Guest Post by Margaret Anna Alice
Most of you know how highly I regard Dr. Mike Yeadon. He’s one of the few people in the world I trust unequivocally, and I count him among my closest friends.
Dr Mike Yeadon
It was an exchange with him that inspired Mistakes Were NOT Made, and I published his resolute reading of my poem on its one-year anniversary this past New Year’s Day.
Mistakes Were NOT Made: An Anthem for Justice
Mistakes Were NOT Made (Video: Dr. Mike Yeadon)
I have defended Mike against ambushes, crowned him the King of Integrity, and thanked him for introducing me to my now-friend-and-collaborator Doc Malik.
Letter to Robert Malone
My One-Year Substack Anniversary! + In Five Years (a Short Story)
Eulogy for the COVID Kapos (Video: Doc Malik)
But that doesn’t mean we always agree … and that’s all right!
Just because we are in a community of truth-seekers doesn’t mean we should let down our guard when it comes to authority bias. I don’t automatically believe something just because someone I like, trust, or respect says it. My conclusions are based on my own rigorous research and logical analyses, and sometimes that means I arrive at a different destination from an ally.
It also means I am comfortable remaining in the realm of “I don’t know” until I have an opportunity to conduct that in-depth research, and that may not happen for years or even ever as I must concentrate my limited time, energy, and life on topics that directly relate to my mission of stopping authoritarianism and mass murder.
What I do know is Mike and I both care about what matters most—truth, freedom, and saving lives—and we are each working in our own ways to thwart totalitarianism and seek justice for crimes against humanity. We are convinced Mistakes Were NOT Made, and we agree with Dr. Denis Rancourt’s, PANDA’s, Michel Chossudovsky’s, and Professor Stefan Homburg’s assessments that there was no pandemic.
As I summarize in this Note:
confirms with erudite data analysis what I have been saying from my very first essay: COVID is a propaganda campaign:
margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/a-prim…
This is why I titled my second essay COVID IS OVER! … If You Want It—it is only people’s belief in its threat that ensures its continued exis…
“Denis Rancourt confirms with erudite data analysis what I have been saying from my very first essay: COVID is a propaganda campaign.
“This is why I titled my second essay COVID IS OVER! … If You Want It—it is only people’s belief in its threat that ensures its continued existence and the attendant tyranny and democide it was fabricated to usher in.
“And why I say it would have been a very boring story if it was treated like any other seasonal sickness.
“That’s not to say people didn’t die, but it was from hospicide; failure to administer antibiotics and early treatment protocols; bacterial pneumonia from interventions like masking; and later, of course, the democidal injection.”
I will further clarify that doesn’t mean people didn’t get sick, and when I use the term “COVID,” I typically mean either the psyop or collection of symptoms people experienced—not what has been labeled SARS-CoV-2 as indicated by PCR tests doctored to deliver panic-stoking false positives.
The COVID propagandemic was made possible by the Orwellian redefinition of “pandemic” to exclude “enormous numbers of deaths and illness”; all-pervasive reality control; fraudulent $cience™; and global perception management through propaganda, censorship, psychological manipulation, name-calling, and menticide.
So what do I disagree with Mike about? I had some questions regarding his recent statements about early treatment, so I reached out to him.
With his permission, I am sharing the resulting exchange below. As I told Mike:
“I think this is an important conversation to share not only for the content itself but also to demonstrate how it is possible for two people with (apparent) disagreements to work amicably toward clarity together. Because we respect and care for each other and are also both passionately committed to seeking truth and defending humanity against tyranny and democide, we can probe differences of opinion without ego. This is the type of dialogue I would like to see more of, and perhaps modeling it will help others elevate their interactions from contentious conflict to mutually respectful conversations.”
I invite you to contribute your own perspective in the comments as we are all working toward achieving a clearer picture of reality together, and no single person has all of the puzzle pieces.
Dialogue with Mike Yeadon About Early Treatment
MAA:
Regarding early treatment, I actually have a different perspective from you 🙂 I recognize why you would think promoting early treatment undermines the message that there was no pandemic. I think the opposite is true, however.
I have always felt the availability of early treatment options detonates the pandemic narrative, and that is why the philanthropaths went to such ludicrous lengths to capture scientists, academic journals, and media in a scorched-earth campaign to discredit ivermectin, HCQ, vitamin D, zinc, and so on.
As I wrote in my Letter to Alex Berenson in July 2022:
“The failure to recommend ivermectin is not a side story, as you suggested in your debate with Dr. Kory.
“It is THE story, Alex. Because with ivermectin, every injection, every death, every injury, every infringement on our rights in the name of ‘saving’ us from COVID wouldn’t have happened. Indeed, it would have made for a very boring story.”
Letter to Alex Berenson on World Ivermectin Day
The last bit references A Very Boring Story About What Could Have Been in Under 200 Words, which I wrote in December 2021. I highly recommend taking two minutes to watch the compelling video Tonika of Visceral Adventure made to illustrate that story.
A Very Boring Story About What Could Have Been in Under 200 Words (Video)
In October 2021, I documented the ivermectin disinformation campaign while it was being rolled out in real-time in Letter to a Scientifically-Minded Friend. In researching that piece, I perused thousands of articles on ivermectin at PubMed with nearly 300 on its use for treating COVID (I’ll get to the existence of COVID later). It was crystal-clear that prior to 2020, ivermectin was a well-regarded drug, and early on, it was seen as promising for treating COVID symptoms. Then there was a shift in the literature reflecting a concerted effort to begin debunking its efficacy through rigged studies like the TOGETHER trial, dubiously funded papers, and ridiculous hit pieces.
Letter to a Scientifically-Minded Friend
As you already know, it was necessary for all legitimate avenues of treatment to be smeared for the injections to be granted EUAs, so this collusion across academia, media, agencies, NGOs, and other philanthropath-funded entities and “experts” is no surprise. Alexandros Marinos and Phil Harper have documented this corruption extensively. The pattern matches the standard Disinformation Playbook and astroturfing methods Sharyl Attkinson exposed in this brilliant TED talk from 2015.
No doubt you have watched A Letter to Andrew Hill and read excerpts of the Zoom call transcript in my Profile in Courage on Tess. Hill admitted Gates Foundation vehicle Unitaid altered the conclusion of his meta-analysis to downplay ivermectin’s efficacy. Hill’s employer, University of Liverpool, also “coincidentally” received a $40-million grant from Unitaid four days before the publication of that notorious paper. The perpetrators would not have resorted to such elaborate and costly machinations if ivermectin didn’t pose such a threat to the pandemic narrative and proffered “solution.”
Profiles in Courage: Dr. Tess Lawrie
Some countries took proactive measures by distributing early-treatment kits to citizens with great success and were chided by propagandists and colluders for doing so. This Boston University School of Public Health article, for example, contains some laugh-out-loud gems, including:
“‘While the impulse to “do something” is understandable, there was neither enough evidence nor guidelines or recommendations from recognized international organizations such as the World Health Organization to support ivermectin outside clinical trials,’ says study lead author and SPH alum José Antonio Requejo Dominguez (SPH’23), research fellow in the Department of Global Health. ‘In comparison, governments outside the Americas decided to support their population by including tools for symptom relief, such as ibuprofen, and prevention-oriented devices, such as masks, as was done in Japan. In other words, it was possible for governments to make solid and symbolic gestures through mass distributions based on science without wasting resources and harming the population.’”
“‘False government claims erode citizen trust, and spending scarce resources on interventions that can potentially be harmful are concerning and affect our ability to promote health,’ Requejo Dominguez says.”
The irony defies belief, especially considering this was published less than a year ago, when even mainstream sources were belatedly admitting the value of ivermectin and early treatment now that it no longer threatened the injection’s designation as sole savior.
Returning to the question of the existence of COVID: promoting early treatment doesn’t require the existence of COVID. I know you acknowledge some people got sick with something—whether it be flu, cold, or a targeted bioweapon release as Sasha speculated in her livestream with Ahmad where they both discussed their unique symptoms and Sasha also theorized about the mechanism by which ivermectin successfully treats these symptoms.
Offering early treatment also doesn’t contradict the idea that there was no pandemic. Indeed, as I outlined in A Very Boring Story, if the collection of symptoms known as COVID had been treated as a simple flu with preventative and early treatment recommendations, it would have been a nothingburger. People would have felt empowered by having early treatment kits in their medicine cabinets and could have moved on with their lives as if nothing special was happening, which was true.
I do concede your point that continuing to emphasize early treatment at this stage could potentially reinforce the lie that there was a pandemic, but it could also achieve the opposite effect by mainstreaming the idea that we take ownership of our own health and keep a few simple supplies in our homes so we can take care of ourselves if we fall ill.
Even though COVID symptoms pose zero fatality threat to healthy individuals, the availability of early treatment tools can reduce discomfort and speed up the recovery process. This is especially valuable when it comes to vulnerable populations (e.g., elderly, obese, people with comorbidities, and other precipice populations whose fragile health puts them at risk with even something as minor as a cold), so I don’t see the harm in encouraging their use when our goal is to minimize suffering, panic, and dependence on the sickcare system.
Well, that was longer than I expected 😹 I’m sure I’ll think of more things I forgot later, but those are the thoughts that have been percolating in my head for a while.…
I don’t claim to have the definitive truth, but this is the conclusion I have arrived at after assessing the evidence over the past four years. Obviously, you have far more expertise in this arena than I do and may have other considerations I have not addressed here, so perhaps we can work toward the truth together. I do feel our views are not mutually exclusive, though, and that we are just seeing the elephant from different angles 🙂
MY:
The problem I have is not with “early treatment” per se. I have always defended physicians’ right to deploy whatever the evidence & their judgment indicates is worthy of consideration.
But that isn’t the narrative at all.
No, it was & remains explicitly “early treatment for the new disease, covid19” that was pushed by various doctors & some still to this day. It was this narrative that officialdom focussed on driving out of use (for anything, absurdly, claiming nothing “worked” & by the way whatever it was, it wasn’t safe).
There may be arguments for “early treatment” for a non-existent disease.
What I don’t think can be denied is that continuing to push “early treatment for covid19” definitely assists the perpetrators.
[The rest of this email and his subsequent one overlap with a post he made about the topic at his Substack, so I will substitute with his official statement below for simplicity.]
Potions against demons
Better to debunk superstition than profit from it, whilst simultaneously hastening the Reset.
As you may know, I’ve developed a severe allergy to the proposition of “early treatment for covid19”.
I’m absolutely fine with early treatment for anything provided it’s rational. It’s the tag “for covid19” that I can’t tolerate. It’s much more than an academic argument about whether there was a new syndromic illness in some people, in the opinion of some physicians.
I think those promoting early treatments for covid19 have first to concede all the major points the perpetrators seek to nail in people’s minds.
Otherwise, their treatment paradigm doesn’t work. Is this what they want? Implied acceptance of:
- New disease.
- New virus.
- GOF research & leaks.
- Viruses as cause of acute respiratory illnesses.
Since there are no widely accepted clinical signs and symptoms differentiating “covid19” from the broad swathe of influenza-like illnesses, this whole business
- reinforces the utility of PCR as a reasonable diagnostic.
and
- unavoidably, reinforces the myth of contagiousness.
These are all things I’m working hard to show people are just not true. They form most of the heart of the deception that will be used to destroy what’s left of our freedoms and all of our medical autonomy.
So I hope knowing this helps you understand why I have little patience for the concept.
Do those promoting early treatment for covid19 really want to gift all those lies to the perpetrators? I so much don’t believe any rational person would want to do that I’m struggling to credit such a stance as being benign, because it doesn’t look that way to me.
If I was one of the perpetrators and I wanted to reinforce the deception, I’d have been highly motivated to prompt at least some physicians to do it.
Influenza-like illnesses
The plus of “promoting early treatment of covid19” is the real possibility that certain acute respiratory illnesses respond to certain pharmaceutical treatments.
However, it would be both more precise and more correct to “promote early treatment for influenza-like illnesses”. (ILIs)
I don’t think this is a minor point of difference.
I confess that my first thought about the claims that drug X or Y “worked” in “covid19” was that what was being treated was a non specific ILI, a treatment paradigm previously unexplored.
Clinical research into ILI has been a non-sexy area all my professional life, because it was considered a drug development graveyard (nothing works), beyond being the largest single source of revenue for oral antibiotics for suspected bacterial pneumonia.
MAA:
Thank you for clarifying your position, Mike, and now that I understand the nuances, I see we are in agreement, after all 🙂
The shift you make from “early treatment for the new disease, covid19” to “early treatment for influenza-like illnesses” addresses your valid concerns about reinforcing narrative deceptions while also satisfying my desire to empower people with tools to mitigate their symptoms so they can take ownership of their own health and no longer feel vulnerable and thus susceptible to fear-mongering propaganda regarding pandemics and ILIs.
I appreciate your hashing through this with me!
MY:
I’ve just posted the meat of my concerns, anonymous as regards with whom I was discussing this point.
I much appreciate the thorough back and forth between us. It is to this that I attribute my crystallising ideas.
MAA:
I am honored and delighted to hear I helped crystallize your ideas! Thank you for posting your clarified position.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Wow!!! Thanks for this. A wealth of information!!!