Connect with us

COVID-19

Doctor breaks down how COVID outbreak was used to force injections, ‘not deal with the disease’

Published

9 minute read

Dr. Wahome Ngare

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

A Kenyan doctor pointed to one misstep after another in the handling of the COVID outbreak, such as the fact that postmortem examinations were not permitted to direct how COVID was treated.

A Kenyan doctor has made a strong case for why the COVID outbreak was used to force vaccination and “not to deal with the disease,” citing a remarkable number of missteps in handling the “pandemic.”

Dr. Wahome Ngare, the director of Kenya Christian Professionals Forum (KCPF), began in a Tuesday interview with podcast host Lynn Ngugi by explaining that because vaccination targets the healthy and not the sick, it entails greater risks, and this is why it is normally reserved for addressing conditions that are “dangerous” enough to run this risk of stimulating a person’s immune system through a virus, or a piece of a virus.

“So, if your vaccine has a problem, then you can threaten the whole community — that’s why vaccines become a national security issue, because if they’re not properly taken care of and you’re giving them to your whole population (who are) healthy, then you can cause a lot of damage,” Dr. Ngare said.

He maintained that it is therefore “much better to treat those who are sick” than to target those who are healthy through vaccination.

Regarding the COVID so-called “vaccination,” he suggested that the risk involved was much greater than that of a typical vaccine, in part because the full results of Phase One and Phase Two clinical trials, which are “supposed to tell us whether it is safe and effective,” were not released until December 2023 — three years after the outbreak of the COVID virus!

“And the only reason this information was released is because somebody went to court and sued Pfizer in the U.S., and they were forced by the court to release this documentation,” Dr. Ngare noted. He further explained that these trial results revealed many problems caused by the COVID shots, including injuries such as myocarditis, and even death.

“What that tells me as a doctor is very simple: that as doctors we let the world down. Because we shouldn’t have given any support for that injection without seeing the phase one and phase two clinical trial results,” he told Ngugi.

Asked if the “wrong” vaccines were administered, Dr. Wahome shifted the question in a different direction, responding, “What should we do if there is a disease outbreak?”

When COVID first emerged, people did not understand what it was — all they knew was that people were dying in China, said Dr. Ngare. Thus, the first thing doctors should have done was perform post-mortem reports of people who died with COVID in order to “determine what organs were affected, how were they affected, where is this virus causing most damage, and how is it causing the damage.”

“That is totally unscientific, because it denies us the knowledge we need to take care of the living,” Dr. Ngare observed.

He then highlighted an alarming amount of missed opportunities to strategically deal with COVID, beginning with the failure to advise people to keep their vitamin D levels up in order to protect themselves, since evidence had emerged that low vitamin D levels compromised people’s ability to tackle the virus.

As one major mistake, Dr. Ngare cited the fact that people were advised to go to the hospital only if they developed difficulty breathing, when they could have anticipated this by checking their oxygen levels at home and going to the hospital once their oxygen levels hit the 60s or 70s, before they developed difficulty breathing.

“This is something that should have been made available to all Health Centers so that anybody who has those symptoms would easily go to the Health Center every day,” the doctor said.

He went on to address how in medicine, it is standard to repurpose drugs which have been shown to be both useful and safe, yet time-tested drugs such as hydroxycholorquine, with proven safety, were set aside in favor of experimental “vaccines” for targeting COVID, which were questionable both for their safety and for their effectiveness.

Furthermore, hydroxycholorquine was not properly tested in its treatment of COVID. Dr. Ngare explained that too much was given too late to patients, leading health professionals to mislabel the drug as unsuitable for the treatment of COVID.

He then shared how infection gives stronger immunity than vaccines, highlighting how this fact was ignored among health professionals. The doctor explained how if someone gets an infection, they develop immunity against each of the proteins, so that they will be fully ready the next time they’re exposed to the virus. By contrast, the vaccine only exposes people to a portion of the virus.

“So the person who got infection and recovered has a stronger immunity than the one who got the portion … what sense does it then make to say that if you are already got COVID, you still need the vaccine? You see, from a scientific point of view, it doesn’t make sense.”

The doctor then pointed to another absurdity in the way the “pandemic” was handled, which is that employers, city officials, and others mandated that everyone in a given institution or using a certain venue be vaccinated, when that should not have mattered to those who were vaccinated themselves.

“Let me ask you another question. If I have been vaccinated and this vaccine is effective … I am protected. Why should I care if you’re not vaccinated? How do you threaten me?” Dr. Ngare said.

“Why should you tell the one who has not taken the injection not to go to work, unless what you want is for everybody to be injected?” Dr. Ngare stressed that all these facts about how COVID was handled show that “the whole crisis was used to force people to be vaccinated, not to deal with the disease.”

When only those who are promoting the COVID shot “have the right” to an opinion, and anyone who is promoting other kinds of prevention and treatment does not have that right, then clearly there is “an agenda” afoot, Dr. Ngare said.

“So the question is then, what is the game plan? What’s the end goal?”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

Conservatives promise to ban firing of Canadian federal workers based on COVID jab status

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Conservative platform also vows that the party will oppose mandatory digital ID systems and a central bank digital currency if elected.

Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party’s 2025 election platform includes a promise to “ban” the firing of any federal worker based “solely” on whether or not they chose to get the COVID shots.

On page 23 of the “Canada First – For A Change” plan, which was released on Tuesday, the promise to protect un-jabbed federal workers is mentioned under “Protect Personal Autonomy, Privacy, and Data Security.”

It promises that a Conservative government will “Ban the dismissal of federal workers based solely on COVID vaccine status.”

The Conservative Party also promises to “Oppose any move toward mandatory digital ID systems” as well as “Prohibit the Bank of Canada from developing or implementing a central bank digital currency.”

In October 2021, the Liberal government of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector. The government also announced that the unjabbed would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train, both domestically and internationally.

This policy resulted in thousands losing their jobs or being placed on leave for non-compliance. It also trapped “unvaccinated” Canadians in the country.

COVID jab mandates, which also came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects, such as death, including in children.

Many recent rulings have gone in favor of those who chose not to get the shots and were fired as a result, such as an arbitrator ruling that one of the nation’s leading hospitals in Ontario must compensate 82 healthcare workers terminated after refusing to get the jabs.

Beyond health concerns, many Canadians, especially Catholics, opposed the injections on moral grounds because of their link to fetal cell lines derived from the tissue of aborted babies.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

RFK Jr. Launches Long-Awaited Offensive Against COVID-19 mRNA Shots

Published on

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH's avatar Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

As millions of Americans anxiously await action from the new HHS leadership against the COVID-19 mRNA injectionsinjected into over 9 million children this year—Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has finally gone publicly on the offensive:

Let’s go over each key point made by RFK Jr.:

The recommendation for children was always dubious. It was dubious because kids had almost no risk for COVID-19. Certain kids that had very profound morbidities may have a slight risk. Most kids don’t.

In the largest review to date on myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccination, Mead et al found that vaccine-induced myocarditis is not only significantly more common but also more severe—particularly in children and young males. Our findings make clear that the risks of the shots overwhelmingly outweigh any theoretical benefit:

The OpenSAFELY study included more than 1 million adolescents and children and found that myocarditis was documented ONLY in COVID-19 vaccinated groups and NOT after COVID-19 infection. There were NO COVID-19-related deaths in any group. A&E attendance and unplanned hospitalization were higher after first vaccination compared to unvaccinated groups:

So why are we giving this to tens of millions of kids when the vaccine itself does have profound risk? We’ve seen huge associations of myocarditis and pericarditis with strokes, with other injuries, with neurological injuries.

The two largest COVID-19 vaccine safety studies ever conducted, involving 99 million (Faksova et al) and 85 million people (Raheleh et al), confirm RFK Jr.’s concerns, documenting significantly increased risks of serious adverse events following vaccination, including:

  1. Myocarditis (+510% after second dose)
  2. Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (+278% after first dose)
  3. Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (+223% after first dose)
  4. Guillain-Barré Syndrome (+149% after first dose)
  5. Heart Attack (+286% after second dose)
  6. Stroke (+240% after first dose)
  7. Coronary Artery Disease (+244% after second dose)
  8. Cardiac Arrhythmia (+199% after first dose)

And this was clear even in the clinical data that came out of Pfizer. There were actually more deaths. There were about 23% more deaths in the vaccine group than the placebo group. We need to ask questions and we need to consult with parents.

Actually, according to the Pfizer’s clinical trial data, there were 43% more deaths in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group when post-unblinding deaths are included:

We need to give people informed consent, and we shouldn’t be making recommendations that are not good for the population.

Public acknowledgment of the grave harms of COVID-19 vaccines signals that real action is right around the corner. However, we must hope that action is taken for ALL age groups, as no one is spared from their life-reducing effects:

Alessandria et al (n=290,727, age > 10 years): People vaccinated with 2 doses lost 37% of life expectancy compared to the unvaccinated population during follow-up.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Continue Reading

Trending

X