NIH Medical Journal Article Shatters Mainstream Covid Narratives

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock recently authored an article that was published to the journal of Surgical Neurology International that absolutely dismantles the mainstream narrative about nearly every single covid-19 policy and treatment. He also brings up some really big questions that haven't been asked, and are avoided by the mainstream media like the plague. To start off with, big pharma and the government like to label everyone as a conspiracy theorist that disagrees with the covid narrative the doctor addresses that point here:

I have met and worked with a number of people concerned with vaccine safety and I can tell you they are not the evil anti-vaxxers you are told they are. They are highly principled, moral, compassionate people, many of which are top researchers and people who have studied the issue extensively. Robert Kennedy, Jr, Barbara Lou Fisher, Dr. Meryl Nass, Professor Christopher Shaw, Megan Redshaw, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Neil Z. Miller, Dr. Lucija Tomjinovic, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough just to name a few. These people have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. They are attacked viciously by the media, government agencies, and elite billionaires who think they should control the world and everyone in it.

DANGERS OF THE VACCINES ARE INCREASINGLY REVEALED BY SCIENCE

One of the key examples of the dangers mRNA vaccines was a participant named Maddie De Gray who was paralyzed is wheel chair bound with a feeding tube and completely ignored by big pharma and the media. She was removed from the Pfizer trial with the notation of having "stomach issues."

As an example of the deception by Pfizer, and the other makers of mRNA vaccines, is the case of 12-year-old Maddie de Garay, who participated in the Pfizer vaccine pre-release safety study. At Sen. Johnson’s presentation with the families of the vaccine injured, her mother told of her child’s recurrent seizures, that she is now confined to a wheelchair, must be tube fed and suffers permanent brain damage. On the Pfizer safety evaluation submitted to the FDA her only side effect is listed as having a “stomachache”. Each person submitted similar horrifying stories.

The doctor also points out the extreme risk of the mRNA vaccines causing cancer or allowing for a potential relapse for those who are in remission.

Cancer patients are being told they should get vaccinated with these deadly vaccines. This, in my opinion, is insane. Newer studies have shown that this type of vaccine inserts the spike protein within the nucleus of the immune cells (and most likely many cell types) and once there,inhibits two very important DNA repair enzymes, BRCA1 and 53BP1, whose duty it is to repair damage to the cell’s DNA.[29] Unrepaired DNA damage plays a major role in cancer.

The fox is guarding the hen house when it comes to studies showing vaccine efficacy and safety.

Previous experience with the flu vaccines clearly demonstrates that the safety studies done by researchers and clinical doctors with ties to pharmaceutical companies were essentially all either poorly done or purposefully designed to falsely show safety and coverup side effects and complications. This was dramatically demonstrated with the previously mentioned phony studies designed to indicate that hydroxy Chloroquine and Ivermectin were ineffective and too dangerous to use.[34,36,37] These fake studies resulted in millions of deaths and severe health disasters worldwide. As stated, 80% of all deaths were unnecessary and could have been prevented with inexpensive, safe repurposed medications with a very long safety history among millions who have taken them for decades or even a lifetime.[43,44]

He goes on to show the government apartheid and takeover of public health, including the unprecedented attack against doctors like Peter McCullough who is the number one published doctor in the field of cardiology.

For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators.[23,38]

He addresses the attempt to use fact checkers to "debunk" doctors or studies that don't follow the narrative.

The designers of this pandemic anticipated a pushback by the public and that major embarrassing questions would be asked. To prevent this, the controllers fed the media a number of tactics, one of the most commonly used was and is the “fact check” scam. With each confrontation with carefully documented evidence, the media “fact checkers” countered with the charge of “misinformation”, and an unfounded “conspiracy theory” charge that was, in their lexicon, “debunked”. Never were we told who the fact checkers were or the source of their “debunking” information—we were just to believe the “fact checkers”. A recent court case established under oath that facebook “fact checkers” used their own staff opinion and not real experts to check “facts”.[59] When sources are in fact revealed they are invariably the corrupt CDC, WHO or Anthony Fauci or just their opinion.

Has scientific evidence, carefully done studies, clinical experience and medical logic had any effect on stopping these ineffective and dangerous vaccines? Absolutely not! The draconian efforts to vaccinate everyone on the planet continues (except the elite, postal workers, members of Congress and other insiders)

WHY DID FAUCI WANT NO AUTOPSIES OF THOSE WHO DIED AFTER VACCINATION?


One of the big questions no one wants to ask or answer: why no autopsies? This would help prove who was really dying from coronavirus and who wasn't. You know, died FROM versus died WITH?

There are many things about this “pandemic” that are unprecedented in medical history. One of the most startling is that at the height of the pandemic so few autopsies, especially total autopsies, were being done. A mysterious virus was rapidly spreading around the world, a selected group of people with weakened immune systems were getting seriously ill and many were dying and the one way we could rapidly gain the most knowledge about this virus—an autopsy, was being discouraged.

There is much much more, but overall it's a comprehensive destruction of the mainstream lies.

SOURCE

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I just posted a thread about this but yours is better and the same source im gonna post your link in my thread

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

This:

It has been estimated, based on results by physicians treating the most covid patients successfully, that of the 800,000 people that we are told died from Covid, 640,000 could have not only been saved, but could have, in many cases, returned to their pre-infection health status had mandated early treatment with these proven methods been used. This neglect of early treatment constitutes mass murder. That means 160,000 would have actually died, far less than the number dying at the hands of bureaucracies, medical associations and medical boards that refused to stand up for their patients. According to studies of early treatment of thousands of patients by brave, caring doctors, seventy-five to eighty percent of the deaths could have been prevented.

Russell Blaylock... once apparently a brilliant neurosurgeon, retired to become a homeopathic snake oil salesman, works for Newsmax, anti-vaxxer, has also written articles about chemtrails.

Next.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Russell Blaylock... once apparently a brilliant neurosurgeon, retired to become a homeopathic snake oil salesman, works for Newsmax, anti-vaxxer, has also written articles about chemtrails.

Next.

The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

"Peer reviewed"?

By whom?

Your link is to an opinion piece.

SInce when are opinion pieces peer reviewed?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Since the OP said so......surely, you'll take their word for it?

No. Neither would anyone with half a brain.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

Is it peer reviewed? A lot of his cited sources are garbage: Natural News, Rumble, America's Frontline doctors, and other opinion pieces he's written. He used himself as a source multiple times, and you consider this credible?

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

Is it peer reviewed? A lot of his cited sources are garbage: Natural News, Rumble, America's Frontline doctors, and other opinion pieces he's written. He used himself as a source multiple times, and you consider this credible?

His 'sources' are a veritable who's who of anti vax crackpots.

Russell Blaylock is a trained neurosurgeon who considers himself an expert on nutrition and toxins in food, cookware, teeth, and vaccines. Contrary to the vast bulk of the scientific evidence, Blaylock maintains that vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine are dangerous or ineffective; that dental amalgams and fluoridated water are harmful to our health; and that aluminum cookware, aspartame, and MSG are toxic substances causing brain damage.1, 2, Ironically, Blaylock perpetuates the myth that science-based medicine is not interested in prevention, despite the fact that immunization, which he opposes, prevents more disease and saves more lives than just about any other medical activity.

Blaylock has retired from neurosurgery and has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials. Blaylock also sells hope to cancer patients by encouraging them to believe he has found the secret to prevention and cure.5

Now, who would benefit most from destroying his reputation? That MO seems to be if you can't refute the evidence with facts, destroy the messengers' credibility.

Not everybody thinks filling our bodies with artificial chemistry and GMO frankenfood is going to be without consequences. We have bastardized nature with our quest to perfect what is already perfect, and are now in direct conflict with the natural order of our planet.

skepdic.com...

originally posted by: nugget1
skepdic.com...

That was written 7 years ago.

a reply to: nugget1

Lovely. But it isn't "peer reviewed" as the OP dishonestly claimed, is it?

Simple point.

Will the OP perhaps explain?

It is wise to consider sources and references. However, it is just as stupid to blindly dismiss information as it is to blindly accept it based solely on the relevance or credibility of other sources.

Even the National Inquirer told the truth once in a while...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

So what's wrong with calling out the OP for making claims that are obviously untrue?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Nothing, if they are untrue. The article states that as much as 75-80% of deaths could have been prevented with early treatment protocols.

Prove its not true....

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Nothing, if they are untrue. The article states that as much as 75-80% of deaths could have been prevented with early treatment protocols.

Prove its not true....

You do understand that not how this works don't you?

Those making the claim need to prove its true, not others prove it isn't.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

It doesn't work like that.

"Prove it's not true", are you serious?

You prove the article was peer reviewed, not my claim, it's the OP's claim.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0
Surgical Neurology International has this article in the editorial section. It isn't peer reviewed but an opinion piece.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: v1rtu0s0
Surgical Neurology International has this article in the editorial section. It isn't peer reviewed but an opinion piece.

Thanks, I don't mind making a correction. It doesn't change anything about the content. Although my edit window has exceeded 4 hours.