Television show bias on guns and suicide
When Dr. Ryan Cole decided to become a physician, he took an oath to protect his patients and to treat them to the best of his ability.
Cole, CEO of Cole Diagnostics and a board-certified dermatopathologist trained at the Mayo Clinic, said he has a motto when it comes to the coronavirus: Test and treat — and treat earlier with the Delta variant.
Cole told Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on the “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” that while the Delta variant is spreading “like a wildfire right now,” data show it’s less deadly.
Cole, who reviews the lab tests of about 30,000 patients a year at his independent lab in Boise, Idaho, said he uses a multi-drug approach when treating patients for COVID.
Some of the drugs he’s found effective include ivermectin — an antiparasitic drug proven beneficial for treating SARS-CoV-2 — hydroxychloroquine, steroids, and the cholesterol drug fenofibrate and fluvoxamine for patients with neural symptoms.
Monoclonal antibodies are a good treatment, too, said Cole.
Treatments using monoclonal antibodies are “parked in infusion centers and emergency rooms around the country,” said Cole. “But there are crickets about this drug that decreases death and hospitalization by 50%.”
Cole told Kennedy his first COVID patient was his brother, who was considered “high risk” for the virus due to his weight. He was on the way to the emergency room when I told him, “No, you’re going to the pharmacy,” said Cole.
Cole said his brother had chest pains on a nine out of 10 level before he called in a prescription for ivermectin. Six hours later, his pain was down to a two, and by the next morning, his oxygen levels had risen from 80 to 98.
Ivermectin saved my brother’s life, said Cole.
Cole, who also treated his 78-year-old mother and 83-year-old father, said out of the hundreds of patients he’s treated, zero have gone to the hospital.
“Test and treat early,” said Cole. “Not treating early is doing harm. It’s a sin of omission by not treating.”
Cole said if you do get COVID, finding a good doctor to treat you is key. He pointed to several websites that provide tele-health services including Frontline MDs, My Free Doctor and America’s Frontline Doctors.
Viruses aren’t “politically red, blue or even purple,” said Cole. “This is about humanity” and doing the “proper thing by our fellow citizens.”
Listen to the interview:
A letter this week to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other UK government officials, signed by more than 130 UK medical professionals, accused the government of mishandling its response to the COVID pandemic, resulting in “massive, permanent and unnecessary harm” to the country.
The letter, “Our Grave Concerns About the Handling of the COVID Pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK,” outlined 10 ways in which the authors argued UK government policies not only failed to protect citizens, but in many cases caused additional, unnecessary harm.
The letter’s 10 lead authors wrote:
“We write as concerned doctors, nurses and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally ‘smeared’ by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.”
The authors accused government officials of failing to measure the harms of lockdown policies, of exaggerating the virus’ threat and of improper mass testing of children.
“Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.”
The letter also called out officials for actively suppressing discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere, and said vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions.
The authors concluded:
“The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group — the elderly — the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children.”
In addition to Johnson, the letter was addressed to Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister for Scotland; Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales; Paul Givan, First Minister for Northern Ireland; Sajid Javid, Health Secretary; Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer; and Dr. Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Officer.
Read the full letter:
22 August 2021
Dear Sirs and Madam,
Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK.
We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally “smeared” by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.
We are taking the step of writing this public letter because it has become apparent to us that:
- The Government (by which we mean the UK government and three devolved governments/administrations and associated government advisors and agencies such as the CMOs, CSA, SAGE, MHRA, JCVI, Public Health services, Ofcom etc, hereinafter “you” or the “Government”) have based the handling of the COVID pandemic on flawed assumptions.
- These have been pointed out to you by numerous individuals and organisations.
- You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.
- Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.
- The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.
- Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.
In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.
1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies
The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.
It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic
preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.
The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored.
What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.
2. Institutional nature of COVID
It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease, as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS.
Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.
Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.
Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.
Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.
3. The exaggerated nature of the threat
Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible ‘case’ rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying ‘with COVID’ and not ‘of COVID’ where the disease was the underlying cause of death.
The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.
Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born.
This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government’s messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.
Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased’s death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a “COVID death” by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate.
Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.
The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.
Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.
You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of “fear messaging”. The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense — hundreds of millions of pounds.
The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that “Long Covid” is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID.
4. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere
The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed.
For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.
Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.
Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government’s interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government’s agenda.
Whatever one’s view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.
5. Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear
Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.
To give just one example, the government’s face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioural psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies.
Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2.
Several high profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental.
This has been particularly distressing for the nation’s school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.
Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.
6. Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses
The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains — especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination — is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified.
Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.
Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of ‘convergent evolution’) and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants travelling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned.
7. Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions
It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith.
Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and has only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies.
In the vast majority of cases healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated.
The government’s claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions.
The government’s messaging to ‘act as if you have the virus’ has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.
The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of ‘cases’, is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness.
Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country’s economy.
Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings.
The reason for reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred.
Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants is unclear.
The government appears to be talking of “learning to live with COVID” while apparently practicing by stealth a “zero COVID” strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful.
8. Mass testing of healthy children
Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.
During Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive ‘cases’, none of which was serious as far as we are aware.
Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.
9. Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions
Based merely on early “promising” vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed — without proper debate or rigorous analysis — to the entire adult population).
This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.
Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as “fully informed” must be in serious doubt:
- The use of coercion supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in co-operation with social media platforms and dating apps.
- The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.
Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines — which have no associated long-term safety data — could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.
10. Over-reliance on modeling while ignoring real-world data
Throughout the pandemic, decisions seem to have been taken utilising unvalidated models produced by groups who have what can only be described as a woeful track record, massively overestimating the impact of several previous pandemics.
The decision-making teams appear to have very little clinical input and, as far as is ascertainable, no clinical immunology expertise.
Moreover, the assumptions underlying the modeling have never been adjusted to take into account real-world observations in the UK and other countries.
It is an astonishing admission that, when asked whether collateral harms had been considered by SAGE, the answer given was that it was not in their remit — they were simply asked to minimise COVID impact. That might be forgivable if some other advisory group was constantly studying the harms side of the ledger, yet this seems not to have been the case.
The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group — the elderly — the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children.
Moreover your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.
Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalisation rates, policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms.
To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with — according to the previous Health Secretary — a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.
In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms.
As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to “first do no harm”, and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies which have imposed a series of supposed “cures” which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.
The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists and others who share crucial, scientifically-valid and evidence-based alternative views and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.
Dr Jonathan Engler, MB ChB LLB (Hons) DipPharmMed
Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS B Med Sci FRCS FFSEM, Consultant Surgeon, ran vaccination program for a Polio Outbreak, Past President BOSTA, for Orthopaedic Surgeons, Faculty member FFSEM
Mr. Tony Hinton, MB ChB, FRCS, FRCS(Oto), Consultant Surgeon
Dr. Renee Hoenderkamp, BSc (Hons) MBBS MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr. Ros Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician
Mr. Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB MD FRCSEd FRCS (Gen Surg) MIHM VR
Dr. Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician
Dr. Alan Mordue, MB ChB, FFPH (ret), Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine
Mr. Colin Natali, BSc(Hons), MBBS FRCS FRCS(Orth), Consultant Spine Surgeon
Dr. Helen Westwood, MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner
Click here, for the complete list of signatories.
Are Effective COVID Medications Like Ivermectin Being Suppressed Because Their Successful Treatments Could Cause Vaccines to Lose Government Funding?
Guest post by Kevin Moncla
Are effective COVID medications like Ivermectin being suppressed because they could cause vaccines to lose government funding?
Not very long after the pandemic lockdowns began last year, we heard of a potential treatment for COVID-19 involving the off-label use of an existing medication called Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
A French doctor published two studies which showed amazing results. Soon thereafter President Trump mentioned the drug in a press conference as a potential game changer. Dr. Fauci dismissed the studies as “anecdotal”.
Hospital trials and observational studies soon began but they quickly showed the medication to be ineffective as a prophylaxis or as a treatment. But in every study, there was something wrong. Either the dosage was way too high or too low, it was only given to patients in severe stages impossible to recover or without Zinc, which was imperative. It seemed as if only minutes later, HCQ and anyone who mentioned it were viciously attacked for promoting quacks and snake oil.
Then an observational study was published in prestigious medical journals that claimed HCQ was ineffective and dangerous, causing cardiac-related complications. Ongoing trials and testing were halted immediately, and the FDA issued a warning advising HCQ not be used to treat COVID. Then, for the first time in history, the FDA restricted doctors from prescribing an approved medication for off-label use. The WHO and the rest of the world immediately followed suit literally stopping all research and testing of HCQ overnight.
Months later we learn that same study was completely fabricated and fraudulent after an investigative journalist analyzed the data. The study was retracted, but the damage had already been done.
At the time, it defied logic for someone to sabotage such an effective and promising medication.
Then In December, Senator Ron Johnson (WI) held a hearing on potential treatment options for Covid-19. Dr. Pierre Kory was one of the first to testify and he explained that himself, and some of the country’s top practitioners in their field formed a group at the outset of the pandemic called Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, or FLCCC. Their sole objective was to find existing medications which could be repurposed to treat those with COVID. The doctor said they had discovered exactly that with Ivermectin. An FDA-approved medication introduced in 1981, it has been prescribed to over 3 billion people as an antiparasitic agent. Dr. Kory said the medication is proving to be a “wonder drug”, highly effective both as a prophylaxis and for early treatment of Covid-19.
8 months later we have witnessed the same disturbing pattern as we saw with HCQ. The group of doctors who brought news of the treatment to the public have been attacked, censored, and ridiculed. The video of the United States Senate hearing described above was even removed from YouTube. Studies and trials proving Ivermectin’s effectiveness were suppressed and marginalized. Clinical trials have been sabotaged using the same tactics as were used to affect the HCQ studies, and in one case, the conclusion of a study was rewritten after being submitted for peer review.
Through subterfuge and sabotage, censorship and subversion, reports of Ivermectin’s success have been stymied and contained in the United States.
But those powerful forces didn’t work everywhere.
Remember that it was not long ago when India was facing an overwhelming surge in cases and death. Remdesivir was widely administered and failed miserably.
Faced with an insurmountable humanitarian crisis of apocalyptic proportion, many areas of India were willing to try almost anything to stop the suffering and death. Ivermectin was introduced into the standard treatment protocol against WHO advisements. In those areas the virus was obliterated just as Dr. Kory described. Ivermectin stopped a raging surge of death in its tracks. The results were nothing short of miraculous.
With the successful results of India, the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19 is no longer debatable. Anyone can see that it is every bit of effective as Dr. Kory described during the senate hearing in December of last year. Yet the FDA warns against taking Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. While the WHO advises that Ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials, and the NIH recommends that there is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel.
We know Ivermectin works. We know Ivermectin is safe, cheap, approved by the FDA, and available now. The obvious question is:
Why are the FDA, CDC and WHO suppressing Ivermectin?
From the FDA website it may be related to Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)?
An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. Taking into consideration input from the FDA, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit an EUA request to FDA.
The Emergency Use Authorization for the COVID-19 vaccines is contingent upon “…no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”.
If the CDC, FDA or WHO acknowledge the existence of an effective treatment, such as Ivermectin, then the pharmaceutical companies lose their cash-cow vaccines and their immunity from liability. The vaccine would be subject to normal safety requirements with which the vaccines arguably could not meet. Under the EUA, the safety standard of a medication is extremely low. For instance:
“…FDA must determine that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine.”
In other words, the minimum safety threshold is that it only helps more people than those it hurts. The lesser of two evils, and something is better than nothing comes to mind. If there were another more effective treatment option available, those emergency-calibrated standards would no longer apply.
With the quick emergence of variants, waning effectiveness of the vaccine’s protection and the spike in number of hospitalizations, we have no effective therapy for those getting sick. Like before, even after testing positive for COVID-19, the standard treatment outpatient recommendations are nearly the same as last year. Go home, rest, drink lots of fluids and wait for your lips to turn blue before going to the hospital.
An effective therapeutic and prophylactic treatment like Ivermectin is exactly what is desperately needed and needed now.
It is just what the doctor would have ordered if the doctor wasn’t conditioned, pressured and threatened of being ostracized to ignore his medical training and only follow the CDC guidelines.
For more information on clinical trials and studies of Ivermectin, please visit:
Oops. Pre-Print Study Shows mRNA ‘Vaccinated’ Individuals At Greater Risk For Delta Disease Than Those With Natural Immunity
This study would explain why highly ‘vaccinated’ nations with mRNA technology are having their hospitals overrun with SEVERE Covid-19 patients. . . . who are fully vaccinated.
Title: Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections
“Results SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.
Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”
Evacuations resumed Friday in Afghanistan, one day after two suicide bombings outside the international airport in the capital city of Kabul killed 13 U.S. service members and roughly Afghans waiting and hoping for a flight out of the country.
The deadly terror attack Thursday was the worst of the chaos and violence at the airport since the Taliban, with unexpected swiftness, took control of the country roughly two weeks ago, sending Americans and their Afghan allies fleeing.
The bombings – a suicide bomb near an airport gate and a car bomb outside of a nearby hotel – killed at least 95 Afghans and the 13 American service members, including four Marines and a Navy corpsman, U.S. officials said.
Thursday was the deadliest day for American forces in Afghanistan since August 2011, according to the Associated Press.
The U.S. says over 100,000 people have so far been evacuated from Kabul, with roughly 1,000 Americans and tens of thousands more Afghans still awaiting departure.
The White House said Friday morning that in the past 24 hours 8,500 evacuees had been flown out of Kabul aboard U.S. military aircraft, and about 4,000 people on coalition flights – roughly the same numbers as before the attacks, the wire service also reports.
The crowds of thousands that have waited outside the Hamid Karzai International Airport since the Aug. 15 takeover in hopes of being evacuated returned after the bombings, the wire service also reports.
The U.S. and allies are rushing to withdrawal all troops from Afghanistan by the Aug. 31 deadline agreed upon with the Taliban. . . .
Rice University in Houston, Texas, announced last week that the first two weeks of the fall semester would be moved online because of a high number of COVID-19 cases among students. It now says the data the decision was based upon were flawed.
In an Aug. 22 letter to the campus community, Rice’s Vice President for Administration Kevin E. Kirby said “anomalies” in the initial testing data prompted the university to retest dozens of students deemed positive for COVID-19, and “all but one of those have turned out to be negative.”
According to the letter, Rice started to ramp up its testing program on Aug. 13 with three different test providers and conducted about 4,500 tests over 9 days with initial results showing 81 positive results. This positivity rate of 2 percent, although much lower than that of the city of Houston, Kirby said in the letter, was still concerning enough that the university officials delayed the start of in-person classes.
“For Rice, a 2 percent rate would be significantly higher than our historical positivity rate of 0.24 percent over the last year when we ran about 150,000 tests,” Kirby said. “This unusual campus positivity rate prompted us to take quick action and assume a more cautionary posture until we could determine whether there was a significant risk of widespread infection.”
Rice began investigating the results when it realized that over 90 percent of the positive infections came from a single test provider, and most of those cases involved people who reported no symptoms or had been fully vaccinated. It turned out that the provider had changed its testing protocol without the university’s knowledge.
“Then we retested about 50 people who initially tested positive. Each of them was tested two additional times, on two different days, by two different test providers, and all but one came back negative,” Kirby wrote, adding that the university released students who were falsely determined to be COVID-19 positive from isolation.
Rice officials said they’ll stick to two weeks of online classes, considering that many of the students and faculty had already adjusted their plans based on that schedule. But students who were told to delay moving on campus until after Sept. 3 can now move in as soon as they want.
“Our commitment is to be fast, flexible, and nimble responding to anything involving the safety of individuals and the overall health of our community,” the letter reads. “We recognize and regret that these testing anomalies have caused tremendous difficulties for all involved.” . . .
It is objectively true that the Democratic Party has become the party of institutionalized anti-Semitism and is clearly anti-Israel as well. Leftist organizations such as Black Lives Matter are committed to the destruction of Israel and the persecution of Jews. And although most Republicans and those on the right support Israel and religion, it is also objectively true that the vast majority of American Jews support the left.
There are a number of reasons why Jews typically support the left and vote Democrat. Some are historical. The modern state of Israel was founded during the Democratic administration of Harry Truman, and many Jews believe (incorrectly) that it was Democratic support that created Israel. (In fact, Truman was “a reluctant Cyrus but pro-Israel). When Jews were being persecuted in Russia in the early 20th century, and again in Germany in the 1930s, they were welcomed into the United States as legal immigrants. Proudly they would study and ultimately receive American citizenship after coming from countries where they never enjoyed the rights of full citizens. Whether by choice or pressure, the United States under a Democratic administration supported Israel in the Six Day War, and Congress was supportive of Jewish causes and Israel.
There were also theological reasons to support the left. For thousands of years, Judaism has been concerned with the wellbeing of the weak and downtrodden. There was a time when unions were needed to protect against child labor and sweatshops, and Jews resonated with these causes. The Jewish values of free will and individual responsibility fit in well with many of the social causes of the left in the 1960s and 1970s. Jews were at the forefront of the civil rights movement. Great rabbis like Abraham Joshua Heschel were intimately involved with the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, and Jews were early supporters of the creation of the NAACP.
But all of these historical reasons are no longer valid, and haven’t been for over 40 years. Starting with Jimmy Carter, the left’s support of Israel has declined. The Democratic Party has now been taken over by vocal anti-Semites like “the squad,” and BLM is the violent arm of the Democrats. Conversely, President Trump was the most pro-Israel/pro-Jewish president in history (and has an Orthodox Jewish daughter and grandchildren); the Republican Party is constantly supporting Israel; and anti-Semitic individuals and groups are rejected from the mainstream of the Republican Party, as opposed to the Democratic Party, which embraces anti-Semites.
So why do Jews continue to support the Democrats and the left? . . . .
In France, the vaccine mandate has been extended from health care workers to other professions. But as the mandate deadline approaches, some military service members and firemen are speaking out against it.
A federal judge in Michigan on Aug. 25 sanctioned Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and seven other attorneys who represented the Trump campaign in a lawsuit challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
U.S. District Judge Linda Parker, an Obama appointee, referred the nine attorneys for investigation and possible disbarment or suspension by relevant state authorities. Parker also ordered the sanctioned individuals to pay the court fees tied to the election lawsuit and to take legal education classes.
“This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process,” Parker wrote in a 110-page opinion (pdf). “It is one thing to take on the charge of vindicating rights associated with an allegedly fraudulent election. It is another to take on the charge of deceiving a federal court and the American people into believing that rights were infringed, without regard to whether any laws or rights were in fact violated.”
The attorney representing seven of the sanctioned lawyers, including Powell and Wood, didn’t immediately respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment. . . .
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Partied Maskless at Billionaire’s Estate in France After State Dept. Issued ‘Do Not Travel’ Warning
The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee defied State Department guidelines by traveling to France this month. That didn’t stop him from lecturing Americans about the importance of following federal health and safety protocols.
“We all have to do our part to crush this virus,” Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D., N.Y.) wrote on Aug. 14, in the middle of his maskless European vacation. “Get your shot, wear a mask, and follow CDC guidelines. It’s just the right thing to do.”
A Washington Free Beacon investigation of the Instagram accounts of Maloney and his husband, Randy Florke, found that the power couple’s trip in France was in violation of U.S. health and safety guidelines. The State Department’s website is unequivocal: “Do not travel to France due to COVID-19.”
While in France against the advice of the U.S. government, the congressman appeared to exercise little to no caution against the coronavirus. His Instagram stories included footage from a wedding at the Villa et Jardins Ephrussi de Rothschild, which is outside of Nice on the Mediterranean coast. None of the guests were wearing masks. The bride is a longtime ally of Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance (D.), who declined to prosecute sex criminal Harvey Weinstein.
Maloney and his husband also traveled to Italy, even though the State Department has recommended that Americans “reconsider travel” to the country because of COVID-19. Once again, the couple did not do their part to “crush the virus,” as they were photographed without masks at an indoor art studio in Puglia.
After he returned to the United States, the congressman traveled to Napa Valley for a Democratic fundraiser that featured House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. Donors paid as much as $29,000 for tickets to the élite soirée. Servants were fully masked; Maloney and the other guests were not.
The fundraiser took place near the French Laundry, the luxury restaurant where Gov. Gavin Newsom (D., Calif.) was infamously busted for violating his own COVID-19 guidelines by attending a maskless dinner party in Nov. 2020.
Maloney’s trips come at a perilous time for elected Democrats, many of whom spent the summer engaging in the sort of activities they have sought to discourage among the general population. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), for example, was caught dancing without a mask at an indoor wedding, in violation of county guidelines, on the same day she attacked Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) for criticizing COVID-19 restrictions.
Earlier this month, former president Barack Obama threw himself a massive birthday party at his $17.5 million estate on Martha’s Vineyard. Several weeks after the super-spreader event, the island’s only hospital is struggling to cope with the surge in patients testing positive for the so-called Obama variant of of the deadly virus. . . .