I think that it was at the start to some degree, rrodynmac. Many physicians took multiple doses. In this new interview with US pathologist Dr Ryan Cole of 2 hours 40 minutes, Dr Cole states that 99 percent of doctors are ignorant of even basic immunology: https://youtu.be/sEEKW05aHFU?si=WIL4hdgzqPtMDkl3
The letter was an extension of what was the expected ‘protocol’ of not criticising any of the ‘regular’ vaccines. I’ve questioned them all since my daughter got sick from Gardasil many years ago. (She is ok)
Yes, I understand. I have become aware of all the unecessary vacs that are pushed onto kids and their side effects. It is disturbing! And if I knew then what I know now my kids would have had none at all.
It is a rabbit hole and once you know, you cannot unknow.
Patients would ask me about flu jabs and I always said that it was up to them, but I don’t have them. They understood what I meant without my saying so.
Wow, I can imagine. And yet the government continues to waste enormous sums of money on the vaccines as Senator Gerard Rennick reported in a Facebook post today: more than 35 percent of a stockpile of the vaccines turfed in January this year due to an oversupply. (A good sign in a one sense)
"Dr McCann told Dr John Campbell on YouTube that she had been optimistic about the gene-vaccines at first, ..."
This won't win me any friends (and I really couldn't care less), but how can someone who purports being a medical expert and, given their professional field expertise, admit to such inexcusable ignorance?
How could anyone who professed to know anything have been optimistic about a intramuscular injection route for immunisation against an airborne pathogen? (this equally applies also to immunisation against influenza, and all that would advise it to patients) At which point in their thinking does the prospect of transfecting only the genes for the most harmful epitopes of the purported pathogen - instead of an attenuated form of the pathogen itself which would, conceptually, be more epistemically consistent with vaccine principles - into cells of the entire population such that everyone is transformed into a bioreactor for the uncontrolled synthesis of those epitopes?
Yes, of course it's acceptable, even commendable to admit you don't know, but there is an overriding obligation in this case to apply the precautionary principle. It's very late in the development of the events that have transpired since the programme roll-out, but we should at the very least have learnt to be highly sceptical and even more critical of 'heroes.'
Because medicine is a specialty subject - an oncologist is not a specialist in eyes or feet. A GP is not a specialist in vaccinology. So they all trusted the guidelines at first. We have never experienced a medical disaster on this scale, this dwarfs Vioxx and Thalidomide. It was unexpected. So it took time for GPs to get their heads around it and most GPs still don't even realise after all this time, the censorship has been so effective. They haven't heard the message in scientific terms that they accept as credible and because they have been "pre-bunked" by the psy-ops liars.
There was absolutely nothing in my criticism that supposes specialist medical knowledge. There was nothing that even supposes medical experience. I have absolutely none. I highlighted what should have been fundamental, especially to those who presume to advise and reassure patients almost daily to have their body integrity violated.
"We have never experienced a medical disaster on this scale, this dwarfs Vioxx and Thalidomide."
Yes, the mother of all iatrocides. Be that as it may, I can't imagine the medical professionals are enjoying posing in their Porsches and Telsas and looking forward to their multi-million dollar superannuations any less.
"So it took time for GPs to get their heads around it and most GPs still don't even realise after all this time, "
Why, exactly? Cynic that I am, I suspect that it's simply a case of Rockefeller medicine and the associated perverse incentives being the reason, and not instead that GPs are fundamentally incompetent, as my criticism might imply, which is also what one who subscribes to Hanlon's Razor would be more inclined to believe.
"... the censorship has been so effective."
It wasn't the censorship that prevented them from knowing fundamental principles. It wasn't censorship that prevented them from applying the precautionary principle and acting in the correct, morally-defensible manner. The correct, morally-defensible manner consists of knowing fundamental principles.
Endotoxin Induced Myocarditis known in fine epigenetic detail since 2003.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/pfizer-process-2-endotoxin-myocarditis
10,000 different Harms reported by Pfizer match Endotoxin
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/endotoxin-harms-list-l-z
Endotoxin and Spike work in Synergy as demonstrated by Ganna Petruk and her team
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/response-to-questions-on-notice-covid19
Thank you so much for those great links
Anyone who criticises Dr Melissa McCann now is not a person of good character. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.
I think that it was at the start to some degree, rrodynmac. Many physicians took multiple doses. In this new interview with US pathologist Dr Ryan Cole of 2 hours 40 minutes, Dr Cole states that 99 percent of doctors are ignorant of even basic immunology: https://youtu.be/sEEKW05aHFU?si=WIL4hdgzqPtMDkl3
That letter was sent out. It is not just hearsay. I don’t personally have a copy as I retired before this sh*tshow started.
The letter was an extension of what was the expected ‘protocol’ of not criticising any of the ‘regular’ vaccines. I’ve questioned them all since my daughter got sick from Gardasil many years ago. (She is ok)
Yes, I understand. I have become aware of all the unecessary vacs that are pushed onto kids and their side effects. It is disturbing! And if I knew then what I know now my kids would have had none at all.
It is a rabbit hole and once you know, you cannot unknow.
Patients would ask me about flu jabs and I always said that it was up to them, but I don’t have them. They understood what I meant without my saying so.
Cheers
holy moly you should see the insulting re-education requirement. It's unbelievable, only it's true...
Wow, I can imagine. And yet the government continues to waste enormous sums of money on the vaccines as Senator Gerard Rennick reported in a Facebook post today: more than 35 percent of a stockpile of the vaccines turfed in January this year due to an oversupply. (A good sign in a one sense)
Bless Dr Mel and all who are supporting her on this.
yes, completely and your wonderful Forest of the Fallen is a great way to show support for all the injured. Well done you for your genius idea.
Indeed. Recent research, involving the BMJ's Peter Doshi and myself, indicates the jabs' effectiveness and safety were exaggerated from the beginning: https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/science-summary-covid-19-vaccines
"Dr McCann told Dr John Campbell on YouTube that she had been optimistic about the gene-vaccines at first, ..."
This won't win me any friends (and I really couldn't care less), but how can someone who purports being a medical expert and, given their professional field expertise, admit to such inexcusable ignorance?
How could anyone who professed to know anything have been optimistic about a intramuscular injection route for immunisation against an airborne pathogen? (this equally applies also to immunisation against influenza, and all that would advise it to patients) At which point in their thinking does the prospect of transfecting only the genes for the most harmful epitopes of the purported pathogen - instead of an attenuated form of the pathogen itself which would, conceptually, be more epistemically consistent with vaccine principles - into cells of the entire population such that everyone is transformed into a bioreactor for the uncontrolled synthesis of those epitopes?
Yes, of course it's acceptable, even commendable to admit you don't know, but there is an overriding obligation in this case to apply the precautionary principle. It's very late in the development of the events that have transpired since the programme roll-out, but we should at the very least have learnt to be highly sceptical and even more critical of 'heroes.'
Because medicine is a specialty subject - an oncologist is not a specialist in eyes or feet. A GP is not a specialist in vaccinology. So they all trusted the guidelines at first. We have never experienced a medical disaster on this scale, this dwarfs Vioxx and Thalidomide. It was unexpected. So it took time for GPs to get their heads around it and most GPs still don't even realise after all this time, the censorship has been so effective. They haven't heard the message in scientific terms that they accept as credible and because they have been "pre-bunked" by the psy-ops liars.
There was absolutely nothing in my criticism that supposes specialist medical knowledge. There was nothing that even supposes medical experience. I have absolutely none. I highlighted what should have been fundamental, especially to those who presume to advise and reassure patients almost daily to have their body integrity violated.
"We have never experienced a medical disaster on this scale, this dwarfs Vioxx and Thalidomide."
Yes, the mother of all iatrocides. Be that as it may, I can't imagine the medical professionals are enjoying posing in their Porsches and Telsas and looking forward to their multi-million dollar superannuations any less.
"So it took time for GPs to get their heads around it and most GPs still don't even realise after all this time, "
Why, exactly? Cynic that I am, I suspect that it's simply a case of Rockefeller medicine and the associated perverse incentives being the reason, and not instead that GPs are fundamentally incompetent, as my criticism might imply, which is also what one who subscribes to Hanlon's Razor would be more inclined to believe.
"... the censorship has been so effective."
It wasn't the censorship that prevented them from knowing fundamental principles. It wasn't censorship that prevented them from applying the precautionary principle and acting in the correct, morally-defensible manner. The correct, morally-defensible manner consists of knowing fundamental principles.
Great review as always Alison, thank you.
This is excellent. I just love her. She is so reasonable and is taking on so much responsiblity.