Before I get into today’s snippet (which is staggering in its implications), I want to mention a Black Friday and Thanksgiving weekend book sale organized by Hans G. Schantz. More than a hundred independent authors, including yours truly, have priced one or more of their books at 99c or less for that period. Many are free. If you want to pick up some fresh reading material at a bargain price, click over to Hans’ place and see if anything interests you.
Now, on to today’s snippet.
Robert Kennedy Jr. has written what may be the most important book to be published on the COVID-19 pandemic since it started. It’s titled ‘The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health‘.
I cannot emphasize too strongly how important this book is. It completely uncovers and exposes every scrap of evidence out there, showing that Dr. Fauci and the medical-pharmaceutical industry have coordinated their response to the COVID-19 pandemic and have systematically tried to destroy the reputation of medications that are effective against it, instead reaping a harvest of billions of dollars for their vaccines that are considerably less effective and much more dangerous to the health of recipients.
To call the book’s allegations “explosive” is a massive understatement. If they can all be proven in the public forum, they will cause such an eruption of public fury that those responsible might be lynched en masse. Certainly, any politician who’s been part of their cabal should be run out of office and never again trusted for any position more responsible than deputy assistant acting unpaid dog-catcher.
Right now, over Thanksgiving weekend, the Kindle edition of this book is only $2.99. I regard it as absolutely essential reading for every American – and, for that matter, every citizen of this world. It’s mind-boggling in its implications. You owe it to yourself to get this book, read it, and learn the full dimensions of the conspiracy against us by those profiting from the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s horrifying in its totalitarianism and cynical disregard for anything other than a warped, twisted ideology driven by profit.
My problem this morning is to select a snippet that will convince you of how important this book is to understanding where we are, how we got here, and where we go to get out of this mess. There’s so much “meat” in its pages that I find it almost impossible to choose. I’ll settle for the transcript of one interview that makes it clear how much interference the “establishment” has created to prevent the truth coming out. To drive home the utter disregard for facts, and for human life, demonstrated by the powers that be, I’ve highlighted several sections with a yellow background.
Dr. [Tess] Lawrie, a world-renowned data researcher and scientific consultant, is an iconic eminence among global public health scientists and agencies. The Desert Review has deemed her “The Conscience of Medicine” because of her reputation for competence, precision, and integrity. Lawrie’s consulting group, the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy, Ltd. performs the scientific reviews that develop and support guidelines for global public health agencies, including the WHO and European governments, as well as international scientific and health consortia like the Cochrane Collaboration. Her clients have included a retinue of virtually all the larger government regulators now involved in the suppression of IVM and other repurposed drugs.
At the end of December 2000, Dr. Lawrie happened on a YouTube video of Pierre Kory’s Senate testimony on ivermectin. Her interest piqued, Dr. Lawrie conducted a “pragmatic rapid review” between Christmas and New Year’s to validate the 27 studies from the medical literature that Kory cited, assessing each of them for quality and power.
“After a week, I realized it was a go. IVM’s safety was well-established as a widely used dewormer,” she told me. “I was startled by the magnitude of its benefits. Its efficacy against COVID was consistently clear in multiple studies. I thought that all these people were dying and this was a moral obligation—this drug should have been rolled out.” Dr. Lawrie dispatched an urgent letter to British Health Minister Matt Hancock on January 4 with her Rapid Review attached. She never heard back from Hancock. But in a suspicious coincidence, someone leaked a meta-review by WHO researcher Andrew Hill to the Daily Mail. Three days later, Hill posted a preprint of his study. In the one month since he testified enthusiastically beside Dr. Kory in favor of ivermectin before the January 13 NIH panel, Hill had made a neck-wrenching volte face. Cumulatively, the seven studies in Hill’s original meta-review still showed a dramatic reduction in hospitalizations and deaths among patients receiving IVM. The leaked version of Hill’s meta-review included all the same papers that formerly supported his gung-ho promotion of IVM as a miraculous cure for COVID. Hill had altered only his conclusions. Now he claimed that those studies comprised a low quality of evidence, and so although they yielded a highly positive result, Hill assigned the result a “low certainty.” He could then declare that WHO should not recommend IVM without first performing long-term, randomized placebo-controlled studies that would require many months if not longer. “Someone got to him,” suggests Kory. “Someone sent him the memo. Andrew Hill has been captured by some really dark forces.”
On January 7, Dr. Lawrie summarized the overwhelming evidence from her Rapid Review in a video directed at British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, urging him to break the logjam and roll out IVM immediately. Her video, says Dr. Kory, was “absolutely convincing.” She forwarded the video appeal to the British and South African Prime Ministers on January 7. She heard nothing from either.
. . .
The following week, she spoke to Hill again, this time by Zoom.
The Zoom call was recorded.
. . .
Dr. Lawrie asked Hill to explain his U-turn on ivermectin, which his own analysis found overwhelmingly effective. “How can you do this?” she inquired politely. “You are causing irreparable harm.”
Hill explained that he was in a “tricky situation,” because his sponsors had put pressure on him. Hill is a University of Liverpool virologist who serves as an advisor to Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation. “He told me his sponsor was Unitaid.” Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the BMGF and several European countries—France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea, and Chile—to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals for distribution to the African poor. Its primary purpose seems to be protecting the patent and intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies—which, as we shall see, is the priority passion for Bill Gates—and to insure their prompt and full payment. About 63 percent of its funding comes from a surtax on airline tickets. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation holds a board seat and chairs Unitaid’s Executive Committee, and the BMGF has given Unitaid $150 million since 2005. Various Gates-funded surrogate and front organizations, like Global Fund, Gavi, and UNICEF also contribute, as does the pharmaceutical industry. The BMGF and Gates personally own large stakes in many of the pharmaceutical companies that profit from this boondoggle. Gates also uses Unitaid to fund corrupt science by tame and compromised researchers like Hill that legitimizes his policy directives to the WHO. Unitaid gave $40 million to Andrew Hill’s employer, the University of Liverpool, four days before the publication of Hill’s study.
Hill, a PhD, confessed that the sponsors were pressuring him to influence his conclusion. When Dr. Lawrie asked who was trying to influence him, Hill said, “I mean, I, I think I’m in a very sensitive position here. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie, MD, PhD: “Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.”
Dr. Hill: “Well. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with . . . look[ing] at the data and reassur[ing] everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies . . . we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day, [and] being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative . . . that is a sensitive position. So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions . . . are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?”
Hill then complains again that outsiders are influencing him.
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “But, Andy—know this will come out . . . It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.”
Hill protests that NIH will not agree to recommend IVM.
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “That’s not something I know about.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.”
Dr. Hill: “I don’t think so.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.”
Dr. Lawrie points out that Hill’s study ignores a host of clinical outcomes that affect patients. She scolds Hill for ignoring the beneficial effects of IVM as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to PCR negativity, on the need for mechanical ventilation, on reduced admissions to ICUs, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful. She adds, “This is bad research . . . bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know . . . you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth . . . How can you deliberately try and mess it up . . . you know?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily—up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH and the FDA and the EMEA. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future . . . at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It’s already nailed.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You’d rather… risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent [British National Health Service doctors and nurses] people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works… It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people . . . I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So . . . we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do. I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. . . . Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.”
Then she asks again.
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “It’s Unitaid.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “All right. So who helped to . . . ? Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it . . . Unitaid . . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “I think that . . . It needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged. Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t . . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So they have a say in your conclusions.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Yeah.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name…. But I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance….”
Dr. Lawrie interjects: “Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Yeah . . . it’s a very strong lobby . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. Look I think I can see [we’re] kind of [at] a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy. I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground… [Y]ou’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable. And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry . . . As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.”
Hill promised he would do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she would give him six weeks.
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate… go on?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “From my side. Okay . . . I think end of February, we will be there six weeks.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How many people die every day?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks . . . Because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, ‘I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion anymore, and I’m going to tell the truth.’”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of . . . everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.”
At the conclusion of the January 14 BIRD conference, Dr. Lawrie delivered a monumental closing address that should be recorded among the most important speeches in the annals of medical history. Dr. Lawrie spoke out at considerable personal risk, since her livelihood and career largely rely on the very agencies she targeted for criticism.
Dr. Lawrie began by endorsing the miraculous efficacy of IVM.
Had ivermectin been employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end.
Dr. Lawrie told the audience that the suppression of ivermectin was a signal that Pharma’s pervasive corruption had turned a medical cartel against patients and against humanity.
The story of ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed. The story of ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.
Dr. Lawrie called for reform of the method used to analyze scientific evidence.
They who design the trials and control the data also control the outcome. So, this system of industry-led trials needs to be put to an end. Data from ongoing and future trials of novel COVID treatments must be independently controlled and analyzed. Anything less than total transparency cannot be trusted.
Dr. Lawrie called out the corruption of modern medicine by Big Pharma and other interests and attributed the barbaric suppression of IVM to the single-minded obsession with more profitable vaccines.
Since then, hundreds of millions of people have been involved in the largest medical experiment in human history. Mass vaccination was an unproven novel therapy. Hundreds of billions will be made by Big Pharma and paid for by the public. With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.
She hinted at Gates’ role in the suppression.
At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose: will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care? The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.
Never before has our role as doctors been so important, because never before have we become complicit in causing so much harm.
Finally, Dr. Lawrie suggested that physicians form a new World Health Organization that represents the interests of the people, not corporations and billionaires, a people-centered organization.
There’s so much more in the book that it’s impossible to summarize. All I can say is, if you want the facts about how the treatment of COVID-19 has been politicized and monetized, causing literally hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths worldwide and paralyzing nations and regions, you need to read this book. It’s utterly horrifying in its steady drumroll of incontrovertible evidence about what’s been going on.
THIS BOOK IS ESSENTIAL READING. I can’t put it more strongly than that.
Peter
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the overwhelmingly white Anglosphere is being hardest hit by politico-medical Ivermectin resistance, whereas the Turd World Of Color is adopting it hand over fist, because it works.
Nothing to see here, right?
Watch that Hulu series Dopesick about Oxycontin addiction. You'll never believe anything the Pharmaceutical industry nor the FDA says anymore.
Ordered the kindle of this book earlier. Then, tried to order the hardback just in case. amazon shows it out of stock. Whick might actually be true. I ordered it anyway, they now have my money and I will be interested to see if it ever arrives. I have had an item that was ordered and never did arrive and, eventually, amazon refunded the money. I admit that they did have to keep asking me for some time since I really wanted the item after it had not arrived for an uncomfortable amount of time and stuck with it for a few months. Oh well. we will see. Now to back up the kindle book and hope that will work if the book nazis get active.
I also bought the book a few days ago and am reading it as well.
The financial conflict of interest and corruption in the early part of the book is astounding. I am currently about 20% through the book where it is about the AIDS problem of the 1980's.
What I particularly like about the book is how heavily documented it is. Lots and lots of foot-notes. It reads like a legal statement, which is to be expected given that Kennedy himself is a lawyer. This heavy documentation makes it difficult to refute.
many thanks
As said above, if you get the Kindle edition, back it up somewhere Amazon can't reach, they've removed books from people's devices before.
Yeah… Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
This is a guy who has been on the lunatic fringe since forever, is a "globull warmening" scaremonger, and has about as much background in any sort of science as my dog does.
And, while I won't discount "the stopped clock is right twice a day" phenomenon, the raw fact is that he's very much a part of the same set of idiots who've been running things into the ground since the 1940s. And, yes, Fauci is an idiot, but… Man, do I find it hard to lend any credence to Kennedy, whatsoever. This is a guy who's against most childhood vaccinations, period.
Question here is this: Which is it, with this book? Clownface-on, or clownface-off?
The Kennedy crew has always been dangerously and destructively engaged in self-aggrandizement, from Joseph Kennedy Sr.'s days as ambassador to the UK right down to the idiot scion who flew off into the darkness thinking he was an expert aviator and then killed his wife and sister-in-law along with himself.
Anything coming out of any Kennedy's mouth or pen ought to be taken with a grain of salt, and I am now forced to re-evaluate my opinion of Fauci–Because, if this specific Kennedy is saying bad things about him, he might actually be OK, despite the other things going into forming my opinion.
Wake up. I thought the same thing about Kennedy as you until 2020. And then everything came into focus. And you and me have no choice but to eat a big gutfull of crow and admit that, at least on vaccines, Kennedy was #^#%@%! RIGHT. Read the book. We are all being bilked and deceived by the federal government in conjunction with Big Pharma. This is real serious shit. They are injecting poisons and untested substances into us and our children for hundreds of billions in profits.
Agendas out in the open with that one! Grrr…
I retired as a professional chemist at the end of April, 2107 after 44 years on the job, 36 1/2 in the clinical field at 2 major medical centers and a reference lab. I've been following the entire COVID story since the beginning and made sure I purchased RFK Jr's book after seeing his interview with Tucker Carlson on FOX NATION. I thought I was well informed about the entire situation, but the revelations in the book are STUNNING. Having many years of experience in various areas of the clinical lab, I found the info divulged by RFK Jr to be of very serious consequence. I'm about 1/2 way through the book and find I need to stop ever so often to think about and digest what he's revealed. I'm not a fan of RFK Jr, but his documentation (almost 2,200 citations) and explanations have caused me to reevaluate him, at least in this regard. I can't encourage people enough to get this book and read it. I've done so with a few former colleagues and they've gone ahad and obtained the book. IT'S A MUST READ!!
Just purchased. Like a lot of others I don’t usually give much credence to Kennedys, but it is worth noting this isn’t a book in lockstep with the left. And, as others have noted, the documentation appears solid. Most importantly the book is currently #2 at Amazon. That tells you a LOT about public opinion regarding Fauci and the Covid scamdemic.
Some other commenter is right. Nothing to see here.
How can you fall for all of this unvalidated, unreviewed, un-everythinged trash is beyond me.
I shan't bother trying to refute any arguments 'cos you just wouldn't listen anyway.
Have fun; die happy.
Dave
Glowie Dave, congrats on your apparent shilling for Big Pharma.
Should I find myself randomly called to jury duty in the trial of Dr. Anthony Fauci for crimes against humanity … and if the evidence proves the charges … I would not hesitate to recommend the death penalty for him … and I'd sleep like a baby afterward.
If a person with that outstanding scientific background and an immaculate personal history like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. writes these things down they ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY must be true.
… SIGH …
Wasn't there a guy named Hunter Biden with – how to coin it? – behaviour and life choices of a similar kind?
You surely would believe every thing that "Crackhead McStripperbang" (loved this one!) will say or write, won't you?
Speechless in Germany.
It was always entertaining to read all these Blogs, be it BRM, Raconteur Report, Larry Correia, Old NFO etc etc..
Non-PC, pro Gun, Anti-Big-Government, Contra BLM/Antifa, that's alright for me. Libertarian Stuff, military topics, all day long.
A healthy dose of hyperbole or scurrilous language: fine with me.
But that Anti-Scientific, Flat-Earther Style COVID stuff makes me ask myself the question: why can't all these fine guys see that they are living in a single biiig self-reassuring bubble?
Completely ignoring scientific improvements and the progress of scientific learning about COVID from around the globe(ok, they had to learn a lot, and as long as politics are involved, there always will be misinformations). Looking for any, ANY confirmation of their crude theories, from whoever they might come! Looking like a drug addict for anyone selling that stuff.
I am really afraid to open your blog one day and find you triumphantly noting that Charles Manson has verified all the anti-vaxxers theories….
It is beyond me, that's all I can say.
@takirks & hdemand: I suggest you take a closer look at the book. There are over two thousand footnotes, leading to documentation of its allegations. I selected the excerpt I did because it was a recorded conversation, copiously backed up by the incidents to which it refers (which I checked for myself, to ensure nothing had been made up). When every claim is backed up by facts, I listen.
I realize the author is a controversial figure, with beliefs and holding positions that are "fringe", to say the least. I don't buy into any of those positions. However, when he says something that checks out as being factual, and his claims are supported by such copious evidence . . . I listen.
I suggest you don't dismiss a source merely because you don't trust it/him due to past problems. Check the actual claims against the actual facts. If they correlate with and confirm each other, then I submit that the book is worthy of serious attention.
Two endorsements prompted me to buy the book (the hardcover is on backorder now). One by Robert Malone and one by Luc Montagnier.
Maybe it's a case of the "Boy who Cried Wolf", maybe it isn't.
Doesn't change the fact that this particular Kennedy has a long track record of idiocy, zero real scientific background, and about as much credibility in this regard as a random sampling of street-corner nutters.
Remains to be seen–If it didn't put money in his pocket, I'd buy a copy and give it a read. As it is, the fact that there's a lot of what is being reported as the contents of this book are in consonance with what I suspect is "really going on" tends to make me re-evaluate what I think is going on.
Anything any Kennedy (from that specific branch of the family…) has to say is automatically suspect, going back to Joe, Sr.. The days of JFK's unquestioned Camelot BS should be far behind us, but there are all too many people willing to suspend common sense and march off the cliffs with these idiots, because "martyred Kennedy".
This is a perfect time and place to reiterate the old Military Intelligence information rating scale:
Reliability of source:
:
A — Completely reliable
B — Usually reliable
C — Fairly reliable
D — Not usually reliable
E — Unreliable
F — Reliability cannot be judged
Accuracy of an item of information
1 — Confirmed by other sources
2 — Probably true
5 — Possibly true
4 — Doubtfully true
5 — Improbable
6 — Truth cannot be Judged
Where does Kennedy fall as a source, for you? For me, he's a very clear "E". That makes just about anything coming out of him, as a source, to be highly questionable unless corroborated by multiple other sources that are rated higher on the reliability scale. Not one such source, not two–At least three.
If I were putting together a briefing, I'd include material from Kennedy only as a punchline to a humorous joke, in order to lighten up the proceedings. Anything else? As a serious source? Fuhgeddaboudit…
Seems silly to completely disregard the message because you don’t like the messenger. There’s plenty of evidence of questionable behavior by Fauci that it boggles the mind that anyone would defend a lifelong bureaucrat because the person who is criticizing him is a Kennedy.
The one thing Kennedy has going for him is that he has first hand experience with Fauci and people on the left will listen to him. There’s plenty of information in the book worth paying attention to and it’s meticulously documented. He also pulls no punches regarding Bill Gates.
I don’t give a damn who the messenger is as long as it puts a spotlight on Fauci’s egregiously criminal behavior.
Seems like the book isn't as much about science (unless you believe, as Fauci does, that HE represents science,) as it is the personality of Fauci, and the POLITICS behind government and pharmaceutical companies.
Fauci was a putz before COVID hit the scene. A government lab was the only place he could still be employed as a "scientist."
If you're uncomfortable with Bobby Kennedy jr., the new book by Dr. Scott Atlas may be more to your liking. Book review here: https://brownstone.org/articles/a-president-betrayed-by-bureaucrats-scott-atlass-masterpiece-on-the-covid-disaster/
Dr. Atlas has the advantage of first-hand experience dealing with Fauci inside the White House. I mentioned Atlas on this blog in the summer of 2020 before President Trump made him an advisor, and I continue to be impressed by him.
Ain't saying that Fauci is right, or that any of this isn't true. I'm just sayin'… Kennedy?
I want someone who isn't a loon to be saying this stuff before I take what is said seriously, and I also don't discount the idea that Kennedy is coming out with this in order to false-flag it and discredit everything that he's saying here, by being the first to say it.
I don't trust anything that any of that crew touches, up to and including "…the sun will rise in the East, tomorrow morning…". If the answer to that question matters to me, and Kennedy tells me that, yes, the sun will indeed rise in the East tomorrow morning? You'd best believe my happy ass is gonna be standing out there at BMNT waiting and watching to make sure that it did.
The fact that a stopped clock is right twice a day is no reason to use that clock for time-keeping purposes. Kennedy is a loon, associates with loons, and has the "scientific background" of my neighbor's very well-kept, very pretty, and bone-stupid Golden Retriever. As a matter of fact, I'd trust that dog's take on COVID a hell of a lot more than anything spewing forth from the mouth of Robert Kennedy.
I'm sure that this information is likely available elsewhere, and I'd seek out those sources first, before resorting to citing Kennedy or putting money in his pocket. Loons are as loons act, and he's never acted as anything other than an utter loon before now.
If you go to the critical reviews of the book it’s all personal attacks on Kennedy by the bEliEvE tHE ScIEnCe crowd- not that any of them have read it. It’s as if he doesn’t interview anyone or source anything. There really isn’t much to do other than roll ones eyes at the willful, determined blindness of the kool-aid drinkers. I’m going to be hard pressed to have sympathy when the full truth of all the corruption surrounding Fauci, Gates and company becomes too obvious to ignore. And given the number of people dropping dead as increasing rates thanks to the boosters, that day is approaching sooner than later.
Just a guess, but in order to make the book "libel-proof" to prevent it from being outlawed, RFK jr. probably had a team of researchers and fact checkers go over everything with a fine-toothed comb and provide a verifiable source for every claim.
In fact, he may not even have written a single line himself.