Hydroxychloroquine, despite offering the promise of a preventative treatment for COVID 19, has become little more than a political football. It is by no means clear how resistance to thoroughly trialling it does anything to save lives.
I have written extensively about chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. From the first moment Chinese authorities suggested its potential efficacy, despite being just one of a number of possible treatments, hydroxychloroquine has been singled out for particular attention.
In this two part investigation we are going to consider why that has been the case. In part 2 we will see how and why a nexus of vested interests groups have seemingly colluded to stop the much needed clinical trials. These could possibly enable hydroxychloroquine to be officially licensed as a preventative treatment of COVID 19. Before we do, let's take a look at the World Health Organisations latest attempt to foil the trialling hydroxychloroquine.
The story of how global and national health authorities have handled the potential of the inexpensive drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat COVID 19 patients suggests everything we have been told about the response to the COVID 19 pandemic is a lie. Far from seeking to save lives, it seems lives may have been lost unnecessarily, and remain expendable, in the pursuit of corporate goals.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently announced they had temporarily dropped hydroxychloroquine from their Solidarity Trials into potential treatments for COVID-19. Much like the lockdown regimes, some countries adopted in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, this decision was also based upon data models. Similarly, the cited paper has been widely criticised.
The study, published in the Lancet, was deemed sufficient by the WHO to temporarily suspend hydroxychloroquine trials. Consequently trials around the world also ground to a halt.
Given the WHO's eagerness to suspend the trials, based upon the flimsiest of evidence, you have to wonder if any large scale COVID 19 hydroxychloroquine trials will ever be completed. Certainly, there would appear to be no chance of the WHO exploring it's potential as a prophylaxis.
The World Health Organisation is supposed to be the global authority for all public health matters. Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki recently announced that only the WHO tell the truth about SARS-CoV-2. Anyone who challenges the WHO's truth will be censored off their platform.
Yet, having declared the COVID 19 pandemic on March 11th, and then leading the global response, it seems the WHO are absolutely clueless when it comes to reviewing scientific papers. Not only are they incapable of spotting apparently fraudulent papers, they then make decisions, which could potentially cost thousands of lives, based solely upon seemingly fake data.
At the time of writing, the WHO have stated they will reinstate the trials. Hopefully others will now do the same.
However, the WHO are not evaluating hydroxychloroquine's potential as a preventative treatment (prophylaxis) for COVID 19. Nor are they assessing it in combination with azithromycin and zinc, as recommended by many of its proponents. They are only looking at it's potential benefit in treating those who already require hospital treatment.
Of all the drugs under investigation, it seem regulators and health authorities around the world are particularly sensitive to hydroxychloroquine. It appears to be virtually impossible to get it into large scale clinical trials to investigate its potential as a preventative treatment, used in the early stages of COVID 19.
Before we explore why the hydroxychloroquine debacle suggests that the WHO, and governments around the world, aren't interested in saving lives, it is first worth considering who the World Health Organisation are.
WHO Are You?
Despite the U.S. temporarily suspending their "assessed contribution" (the mandatory amount governments agree to pay to the WHO) The U.S. government remains the WHO's biggest revenue source. However, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) are the second. They alone, excluding the U.S, contribute more than any other nation into the WHO coffers.
President Trump has stated that the U.S. will further sever ties with the WHO. While this decision appears to be based upon a spurious conspiracy theory alleging that the WHO is under the control of the China, it has temporarily, at least, increased the influence of the BMGF over the WHO. Rather than handing unopposed control of the WHO to China, Trump appears to have handed it to the BMGF.
The second largest non governmental donor is the vaccine alliance (GAVI). The BMGF gave GAVI $1.2Bn in 2019 and was among its founding partners. The BMGF have contributed more than $4.1Bn to GAVI during its two decade long mission to create "healthy markets for vaccines."
The BMGF funded the preparations and financially support nearly every aspect of response to the global pandemic declared by the WHO. They also fund the media, including the Guardian and the BBC in the UK, NPR and ABC in the U.S. as well as other MSM outlets around the world. The BMGF have considerable influence over those reporting the crisis to the public.
They fund the proposed solutions too. Not only are the BMGF paying for vaccine development they are also strongly committed, via GAVI, to the roll out of bio-metric ID's for the worlds population. Bill tells us that anyone who questions his plan is an "antivaxxer" and those who question him are crazy. He alleges that those who decline his vaccine will effectively be killing people.
The BMGF are heavily invested in agriculture too. As the lockdown regimes threaten food supplies the BMGF continues to invest in agrochemicals and seed patents.
As the UK state look towards so called immunity passports, in keeping with ID2020 objectives (BMGF funded via GAVI), it comes as no surprise that the company chosen to manage volunteer "contact tracers," who will be part of the new immunity checking system, is Serco. Having already breached volunteers data security, Serco, who were convicted of defrauding the UK government and the tax payers last year, list Bill Gates as one of their major shareholders.
The BMGF were funding partners for Event 201, the global table top preparedness exercise simulating a global coronavirus pandemic which concluded just two and a half months before a global coronavirus pandemic supposedly broke out in China. The BMFG also co-founded the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI) who are currently running COVID 19 vaccine trials, having secured additional funding from European governments.
The lockdown regimes in the U.S. and the UK were instigated largely as a reaction to the woefully inaccurate predictions of Imperial College in London. They receive considerable funding from both the BMGF and GAVI (BMGF funded). A similarly baseless computer model from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IMHE) echoed the alarmism of Imperial College in the U.S. They too are funded by the BMGF.
All of these initiatives and policies are backed by the WHO. Considering the BMGF's large contribution to the GAVI, along with their support of numerous other WHO funding trusts, foundation and U.N initiatives, the BMGF contribution is much closer to, and possibly already higher than, the U.S. total. It far exceeds the second largest government contribution from the UK. Absent U.S. government funding, it is by no means unthinkable to suggest that the BMGF own the WHO.
WHO Cares?
Many claim this doesn't matter. Bill Gates is a business genius and philanthropist donating his fortune to help humanity. Certainly his philanthropy has been very profitable.
In the process of seemingly giving away his money, Bill Gate's personal fortune has more than doubled. This is because the separate financial entity, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, has an investment portfolio which often profits from Bill Gates' alleged philanthropy. Which looks more like venture capitalism.
In 2010 Gates' net worth stood at just over $54Bn, ten years later it has risen to nearly $108Bn. So his philanthropy isn't exactly selfless.
Nor did he achieve his breakthrough success through his business genius or even shrewd acumen. Born into a wealthy family, his fledgling company Microsoft took off after it received an exclusive contract to supply operating systems for IBM personal computers. That deal was apparently secured thanks to good old fashioned nepotism. It seems it really isn't what you know.
None of this means that Bill Gates is the devil incarnate, as some allege. He isn't the lone figure, seeking global dominion. He is part of a much wider collective seeking global dominion.
Others have done equally well out of the economic carnage wrought by the lockdown regimes. U.S. billionaires alone have reportedly increased their wealth by $453Bn, thanks to the lockdown. Though others have flatly denied this based upon reasons.
Currently, Gates is the most high profile face, fronting this globalist movement. Formed of supranational institutions, globalist think tanks, multinational corporations and financial institutions, worldwide non governmental organisations and elements withing governments, their long held aim is to create a centrally controlled one world government.
Gates may well believe he is doing the right thing. However he belongs to a minuscule class of people who consider the world is at its best when they rule it absolutely. Perhaps Bill hopes his efforts will benefit humankind, but they certainly benefit his class. One steeped in the traditions of eugenics, technocracy and an unshakeable sense of superiority.
Gates doesn't see the COVID 19 crisis and global vaccination as an end in itself. He calls it Pandemic I, and has already told us about Pandemic II and the new war on bio-terror. His role must be seen withing the wider context of the class he represents. One dedicated to creating their New World Order. It seems the COVID 19 pandemic is the start of a concerted push towards achieving that goal.
If the WHO have declared a global pandemic to advance the interests of their financial benefactors it wouldn't necessarily be the first time. In 2009 they were accused and investigated for falsely declaring a pandemic by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
Following guidance issued by the WHO, in 2004 governments around the world started stockpiling the Roche antiviral treatment Tamiflu. They stepped this up in 2009 to fight the H1N1 influenza pandemic declared by the WHO. It soon became apparent that the pandemic was indistinguishable from seasonal flu.
After the BMGF and GAVI, with an $84 million investment, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche were the largest non governmental contributor to the WHO in the 2008/2009 financial year. Coincidentally, following the WHO's declared pandemic in 2009, their sales of Tamiflu rocketed to more than £3 billion.
When the British Medical Journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism investigated the apparent conflict of interest they found that the WHO had prepared their Infuenza Preparedness Plan in collaboration with European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI). The ESWI were entirely funded by Roche and other influenza medication and vaccine manufacturers. None of which the WHO publicly declared.
Nor did they declare that the lead author for the 2004 guidance issued to governments, Professor Fred Hayden, was in receipt of consultancy fees from Roche at the time. As were his co authors Dr. Arnold Monto and Professor Karl Nicholson. It seems the researchers acted in good faith and openly declared their conflicts of interest to the WHO, but the WHO forgot to record those declarations.
When investigators asked if the WHO had privately informed purchasing governments of these conflicts of interest, they declined to answer. The WHO also refused to name the members of the "emergency committee" who had advised then Secretary General Margaret Chan to declare the H1N1 global pandemic in the first place.
Whether you accept the notion of a New World Order or not, to imagine this level of investment doesn't buy influence is very naive indeed. At the very least, the World Health Organisation do not appear to be an independent global public health body. A strong argument can be made that they are little more than a lobby group for globalist foundations, pharmaceutical corporations and the vaccine industry.
The Shocking Lancet Study
The WHO claimed that the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Advanced Heart Disease study, which under the umbrella of Harvard Medical School is one of the two hospitals who conducted the first three large scale trials of remdesivir, demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine presented too high a risk of ventricular arrhythmia and potentially increased mortality for COVID 19 patients. However, there are a number of concerning questions about the study which was published in the Lancet.
The study did not even attempt to evaluate the central claim of most medical professionals who advocate hydroxychloroquine. Its potential to prevent the worst symptoms of COVID 19 emerging. This study was allegedly based upon data gathered from the hydroxychloroquine treatment of severely ill patients. While advocates suggest hydroxychloroquine may be used for severely ill patients, they more commonly highlight its potential as a prophylaxis.
Further concerns were raised when it was noted that the study, claiming to a cohort of 96,032 patients, was authored by just four researchers. Usually studies of such size have much larger research teams. There was an absence of hierarchical modelling (accounting for variable parameters), again unusual for such a study. Variations in treatment regimens from country to country weren't accounted for, nor indeed were specific locations or hospitals identified.
When interested reviewers contacted the Brigham study researchers, to see the raw data sets, they were told they couldn't have access due to confidentiality agreements. Yet clearly this team claimed to have access to personal treatment and health data from across the globe.
Australian data, included in the paper, was of unknown origin. The Australian National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) confirmed that they had not provided any data to the Brigham team. Nor had any Australian state authorities.
The data reported for Australia in the study did not correspond to official records. As NNDSS was the only possible source of such patient data in Australia, Dr Allen Cheng, an epidemiologist and infectious disease doctor with Alfred Health in Melbourne, raised concerns that ethical approval would be needed to release such information and that had not been sought. He stated he had never heard of the researchers and his hospital had not provided them with any data.
All the data for the Brigham study came from a single source. Surgisphere promotes itself as a medical data mining company and was founded by one of the studies authors Dr. Sapan S. Desai.
They operate an odd website for a medical research company. There is scant detail about its staff and directors. Few websites bother excluding their previous iterations from the Internet Archive. Yet Surgisphere, who clearly don't want any searchable record of their website to exist, have done so. Furthermore, there is no record of a company called Surgisphere at the business address given on the website.
According to his LinkedIn profile Dr. Desai left his medical role at the Northwest Community Hospital in Illinois on February 20th, just as the pandemic was looming. His position as CEO of Surgisphere appears to be his sole, current occupation.
On March 12th Surgisphere announced that they had developed a rapid diagnostic test for COVID 19. Surgisphere claims it uses "advanced machine learning" to analyse data from a "global research network" to rapidly identify possible SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals to assist with their accurate identification and subsequent quarantine and treatment.
On March 16th Surgisphere stated that they had received "feedback from the WHO" claiming 45,000 people in 59 countries had used their diagnostic tools to identify likely COVID 19 patients with a stunning 99.99% accuracy. This had risen to more than a 100 countries on six continents only ten days later. A truly remarkable growth rate for a medical start up.
Another problem appears to be that Surgisphere doesn't have any "rapid machine learning" technology, nor any access to a "global research network." Using data from its global network Surgisphere offer a COVID 19 triage tool for medical practitioners. This determines that 20 years old SARS-CoV-2 positive smoker has a 2.2% chance of dying from COVID 19. This is total bilge. In reality it is probably in the region of 0.01%.
The tool is a simple javascript form code with no evidence it accesses any global research network. Nor is it plausible that any such network exists.
The study claims that 671 hospitals from 6 continents have contributed to the rapid machine learning. Hospitals in different regions, let alone different countries, have their own patient administration systems (PAS). The researchers state:
"Real-world data are collected through automated data transfers that capture 100% of the data from each health-care entity at regular, predetermined intervals..... Verifiable source documentation for the elements include electronic inpatient and outpatient medical records"
In order to achieve this you would require legal and ethical approval from each and every hospital involved for full access to their patient administration systems and their pathology record systems. Pathology may be linked to PAS, but it is a separate system, the data is not merged. If they had approval, Surgisphere would have been required to perform this task themselves, verifying every record and normalising all data, for hospitals across the planet.
The process of approval is both lengthy, expensive and unlikely to be fruitful. Data protection laws are very strict, navigating the legal and ethical requirements would take months, and approval would be required separately from each individual hospital.
Yet Surgisphere were apparently adding patient data, merging disparate databases, from hospitals and pathology labs around the world at a rate of tens or even hundreds of hospitals a day. Given that we know they did not seek this approval from Australian health authorities, their claims seem highly dubious.
Only three weeks prior to publishing the Lancet paper the Surgisphere team published another COVID 19 study. This claimed to analyse data from their "observational database" of 169 hospitals. So, unless they were trying to minimise the use of their extensive global network, it suggests they expanded it by 502 hospitals in about 3 weeks.
Surgisphere have apparently been able to overcome all the legal and ethical protection and have effectively merged sensitive, distinctly separate, hospital and pathology databases from 671 hospitals across the globe in a matter of weeks. They state:
"Data have been collected from a variety of urban and rural hospitals, academic or community hospitals, and for-profit and non-profit hospitals. The data collection and analyses are deemed exempt from ethics review."
Access to this data, without authorisation, is a breach of data protection laws in nearly every country. If Surgisphere are to be believed this would suggest the biggest illegal medical data sharing scandal in history. Surgisphere's claim of exemption from ethics review isn't credible.
The evidence strongly suggests Surgisphere did not have this authorisation from at least one country, so it appears they have either broken the law on a global scale or the data is fake. Given common sense, and the peculiar anomalies in their claimed data sets, fake data seems the most likely explanation.
The study claims that between December 20th 2019 to April 14th 2020, 73 Australian patients had died with COVID 19. This data was allegedly reported by five Australian hospitals who were part of Surgisphere's global network. However, as of the 14th April, only 61 patients had died with COVID 19 in the entire country. This is some distance away from the 99.99% accuracy Surgisphere claim. It begs the question where they got the figure of 73 from.
Surgisphere claim they used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare four treatment groups with a supposed control group. They state that they used this to match people and contrast their clinical outcomes based upon demographics, comorbidities, disease severity and baseline medications. The data this process supposedly produced (table S3) is remarkably homogeneous, given it supposedly spans six continents and patients from 671 hospitals.
Quick sepsis related organ failure assessment (qSOFA), resulting in a score less than 1, were reported by Surgisphere as 82.6% in both Europe and North America, 82.7% in South America, 83% in Asia and 83.4% in Africa. Further weird anomalies are apparent. According to Surgisphere's data, in North America, 32% of patients, who had been hospitalised with a respiratory infection, were given immunosuppressants without any antibiotics at all. Which is, bluntly, unbelievable.
So unbelievable that medical researchers and scientists from around the world have written an open letter to the Lancet expressing their deep concerns about the study. The Lancet have offered a minor correction attempting, but failing, to account for the erroneous Australian data. This response in no way addresses the multiple problems with the paper, highlighted here and in the open letter.
Consequently the Lancet issued a statement saying "serious scientific concerns" had been brought to their attention. The Lancet initially decided to wait for Surgisphere to audit their own data. However, Surgisphere were reluctant to participate with the peer review and the three other authors of the study requested that the Lancet withdraw the paper.
The question is why was hydroxychloroquine targeted to be discredited in this way? Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, said:
"This is a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency."
The implausibility of the research does not mean that hydroxychloroquine does not present a risk of ventricular arrhythmia. While existing research indicates this risk is very low and overwhelmingly associated with prolonged use, not short course treatments, it cannot be ruled out simply because of one atrocious study.
Perhaps the more pertinent question is to ask why the world's leading public health experts, the World Health Organisation, failed to spot junk science? Why didn't they exercise any due diligence before suspending a global drug trial which could potentially save thousands of lives?
Temper Your Vaccine Expectations
From the outset of the pandemic and the lockdown "house arrest" regimes that followed, we have been repeatedly told, by government and supranational governmental organisations, that the only way to get back to normal is with a vaccine. Precisely echoing the calls of Bill Gates.
Certainly the UK government, the second largest governmental contributor to the WHO, were quick to invest in vaccine development. In their Coronavirus Action Plan, published on March 3rd, the focus was overwhelmingly on vaccines:
"Given that there is currently neither a vaccine against COVID-19 nor any specific, proven, antiviral medication, most treatment will therefore be towards managing symptoms…..innovate responses including diagnostics, drugs and vaccines…The Delay phase also buys time for the testing of drugs and initial development of vaccines….The UK government has already pledged £20 million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to develop new vaccines……, including vaccines for COVID-19….This asks for proposals for projects to develop vaccines….[ensure] you and your family’s vaccinations are up to date."
The UK are not alone in their rush to see a vaccine developed. In the U.S. Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), said the country won't get back to normal without a vaccine. In Canada, President Trudeau said the same. In fact, political leaders across Europe and beyond have pledged tax payers money to rapidly develop a vaccine.
Rushing and thorough science don't make good bedfellows. However, haste isn't he only reason to be sceptical about the accelerated development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
There have been coronavirus related worldwide outbreaks before. The 2002 - 2004 SARS epidemic and the 2012 MERS outbreak led scientists around the world to try to develop vaccines. Much like the hunt for an HIV vaccine, these efforts have been unsuccessful. Yet we are told human trials are already underway within weeks of the start of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.
It would be foolish to overlook the possibility of a vaccine increasing susceptibility to viral infections. Previously, animal trials of some SARS-CoV vaccines exposed the subjects a greater risk of contracting coronavirus.
A SARS-C0V-2 vaccine that worked would represent a huge scientific leap forward. Though that all depends upon what kind of vaccine efficacy you anticipate. Some vaccine developers are already cautioning the public to temper their expectations of a COVID 19 vaccine. Realistically, it may not deliver what most people envisage.
Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show on 24th May Pascal Soriot (CEO of Astrazeneca), who are partnering with Oxford University to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, stated that the vaccine may simply stop the worst symptoms of COVID 19 emerging. Soriot confirmed the concerns expressed by Prof. Adrian Hill that SARS-CoV-2 was disappearing so quickly, the vaccine developers were running out of test subjects.
"We are quite confident the vaccine will work actually. The question is will it completely clear the virus or stop people being sick.......This is what happens with the flu vaccine for instance......It simply stops people from being sick......Being protected against being sick would already be a big plus......This is a race against this disease disappearing....When the disease disappears it will be hard to demonstrate efficacy......We have received an order from the British government to supply 100 million doses."
The UK government are among many who have told us the only reason we have been placed under house arrest, the so called lockdown, is to save life. This is the State's mantra.
Initially we were to "flatten the curve" to reduce the risk of overwhelming the NHS. The UK state gave us the "stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives" soundbite. Now, as the disease wanes in the population, it is "stay alert, control the virus, save lives."
During the global pandemic hospital bed occupancy has been at a record low. The supposed surge of COVID 19 patients never materialised and at no stage, with the exception of a few isolated hot spots, has any national health service been anywhere near being overrun.
Now it appears scientists are working to develop a vaccine for a seasonal respiratory infection that passed its peak months ago and is vanishing rapidly with the warmer weather. Just as many of the world's leading epidemiologists predicted it would. This proposed vaccine could protect you against the worst symptoms of a syndrome caused by a virus that has become exceedingly rare.
The Problem With Hydroxychloroquine
hydroxychloroquine in combination with antibiotics (usually azithromycin - HCQ+AZ) seems to be an effective preventative treatment for COVID 19. COVID 19 is the syndrome which some people develop if they are infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The mortality statistics suggest that hundreds of thousands of people have died from COVID 19. However these figures, certainly in the UK, are extremely unreliable.
hydroxychloroquine is an_"off patent"_ or generic drug, like aspirin or paracetamol. Any manufacturer can mass produce it at very low cost. For multinational pharmaceutical corporations the profits for producing it would be, in their terms, negligible. Their profits would be orders of magnitude greater if a they held the patent for any drug approved for COVID 19 treatment or a similar vaccine.
hydroxychloroquine advocates, such as Prof. Dider Raoult and Prof. Paolo Zanotto, suggest that it can be used effectively in the early stages of COVID 19. The purpose of treatment is to prevent the onset of more serious, potentially life threatening symptoms. It is suggested as a prophylaxis. Much like Pascal Soriot's envisaged vaccine.
As such, hydroxychloroquine presents a significant threat to the projected profits of pharmaceutical corporations and vaccine license holders. It could also retard the ambitions of any who hope to roll out a surveillance and control agenda based upon mandatory vaccination and immunity passports. If it were proven to be an effective prophylaxis there would be little to no need either for a vaccine or expensive drug treatments for COVID 19.
For example, despite successfully filing to patent it's drug remdesivir for treatment of coronavirus in April 2019, Gilead Sciences could see a substantial loss of profits if the inexpensive off patent drug hydroxychloroquine were found to be more effective.
Market analysts tell us that the value of the global drugs market is set to contract considerably over the coming years, due to COVID 19. Yet investors have rallied to pharmaceutical stocks whenever announcements of potential COVID 19 treatments are made.
The downturn in projected corporate revenue needs to be seen in the context of the post COVID 19 world. The entire global economy is going into a depression as a result of the lockdown. At the same time the development costs for new treatments have further shifted from private investors to the tax payer.
Nearly all the costs for drug and vaccine manufacturers are associated with research and development. Once approved for human use, manufacturing costs are relatively low and, after R&D costs have been recouped, what remains is overwhelmingly profit. While governments have, for many years, shared R&D and trial costs to some extent, by more fully shifting research funding to the State, even in a depressed market, the potential profit margin increases.
The development of remdesivir to potentially treat coronavirus, among other diseases, was partly funded with a $37.5M grant from NIAID, headed by Dr Anthony Fauci, in February 2019. With a 25 year patent on remdesivir, Gilead Sciences can charge whatever they like for their drug until 2037 at the earliest.
However, an investor groups who hold more than $2Trillion in pharmaceutical corporate assets have advised companies, such as Gilead Sciences, to forego short term profits and consider the long game. Directors and CEO's would be wise to listen. In fact, they don't really have any choice.
Equally, Gilead's investors would be disappointed if hydroxychloroquine eclipsed remdesivir as a more effective COVID 19 treatment. For those who hope to profit from a harm reducing vaccine, an effective and safe hydroxychloroquine treatment would present a significant problem. In Part 2 we'll look at the evidence which suggests there is a concerted effort to stop hydroxychloroquine undermining the vaunted COVID 19 vaccine.
Take it easy you hoopy froods.
