Larry Laffer

[Robert W Malone, MD @RWMaloneMD]

Four years ago I wrote about recovering from cardiovascular injury after COVID infection and vaccination. The question readers kept asking was simple: "What can I do to help my body heal?"
Four years later, I am more confident in the answer than when I started.
🧵

[MAZE @mazemoore]

I made a lot of videos about the pandemic. I think this is the best one. It captures the insanity really well.

[Andrew Zywiec, M.D. @AndrewZywiecMD]

No matter where you stand on things, this should not be controversial.

I spent 15 years becoming a doctor. Blue collar white kid, from a lower middle class family, first to graduate college.

Attended Ohio State biology and chemistry, magna cum laude, near perfect GPA, research, publications, tutoring, sports, awards, volunteering, the works. Trained at USC Keck in neuroscience; publications, textbook writing, awards. Medical doctorate at SGU. Cum laude. Senior research award. Commendation medal. Taught for the boards.

And I lost EVERYTHING because I don't believe in forced vaccines and child mutilation. And I stood on conviction vocally, knowing it would end my career.

If you believe this is OK, you're on the wrong side of everything.

[James Woods @RealJamesWoods]

If this maggot gets away with mass murder, Justice is dead in America.

[Dr. Zev Zelenko @zev_dr]

This should’ve been common knowledge worldwide for at least five years.

[Senator Rand Paul @SenRandPaul]

Fmr. NIH Director Francis Collins deliberately scrubbed Fauci’s name from the infamous Proximal Origins paper because of Fauci’s glaring conflict of interest.

Nature Medicine (the publisher) offered no condemnation or scrutiny of the ethics.

These COVID investigations matter because they expose protectionism within the scientific community that breeds gatekeeping. It's suppressing research, stifling innovation, destroying objectivity, & eroding public trust.

[Senator Ron Johnson @SenRonJohnson]

This is a scandal WAY bigger than Watergate.

@CNN, @MSNOWNews, @NBCNews, @ABC, @PBS — it's past time to cover this.

People died from the COVID shot because the government lied to them, yet the legacy media refuses to report on this story.

[War Correspondent @warDaniel47]

🚨New Zealand whistleblower Barry Young: "They RAIDED my home & ARRESTED me for exposing deadly COVID vaccine batches."

Catastrophic death rate PFIZER batches:
🔴 Batch 1: 152 deaths out of 711 vaccinated → 21.4% dead
🔴 Batch 2: 38 deaths out of 221 → 17.2% dead
🔴 Batch 3: 48 deaths out of 310 → 15.5% dead

Normal background death rate in that period? Only 0.75%.

The statistical odds of this happening by chance? Roughly 1 in 100 BILLION.

His direct conclusion: “Statistically, there is no way this vaccine ISN'T killing people.”

Yet instead of launching an investigation… authorities raided his home and arrested him.

[Dr. Marcus De Brun @indepdubnrth]

What people do know is that I have been found GUILTY of undermining public health guidelines during the Pandemic.

What the public DO NOT KNOW is what those guidelines stated. So I will publish them here:

For the treatment of Covid patients in the Community/Nursing Homes settings, Doctors were advised as follows:

1. Do not take the patients blood pressure.

2. Do not listen to their chest (auscultation)

3. Do not prescribe any medication (paracetamol only)

4. Refer to end of life protocols (palliative care/midazolam).

What these guidelines effectively stated is this: Do not examine your patients. Do not touch your patients.
Do not prescribe treatments for your patients -and if they appear to be very unwell- sedate them and allow them to die.

I can only recall one period in human history when human beings were treated in this manner.

[Aaron Siri @AaronSiriSG]

“Looking at the totality of up-to-date evidence and what you've heard from eminent witnesses today, in my view, millions of Americans and millions more across the world may be in clear and present danger of suffering premature cardiovascular disease and cancer.” - @DrAseemMalhotra

[Christine Cotton OFFICIEL @StatChrisCotton]

Nous sommes le 02 juin 2026, quand vous lirez ces lignes j’aurais quitté ce monde.
Pour ceux qui ne me connaissent pas, je m’appelle Christine Cotton, je suis ce qu’on appelle une lanceuse d’alerte. j’ai travaillé 25 ans pour l’industrie pharmaceutique dans la gestion et l’analyse des données cliniques. En tant que biostatisticienne, Depuis décembre 2020, je me suis plongée dans les documents du vaccin covid du laboratoire pfizer. J’ai ecrit de nombreux documents et fait de nombreuses émissions pour partager les vrais résultats. Mes conclusions sont catastrophiques, en plus de la non validité des résultats due à des erreurs voire des fraudes manifestes. Le vaccin pfizer que la population a recu, que vous avez peut-être recu n’est pas celui de l’essai clinique au 95% d’efficacité annoncée par tous les politiques, journalistes et médecins de plateau. On vous a administré un produit pour lequel il n’y avait strictement aucun résultat , ni d’efficacité, ni de tolérance. Ce message n’a pas pour but de faire du sensationnalisme sur les reseaux mais pour vous informer de l’une des plus grosses manipulations que l’humanité aut connu. Toutes les preuves se trouvent dans la derriere version de mon travail que je vous invite a télécharger et a lire. Pour les plus feignants et les tres occupes, les quelques pages de la conclusion et les liens sur les docs sources vous éclaireront déjà beaucoup.
Je suis tombée malade au moment ou j’ai porté plainte contre les autorités de santé. Je souffre depuis plus d’un an de douleurs atroces partant des lombaires jusque dans les jambes, de brulures dans la peau ,essentiellement dans les jambes et le dos. J’ai consulté des médecins généraliste, neurologues, ostéopathe, virologue, dermatologue, rhumatologue, psychiatre , homéopathe… j’ai avalé des milliers de gélules de compléments alimentaires, des anxiolytiques, des neuroleptiques, des antidouleurs prescrits par le centre antidouleur. J’ai meme fait des seances de bioresonnance et vu des magnétiseurs et ce, sans aucun résultat.
Je suis a bout de ce que je peux supporter.

Je demande pardon a ceux qui m’aiment, vous qui me suivez sur les réseaux sociaux depuis 4 ans, mes amis, mes parents et surtout a dieu ou quel que soit sa nature ou son nom de mettre fin a ma vie, moi qui n’aie eu de cesse de la protéger depuis l’enfance , que ce soit la vie végétale, animale ou humain.
Je remercie du fond du coeur ceux qui m’ont soutenue , encouragée et tous ceux qui prient ou ont organisé des groupes de prière. Je vais vous demander de prier encore pour que mon ame soit au plus vite dans la lumière du créateur.

[Today in History @TodayinHistory]

Voltaire passed away today in 1778.

There are two quotes of his I always come back to:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

and

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

[Valerie Anne Smith @ValerieAnne1970]

Dr. Ben Carson urges, "Do NOT allow what was done during COVID to be 'swept under the rug'."

"Dr. Fauci admitted there was no science behind ANY of what he was saying."

"We know the side effects from COVID vaccinations far exceed anything else in the last 30 years combined."

[Larry Laffer @Larry_Laffer_]

RIP

[Kenny Carmody @KennyCarmody]

Arne Burkhardt opened the bodies.

What he found should have stopped everything. Vaccine-derived spike protein in heart tissue.

In blood vessel walls. In brain tissue. In multiple organs across multiple cases. Not in one anomalous death.

Consistently. Repeatedly.

With inflammatory patterns and lymphocytic infiltrates that follow directly from the known mechanism of mRNA vaccination, widespread, systemic spike protein production that the manufacturers and regulators always claimed would stay local and resolve quickly. It did not stay local. It did not resolve quickly.

Burkhardt found it persisting in the deceased, distributed throughout organ systems, accompanied by the exact tissue damage you would predict if you believed Sucharit Bhakdi’s warnings about endothelial cells producing spike protein and triggering immune attack from within.

The mechanism is not complicated once you accept what the biodistribution data already showed.

Lipid nanoparticles do not remain at the injection site. Pfizer’s own Japanese biodistribution study, obtained through freedom of information requests, showed accumulation in the liver, adrenal glands, ovaries, and beyond.

When those nanoparticles reach tissue, cells take up the mRNA, produce spike protein, and display it on their surface. The immune system recognizes it as foreign and attacks. In the heart, that means myocarditis. In vessel walls, that means vascular inflammation. In the brain, that means neurological damage.

Burkhardt’s autopsies are not speculation, they are the physical, histological confirmation of a mechanism that was biologically predictable and institutionally ignored.

In many of these cases, no other plausible cause of death was identified. These were not people with terminal diagnoses or obvious competing explanations. They were people who died in proximity to vaccination, whose deaths were documented, whose tissues were examined by a trained pathologist, and whose organs showed the fingerprints of spike protein-driven inflammation. That is not a coincidence. That is evidence. And health agencies have responded to that evidence by downplaying it, dismissing Burkhardt’s methodology, discouraging thorough post-mortem investigation, and refusing any systematic, government-funded autopsy program that might produce data they cannot control.

They knew the biodistribution data before a single dose was administered to the public. They had Pfizer’s own studies showing the lipid nanoparticles traveled. They authorized anyway. They mandated anyway. They silenced the clinicians and pathologists raising concerns anyway. And now, faced with autopsy findings that document spike protein in the organs of the dead, they respond not with investigation but with institutional silence and the quiet suppression of inconvenient science. That is not a public health apparatus functioning in good faith. That is an apparatus protecting itself.

The dead cannot demand answers. The injured, many of whom carry the same spike-driven inflammatory damage in living tissue, are told their symptoms are unrelated, psychosomatic, or coincidental. Burkhardt’s work, alongside the vascular findings documented by Bhakdi and colleagues, represents a body of post-market evidence that should have triggered immediate regulatory review, mandatory autopsy protocols, and full transparency on biodistribution. Instead it has been buried, not by counter-evidence, not by superior data, but by institutional authority and the refusal to look.

This is what burying evidence looks like. It does not always involve shredded documents or deleted files. Sometimes it looks like a regulatory agency that simply never funds the study, never mandates the autopsy, never convenes the independent panel and then points to the absence of data it refused to generate as proof that there is nothing to find.

[Valerie Anne Smith @ValerieAnne1970]

🚨ALARMING DATA FROM JAPAN THAT DEMANDS ATTENTION

Professor Robert Clancy: "A massive Japanese study of 20 MILLION PEOPLE — Every single excess death was in the COVID-vaccinated group."

The unvaccinated group showed ZERO excess deaths.

Even more troubling: mortality rates consistently surged about three months after each booster, peaking around 100 days post-vaccination.

The timing is too precise to dismiss. This pattern is now impossible to ignore. The evidence is piling up fast, and the public has a right to see it.

[Bocquet Annelise 🔬🧬📚🚜 @AnneliseBocquet]

Etre en dehors du "consensus mainstream" ? C'est grave docteur ?

Non... ce n'est pas grave... c'est même souvent nécessaire.

Pourquoi le consensus mainstream n’est pas sacré ?

L’histoire de la science est remplie d’exemples où les gens "en dehors du consensus" avaient raison :
- Semmelweis (lavage des mains)... il fut traité de fou par le consensus médical.
- Galileo (terre qui tourne)... condamné par le consensus de l’époque.
- Barry Marshall (ulcère = bactérie), etc.
Il y a quantité d'exemples !

Le consensus n’est pas la vérité. C’est juste l’opinion majoritaire à un moment donné, souvent influencée par des facteurs non scientifiques : argent, carrières, politique, pression médiatique, inertie institutionnelle.

Dans le cas du covid et du covid-long, le consensus mainstream a été particulièrement lent, minimisant, et parfois dogmatique pendant plusieurs années :
- "Le virus ne persiste pas"
- "Le covid-long est psychosomatique ou très rare"
- "Les vaccins arrêtent la transmission"
Et du coup, il y a une sous-estimation massive des cas (comme le montre l’étude récente JAMA)
https://t.co/r44vbQIhDE

Je ne parle même pas des PVS et des covid-longs post-covid post-injections. 🙃

Être en dehors du consensus, cela présente des avantages et... des risques.

1. Avantages :
- Liberté intellectuelle réelle.
- Possibilité de voir ce que le groupe ne veut ou ne peut pas voir (conflits d’intérêts, biais de carrière, peur de remettre en cause des décisions passées).
- Avancées scientifiques viennent souvent de marges ou d’indépendants.

2. Risques :
- On peut se tromper soi-même (biais de confirmation).
- On peut devenir paranoïaque ou monocausal ("tout est la Spike").
- Isolement social et professionnel.

Le vrai critère, ce n’est pas "consensus vs dissidence"...
C’est la qualité des arguments et des preuves. Ce que je retrouve très rarement.

Suis-je en dehors du consensus mainstream ? Oui.
Est-ce grave ? Non.
Ce qui compte : est-ce que j'apporte des raisonnements cohérents, cite des études, propose un modèle testable (mTOR dual, persistance Spike, etc.) ? Oui, en grande partie.

Le vrai problème n’est pas d’être en dehors.
Le vrai problème, c’est :
- Quand le mainstream refuse de débattre honnêtement avec les dissidents.
- Quand les dissidents refusent toute autocritique et deviennent dogmatiques à leur tour.

En résumé :
Non, ce n’est pas grave d’être en dehors du consensus.
C’est même souvent le seul endroit où on peut encore penser librement sur des sujets sensibles.

L’important, c’est de rester rigoureux, ouvert aux contre-arguments, et de juger sur les données plutôt que sur le camp auquel on appartient... 😁😉

Merci beaucoup à tous ceux qui me soutiennent. 💐

[Bocquet Annelise 🔬🧬📚🚜 @AnneliseBocquet]

🧪 Enfin une étude qui montre noir sur blanc ce que beaucoup d’entre nous observons depuis longtemps.

Des chercheurs de Mount Sinai et Yale ont pris les anticorps de personnes atteintes de covid-long et les ont injectés à des souris saines. Résultat ? Les souris ont développé de la douleur chronique, de la fatigue et une inflammation des nerfs - exactement comme les patients.

Ce transfert ne s’est pas produit avec les anticorps de personnes guéries ou jamais infectées. Cela prouve que, chez une partie des malades, les symptômes (surtout les douleurs) sont causés par des auto-anticorps qui attaquent le propre corps : cerveau, nerfs, vaisseaux. Ce n’est pas psychosomatique. C’est biologique, réel, et transmissible par le sang.

C’est une avancée importante : elle valide l’auto-immunité comme mécanisme chez certains patients et ouvre la porte à des traitements ciblés (IVIG, plasmaphérèse, etc.).

Mais ce n’est que la partie visible.

Derrière ces auto-anticorps, il y a des mécanismes moléculaires à l’œuvre. La rupture de la tolérance au soi peut avoir diverses origines... inflammation chronique, problème dans l’ontogenèse des cellules immunitaires, programmation épigénétique (tiens… on risque de reparler de CXCL10), persistance antigénique ou du pathogène, terrains de prédisposition…

Ce qu’il faut bien comprendre, c'est qu'une fois la réaction auto-immune générée, on n’en guérit pas vraiment. On peut juste la contrôler. Et la moindre réexposition à l’antigène responsable, notamment la protéine Spike persistante, qu’elle vienne du virus ou des injections, risque de relancer la réponse pathologique.

Cela soul��ve aussi une question sérieuse pour les transfusions sanguines. Si les auto-anticorps et/ou la Spike circulante peuvent être transmis via le plasma ou d’autres composants, alors des donneurs asymptomatiques (post-Covid ou post-injection) pourraient potentiellement transférer ces facteurs à des receveurs vulnérables. Ce risque théorique mérite une vraie évaluation et des mesures de précaution (tests de Spike circulante, dépistage des auto-anticorps chez les donneurs, etc.), plutôt que le silence actuel.

Merci de votre attention

[Alan @A1an_M]

I spent a large part of yesterday trying to explain to people who supposedly are proponents of science what a "confounding variable" is.

Rather than say the same thing again today to about 100 people in about 100 different replies, I'm going to write it all in one place, here.

When scientists do science, in the form of an experiment or study, they will ultimately write it up in a standard report format containing the same sections:

Abstract
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References

One of the most important aspects of the Discussion is a critical analysis of what was done. What went well, what could have been done better, what should be done next time. In particular, the authors attempt to identify if there are any "confounders" which may have influenced the results and rendered them invalid.

Let's take the example of a medicine in a clinical trial. We might, if we are ethical scientists, want to study whether a particular medicine causes adverse effects to those taking it before letting it loose in the wild. So we might recruit some people for a trial, and divide them into two groups. The first receives the actual medicine, the second receives a placebo. We might then monitor the recruits for a few months (or, preferably, a much longer period) on a daily basis and note any illnesses suffered in both groups.

We would then do a statistical analysis on the results from the two groups. If the results of that analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in the levels and types of illness suffered in the two groups, we might then conclude that no adverse effects were caused by the medicine. If, on the other hand, there was a significant difference between the two groups, that would point towards the need for further study and might lead us to conclude that the medicine was the cause of the difference.

The key thing here with our experimental design is that we want to make sure that the two groups in the study - the experimental group who receive the medicine and the control group who do not - are, in every other way, identical. Because if they're not, those differences might have caused the effect we observed, rather than the differences we created in our experiment.

What factors might make these two groups different?

1. Age differences. If one group was older, we might expect they might suffer more illness than the younger group.
2. Gender. Dependent on the medicine, males or females might be more affected. If the groups weren't balanced for gender, this might distort the reported illness results.
3. Health differences. If one group had poorer general health than the other at the beginning of the trial, we might expect them to report more illness during the trial.

These are all examples of "confounding variables". Factors which we did not control but which might influence the outcome and render our results invalid.

So in our experimental design we would want to make sure the experimental group and the control group are closely matched for age, gender and health status.

Which brings me onto climate change.

Climate scientists contend that Carbon Dioxide created by human activity in the industrial age is causing global atmospheric temperatures to increase.

As evidence, they point to an increase in global atmospheric temperatures over the last 200 years or so.

So far so good. Temperatures have, broadly, risen during that time. There are plenty of other things to criticise about this hypothesis and about climate "science" in general but that is for another time.

Yesterday we saw, all over the media, headlines about new record May temperatures of 35 degrees at Kew and Heathrow, and below the headlines was text saying that experts were saying this was another example of evidence of how the climate is warming.

Now I don't deny that it's been hot the last couple of days - where I am it has been around 32 degrees - so I don't doubt that the May record may have been broken somewhere in the country.

But the specific problem I have is with the temperatures at Heathrow and Kew, or indeed anywhere close to London or a big urban area being used as the evidence that the May record has been broken,or that they are evidence of atmospheric warming.

Why? Because of a confounding variable.

When we say a temperature record has been broken, we need to make sure we are comparing apples with apples. So not only do we need to compare temperatures that were measured in the same site using the same type of equipment in both instances - we need to make sure that the sites themselves have not changed.

We know that modern urban areas create a "heat island" effect. The expanses of heat-retaining materials like concrete, asphalt and cement retain heat during the day and release it slowly overnight, leading to higher daytime and nighttime temperatures. Added to which are the many buildings and vehicles in urban areas generating their own heat. All of this means that temperatures in, or close to, an urban area are typically several degrees warmer than in countryside some distance away.

Given the expansion and urbanisation of London over the last century, this effect will only have grown over time.

Arup measured this effect in London and concluded that temperatures there are often 4.5 degrees hotter than in the surrounding countryside (see first comment for link).

This effect obviously varies between different parts of London, as shown on the heat map, and reduces as you move away from central London, but even at Kew, the effect is estimated to cause temperatures to be 0.9 degrees higher than would be the case if Kew was sited in the countryside.

And Heathrow clearly creates its own heat island effect given the scale of the airport and the big expanses of heat absorbing materials there.

So if we are going to use temperatures measured in, or close to, London as evidence of atmospheric warming, we have a problem. We have a significant confounding variable. The warming caused by the heat island effect is going to add to any warming in the atmosphere, and give us an exaggerated result.

You can perhaps forgive tabloid newspapers for running headlines about this, just quoting the raw temperatures measured. They want to make money and it being very hot outside is a great news story. And urban areas becoming increasingly hot in summer is an issue in its own right.

But what is unforgiveable is people who claim to be scientists using these measurements as evidence of atmospheric warming, when there's such a glaring confounding variable influencing the data.

How would a proper scientist deal with this confounder?

Well, they might say "from now on, we will only use temperatures from rural weather stations which are not subject to urban heat island effects, and we will only declare records on the basis of those measurements"

And they might say "we will not use temperature measurements from areas subject to urban heat island effects as evidence of atmospheric warming".

But the Met Office and the climate science people aren't saying that. They're going with the artificially inflated temperatures. Because they have an agenda to push, a vast Net Zero industry to sustain, research grants to chase, and any evidence, however shonky, which backs up the global warming narrative is welcome.

This isn't science!

[Bocquet Annelise 🔬🧬📚🚜 @AnneliseBocquet]

Je re-explique de manière plus simple... pour des non-scientifiques.

Je vois un peu partout des explications biaisées sur l'aspect VIH-like du SARS-CoV-2. Ce sont souvent des explications simplistes qui ne tiennent pas la route face aux données publiées.
Mais, le terme "VIH-like" dérange... on ne veut pas en entendre parler car la protéine Spike constitue le coeur du problème... en effet, le modèle mTOR dual rejoint le côté VIH-like.

Et ici, je contre-argumente...

Non, la comparaison avec le VIH n’est pas juste une image choc.

Avec la Spike, on a les deux problèmes en même temps :
-une inflammation qui tourne en boucle (le corps reste en feu permanent, avec des amyloïdes et des caillots qui s’installent).
- ET un système immunitaire qui s’épuise et devient « tolérant » (il arrête petit à petit de bien se battre, comme s’il se rendait).

Comme dans le VIH, le virus allume un feu d’inflammation chronique et il casse progressivement les défenses immunitaires. Cf. Références scientifiques dans le post que je RT.

La Spike fait la même chose : elle persiste dans le corps (dans les tissus, circulante, sous forme d’amyloïdes), elle maintient l’inflammation et elle fatigue les lymphocytes.

Résultat : le corps est à la fois en surchauffe et en immunoparalysie.

C’est pour ça que c’est si difficile à traiter et qu’il n’y a pas de « reset » simple.

Merci.

[Didier Raoult @raoult_didier]

Le retour de la chloroquine.
C'est nous les gentils !
La chloroquine est une molécule à pH élevé qui se concentre dans les cellules empêchant les virus et bactéries ayant besoin de l’acidité de la poche des cellules dans laquelle ils sont entrés pour se libérer ou activer leurs enzymes.
Cette action n’est pas spécifique d’un virus et les autres molécules à pH élevé ont la même activité, mais sont plus toxiques ( amantadine, entre autres)
Ce n’est pas étonnant que la chloroquine, sur des cultures cellulaires comme dans des modèles expérimentaux sur la souris, soit efficace aussi sur SARS cov2 ,Hantavirus
https://t.co/0YSh5DJ9oc
et Ebola
https://t.co/oVgRlMc2EH
Au contraire, les vaccins trop ciblés et les anticorps monoclonaux ont des cibles trop restreintes pour des virus à ARN qui mutent tout le temps et génèrent rapidement des variants échappant aux vaccins et aux anticorps monoclonaux
La chloroquine et l’ hydroxychloroquine ont un défaut majeur : ils ne rapportent pas d’argent !!! Et personne ne veut les tester sans intérêt financier.
Ce n’est pas l’occident sans morale qui les étudiera, ni l’OMS tenue par B Gates et BigPharma, mais l’avenir n’est pas qu’au profit.