Covid_19 > Astonishing decision by Germany to hide evidence of Wuhan origin of Covid_19; NL Council of State makes dreadful decision to fine doctors

 

German spies hid evidence of Covid origin for years – media

Berlin decided against sharing intelligence suggesting the virus came from a lab, fearing political fallout

Pathogen detection laboratory in Wuhan, China. © TPG / Getty Images

Germany’s foreign intelligence agency (BND) obtained evidence in the early days of the pandemic that convinced it that Covid-19 originated in a laboratory, Die Zeit and Sueddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) newspapers reported on Wednesday. Berlin decided to keep the conclusion secret out of fear of a possible mistake and political fallout, the media outlets said, citing their own investigation.

The BND dispatched a team of specialists to investigate the origins of the virus in the early weeks of 2020, the report said. They focused on Chinese government agencies and scientific institutions, including the Wuhan laboratory, where they reportedly discovered documents the German media describe as “fascinating and explosive.”

The German intelligence agency’s findings reportedly included data on experiments with coronaviruses, as well as a series of unpublished studies from 2019 to 2020, including those dealing with effects of coronaviruses on the human brain.

“The material suggests that an unusually large amount of knowledge about the supposedly novel virus was available in Wuhan at an unusually early stage,” Die Zeit reported.

The materials were reportedly evaluated by a team of BND analysts led by a virologist. The team cross-referenced the data with publicly available studies and materials obtained from other nations and concluded “with 80 to 95% certainty” that Covid “likely originated in a Chinese laboratory.” The BND reportedly believed that the outbreak was caused by an accident stemming from lax safety rules in the Wuhan lab.

READ MORE: CIA shifts stance on Covid origins

The results were presented to former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government, but it was skeptical and decided not to share the information with anyone, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the German parliament, according to the media. Berlin was reportedly afraid of potential complications in relations with Beijing and Washington.

The government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz, which succeeded Merkel’s, also reportedly did not find the BND conclusions convincing enough and initially decided to keep them under wraps. It was only in late 2024 that the BND was allowed to share its findings with the CIA and a carefully selected group of scientists, according to the outlets.

The CIA said in January 2025 it believed “with low confidence” that Covid-19 likely originated in a lab. The Chinese government has repeatedly rejected the lab-leak theory. Another major theory suggests that Covid-19 emerged from a natural source, specifically through zoonotic transmission from animals to humans.

Following SZ’s and Die Zeit’s inquiry, Berlin said it would share the BND findings with the German parliament and the WHO and release some materials related to the scientific assessment of the agency’s conclusions to the public at some point in the future.

80 to 95% confidence and it wasn't strong enough evidence for Frau Merkel. The woman made some very disappointing choices in the last ten years of her reign.

Surely there is something criminal in this hiding of the truth. Certainly something very immoral.

================================================================================================

NL Council of State approves fines for doctors who prescribed ivermectin for Covid-19

Even though there were no medications approved for use against Covid_19 at the time. Insanity! 

Did anyone die from the use of Ivermectin? How many patients actually recovered after Ivermectin compared to mRNA vaccines available later? 

This is the doings of Big Pharma and they should be investigated for illegal and immoral activities.

The fines issued by the health minister to four doctors who prescribed off-label medicines to four patients who were infected with the coronavirus were justified, according to the Council of State. But the fines do need to be halved. A medicine is used off-label if it is prescribed for a treatment for which it is not registered.

Fines rising up to 13,000 euros had been handed out to 16 doctors in 2022. One of the doctors had prescribed the medications on 150 occasions. This came after the Dutch healthcare and youth care inspectorate had launched an investigation in December of 2021.

By prescribing hydroxychloroquine and or ivermectin to patients with Covid-19 the doctors broke The Dutch Medicines Act. The law allows off-label prescription if “protocols or standards have been developed within the professional group.”

But that was not the case in this instance. The coronavirus pandemic brought “significant insecurity” for doctors, said the Council of State.

“At the moment of the offenses, there were no registered medications for the treatment of Covid-19, and no vaccinations were available for a large part of the population.” The doctors were confronted with severely ill patients during this time. 

Covid_19 > RFK2 spells it out on the catastrophic murderous campaign to get faulty, unnecessary vaccines approved

 

From X.com

Camus

@newstart_2024

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: "I don't look into Anthony Fauci's head. I don't look into Bill Gates head. I don't say, he did this because he was greedy or because he was manipulative. I just lay out what they did and the story speaks for itself. And, you know, it's a story of, really, of people involved in really terrible, terrible, immoral, homicidal, criminal behavior." "And using a position in government that that he had for 50 years, without any election, to clamp down these totalitarian controls that were not science based and that everybody now admits there was no science. In fact, yesterday, the chief attorney for FDA admitted that there was no reason." "He admitted because he lost the case in court against the doctor. But there was no reason to discourage people from taking Ivermectin. Ivermectin was a was a very, very devastating cure for COVID." "It literally obliterated COVID. And, you know, by depriving people of Ivermectin, we many, many people, millions of people around the globe died. And they didn't need to. There were cures for COVID from day 1, a very effective cures. And but they didn't want that." "They wanted the vaccine only. And there was a rule there's a rule of, you know, little known federal rule that they were they were all aware of which said that you cannot issue an emergency use authorization for a vaccine if there is an existing remedy that has already been approved for any use." "So if they admitted that hydroxychloroquine or famotidine or ivermectin or any of the 25 existing therapeutic drugs that were very effective against COVID, if they admitted that any of them were effective, the whole vaccine project would have fallen apart. They couldn't have done it. And, and so they decided that they were going to pretend that there was no cure, except for the vaccine." "And they gave people a product that was not properly tested, and that now, if a whole generation of kids that has now, you know, got myocarditis, these terrible heart problems in young athletic boys, You're seeing so many kids now drop dead on playing fields. Right. And that we never saw anything like this before. On average, it was, I think, 29 a month globally, athletes who died on the field. And we were getting down to 100 a month now." "And it's, you know, and there there still has to be a reckoning. The mainstream media hasn't caught up with the science, But the science is out there now, and it's devastating."

2:37

11:02 AM · Dec 28, 2024

·

75.5K

Views

Investigations into the madness of big pharma preventing the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine need to be conducted and anyone from big pharma involved needs to go to jail for the rest of their lives.

That might slow down the lies in the next episode.

================================================================================================

You need to read this and watch this video if you ever want to know the truth about Big Pharma and Ivermectin

 

The EpochTV video below is a must see as this article is a must read. This government ordered study was meant to destroy Ivermectin as an effective tretment for Covid_19. But in spite of their best efforts, the study proved Ivermectin's effectiveness. Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that Ivermectin should not be used against Covid_19. This is another case of a scientific study that had a predetermined outcome. This is what scientific research has come to especially when Big Pharma is involved.

People Who Received Ivermectin Were Better Off

Study Finds

Ivermectin recipients recovered faster than others.

By Zachary Stieber

3/7/2024

Updated:

3/8/2024

People who tested positive for COVID-19 and took ivermectin as a treatment recovered faster than a comparison group, a new study found.

The time to self-reported recovery was a median of two days faster among the ivermectin recipients, according to the large UK study.

The quicker recovery period was statistically significant.

People who received ivermectin were also less likely to be hospitalized or die, with 1.6 percent of ivermectin recipients being hospitalized or dying versus 4 percent of the comparison group, which received typical care, which in the UK is largely focused on managing symptoms.

I'm not sure why the story isn't focused around this statistic since it states that Ivermectin was 2.5 times more effective at surviving Covid_19.

Ivermectin recipients also enjoyed a reduction of severe symptoms and sustained recovery, according to the study.

The paper was published by the Journal of Infection on Feb. 29.

The study covered an open-label trial that involved 2,157 ivermectin recipients and 3,256 who received typical care from June 23, 2021, to July 1, 2022. Participants were randomized and reported symptoms and recovery.

Researchers Say Findings Don’t Support Using Ivermectin

The authors, including Christopher Butler, a University of Oxford professor and joint chief investigator of the trial, downplayed the positive findings in part because the hazard ratio of 1.14 was lower than what authors pre-specified as a meaningful ratio, or 1.2. Hazard ratios are a way to determine whether a treatment is beneficial.

The authors also focused on the lack of differences in the number of days participants felt sick in the previous two weeks, impact on work, and likelihood of using the health care system at 3, 6, and 12 months following treatment.

“Overall, these findings, while evidencing a small benefit in symptom duration, do not support the use of ivermectin as treatment for COVID-19 in the community among a largely vaccinated population at the dose and duration we used,” the authors said.

I wonder if the results were turned around and mRNA vaccines were compared to Ivermectin as the base, would the results show that mRNA vaccines should be supported as treatments? What would their hazard ratio be?

Please watch this video. Your security system may try to block it, calling it dangerous, but it is only a danger to the incredible lies of Big Pharma and governments that supported them. 

Funding for the research came from the UK government.

Conflicts of interest included one researcher receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, and other authors receiving grants from the University of Oxford.

The University of Oxford teamed with AstraZeneca to produce one of the first mRNA vaccines.

The trial, known as PRINCIPLE, was touted by investigators as “the world’s largest clinical trial of possible COVID-19 treatments for recovery at home and in other non-hospital settings.”

“Ivermectin is readily available globally, has been in wide use for many other infectious conditions so it’s a well-known medicine with a good safety profile, and because of the early promising results in some studies it is already being widely used to treat COVID-19 in several countries,” Dr. Christopher Butler, a University of Oxford professor and joint chief investigator of the trial, said when it was announced ivermectin would be assessed. “By including ivermectin in a large-scale trial like PRINCIPLE, we hope to generate robust evidence to determine how effective the treatment is against COVID-19, and whether there are benefits or harms associated with its use.”

Doctors Weigh In

Dr. Pierre Kory, an American physician who was not involved in the trial, said that the authors wrongly downplayed how ivermectin improved recovery from COVID-19.

“PRINCIPLE was a profoundly positive study that was instead analyzed and written up as a negative one,” Dr. Kory, who has long promoted ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, wrote in an essay.

He accused the authors of undertaking “statistical chicanery” by coming up with the pre-specified hazard ratio (HR), noting that no such level was used in other parts of the PRINCIPLE trial.

“A hazard ratio does not need a pre-specified level. If the HR is > 1.0, and it is statistically significant, it is a robust finding,” he said.

The positive findings should also be interpreted in the context of recipients only receiving one dose per day across three days and being directed not to eat food before ivermectin, Dr. Kory said.

Dr. Butler and his co-authors said “no food should be taken two hours before or after administration” despite previous research finding that taking ivermectin with food increases plasma concentration.

Participants also received ivermectin a median of five days after symptom onset, a period of time considered by some to be too late to have much of an impact. Ivermectin works best when applied within 24 hours of symptom manifestation, according to a meta-regression of ivermectin studies.

Dr. Butler did not respond to a request for comment.

There have been additional studies that found ivermectin worked against COVID-19. The drug, commonly used for purposes such as combating malaria, has divided scientists since 2020, when doctors around the world began using it to treat COVID-19.

Some other research, including a U.S. trial, has found that ivermectin did not improve time to recovery.

It's so easy to manipulate a study like this to get the desired outcome. Restricting dosages, restricting the times of administration to 5 days after symptoms arrive, are just two ways to fix the results.

Big Pharma must maintain that Ivermectin is not an effective treatment of Covid_19 in order to validate the emergency use of mRNA vaccines without rigorous clinical trials. 

There is so much money at stake here that I am beginning to suspect that Big Pharma had something to do with the release of Covid_19 in Wuhan.

================================================