This month marked the fifth anniversary of the Covid lockdowns, and we thought it might be interesting and instructive to go over some of the developments since that time.

During the Covid Era, we were instructed to follow the science, and now that the novel mRNA vaccines have been out in the population for a while – in other words, studied over at least some time, which historically has been done before new vaccines are released to hundreds of millions of people, here are the results, and we’re just reporting, so don’t shoot the messenger: The Largest COVID-19 “Vaccine” Safety Study Ever Conducted, on 99 Million Individuals, Confirms the Injections Are NOT SAFE FOR HUMAN USE. We do realize that there was a pandemic afoot and lives at stake and the vaccine was rolled out for emergency use, but as Dr. Peter McCullough reported, In fact, 100-Year-Old BCG Vaccine Outperforms Novel mRNA Injections Against COVID-19.

““We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives,” says the headline on a New York Times piece that looks back at one of the deceptions promoted by government health officials during the Covid panic of 2020. The story appears in the opinion section but also notes that New York Times news reporting was subject to spin from what we might call the medical branch of the Beltway swamp,” said the Wall Street Journal.

“Wrote Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci, “… when people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology — research that, if conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world — no fewer than 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the organization…

“We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory’s research, the details that have since emerged show that safety precautions might have been terrifyingly lax.”

As one wag memed: 97% of doctors agree with whoever is funding them.

Speaking of following the science, this just in: “Blots on a field? A neuroscience image sleuth finds signs of fabrication in scores of Alzheimer’s articles, threatening a reigning theory of the disease, Science.org recently reported.

“Science said it found more than 20 “suspect” papers by (Sylvain Lesné, a neuroscientist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota) and identified more than 70 instances of possible image tampering in his studies. A whistleblower, Dr. Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University, raised concerns last year about the possible manipulation of images in multiple papers,” said NBC News.

“Karl Herrup, a professor of neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh Brain Institute who wasn’t involved in the investigation, said the findings are “really bad for science.””

Ya think?

But wait! There’s more! It seems New Research Confirms We Got Cholesterol All Wrong, said Reason.

“A comprehensive new study on cholesterol, based on results from more than a million patients, could help upend decades of government advice about diet, nutrition, health, prevention, and medication. Just don’t hold your breath.

“The study, published in the Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, centers on statins, a class of drugs used to lower levels of LDL-C, the so-called “bad” cholesterol, in the human body. According to the study, statins are pointless for most people.

“No evidence exists to prove that having high levels of bad cholesterol causes heart disease, leading physicians have claimed” in the study, reports the Daily Mail. The Express likewise says the new study finds “no evidence that high levels of ‘bad’ cholesterol cause heart disease.”

“The study also reports that “heart attack patients were shown to have lower than normal cholesterol levels of LDL-C” and that older people with higher levels of bad cholesterol tend to live longer than those with lower levels.

“Physicians continue focusing on LDL-C in part because they have drugs to lower it,” said says Nina Teicholz, an investigative journalist and author of The New York Times bestseller The Big Fat Surprise. “Doctors are driven by incentives to prescribe pills for nutrition-related diseases rather than better nutrition—a far healthier and more natural approach.”

Truth be told, doctors globally study nutrition for three weeks in medical schools, and getting back to cholesterol medications, in tech, this is what’s called a solution in search of a problem.

Considering the information that’s being released in scientific circles – and the lack of the scientific method being employed to what appears to be the detriment of patients, with AI being increasingly utilized in medical research, might this be just a bit premature? Having something of a scientific background ourselves, at one point in our illustrious career, we worked at a cancer research lab and will never forget when we first started there and the head of the lab was explaining the study, we asked about the hypothesis, and what they expected to discover. His answer: the results will tell us.

That’s the scientific method before the idea of blindly ‘following the science’ came along. Are all researchers utilizing the true scientific method, or are results being skewed to fit the hypothesis – or a new medication that needs to be utilized somewhere? And AI in the mix might add a whole new dimension to the term ‘garbage in, garbage out.’

“For years, billions of dollars in research funding and drug development have focused on amyloid plaques as the primary cause of Alzheimer’s disease. Drug companies designed treatments to target these plaques, yet clinical trials failed to produce meaningful results, said Mercola.com.  And now we know why. Worse,“Prestigious journals used multiple research papers with fabricated data — The Journal of Neuroscience, for example, published multiple papers from Lesné that contained doctored images, yet it was only after Schrag’s investigation that concerns were raised.

Looking back at Covid and the advice dispensed at the time, it’s one thing to follow the science, and when adhering to the scientific method itself, quite another to see the results. We are still a scientist at heart, and with people’s lives and health at stake, firmly believe in following the science rather than following the money. Onward and forward.