Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Eight wise doctors and a glimmer of hope on Covid

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | October 25, 2021

In a nutshell, they say:

1.    We cannot vaccinate ourselves out of the Covid problem. Mass vaccination is forcing the virus to produce variants, which escape any protection provided by the jab (see here for a report covering 68 countries). Instead, the vaccine should be offered only to those most vulnerable, such as the very elderly.

2.    It is especially wrong to give it to children. They are at almost zero risk from Covid but subject to a real risk of damage from this particular vaccine, unrecognised during its development.

3.    Cheap and effective treatment is available which keeps the vast majority of patients out of hospital. Health officials and regulators should support doctors who want to use these treatments, and to educate patients in how to strengthen their responses to the virus.*

4.    Lockdowns and official fear-inducing propaganda have blighted the lives of millions, especially children, and must never be repeated.

The discussion is a must view for concerned individuals. It offers a completely different perspective from that of the NHS chiefs now calling for booster jabs and the return of Covid restrictions.

These edited contributions give a flavour of the discussion:

Dr Robert Malone, key architect of the mRNA technology that made possible the most commonly used Covid vaccines: ‘The virus is evolving very rapidly. This is akin to what happens if you overuse antibiotics.  With universal vaccination, we’re driving towards an endpoint of vaccine-resistant mutants.  The vaccines need to be used intelligently.

‘This set of vaccines that we have right now are gene therapy-based, and they have a common problem: they only have one antigen. It’s the spike antigen. When they were developing them, they didn’t realise the spike was biologically active. No fault of theirs. Everybody was in a rush.

‘But now it’s time to take a breath and say, “Hey, does this really make sense?” We don’t have to be just Left or Right, pro- or anti-vaccine. There’s a middle ground. We, as a community, need to protect people at high risk, not just here in our community, in our states; in my opinion, we need to protect the elders throughout the world. We don’t need to hoard all the vaccine for people that don’t really need it.

‘I’m not an anti-vaxxer, I’m a guy who’s spent the majority of my adult life developing vaccines. This is a technology platform that has enormous promise. And right now it’s in its infancy. The safety of the underlying technology is not yet fully demonstrated.

‘People did what they did in good faith and focused on a protein that they thought was fully safe – spike. But now, over a year later, we know that in the virus, this protein is responsible for much of the disease – the pathology in your vascular endothelial cells [blood vessel linings], the coagulation. And it’s unfortunate that this particular protein, in what appears to be a biologically active form, was used in these vaccines.’

Dr Richard Urso, ophthalmologist, Texas: ‘When people say, “They died of Covid”, they died of an inflammatory, thrombotic disease.  They didn’t die from the virus running through their body. There’s a bunch of drugs that can be used for the purpose of inflammation in this disease. There’s a bunch of drugs for thrombosis. Hopefully at some point we’ll have a really good, early treatment that’s directed to the virus itself. Right now we have other, very effective treatments.

‘About 330 children have died of Covid in a year and a half [under-19s in the US]. Typically, about 50,000 children a year die – many from drownings, from car accidents. You need to look at that as you look at the risk to children. And do they spread? – No, at least seven different studies show that children spreading to adults is close to zero.’

Dr Brian Tyson, family doctor, Californiawho has successfully treated more than 6,000 Covid patients and now finds children are getting sick from typical winter illnesses, rather than Covid: ‘With treatment started from day 1 to 7, I have had zero deaths.  From treatment started from day 7 to 14, I have four – two died the same day they showed up at the clinic, and two died in hospital.

‘Under that data Dr Urso was talking about, not one healthy child died from Covid-19. It was children who had four or five risk factors – morbid obesity being number one, diabetes number two, weakened immune system number three; kids on chemotherapy and things like that. So yes, they’re going to have opportunistic infections, but that’s no different than would normally take out these kids anyway, unfortunately.’

Dr Heather Gessling, family doctor, Missouri: ‘My numbers exactly match up with Brian’s. I’ve treated about 1,500 and I’ve had one death, because there was some delay in treatment.’

Dr Mark McDonald, child psychiatrist, Los Angeles: ‘Fear has been the driving force of this pandemic from the very beginning.  What’s driving the fear now is propaganda. I see kids all day long. The developmental stage that children need to go through – babies, toddlers, young adults – is being foreclosed on them.

‘Brown University department of paediatrics published a study that found babies born after January 1, 2020, have an IQ drop of 20 points. Why? They don’t see faces. They don’t play. They don’t have exposure to friends. They don’t go to school. They’re basically locked in their homes, looking at their parents for a year and a half. And their brains have not developed.

‘My concern is that we are building a generation of young people who are so traumatised that they will never fully recover. They’re always going to be scarred emotionally.

‘I don’t mean to be depressing. I mean to be alarming, so everyone can finally say, “Stop!”  We’ve got to stop the damage, and then figure out what to do about it.’

Dr Gessling: ‘I think “Stop the damage!” means to acknowledge what we have done wrong. We should reverse all the measures that have been implemented. Patients, families, parents, should take it upon themselves to feel empowered. We need to get back to the basics, because we’ve done this wrong for so long.

‘One of the books we all had in medical school was Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine. This is what we have forgotten: “Many specific host factors influence the likelihood of acquiring an infectious disease: age, immunisation history, prior illnesses, level of nutrition, pregnancy status, coexisting illnesses and perhaps emotional state – all have some impact on the risk of infection after exposure to a potential pathogen.”  All we have done is focus on one of those: immunisation history.

‘The ability to provide early, effective treatment should make us feel empowered.  We should not feel afraid any more.’

Dr Pierre Kory, pulmonary and critical care specialist; founding member and president, the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance; co-author of two Covid prevention and treatment protocols: ‘My hopes are that more and more attention is going to be paid to early treatment strategies, especially now the vaccinated are getting sick. Many people were led to believe that if you get your vaccine, we’re going to end this thing, you don’t have to worry about it, you can carry on with your lives.

‘But guess what? My colleagues are talking about even scarier variants that are coming. And so we need more tools to fight this.  The positive message is, we have them, and they can handle any variant that comes at us. We just need to get that message out. I don’t believe anybody has died who’s had effective early treatment.’

Dr John Littell, family doctor, Florida: ‘What we’re seeing now is that patients are getting early treatment with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and a host of other medications, because of this free exchange of ideas in this group of physicians and others around the world.

‘Dr Tyson, Dr Gessling and myself are family physicians, OK? So we’re the folks who have been in those front lines getting the phone calls in the middle of the night from concerned parents.  And what you’ve just heard from Dr Kory and from us is that is that if you take the right preventive treatment, you’re approaching zero per cent mortality.’

Dr Kory: ‘If we have effective treatments, why aren’t they being recognised and disseminated across the world?  I think we’re up against two forces.

‘The first is that in general, our health agencies are suffering what’s called regulatory capture. They’re largely driven by financial interests that are making sure that the solution to the pandemic is one that is profitable. Vaccines are profitable.

‘The other, somewhat overlapping challenge is that in academia, in the last ten years, there’s been this increasing belief that the only proof of efficacy of a drug has to come out of a large, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. You have to make the diagnosis – everyone has to have a positive test; they have to have symptoms; they have to be enrolled, consented, randomised, and then the drug is delivered. Each one of those steps takes time. So it’s often very delayed, and under-dosed – they’re using doses that I was using six months ago.’

Dr Ryan Cole, medical director, Cole Diagnostics, Idaho, who has done more than 100,000 Covid tests in the past year: ‘Covid is a clotting disease. When we give a spike protein [through the vaccine], that is an active biologic molecule. We chose the wrong molecule, which causes disease.

‘So what do I see under the microscope? We see clotting under the skin, in the lungs, in the blood vessels, in the brain – not from the virus, but from the spike from the vaccine itself.

‘Now consider the numerator and the denominator.  Are most people going to be fine? Yes. And I want to emphasise that.

‘[But] in our data from around the world, from the United States, from the UK, from EudraVigilance in Europe, we have seen more death and damage from this one medical product than all other vaccines combined in the last several decades, in just a short, eight-month window of time. It has done more damage than any other medical product, therapy, shot, modality, of anything we’ve ever allowed to stay on the market to this point.

‘Do I mean to sound alarmist? No, I’m being factual. And when I look at it under the microscope and I see the parts of people – or people that are no longer with us – the damage and the disease is caused by that spike protein. It is present.

‘A virus is a humanitarian issue. When we divide ourselves in thought and don’t listen to science any more, we’re going down the wrong paths.

‘We are forgetting what our amazing immune system does. How many of you had chickenpox when you were a kid? And how many of you have ever had it again? Did you need a shot? No. Grandma had measles – has grandma ever had it again? No, because her immune system works.

‘Half of kids in the US have already had Covid. We’re not antibody testing – we’re treating everybody with this terrible oppression of, “You’ve got to wear a mask . . . you’ve got to stay home if somebody in your classroom tests positive.” It denies basic science.

‘Under age 50 with no co-morbidities, your chances of dying from this disease are about nil, and if you get early treatment they are even closer to nil. So if you are a Covid recoverer, you don’t need a shot.

‘The shot can damage the hearts of children. There are more children who’ve had myocarditis – and there’s never such a thing as mild myocarditis. That’s inflammation of the heart. Once you get inflammation, you get scarring. Those kids’ hearts are damaged for life. Kids have died of heart attacks after the shot, and there are more kids that have had myocarditis than have died from Covid. Kids aged zero to 18 survive this virus at a statistical 100 per cent – 99.997 per cent. So why are we punishing kids for a virus they survive?’

*For up-to-date guides to home treatment of Covid, see here and here.

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Recovered immunity is weak “Because science”/CDC

By Meryl Nass, MD | October 24, 2021

“Because science” is new slang terminology that refers to bogus explanations or justifications for why things are done a certain way during the pandemic.

I have come to love the term because it encapsulates the contempt for the public evidenced by officials who usually know little about science but regurgitate “the science” to justify some unjustifiable policy.

Aaron Siri, a wonderful attorney, has challenged US health agencies on many of their illogical and often illegal pandemic policies.

He just posted the exchange he has had with CDC over its refusal to acknowledge the presence of immunity to COVID in the recovered.

While the whole document is interesting, the very end contains some of CDC’s “because science” answers.

Let me explain what CDC has been doing over the past year:  whenever there is strong evidence that shows a CDC claim or policy is dead wrong, CDC’s “scientists” conduct a bogus study which can involve cherrypicking endpoints, choosing specially selected time periods, and a variety of other shenanigans to produce “evdience” that calls into question the real science. They have done this with masks, lockdowns, recovered immunity, and vaccines for children, that I can recall off the bat. I worked with a group of scientists who tried to reproduce the CDC’s calculations. But we couldn’t, because even though the CDC “scientists” were friendly and seemingly open, they never would provide enough information on their data set and their algorithm(s) for us to check their work. Clearly that was CDC policy, even though it flies in the face of standard ICMJE medical publication standards.

And that is what they did in this case. Despite mountains of evidence regarding the strength of recovered immunity, CDC just cited its own bogus study, while leaving the door open in case “the science” changed in the future. Where is the shame?

And, the agencies don’t mind dragging litigation on forever, since it is your money that is paying for it.

October 24, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

A Surgeon Writes…

By Toby Young • The Daily Sceptic • October 24, 2021

An NHS surgeon who’s contributed to the Daily Sceptic before has sent us an email offering us his perspective on the current NHS ‘crisis’. It’s a reminder that even though the current pressure on the NHS cannot realistically be attributed to Covid hospital admissions – which remain at around 5% of the total – that doesn’t mean that the NHS isn’t under strain.

There are various debates about whether or not the NHS is under pressure with pundits rightly pointing out that the NHS is not under pressure due to Covid-related disease. I think at this stage this is an unhelpful diversion. The fact is there is a big problem and trying to disprove it by just looking at Covid is missing the bigger picture.

The NHS is under a lot of pressure due to processes unrelated to Covid workload. While hospitals are not yet full to the brim, the overall activity levels are higher than usual for certain regions (whether this is due to the catch-up effect, neglect, the iatrogenic effect of recent non-pharmaceutical or other interventions/measures, etc.). The main crisis is related to staffing. This labour shortage has been noted in many sectors of the economy, but the staffing crisis (mainly non-doctoral) in the NHS has been chronic and worsening for years. This year tipped the balance (psychological exhaustion, physical exhaustion, sickness absence, track and trace, etc.). In our region hospitals are routinely cancelling (relatively non-essential) surgery due to lack of staff required to either run operating theatres or wards/ancillary services. Hospitals are routinely running extra activity on Saturdays to try and catch up on cancer work. This is a weekly occurrence not limited to the place I work. Factor in the very long (self-created) waiting lists and the winter (which has not even started), and the crisis could become unmanageable.

I am pessimistic. Regardless of the Covid workload, the Government may use a real crisis in the NHS to justify more pointless non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccine passports (complete nonsense from a medical, ethical and social perspective) out of desperation, misconception, or both.

October 24, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 2 Comments

Physicians and the Vaccine Tyranny

By Blaise Edwards, M.D. | American Thinker | October 21, 2021

I find myself in the position that I must use an alias for fear of reprisal. Those days may be quickly coming to an end, as hospitals are denying requests for vaccine exemptions with impunity. I will likely soon be out the door, with nothing to lose. Even if I survive this round, if the “pandemic” continues, it won’t be long before I am shelved like a can of spam.

Doctors need to be called out. From early in the pandemic, it was like a mass hypnosis or forgetfulness of everything we had learned in medical school. Immune system knowledge was shelved and replaced by government dictates. The thought of early outpatient treatment with “off label” drugs that could modulate the immune system was forbidden. We essentially told patients that they had to go home and wait until they were sick enough to be hospitalized, then treatment would begin. Imagine telling all diabetics that there is no metformin, Glucophage, or insulin. Would we really wait until patients are in diabetic ketoacidosis, and then treat them only at the hospital? It is medical malfeasance of a grand scale.

We physicians gave up our training and our reasonable medical thought process. The reasons are multiple. First, it was the easy way out. Second, many of us are employed and fear reprisal. Third, despite what the public thinks, we physicians are not bold leaders, we tend to be sheep, and are afraid of having an entire institution ostracize us or our colleagues to think us crazy.

As we got to the point of vaccine rollout, doctors were not using the scientific method, questioning and challenging prevailing hypotheses. They kept their heads down, closed clinics, converted to telemedicine, and pushed only the jab.

I had conversations with doctors who are supposed experts in virology and immunology denying the lasting immunity of natural infection. Conversations about natural immunity:

“I have antibodies.”

“But they will wane.”

“But I have memory cells.”

Dumbfounded look.

Really, are these the leaders we want?

Other conversations about the safety of vaccines:

“The vaccine is safe.”

“No, we would have shut down any trial in the past after even 100 deaths.”

“This is more serious.”

“But the survival rate is about 99.6%.”

“It’s killing people.”

“So is the vaccine”

“You can’t believe VAERS.”

“It was set up to help protect the public, and if anything, it is underreporting side effects.”

“You’re a conspiracy theorist.”

Or conversations about early treatment

“You must get the vaccine, it is the only “proven” treatment, there are no other treatments.”

“Really, ivermectin has eradicated COVID in India, parts of Mexico, Japan….”

“It is a horse dewormer.”

“It won a Nobel Prize in medicine, is a WHO essential drug, and has been around for decades with a great safety profile.”

“No, only the vaccine works.”

“But it is failing”

“You are a denier and a conspiracy theorist.”

“Sigh….”

Lately, it has been all about getting 100% of the population jabbed. For what reason? I am not sure, and some of the more detailed and investigated theories scare me. I shudder to think. But last year’s heroes are being labeled selfish and villainous for not getting the vaccine. Hospital systems have abandoned their community’s health and ignored early successful outpatient treatment in favor of huge government subsidies for inpatient and ICU treatment. The success of these treatments was not great, but that is another article. Now we have the same hospital systems turning their backs on their own employees. Basically, health providers have a choice, get shot, or get fired. How does that help? Both vaxxed and unvaxxed can spread the virus, so it doesn’t help anyone. It only helps the hospital to get more government money by meeting quotas.

I, for one, will remember that when we faced a real crisis, the hospitals and many physicians chose money and profit over their own community’s best interest. Perhaps it is time for groups of physicians to get back to running their own healthcare clinics and hospitals. We used to have a code of ethics. We used to put patients first. Not anymore.

As for physicians, those who are blindly following the government edicts are culpable in a moral atrocity. Bullying and deriding patients who chose to refrain from this still experimental therapy is an abomination. (You will say it isn’t experimental anymore, to which I would say that just because the government broke its own rules regarding approval, doesn’t make it legal or right). Patients have sincere beliefs for making their choice. Respect their thoughts. Do you yell as much at smokers, drinkers, fornicators, drug abusers, etc? No, I think not. I think you chose to fit in because it gives you a sense of righteousness.

And going so far as to encourage vaccination in children and pregnant women is crazy. There is blood on the hands of any physician who does this. With children, there is no benefit to the vaccine, only harm. They would serve themselves and society better with natural immunity. The vaccine hasn’t been studied on women and their babies. It is pregnancy category X (unknown) but being pushed wholesale on these poor women without proper studies. Shame on you, doctors who are doing this. I certainly have lots to answer for when I meet my maker, but this is on another level.

I beg physicians to get back to basics, remember all the epidemiology and immunology that bored us to tears in school. Investigate the real literature and take a stand. Society needs us to do this. Even if you have been vaccinated, help those who are fighting for their lives. Stand up against this forced vaccine tyranny. Support those who have legitimate reasons for declining the jab. If you don’t stand up now, who will stand up for you when you are faced with your choice of yet another booster or your job.

October 24, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 7 Comments

The COVID-Catholic Parallel – been here before?

Gregory’s Blog | October 13, 2021

We see unprecedented use of ‘unprecedented’ today. Yes, it applies to putting entire nations under house arrest. Yes, it applies to the near-universal wearing of masks (more accurately muzzles). Yes, it applies to needing a passport to be normal. But perhaps the entire phenomenon we are experiencing is not unprecedented.

Let us look back in time to 380, when Rome became the superspreader of Christianity by making it their empire’s official religion. Within 100 years the Roman Empire collapsed but despite the death of its host, Christianity survived and for over 1000 years the head of the Catholic Church was the most powerful figure in all of Europe.

Most rulers of nations, then and now, have one core raison d’être, which is to protect us from other versions of themselves. But the Catholic Church would tolerate no other versions. Its Pope reigned supreme, having spiritual authority over kings, dukes, princes and local overlords. As the Lord’s Prayer tells us “…thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Your local priesthood conveyed the will to be done on earth, working hand in glove with the local lord, whose temporal power was recognised by God’s official mouthpiece, the Pope.

You may ask how the church came to have and maintain such power. The answer is simple: faith and fear.

They had agents throughout the land, with a church in every town. The priest class, from archbishops down to parish priest, were the most highly-educated and respected sector of society. The priesthood was a sought-after secure profession, and people had faith in the truth of what the priest told them. It was often sound advice they could find nowhere else. The church had a near monopoly on education, with part of the core curriculum being God and creation, Jesus and miracles, sin and salvation, as well as good deeds, forgiveness, and useful guidance. Most priests were good people, people of faith, and following their advice was the passport to Heaven.

Then there is the fear. The devil can manifest anywhere in the world, tempting people to stray from the path of righteousness. The devil can be lurking unseen within any one of us, prompting urges that God wants us to supress. We must be on our guard from those he may have corrupted. We must follow the priest’s advice to avoid the fearsome prospect of Hell.

Believers knew that if they behaved badly during their 50 or so years of this existence, they would suffer a miserable and horrific existence in Hell, forever – like eternity. What a terrifying prospect! This was the picture the church taught and most people absolutely believed what they were told by the highly educated priests. Bastards, born out of wedlock, were a product of sin and not welcome in society. Those who missed church on Sunday were avoided. Just speaking with these dangerous people could infect one with sinful thoughts.

Not all the ‘common’ people bought into the church’s teachings or went to priests for advice on things spiritual or material. Some chose a more direct spiritual interface with the living world. Many were women who also practiced unlicensed healing, whether through herbs or ‘occult’ practices invoking natural energies of the earth and human body. Tens of thousands of these women were burned, drowned or tortured to death as witches, for their deviant beliefs.

Of course, being a God-fearing church goer did not stop people from being sinners but at least you were trying and could confess your sins to the priest, do some penance and be forgiven. Without that escape clause, the ungodly sinner was doomed to Hell.

Those who wrote or spoke publicly in contradiction of the church’s teachings were guilty of heresy and their books burned and banned, as well as the heretic at times. To speak disrespectfully of things holy was considered blasphemy, punishable as a serious crime, occasionally warranting death. This unfortunate situation still prevails in many Islamic nations, with a religion 600 years younger than Christianity.

The Christian church does not have the power it once held over the minds of those in so-called Western cultures. There are still some who believe in a God who created the Universe in a few days and did it all for the benefit of humankind, before throwing us out of the Garden of Eden. Most, if not indoctrinated early, instinctively reject the idea that we are born with the burden of sin and can only find spiritual truth and salvation through the son of God, whom we crucified. The spiritual credibility of the church has not been helped in recent years by the paedophile scandals surrounding its priesthood.

Today we are witnessing a new “religion” taking hold and this one has nothing to do with spirituality, yet has spread faster than any before. It has gripped the minds of billions across the planet and is also powered by faith and fear, with an enemy as invisible as Hell and the Devil himself. Curiously, it has had its greatest success to date in the ‘West,’ perhaps filling the fear vacuum that has been created in the world’s traditionally Christian cultures.

Today’s priesthood is embodied in the medical industry, staffed by highly trained professionals with secure careers, for whom the public has high regard. Just as we once needed priests to act as intermediaries to God, we now need trained doctors as intermediaries to our bodies and guardians of our health. Many people are sadly out of touch with their mortal frame and have unquestioning faith in doctors knowing best – the high priests of health.

The medical establishment does not like competition for its services, doing whatever it can to ban or denigrate healing practices other than their own, whether herbs or naturopathy, prayer or acupuncture, homeopathy or reiki. Theirs is the only true path to health, and all other routes are portrayed as fraught with danger.

We do not know how well organised Christians were before the Romans assimilated them – before Christian belief was standardized and regulated at the Council of Nicaea. We do know that before the healing profession was dominated by the World Health Organisation, The Centre for Disease Control, and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, there was full medical freedom of choice for the individual. In 1880 there were more homeopaths in the USA than allopathic doctors, while mechanics earned more than either of them. It is no accident that the WHO, CDC, and GAVI are largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and headed by their chosen men and women. They have become today’s equivalent of the Vatican during its 1000 years of dominance. They claim a monopoly on truth and woe betide those who question or counter it.

Notable physicians, respected virologists, vaccine designers, even a Nobel Prize winner have countered the official narrative and lost their positions, been discredited and denounced.  They are denied any further involvement in the hospitals, clinics and practices spread across the land as thickly as were early chapels, churches and cathedrals. Popular speakers, performers and entertainers have had their bookings cancelled for refusing to be vaccinated, or for questioning the push to global vaccination. We could view these outspoken characters as being excovidicated from the medical and media establishments.

It takes a lot of faith to accept being injected with a partially tested new-concept mRNA injection. Taking the second jab could be seen as one’s baptism into the Covidian Church. Like it or not, it is an affirmation and commitment.  And unlike the splashing of holy water and utterance of sacred words, it may be difficult to decouple our immune system from the one implanted by Big Pharma. This new system will need an upgrade every 6 months to keep your internal software up to date. Where have we heard this before?  What will system crashes look like?

Just as going to church does not prevent God-fearing folk from sinning, taking the injection does not prevent Covid-fearing folk from getting the virus, or from spreading it. But, we are told, if the case is bad enough to need hospitalisation, the sufferer will be less likely to die. Considering that the Covid survival rate, before vaccination began, was over 99.9%, how much the vaccine increases it is, perhaps, a moot point.

In today’s somewhat free society, it is okay to declare that the Queen is a shape-shifting lizard, okay to accuse the Bush family and their associates of taking down the three towers (the twins and WTC 7); okay to accuse Hilary Clinton of running a paedophile ring and drinking an extract of tortured children.

It is decidedly NOT okay to counter the narrative of the BIG PHARMA’ three – to suggest that Covid-9 is not an existential threat;  to recommend tested known treatments for it; to disclose that natural immunity is widespread and better than jabs; to publicise the hundreds of thousands of documented adverse reactions to the injection. Those who question or counter the narrative on any level are guilty of (forgive me) ‘blaspharmy.’ Thou shalt not speak against the trinity of the CDC, WHO and GAVI.

Instead of burning books today, they ‘burn’ the online platforms of those who question or challenge the narrative of Big Pharma. YouTube channels are shut down without warning, with all their content removed from view – troves of information that was approved and online for years. Twitter accounts are terminated. Much like the bad old Soviets used to remove people from official photos when they fell out of favour, today Wikipedia entries of repeat blaspharmers can be erased, with Google searches relegating links to 20th places. This all may be more ‘climate-friendly’ than burning books, but does immense harm to the free flow of ideas, the emergence of truth, and the connected feedback loops that power positive evolution.

The parallel has been made with the Papal precedent. There is much of positive value to gain from Christian teachings but they are not and never were the only source of spiritual and moral guidance. Neither is the medical establishment the only viable source of sound and effective  advice on healing and health. It’s biggest player, Big Pharma, does exceedingly well out of poor health.

We are at a unique and yes, unprecedented turning point in the story of our species. Do we remain independent human beings, able to freely associate and communicate with each other, how and where it suits us? Do we remain able to choose what we eat, and travel by the means of our choice, all while having primary responsibility for our health and well-being?

Or do we welcome being merged with outside agencies, starting with one that manages our vital immune system with regular injections? Vaccine passports, once established, would (for greater ease) morph into a body implanted chip and soon also serve as door key, passport, credit card, wallet, bus/train ticket, bar tab, membership card – and desirable citizen monitor.

We know how once wild animals were so attracted by regular food and a roof that domestication became possible. Are we sacrificing the last vestiges of personal freedom and privacy to become part of a digitally managed body of people? What are the consequences of this? We do not know, but the ‘religious’ suppression of opposition to its rapid implementation does not bode well. Technology has and can make our lives easier without being under central control by coercive bodies, sometimes headed by psychopathic personalities.

If it looks like an externally managed future is being forcibly rammed down our throats that could well be because it is. What can we do about it? The most powerful tool we have is mass non-compliance, which begins with each and every one of us, including small businesses, and those big ones with customer interests at heart. If enough employers, employees, diners, care workers, café goers, hospitality staff, shoppers and so forth refuse to pretend there is an existential killer on the loose, the scheme will immediately fall apart. And that’s another article…

– – – O – – –

For an up-to-date overview listen to eminent cardiologist Dr Peter McCollough speaking in plain English on Oct 2, 2021. Check his outstanding CV here.

October 24, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

Viral Tweet Opposing ‘Herd Immunity’ Gets Pretty Much Everything Wrong

By Noah Carl  • The Daily Sceptic • October 22, 2021

In a recent viral tweet, the anti-Brexit campaigner Jolyon Maugham criticised the Government’s initial Covid strategy (which, as we know, was later ditched in favour of lockdowns).

I’m no defender of the Government’s response to the pandemic, but it’s hard to imagine a more wrong-headed criticism than this. Indeed, it’s impressive how many fallacies Maugham managed to pack into 280 characters.

First: “Herd immunity”. As the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration have tirelessly pointed out, describing any response to the pandemic as a ‘herd immunity strategy’ is like describing a pilot’s plan to land a plane as a ‘gravity strategy’. Given that Covid cannot be eliminated, herd immunity will eventually be reached, regardless of what we do.

The goal of any plan to address Covid, write Kulldorff and Bhattacharya, “should be to minimise disease mortality and the collateral harms from the plan itself, while managing the build-up of immunity in the population.”

Second, the implication of Maugham’s tweet is that the Government’s initial strategy was motivated by Conservative ideology, and that the alternative – lockdown – is what’s backed by science.

Yet, as I and others have pointed out, it’s actually lockdown that deviates substantially from the pre-Covid consensus. Indeed, the UK’s pandemic preparedness plan does not even mention the term. And in 2019, the WHO classified “quarantine of exposed individuals” as “not recommended under any circumstances”.

Given that the first lockdown was implemented by a communist one-party state, and that subsequent lockdowns were imposed with almost no prior discussion, it would make more sense to say lockdown was motivated by ideology.

Third, the virus does not “target” working class and poorer people, while leaving Etonians and bankers unscathed. It is not some pathogenic agent of class warfare.

If “target” is taken to mean “infect”, then the virus targets people who aren’t immune to it. And if “target” is taken to mean “kill”, then it would be most accurate to say the virus targets the old and the immunocompromised. After all, these groups account for the overwhelming majority of deaths.

Now, it’s true that death rates have been higher in working class occupations, as I noted in a previous post. But this is far more plausibly due to lockdown than to the Government’s initial strategy, which was in any case abandoned in March of 2020.

As the art critic J. J. Charlesworth quipped, “There was never any lockdown. There was just middle-class people hiding while working-class people brought them things.” Middle-class people like Jolyon Maugham, I might add.

October 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

The FDA’s War Against the Truth on Ivermectin

By David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper | AIER | October 18, 2021

On July 28, the Wall Street Journal ran our article “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” In it, we outlined the potential value of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin for Covid-19, and we questioned the FDA’s vigorous attack on ivermectin. Many people praised us and many criticized us. We had clearly covered a sensitive subject. It didn’t help that one of the studies we referenced was retracted shortly before we submitted our article. Within hours of learning that fact, we sent a mea culpa to the Journal’s editors. They acted quickly, adding a note at the end of the electronic version and publishing our letter. It’s important to address two criticisms of our work. The first is that we exaggerated the FDA’s warning on ivermectin. The second is that Merck’s stance on ivermectin proved that even the company that developed ivermectin thought that it doesn’t work for Covid-19.

First, we didn’t exaggerate the FDA’s warning on ivermectin. Instead, the agency changed its website after our article was published, probably to reflect the points we made. Second, Merck had two incentives to downplay ivermectin’s usefulness against the novel coronavirus. We’ll explain both points more fully.

Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck & Co. while one of us (Hooper) worked there years ago. Dr. William C. Campbell and Professor Satoshi Omura were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. They earned it for discovering and developing avermectin. Later Campbell and some associates modified avermectin to create ivermectin. Merck & Co. has donated four billion doses of ivermectin to prevent river blindness and other diseases in areas of the world, such as Africa, where parasites are common. The ten doctors who are in the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance call ivermectin “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.” Ivermectin is on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines and ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children, and infants.

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic, but it has shown, in cell cultures in laboratories, the ability to destroy 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. Further, ivermectin has demonstrated its potential in clinical trials for the treatment of Covid-19 and in large-scale population studies for the prevention of Covid-19.

Contradicting these positive results, the FDA issued a special statement warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19.” The FDA’s warning, which included language such as, “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death,” and “highly toxic,” might suggest that the FDA was warning against pills laced with poison. In fact, the FDA had already approved the drug years ago as a safe and effective anti-parasitic. Why would it suddenly become dangerous if used to treat Covid-19? Further, the FDA claimed, with no scientific basis, that ivermectin is not an antiviral, notwithstanding its proven antiviral activity.

Interestingly, at the bottom of the FDA’s strong warning against ivermectin was this statement: “Meanwhile, effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to be to wear your mask, stay at least 6 feet from others who don’t live with you, wash hands frequently, and avoid crowds.” Was this based on the kinds of double-blind studies that the FDA requires for drug approvals? No.

After some critics claimed that we overstated or overreacted to the FDA’s special warning, we reviewed the FDA’s website and found that it had been changed, and there was no mention of the changes nor any reason given. Overall, the warnings were watered down and clarified. We noticed the following changes:

  • The false statement that “Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses)” was removed.
  • “Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too” was changed to the less alarming “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.” (Indications is the official term used in the industry to denote new uses for a drug, such as new diseases or conditions, and/or new patient populations.)
  • The statement, “If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed,” was changed to, “If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.” This more clearly acknowledges that reasonable physicians may prescribe ivermectin for non-FDA-approved uses, such as Covid-19.
  • The ending statement about masks, spacing, hand washing, and avoiding crowds was replaced with one that recommended getting vaccinated and following CDC guidelines.
  • The reasonable statement “Talk to your health care provider about available COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options. Your provider can help determine the best option for you, based on your health history” was added at the end.

The new warning from the FDA is more correct and less alarming than the previous one.

In a statement from February, Merck, the company that originated and still sells ivermectin, agreed with the FDA that ivermectin should not be used for Covid-19. “We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.”[2]

To some, this appeared to be a smoking gun. Merck wants to make money, they reason, and people are interested in using ivermectin for Covid-19, therefore, Merck would warn against such usage only if the scientific evidence were overwhelming. But that’s not how the pharmaceutical industry works.

Here’s how the FDA-regulated pharmaceutical industry really works.

The FDA judges all drugs as guilty until proven, to the FDA’s satisfaction, both safe and efficacious. By what process does this happen? The FDA waits for a deep-pocketed sponsor to present a comprehensive package that justifies the approval of a new drug or a new use of an existing drug. For a drug like ivermectin, long since generic, a sponsor may never show up. The reason is not that the drug is ineffective; rather, the reason is that any expenditures used to secure approval for that new use will help other generic manufacturers that haven’t invested a dime. Due to generic drug substitution rules at pharmacies, Merck could spend millions of dollars to get a Covid-19 indication for ivermectin and then effectively get zero return. What company would ever make that investment?

With no sponsor, there is no new FDA-approved indication and, therefore, no official recognition of ivermectin’s value. Was the FDA’s warning against ivermectin based on science? No. It was based on process. Like a typical bureaucrat, the FDA won’t recommend the use of ivermectin because, while it might help patients, such a recommendation would violate its processes. The FDA needs boxes checked off in the right order. If a sponsor never shows up and the boxes aren’t checked off, the FDA’s standard approach is to tell Americans to stay away from the drug because it might be dangerous or ineffective. Sometimes the FDA is too enthusiastic and these warnings are, frankly, alarming. Guilty until proven innocent.

There are two reasons that Merck would warn against ivermectin usage, essentially throwing its own drug under the bus.

Once they are marketed, doctors can prescribe drugs for uses not specifically approved by the FDA. Such usage is called off-label. Using ivermectin for Covid-19 is considered off-label because that use is not specifically listed on ivermectin’s FDA-approved label.

While off-label prescribing is widespread and completely legal, it is illegal for a pharmaceutical company to promote that use. Doctors can use drugs for off-label uses and drug companies can supply them with product. But heaven forbid that companies encourage, support, or promote off-label prescribing. The fines for doing so are outrageous. During a particularly vigorous two-year period, the Justice Department collected over $6 billion from drug companies for off-label promotion cases. Merck’s lawyers haven’t forgotten that lesson.

Another reason for Merck to discount ivermectin’s efficacy is a result of marketing strategy. Ivermectin is an old, cheap, off-patent drug. Merck will never make much money from ivermectin sales. Drug companies aren’t looking to spruce up last year’s winners; they want new winners with long patent lives. Not coincidentally, Merck recently released the clinical results for its new Covid-19 fighter, molnupiravir, which has shown a 50% reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death among high-risk, unvaccinated adults. Analysts are predicting multi-billion-dollar sales for molnupiravir.[3]

While we can all be happy that Merck has developed a new therapeutic that can keep us safe from the ravages of Covid-19, we should realize that the FDA’s rules give companies an incentive to focus on newer drugs while ignoring older ones. Ivermectin may or may not be a miracle drug for Covid-19. The FDA doesn’t want us to learn the truth.

The FDA spreads lies and alarms Americans while preventing drug companies from providing us with scientific explorations of existing, promising, generic drugs.


David R. Henderson is a Senior Fellow with the American Institute for Economic Research.

He is also a research fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and emeritus professor of economics with the Naval Postgraduate School, is editor of The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

David was previously the senior economist for health policy with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.

***

Charles L. Hooper is President and co-founder of Objective Insights, Inc. He is also the author of Would the FDA Reject Itself? (Chicago Park Press, 2021), currently available as an ebook on Apple Books and Amazon Kindle. A paper version is forthcoming.

Prior to forming Objective Insights in 1994, he worked at Merck & Co., Syntex Labs, and NASA.

He is a former visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

His experience is in decision analysis, economics, product pricing, forecasting, and modeling.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Six Questions to Ask Before Deciding Whether to Comply With Mask Mandates

All the reasons why mask mandates shouldn’t be reimposed

By Dr. Gary Sidley • The Daily Sceptic • October 20, 2021

On the July 19th 2021, England removed almost all its legal mandates that required healthy people to wear face coverings in community settings. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, however, opted to retain their mask mandates, as did London on its public transport system. Ominously, the Government’s Covid strategy for this winter includes the prospect of a ‘Plan B’ that could see the return of compulsory face masks in indoor settings in England. After a few months of bare-faced normality, how will the general public react to future directives to muzzle up?

Smile Free – a campaign group seeking the permanent removal of all mask mandates – urges each person to consider the responses to the following six questions before deciding whether to hide your face again.

Q1. Do masks help reduce viral spread?

Although some studies claim otherwise, the real-world evidence strongly suggests that masking the healthy does not significantly reduce the spread of respiratory viruses for neither the wearer nor others. Key reasons for this lack of efficacy are likely to include the improper use and storage of masks in the real world and the growing recognition that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus responsible for COVID-19) is spread via microscopic aerosol particles that are far too small to be kept at bay by face coverings.

Q2. Will wearing a mask cause me any physical harm?

If worn only for short periods, significant physical harms from wearing a mask are unlikely. However, there is evidence that long term use can lead to a number of negative consequences, including: headachesskin irritationfatigue and dehydrationreduced heart and lung efficiency and eye irritation. In addition, face coverings may put elderly people at more risk of injury from falls.

Q3. Do masks cause any social or psychological harms?

The social and psychological consequences of hiding our faces from other people are profound. Humans are social animals. We need to interact with others and communicate to sustain our wellbeing. Face coverings are dehumanising, inhibiting all forms of emotional expression and social interaction. Individuality minimised, identity hidden, the masked population appear broadly the same as they trudge along in their social vacuums. The impact of a masked population on children is even more problematic, denying them access to facial expressions that are so crucial for their emotional development.

Q4. Will wearing a mask help to reassure others who are anxious?

Most definitely not. Acting as a crude, highly visible reminder that danger is all around, face coverings are fueling widespread anxiety. Fear is underpinned by a perception of threat and being masked is a blatant indicator that we are all bio-hazards. Furthermore, continuing to wear masks while we gradually try to return to normality will act to keep fear going, as the wearer may attribute their survival to the mask rather than conclude that it is now safe to return to everyday activities. To recommend face coverings as a source of reassurance is akin to insisting people wear a garlic clove around their necks to reduce their fear of vampires.

Q5. Under the law, do I have a ‘reasonable excuse’ not to wear a mask?

In general terms, if wearing a mask is likely to cause you ‘severe distress’, or put you ‘at risk of harm or injury’, you are legally exempt. Mental health problems (such as anxiety, depression, and paranoia) and physical health problems (such as asthma and other respiratory difficulties) are sufficient and lawful reasons not to wear a face covering. Furthermore, you are not obliged to disclose your specific reason for exemption to anybody other than an official enforcement officer (usually a police officer); any other person who challenges you about not wearing a face covering is likely to be acting unlawfully and thereby risking prosecution. Indeed, a service provider has been fined £7000 under the Discrimination Disability Act for denying access to a woman without a mask.

Q6. Do I risk being fined if I don’t wear a mask?

While it is possible that a fine could be imposed for not complying with a mask mandate, such an event seems rare. Thus, in the four-month period June-to-September 2020, only 89 fines were issued (61 on public transport, 28 in retail settings) across the whole of England and Wales. Furthermore, if you are unfortunate enough to receive a fine and decide to contest it in Court, it is highly likely you will succeed; according to figures produced by the Crown Prosecution Service, all charges under the Coronavirus Act have either been withdrawn in Court or quashed after innocent people were wrongfully indicted.

In conclusion, mandating masks for healthy people in their communities is irrational, counterproductive, unethical and ultimately unenforceable. To help continue the fight against legal requirements to wear face coverings, please consider joining our Smile Free campaign.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Deleted Government Report Celebrates How Public Loves to “Conform”

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | October 22, 2021

A deleted government report exploring how to make the public alter its behavior to accept the new ‘green economy’ reveals how COVID-19 restrictions have created a population with a “deep set reverence” for authority and a “powerful tendency to conform.”

The report was inadvertently published by the British government before being hastily pulled down, but numerous journalists were able to retrieve its contents.

The document explored how to weaponize behavioral psychology to ‘nudge’ the public into supporting measures and adopting behavior without them explicitly knowing they’re being manipulated.

The investigation found that the same techniques the government used to force people into accepting lockdown could be used to make them change their lifestyles in the name of preventing climate change.

Under the heading “principles for successful behaviour,” the paper noted;

“Government statements, actions and laws powerfully shape perceptions of normative and acceptable behaviour. For instance, even with public criticism being high, many still perceived government approval as the yardstick for safe behaviour during COVID-19 ‘we’re allowed to do this now [so must be safe]…’. This reveals, for many, a deep set reverence for legitimate government authority, regardless of one’s personal political views.”

While PR stunts such as having officials vaccinated live on television worked to convince people of the narrative, elite hypocrisy (public officials violating lockdown rules) was found to cause significant damage to public trust.

“Perceived hypocrisy can do a lot to undermine efforts to build public engagement and support. This was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic when prominent authority figures broke guidelines, leading to measurable reductions in public compliance as well as shifting attitudes.”

“Green politics has similar deep-seated reputational issues with elite hypocrisy,” notes Breitbart. “A common feature of climate change summits has been high-profile attendees arriving by private or government jet, a disconnect between word and deed that seems unlikely to vanish in the near term.”

The paper concluded that people can be rather easily “nudged” into changing their behavior in response to government announcements and “have a powerful tendency to conform.”

The investigation also found that even if enforced changes to lifestyle are not wanted by the public, most tend to fall in line with the new status quo rather quickly anyway.

The report was prepared by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), a quasi-government body that was part of the effort to use “totalitarian” and “unethical” methods of instilling fear into the population as a means of scaring them into complying with lockdown rules.

A related group, the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours team, warned at the start of the first lockdown that a “substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened [by Covid-19].”

“The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging,” the group added, leading to numerous lurid propaganda campaigns that exaggerated the threat of COVID to bully the public into total submission.

In summary, the public is largely unthinking, compliant and docile and can be made to go along with just about anything so long as they’re bombarded with the right propaganda.

Wonderful.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | , , | 4 Comments

Covid Is A Deliberate Three-Pronged Attack On Our Health

By Rhoda Wilson | The Exposé | October 21, 2021

Kevin Galalae has published his research in a document titled: PCR Tests and the Depopulation Program. He concludes “the coronavirus blamed for countless deaths real and imagined is a political fiction. The symptoms attributed to Covid are caused by a deliberate three-pronged attack on our health and lives by our own national and international authorities.”

The deliberate three-pronged attack is summarised as follows:

  1. damage the epithelium of the nasopharyngeal cavity with PCR test swabs to bring down the immune defences that protect our brain
  2. create a closed loop between the mouth and the nose, thus between outgoing and incoming air, by forcing us to wear face masks throughout the day
  3. increase damage to the brain by subjecting us to chemicals and neurotoxins that could never reach the brain had they not destroyed the blood-brain barrier

Kevin Galalae is a Canadian human rights activist, author, journalist and historian. He has authored numerous books including Killing Us Softly: The Global Depopulation Policy. As an activist, Galalae has many notable accomplishments including matters in the United Kingdom, European Union and United Nations and is an ardent defender of a free World Wide Web.

Galalae is also an expert on the topic of the global depopulation policy – also known as Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 or population control. His biography makes interesting reading and, as downloaded from The EveryDay Concerned Citizen, is attached below.

The creator of the PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis, has stated clearly and on many occasions that the results of the PCR tests can be easily misinterpreted to mean anything. The PCR testing methodology does not distinguish if positive results are infectious.

Given their invasive nature and the fact that they were never meant for diagnostic but for research purposes, why are they being used as often as possible on the same individuals and on as many people as possible? “Well, now I know how the system is misusing them!” Galalae exclaims and gives his explanation, with links to scientific research, in his twelve-page document: PCR Tests and the Depopulation Program (see attached below).

theexpose.uk

PCR Tests

“The long swab inserted into the nasopharyngeal cavity all the way to the roof of the nose … damages the fascicles of the olfactory nerve, which, as it turns out, has dire consequences for human health and lifespan because the olfactory nerve is one of only two windows in the cranium through which viruses and bacteria can move from nose to brain, thus can cross the blood-brain barrier, the other one being the trigeminal nerve.” – PCR Tests and the Depopulation Program

The olfactory nerve contains sensory nerve fibres relating to the sense of smell. It is the only cranial nerve that has stem cells – called olfactory ensheathing cells – which enable it to continually regenerate throughout life. They are the cells that protect the olfactory nerve and aid its regeneration in case of damage through age or injury. These cells are so unique that doctors have recently begun using them to successfully repair spinal cord injuries and to treat brain diseases.

Additionally, the olfactory ensheathing cells assist in innate immunity because they are phagocytic and, as such, ingest bacteria. The innate immune system includes all our body’s first line defences such as the physical barriers lining the nose, throat, lungs and gut, as well as the skin. Innate immunity provides broad protection and is quick to react to any threat. The olfactory ensheathing cells are thus a crucial part of the protection provided to the brain.

For adults aged between 57 and 85 years, once the olfactory ensheathing cells lose their ability to regenerate the chance of dying within five years is four times higher.

The PCR tests serve two important roles for the depopulation program.

In the short-term, by repeatedly damaging the olfactory nerve with nasal swabs the incidence of viral and bacterial infections is rapidly raised. This helps governments create and sustain the impression of a pandemic. The more people are tested the more people are damaged and left defenceless against various infections that are then mislabelled en masse as Covid infections. And, by simply raising the number of cycles in the thermal cycler the authorities get the percentage of positive results they want.

Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California-Riverside, said she believes any test with a cycle threshold over 35 is too sensitive. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive.”

“And in the long-term, by periodically damaging the olfactory nerve it will lose its ability to regenerate and this helps governments prematurely kill countless people ages 57 to 85, the very age groups governments of the developed world want dead to ease the old-age burden and prevent economic collapse.” – PCR Tests and the Depopulation Program

The trigeminal nerve is a nerve responsible for sensation in the face and motor functions. If the test swab is inserted at the wrong angle and it touches this nerve it can affect the sense of taste and even sight.

“But even inserted at the correct angle, the mucosa of the nasopharyngeal cavity is damaged irrespective of the angle at which the swab is inserted at so long as it is inserted as deeply and rotated as vigorously as required by the PCR testing procedure, especially when the swabs are designed to do as much damage as possible by having serrated tips capable of scratching and damaging as much epithelium as possible” – PCR Tests and the Depopulation Program

After examining various PCR test swabs under a microscope, Professor Antonietta Gatti found that the fibres the swabs contain are as dangerous for human beings as inhaling asbestos.

Ethylene oxide, a well-known cancer-causing substance, is used to sterilize the PCR test swabs. “And since the swabs smear this mutagenic chemical on the mucosa of the nose, which is hypersensitive, it damages our health in unknown ways.” – PCR Tests and the Depopulation Program

Face Masks

“By mandating mask wearing indoors and outdoors, knowing that exhaled air contains numerous bacteria and viruses, the planners are subjecting billions of people to inhale pathogens that the body exhaled from the respiratory tract … Hundreds of studies show that the inside of surgical masks contain greatly increased loads of bacteria and fungi after prolonged wearing and are a source of contamination not only for those wearing them but also for those around them.” – PCR Tests and the Depopulation Program

The latest and most comprehensive study has found that mask wearing by the general population leads to: a drop in oxygen; fatigue; rise in carbon dioxide; respiratory impairment; headache; and, temperature rise and moisture under the mask.

How do the test swabs and masks work together towards the same aim?

Galalae surmises that the test swabs damage the immune defences of the brain leaving it exposed to pathogens. And then, the masks subject the brain to asphyxiation by depriving it of oxygen and bombarding it with carbon dioxide. The respiratory center of the brain – which controls minute-to-minute breathing – begins to malfunction and as a result, people have trouble breathing. “The breathlessness (dyspnoea) associated with Covid is therefore not due to lung lesions but to damage to neural processing, thus due to brain damage.” – PCR Tests and the Depopulation Program

Chemicals And Toxins

“The general population has been subjected to an onslaught of dangerous chemicals through hand sanitisers, whose use medical authorities have mandated for the most mundane activities ever since the plandemic has been started. Methanol is probably the most dangerous and most often found chemical in hand sanitisers … It is known to cause metabolic acidosis, visual disturbances and neurological deficit.” – PCR Tests and the Depopulation Program

Galalae then goes on to explain how the adult population is subjected to neurotoxins – most likely isodecanes and mycotoxins – hidden in body care products, food and drinks (especially beer).

Summary

Galalae ends with “this explains, among other things,” and he lists a number of points the below being a few of them, why:

  • incidences of illness increase as PCR testing increases;
  • the pathology attributed to Covid is so wide-ranging and so far removed from any other viral infection of the respiratory tract;
  • the pandemic disappears and reappears;
  • vaccine passports are only given to people who are either vaccinated or have had positive PCR tests, but never to those who show that they have naturally acquired antibodies; there is no pharmacological treatment for Covid; and,
  • governments continue to insist on subjecting as many people as possible as often as possible to an intrusive medical test that can be easily done by analysing saliva.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Large Ivermectin Use Pushes Big Pharma To Sell Expensive Covid Pills

By Joel S. Hirschhorn | Principia Scientific International | October 19, 2021

The unrelenting opposition to using ivermectin to treat and prevent COVID-19 is stronger than ever. This has resulted from a gigantic increase in demand for IVM by much of the public.

Despite big media tirades against IVM, the truth about its effectiveness (together with failure of COVID vaccines) has reached the public through many articles on alternative news websites and truth-tellers on countless podcasts. Its success has forced Big Pharma to create expensive copies of it.

Monthly IVM prescriptions increased 72 percent from 39,864 in 2019 to 68,428 in 2021 (through May). Just when COVID vaccination started to be pushed in January 2021 prescriptions hit a high of 97,192. A number of medical specialties greatly increased off-label use of IVM for fighting COVID in this period: anesthesiology, 1,319%; pulmonology, 1,167%; cardiology, 741%, for example. Strong support by physicians for IVM to cure and prevent COVID.

And in my book Pandemic Blunder I made the case with data that using cheap, safe and effective generics like IVM and hydroxychloroquine would save 80% or more of COVID deaths. Esteemed physician Peter McCollough later said 85%. For the US, that means some 600,000 lives could have been saved, and globally over 4 million lives. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have also died from COVID vaccines, the failed solution to the pandemic.

Merck, a maker of IVM, is getting much positive press coverage for its forthcoming prescription oral antiviral (molnupiravir). It is designed to replace IVM that they cannot make big money from. FDA will soon give it emergency use authorization because of the emerging clarity that COVID vaccines do NOT work effectively or safely.

That the Washington Post says that what Merck has created is the “first covid-fighting pill” illustrates how awful big media has been in ignoring the proven benefits of the IVM and HCQ generics. And ignoring the many failures of COVID vaccines. In its October 2 front-page story on the new Merck pill, it did not even mention IVM or present any data showing IVM as proven even more effective than the new expensive drug tested on only hundreds of people for a short period.

In contrast, IVM has been used successfully on hundreds of thousands of people to treat and prevent COVID.

Speaking as someone who is using IVM as a prophylactic, here is what I have seen in recent times. Though getting a prescription for it is very difficult and stressful it can be done through a number of websites. But then the battle just begins. Many pharmacies, especially big chain ones, will not fill IVM prescriptions if there is any evidence that it is being used to fight COVID.

And then you will likely discover, as I did, that virtually no pharmacy (typically small community ones) that will fill such prescriptions has any IVM. That’s right. There is a national shortage of IVM because of huge demand in recent months and because US makers have not escalated production.

Probably, millions of vaccine resisters are using IVM, especially those resisting booster shots.

Can you still get it? Yes, and even without a prescription. It will have to come from India, with many makers of IVM. It can take many weeks to get it. But the cost is a tiny fraction of what US pharmacies have been charging when they did have it in stock. Rather than $4 or $5 for a 3 mg pill, you can buy 12 mg pills for way under $1 a pill.

But there is more to the IVM story.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is massive medical science data showing absolute reliable data that IVM is safe and effective for both treating and preventing COVID. This is what should be a bold large headline in newspapers if we had honest big media: IVM SAFE AND EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO COVID VACCINES.

But instead, there is a constant barrage of articles and statements from government agencies asserting IVM should not be used to fight COVID. They argue it is unsafe and ineffective. Both are lies aimed solely at protecting the mass vaccination effort and the profits of big drug companies. And now protecting the new Big Pharma market for antiviral pills.

FDA has issued very strong warnings against using IVM for COVID. Nothing it has said follows the true science and mountains of data supporting safe and effective IVM use. Like other IVM opponents, it has conflated personal IVM use with the use of IVM products designed for animals.

This is even more infuriating. Merck, despite being a maker of IVM discredited its use for COVID by irresponsibly stating, “We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.”

Clearly, Merck, Pfizer and other vaccine makers are developing their own oral antivirals to directly compete with the cheap and effective IVM. These antivirals, unlike cheap generic IVM, would be patented so expensive pills could be sold worldwide. They will find some ingenious ways to copy IVM but make enough changes to get patents.

Already, Merck has begun production of its new pill to be taken twice daily for five days. Even more significant: The US government has made an advance purchase of 1.7 million treatment courses for $1.2 billion! That is over $700 per treatment. So much more profitable than making IVM. Forget the billions of dollars spent on vaccines that are injuring and killing many people.

I am confident in predicting that as more and more bad news about the ineffectiveness and dangerous side effects of COVID vaccines become increasingly known to more of the public, the big drug companies will increasingly switch from vaccines to prescription antiviral medicines. This is what smart corporate business strategic planning is all about. With Merck, it has already started. And FDA, CDC and NIH will go along with this strategic switch.

This will preserve a trillion-dollar market for pharmaceutical companies. How the government and public health establishment weasel word their switch from COVID vaccines to antiviral pills will be a marvelous magical trick to watch. Do you think that they will admit that millions of people worldwide have lost their health and lives from vaccine use? Of course not. Expensive antiviral pills will simply be sold as a better solution.

Be clear about the science explaining why IVM and HCQ have worked. They both (along with zinc) interfere at the earliest stage of COVID infection with viral replication. Stops infection in its tracks. They work as prophylactics for the same reason. If you keep a modest amount of IVM and HCQ in your body (and take zinc, vitamins C and D, and quercetin) any virus that enters your body can be stopped before major viral replication. The new prescription medicines coming from Merck and other Big Pharma are designed to serve the same function as the cheap generics.

This is the big truth coming to fruition: All the emerging information on COVID vaccine ineffectiveness and dangerous and often lethal side effects is forcing a major strategic shift to antivirals.

Congressman Louie Gohmert has recently made a number of solid observations about IVM:

Almost 4 billion doses of ivermectin have been prescribed for humans, not horses, over the past 40 years. In fact, the CDC recommends all refugees coming to the U.S. from the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean receive this so-called dangerous horse medicine as a preemptive therapy. Ivermectin is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be an ‘essential medicine.’ The Department of Homeland Security’s ‘quick reference’ tool on COVID-19 mentioned how this life-saving drug reduced viral shedding duration in a clinical trial.”

“To date, there are at least 63 trials and 31 randomized controlled trials showing benefits to the use of ivermectin to fight COVID-19 prophylactically as well as for early and late-stage treatment. Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. It has strong anti-inflammatory properties and prevents transmission of COVID-19 when taken either before or after exposure to the virus.”

“Ivermectin also speeds up recovery and decreases hospitalization and mortality in COVID-19 patients. It has been FDA approved for decades and has very few and mild side effects. It has an average of 160 adverse events reported every year, which indicates ivermectin has a better safety record than several vitamins. In short, there is no humane, logical reason why it should not be widely used to fight against the China Virus should a patient and doctor decide it is appropriate to try in that patient’s case.” And that small number of adverse events pales in comparison to hundreds of thousands for COVID vaccines.

A new, comprehensive report noted that 63 studies have confirmed the effectiveness of IVM in treating COVID-19. This is a great website to see positive IVM data.

And consider what former Director of Intellectual Property at Gilead Pharmaceuticals, Brian Remy, said about the necessity of implementing Ivermectin. “It is simple – use what works and is most effective – period. Ivermectin used in combination with other therapeutics is a no-brainer and should be the standard of care for COVID-19.

Not only would this be good for business and help avoid the criticism and bad PR, and potential civil/criminal liability for censorship, scientific misconduct, etc. for misrepresentation of Ivermectin and other generics, but most importantly it would save countless lives and end the pandemic for good.” Amen.

Want even more positive facts? Consider the India experience. In India’s deadly second pandemic surge, Ivermectin obliterated their crisis. Within weeks after adopting IVM cases were down 90%. Those states with more aggressive IVM use were down more dramatically.  Daily cases in Goa, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi were down 95%, 98%, 99%, 99%, respectively.

And appreciate this: Dr. Kory and the FLCCC published a narrative review in May 2021, showing the massive effectiveness of IVM against COVID-19 in reducing death and cases.  They concluded that it must be adopted globally immediately. Yet big media without respect for public health waged war against IVM. Now it is going crazy in support of the expensive Merck antiviral pill.

To sum up: The IVM story is far from over. We now have a pandemic of the vaccinated. From all over the world the fractions of people said to have died from COVID who were fully vaccinated are very high, often 80 percent. Many people with breakthrough COVID infections die. Blame those deaths on the vaccines. Big media suppresses all the negative information on the vaccines and all the positive information on IVM.

This double whammy is pure evil.

It is designed to pave the way for the new, expensive generation of antiviral pills once the medical and public health establishments backtrack from their vaccine advocacy and coercion.

About the author: Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine.  As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers.  He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years.  He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

WHAT IT’S LIKE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE MEDIA TELLS YOU

AwakenWithJP | May 9, 2020

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 1 Comment