Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet has organized a group of eminent medical and scientific specialists, including Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Michael Yeadon, to give public resources for safely and effectively treating COVID-19 and analyzing the dangers of its experimental gene therapy.
Vliet discussed how her clinical experience and medical studies had influenced her understanding of COVID-19 and the mRNA jabs in an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
“When it comes to treating a viral disease, the basic concept in internal medicine is to treat it as soon as possible. “The longer patients remained without therapy, the more it progressed into significant inflammation that was causing harm, as well as blood clots,” Vliet noted.
“If there was anything I could do to help my patients, I was determined that they would not die on my watch. And it didn’t make sense that someone from Washington, who doesn’t treat patients, was telling them to go home and become sicker before going to the hospital. She went on to say, “No, no, that’s not how medicine works.”
Vliet claimed her research quickly turned up a 2005 article “published in their own journal by Anthony Fauci’s own agency.”
In her patients, Vliet found that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had no major side effects. She also learned about the negative consequences of an experimental mRNA shot, which she claims were significantly worse than originally imagined.
The doctor went on to say that she began getting reports that the “COVID jabs” were “affecting the testicular [in men] and the ovary in women.”
“Because I saw right away that if we had data to show that the spike protein that the mRNA vaccines tricked your body into making was damaging female ovaries, and if the spike protein was damaging male testicles, we didn’t just have a fertility problem, we had a long-term health problem affecting all the other organ systems,” she said.
“The metabolic impacts of these important reproductive hormones regulate everything in the body.”
She also had to deal with people who had acquired difficulties as a result of the injection, explaining:
“And the risks associated with the medications I was taking were negligible. So neither hydroxychloroquine nor ivermectin had any major side effects for me. “I didn’t have those issues with the patients for the treatment, but I saw it after they got this experimental jab,” Vliet added.
Vliet further alleges that the “coordinated government-media-big tech collusion” lies about the COVID vaccine’s effectiveness in order to “drive people” to get it.
“And the sadness is that people are being completely misled when they use the Delta version as an excuse to rush out and receive the experimental COVID shot, which does not protect against the Delta variation. And of all of them, the Delta variation is the mildest. It feels like I have a severe cold.”
It’s “basic virology 101,” she explains, that as viruses get more transmissible, they become less hazardous.
Vliet bemoaned the fact that only a handful of doctors are speaking out against “medical information suppression,” and that even these doctors are being silenced.
“Never in my career, never ever has there been this degree of censorship across the board: medical boards, governors, media outlets, government agencies, health systems, hospitals, medical schools, research institutions,” Vliet said when asked if there was any precedent for the suppression of medical information.
Not only are people’s voices being silenced, but medical information is being repressed and misinterpreted, according to Vliet.
She reacted to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that reported that “although not directly comparable,” adverse pregnancy effects in women who received the COVID-19 immunization were “similar to incidences” assessed before the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced.
According to Vliet, the study “really had a conclusion that was not supported by the facts in the article.” “Independent epidemiologists analyzed the data and determined that the data in the publication did not support the verbally stated result. So they didn’t retract the study; instead, they just erased the data tables, making it impossible for anyone to re-analyze it. So that should tell you something about the NEJM article’s credibility.”
“There are three things that tend to inspire decisions like this: money, power, and control,” Vliet said when asked why she believes medical knowledge is being restricted and concealed.
“They’re funneling money towards the highest-cost environments in healthcare, which are hospitals. As a result of the high expense of caring for patients in hospitals, hospitals are making a fortune. They stand to gain a lot.”
When “new experimental high-priced drugs and vaccines, and all these new pricey options” are pushed “instead of low-cost generic treatments that cost a few dollars,” pharmaceutical corporations win.
“After that, we’ll have a look at power. What have a number of governors accomplished? They’ve built up their power.”
The study “truly had a conclusion that was not supported by the information in the article,” according to Vliet. “Independent epidemiologists reviewed the data in the publication and found that the data did not support the verbally stated outcome. So instead of retracting the paper, they just deleted the data tables, making it impossible to re-analyze it. So it should tell you something about the article’s trustworthiness in the New England Journal of Medicine.”
When asked why she believes medical information is being restricted and disguised, Vliet remarked, “There are three factors that tend to drive decisions like this: money, power, and control.”
“So people are walking into one of the largest experiments in human history without asking any questions, and this is not how they spend their life in any other way. So, to me, the obvious question is why wouldn’t you ask these questions? Why, as doctors, wouldn’t we ask these questions? Ignoring them is irresponsible.”
According to Vliet, the study “really had a conclusion that was not supported by the material in the paper.” “The data in the paper was evaluated by independent epidemiologists, who determined that the data did not support the verbally stated outcome. Instead of withdrawing the report, they simply erased the data tables, making re-analysis impossible. As a result, it should tell you something about the New England Journal of Medicine article’s credibility.”
“There are three variables that tend to drive decisions like this: money, power, and control,” Vliet said when asked why she believes medical information is being restricted and hidden.