The crackpots were right: COVID is a racket

LIKE a timely Swiss clock, the powers that be, that is, political henchmen + the Mockingbird Media, sling every disparaging, mocking, and associated invective towards those who dare to question their know-it-all “authority” — never mind the rising global push-back against their dictates. Yes, immune to all the skeptics, they cling to and follow “Rules For Radicals” to the nth degree. Lifeline. Insurance policy.

WITH said backgrounder and knowledge base in mind, it should hardly be surprising that even someone of distinct political stature within the American body politic, namely, the heir to the Kennedy dynasty, is a major target for their rage. Yes, being tarred a crackpot is one of their more “polite” mocking insults and abuses. Imagine that.

IN any case, the reader should dare not become distracted by the maligning label of “anti-vaxxer.” This is so because it only serves to deflect from the dangers at hand, that is, covid is a racket via deadly corruption. RICO-like.

♦  ♦  ♦  ♦  ♦

WND | By Jack Cashill | December 8, 2021

Although I will put my COVID-skeptic credentials up against anyone’s – I tried to organize a public protest on day one of the lockdown – I confess to having seen Big Health’s actions as merely misguided. I was wrong.

The “crackpots” were right. The Big Health involvement did not progress along the Eric Hoffer spectrum from a good cause to a movement with benefits to a racket. It started as a racket, a massive racket that may go down as a Mao-worthy crime against humanity.

As the princeling of America’s reigning Democratic dynasty, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has his blind spots, but his dissection of Big Health’s war, not on COVID, but on those who are actually warring with COVID, is this century’s must-read book.

Rather than summarize Kennedy’s “The Real Anthony Fauci,” allow me to excerpt one particular conversation that speaks to the enormity of the debacle. The conversation, recorded on Zoom, involves two scientists. One is Dr. Tess Lawrie, a world-renowned data researcher from the U.K. with an international reputation for integrity. The other is World Health Organization researcher Dr. Andrew Hill, a senior visiting research fellow at Liverpool University.

Lawrie and 20 of the world’s leading experts had recently performed a meta-analysis of the research done on ivermectin (IVM), and the data overwhelmingly supported its value in treating COVID-19.




[TRENDING: How I beat COVID in 48 hours with ivermectin ]

Like Lawrie, Hill had been a major IVM proponent before making a very suspicious about-face. As a WHO gatekeeper and adviser to both Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation, Hill’s opinion mattered. His hasty counter-thesis blocked a worldwide ivermectin rollout.

“How can you do this?” Lawrie asks him. “You are causing irreparable harm.”

Hill explained that he was in a “tricky position” because his sponsors were pressuring him, the most important of which was Unitaid. Chairing the executive committee of Unitaid, an international quasi-governmental consortium, was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation representative. Apparently, a $150 million donation buys the best seat at the table.

Lawrie was unmoved by the “sensitivity” of Hill’s position. “Lots of people are in sensitive positions,” Lawrie challenges Hill. “They’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.”

“There are a lot of different opinions about this,” Hill waffles. “As I say, some people simply …”

Lawrie cuts him off. “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.”

When Hill reverts to his “some people” shtick, Lawrie counters, “We are looking at the data. It doesn’t matter what some people say.”

Lawrie explains Hill’s “tricky position” to him. “I appreciate you are in a sensitive position if you are being paid for something and you’re being told to support a certain position.” She then lays out the only acceptable moral response: “So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence.”

One can understand how an apparatchik could buckle before a Stalin or a Hitler, but a Bill Gates? Dante would need a special Circle to accommodate bureaucrats as easily intimidated as Hill.

When Hill protests that the NIH would not agree to recommend IVM, Lawrie shoots back, “Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.” Hill cannot deny Lawrie’s claim. “That’s not something I know about,” he says lamely.

“Well,” she replies, “all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption, and you’re being played.” Responds the feckless Hill, “I don’t think so.”



3 thoughts on “DEADLY CORRUPTION

  1. Terms mean things to peoples minds. That israel calls judea & samaria the west bank is counter productive. Or baby murder is called abortion.
    Anti vaxxer is a negative connonation like being a defendent is negative and plantiff is positive though reality says it matters not. Stubborn & tenacious mean the same but one connotes neg or pos.
    Better term for anti vaxxer might be to borrow from others, a pure blood or a refusenick as both are true. Or how about a sane person? Agree to vax a dog but not all shots one is called anti vaxxer? In this case is informed selective vaxxer. People can decide the term they prefer but anti vaxxer is not most helpful term.

  2. Pingback: DEADLY CORRUPTION |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s