Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
(1/2) Trying to solve an unsolvable problem , which becomes progressively worse as more attempts are done trying to solve it and get better result .. Q.1 What is the problem here ? Q.2 How to solve it ? #cardiotwitter #medtwitter #PTMC #BMV Hany Ragy Nishith Chandra Ankur Phatarpekar... show more
20,414 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren •via X (Twitter)
10 Kommentare
@Hragy @NishithChandra Stuck in the subvalve apparatus
@Hragy @NishithChandra Yes , absolutely that was the complication which was occuring due to a PROBLEM .. but why will it not form a tug at the valvar level and form a typical dumbell ??
@Hragy @NishithChandra How much was the MR post procedure. Balloon inflated at sub-valvular level!!
@Hragy @NishithChandra Nothing sir , NO MR ..
@Hragy @NishithChandra Was it ox balloon? Some focal bulge in proximal part before full inflation.
@Hragy @NishithChandra Yes , it was ox balloon indeed sir .. and u r almost on spot .. i will post the video of the problem later and how was it solved ..
@Hragy @NishithChandra - Make sure u r not subv - balloon appears malfunctioning - CA on the valve; is this redo and stenosis is subv -would exchange for smaller balloon
@Hragy @NishithChandra I was subvalvular but it wasn't intentional, it was slipping there due to the PROBLEM it had .. I have tweeted in next video about the problem ..
@Hragy @NishithChandra Stuck in SVP - avoid inflation there ; may cause acute MR
@Hragy @NishithChandra Absolutely, The complication occurring is inflations keep on occuring at the subvalular level but that is not the problem , the problem is different .. See balloon
Ähnliche Videos
Sensitive content
💡 Ready to witness the future of cardiovascular #innovation? Join Philippe Genereux as he unveils the highly anticipated results of the EARLY TAVR trial, debuting on Monday, October 28! Get an exclusive look at first-time presentations of key clinical trials and groundbreaking studies at #TCT2024! Don’t miss out—reserve your spot today: 📅 Explore the full schedule of late-breaking trials and cutting-edge science. Check it out here: #CardioX #CardioTwitter #CardioEd #CardioResearch Dan Burkhoff MD PhD David J. Cohen, MD, MSc George Dangas, MD, MACC, MSCAI Juan F. Granada Marty Leon Akiko Maehara Dr Roxana Mehran Sahil A. Parikh, MD Tricia Rawh TCT Conference jedicath աǟզǟʀ.ǟɦʍɛɖ إبراهيم الحربي Ibrahim Alharbi Abdelkader Almanfi, MD, FACC, FSCAI Hooman Bakhshi Alessandro Beneduce Nyal Borges Aaysha Cader BCaseMD Nishith Chandra Bailey Ann Richardson David L. Fischman Prof. Hector M. Garcia-Garcia Julia Grapsa Nadira Hamid Stefan Harb @AmandaLimaMD Evandro Martins F. MD Giorgio A. Medranda MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI Neisser M Srihari S. Naidu, MD sumonroy Michael Savage Muhammad Shuaib Abid Pooja Swamy, MD, FACC, FSCAI Ritu Thamman MD Anuradha Tunuguntla MD FACC FSCAI Poonam Velagapudi Edoardo Zancanaro MD Adriana C. Mares Niels R. Holm Abhishek Chaturvedi MD, FACC, FSCAI Krutarth Pandya Indah Sukmawati, MD Shariq Shamim MIЯVΛƬ #IC ༄ ｡°
Cardiovascular Research Foundation
16,807 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
![The secret recordings: Texas Tech's senior official admits that they lied about me in the official documentation leading up to my medical school dismissal For months after I began writing about how wrong the medical and scientific communities had gotten the COVID-19 response, senior Texas Tech administrators had been engaged in a flurry of internal activity about my public speech. They did not debate my views. They only discussed what to do about the attention. My right to free speech is protected under the United States Constitution. Texas Tech is a taxpayer-funded agency that must guarantee its students First Amendment rights. Its Student Handbook promises to uphold them. Senior administrators, including deans of multiple schools, held several meetings about what I wrote online. They instructed administrators to compile surveillance dossiers -- screenshots, PDFs of my articles and tweets, negative emails and hearsay. They instructed faculty not to say good things about me. They assigned me a "professionalism coach," Cheryl Erwin, who posed as an impartial advisor but privately wrote that I engaged in "intellectual narcissism" and believed in "conspiracy theories." In one passage, she compared my case to the Trump indictment and his denial of the 2020 election results. She wrote that I was exercising my First Amendment rights to "make an idiot of himself." I questioned the wisdom of lockdowns and the effectiveness of masks. This warranted, it appears, my very own Stasi dossier. I was aware of none of this until I exercised my statutory right to inspect my educational records. After dozens of email exchanges, months of delay, and a federal complaint to the Department of Education, I was finally able to inspect them two months ago. Dr. Erwin had accused me of believing in conspiracy theories. I did not. But I should have. Shortly after the dean of the medical school demanded my signed Honor Code and asked "what rotation is he on," I began receiving evaluations from Texas Tech faculty that were false and misleading. This went on for months. Something on the order of fifty discrete complaints were made against me. Prior to that, the number had been zero. I filed seven detailed complaints according to the Student Handbook and under the guidance of several administrators. I alleged that my evaluators had fabricated evaluations. I demanded hearings to hold them accountable. On November 4, 2023, senior administrator Simon Williams signed a document removing me from campus on the pretext of being dangerous. A BOLO was issued telling students, faculty, and employees to call 911 if I was seen. Mass emails warned that I was dangerous. An incident that continues to be cited to this very day, more than two years later. On November 5, Dr. Williams invited me to a sandwich shop. He confessed that he knew I was not dangerous. He admitted that Texas Tech faculty and administrators felt threatened by my complaints -- and took it out on me. In other words, Dr. Williams confessed that he lied in Texas Tech's official documentation and that the campus removal was retaliation for constitutionally protected speech alleging wrongdoing by Texas Tech faculty. Here are just some of the things he told me: "This profession expects more of everyone. And if you choose to enter it, by definition you choose to live by those professional rules." "And you know, free speech is free speech. We've actually had a lot of talks. Our lawyers are doing works with us. Just yesterday when I was at the meeting, they were talking about free speech. I mean I'm 100%. I want you to be able to say whatever the frick you want. And I won't get -- I usually will not get in any way triggered by it. But when you're in a position that's such a trusted position in society -- then your standard has to be a little bit. And that's one of the places this is becoming a problem." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] "Can I say in my appeal letter that Dr. Williams seems to believe that I'm not [nervous laughter] homicidal?" "I... I have said that. I don't think you are. I don't think there's -- I've never sensed threat or danger or anything like that." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] "But it's important for me that I do this. In fact, that's why I moved back from Seattle a day early. Because I needed to be here today. I want you to know that because I never felt [inaudible] bad here. I've always enjoyed my interactions with you. I wish other people could see it that way, but apparently that's [inaudible]." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] Yet in his letter authorizing my removal just the day before, he wrote: "You have engaged in behavior that may constitute violation(s) ... specifically, but not limited to ... 'Physical harm or threat of harm to any person.'" Then an appeal hearing was held. A Schrodinger's Administrator of sorts, just as soon as Dr. Williams was observed to speak publicly, he immediately asserted that I was indeed dangerous and should be kept off campus, flip-flopping back from the position he communicated privately. The timeline: November 4: "Physical harm or threat of harm to any person" November 5: "I've never sensed threat or danger or anything like that" November 9: Kevin is dangerous actually To be clear. Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, it is a federal crime to willfully deprive a person of constitutional rights under color of law. A federal crime. And that is exactly what Dr. Williams did. Dr. Williams's decision to remove me was not impulsive. Nine months earlier, two days after my Newsweek article was published, he wrote in internal emails: "It is obviously protected speech but also quite concerning in the way he appears to speak for the medical community. We need to discuss an appropriate response." -- February 1, 2023 "I am not surprised that there was backlash. I think it will be best to hear what legal says we should do." -- February 2, 2023 The "appropriate response" took nine months to execute. It was relentless, and it came from all directions. This "appropriate response" was precisely the one I filed grievances to confront. And I was met with calls from the campus police. I am not the first one Texas Tech has done this to. How do I know? An administrator told me. At least one other student had false allegations leveled against him because the administration wanted them gone. And if they win, I won't be the last they do this to either. I only discovered these emails because I exercised my right under FERPA to inspect my educational records. Now Texas Tech's litigation counsel, Assistant Attorney General Scott Smith, has recently blocked all further access to my records -- in writing. If Texas Tech does not fulfill its FERPA obligations, it could lose all federal funding. Texas Tech, apparently, is getting very nervous. Smith also ordered me to stop contacting the Registrar and to route all requests through him. That's right. The attorney defending Texas Tech against my lawsuit is now trying to establish gatekeeping control over my education records. That's illegal. A federal complaint is pending with the Department of Education and other federal agencies. FIRE Greg Lukianoff -- crickets DOJ Civil Rights Division -- you have my complaint Attorney General Ken Paxton @OAGTexas -- your AAG is doing a terrible job; borderline sanctionable; I don't get it Greg Abbott -- this your university Texas Tech University -- Williams was not the top of the decision tree; I know that for a fact Newsweek -- help me publish my story @ACLUofTexas -- do you know about this? Department of Justice (DOJ) Harmeet K. Dhillon Pam Bondi -- theoretically, this is prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. § 242. I'm not a prosecutor, but it does theoretically fulfill the elements. Willful. Chancellor Brandon Creighton -- you are the chancellor. Do something. My case is a strange one. It gets stranger everyday. It will get stranger still. Of that I am sure. Here's something strange: the defending Assistant Attorney General and two colleagues are getting hammered on the docket by a pro se plaintiff. They seem utterly incapable of following court rules, making coherent arguments, or even properly citing their own exhibits or authorities. I suspect that they just don't know what to do with my case. In the next post, I will begin telling that story. You won't believe it. Texans, your government is setting your taxpayer money on fire to defend a university that set out not just to destroy a medical student's career, but his personal and professional reputation as well. Remember. They destroyed me because I was damn good at what I did. Now I'm an order of magnitude better. And I don't bluff. Horror and laughter. Those come next.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036168164942209380/amplify_video_thumb/2036167931789189120/img/F1X6JSfDvsqT4L1e.jpg)
![An interview by VERY DARK AND CORRUPT Wall Street Journal aired today [1] WSJ's terrible "journalists" (and I use that term lightly) made many false statements about Sarepta's worthless, dangerous drug and Vinay Prasad's firing [1,2] I explain how the FDA sausage is made in excruciating detail Buckle up To get readers up to speed -> In June, corrupt pharma company Sarepta Therapeutics paid $40,000 to lobbying group Michael Best Strategies (MBS) to deal with a problem [3] -> MBS had recently hired Chris LaCivita, who had close connections with "MAGA" influencer Laura Loomer [4] -> With stock down 88%, Sarepta needed to sell their very bad, very dangerous drug or the company would go bankrupt [5] -> After several deaths from the drug this year, FDA official Vinay Prasad said "no way" and kicked the drug to the curb [2,6] -> Sarepta panicked and paid MBS (we believe) to deal with Prasad [3,4] -> If this story is right, LaCivita recruited Laura Loomer to take down Prasad [4,7] -> Loomer said she was defending Trump, but she was lying [7] -> She was defending taxpayer-funded payouts to a worthless, corrupt company [7] -> Laura Loomer so brave A history of bad drugs and regulatory failure -> This is one of the worst pharma scandals in American history and corrupt mainstream media isn't covering it -> Sarepta has a very long, troubled history [8] -> For more than a decade, every major Sarepta FDA drug approval has required INTENSE political intervention [8,9] -> Scientists at FDA have been repeatedly overruled [8,9] -> Many scientists have resigned, very publicly, over these POLITICAL decisions, some writing scathing public criticisms of these terrible decisions [10,11] -> The most recent resignation by Vinay Prasad is not something new; it follows in a long tradition [2,10] -> In fact, standards have dramatically deteriorated since the first controversies about the company's drugs in the 2010s [8,9] -> Prasad was trying to hold the line in the face of rapidly deteriorating standards at the agency [2,6] -> For that, pharma launched a coup--a literal coup of a drug regulator [4,6] -> This is unprecedented -> Banana republic sht, unbelievably corrupt 2016: first Sarepta drug approval and the "highly unusual" decision -> The first Sarepta drug approved by FDA was called Exondys 51 [8] -> This drug was for patients with mutations in dystrophin, a muscle protein [8] -> This is a debilitating and fatal disease affecting children [8] -> Exondys 51 increased dystrophin by 0.2% of normal levels [8,12] -> Unsurprisingly, there was no good evidence the drug worked [8,12] -> Why would it? It increases the protein from zero to 1/500th of normal levels -> One reviewer wrote: "I can find no precedent of an accelerated approval for a marketing application where the effect size on the surrogate endpoint is as small as 0.3%." [12] -> The study submitted by the company included no proper control group [12] -> The techniques used were so bad not even a first-year PhD student would do a study that way -> This the level of work you would expect from a mediocre undergraduate with no guidance -> It's almost like it was so bad on purpose -> (Narrator: it was on purpose) -> Nerd time: -> One reviewer wrote: "The Western blots submitted by the applicant for Study 201 were oversaturated, unreliable, and uninterpretable." [12] -> Another wrote: "Because CDER also determined that the conditions under which the original IHC analysis was performed were inadequate, including that the reader was not masked to sequence and time, the Center requested a re-reading of the stored images by three masked pathologists under different conditions. The IHC results from the reread were not nearly as favorable, as compared to the initial IHC results reported by Sarepta." [12] -> "The lack of concordance between the IHC and the Western Blot results is 'striking'" [12] -> "Study 201/202 had fundamental flaws, including baseline biopsies from external controls who could differ in unknown ways from study subjects, Week 180 biopsies from different muscles than baseline, and potential protein degradation in stored baseline samples." [12] -> And on and on. -> FDA commissioner Robert Califf wrote at the time: the submitted study was "characterized by major flaws in the clinical study design" and "Blinded experts assembled by the FDA fundamentally debunked this study, which has yet to be retracted and continues to be cited" [9,12] -> That's right, the FDA commissioner expressed dismay that the study that the company used to gain approval hadn't yet been retracted, it was so bad [9] -> Senior FDA official Janet Woodcock decided to approve before scientific review team had even voted [9,12] -> Woodcock be like: yeah i'm going to decide before you guys can because i know what you're going to say lol -> Despite external intense pressure, FDA scientists voted against Exondys 51's efficacy [9,12] -> They then voted against its accelerated approval [9,12] -> The review team filed an appeal with FDA commissioner after "passionate" disagreement with Woodcock [9,12] -> One reviewer called Woodcock's decision "unprecedented" [12] -> In a 126-page report, FDA commissioner Califf called Woodcock's decision "highly unusual" [9] -> The FDA board wrote: "[Woodcock's] involvement here appears to have upended the typical review and decision-making process. ... Care should be taken to avoid the appearance of interfering with the integrity of scientific reviews at the lower levels of a Center." [9] -> Again, the data were unbelievably bad, literally every technique in the study was inappropriately used [12] -> I would fire an undergraduate student who did science like this, immediately -> FDA's chief scientist accused Sarepta of "serious irresponsibility" for selectively publishing only some of the data [9] -> Even Woodcock, who approved the drug, called the research "seriously deficient" [12] -> Yes, even the person who approved the drug over the heads of FDA's scientists said the research was horrible [12] -> Still, FDA tried to bury their heads in the sand and beg that, basically, Sarepta pretty please do a better job next time -> FDA commissioner: "The utmost attention should be paid to optimizing the methodological rigor of [future] trial[s]" [9] -> FDA also demanded a clinical trial "to verify the benefit" of the drug [8] -> Welp, this was in 2016 [8] -> The trial results are supposed to be available in 2026, maybe [13] -> Or maybe later, depending on how much money needs to be made first -> As an article published in Nature three years later despaired of the decision: "The approval was conditional on the company agreeing to conduct a two-year post-approval trial to show Exondys 51’s efficacy. But by August 2019, the company had yet to begin such a trial and in the meantime had profited from sales of $300 million in 2018." [13] -> If it sounds like Sarepta used political pressure to get its drug approved and then tried to avoid actually publishing the study showing it didn't work, it sounds that way because that's exactly what happened [13] -> FDA commissioner after deferring to Woodcock: "I am confident this unique situation will not set a general precedent for drug approvals under the accelerated approval pathway, as the statute and regulations are clear each situation must be evaluated on its own merits based on the totality of data and information." [9] -> This statement was profoundly naive, and the historical record bears this out [8,14] -> Three FDA scientists resigned, including the lead reviewer of the drug, understanding the grave implications of the collapse of scientific standards and where they would lead [10,11] -> One was John K. Jenkins, M.D. Director, Office of New Drugs Center for Drug Evaluation and Research/FDA [10] -> In a presentation given just before his resignation, he wrote: -> "Path taken by Sarepta NOT a good model for other development programs" [10] -> Crucially: -> "Upholding statutory standards for approval in face of hopes and desires of patients, families, sponsors, and investors is a very difficult job" [10] -> "Personal attacks on FDA reviewers creates an atmosphere of distrust and isolation rather than collaboration" [10] This brings us to WHY Sarepta's drug was approved Facebook FDA -> So why did the drug get approved? -> Basically, Sarepta propagandized extremely desperate patients [9,15] -> They used miraculous snake oil promises and patients believed them -> Remember that this is life or death for patients, and they are extremely vulnerable -> Sarepta also professionally trained some patients to give testimonials to FDA and congress [15] -> The patients then went to congressmen who don't have time to understand the science [15] -> They gave emotional stories to congressmen [15] -> The result: -> Letter from 109 House members [15] -> Letter from 24 Senate members [15] -> And a media circus documented in the New York Times [16] -> Patients screaming at scientists during meetings [9] -> 2,792 emails written to FDA urging approval [12] -> One of them: "Dear Dr. califf: How is it that everyone in and around DMD understands this simple Idea and the science geniuses at FDA don't? You stupid fckers are costing each and every DMD kids days of their lives with your Moronic Dystrophin dance. Time to get a fcking clue" [12] -> Upon approval, a journalist for Reuters wrote: "owing to pressure from patient advocates, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Monday approved a treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy even though an outside panel of experts and the agency's own reviewers questioned the drug's efficacy" [17] -> A commentary in Nature Medicine was also published called "Railroading at the FDA" [9] -> Its author wrote: "In the words of one FDA committee member, Exondys lowers the agency's evidentiary standard for drug effectiveness 'to an unprecedented nadir.'" [9] -> A highly critical commentary was also published in Science, titled "Sarepta gets an approval - Unfortunately" [18] -> The article's author pharma veteran Derek Lowe wrote: "The company... called up Duchenne-affected boys and their families to plead with the FDA, and won over Janet Woodcock, and that appears to be enough. Is this going to be the new way to get a drug approved? Run a trial in a dozen people, generate unconvincing data, and then lobby Janet Woodcock? I share the worries that this might open the floodgates, because after all, Sarepta got their drug through." [18] -> One FDA reviewer ended in an equally grim note: ". Approval of this NDA would send the signal that political pressure and even intimidation – not science – guides FDA decisions, with extremely negative consequences. The public is well aware of this development program: the meager size of the study population, the marginal (at best) effect size, the Division’s dim view of the efficacy data, and the robust activism of some members of the DMD community. Many would be amazed at an approval action, because other DMD drugs, recently turned down for approval, appeared to provide stronger evidence of efficacy. ...The ramifications here are profound. The public will perceive that it was their unprecedented lobbying efforts that made the difference and earned eteplirsen its accelerated approval. For the future, this will have the effect of strongly encouraging public activism and intimidation as a substitute for data, which is one of the worst possible consequences for communities with rare diseases. This type of activism is not what was envisioned for patient-focused drug development." [12] -> A new era was born -> Activism had replaced data -> Facebook had fried people's brains -> And now Facebook-fried brains had fried FDA too -> FDA's credibility as a regulatory agency would now be hollowed out -> FDA's Facebook age had begun -> But the worst was yet to come Sarepta approvals: 2016 to present -> Three more drugs were approved from Sarepta on the same shoddy basis, proving Califf's promises that Exondys 51 was an isolated case empty [8,14] -> But things would take a turn for the worse with Sarepta's newest drug Elevidys in 2024 [19] -> At last a rigorous clinical trial looking at actual clinical outcomes was published [19,20] -> All would be put to rest -> At long last the issue could be resolved with HARD CLINICAL DATA -> There was only one problem -> The trial failed to show any benefit according to the primary outcome [19,20] -> The surrogate biomarker of micro-dystrophin meant absolutely nothing; it wasn't actually helping patients [19,20] -> What did FDA scientists do? They voted against approval. Of course [19] -> How could they not? The drug didn't actually work in the clinical trial [19] -> It's the only thing that made sense, since FDA is a scientific agency -> AND THEY WERE OVERRULED AGAIN BY PETER MARKS [19] -> YES THAT'S RIGHT, OVERRULED YET AGAIN -> PHARMA WINS AGAIN -> HAHAHAHAHAHA PHARMA ALWAYS WINS YOU FOOLS -> What happened is that Marks crossed his eyes somewhat, trying to make the words on the page blurry -> He prayed really hard, "my god please give me a sign, something, anything, I need this for my career" -> lzzosolsolzzolzozlslzolosllslozllzlzl -> Marks was trying really hard to see SOMETHING, come on come on, give me SOMETHIGN he said -> And he said: wait, look, there are these secondary, exploratory endpoints and a two of them look pretty good, I'LL APPROVE [19,20] -> AHAHAHHAHAHA YES PHAMRA WINS AGAIN -> And Marks said, "Thank you pharma go- I mean god, not pharma god, why did I just say that, FCK" -> The trial was explicitly designed for what Marks did NOT to happen [20] -> Once the primary endpoint was not met, the secondary endpoints couldn't even be statistically tested [20] -> And the trial explicitly said that they could not be interpreted the way Marks interpreted them [20] -> They were not adjusted for multiplicity and they were, like expression of dystrophin, simply bad endpoints [20] -> These two secondary endpoints were time to rise from lying on the floor and the 10-meter walk/run tests [20] -> Subjects who received the Elevidys performed, on average, about 0.5 seconds better than placebo recipients on these tasks [20] -> However several facts must be borne in mind when interpreting these: -> 1. At the time of testing, patients receiving the drug were receiving more corticosteroids than placebo patients, biasing the results [20] -> 2. Blinding might have been broken because those receiving the drug experienced lots of nausea and vomiting from the drug (~70%) [20] -> 3. These differences were tiny and may be attributable to chance, since the natural course of the disease varies widely [20] -> Marks knows this but who cares? Pharma I mean Facebook needed to be placated Elevidys: the drug -> To understand why this is so messed up, one must understand a few things -> On a Bayesian basis, one must assume that Elevidys is harmful until proven otherwise, for two reasons: -> 1. All drugs are potentially "toxic", but some toxins heal: by default you must assume it is a toxin that does not heal because this is what is actually usually the case; you need evidence that it actually heals -> 2. Elevidys IN PARTICULAR must be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise because of the very nature of the drug -> Let's do a breakdown of the basic science of Elevidys that supports this (Bayesian) hypothesis: -> Gene therapy that permanently integrates into human genome [21] -> Meant to replace dystrophin, the protein that these patients cannot produce themselves [21] -> Preferentially targets muscle but gets expressed everywhere [21] -> Killed three people this year [6,21] -> Costs $3.2 million per injection [21] -> Truncated version of the protein it is supposed to replace [21] -> 3X shorter than the real protein [21] -> Has to be truncated because the technology cannot create the full protein [21] -> Because it's an abnormal protein, it's foreign, so immune system attacks it [21] -> Patients injected with drug are basically given an autoimmune disease [21] -> Patients have to be given anti-inflammatories to fight the disease that the drug causes [21] -> Causes terrible muscle inflammation [21] -> Inflames the heart, heart walls thicken because of the inflammation [21] -> Blows up the liver, causes acute liver injury and death [21] Drug should actually be assumed harmful, not beneficial -> Given all of the above, since the drug failed to meet its primary endpoint, it should actually be considered harmful by default, not beneficial [19,20] -> In other words, what we would actually expect if we added more patients and did an even larger study... -> Is that the drug would do worse than placebo, i.e., patients taking the drug would do worse than those taking placebo -> Why isn't this the default interpretation? -> They are reading the study with an intervention bias -> An intervention bias is natural, which is why "do no harm" is such a central tenet of medicine -> If I may put forward a thesis: most of Vinay Prasad's 500+-paper body of work has been dedicated to demonstrating the "do no harm" principle empirically [22] -> Rose-colored glasses study interpreters are simply not applying this principle properly and are thus failing scientifically in the most fundamental way -> Incomprehensible -> Back in 2016, scientists were adamant that the approval of Sarepta's first drug indicated the profound deterioration of scientific standards [8,9] -> But this latest approval is even worse: actual clinical data is now being overruled -> No standards at all are being enforced anymore; anything can now be approved based on any evidence whatsoever -> What Vinay was trying to do was simply to stop the unrelenting downslide -> And his firing punctuated that downslide for what it was The WSJ segment -> When Elevidys was approved, former FDA chief scientist and one of the original reviewers of Sarepta's first drug Luciana Borio said: -> "I don’t know what to say. Peter Marks makes a mockery of scientific reasoning and approval standards that have served patients well over decades. This type of action also promotes the growing mistrust in scientific institutions like the FDA." [23] -> To return to this video, these two WSJ reporters show an incredible level of ignorance and arrogance -> Finley says that the drug is "clearly" beneficial by misreading the secondary endpoints, just like Marks did -> An FDA memo from last year says about these endpoints: "Under these circumstances, they are misleading and cannot guide any stakeholders—including patients, family members and caregivers, and prescribers—in making informed decisions about the potential benefit of treatment with ELEVIDYS." [20] -> It really doesn't get any clearer than that -> But these two journalists are overruling the actual scientists, just like Marks did -> One of the most incredible comments during this interview was the complaint that "90% of clinical trials fail", as if that's bad thing [1] -> It's actually a good thing; most drugs suck; failing in clinical trial actually allows us to use only the drugs that don't suck -> These people don't understand the most fundamental purpose of the clinical trial -> They think clinical trials failing is a bad thing, as if it means that patients now won't get to use a useful drug -> No, it's a good thing, because it means that patients won't be exposed unnecessarily to a useless drug that might harm them -> The level of ignorance really is unbelievable -> What's worse is that these "journalists" defend their decision -> But what they did is exploit social media hysteria caused by Laura Loomer [1,7] -> Following up on her heels with editorials, using her as pharma attack dog [1,4] -> This is a huge blow to WSJ's credibility, and they know it -> Unbelievably shameful Where do we go from here? -> The Vinay Prasad firing creates a serious crisis of credibility at FDA [2,6] -> Up to this point, we could call these approvals a difference of opinion, but as we've seen, that's a huge stretch -> But any illusion of that is now shattered: the firing shows that drug regulation is explicitly political -> Janet Woodcock: approve, keep job -> Peter Marks: approve, keep job -> Vinay Prasad: block, transparently fired -> Make a decision that is anti-pharma and lose your job: that's the message -> Who can trust any decision at FDA anymore? -> RFK Jr. and Marty Makary both stand behind Vinay Prasad [24] -> Trump went along with lockdowns, he went along with mask mandates, he went along with all of the Covid pseudoscience that he now decries -> He should reverse course and not go along with this -> Trump has created a profound crisis of credibility at FDA and needs to fix it](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1952294845248114806/amplify_video_thumb/1952292444621451264/img/SPXp7ZpvQZ3FQV7_.jpg)
![💥 LAP Alert 💥 "I did this sort of spy thing where I changed hotel rooms and I changed taxis. I was making sure I wasn’t followed." ~Knapp Is Lacatski Lying to Us About the Craft and Breaching the Hull? ~ "If not for that [2017 NYT] story about AATIP and the problems that [Lacatski] saw with it, he would never have mentioned [AAWSAP]...I don't think, ever." ~Knapp (So, in other words...thank you from the UFO community, to the NYT, for getting it wrong? 🙂) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Should we listen to Dr. James Lacatski on UFOs, on the fact, or the idea, that our government has at least one, he's admitted, and we breached the hull? Should we listen to him, George?" George Knapp: "I know a lot of people have noticed that he's talked about his role in counterintelligence as part of the AAWSAP program. And because they equate counterintelligence with lies, false info., cover stories, misdirection. Aha! He's putting out a bunch of false info. a decade after he retired from government service." (I saw one person suggest that, and I thought it was a questionable take...) Grant Lavac: "Given that Dr. James Lacatski was the 'counterintelligence coordinator' for AAWSAP, how much confidence can we invest in the veracity of his public statements that 'at least one recovered craft of unknown origin, a flying machine with no wings, no engine, no fuel, and no fuel tanks' is in the possession of the US government and that they had 'breached the hull' of the UFO? In the context of the counterintelligence value of UAP/UFO, his comments in this most recent interview on WEAPONIZED (edited for brevity) only raise more questions for me." ~~~ Knapp: "A, it's not [Lacatski]. He's not out there beating the bushes. He's talked to us, but that's pretty much it. He's telling the full story as much as he can in a series of books. And I was co-author on two of those, not on this one. And, you know, I remember the first time I met him, it was in 2018." ~ (In April of 2019, Knapp shared that story, minus Lacatski's name, at UFO MegaCon. Knapp in 2019: "I thought today I would share with you, sort of the informational foundation that I’ve acquired. So, one year ago, I made this trip to Washington, D.C. at the invitation of Senator Harry Reid. It was St. Patrick’s Day, 2018 and I already knew a little bit about AATIP and AAWSAP and what they’ve been studying and where the money came from and how the program was created. I did this sort of spy thing where I changed hotel rooms and I changed taxis. I was making sure I wasn’t followed. And if there was ever actually, anybody following me, they must have thought I looked ridiculous because it was way over the top. "But I ended up having to meet with Senator Reid and some other people who were directly involved in these programs and they gave me a download. And I thought I knew a lot about these programs when I went there and realized that I only knew a little tiny bit. The purpose of this was to learn about these programs. We all know about AATIP, but in reality, there was something before that. "I sat down for a couple of hours with Senator Reid and other people whose names, they don’t want to be known. They brought me up to speed on how AATIP was created. How its predecessor was under way for a number of years. It coexisted for a long time. People in this room. People who investigate this topic may have suspected for a long time that there was some kind of a program that still existed. We’ve all heard that Project Bluebook was the end. 1969 it ended and the government was done with UFOs. They closed up shop. And the reason they closed it down is because there was no evidence that it involved national security. "And we all knew that was baloney because of the stories that we’ve seen that are really well documented. For example, UFOs over nuclear missile bases. UFO encounters with the military installations and atomic facilities. Things of that sort the have been well documented over the years. There are cases that involved national security. So at the end of Blue Book, of course, this memo said, alright, any cases involving national security will continue to be investigated in the regular way. Well, what the heck was the regular way? We didn’t know. Well now we do know. At least a little bit of it." (Project Blue Book was shut down in December of 1969, but a few months earlier, in October, we had the Bolender memo, which noted that "reports of UFOs which could affect national security should continue to be handled through the standard Air Force procedure designed for this purpose." What standard Air Force procedure? The regular way? Where did those cases go? We still don't know what Bolender was referring to in that memo.) ~ Knapp in 2019: "And one of the regular ways was this program called AATIP. So I went on this trip. [and] I learned this stuff about AATIP. I had known a lot about it before but I got this briefing about this alphabet soup of different programs, how they began and what they studied. December 2017, the New York Times breaks this story about AATIP. Now, I had known about it for a long time because I lived in Las Vegas. I knew Bob Bigelow. I knew Harry Reid. We’d talk about UFO stuff and what was going on. "So when I was told the New York Times was gonna break the story, I’m kind ticked off about it. Because hey, I’ve been sitting on this for a long time. Why don’t I get to break the story? And they had to, one after another, gently remind me, 'You know. You’re not the New York Times.' Which I had to admit! It was true. And if I had done the story, the Times had said that they weren’t going to do it if somebody else breaks it. So, if I had done it, it’d be another story from a UFO reporter. "The New York Times did it and they changed everything. Because they did it, wider organizations did it. Some of them took shots at the New York Times because The Times got the story and they didn’t. But that story was accurate, to a degree. But the story that it told was not the full story. AATIP, that we know about…the AATIP that studies nuts and bolts saucers…case of UFOs that have encounters with military units such as the USS Nimitz, that is studied by a group of people, Lue Elizondo was the head of it. "It’s not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies, including the Air Force and the Navy, CIA, DIA, DARPA…there might be a couple of other agencies. But a case would come in from any one of their units [and] it would be shared with this group of people, analysis would be done, evidence would be looked at and then stashed in a draw and nobody ever sees it. It’s not passed up the chain of command. "In 2007, that changed. One of the guys (Lacatski. ~Joe 2025) I met with in this meeting in Washington is the one who changed it. He had been in the same position that Lue Elizondo had been in. And his name is just not out there. He grew frustrated with what was happening with the phenomenon and he suspected that UFOs flying around the sky, buzzing our military units every once in a while, is not the full story. Even if you could solve that part of the mystery it wouldn’t solve the bigger part of the picture. "So he grew interested in Skinwalker Ranch and he had read the (Knapp/Kelleher – 'Hunt For The Skinwalker') book. And after he read it, he called up Bob Bigelow and said…actually, he wrote him a letter and said, 'Hey, can I go to the ranch…go look around? I’m with the DIA.' Bigelow says, 'Come on out to Las Vegas and I’ll take you there.' And that’s what happened. He flew to Las Vegas. They flew on Bigelow’s jet. They went to the ranch. "This guy’s not there fifteen minutes and he has an experience. And I’m not gonna go into detail. I’m hoping that he’s going to maybe come forward at some point and describe his experience. But it was just for him. Of all the people in this room, in the encounter, he was the only one who could see it. He’s the only one who had an angle on this thing that appeared. And he’s pretending that he’s not seeing it but it’s right out of the corner of his eye. And he doesn’t say anything until he leaves the ranch. And he gets off and he asks Bigelow if he had seen it. And he had not. The other people who had been in the room had not seen it. "He flies back to Las Vegas, goes back to Washington, D.C. and looks up Harry Reid and tells him about it. Now Reid had some experience in these matters that I’ll get into in a little bit. But as a result of that conversation, Reid, who had an interest in UFOs and had maintained that interest over many years – and I can attest to that personally – called in a couple of his friends in the Senate – Daniel Inouye and Ted Stevens. They had a conversation in a secure room and they decided to provide some funding for a much broader study. Something that looked at…beyond flying saucers, that looked at other paranormal aspects…supernatural aspects that we would not normally associate with aliens or ETs. Assuming that that’s what this is, which I’m not sure anyone knows for sure. And that is how AAWSAP was born. The Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program." ~~~ Knapp Yesterday: "The only reason [Lacatski] came forward, he was ticked off about how AATIP had been described in major media reports, and no mention had been given to the actual, real program. That one that had a $22 million budget, lasted 27 months, and which put together the biggest UFO data warehouse in history, that had written all these papers that still have not been released." (In the most-recent interview (Part 1) with Weaponized, Lacatski let it fly with his issues related to the 2017 NYT article: "The initial reporting...by the New York Times story in 2017 was totally inaccurate. Contrary to what some people claim, the authors knew my name and position at AAWSAP, yet never attempted to contact me. Likewise, the The Washington Post. POLITICO (laughs) contacted me within hours after the articles were published in the free publications, asking for my opinion. They knew my name, they had my phone number. Why didn't they contact me [beforehand]?" ~Dr. James Lacatski on Weaponized ~ Knapp: "So, Jim was a counterintelligence guy for AAWSAP, but in this role. He wasn't putting out cover stories or lies, he didn't put out anything. The world didn't hear that AAWSAP existed until years later, at least by that name. There was one statement made to the press about that program. It was by Robert Bigelow, whose company, BAASS, got the contract. A week after he signed it, he came on with me on Coast to Coast AM and said, 'We got this program dealing with UFOs, we have an unnamed partner, and we're excited to get going.' That was it. "Jim Lacatski wasn't putting out PR releases about AAWSAP. There was nothing. That was the last thing anybody said until the New York Times did the AATIP story, and then Jim Lacatski felt the real story was being covered up. If not for that story about AATIP and the problems that he saw with it, he would never have mentioned this. I don't think ever." (Well, then, thank you to the NYT journalists and editors for pissing off Lacatski!) Knapp: "You'll recall, AAWSAP, at the time that things went downhill, that the funding was moved away, they were trying to make it into a SAP, a Special Access Program. And if it had happened, we probably would never have heard of it. If it had happened, Lue Elizondo would have been the counterintelligence guy for AAWSAP, that he had already talked to Lacatski. "But Lacatski is not proclaiming the greatness of the program. He's not out there beating the bushes on podcasts and newscasts, other than with us, and he never put out in counterintelligence. His role, counterintelligence, meant something different for AAWSAP. The thing that DIA had told him was, 'Look, you know, it's not a rogue program. I know it gets weird into some of the phenomena that was at Skinwalker Ranch and other places. We don't care. Here's what we care about: Don't let the secret out. We don't want to see this on the front page of the Washington Post. We want it kept secret.' (John Greenewald was one person questioning whether AAWSAP was actually a prosaic program and Lacatski just decided to go rogue with a foray into UFOs and the paranormal.) Greenewald Tweet: "Did the U.S. government really sanction this, and if so, is this really how it was run? Or was this a rogue operation by a select few on the inside playing with Uncle Sam's coffers?" (Greenewald was quote tweeting a Greenstreet hit-piece video on AAWSAP. In his interview on Weaponized aired over the past few weeks, Lacatski said that former Deputy Director of AARO, Tim Phillips, also used the "rogue" word when describing AAWSAP. Did DIA really not know what AAWSAP was about? Did Lacatski go rogue and turn a program that was supposed to look at prosaic, advanced technology into one that studied UFOs and the paranormal? Here's an exchange from the 2023 interview Knapp and Corbell did with Lacatski and Colm Kelleher.) Kelleher: "The critical part of AAWSAP that we tried to convey in 'Skinwalkers at the Pentagon,' was that there were two fundamental, parallel tracks that AAWSAP ran on. The first one was the examination of UFO performance. And, you know, the UFO performance part was getting all of the data from eyewitnesses, plus deploying sensors into the field, in order to gather data on the performance of UFOs. That was track number one. And track number two was: What effects do UFOs have on humans? That was a parallel track that, from the get go, AAWSAP decided, unambiguously, to run both tracks in parallel. We documented psychological effects, and then we also documented paranormal effects." Lacatski: "Anything can be said on the internet it seems, factual or not. Well, one thing that is not factual is, DIA knew what it was getting into in regard to both aspects that Colm just described to you. And let me end my statement right here. We had no choice but to pursue both aspects." (That was a poor way of him saying: The claim that DIA was unaware of AAWSAP looking into all aspects of UFOs, including the paranormal, is NOT true.) Lacatski: "I want to emphasize something I said on my first and only interview. It was a closed program. It operated very similar to a SAP. The director, the director of analysis, and my office chief...and, of course, division chief, knew about this program. No one else did. Now, I was also protected by the stovepipe nature of that. I did not have to address political-type questions. I was insulated, but they were, too. There was no one else. People in the surrounding cubicles didn't know. Nothing was purposely being hid. It was a closed, stovepipe system, and it needed to be. It needed to be operated that way." ~~~ Knapp: "And so, Jim Lacatski took it on himself, put it in his own hands. He and Colm Kelleher interviewed all these people who applied for the jobs, the 50 full-time positions that they staffed, in a matter of months. They did background checks, they required security clearances for all those people, and they were worried about leaks. They didn't want information to get out. "They also were concerned about espionage by foreign players, by foreign companies, things of that sort. And some of that really did happen. As Jim has shared with us, there were a couple of phones that were transmitters that were found inside Bigelow Aerospace, inside the Bigelow, uh, facilities, and it was very alarming because they weren't sure who was doing it. I think they think it was a foreign government. I'm not going to say which one, uh, they suspected the most." (Lacatski said that the phones in question were made in China.) Knapp: "But, and then they also found weird frequencies emanating from Skinwalker Ranch. That's not strange, and there's a lot of unusual stuff that happens there, but it was some sort of a an espionage program that they believed was was not only looking at the ranch, but also at BAASS. "That was his primary concern. He was worried that the story gets out, because secrecy was of paramount interest to the heads of DIA and he's worried about the information getting out to the public. Because once it happened, then the knives come out in the Pentagon and within the intelligence community, which is kind of what happened. A memo was sent from Harry Reid's office, let other people know that AAWSAP existed, and that's when things started getting problematic." Corbell: "The bugging thing. So, it's not just like Bigelow Aerospace was tapped with something, he said, specifically, AAWSAP, right? So they were looking at that new UFO program. And I don't know how public this is, but he did say it was - not just him, other people have all said - it was multiple nations, multiple, different devices from those phones. And he also said that they worked with FBI, they had FBI liaisons looking at the ranch property, and also at Bigelow Aerospace. "Because, remember, they were supposed to receive a transfer of materials. That's why they reverse, reverse engineered (laughs), you know, they built everything to be able to hold SCIF-capable and material-capable property at that classification level. So, look, I think if we pull it back, the whole idea is, James Lacatski made a statement at some point that he was, you know, head of, or part of, or running the counterintelligence for AAWSAP. But his point was to keep AAWSAP itself secret from foreign nations. So then he has to keep it secret from the U.S. He did it. He did a great job. They actually kept it secret. That doesn't mean he's going out and creating false information to the public like he's been accused of. "So, should we listen to Jim Lacatski? That was like, you know, the main question. Oh, one second. He also identified that there is currently a counter-programming, counterintelligence operation going on to the American public, but not against the American public, by AARO." (In other words, spread misinformation to the American public so they can advance their goal of misinforming and confusing our adversaries who are always listening. National security! IMO, that's only acceptable if we're talking specifics related to propulsion, technology and weapons that can be used to give us a leg up on said adversaries. But everything else should come out and be made public. We shouldn't be told a bunch of lies about information we paid for and that could, potentially, give us some clarity about our species and other lifeforms on this planet.) Corbell: That was so clear in our interview with him that he said that, you know, 'Look, they're acting this way. They are telling you lies about AAWSAP and what happened.' And that's why he said, 'My books, I'm a government employee. This was paid by taxpayers. I'm trying to give you information.' And that's what his books are. "So it's clear from these rounds of interviews that we just had with Dr. Lacatski that he supports a controlled UFO disclosure. He made that very clear. So should we listen to what he has to say? I mean, he was a big dog, right, George?" Knapp: "He was the head of the largest U.S. government-funded UFO investigation in history, that we know of. He worked with Colm Kelleher, who was the boots-on-the-ground guy in Las Vegas. He worked with Jay Stratton. Stratton's role in the development of AAWSAP has not been really fully explored, but he's got a book coming out at some point, once it gets through the DOPSR process. But then we'll get additional information to buttress what Lacatski has said."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1991268528771748027/amplify_video_thumb/1990932248116539392/img/QA2EH0b-Bfna8TB4.jpg)
![CRITICAL: Joe Rogan connects the dots between the AIDS and Covid scams (my term): "Maybe [AIDS was] the same as what happened during Covid, but maybe back then, there's no internet, and... they could just get away with it... [and it's Fauci who pushed] the vaccine during... [AIDS and] during the Covid crisis." Rogan (Joe Rogan), who's talking with stand-up comic Brian Redban here, goes on to highlight several key points: 1. The fact that Peter Duesberg, a genius German-American molecular biologist and professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, known for his early research into the genetic aspects of cancer, said that AIDS was not due to HIV, but rather namely heavy drug usage among the gay community. 2. AZT (zidovudine), a drug—supposedly—used to treat HIV infection by inhibiting the virus from replicating, was actually doing immense harm. 3. Tony Fauci was the face of both the AIDS and Covid scams (again, my term). Rogan even notes that Fauci pushed both the Covid injections and AZT as quote-unquote "safe and effective." 4. Reading an article in Spin Magazine written by Bob Guccione, Jr., Rogan even highlights the fact that AIDS journalist Cecilia Farber (Celia Farber) had "unearthed hard evidence of the cold-bloodedness of the AIDS establishment pushing a drug [AZT] that was worse than the disease and killed faster than the natural progression of AIDS left untreated." Regarding Covid, note that there are parallels between AZT and Remdesivir, the deadly drug physicians and nurses used to kill "Covid patients" in hospitals. (See tweets 4 and 5.) Critically, note that Rogan's conclusions in this clip almost perfectly parallel those of cancer and AIDS research titan Dr. David Rasnick, who has said that the "bogus" HIV pandemic established the "playbook" for the bogus Covid "pandemic." (See tweet 2.) Also note that a documentary film was made about the possibility AIDS was a scam, dubbed House of Numbers. In the film, Nobel Prize winner and inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis noted that there was no link (that he could find) between HIV and AIDS. (See tweet 3.) ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "Suge Knight was on— I think he was on Jimmy Kimmel show, talking about how you just inject somebody with AIDS. You can inject them with AIDS. What was my question? Oh, Peter Duesberg, Spin Magazine. "So he wrote this article about it, and then he— I believe he wrote a book about it. But he's fucked. Like, his career completely stalled out after that. He couldn't get funding for things and, you know, widely dismissed by all— most all other scientists. And back then, I used to think it doesn't make sense that this one guy has figured things out and that nobody else does. But now I'm like, maybe it's the same as what happened during COVID but maybe back then, there's no Internet, and maybe back then they could just get away with it. "Maybe back then they got used to getting away with it, which is why they tried it again in 2020. That's why they did the exact same thing to all those, like, legitimate professors, legitimate doctors. They shamed them and banned them. They didn't want anybody deviating. And that's, I think, what they might have done to this guy. "That's crazy to think that the the whole AIDS crisis might have really been about people destroying their immune system through hardcore drug use. That was his contention. People were saying, it's very homophobic. It's like, okay, let's. Let's not. Let's say a bunch of nice things about gay people. Let's. We love them. We appreciate. You know, I have no problem with gay. Let's say it. Like, if you're. If we're talking about this. If you were a doctor back then, gay people are amazing. However, all these gay people are doing drugs. All these gay people that are getting AIDS, like, something like 90% of them were hardcore drug users. This was his contention. "And you would say, 'Well, that's what opens them to the type of behavior that you get AIDS with.' Like, oh, okay, right. But Sam Kinison had a bit about that. Do you remember his bit? He was like, they say, 'Sam, AIDS is a communicable disease. Straight people get it too.' He goes, 'Name one. Name one fucking guy. Name one. It's not our fucking dance.' He didn't write the article, but he's definitely in the article. Right, there was an article about him... No, he didn't write the article. Did I say he wrote it? "Bob Guccione, Spin Magazine. Isn't he the guy that owns Penthouse? I think so. Right? Bob Guccione, Jr. Founder of Spin. "Okay, listen to this. So this is what he wrote, what Bob Guccione Jr. wrote. Scroll up a little higher. At the end of 1989, two years after we started the highly controversial AIDS column, in Spin, we published an article by Cecilia Farber called the Sins of Omission about the truly bad and corrupt science surrounding promoting AZT as a treatment for the syndrome of diseases. Celia was the editor and frequent writer of the column, and unearthed hard evidence of the coldbloodedness of the AIDS establishment, pushing a drug that was worse than the disease and killed faster than the natural progression of AIDS left untreated. "AZT had been an abandoned cancer drug, discarded because of its fatal toxicity, resurrected in the cynical belief that AIDS patients were going to die anyway. So trying it out was sort of like playing with the house's money, because the drug didn't require the usual massive expensive research and trial processes. Having gone through that years earlier, it was insanely profitable for its maker, Burroughs Wellcome. "It was a tragically perfect storm of windfall profits, something to pacify AIDS activists and the media, and a convenient boom to the patient holders for HIV testing. Patent. Excuse me, patent owners, patent holders for HIV testing. Celia, who should get the Congressional Medal of Honor for her brave and relentless reporting here and throughout the 10 years we ran the column, exposed the worthlessness of the drug, the shady studies and deals to suppress the negative findings and its awful and final consequences. "This piece very literally changed the media's view of AIDS and sharpened their discerning and skeptical eye. And soon after, AZT was once again shelved, hopefully this time forever. Many times over the years since, people have come up to me and said that reading this article saved their lives, that they either stopped taking the drug and their health improved vastly, or they never took it because of what we reported. Nothing ever made me prouder. Bob Guccione, Jr. Founder of Spin October 3, 2015. So this is all— This article is all about Peter Duesberg's perspective on this. And, it's very complicated. And it's certainly not for me, a guy like me, to figure out, if he's telling the truth or if he's correct. But what they said about AZT and chemotherapy and pushing AZT through and how they made a bunch of money, that's all true. "Not only that, but they were giving AZT to people that showed no symptoms like Arthur Ashe. Arthur Ash tested positive. They gave him AZT. There's a bunch of people died from taking AZT that probably didn't have to die. That's scary shit, man. If it's the same guy that pushed the vaccine during the AIDS crisis, during the COVID crisis, it's kind of fucked that he got to do it twice. "And if he didn't do it twice, nobody probably would be aware that it was the same guy. Because, even if you know about AZT, nobody was going Anthony Fauci. Nobody was saying that guy's name. You know, you weren't saying when you would talk about the AIDS crisis even. They even made a movie about it, right? Dallas Buyers Club. That's the movie. That's what it's about. The bad guy in Dallas Buyers Club is Anthony Fauci. "That's the guy keeping them from getting other medications and pushing AZT. They do the same thing. We— We played a video the other day where Fauci's talking about AZT. The reason why they use it is because it's both safe and effective. He used the exact same terminology. Fucking wild."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1988623425074872737/amplify_video_thumb/1988527132335857664/img/-viLeapIiXd9sicP.jpg)