Discussion about this post

User's avatar
nymusicdaily's avatar

tamiflu trial #1 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/summary_review/2012/021087Orig1s062021246Orig1s045SumR.pdf

"The regulatory history of Tamiflu’s development program in young infants is complex.

Previously submitted juvenile rat studies of Tamiflu identified substantially increased

mortality in newborn rats compared to older juvenile rats and adult rats. One study also

identified markedly increased concentrations of the pro-drug, oseltamivir, in the brain tissue of

the newborn animals. Concern about the potential impact of an immature blood-brain barrier

in human infants resulting in toxicity led the Applicant to terminate their evaluation of Tamiflu

as treatment for influenza in infants less than 1 year of age.'

if at first you don't succeed, try again!

"a follow-up juvenile rat study conducted by the NIH did not confirm the earlier findings of increased levels of oseltamivir phosphate in brain tissue."

heavy redactions further down, hmmm...

Expand full comment
Allen's avatar

The fabrication of a controversy over "early treatments" from the start of the operation is intended to invent parallel narratives and stop all other narratives from getting out of the gate.

Installing the controversy on how to "treat" this alleged "new disease" served to concretize the narrative that a "novel disease" existed and that the "novel pathogen" which caused this disease was in fact a real problem requiring political and medical measures rather than an invented control narrative.

This phony world of Potemkin logic assured that no one would bother to check the "truth of the fact"- had a new disease in fact appeared and was there proof of this novel pathogen?

The "early treatment" canard leads us to two competing thesis:

1) A serious new disease has arrived against which we have no medical defense until the savior vaccine arrives;

2) A serious new disease has arrived that one could, and could have, treat(ed) were it not for the underhanded efforts by the authorities who brought us thesis #1.

That thesis #2 has been seized upon and catapulted by individuals who are then portrayed as "rogue anti-establishment doctors" and administrative types who quickly become the face of the "health freedom movement" seems to be more than an unlikely coincidence.

This dynamic serves to disallow and/or marginalize alternative theories and mutes the abundant evidence that there was in fact no new pathogen of any sort and no accompanying pandemic caused by said non-existent "novel pathogen."

The accepted medical science of "early treatments" of a non-existent disease rests on the same foundation as the invention of this non-existent disease. Therefore it too is invalid.

The authors of the "official" government narrative- thesis #1- and those that dictate the demonstrably false terms of the "acceptable alternative health freedom" narrative- thesis #2- are, in the end, likely to become "strange bedfellows" and not real adversaries under these conditions, as both validate the imaginary disease by different means.

Thus it is hard to imagine that we arrive at a place much different, if these are to be the "accepted" and "hotly contested" narratives, regardless of which of the 2 theses "wins the day."

I leave with a quote:

"It was a question of making the idea of the imaginary disease exist even in the mind of the recalcitrant portion of the population, by providing them with the protest rattles that they could wave at their leisure - the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, the effectiveness of ivermectin, the ineffectiveness of masks, the ineffectiveness of " vaccines."

We thus showed that we were treating the imaginary disease with exactly the same method as that which had made it possible to establish its existence, making the posthumous pride of Monsieur de Münchhausen.to have been able to inspire so much beautiful science."

Expand full comment
24 more comments...

No posts