Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The best way to end the pandemic? Early treatment!

By Steve Kirsch | November 16, 2021

If we want to end this pandemic, focusing our efforts on an unsafe, non-sterilizing vaccine against an RNA virus in the middle of a pandemic is a recipe for disaster. Geert vanden Bossche has been saying this for a year.

And after the current strategy has been clearly proven to make things worse, what do we do? We double down on the same strategy!! And we ignore the strategy that India used to be free of COVID.

Insanity is the doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

That, in a nutshell, is the CDC and NIH strategy. Tony Fauci is the spiritual leader of this religion.

Want to end the pandemic? Simple! Just do the opposite of what the CDC says

Bret Weinstein pointed out to me that if we ever want to end the pandemic, it’s really simple: we just have to do the exact opposite of what the CDC says.

When they say not to use a drug or supplement like ivermectin, vitamin D3, fluvoxamine, hydroxychloroquine, NAC, and betadine nasal rinses, it means those drugs work really well.

When they say “wear masks,” it means mask are useless against respiratory viruses and dangerous, especially for kids. Details here.

When they say get vaccinated, it means that vaccination will be more likely to kill you than save your life.

When they start mandating vaccines, it means they couldn’t convince anyone with the scientific evidence so now they have to use coercion.

What we need to do is follow the Aaron Rodgers example: Infect and treat.

What the CDC wants is for people to avoid using any early treatment protocols that use existing approved drugs such as the Fareed-Tyson protocol.

But the truth is that COVID is endemic: you are going to get COVID sooner or later. It’s inevitable.

Get it. Treat it. You’re done.

Just like Aaron Rodgers, a critical thinker who did absolutely the right thing.

A better, safer strategy than getting vaccinated by far.

You will contribute to herd immunity since you can’t pass on the virus. You’ll also be protected against variants in terms of hospitalization and death. You don’t benefit either with vaccination. Surprise!

Early treatment is the true win-win: for you and for society

It’s the patriotic thing to do to end the pandemic.

We need to educate everyone on early treatment protocols. Look at the benefits:

  1. Treatments are super safe never kill or disable you
  2. You will avoid getting long-haul COVID
  3. Higher relative risk reduction than any vaccine or big-company pharma proprietary drug. For the Fareed-Tyson protocol, we have 99.76% reduction in hospitalization, and 100% reduction in death rate. There is nothing better that. Nothing.
  4. After you recover, if you catch COVID again, you won’t get sick or infect anyone else. None of these are true if you get vaccinated.
  5. After you recover, you can’t pass on the virus to anyone else (like you can if you just get vaccinated). This is important. This keeps others safe. It is the right thing to do for society. It is the patriotic thing to do.

What’s the catch? They only work if you take the drugs and are treated early (as soon as you have symptoms).

For more information on effective early treatments, see my article on early treatments.

The big problem was never the virus; it is our response to the virus

Meanwhile, the effectiveness of early treatments will continue to be suppressed by the CDC, FDA, NIH, AMA, and WHO among others.

Sadly, doctors in the US and other countries will continue to follow the directions of these authoritarians… whoops, I means authorities…, no matter how many people are killed.

I’m not a doctor and I quit my job, so I can speak out freely. Most other people cannot.

Dr. Julie Ponesse left her day job too.

She made a brilliant speech that everyone should read on how mandates are nonsensical. She wrote, “I have no doubt that COVID-19 is the greatest threat to humanity we have ever faced; not because of a virus; … but because of our response to it.”

Ain’t that the truth.

November 17, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Are Drug-Pushing Shrinks Manufacturing a Generation of Spree-Shooters?

By JOE GIAMBRONE | December 21, 2012

Well, you probably don’t want to look at more than 60 different documented school shooters and stabbers who were on antidepressant drugs when they attacked innocent children in suicidal, violent outbursts.  Not if your mind is already made up that “it’s the guns” and that yet another “gun control” law will suddenly fix things.  It won’t.  Nor will the congressional testimony of Dr. Peter Breggin on the dangers of SSRIs and the proven links to suicide and violent ideation interest you, as long as there is one factor, and one solution, and this sort of information doesn’t fit into your preconception.

If this latest psycho-killer boy, Adam Lanza, had stolen a car and run over 26 people, would the most glaring problem be not enough car regulations?

Or if he had chosen to run around with a chainsaw instead, would the call now be for more chainsaw control?  Or would the focus have turned to just banning the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films?

Why do they do it?

More than a little evidence suggests that antidepressant medications, prescribed by psychiatrists – who have a vested stake in the public perception of this issue – are a contributing factor in the majority of such spree massacres.  The drug corporations, which produce these medications and which pay for massive advertising campaigns on TV, in newspapers, on the radio and in magazines, certainly want their friendly press outlets to come up with a different culprit.  However, the lengthy list of warnings, right on the labels of these drugs, is an indication that the links are real, not very well understood, and potentially catastrophic.

Even Time Magazine reported on links between prescription drugs and violence:

Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) … 7.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

Venlafaxine (Effexor) … 8.3 times…

Fluvoxamine (Luvox) … 8.4 times…

Triazolam (Halcion) … 8.7 times…

Atomoxetine (Strattera) … 9 times…

Mefoquine (Lariam) … 9.5 times…

Amphetamines: (Various) … 9.6 times…

Paroxetine (Paxil) … 10.3 times…

Fluoxetine (Prozac) … 10.9 times…

Varenicline (Chantix) … 18 times… (Time)

As Dr. Breggin calls it on his website:

“Antidepressants cause emotional anesthesia and numbing or sometimes euphoria, providing a fleeting, artificial relief from emotional suffering. … In the long run, all psychiatric drugs tend to disrupt the normal processes of feeling and thinking, rendering the individual less able to deal effectively with personal problems and with life’s challenges.  They worsen the individual’s overall mental condition and produce potentially irreversible harm to the brain.”

Breggin provided expert testimony and dire warnings to a congressional committee and cautioned against dispensing antidepressants to military personnel out of a very real fear of resulting violence by well-armed troops.

Even the FDA has had to impose stronger warnings on these “medicines” over the years, in response to the real world data.  The 2007 update to the “Black Box” warnings, which are mandatory and included with all antidepressants says:

“Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk: Patients, their families, and their caregivers should be encouraged to be alert to the emergence of anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, mania, other unusual changes in behavior, worsening of depression, and suicidal ideation, especially early during antidepressant treatment and when the dose is adjusted up or down. Families and caregivers of patients should be advised to look for the emergence of such symptoms on a day-to-day basis, since changes may be abrupt. … Symptoms such as these may be associated with an increased risk for suicidal thinking and behavior and indicate a need for very close monitoring and possibly changes in the medication.” (FDAemphasis added)

The United States abandoned its mentally ill citizens back in the 1980s.  Now they live under bridges.  I see them with their tent city near my favorite Chinese restaurant.  The great shining city on the hill doesn’t give a damn who’s living outdoors now.  The stigma about mental illness has worked its way through the rest of society, but not in the obvious way.

People don’t reject “treatment” as long as it’s a pill you can take, a brain fix-all.  This convenience culture idea of the quick fix is what has lived on, and now psychiatric “treatment” consists primarily of trying various drugs on patients, having them report the way the drugs affected them, and then trying other drugs.  Repeat ad infinitum.  This guinea pig approach to psychiatry is what I have witnessed for many years, and with a variety of different psychiatrists.  They no longer seek out the underlying traumas of patients, as in the old quaint days.  It is all about the drugs today, and nothing else is even discussed.

Psychiatrists are corporate America’s drug pushers.

Banning Guns For Citizens?

Now I’m going to get a lot of hostile responses for bucking the knee-jerk hysteria about banning assault rifles that’s going around.  It seems to me like this issue was custom-tailored to distract the nation from the “fiscal cliff” backroom betrayals currently gutting your Social Security and Medicare inside the centers of power.  There are numerous massacres, unfortunately.  The media volume generated by this particular one is like a tsunami and changes the top story away from the machinations of the White House and Congress, where their long-planned deal-making could potentially kill many, many more people than the occasional shooting spree.  They actually do kill many, many more children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere… but that’s a different article.

I see no problem clamping down on high-capacity assault rifles.  But I don’t for a second believe that’s going to change anything.  What exactly can you do with an assault rifle, that you can’t do with a thousand other different kinds of guns?  Reloading isn’t really that time-consuming or difficult.  Multiple weapons are easy to obtain, especially if one is motivated enough and doesn’t care if they make it out alive.  So how does that solve the problem?

Similarly, the “background checks” don’t catch spree shooters who don’t have criminal records and just one day snap.   There’s nothing to check, and future-crime has not been wiped out yet.

Ah, the nuclear option – ban all the guns.  That’s next.

There’s an interesting idea.  With 300,000,000 guns in America, it should be no problem to just collect them all.  Criminals would be first to line up at the weapon depository and rape scan center.  Once the criminals are disarmed, things will go smoothly.

Some suggest that the population doesn’t need to be armed, as an armed rebellion against a tyrannical regime is futile. That’s a selective reading of history (and of the Bill of Rights), but even granted it was true, weapons are useful for self-defense from whomever.  They can be indispensable in times of chaos or collapse.  We do retain the right to defend ourselves, but apparently a lot of liberal/left types would make that technically impossible, by forcibly disarming everyone who complies.

Oh, no doubt, you could be re-armed by enlisting in some civilian human-drone force, as Obama first proposed back in 2008.  Selective service in some organized policing force or military unit in order to graduate from high school was a wet dream proposal of the current president’s.  There explains the “450 million rounds of 40 caliber” hollow-point ammunition that the Department of Homeland Security just ordered.  Perhaps forced teenage DHS police labor can replace professional local police forces, which can be laid off in order to enact even more budget cuts around the nation.  There’s a great idea.

But guns are here to stay.  They aren’t going anywhere.  America is an “armed madhouse” as Greg Palast phrased it, so perhaps it’s time to take a closer look at the “mad” part of the equation.

Joe Giambrone is a filmmaker and author of Hell of a Deal: A Supernatural Satire. He edits The Political Film Blog, which welcomes submissions. polfilmblog at gmail.

Source

December 21, 2012 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment