Paul Craig Roberts – paulcrairoberts.org Sept 18, 2020
It has been apparent from the beginning that Covid-19 was being used for agendas unrelated to public health. Big Pharma and its associates—WHO, CDC, NIH—used social media and the presstitutes to control the explanations given to the public and to censor dissenting medical professionals.
More people died from being denied successful and completely safe treatment by hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin and from ventilators than from the virus itself. Public health and the economy were sacrificed in order to create chaos and fear that would make possible mass vaccination and billions of dollars in profit for Big Pharma. Democrats and the presstitutes used Covid against Trump by ridiculing his recommendation of the HCQ safe and effective treatment and ridiculing his attempts to reopen the economy, which never needed to be closed.
Read the report from the Belgian medical profession. Here are some excerpts to whet your appetite:
“There is an affordable, safe and efficient therapy available for those who do show severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and AZT (azithromycin). Rapidly applied this therapy leads to recovery and often prevents hospitalisation. Hardly anyone has to die now.
“Survey studies on influenza vaccinations show that in 10 years we have only succeeded three times in developing a vaccine with an efficiency rate of more than 50%. Vaccinating our elderly appears to be inefficient. Over 75 years of age, the efficacy is almost non-existent.38
Due to the continuous natural mutation of viruses, as we also see every year in the case of the influenza virus, a vaccine is at most a temporary solution, which requires new vaccines each time afterwards. An untested vaccine, which is implemented by emergency procedure and for which the manufacturers have already obtained legal immunity from possible harm, raises serious questions. 39 40 We do not wish to use our patients as guinea pigs.
“On a global scale, 700,000 cases of damage or death are expected as a result of the vaccine.41
“If 95% of people experience Covid-19 virtually symptom-free, the risk of exposure to an untested vaccine is irresponsible.
“Over the past few months, newspaper, radio and TV makers seemed to stand almost uncritically behind the panel of experts and the government, where it is precisely the press that should be critical and prevent one-sided governmental communication. This has led to a public communication in our news media that was more like propaganda than objective reporting.
“The official story that a lockdown was necessary, that this was the only possible solution, and that everyone stood behind this lockdown, made it difficult for people with a different view, as well as experts, to express a different opinion.
“Alternative opinions were ignored or ridiculed. We have not seen open debates in the media, where different views could be expressed.
“We were also surprised by the many videos and articles by many scientific experts and authorities, which were and are still being removed from social media. We feel that this does not fit in with a free, democratic constitutional state, all the more so as it leads to tunnel vision. This policy also has a paralysing effect and feeds fear and concern in society. In this context, we reject the intention of censorship of dissidents in the European Union! 43
“As doctors and health professionals, in the face of a virus which, in terms of its harmfulness, mortality and transmissibility, approaches the seasonal influenza, we can only reject these extremely disproportionate measures.
- We therefore demand an immediate end to all measures.
- We are questioning the legitimacy of the current advisory experts, who meet behind closed doors.
- Following on from ACU 2020 46https://acu2020.org/nederlandse-versie/we call for an in-depth examination of the role of the WHO and the possible influence of conflicts of interest in this organisation. It was also at the heart of the fight against the “infodemic”, i.e. the systematic censorship of all dissenting opinions in the media. This is unacceptable for a democratic state governed by the rule of law.43”