle - and I'm sure at other times when your hypotheses and conclusions differed from the dogma.
I'm referring more to concluding - or so it seems to me - that the behavior of our government,. hospital administrators, doctors, and others during the Covid hoax was less of an abomination than it actually was. That what was planned and then perpetrated was anything less than intentional crimes against humanity. Crimes that have not ceased, because the plannedemic is still in place, and its damage to our medical system - and us - is being allowed to carry on.
Strictly speaking as a matter of intellect, on paper, proposing an hypothesis does not negate another hypothesis - but have you looked at social discussions over the last 5 years?? In normal conversation people are desperate, starving rabid to use any sloppy thinking and purely assumed premises to discount, minimize and mentally dismiss any consideration of what is going on. Just the mere fact that people have had themselves injected with experimental and unknown substances is enough for them to mentally close off hard scientific evidence in lieu of spouted words considered common sense. Just a reminder prof!
The last 5 years certainly have highlighted how frail our reasoning capacities are. I think, though, this isn't a new phenomenon, and it becomes more visible when there is a common issue that becomes a topic of conversation or focus of interaction, especially when it's backed by a lot of propaganda. Wartime is another instance of when many people lose their abilities to reason well. Regardless, we humans fail routinely at reasoning in many aspects of our daily lives, while still excelling in others.
Did you ever apply such rigorous reasoning to the case definition and are you aware that symptoms were removed from the case definition in 2023? Your argument seems to be that those who acted on the premise that case counts are valid may have been correct in their subsequent actions, but this is not possible. The case definition was bad, everything that follows is invalid. There is no possible argument in support of any intervention whatsoever, any shot or product ever being brought to market, or any reasoning in which conclusions are wrought as a function of cases. Reasoning capacity at large is more than sufficient to notice the fatal causal disconnects in reasoning relying on case counts. If you yourself didn't notice, respectfully this can't be blamed on "frail reasoning."
In a wrongful death case, where a young previously very healthy disabled woman was ventilated, one of the medical attendees at the time that was being done to the patient. acknowledged the oxygen saturation instrument was being used in a faulty way. That is, it was used in a way known to produce false readings of low saturation. The low sat was used to rationalize subsequent venting; and then used to rationalize heavy very high-risk sedation (so that patients cannot respond to the venting through resistance, trying to remove their own tubes etc ) leading to clinical death - that most certainly could have been rectified in the same hospital if DNR orders had not been unethically and unlawfully placed on the young woman without knowledge or consent of family members possessing power of medical attorney.
I'm not sure the evil perpetuated by the hospital staff in this case (which I am absolutely sure was not the only one) can be quantified for statistical revelation however.
I had witnessed just prior to covid escapade people close to me diagnosed with deadly diseases, scared out of their heads but not so scared to not have friends who were doctors check the medical records and diagnosis to verify. Although given horrific scenarios of how long they had and what they had, their doctor friends said "you do not have this." I've witnessed they have not only survived, but thrived, are healthy and learned quite a lesson. A death sentence to anyone should be outlawed. Telling our children the world is going to die because of human activity should be outlawed. We are in the throes of the death cult propaganda machines and have been for some time. This has got to end and now.
Stress – immune suppression – anxiety/fear – death
Neuroimmunologist Christian Schubert explains how much our immune system suffered from COVID measures – leading to collective immune suppression. Immune cells are fundamental to the defense against all types of diseases. It has been proven that these immune cells are reduced by stress/anxiety. They are depleted. Risking death. This can also be measured in amino acids. Immune cells are built from amino acids, primarily methionine and lysine. These are measurably reduced by stress.
Above all, many people have fallen ill and even died because the constant stress and fear propaganda weakened their immune system.
Thank you, Denis, for your and your colleagues engaging in discussion. Dissident and mainstream researchers alike have generally been allergic, if not hostile, to discussion and I appreciate that you embrace it.
I never have been a real professor. I had a few adjunct and visiting positions long ago, and then had an affiliate (courtesy, unpaid) appointment at the University of Washington for over 20 years, with very occasional lecturing, advising students, and teaching courses (I was paid for the teaching). The University canceled that appointment when I refused to take the Covid vaccine. I thank you for your respectful intent with the professor label, but it doesn't apply to me.
Hi Devon, Nice to hear from you. We had a response to your response but we are just so busy... for now. Readers may chime in. Other researchers made critical comments to me but refuse to make them as developed public postings.
“We have yet to investigate the role that stress on the body indeed plays in manifesting sickness.
Staying with Eric’s article, we read that “The mass psychogenic effect of news reports was documented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2006.
Reports of the mere fear of terrorism, or a single incident could immediately send thousands of people to the hospital with clinical symptoms and with no exposure to any chemical or pathogen — only the idea of one.”
Actually, there is a massive scientific literature (decades in the making) about how stress creates disease and death. I often cite some of the said literature in my reports. But yes thanks.
Recently, a close person suffered a collapse and was taken to a hospital, clearly due to prolonged mental as well as physical stress that has been increasingly manifesting itself through ailments. Finally, her body said, that's it and shut down. It was patently obvious to everybody who knew her. She was simply exhausted. This was explained to the doctor, that the cause of her condition was psychosomatic, but they refused to take it into consideration and ran all sorts of tests on her, some of their quite phantasmagorical, like a spinal tap. In the end, they diagnosed her as having a panic attack because they found nothing.
Why am I saying that? The medical profession is unable to operate with anything that does not manifest itself in physical form. They need a virus, germ, elevated level of this or that caused by some tangible agent. The psychosomatic effect of stress, mental condition, fear, all that is all Greek to them. They don't have a way to measure it, they can't put their finger on it.
On the one hand, it's understandable that doctors must focus on the most pressing issue - if a person has a high blood pressure caused by stress, they have to reduce the blood pressure and worry about what caused the stress later because otherwise the patient might be dead before they get to the bottom of things, if they ever do. Ditto other conditions and diseases.
On the other hand, it must be recognized that the medical profession mostly treats symptoms as opposed to understanding and dealing with their cause. In other words, their analysis of that cause of disease is only skin deep and essentially worthless from the long-term standpoint.
A person doesn't get sick because of a virus (there is a good chance that viruses don't exist in the sense ascribed to them; they might be the product of disease, as opposed to the cause, as if it mattered) but because the person has been weakened, either physically or mentally or both.
With all due respect to the medical profession and the pharma industry, which are able to do some amazing things, people must not outsource their health to them. They must listen to their bodies, use common sense, intuition, their own devices. Animals can live their lives without having a doctor behind their ass, why couldn't humans, eh?
Common sense tells me that the pandemic, the virus, and all the rest of a giant crock of putrid shit, a hysterical campaign whipped up through the media. I don't know whom it was instigated by and to a large extent it took a life of its own. People were scared shitless and the psychosomatic effect was huge. It got so crazy that people were preventatively calling an ambulance after catching the sniffles, so that there would be a space in the hospital for them.
I fully agree with the hypothesis that stress was what killed people, plus the idiotic measures imposed by the myopic, tunnel-vision medical profession and the malevolent governments that pull their strings. My conclusion is based on observation, connecting the dots, and common sense. It's great that there are people like Denis Rancourt who work to demonstrate all this by scientific means.
Incidentally, there is the German New Medicine, which claims that all disease is of psychosomatic origin and classifies illnesses according to the state of mind that cause them. It sure would behoove us, especially people in the Occident, to look beyond the materialistic approach to health we now practice.
"They need a virus, germ, elevated level of this or that caused by some tangible agent." That is EXACTLY RIGHT, Paul. There is a ton of evidence that "viruses" are an invention to justify the manifest extortion that is called the "covid" response. Peter Duesberg wrote a a great books called INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS...(though some say, it was really written by one of his graduate students--that is no matter} The point is that "viruses" have never been proven to cause any illness and that some scientists and medical professionals like Sam and Mark Bailey believe they are a total construct--created to instill fear and keep us enslaved to a medical system that we should be questioning and --as some are now doing--suing for damages. Thanks to honest scientists like Denis Rancourt and Dr. Peter McCullough the old and destructive "medical tyranny" is crumbling.
I'm well aware of the theory that viruses are the product of disease (decaying cells), rather than an agent causing it. I've helped organized workshops with Stefan Lanka (the father of this theory) and various others. To be frank, I don't have the biological expertise to understand all of this in depth, but I understand the methodological issues. From where I'm standing, both virologists and the no-virus crowd take methodological shortcuts, but my gut feeling tells me that the virus-is-pathogen theory is full of holes. I don't really care anymore. I don't think that the medical profession as such promotes viruses with malevolent intentions. I think it's the consequence of the materialistic approach to science, in this case health, where correlating disease with the state of mind is much more difficult as there are no metrics for that (even though the German New Medicine is based on an analysis of brain waves).
I agree that Denis Rancourt is an honest scientist - I can't think of anybody as objective as him and he has a broad view of issues.
Regarding HIV/AIDS, most people reportedly died of the highly toxic treatment, not the disease. I've talked to this German doctor (often featured during the convid debacle) who said that overnight, they began diagnosing people with AIDS (based on the HIV test, which is the same Mickey Mouse bullshit as the Convid test), who were previously diagnosed with some specific disease, such as cancer.
Bottom line - stay away from doctors as much as possible!
Yup...I do that. but watching the carnage is so hard to take. I live in a "retirement" community which--heavily vaxxed as well as heavily indoctrinated in the "lies of virology"-- has made the very air thick with the whole "doctor/god" religion thing Anyway, I tried to listen to Lanka and found him impenetrable. Dr. Peter McCullough/John Leake do a far superior job in terms of reaching the poor "teeming masses" with only-- say a BA from a decent college. Of course Denis is supreme in reaching both worlds...the "Ivory Tower" and the "benighted underlings" that comprise most of the rest of the world.....Cheers! listening to the last message from my hero REINER FUELLMICH I feel as if there may still be a light dawning upon the dim world we now inhabit.....
Lanka ... I've met the guy, he's super charismatic, fun to talk to, listen to, but his workshops are a bit of standup comedy. Not sure what to make of it.
The bottom line is that the existence or non-existence of viruses as a pathogen doesn't really matter in regard to the liberticidal measures taken during convid and possibly projected into the future under the pandemic treaty. Suppose that viruses are pathogenic, ANY AND ALL OF THE COUNTERMEASURES would have been sufficient for people to protect themselves, and no freedoms would need to be curbed. Ditto fu*kccination - if it works, fu*kccinated people are protected and they couldn're care less if somebody else isn't and croaks as a result. It's all a bunch of crock.
Anyway, judicious people must recognize that unlike what it seems (it might have always been like that), we're not living in an age where everything has been pretty much figured out and humankind has got to the very bottom of things. Bullshit. Lots of the theories we embrace, such as viruses, might be a complete cul-de-sac, a gigantic error. If not fraud.
Stress – immune suppression – anxiety/fear – death
Neuroimmunologist Christian Schubert explains how much our immune system suffered from COVID measures – leading to collective immune suppression. Immune cells are fundamental to the defense against all types of diseases. It has been proven that these immune cells are reduced by stress/anxiety. They are depleted. Risking death. This can also be measured in amino acids. Immune cells are built from amino acids, primarily methionine and lysine. These are measurably reduced by stress.
Above all, many people have fallen ill and even died because the constant stress and fear propaganda weakened their immune system.
In my view Prof Brewer's opinions do not amount to data--rather they are opinions.
My opinion based on what I observed is that the failure to apply standard medical treatments to eg care home residents and the inaccessibility of medical care generally eg closure of GP surgeries, refusal to let relatives visit hospitals without an off putting series of security measures and the instruction to stay at home for 10 days-BEFORE seeking medical help led to excess deaths--i.e these people would not have died had normal health care arrangements been in place. Nonetheless did he make a valid point around why some areas had fewer?
Interestingly, Romania and most of the eastern countries of the EU did not experience excess mortality at the start of the fake pandemic when places like Bergamo, Madrid, Paris and London saw it. Romania and east EU had its excess mortality moments late in 2020. That this was not totally due to deployment of the injection weapon but also from hospital death protocols is strongly suggested by these witness reports. I can understand how these protocols could have varied from location to location if the purpose was to create deaths and label them *ovid deaths to keep up fear and demand for further injections and boosters.
What would the mRNA fiasco look like it we had at least 80% of the truthful and accurate data? I believe stress can alter the body's perceptions of health.
Anyone who thinks the COVID “great psy-ops is over is a FOOL and delusional. The very supporters of this grand experiment were themselves victims yet they still vote Dem!? They and their kids under Blue State continued propaganda and forced injection are the Army of dysfunctional teaching at all levels of eduction, most apparent in their public schools and colleges…they seem to have forgotten mother natures binary sex creations. This Army infiltrates Red States and with illegals voting schemes and bogus census they aim to re-purpose covid into the near future…masks and vacs. Never put it past those who mean this Nation great harm.
The red team (Trump) deployed Operation Warp Speed for a FAKE PANDEMIC in 2020. Then, on the 3rd day of his second term, the red team (Trump) deployed Stargate AI-mRNA jabs which connect our bodies to the Internet of Bio-Nano Things and the WBAN (Wireless Body Area Network IEEE802.15.6) contrary to the Criminal Code of several countries.
The fake 2-party paradigm is what keeps the masses from seeing this globalist totalitarian coup détat.
Should you guys not be putting this to bed in 2025 by referencing the world's only official COVID inquiry to reveal the truth to the lockdown from Scotland? Even the UK inquiry 'whitewash' is now confirming many truths than literally NO ONE popular 'speaking' out will support. Why is none of this being highlighted and debated? I don't get why critics act like none of this exists.
Despite Bill Gates attempting to claim a Dutch court has no jurisdiction over him, the court case against him and 16 other defendants went ahead on Wednesday.
It is my observation that there was quite a bit of stress created by lockdowns and fear. I remember seeing people absolutely terrified when someone stepped past their "social distancing" perimeter. I also saw my local food co-op shuttered for six weeks and when it reopened there were all these moronic "rules" about masking and keeping apart from each other. In the meantime, business was roaring for the "BIG BOX" stores. A small hardware store run by the same local family for three generations went out of business during this time. It was a great loss to the community as the people there would spend hours chasing up just the right tool, screw or piece of hardware a customer needed. A local bread baking business also went bankrupt....sad.
To me the whole thing was simply a transparent lie. I had lived in this town for 5O years and did not know anyone who had "died of covid". The population was over 6O,OOO...
I was deprived of the company of my adult children because they did not live in my house and therefore were afraid to visit me. Sane and intelligent friends limited their time spent with people who were not living in their homes....and friends grew apart. This was the exact goal of this evil plan. Our social support systems...friends, churches, schools and local small business owners were damaged.
I am reading the book "What the Nurses Saw" by Ken McCarthy and it clearly illustrates (in interviews with nurses and a respiratory therapist who were in deadly NYC hospitals in the peak of the panic) that the availability of respiratory therapists makes a huge difference to the potential harm caused by ventilators. Some hospitals in NYC were extremely short of RTs, which made ventilation deadly where it may not have been otherwise. So, to answer Devon Brewer's comment about the % usage of ventilators per facility not correlating to % excess mortality, any analysis should take into account the number of RT's per patient in each facility.
Check out "Undercover Epicenter Nurse". A Florida nurse travels to NYC to work in the hospital there on the front lines. She wore a recording device in her glasses. It will change your view of "hospitals" and "doctors" forever. Peace.
A nurse in NZ admitted to me that she had given patients with severe respiratory issues fatal doses of Midazolam --- she said that they were suffering horribly and that this was a necessary kindness... which is true ... she was putting them out of their misery ... however what she failed to mention was that they were not given the usual drug protocols that would normally be given to prevent the severe symptoms....
The medical system is itself diseased ... and disgusting ... here is my experience with a vet
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/if-i-had-a-rocket-launcher
David M.. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger, Anthony S. Fauci, Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 198, Issue 7, 1 October 2008, Pages 962–970, https://doi.org/10.1086/591708 ]
Yes, vets are almost as immoral and sadistic as human medical doctors and their entourage.
Well our vet was a fine and intelligent person. She came to our home when a beloved dog was dyeing of old age and in pain and euthanized him. It was a gift for us and the dog. He could have lingered on for weeks not even being able to walk. She also would provide shots for large animals as some of our neighbors had horses and she would come and give some sort equine mosquito type shot for very little money. She was far from greedy.
Anyway, to condemn an entire large group of individuals as "immoral and sadistic" sounds mentally ill. Medical doctors on the whole, are conformists and love discipline, rules and yes, drugs. Drugs may be needed in some situations but when a healthy strong body and immune system are your aims, drugs mask symptoms and create chemical imbalances that result from eating denatured food laden with dyes and chemicals and preservatives.
Our local vet is not a piece of shit.... he said when I informed him of the $5000 test...'but that's a test for cancer - I don't understand why they suggested this if you said you would not treat cancer if that was the diagnosis'... it was a rhetorical question ... he knows
Stress – immune suppression – anxiety/fear – death
Neuroimmunologist Christian Schubert explains how much our immune system suffered from COVID measures – leading to collective immune suppression. Immune cells are fundamental to the defense against all types of diseases. It has been proven that these immune cells are reduced by stress/anxiety. They are depleted. Risking death. This can also be measured in amino acids. Immune cells are built from amino acids, primarily methionine and lysine. These are measurably reduced by stress.
Above all, many people have fallen ill and even died because the constant stress and fear propaganda weakened their immune system.
It should also take into account the fact that forced ventilation of damaged lungs can be - and was - deadly. I am a retired RN (2008) who worked in the VA system, and have heard from nurses I know in various states (NY, CA, OR, FL) that ventilators were misused and were - in their opinions, which I share - actually causative of deaths on their units, ICU and so-called Covid wards. Not simply from a dearth of RTs (I am sure that didn't help) but from what I understand took place in the lungs of those Covid patients who actually HAD a severe respiratory infection, not simply a "positive" PCR . The damage done by the inflammation caused by "cytokine storm" made forced ventilation - especially at high pressures - deadly. Several of my fellow RNs told me being put on a ventilator was a death sentence. Several of them quit due to the protocols being used.
My belief is that far more patients died from Covid hospital "one-size fits all" protocols than from the disease itself. I think even more have died from the improperly manufactured and improperly tested toxic injections marketed as "vaccines" for Covid.
Then searching who got the contracts for manufacturing ventilators would be in order. Providing equipment with no training seems to me ready for a major class action lawsuit. I know of an attorney that specializes in those against corporations.
Just a note here that by mid 2020 the FDA denied an EUA request for use of Hyperbaric oxygen for treatment. Buried clinical trial showed 90% plus success in clearing lungs.
Shock & horror ! (Feigned, as this is what we can expect.)
Yes, the FDA did all it could to deny useful, safe, and effective treatments and deny them. Both high-volume and Hyperbaric O2 was indicated by a number of physicians in place of forced ventilation, and was found to be very effective. The FDA - a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Pharma - couldn't allow that.
2007 the American Public Health Schools association did their pandemic response plan and only came out with response of personal protection equipment, social distancing, drugs and mechanical ventilators. The last item they already recognized there was going to be shortages in the fall requiring triage.
My searches in 2021 showed prior to the pandemic that the companies owning and and making ventilators changed hands a lot with major increases in price. It would make sense that profiteering would take place especially as I recall two major auto companies would then receive the contracts for production...lots of this post 9-11 and the rise of the Bush Jr. biosecurity state.
No doubt.
Thank you Teresa for this important comment. It matters little how a treatment is ideally administered on paper or in a controlled environment for a scientific paper. It matters more, in terms of harm, what the actual practice was, especially for such a dangerous invasive treatment on the most frail individuals... I so agree with you.
Devon states in his Reply: "I found several articles with results consistent with my inferences that do indeed falsify the harmful healthcare interventions hypothesis, at least with respect to invasive mechanical ventilation." Devon: I would invite you to explore why your found articles do not "falsify" the mechanical ventilation part of our hypothesis.
Hi Denis, as I've stated in other replies, this represents a revision in the hypothesis. You have cited high ventilation rates in particular places with excess mortality as consistent with the hypothesis. However, you neglected to cite the same high rates in places with no excess mortality, which are wholly inconsistent with (falsify) the hypothesis. If the key factor is not ventilation, but improper ventilation, then the hypothesis changes and with it the burden of assessing it appropriately with systematic empirical evidence across places and times with varying levels of excess mortality. So this revised hypothesis represents a new round of speculation that awaits empirical evaluation.
Select observations at select hospitals filtered into published papers can be "inconsistent" at face value. But "inconsistent" is not "incompatible", nor does it "falsify" the hypothesis that a relatively aggressive and larger scale (larger hospitals) drive toward dangerous interventions caused part of the hotspot mortality peaks. You incorrectly claim to have disproved a hypothesis. Falsely believing that this hypothesis is disproved is harmful to a continued enquiry. Your belief is bad science. Good discussion, but bad science.
Hi Denis,
I disagree respectfully.
You criticize "select observations at select hospitals filtered into published papers," which I presume you mean those I cited. Yet you and your colleagues disregarded those and likely many other such reports and cited "select observations at select hospitals filtered into published papers" for those areas with high mortality only. Without indications that particular sources are untrustworthy, irrelevant, or unsound, good scientific practice is to acknowledge, consider, and explain the full range of sources on a matter. By citing sources on ventilation rates yourself, you imply that you take such evidence as valid.
My limited literature search yielded reports of ventilation rates that are inconsistent with the harmful treatment protocols hypothesis as you have stated and implied it in your report. As Richard Feynman said, "If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong" (The Character of Physical Experiment; see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman). In the context of his comment, "experiment" applied to empirical observation generally. If an hypothesis is inconsistent with the evidence in a main prediction or implication, then it does seem falsified. Consistency between hypothesis and evidence is the basis for judging the merit of an hypothesis.
Science is, among other things, the business of falsifying hypotheses, especially one's own, not rescuing or protecting hypotheses. Feynman expressed this well, urging scientists to "bend[ing] over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong" (https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm). From your responses, it's not clear to me whether you think the stress and harmful treatment protocols hypotheses are falsifiable, or if so, how you think they could be falsified. I suggest that in future work, you operationalize your hypotheses precisely, so that you and others can know how consistent results are (or are not) with the hypotheses. As a further guard against fooling oneself and others, I recommend especially pre-registering analysis and study protocols (e.g., see https://osf.io/registries).
You have my feedback. Do with it what what you will. I encourage you to continue your research, and I look forward to your future results.
Hi devon.
You realise that there was no virus?
On the matter of NYC, the numbers may need corroboration.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/new-york-city-medical-examiner-has
Investing the time into this may be worth it for you.
Thank you, Chris. I have been working on that task for a few months. Still in progress ...
She's a plandemic grifter. Blocked me for asking why the cabal implemented this hare brained scheme.
Thank you, Teresa. Availability of respiratory therapists is a separate hypothesis from invasive mechanical ventilation. And there would need to be systematic data, not just anecdotes, for evaluating the availability of respiratory therapists as an hypothesis. It's not an hypothesis that I'm proposing or investigating, but others can if they feel it has promise. Proposing an hypothesis does not negate another hypothesis, and it certainly does not negate the systematic evidence I cited about the lack of a correlation between invasive mechanical ventilation rates and excess mortality. If I recall correctly, some of the sources I cited also included information about mortality in ventilated patients. If my memory serves, mortality was high regardless of the hospital/city/region the ventilation occurred.
I don't think it's separate, but rather a nuance of the existing hypothesis. Ventilation isn't a simple thing that any trained medical professional can do, yet demands were made for many ventilators and extra nurses, but never for any RT's.
I highly recommend to everyone to read the book I mentioned, as it contains information I haven't seen anywhere else, from people who witnessed first hand what really went on.
Supporters of an hypothesis that is inconsistent with the evidence, once that evidence becomes known, often suggest revisions. As far as I know, Denis and his colleagues did not specify that revision ("it's not that ventilation is lethal, but just ventilation by unqualified staff"). And a revised hypothesis is a new hypothesis, which again places the burden of investigation on those who propose it.
I didn't say it's not lethal with qualified staff, just that it was MORE lethal without.
Thank you -- I used my description as a shortcut, but I agree that you didn't say that. To evaluate the revised "ventilation + unqualified staff" hypothesis requires specification of how much more lethal ventilation becomes with unqualified (vs. qualified) staff and then investigating the relationship between variation in modified ventilation harm and variation in excess mortality across times and places. That's all a task for those who think the revised hypothesis has merit.
Ventilation under ideal application has consequence. "Ideal" here meaning promoting life and long-term recovery (not hospital reimbursement or politically manipulating 'pandemic' stats.)
Correct, they did not specify that "revision", because it was simply a comment by me to add more context to the discussion. Nothing more.
This is why I normally don't comment on Substack, in fact I originally just replied by email to Denis, and he encouraged me to post it as a comment because it was relevant.
I think it's great you offered the hypothesis. I am just commenting as I would in any scientific discussion. All I am saying is that proposing a revised hypothesis resets the process for evaluating the hypothesis. Scientists and non-scientists alike often invoke new or revised hypotheses as explanations, but then never evaluate them rigorously, as the mere conjuring of an "explanation" is enough to relieve them of the emotional threat to their favored ideas. I'm not saying you are doing this in any way -- you are just suggesting a thoughtful hypothesis. You may not be a researcher, which is fine -- no one should have to be to offer thoughts. But for an hypothesis to have any legs, someone has to evaluate it empirically. That's why I'm following up with what would be necessary in such an evaluation.
Devon, do you really believe what you are saying when those of us who have worked in the medical field are aware of how poorly doctors - and hospital administrators - take to any hypothesis which counters their own fixed beliefs? The harassment of doctors and researchers (and even lowly RNs) who question protocols, who express a different view is widely known and widely practiced. Most of the "revisions" I have seen are when a new hypothesis is made, questioning dogma, and a researcher, doctor, statistician is "encouraged" (forced) to rescind his findings. YMMV.
Midazolam can slow or stop your breathing, especially if you have recently used an opioid medication, alcohol, or other drugs that can slow your breathing. Your caregivers will watch you for symptoms such as weak or shallow breathing.
Tell your medical caregivers right away if you have:
cough, wheezing, trouble breathing;
slow heart rate;
a light-headed feeling, like you might pass out;
tremors; or
confusion, agitation, hallucinations, unusual thoughts or behavior.
https://www.drugs.com/mtm/midazolam.html
MER-DER. Mass murder actually ... to drive up fear... in preparation for launching the Death Shots
Have you factored in the correlation between financial incentives and the lethality of any of the treatments?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ylu755nRLpkq
Richard, I didn't watch your link, but I must add here that I have never learned, in my education or reading, of a time in US history when hospital deaths were incentivized by paying MORE for a patient who dies than for one who is saved. Forgive my crude response, but it must have been a hospital administrator's "wet dream". Your comment on incentives reminded me of this.
Lets just say mass manipulators and hospital profiteers have a way of making "dreams" come through.
The hospital in our area changed their tagline to 'Together Safe, Together Effective' a matter of months before the pandemic period began.
I left the VA in 2008, but even before that they were fond of tacky little self-congratulatory tags like that. My wife (medical technologist of 40+ years) showed me a T-shirt printed up by the VA at one time and distributed to staff (some actually wore it, for laughs). It said "Caring Is Our Specalty". I guess the PR crew was short-handed as well - no proof-readers. And that was before so many places went "open-DEI".
(I had to check what I wrote for typos) My thinking is that the hospital was in on it, before "it" was a fake pandemic.
At the very least it was high level propaganda - associating the soon-to-be unquestionable facts about experimental injections with the "prestigious" academic medical center.
Or maybe it was just pure, purely innocent, coincidence.... Knowing what we know on the whole 'N all.
Invasive treatments, especially those requiring a lot of staff time/attention, do tend to be expensive/reimbursed at high levels, and these treatments tend to be used selectively for patients in the worst conditions. Hospitals, even non-profits, are businesses, and they certainly do promote expensive and often unnecessary care, but usually within certain limits -- that is, in response to patient conditions. Vaccines represent a sort of ideal from a reimbursement and incentive perspective as they usually get promoted as universal interventions, applicable to everyone.
But the broader point is that, generally, the treatment (even if harmful) follows the condition. And furthermore, the focus on healthcare settings leaves out spiking mortality at home. Denis and colleagues hypothesize that variations in stress across time and space correlate with and cause variations in excess mortality (both at home and elsewhere), but they have not presented any systematic evidence of that relationship. That doesn't negate the hypothesis, but as I mentioned, that expectation seems to be counter to the experience of many in North America and Europe. So the hypothesis lacks solid evidence with which to evaluate it and represents speculation only.
Devon, the expense of treatments can be abused, but it was worse during Covid, as additional income was earned - and I use the word fully understanding what it means - by the deaths of patients. If you can state with a straight face that this fact was never a concern, I'm afraid you have greatly disappointed me in your attempts to apply reason to your arguments.
My reply to your comment got misplaced below.
Let me be a little clearer: my comment was not meant as a slur on your integrity. You have proven that by what you suffered staying true to yourself during the whole debacle - and I'm sure at other times when your hypotheses and conclusions differed from the dogma.
I'm referring more to concluding - or so it seems to me - that the behavior of our government,. hospital administrators, doctors, and others during the Covid hoax was less of an abomination than it actually was. That what was planned and then perpetrated was anything less than intentional crimes against humanity. Crimes that have not ceased, because the plannedemic is still in place, and its damage to our medical system - and us - is being allowed to carry on.
Strictly speaking as a matter of intellect, on paper, proposing an hypothesis does not negate another hypothesis - but have you looked at social discussions over the last 5 years?? In normal conversation people are desperate, starving rabid to use any sloppy thinking and purely assumed premises to discount, minimize and mentally dismiss any consideration of what is going on. Just the mere fact that people have had themselves injected with experimental and unknown substances is enough for them to mentally close off hard scientific evidence in lieu of spouted words considered common sense. Just a reminder prof!
The last 5 years certainly have highlighted how frail our reasoning capacities are. I think, though, this isn't a new phenomenon, and it becomes more visible when there is a common issue that becomes a topic of conversation or focus of interaction, especially when it's backed by a lot of propaganda. Wartime is another instance of when many people lose their abilities to reason well. Regardless, we humans fail routinely at reasoning in many aspects of our daily lives, while still excelling in others.
Did you ever apply such rigorous reasoning to the case definition and are you aware that symptoms were removed from the case definition in 2023? Your argument seems to be that those who acted on the premise that case counts are valid may have been correct in their subsequent actions, but this is not possible. The case definition was bad, everything that follows is invalid. There is no possible argument in support of any intervention whatsoever, any shot or product ever being brought to market, or any reasoning in which conclusions are wrought as a function of cases. Reasoning capacity at large is more than sufficient to notice the fatal causal disconnects in reasoning relying on case counts. If you yourself didn't notice, respectfully this can't be blamed on "frail reasoning."
In a wrongful death case, where a young previously very healthy disabled woman was ventilated, one of the medical attendees at the time that was being done to the patient. acknowledged the oxygen saturation instrument was being used in a faulty way. That is, it was used in a way known to produce false readings of low saturation. The low sat was used to rationalize subsequent venting; and then used to rationalize heavy very high-risk sedation (so that patients cannot respond to the venting through resistance, trying to remove their own tubes etc ) leading to clinical death - that most certainly could have been rectified in the same hospital if DNR orders had not been unethically and unlawfully placed on the young woman without knowledge or consent of family members possessing power of medical attorney.
I'm not sure the evil perpetuated by the hospital staff in this case (which I am absolutely sure was not the only one) can be quantified for statistical revelation however.
I had witnessed just prior to covid escapade people close to me diagnosed with deadly diseases, scared out of their heads but not so scared to not have friends who were doctors check the medical records and diagnosis to verify. Although given horrific scenarios of how long they had and what they had, their doctor friends said "you do not have this." I've witnessed they have not only survived, but thrived, are healthy and learned quite a lesson. A death sentence to anyone should be outlawed. Telling our children the world is going to die because of human activity should be outlawed. We are in the throes of the death cult propaganda machines and have been for some time. This has got to end and now.
fear kills
Literally!
Stress – immune suppression – anxiety/fear – death
Neuroimmunologist Christian Schubert explains how much our immune system suffered from COVID measures – leading to collective immune suppression. Immune cells are fundamental to the defense against all types of diseases. It has been proven that these immune cells are reduced by stress/anxiety. They are depleted. Risking death. This can also be measured in amino acids. Immune cells are built from amino acids, primarily methionine and lysine. These are measurably reduced by stress.
Above all, many people have fallen ill and even died because the constant stress and fear propaganda weakened their immune system.
Thank you, Denis, for your and your colleagues engaging in discussion. Dissident and mainstream researchers alike have generally been allergic, if not hostile, to discussion and I appreciate that you embrace it.
I never have been a real professor. I had a few adjunct and visiting positions long ago, and then had an affiliate (courtesy, unpaid) appointment at the University of Washington for over 20 years, with very occasional lecturing, advising students, and teaching courses (I was paid for the teaching). The University canceled that appointment when I refused to take the Covid vaccine. I thank you for your respectful intent with the professor label, but it doesn't apply to me.
Hi Devon, Nice to hear from you. We had a response to your response but we are just so busy... for now. Readers may chime in. Other researchers made critical comments to me but refuse to make them as developed public postings.
“We have yet to investigate the role that stress on the body indeed plays in manifesting sickness.
Staying with Eric’s article, we read that “The mass psychogenic effect of news reports was documented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2006.
Reports of the mere fear of terrorism, or a single incident could immediately send thousands of people to the hospital with clinical symptoms and with no exposure to any chemical or pathogen — only the idea of one.”
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/lies-not-discussed-within-the-truth
Phenomenal work putting data and numbers to this idea. Great work!
PS: if anyone is looking on why viruses DO NOT causes diseases, here’s a link: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-disease-causing-viruses-are-pseudoscience
Actually, there is a massive scientific literature (decades in the making) about how stress creates disease and death. I often cite some of the said literature in my reports. But yes thanks.
Yes! I was actually looking for your quote as I think I’ve quoted it before on your earlier work on 17M killed by the vaccines.
In my quote here, I was referring to as a society, “we have yet to investigate…” but yes sir, you most certainly have and I am grateful for your work!
Recently, a close person suffered a collapse and was taken to a hospital, clearly due to prolonged mental as well as physical stress that has been increasingly manifesting itself through ailments. Finally, her body said, that's it and shut down. It was patently obvious to everybody who knew her. She was simply exhausted. This was explained to the doctor, that the cause of her condition was psychosomatic, but they refused to take it into consideration and ran all sorts of tests on her, some of their quite phantasmagorical, like a spinal tap. In the end, they diagnosed her as having a panic attack because they found nothing.
Why am I saying that? The medical profession is unable to operate with anything that does not manifest itself in physical form. They need a virus, germ, elevated level of this or that caused by some tangible agent. The psychosomatic effect of stress, mental condition, fear, all that is all Greek to them. They don't have a way to measure it, they can't put their finger on it.
On the one hand, it's understandable that doctors must focus on the most pressing issue - if a person has a high blood pressure caused by stress, they have to reduce the blood pressure and worry about what caused the stress later because otherwise the patient might be dead before they get to the bottom of things, if they ever do. Ditto other conditions and diseases.
On the other hand, it must be recognized that the medical profession mostly treats symptoms as opposed to understanding and dealing with their cause. In other words, their analysis of that cause of disease is only skin deep and essentially worthless from the long-term standpoint.
A person doesn't get sick because of a virus (there is a good chance that viruses don't exist in the sense ascribed to them; they might be the product of disease, as opposed to the cause, as if it mattered) but because the person has been weakened, either physically or mentally or both.
With all due respect to the medical profession and the pharma industry, which are able to do some amazing things, people must not outsource their health to them. They must listen to their bodies, use common sense, intuition, their own devices. Animals can live their lives without having a doctor behind their ass, why couldn't humans, eh?
Common sense tells me that the pandemic, the virus, and all the rest of a giant crock of putrid shit, a hysterical campaign whipped up through the media. I don't know whom it was instigated by and to a large extent it took a life of its own. People were scared shitless and the psychosomatic effect was huge. It got so crazy that people were preventatively calling an ambulance after catching the sniffles, so that there would be a space in the hospital for them.
I fully agree with the hypothesis that stress was what killed people, plus the idiotic measures imposed by the myopic, tunnel-vision medical profession and the malevolent governments that pull their strings. My conclusion is based on observation, connecting the dots, and common sense. It's great that there are people like Denis Rancourt who work to demonstrate all this by scientific means.
Incidentally, there is the German New Medicine, which claims that all disease is of psychosomatic origin and classifies illnesses according to the state of mind that cause them. It sure would behoove us, especially people in the Occident, to look beyond the materialistic approach to health we now practice.
"They need a virus, germ, elevated level of this or that caused by some tangible agent." That is EXACTLY RIGHT, Paul. There is a ton of evidence that "viruses" are an invention to justify the manifest extortion that is called the "covid" response. Peter Duesberg wrote a a great books called INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS...(though some say, it was really written by one of his graduate students--that is no matter} The point is that "viruses" have never been proven to cause any illness and that some scientists and medical professionals like Sam and Mark Bailey believe they are a total construct--created to instill fear and keep us enslaved to a medical system that we should be questioning and --as some are now doing--suing for damages. Thanks to honest scientists like Denis Rancourt and Dr. Peter McCullough the old and destructive "medical tyranny" is crumbling.
I'm well aware of the theory that viruses are the product of disease (decaying cells), rather than an agent causing it. I've helped organized workshops with Stefan Lanka (the father of this theory) and various others. To be frank, I don't have the biological expertise to understand all of this in depth, but I understand the methodological issues. From where I'm standing, both virologists and the no-virus crowd take methodological shortcuts, but my gut feeling tells me that the virus-is-pathogen theory is full of holes. I don't really care anymore. I don't think that the medical profession as such promotes viruses with malevolent intentions. I think it's the consequence of the materialistic approach to science, in this case health, where correlating disease with the state of mind is much more difficult as there are no metrics for that (even though the German New Medicine is based on an analysis of brain waves).
I agree that Denis Rancourt is an honest scientist - I can't think of anybody as objective as him and he has a broad view of issues.
Regarding HIV/AIDS, most people reportedly died of the highly toxic treatment, not the disease. I've talked to this German doctor (often featured during the convid debacle) who said that overnight, they began diagnosing people with AIDS (based on the HIV test, which is the same Mickey Mouse bullshit as the Convid test), who were previously diagnosed with some specific disease, such as cancer.
Bottom line - stay away from doctors as much as possible!
Yup...I do that. but watching the carnage is so hard to take. I live in a "retirement" community which--heavily vaxxed as well as heavily indoctrinated in the "lies of virology"-- has made the very air thick with the whole "doctor/god" religion thing Anyway, I tried to listen to Lanka and found him impenetrable. Dr. Peter McCullough/John Leake do a far superior job in terms of reaching the poor "teeming masses" with only-- say a BA from a decent college. Of course Denis is supreme in reaching both worlds...the "Ivory Tower" and the "benighted underlings" that comprise most of the rest of the world.....Cheers! listening to the last message from my hero REINER FUELLMICH I feel as if there may still be a light dawning upon the dim world we now inhabit.....
Lanka ... I've met the guy, he's super charismatic, fun to talk to, listen to, but his workshops are a bit of standup comedy. Not sure what to make of it.
The bottom line is that the existence or non-existence of viruses as a pathogen doesn't really matter in regard to the liberticidal measures taken during convid and possibly projected into the future under the pandemic treaty. Suppose that viruses are pathogenic, ANY AND ALL OF THE COUNTERMEASURES would have been sufficient for people to protect themselves, and no freedoms would need to be curbed. Ditto fu*kccination - if it works, fu*kccinated people are protected and they couldn're care less if somebody else isn't and croaks as a result. It's all a bunch of crock.
Anyway, judicious people must recognize that unlike what it seems (it might have always been like that), we're not living in an age where everything has been pretty much figured out and humankind has got to the very bottom of things. Bullshit. Lots of the theories we embrace, such as viruses, might be a complete cul-de-sac, a gigantic error. If not fraud.
Be well.
Stress – immune suppression – anxiety/fear – death
Neuroimmunologist Christian Schubert explains how much our immune system suffered from COVID measures – leading to collective immune suppression. Immune cells are fundamental to the defense against all types of diseases. It has been proven that these immune cells are reduced by stress/anxiety. They are depleted. Risking death. This can also be measured in amino acids. Immune cells are built from amino acids, primarily methionine and lysine. These are measurably reduced by stress.
Above all, many people have fallen ill and even died because the constant stress and fear propaganda weakened their immune system.
In my view Prof Brewer's opinions do not amount to data--rather they are opinions.
My opinion based on what I observed is that the failure to apply standard medical treatments to eg care home residents and the inaccessibility of medical care generally eg closure of GP surgeries, refusal to let relatives visit hospitals without an off putting series of security measures and the instruction to stay at home for 10 days-BEFORE seeking medical help led to excess deaths--i.e these people would not have died had normal health care arrangements been in place. Nonetheless did he make a valid point around why some areas had fewer?
There is shocking witness testimony of hospital death protocols which appear to have been extremely brutal in one hospital in Romania. Details here: https://open.substack.com/pub/howard366646/p/a-legal-case-of-unimaginable-financial
Interestingly, Romania and most of the eastern countries of the EU did not experience excess mortality at the start of the fake pandemic when places like Bergamo, Madrid, Paris and London saw it. Romania and east EU had its excess mortality moments late in 2020. That this was not totally due to deployment of the injection weapon but also from hospital death protocols is strongly suggested by these witness reports. I can understand how these protocols could have varied from location to location if the purpose was to create deaths and label them *ovid deaths to keep up fear and demand for further injections and boosters.
Please consult the extraordinary work undertaking and forensic documentation by Jessica Hockett for further inspiration
Most recent publication here:
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/comparing-milan-1630-and-bergamonyc
What would the mRNA fiasco look like it we had at least 80% of the truthful and accurate data? I believe stress can alter the body's perceptions of health.
Anyone who thinks the COVID “great psy-ops is over is a FOOL and delusional. The very supporters of this grand experiment were themselves victims yet they still vote Dem!? They and their kids under Blue State continued propaganda and forced injection are the Army of dysfunctional teaching at all levels of eduction, most apparent in their public schools and colleges…they seem to have forgotten mother natures binary sex creations. This Army infiltrates Red States and with illegals voting schemes and bogus census they aim to re-purpose covid into the near future…masks and vacs. Never put it past those who mean this Nation great harm.
The red team (Trump) deployed Operation Warp Speed for a FAKE PANDEMIC in 2020. Then, on the 3rd day of his second term, the red team (Trump) deployed Stargate AI-mRNA jabs which connect our bodies to the Internet of Bio-Nano Things and the WBAN (Wireless Body Area Network IEEE802.15.6) contrary to the Criminal Code of several countries.
The fake 2-party paradigm is what keeps the masses from seeing this globalist totalitarian coup détat.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349881372_Effect_of_Coronavirus_Worldwide_through_Misusing_of_Wireless_Sensor_Networks
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9164961
http://pervasivecomputinginfo.blogspot.com/2018/10/ieee-802156-standard.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33680703/
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9149878
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ECE/News/2021/purdue-engineering-launches-worlds-first-center-for-internet-of-bodies
https://bio-protocol.org/exchange/minidetail?id=9013404&type=30
https://telestai.substack.com/p/the-nano-network-riddle-is-solved
Some REAL evidence to be highlighted and discussed below not hypothesis or speculation. This is what actually happened to people.
''Most people think DNACPR means no resus... but in care homes it meant no treatment, no fluids, no food.''
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/exclusiveevery-story-matters-adult
Should you guys not be putting this to bed in 2025 by referencing the world's only official COVID inquiry to reveal the truth to the lockdown from Scotland? Even the UK inquiry 'whitewash' is now confirming many truths than literally NO ONE popular 'speaking' out will support. Why is none of this being highlighted and debated? I don't get why critics act like none of this exists.
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newuk-covid-19-inquiry16-jul-2025
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newuk-covid-19-inquiry1-jul-2025-8f9
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryclosing
https://indepnews.org/en/court-case-against-bill-gates-in-nl-continues/
Despite Bill Gates attempting to claim a Dutch court has no jurisdiction over him, the court case against him and 16 other defendants went ahead on Wednesday.
It is my observation that there was quite a bit of stress created by lockdowns and fear. I remember seeing people absolutely terrified when someone stepped past their "social distancing" perimeter. I also saw my local food co-op shuttered for six weeks and when it reopened there were all these moronic "rules" about masking and keeping apart from each other. In the meantime, business was roaring for the "BIG BOX" stores. A small hardware store run by the same local family for three generations went out of business during this time. It was a great loss to the community as the people there would spend hours chasing up just the right tool, screw or piece of hardware a customer needed. A local bread baking business also went bankrupt....sad.
To me the whole thing was simply a transparent lie. I had lived in this town for 5O years and did not know anyone who had "died of covid". The population was over 6O,OOO...
I was deprived of the company of my adult children because they did not live in my house and therefore were afraid to visit me. Sane and intelligent friends limited their time spent with people who were not living in their homes....and friends grew apart. This was the exact goal of this evil plan. Our social support systems...friends, churches, schools and local small business owners were damaged.