1. So they are holding off on telling the public the truth because they are concerned about losing grant money? This is criminal. We should ban grants coming from big Pharma. It’s a huge conflict of interest. If Dr. Philippe comes on again, I’d like to see if we can get the following questions answered.

    1. Is the progression the same for people who have only received 1 shot vs. those who have taken both?
    2. What have the effects of the boosters been? How much acceleration of the damage is being done?
    3. Are new blood cells being produced damaged (i.e., in the irregular shapes) or are they damaged later?
    4. Does the body ever stop producing the spike proteins?
    5. Is this damage evident on everyone who has had a blood slide done, or are there people without any damage?

    Thank you!

  2. i just have a problem with so many of these websites —-as soon as they start getting a big following they start pushing down one throat these so-called cheap alternative pills and food,,like at Brighteon,,hope Lovinglife isn’t going to follow suit,

  3. 26 Nov 2021 at 5:03 PM #60385

    If anyone is interested in my free cure for all viruses and Coronavirus please go to my Twitter blog where you will find the links down to my cure and also an argument in favor of it, over vaccines (shudder)
    Twitter: RichardNoakes19 …me never ill from viruses of any sort for over 27 years – leaving viruses to become Covid is madness – some 20 days after the initial, nasal, infection.
    If you have been vaccinated nothing ventured nothing gained, when it comes to your next Covid, potential, illness or Long Covid
    Pass it around and take ownership for it if you want.

  4. For those of you who have had vaccines or are thinking of having them, you might find this entertaining, where 100% is 100% effective, which I believe my above free cure to be – 27 years, never ill from viruses of any sort including Coronavirus:
    The article continues: “Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.
    “However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.” posted by Mordechai Sones September 30, 2021 10:58 am
    AND for the pills:
    Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial
    November 5, 2021
    Pfizer’s latest antiviral pill, Paxlovid (89% RRR), is your choice over Merck’s latest antiviral pill, Molnupiravir (50% RRR). However, your choice of antiviral pills to reduce risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death is narrowed considerably when comparing the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of the Pfizer and Merck pills: Molnupiravir (6.8% ARR) barely beats out Paxlovid (6.2%). Why is the risk reduction of COVID-19 hospitalization or death so much lower in ARRs compared to RRRs? It all depends on how you manipulate the reported results of the Pfizer and Merck clinical trials.
    The absolute risk reduction is the arithmetic difference in the rates of hospitalization or death—events or clinical endpoints in a trial—between the treatment and placebo groups

Comments are closed.