A DAY or two ago we received an unsigned notification from the central offices of the NHS. Not from our GP, please note: from the monolith itself.
It was aimed at people identified by ‘health experts’ as suffering from health conditions ‘agreed by UK chief medical officers’ to put them ‘at more risk from coronavirus’: and the bureaucracy, presumably in full possession of our personal medical information, had decided that we might, indeed, be ‘suitable for treatments’ should we succumb.
The letter went on to lay out instructions which would facilitate speedy access to the prescribed treatments:
1. We should keep lateral flow tests at home. A pack of these would be arriving on our doorstep ‘within the next two weeks’, courtesy of ‘the Government’.
2. We should test ourselves if we have coronavirus symptoms, however mild. If we test negative and symptoms persist, we should try again on the following two days, in hope of achieving a positive result. Results must be reported to the central office.
3. If we test positive, the NHS will contact us about treatments.
My first thought was that there must be an awful lot of redundant lateral flow tests lying around in government depots, waiting for their existence to be justified. Or perhaps those who had made profitable investments during ‘the pandemic’ were reluctant, as yet, to kill off one of the geese which had been laying such gloriously golden eggs.
Then I began to wonder exactly what treatments we vulnerable people were being offered.
I could find none specified on the online page we were referred to for ‘more information’. Further investigation led me to a different page, where the specific treatments used by the NHS to combat The Virus are listed. They are:
· nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (Pavloxid)
· remdesivir (Veklury)
· molnupiravir (Lagevrio)
· sotrovimab (Xevudy)
I had read all about remdesivir, in particular its association with kidney failure, in Robert F Kennedy Jr’s book The Real Anthony Fauci (key passages can be found here) and also in his interview with Sally Beck where he said: ‘He (Fauci) had remdesivir in a study in Africa to see if it worked against Ebola. In 2019, the Data and Safety Monitoring Review Board (DSMB) monitored his work. Two months later, the board was saying it’s not safe, it’s killing people. It’s produced by the pharmaceutical company Gilead which Bill Gates has a huge stake in. Coronavirus does not kill 50 per cent of people who get it whereas trials show that over 50 per cent of people treated with remdesivir died.’
How about the other drugs specified, I wondered?
All are outrageously expensive, and do not appear to have been that long on the market.
Pavloxid’s side effects are listed as ‘changes in taste, diarrhoea, high blood pressure or muscle pain’. Then there’s the curious condition of Pavloxid ‘rebound’ President Biden was not so long ago described as suffering. Even the US Food and Drug Administration has warned against it as a follow-up treatment.
I don’t think I’d be too happy accepting them, unless there really was no alternative. But there is an alternative. There is ivermectin, which was used with such outstanding success in the Indian province of Uttar Pradesh, both as a successful treatment and a preventive, as clearly explained by Dr Tess Lawrie.
So why, instead of endless fear and testing, followed by outrageously costly medications which may possibly ‘supercharge new viral variants’, or lead to cancerous tumours, or ‘birth defects in the unborn’ (Lagevrio), or to rebound infections (Pavloxid), or to organ failure (Veklury), are those among the vulnerable who still live in fear not being offered the reassurance of prophylactic treatment with ivermectin, a drug with a long-term safety pedigree and a low price tag? The scandalous answer to why the perverse ban on this treatment persists in the UK can be found here and here on TCW. There was deliberate and orchestrated misinformation in order to suppress a cheap and safe drug. Though it would obviate the distress and uncertainty of testing every sniffle, while putting much less strain on the finances of the impoverished NHS, it is denied us. Its harmlessness and efficacy in both treating and preventing not only Covid, but influenza and the common cold (both of which, I suspect, may have played an important part in notching up positive test results during ‘the pandemic’) is proven, which ismore than can be said for any of the novel concoctions, whether dignified with the title of drug or vaccine, which are being pumped into countless bodies without the guarantee of any long-term safety record.
Apart from the expense and wastefulness of endless testing, and the dangers posed by drugs such as remdesivir (against which a lawsuit has now been filed), letters like the one we received, arriving out of the blue from an impersonal central authority, can only contribute to maintaining the impression among some sections of the population that Covid still rages untamed through the land, seeking whom it may devour.
Isn’t it time for the medical establishment to recognise and publicise the fact that cheap and successful treatments, and even preventives, are, and have long been, available to disarm what has now revealed itself to be a highly treatable disease? It might then be possible for the NHS to focus more intently on the pressing needs of those suffering, as a direct result of the government’s campaign of terror and coercion, from the injuries inflicted by expensive and inadequately tested ‘vaccines’.