Throughout the night, Israeli airstrikes hit the Lebanese capital, Beirut. The IDF bombarded the city in waves, hitting a wide variety of Beirut neighborhoods, including dense residential developments.
According to initial estimates, at least 40 civilians were killed and more than 200 injured in the overnight strikes. At least 17 others remain missing. Emergency services are working to remove debris. The rubble in the streets is hampering the movement of ambulances, which are also in short supply due to the large number of calls from across the capital.
Beirut is shrouded in clouds of smoke. There is no electricity in several neighborhoods of the Lebanese capital. There are also problems with the supply of drinking water.
With these bombings, the Israeli military and political leadership has shown that it does not accept the proposals of several countries to cease fire and begin the negotiation process.
In this context, reports indicate that the Israeli army is preparing to launch a ground invasion of the neighboring state in the next 24 hours, if not the next few hours. The Israeli army's armored vehicles, especially Merkava tanks, have been concentrated for several weeks near the southern border of Lebanon, with the crews awaiting orders.
The West, via Israel, is fomenting for Hezbollah and the Shia resistance their own ISIS moment. Moderates are once again losing the argument – because we lost it for them
Hezbollah has confirmed that its longtime leader, Hassan Nasrallah,
was among the hundreds of Lebanese killed in Israel’s massive
bombardment of a suburb of Beirut last night.
Israel’s decision
to assassinate Nasrallah, using some of the enormous bunker-busting
bombs the United States has been arming it with, is beyond foolhardy. It
is outright deranged. Israel has removed – and knows it has removed – a
moderating influence on Hezbollah.
Israel’s action will achieve
nothing apart from teaching his successor, and leaders of other groups
and countries labelled as terrorist by western governments, several
lessons:
* That Israel, and the West standing squarely behind it,
do not play by any known rules of engagement, and that their opponents
must do likewise. The current restraint from Hezbollah that has been so
baffling western pundits will become a thing of the past.
* That
Israel is not interested in compromise, only escalation, and that this
is a fight to death – not just against Israel but against the West that
sponsors Israel.
* That Israel's ideological extremism – its
Jewish supremacism, and its endless craving for Lebensraum – must be met
with even greater Shia-inspired extremism.
Decades of western terrorism in the Middle East unleashed a Sunni nihilism embodied first in al-Qaeda and then in ISIS.
Now,
the West, via Israel, is fomenting for the Shia resistance its own ISIS
moment. The moderates in what the West dubs “terrorist organisations”
have once again lost the argument. Why? Because the US imperial project
known as “the West” has once again demonstrated it will not compromise.
It demands full-spectrum, global dominance – nothing less.
Israel may make very short tactical gains in killing Nasrallah. But we will all soon feel the whirlwind.
When that whirlwind comes, the job of our politicians and media will
be to ensure we make no connection between this moment of savagery and
insanity from us and the blowback.
The role of western
establishments will be to cry victim, to insist “They hate us for our
freedoms”, for our civilisational superiority, because “they” are simply
barbarians.
But what comes next, as with what came before, will
be entirely predictable. Violence doesn't beget calm, it begets more
violence. Israel knows that. Our leaders know that. But they opened the
gates of hell anyway.
(Disclaimer: Nothing in this post, in
line with Section 12 of the UK Terrorism Act, in any way indicates, or
should be seen to be encouraging, support for any group designated as a
terrorist organisation by the British government.)
People are becoming so accustomed to the single-track thinking of the mainstream media that there is also tendency towards a single-track thinking in the alternative media.
There is only one Truth, but is it within the reach of individual human beings? One person will describe a house from its south side, another person will describe it from the north, another from the air in an airplane or helicopter, and another will go inside it. But each of them will describe it only from a particular angle. The Truth of the house can nevertheless result from the combination of these different points of view.
Even science cannot claim to have the Truth that it nevertheless actively seeks. While some of its theories have not yet been factually refuted and are therefore still considered valid1, others are much more contested.2 Let us note that even a very reliable and unanimously accepted theory can only be considered truly scientific if it remains falsifiable and can be refuted by new discoveries that find fault with it or contradict it.
On the other hand, when a hypothesis becomes incontestable, such as the hypothesis of pathogenic viruses, each time it is found to be faulty, instead of being abandoned we apply new patches and excuses to allow it to linger on, despite the growing internal contradictions that this produces (and possibly a lack of fundamental evidence)3. In this way, we abandon the scientific framework and enter into religious or ideological beliefs. Supporters of the hypothesis may still consider themselves "scientists", but they have become scientists, high priests or gurus who propagate their beliefs without ever again questioning them. Science, however, is based on doubt and permanent questioning.
Nowadays, in many areas, it seems that only two mutually exclusive narratives are allowed, and this allows the authorities to dismiss other, more inconvenient, explanations4 for the phenomena in question. This is how we see a dominant current, compatible with globalism, affirming that SARS-CoV-2 is natural, while another widespread current, supposedly "opposed" to globalism, affirms that this alleged virus which would be the cause of an allegedly new disease "Covid-19" was created in a P4 lab. This futile contest facilitates the erasure those who propose a third solution: namely that no virus has yet been scientifically isolated and that there is nothing new or specific about covid symptoms, whose explanation is most likely to be sought elsewhere.
Another example is the battle between the supporters of covid vaccines and their opponents who promote the mRNA vaccine. Although several of these vaccines are not based on this supposed genetic technology, they nevertheless generate the same kinds of side effects. This unscientific conflict between vaccine advocates and anti-mRNA vaccine activists allows the erasure of those who bring up the existence of graphene in all types of covid vaccines, knowing that this substance is toxic and can explain the observed side effects.5 However, patents and various analyses and observations tend to demonstrate the existence of an injectable nanotechnology that can transform human beings so as to include them in the Internet network.6 In our era which seems dominated by lies, manipulation, hypocrisy and corruption, a gauge of truthfulness vs lies can undoubtedly and likely be established on the basis of the following proposition:
The truth harms the establishment of a New World Order that is based on lies and the inversion of reality. By contrast, lies favour that order.
If we consider this proposition as well-founded (or true), then any hypothesis or story that supports the NWO is likely to be false.
Is the viral hypothesis harmful or useful to the New World Order?
The belief in evil viruses capable of invading human or animal bodies and multiplying there not only allows the enrichment of multinational pharmaceuticals owned by the promoters of globalisation, but also to justifies totalitarian "health" measures without which such a NWO could hardly see the light of day.
Would the public and media-supported recognition of a vaccine nanotechnology which generates a universal identifier and connects the human body to the Internet be harmful or useful to the New World Order?
In combination with the coming CBDCs, this nanotechnology could be used to control not only the purchases of our transhumanised human beings, but also their other actions. Would human beings let themselves be vaccinated as easily if they knew the primary and probable purpose of the injections? While a secondary goal may be the sterilisation of a part of Humanity in order to control the herd, the brutal depopulation suggested by some does not seem to be a real goal, because otherwise it would have been easy to use only lethal vaccine batches.
How to find the Truth beyond false dualities?
The Truth will most likely be found by not limiting oneself to the authorised narratives in either the mainstream or alternative media, but rather by exploring together all avenues and hypotheses, however incredible they may seem at first glance, and by making the individual and collective effort to question all of our beliefs, measuring them again and again against the facts.
Notes
1 Like the fundamental laws of optics or those of thermodynamics.
2 As in medicine, biology in general, and in climatology.
3 Concerning the pseudoscience that virology has become, see in particular Aveuglés par la pseudo-science and Les sophismes logiques de la virologie. Virology has been refuted and its opponents expose its inability to provide real proof of the existence of a pathogenic virus, proof that virologists are currently unable to provide by following the scientific method. The latter cling to the dogma of evil viruses because they believe that it is the only way to explain what appears to them to be epidemic contagions. However, even if there were no alternative explanations for the apparent contagions, the viral hypothesis remains unproven and clinging to it is not a matter of reason, but of faith or emotional attachment.
1.
I, Mike Yeadon will say as follows. I have training in biochemistry and
toxicology (1st class joint honours) followed by a research-based PhD
in respiratory pharmacology. I then worked at increasingly senior levels
in biopharmaceutical R&D (new medicines) and was vice president and
worldwide head of allergy and respiratory at Pfizer. A position I left
in 2011. After leaving my employment at Pfizer I took on work as a
consultant to over 30 biotechnology companies and was very highly
regarded both by investors and management. More recently I founded and
led as CEO a biotech which was acquired by Novartis (2017).
2. I
have a wide knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry, including all
aspects of new medicine design, research, and development. In particular
I have an in-depth knowledge of custom and practise in designing
molecules likely to be safe, as well as of immunology and respiratory.
3.
I provide the above outline of my credentials as evidence that as a
senior former pharmaceutical company research executive I have the
expertise and knowledge to make me a credible witness in speaking out
about the grave concerns I have (concerns which are shared by others)
about the alleged pandemic & countermeasures, especially the
gene-based injections.
4. I have been raising these concerns now for a period of around for 3.5 years to date.
5.
Overall it is my expert opinion that the injections purporting to be
vaccines against an alleged virus (I say alleged, as no evidence has
ever been provided of an isolated SARS-CoV-2 virus) are intentionally
harmful, and as such must immediately be withdrawn from the market.
6.
Below I will provide a short summary, which I have sought to make
substantially non-technical, in explanation for why I have formed my
opinion that that the injections as intentionally harmful and that as
such they should be immediately withdrawn from the market.
7. However, before presenting my summary I will first make the following point, which I can substantiate.
8.
In my view, the backdrop to this alleged “pandemic” is not a matter of
medical and scientific issues, but a global crime scene of unprecedented
scale and nature.
9. Claim 1: Choosing to invent, develop and
manufacture a new vaccine is unquestionably the wrong response to a
pandemic, even had the narrative presented to us not been false.
10.
Given I have had an over 30-year career in “big pharma” and biotech, I
knew that it was impossible to create a vaccine in under 5-6 years if
they were going to demonstrate clinical safety and hone manufacturing to
yield the customarily high-quality manufacturing necessary to produce
tightly defined final drug product.
11. If this was not done, the
product would be highly variable, and this is inherently dangerous. This
is what has happened and the resulting variability of the product has
completely invalidated any data obtained during toxicology and clinical
development. In brief, the effect of overly expeditious development is
that the product injected into literally billions of innocent men, women
and children is not the same product as was used in the clinical
trials.
12. No honest expert would even contemplate running a
research program to bring forward a vaccine, because no pandemic in
history has lasted a fraction of the minimum time necessary to create a
safe and effective new vaccine. This timeline cannot be much shortened
because a number of activities are performed in a stepwise manner, each
step depending on the outcome of the preceding step.
13. In
addition, we must consider the clinical context. We have been told of a
public health emergency of international concern, where anyone could
catch the virus and the elderly and already sick were particularly at
risk of death. I believe this to be a deliberate deception, but even if
we accept it, its vital to understand two things.
14. One,
injected vaccines cannot and do not protect humans against acute
respiratory illnesses believed to be due to respiratory viruses landing
in the airways. This is because the immune response is primarily to
stimulate the production of antibodies which circulate in the blood.
Antibodies are very large molecules and they are not able to leave the
circulation and appear on the air side of the respiratory tract. In
short, the product of the immune response to the vaccine and the virus
itself do not meet, as they are in different bodily “compartments.”
15.
Two, the very people we were told are particularly at risk, the elderly
and sick, are in part, in this vulnerable state because their senescent
immune systems respond poorly to new infectious disease threats. Why
would anyone expect a good response to an injected vaccine? This is said
to mimic a new infectious disease threat. It is important to note
something very little known by the public but injected “flu vaccines” do
not work. They do not reduce hospitalisation or death in the elderly.
Yet flu vaccines have been promoted as a vital public health measure for
decades and are paid for by taxpayers. Furthermore, even flu vaccines
can lead to adverse events, sometimes serious, but this is not
compensated by an expectation of protection against a threat to health,
namely influenza. Now you know this, you may find it rather less
difficult to believe that this industry is willing to lie and deceive in
order to reach its objectives.
16. I have outlined why it is
impossible to produce a safe and effective vaccine in much less than
5-6years, yet we are asked to accept that this has been accomplished in
less than one year. I have also described why it is that an injected
vaccine could not work, even if it was safe, in the setting we are told
exists. Yet they went ahead. This is malevolent, as I will show.
17.
Claim 2: Gene-based vaccines were advanced as the exclusive solution,
but was a means to misuse the reduced regulatory hurdles for
conventional vaccines in order to push gene therapies onto the market.
18.
Vaccines have been developed and used against an increasing range of
infectious disease targets rather widely since the middle of the 20th
century and some are much older. Every vaccine until the covid pandemic
era has involved taking a sample of the disease-causing agent and
formulating it for injection or instillation into the airway. This has
the advantage that the amount of pathogen is known and fixed. In many
ways, this process mimics what we are told is a similar process to when
we are infected by the wild pathogen. Many vaccines have been developed
and marketed and over many decades, the makers, the regulators, doctors,
and the public have acquired a common understanding of what kind of
product these are and how to evaluate them. This is the background that
has led to the regulatory pathway for their development. In certain regards, it has been appropriate to truncate or not even to study
certain properties of “conventional vaccines” because they are
uninformative and do not contribute anything to evaluation of the agent.
19.
The preparations called vaccines in this alleged pandemic are in no way
like these older products. Instead, these are gene-based agents, which
commandeer the recipients’ cells to manufacture whatever is encoded in
the gene sequence. This is a crucial difference, as I will exemplify
later. But it is important to understand that there are additional steps
in the biological response to gene- based agents as compared to
old-style vaccines. Old style vaccines do not travel far from the
injection site. The materials injected are suspensions, small pieces of
cells and killed or weakened infectious agents. Our bodies are
well-adapted to recognise that foreign materials have arrived and have
evolved to respond appropriately to this event. The gene-based
injections, by contrast, can and do travel all over the body, prompted
to make foreign proteins in anatomical locations where the pathogen
would be unable to reach, such as the brain.
20. Gene-based
treatments are often called by a slang term “gene therapies.” This is an
imprecise term and causes much argument, since it is often stated that
they do not modify ones’ genes. That is not relevant. What is relevant
is that it is a gene that is at the heart of the treatment. A gene is
simply a code for the manufacture of a protein. These mRNA-based agents
ARE, however, classified by their manufacturers as “gene therapies” for
the purpose of describing to investors the nature of the development and
commercial risks being run. Rightly so, for none of these products had
reached the market by 2020, though there had been a number of
unsuccessful attempts.
21. I first encountered the idea of
mRNA-based therapeutics in the late-1990s, when I led respiratory
research for Pfizer. I could see a potential clinical utility only in
life-threatening, inoperable cancers that were unresponsive to
chemotherapeutics and radiotherapy. Somewhat of a niche opportunity
only.
22. The reason they were perceived to have some use in this
narrow but important application is vital to understand, if I am to
explain clearly why I am so sure that these are wholly inappropriate to
protect against an alleged respiratory virus. The original idea was that
a piece of genetic code coupled to something else that would enable the
preparation to travel to and be taken up by the remote tumour.
The cells making up that tumour would copy the genetic code and make
whatever protein was encoded. Because that protein was foreign, and not
normally made by humans, our immune systems would recognise that we had
something foreign inside us and this would stimulate a lethal attack
upon every cell that had taken up and followed the genetic instructions.
This is a branch of what is called “immunooncology” and a number of
companies have tried to develop such “gene therapies” as anti-cancer
agents, so far without success. The crucial point to remember is that
these preparations were expected to work by precipitating lethal immune
attack on every cell that had taken it up.
23. Returning to the
development pathway for these agents. Because they are new and
unprecedented, the medicines regulators around the world have laid down
onerous conditions for their development. Obviously, they are
potentially very potent medicines and being new, great care was to be
taken to avoid predicted as well as unanticipated harms. With new types
of medical treatment, while some potential harms can be anticipated and
characterised properly, other harms may arise which were not expected.
This is why the development pathway for new types of powerful medical
interventions are given especially tough review.
24. I now make an
important point. In 2020, we are told that at least four
biopharmaceutical companies decided to develop gene-based vaccines. As I
explained earlier, conventional vaccines are given a somewhat easier
time of it in relation to developmental obligations. Despite classifying
to the financial markets their own products as “gene therapies” &
subject to lengthy and expensive development obligations, they persuaded
the medical regulators (and deceived the public) to classify them as
“vaccines”. This was improper and was accompanied by bodies such as WHO
and even dictionary makers to change the definition of the word vaccine
to facilitate this deception.
25. Deception matters not because of
mere naming conventions, but because the manufacturers knew that
vaccines are much lighter in terms of development obligations. Even
given this improper advantage, the makers of the gene-based vaccines
failed to meet all, of even the relatively light development
obligations. The end result has been billions of people being injected
with mis-classified and inadequately tested gene-therapies. The adverse
effect profiles and deaths as a consequence are extraordinary yet
are being ignored by multiple bodies tasked with vigilance in patient
safety. None of this can be constructed as accidental or inadvertent.
26.
Claim 3: The design choices made in constructing the gene-based agents
purporting to be vaccines are evidence of intentional harms.
27.
Medicinal preparations contain molecules that were chosen by its
designers. Nothing is in them that was not thoughtfully included. My
career has been wholly within the sphere of endeavour called “rational
drug discovery” or “rational drug design”. My main responsibility was to
select biological targets for intervention with a chemical or a
biological molecule, the latter usually being designed by more than one
person. I was part of the design teams for decades. Our objective was to
reach and interact with the molecular target, hoping to bring about
desirable effects in patients, and to do so without inducing
unacceptable unwanted effects, taking into account the seriousness of
the illness at issue.
28. My contention is that, by close
examination of the products of such design teams, I can, at least in
part, deduce the intentions of the designers. It gives me no pleasure to
lay out below several features of the design of the mRNA “vaccines”
from Pfizer / BioNTech and from Moderna, ALL of which predictably give
rise to toxicity. The features of interest are common to both products.
There is no reasonable conclusion to this analysis other than that the
designers intentionally created products which would be expected to
cause harms including death and sterility.
29. Designed-in
toxicity 1: axiomatic induction of “autoimmune” responses, regardless of
what the genetic sequence codes for. As described earlier about how
immunooncology was considered the leading application, when our bodies
manufacture a foreign or non-self-protein, our immune system recognises
this as a threat and mounts a lethal attack on every cell performing the
genetic instruction. In short, wherever in the body these materials
travel after injection into the upper arm, the immune system will
destroy those cells and tissues. I believe it is very likely that the
reported extensive range of adverse effects is due to this common
process, autoimmune destruction, occurring in all kinds of tissues
around the body. This is expected. Anyone with a basic knowledge of
immunology knows this.
30. Designed-in toxicity 2: The next was
choice of the gene chosen. I believe selecting the spike protein of the
alleged coronavirus is irrational, because it was highly likely to be
directly toxic. These surface proteins are known from comparison to
related pathogens to be toxic to blood, initiating blood clots and
damaging the function of nerve cells. Not only is it very dangerous to
force human bodies to manufacture a pro-coagulant protein, it was
unnecessary. There are several alternative genes that a
safety-orientated designer would choose from.
31. In addition to
the toxicity of spike protein, spike is, we are informed, subject to the
most rapid mutation (so a vaccine might lose efficacy quickly) and also
it is the least different from human proteins (and so might trigger
bystander attacks on even somewhat similar self-proteins).
32. Yet
all four leading players chose spike protein as their genetic coded
antigen. What a coincidence! If I had been in one of the roles leading
these efforts, I would ’have called up my peers in the other companies
to ensure we did not do that. That is because from a strategic
standpoint, it would be highly undesirable to have common risks to all
programs.
33. Designed-in toxicity 3: On formulation, the teams
developing mRNA-based products both selected lipid nanoparticles (LNPs)
to encapsulate their genetic message. Yet there was industry knowledge
that these not only travel all over the body including into the brain
but that they accumulate in the ovaries. Yet, knowing this, the
companies and regulators went ahead and then others compounded the
toxicity risk by recommending these injections in pregnant women and
children.
34. This is not an exhaustive list and I am aware of
further toxicity liabilities. I felt three was an adequate number to
exemplify my concerns. Remember, please, that these agents are not
expected to yield benefits as explained earlier and have been developed
at a pace completely inconsistent with normal practise, absolutely
required to result in a consistent product.
35. I am very
confident of this conclusion. I have said so in more than 100 video
interviews which have been viewed millions of times, despite the obvious
efforts of censors. If these claims were completely wrong, I expected
to have been corrected years ago and at least injuncted not to repeat
the claims.
36. I know all the companies are aware of my views,
because I sadly know three of the four individuals responsible for
R&D on vaccines and I have written to them laying out my concerns.
Not one replied, though one resigned a few months later without giving a
reason, which is extraordinarily uncommon, because it results in
forfeiture of very substantial deferred compensation.
37. Claim 4:
The evolution of the target population, from initially only the
elderly, eventually to everyone is confirmatory evidence of intentional
harm.
38. This is simple to explain, but it is worth laying out.
Recall at first, we were told that those most at risk from this alleged
virus were the elderly who were already sick. Consistent with this, the
first cohorts of the public invited to receive these injections were the
over 60s.
39. Over a period of months, the threshold age for
receiving the injections fell and continued to fall until healthy
youngsters were being pressurised to get injected even though they had
essentially no risk of death from the alleged virus.
40. Along the
way, and outside of medical practise of 60 years standing, pregnant
women were encouraged to get injected, too. There is no evidence that
they were at risk. Even if they had been, it has been policy NEVER to
expose pregnant women to novel medical treatments, because of the risks
to the developing baby. The watershed event was thalidomide and this
awful event set a firm, never breached red line not to allow risky
interventions in pregnancy. Until 2021, when this red line was driven
right over without comment. The manufacturers had not then even
completed regulatory reproductive toxicology. They had absolutely no
information, yet women were told it was safe, when in fact it was not.
41.
Finally, children were called to be injected, even though the
authorities had previously told us that children were at no risks from
the alleged virus.
42. In conclusion there are several, completely obvious safety issues built into these products. This is intentional.
43.
I was still slow to piece together all this evidence of carefully
thought-out harms. But eventually I got there are and have been speaking
in what many regard as extreme terms ever since.
On the afternoon of Sept. 17, my phone buzzed with dozens of
messages from friends in Beirut, who described the surreal scenes they
had just witnessed. One friend saw a man’s face blow up while he was on a
motorbike. Another said his sister was with her 2-year-old when she
heard a loud bang, followed by a rush of people running toward them in
terror. A third sent a clip of security camera footage from a grocery
store, where a man reaches to grab his beeping pager before it explodes
in his hand.
Although no one has officially claimed responsibility for the
attack, everyone understood very well what had happened: Israel found a
way to detonate simultaneously thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah
members. In our text exchanges, my friends and I began to wonder how the
Israelis pulled this off — and if this meant that all electronic
devices in Lebanon were now at risk.
A similar attack occurred the following day, this time
targeting Hezbollah’s walkie-talkies. In one highly publicized incident,
an explosion at a funeral for Hezbollah members killed in the first
attack sent mourners scrambling in fear. Across the two days, around
3,500 people were reported injured, many still in serious condition, and at least 42 people killed, including two children.
We later learned that the Hungarian company from which
Hezbollah had acquired its communication devices was, in fact, an
Israeli front. The devices were not intercepted and then bugged, but
manufactured by Israel from the start — a “modern day Trojan horse,” as
the New York Times called it. This was a sizable security breach for Hezbollah, which even the group’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, somberly acknowledged in a speech two days later.
But it now seems that the attacks of last week were the prelude
for a more traditional — and more deadly — open phase of war. At the
time of writing, Israel has launched multiple airstrikes throughout
south Lebanon and the Bekaa valley, and countless Lebanese civilians are
currently fleeing the area following “immediate” evacuation orders from the Israeli army.
Israeli soldiers seen in the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona. September 19, 2024. (Michael Giladi/Flash90)
So far, at least 492 people have been reported killed,
including 35 children, and 1,645 wounded, and casualties are expected to
rise. This makes Sept. 23, to quote Lebanese journalist Timour Azhari,
the “deadliest day in memory in [the] Lebanon-Israel conflict,” and
with Hezbollah launching rockets deeper into Israel, de-escalation is
increasingly out of reach.
‘This cannot be the new normal’
For Justin Salhani, a journalist based in Beirut, the
psychological impact of the pager attacks on Lebanon’s civilian
population cannot be underestimated. People are “already fearful,”
Salhani told +972, noting how many Lebanese have remained deeply
traumatized since the devastating Beirut port explosion on Aug. 4, 2020.
Four years later, the harrowing scenes in Lebanese hospitals
were repeating themselves. At the American University of Beirut’s
medical center, one of the country’s largest and most prestigious
facilities, it took two days for doctors and nurses to attend to the
thousands of injuries from the first pager attack, according to a
communications staffer at the hospital who spoke with Salhani. This was
before the second wave of injuries from the walkie-talkie attacks.
Salhani and I were talking shortly before the Sept. 20 Israeli
airstrike on the Dahiya neighborhood in southern Beirut, the third one
this year, which killed Hezbollah’s operations commander Ibrahim Aqil,
other senior members of the elite Radwan unit, and several civilians,
including three children. Yet the device explosions stand out for their
wide-ranging consequences — “not just for Hezbollah,” Salhani noted, but
the future of warfare.
An Israeli fighter jet flies over the northern Israeli city of Haifa, September 23, 2024. (Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)
In the words of Volker Türk,
the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the pager attacks “represent
a new development in warfare where communication tools become weapons.”
He condemned the tactic as a violation of international law and a
possible war crime, affirming that “this cannot be the new normal.”
But given Israel’s history of using warfare to test new
military technology and strategy, there is no indication that Türk’s
warning will have any impact — and the pager attacks may, like other
lethal Israeli innovations, become quickly normalized.
Gaza has long been Israel’s preferred military laboratory, and Israeli start-ups that market “battle-tested”
weapons have reaped the benefits. This has turned Gaza into a place
where the most morbid world records have been broken — home, for
example, to the highest percentage of child amputees, with around 10
children per day losing one or both of their legs to Israeli bombs, according to the UN.
But Lebanon, too, has been a key battleground for Israel to
develop its military stratagem. First outlined by IDF Chief of Staff
Gadi Eizenkot during the 2006 war, the infamous Dahiya doctrine endorses
“disproportionate” force to “the enemy’s actions and the threat it
poses,” and includes specifically targeting civilian infrastructure “to
an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes,”
according to a 2009 report by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel.
Anyone affected by Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon instinctively
understands the Dahiya doctrine. And after the nearly year-long genocide
in Gaza, which has seen the relentless destruction of entire cities,
and recent statements from Israeli leaders, Lebanese citizens are firm
in conviction that the Israeli military will not hesitate to inflict
massive civilian casualties. Last November, Israeli Defense Minister
Yoav Gallant declared that “what we can do in Gaza, we can do in Beirut,” while last week, IDF Major General Ori Gordin proposed re-occupying south Lebanon to create a “buffer zone” with Israel.
Israelis watch airstrikes in southern Lebanon, near the Israeli border, September 23, 2024. (David Cohen/Flash90)
Add to this the explicitly genocidal rhetoric
emanating from Israeli society against the Palestinian people in Gaza,
with both traditional and social media consumed by open calls for
genocide, as well as by Israelis soldiers
themselves in Gaza. To anyone who has experienced Israeli occupation
and bombardment in Lebanon, the reports, images, and videos coming out
of Gaza feel eerily familiar — and now they fear they will witness the
same in their own country.
Hezbollah’s difficult calculus
At the beginning of 2022, I argued
in +972 that “Hezbollah couldn’t ask for a better enemy than Israel,”
given how Israeli escalatory rhetoric and actions have helped Hezbollah
justify the maintenance of its military hegemony in Lebanon. This is
only more true today: pointing to Israel’s actions in Gaza, and now
increasingly in Lebanon, Hezbollah can tell its supporters that no
compromise with the Israeli state is possible, and that without armed
resistance, Lebanese civilians will suffer the crimes that begin the
moment Israeli troops enter any Arab territory.
As some analysts have pointed out,
the Israeli attacks are likely to drive Hezbollah further underground —
for some members, quite literally. In August, Hezbollah released a
Hebrew-subtitled video, reposted
by Israel’s own Foreign Affairs Ministry on YouTube, showing a hidden
tunnel in Lebanon wide enough to fit large missile launchers and a
convoy of trucks. It is not known how many similar tunnels exist.
Keeping the extent of this underground network a secret is
naturally part of Hezbollah’s psychological warfare against Israel. It
is a way of reminding the latter that — unlike Hamas and the densely
populated Gaza Strip — Hezbollah operates in a much larger territory
with no such restrictions, with much greater physical access to its
allies in Iran and Syria than Hamas under Israel’s blockade.
A
woman watches the speech of Secretary-general of Hezbollah Hassan
Nasrallah at her home in Mishmar David, September 19, 2024. (Nati
Shohat/Flash90)
Meanwhile, threats by Israeli leaders to apply its “Gaza model”
to Lebanon risks pushing some Hezbollah members to employ more
irregular warfare tactics, which the Israeli army has historically had
difficulty confronting, such as ambushes, hit-and-run attacks, and other
cross-border incursions.
This is especially true if Israel attempts another ground
invasion of south Lebanon — a territory that Hezbollah has operated from
as a guerrilla group since the 1980s, with increasingly sophisticated
weapons after each round of fighting, and a more battle-hardened force
since their interventions in Syria.
In other ways, however, Hezbollah is in a precarious domestic
position. There is no sizable appetite for a war with Israel in a
country that is still feeling the effects of one of the world’s worst
economic crises, especially since the Beirut port explosion. The group’s
decision to support Hamas after October 7 has, for these same reasons,
also been highly controversial. It is, as of now, also unclear to what
extent Hezbollah can rely on Iran’s direct support if that would bring
an all-out war to Tehran’s own doorstep.
But without international pressure to stop the openly
exterminationist policies of the Netanyahu government, Hezbollah may be
pushed to a point of no return — with unimaginable consequences for the
region.
After finishing the first part of the DMSO series (which
explains how millions of permanent disabilities and deaths from
strokes, traumatic brain injuries and spinal cord injuries could have
been prevented if the FDA hadn’t blacklisted DMSO), I decided to take a
technology break.
However, as I was drifting to bed last night, a lot of people began
contacting me about a disaster that was unfolding in California.
Before and after a mandatory vaccine
What I find astounding about this case is that within minutes
of looking into the limited information that was available, I was
relatively certain of what happened, and now that her basic labs were
posted online, it was indeed what happened. However, as best as I can tell, a fairly straightforward (conventional) diagnosis was missed and Alexis Lorenze has instead been put at risk of a life threatening injury.
I was initially in disbelief this was possible (and to an extent still am),
but people directly connected to the situation confirmed this indeed is
the case. As this case is an instructive example of medical blindness, I
felt it would be helpful to share what happened.
Note: premier academic hospitals, while less likely to have a compassionate and caring relationship with their patients, are normally better at recognizing less common diagnoses
and are typically equipped with the specialized services needed to
address those situations—all of which makes me particularly surprised
this was missed. To some extent, I am juxtaposing my understanding of
the Midwestern academic centers onto this situation, so if you are
directly familiar with the UC hospital system (particularly Irvine) and
there’s is something I am missing here, please let me know.
Medical Blindness
A major in medicine is that doctors are frequently unable to recognize conditions which:
•Create cognitive dissonance for them (e.g., by
forcing them to acknowledge they hurt a patient or accept that the
guidelines their medical tribe gave them are flawed).
•They were not taught to identify to recognize (as there is so much complexity to a human being, the majority of physicians lack the innate capacity to see things they weren’t taught to filter for
or the willing to seriously consider the significance of things which
do not make sense within their cognitive map of the world).
Because of this, physicians frequently fail to recognize a pharmaceutical injury is occurring
or believe a patient who claims an injury was linked to a
pharmaceutical (particularly since medical education conveniently does
not train doctors to recognize these injuries and simultaneously trains
them to believe anything patients report that is not backed by science
is “anecdotal” and most likely a spontaneous coincidence). This in turn
leads to the tragic phenomenon of “medical gaslighting” (discussed further here) something many patients understandably find infuriating.
This issue is particularly common with vaccines because:
•The meaningless slogan “safe and effective” has been used to market them for decades regardless of how much evidence of harm exists (e.g., I previously listed some fairly tragic examples that ultimately go back over a century). Because of this, the majority of doctors assume vaccines are 100% safe and that no possible issue can emerge from giving them ad-infinitum.
•To maintain the mythology of “safe and effective,” a massive embargo exists on publishing any information which is critical of vaccine safety. For example, here I presented numerous independently conducted studies which all show that vaccines cause between a 2-10 fold increase in numerous chronic diseases,
which have “inexplicably” spiked throughout America at the same time
the vaccine schedule proliferated throughout the society (due the
manufacturers being granted complete immunity from the harms of their
products as they were going out of business due to the cost of injury
lawsuits).
•Much of the credibility of modern medicine arises from the mythology that it rescued us from the dark ages of infectious disease with vaccinations (when in reality that decline was entirely due to improved public sanitation). Because of this, attacking vaccination directly attacks a doctor’s identity and social status.
As a result, the medical profession
will frequently go to extraordinary lengths to defend a bad vaccine
they’ve endorsed—with the COVID-19 vaccines being one of the most absurd
examples I’ve seen in my lifetime, but not by any means the first time
this has happened.
Hospital Vaccine Injuries
Suzanne Humphries (and Roman Bystrianyk) did an incredible service to the vaccine safety movement by publishing Dissolving Illusions, a book which clearly demonstrated that the mythology we were sold about vaccines saving the world was hoax, and in reality they caused far more harm than they benefitted people (discussed further here).
Suzanne Humphries embarked on this project because, as a nephrologist, she
kept on seeing patients enter kidney failure after a vaccine (or have
their kidneys significantly worsen once they received a vaccine at a
hospital).
Note: Nephrologists have a somewhat unique
position in medicine as if they request for a drug to be discontinued
because they suspect it is harming a patients kidneys, other doctors
will listen and stop the drug (whereas if a non-nephrologist points out a
drug injury to a colleague, they colleague often won’t discontinue it).
“One Monday after picking up the weekend service, a
hospital inpatient with kidney failure got very grumpy with me. Seeing
him in the middle of his dialysis treatment, I’d asked the usual
questions, like “And how long have you been on dialysis?” and the man
exploded. “I’ve never been on dialysis! I never had anything wrong, until they gave me that shot.” .
. . Working up a lather he almost yelled . . . “I was fine until I had
that vaccine!” Taken aback, I asked, “What vaccine did you get? When did
you get it, and how do you know your kidneys were fine before?”
Apparently he’d told his story to everyone, but had been blown off. Now,
he was startled that anyone was even asking sensible questions. So he
tumbled the whole story out. After a very thorough investigation and a
fine-tooth-combed patient history analysis, which did indeed reveal that
his kidney function was perfectly normal a month before, I decided that his words and beliefs had merit.”
“After the first man with kidney failure, I began asking other
people, with unusual case presentations, whether or not they had been
recently vaccinated. Some would become wide-eyed after the question, as
if they too had never considered any connection, but in others, the
light dawned and after picking up their jaws, they often replied, “YES,
it was shortly after that!” Sure enough, the records would show the time relationship. Sometimes violent sickness began on the very day.”
“After three people came in with fulminant kidney failure, temporally
related to vaccination, I thought it prudent to bring the cases to the
attention of the hospital chief of medical staff. Upon passing him in
the hallway, we stopped for the usual cordial robotic small talk:
“Hello. How are you? How is the practice going? Are you happy here?” To
which the answer for the previous seven years had been “Great. Great and
yes!” But this time I had news! “We have a problem. I’ve seen three
cases of kidney failure in adults shortly after they were vaccinated and
two of the three told me they were fine until the vaccine. All of them
had documented normal kidney function within two months of the vaccine.
What do you think?”
After a short silence, I got to know a different side of this man.
Perhaps he could also say he got to know a different side of me. His
immediate response was, “It was not a vaccine reaction. They just got the flu and the vaccine didn’t have time to work.” The problem was that none of the three even had flu-like symptoms.
Why did he automatically jump to that conclusion? It is true that even
less than once in a blue moon, influenza infection all by itself can
lead to interstitial nephritis and kidney shut down. I’d never
treated a case of flu-related kidney failure in all my years of practice
as a very busy nephrologist in large tertiary care centers.”
“Around this time, I admitted a patient of mine for a
kidney biopsy. I came to write the admitting order 45 minutes after she
arrived, and saw that she had been given a flu shot before I got there,
with an order that had my name on it. I hadn’t ordered it, so I asked
the nurse how this could be. Astonishingly she said that it was
now policy for the pharmacist to put a doctor’s signature on the order
if the patient gave consent. They were very efficient that day.
Usually it could take forever to get an IV infusion set up, yet suddenly vaccines were given immediately on arrival. While the first problem for me was that I didn’t order the vaccine, the second was that the policy extended to ALL admissions,
even if they had sepsis or worsening cancer, or were having a heart
attack or stroke. A third problem was that there was no realization that
a vaccine, or two, might make it more difficult for a clinician to subsequently work out what the problems were caused by,
and correctly diagnose and treat the patient. Plainly, there was no
consideration as to the utility, benefit, or detriment of a flu shot, to
any seriously, acutely ill patient.”
Note: a key reason why hospitals push vaccines is because
Obamacare, in a mission to “improve” medicine changed their financial
reimbursements to reward “quality health care” and made a key component
of that metric that a hospital ensured vaccinating a high percentage of
their staff and patients. (ER: There is an
equal obsession to vaccinate in France, too, especially children and
newborns. And especially with your family doctor.)
“As time went on, inpatient consults
became quite revealing because we could track the kidney function from
normal or slightly impaired, to failed after a vaccine was given on
admission.”
“In the past when I was consulted on kidney
failure cases and said, “Oh that was the statin/antibiotic/diuretic that
did that!” instantly the drug would be stopped—no questions asked.
Now, however, a new standard was applied to vaccines. It didn’t matter
that the internist’s notes in the charts said, “No obvious etiology of
kidney failure found after thorough evaluation.” It didn’t matter that I
considered the vaccine a possible cause when all other potential
culprits had been eliminated. It was never the vaccine. The collective mindset said with glazed-over eyes, “Vaccines? Not possible or likely.”
“When I was discussing the issue one day on a cardiology
ward, a cardiologist who knew me well, approached me with wide eyes. He
was horrified, thinking he was behind on the latest recommendation. He
said “Wait! Are we not supposed to be giving flu shots? I have been
brow-beating my patients into flu shots whenever possible!” I explained
the situation I witnessed and he listened. He also had never considered a
vaccine to be a potential danger in any way. Whether or not he has
since changed his thinking, or his practice at all, I don’t know. What
was telling to me, was that all he wanted to know was what he had
missed. He was not interested in thinking it out on his own. He
was far too busy for that. He just wanted to know if he missed anything
of ‘importance’, so that he could be a good, correct doctor. Kind of like the student who only wants to know what will be on the exam, but not how to think about how that information might fit into the bigger picture.”
“Several months went by, and the medical executive
committee met to discuss my concerns, without allowing me to be present
at the meeting. I was informed in writing that the nursing staff were becoming confused by me discontinuing orders to vaccinate and that I should adhere to hospital policy. I thought this odd, given that nurses are not accustomed to giving the same treatment to every patient, and are fully capable of reading individualized orders.”
“The next time the medical chief of staff and I met in
the corridor, an oncologist was present. At one point, I asked the
chief, “Why doesn’t anyone else see the problem here? Why is it just me?
How can you think all this is “okay? Why is it now considered normal to
vaccinate very sick people on their first hospital day?” The oncologist gave an answer that surprised me. She said, “Medical religion!” and turned and walked away.
That was a strange outburst from her because in the months that
followed, I watched her continue marching down the aisle of medical
religion—not only with her own health issues that she shared with me,
but also with her cancer patients.”
I looked deeper into the poke, because I was forced
to—but ONLY after I realized that what I thought I purchased with my
medical education, was not complexity of thinking or even complete analysis of science, but rote training, and reactive responses.
A good doctor researches fact. My
research turned up a mass of medical articles about kidney failure
related to influenza and other vaccines, and reasons to suspect that
vaccines could also be causing many of the other diseases commonly
labeled as ‘idiopathic’. I was shocked at the potential
scope of the damage I had previously brushed off because of lack of
education. Like my colleagues, I had considered many vaccine reactions
to be coincidences. Auto-immune diseases and kidney diseases requiring harsh immune-suppressive drugs are not unheard of, after vaccines. Nowhere in medical school, internship, residency, or fellowship, had kidney failure after vaccines been discussed. Why not?”
Note: many of my awake colleagues joke that idiopathic denotes individuals being too idiotic to recognize the obvious cause of a disease.
“I wrote all the cases out and put together a comprehensive brief for the hospital administration, but to no avail.”
“As time went on, it was interesting seeing the
divide in the hospital staff. Nurses would bail me up in quiet corners
and tell me stories that completely backed up what I was seeing. They
would guardedly support me, when their superiors were out of eye- or
ear-shot. A deeper respect was building between those who could see what
I saw, while an icy wind roared from those on high.”
“I kept presenting the administration with facts they
could not respond to, in the hope that they would get a blinding
revelation of the obvious. Finally, they recruited the Northeast
Healthcare Quality Foundation, the “quality improvement organization”
for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, to get me off their backs. Dr.
Lawrence D. Ramunno sent a letter invoking the fallacy of authority,
which adamantly informed me that hospital vaccination against influenza virus would become a global measure for all admissions in 2010, and that my evidence of harm was not significant because 10 professional organizations endorse vaccination.”
“Not satisfied with demanding that I practice automaton
obedience to dictates from on high, they initiated a shadow observation,
where everything I did and wrote in the hospital, from then on, was
observed and scrutinized.
This unscientific and unprofessional harassment only served to reinforce my decision to leave no policy unquestioned, ever again.”
Suzanne Humphries in turn was inspired to write her book “Dissolving Illusions”
because one of the most common counterarguments she received from her
colleagues about flu shots causing kidney failure was that “vaccines
saved us from smallpox and polio so there’s no possible way a vaccine
could be bad.” This in turn inspired her to look into the data
underlying that claim, at which point she realized most of it wasn’t
publicly available, but when she unearthed records from the basements of
medical libraries, she discovered that statement was a myth, after
which point she published that evidence in her book.
In my own case, I’ve admitted quite a few patients to the hospital
who I quickly realized were hospitalized because of a vaccine injury
(e.g., including a kidney failure case like Suzanne Humphries described),
and in each case, one of the biggest challenges I had was finding a way
to present the case in such a way that the other doctors at the
hospital would not get elgaged at me for it (e.g., I was successful in
one case by attributing one injury to how the vaccine was administered
rather than the vaccine itself).
Likewise, I believe one of the most common reasons why people are hospitalized is because the zeta potential of their body has weakened enough that they begin developing severe symptoms which meet the criteria for hospitalization. In turn, I’ve seen textbook zeta potential collapse cases from a vaccine that resulted in hospital admission andI
also believe one of the most helpful things hospitals do for patients
is give them IV saline (which is just done routinely because everyone is
“dehydrated”) because IV saline marginally restores the physiologic
zeta potential.
Alexis Lorenze
Alexis Lorenze came from a family that skipped many of their later vaccines (due to an injury she experienced) and had an unfortunate genetic disorder (PNH) that causes her immune system to destroy her blood cells because they lack a protein that prevents that attack. The conventional options for the condition aren’t great—a stem cell bone marrow transplant (which produces blood cells the body won’t attack) or a monoclonal antibody that causes $400,000.00 a year.
Because Alexis was desperate for an effective way to treat her
condition, after months of struggling with it, she eventually came to UC Irvine for treatment, a facility which happens to be a premier adult stem cell transplant research center.
When stem cell bone marrow transplants are done, they essentially
require first killing off the existing bone marrow and then replacing
with new bone marrow (from a donor) which, unlike the old marrow, does
not produce the problematic blood cells (e.g., this is a common
treatment for blood cancers). Frequently when this occurs, the
adaptive immunity from previous vaccinations is lost, and for this
reason, many (but not all) groups recommended re-vaccinating after a bone marrow stem cell transplant, and they often space them out (e.g., consider what one of the countries “top” medical centers does). That
said, given that most of the diseases they re-vaccinate against pose
minimal risk, I do not completely agree with this rationale.
Note: one of the unusual characteristics of the COVID-19 vaccine was that it would accumulate in the bone marrow, and I came across cases of individuals with had a bone marrow stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma who then had their bone marrow transplant fail after the COVID vaccine.
Likewise, since organ transplants are in short supply, transplant
doctors prioritize people who are taking care of their health as they
are the most likely to have a successful outcome with the organ. During
COVID, this created the nightmarish situation where many were told they
could not have a transplant unless they vaccinated, and I in turn came
across numerous cases of individuals who had severe injuries, death, or failure of their transplant after the vaccination.
Steve Kirsch briefly outlines what happened to Alexis:
Tues, Sept 10: She has PNH and had terrible migraines for the last 2 weeks. Went in for help. Checked into UCI Hospital. ABNORMAL ECG – Sinus tachycardia Abnormal T, consider ischemia, anterior leads.Her HR is 131 bpm. Her hemoglobin was 3.1 (severely low). Her platelets were
Her Troponin I was high at check in which is an indicator of heart damage.
Her platelets (needed to prevent bleeding) were very low (28) at check in.
Fri, Sept 13: Given platelets by IV. Doesn’t seem to increase her counts. They did bone marrow biopsy and 2-3 transfusions.
Sat, Sept 14, 2pm: Hematologist (Zahra Pakbaz) tells Alexis they will not treat her any further unless she is up-to-date on her vaccines. They gave her tetanus, meningitis and pneumonia all at once. She has had ZERO V’s with the exception of when she was a baby. 2 V’s in her left arm and 1 V in her right. Within 10-minutes post vaccines, she couldn’t move her arms and was blind in both eyes.
Within 10 minutes
of the 3 vaccines which were given all at the same time, Alexis went
temporarily blind in both eyes, had a locked jaw, began vomiting and
then things went horribly downhill from there.
At this point, the hospital did nothing except put her on pain meds
and benadryl, and eventually she put out a plea for help on TikTok to
save her from the hospital because she was worried she was going to die,
that subsequently went viral (hence why I was contacted).
Without knowing anything beyond what was in that video, my immediate assessment was:
It might be a case of purpura fulminans (another
rare low platelet disorder), an often fatal acute condition
characterized by a more visible skin rash (from blood clots under the
skin) that results from coagulation in the the small vessels (something I associate with impaired zeta potential). Additionally, this condition is linked to PNH.
This might be a vaccine related kidney issue.
This is some other unusual autoimmune disorder and she needs a comprehensive immunological blood work to identify it.
Once her limited labs were obtained (which can be viewed here), it was clear she had ITP, and that at least at the time, there was not a significant issue with her kidneys (ruling out #3).
Note: in her medical records, there are also numerous
correspondences indicating that a nurse reported this critical platelet
lab value to the doctor.
Additionally, beyond it being apparent from looking at her, her lab
work showed she was having a lot of clots breaking down in her body.
September 10, prior to vaccine
September 16, 2 days after vaccine
Note: other blood coagulation parameters were also abnormal (e.g., her PT was 15.6 and her INR was 1.36). Additionally, she was anemic (due to her PNH).
Based on all of this and how ITP is managed, I was very confused as
to why nothing was done (besides giving her pain killers), so I went to
look up the standard management of ITP to make sure I was not missing
something.
UpToDate is one of the primary resources doctors use for clinical decisions.
Since that time, this story has gone viral, Steve Kirsch
sent his team to the hospital to help her, and two subsequent
interviews were conducted which showed how much Alexis is suffering. In
the first interview (which you can view here), they shared a few key points:
•She came in hoping for a blood transfusion, but was told she could not have any more treatment unless she received the vaccines.
•The hospital has given conflicting messages about what vaccines she received (even though the nurse clearly told them which ones were being given).
•Alexis’s entire body is covered with the same hematomas you can see on her face, and her body feels as though it is inflated. Additionally, she is in severe pain.
•The doctors have not treated her well (she claims
some laughed at her, while another one stated they had never seen
anything like this before) and that when she’s hit the call button for
basic things she needs, it’s taken hours for nurses to get to her.
•The hospital is convinced this could not have been due to the vaccine, and instead was due to a Parvovirus infection (which a PCR test was positive for). Given that all or her symptoms started 10 minutes after the vaccines…that’s a bit of a stretch but no different from what Suzanne Humphries experienced.
•The tried to transport her out of the hospital but were unable to as she does not have the insurance to get care at another facility.
In the last few hours, they at last were able to get Alexis
transferred to the ICU, either due to the political pressure being
placed on the hospital from the story going viral on Twitter or because
she had, Nurse Angela, a skilled advocate helping her (which is often
what is needed to get proper care in these larger institutions).
Conclusion
I am very hesitant to ascribe motives to people when I can’t read
their minds, but in this case, assuming the facts as presented are true,
my best guess is that the hospital’s response to Alexis was a combination of fear (especially once she mentioned “malpractice”), uncertainty and paralysis over her situation (e.g., the hematologist who pushed the vaccines on her disappeared), and provides an excellent illustration of why, if you have the choice, smaller rural hospitals rather than academic ivory towers are often much better to go to.
One of the more telling aspects of this story was the hospital threatening to sue Steve Kirsch for publishing Alexis’s medical records (which legally they can’t do), which in turn illustrates that the hospital’s focus is on protecting itself rather than the patient.
In this case, I believe it sheds a light on four very crucial points.
First, as Suzanne Humphries showed, it is incredibly difficult for doctors to accept that vaccines could be harmful
because it goes so against their deep seated beliefs. In turn, even
when the COVID vaccines have killed and crippled large numbers of people
(which has been enough to wake many doctors up), other doctors I know
are still not willing to acknowledge the vaccine is dangerous (e.g., I
know one doctor I think in many ways is a great physician who still
supports vaccines even though two of the three members of his immediate
family had severe and unambiguous reactions to them). My best guess is
that the hematologist who pushed the vaccines on her could not conceive
of the possibility they could be harmful (hence why he said to take all
of them at once rather than one at a time) and then withdrew from the
situation once something bad happened.
Second, in most cases, things like this get swept under the rug
(which is a large part of why doctors are convinced serious vaccine
reactions are “1 in a million”). Fortunately, due to the new media
climate social media (particularly Twitter) has enabled, it’s getting
much harder to do that. In turn, while what happened to Alexis is
extremely unfortunately, unlike those before her, she was able to
publicize it and get something done about her situation, and it is my
hope this will bring greater awareness to the possibility vaccines are indeed quite real.
Third, one of the greatest challenges in getting people to believe
vaccine injuries is that “evidence” for them doesn’t exist or it’s hard
to appreciate the suffering the person is going through. What makes this
case unique is that it is visually apparent something is wrong (which hence allowed it to go viral) and the temporal relationship is almost impossible to deny.
What’s important to remember is that in almost all vaccine injuries,
that is not the case (which again illustrates why they frequently get
swept under the rug).
Fourth, if something does go awry with a vaccine, there is often minimal to no safety net available to you
(e.g., you can’t sue anyone and the Federal compensation programs
almost never pay out to the injured). Because of this, those injured are
often forced to go to online fund raising platforms for their medical
expenses (which often doesn’t works). In turn, one of the particularly
cruel things that happened during the vaccine roll out is that Gofundme started deleting fundraisers for the COVID vaccine injuries
because a lot of them went viral and they didn’t want to “spread
vaccine hesitancy” by making people aware severe injuries were
occurring.
Note: Alexis has a fundraiser on this (more ethical) platform.
Finally (since I am still having trouble wrapping my head around all
of this), if any of you have familiarity with the UC hospital system
(particularly UC Irvine), this midwestern doctor would appreciate your
insights into the hospital culture there (and sincerely appreciates the
help all of you have given me to help get critical messages like this
out).
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(73%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(99%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(88%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(83%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(52%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(68%25).png){kind=tracking}
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(58%25).png){kind=tracking}
