Dr. Yeadon asks Dr. Tess Lawrie to publicly to state why she continues to promote “early treatment” for a non-existent illness. Fair question. (Interest of Justice); IMO, early treatment had, has a
place in the high-risk vulnerable to arrest viral replication to prevent sequelae to the advanced hyper-immune inflammatory pulmonary phases, blood clotting phases etc.; antibiotics IMO were the KEY
carries anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory, anti-viral infective properties…
but Yeadon is asking a core question, if this COVID was a fraud as he and I and some others have argued, and if the excess mortality is only seen post the roll-out of the COVID vaccine, and if the virus (and illness as we were sold) was not real, then why the heavy reliance on early treatment even outside of the principle stage it was said to be most effective? Why did it become a pill popping exercise? Is Yeadon saying that all those who recovered after taking early treatment would have on their own? There are many who took early treatment and still got ill…for prophylaxis (prevention) and even at early stage of symptoms. This muddies the waters. Is Yeadon a nut? I don’t think so. I find him most credible. IMO it is really the antibiotics that were the core key drug in the early treatment algorithm that provided the benefit. The question is intriguing and provocative and must be answered.
I find fascinating that people like myself, Yeadon etc. find ourselves in a situation where if we ask certain questions, we will be attacked. But all we want are answers.
I think early had and has its place.
It's inevitable - this question. Assuming there was some kind of localized poisons released in certain places making people sick - I think so - but no virus circulating the globe, than we have to understand this piece. Believing in pandemics relies on believing in virus' that circle the globe. So key to the willingness vs unwillingness of a population when it comes to accepting the next pandemic narrative/scam.
Go, Yeadon.