An author attempting to publish a book arguing against transgender treatment for teenagers realized that woke America has no time for “common sense” after receiving backlash over her publication.
Published in June, Abigail Shrier’s ‘Irreversible Damage’ argues that teachers, therapists and the media are encouraging vulnerable teenage girls to identify as “transgender,” and pushing life-changing treatments and surgeries – including puberty-blocking hormones and double mastectomies – on these teens.
Childhood gender dysphoria is a relatively recent phenomenon, but one that has entered the mainstream. At a town-hall event last month, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden even said there should be “zero discrimination” against children wanting to transition. In this woke climate, Shrier said that she faced immense difficulty in voicing her “commonsense” opposition.
“Amazon blocked my publisher from sponsoring ads for my book, while allowing ads for books that pushed the contrary view,” she said in a Twitter thread on Thursday. The retail giant said the ad “may not be appropriate for all audiences,” even though Regnery Publishing said the ad only featured a shot of the book’s cover.
Amazon blocked my publisher from sponsoring ads for my book, while allowing ads for books that pushed the contrary view — that is, books that argue that gender transition for teens is without serious risk. https://t.co/VV7dTkZYNJ /2
“All of the legacy media outlets refused journalists’ requests to review my book,” she continued. One media figure that did speak to Shrier about her book was podcast host Joe Rogan, who was harassed by Men’s Health magazine for daring to host such a “transphobic” author, whose work was apparently “putting lives in danger.” Men’s Health used to feature workout plans and diet tips, but lately has embraced woke orthodoxy.
Joe Rogan had me on his show. Spotify has now held 10 meetings w employees to debate whether to pull the episode–about a *book* that presents the mainstream idea that all this gender transition for teens is too much, too fast with too little oversight. https://t.co/KPa78O1xAt /4
Moreover, Spotify executives hastily convened meetings to decide whether to pull the episode from their platform. It remains online, but others speaking out in support of Shrier were successfully ‘canceled.’ Science forums banned users for praising her book, and a crowdfunding campaign to put up billboards promoting it was shut down by Gofundme. The crowdfunding site still allows transgender teenagers to raise cash for “gender reassignment” surgery.
“Commonsense debate is being strangled by a woke orthodoxy,” Shrier concluded. “My book contains not a word of hate. I explored a medical issue and offered a considered view.”
“How many other issues will you never hear about? How many journalists have already abandoned the pursuit of truth?”
The censorship drive highlighted by Shrier is ongoing. Joe Rogan – a relatively apolitical pundit – landed himself in hot water again this week for hosting a podcast with right-wing controversialist Alex Jones. Though Spotify’s top brass refused to censor the episode, liberal listeners began a boycott campaign against the streaming service.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have all cracked down on a range of controversial content. British supermarkets cave to the whims of transgender activists and pull their ads from right-wing magazines. Newspapers call the victims of ‘Black Lives Matter’ mob beatdowns racists to excuse the violence. Insulting transgender people from the privacy of your own home may soon be a criminal offense in Scotland.
In the US, Shrier’s warning that journalists may have “abandoned the pursuit of truth” is apparently coming true. The media at large there has censored itself on the issue of the Biden family’s foreign business dealings, seemingly in a desire to see President Donald Trump removed from office.
First of all, I like the idea of an electric car. I like “all-electric”. I’ve got an electric power washer, an electric weed eater, an electric riding lawnmower, an electric robot lawnmower, an electric toothbrush, and electric air pump just to name a few. I’ve driven an electric car, and it was fun to drive. Now they’ve got the range up to 250 miles, for an extra $9,000 you can get the range up to 300 miles. If you use your car to commute to work you can charge it between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., which is ideal for Howard Electric’s off peak rates. At our current off peak rates you could travel 250 miles for under $2.50.
Believe me, I and most other cooperative managers in the country would love to see an abundance of electric cars. If every member of our cooperative were to go out and buy an electric car tomorrow, slow charge their cars on our off peak hours, we could probably lower our electric rates 15%. Why is that? Because we wouldn’t have to upgrade our power lines. Those power lines have been designed and engineered for peak times (in Howard’s case 6 to 8 a.m. & 4 to 8 p.m.) and by charging your car in off peak hours you would be using those power lines during non-peak times. We would not have to upgrade your transformer because it too was engineered for your peak usage. The same is true for your substation, your transmission lines, and the coal and gas power plants – all designed for your “peak” usage. So using power during off peak times should be the cheapest power there is, and with our demand time of day rates, it is.
So yes, I want electric cars to be successful. But sometimes what we want, requires a reality check. So whether it’s electric cars, which I want, or a carbonless world, which those espousing the green new deal wants, both groups need a reality check. I will write about a reality check for the green new deal later, but today…. let’s talk about a reality check for electric cars. I don’t believe, for the most part, that electric cars will be more than commuter cars. Here’s why.
We’ve tried hard to educate you on a KW charge vs. a kWh charge and you now have both on your bills. A car charger that’s a slow trickle charge overnight doesn’t present a problem, but when you’re traveling you’re not going to want to wait 8 hours to get your car charged. You’re going to want a fast charger. Well the fastest charger so far is a 500 KW charger and it will charge a car in 10 minutes. Tesla is working on a 550 KW charger. When you trickle charge an electric car the batteries should last about 10 years, but if you fast charge an electric car the battery life goes down significantly, and at $6,500 a pop, these batteries aren’t cheap.
Imagine a charging station, instead of a gas station, that has eight of these 500 KW chargers. That’s a four megawatt load, which is more than all our large power accounts added together. You’re going to need a substation for this charging station which will cost $1,000,000 not counting the upgrading of the transmission lines to feed the substation. That too will cost hundreds of thousands and this extra load is the equivalent of a new power plant which costs millions – and no – solar and wind for the most part do not provide reliable peak power, they provide unreliable intermittent power.
And it’s even worse for electric 18-wheelers. An ongoing study in California, Oregon, and Washington has projected a 10 MW charging station for electric 18-wheelers. How many gas stations exist across our country now for 18-wheelers? Well convert sixty of those to electric 10 MW loads and you’ve got the equivalent of our biggest coal fired power plant, and this will require more million dollar substations, more transmission line upgrades which will be very, very expensive. Now, on the positive side these 18-wheelers will go 500 miles on a battery pack, but these battery packs do weigh 5 tons which, along with their normal loads could test the highway legal “heavy haul” limits in several states. I really do hope they are successful, but the electric infrastructure to make this happen is a very big hill to climb and will likely require more carbon based coal or natural gas power plants (unless we’re willing to go nuclear).
Some have theoretically argued that by reversing the electricity flow from tens of thousands of cars to the grid at peak times, you could levelize the grid and avoid adding more peak power plants. In other words, the grid would use the charge from the car batteries, leaving the owner needing to recharge before driving. The problem with that theory is people probably aren’t going to spend $40,000 – $80,000 on an electric car so they can levelize the grid. If they spend that kind of money, it will be to drive the car.
System peaks are on the hottest and coldest days of the year. If on those days you’re using your car to drive and using your heater or air conditioner, how much excess battery energy do you expect to have to charge the grid? It is these hottest and coldest days that determine how many power plants we need. I don’t believe reverse flow is a reasonable solution to avoid those higher peaks that will be caused by cross country cars and trucks who will be fast charging their vehicles during peak times.
Unless somebody (either our members or taxpayers) has money to allocate to these fast chargers, substations, transmission upgrades and power plants they’re not likely to become a reality.
So, for discussion sake for cars, let’s tone down the chargers from a 500 KW charger to a more reasonable 50 KW charger (which is 8 times the peak of the average house). These are the fastest chargers Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L) is installing in Kansas City.
These 50 KW chargers will charge a car in 93 minutes. So you pull into this charging station and there’s three people ahead of you, each taking 93 minutes. That’s a 4 ½ hour wait plus 1 ½ hours to charge your car. Many of KCP&L’s chargers are level 2 chargers. Those take four hours to add 200 miles of drive time. Not a bad wait if you’re on the golf course.
So how far can I go on a charge? Like I said earlier, these newer electric cars can now go up to 250 miles on a charge……. unless you turn on the heater. Heaven forbid you turn on your heater. The miles go down 25% if you need heat. Northern states may struggle with this issue. Slow charging workplace charging stations could make longer commutes more reliable and would work with existing infrastructure, but if you are going to rely on a slow charger to get home, it would need to be dedicated to you.
Electric cars are estimated to cost six to ten thousand more than a gas car. These cars need 70% less parts than gas engines and need 30% fewer workers to put them together, so lost jobs and a more expensive car. On the positive side, the cost to charge an electric car at home is much cheaper than gas… if… you don’t use a fast charger. Most of the cobalt in lithium batteries comes from the Congo. The Congo continues to raise the price of cobalt and the Congo is considered an unstable country.
In 2012, the CAFÉ standards required cars to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. President Trump has reduced that requirement to 37 miles per gallon. Apparently General Motors and other car manufacturers believe that either by 2020 or by 2024 politics will return that standard to 54.5 miles per gallon, so they are moving forward with that target. The only way to achieve that goal is to blend in a significant amount of electric cars. General Motors expects that 20% of their car sales by 2023 will be electric.
The Green New Deal would make all vehicles electric by 2030 and the proposed “OFF Act” would make all vehicles electric by 2035. If that happens, traveling across the country could be a circus. An electric car makes sense for a commuter car, but for traveling across country, if you don’t want the long charging wait, you’re going to want a gas vehicle, if you can find one.
Roger Revelle was an outstanding and famous oceanographer. He met Al Gore, in the late 1960s, when Gore was a student in one of his classes at Harvard University. Revelle was unsure about the eventual impact of human carbon dioxide emissions on climate, but he did show that all carbon dioxide emitted by man would not be absorbed by the oceans. For an interesting discussion of Revelle’s work in this area see this post on “The Discovery of Global Warming,” by Spencer Weart (Weart, 2007). The original paper, on CO2 absorption by the oceans, published in 1957 by Roger Revelle and Hans Suess, is entitled: “Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2, during the Past Decades” (Revelle & Suess, 1957). This meant that human emissions of carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere and that the CO2 atmospheric concentration would increase, probably causing Earth’s surface to warm at some unknown rate. This is not an alarming conclusion, as Revelle well knew, but Al Gore turned it into one.
One of Revelle’s good friends was Dr. S. Fred Singer. Singer was a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia and both Revelle and Singer had been science advisors in the U.S. Department of the Interior. They first met in 1957 and were more than professional colleagues, they were personal friends (Singer, 2003). Unfortunately, Revelle passed away in July 1991 and Singer passed away in April 2020, so we will refer to them and their friendship in the past tense. Both were leading Earth scientists and at the top of their fields, it was natural they would become friends. They also shared an interest in climate change and chose to write an article together near the end of Revelle’s life.
The article was published in Cosmos and entitled “What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look before You Leap” (Singer, Revelle, & Starr, 1991). Singer and Revelle had already written a first draft of the article, when they invited the third author, Chauncey Starr, to help them complete it. Starr was an expert in energy research and policy. He holds the National Medal of Technology and Innovation and was the director of the Electrical Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, California. As leading scientists, Starr, Singer and Revelle understood how uncertain the possible dangers of global warming were and they did not want the government to go off half-cocked, they wrote:
“We can sum up our conclusions in a simple message: The scientific [basis] for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time. There is little risk in delaying policy responses to this century old problem since there is every expectation that scientific understanding will be substantially improved within the next decade.” (Singer, Revelle, & Starr, 1991)
Indeed, ten years later, CO2 emissions were still increasing, but the world had started to cool as shown in Figure 1. This casts considerable doubt on the idea that human emissions somehow control global warming, since some other factor, presumably natural, is strong enough to reverse the overall warming trend for ten years. Revelle was correct to encourage the government to wait for ten more years. Just a year before their paper was published the IPCC reported that warming to date fell within the range of “natural variability” and that the detection of a human influence on climate was “not likely for a decade or more.” (IPCC, 1990, p. XII).
Figure 1. In 1990 and 1991, respectively, the IPCC and Roger Revelle and colleagues said it was too early to do anything about possible man-made climate change, they thought we would know more in 10 years. The plot is smoothed with a 5-year running average to reduce the effect of El Nino and La Nina events. This makes the longer term trends easier to see.
While Revelle was unsure if warming was a problem. Al Gore, who had little training in science, suffered no such doubts. He was sure that burning fossil fuels was causing carbon dioxide to rise to “dangerous” levels in the atmosphere and was convinced this was a problem for civilization through rising sea levels and extreme weather. There was no evidence to support these assumptions, but Al Gore didn’t need evidence, he could always rely on climate models and he did. Revelle distrusted the models.
Al Gore and Climate Change
In 1992, after Singer, Revelle and Starr published their Cosmos article, their statements caused Al Gore, who was running for Vice-President at the time, some problems. Gore had just published The Earth in the Balance (Gore, 1992) and in it he credited Revelle with discovering that human emissions of carbon dioxide were causing Earth to warm and this could be very dangerous. Yet, Singer, Revelle and Starr’s paper said:
“Drastic, precipitous—and, especially, unilateral—steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent economic controls [on CO2 emissions] now would be economically devastating particularly for developing countries…” (Singer, Revelle, & Starr, 1991)
They also quote Yale economist and Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus, who wrote:
“… those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the cost and benefits…” (Nordhaus W. , 1990)
Nordhaus had studied both the costs of reducing CO2 and the benefits of doing so. His analysis shows there is little to be gained, economically, from reducing emissions (Nordhaus W. , 2007, p. 236). While Nordhaus supports a “carbon tax,” he acknowledges that the “pace and extent of warming is highly uncertain.” Contrast this with how Al Gore characterizes Roger Revelle’s view in his book:
“Professor Revelle explained that higher levels of CO2 would create what he called the greenhouse effect, which would cause the earth to grow warmer. The implications of his words were startling; we were looking at only eight years of information, but if this trend continued, human civilization would be forcing a profound and disruptive change in the entire global climate.” (Gore, 1992, p. 5) italics added.
The differences between what Nordhaus and Revelle are saying and what Al Gore is saying are stark. All three believe human emissions of CO2 might cause Earth to warm. But Gore naively assumes that is a bad thing. Revelle and Nordhaus acknowledge it might be, but they recognize that we don’t know. Further, they understand destroying our fossil fuel-based economy may not alleviate the warming and may cause more harm than good. To quote Bertrand Russell:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” Bertrand Russell
To a scientist, like Roger Revelle, the uncertainty was obvious. Politicians, like Al Gore and most of the news media do not do uncertainty, everything must be black and white and false dichotomies are how they think. Notice Al Gore presumptively writes “would be forcing” when Revelle would clearly write “could be forcing.” The difference between a politician with an agenda and a scientist who understands uncertainty.
The incompatibility between Revelle’s true views and the way they are presented in Gore’s book was noticed by Gregg Easterbrook, a Newsweek editor, who wrote about it in the July 6, 1992 issue of New Republic (Easterbrook, 1992). This article angered Al Gore and his supporters. Walter Munk and Edward Frieman published a short note in Oceanography in 1992 objecting to Easterbrook’s article and claimed that the late Revelle had been worried about global warming, but probably did not want “drastic” action taken at this time (Munk & Frieman, 1992). Revelle’s views were clear and well known, nothing in Munk and Frieman’s article contradicts what Singer said or what Revelle said or wrote. The following is from a letter Revelle sent Senator Tim Wirth, an ally of Gore’s and a member of the Clinton/Gore administration in July 1988:
“we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer. It is not yet obvious that this summer’s hot weather and drought are the result of a global climatic change or simply an example of the uncertainties of climate variability. My own feeling is that we had better wait another 10 years before making confident predictions.” Written by Roger Revelle as reported by (Booker, 2013, p. 59).
Unlike Senators Al Gore and Tim Wirth, Revelle understood global warming computer models and did not trust them. He argued with Singer about this very issue and Singer convinced Revelle that the models were getting better (Singer, Revelle, & Starr, 1991). However, regardless of the accuracy of the models, Revelle was not convinced global warming was a problem and he knew the natural rate of warming and the additional amount expected from human greenhouse emissions were unknown. As shown in Figure 1, his caution was warranted, just ten years later it became apparent that warming was slowing down. The following reflects Revelle’s own views, it is from the “Look before you Leap” article:
“The models used to calculate future climate are not yet good enough because the climate balancing processes are not sufficiently understood, nor are they likely to be good enough until we gain more understanding through observations and experiments. As a consequence, we cannot be sure whether the next century will bring a warming that is negligible or a warming that is significant. Finally, even if there are a global warming and associated climate changes, it is debatable whether the consequences will be good or bad; likely some places on the planet would benefit, some would suffer.” (Singer, Revelle, & Starr, 1991)
Revelle’s views were clear and well documented, but Al Gore and his supporters were humiliated by Easterbrook’s article and follow up articles by George Will and others. Dr. Justin Lancaster was Revelle’s graduate student and teaching assistant at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography from 1981 until Revelle’s sudden death in July 1991. He was also an Al Gore supporter. Lancaster claimed that Revelle was “hoodwinked” by Singer into adding his name to the Cosmos article. He also claimed that Revelle was “intensely embarrassed that his name was associated” with it. Lancaster further claimed that Singer’s actions were “unethical” and specifically designed to undercut Senator Al Gore’s global warming policy position. Lancaster harassed Singer in 1992, accusing him of putting Revelle’s name on the article over his objections and demanding that Singer have it removed. He even demanded that the publisher of a volume that was to include the article (Geyer, 1993) remove it.
Professor Singer, the Cosmos publisher of the “Look before you Leap” article and the publisher (CRC Press) of Richard Geyer’s book, objected to these demands and charges. Then Singer sued Lancaster for libel with the help of the Center for Individual Rights in Washington, D.C. Professor Singer and the Center won the lawsuit and forced Lancaster to issue an apology.
The discovery process during the lawsuit revealed that Lancaster was working closely with Al Gore and his staff. In fact, Al Gore personally called Lancaster after the Easterbrook article appeared and ask him about Revelle’s mental capacity in the months before his death in July of 1991. Friends and family of Revelle recall that he was sharp and active right up to the moment when he passed away from a sudden heart attack. But this did not stop Al Gore and Lancaster from claiming Revelle was suffering from senility or dementia and that was why the account in Gore’s book was so different from what Revelle wrote elsewhere, including in the “Look before you leap” article. Even Lancaster wrote in a draft of a letter to Al Gore that Revelle was “mentally sharp to the end” and was “not casual about his integrity” (Singer, 2003).
During the discovery process, Singer and his lawyers found that Lancaster knew everything in the “Look before you leap” article was true and that Revelle agreed with everything in it. The article even included a lot of material that Revelle had previously presented to a 1990 AAAS (American Academy for the Advancement of Science) meeting. More details can be seen in Fred Singer’s deposition (Jones, 1993).
Roger Revelle’s daughter, Carolyn Revelle Hufbaurer, wrote that Revelle was concerned about global warming (Hufbauer, 1992). But his concern lessened later in life and he knew the problem, if there was a problem, was not urgent. He thought more study was required before anything was done. He was for modest changes, such as more nuclear power and substituting natural gas for some coal and oil, but not much else, other than a carbon tax. As usual, the news media and politicians have no sense of the complexity and uncertainty that surrounds the scientific debate about human-caused climate change. When Revelle argued against “drastic” action, he meant measures that would cost trillions of dollars and cripple the fossil fuel industry and developing countries. Up until his death, he thought extreme measures were premature. He clearly believed that we should look before we leap.
Al Gore tried to get Ted Koppel to trash Singer on his TV show and it failed spectacularly. He asked Koppel to investigate the “antienvironmental movement” and in particular “expose the fact” that Singer and other skeptical scientists were receiving financial support from the coal industry and the wacky Lyndon LaRouche organization. Rather than do Al Gore’s bidding Ted Koppel said the following on his Nightline television program, on February 24, 1994:
“There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century, [is] resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works.” Ted Koppel as reported in (Singer, 2003)
Calling Gore “scientifically literate” is debatable, but Koppel has the rest of it right. He has integrity that is lacking in journalism today, further he understands the scientific process. The attempt to use Koppel to tar Singer, brought a huge amount of well-deserved criticism down on Gore.
Given this, it is not surprising that Lancaster agreed to issue an apology only two months later, on April 29, 1994. Lancaster’s retraction was specific:
“I retract as being unwarranted any and all statements, oral or written, I have made which state or imply that Professor Revelle was not a true and voluntary coauthor of the Cosmos article, or which in any other way impugn or malign the conduct or motives of Professor Singer with regard to the Cosmos article (including but not limited to its drafting, editing, publication, republication, and circulation). I agree not to make any such statements in future. … I apologize to Professor Singer” (Singer, 2003)
So, in his court affidavit Lancaster admitted he lied about Singer. Then afterward, Lancaster withdrew his court-ordered retraction and reiterated his charges (Lancaster, 2006). He admits he lied under oath in a courtroom and in writing, then tells us he didn’t lie. He admits that Professor Revelle was a true coauthor of the paper, then he states “Revelle did not write it” and “Revelle cannot be an author.” What some people are willing do to their reputations, in the name of catastrophic climate change is hard to believe. He retracted his retraction despite documentary evidence in Revelle’s own handwriting, and numerous testimonials from others that Revelle did contribute to the article.
Some of Revelle’s other papers, letters and presentations have nearly identical language to that in the paper, for example compare the quote from his letter to Senator Tim Wirth above with the first page of the “Look before you Leap” paper. In the paper, they say we need to wait because “scientific understanding will be substantially improved within the next decade” (Singer, Revelle, & Starr, 1991). In the letter to Wirth, quoted above, he says “10 years,” but the meaning is the same. He, and many other climate scientists, did not feel we knew enough in the early nineties to do anything significant. He was right about this. Warming went negative from 2002 to 2010 as we see in Figure 1.
The issue was raised in the televised vice-presidential debate that year. Gore’s response was to protest that Revelle’s views in the article had been taken out of context. We can clearly see that it was Al Gore’s book that took Revelle’s comments out of context.
Newly published research concludes that artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) may not be a heart-healthy alternative to sugary drinks.
The study, published Monday in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, investigates the relationship between the consumption of ASBs and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a large group of people.
Researchers analyzed data from over 100,000 adult French volunteers participating in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort, an ongoing nutritional study launched in 2009 in which participants fill out three validated, web-based, 24-hour dietary records every six months. The study is expected to end in 2029.The volunteers for the study were divided into three groups: nonconsumers, low consumers and high consumers of diet or sugary beverages.
The category of “sugary beverages” included soft drinks, fruit drinks and syrups containing at least 5% sugar, as well as 100% fruit juice. The category of “diet drinks” consisted of beverages containing non-nutritive sweeteners, such as aspartame or sucralose, as well as natural ones like stevia.
The authors state that while following up on the data from 2011 to 2019, drinking sugary beverages and drinking ASBs were separately compared to any first cases of “stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome and angioplasty.”
They eliminated early cases of CVDs during the first three years and adjusted for a “range of confounders” that might skew the data. What they discovered was that compared to people who didn’t drink ASBs, high consumers were 20% more likely to have a CVD at any one time.
This result was similar to the difference in CVD occurrence between nonconsumers and high consumers of sugary drinks.
However, the authors do note that correlation does not necessarily imply causation:
“To establish a causal link, replication in other large-scale prospective cohorts and mechanistic investigations are needed,” researchers noted in their findings.
Due to public health interest, a 2019 study also set out to answer whether the consumption of sugary beverages or ASBs is associated with additional risk of mortality. Researchers examined the relationship between long-term consumption of sugary drinks and ASBs with the risk of mortality in adults living in the US.
They concluded that consumption of sugary beverages was “positively associated with mortality primarily through CVD mortality and showed a graded association with dose.”
This study states that “sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are the single largest source of added sugar in the US diet. They include the full spectrum of carbonated and noncarbonated soft drinks, fruit drinks, and sports drinks that contain added caloric sweeteners such as high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or fruit juice concentrates.”
The authors write, “In epidemiological studies, intake of SSBs has been associated with weight gain and a higher risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, and stroke.”
Prior to their study, the researchers note, there had been very few studies examining the association between the consumption of such beverages and mortality.
CARACAS – Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has criticised Facebook for censoring several publications concerning the DR10 molecule which, according to Venezuelan scientists, eliminates the effects of COVID-19.
“I want to say that today (29 October) my account was censored on Facebook, they deleted three publications from my Facebook account, they deleted the complete transmission of Sunday’s programme where I scientifically explained this step that Venezuela has taken and two more publications about DR10”, Maduro said in a statement published by the channel Venezuela de Television.
According to Venezuelan Minister of Sciences and Technologies Gabriela Jimenez, the molecule DR10 was isolated from a medicinal plant that eliminates the COVID-19 virus with 100 percent efficacy without affecting healthy cells. This molecule can be used to produce medicines that will help to combat the coronavirus infection.
Earlier in October, the Venezuelan government reported that they had presented their research to both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO).
The government also expressed its intention to produce the medicine in collaboration with such countries as China, Cuba, Russia, and India after approval from the WHO. The drug is seen by authorities as a potentially complementary medicine to treat diseases caused by COVID-19.
Venezuela has registered over 90,000 positive cases since the beginning of the pandemic. More than 85,000 patients have recovered and 789 people have died from the virus in the Latin American nation.
Podcast host Joe Rogan, facing allegations that his Alex Jones interview spread anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories, has denied the claims by pointing to tech billionaire Bill Gates confirming the same data for a Covid-19 vaccine.
“I knew people were going to criticize the content of the podcast without even listening to it, and I was right,” Rogan said on Wednesday via Instagram. “That’s why I fact-checked every single crazy thing [Jones] said, and all of them were verified.”
Rogan noted that Jones’ comment about 80 percent of patients in a certain vaccine trial getting sick was one of the supposed conspiracy theories, and his post included a CBS News interview from July showing Gates admitting to side effects at that same rate in Moderna’s Covid-19 trial.
Gates has been interviewed by mainstream media outlets as a leading authority on the various Covid-19 vaccine trials because his foundation has committed $350 million in funding to help fight the pandemic through development of vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics.
He tried to parry CBS host Norah O’Donnell’s initial question about side effects by pointing out that vaccines will be scrutinized by the FDA, which he called “the gold standard of regulators,” but when pressed again on patients getting severe chills and high fevers, he said, “Yeah, but some of that is not dramatic, where, you know, it’s just super painful.”
Rogan insisted that he’s not “anti-vaccine.”“If a safe and effective Covid vaccine is created, I’ll take it and encourage others to take it. But I wanted to put this video up to validate what (Jones) said.”
Jones and his media outlet Infowars were banned from various social media platforms in 2018 and 2019. Spotify, which began carrying Rogan’s show exclusively on September 1 under a $100 million licensing deal, removed its entire library of Infowars content in 2018. Jones had been a frequent guest on Rogan’s podcast before being deplatformed by Big Tech, but Spotify reportedly excluded those episodes along with interviews featuring other controversial figures, such as Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, when it acquired the rights to Rogan’s show.
Sweden-based Spotify was hit with criticism from customers and its employees after allowing the Rogan-Jones episode, which also included comedian Tim Dillon, to air on Tuesday. The company’s chief legal officer, Horacio Gutierrez, reportedly told managers in an email, “We are not going to ban specific individuals from being guests on other people’s shows, as the episode/show complies with our content policies.”
Among those who accused Rogan of spreading anti-vaccine conspiracy theories was self-described “free-speech activist” Nathan Bernard, who said that Rogan’s decision “to platform these far-right sickos is incredibly gross and dangerous.” Journalist Alex Malouf told Spotify, “You lost me as a customer because of your support for this conspiracy nonsense.”
It’s a serious question that few have asked, and there’s no clear answer. Up till this point in the Coronavirus play, discussion on vaccines has been limited to one perspective – how effective might they be, and how long before one is available. Thanks to the rigors of lock-downs and upending of society necessitated – we are told – by the need to avoid the virus and “save lives”, interest in a vaccine that might save us from this hell has been intense, not least amongst the shareholders of pharmaceutical companies vying for a share of the global market.
This massive financial interest, hardly denied even by those who claim philanthropic concerns are their real motivator, has nevertheless led to some perverse outcomes and corrupt manipulation. The suppression and distortion of the true worth of Hydroxychloroquine is the greatest crime amongst these, as its leading advocate – Professor Didier Raoult of Marseilles – continues to observe; a worth that has been demonstrated globally by those countries where it has been approved or prescribed.
It now appears almost beyond doubt that the campaign against the use of HCQ, driven by pharmaceutical companies and their agents in governments and institutions, is because of its efficacy in treating COVID 19 infections, and so taking away the market for both other drugs and for vaccines. Prof Raoult has made this claim – and allegation against the French government of serious negligence that has cost many lives – since April. But just last week the case has become a nationally significant conflict following the prohibition against Raoult’s Mediterranee Infection Institute on using Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromycin treatment for COVID patients.
Not only is this prohibition quite contrary to principles of care and the doctor-patient relationship, but Raoult’s record of success in treating patients with the protocol is undeniable, and proven by his results – out of nearly 9000 patients attending the Marseilles hospital, of which 5,800 were treated with the HCQ/AZM protocol, just 30 deaths were recorded. A regional health official and regional MP have now made official protests in support of Prof Raoult’s right to continue the treatment, as described in this interview as well as in a rather bad English translation.
Prof Raoult, who repeatedly notes that he cannot predict the future behaviour of the epidemic and the changes in the virus, but has unfailingly correctly forecast its progress and likely developments, has recently also made some highly pertinent observations on vaccines. Unlike many of those who are sceptical or opposed to vaccines, Prof Raoult’s reservations on a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 are based on purely scientific observations of the behaviour of this virus and the particular characteristics of the infection it causes. Of these the most important feature is in the vastly different susceptibility of different age groups, which may be seen as a fatal weakness in the virus that can be exploited to defeat it.
The ability of younger people to “suffer” SARS-2 infection unscathed, and often without any symptoms – immunity effectively – forms the basis of the “Great Barrington Declaration” – a proposal for the safe development of natural immunity amongst the younger part of the population while older and more vulnerable people are isolated and protected. Although most sections of the health fraternity and mainstream media persist in wilfully ignoring this feature, instead emphasising all the cases of young and healthy people suffering serious illness or “long-Covid”, the statistics are unambiguous and unchanging since the start of the pandemic.
While sidestepping the claims in some quarters that no-one has actually died of COVID, because 99% of deaths are of people with some other serious illness, it is an incontrovertible fact that those who die from or with the Virus are overwhelmingly very old – and the majority in their eighties. The proportion of younger people developing serious illness or dying may be higher in some countries – notably in the US – where those age groups normally have greater morbidity from the diseases of affluence and indolence – diabetes, heart disease and obesity.
Importantly however, and regardless of these varying conditions, the apparent immunity of children to SARS-CoV-2 infection is most striking, and another “weakness” of the virus that may well play a part in limiting its dangers. This is yet another area on which Prof Raoult has focused in the past, when looking for an explanation for the relative immunity to the virus in adults under 50. He considers that children act as reservoirs or carriers of respiratory viruses and so may encourage generalised latent immunity in their parents to related Coronaviruses.
And it is the existence of this natural resistance to the novel Coronavirus which has important implications for the use of a vaccine, and whether its use will be justified or advantageous for some sections of the population, or even contra-indicated. The latter possibility, raised recently in a conversation with Prof Raoult, comes about because of the extremely low mortality from COVID 19 amongst younger people – rated at around 10,000 times lower than in those in their mid 80s – the predominant group of those dying with or from COVID.
Considering this feature of the epidemiology, he concluded that for a vaccine to be safe for younger people, it must be shown to cause lower mortality than the untreated viral infection. Clearly this applies to all age groups and all vaccines, if preventing deaths is their main function. And it is an ever more important consideration with many different types of vaccine now being developed and trialled, and with the possibility of unusual or unpredicted side effects.
Raoult concludes that if a vaccine is to be considered suitable for all, and including younger adults with a minimal chance of serious disease or death, then it must be safety tested on tens or hundreds of thousands of people, which is way beyond the limits currently imposed on potential vaccines thanks to the relative urgency and speed of their development. It is an exquisite irony that the prohibition of the literally life-saving drug Hydroxychloroquine has been based on claims of serious but extremely rare side-effects.
So what if the vaccine is only given to those at greater risk of death from SARS-2 infection, where the danger of vaccine side-effects is outweighed by the life-saving benefits? This may seem sensible, and is rather the practice with current flu vaccines, available free to the over 70s – but here a different factor comes into play. Vaccines mostly depend on the body to produce an immune response that will combat a subsequent viral infection, but this immune response gets weaker as you age. Consequently the benefits of vaccination are far less for older people, and marginal for those over 80 and with weakened systems – the very ones most likely to die following viral infection.
While this relative ineffectiveness of vaccines for the old gets little attention, it is often enough said that a vaccine may only be 50 – 60% effective, as if to avoid raising peoples’ expectations, but this is hardly a minor point. Who would drive a car whose brakes couldn’t always be relied upon, even if they knew it?
So I repeat the question – who actually needs a vaccine to protect them from contracting this not very dangerous respiratory virus? We can rule out anyone under the age of 30, whose chance of dying as a result of CV19 infection is less than 1 in 20,000. For those under 50 this chance may be around 1 in 5000, so a vaccine showing no deaths amongst 10,000 volunteers will have a marginal benefit for this group. In fact the only real benefit of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 might be amongst those in their sixties and seventies, particularly if they have other serious health issues, or are more exposed to infection – as is the case for older health-care workers.
But there is another factor that comes into play here. In order to protect the most vulnerable sectors of the population from infection, a significant percentage of the whole population must be made immune, either from vaccination or from their natural immune reaction to infection. The current path being pursued is to prevent infection and natural immunity developing, so such levels of herd immunity can only be achieved by mass vaccination, subjecting half the population to unnecessary dangers from vaccine side effects.
It would seem hard to make a sound scientific case for such a policy, or an economic one – the cost of vaccinating millions or billions of people around the world is barely calculable. But what is a cost to governments and the taxpayers who support them is a benefit to the pharmaceutical industry and private health industry, and it appears as though they will be driving policy to suit their interests.
There is one last aspect to this question, which only further emphasises the point; the significantly lower death rate associated with the currently circulating strains of the virus. Whether the escalation in positive-testing case numbers is partly due to oversensitive tests, or previously unaccounted asymptomatic cases, associated deaths have barely risen, and remain below 1% of total infections – roughly one tenth of the mortality rate during the “first wave” in Europe.
If science were allowed to prevail, then it would follow the prescriptions of the Great Barrington Declaration, abandoning the great vaccination project and allowing “nature to take her course”. But clearly she will not be allowed to, in a way epitomised by the Indian Government’s announcement last week that all citizens will be vaccinated. This was accompanied by news that India’s rapidly climbing infection rate was levelling off – most probably because herd immunity levels are now being reached.
According to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health*, on October 22, 2020 only 1 person diagnosed with Covid 19 was counted as “hospitalized” and 0 were counted in the ICU at Falmouth Hospital. The count at Cape Cod Hospital in these categories was 0 and 0. Falmouth has a population of about 30,000 people. The population of Cape Cod is about 212,000.
Some questions:
Should 212,000 people be required to wear face masks and maintain a distance of six feet from everyone else when just one person is in the hospital?
Should small businesses Capewide be forced into onerous restrictions and widespread closings?
Should students be kept out of school and forced into “virtual” education via computer screen? For that matter, should students be denied an education altogether, or workers be denied employment, if they refuse to get the flu shot that has been mandated in Massachusetts in order to keep the case load (of 1, in this case) in hospitals down?
Should the healthy be required to quarantine when such measures have never been taken before?
Should our right to assemble be curtailed?
Do public health officials, or does anyone, have a right to limit our right of assembly? Or our right to travel?
Should children in day care centers be required to wear masks, and learn at the beginning of their lives that not being able to see other kids’ faces is normal?
Does oxygen deprivation from wearing masks make sense?
Is it right to make people so afraid of the virus that they fear getting medical attention for other illnesses?
Is it acceptable to see young people committing suicide in greater numbers because of the dark world the virus scare has ushered in?
If there was a raging virus, would masks make even a bit of difference?
Are masks a preparation for vaccines which we will also have no choice about?
Does the pharmaceutical industry perhaps have a profit motive in seeing vaccines mandated? Does that industry perhaps have undue influence at WHO and the CDC?
Whatever Covid may once have been, it now looks a lot like a political agenda masquerading as a health crisis. Too many things just don’t make sense. It’s time to say no to whatever and whoever is driving this agenda.
Across Europe, supposedly in reaction to rises in the numbers of coronavirus cases, many national governments are imposing increased crackdowns that severely restrict the exercise of liberty. These coronavirus cases are in large part derived from testing that produces many false positives and that is often conducted on relatively young and healthy people who have very little risk of dying or even becoming seriously sick from a coronavirus infection.
Of course, the European politicians exerting their newly increased power say “the science” supports their tyrannical actions. And they will tend to give platforms to doctors and other scientists who back up those claims while ignoring or deriding the many doctors and other scientists who disagree.
If Joe Biden were president of the United States now, we can expect he would be following the course of these European power grabbers. The only likely reasons for restraint, aside from the potential of overwhelming popular revolt, would be if Biden had already implemented and maintained a countrywide crackdown of such high degree that he thought he could not feasibly increase it further or if congressional opposition or court orders managed to stop him.
In an August interview with David Muir at ABC, Muir asked Biden if Biden would shut down the country if “the scientists” say to do so because of coronavirus. Biden replied, “I would shut it down; I would listen to the scientists.” Of course, the scientists Biden is referring to are people like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx who have helped stir up and maintain overblown fear of coronavirus and support for state and local crackdowns while members of President Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force. Biden is not referring to people like Scott Atlas, a more recently added coronavirus advisor of Trump, who argues that much of the government action taken in the name of countering coronavirus cause more harm than good.
Biden also reiterated in the ABC interview his commitment to imposing a national mask mandate.
Keep in mind that Biden, in the ABC interview, is talking about both what he would do at the time of the interview and what he would do as president after he takes office on January 20 — about three months from now, five months after the interview, and ten months after crackdowns began to be imposed across America. He seems content to impose extraordinary mandates on Americans for a long time. In large part this appears to be the case because Biden places little or no value on the average American’s freedom. Biden, in the ABC interview, provides this response to people who say a mask mandate “impacts on their freedom”:
Come on. Give me a break. It’s about saving lives.
Biden disregards freedom. He disregards science as well given that the evidence indicates wearing masks does not prevent coronavirus infection and does damage health.
The beginning portion of the Thursday presidential debate was dedicated to discussion by Biden and President Donald Trump regarding coronavirus policy. The exchange presented a sharp contrast in views related to coronavirus policy. Biden described the upcoming situation with coronavirus in America by saying “we’re about to go into a dark winter,” a hyperbolic description supporting his advocacy for imposing draconian countrywide mandates. If he wins, Biden will take office during that winter. In contrast, Trump said in the debate “no we’re not gonna shut down.” In regard to crackdowns continuing on local and state levels, Trump stated, “we have to open our country.” Trump further stated that “the cure cannot be worse than the problem itself, and that’s what’s happening.” Also, unlike Biden, Trump has been very sparing in his wearing of masks and has never proposed a national mandate.
In October, European nations have imposed and expanded draconian mandates in the name of countering coronavirus. Meanwhile, some American states and local governments have eased up on coronavirus mandates while others have increased them. Should Biden become president in January, expect him to act to make the coronavirus crackdown in America go countrywide and go big.
A new study has all but confirmed the link between COVID sufferers and Vitamin D deficiency. This latest study lends additional support to the argument that cheap therapeutics are already readily available to the public – a key point which further demolishes the US, UK government and Big Pharma narrative that “only a vaccine” can save the population from a rapidly waning ‘novel’ coronavirus which is still being used by politicians and the World Economic Forum to justify the continuation of highly damaging lockdown policies.
Results of new research done by the Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital in Spain shows that a large number of COVID-19 patients – 82% of them, were found to have low levels of vitamin D, according to this new peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
Evidence seems to suggest that out of the 216 tested, more men were affected by this condition than women.
Conversely, a control group showed that only 47% of people who didn’t have the virus were Vitamin D deficient.
Vitamin D is a hormone produced in the kidneys which aids in the regulation of calcium in the bloodstream.
According to researchers, one possible mechanism for the high risk to serious illness in low Vitamin D sufferers could be a clear increase in serum levels of inflammatory markers like D-dimer and ferritin used by the body to fight off an infection.
One specific note: researchers did not find a clear association with the levels of vitamin D and the severity of COVID, or a need to be sent to intensive care, or placed on a ventilator, or death.
According to researcher Dr Jose Hernandez, from the University of Cantabria, “One approach is to identify and treat vitamin D deficiency, especially in high-risk individuals such as the elderly, patients with comorbidities, and nursing home residents, who are the main target population for the COVID-19.”
Regarding the issue of treatment, Dr Hernandez added that, “Vitamin D treatment should be recommended in COVID-19 patients with low levels of vitamin D circulating in the blood since this approach might have beneficial effects in both the musculoskeletal and the immune system.”
Ever since the alleged pandemic erupted this past March the mainstream media has spewed a non-stop stream of misinformation that appears to be laser focused on generating maximum fear among the citizenry. But the facts and the science simply don’t support the grave picture painted of a deadly virus sweeping the land.
Yes we do have a pandemic, but it’ a pandemic of ginned up pseudo-science masquerading as unbiased fact. Here are nine facts backed up with data, in many cases from the CDC itself that paints a very different picture from the fear and dread being relentlessly drummed into the brains of unsuspecting citizens.
According to an article in the New York Times August 29th 2020 testing for the Covid-19 virus using the popular PCR method results in up to 90% of those tested showing positive results that are grossly misleading.
Officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada compiled testing data that revealed the PCR test can NOT determine the amount of virus in a sample. (viral load) The amount of virus in up to 90% of positive results turned out to be so miniscule that the patient was asymptomatic and posed no threat to others. So the positive Covid-19 tests are virtually meaningless.
For some reason every positive Covid-19 test is immediately designated a CASE. As we saw in #1 above up to 90% of positive Covid-19 tests result in miniscule amounts of virus that do not sicken the subject. Historically only patients who demonstrated actual symptoms of an illness were considered a case. Publishing positive test results as “CASES” is grossly misleading and needlessly alarming.
On August 30th the CDC released new data that showed only 6% of the deaths previously attributed to Covid-19 were due exclusively to the virus. The vast majority, 94%, may have had exposure to Covid-19 but also had preexisting illnesses like heart disease, obesity, hypertension, cancer and various respiratory illnesses. While they died with Covid-19 they did NOT die exclusively from Covid-19.
The CDC updated their “Current Best Estimate” for Covid-19 survival on September 10th showing that over 99% of people exposed to the virus survived. Another way to say this is that less than 1% of the exposures are potentially life threatening. According to the CDC the vast majority of deaths attributed to Covid-19 were concentrated in the population over age 70, close to normal life expectancy.
In September of 2020 the CDC released the results of a study conducted in July where they discovered that 85% of the positive Covid test subjects reported wearing a cloth face mask always or often for two weeks prior to testing positive. The majority, 71% of the test subjects reported always wearing a cloth face mask and 14% reported often wearing a cloth face mask. The only rational conclusion from this study is that cloth face masks offer little if any protection from Covid-19 infection.
Harvey Risch, MD, PhD heads the Yale University School of Epidemiology. He authored “The Key to Defeating Covid-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It” which was published in Newsweek Magazine July 23rd, 2020. Dr. Risch documents the proven effectiveness of treating patients diagnosed with Covid-19 using a combination of Hydroxychloroquine, an antibiotic like azithromycin and the nutritional supplement zinc. Medical Doctors across the globe have reported very positive results using this protocol particularly for early stage Covid patients.
7) The US Death Rate is NOT spiking If Covid-19 was the lethal killer it’s made out to be one would reasonably expect to see a significant spike in the number of deaths reported. But that hasn’t happened. According to the CDC as of early May 2020 the total number of deaths in the US was 944,251 from January 1 – April 30th. This is actually slightly lower than the number of deaths during the same period in 2017 when 946,067 total deaths were reported.
According to the CDC as of 2017 US males can expect a normal lifespan of 76.1 years and females 81.1 years. A little over 80% of the suspected Covid-19 deaths have occurred in people over age 65. According to a June 28th New York Post article almost half of all Covid suspected deaths have occurred in Nursing Homes which predominately house people with preexisting health conditions and close to or past their normal life expectancy.
The CDC reported in their September 10th update that it’s estimated Infection Mortality Rate (IFR) for children age 0-19 was so low that 99.97% of those infected with the virus survived. For 20-49 year-olds the survival rate was almost as good at 99.98%. Even those 70 years-old and older had a survival rate of 94.6%. To put this in perspective the CDC data suggest that a child or young adult up to age 19 has a greater chance of death from some type of accident than they do from Covid-19.
Taken together it should be obvious that Covid-19 is pretty similar to typical flu viruses that sicken some people annually. The vast majority are able to successfully fight off the virus with their body’s natural immune system. Common sense precautions should be taken, particularly by those over age 65 that suffer from preexisting medical conditions.
The gross over reaction by government leaders to this illness is causing much more distress, physical, emotional and financial, than the virus ever could on its own. The bottom line is there is NO pandemic, just a typical flu season that has been wildly blown out of proportion by 24/7 media propaganda and enabled by the masses paralyzed by irrational fear.
State and local governments in particular have ignored the rights of the people and have instituted outrageous attacks on freedom and liberty that was bought and paid for by the blood and sacrifice of our forefathers.
Slowly the people are recognizing the great fraud perpetrated on them by bureaucrats and elected officials who have sworn to uphold rights and freedoms as spelled out in the US Constitution. The time has come to hold these criminals accountable by utilizing the legal system to bring them to justice.
Either we act now to preserve freedom and liberty for our children and future generations yet unborn, or we meekly submit to tyrants who crave more power and control. I will not comply!
Last week, US president Donald Trump committed a kind of blasphemy by attacking Anthony Fauci, his pandemic consultant and practically the spokesperson for the White House regarding COVID-19, saying that:
“People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots. He’s been here for 500 years. Fauci is a disaster. If I listened to him, we’d have 500,000 deaths.”
A remarkable statement of historical dimension, since Trump is the first American head of state to cast doubt on Fauci, who has acted as the virus tsar for no less than six presidencies: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama and Trump.
To make it clear, the logic behind Trump’s attack is scientifically unfounded. He refers to a statement of Fauci made some months ago, according to which people should “not wear face masks.” But even if all Americans had followed this advice, it would not have lead to a single extra death.
The simple reason is that the COVID-19 death rate data show unambiguously that a viral cause for the excess mortality seen in some countries, including the US, is virtually impossible — and that instead the massive experimental use of highly toxic drugs is the key factor in this context, as I recently outlined together with Claus Köhnlein MD, in an in-depth analysis for Real News Australia.
But on one point Trump hits the nail on the head: Fauci is simply a disaster, because he has been telling the world one lie after another for decades, why his presence actually feels almost as if he has been there for 500 years. And tragically, the mass media sell them to their audience of billions as a kind of gospel.
An example is — there’s no other way to put it — the downright shameful four page interview with Anthony Fauci in Germany’s best-known news magazine, Der Spiegel, published recently.
Shameful because Fauci here, too, is doing what he is a master at, namely, hoaxing the world — and Der Spiegel has been hoodwinked by him and, in admiration for the man dubbed by The New Yorker as “America’s Doctor,” which is a euphemism of the highest order, has forgotten to do its job: to ask critical questions.
The initial question alone is unworthy of a journalistic medium:
“Dr. Fauci, you once said of yourself that you had‚ a reputation of speaking the truth at all times and not sugarcoating things. Can we hope to get a few samples of previously unspoken truths from you today?”
And Fauci answers:
“Of course! I will always give you truth. Just ask the question and I’ll give you the truth. At least to the extent, that I think it is, right [laughs].”
Fauci: 36 years as the Modern Munchausen
What a farce. What Fauci thinks is right may be true for himself. But his statements do not stand up to an objective examination of scientific evidence.
Therefore he is not only “Dr. Wrong”, as he has been called recently by the conservative economist Stephen Moore, but actually “Dr. Baron of Lies”, because he must be aware that he is telling the untruth or that there are well-supported doubts about his theses. Especially because, since the beginning of his “reign” as global virus tsar in 1984, he has been repeatedly confronted with critical questions by many people (including me).
And what was his reaction over and over again? He just silenced and ignored the inquirers.
This is why his answer to Der Spiegel, “Just ask the question and I’ll give you the truth” is also a downright Fauci lie.
Unfortunately, he gets away with it not least because even world-famous personalities like Brad Pitt buy his lies and sell him to the world public as thoroughly sincere.
This is what happened on April 25, when the Hollywood star portrayed Fauci on Saturday Night Live. With a Fauci wig on his head and with the virus tsar’s typical raspy voice Brad Pitt spoke: “Until [I am getting fired by Trump], I am gonna be there puttin’ out the facts to whoever is listening.”
And at the end of the performance the actor took off the wig and said in his own voice: “To the real Dr. Fauci. Thank you for your calm, and your clarity in this unnverving time.” ix
But the only truth in these statements by Brad Pitt is that we live in “unnerving times.”
In fact, not outlining the facts, but saying the untruth and not answering is a characteristic behaviour that runs through Fauci’s entire 36 years in which the now 79-year-old has been director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). And this has very serious consequences.
Because with a current annual budget of almost six billion dollars, Fauci’s institute is a giant in AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and autoimmune research — while he himself is perhaps the most powerful man in the global virus circus.
The abundance of lies Fauci puts into the world is so great that you don’t even know where to start to enumerate them all. One of the many topic fields about which he is sending out factually untenable statements to the whole world is without question COVID-19. In order to become aware of this, one has to realize that:
c) people, referred to as COVID-19 victims, probably did not die of so-called SARS-CoV-2 but of non-viral factors such as cancer and other serious underlying diseases, the experimental administration of highly toxic drugs and/or invasive ventilation.
Thus, Fauci‘s narratives about the alleged novel coronavirus become a downright fairy tale. And a fairy tale teller, a modern-day Munchausen “Baron of Lies”, Fauci has been since he became the director of the NIAID in 1984 — the year Ronald Reagan was US president and AIDS was put on the world stage.
This was a turning point in modern world history. Since then the virus hunters enjoy god-like status, and this was accomplished by lies and deceit. Fauci played a decisive role in its creation, and the parallels to the “installation” of COVID-19 are striking.
How Fauci’s Falsehoods turned AZT into a “magic bullet”
How could this happen? Not least due to the swine flu disaster in 1976 in which 50 million US citizens were persuaded to get vaccinated, resulting in side effects in 20 percent to 40 percent of recipients, including paralysis and even death, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) came into unsettled political waters at the end of the 1970s.
As a result, the great contemplation began at these two most powerful organizations related to health politics and biomedical science.
In fact, Red Cross officer Paul Cumming told the San Francisco Chronicle in 1994 that “the CDC increasingly needed a major epidemic” at the beginning of the 1980s “to justify its existence.” And the HIV/AIDS theory was a salvation for American epidemic authorities.
As a result, “All the old virus hunters from the National Cancer Institute put new signs on their doors and became AIDS researchers. [US President Ronald] Reagan sent up about a billion dollars just for starters,” noted Kary Mullis who received the Nobel Prize for his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) which plays a central role in the context of COVID-19. “And suddenly everybody who could claim to be any kind of medical scientist and who hadn’t had anything much to do lately was fully employed.“
Among those who jumped over from cancer research to AIDS research, the best known is Robert Gallo. “HIV didn’t suddenly pop out of the rain forest or Haiti. It just popped into Bob Gallo’s hands at a time when he needed a new career,” as Mullis, who unfortunately died last year, noted with a wink.
And it started with big lies. The most important one was announced in April 1984 by Gallo, working under Fauci, when he claimed in a press conference that gained worldwide attention that “the probable cause of AIDS has been found.“
NB. Gallo’s papers were printed in the journal Science over one week after his press conference and also after he had filed a patent application for an antibody test later misleadingly named “HIV test”. Thus, nobody was able to review his work prior to his spectacular TV appearance, and for some days afterwards.
This presented a severe breach of professional scientific etiquette. And as review later showed Gallo’s studies did not deliver any proof for the virus thesis.[1]
Mullis confirmed it as well:
“People keep asking me, ‘You mean you don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS?’ And I say, ‘Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant! I have no scientific evidence for it!’ I might believe in God, and He could have told me in a dream that HIV causes AIDS. But I wouldn’t stand up in front of scientists and say, ‘I believe HIV causes AIDS because God told me.’ I’d say, ‘I have papers here in hand and experiments that have been done that can be demonstrated to others.’ It’s not what somebody believes, it’s experimental proof that counts. And neither Montagnier, Gallo, nor anyone else had published papers describing experiments which led to the conclusion that HIV probably caused AIDS.”
Mullis even had the opportunity to ask Montagnier personally about a reference proving that HIV causes AIDS. But he couldn’t name one. “It was damned irritating,“as Mullis reported. “If Montagnier didn’t know the answer, who the hell did?“
Of course, whoever is in possession of a solid peer-reviewed study that proves that HIV causes AIDS may please present it to me or my co-author!
I have searched for such a study by myself, but haven’t found it, either. I have also approached Anthony Fauci and his NIAID several times asking them, among other things, to send me such a study showing that HIV is a retrovirus that causes a deadly infection. Finally, I was told by Hillary Hoffman from the NIAID’s News and Science Writing Branch that:
“Dr. Fauci respectfully declines to respond to the questions that you emailed.”[2]
About this practice of refusing to answer questions Horace F. Judson, historian of molecular biology, wrote in his book The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science:
“Central to the problem of misconduct is the response of institutions when charges erupt. Again and again the actions of senior scientists and administrators have been the very model of how not to respond. They have tried to smother the fire. Such flawed responses are altogether typical of misconduct cases.”
Calling AZT trials “scientifically controlled” is like referring to garbage as “haute cuisine”
Such behavior, which smells of misconduct, runs like a golden thread through Fauci‘s 36-year history as director of the NIAID.
A particularly blatant example is the approval of azidothymidine – commonly known as AZT – that became the first authorized AIDS medication. The basis for this was the so-called Fischl study which was published in July 1987 in the New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM) — and already then Fauci was in charge of federal AIDS funding.
John Lauritsen, journalist, Harvard analyst and active in the Gay Rights Movement since the 1970s, had viewed the FDA documents on the Fischl study and came to the conclusion that the study was “fraud”; the Swiss newspaper Weltwoche termed the experiment a “gigantic botch-up” and NBC News in New York branded the experiments, conducted across the US, as “seriously flawed.“
‘The available data are insufficient to support FDA approval [of AZT].”
The Fischl experiments were, in fact, stopped after only four months, after 19 trial subjects in the placebo group (those who did not receive AZT, but rather an inactive placebo) and only one participant from the so-called verum group (those who were officially taking AZT) had died. Through this, according to the AIDS establishment, the efficacy of AZT appeared to be proven.
But the Fischl study was not even worth the paper it was printed on. Not only was it financed by AZT manufacturer Wellcome (today GlaxoSmithKline), which is clearly a conflict of interest, but it was “clear that Fauci‘s NIH and the FDA had far too ‘cozy’ a relationship with Burroughs-Wellcome,” as Lauritsen writes.
Apart from that, the study was stopped after only four months. A clinical trial observation period of only four months is much too short to be informative, considering the usual practice of administering AIDS medications over years, or even a lifetime.
Moreover, the Fischl study had been conducted in a downright fraudulent manner. “It is almost beyond the bounds of probability that the mortality data could be correct,” as Lauritsen states. “There are many ways that errors can occur in research. But in this particular study the most parsimonious explanation would be deliberate fraud.” [3]
For example, the double-blind conditions of the study (according to which neither the researchers nor patients should have known who was taking AZT and who was taking placebos) were no longer existent after a short time. NBC lead reporter Perri Peltz stated in 1988, that almost immediately everyone knew who was getting what. Patients told how they can distinguish AZT from placebo by the taste.
Furthermore, the FDA documents show that the study results were distorted. For example, sicker patients were placed in the placebo group or because the group that swallowed AZT (and therefore had to cope with the severe side effects) received more supportive medical services than the placebo subjects.
NBC reported that there was widespread tampering with the rules of the Fischl trial. The rules had been violated coast to coast, and if all patients with protocol violations were dropped, there wouldn’t be enough to be able to continue the study.
Fauci’s History of Ignoring Critical Questions
On 27 January 1988, NBC News (Channel 4) broadcasted the first of Peltz‘ three-part exposés on AZT.
“When preparing this report, we repeatedly tried to interview Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes of Health. But both Dr. Fauci and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Frank Young declined our request for interviews.”
“Welcome to the club, Perri!” wrote John Lauritsen in his book The AIDS War: Propaganda, Profeteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex.
“When it comes to questions of HIV or AZT, the Public Health Service bureaucrats and “scientists” won’t speak to me either; they have also refused to speak to the BBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Radio, Channel 4 (London) television, Italian television, The New Scientist, and Jack Anderson.“
The same happened to me recently when I sent Fauci, and his NIAID, questions regarding the Fischl study — to this day I have not received any answer.[4]
Of course, Fauci was willing to talk… in media that did not ask critical questions and only let him pray down his advertising messages.
On February 19, 1988, Fauci appeared on the television program Good Morning America, as Lauritsen writes in his book. And he was asked why only one drug, AZT, had been made available. He replied:
“The reason why only one drug has been made available — AZT — is because it’s the only drug that has been shown in scientifically controlled trials to be safe and effective.“
But “this brief statement contains several outstanding falsehoods,” as Lauritsen points out.
“First, there have been no “scientifically controlled trials” of AZT; to refer to the FDA-conducted AZT trials as ‘scientifically controlled’ is equivalent to referring to garbage as la haute cuisine. Second, AZT is not ‘safe’: it is a highly toxic drug — the FDA analyst who reviewed the toxicology data on AZT recommended that it should not be approved. Third, AZT is not known objectively to be ‘effective’ for anything, except perhaps for destroying bone marrow.” [5]
Nevertheless, Fauci did not get tired of spreading factually unsubstantiated statements about AZT throughout the world. Even this year, at the end of April, Fauci was not afraid of promulgating the untruth about AZT during a White House meeting about Gilead’s drug remdesivir, by saying “the first randomized placebo-controlled trial with AZT… turned out to give an effect that was modest” (more on remdesivir below).
By the way, the inventor of AZT himself, Jerome Horwitz, said he was so cloyed with the drug that he “dumped it on the junk pile,” he “didn’t [even] keep the notebooks.“
In the mid 1980s Fauci promised the world they would “develop a vaccine for AIDS” rapidly. But even 35 years later such a vaccine is not yet in sight — and this despite the fact that, according to calculations since the 1980s governments alone have funded HIV research with well over half a trillion US dollars so far, with annual budgets that are now around 35 billion dollars, compared to 0.9 billion in 1987.
Is the Watergate phenomenon — follow the money — also evident here? To this Charles Thomas, molecular biologist and former professor of biochemistry at Harvard and John Hopkins Universities, said:
“Too many people are making too much money out of it. And money is stronger than truth.”
Same Old Scam: From AZT to “swine flu” vaccines, PrEP & remdesivir
The list of Fauci‘s assertions, which he must know he cannot substantiate scientifically, is almost endless. This cannot be stressed often enough.
In the context of so-called “bird flu” (H5N1) which was exaggerated to a world threat by the WHO, politicians, scientists and the mainstream media between 2003 and 2005, Fauci predicted that “even in the best-case scenarios” it would “cause 2 to 7 million deaths” worldwide. As the journalist Michael Fumento writes in his article:
“Dr. Fauci’s recurring disease ‘nightmares’ often don’t materialize.”
In fact, even the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that by May 16, 2006, H5N1 had killed “only” 100 people.
Equally unsubstantiated was Fauci’s aggressive promotion of H1N1 influenza (“swine flu”) vaccine in 2009. Back then he was reassuring that serious adverse events were “very, very, very rare”. Unfortunately, this statement was also irresponsibly unfounded, because the underlying studies were fast-tracked ones and lacked solid double-blind placebo-controls. There were also heavy conflicts of interests.
To make matters worse, only one year later, in 2010, the Swedish Agency for the Regulation of Prescription Drugs reported cases of children and adolescents suffering from narcolepsy after a swine flu vaccination — a neurological disorder that leads to a disturbance of the circadian rhythm (the biological clock that regulates the sleep-wake cycle).
Further analysis confirmed that the Pandemrix vaccine also caused the disease in vaccinated people in other countries. That the swine flu vaccine causes narcolepsy has been confirmed by the courts.
Nevertheless, Fauci did not let himself be put off.
In December 2015, for instance, the NEJM published his article Ending the HIV–AIDS Pandemic: Follow the Science. In this piece he made a case to “dramatically scale up HIV testing and treatment around the world” — including preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), i.e. “using ART [antiretroviral therapy] for HIV prevention in HIV negative persons.”
That is to say, healthy people should take highly toxic drugs. But here again: As self-assured as he presents his statements, he was not prepared to substantiate them factually.
In my mentioned request to the NIAID, in relation to his 2015 article about PrEP I asked:
In your NEJM article you write that the IPERGAY study showed that ‘persons who took PrEP… were 86% less likely to acquire HIV infection than those taking placebo.’ But in which study has it been shown that HIV is a very special retrovirus that causes a deadly infection?
Or in other words: If even Luc Montagnier admits, that on the images done by electron microscopy of the cell culture that he used he “saw some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of retroviruses”xxxii — in which study has it been proven that HIV, which is said to be a retrovirus, is a deadly retrovirus?
In your article you are making a case for “dramatically scale up HIV testing”—but in which study it has been proven that so-called HIV tests are in fact HIV tests?
Do you agree that:
so-called HIV tests respond “positive” to a wide range of physiological conditions
HIV test kits were approved only for blood screening
these tests do not claim to diagnose infection
proteins such as p18 or p24 are not specific for HIV, and that
there is no gold standard for an HIV test?
If not, which of these statements is wrong, and why is it wrong? If yes, why should we “dramatically scale up HIV testing” ?
You say in your article that “the early promise of durable effects from combination therapy has been realized for many patients.” But how can we conclude that ART being introduced in 1995/1996 is life-prolonging and responsible for having decreased the number of AIDS deaths in industrialized countries if:
in 1995/1996 only a fraction of patients received ART
statistics from the CDC and the RKI clearly show that the number of AIDS deaths actually reached the peak (mortality summit) as early as 1991,
no reliable statements can be made as to whether a single drug and ART are life-prolonging, since the basic prerequisite for this is lacking: a solid placebo-controlled study that has demonstrated the superiority of the drug/ART?
Unfortunately, as mentioned, Hillary Hoffman from NIAID just let me know that:
“Dr. Fauci respectfully declines to respond to the questions that you emailed.”[6]
Another example of a Fauci farce is Gilead Sciences’ rapid-release drug remdesivir, which was approved on May 2, 2020 in the context of COVID-19 for emergency use only. A few days before, the NIAID director claimed that a study found remdesivir would reduce recovery time and reduce mortality.
This can only be described as another scandal in which Fauci plays a central role—especially when you look at the fraudulent way in which the drug was approved and which is very similar to the way AZT was authorized in 1987.
An article from the Alliance for Human Research and Protection (AHRP) — Fauci’s Promotional Hype Catapults Gilead’s remdesivir — brought up the following painful subject:
Fauci has a vested interest in remdesivir. He sponsored the clinical trial whose detailed results have not been peer-reviewed. Furthermore, he declared the tenuous results to be ‘highly significant,’ and pronounced remdesivir to be the new ‘standard of care.’ Fauci made the promotional pronouncement while sitting on a couch in the White House, without providing a detailed news release; without a briefing at a medical meeting or in a scientific journal — as is the norm and practice, to allow scientists and researchers to review the data.
When he was asked about a recently published Chinese study on remdesivir, in The Lancet (April 29th , 2020); a trial that was stopped because of serious adverse events in 16 (12%) of the patients compared to four (5%) of patients in the placebo group, Dr. Fauci dismissed the study as ‘not adequate.’
But while the Chinese study that Fauci denigrated, was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center peer-reviewed, published study in a premier journal, The Lancet, with all data available, the NIAID-Gilead study results the remdesivir approval is based on have not been published in peer-reviewed literature — nor have details of the findings been disclosed.
“However, they were publicly promoted by the head of the federal agency that conducted the study, from the White House,” as the AHRP underlined. “What better free advertisement?”
By the way, regarding Fauci’s financial relations with Gilead, there is a petition that requests that he discloses them, since he hasn’t done it yet.
What the virus tsar also failed to disclose to the public in his promotional pronouncement of remdesivir was that the primary outcomes of the study that led to its emergency use approval were changed on April 16, 2020. Changes in the primary outcome are posted on clinicaltrials.gov.
Where previously there was an 8-point scale, which also included the deceased patients, from then on there has been only a 3-point scale, which leaves the deceased patient out of the equation and which at the same time only measures the time until recovery or being released from the hospital.
“Changing primary outcomes after a study has commenced is considered dubious and suspicious,” as the AHRP pointed out. And Reuters News reported that respected prominent leaders in the medical community — such as Steven Nissen MD, the chief academic officer at the Cleveland Clinic and Eric Topol MD, director and founder of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California — were unimpressed by remdesivir’s tentative, modest benefit at best.
Referring to the Lancet report, Topol stated:
“That’s the only thing I’ll hang my hat on, and that was negative.”
As for the NIAID modest results, Dr Topol was unimpressed:
“It was expected to be a whopping effect. It clearly does not have that.”
The change in primary outcome measures raised serious red flags for scientists; but was largely ignored by the mainstream media which mostly repeated Fauci’s promotional script.
“I think that they thought they weren’t going to win, and they wanted to change it to something they could win on. I prefer the original outcome. It’s harder. It’s a more meaningful endpoint. Getting out of the hospital early is useful, but it’s not a game-changer.”
As you can guess, all the questions I have asked the NIAID regarding remdesivir have remained unanswered as well… [7]
How toxic remdesivir is, is also shown by the fact that just recently, on October 2, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the regulator of medicinal products of the European Union, started a safety review of remdesivir. Reason: Some patients taking the drug reported serious kidney problems.
About two weeks later, on October 15, the WHO reported that in its own trial named “Solidarity” which started in March this year remdesivir not only failed to produce any measurable benefit in terms of mortality reduction, but that it also didn’t reduce the need for ventilators, or the length of hospital stays.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s organization Children’s Health Defense pointed this out on October 23 on its website. Fauci, by contrast, again remained silent about this study.
But Gilead shot ahead and commented in all seriousness “it is unclear if any conclusive findings can be drawn from the [Solidarity] study results,” because the trial hadn’t been peer reviewed or published in a scholarly journal.
But this comment is downright ridiculous.
On the one hand, it was no less a figure than Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, who initiated this multi-center, global Solidarity trial (more than 11,300 adults with Covid-19 in 405 hospitals in 30 countries) for the very reason that:
“multiple small trials with different methodologies may not give us the clear, strong evidence we need about which treatments help to save lives. This large, international study is designed to generate the robust data we need, to show which treatments are the most effective.”
Moreover, Gilead forgot to mention in its statement that the pivotal trial of remdesivir leading to its emergency use approval, as outlined, had not been peer reviewed and published in a solid journal on the day of its approval (May 2nd), either, and that it was seriously flawed.
Nevertheless, the study funded by Fauci’s NIAID has been finally published on October 8 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The only alleged benefit reported was a shorter recovery time for patients receiving remdesivir compared to those in the placebo group.
But this result has no validity, not only because of the seriously flawed underlying data. The way in which this drug got its approval is very reminiscent of the outlined fraudulent way in which AZT received its approval in 1987 in an alleged placebo trial. But in reality, almost from the beginning, everyone knew who was getting what (AZT or placebo) and patients even had their pills analyzed in the craving for the alleged miracle drug.
Who wants to rule out that this did not happen with remdesivir as well?
The story of the drug hydroxychloroquine also illustrates Fauci’s phoniness. At the end of March, US president Trump called this agent “a gift from God”, while Fauci warned against jumping on conclusions.
On May 27, Fauci even stated on CNN about hydroxychloroquine, “The scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy.”
And his comments came days after the Lancet published a 96,000-patient observational study that concluded that hydroxychloroquine had no effect on Covid-19 and may have even caused some harm.
“several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai.”
Hence, Fauci’s assertion on May 27, “The scientific data [about hydroxychloroquine] is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy,” was definitely a voluntary false statement, simply because at that date Fauci must have known that scientific data backing his claim did not exist.
“There is no data yet from randomized, controlled clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine—the gold standard for evaluating potential treatments.”
In fact, in 2005 the Virology Journal published an article concluding that chloroquine (of which hydroxychloroquine is a slightly milder derivative) is a “potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus” dubbed SARS-CoV-1, as health care expert Kevin Corbett points out in a Twitter post on October 26. And so-called SARS-CoV-2 is claimed to be genetically related to so-called SARS-CoV-1.
Of course, the Virology Journal study lacks validity because the science behind SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 is totally unfounded, and not least also because the study was just a cell culture and not a patient trial.
But Fauci is the world’s number one herald of the official corona narrative, and the study has been conducted by CDC scientists. So he should actually be totally convinced that chloroquine (and thus also hydroxychloroquine) is helpful in the context of corona.
Nevertheless, Fauci was unequivocal on Wednesday May 27, saying that “the data are clear right now” that hydroxychloroquine is not effective against the coronavirus.
This is why I asked Fauci’s NIAID, “How did Anthony Fauci come to his conclusion on May 27?” [8]. But I have not received an answer to this question, either.
Conversely, this does not mean that the effectiveness of the drug has been properly proven. Let’s not forget that hydroxychloroquine is far from a candy, it can have many serious side effects and even be fatal by causing cardiac arrhythmias, for example. Especially if it is given in higher doses, which is what happened in the treatment of so-called COVID-19 patients.
As mentioned, the experimental administration of high doses of potentially lethal drugs such as hydroxychloroquine is the major factor for the excess mortality observed in some (but not all!) countries. “I agree about hydroxychloroquine overdosing, both from a reduced function point of view and toxicity,” writes me Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch by e-mail. [9]
Risch belongs to the best-known researchers who see a potential curative effect in the drug. The relevant studies with COVID-19 patients “all showed significant benefit for high-risk outpatients,” says Risch. [10]
A view that is also expressed, for example, in the almost 40-page inquiry of Paul V. Sheridan to Fauci with copies sent to President Trump and others.
But even if we assume that administering hydroxychloroquine in lower doses alone, or in combination with an antibiotic and possibly zinc, to so-called COVID-19 patients may help decreasing the hospitalization and mortality risk, for instance, there is definitely no solid proof that this is due to an antiviral/anti-SARS-CoV-2 effect, as claimed. So the only conclusion would be that the positive effect is due to hydroxychloroquine having an anti-inflammatory effect, antibiotics clearing pathogenic bacteria and zinc boosting the immune system and metabolism function.
Furthermore, it must be considered in this context that administering hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with an antibiotic and maybe zinc cannot be at all a sustainable long-term therapy nor does it represent a real causal therapy.
This approach also just follows “modern biomedicine’s basic formula with its monocausal-microbial starting-point and its search for magic bullets: one disease, one cause, one cure,“ as American sociology professor, Steven Epstein, writes in his book Impure Science — AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. An approach that finally is just escapist.
This was expressed by Allan Brandt, a medical historian at Harvard Medical School, stating in his bookNo Magic Bullet: The promise of the magic bullet has never been fulfilled.
Apart from that, there is only one way to prove that a drug or a combination of agents help reducing mortality or hospitalization or is effective in relation to any other clinical endpoint, that is if you do compare it with a real placebo.
As Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, states quite rightly in her book The Truth About the Drug Companies:
“If there is really doubt about whether a standard treatment is effective, the FDA should require that clinical trials of new treatments have three comparison groups—new drug, old drug, and placebo.”
Unfortunately, there is no such placebo-study for hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 showing that this drug is superior compared to doing nothing.
In this context, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote on August 2 on Instagram, Fauci “insists he will not approve HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] for COVID until its efficacy is proven in ‘randomized, double blind placebo studies.’”
On this point one can indeed only agree with the virus tsar. And at the beginning of June, researchers reported the results of the first gold-standard clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19, concluding that it did not perform any better than placebo.
But here as well Fauci’s hypocrisy shows up in the end. Not only did the results of the said “first gold-standard” placebo study become known only at the beginning of June — thus a couple of days after Fauci made his unfounded claim that “The scientific data [about hydroxychloroquine] is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy.”
Also, “to date, Dr Fauci has never advocated such [placebo] studies for any of the 72 vaccine doses added to the mandatory childhood schedule since he took over NIAID in 1984,” as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also notes in his Instagram post. “Nor is he requiring them for the COVID vaccines currently racing for approval. Why should chloroquine be the only remedy required to cross this high hurdle?”
Fauci follows Big Pharma’s track
Additionally, the following question must be asked: Why do Fauci and his compliant companions focus on a “magic bullet” oriented symptom treatment medicine and not on causal therapies that take lifestyle factors such as nutrition, industrial toxins, exercise and psyche into account?
That can only be because people who occupy the highest positions of power such as Fauci obviously are on the side of pharmaceutical companies.
“Dr Fauci’s peculiar hostility towards HCQ is consistent with his half-century bias favoring vaccines and patent medicines,” as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. states. “Dr. Fauci’s double standards create confusion, mistrust and polarization.”
“HCQ’s patents are long expired; pills cost 30¢. [And] HCQ might compete with Dr Fauci’s vaccines including the Moderna vaccine for which his agency owns half the patent and Dr Fauci has invested $500 million in taxpayer dollar.”
In 2012 Fauci was named one of the five Leadership Council of the Gates Foundation-created Global Vaccine Action Plan.
The Gates Foundation also invests directly in Fauci’s NIAID (around $1.5 million in 2020 and around $7.5 million in 2019). And not least through Fauci’s vested interest in remdesivir, the circle closes when one realizes that the Gates Foundation owns more than $1.3 million in Gilead stock and more than $3.2 million in Gilead bonds.
So it is just jaw-dropping how Fauci can bloviate in the interview with German news magazine Der Spiegel mentioned at the beginning of this article:
“I stay completely apolitical. I never, ever, get involved in politics… I have been neutral throughout the six presidents that I have served.”
With this assertion Fauci conveys a completely unrealistic picture of the reality which resembles a Fata Morgana in which politicians rule, companies keep the economy going and science tracks down the facts in completely independent manner — without getting significantly in each other’s way or even corrupting each other.
Besides, scientists are in no way immune to careerism, greed, and thirst for glory. Even though they are often perceived as such, scientists are not saints, they are humans with virtues and faults. Even Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur whose claims laid the foundation for the whole virus mania, were demonstrably career-obsessed science fraudsters.
No doubt, we are living in times in which politicians are less and less in control of politics and in which the influence of powerful industries is so great that the independence of research is no longer guaranteed in many areas.
As a 2004 Lancet review of Judson’s aforementioned book The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science points out:
“Judson paints a dark picture of [biomedical] science today, but we may see far darker days ahead as proof and profit become inextricably mixed.”
Fauci himself is the personified expression of this alarming development and thus far from being “completely apolitical,” in fact the opposite. Against this background, it seems just comprehensible that there is even a petition titled “#Fire Fauci.”
NOTES:
[1] Steven Epstein. Impure Science—AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge (University of California Press, 1996, p. 73)
[2] Author’s email communication with the NIAID media team (among them Hillary Hoffman) between January 9 and 30, 2018
[3] John Lauritsen. The AIDS War. Propaganda, Profeteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex (Asklepios, 1993, p. 77)
[4] Author’s emails to the NIAID on August 24 and 27, 2020
[5] John Lauritsen. The AIDS War. Propaganda, Profeteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex (Asklepios, 1993, pp. 71-79)
[6] Author’s email communication with the NIAID media team (among them Hillary Hoffman) between January 9 and 30, 2018
[7] Author’s email to the NIAID on August 27, 2020
[8] Personal email from September 11, 2020
[9] Personal email from September 9, 2020
[10] ibid.
Torsten Engelbrecht is an award-winning journalist and author from Hamburg, Germany. In 2006 he co-authored Virus-Mania with Dr Klaus Kohnlein, and in 2009 he won the German Alternate Media Award. He has also written for Rubikon, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Financial Times Deutschland and many others.
Konstantin Demeter is a freelance photographer and an independent researcher. Together with the journalist Torsten Engelbrecht he has published articles on the “COVID-19” crisis in the online magazine Rubikon, as well as contributions on the monetary system, geopolitics, and the media in Swiss Italian newspapers.
The Israeli Political Spectrum From The “Liberal Left” To The Far Right, Is United In Genocide
The Dissident | May 5, 2026
… The fundamental issue of Israel is not Benjamin Netanyahu, but the fact that Israel is overwhelmingly a bloodthirsty, war-ready, genocidal society.
Historian Zachary Foster has documented that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis have supported every Israeli war since the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, writing:
2006
86% of the Israeli adult population justified “the IDF operation in Lebanon against Hizbollah,” or 2006 Lebanon War, in which Israel killed 1,191 people, the vast majority civilians according to HRW (Note that the % of Jewish Israelis who supported the war was even higher)
2008-2009
82% of the Israeli public thought that the 2008-9 war on Gaza was justified (in which Israel killed 1,417 Palestinians, the vast majority civilians.) Note that the % of Jewish Israelis who supported the war was even higher
2012
90% of Israeli Jews supported war on Gaza ( in which Israel killed 160 Palestinians, 66% civilians)
2014
95% of Jewish Israelis believed the war on Gaza was justified (in which Israel killed 2,310 Palestinians, 70% civilians)
2021
72% of Israelis believed the war on Gaza should continue (as of May 21) after Israel had already killed 250 Palestinians in Gaza, vast majority civilians. The % of Jewish Israelis who supported killing more Palestinians was much higher.
2024
A January poll found 95% of Jewish Israelis thought the Israeli military was using either the “appropriate” amount of force or “too little” force in Gaza at a time when Israel had already killed >25,700 Palestinians in Gaza.
2024
In September, 90% of Jewish Israelis supported the war on Lebanon (in which Israel killed 800+, including hundreds of civilians)
2025
In March, 82% of Israeli Jews supported the forced expulsion of residents of Gaza, Israel’s main goal in it’s genocide & war on Gaza.
2025
In June, 82% of Jewish Israelis supported the war on Iran known as the “twelve day war”
2026
On March 4, 93% of Israeli Jews expressed support for the war on Iran. 97% of “right-wing” Jewish Israelis support it, compared with 93% in the center and 76% on the left.
The overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis also have openly genocidal views towards Palestinians.
Polls in Israel have shown that:
84% of the (Israeli )public gives the IDF an excellent or very good grade regarding the moral conduct of the army
75% of Jewish Israelis agree with the idea that ‘there are no innocents in Gaza.’
A vast majority of Israeli Jews – 79 percent – say they are ‘not so troubled’ or ‘not troubled at all’ by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza.
The fundamental problem in Israel is Zionism, not Benjamin Netanyahu. – Full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 