Aletho News


CA Bill would punish Doctors over COVID ‘Misinformation,’ as other states move to protect Doctors’ rights

By David Charbonneau, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 23, 2022

Before the U.S. Supreme Court last month blocked the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates for large employers and allowed the mandate for healthcare workers to stand, all eyes were on the feds when it came to COVID-related policies.

But state lawmakers also have been busy drafting bills in an effort to shape COVID policies closer to home.

The California Assembly, for example, introduced over the past six months a flurry of bills designed to strengthen vaccination mandates and regulate treatment options for patients.

For example, Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) last month introduced legislation proposing COVID vaccine mandates for all K-12 students in California schools.

And this month, Assembly Member Evan Low (D-Campbell) introduced legislation (AB 2098) that, according to the Los Angeles Times, would “make it easier for the Medical Board of California to discipline doctors who promote COVID-19 misinformation by classifying it as unprofessional conduct.”

The bill defines “unprofessional conduct” as any action a physician or surgeon takes “to disseminate or promote misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

Under the bill, disciplinary action could be brought against a physician for disseminating information that “resulted in an individual declining opportunities for COVID-19 treatment or prevention that was not justified by the individual’s medical history or condition.”

Additionally, doctors could be disciplined for “misinformation or disinformation” that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to an extent where its dissemination constitutes gross negligence” by the physician.

Commenting on the criteria, Dr. Meryl Nass, an expert in epidemiology and vaccine injury and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, said:

“I think this is clearly an attempt to legislate that the government of California or the Medical Board of California will define what is truth and what is misinformation, and medical providers will have to follow lockstep with that definition.

“This, of course, is the same thing as the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s “1984,” and if the California legislature actually votes for this bill, the intent of the  action will be to enforce a one and only truth.

“Nowhere does this legislature define what is misinformation and disinformation. They do talk about contemporary scientific consensus but as we know in the last two years, the so-called scientific consensus — or the public health agency consensus — on masks, on vaccination, on boosters, etc. has flip-flopped all over the place. So we have adequate examples that the concept of “contemporary scientific consensus” is basically meaningless in this context.”

Contrary to typical board practice, under AB 2098, physicians could also be disciplined for public speech, including social media posts, unrelated to the actual treatment of patients.

Supporters of Low’s bill insist the legislation does not impinge on doctors’ freedom of speech.

“This isn’t a call for a policing of free speech,” Nick Sawyer, an emergency room doctor who founded a group called No License for Disinformation, told the LA Times. “This is a call for protecting the public against dangerous misinformation, which patients are parroting back to us in our emergency room departments every day.”

Nass disagreed:

“The result is removing options from doctors and patients. And the longer-term consequence is that doctors will become irrelevant if they are not needed to assess each individual’s personal risks and benefits from each type of medical care.

“The government and its partners in the healthcare industries can simply prescribe one-size-fits-all healthcare for everyone.”

Low’s bill, introduced as part of a larger effort by a group of Democratic state legislators to strengthen vaccination laws, set off a contentious debate over how far the state should go in pursuing COVID mandates.

Other COVID-related bills introduced in California include:

  • Assembly Bill 1993, authored by Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), would require employees and independent contractors to be vaccinated against COVID as a condition of employment unless they have an exemption based on a medical condition, disability or religious beliefs.
  • Assembly Bill 1797, introduced by Akilah Weber (D-San Diego), allows California school officials to more easily check student vaccine records by expanding access to a statewide immunization database.
  • Senate Bill 866, introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) would let children 12 and older be vaccinated without parental consent.

Other states pursue efforts to support alternative treatments

In contrast to California, several state legislatures are moving to provide legal support for off-label prescriptions and alternative approaches supported by physicians.

In New Hampshire, legislators last month held public hearings on a bill that would allow for over-the-counter dissemination of ivermectin at pharmacies, provided certain treatment plan requirements were met.

New Hampshire HB 1022 would permit pharmacists to dispense the ivermectin by means of a standing order entered into by licensed healthcare professionals.

Sponsors of the bill argued many healthcare workers are unable to prescribe ivermectin, either because of hospital politics or outside professional pressures.

The bill has support from Dr. Paul Marik, who traveled from Virginia to testify at the public hearing.

A former professor of medicine and chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Marik sued the hospital he worked for after it banned physicians from prescribing ivermectin for COVID patients.

Marik resigned late last year in protest of the ban.

During his testimony in New Hampshire, Marik described ivermectin as “cheap, exceedingly safe and exceedingly effective.”

“If ivermectin had been promoted at the beginning of this pandemic, we would not be sitting here today,” Marik said.

Kansas lawmakers last month advanced a bill supporting the prescribing of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The model legislation, also introduced in Tennessee, would require pharmacists to fill prescriptions for the off-label use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

In direct contrast to the California legislation, the Kansas bill also would mandate that doctors not be subject to disciplinary action for any “recommendation, prescription, use or opinion … related to a treatment for COVID-19, including a treatment that is not recommended or regulated by the licensing board,” Kansas Department of Health and Environment or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Such actions,” the bill states, “could not be considered unprofessional conduct.”

Kansas lawmaker Sen. Mark Steffen (R-Hutchinson) supports the bill. Steffen, an anesthesiologist, said he’s under investigation by the University of Kansas Health System with which he is affiliated for prescribing ivermectin to COVID patients.

Dr. Festus Krebs III, a physician representing the Catholic Medical Association of Kansas City, also spoke in favor of the bill:

“With ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, we now have 76 ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies which show 66 percent overall improvement and 57 percent decreased mortality.”

Meanwhile, in Florida, legislation that would extend protection for hospitals against patient lawsuits over COVID care sits on the desk of Gov. Ron DeSantis, awaiting signature or a veto.

And in New York, the state’s comptroller — citing the investment of the state’s public pension plan in Spotify — sent a letter to the company asking it to increase its screening of “misinformation” on their platform.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

February 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

You can’t claim vaccine is the only Covid life saver when treatments are banned!

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | February 23, 2022

EACH week, members of the UK’s watchdog Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency publish their Yellow Card update on adverse reactions to the Covid vaccine.

Every time they do so, they repeat this claim: ‘Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from Covid-19.’

But how do they know?

The fact is as long as treatments such hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin continue to be banned in the UK, we are prevented from knowing whether treatment could be more effective than vaccines in preventing deaths and reducing severe illness. Published research indicates it could be.

Furthermore without a proper investigation into the thousands of hospital Covid fatalities, how can we know whether the chosen treatment protocols have not been as responsible a cause of death as the disease itself?

In the US, the National Institutes of Health treatment protocol guidance for Covid is based on two drugs, dexamethasone and remdesivir. 

Yet at least one major study has called remdesivir into question. Published almost exactly a year ago, it found kidney disorders to be a serious adverse reaction of the drug in coronavirus disease.

It reported that compared with the use of chloroquine, dexamethasone, sarilumab, or tocilizumab, the use of remdesivir was associated with an increased reporting of kidney disorders.

The research states that ‘in the vast majority of cases (316 – 96.6 per cent), no other drug was suspected in the onset of kidney disorders. Reactions were serious in 301 cases (92 per cent) cases, with a fatal outcome for 15 patients (4.6 per cent).

The NHS  ‘guidance pathways’ for severe Covid cases – which cover respiratory support to end of life support – are set out here. Other guidance states that ‘treatment with remdesivir may be considered in certain hospitalised patients with Covid‑19 pneumonia’.

Clinicians can also ‘offer dexamethasone to patients with Covid‑19 who need supplemental oxygen, or who have a level of hypoxia (lack of oxygen) that requires supplemental oxygen but are unable to have or tolerate it. If dexamethasone is unsuitable or unavailable, either hydrocortisone or prednisolone can be used.’

An Oxford Recovery Trial for hospitalised Covid patients found ‘the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomisation but not among those receiving no respiratory support.’

The perceived limitations of the data are set out here. But for all the glowing testimonials, the survival of the patients in the trial groups – a 22.9 per cent death rate – was not a huge improvement on that in the usual care group, 25.7 per cent

‘Overall, 482 patients (22.9 per cent) in the dexamethasone group and 1,110 patients (25.7 per cent) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomisation (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95 per cent confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001).’

What this drug treatment was not compared with was the efficacy of either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, two successful early intervention treatments that perversely remain banned here.

Sadly we will never know how many lives would have been saved had these drugs been introduced into community and hospital protocols a year ago? I rest my case.

Isn’t it high time the MHRA revised its claim to say: ‘Vaccine is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from Covid-19 in the absence of potentially effective treatments which are banned in the UK.’

Below is the latest full Yellow Card adverse reaction breakdown. It follows a week marked by another seven deaths and a further 82 adverse reactions reported for children, all of which continue to go unremarked by the mainstream media.

MHRA Yellow Card reporting summary up to February 9, 2022 (Data published  February 17, 2022)

Adult – primary and booster/third dose, child administration. 

* Pfizer: 25.9million people, 49million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 157 people impacted.

* Astrazeneca: 24.9million people, 49.1million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 102 people impacted.

* Moderna: 1.6million people, three million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 45 people impacted.

Overall, one in 118 people injected experienced a Yellow Card adverse event, which may be less than ten per cent of actual figures, according to the MHRA.

The MHRA states that:

* Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from Covid-19.

* The expected benefits of the vaccines in preventing Covid-19 and serious complications associated with Covid-19 far outweigh any currently known side-effects in the majority of patients.

Adult booster or third doses given = 37,650,239.

Booster Yellow Card reports: 28,941 (Pfizer) + 466 (AZ) + 15,870 (Moderna) + 151 (Unknown) = 45,428.

Reactions: 472,956 (Pfizer) + 862,394 (AZ) + 118,425 (Moderna) + 4653 (Unknown) = 1,458,428.

Reports: 164,679 (Pfizer) + 243,491 (AZ) + 35,566 (Moderna) + 1520 (Unknown) = 445,256 people impacted.

Fatal718 (Pfizer) + 1,221 (AZ) + 38 (Moderna) + 40 (Unknown) = 2,017.

Blood disorders: 16,759 (Pfizer) + 7793 (AZ) + 2428 (Moderna) + 62 (Unknown) = 27,042.

Anaphylaxis: 649 (Pfizer) + 871 (AZ) + 87 (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 1,609.

Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis: 875 (Pfizer) + 3,029 (AZ) + 106 (Moderna) + 25 (Unknown) = 4,035.

Acute cardiac: 12,273 (Pfizer) + 11,147 (AZ) + 3,009 (Moderna) + 90 (Unknown) = 26,519.

Eye disorders: 7,772 (Pfizer) + 14,797 (AZ) + 1,460 (Moderna) + 83 (Unknown) = 24,112

Blindness: 155 (Pfizer) + 317 (AZ) + 31 (Moderna) + 4 (Unknown) = 507.

Deafness: 288 (Pfizer) + 424 (AZ) + 50 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 767.

Spontaneous abortions: 471 + 1 premature baby death / 15 stillbirth/foetal deaths (11 recorded as fatal) (Pfizer) + 229 + 5 stillbirth (AZ) + 60 + 1 stillbirth (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 765 miscarriages

Nervous system disorders: 78,872 (Pfizer) + 182,030 (AZ) + 19,215 (Moderna) + 839 (Unknown) = 280,956.

Seizures: 1,068 (Pfizer) + 2,050 (AZ) + 250 (Moderna) + 17 (Unknown) = 3,385.

Paralysis: 495 (Pfizer) + 871 (AZ) + 98 (Moderna) + 8 (Unknown) = 1,472.

Tremor: 2,117 (Pfizer) + 9,925 (AZ) + 637 (Moderna) + 50 (Unknown) = 12,729.

Vertigo and tinnitus: 4,078 (Pfizer) + 6,897 (AZ) + 684 (Moderna) + 39 (Unknown) = 11,698

Transverse myelitis: 34 (Pfizer) + 116 (AZ) + 2 (Moderna) = 152

BCG scar reactivation: 67 (Pfizer) + 38 (AZ) + 51 (Moderna) = 156

Headaches and migraines: 35,041 (Pfizer) + 93,844 (AZ) + 9,112 (Moderna) + 331 (Unknown) = 138,328

Vomiting: 5,134 (Pfizer) + 11,631 (AZ) + 1,727 (Moderna) + 59 (Unknown) = 18,551

Infections: 11,611 (Pfizer) + 20,089 (AZ) + 2,160 (Moderna) + 150 (Unknown) = 34,010.

Herpes: 2,149 (Pfizer) + 2,676 (AZ) + 240 (Moderna) + 23 (Unknown) = 5,088.

Immune system disorders: 2,369 (Pfizer) + 3,274 (AZ) + 593 (Moderna) + 21 (Unknown) = 6,257.

Skin disorders: 33,094 (Pfizer) + 53,154 (AZ) + 12,637 (Moderna) + 330 (Unknown) = 99,215.

Respiratory disorders: 20,950 (Pfizer) + 29,585 (AZ) + 4,015 (Moderna) + 196 (Unknown) = 54,746.

Epistaxis (nosebleeds): 1,063 (Pfizer) + 2302 (AZ) + 188 (Moderna) + 11 (Unknown) = 3,564.

Psychiatric disorders: 9,876 (Pfizer) + 18,289 (AZ) + 2,339 (Moderna) + 108 (Unknown) = 30,612.

Reproductive/breast disorders: 30,236 (Pfizer) + 20,649 (AZ) + 4,905 (Moderna) + 199 (Unknown) = 55,989

Children and young people special report – suspected side-effects reported in under-18s:

* Pfizer: 3,200,000 children (first doses) plus 1,500,000 second doses, resulting in 3,044 Yellow Cards.

* AZ: 12,400 children (first doses) resulting in 254 Yellow Cards. Reporting rate one in 49.

* Moderna: 2,000 children (first doses) resulting in 18 Yellow Cards.

* Brand unspecified: 18 Yellow Cards.

Total = 3,214,400 children injected

Total Yellow Cards for under-18s = 3,334

The MHRA states that all children aged five to 11 will be eligible for vaccination in the coming weeks.

For full reports, including 347 pages of specific reaction listings, see here. 

February 23, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created, and more

Meryl Nass, MD
Alliance for Human Research Protection | June 28, 2020

Below, Dr. Meryl Nass reviews a long list of corrupt practices that undermine the integrity of medical science and the practice of medicine during the current  medical crisis. The coronavirus crisis has been made significantly worse by stakeholders who are preventing doctors from prescribing for their patients, existing, safe and effective medicines, because the stakeholders are invested  on garnering projected future profits from not-yet-developed vaccines and “countermeasures” specifically developed against  COVID-19.

The stakeholders who influence and issue medical practice guidelines, include public health officials, global public health institutions, government advisory committees, and clinical trialists who design trials to provide commercially beneficial results. Editors of prestigious high impact, medical journals contribute to the corruption of medicine by publishing fraudulent studies, and reports of clinical trials that were designed to cause foreseeable deaths, The focus of Dr. Nass’ J’Accuse post are clinical trials that deliberately subjected some patients to toxic doses of Hydroxychloroquine. [Dr. Nass is a longtime member of the AHRP Board of Directors].

These collaborators engaged in an orchestrated effort to prevent physicians from utilizing an existing, off-patent, cheap and affordable drug, that thousands of clinicians attest to its therapeutic benefit.

  • The problem with Hydroxychloroquine, a drug with a 70-year safety track record, is that there is no profit to be made from this cheap, off-patent drug!


It is remarkable that a series of events taking place over the past 3 months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine, and produced similar policies about the drug in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and western Europe. The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease, Covid-19, for which there are no (other) reliable treatments.

Were these acts carefully orchestrated? You decide.

Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going? To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population? Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich? Are these events evidence of a conspiracy?

Here is a list of what happened, in no special order. Please help add to this list if you know of additional acts I should include. This will be a living document. I have penned this as if it is the “to do” list of items to be carried out by those who pull the strings. The items on the list have already been carried out. One wonders what else might be on their list, yet to be carried out, for this pandemic.

1. You stop doctors from using the drug in ways it is most likely to be effective (in outpatients at onset of illness). You prohibit use outside of situations you can control.

Situations that were controlled to show no benefit included 3 large, randomized, multi-center clinical trials (RecoverySolidarity and REMAP-Covid), which are generally believed to yield the most reliable evidence. However, each of them used excessive doses that were known to be toxic; see my previous articles here and here.

2.  You prevent or limit use in outpatients by controlling the supply of the drug, using different methods in different countries and states. In NY state, by order of the governor, hydroxychloroquine could only be prescribed for hospitalized patients.  France has issued a series of different regulations to limit prescribers from using it.  France also changed the drugs’ status from over-the-counter to a drug requiring a prescription.

3.  You play up the danger of the drug, emphasizing side effects that are very rare when the drug is used correctly. You make sure everyone has heard about the man who died after consuming hydroxychloroquine in the form of fish tank cleaner.

4.  You limit clinical trials to hospitalized patients, instead of testing the drug in outpatients, early in the illness, when it is predicted to be most effective.

5.  You design clinical trials to give much too high a dose, ensuring the drug will cause harm in some subjects, sufficient to mask any possible beneficial effect. You make sure that dozens of trials in dozens of countries around the world use these dangerous doses.

6.  You design clinical trials to collect almost no safety data, so any cause of death due to drug toxicity will be attributed to the disease instead of the drug.

7.  You issue rules for use of the drug based on the results of the unethical, overdosing Recovery study.

8.  You publish, in the world’s most-read medical journal, the Lancet, an observational study from a huge worldwide database that says use of chloroquine drugs caused significantly increased mortality. You make sure that all major media report on this result. Then 3 European countries announce they will not allow doctors to prescribe the drug. And Sanofi announces it will no longer supply the drug for use with Covid, and will halt its own clinical trials, based on a fabricated study.

9.  Even after hundreds of people renounce this observational study due to easily identified fabrications–which, as James Todaro, MD, wrote was a “study out of thin air“–the Lancet held firm for two weeks, serving to muddy the waters about the trial, until finally 3 of its 4 coauthors (but not the journal) retracted the study. You make sure few media report that the data were fabricated and the “study” a fraud. You let people believe the original story: that hydroxychloroquine routinely kills.

10.  You ensure federal agencies like FDA and CDC hew to your desired policies. For example, FDA advised use only in hospitalized patients (too late) or in clinical trials (which are limited, are difficult to enroll in, or use excessive doses). As of mid June, FDA now advises patients and doctors to only use the drug in a clinical trial!

Another example:  you have FDA make unsubstantiated and false claims, such as: “Hospitalized patients were likely to have greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness)” and claim the chloroquine drugs have a slow onset of action. If that were really true, they would not be used for acute attacks of malaria or in critically ill patients with Covid. (Disclosure: I once dosed myself with chloroquine for an acute attack of P. vivax malaria, and it worked very fast.). Providing no other treatment advice, CDC refers clinicians to the NIH guidelines, discussed below.

11.  You make sure to avoid funding/encouraging clinical trials that test drug combinations like hydroxychloroquine with zinc, with azithromycin, or with both, although there is ample clinical evidence that such combinations provide a cumulative benefit to patients.

12.  You have federal and UN agencies make false, illogical claims based on models rather than human data. For example, you have the FDA state on June 15 that the dose required to treat Covid is so high it is toxic, after the Recovery and Solidarity trials have been exposed for toxic dosing. This scientific double-speak gives some legal cover to the clinical trials that overdosed their patients.

According to Denise Hinton, RN, the FDA’s Chief Scientist, or a clumsy FDA wordsmith:

”Under the assumption that in vivo cellular accumulation is similar to that from the in vitro cell-based assays, the calculated free lung concentrations that would result from the EUA suggested dosing regimens are well below the in vitro EC50/EC90 values, making the antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 not likely achievable with the dosing regimens recommended in the EUA. The substantial increase in dosing that would be needed to increase the likelihood of an antiviral effect would not be acceptable due to toxicity concerns.”

13. You have a WHO report claim toxic doses are needed. This of course is nonsense since

a) CDC researchers showed strong effects against SARS-1 at safely achievable concentrations,

b) the drug at normal doses is being tested in over 30 different medical conditions (see, and

c) reports from many different countries say that the drug is effective for Covid-19 at normal doses, while

a high dose chloroquine treatment arm was halted in Brazil and a preprint of the study was posted April 11, after finding the toxic effects were causing ventricular arrhythmias and deaths.

  • Toxicity was noted after only 3 days of treatment, during which 3.6 grams of chloroquine were administered. But the Solidarity (3.2 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days), Recovery (3.6 grams  of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days) and REMAP-Covid trials (3.6 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days) continued overdoing patients until June, despite Brazil’s evidence of deaths by overdose.
  • Tellingly, JAMA editor Gordon Rubenfeld wrote about the Brazilian study, “if you are prescribing HCQ after these JAMA results, do yourself and your defense lawyer a favor. Document in your medical record that you informed the patient of the potential risks of HCQ including sudden death and its benefits (???).” 

14.  You create an NIH Guideline committee for Covid treatment recommendations, in which 16 members have or had financial entanglements with Gilead, maker of Remdesivir. The members were appointed by the CoChairs. Two of the three CoChairs are themselves financially entangled with Gilead.  Are you surprised that their guidelines recommend specifically against the use of hydroxychloroquine and in favor of Remdesivir, and that they deem this the new “standard of care”?

15.  You frighten doctors so they don’t prescribe hydroxychloroquine, if prescribing it is even allowed in their jurisdiction, because prescribing outside the “standard of care” leaves them open to malpractice lawsuits.  You further tell them (through the FDA) they need to monitor a variety of lab parameters and EKG when using the drug, although this was never advised before, which makes it very difficult to use the drug in outpatients. You have the European Medicines Agency issue similar warnings.

16.  You manage to control the conduct of most trials around the world by designing the WHO-managed Solidarity trials, currently conducted in 35 countries. WHO halted hydroxychloroquine clinical trials around the world, twice.

The first time, May 25, WHO claimed it was in response to the (fraudulent) Lancet study.

The second time, June 17, WHO claimed the stop was in response to the Recovery trial results.

Recovery used highly toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine in over 1500 patients, of whom 396 died.

You stop the trial before the data safety monitoring board has looked at your dataa move that is unlikely to be consistent with trial protocol. WHO’s trial in over 400 hospitals overdosed patients with 2.0 g hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hours.  

WHO’s trial in over 400 hospitals was unlikely to provide useful results, as it too overdosed patients with hydroxychloroquine.  The trial was halted days after the toxic doses were exposed.

17.  You have the WHO pressure governments to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

18.  You have the WHO pressure professional societies to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

19.  You make sure that the most-consulted medical encyclopedia, UptoDate, provides bad guidance to physicians, advising them to restrict hydroxychloroquine to only patients in clinical trials, citing the above sources of information.

Anthony Fauci, MD

20.  You have the head of the Coronavirus Task Force, Dr. Tony Fauci, insist the drug cannot be used in the absence of strong evidence… while he insisted exactly the opposite in the case of the MERS coronavirus outbreak several years ago, when he recommended an untested drug combination for use… which had been developed for that purpose by his agency.

And while he was bemoaning the lack of evidence, he was refusing to pay for trials to study hydroxychloroquine. And he was changing the goalposts on the Remdesivir trial, not once but twice, to make Remdesivir show just a tiny bit of benefit, but no mortality benefit. And don’t forget, Fauci was thrilled to sponsor a trial of a Covid vaccine in humans before there was any data from animal trials. So much for requiring high quality evidence before risking use of drugs and vaccines in humans!

21.  You convince the public that the crisis will be long-lasting. You have the 2nd richest man in the world, and biggest funder of the WHO, Bill Gates, keep repeating to the media megaphone that we cannot go back to normal until there is a vaccine. (The Gates Foundation helped design the WHO clinical trials, and Gates is heavily invested in pharmaceuticals and vaccines.)

Bill Gates
  1. You have CDC (with help from FDA) prevent the purchase of coronavirus test kits from Germany, China, WHO, etc, and fail to produce a valid test kit themselves. The result was that during January and February, US cases could not be reliably identified, and for several months thereafter insufficient and unreliable test kits made it impossible to track the epidemic and stop the spread.
  1. You have trusted medical spokesmen lie to the public about the pandemic’s severity, so precautions weren’t taken when they might have been more effective and less long-lasting. Congress was repeatedly briefed about the pandemic in January and February, which scared several Congress members enough that they sold off large amounts of stock, risking insider trading charges. Senator Burr is one of them, currently under investigation for major stock sales on February 13.

Yet Dr. Fauci told USA Today on February 17 that Americans should worry more about the flu than about coronavirus, the danger of which was “just miniscule.” Then on February 28, Drs. Fauci and Robert Redfield (CDC Director) wrote in the New England Journal :

“… the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”

  1. You destroy the reputation of respected physicians who stand in your way. Professor Didier Raoult and his team in Marseille have used hydroxychloroquine on over 4,000 patients, reporting a mortality rate of about 0.8%. (The mortality rate of patients given hydroxychloroquine in the Recovery trial was 25.7%.) Raoult is very famous for discovering over 100 different microorganisms, and finding the long-sought cause of Whipple’s Disease. With this reputation, Raoult apparently thought he could treat patients as he saw fit, which he has done, under great duress.  Raoult was featured in a New York Times Magazine article, with his photo on the cover, May 12, 2020. After describing his accomplishments, the Times very unfavorably discussed his personality, producing a detailed hit piece. He is now considered an unreliable crank in the US.
  1. You have social media platforms ban content that does not agree with the desired narrative. As YouTube CEO and ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Brin, Susan Wojcicki said,

“YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations. Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”

  1. When your clinical trials are criticized for overdosing patients, you have Oxford-affiliated, Wellcome Trust-supported scientists at Mahidol University publish papers (a literature review with modeling and a modeling study) purporting to show that the doses used were not toxic. You develop a new method to measure hydroxychloroquine in a handful of Recovery patients who were not poisoned. However, there are 2 problems you forgot with this approach:
  • The Brazilian data, including 16 deaths, extensive clinical information and documented ventricular arrhythmias, are much more valuable than theoretical models of what might be happening in the body.
  • Either the drug is too toxic to use for a life-threatening disease, or even extremely high doses are safe. You can’t have it both ways.

Oxford is the institution running the Recovery trial, and invented a Covid vaccine that already has 400 million doses on order. The Wellcome Trust funded the Recovery trial.

  1. You change your trial’s primary outcome measures after the trials have started, in order to prevent detection of drug-induced deaths (Recovery) or to make your drug appear to have efficacy (NIAID Remdesivir trial). 
  1. You stop manufacturers from supplying the drug. Shortly after the fraudulent Lancet paper came out, Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use with Covid, and would halt its two hydroxychloroquine clinical trials. One of the cancelled Sanofi trials was expected to test 210 outpatients early in the course of disease. The trial remains suspended at the time of writing, while the Lancet paper was retracted 13 days after publication.
  2. You surely don’t want a trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment early in the disease, since it might show an excellent effect.

February 20, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Oklahoma AG declares medical boards can’t punish doctor for prescribing ivermectin

LifeSiteNews | February 16, 2022

OKLAHOMA CITY – Doctors in Oklahoma are well within their professional rights to prescribe ivermectin (IVM) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to COVID-19 patients, state ​​Attorney General John O’Connor affirmed, despite the drugs’ disfavored status within the federal health bureaucracy.

“The Attorney General’s office finds no legal basis for a state medical licensure board to discipline a licensed physician for exercising sound judgment and safely prescribing an FDA-approved drug – like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine – for the off-label purpose of treating a patient with COVID-19,” O’Connor’s office concluded in a February 8 statement, declaring that “healthcare professionals should have every tool available to combat COVID-19.”

“The Attorney General’s office neither condones nor condemns a specific course of treatment for COVID-19,” the release added. “Our office maintains that proper healthcare decisions are to be made between a patient and his or her physician, and the government should not interfere with their relationship.”

Despite being misrepresented in the mainstream media as aquarium cleaner and horse dewormer, respectively, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are both FDA-approved medications with a range of human applications, such that both are listed on the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines. Like many medications, ivermectin is also used for horses, but human dosages of the drug for human ailments were not controversial until IVM started gaining notice in the context of COVID-19.

While experts continue to debate the drugs’ effectiveness at treating COVID-19, promising studies as well as reports of positive results have generated significant interest in them, as has the fact that they have been used and studied for far longer than the COVID-19 vaccines, which were developed and released in record time by the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative. Many believe the long-established drugs are safer than relatively new vaccines they believe have been rushed and politicized.

Despite the established safety of IVM and HCQ, and the evolving nature of COVID knowledge, families across the country have had to go to court to force hospitals to let them try the drugs for their loved ones, while doctors have seen their medical licenses threatened for prescribing them – a scenario the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office indicates will not be tolerated in the Sooner State.

The University of Minnesota, Emory University School of Medicine, Northwestern Medicine, and other medical institutions are currently conducting a major at-home clinical trial to assess ivermectin’s effectiveness at treating COVID-19, as well as that of the drugs metformin and fluvoxamine or any combination of the three.

February 18, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | 2 Comments

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

Nebraska AG Says Doctors Can Legally Prescribe Ivermectin, HCQ for COVID, Calls Out FDA, CDC, Fauci, Media for ‘Fueling Confusion and Misinformation’

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | October 18, 2021

Few subjects have been more controversial than ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine — two long-established, inexpensive medications widely and successfully used in many parts of the world for the prevention and treatment of COVID.

By contrast, the use of both medications against COVID has been largely suppressed in the U.S, where doctors have been threatened and punished for prescribing them.

On Oct. 15, Nebraska Attorney General (AG) Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that Nebraska healthcare providers can legally prescribe off-label medications like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID, so long as they obtain informed consent from the patient.

However, if they did neglect to obtain consent, deceive, prescribe excessively high doses or other misconduct, they could be subject to discipline, Peterson wrote.

The AG’s office emphasized it was not recommending any specific treatment for COVID. “That is not our role,” Peterson wrote. “Rather, we address only the off-label early treatment options discussed in this opinion and conclude that the available evidence suggests they might work for some people.”

Peterson said allowing physicians to consider early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system.

The opinion, based on an assessment of relevant scientific literature, was rendered in response to a request by Dannette Smith, CEO of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services.

Smith asked the AG’s office to look into whether doctors could face discipline or legal action under Nebraska’s Uniform Credential Act (UCA) — meant to protect public health, safety and welfare — if they prescribed ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

“After receiving your question and conducting our investigation, we have found significant controversy and suspect information about potential COVID-19 treatments,” Peterson wrote.

For example, a paper published in the Lancet — one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world — denounced hydroxychloroquine as dangerous, yet the statistics were flawed and the authors refused to provide analyzed data.

The paper was retracted, but not before countries stopped using the drug and trials were cancelled or interrupted.

“The Lancet’s own editor-in-chief admitted that the paper was a ‘fabrication,’ a ‘monumental fraud’ and a ‘shocking example of research misconduct’ in the middle of a global health emergency,” Peterson wrote in the opinion.

A recently published paper on COVID recognized that “for reasons that are yet to be clarified,” early treatment has not been emphasized despite numerous U.S. healthcare providers advocating for early treatment and “scores of treating and academic physicians” — who have published papers in well respected journals — urging early interventions.

Peterson cited numerous studies showing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine reduced mortality by up to 75% or more when used as a preventative or prophylaxis for COVID, suggesting hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved had the drugs been widely used in America.

“Every citizen — Democrat or Republican — should be grateful for Doug Peterson’s thoughtful and courageous counteroffensive against the efforts of Big Pharma, its captive federal regulators, and its media and social media allies to silence doctors and deny Americans life-saving treatments,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender via email.

“We finally have a leader who puts constitutional rights, peer-reviewed science and human health above industry profits. Doug Peterson is uncowed and unbowed — a genuine hero on horseback for all Americans.” Kennedy said.

Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland agreed. “This Nebraska AG opinion lets doctors get back to being doctors — without being second-guessed by government, pharmacists and others interfering in the crucial doctor-patient relationship,” Holland said.

Although the AG’s office did not rule out the possibility that other off-label drugs might show promise — either now or in the future — as a prophylaxis or treatment against COVID, it confined its opinion to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the sake of brevity.

Nebraska AG highlights science on ivermectin

In his legal opinion, Peterson concluded evidence showed ivermectin demonstrated striking effectiveness in preventing and treating COVID, and any side effects were primarily minor and transient. “Thus, the UCA does not preclude physicians from considering ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID,” Peterson wrote.

In the decade leading up to the COVID pandemic, Peterson found numerous studies showing ivermectin’s antiviral acti­vity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins, adding to 50 years of research confirming ivermectin’s antiviral effects.

In addition, safety data for ivermectin showed side effects were “vanishingly small.” The latest statistics available through VigiAccess reported only 5,674 adverse drug reac­tions to ivermectin between 1992 and October 13, 2021, an “incredibly low” number given that 3.7 billion doses have been administered since the 1980s, Peterson wrote.

Peterson cited several studies showing ivermectin led to improvement of COVID outcomes when used in early treatment or as a prophylaxis, while noting many studies with negative findings about ivermectin “excluded most available evidence,” cherry picked data within studies, misreported data, made unsupported assertions of adverse reactions to ivermectin and had “conclusions that did follow from evidence.”

Peterson also found that epidemiological evidence for ivermectin’s effectiveness, derived by analyzing COVID-related data from various states, countries or regions is instructive in the context of a global pandemic.

In one instance, a group of scholars analyzed data comparing COVID rates of countries that routinely administer ivermectin as a prophylaxis and countries that did not. The research showed “countries with routine mass drug administration of pro­phylactic … ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19.”

“This ‘highly significant’ correlation manifests itself not only ‘in a worldwide context’ but also when comparing African countries that regularly administer prophylactic ‘ivermectin against parasitic infections’ and African countries that do not,” Peterson wrote. “Based on these results, the researchers surmised that these results may be connected to ivermectin’s ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication, which likely leads to lower infection rates.”

Nebraska AG calls out FDA, Fauci on hypocrisy on ivermectin

Many U.S. health agencies have now addressed the use of ivermectin for COVID. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has adopted a neutral position, choosing not to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin — a change from its position in January 2021 where it discouraged use of the drug for treatment of COVID.

Peterson wrote:

“The reason for the change is the NIH recognized several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals. And some of those studies reported positive outcomes, including shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, [and] lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.”

Yet, on Aug. 29, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases within the NIH, went on CNN and announced “there is no clinical evidence” that ivermectin works for the prevention or treatment of COVID. Fauci went on to reiterate that “there is no evidence whatsoever” that it works.

“This definitive claim directly contradicts the NIH’s recognition that ‘several randomized trials … published in peer-reviewed journals’ have reported data indicating that ivermectin is effective as a COVI D-19 treatment,” Peterson wrote.

In March 2021, the FDA posted a webpage, “Why You Should Not Use lvermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”

“Although the FDA’s concern was stories of some people using the animal form of ivermectin or excessive doses of the human form, the title broadly condemned any use of ivermectin in connection with COVID-19,” Peterson wrote. “Yet, there was no basis for its sweeping condemnation.”

Peterson wrote:

“Indeed, the FDA itself acknowledged on that very webpage (and continued to do so until the page changed on September 3, 2021) that the agency had not even ‘reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19.’ But without reviewing the available data, which had long since been available and accumulating, it is unclear what basis the FDA had for denouncing ivermectin as a treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19.

“On that same webpage, the FDA also declared that ‘[i]vermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).’ It did so while another one of its webpages simultaneously cited a study in Antiviral Research that identified ivermectin as a medicine ‘previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity.’”

“It is telling that the FDA deleted the line about ivermectin not being ‘anti-viral’ when it amended the first webpage on September 3, 2021,” Peterson noted.

Peterson said the FDA’s most controversial statement on ivermectin was made on Aug. 21, when it posted a link on Twitter to its “Why You Should Not Use lvermectin” webpage with this statement: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

“This message is troubling not only because it makes light of a serious matter but also because it inaccurately implies that ivermectin is only for horses or cows,” Peterson wrote.

Peterson said the FDA has assailed ivermectin’s safety while ignoring the fact that physicians routinely prescribe medications for off-label use and that ivermectin is a “particularly well-tolerated medicine with an established safety record.”

Peterson added the FDA is ignoring several randomized controlled trials and at least one meta­analysis suggesting ivermectin is effective against COVID. He pointed out the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention has adopted a similar stance — unsupported by scientific evidence — and the media has fueled confusion and misinformation on the drug.

Peterson questions professional associations’ stance on ivermectin

Professional associations in the U.S. and internationally have adopted conflicting positions on ivermectin and COVID. The American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA) and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) issued a statement in September strongly opposing the ordering, prescribing or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID outside of a clinical trial.

But their statement relied solely on the FDA’s and CDC’s suspect positions.

The AMA, APhA and ASHP also mentioned a statement by Merck — the original patent-holder — opposing the use of ivermectin for COVID because of a “concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

“But Merck, of all sources, knows that ivermectin is exceedingly safe, so the absence of safety data in recent studies should not be concerning to the company,” Peterson wrote.

Peterson called into question the objectivity of Merck in providing an opinion on ivermectin that U.S. health agencies are relying upon. “Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe?” Peterson asked. “There are at least two plausible reasons.”

Peterson explained:

“First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to ‘conduct clinical trials’ on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance.

“Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. [T]he U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.”

Merck’s treatment is known as “molnupiravir,” and aims to stop COVID from progressing when given early in the course of disease. When Merck announced Oct. 1, that preliminary studies indicated molnupiravir reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half, the drug maker’s stock price immediately jumped to 12.3%.

“Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than, or even the same as molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars,” Peterson wrote.

Peterson takes on science of hydroxychloroquine

Peterson said based on his review of the evidence, his office did not find clear and convin­cing evidence that would warrant disciplining physicians who prescribe hydroxychloroquine for the prevention or early treatment of COVID after first obtaining informed patient consent.

Peterson pointed to similar findings with hydroxychloroquine — a less toxic derivative of a medicine named chloroquine — widely used since it was approved by the FDA in 1955 for treatment of malaria.

Peterson noted that as early as 2004, a lab study revealed chloroquine was “an effective inhibitor of the replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in vitro” and should “be considered for immediate use in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV infections.”

In 2005, another study showed chloroquine had strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection and was effective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV in cell cultures.

Other studies showed hydroxychloroquine exhibited antiviral properties that can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 virus entry, transmission and replication, and contains anti-inflammatory properties that help regulate pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Peterson wrote, “many large observational studies suggest that hydroxychloroquine significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death when administered to ­particularly high-risk outpatients as part of early COVID-19 treatment.”

Peterson said the drug is considered to be so safe it can be prescribed for pregnant women, yet during the pandemic, the FDA raised questions about hydroxychloroquine and adverse cardiac events.

These concerns prompted one group of researchers to conduct a systematic review of the hydroxychloroquine safety literature pre-COVID. Their review indicated people taking hydroxychloroquine in appropriate doses “are at very low risk of experiencing cardiac [adverse events], particularly with short-term administration” of the drug.

Researchers noted COVID itself can cause cardiac problems, and there was no reason “to think the medication itself had changed after 70 years of widespread use,” Peterson wrote.

Peterson said one piece of key flawed data had substantially contributed to safety concerns surrounding the drug — the admittedly fraudulent Lancet study that falsely claimed hydroxychloroquine increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID.

The findings were so startling that major drug trials involving hydroxychloroquine “were immediately halted” and the World Health Organization pressured countries like Indonesia that were widely using hydroxychloroquine to ban it. Some countries, including France, Italy and Belgium, stopped using it for COVID altogether.

Peterson wrote:

“The problem, however, is that the study was based on false data from a company named Surgisphere, whose founder and CEO Sapan Desai was a co-author on the published paper.

“The data were so obviously flawed that journalists and outside researchers began raising concerns within days of the paper’s publication. Even the Lancet’s editor in chief, Dr. Richard Horton, admitted that the paper was a fabrication, a monumental fraud and a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.”

Despite calls for the Lancet to provide a full expansion of what happened, the publication declined to provide details for the retraction.

As with ivermectin, the FDA and NIH adopted positions against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID — making assertions that were unsupported by data. The AMA, APhA and ASHP, which opposed ivermectin, also resisted hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID.

By contrast, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and other physician groups, support the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment option for COVID. Peterson cited an article co-authored by more than 50 doctors in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine who advocated an early treatment protocol that includes hydroxychloroquine as a key component.

Governing law allows physicians to prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, AG says

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 38-179 generally defines unprofessional conduct as a “departure from or failure to conform to the standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of a profession or the ethics of the profession, regardless of whether a person, consumer or entity is injured, or conduct that is likely to deceive or defraud the public or is detrimental to the public interest.”

The regulation governing physicians states that unprofessional conduct includes:

“[c]onduct or practice outside the normal standard of care in the State of Nebraska which is or might be harmful or dangerous to the health of the patient or the public, not to include a single act of ordinary negligence.”

Peterson said healthcare providers do not violate the standard of care when they choose between two reasonable approaches to medicine.

“Regulations also indicate that physicians may utilize reasonable investigative or unproven therapies that reflect a reasonable approach to medicine so long as physicians obtain written informed patient consent,” Peterson wrote.

“Informed consent concerns a doctor’s duty to inform his or her patient, and it includes telling patients about the nature of the pertinent ailment or condition, the risks of the proposed treatment or procedure and the risks of any alternative methods of treatment, including the risks of failing to undergo any treatment at all.”

Peterson said this applies to prescribing medicine for purposes other than uses approved by the FDA, and that doing so falls within the standard of care repeatedly recognized by the courts.

Peterson said the U.S. Supreme Court has also affirmed that “off-label usage of medical devices” is an “accepted and necessary” practice, and the FDA has held the position for decades that “a physician may prescribe [a drug] for uses or in treatment regimens or patient populations that are not included in approved labeling.”

Peterson said the FDA has stated “healthcare providers generally may prescribe [a] drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient, and nothing in the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) limit[s] the manner in which a physician may use an approved drug.”

In a statement to KETV NewsWatch 7, Nebraska’s Department of Health and Human Services said:

“The Department of Health and Human Services appreciates the AG’s office delivering an opinion on this matter. The document is posted and available to medical providers as they determine appropriate course of treatment for their patients.”

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

October 18, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Covid Medical insanity, as described by an MD

By Matt Bettag, MD | August 6, 2021

When did the world become insane? What is the reason for it? Big Brother? Depopulation? Or people in love with control?

I don’t know and it’s driving me nuts. But I’ve decided I’m tired of complaining about it to my friends and family and I’m willing to put my name on the line. If the woke culture wants to ruin me for speaking the truth, I guess I might as well just get it over with now.

I have been a physician for 24 years, a practicing ENT for 19 years. I have never before seen the medical establishment just stop thinking. Insanity is the new rule, and common sense cannot even be discussed.

From the beginning, 15 days to “flatten the curve,” I was shocked. We had never done this before, but perhaps this virus was really bad, so I gave the government the benefit of the doubt.

Then came Fauci.

He initially said social distancing didn’t work, and masks were largely ineffective.

But by late March, he pronounced both masking and social distancing necessary. Weird… red flag.

What? So now I am alarmed.

I started researching the utility of masks. There were very good articles I found — one out of a respiratory center in Chicago, and another a good dental review. I bookmarked both of them. Less than a month later, the dental website was down, replaced by a text saying basically that their information is now irrelevant because of COVID. The Chicago article also had a disclaimer that previously wasn’t there saying people shouldn’t use their article politically. What? Don’t use a scientifically derived article to make a scientifically based decision on the utility of masks? What the hell is going on?

Next comes PCR testing. Let’s conveniently jack up the PCR Magnification cycles to 40+, resulting in a 90–97% false positive rate.

Then, let’s start testing all elective surgery, asymptomatic exposures, and hospitalized patients with this fake test to artificially increase the Covid numbers.

In addition we will reimburse hospitals greatly for any diagnosed COVID admissions and ICU visits.

Oxygen doesn’t work; go home until you get worse. Oh, and bring your family and friends with you; they’ll need testing.

Steroids were advised against early on, which made no sense, because they do decrease inflammation and in ENT have been used widely for viral illness.

Next we find a few weeks later the secret drug to treat COVID: steroids. What?

Hydroxychloroquine HCQ—suddenly not safe, even though it has been used for decades worldwide with a great safety profile, but not anymore. Mention it, and you are a lunatic.

The same went for all other proven therapeutics, such as ivermectin and vitamin D.

Vaccines? “I wouldn’t trust anything president Trump made.” That was Kamala Harris back in the fall.

Now if you don’t get vaccinated, you don’t care about other people, and you wanna watch people die.

Oh, and by the way, we should vaccinate everyone, including those who previously had COVID, pregnant women, and small children.

What about VAERS? That’s the open record report system that the CDC has made almost unnavigable. It’s slowly crept up and showed up to 12,000 deaths coincident with the vaccine. Then dropped to 6,000, only to come back up to 10,000 and now back to 12,000–Just a little glitch from our trustworthy government.

There are reports that the numbers could be ten times or more as high, and perhaps the CDC is misclassifying deaths to hide them. But let’s trust the government; they’ve been so good thus far.

Now the latest lie: “the delta variant, is surging because of the unvaccinated.”

Ignore the data from other countries that have very high vaccine rates but high spiking cases, and ignore the data from other countries that have low vaccine rates and almost no COVID.

As a matter fact, let’s not even look at Sweden, who essentially didn’t do lockdowns or masking, has a low vaccination rate, and has almost zero COVID.

I have never lived in the world like this, where open medical dialogue is completely suppressed and there is only one party line.

I thought the left was always talking about how we shouldn’t bully people, and we need to have “dialogue.” Well… let’s start.

The media and the government need to do their job and start opening dialogue to the other side. If we are crazy, it will come out.

If we are right, and the data show that to be the fact, then a large apology is warranted.

August 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 5 Comments

Dr. Stella Immanuel sues CNN for $100 Million after being vindicated on Hydroxychloroquine

Big League Politics | July 31, 2021

Dr. Stella Immanuel, the pro-hydroxychloroquine doctor who was derided by the fake news media for attempting to save lives near the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, is striking back against CNN.

Immanuel has launched a $100 million lawsuit against CNN and host Anderson Cooper for what she believes were false and defamatory statements made against her character.

“In an effort to vilify, demonize and embarrass President [Donald] Trump, Cooper and CNN published a series of statements of fact about Dr. Immanuel that injured her reputation and exposed her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and financial injury,” the lawsuit stated. It was filed in federal court on July 27.

Immanuel said that she believes Cooper and CNN “effectively caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands whose lives would have been spared if they had been treated early with HCQ.”

Big League Politics has reported on the suppressed science showing that hydroxychloroquine can effectively treat COVID-19:

“A new study has demonstrated that treating COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine makes patients 84 percent less likely to be hospitalized.

The study is set to be published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents in December. It has determined that “low-dose hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc and azithromycin was an effective therapeutic approach against COVID-19.”

The doctors came to their conclusions after treating 141 coronavirus patients with hydroxychloroquine for five days. They compared them with a control group of 377 coronavirus patients who did not receive hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. They found that “the odds of hospitalization of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients.” Only one patient from the group treated with hydroxychloroquine died while 13 people died in the other group…

The elites are suppressing hydroxychloroquine because they want the public to feel helpless against the virus. They never intend to give the public their liberties back, hoping that the public will accept a “new normal” of globalism and technocracy.“

A victory for Immanuel in court would be a powerful rebuke to the propaganda machine set up to maximize profits for Big Pharma and demonize whistleblowers who actually want to help patients.

August 5, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 3 Comments

Cheer-Up World: There ARE Effective Treatments for COVID-19

By Chris Lonsdale | 21st Century Wire | July 14, 2021

Since COVID-19 hit the scene at the beginning of 2020, one of the key elements driving the fear around this disease is that there appeared to be no cure. And, for people who got infected with COVID-19, the guidance coming from major global institutions such as the NIH (US National Institutes of Health) and the CDC (US Centres for Disease Control) was basically “do nothing, stay home, and when you turn blue go to the hospital.” This public health policy prescription was usually followed by the qualifying caveat, “this is our only approach until a vaccine arrives.”

This, clearly, has terrified people all around the world. For the majority of the world’s population the belief has been that catching COVID-19 is a veritable death sentence. Which leads us to an important question. How would things change if there were, in fact, effective treatments for COVID-19?

I have just come out of a fascinating 90-minute press conference and Zoom call, delivered by the Malaysian Alliance for Effective COVID Control (MAECC). This was very much a “good news” presentation. The main message? There are very effective treatments for COVID-19.

The essence of the discussion in the MAECC session focused on the drug Ivermectin. The Doctors found it necessary to do a press conference and public presentation because the widespread use of Ivermectin in Malaysia is currently illegal. A doctor prescribing Ivermectin for his COVID-19 patients was recently raided by police!

Malaysian doctors are not doing leading edge research here, but simply trying to care for their patients by working to get a proven treatment officially accepted for use in Malaysia. Ivermectin has already been used very successfully in many places around the world where media hysteria did not get it banned from the shelves. Mexico has used it to great effect, as did Peru. Over the last few weeks, reports coming out of India are demonstrating massive benefits from Ivermectin.

There is already a 97% decline in cases in New Delhi, India. Indeed, four other Indian states that are using Ivermectin now report decreases in cases by 60% to 95%. However, other states that have blocked the use of Ivermectin have increases in cases by several hundred percent – the exponential explosion that everyone is terrified of!

As The Desert Review says in their report, “It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC’s policies of ‘wait at home until you turn blue’ before you get treatment.”

Before you buy into the criticism that these are only “observational studies” and haven’t been tested by large scale, randomized control trials approved by the WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA etc. it’s important to realize that the only type of studies that are apparently good enough for such institutions these days are those which are so large and complex that only multi-national pharmaceutical companies are able to run and fund them.

That said, you should know that 56 studies on Ivermectin, 17 of them being Randomized Control Trials, have clearly demonstrated very positive effects from Ivermectin. A site doing real-time meta-analysis of all the Ivermectin studies as they get published summarizes the results as follows: “100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively”.

They also make the point that “The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 56 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000041).”   You can check this information yourself directly on their site (Source:

Another effective protocol for prophylaxis and early treatment of COVID-19 is Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with Zinc. As of this writing, 248 trials of HCQ used for treating COVID-19 have been completed, by 3,972 scientists, with 378,812 patients. We can see 66% improvement in 26 early treatment trials, 75% improvement in 11 early treatment mortality results, and 24% improvement in 35 randomized controlled trials. These results are publicly available on a database that is tracking all HCQ studies to date. You can see those studies here at

There are also a number of other effective treatments for COVID-19 that we don’t have space for here.

What’s important to understand is that these effective treatments have been used since mid-2020. Which raises a very important point. If these treatments are so effective, why haven’t we heard about them?  Why aren’t they being used everywhere? It appears that, for some reason, information about the effectiveness of these treatments is being suppressed.

For instance, “Fact checkers” will tell you that HCQ or Ivermectin aren’t authorized by major institutions like the FDA, CDC, or WHO (as if such organizations are supposed to set and police policy rather than simply providing guidance). They will also try to discount any positive results using ad hominem attacks and smears, such as pointing out that a person using one of these treatments may have at some time in the past, voiced “anti-vaccine sentiments” (whatever that may be). You can see an example here:

The censorship extends to Social Media. A whole list of front-line doctors who have successfully used some of these treatments have had their accounts removed from Social Media platforms, simply because information they provided about their successes was deemed “contrary to guidelines from the WHO” by the various Big Tech platforms. I have personally witnessed the de-platforming of literally dozens of highly respected, professional, front line doctors and researchers.

De-platforming is not the only concern. It appears that in the attempts to discredit effective treatments for COVID-19, anything goes. A study which came out in The Lancet mid-2020 supposedly showing that HCQ was dangerous was subsequently withdrawn due to the study being fraudulent.

Sadly, this withdrawal happened only after the damage was done, and HCQ had been successfully kicked to the curb in many places around the world – even up to the point that in some jurisdictions doctors could be jailed for prescribing it!

You may ask: “How did these studies that were apparently designed to falsify the effects of a widely used drug, pass peer review in the world’s premier medical science journals – The Lancet as well as The New England Journal of Medicine ?” The details of this sordid tale can be found here:

If one digs, it appears that the main reason that we have not heard of these effective treatments is that the WHO and the CDC and other major institutions do not approve of the use of any alternative treatments, unless these are being tested in a clinical trial (which it seems only they can approve of). For instance, the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) guidelines state: “The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends against the use of any drugs for SARS-CoV-2 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), except in a clinical trial (AIII).” See the PDF document here:

This is indeed strange, especially in the middle of a pandemic. One would expect that, in order to save patient lives, doctors would look for and try medicines that might possibly work, as long as there were no safety issues.  When clearly there is evidence of no-harm, and increasingly powerful evidence that certain treatments can save lives, it would be highly unethical for Doctors NOT to start using such treatments. Doctors use medicines for purposes other than those listed on the label all the time!

Since Ivermectin and HCQ are both on the WHO list of essential medicines and have been so for a long time – decades in the case of HCQ – the world knows about the safety and dosage of these medicines. As an example, since 1992, Ivermectin has only been linked to 16 deaths, whereas deaths linked to the COVID-19 vaccines are now in the thousands (information from the Uppsala Drug Monitoring Centre run by the WHO ( via Prof Paul Marik, Chief of Critical Care & Pulmonary Medicine, EVM, USA).

Clearly, something appears very much out of balance here. There ARE effective treatments for COVID-19, yet the institutions that we rely on for medical guidance appear to be ignoring, or even suppressing these treatments – even though they are known to be safe after many decades of use. Despite their known safety, neither Ivermectin nor HCQ have been able to obtain even an EAU (Emergency Use Authorization)!

At the same time, new creations that have only had very limited testing, and for which the safety cannot be known in such a short period of time, are approved for emergency use.

The world economy is now in dire straits, with entire populations having been essentially under house arrest for the better part of 18 months. People continue to die from (or with) COVID-19 without treatments being available. And we are now seeing important examples of breakout infections in people who have already been vaccinated against COVID-19.  As Reuters reported just a few days ago, “Hundreds of vaccinated Indonesian health workers get COVID-19, dozens in hospital”. This is just one many similar news stories reporting the very same phenomenon.

According to the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves, the current range of emergency use vaccines do not actually provide immunity and only “reduce severe symptoms” of COVID-19. While this issue has yet to be fully resolved, many in the mainstream are still claiming that these vaccines will “inoculate” the recipient against the novel coronavirus. Therefore, these jabs should rightly be categorised as a type of treatment against the disease of COVID-19, and not a vaccine against the said pathogen, the SARSCoV2 coronavirus.

It goes without saying that the wide availability of cheap and effective drug treatments for COVID would severely undermine the widely touted mainstream claim that mass-vaccinations are the only solution to slowing down or ‘defeating’ a supposed global pandemic.

Clearly, effective treatments are absolutely required at this point. The good news is that there are such treatments available.

With effective treatments in hand, the global COVID-19 situation could end in as little as a few weeks. The world CAN return to normal. Sadly, there seem to be forces at work blocking such an outcome.

We need to ask: why are these effective treatments not being allowed in so many places? Why is information about these treatments being suppressed? Perhaps the fact that treatments like Ivermectin and HCQ are off patent and extremely cheap might give us a clue.


Author Chris Lonsdale is a psychologist, linguist, educator, entrepreneur, dialogue facilitator and corporate advisor with over thirty years experience doing business in Asia.

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Dr. Harvey Risch on HCQ suppression, censorship of critical thought, and the pandemic response

Dr. Harvey Risch Interview 6/16/2021 from John Leake on Vimeo.

Professor Harvey Risch talks with author John Leake about how hydroxychloroquine — a safe, effective, and inexpensive drug — was fraudulently misrepresented and suppressed by public health agencies, academic journals, and the mainstream media. This propaganda campaign has resulted in the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

July 7, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 4 Comments

Hydroxychloroquine and its friends

IHU Méditerranée-Infection | June 25, 2021

Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology Yale University.

June 30, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 1 Comment

Are the Covid-19 vaccines “safe and effective”?

June 16, 2021

A video presentation by Steve Kirsch, Executive Director of the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund.

Watch Video at Trial Site News

Are there any risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized on an emergency use basis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Presently three genetic-based vaccines have been authorized via the emergency order including two mRNA-based vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech) as well as the adenovirus-based Johnson and Johnson product. Developed at historical speed under Operation Warp Speed, the mRNA-based technology foretells enormous implications for healthcare including the prospect of vaccines for cancer. An amazing research prowess has unfolded in response to the COVID-19 pandemic heralding profound breakthroughs that’ll benefit society for years to come. Governmental authorities have declared the vaccines both safe and effective and as TrialSite recently reported based on a change of law that waives the need for informed consent with investigational products. Both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FDA have declared that the risk-benefit analyses strongly indicate the risks of not getting a vaccination outweigh any risk of vaccination. They argue that the risks associated with COVID-19 are materially greater. Moreover, health authorities are on record that there is absolutely no correlation associated with the COVID-19 vaccines to any deaths as indicated by the CDC declaration. But have they sufficiently probed and pursued granular investigation into their own data? Have they undertaken the comprehensive  analyses associated with what in the CDC VAERS is now close to 6,000 deaths. Are all of these unrelated to the vaccines? Steve Kirsch, the founder and executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF),  a regular contributor to the TrialSite recently conducted a more systematic and thorough analysis of the VAERS and CDC adverse event and death numbers reported in conjunction with the COVID-19 vaccines. The results are disturbing to say the least. TrialSite offers no opinion here other than the presentation of the highly successful MIT-trained engineer who has invested millions of his own funds into early stage treatment options targeting COVID-19. What follows is a summary of his deep dive into VAERS presented in this video.

Official CDC Position

The CDC is on the record that the now nearly 6,000 deaths reported in VAERS since December 2020, including “A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccine.”

The analysis provided by Kirsch suggests that while nearly 6,000 are now entered into the voluntary system, he suggests the actual number could be undercounted by a magnitude of up to 5 times and a review of direct CDC excess death data indicates what the notable entrepreneur counts as 25,000 deaths that could be associated with the coronavirus vaccines.

The Presentation

The Kirsch presentation starts with an introduction to the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System known as VAERS with a review of some key indicators including reported deaths. Open to the public, he reveals by June 4th the following adverse events were associated with the COVID-19 vaccines:

Reported Event #s
Deaths 5,088
Hospitalizations 19,587
Urgent Care 43,891
Office Visits 58,800
Heart Attacks 2,190
Anaphylaxis 1,459
Bells Palsy 1,737
Thrombocytopenia/Low Platelet 1,564
Myocarditis/Pericarditis 1,087

A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.

At 12:15 into the presentation Mr. Kirsch reveals a data distribution revealing a dramatic spike in deaths associated with the COVID-19. Moreover in this data analysis it’s revealed that the majority of deaths occur closer to the actual time of the vaccination event indicating a higher probability of a causal relationship.

At 12:49 he presents the data findings indicating that overwhelming the incidents of heart attacks associated with the VAERS COVID-19 vaccine spike within a day to three days after the vaccination event.  He also emphasizes that the indication of Myocarditis/Pericarditis actually increases with vaccination as age decreases which is counter intuitive in that young people should have less probability of experiencing such heart related troubles. Is the vaccine causally connected to this data?

At 15:51 in the presentation Kirsch depicts again the growing numbers of deaths corresponding to the release of the vaccines under emergency use authorization by mid-December 2020. At 18:55 he reveals a corresponding increase in excess deaths reported by the CDC.

Kirsch goes on at 26:13 to discuss the imperative to consider a time out in the process to at least investigate these safety data signals.  At 28:09 Kirsch raises the imperative for informed consent under the Declaration of Helsinki. Although as TrialSite reported the law was changed in 2016 thus waiving the need for informed consent with investigational products deemed safe.

At 32:22 Mr. Kirsch discusses early treatment options for COVID-19.  He shares that considerable research has gone on pointing to a number of potential treatments for early onset COVID-19 that can serve to help combat COVID-19.  A risk-benefit comparison at 41:50 showcases at least one argument that early stage treatments currently under study should be accelerated.

The presenter offers a plethora of other information that merits review for those interested in a debate on this topic.

Kirsch commented on the findings “The narrative is that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective but the truth is that the data points to an otherwise alternative conclusion.”  Kirsch declared that “if anyone was paying attention they would have picked up these safety signals by the end of January.”

Data-Driven Truth or Random Coincidence?

TrialSIte cannot advocate one position over another but rather can serve to share information that fits within the guidelines of the platform for purposes of discussion and hopefully healthy debate.  This isn’t a platform for attacking others but rather one that fosters awareness, transparency and engagement.  The data present in the CDC VAERS database as well as the CDC death reports do indicate a material spike in activity associated with the coronavirus vaccines.  Does the CDC’s position that none of these deaths are conclusively correlated to the vaccine itself despite the data in this presentation revealing a disturbing trend of adverse events and death within a day to three days within the vaccination event?  It’s not clear but TrialSite invites the CDC and others on to the platform to put forth an explanation.

June 17, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , , | Leave a comment