Let me talk about something
I consider myself qualified to discuss: a film director, Oliver Stone. OS is a great political director & a very clever man, one of the best in the industry. My view is that he did not simply take the Russian vx because he didn't want to wait for US 1

He's a very clever man, he made a judgement for his own life, for his family, & he chose the Russian vx instead of any of the Western ones, because he wanted the vx & considers Sputnik V the safest one.
I can see the logic:
1 No accountability for any of the Western vx, nobody can sue for any damage etc.
2 Those who made Sputnik V know they are always personally accountable to Vladimir Putin
3 S5 is based on a pre-existing vx with minimal changes so safety tried for many years
So if the Russians could find a safe way to adapt a tried & tested technology & only alter what is required, using adenovirus vectors, a technology in use for 50 years, experimented on for vx since the 1980s, why were Western Big Pharma so keen on something completely new: mRNA?
That is the question that Oliver Stone is indirectly asking us all to look into & answer: why were Western Big Pharma all at once suddenly so keen on using mRNA when there were much safer & tested directions available (adenovirus vectors), what is it that Western Big Pharma want?
Because when you look at the history of mRNA, something comes up, & it comes up from another industry which is not even the pharmaceutical industry..but I want you to look at this history yourself, who the main players were, where their funding was coming from..
Because what you will find out is that this drive for mRNA technology, now pushed in vaccines, which is not shared by the Russians, so not an inevitability, does not come from the healthcare industry, but from somewhere else entirely.
And only when we are all clear about that, we can all look with the due & required scepticism at any claim that the driver of mRNA technology in these vx has anything at all to do with the public's health, & all to do with mass experimentation for entirely different purposes..
Look here 👀🔍
Then here: 👀🔍🔍
"The Gene Drive Files consist of records recently released in response to US and Canadian open records requests. The bulk of the files are from North Carolina State University"
Let's close the circle now, staying in the University of North Carolina. Remember this?
The lead authors are from here:
GENEFILES: "The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) appears to have given approximately $100 million for gene drive research, $35 million more than previously reported. If  confirmed this makes DARPA the largest single funder of gene drive research on the planet"
"DARPA, The Defense Research Advanced Projects Agency, was behind the creation of DNA & RNA vaccines, funding early R&D by Moderna Inc. & Inovio Pharmaceuticals at a time when the technologies were considered speculative by many scientists and investors."
"The military R&D agency believed nucleic acid-base vaccines could be developed much faster than conventional technologies. Its funding, project management and vote of confidence helped de-risk the science and attract investments and partnerships." WHY, WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM?
GENE DRIVE FILES: "Recent experiments are fitting mice with “daughterless” gene drives that will cascade through mouse populations so that only male pups are born, ensuring that the population becomes extinct after a few generations."
ABC Fertility Report: ‘Men May Want to Consider Freezing Sperm’ Before COVID Vaccine https://t.co/CFyN7Xqepu

More from Robin Monotti

The problem with meta-analysis like this is that it obfuscates the most important issue of treatment, which is timing.

This meta-analysis of controlled trials only looks at hospitalized patients. How long were the patients ill for before being hospitalized? One week? Two? Three? Too late for zinc ionophores (HCQ) (+ZINC? No zinc no point..) to work. Severe illness becomes bacterial in nature.

Was azythromycin administered when the bacterial infections were also too advanced? I have seen Azythromycin work with my very own eyes but that's not to say that if administered too late it may not save the patient. How many patients were given AZT & ventilated? It's all timing.

All the meta-analysis is telling us is if you leave it too late you may have missed the early window for antiviral zinc treatment (Zn+HCQ) & that if you are given AZT when you are ventilated or very severe it may too late for it to save you & corticosteroids may be last resort.

And of course antibiotics need also probiotics, or they may harm the bacterial flora which is part of the immune response. Difficult to tell from a meta-analysis how this problem was managed.

More from Culture

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".

The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?