I'm reading through it right now. If anything, this is an extremely thorough article and I'm surprised it was published, although it appears that the journal (SNI) is an open-access journal which may have allowed an avenue to publication.
There are a few interesting parts in this article. It starts off rather tame and really calls out pharmaceutical manufacturers and the entire debacle of the COVID policies.
Then it dives deeper into things such as the "hot lots", which is a rather interesting area to go into.
I may write about this later today and dissect some parts of the article. I think more important than anything would be the public perception from this article.
Thanks for pointing to this article!
I'm reading through it right now. If anything, this is an extremely thorough article and I'm surprised it was published, although it appears that the journal (SNI) is an open-access journal which may have allowed an avenue to publication.
There are a few interesting parts in this article. It starts off rather tame and really calls out pharmaceutical manufacturers and the entire debacle of the COVID policies.
Then it dives deeper into things such as the "hot lots", which is a rather interesting area to go into.
I may write about this later today and dissect some parts of the article. I think more important than anything would be the public perception from this article.
"Yet it is significant that Dr Blaylock has had both his original article and this lengthy updated piece published in a peer reviewed journal"
Breaththrough invective!
"Death Panels" have replaced doctors just like "administrators" have before them.
Read a good chunk of this in the wee hours this morning. It is a nice compendium of what has been, from the beginning, the Covid circus