COVID-19
Doctor breaks down how COVID outbreak was used to force injections, ‘not deal with the disease’
Dr. Wahome Ngare
From LifeSiteNews
A Kenyan doctor pointed to one misstep after another in the handling of the COVID outbreak, such as the fact that postmortem examinations were not permitted to direct how COVID was treated.
A Kenyan doctor has made a strong case for why the COVID outbreak was used to force vaccination and “not to deal with the disease,” citing a remarkable number of missteps in handling the “pandemic.”
Dr. Wahome Ngare, the director of Kenya Christian Professionals Forum (KCPF), began in a Tuesday interview with podcast host Lynn Ngugi by explaining that because vaccination targets the healthy and not the sick, it entails greater risks, and this is why it is normally reserved for addressing conditions that are “dangerous” enough to run this risk of stimulating a person’s immune system through a virus, or a piece of a virus.
“So, if your vaccine has a problem, then you can threaten the whole community — that’s why vaccines become a national security issue, because if they’re not properly taken care of and you’re giving them to your whole population (who are) healthy, then you can cause a lot of damage,” Dr. Ngare said.
He maintained that it is therefore “much better to treat those who are sick” than to target those who are healthy through vaccination.
Regarding the COVID so-called “vaccination,” he suggested that the risk involved was much greater than that of a typical vaccine, in part because the full results of Phase One and Phase Two clinical trials, which are “supposed to tell us whether it is safe and effective,” were not released until December 2023 — three years after the outbreak of the COVID virus!
“And the only reason this information was released is because somebody went to court and sued Pfizer in the U.S., and they were forced by the court to release this documentation,” Dr. Ngare noted. He further explained that these trial results revealed many problems caused by the COVID shots, including injuries such as myocarditis, and even death.
“What that tells me as a doctor is very simple: that as doctors we let the world down. Because we shouldn’t have given any support for that injection without seeing the phase one and phase two clinical trial results,” he told Ngugi.
Asked if the “wrong” vaccines were administered, Dr. Wahome shifted the question in a different direction, responding, “What should we do if there is a disease outbreak?”
When COVID first emerged, people did not understand what it was — all they knew was that people were dying in China, said Dr. Ngare. Thus, the first thing doctors should have done was perform post-mortem reports of people who died with COVID in order to “determine what organs were affected, how were they affected, where is this virus causing most damage, and how is it causing the damage.”
“That information is so critical,” he said, because it helps scientists to begin to design or select both treatment and preventive measures for the virus. Instead, we were advised to bury those who had died of COVID, “within 24 hours.”
“That is totally unscientific, because it denies us the knowledge we need to take care of the living,” Dr. Ngare observed.
He then highlighted an alarming amount of missed opportunities to strategically deal with COVID, beginning with the failure to advise people to keep their vitamin D levels up in order to protect themselves, since evidence had emerged that low vitamin D levels compromised people’s ability to tackle the virus.
As one major mistake, Dr. Ngare cited the fact that people were advised to go to the hospital only if they developed difficulty breathing, when they could have anticipated this by checking their oxygen levels at home and going to the hospital once their oxygen levels hit the 60s or 70s, before they developed difficulty breathing.
“This is something that should have been made available to all Health Centers so that anybody who has those symptoms would easily go to the Health Center every day,” the doctor said.
He went on to address how in medicine, it is standard to repurpose drugs which have been shown to be both useful and safe, yet time-tested drugs such as hydroxycholorquine, with proven safety, were set aside in favor of experimental “vaccines” for targeting COVID, which were questionable both for their safety and for their effectiveness.
Furthermore, hydroxycholorquine was not properly tested in its treatment of COVID. Dr. Ngare explained that too much was given too late to patients, leading health professionals to mislabel the drug as unsuitable for the treatment of COVID.
He then shared how infection gives stronger immunity than vaccines, highlighting how this fact was ignored among health professionals. The doctor explained how if someone gets an infection, they develop immunity against each of the proteins, so that they will be fully ready the next time they’re exposed to the virus. By contrast, the vaccine only exposes people to a portion of the virus.
“So the person who got infection and recovered has a stronger immunity than the one who got the portion … what sense does it then make to say that if you are already got COVID, you still need the vaccine? You see, from a scientific point of view, it doesn’t make sense.”
The doctor then pointed to another absurdity in the way the “pandemic” was handled, which is that employers, city officials, and others mandated that everyone in a given institution or using a certain venue be vaccinated, when that should not have mattered to those who were vaccinated themselves.
“Let me ask you another question. If I have been vaccinated and this vaccine is effective … I am protected. Why should I care if you’re not vaccinated? How do you threaten me?” Dr. Ngare said.
“Why should you tell the one who has not taken the injection not to go to work, unless what you want is for everybody to be injected?” Dr. Ngare stressed that all these facts about how COVID was handled show that “the whole crisis was used to force people to be vaccinated, not to deal with the disease.”
When only those who are promoting the COVID shot “have the right” to an opinion, and anyone who is promoting other kinds of prevention and treatment does not have that right, then clearly there is “an agenda” afoot, Dr. Ngare said.
“So the question is then, what is the game plan? What’s the end goal?”
From LifeSiteNews
A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna
A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.
The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:
Study Overview
- Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
- Intervention: Two doses of either:
- BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
- mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
- Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
- Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
- Main Outcomes:
- All-cause mortality
- Cardiovascular mortality
- COVID-19 mortality
- Non-COVID-19 mortality
All-cause mortality
Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.
- Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)
Cardiovascular mortality
Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)
COVID-19 mortality
Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)
Non-COVID-19 mortality
Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)
Biological explanations
The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:
The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:
- Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
- Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions
Final conclusion
Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.
Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.
As the authors conclude:
These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.
Fr0m LifeSiteNews
A Department of Health memo warns that Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program will exceed its $75 million budget due to high demand, with $16 million already paid out.
COVID vaccine injury payments are expected to go over budget, according to a Canadian Department of Health memo.
According to information published April 28 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Department of Health will exceed their projected payouts for COVID vaccine injuries, despite already spending $16 million on compensating those harmed by the once-mandated experimental shots.
“A total $75 million in funding has been earmarked for the first five years of the program and $9 million on an ongoing basis,” the December memo read. “However the overall cost of the program is dependent on the volume of claims and compensation awarded over time, and that the demand remains at very high levels.”
“The purpose of this funding is to ensure people in Canada who experience a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine administered in Canada on or after December 8, 2020 have access to a fair and timely financial support mechanism,” it continued.
Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was launched in December 2020 after the Canadian government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.
While Parliament originally budgeted $75 million, thousands of Canadians have filed claims after received the so-called “safe and effective” COVID shots. Of the 3,060 claims received to date, only 219 had been approved so far, with payouts totaling over $16 million.
Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.
The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.
Additionally, a recent study done by researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest showed that 17 countries have found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots as well as boosters.
Interestingly, while the Department of Health has spent $16 million on injury payouts, the Liberal government spent $54 million COVID propaganda promoting the vaccine to young Canadians.
The Public Health Agency of Canada especially targeted young Canadians ages 18-24 because they “may play down the seriousness of the situation.”
The campaign took place despite the fact that the Liberal government knew about COVID vaccine injuries, according to a secret memo.
In Defeat, Joe Tay’s Campaign Becomes a Flashpoint for Suspected Voter Intimidation in Canada
Carney’s budget is worse than Trudeau’s
Governments in Alberta should spur homebuilding amid population explosion
History in the making? Trump, Zelensky hold meeting about Ukraine war in Vatican ahead of Francis’ funeral
Canadians’ Interest in Buying an EV Falls for Third Year in a Row
Low oil prices could have big consequences for Alberta’s finances
The Cost of Underselling Canadian Oil and Gas to the USA
-
espionage2 days agoLongtime Liberal MP Warns of Existential Threat to Canada, Suggests Trump’s ’51st State’ Jibes Boosted Carney
-
Business1 day agoTrump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact
-
Business2 days agoNew federal government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money than predecessor’s plan
-
International1 day agoJavier Millei declassifies 1850+ files on Nazi leaders in Argentina
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day agoTrust but verify: Why COVID-19 And Kamloops Claims Demand Scientific Scrutiny
-
Alberta18 hours agoAlberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change
-
Automotive2 days agoNew federal government should pull the plug on Canada’s EV revolution
-
Alberta16 hours agoIt’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation