That intro, 'The answer will be none......' covers the planned and propagandised 'covid-19' health 'emergency'. Just as if a Paper had been co-authored on the alleged 'climate emergency'. Well remunerated sinecures, unbelievable promotions, the 'enablers' ennobled, why would they pay any attention. However, this Paper is published, so they cannot feign ignorance 'going forward'.....we didn't know, no one out there told us of a more effective way to deal with a 'rampaging indiscriminate virus' like covid. What price expertise funded by ££££££/$$$$$$.
A deliberate rehearsed program of censorship, rehearsed not only in event 201, but prepared over the previous 40 years and then rehearsed again on December 31 in Pacific Eclipse
And conclusion 7 pretends they made a mistake with good intentions. A huge red flag. How do you said this two years ago? It would’ve been feasible to make such an error.
There is no excuse at this stage.
Nowhere does the paper make it clear that there was certainly no pandemic..
At this stage, it doesn’t matter who it is . Anyone pretending there was a pandemic pretending there was a virus pretending that this wasn’t planned down to the most minute detail. Pretending that mistakes were made.
That's a difficult question to answer. We know we were speaking out from 2020 but no-one was listening. In 2021 we were subject to an illegal hack leaked via a government funded 'fact-checking' site. As for what goes into the article, if we are to have any chance of reaching a wider audience we have to get into peer-reviewed journals where reviewers inevitably require changes. The International Journal of Public Health is better than many. If the last 5 years have destroyed ALL trust even in those of us trying to work together, then they (whoever they are) will have succeeded.
Excellent work. Maybe the cost of Dame Hallett's whitewash could be transferred across the authors for future research. (I doubt if Mr Keiths pension needs much more topping up.)
If there was to be another "novel" respiratory virus, surely the first question should be 'how virulent is it ?' Everything follows on from that.....
After all the lies told by governments, Sirs/Dames, etc, the word 'novel' will likely fall on sceptical ears....they do become so after years of gaslighting and all the ott propaganda.
Yet all of these people actively participated in making a new disease out of a known illness based on their religion called science. The use of statistics to make a new disease to fit a vaccine was never questioned. The very people who supposedly dissented, maintain that a pandemic can be something other than a political event.
None of these authors learned anything themselves to teach anyone else. You cannot understand what happened within the paradigm in which it happened and will repeat again.
As there are seven HART-affiliated authors on the paper, it feels appropriate to post this for further context and an "outsider" perspective: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/win-for-permitted-dissent. (See also pinned comment.)
I understand the rationale for staying the course and making concessions, even though I "disagree" (so to speak). Further, I feel the disclaimers upon publication could appear as an attempt to stave off valid and reasonable criticism from fellow dissidents, which I doubt very much you want to do.
No....as per written comment further above, but the effort is not in vain. It is a published document of research that will be akin to witnesses, not like those selected for the Hallett Inquiry.
Ivermectin is available if you know where to source it. 100 X 12mg tablets can be bought for £50. If you assume that the dose is 1 mg/Kg body weight per day, a person weighing 60Kg will require 5 tablets per day.
It is one of the safest drugs on the market, freely available in several countries. Here it is only available from a pharmacy on prescription, but GPs may be unwilling to prescribe it, and if you're in bed with a fever, you're not really in a position to trot off to your pharmacy to collect your prescription a couple of days after you request it from your health centre. It should be available over the counter.
You are way behind on the hard science research developments looking at the virus and vaccine for bioengineered weaponisation which is now irrefutable.
You refuse to acknowledge this is not a health event but a military operation planned for decades. The legal cover took years to put in place to make it legal to use these agents.
Check out Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt - this is all old news.
No criminal need fear carrying out a crime when they also control the inquiry.
I give the same reply as above. This has taken over a year to even get through peer review and keep all authors signed up. We have to attack this in every way we can and in fora that do not share our views.
I will not say shame on dissenters working their socks off for no pay whatever tack they emphasise to try and wake up more people to the irrefutable harms caused by government policies against their citizens.
I do appreciate what you have managed to achieve and offer you all my sincere congratulations on the publication of your paper.
However, it seems that the further down an academic road you travel, the less likely you are to retain the intuition that depends on both cerebral hemispheres working in harmony. You are prevented from seeing a bigger picture. In your own interest, as well as every body else's, you can't continue to ignore what people like 'currer' are telling you. The 'pandemic' and all that is associated with it is only one facet of a h*l*caust. How is it possible that politicians are seriously considering going to war with Russia (for example)? We have absolutely no grievance with Russia. What the warmongers are exploiting is the hatred of Russia which is a legacy of the days of the Soviet Union.
Not as individuals. Many of the authors of this paper would agree with everything you say. It is not about intuition, it is about trying to wake people up and we all try and come at it in lots of different ways.
Given that HART made a "no pandemic" statement fairly early (as groups go) - and remains among the few coalitions that has said "no pandemic" - it is significant that a concession was made.
[For readers who aren't aware - and as a reminder for HART members - I was extremely laudatory of the HART statement when it debuted and remember when and "why" it was undertaken at the time -- having been involved with PANDA back then, though not HART, because I live in the U.S. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/there-was-no-pandemic-in-2020]
Because the paper appears to have been closely linked to HART, is there a chance you can be explicit/specific about what concessions were made?
In other words, can the submitted manuscript be posted?
EDIT: Also, am I correct that you would like to see officials in the U.S., e.g., RFK, do the right thing, regardless of cost, "come hell or high water"?
If you fail to correctly analyse and understand the situation you find yourself in, no amount of consensus building or hard work can prevent your response from being misguided.
That intro, 'The answer will be none......' covers the planned and propagandised 'covid-19' health 'emergency'. Just as if a Paper had been co-authored on the alleged 'climate emergency'. Well remunerated sinecures, unbelievable promotions, the 'enablers' ennobled, why would they pay any attention. However, this Paper is published, so they cannot feign ignorance 'going forward'.....we didn't know, no one out there told us of a more effective way to deal with a 'rampaging indiscriminate virus' like covid. What price expertise funded by ££££££/$$$$$$.
The main lesson to learn, is that anyone who still pretends there was a Covid pandemic is very highly suspect indeed at this stage.
This was a military operation and assault .
Perhaps we can ask if Jack the Ripper could better have handled his murders?
A deliberate rehearsed program of censorship, rehearsed not only in event 201, but prepared over the previous 40 years and then rehearsed again on December 31 in Pacific Eclipse
And conclusion 7 pretends they made a mistake with good intentions. A huge red flag. How do you said this two years ago? It would’ve been feasible to make such an error.
There is no excuse at this stage.
Nowhere does the paper make it clear that there was certainly no pandemic..
At this stage, it doesn’t matter who it is . Anyone pretending there was a pandemic pretending there was a virus pretending that this wasn’t planned down to the most minute detail. Pretending that mistakes were made.
How can they be trusted? How can you be trusted?
That's a difficult question to answer. We know we were speaking out from 2020 but no-one was listening. In 2021 we were subject to an illegal hack leaked via a government funded 'fact-checking' site. As for what goes into the article, if we are to have any chance of reaching a wider audience we have to get into peer-reviewed journals where reviewers inevitably require changes. The International Journal of Public Health is better than many. If the last 5 years have destroyed ALL trust even in those of us trying to work together, then they (whoever they are) will have succeeded.
Excellent work. Maybe the cost of Dame Hallett's whitewash could be transferred across the authors for future research. (I doubt if Mr Keiths pension needs much more topping up.)
If there was to be another "novel" respiratory virus, surely the first question should be 'how virulent is it ?' Everything follows on from that.....
After all the lies told by governments, Sirs/Dames, etc, the word 'novel' will likely fall on sceptical ears....they do become so after years of gaslighting and all the ott propaganda.
Yet all of these people actively participated in making a new disease out of a known illness based on their religion called science. The use of statistics to make a new disease to fit a vaccine was never questioned. The very people who supposedly dissented, maintain that a pandemic can be something other than a political event.
None of these authors learned anything themselves to teach anyone else. You cannot understand what happened within the paradigm in which it happened and will repeat again.
As there are seven HART-affiliated authors on the paper, it feels appropriate to post this for further context and an "outsider" perspective: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/win-for-permitted-dissent. (See also pinned comment.)
I understand the rationale for staying the course and making concessions, even though I "disagree" (so to speak). Further, I feel the disclaimers upon publication could appear as an attempt to stave off valid and reasonable criticism from fellow dissidents, which I doubt very much you want to do.
I appreciate the statements regardless.
Respectfully, JH
Will the WHO and our governments take any notice of this? The WHO treaty has been signed so it appears that this worthy effort may be in vain?
No....as per written comment further above, but the effort is not in vain. It is a published document of research that will be akin to witnesses, not like those selected for the Hallett Inquiry.
Ivermectin is available if you know where to source it. 100 X 12mg tablets can be bought for £50. If you assume that the dose is 1 mg/Kg body weight per day, a person weighing 60Kg will require 5 tablets per day.
It is one of the safest drugs on the market, freely available in several countries. Here it is only available from a pharmacy on prescription, but GPs may be unwilling to prescribe it, and if you're in bed with a fever, you're not really in a position to trot off to your pharmacy to collect your prescription a couple of days after you request it from your health centre. It should be available over the counter.
When will we be able to buy repurposed drugs like ivermectin and mebendazole over the counter?
Limited hangout.
by who exactly?
By Whom!
You are way behind on the hard science research developments looking at the virus and vaccine for bioengineered weaponisation which is now irrefutable.
You refuse to acknowledge this is not a health event but a military operation planned for decades. The legal cover took years to put in place to make it legal to use these agents.
Check out Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt - this is all old news.
No criminal need fear carrying out a crime when they also control the inquiry.
State terrorism.
Shame on you.
I give the same reply as above. This has taken over a year to even get through peer review and keep all authors signed up. We have to attack this in every way we can and in fora that do not share our views.
I will not say shame on dissenters working their socks off for no pay whatever tack they emphasise to try and wake up more people to the irrefutable harms caused by government policies against their citizens.
I do appreciate what you have managed to achieve and offer you all my sincere congratulations on the publication of your paper.
However, it seems that the further down an academic road you travel, the less likely you are to retain the intuition that depends on both cerebral hemispheres working in harmony. You are prevented from seeing a bigger picture. In your own interest, as well as every body else's, you can't continue to ignore what people like 'currer' are telling you. The 'pandemic' and all that is associated with it is only one facet of a h*l*caust. How is it possible that politicians are seriously considering going to war with Russia (for example)? We have absolutely no grievance with Russia. What the warmongers are exploiting is the hatred of Russia which is a legacy of the days of the Soviet Union.
Not as individuals. Many of the authors of this paper would agree with everything you say. It is not about intuition, it is about trying to wake people up and we all try and come at it in lots of different ways.
Given that HART made a "no pandemic" statement fairly early (as groups go) - and remains among the few coalitions that has said "no pandemic" - it is significant that a concession was made.
[For readers who aren't aware - and as a reminder for HART members - I was extremely laudatory of the HART statement when it debuted and remember when and "why" it was undertaken at the time -- having been involved with PANDA back then, though not HART, because I live in the U.S. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/there-was-no-pandemic-in-2020]
Because the paper appears to have been closely linked to HART, is there a chance you can be explicit/specific about what concessions were made?
In other words, can the submitted manuscript be posted?
EDIT: Also, am I correct that you would like to see officials in the U.S., e.g., RFK, do the right thing, regardless of cost, "come hell or high water"?
https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/confirmation-of-my-early-hypothesis
https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/an-infiltrative-disease-an-alzheimers
If you fail to correctly analyse and understand the situation you find yourself in, no amount of consensus building or hard work can prevent your response from being misguided.