Renewing my retirement extension at Jomtien.
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
-
Latest posts...
-
0
Big Pharma and the Media are at it again - Pushing faulty tests and harmful drugs
Big Pharma and the Media are at it again. Pushing faulty tests and harmful drugs. Source: https://ianbrighthope.substack.com/p/big-pharma-and-the-media-are-at-it = = = > Articles in the media are surfacing that serve as a thinly veiled pharmaceutical propaganda pieces, peddling fear and misinformation under the guise of public health guidance. Their core premise—urging individuals to "know" their risk for severe COVID-19 and "act quickly" with a plan—rests on a foundation of scientifically dubious practices and profiteering motives that have plagued the COVID-19 response from the outset. Specifically, the reliance on PCR tests with their notorious false positive rates and the aggressive promotion of toxic, overpriced antivirals like remdesivir represent a scandalous betrayal of public trust, prioritising corporate gain over human lives. I want to dismantle these practices with an unapologetic clarity, exposing their flaws and the harm they’ve inflicted. First, let’s address the PCR test debacle, which has been the linchpin of the COVID-19 "case" narrative. The articles implicitly endorse the use of PCR tests to identify COVID-19 cases, a methodology that has been thoroughly discredited by independent scientists and critical analysts. PCR tests, when run at high cycle thresholds (Ct values often exceeding 35 or even 40), amplify genetic material to the point of absurdity, detecting minute fragments of viral RNA that are often non-infectious or even unrelated to SARS-CoV-2. A 2020 study published in The BMJ highlighted that RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 were not validated against a gold standard, with design flaws leading to non-specific amplification and rampant false positives. The Swiss Institute of Microbiology noted these tests’ propensity for erroneous results, yet they were weaponised to inflate case numbers, creating a phantom pandemic of "asymptomatic" carriers. Posts on X have echoed this, with users citing false positive rates as high as 95-99% due to the inability to isolate the virus itself, rendering the entire testing regime a fraudulent exercise in fearmongering. This misuse of PCR tests had catastrophic consequences. By labelling healthy individuals as "positive" based on meaningless results, hospitals and governments justified draconian measures—lockdowns, forced quarantines, and unnecessary medical interventions—while funnelling billions into testing industries. These article’s call to "act quickly" upon a positive test ignores this context, perpetuating the myth that a PCR result equates to a genuine health threat. It’s not just misleading; it’s a deliberate obfuscation of the test’s limitations, designed to keep the public in a state of perpetual panic and compliance. Now, let’s turn to the insidious push for antivirals, which reeks of pharmaceutical collusion. The recommendation to "act quickly" with a plan likely points to drugs like remdesivir, a toxic and exorbitantly priced antiviral that has become a poster child for COVID-19 profiteering. Remdesivir’s track record is a horror story: during Ebola trials, it was known to cause organ damage, particularly to kidneys and livers, yet it was fast-tracked for COVID-19 under Emergency Use Authorization by figures like Anthony Fauci, despite its dismal efficacy. X posts have detailed how remdesivir’s use in hospitals was linked to worsened outcomes, with patients placed on ventilators and dosed with this drug suffering higher mortality rates. The drug’s cost—often thousands of dollars per course—stands in stark contrast to cheaper, safer alternatives like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and zinc which were vilified or suppressed to protect remdesivir’s market share. These articles fail to question these antivirals or acknowledge their risks are not just journalistic negligence; it’s complicity in a system that monetised suffering. By urging readers to seek treatment for "high-risk" conditions without scrutinizing the drugs involved, the article becomes a mouthpiece for Big Pharma, steering vulnerable people toward interventions that may harm rather than heal. The financial incentives are glaring: hospitals received bonuses for COVID-19 diagnoses and remdesivir use, a fact highlighted in X discussions about the Fauci hearings. This created a perverse cycle where false positive PCR tests fed patients into a pipeline of toxic treatments, enriching pharmaceutical giants while patients paid the ultimate price. The broader implications are chilling. The article’s fear-driven narrative—know your risk, act fast—relies on a distorted reality where flawed diagnostics and dangerous drugs are presented as salvation. It sidesteps the inconvenient truth that early treatment protocols, natural immunity, and basic supportive care (like vitamin D, vitamin C and zinc) were often more effective and far less harmful. By omitting these alternatives, these articles perpetuate a one-size-fits-all medical tyranny, stripping individuals of informed choice and critical thinking. The slick presentations and authoritative tone mask the role as a cog in a machine that has eroded trust in science and medicine. In conclusion, the articles are a damning indictment of the industry, embodying the worst excesses of the COVID-19 era. Uncritical endorsement of false positive PCR tests and toxic antivirals like remdesivir reveal a reckless disregard for truth and human welfare. These practices didn’t just mislead; they fuelled a global hysteria, bankrupted economies, and cost countless lives under the pretence of public health. The articles failure to question the establishment narrative makes it not just misleading but morally bankrupt, a shameful artifact of a time when fear and greed trumped reason. The public deserves better—they deserve the truth, unfiltered and unapologetic. Ian Brighthope -
47
UK Britain is poised to lose a record 16,500 millionaires in 2025
You know who - immigrants, some being rapists, terrorists, religious extremists and criminals. What could possibly go wrong. -
58
Crime Immigration Police Bust Swedish Fraudster in Pattaya Condo Raid
10.1 Billion........ welcome to the big leagues.......... No wonder she needed 2 bodyguards. 🤣 -
45
Do You Feel Irrelevant? Why Some Older Members Just Can’t Help Themselves
I had a wife like that . She too was compelled to point out every flaw and that started right after we were married so I used to call her horse because all she used to do is nag nag nag. -
24
American Stock Market CRASH!!! Housing Market CRASH!!! When?
Stocks go up and down. I followed my Dad's stock portfolio through its ups and downs. When he died in 2009, his portfolio was worth about $600,000. It was in a family trust and no stocks were bought or sold after he died; the portfolio was just maintained and the dividends helped support my Mom's nursing home care. When my Mom died the portfolio was split among the 6 children. It had taken a big drop when covid hit but by the time probate was done it had recovered and it was worth about $1,800,000. Had the portfolio not been split up, it would be worth $2,353,000 today. So, through ups and downs, but mostly ups, the portfolio went from $600,000 to $2.3 million. It's the same with real estate. The last condo I owned in the US, I bought in 2009, during one of the big real estate downturns. It was a foreclosure and I paid $170,000, patting myself on the back for what a bargain I had bought, as the previous owner had paid $292,000. Hold the back patting, as the condo continued to lose value, dropping down to around $160,000. I moved to Thailand in 2010 and rented the condo out until 2012, when I wanted to buy some more property in Thailand and I sold the condo. By 2012 the value had recovered some and I sold it for $176,000. Not much of a profit but I didn't lose any money and I had rental income of $1,500 a month for several years. Zillow tells me that it is worth $277,000 today. Not back to its all-time high, but getting there. Ups and downs for both stocks and real estate, but, long-term, an upward projectory. -
14
Crime Bomb Scare at Phuket Airport as Suspect Device Found in Motorcycle
This was a controlled detention, not a controlled explosion. Both terms are used in the context of bomb disposal, but they refer to very different procedures carried out by Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) teams: Controlled Detention- A non-destructive procedure used to temporarily contain or stabilise a suspicious item, so it can be examined or dealt with safely. Controlled Explosion - A deliberate blast of a suspicious item in a safe and controlled manner.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now