Discover more from COVEXIT Notes
International Covid Summit Highlights
Here are selected highlights of the third International Covid Summit, held on May 3rd at the European Parliament in Brussels.
Note: a version of this post in French can be found here.
A salient issue we are facing today is the over-abundance of information. Of course, it’s great that anyone can start a podcast or video program on Rumble or YouTube, or a blog on Medium or Substack. And anyone can make use of micro-blogging platforms such as GETTR, Twitter and Telegram.
But if you want to learn about a variety of perspectives, the issue of time becomes rapidly the most challenging element. There are 24 hours in a day, and most of us will only devote one or two hours at the most in a day to gather and process information.
Even if we want it, we simply don’t have the time to be properly informed. Add to this all the problems related to censorship, “misinformation,” fake AI-created material, bots, etc. and the task becomes overwhelming. It’s kind of an informational chaos we are confronted to!
It’s against this background that the International Covid Summit, held in Brussels on May 3rd, is worth covering here, through highlights. Even for those closely following the topic, the event provided an excellent overview of some of the most important aspects of COVID-19 and its aftermath.
The event was organized at the Brussels facilities of the European Parliament. This was made possible by a handful of parliamentarians - Cristian Terhes, Christine Anderson, Ivan Vilibor Sincic, Francesca Donato & Mislav Kolakusic - who have been highly skeptical very early on about the European official policies & narratives regarding COVID-19.
These European parliamentarians are however far from representing the mainstream views within the European Parliament, as most Members of the European Parliament are largely in lockstep with the official EU policies and narratives. There were no speakers presenting these official positions and no debate did actually take place among the speakers or with the audience, which was probably not achievable given the number of speakers in this one day event.
German MEP Christine Anderson interestingly referred to the gathered experts and politicians as a “family of dissenting voices from all around the globe” and said she was particularly grateful to be part of that family.
This was a one day event, and while gathering several important dissenting voices, others were not present and several important COVID-19 related topics were not covered. So it’s important to keep that in mind. But with these caveats said, the event provided high quality highly relevant content, which is really worth watching.
The full program, excluding the press conference, can be found at this link on the Children’s Health Defense website (yes the organization of presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr.):
The press conference can be found here:
Here are selected highlights, with particular emphasis on the first presenter - Dr. David Martin. Please refer yourself to the actual presentations for the full account of what was said. There is also, at the end of the full day video, a summary of the event by Dr. Robert Malone.
David Martin, PhD, the Chairman of M-CAM Chairman Purple Bridge Management, was the first speaker. He explained that the sequence of events leading to the pandemic did not commence in 2019 but rather in the mid-1960s, when a coronavirus was isolated (1965), was found to be usable and modifiable (1966), was manipulated for a first time in the US (1967) and sent to the UK to infect British “volunteers.”
He further explained that since 1990, there were attempts to develop spike protein vaccines for coronavirus for animals, but they did not work. He also stated that SARS-CoV-1 was patented in 2002 … and that it originates from a lab!
See video clip from Twitter:
Martin continued by stating that in 2005, the use of coronavirus was already referred to as a “bioweapon platform technology” and as a “biowarfare enabling agent.”
“I don’t know if that sounds as public health to you?” he ironized. “That feels like not public health, that feels like not medicine. That feels like a weapon designed to take out humanity.” “It feels like this because it is exactly what it is.” David Martin argued.
He mentions some 10 billion dollars were allocated over the years by US government to this and that an exemption was created so that the Gain of Function Moratorium would not be applicable to already awarded grants, leading to a 2016 published article stating that “SARS coronavirus is poised for human emergence” and that the notion of an “accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen” became part of the “common parlance” among those in the know.
“The operative word in that phrase is of course the word release. Does that sound like a leak? Does that sound like a bat and a pangolin going to a bar in a Wuhan market?” he further ironized.
“Accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen was the terminology used. Four times in April 2019, 7 months before the allegation of Patient #1, four patent applications of Moderna were modified to include the term ‘Accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen’ as a justification to make a vaccine, for something that did not exist.”
“If you have not done so, please make sure you make reference, in every investigation, to the premeditation nature of this,” he recommended.
What was the goal according to Martin, who refers to some WHO publication and NIAID testimony?
It was “to have by September 2020 a worldwide acceptance of a universal vaccine template.”
“The intent was to have the world to accept a universal vaccine template and the intent was to use coronavirus to get there.”
After reading a 2016 quote from “Developing Medical Counter Measures for Coronaviruses,” Martin boldly suggests “this was premeditated domestic terrorism” … “this was an act of biological and chemical warfare perpetrated on the human race.”
He further asserted it was an act of “financial heist, of financial fraud” as it was admitted in writing, back in 2016, that “investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”
Answering the question “what went wrong” Martin explains that Nature, Science, Morality and Humanity were all “hijacked.”
He states there should not be any more Gain of Function research, no more weaponization of nature, and that corporations should face 100% product liability for every injury and every death.
Note that you may want to check the analysis and writings by independent expert Sasha Latypova about the development of “counter-measures.”
Second speaker was Nick Hudson, an actuary and investor from South Africa, who is a co-founder of the PANDA organization that, very early on, challenged the lockdowns and mask measures.
In his presentation, Hudson analysed the reality of lockdowns and the “new abnormal” we have been plunged into. He also questioned their efficacy, with a comparison between the high-lockdown UK and low/zero lockdown Sweden.
He asserted that COVID-19 was more a political phenomenon than a medical phenomenon, and that, fortunately, “politicians are starting to wake up to this.”
You may want to visit the website of PANDA at:
You may also want to watch our July 2021 interview with Nick Hudson, which explores already several of these aspects.
The presentation by Ciro Isidoro, a Professor of Pathology from Italy, provided a reminder of the clinical features of COVID-19 and highlighted two “fatal mistakes” regarding to the response to COVID-19.
First fatal mistake was: No Autopsy. Second fatal mistake was: No Early Treatment.
The challenge, he explains, is that you need to look for the truth ; and you need to accept the truth.
His conclusions are summarized on this slide:
Dr. Andrea Stramezzi, from Italy, recounted for his part his personal story with the early treatment of COVID-19.
In his presentation titled “Early responses: Boots on the ground in Italy,” he explained how he developed very early on an early therapy and was able to save his first patient, which gave him subsequently the confidence to treat thousands of patients.
He explained how very early on he developed a treatment protocol for the Lombardy region (March 27 2020). He also talked about his problems with the Italian order of medical doctors, that is seeking, for a third time, sanctions against him.
“If you have early treatment at home, it does not have to cost a lot and it’s effective” and “therefore the vaccines are not necessary, and they don’t stop contagion and the disease anyway.” “And we know these viruses keep mutating, they always do.”
“These vaccines are harmful and in many cases have adverse effects.” “It will become the challenge for medicine in the next decades to deal with that.”
“I would like to thank the European parliament for the invitation, but you must take account of what we are telling you, otherwise history will not side with you.”
You may also watch this interview we did with Dr. Stramezzi in August 2021.
Dr. Louis Fouché, who is an anesthesiologist and an intensive care medical doctor from France, focused his presentation on masks and lockdowns. Dr. Fouché is very well known in France for his outspokenness in the media during the COVID-19 crisis, which brought him to (have to) stop practicing medicine in October 2021.
Dr. Fouché is presently involved in a variety of projects, including “ReinfoCovid,” which he founded and for which he is the spokesperson. He explained that he got help by other independent scientists to prepare his presentation, yet he warned the audience that he was being sued in France for saying what’s in his presentation, which is pretty technical and concludes with the following slide:
Dr. Philippe Brouqui, MD, PhD, from the IHU Méditerranée-Infection in Marseille, made a presentation that was prepared along with Prof. Didier Raoult, who was not present.
Dr. Brouqui recapped the work done by the IHU Méditerranée-Infection during the pandemic and outlined the result of their most recent study, covering 30,000 patients, which he explained shows that hydroxychloroquine-based treatments perform better than no treatment.
As we covered extensively since 2020, several studies were conducted at the IHU Méditerranée-Infection showing initially a reduction in viral load with the hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin treatment, and then reduced severe disease and mortality, although these studies were dismissed by France’s public health authorities, which considerably constrained the use of these drugs in France during the pandemic.
Remember, very early in the pandemic, Professor Raoult and his team refused to conduct randomized placebo-controlled trials, as they were convinced the treatment worked and did not want to offer placebos to patients whose lives were at risk.
Dr. Brouqui emphasized how the treatment of nursing homes residents suffering from COVID-19 could have saved numerous lives.
“In patients aged 60 to 89, the mortality reduction rate is 75%. An estimated 470,000 people have been infected among elderly people living in nursing homes in France and 26% died (125,000).”
“If we had treated them, 93,000 would probably have survived.”
He also commented on censorship and harassment: “I never thought it would ever happen in my life,” “we are living the George Orwell story right now.”
“We saw the patients, we quickly diagnosed and treated them with what seemed to us the most effective and least toxic treatment based on scientific data … with caution and without waiting for an improbable randomized trial.”
“We were right to do so, at least for the hundreds of patients whose lives we saved.”
“If necessary, we will do it again.”
Pierre Kory, MD, is a well-known critical care physician from the Frontline Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). He presented about the “global war on Ivermectin” which he immediately emphasized was not just about Ivermectin but about generic un-patented drugs in general.
One of his first slides is about the many drugs that are effective for C19, yet only 5 drugs are presently approved in the US for C19, and they are all patented, with massive profits for pharmaceutical companies.
He explains that cheap generic drugs will typically not find regulatory approval, and as a consequence, “people die, and they die frequently, and in high numbers,” he said.
“Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine represented a massive threat. They would have halted the vaccine campaign, if they were following the rules, which are that you can’t have an effective therapy, and it would have skyrocketed vaccine hesitancy … It also threatened the profits of all the therapeutics they were rushing out”
Dr. Kory then explained the “disinformation playbook”, comprising 1. The Fake, 2. The Blitz, 3. The Diversion, 4. The Screen, 5. The Fix.
Regarding censorship operated in the medical field, here is the modus operandi he described: “reject positive studies from high impact journals, avoid positive mention in high impact media, avoid recommending by agencies, disallow discussion or mention of effective, generic drugs on social medial.”
He commented on clinical trials. He asserted that 6 large influential trials for Ivermectin were brought to get their conclusions to differ from the rest of the evidence basis, as there were 95 studies in total.
He commented on the retracted Ivermectin meta-analysis by Andrew Hill, while the initial analysis was showing clear benefits for the drug. He also commented on the “PRINCIPLE” trial which Kory presents as “designed to fail.”
Regarding Ivermectin, he said “It is the most proven medication in history. Yet, not one advanced economy around the world recommends it. In almost all hospitals, it has been removed from their formularies.”
“If you try to get it filled it in a pharmacy, in a retail pharmacy, in any of these developed countries, the pharmacy will not do it. They are scared to death.”
Dr. Kory’s presentation is actually filled with other equally disturbing / controversial elements.
You may want to visit the FLCCC website at: https://covid19criticalcare.com/
You may want to watch this past interview / presentation of Dr. Kory, along with other prominent physicians.