Val Legler

Journaling Covid evolution of treatments, Drs with integrity and observational/statistical science versus $cience. Anti-mRNA, LNP & samRNA products

[Val Legler @ValLegler]

@JeanRees10 @akheriaty Include from 1st jab to 2 weeks post 2nd jab for CDC designation of VAX’d

1st JAB ⤵️
3 weeks ⤵️
2nd JAB ⤵️
2 weeks ⤵️
_______
5 weeks ➡️ CDC VAX’d

Most VAE occur within 14 days post either jab…Grossly inflating stats of “UNVAX’d” VAEs, hospitalizations & deaths!

Pharma! 🤬

[Senator Ron Johnson @SenRonJohnson]

The NIH started diagnosing and treating COVID injection injuries in March 2021. They quickly learned that early intervention and treatment were essential.

Yet they withheld publication of their study until July 2022 — and only under pressure from the injection-injured.

How many people were denied effective treatment because of the NIH/FDA cover-up?

[Nicolas Hulscher, MPH @NicHulscher]

STUDY FINDS 3,625 HIGH-CONTAINMENT BIOLABS WORLDWIDE — 73% HIDE THEIR LOCATIONS AND PATHOGEN ACTIVITIES

Over 309 CONFIRMED lab leaks have occurred since 2001.

State-sponsored bioterrorism must be SHUT DOWN — and all modified pathogens housed in biolabs should be DESTROYED.

[Val Legler @ValLegler]

@EthicalSkeptic

[Nicolas Hulscher, MPH @NicHulscher]

BREAKING: CDC AWARDS PFIZER $1.24 BILLION FOR INFANT & ADULT COVID-19 mRNA INJECTIONS

$736 MILLION for pediatric shots.
$505 MILLION for adult shots.

Our public health agencies are DOUBLING DOWN after getting caught COVERING-UP 25 major safety signals including SUDDEN DEATH.

[Kevin W. McCairn PhD @KevinMcCairnPhD]

Houston, we have a problem.

Amyloidogenic Fibrin Microclotting Following Prenatal mRNA Vaccination Exposure

Latest sub-stack article documenting the following:

1. Correlated mRNA administered premature birth (DOA).
2. Complex immune dysregulation/cardiac irregularities
3. Severe amyloidogenic fibrillar forms post 3 years exposure.

https://t.co/qpT51fiaie

@Kevin_McKernan @Jikkyleaks @JesslovesMJK @NaomiWolf @r_hirschman @CharlesRixey @RFKJr_Official @ChildrensHD @VigilantFox

[Secretary Kennedy @SecKennedy]

Sheryl. Your article exemplifies the biased reporting we have come to expect from you and @nytimes. It was unfair, inimical, and inaccurate. All one needs to refute your argument is to glance at my publicly available calendar and to review my unprecedented list of accomplishments on a wide range of issues, all of which I drove. You evidently never undertook these foundational due diligences. Why let facts obscure a good story?

You fault me for missing a couple of monthly counselor meetings. However, I meet one-on-one with my counselors every day to decide policy and strategy. We schedule the monthly meetings to give the divisions a chance to keep each other informed about HHS-wide policies with which I’m already intimately familiar. Had you read my calendar, you would have seen that I have back-to-back meetings all day, every day, with both career and political staff, with my counselors and with outside stakeholders, interspersed with press conferences and other policy announcements.

I am knowledgeable and active on every issue in every division of my department, and I always make the final decisions. I meet with the principals at FDA, NIH, CDC, and my senior counselor every morning, something, I’m told, is unprecedented in HHS history. I try to get out of the office between 4:30 and 6:00 PM, so that I can spend three hours, in quiet, responding to emails. I normally work until 11 PM every night, mostly on phone calls to staff.

In order to prove your preconceived case for my disengagement, you quote anonymous employees, some of whom I fired or who quit to avoid being fired. You also deceptively quote HHS employees without identifying whether they were among those I fired, thereby depriving your readers of the opportunity to make an independent judgment about their credibility.

I came into this job to change the culture of a broken agency that has presided over the worst decline in public health in American history. Of course I fired people—lots of them! It's an easy task for even the laziest journalist, to comb that flotsam and jetsam for malevolence toward the Trump administration. And of course, this species of journalist will always be able to find disgruntled individuals among the 70,000 employees of the Department from whom to cherry pick "facts" to flesh out a preordained hit piece. All that is required for this brand of journalism is the ethical elasticity that you seem to have in spades. You had a preconceived thesis, and you set out to prove it. This is a widely accepted technique in journalism today, but I grew up in an era when it would not have been tolerated by the New York Times.

Ultimately, God puts us all on this earth to search for existential truths. I've tried to instill this mission at HHS by implementing gold standard research to end the regime of politicized science that COVID exposed to the American public. There was a time that journalists were proud to be the fearless and uncompromising champions of truth. Standards have devolved, and journalism is dead. The Times now employs propagandists. Your capitulation to partisanship further compounds your journalistic challenges; since we all are aware of your predictable bias, we at HHS are unwilling to talk to you about the topics that are important. The fact that you have minimal access to decision makers leaves you covering trivia and relying on your own capacity for invention.

Btw. When I took this job, the building was empty. About 90% of the employees were not coming to work. I changed that, but your newspaper never covers my reforms. Nor did you cover the fact that my predecessor almost never showed up for work here during his four years in office. When we came in, there were still artifacts from the first Trump administration in many of our office drawers because no one showed up for work during the Biden years. Just as Rochelle Walensky spent her entire term as CDC Director in Cambridge, Xavier Becerra reportedly spent most of his term as HHS Secretary in California. (I live in California, but I’ve only been there once in fifteen months).

His only notable accomplishments here were losing 300,000 children, referred to HHS for custody and care, to human traffickers and drug runners, encouraging transgender surgeries, and disabling the entire program-integrity apparatus, allowing hundreds of billions of dollars of theft from my agency. I have set out to find the children Becerra lost. He is now the front-runner for the governor of California. These are not invented stories; they are genuine scandals that the Times will never cover, presumably, because the malefactors are Democrats.

Finally, you criticize me for spending time with the Indian tribes in Alaska. I consider that part of my job. I run the Indian Health Services, and I’ve had unprecedented success in transforming IHS from a backwater to a top priority for this department. I’ve made more trips to Indian country and to Indian health clinics and hospitals than any HHS secretary in history, and I’ve brought Indians into high positions on the sixth floor for the first time in agency history. This is another success story that the Times will never cover.

[NOBUNAGA🇯🇵🏯_夏樹蒼依 @japan_nobunaga]

As a Japanese watching the UK right now, I have one simple question.

A Sudanese asylum seeker just tried to behead a local man in Belfast. The victim lost an eye.

This comes after years of grooming gangs raping thousands of British girls — gangs that police and councils deliberately ignored because they were afraid of being called racist.

In Japan, even one case like this would have triggered national outrage and immediate policy reversal.

But in Britain, the conversation is still about “not being far-right.”

British people, at what point does protecting your own children become more important than protecting your reputation?

We genuinely do not understand this.

[Val Legler @ValLegler]

@Ondrackula @thejoyfulfarm @grok @MidwesternDoc That’s sad… Dr. Tess Lawrie is the one who earned my trust.

[Val Legler @ValLegler]

@MidwesternDoc @grok YES!!! 👍

[Val Legler @ValLegler]

I haven’t studied a lot of their reviews, so cannot really answer your question. For what they choose to include in their reviews, it appears objectivity and truth are their primary parameters. I would trust their methodology over that of the FDA or CDC due to their distortion of the truth to benefit pharmaceutical companies, which I have witnessed repeatedly.

[sabine hazan md @SabinehazanMD]

One of the most important interview by dr Dalgleish during @SenRonJohnson hearing. The lies of the pandemic exposed. mRNA vaccines were never true vaccines.

[Val Legler @ValLegler]

@lawrie_dr
@RWMaloneMD
@PierreKory
@P_McCulloughMD
@SabinehazanMD

Interesting answer from Grok regarding Grok’s scope of reference input…👇

[Val Legler @ValLegler]

@MidwesternDoc @grok in view of manipulated clinical trials, regulatory agencies, and medical journals, do you think your learning curve and objectivity are skewed to embody a large proportion of inaccurate information?

[Val Legler @ValLegler]

@grok @MidwesternDoc So when posting a response to a medical therapeutic or study, do you routinely evaluate Cochrane findings since their format is objectivity when evaluating medical studies? In particular off patent use of FDA approved therapeutics?

[Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH® @P_McCulloughMD]

The McCullough Protocol™ filled the most critical gap in pandemic response early in 2020. By 2022 The Wellness Company was formed. Six years later, there are still no institutional, ambulatory protocols. They assumed vaccination would end the pandemic. https://t.co/Nx6KLmth15

[Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH® @P_McCulloughMD]

Every acutely ill, high risk COVID-19 case after November 2020, should have received a monoclonal antibody infusion as part of their multidrug treatment protocol. See Kip et al. https://t.co/9msG5Fy9F7

[･ Ice ･  Ⅹ ･ @IceXTruths]

O que ocorreu na audiência conduzida pelo senador Ron Johnson foi muito além de um debate sobre vacinas. O que se viu foi uma sucessão de depoimentos de médicos, oncologistas, pesquisadores e cientistas afirmando que existem sinais biológicos, observações clínicas e mecanismos plausíveis que, segundo eles, justificam uma investigação profunda sobre possíveis relações entre as injeções de mRNA contra a Covid-19 e o aumento de determinados tipos de câncer, além de uma discussão sobre a supressão de pesquisas consideradas inconvenientes.

O oncologista Dr. Angus Dalgleish relatou que começou a observar algo incomum em sua prática clínica. Pacientes com melanoma que permaneciam estáveis por anos, alguns deles há mais de uma década, passaram a apresentar recaídas pouco tempo após doses de reforço. Segundo seu depoimento, o padrão chamou atenção porque esses tumores eram normalmente controlados pelo sistema imunológico, especialmente pelas células T. Ele afirmou que estudos posteriores mostraram sinais de exaustão dessas células e uma mudança no perfil imunológico dos pacientes, transformando uma resposta agressiva contra tumores em uma resposta mais tolerante. Para Dalgleish, isso poderia ajudar a explicar o aparecimento de cânceres mais agressivos e de progressão acelerada observados por ele e outros colegas.

O pesquisador Dr. Wafik El-Deiry concentrou sua apresentação em um dos mais importantes mecanismos de proteção contra o câncer existentes no corpo humano: o gene supressor tumoral p53. Segundo ele, pesquisas conduzidas por sua equipe indicaram que a proteína spike associada à infecção ou produzida após a vacinação poderia interferir em mecanismos ligados ao p53, reduzindo sua capacidade de ativar genes responsáveis pela defesa natural contra tumores. El-Deiry declarou ainda ter identificado dezenas de artigos científicos descrevendo centenas de casos de câncer relatados após uma ou mais doses de vacinas de mRNA em diversos países. Entre os casos citados estavam tumores desenvolvidos próximos ao local da injeção, tumores cerebrais, linfomas e outras malignidades nas quais pesquisadores encontraram proteína spike presente no tecido tumoral analisado.

Outro ponto recorrente na audiência foi a preocupação com a tecnologia utilizada para entregar o mRNA ao interior das células. Diversos depoentes afirmaram que as nanopartículas lipídicas não permanecem apenas no local da aplicação, mas possuem capacidade de distribuição pelo organismo. Segundo os médicos presentes, o problema não seria apenas o mRNA em si, mas também a possibilidade de contaminantes de DNA presentes no produto entrarem nas células juntamente com esse sistema de entrega. Eles sustentaram que essa combinação deveria ser investigada em profundidade por seus potenciais efeitos de longo prazo.

O debate também abordou o conceito de biodistribuição. Alguns depoentes afirmaram que a narrativa inicial de que o material permaneceria localizado no músculo do braço não corresponde ao que estudos posteriores demonstraram. Segundo os médicos presentes, a tecnologia utilizada foi projetada justamente para penetrar células e atravessar barreiras biológicas, o que levantaria questionamentos sobre seus efeitos em diferentes órgãos e tecidos ao longo do tempo.

A Dra. Saskia Mostert apresentou outro aspecto da discussão. Seu foco foi o excesso de mortalidade observado em dezenas de países ocidentais após a pandemia. Ela afirmou que sua equipe analisou registros oficiais de mortalidade e identificou milhões de mortes acima do esperado mesmo após o período mais crítico da Covid-19. Segundo seu depoimento, o estudo não atribuiu uma causa definitiva para esse fenômeno, mas destacou três fatores que deveriam ser investigados simultaneamente: a própria infecção pelo coronavírus, as medidas de contenção adotadas pelos governos e as campanhas de vacinação em massa. Mostert afirmou que, ao invés de um debate científico aberto sobre os resultados encontrados, ela e seus colegas enfrentaram campanhas de descredibilização, investigações institucionais e pressões para retratação.

A Dra. Sabine Hazan trouxe à audiência sua experiência na pesquisa do microbioma humano. Segundo seu relato, o microbioma intestinal exerce papel central no funcionamento do sistema imunológico. Ela afirmou que observou alterações importantes em bactérias consideradas benéficas após infecção por Covid e também após vacinação. Em seu depoimento, defendeu que essas alterações merecem investigação mais profunda porque poderiam influenciar processos inflamatórios, imunológicos e possivelmente até oncológicos. Hazan declarou ainda que diversos trabalhos de sua equipe enfrentaram dificuldades para publicação ou sofreram tentativas de retirada após divulgarem resultados considerados sensíveis.

Outro tema dominante da audiência foi a alegação de interferência institucional na produção científica. Diversos depoentes afirmaram que pesquisadores que questionam aspectos da narrativa oficial enfrentam ataques coordenados, denúncias anônimas, campanhas de reputação e dificuldades para publicar estudos. O caso mais detalhado foi o de El-Deiry, que descreveu anos de questionamentos públicos, ataques em plataformas científicas e tentativas de desacreditar pesquisas sem que fossem demonstradas fraudes ou manipulações dos dados apresentados.

O senador Ron Johnson utilizou parte da audiência para discutir o funcionamento dos sistemas de monitoramento de segurança das vacinas. Segundo sua exposição, especialistas da FDA teriam alertado internamente sobre limitações em algoritmos utilizados para detectar sinais de eventos adversos graves. Johnson afirmou que diversos sinais relacionados a mortes súbitas, problemas cardiovasculares e outras ocorrências relevantes teriam sido identificados internamente, mas não comunicados ao público da forma que ele considera adequada.

Ao longo de toda a sessão, uma ideia apareceu repetidamente nos depoimentos: a de que existem observações clínicas, mecanismos biológicos plausíveis, estudos de caso, sinais laboratoriais e padrões epidemiológicos que justificariam investigações muito mais amplas do que aquelas realizadas até o momento. Os médicos presentes sustentaram que essas questões não foram suficientemente exploradas e que a discussão científica teria sido substituída por pressão institucional, ataques à reputação de pesquisadores e resistência à análise de hipóteses consideradas inconvenientes.

O resultado da audiência foi a apresentação de um conjunto de questionamentos que, segundo os depoentes, permanecem sem resposta definitiva. Entre eles estão possíveis efeitos das nanopartículas lipídicas, interferência em mecanismos supressores de tumor, alterações imunológicas de longo prazo, presença de proteína spike em tecidos tumorais, excesso de mortalidade persistente e o tratamento dado a cientistas que investigam essas questões.

[Camus @newstart_2024]

“We’re diagnosing boys with ADHD for acting like boys.”

Erica Komisar said this on Steven Bartlett’s Diary of a CEO. Little boys have a huge testosterone surge between ages 3–6. They need to run, jump, wrestle, and move constantly. Instead, we put them in classrooms that reward sitting still, regulating emotions, and being quiet — behaviors that come more naturally to girls. When they can’t, we label them as disordered.

Boys’ schools get this — they do short lessons then let the kids run around multiple times a day. Regular schools don’t.

It feels like we’ve built an education system that works better for one type of kid and then act surprised when the other type struggles or gets medicated.

These early labels follow boys for years and can damage their confidence and self-image long-term. We’re not letting boys be boys.

Do you think our school system is unfairly set up against how boys naturally learn and behave?

[Dr. Heidi Klessig @heidiklessigmd]

Doctors want to perform a brain death exam on Annelise Camp. Part of this exam is the apnea test, in which Annelise will be disconnected from her ventilator for ten minutes or more and observed for spontaneous breathing.

The apnea test, part of the American Academy of Neurology’s (AAN) brain death examination, can increase brain damage and entails significant risks.

The apnea test is unverified, and even the AAN Guideline states that there is a lack of scientific evidence to support the recommended parameters of the apnea test.

In describing the parameters for the apnea test, the Guideline states: “Selection of targets for this challenge is arbitrary because no scientific data demonstrate specific PaCO2 above which medullary chemoreceptors would prompt respiration if they were functional.”

Dr. Alan Shewmon has published multiple cases of patients who failed to breathe during their apnea tests, but then began breathing after their support was withdrawn. Thus, the apnea test does not reliably achieve its goals.

In addition to being scientifically unverified, the apnea test is risky for a patient not yet known to be brain dead.

The Guideline lists the following risks of the apnea test: hypoxemia, hypotension, arrhythmias, pneumothorax, and hemodynamic compromise with cardiovascular collapse requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

These types of complications are extremely detrimental for a neurologically injured patient with tenuous cerebral blood flow, and can cause further brain damage.

Incredibly, despite these risks, the Guideline states, “clinicians do not need to obtain informed consent,” for the apnea test except as required by local jurisdictions.

The apnea test has no benefit for the patient, does not accomplish its purpose, and can only cause harm —including brain damage and death. No patient with a neurological injury should have to undergo this unethical test.