Finally! Medical Proof the Covid Jab is "Murder"

On the assumption that even veteran experts can be wrong - which the more honest of them always admit - and lay people can sometimes spot their errors, I’d say, without apology, that he’s simply wrong about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, especially when used as parts of entire treatment protocols, such as Peter McCullough has developed.

I won’t speculate whether his statement is truly considered, or simply - as you hint Evvy - that he’s trying to earn a few brownie points with the crooks behind the conspiracy (always a fruitless concession. The only proper attitude to them is to fight them tooth and nail to a standstill; and shortly thereafter to a Nurnberg2 tribunal!), or whether he truly thinks he sees shortcomings in the drugs.

Either way, he’s wrong. Ask McCullough, Pierre Kory, Didier Raoult, or Vladimir Zelenko. And of course there are others too. Frontline doctors who have the direct results of their own interventions with crowds of patients on which to base their opinions. I bet Malcolm hasn’t got that. Just being wrongly persuaded by the fraud-contaminated figures and reports that are simply everywhere at the moment, perhaps?

We scarcely need reminding just now about how even experienced professional medics can get their conclusions disastrously wrong, do we? And we all need, urgently, to escape from the miasma of ‘trust the “experts”’ bs into which we’re all being railroaded lately. Informed common sense remains the best specific for that insanity. And it’s a basic democratic principle that anyone can do that.

Is science democratic? Well, not consensual, that’s clear. Constant, open-ended, permanent debate and argument, with evidence, is the proper scientific method. And if the history of science proves one thing, it’s that ANY commentator, including lay people, can make vital contributions. Einstein as patent-office clerk, for an example. And there are others…

Hi @Evvy_dense , totally agree with your comments. On the Clot thickens my daughter-in-law has ordered me a copy so it’ll be interesting to see his take on the political “clot” if he gets there!


In my opinion, experienced professional medics seldom get it wrong, IF, they are not looking for the Noble prize, their next grant, a career move, a budget increase, the next major advertisers injection (no pun intended) or some other agenda. @Evvy_dense touched on this in the post above. Guys like Mike Yeadon (retired, made his stash, nothing to loose) seldom get it wrong.

The real challenge is knowing who is on the take, either directly or indirectly.


On the take either for money, or for status-protection and for the defence of basic world-view. Those psychological-comfort bribes are probably even more desired than mere palm-grease - desired though that is too, pretty widely.

I think it’s fair to say that doctors as a group have acquitted themselves shamefully and abysmally over the covid scam. Their public credit deserves to be depressed permanently to a much lower level than hitherto, when they can commit such blatant derelictions of duty. Hippocrates must be spinning…

1 Like

Scotty: Capn’, I canne hold it any longer, it’s breaking up.

Captain Kirk: Is it the Klingons?

Scotty: Nae, it’s the Omicron.

Captain Kirk: Scotty, clench your buttocks and grit your teeth to get the warp levels down.

Scotty: Aye, Capn’, the Omicron will ne’ve get me.

Immediately transferred from the ‘South Africa variant’, to the ‘nu’ variant, and now this Omicron rollocks.

This has absolutely nothing to do with public health. It’s just a complete con to make you buy into the global police state they are rolling out.


Did you not hear about the completely legit and not at all biased research carried out by Dr Fauxci’s great-niece? Fed 20 ferrets LD50 doses of dilithium crystals, 11 died of all causes. Fed 20 ferrets doses of the great new $555 per pill RunDeathIsNear and a mere 9 ** died. That’s eleventy percent more effective.

** Not counting the three that sadly had rare blood clots and had to be put down.


Perhaps between us we could get on the Jimmy Dore show?


ha ha, Jimmy talks way too fast for me to comprehend so I’d just sit there like a lump unfortunately.

The RunDeathIsNear thing was mentioned in the RFK Jr book, specifically cited as being a nickname used by hospital nurses. (Page 157)

Just on the initial topic of the Grundy study - yes it seems a long while back (about 3 weeks).

Twitter now says American Heart Association science article is “unsafe link” because it shows that mRNA vaccines cause heart damage
Link: Twitter now says American Heart Association science article is "unsafe link" because it shows that mRNA vaccines cause heart damage

Twitter’s various reasons for blocking this study are absurd and mindless (that’s probably literally true :wink:).
The thing that jumps out as the real reason is “We didn’t like what it said”.
We know that anyway, but nice to see it as the only possble way the excuses can mean anything at all.

Citing the article, Twitter says:

“Warning: this link may be unsafe.”
Users are then urged to click the “Back to previous page” button to avoid accessing the article, though there is also a tiny link at the bottom that says, “Ignore this warning and continue.”

To be fair the AHA is backtracking, using the excuse of poor typography.

These surgeons that spend too much time treating critically ill patients when they could be jumping through hoops for corrupt medical and non-medical opposition…

Any excuse for Twitter…back to the article:

"Twitter jumped all over this and took the opportunity to further claim erroneously that the study itself is “potentially spammy or unsafe” and could contain “malicious links that could steal personal information or harm electronic devices.”
Twitter further insisted that the study could “mislead people or disrupt their experience” because it supposedly contains “violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world harm.”
“[C]ertain categories of content that, if posted directly to Twitter, are a violation of the Twitter Rules” was also slapped across the study link to try to deter users from viewing it.
Which of these Twitter believes apply to the Circulation study remains unclear, though it is possible that employees at the social media giant consider all of them to be applicable to its contents. "


Nothing could be more revealing of Twitters true motivation - it doesn’t care if it’s reasons are genuine, or even make logical sense, as long as it deflects from the substance of the paper.