It's not like he's the only one.

---

Eric Clapton is anti-vaxx

I had no idea. This actually surprised me. I don't follow celebrities or "Page Six" type stories and gave up subs to Entertainment Weekly and other such mags over a decade ago so unless someone here posts a story about it, or I happen to see a blurb as I did with this story, I have no idea what's going on in the entertainment industry. 

He said his fellow musicians don't talk to him much anymore and his family disagrees with him politically. I guess he's a conservative. Or maybe a moderate democrat. If so it's hard to believe he and Sheryl Crow were together all those years ago because she's definitely a liberal.

---

It's literally everything coming out of UK, other EU countries, and Israel. Basically the vaccine is useless a week or 2 after the 2 week period for it to be effective.

I'll try to post some of them later tonight. More and more is starting to come out but you still can't get it from MSM.

Thanks!

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-s...es-must-be

Some people will immediately ignore it and say it is misinformation because of the source but look past that. It has a lot of the data sourced in 1 place. Look at the studies linked and that data. After 30 days you start losing protection and between 60-90 days you are actually inviting the virus in at that point.

Not sure if you see it in your life or not but all the vaccinated people I know are sick or are just getting over it. Boosted or not hasn't made a difference.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Thanks!

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-s...es-must-be

Some people will immediately ignore it and say it is misinformation because of the source but look past that. It has a lot of the data sourced in 1 place. Look at the studies linked and that data. After 30 days you start losing protection and between 60-90 days you are actually inviting the virus in at that point.

Not sure if you see it in your life or not but all the vaccinated people I know are sick or are just getting over it. Boosted or not hasn't made a difference.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

The study's authors disagree with the social media conclusions about the data, but what do they know?

"Christian Holm Hansen, Medical Statistician and Epidemiologist, Statens Serum Institut:
Interpretation that our research is evidence of anything but a protective vaccine effect is misrepresentative."

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/s...-berenson/

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yeah, just finished looking at the Scotland data. The unvaccinated are definitely testing positive for Covid at a higher rate than the unvaxxed. That doesn't mean they are getting sicker, in fact, the data would suggest otherwise. I think what we are seeing is not so much the failing of the vaccine as much as it's a biproduct of the superior natural immunity. I'd wager to guess most unvaccinated people have already caught the disease and benefit from a better immune response to it.

---

The lefts go to insult, YOU MADE A GRAMMITICAL ERROR!!

That's all they got...

Assuming everyone who makes fun of you or doesn't agree with you is on the left.  
It's all you got.

Don't pretend that you wouldn't pounce on an opportunity to discredit someone's ideas with their grammatical errors.  (I'll ask someone else if I used the correct their)

---

s
;

;

Yeah, just finished looking at the Scotland data. The unvaccinated are definitely testing positive for Covid at a higher rate than the unvaxxed. That doesn't mean they are getting sicker, in fact, the data would suggest otherwise. I think what we are seeing is not so much the failing of the vaccine as much as it's a biproduct of the superior natural immunity. I'd wager to guess most unvaccinated people have already caught the disease and benefit from a better immune response to it.

Which study are you referring to and reread what you wrote there.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It wasn't a study. It was a statistical report. Also, you are correct to critique that thought. I actually came here to make a different post about how my opinion can't be correct. If it was natural immunity that was keeping the unvaccinated from getting it, it would also be keeping them out of the hospitals and morgues at a higher rate. The only other thing that makes sense to me is that the mechanism for protection doesn't activate quickly enough in the vaccinated unless they are recently boosted. So, my theory would be that the natural immune system does a better job at keeping the virus at bay (personally, I believe this is a t-cell response issue), but the vaccinated immune response does a better job at keeping it from getting out of control once it does activate. Not stating anything with certainty, here... just hypothesizing. Something has to account for the difference.

---

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/...report.pdf

---

Yeah, just finished looking at the Scotland data. The unvaccinated are definitely testing positive for Covid at a higher rate than the unvaxxed. That doesn't mean they are getting sicker, in fact, the data would suggest otherwise. I think what we are seeing is not so much the failing of the vaccine as much as it's a biproduct of the superior natural immunity. I'd wager to guess most unvaccinated people have already caught the disease and benefit from a better immune response to it.

The data I saw showed that unvaxxed with natural immunity were better protected from getting sicker. Hospital and death rates are higher in the vaxxed groups. I don't remember which country it was from though.

---

If it was the report to which in referring (which I believe it was), the numbers are higher because so much more of their population is vaxxed. It's not higher per 100k people. It's higher by raw numbers, which doesn't mean anything.

---

In late 2020, Dr. Andrew Hill, a researcher at the University of Liverpool, was leading a team of researchers studying the drug ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. Their work was funded by UNITAID—a global health agency hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and supported (in large part) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Unitaid’s main donors are France, the United Kingdom, Norway, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea, Chile, and Japan.

Dr. Hill and the research team produced their meta-analysis of ivermectin in January, 2021. The paper considered eighteen studies on the thirty-five-year-old drug—which has been safely used since 1987 to eradicate parasitic pandemics in low- and middle-income countries. The study concluded that the use of ivermectin resulted in reduced inflammation and a more rapid elimination of the Sars-Cov-2 virus from the body. Six of the eighteen trials showed that the risk of death from covid-19 was 75 percent lower in patients who had moderate to severe disease.

This was absolutely tremendous news. Hundreds of thousands of lives were about to be saved from the ravages of covid-19. Said Dr. Hill at the time to the Financial Times, “The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming: get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [ivermectin]. We need to be ready.”

When Dr. Hill made that statement—to gear up for the worldwide distribution of ivermectin—nearly 15,000 people were dying across the world every single day. Dr. Hill continued, “Vaccination is central to the response to the epidemic. But [ivermectin] might help reduce infection rates by making people less infectious and it might reduce death rates by treating the viral infection.”

But just one month later, Dr. Hill’s original, positive study conclusions on ivermectin quite literally fell off the rails. And so did the fortunes of the thousands who had no idea then that they were stuck on the tracks with a freight train barreling towards them—unable to get out of harm’s way because help had been hijacked.

Dr. Tess Lawrie, a physician, independent WHO researcher, and Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, had heard that Dr. Hill was about to change his conclusions about ivermectin’s efficacy. So she called him on Zoom to find out why—and recorded the entire conversation.

During that Zoom call, Dr. Hill confessed to Dr. Lawrie that he was changing his study conclusions from positive to negative—because he was under pressure from his funding sponsors to do so.

Wait, what? His sponsors told him to change the study conclusions? NOT the data? What in the hell was going on?

Lawrie was furious.

We know that the studies considered in Hill’s soon-to-be-revised ivermectin paper did not change. But now the paper was going to conclude that because most of those studies in the meta-analysis contained “low-certainty evidence,” the positive results in the first iteration of the paper were now going to be characterized as being of “low certainty.”


The Rest - https://rescue.substack.com/p/i-dont-kno...p-at-night

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Oh good, more Kory and Lawrie bull [BLEEP].

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Oh good, more Kory and Lawrie bull [BLEEP].

Better than Fauci, EVERYONE is better than that LIAR..

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Oh good, more Kory and Lawrie bull [BLEEP].

Better than Fauci, EVERYONE is better than that LIAR..

Oxford University is who says that whole story is garbage. Hill did the right thing in retracting because the fraudulent Elgazzar study create all of the benefits they found in the first analysis. Once that got tossed out, as it should've been, the fact that Ivermectin doesn't do anything is evident.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Better than Fauci, EVERYONE is better than that LIAR..

Oxford University is who says that whole story is garbage. Hill did the right thing in retracting because the fraudulent Elgazzar study create all of the benefits they found in the first analysis. Once that got tossed out, as it should've been, the fact that Ivermectin doesn't do anything is evident.

No, that is not what happened. It was politically motivated and kept away from the pubic because of political and monetary reasons. You can dismiss the article if want, but don't deny what it says.

---

Lawrie: This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.

Hill: There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply…

Lawrie: We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with looking at the data and reassuring everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.

Hill: Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials…

Lawrie: It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies…we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day and being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative…that is a sensitive position.

So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this.

I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.

Hill: I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival. (Author’s note: Hill says IVM has a significant effect on survival? And he STILL bows to a murderous master?)

Lawrie: No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?

You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.

Hill: Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.

Lawrie: But, Andy—know this will come out. It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.

When Dr. Hill tells Dr. Lawrie that the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) will not be on board with a positive recommendation for ivermectin, Dr. Lawrie snaps back:

Lawrie: Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: That’s not something I know about. (Author’s note: Really, Dr. Hill? I, for one, am buying it.)

Lawrie: Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.

Hill: I don’t think so. (Author’s note: I do.)

Lawrie: Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.

This is bad research…bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know…you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.

Hill: Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.

Lawrie: No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth. How can you deliberately try and mess it up…you know?

Hill: It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.

Lawrie: So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily—up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?

Hill: Well, I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH and the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough. (Author’s note: What about the people who will die of covid-19 but can be saved by ivermectin, Dr. Hill? Do they get a say about when they think enough is enough?)

Lawrie: How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.

Hill: Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future…at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there. (Author’s note: “WE’LL be there? As in, you’re in this to win it too with ivermectin? You’re in this to keep your job and a healthy paycheck, punk. Watch out for traffic jams at the cemeteries on your way to work.)

Lawrie: It’s already nailed.

Hill: No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.

Lawrie: You’d rather risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.

These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works. It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people…

I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do.

I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.

Lawrie then asks again: Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO?

Hill: It’s Unitaid.

Lawrie: All right. So who helped to…whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?

Hill: Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it…Unitaid…

Lawrie: I think that…it needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged? Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?

Hill: Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah. (Author’s note: Does Unitaid do the scientific and medical research or did you?)

Lawrie: Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?

Hill: Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t…

Lawrie: So they have a say in your conclusions.

Hill: Yeah.

Lawrie: Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?

Hill: Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name…but I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance…

Lawrie: Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?

Hill: Yeah…it’s a very strong lobby…

Lawrie: Okay. Look, I think I can see kind of a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy.

And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry…As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.

Hill: Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.

Lawrie: So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate go on?

Hill: From my side. Okay…I think end of February, we will be there, six weeks. (Author’s note: Hey Hill, you said six weeks? 15K people dying daily? That’s 630,000 people dead. So what about pushing for it…like…right now instead? That’s hundreds of thousands fewer people dead. Do the math.)

Lawrie: How many people die every day?

Hill: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.

Lawrie: Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks…because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum… (Author’s note: “Everything you can” means searching your soul and conscience—both seemingly laying dormant—and acting to save these lives.)

Lawrie: You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, “I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion any more, and I’m going to tell the truth.” (Author’s note: So maybe, Dr. Hill, you did not have the authority to change Unitaid’s conclusions. But you shouldn’t have checked your spine at the door. You had veto power over the use of your name (which is the banner carrying your professional integrity) on that noxious paper, didn’t you? Maybe you could have said something like, “Though I led the team that conducted this research, I cannot allow my name to remain on a paper with conclusions I did not reach, words I did not write, and which will cause people to die if those words go unchallenged.” What do you think, Dr. Hill?)

Hill: What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.

Lawrie: Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of…everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.

Hill: Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ. (Author’s note: “Agree to differ?” People differ on what they like for dinner, their opinions on whether they like novocaine or gas at the dentist. But what they DON’T differ on is whether or not lives should be saved in a damn pandemic.)

Lawrie: Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

If it was the report to which in referring (which I believe it was), the numbers are higher because so much more of their population is vaxxed. It's not higher per 100k people. It's higher by raw numbers, which doesn't mean anything.

You know, I went back into that report today to double check some numbers, and it's really not that far off between vaxxed and unvaxxed. The clear exception is recently boosted. I'll post the numbers tomorrow when I get some free time or something.

---

https://www.news.com.au/technology/onlin...2fa586?amp

---

Love the association of Joe Rogan with the QAnon group. You're being manipulated.

---

Love the association of Joe Rogan with the QAnon group. You're being manipulated.

Lol seriously.  If you actually listen to his podcast he talks about how he's never really gotten into QAnon because he thinks they're all quacks.  I also love the association to Ivermectin.  He didn't go to some underground group for advice to take it, he was prescribed it by an actual physician.

---

Ivermectin has been used by 3.9 billion people and has a safer track record than aspirin. Should you take as much as you want or administer it to your child based on the advice of the internet? No.

Regardless, any news you read that brings in unrelated, outside factors should not be taken seriously. It's either click bait or has an agenda.

Did they say in the article that Ivermectin caused the child to turn blue? I read it before I left, but can't remember now.

---