An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Source of the SARS-CoV-2 Injections Scam: PART 1
A program aimed at getting to the bottom of the Who, What, Where, When, and the Why, of the SARS-CoV-2 injections scam
Gaining Traction at Last?
I sense that some of the evidence I have been sharing over the last nearly three years is beginning to gain traction. That may just be wishful thinking on my part, of course, but hopefully not. If you are someone who agrees with me, please do let me know. Even more important, if you don’t agree, it would be great to understand why. I’m never afraid to admit I’m wrong in the face of persuasive evidence.
The Program
The sub-title here claims that this is: A program aimed at getting to the bottom of the Who, What, Where, When, and the Why, of the SARS-CoV-2 injections scam.
It is my hope that we can do that together. We start with the basics, outlined by me in an interview with Megan Redshaw, (she is brilliant!) for TrialSite News:
Drug Development Expert Sounds Alarm Over Rushed-to-Market COVID-19 Vaccines
This is a comment from the fabulous Dr Mike Yeadon:
“Hedley Rees is a thoroughgoing expert in all aspects of drug R&D in relation to synthesis of the active drug as well as the final formulated drug, especially commercial scale manufacture & testing / QA-QC. His deep knowledge of complex biological products makes his testimony compelling of the hopelessly inadequate & truncated production R&D implied by the covid19 “vaccines” timelines. His interpretation is also wholly consistent with others expert assessment of the regulatory dossiers, clinical trials, toxicity profiles & clinical outcomes.
Best wishes,
Mike
It had 8.25K views in total.
I’m conscious that folk don’t always watch videos, which is fine. In a nutshell, what I say is exactly the same as I have been saying all along, paraphrased here:
“Any drug (medicinal product) is the product of a long, complex supply chain that eventually enters a person’s body. The development process first involves building a supply chain to test outside the human body, known as pre-clinical testing. This takes c. three years.
Next, seven years of testing in humans is required, using the product of a supply chain that must be approved by the regulatory authority (FDA/EMA/MHRA). That includes physical inspections of the establishments producing drug substance and drug product, as a minimum.
The regulatory authority then takes 12 - 18 months to review all the data (clinical, pre-clinical/clinical safety, and supply chain, end-to-end) submitted by the company intending to sell the drug.
Only when the regulatory authority has completed its work, will an approval or rejection be decided and communicated”
There is a lot more in the video that adds content and context. Please give it a view if you can :O).
The Hypothesis
I like to check the definition of any term I use when writing, for clarity. This is a Britannica definition:
“In planning a course of action, one may consider various alternatives, working out each in detail. Although the word hypothesis is not typically used in this case, the procedure is virtually the same as that of an investigator of crime considering various suspects.”
I like this definition because, as you will know, a crime has been committed. Not just a crime, but the great crime in the history of the world, bar none.
This is the hypothesis:
“The SARS-CoV-2 injections scam was perpetrated by Big Pharma companies such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK, Sanofi et al, working in collaboration with its contract development and manufacturing organisations (CDMOs) and contract research organisations (CROs).
Part of the collaboration was to agree shortcuts in drug development, manufacture and distribution, that led to significant harm, including death, for some (innocent) people receiving the injections.”
Next Step in the Program
The next step is to add meat to the bones, aimed at outlining evidence in support of the above hypothesis. As well as laying out the facts, I think readers will find this interesting and useful in building their own database of what happened.
Believe me, it will be substantial.
See you again tomorrow?
I think the most important evidence lies in the US data of the first four months of 2020, ending in the CDC decision to stop collecting all case data. With this announcement, the American media announced that the death rate of the vaccinated from COVID was 2 percent. Oddly, they had nothing to say about the death rate of the unvaccinated. It is there. It was 1.82 percent. April 30, 2020, the CDC and the NIH knew the vaccine did not work, not even to prevent hospitalizations or death. The data should still be there.
At that point in time, the US health organizations stopped reporting deaths and hospitalizations by the required formula, a rate, separately calculated for each group, vaccinated then unvaccinated, number of deaths of hospitalizations, divide by total number of cases.
They stopped calculating the rates if the two groups with the required protocols and began to tell the media that the unvaccinated were four times, eight times, etc., more likely to die, by simply comparing total numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated deaths.
.
Given government and corporations ordered their employees to take the vaccine and then lockdown with their children, this curtailed their exposure to the virus. This group was the vast total of the U.S. population, 80 percent.
Protocol dictated that you could not even compare rates, if the exposure of the two groups was not the same, repeat, the same. It is well established that the deaths and hospitalizations were in the working class, who could not work from home. That this was the entire construct of the false impression the vaccine could give you any advantage at all was clear, when the children went to back to school in September of 2021, and vaccinated hospitalizations and deaths soared way above the unvaccinated, repeat, soared. They increased in February 2022 when corporations went back to work.
There is a peer review document on the proper way to determine vaccine efficacy and safety, which was established for measles, decades ago. It stated it was the blueprint for efficacy and safety determination, and could be used for any other vaccine. It has never been overruled, superceded by another peer review.
Why are professional people, who are questioning the vaccines and their efficacy and safety, not using their best evidence available? Would you like a link to a copy of it?