Frontline Doctors

Scroll Down For Important Update To This Post!

Also visit the website of Canadian Nurses who are speaking out… link

Top Canadian Doctor Calls Alleged Covid Crisis Biggest Hoax Ever!

(Scroll down for video of entire testimony to the City Council)

A top Canadian doctor specializing in pathology, which includes virology, told the Edmonton, Alberta City Council last week that humanity is being “led down the garden path” by delusional aristocrats pushing draconian COVID-19 measures.

According to his bio, “Dr. Hodkinson is the CEO of Western Medical Assessments, and has been the Company’s Medical Director for over 20 years. He received his general medical degrees from Cambridge University in the UK, and then became a Royal College certified pathologist in Canada (FRCPC) following a residency in Vancouver, BC.”

The doctor is also currently working on pathology as Executive Chairman of Bio-ID Diagnostic Inc., a private company that develops tests for identifying COVID-19 infection.

“What I am going to say is lay language and blunt,” Hodkinson told the Edmonton City Council Community and Public Services Committee.

“The bottom line is this,” he addressed the group. “There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.”

“There is absolutely nothing to be done to contain this virus other than protecting your more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season. This is not Ebola. It’s not SARS. It’s politics playing medicine. And that’s a very dangerous game.”

Continuing, Dr. Hodkinson added, “Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence based on their effectiveness whatsoever. Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue signaling. Seeing these uneducated people walking around like lemmings, obeying without any knowledge base to put the mask on their face.”

He also claimed social distancing is pointless as COVID-19 “travels by aerosols, which travel 30 meters or so before landing. And closures have had such terrible unintended consequences. Everywhere should be open tomorrow.”

Next, the doctor touched on testing. “I’m in the business of testing for COVID. I do want to emphasize that positive results DO NOT, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection. It’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop.”

The only thing Dr. Hodkinson advocates for is to “protect the vulnerable” by giving all nursing home residents daily doses of vitamin D.

In Alberta, where the meeting took place, people under 65 years of age have a 1 in 300,000 chance of dying from COVID.

“It’s just another bad flu, and you have got to get your minds around that,” he stressed. “Let people make their own decisions. You should be totally out of the business of medicine. You’re being led down the garden path by the chief medical officer of health (Dr. Deena Hinshaw) in this province.”

Will mainstream media cover this qualified individual’s take on COVID -19 or will his message by silenced by Big Tech?

(Update) As you can see from the following, Dr Hodkinson’s video was indeed censored by YouTube.

by Mordechai Sones – America’s Frontline Doctors March 25, 2021

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.

At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.

“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.

“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.

“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.
“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.
“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.
“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?
“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else.
Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.
“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”

AFLDS: The Israel Supreme Court decision last week cancelling COVID flight restrictions said: “In the future, any new restrictions on travel into or out of Israel need, in legal terms, a comprehensive, factual, data-based foundation.”

In a talk you gave four months ago, you said

“The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.

“The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.

“So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.

In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.

The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?

Yeadon: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2.
The study is from one of the best labs in their field.

“So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not “high throughput” and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.

“However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.

“Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.”

My understanding of aleaky vaccineis that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.

For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.

Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.

Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19?

Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case?

And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?

“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.

“As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous.

“No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.

“It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity”.

“Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.

“The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.

This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.

“I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.

“The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).

“The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”

Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma? In what ways does big pharma get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?

“Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA.
Always good quality interactions.

“Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.

“So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.

“The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.

“You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s “Corona Committee” online.

“So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless.

“Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.

“Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.

“I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator.

“I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.

“PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.

“As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.

“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the worlds population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it.

“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”

 

World-renowned microbiologist Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D., made an appearance on Fox News’ “Ingraham Angle” Wednesday evening to warn the world about a hastily produced COVID-19 vaccine.

American Thinker reports, “Bhakdi is the co-author of Corona: False Alarm?a massive bestseller in Germany that was published in English here on October 2.  The book is currently the #1 bestseller in the Amazon categories of Microbiology, Pulmonary Medicine, and Health Law.  It has a 4.8 out of 5 rating after 363 ratings.”

Speaking with Ingraham from his home in Germany, Bhakdi said both social distancing and masks have no scientific backing.

“This is something that we, and when I say ‘we’ it’s hundreds and thousands of people, are standing up to say, ‘please, all of you, sit down and think about this. Read up on this and then make up your own mind. Don’t believe things that people are telling you. Think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.’ That is why we wrote this book, because all the arguments saying… telling you what you are doing, are absolutely nonsense.”

Moving the discussion to vaccines, Ingraham asked Bhakdi about Dr. Anthony Facui’s recent claim that 75% of Americans will need to be vaccinated in order to obtain “herd immunity.”

“What utter nonsense,” he responded. “I know Dr. Fauci is a renowned medical scientist and immunologist, but what he says has to be wrong, and this is also what we have taken great lengths to explain in the book. Someone who says this has not the slightest inkling of the basics of immunology and this is very surprising for someone of Dr. Fauci’s standing. I would dare to defy him anywhere in the world at any time, but I cannot do this in two minutes.”

“So, you believe the COVID vaccine is not necessary?” Ingraham asked the doctor.

“I think it’s downright dangerous, and I warn you, if you go along these lines, you are going to go to your doom and it’s so unnecessary,”  he warned.

At this point, there was no time left in the segment, but Ingraham promised to invite Dr. Bhakdi back on the program soon.

Dr. Bhakdi has been warning about the dangers of the gene-altering COVID-19 vaccines since September.

CLICK HERE to read more about his research and watch the video below for a more detailed interview.

The Biggest COVID-19 Vaccine Skeptics? Front-Line Health Care Workers

Lawrence Solomon

Lawrence Solomon
March 11, 2021 Updated: March 21, 2021
What do front-line health care workers and first responders know about COVID-19 vaccines that politicians and their public health advisers don’t?

According to a January analysis by Gallup, 51 percent of health care workers and first responders polled in December 2020 were unconvinced of the merits of getting vaccinated, even if the vaccine “was free, available, FDA approved and 90% effective.”

Gallup found these results especially concerning since those at highest risk of exposure to COVID-19—the professionals required to meet America’s health, safety, and critical economic needs and whom the National Academies of Engineering, Science and Medicine defines as “Tier 1A workers”—were the likeliest to refuse vaccination (34 percent).

The front-line workers proved to be as defiant as Gallup’s survey of their intentions anticipated. In California, more than half of Tehama County’s hospital workers at St. Elizabeth Community Hospital, an estimated 50 percent of front-line workers in Riverside County, and 20 percent to 40 percent in Los Angeles County refused the vaccine, according to a report in the L.A. Times.

In Georgia, according to an estimate in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, only 30 percent of health care workers have been inoculated. In Ohio, Gov. Mike DeWine reported that 60 percent of nursing-home workers refused the vaccine. In Texas, the Texas Tribune reported in February that home-health and assisted-living agencies may not be able to service their clients because so many caregivers are refusing to be vaccinated. A CDC survey of skilled-nursing facilities published in early February found that fewer than 40 percent of staff took at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Outside the United States, frontline workers are likewise skeptical. On March 2, Reuters reported that at most half of the nursing staff in Switzerland’s medical sector, only 30 percent of the staff at Germany’s BeneVit Group care-home operator, and about half of the health workers in French care homes were willing to be vaccinated.

PBS, on the same day, reported that since “India started administering the second vaccine dose two weeks ago, half of the frontline workers and nearly 40 percent of health care workers have not shown up.” In Canada, CTV provided an anecdotal report that many long-term-care workers in Montreal are “flat-out refusing” to be inoculated.

For health care workers around the world, their dilemma is deciding who to believe. Their government employers and the pharmaceutical companies, who insist the vaccines’ benefits far outweigh the risks? Or their own eyes?

Many front-line workers see first-hand those who fall sick or die after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, and in the absence of independent analyses judge for themselves whether the vaccine is implicated. They noted 23 nursing-home deaths in Norway and hundreds of hospitalizations in Israel following vaccination.

Front-line workers also suffer from vaccinations themselves. As Reuters reported in February in an article entitled “AstraZeneca Vaccine Faces Resistance in Europe After Health Workers Suffer Side-Effects,” the adverse effects hitting health care workers have unexpectedly left large numbers unable to work, forcing hospitals to scramble to maintain services.

In France, the safety agency advised hospitals to stagger the inoculation of team members, to avoid disabling team functions.

In Sweden, two of the country’s 21 health care regions paused vaccinating their staff after 25 percent of the vaccinated suffered fever or flu-like symptoms.

In Austria, inoculations with a batch of vaccines were suspended after one vaccinated nurse died and another required hospitalization.

The Wall Street Journal reports that, to avoid being vaccinated, half of the health professionals scheduled in the German state of Saarland failed to show up for their appointment.

In response to the many concerns raised by frontline workers, the vaccine manufacturers, care-home operators, and the public-health authorities in all these countries offer bland reassurances, such as AstraZeneca’s statement that “the reactions reported are as we would expect” and the German Health Minister’s claim that “I would be vaccinated with it immediately.”

They also plan a plethora of public education campaigns. Partnership for Medicaid Home-Based Care, an industry advocacy group, launched a “Be Wise, Immunize” campaign to educate its workforce.

And all urge media and social media to be more vigilant in policing negative vaccination news. In offering pointers on how to debunk critics, the Columbia Journalism Review on March 5 told media companies that “the first rule of reporting on mis/disinformation [is] don’t talk about the mis/disinformation” and suggested they “consider the practice of ‘pre-bunking’—that is, actively debunking or anticipating public questions and concerns rather than only reacting once false narratives have been popularized.”

Although studies show that such assurances and public-education campaigns—also known as propaganda—can reduce vaccine hesitancy, Gallup finds their effect is marginal: “The limited COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates among all occupation groups show little movement since November 2020.”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analysis agrees, and concludes that barriers to “staff member vaccination need to be overcome with continued development and implementation of focused communication and outreach strategies.”

Yet the CDC doesn’t explain why continued focused communication and outreach—i.e., more of the same—would overcome worker hesitancy, when workers don’t fully trust the data, or those who deliver the data. To overcome that trust barrier and win over the front-line workers—people who have every incentive to protect themselves—the media would need to lift the censorship, industry would need to subject its studies to independent scrutiny, and all would need to engage in reasoned debate rather than “trust-us” assurances.

Lawrence Solomon is a columnist, author, and executive director of the Toronto-based Consumer Policy Institute. @LSolomonTweets LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com