Thanks for giving Professor Levi a voice; he is brilliant and clear thinking.
This interview lays bare how Pharma operates: Through proxies such as the AAP, they stack the deck of every working group, guideline panel, or advisory committee with Pharma-friendly or Pharma-paid “experts.” No dissenting views are allowed to disrupt the “consensus.”
Maryanne. Excellent interview. Dr. Levi is so “uncaptured” it allows for unclouded science. If only he had the power to go along with his intelligence. Pharma’s signature is so pervasive in every element of our “healthcare.” Not only do they control medicine they control the narrative which is totally biased and “normalized.” Society has faith in our regulatory agencies and don’t realize pharma funds them all in a back door fashion. Doctors know nothing about the covid injections or any vaccines for that matter. To suggest going to your doctor for answers, is just another scam. The propaganda is so thorough, people will argue in defence of vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry. It’s all so anger making. It’s blatantly clear the Herculean effort to suppress the injuries is because they want to hide it. In all of the contracts with the manufacturers it is stated that the purchasers had to acknowledge that there was no proof of safety or effectiveness. It’s all so frustrating because the injured not only have to cope with an injury they also have to live with the anxiety of not being acknowledged.
Dr Levi talks about regaining trust. As with all pharma products the 'evidence' is population based. My decision is based at an individual level, therefore it could be argued that the 'evidence' is not relevant to me. However, with a treatment that alleviates symptoms it maybe that I accept the weakness of the evidence.
But, in the case of vaccines we are injecting healthy humans with pharma products with the potential to harm for an event that is low risk and could be treated if it occurs. I'm not at all certain the bet is worth taking with vaccines. Lets not forget our immune system is our major defense mechanism - mess with it at your peril.
The elephant in the room here is that pharma needs the mass medications to stay in business.
Great interview, Maryanne. Most if not all of the issues raised in it have been touched upon by your previous reporting but it's great to have the most significant ones wrapped up in a single package. I loved Prof. Levi's hard-headed Israeli matter-of-factedness and the way his accent made "work-group" sound like "war-group." This guy lives in the moment as must we all.
I preface my comments with an understanding that I have agreed with Maryanne's investigations and reporting ever since she was attacked for her reporting on Statins years ago. Prof Levi is no doubt a very qualified person. I was disappointed though that he 'side stepped' the question of why, possibly, a judgement was made that he was unqualified for work on ACIP (based on the charter in force). Instead he questioned that a judge was not capable to make an assessment (i.e somehow questioning the judges capability). If there is such a ruling why did Levi not match his qualifications against the ACIP charter, this would then prove that the judgetment was incorrect. Surely a highly qualified academic is capable to do this. There were other people, on ACIP, that met the benchmark in the charter according to the judge (is he wrong?). Again I am not questioning Prof Levi's expertise in his area nor his opinions. I just want to understand how he came to the conclusion that the judge made the wrong call. I suspect this will become moot once RFK issues a new ACIP charter, then experts, (such as Prof Levi) are deemed qualified to sit. Hopefully he does review the new charter (if offered) and ensure he doesn't come under such unfair scrutiny again.
My understanding is that he meant the judge was not in a position to make a fully informed decision because he did not have access to the relevant information. Judge Murphy reached his ruling on limited material—without reviewing CVs or conducting a thorough assessment of the panel’s actual expertise.
Surely, removal of a vaccine from the vaccine mandate will cause AAP's resistance on behalf of their funders. Dr Levi didn't mention it.
My understanding, if a vaccine is mandated pharma has zero liability and a certain sale. Removal from the mandate makes future shots liable in the Courts.
Maryanne,
Thanks for giving Professor Levi a voice; he is brilliant and clear thinking.
This interview lays bare how Pharma operates: Through proxies such as the AAP, they stack the deck of every working group, guideline panel, or advisory committee with Pharma-friendly or Pharma-paid “experts.” No dissenting views are allowed to disrupt the “consensus.”
The game is rigged and the house always wins.
Maryanne. Excellent interview. Dr. Levi is so “uncaptured” it allows for unclouded science. If only he had the power to go along with his intelligence. Pharma’s signature is so pervasive in every element of our “healthcare.” Not only do they control medicine they control the narrative which is totally biased and “normalized.” Society has faith in our regulatory agencies and don’t realize pharma funds them all in a back door fashion. Doctors know nothing about the covid injections or any vaccines for that matter. To suggest going to your doctor for answers, is just another scam. The propaganda is so thorough, people will argue in defence of vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry. It’s all so anger making. It’s blatantly clear the Herculean effort to suppress the injuries is because they want to hide it. In all of the contracts with the manufacturers it is stated that the purchasers had to acknowledge that there was no proof of safety or effectiveness. It’s all so frustrating because the injured not only have to cope with an injury they also have to live with the anxiety of not being acknowledged.
Dr Levi talks about regaining trust. As with all pharma products the 'evidence' is population based. My decision is based at an individual level, therefore it could be argued that the 'evidence' is not relevant to me. However, with a treatment that alleviates symptoms it maybe that I accept the weakness of the evidence.
But, in the case of vaccines we are injecting healthy humans with pharma products with the potential to harm for an event that is low risk and could be treated if it occurs. I'm not at all certain the bet is worth taking with vaccines. Lets not forget our immune system is our major defense mechanism - mess with it at your peril.
The elephant in the room here is that pharma needs the mass medications to stay in business.
Great interview, Maryanne. Most if not all of the issues raised in it have been touched upon by your previous reporting but it's great to have the most significant ones wrapped up in a single package. I loved Prof. Levi's hard-headed Israeli matter-of-factedness and the way his accent made "work-group" sound like "war-group." This guy lives in the moment as must we all.
I preface my comments with an understanding that I have agreed with Maryanne's investigations and reporting ever since she was attacked for her reporting on Statins years ago. Prof Levi is no doubt a very qualified person. I was disappointed though that he 'side stepped' the question of why, possibly, a judgement was made that he was unqualified for work on ACIP (based on the charter in force). Instead he questioned that a judge was not capable to make an assessment (i.e somehow questioning the judges capability). If there is such a ruling why did Levi not match his qualifications against the ACIP charter, this would then prove that the judgetment was incorrect. Surely a highly qualified academic is capable to do this. There were other people, on ACIP, that met the benchmark in the charter according to the judge (is he wrong?). Again I am not questioning Prof Levi's expertise in his area nor his opinions. I just want to understand how he came to the conclusion that the judge made the wrong call. I suspect this will become moot once RFK issues a new ACIP charter, then experts, (such as Prof Levi) are deemed qualified to sit. Hopefully he does review the new charter (if offered) and ensure he doesn't come under such unfair scrutiny again.
My understanding is that he meant the judge was not in a position to make a fully informed decision because he did not have access to the relevant information. Judge Murphy reached his ruling on limited material—without reviewing CVs or conducting a thorough assessment of the panel’s actual expertise.
Good interview Maryanne.
Wish I wasn't still thinking we're not going to be able to get to a happy place with it all any time soon.
Good interview, thanks.
Surely, removal of a vaccine from the vaccine mandate will cause AAP's resistance on behalf of their funders. Dr Levi didn't mention it.
My understanding, if a vaccine is mandated pharma has zero liability and a certain sale. Removal from the mandate makes future shots liable in the Courts.