No legal prohibition authorized or justified hospitals to withhold the drug from dying patients. Let the lawsuits begin.
By Dr. McCullough & John Leake · Courageous Discourse · November 22, 2022
The Epoch Times recently reported an astonishing statement by a U.S. government lawyer in a federal court in Texas, where the FDA is being sued by Dr. Paul Marik of Virginia, Dr. Mary Bowden of Texas, and Dr. Robert Apter of Arizona. The three plaintiffs claim the FDA illegally prohibited them from prescribing the drug to their patients. At a November 1 hearing, U.S. lawyer Isaac Belfer argued for the defendant:
The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”
If Belfer’s assertion is true, it raises a very urgent question: On what legal grounds did hospitals all over the United States refuse to administer ivermectin to severely ill COVID-19 patients, even when patients and their family members begged for the drug to be administered?
If ivermectin was not prohibited by the FDA or any other U.S. medical authority for treating COVID-19, why did Dr. Paul Marik’s hospital prohibit him from administering the drug to his dying patients? Why was Dr. Mary Bowden reported to the Texas Medical Board for disciplinary action when she prescribed it? Why did many pharmacists fear losing their licenses if they filled ivermectin prescriptions for treating COVID-19?
In our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Dr. McCullough and I document numerous instances of hospitals flatly refusing to grant the wishes of dying patients and their family members for ivermectin.
All these patients asked for was to be allowed to try the drug (FDA-approved for River Blindness, Elephantiasis, and Scabies) for COVID-19. The patients and their kin gladly indemnified the hospitals and arranged to have their independent primary care doctors deliver and administer the drug. Nevertheless:
Several readers have told us that our chapters covering this shameful scandal— Chapters 38: Begging for the Wonder Drug and Chapter 40: Graduating into Eternity—are horrifying beyond belief.
Now we hear U.S. government lawyers arguing in court that the FDA never prohibited using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients, but merely recommended not using it. This indicates that hospitals had no legal grounds for denying sick patients a drug that could have helped them. How is withholding medicine from a sick man any different from withholding a life ring from a man who has fallen overboard in high seas?
For families who watched their loved ones slip away after being denied the right to try ivermectin, U.S. attorney Isaac Belfer’s statement may be interpreted as declaring open season for lawsuits against hospital administrators and doctors.
By Igor Chudov | November 21, 2022
Medical ethics is a large field of study. The Covid pandemic certainly brought many medical ethics issues to the forefront and produced rather amazing “ethicist” gems, such as this:
Be aware that “bioethics” has moved on to proposals that might seem crazy to you but are considered seriously and published in Bill Gates-funded publications and scientific journals. Important studies on this subject are conducted under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.
Forcibly giving people collectivism-promoting “Morality Pills” (archive link) is a popular suggestion among bioethicists. It was published in Bill Gates-funded The Conversation and is discussed widely in scientific literature. (The Conversation received 7 million dollars from Bill Gates but pretends to be an independent journalism publication)
What are these morality pills? You might think that morality, to them, means being a good husband or wife, an honest businessperson, fulfilling promises, and so on. Why not enhance that? What’s the problem?
The problem is that this is NOT how they define morality! To them, morality is a collectivist mindset, lack of critical thinking, and compliance. The article explains that some people lack “moral qualities” and refuse to wear masks or take Covid vaccines, or even deny climate change:
My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?
They propose giving people pills to enhance “morality” and explain the climate change angle relevance:
But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.
The proposed solution to give people morality pills is more than idle thinking. Several candidate psychoactive substances are identified and considered seriously: psilocybin and oxytocin, for example.
The obvious objection to all this morality pill talk is that skeptics would not take them! I would not take such a pill to enhance my collectivist mindset. At the risk of being presumptuous, I would say that you, my dear subscriber, would refuse them also. Right?
The ethicists have a solution: administer collectivist morality pills by force or surreptitiously.
As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?
Serious articles discuss how to do it:
A covert psychoactive substance administration to the masses must not be discussed publicly before its implementation, right? So the ethicists desire to bypass any democratic process or prior public discussion and scrutiny. These ethicists refuse to see an ethical problem with that!
World Economic Forum Sponsored Research into “Collectivist Bioenhancement”
Some of you, my dear readers, might think this is so batshit crazy that it is simply useless musings of fringe philosophers, not worth discussing.
Quite to the contrary, the famous and influential organization called the World Economic Forum sponsors such bioenhancement research.
Linda Fried, mentioned above, is the aunt of Sam Bankman-Fried. Sam stole billions of dollars from crypto-investors (in my opinion) and used that money to become the second largest Democratic party donor. So, Linda Fried is not exactly a nobody languishing in obscurity. By the way, a friend of this blog El Gato wrote a great post discussing Sam — check it out.
Linda explains in her article that her goal is “collective welfarism,” and she is part of the group convened by the World Economic Forum:
A stronger ethical approach, though, would be to abide by the principle, termed ‘collective easy rescue’, whereby small individual losses are justified in the name of collective well-being. Mass vaccination is a well-documented example of collective easy rescue.
Human “enhancement” to force mass vaccination? Sounds familiar?
Those “medical ethicists,” “world changers,” and “disinformation fighters” are so self-absorbed and self-righteous that they think their way of thinking is the only right way. They consider any deviation from their mindset to be antisocial, divisive, and subversive.
To them, freedom is dangerous. Truth is misinformation. Pursuing personal happiness and liberty instead of welfarism is selfish and immoral and needs to be dealt with through covert bioenhancement pills. Their opponents need to be silenced as “disinformation agents” or influenced via secretly applied substances to enhance compliance and lower critical thinking.
My post, discussing outlandish agenda developed under the auspices of the World Economic Forum, may sound like the perfect conspiracy theory. If someone approached me and told me that the WEF is sponsoring “bioenhancement research,” whose goal is to develop substances to impose “collective welfarism” and achieve compliance with mass vaccination, I would not take that person seriously!
Such is the problem with describing many WEF proposals. Some of their ideas are so crazy that they are difficult to accept as genuine when retold. Official papers, proposals, peer-reviewed studies, and agenda articles describe plans that are extremely strange to the uninitiated — and yet are pursued seriously. Other authors, such as Tessa Lena, also mentioned how difficult it is to describe these tendencies.
I have explained my difficulties with describing crazy but real proposals by world-leading unelected organizations such as the WEF.
I Do Not Spread Conspiracy Theories – I Report on Actual News
Their proposals, when understood properly, are highly disturbing and seem unreal — except that they are very serious.
The difficulty with their plans is that regular people cannot believe they are real. That happens for a good reason: nobody would expect such insanity to be seriously promulgated by important men and women. Even I have difficulty reconciling the plain text and the simple meaning of their anti-human theories with my idea of what our leaders should act like.
And yet, here we are — the welfarist pills are promulgated under the auspices of the WEF by no one but Linda Fried, the aunt of the second-largest Democrat donor and crypto thief (in my opinion) Sam Bankman-Fried.
In the future, you may need to be careful with your drinking water or the compulsory mystery “health enhancement pill” you must take for an unexplained reason!
Would you take such a welfarism bioenhancement pill?
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 21, 2022
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino are doing the rounds, insisting on the need to fight online harassment and misinformation.
At the G20 Summit in Bali, Indonesia, Trudeau said that Canada wants to regulate online “harassment and violence.” He added that Canada’s social media platforms have a responsibility to “address online harassment and violence to ensure trust in technology.”
“While always ensuring and defending free speech, we must make it clear that it cannot be OK to bully and attack people online,” Trudeau said.
At the G7 summit in Germany, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino told other interior and security ministers there is a need to tackle disinformation. On November 17, he tweeted that “the G7 stands united” when it comes to “addressing the rise of mis and disinformation online.”
On November 19, Mendicino tweeted that Canada will host a G7 summit next year to fight “disinformation.”
“Taking a leading role at the G7, Canada has invited counterpart interior and public safety ministers here for a summit to tackle disinformation, which is one of the most pervasive threats to all our democracies right now,” he tweeted.
He added that a summit in Canada would help “flip the script, and to get ahead of the curve of disinformation.”
“This is where we think that Canada and the G7 can show leadership,” he continued.
According to Mendicino, the “marketplace for disinformation” is bigger than the “marketplace for reliable information,” and Canadians need to be helped to distinguish between the two.
He continued to say that, to fight disinformation, online platforms should ensure they are “adhering to the terms and conditions of their own user agreements.”
During the summit, he suggested the education of high school students on how to identify disinformation, as well as online scams and fraudulent emails and texts.
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | November 19, 2022
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) confronted FBI Director Christopher Wray about the collusion with social media companies and whether the FBI scoops up private information to identify users.
“Is Facebook or any other social media company supplying private messages or data on American users that is not compelled by the government or the FBI?” Paul asked Wray. “No warrant, no subpoena, they’re just supplying you information on their users?”
“I don’t believe so, but I can’t sit here and be sure of that as I sit here,” Wray replied.
“Can you give us a yes or no by going back to your team and asking? Because it’s a very specific question. Because if they are, it’s against the law,” Paul said, invoking the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. “This was done to protect the privacy of people so we could feel like we can send an email or direct message to people without having that information given over. It’s a very specific question: Will you get with your team of lawyers and give us a specific answer? Because this is the law. If you’re doing it, then we need to go to court to prevent you from receiving this information.”
“Well, I can tell you that I’m quite confident that we’re following the law —, ” Wray started.
“Well, that’s not the answer, ” Paul responded.
“ — but what I will also follow up with you to make sure we get you more information; more detailed information,” Wray added.
“Is the FBI obtaining anonymous social media data and then using technical methods to pierce the anonymous nature of the data?” Paul questioned.
Wray paused before asking, “Anonymous social media data?”
“So you purchase data,” Paul said. “People purchase data all the time and we sort of tolerate it for advertising and things because it’s anonymous data. Are you purchasing what is said to be anonymous data through the marketplace and then piercing the anonymous nature to attach individual names to that data? Are you purchasing data and then piercing the anonymous nature of that data?”
“So the manner in which we use — we usually use the term commercial data — is probably longer than I can explain here. But again, let me —, ” Wray said appearing to dodge the question.
“So you will not answer the question of whether or not you’re attaching names to anonymous data,” Paul stated.
“I think it’s a more complicated answer than I can give here,” Wray responded.
“So, so far we’re 0 for 2 at getting you to answer this, but you’re pledging you will actually answer the question because you have to realize the frustration; we’ll write you a letter and your team of lawyers will write back with a 15-page letter that says nothing and you won’t answer the question. These are very specific. This is whether you’re obeying the law, whether we can have confidence. I want to have confidence,” Paul said.
“We are obeying the law,” Wray responded.
“Well, you’re saying that, but you won’t tell us the answer,” Paul stated. “You aren’t telling me the answer. And the answer is: Are you collecting data not compelled by a warrant? That would not be in compliance with the law. But you won’t answer that you’re not collecting that data.”
Eventually, Paul asked, “Are you getting tips and leads from social media companies?”
“We get tips and leads from companies, absolutely,” Wray acknowledged.
“You may think this is jolly well to get all this stuff without a warrant that people volunteer to you, but many of us are alarmed that you’re getting this information that are private communications between people because it is against the law – it’s against the law for Facebook or social media companies to give it to you, but it’s also against the law for you to receive it,” Paul ended.
By Niall McCrae | TCW Defending Freedom | November 21, 2022
‘Stay at home’, that constantly repeated edict of the Covid-19 lockdown, was but a trial run for an emerging regime of restricted movement. The direction of travel (or rather, not travel) is indicated by recently proposed zoning schemes in Oxford and Canterbury, the United Nations’ Smart Cities plan for every need fulfilled within a 15-minute journey, and by the G20 Leaders’ Declaration last week.
Ye olde England was never really free – not for the commoners. In the Middle Ages, if a peasant ventured into a village beyond his own community, he would risk a severe beating. Gradually horizons widened, hastened by the advent of the railways. However, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon for citizens to lose their sense of ownership of where they live. Decades of uncontrolled immigration have put paid to strong communities steeped in heritage and homogeneity.
Yet while the English Channel is crossed by about a thousand illegal migrants every day, each receiving housing and services at taxpayers’ expense, the freedom of ordinary Britons is being steadily curtailed. Your ability to travel will depend on your digitally recorded status, as determined by your assets, occupation and – most importantly – your compliance with public health provisions.
In response to the purported Covid-19 pandemic, governments around the world closed their borders, some re-opening them only after mass vaccination. My other half is planning to visit family in New Zealand, a country that isolated itself with strict quarantine for returning Kiwis (a facility that was later confined to the vaccinated). Now she can return freely, and will go as soon as possible, because she knows what’s coming around the corner.
The International Health Regulations (IHR) set by the World Health Assembly (part of the World Health Organisation) are likely to include a global digital health passport when revised in Geneva next year. There is no doubt that this will happen, whatever the opposition from the critically thinking minority of society, because this was one of the pledges made at the G20 Leaders’ conference in Bali.
Hosting the meeting, Indonesian health minister Budi Gunadi Sadikin called for a universal health passport, building on the success of digital Covid-19 certificates. The declaration signed by all 20 leaders stated under point 23:
‘We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, under the framework of the IHR (2005) to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognising digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccination.’
Some critics asked rhetorically why Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum and global vaccinator Bill Gates were present. Answer: because they are running the show (or at least, they are its public faces). The Bali Declaration is a manifesto for the Great Reset and global security state. Covid-19, Net Zero, funding war in Ukraine and unlimited migration are prominent themes justifying development of technocratic control of population and resources.
The G20, which first met in 2008 amidst the global economic crisis, is ensconced with the unelected elitist organisation of the World Economic Forum. Earlier this year, in one of its typical hub-and-spoke diagrams, the WEF placed digital identity at the core of all human activity. No identity, no entry – and no existence. According to this document, the introduction of digital Covid certificates was a boon, as ‘these passports by nature serve as a form of digital identity’.
If you refuse vaccination, you will be in effect imprisoned at the World Health Organisation’s pleasure. And this pseudo-immunological discipline will be for whatever diseases that our global masters decide. Whether you’re flying to Thailand or taking the Eurostar to Paris, you may need a jab against monkeypox or a new strain of polio. Furthermore, these vaccines will all be of mRNA spike protein technology. Is a week on the Costa Brava worth the potential risk to health?
As experienced with Covid-19, vaccine passports will not only be for foreign travel. They could become ubiquitous for domestic movement too. Some jurisdictions, including Wales and Scotland, made Covid-19 vaccination a requirement for football matches and other public gatherings. English care workers were dismissed for failing to comply with ‘no jab, no job’. In Europe it was much worse: unvaccinated people were barred from shops. Across the world the media message was shrill: anyone refusing the ‘miracle of science’ should be banished from society.
Vaccination will be a key feature of the data by which your life will be controlled. A fully-fledged digital surveillance system will be linked to a central bank digital currency. This is for your safety and convenience, apparently. As the Bali Declaration asserted, ‘we will advance a more inclusive, human-centric, empowering, and sustainable digital transformation’. We know from Covid-19 that most people will comply with little complaint, unwittingly accepting their enslavement and genetic engineering.
Welcome to the New World Order. You may not like it, but your politicians do.
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 19, 2022
Former White House Press Secretary Jen Paski’s motion to quash the subpoena to depose her in the lawsuit filed by Missouri and Louisiana was denied. The lawsuit alleges that the Biden administration colluded with social media companies to suppress certain viewpoints on Covid and elections.
When she was the White House Press Secretary, Psaki made statements encouraging social media companies to censor more content. At one time, she said, “We engage with (social media companies) regularly and they certainly understand what our asks are.”
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit want her deposed so that she can say who within the government was engaging with social media companies and what they said.
Psaki filed a motion to quash the subpoena in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. She was allowed to file the motion in a different state because that is where she lives. Her lawyers argued that she had little information to give and that most of the information is available through the emails and other documents that were obtained by the plaintiffs. They also argued that the deposition would be a burden to her.
US Magistrate Ivan Davis was not impressed by the arguments, but did not reject her request. Instead he referred the motion back to Louisiana, where the lawsuit was filed, because the judge there is more familiar with the case. Davis also refused to stay his ruling so that the motion could be appealed in a district court in Alexandria.
Davis said that Psaki had failed to demonstrate how being deposed in her home state qualifies as an undue burden. If indeed she has little information to offer, it should not be a burden, the judge argued.
“How much time does it take to prepare a witness for deposition when she doesn’t really have anything to say?” Davis asked.
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | November 19, 2022
Covid rates are dropping but you want to cling on to these new emergency powers – what to do? If Covid isn’t around, citizens won’t allow these powers to be extended will they?
Well Colorado have shown us the answer.
Governor Jared Polis signed a new Executive Order on 11 November which amended the emergency Covid rules to include Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), influenza and other respiratory illnesses.
The Order says that “Colorado has seen a sharp increase in pediatric RSV infections and hospitalizations, in addition to patients with influenza and COVID-19, over the last two months”.
It then goes on to list the number of hospitalisations and the intensive care capacity. Therefore “if cases continue to increase, we may continue to see bed shortages across all hospital beds in Colorado as our state experiences a rise in COVID, influenza and RSV hospitalizations simultaneously”.
Due to staffing shortages facing hospitals related to COVID-19, RSV, influenza, and other respiratory illness hospitalizations and an associated decrease in capacity, including pediatric intensive care unit capacity, and to allow clinical staff to focus on patient care by reducing staff time associated with completing utilization reviews, I direct the Colorado Division of Insurance, pursuant to authority in C.R.S. §§ 10-1-108(7) and -109, to promulgate emergency regulations to reduce the administrative burdens associated with discharging, transferring, and caring for patients by temporarily suspending those utilization review requirements necessary to protect insured patients, including any or all prior authorization and preauthorization requirements.
And that is how you create a perpetual state of emergency. Add all types of respiratory viruses that you are on the lookout for because every winter hospitals will be full of people with some type of respiratory virus.
I wonder why they waited until after the elections to sign this Order? Strange. Let’s see how quickly other states amend their emergency orders as well. Maybe they should add in rain for the spring and sun for the summer (climate change) just to make sure the emergency lasts all year.
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | November 20, 2022
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) is urging Congress to pass a bill he introduced last year that would ban the use of vaccine passports for future use.
The bill is aimed at protecting Americans from the federal government’s overreach under the guise of responding to the pandemic.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The bill, called the Vaccine Passport Prevention Act, would, with a few exceptions, prevent the federal, state, and local governments, as well as private entities, from forcing Americans to provide proof of vaccination to access goods and services, and to continue working.
If passed, the legislation would allow people to sue their employers and governments for requiring proof of vaccination against the coronavirus.
The bill would only allow exemptions for schools, medical facilities, and enlisted service members. However, schools would be required to allow vaccination exemptions for medical, religious, and conscience reasons. Medical reasons would include naturally acquired immunity.
“The point of this bill is simple,” said Davidson during the bill’s introduction. “I’m committed to defending freedom. Freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed, so now is the time to act. Americans have a right to keep their medical decisions private.
“Neither businesses nor governments should compel access to confidential information as a condition of restoring our way of life. Discrimination that separates healthy people from other healthy people based on vaccine status is unconstitutional. Throughout the pandemic, we’ve seen states deny Americans a republican form of government in the name of public health. Now that the pandemic is over, they are trying to maintain power. Banning vaccine passports has become sadly necessary to thwart these naked power grabs seeking to enable even more control for big government and big business over the lives of individual Americans.”
Related:
How vaccine passports are crushing freedom, privacy, and civil liberties
By Eric Striker | The Main Street Tribune | November 19, 2022
Portland Prosecutors, the Anti-Defamation League and the Anarchist Violent Extremist organization Rose City Antifa colluded to indict an innocent white man of murder, recently leaked grand jury documents show.
On July 29th, a white man named Jascha Manny was working as a doorman at Mary’s Club, a strip club in Portland’s Old Town neighborhood.
During his shift, he witnessed a group of black men threatening a couple of homeless people. The aggressors were also shining a high-powered strobe light into the eyes of the random indigent citizens.
As the encounter escalated, Manny rushed to confront the bullies in hopes that they would leave the people alone.
It was then that 19-year-old Lauren Teyshawn Abbott Jr pulled out a firearm and began shooting at Manny. The bouncer responded by returning fire, killing Abott and injuring his associate, 23-year-old Kolby Ross.
The entire incident was caught on video from multiple angles and witnesses supported Manny’s testimony, but thanks in part to the ADL’s intervention, left-wing District Attorney Mike Schmidt called a grand jury in August in an attempt to indict him for murder and assault.
During the proceedings, prosecutors centered their argument for criminal charges on prejudicial information secretly provided to them by the ADL’s “Center on Extremism,” which asserted that Manny had pro-white political beliefs.
The Jewish group, which works closely with local law enforcement and the FBI, had laundered this specious information from Rose City Antifa, a domestic extremist group that openly avows violence and was actively involved in organizing Portland’s brutal 2020 riots.
There was never any evidence that Manny was motivated by race when he decided to return fire against the blacks shooting at him. The goal of the ADL’s intervention in this case appears to have been to offend the assumed political sensibilities of jurors into indicting an innocent man.
According to local news reports, the grand jury was shown images and writings demonstrating Manny’s alleged political ideology, but after seeing mounds of exculpatory evidence, they declined to indict.
This vindication did not change the minds of left-wing activists. In response to DA Schmidt’s statement that his hands are tied, various anarchist, Jewish and liberal groups have joined forces to organize a pressure campaign to have Manny charged with hate crimes, not for his actions, but for his beliefs.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Involuntary servitude is good for business
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 20, 2026
In 2025, Alex Karp, the CEO of government and military tech contractor Palantir, published The New York Times best-seller, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West. The Wall Street Journal praised the book as a cri de coeur, a passionate appeal “that takes aim at the tech industry for abandoning its history of helping America and its allies,” while Wired praised the book as a “readable polemic that skewers Silicon Valley for insufficient patriotism.”
On April 18, 2026, Palantir posted twenty-two points to social media summarizing the book. In addition to taking Silicon Valley to task for insufficient patriotism, advocating a role for AI in forever war, and denouncing the “psychologization of modern politics,” the Palantir post on X declares: “National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.”
National conscription, a form of involuntary servitude, and the wars it portends, is good for business, especially for corporations within the orbit of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the national security state. Palantir fits comfortably within this amalgamation. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 