Banned by YouTube: Professor Karol Sikora discusses Covid-19
Signs that the virus is 'getting tired' across the world
Note: this is the video that YouTube took down for “violating guidelines”. They rejected our appeal to have the video reinstated.
Judge for yourself if it is dangerous material…
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
We had a wide-ranging discussion, in which he said:
The virus is ‘getting tired’
– In the past two weeks, the virus is showing signs of petering out
– It’s as though the virus is ‘getting tired’
– It’s happening across the world at the same time
There is existing herd immunity
– The serology results around the world (and forthcoming in Britain) don’t necessarily reveal the percentage of people who have had the disease
– He estimates 25-30% of the UK population has had Covid-19, and higher in the group that is most susceptible
– Pockets of herd immunity help *already* explain the downturn
– Sweden’s end result will not be different to ours – lockdown versus no lockdown
Fear is more deadly than the virus
– When the history books are written, the fear will have done much more damage than the virus, including large numbers of cancer and cardiological patients not being treated and dying unneccessarily
– We should have got the machinery of the NHS for non-corona patients back open earlier
Masks and schools
– Evidence on masks is just not there either way so it should be an ‘individual decision’
– We should move to 1m social distancing which means restaurants and bars could reopen
– More schools should reopen in June as ‘children are not the transmitters of this virus’
– We should be getting back to the ‘old normal’ not a ‘new normal’
Very interesting. It is greatly to the credit of UnHerd that you guys are putting these sort of interviews on, when the coverage on TV is very unthinking and interviewers’ questions are often childish and political. Freddie’s questions are clear and bring out some interesting and thoughtful replies.
Professor Karol Sikora has only confirmed that which the Swedish epidemiologist stated 6 weeks ago.
The difference is Sweden has a 4.5% hole in its economics and the UK has 16% and counting.
Thank you Dr Doom (Neil Ferguson) from the Imperial College of fools.
Ferguson’s report was only one model with several scenarios, and not the only model produced, but the pandering politicians and their cronies, sorry advisors, knee jerked to the baying ‘expert’ social media masses and hysteria driven mainstream media.
Both grasped on whatever ill thought out panic driven worst case scenarios they could find, getting their irrational knickers in a hysterical twist, driving everyone down to the same level of idiocy as them by the equivalent of shooting society in the collective feet.
At the start of this situation I thought for once we were going to take a measured approach, but I forgot the incestuous relationship between the moronic masses, MSM and politicians, none of who will take any responsibility and always blame others. It is always someone else’s fault.
The same group will deny other views (like YouTube censorship), until it becomes OK to deride the original cause (panic, hysteria) that they willingly promoted forgetting the part they played, to then whine about the measures on the other side that will hurt us all as we have to cope with the aftermath.
Unfortunately it was, and will be, ever so.
All owned by, and driven by massive pharmaceutical profiteering.
I think the team at #YouTube need some therapy for banning this fascinating insight into Covid-19.
Professor Karol Sikora is one of the world’s most renowned oncologists and, since embracing social media has drawn hundreds of thousands of people who want to hear from someone in the medical world unattached to government who is capable of communicating valid advice.
I have personally known Karol for some 25 years, whose open and frank discussions delivered with a caring manner, have contributed to the trust in which his patients feel safe be their prognosis good or not.
I for one thoroughly enjoy his feedback even on those very rare occasions when I might not agree. Long may he continue.
How long will it be before the lockdown fanatics at the BBC and some other MSM start asking why did Govt not reopen hospitals to non covid cases earlier, why was there so much fear and timidity, why was the education of the poor so damaged by lockdown?
All because lockdown was demanded by the hypocritical, shrieking, left wing BBC et al, that’s why.
Couldn’t agree more.
This has been ‘coming’ since at least 1997, the death of Dianna, Princess of Wales (failed).
I don’t believe polarised political beliefs are very helpful in getting us out of this civil liberties calamity.
There are people on both sides of this red/blue political divide at whom you point the hypocritical, shrieking finger.
To continue with that division will only make the authorities stronger.
“Divide and rule”
Let’s grow up.
A great pity the video was removed by YouTube.
One more triumph for tyranny.
I hope this spells the end of YouTube’s dominance and that UnHerd can find a new platform to post Freddie’s awesome interviews.
I cannot for the life of me understand why they removed it ?
We should go back to the old normal. This has been handled badly by the Government. Herd immunity always works. The sooner the BBC and SKY are dumped the better.
Awesome video – rare to find a channle that speaks sense, I wonder if we can sue gaovernments media etc for being driven mad by this covid19, I clocked up the times I heard or saw the word one day back in April, I totted up 679 times in a day(I used a clicker on my phone via an app & justed tapped it everytime I heard or saw the word) thats shocks me – 679 in one day – no wonder I feel on the edge of insanity, wanting to get things donme & I can’t.
keep up the good work.
It does seem extraordinary that this measured and reasonable inteview has been removed by YouTube, whatever other controversies Professor Sikora may have been involved with. That censorship is worrying in itself.
Among the differing models and assumptions, and the often politicised and rancourous arguments over covid-19, I have never heard a through explanation or discussion about why every pandemic known to history eventually does dissipate, seemingly well before the maximum theoretical mortality rate has been reached. (The 1918 flu pandemic killed many millions, but it could seemingly have killed many more). Is it that much-cited herd immunity? It was interesting that so many of us who opine about ‘testing’ do not often understand its limitations, both positive and negative false results, and the point that as argued here by Professor Sikora (and others) that antibody tests may only be picking up a fraction of those exposed to the virus, there could be other more difficult to detect immune system effects.
The other interesting point was why there has been such an difference in reaction over this virus compared with others. There is a huge cultural contrast between our reaction now and the previous trivialisation of seasonal flu (yes, not the same), with people previously dragging themselves into busy offices on crowded public transport, spraying virus everywhere – despite the fact that this also resulted in people dying. No doubt much of this is the familarity effect whereby familar risks are discounted, while new ones seem much more frightening. The greater exposure to SARS and MERS seems to have increased the awareness and competence of East Asian countries such as South Korea and Taiwan. People are much more scared now, but seemingly disproportionately so.
Anyway, hats off to Unherd for enabling a really mature and informative debate on covid-19 as with other subjects.
I’m afraid I was very disappointed with interview. I realise I am a lone voice among those commenting, but that is part of the point I want to make.
I thought the purpose of unherd was to reject herd mentality, and encourage debate about different opinions. That’s why I visit the site. To escape my echo-chamber, read views I might initially disagree, and hopefully occasionally adjust my views because of the arguments I read.
That won’t happen if I just hear an expert make a number of unchallenged categorical statements, speaking as if he is the voice of science when I know most scientists disagree with him. And I’m afraid that happened on this occasion.
An interview format is great for debate. The interviewee makes their case, and the interviewer can then ask challenging questions based to the views of other experts. These questions can help prompt the interviewee to articulate their counterarguments, or to clarify what they said if they misspoke.
That didn’t happen on this occasion. I’m afraid your questions were primarily just prompts for the interviewer to continue their argument. If the video had just been a talk by Prof Sikora, it would have been little different.
The sort of questions I would have liked to hear a response to are:
– Are you saying, once we stop worrying about a pandemic that it has died out? Surely, if many across the world continue to die from it, it is still a pandemic.
– When you say the outcome of the virus is the same across the world, whatever the action of the government, do you include Taiwan, which has only had 7 deaths so far?
– You acknowledge that there may be a second wave. Many experts warn of a repeat of the second wave of the Spanish Flu epidemic which killed far more people than the first wave. Yet you state categorically that we should move back to normal as soon as possible. Isn’t that a big risk?
– There are many experts who disagree with your optimism. Why do you think they disagree?
I suspect Prof Sikora would have had thoughtful responses to questions like that. But because he was never challenged, my takeaway from this interview was much more negative. That he may just be a maverick expert, going against the consensus, in the same way that there are maverick experts who challenge the science of climate change.
This may be extremely unfair of me, and I would have hoped your interview would have given Prof Sikora a chance to give a different impression. Unfortunately, it didn’t.
Because of this, and the life-of-death seriousness of the current pandemic, I think the interview will probably damage the reputation of unherd. That rather than being a site that rejects the herd, it is rather a site for the lockdown-sceptic herd. In my opinion, this impression would be unfair. The site contains many thought-provoking articles from a range of political positions and I will continue to read it.
However, whereas previously I was thinking of recommending unherd to political colleagues, this interview gives me pause. If I risk appearing to endorse this interview, I may damage my own credibility.
George – I agree with you that Freddie’s interview style has drifted to more prompting than counter-point, this is slightly disappointing (an opportunity missed) However, his core points – that the numbers are showing a consistent pattern of drop-off – and that there could be several factors that mean people won’t show antibodies but would have resisted infection are important factors. I would be interested in your response to my comment above, which delves into the tricky case of many west coast US counties which didn’t get an exponention rise without any social measures (May 25th: Santa Clara 139 deaths 7.2 per 100k residents ( that’s 0.0072% ) after 5+ months of infection
Thanks for the reply, Zaph. The honest answer is I don’t know and can’t know.
I am very influenced by a twitter thread that was published a couple of months ago by a professor of epidemiology, where he explained in some length how little we knew about the virus. As I often am, I was impressed by the honest humility of an academic who was a leading authority in his subject.
I am less impressed by experts who are more often in the public eye. The people who get likes on twitter, invites on television programmes, and who sell lots of books, are the ones who make authoritative statements without a hint of doubt. Sadly, that is how the media works. Even worse, forums for political discussion tend to invite people who agree with them. This creates a bubble, where only the facts that support that position are shared. That makes debate extremely difficult, because those in the bubble are over-exposed to one set of data, and under-exposed to other sets.
From what I have read from the many scientists who have not been seduced by the media, the reality of science is muddy. One set of data can imply exactly the opposite fact to another. That may, or may not, apply to the date you mention in your post. This means, if you are selective, it is far too easy to draw the conclusion you want to. Sometimes, over time, scientists are able to disentangle these contradictions and come to a consensus. But, especially where politics gets involved, even consensus with hindsight becomes impossible.
The issue of lockdown has become embroiled in politics, which makes it very hard for me to come to any conclusion.
But I do draw tentative conclusions. If an expert states as fact things that I know are in dispute, I tend to doubt everything they say. I’m afraid Professor Sikora did this on occasion. Perhaps if he had been challenged, it would have prompted him to step back from those definitive statements. But he wasn’t. And, based on this interview, my reaction is to discount most of what he said. Prof Gupta was more tentative in her interview and so more impressive.
The interviewee who impressed me most was Prof Ferguson. He repeatedly talked about what he didn’t know, and he was self-aware enough to acknowledge that he found it hard to change his mind when presented with conflicting information. He also went out of his way not to criticise Sweden. It’s a great pity that he broke lockdown, both because it was wrong, but also because he then had to withdraw from the public debate. I would love to hear him interviewed on the latest scientific data, and to give a response to the (many) people Freddie has invited to give the Lockdown-sceptic point of view.
If you want to help me to draw a less tentative conclusion, do tell Freddie how nice it would be to have a further interview with him.
Freddie, Thx for doing this interview. It is, as usual, of a very high standard. I deeply appreciate your attempts to portray a broad range of well-reasoned views and to engage prominent thought leaders with thoughtful questions.
I guess the good news in this ban is that it makes very clear the types of “editing” that is happening on YouTube and how the YouTube algorithm will impact global discourse. I’m grateful that the algorithm found your channel for me, but discouraged that it is cherry-picking what it lets you say.
I hope your latest video with Sunetra Gupta does not suffer the same fate.
I wrote to Youtube to protest. I have never done such a thing before, but having watched the interview I could see how measured and ‘mainstream’ it was. The ‘Overton Window’ has not moved to exclude these opinions from the public forum: among intellectuals and those with research capabilities it is actually moving in their direction. So I urge everybody else, for once, to do as I have done and protest.
Over a month ago when autopsies showed that 3 people had died with Covid-19 starting Feb 6th in Santa Clara, California – indicating they had this virus in early-to-mid Jan it was apparent that there was something wrong with the worst case graphs and the shut down policies: The shutdown in California didn’t happen for 2 MONTHS after these people (and by extrapolation 100s more in January) were infected. No exponential growth happened under normal life. Either the virus was not nearly as deadly, or infectious as feared, or … what?
I wrote a detailed statistical analysis and wrote to many of the news and science sources asking for an explanation. Only Leonardo Castaneda of the bay area News Group replied. He said that yes, some certainly thought that the ‘Stanford Study’ people were right but others like Jeff Smith argued that it takes time for the virus to be so prevalent in the community to reach the most vulnerable.
This could be the case, I thought, although it doesn’t really satisfy why 8 weeks of no social restriction didn’t see a huge flare-up, but it could be a factor.
Now thanks to your interviews with Sunetra Gupta and Professor Karol Sikora we have more explanation – the virus may be resisted by people with good immune systems, antibodies from other similar coronavirus, for genetic reasons, cell factors, local antibodies in the mucosa – all may also play a part.
I didn’t fault the government for a stringent reaction to what appeared to be an existential threat, but for a month now, it’s been evident that they need to change course.
So here’s a thought…let’s imagine that in 6 months time everything that was said on this banned video turns out to be true, and acknowledged by the majority of the scientific community. We should then invite YouTube to issue a statement not only acknowledging their error, but more importantly accepting the damage that they caused by wilfully suppressing conversation and debate at a time when it is absolutely critical.
These people will never admit that they were wrong. See also the BBC and pretty much all the mainstream media.
“Video unavailable”. Big brother only allows the one true message.
its good to hear something less gloomy and miserable and we need to challenge everything
I was very sadden to see Professor Sikora removed from YouTube. Did You Tube give a specific reason as to exactly how it violated community standards. I would really like to know.
Since the lockdown began – here and in the US – YouTube has been removing any video that questioned the official narrative as perpetrated by the likes of Ferguson and Democrat governors i.e. shelter in place or everyone will die.
In particular, they removed a video in which two US medics questioned the narrative and revealed how they were being forced to write ‘Covid’ as a cause of death.
YouTube, like Twitter, the BBC and the vast majority of the mainstream media is anti-conservative and very evil. This may be one of the reasons why Rogan has gone to Spotify.
No, they gave no cogent reason.
Obviously they were lent on, or as the Chinese say,
Who did this dastardly act? Obviously the ‘Invisible Enemy’ (the Civil Service or its acolytes).
It was ever thus.
Perhaps even more disturbing is that there is virtually no effort made to talk about alternate opinions either by the government or the mainstream media. The situation is becoming more and more disturbing, though quite in line with the stuff published containing some of the advice given by the nudge unit. UnHerd have been one of the few honest platforms available to us during this. Thank you for this.
You’re not alone. YouTube has also taken down a Journeyman Pictures interview with Dr John Ioannidis, Stanford Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health. The follow-up interview (Perspectives on the Pandemic | Dr. John Ioannidis Update: 4.17.20 | Episode 4) still stands – for now.
Your interviews are a great example to the media journalists. We watch for a while- the guests answers questions fully, we all learn. Thank you .
(Whereas on broadcast mainstream media the guests are interrupted and harangued and all we learn is that the interviewers are self regarding narcissists.)
This interview was very interesting your guest was modest but persuasive . I feel braver .
It’s excellent to see this interview, but just like mainstream reports, it must be taken with a grain of salt. First, consider that the section of the summary info posted just above is absolutely misleading. It claims the virus is “petering out” and this is happening “across the world.” Responsible sources report that the total numbers of cases and deaths are still increasing. It’s just happening in third-world locations, places where we in the first and second worlds really don’t care about. Second, conduct similar interviews with health-care providers on the front lines–from hospital directors to doctors to facility maintenance staff–who have seen hundreds of patients suffer and die, including their own colleagues in alarming numbers. The tone of those interviews will be different! Would such interviews, properly conducted, be sensationalism? I think not. It’s important to remember, always, that there are two sides to the coin of truth.
To your first point – the summary overly simplifies the actual comments and but it’s not just happening in 3rd world countries – some very exposed communities and countries are not seeing or reporting this epidemic (we can discuss why). All theories seem to fall apart on one case or the other – BAME categorised people (in the west) are overhit but the same type of population is hardly touched in other places. The refugee camps where surely it should have ripped through and killed maybe 25% of the population without any social distancing and little access to sanitisation…but yet it hasn’t occurred (apparently) Maybe because these are people who have survived much and have strong immune systems? Who knows? Vitamin D? Who knows – why are Brazilians falling?
What is clear is the in many places/sectors it’s not having much impact, in others, a lot.
I understand Sikora’s motivation to point out that not everything is COVID19, and that other medical conditions like cancer are more life threatening when not treated early because people are not getting medical help now. Absolutely valid, but it colors the rest of his comments. He’s speaking without any real evidence when saying that the virus is getting tired and that there are likely pockets of herd immunity. He’s an oncologist, not an immunologist or virologist. Nobody knows what accounts for differences in number of cases in the different countries. Maybe Swedes are more responsible and don’t have to be ordered to stay home, whereas Americans are lawless, rulebreakers, and need to be ordered to stay home. I live in the US btw. I also think it’s irresponsible to say that masks are an individual choice when the whole idea is to protect others from your virus particles since most of us have not been tested and don’t know if we have the virus. If one mask reduces the spread between 2 people then two masks doubles the protection. Cmon.
Totally agree with Professor Karol Sikara. For example you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out secondary early deaths in the UK will dwalf the COVID based deaths. In April we had a greater than 50% reduction in A&E attendances. Every day in the UK there are normally 450 deaths due to Heart Attacks alone. If we conservatively say that there are 5 times as many hospitalisations for this condition that is 2250 every day. Again if we conservatively say half 1125 of those are not going for treatment, stents, etc. per day it is not hard to see that in one month 33,750 people will die early. This doesn’t even start to impinge on Professor Karol Sikara’s numbers on Cancer treatments which are larger as well as numbers for strokes and many other illnesses. Getting isolated areas for for all contagious illnesses is crucial. We need a program of either separate hospitals or secure areas in existing hospitals to give people confidence, we have done it before in history.
Ludicrous – look at the death rates – all deaths Not just Covid – in the UK in the US . Spain, Brazil then compare to those nations with early and effective mitigation Sth Korea, Australia etc. Failure Of the former is in the numbers.
Prof Sikora is making weird untrue statements, too many to list.
Viruses will continue spread where there are susceptible hosts, they don’t get tired. There is a seasonal effect with influenza that isn’t understood – so if Covid-19 becomes seasonal on top of influenza it could be a huge problem as the NHS struggles during flu season.
No other Coronavirus has just “faded away” Prof Sikora, has no evidence to say this and should know better so why is he saying it?
There are many countries where SARS-CoV-2 is on the increase e.g., Brazil – which has a do nothing approach which the anti-lockdowners must swoon over will likely shoot past the US. Mexico, Russia, India, Chile are on the rise. Lockdowns clearly work, Australia and New Zealand prove this beyond all reasonable doubt. New Zealand is heading towards eradication through a hard lockdown and massive testing and tracing.
Taken together the Professor Sunetra Guptra and this Professor Karol Sikora vidos make a previously unherd contribution that comes across vehemently opposed to the UK governements current thinking and this is what should be debated at national level. It should in my opinion be taken up by political opposition parties whose job it is to put forward an alternative point of view which people can rally around if they agree. I would make the point that we should try and discern a scientific consensus and communicate that to the public asap begore its too late
I enjoy your interview. It is thought provoking. I appreciate Prof. Silkora perspective but he made a number of broad statements about the state of the virus that appear to be incorrect, generally starting with there is little or no evidence when in fact there is. He may not agree with the evidence but to dismiss it outright as though it does not exist only takes away from his credibility. I am surprised as a clearly informed interviewer that this was not brought out not knock him down but to make his view more balanced.
Can you name one “expert” that has been spot on, yeah I can’t either. We all have to listen to everything and make the call. “I think the team at #YouTube need some therapy for banning this fascinating insight into Covid-19. “
When a false premise is used, following the argument is pointless. There is no decline in infections in South America, where it is not even near its peak.
Having watched this interesting interview, becoming increasingly hot under the colour with irritation and bewilderment that YouTube could have thought it worth censoring, and what I might usefully do about that if anything were possible, I think it would be nicer of you at Unherd to mention that this interview, though once banned, has subsequently been reinstated to YouTube. However, and I’m sure you do not need me to tell you this, Telegram and Parler are rapidly growing new outlets(?) for those who fall foul of woke censorship on YouTube and Twitter.
I note that Professor Sikora is associated with Buckingham University, the only sensible university in the UK.
Interesting that you say that, because it seems that on multiple occasions in the past Sikora seems to have falsely claimed he’s employed by Imperial College.
According to his Wikipedia page, Sikora and Buckingham have been criticised in the past for offering courses in alternative medicine. Not very scientific.
Isn’t Imperial College home to the serially and disastrously wrong Neil Ferguson? Of course, I’d be the first to criticise alternative medicine, but Buckingham gave space to Roger Scruton and offers two-year degrees. It is at least capable of challenging the orthodoxy that is doing so much damage.
Surely you haven’t lost faith in “The other place”? (TOP).
That nest of sodomite traitors in the 1930’s, and other ‘crimes’ too numerous to mention?
In fact it is debatable wether any other institution has done such damage to this country as the TOP.
I certainly appreciate Professor Sikora’s commentary. Of course, many of his warnings and predictions are controversial. But surely we have to take them seriously?
I had wondered if Freddie would consider someone like Carl Bergstrom? He seems thoroughly invested in some of these debates.
Does anyone know why his excellent conversation should have been removed?
Because it runs contrary to the official and permitted narrative concerning C-19.
Does anyone know why this excellent conversation has been removed from YouTube? Will it be re-edited and uploaded again?
Thank you for reposting this – no idea what reason YouTube could justify for removing it! Really measured discussion and lots of intelligent, considered responses. And really nice for an expert to not be tainted by politics!
This interview was a breath of fresh air, but the controversy about possible false claims in the past by the professor regarding association with Imperial College cast a shadow on his perspective.
Insightful questions. Thank you for sharing this important information.
“Video unavailable”. Has it been taken down from here too?
Its apity many more could not see this interview. its facts rather than fear.
Came to see the video but it refuses to play on my ipad. Anyone else managed to play it using one ?
It is back up on YouTube
Edit – just spotted this is not the UnHerd channel
Where is the video ? It is not showing here.
I’m logged in but still cannot access the video. Any thoughts about how I can watch?
If you are unable to watch the video, here it is on Bitchute:
If you are unable to watch the video, here it is on Bitchute:
An ideal opportunity to explore truth: invite YouTube’s censor or their spokesperson for an interview.
I don’t think you understand the true nature of YouTube et al. They don’t ‘do’ transparency or explanations.
i am watching this on YouTube at this very moment. When was it banned and for how long?
This chap was a little disappointing in the main but I did think his idea that there may be other mechanisms than antibodies at play was very thought provoking and worth delving into deeper. Similarly the ‘getting tired’ phrase is an interesting one and I would have liked to have heard more on that. I’m not sure much of the rest of what he had to say added much of interest – other than ‘another opinion’ of which there are many. Still I do like this series Freddie. Keep it up!
I seem to be watching it on youtube though? Has it been reinstated?
It seems to be available on YouTube now.
When was it banned? It was there this morning on YouTube and is still available now.
YouTube have admitted it was an error and the interview is now there for all to watch.
I suspect this often happens. Google, which own YouTube, may be an enormous corporation, but they have a gigantic amount of content to review. I imagine what happened is that someone, or maybe many people, complained. To safeguard their reputation, YouTube temporarily took it down. They have now put it up. It’s annoying, but it’s likely this will continue to happen, both for content from the left and the right.
Farr’s Law Of epidemics. Discovered in the 1800s everyepidemic follows the same path as this fellow says
I hope the shrill hysterical media and political jourNOes are forced to apologise for all the deaths they have caused lol
I have shared this video on Irish Health Minister Simon Harris and Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar Twitter. My account was suspended a few days ago. Twitter flagged me for spreading unreliable science.
Excellent interview as always and I understand the validity of what this prof has to say but he is after all a cancer doc and not a virologist or a epidemiologist. I wouldn’t personally take everything he said as useful or well-informed.
Gebrejesus is an ex communist politician and not a doctor should we should ignore him too. Its opinions and challenging orthodoxy that creates progress, not following the group mindset.
Kikora is far more than just a cancer doctor. A quick look at Wiki shows that he has extensive experience in research and in public health as, for example, Chief of the WHO Cancer Program and as a member of UK Health Department’s Advisory Boards. He may be right, wrong, or somewhere in between on any given Covid issue but he has a sufficient education and experience to justify his views being given serious consideration.
No, probably not dangerous. But I do reiterate my previous comments. And we can’t be tempted to agree with every Tom, d**k and Harry who happens to stick his nose out. Great interview though as always.
F alse E evidence A appearing R eal
FAKEY FAUCI and Billy Gates perpetrated a scam on all. They expected to shut down the world and scare people into their vaccine remedy and make billions. Mainly destroying Trump’s economy and keep him from winning Presidency again. Obvious!
Gates and WHO are banned from India since 2017, for inoculating children and gave 496,000 Polio. Japan and Africa and other countries banned them as well. Gates has videos stating we need to eliminate 15-16% of population to save the planet. The ultimate goal is kill off half the population.
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.Subscribe