Based on Dr. Kaufman's videos', and my friend from another site. Things to consider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
https://odysee.com/@DrAndrewKaufman:f/3 ... 2892-(1):1
From just a logical point of view alone, you can see that saying a disease has been positively identified and yet, can be asymptomatic, is ridiculous unless it's part of a hoax, which in that case, an asymptomatic disease becomes a very useful tool.
Think about it. We're told that COVID19 can have the symptoms of a hundred other diseases, everything from tuberculosis, to lung cancer to the common cold and even allergies.....It can have everything from multiple symptoms of things like gun shot wounds, falling in the bathtub injuries, to no symptoms at all....Everything from a goat to a papaya has tested positive on the accepted test for COVID19, which is the RT-PCR test.
So....with these facts in mind, on this basis alone, you can deduce that it is a hoax logically....If EVERYTHING can be mis-labled as COVID now....then does the disease COVID actually exist? If you can't isolate the symptoms, let alone the thing that is causing the symptoms, how can you create a cure for it? It's like attempting to cure the "effect" without knowing the cause...or in this case, misidentifying the cause in a thousand different ways.
And so we come to the idea of a vaccine itself which has questionable logic, because the idea is ostensibly to inoculate a person from the effects of a disease before they get it and before the CAUSE of the disease is known...So right there, you run into a logical error, because you're attempting to now treat for the future effects of an unknown or misidentified cause....Would anyone argue that it's appropriate to treat for the symptoms of a common cold with a vaccine for a virus that has never been identified and isolated/purified out of a solution of genetic fluid?
And yet, that's what you're doing here. People don't seem to have the logical reasoning power to grasp the error in this thought process.
All I can scientifically deduce is that between the conflicts of interest inherent in political and pecuniary motivation, the entire data set has been so viciously corrupted that is difficult to tell much of anything at all.
We can't be sure of much besides some people who test positive get very sick and some of them die.
We can't trust the tests because of false positives.
Many of the heavily publicized "experiments" run by medical researchers only proved that incomplete treatments (pharmaceutical regimens missing key components) given in the
late stages of the disease are generally ineffective.
Early treatment is the key to defeating almost any disease, from a skin infection to cancer, but the lockdown protocols which required isolation were keeping patients from receiving treatment until the disease progressed enough for the patient to become critical, at which point, a pharmacology aimed at preventing viral replication and damage was too late.
They did not disprove the efficacy of the complete regimens [ivermectin/doxycycline/zinc or HCQ/Azithromycin/zinc] given at the earliest stages of the disease, because those well-publicized studies did not administer the full regimen at the early stages of the disease, and studies which did were censored because they showed early treatment to be effective when the entire regimen was used.
While HCQ was the ionophore of choice in the Zelenko Protocol, a related and less tolerable drug (Chloroquine) was ballyhooed in the media for having some nasty side effects (especially in high doses, which is true), but the dosages administered to study patients were far too high, in one study, 3X the LD50 for the drug, and it was not even the same drug. Capitalizing on the general ignorance of the public, the media mad great noise over the side effects of a drug that
sounded like the star ionophore in the Zelenko Protocol in an effort (largely successful in some parts) to dissuade people from using what works. Because fear sells media time and gets ratings.
The entire push has been for a vaccine from the start. Motivation for this may well be pecuniary (direct or indirect financial benefit), for 'health reasons', for political purposes (knowing full well the normal delays combined with the draconian measures justified by the test data and alleged death rates would be economically destructive to America and politically devastating to whomever the media blamed, and that was a given from the start), or to garner prestige in the field. Whatever the motivation, the bias inherent in setting out to prove that a vaccine would be the only effective means of stopping this disease has cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives, untold economic devastation here and broad, and set up the biggest election steal in history, all done by (for the most part) people we had no hand in putting in power, and we have no ability to remove from their positions.
No doubt, people get sick, but we can't trust the tests, the infection rates, the mortality figures, the CODs of alleged victims, the attempts to discredit effective early treatment, and even prevent it from being used by demonizing drugs in common usage worldwide for decades, even to the point of administering lethal doses to one study group.
It's bloody obvious to me, that of all the considerations by some of the 'foremost' experts and policymakers, the lives of the American (and, globally other) people are in dead last place (no pun intended) in consideration by the media, the current arbiters of the Medical Community, and politicians who remain in power after the most egregious vote fraud in history.
Why, in God's name, should I trust any of them when all they have done is lie to me from the start?
