This is an article on a Remdesivir protocols murder case in Nashville, Tennessee. The family wants to pursue criminal charges. No Attorney General in the United States has yet to take a stand against this murder program that simulated the spread of a deadly virus.
Thanks Monique. Good to see you on Substack. I hope American Thinker writes something next. Also I'd like to talk about the letter from Judicial Watch. We need to get some FOIA's going.
Lots of people have documented these murders. They are all over the place. I think it's time to do something productive with the information. It's hard to believe the United States has come to this.
The trial would have been blinded so they wouldn't know if it was Remdesivir until they unblinded to analyze the data.
Also, presumably they gave informed consent.
I don't like their chances. There were plenty of deaths in younger people, not part of a trial who were given Remdesivir despite telling the hospital they did not wish to receive it. These have a much better chance of getting a guilty verdict
The blinds were off by April 29, 2020. They had been testing Remdesivir for years at Vanderbilt anyway. Buddy Creech was responsible for the program there.
“'Remdesivir has been evaluated in laboratory studies at Vanderbilt for many years now,' said Vanderbilt’s Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Unit (VTEU) principal investigator C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, associate professor of Pediatrics and director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program (VVRP)."
But the patient died before that, and in any event in court they can argue the study showed benefit and not harm. Not that I trust the study. Maybe in discovery they can find evidence of fraud
I really doubt that the study showed benefit and not harm. That seems impossible. Too many people dying of Remdesivir and not Hydroxychloroquine. Further, someone had to be keeping up with the statistics, whether it was a "blinded" study or not. The blind applies to doctors and nurses. The administrators and statisticians, the "little Eichmanns" of this Holocaust, knew who was getting what, and who was dying. They knew enough to say "it's so promising that we're removing the blind" on April 29. It's been about 3 years by the way, and they've raised no red flag, so consider that. And as for Frank's case, they went way out of their way to make sure they killed him for whatever reason. Probably money. Be skeptical if you want, we don't have the evidence yet. But I really think you're on the wrong side here playing defense.
They called me a livewire when we wanted him to get Vitamin C. The hospital never let us see him when he was alive and doing ok. They kept telling us it was the beez neez for Covid patients.
You misunderstand me, I am on Franks side but they are just not going to be able to win in court. First off his age. Second he was in a trial. Third its clear most of these trial reports are fraudulent showing benefit where there is harm but thats hard to prove to a jury.
Remdesivir proved too unsafe to give to Ebola patients, so I am not skeptical it cause harm at all. Having only 1 half functioning kidney I would not go near it
I am not saying the Remdesivir did not harm him. But COVID killed a lot of strong people who were older, helped no doubt by standard of care.
Anyone put on a respirator had a high chance of dying, although if it was because he was in kidney failure you could argue it was Remdesivir and not COVID
But he was part of a trial that was blinded at the time, which meant he gave informed consent. You might argue they did not disclose the known risks, and question the informed consent
Then there is regulatory deference. FDA not only gave EUA based on the trial, but then a license after being used widely. They would argue that proves safety, and to negate that you have to prove trial fraud
Just saying its going to be hard to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
Not a lawyer. If your lawyer says ok and defers billing unless you win , go for it. Good luck
The Ebola results should have been disclosed as part of Informed Consent, if not that could have been a violation helping their case, but proving the Doctors knowingly harmed patients during the trial given it was blinded at the time is still going to be tough
Sounds great. Thank you for all your research and hard work.
Thank you for this article and helping my Dad’s story be seen. You are doing an amazing job.
Thanks Monique. Good to see you on Substack. I hope American Thinker writes something next. Also I'd like to talk about the letter from Judicial Watch. We need to get some FOIA's going.
Thank you for your good research.
You know Mark of Housatonic Live has been documenting Remdesivir murders, including a few interviews.
FWIW
Lots of people have documented these murders. They are all over the place. I think it's time to do something productive with the information. It's hard to believe the United States has come to this.
I agree.
The trial would have been blinded so they wouldn't know if it was Remdesivir until they unblinded to analyze the data.
Also, presumably they gave informed consent.
I don't like their chances. There were plenty of deaths in younger people, not part of a trial who were given Remdesivir despite telling the hospital they did not wish to receive it. These have a much better chance of getting a guilty verdict
The blinds were off by April 29, 2020. They had been testing Remdesivir for years at Vanderbilt anyway. Buddy Creech was responsible for the program there.
April 29, 2020: "Vanderbilt investigators encouraged by early results of placebo-controlled remdesivir trial." https://news.vumc.org/2020/04/29/vanderbilt-investigators-encouraged-by-early-results-of-placebo-controlled-remdesivir-trial/
“'Remdesivir has been evaluated in laboratory studies at Vanderbilt for many years now,' said Vanderbilt’s Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Unit (VTEU) principal investigator C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, associate professor of Pediatrics and director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program (VVRP)."
But the patient died before that, and in any event in court they can argue the study showed benefit and not harm. Not that I trust the study. Maybe in discovery they can find evidence of fraud
I really doubt that the study showed benefit and not harm. That seems impossible. Too many people dying of Remdesivir and not Hydroxychloroquine. Further, someone had to be keeping up with the statistics, whether it was a "blinded" study or not. The blind applies to doctors and nurses. The administrators and statisticians, the "little Eichmanns" of this Holocaust, knew who was getting what, and who was dying. They knew enough to say "it's so promising that we're removing the blind" on April 29. It's been about 3 years by the way, and they've raised no red flag, so consider that. And as for Frank's case, they went way out of their way to make sure they killed him for whatever reason. Probably money. Be skeptical if you want, we don't have the evidence yet. But I really think you're on the wrong side here playing defense.
They called me a livewire when we wanted him to get Vitamin C. The hospital never let us see him when he was alive and doing ok. They kept telling us it was the beez neez for Covid patients.
You misunderstand me, I am on Franks side but they are just not going to be able to win in court. First off his age. Second he was in a trial. Third its clear most of these trial reports are fraudulent showing benefit where there is harm but thats hard to prove to a jury.
Remdesivir proved too unsafe to give to Ebola patients, so I am not skeptical it cause harm at all. Having only 1 half functioning kidney I would not go near it
His Dr. Said he was the strongest 82 year old man he had seen. My Dad was very active and in good health before this.
I am not saying the Remdesivir did not harm him. But COVID killed a lot of strong people who were older, helped no doubt by standard of care.
Anyone put on a respirator had a high chance of dying, although if it was because he was in kidney failure you could argue it was Remdesivir and not COVID
But he was part of a trial that was blinded at the time, which meant he gave informed consent. You might argue they did not disclose the known risks, and question the informed consent
Then there is regulatory deference. FDA not only gave EUA based on the trial, but then a license after being used widely. They would argue that proves safety, and to negate that you have to prove trial fraud
Just saying its going to be hard to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
Not a lawyer. If your lawyer says ok and defers billing unless you win , go for it. Good luck
It failed so badly on Ebola that it should never have been allowed to be used for COVID. Were their any communications at Vanderbilt about that?
The Ebola results should have been disclosed as part of Informed Consent, if not that could have been a violation helping their case, but proving the Doctors knowingly harmed patients during the trial given it was blinded at the time is still going to be tough
Anyways, good luck to them. Nothing more to add.
What is the difference in reading notes vs a regular article? Why is notes being used?
It’s like Twitter, but not as crazy? I’m not sure how to describe it. It’s just getting started. A lot of Substack writers are moving to it.
To get it to people who are not subscribed
https://rumble.com/v2jyoc6-rfk-jr-tony-fauci-knew-that-remdesivir-would-kill-you.html