Thank you for your brilliant analysis warning the public about these killer jabs.
In my opinion, the main impediment to stopping this revolves around the courts. Even the most open-minded judges have not grasped the concept that a monopoly has been granted to the CDC and the WHO as to their theory that the novel SARS-Cov-2 virus has been proven to exist. These theories have never been vetted by outside skeptics because the mainstream theory is sacrosanct--you cannot question it or else you will be accused of spreading medical misinformation.
The appeal to a majority "scientific" consensus opinion inherently violates the Constitution's right to free speech. Nonetheless if there was one judge who allowed questioning of the consensus theory on the grounds that the original study to determine the existence of the virus was fundamentally flawed, inadequate or simply fraudulent, they would order a "proper" study to make a definitive interpretation.
Skeptics would still be forced to play by the rules of "virology," but the study would not be based on one or a few patients as it was done in China. Nor would a computer simulation be "proof" that the virus exists. No, it would naturally have to be a massive study with a control group (which of course was not done when the mainstream virologists came to their conclusions which brought economic ruin to millions not to mention all the deaths from the killer jabs).
One such proposal has been introduced by Dr. Sam Bailey along with other signatories in which a real clinical study can be done to prove or deny the claims of the mainstream consensus view.
Thank you for your brilliant analysis warning the public about these killer jabs.
In my opinion, the main impediment to stopping this revolves around the courts. Even the most open-minded judges have not grasped the concept that a monopoly has been granted to the CDC and the WHO as to their theory that the novel SARS-Cov-2 virus has been proven to exist. These theories have never been vetted by outside skeptics because the mainstream theory is sacrosanct--you cannot question it or else you will be accused of spreading medical misinformation.
The appeal to a majority "scientific" consensus opinion inherently violates the Constitution's right to free speech. Nonetheless if there was one judge who allowed questioning of the consensus theory on the grounds that the original study to determine the existence of the virus was fundamentally flawed, inadequate or simply fraudulent, they would order a "proper" study to make a definitive interpretation.
Skeptics would still be forced to play by the rules of "virology," but the study would not be based on one or a few patients as it was done in China. Nor would a computer simulation be "proof" that the virus exists. No, it would naturally have to be a massive study with a control group (which of course was not done when the mainstream virologists came to their conclusions which brought economic ruin to millions not to mention all the deaths from the killer jabs).
One such proposal has been introduced by Dr. Sam Bailey along with other signatories in which a real clinical study can be done to prove or deny the claims of the mainstream consensus view.
The proposed study entitled "Settling the Virus Debate," can be found here: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
PS - interesting article from the UK. Same in the US?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/record-numbers-of-healthy-patients-stuck-in-hospital-amid-care-shortage/ar-AA12NrzX