Paul vs. Fauci | Government BULLIES (John Stossel)

The media treat Dr. Fauci as a saint. They sneered at Senator Rand Paul. They don’t like his “conspiracy theories,” although many now admit Paul’s arguments were likely correct!

“This is tyranny!” Dallas car wash owner Dale Davenport tells me, choking up. Dallas politicians crushed his life’s work — they blamed his car wash for high crime, citing Dale’s own 911 calls as evidence. They then re-zoned his business to destroy it.

Vanity Fair vs. Fauci (Armstrong & Getty)

Armstrong and Getty discuss and read from the Vanity Fair article entitled, The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins. Half way through [mark 10:52] dealing with the article, they pause to interview Lanhee Chen regarding the ineptitude of the World Health Organization to properly investigate the possibility of a leak (see more here with Mr. Chen):

  • Chen serves as the David and Diane Steffy Fellow in American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution, Director of Domestic Policy Studies and Lecturer in the Public Policy Program at Stanford University, and Lecturer in Law at Stanford Law School. He is also senior counselor at the Brunswick Group, an international business advisory firm. Chen is most well known for his role as a policy adviser and counselor to top Republican politicians and office holders.

The the article reading/commentary resumes at the 20:47 mark.

BONUS ARTICLE

 

 

Faucie Emails! (Tangled Web 1)

After examining the evidence, Carlson wondered if Fauci may be under investigation for his “gain of function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (NATIONAL FILE). Of course, this is old news to conservatives… new news to Lefties (Apr 7, 2020 — The first documentary movie on CCP virus, Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus)

The following is compiled by ACE OF SPADES!

CHINESE CORONAVIRUS FICTIONS, FACTS AND AMERICA IMPRISONED

  • “The bombshell release from Dr. Fauci’s e-mails goes to disprove the political and media establishment’s claims that lab-leak or bio-weapon concerns were ‘conspiracy theories.'” — Chinese COVID “Looks Engineered,” Gov’t-Funded Immunologist Told Fauci In January 2020 (NATIONAL PULSE)
  • Daniel Greenfield: “If you like your pandemic, you can keep your pandemic.” — Fauci’s E-Mails and the Chinese Covid Cover-Up (FRONTPAGE MAG)
  • “Controversial health official’s lack of scientific curiosity raises troubling questions.” — “Too Long for Me to Read”: Fauci Dismissed Expert’s E-Mail About Chinese Disinformation on Chinese COVID-19 (too long or Chu Wong? – jjs) (THE WASHINGTON FREE BEACON)
  • “Worse, he well symbolizes much of the entire Washington establishment, a group of people more interested in power and skimming cash from the taxpayer than doing the right thing for the nation.” — From Masks to the Origins of Chinese COVID, Anthony Fauci is a Liar and a Fraud (BEHIND THE BLACK)
  • Rand Paul: “Can’t wait to see the media try to spin the Fauci FOIA e-mails.” — Sen. Rand Paul Calls to “Fire” Dr. Anthony Fauci: “Told You” (BREITBART)
  • “…in the future, we would do well to never let entrenched bureaucrats run a national response to anything.” — Was Fauci Incompetent or Dishonest? Either Way, in the Final Analysis, Lives Have Been Ruined (PJ-MEDIA)
  • “A couple months later, the man responsible for steering U.S. government funding to the Wuhan Institution of Virology, Peter Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, thanked Dr. Anthony Fauci on April 18, 2020 for publicly dismissing the theory coronavirus may have leaked from the lab.” — E-Mails Show Anthony Fauci Scrambled at Beginning of Pandemic to Determine Potential U.S. Role in Funding Chinese Coronavirus Research “Abroad” (BREITBART)
  • “Over the course of the pandemic, Facebook has taken on an increasingly active role in censoring [Chinese] COVID-related information deemed “fake news” by government health officials.” — Fauci Colluded With Mark Zuckerberg On Facebook Chinese COVID-19 “Information Hub,” E-Mails Show (THE FEDERALIST)
  • “I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.” — Masks, Lies and Fauci: The Trifecta (HUMAN EVENTS)
  • “The highest-paid federal employee, best known for flip-flopping on [Chinese] COVID messaging and fudging the numbers, is now going to pontificate about truth and service in an autobiography where he gets to be the hero? What a joke.” — Fauci’s Expect the Unexpected Book Is Exactly What You’d Expect From a Self-Serving Bureaucrat (THE FEDERALIST)
  • Fauci’s Upcoming Book Scrubbed on Amazon, Barnes & Noble Amid Backlash (JUST THE NEWS)
  • “Regulators’ precipitous action slowed the [Chinese] COVID-19 vaccination campaign.” — The FDA’s J&J Vaccine “Pause” Protected Bureaucrats, Not Patients (HUMAN EVENTS)
  • “Proof of immunity should serve as a substitute in any mandate situation, though parents may need to demand it. Concurrence from a physician should assist in the process.” — Israel Says There Is a Probable Link Between the Pfizer Chinese COVID-19 Vaccine and Cases of Myocarditis (PJ-MEDIA)

BEN DOMENECH

INGRAHAM ANGLE

GREG GUTFELD

THE FIVE

Sky News Australia

 

ORIGINS OF COVID-19 (UPDATED!)

JUMP TO: UPDATE IIUPDATE III

Jan. 25, 2021 (15:49 minutes long) ‘The Next Revolution’ host breaks down the evidence surrounding the origins of COVID-19.


UPDATE!


AMERICAN GREATNESS has an update:

Over 450 concerned scientists signed a Cambridge Working Group “Consensus Statement on the Creation of Potential Pandemic Pathogens,” which included the following warning:

Laboratory creation of highly transmissible, novel strains of dangerous viruses, especially but not limited to influenza, poses substantially increased risks. An accidental infection in such a setting could trigger outbreaks that would be difficult or impossible to control. Historically, new strains of influenza, once they establish transmission in the human population, have infected a quarter or more of the world’s population within two years.

For any experiment, the expected net benefits should outweigh the risks. Experiments involving the creation of potential pandemic pathogens should be curtailed until there has been a quantitative, objective and credible assessment of the risks, potential benefits, and opportunities for risk mitigation, as well as comparison against safer experimental approaches. A modern version of the Asilomar process, which engaged scientists in proposing rules to manage research on recombinant DNA, could be a starting point to identify the best approaches to achieve the global public health goals of defeating pandemic disease and assuring the highest level of safety. Whenever possible, safer approaches should be pursued in preference to any approach that risks an accidental pandemic.

Following a number of “bio-safety incidents” at federal research facilities, the Obama administration placed a moratorium on Gain of Function research, Hilton noted, but the moratorium was lifted in 2017.

Just before the 2014 ban, however, the Fauci-led NIAID funded the Gain of Function research at the Wuhan Lab, Hilton alleged, adding that NIAID continued to fund it for six more years, three of those during the ban.

The funding, according to Hilton, was laundered through a global health and pandemic prevention nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance, headed by Dr. Peter Daszak, a British zoologist and expert on disease ecology.

Daszak subcontracted the research to Dr Shi Zhengli, head of the infectious disease unit at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Daszak, it should be noted, was behind an early effort to label any reporting on the possibility that COVID-19 could have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan lab as “conspiracy theories.”

The scientist orchestrated a statement that was published in The Lancet medical journal in February of 2020, condemning “conspiracy theories” that suggest the virus doesn’t have a natural origin.

The statement was cited by numerous news outlets — and by fact check organizations to censor investigative reporting on the true origin of the COVID-19 virus.

Nearly a year later,  Daszak admitted through a spokesman that he shot down these inquiries to protect Chinese scientists from online criticism.

“The Lancet letter was written during a time in which Chinese scientists were receiving death threats and the letter was intended as a showing of support for them as they were caught between important work trying to stop an outbreak and the crush of online harassment,” Daszak’s spokesman told The Wall Street Journal in January.

Hilton reported that a November 2017 progress report signed by Daszak and Zhengli, among others, and titled, “Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus,” is tied to the grant, and seems to describe Gain of Function research.

“They made new viruses—man-made—in the lab. They infected human cells with them in the lab. And they then showed that their man-made viruses could replicate as a functional virus,” Hilton explained.

Hilton pointed out that SARS Covid-2 is 96 percent identical to the bat coronavirus the researchers were working on in the Wuhan Lab.

The only difference between that virus and the pandemic virus is how contagious it is. The pandemic virus, as we know, can be passed human-to-human. The original virus could not. And that four percent genetic difference between them is in exactly the places where Gain of Function techniques would be used to make the virus more contagious.

So while we can blame the Chinese regime for allowing the virus to leak, and especially for the cover-up afterwards, the terrifying truth may be that our own government commissioned the experiments that led to the creation of the pandemic virus in the first place.

Hilton said he has contacted the NIAID repeatedly to ask about the 2014 grant, and they have always replied that the grant in question was not for Gain of Function research, and thus not subject to the Obama administration ban……


UPDATE II


GATEWAY PUNDIT notes Judicial Watch’s getting over 300 pages of emails which included NIH, Fauci, and China communiques:

These revelations are puzzling.  Why was Fauci’s NIH bending over backwards to accommodate China’s terms for confidentiality in regards to the China coronavirus and what was in the WHO’s ‘strictly confidential’ COVID-19 epidemiological analysis?

Judicial Watch announced today that it and the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) received 301 pages of emails and other records of Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. H. Clifford Lane from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showing that National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.

Additionally, the emails reveal an independent journalist in China pointing out the inconsistent COVID numbers in China to NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special Projects Cliff Lane.

Judicial Watch continues:

The new emails include a conversation about confidentiality forms on February 14-15, 2020, between Lane and WHO Technical Officer Mansuk Daniel Han. Han writes: “The forms this time are tailored to China’s terms so we cannot use the ones from before.”

A WHO briefing package sent on February 13, 2020, to NIH officials traveling to China as part of the COVID response ask that the officials wait to share information until they have an agreement with China: “IMPORTANT: Please treat this as sensitive and not for public communications until we have agreed communications with China.” 


UPDATE III


Wow! JUST THE NEWS has a follow up to this exchange

RAND PAUL vs. FAUCI

POST INTERVIEW

To Wit:

A prominent Columbia University virologist claims that in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic a U.S. nonprofit funded coronavirus experiments in Wuhan, China the results of which were used in “gain-of-function” virology research at the University of North Carolina.

Dr. Vincent Racaniello made the claim amid ongoing controversy over a recently resurfaced interview between himself and Peter Daszak, the president of the U.S. infectious disease nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance.

Both EcoHealth Alliance and the scientist leading the research at UNC have been heavily funded over the years by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which has been directed since 1984 by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the public face of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic under Presidents Trump and Biden.

Fauci categorically and repeatedly denied that NIAID has funded gain-of-function research in a tense exchange Tuesday with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) at a Senate hearing.

Racianello’s half-hour interview with Daszak took place in early December 2019 at the Nipah Virus International Conference in Singapore. Significant attention has been given to a segment in which Daszak appears to allude to having participated in “gain-of-function” experiments, a type of procedure in which scientists increase a virus’s pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in order to study its potential for human infection. 

“You can manipulate [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily,” Daszak says in the interview. “Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein — and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this — insert into the backbone of another virus, and do, do some work in the lab.”

Those remarks, when they resurfaced this week, caused considerable controversy due to Daszak’s role in funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars through his EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to bankroll coronavirus experiments there. The Wuhan lab sits just a few miles from where the first detected outbreak of COVID-19 occurred.

[….]

Experiments ‘confer a new property to the original virus’

Racaniello said that Daszak in the December 2019 interview was indeed describing gain-of-function experiments. 

“Here is the idea,” he said in an email exchange this week. “You go into caves in China and sample bats for CoVs. You collect bat guano and sequence it to find the viruses. You don’t actually have the viruses, just their genome sequences. You want to know if these viruses have the ability to infect human cells.”

“Since you don’t have the viruses,” he continued, “you just take the spike sequence from all these viruses and put it into a coronavirus that you work with in the lab. Then you see if that recombinant coronavirus can infect human cells. It’s all done under containment to prevent any release. If the spikes of the bat CoV can allow the CoV to infect human cells, then they have the potential to infect humans and we should be making antivirals against them to prevent a pandemic.”

Those kinds of experiments, Racaniello said, “are considered ‘gain of function’ because they would confer a new property to the original virus.”

That research, Racaniello said, “was done in the laboratory of Dr. Ralph Baric in [the University of] North Carolina and was not funded by EcoHealth Alliance.” When pressed, Racaniello revealed that EcoHealth did have an indirect role in the funding of Baric’s work. 

“EcoHealth Alliance provided funds to Zengli Shi at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to conduct bat surveillance for SARS-like CoVs,” he said. “Baric then received the spike sequences from Wuhan to do his experiments independently.”

“Daszak and Baric did not work together on this project,” he added. 

Anna Marie Skalka, a professor emerita at the Fox Chase Cancer Center and one of the authors of the bestselling textbook “Principles of Virology,” did not expressly deny that Baric’s research constituted gain-of-function, though she claimed that the overall issue was more complex than that. 

“I prefer to describe the research in broader terms, as gain-of-function seems too narrow and has acquired negative connotations,” she said. “The aim of such research is to learn as much as possible about the gene/protein in question so that one can begin to develop possible therapeutic or vaccine-related approaches.” 

Queries to Daszak and Baric on Racaniello’s claims went unanswered. 

The assertions from Racaniello — a four-decade veteran of academic virology who along with Skalka is also an author of “Principles of Virology” — constitute the sharpest allegations yet that both EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were involved, even if adjacently, with gain-of-function research prior to the pandemic.

Baric’s research, meanwhile, has been the recipient of millions of dollars in funding from the NIAID over the years, much of it focused on coronaviruses, including experiments in the “replication and pathogenesis” of those viruses. 

Racaniello himself forcefully defended such research. “There is a very clear reason to do these experiments and if we had done them even more we could have prevented the current pandemic,” he said. 

EcoHealth, meanwhile, has been the focus of controversy for the past year due not merely to its alleged association with  coronavirus experiments but also to the fact that its work was for years heavily funded by the federal government, specifically the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

EcoHealth routed hundreds of thousands of NIAID dollars to the Wuhan lab in the years leading up to the pandemic to conduct coronavirus research there. Experts and commentators alike have called for a major investigation into the lab to determine if SARS-Cov-2 may have accidentally leaked from the facility and launched the pandemic. 

The federal funding for the Wuhan project was pulled last year near the outset of the pandemic. Daszak himself told NPR last year that the Wuhan experiments were “funded entirely through the NIH grant,” as the news service put it. ….

(READ IT ALL)

And THE NATIONAL PULSE likewise discusses a letter in SCEINCE MAGAZINE/JOURNAL

Published in Science magazine, the report also slams the recent World Health Organization investigation for basing itself on faulty evidence and not sufficiently debunking the theory that the virus could have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology:

“The information, data, and samples for the study’s first phase were collected and summarized by the Chinese half of the team; the rest of the team built on this analysis. Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as “likely to very likely,” and a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely.” Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident.”

“We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data,” the letter posits. “Public health agencies and research laboratories alike need to open their records to the public,” it continues.

Among the signatories are professors from institutions including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. Dr. Ralph Baric – whose gain-of-function research record and ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology were recently discussed in an exchange between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Senator Rand Paul – also signed the letter…..

LINK IN PIC

Dr. Bhattacharya Discusses Covid and Lockdowns with Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager interviews the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, Jay Bhattacharya. Dr. Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He directs Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. Bhattacharya’s research focuses on the health and well-being of populations, with a particular emphasis on the role of government programs, biomedical innovation, and economics. Most recently, Bhattacharya has focused his research on the epidemiology of COVID-19 and evaluation of the various policy responses to the epidemic. He is a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, a document proposing a relaxation of social controls that delay the spread of COVID-19.

A worthwhile interview.

Here are some of the signatories of Great Barrington Declaration:

  • Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
  • Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
  • Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
  • Alexander Walker, principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA
  • Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
  • Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England
  • Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England
  • Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
  • Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
  • Boris Kotchoubey, Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany
  • Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
  • David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA
  • David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England
  • Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
  • Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England
  • Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
  • Florian Limbourg, physician and hypertension researcher, professor at Hannover Medical School, Germany
  • Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
  • Gerhard Krönke, physician and professor of translational immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
  • Gesine Weckmann, professor of health education and prevention, Europäische Fachhochschule, Rostock, Germany
  • Günter Kampf, associate professor, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald University, Germany
  • Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
  • Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
  • Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England
  • Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
  • Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England
  • Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England
  • Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England
  • Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
  • Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
  • Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
  • Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
  • Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England
  • Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
  • Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India
  • Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
  • Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA
  • Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
  • Salmaan Keshavjee, professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, USA
  • Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
  • Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
  • Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England
  • Sylvia Fogel, autism provider and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA
  • Tom Nicholson, Associate in Research, Duke Center for International Development, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, USA
  • Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
  • Ulrike Kämmerer, professor and expert in virology, immunology and cell biology, University of Würzburg, Germany
  • Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel
  • Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England

Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin Saves Lives (The Left Kills)

Most important in this post is this, WHERE CAN I GET Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin? AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS has a consultation sign up HERE! See also FLCCC ALLIANCE (Click Pic)

UPDATED BULLET POINTS via RED STATE

[….]

  • Ivermectin (an anti-parasitic given to horses and dogs) is an effective prevention and treatment therapy
  • Although an anti-parasitic, Ivermectin also is a phenomenal anti-viral prophylaxis and can be used for early treatment, immune modifier treatment during hospitalization, and post-COVID “long hauler” treatment
  • Ivermectin is safe, effective, and INEXPENSIVE, having been taken by 4 billion people since the 1980s (it is on the world’s most essential drugs list!)
  • In Petri dish studies conducted, in August 2020, Ivermectin was found to have killed 99% of the virus, but the NIH recommended against its use
  • Ivermectin has been given in the past to humans at 30-40 times the recommended dosage with no adverse effect (only two humans have ever been determined to have died after using the drug, and they had a rare immunodeficiency disease)
  • A few Ivermectin studies are finally being conducted independently in the US in Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin hospitals (results: they have decreased their COVID death rates by 70-90%!)
  • In Houston, one hospital was using it; now, all hospitals in Houston administer the drug
  • It is an approved medicine, but it is off-label (approved for other uses) because the FDA has not approved its use to treat the virus because studies haven’t been completed on Americans – the FDA doesn’t use foreign studies to approve drugs)
  • However, Pfizer received FDA approval for its experimental vaccine based on tests on foreign subjects, not Americans (!)
  • In meta-analysis of 15,000 patients, Ivermectin – if added to the treatment plan, no matter what that plan is – reduces the death rate by at least 75% (up to 86% if given early)
  • Translation: of the half-million deaths attributed to COVID in the US, fully 375,000 almost certainly could have been prevented if Ivermectin had been administered as part of the treatment plan
  • A full course of Ivermectin treat costs under $30
  • Fully 100% of the world’s Ivermectin trials have shown benefits (details provided in the video presentation):
    • Decreases disease acquisition by 88-100%
    • Decreases viral replication and shedding time by half
    • Decreases disease course and severity by 80-90%
    • Decreases disease death rate by 75% and up to 86% if administered early in treatment
  • Ivermectin is the only medicine that has shown benefit in 100% of world trials conducted
  • The Ivermectin molecule can treat ALL of the virus variants
  • Anecdotally, in the 42 patients to whom I (Dr. Cole) have prescribed Ivermectin over the past two months, all have shown improvements within 12-48 hours
  • As of February 2020, the official NIH position on Ivermectin is neutral: “Neither for nor against” its use (that means that US doctors can prescribe Ivermectin in their treatment of COVID-infected cases)

Ivermectin provides proven anti-viral prophylaxis and treatment of the COVID virus – for prevention, early treatment, immune modifier treatment during hospitalization, and after-treatment to avoid reinfection. In world clinical trials, it has been shown to decrease death rates of virus-infected people by a minimum of 75% (up to 86% if treated early). It is also inexpensive. These facts have been known and suppressed by US public health authorities in government….

(RED STATE – PART 2)

VIDEO

(RED STATE – PART 1)

Almost 1.4 millions deaths related to countries that do not use Hydroxychloroquine as an early remedy vs telling people to go home and quarantine and come back if it is worse. HCQ and Ivermectin work well as prophylactic’s. In fact, “in Argentina, in which 800 health care workers were given Ivermectin as a preventative medication and none of them were infected by the coronavirus during the experiment. Kory continued by saying among the 400 health care workers that were not prophylaxed with Ivermectin, 237 individuals or 58% of the group contracted the virus” (HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL).

Why is this an important stat? This is why…

Ninety-five people in the study developed Covid-19 with symptoms; of those, 90 had received a placebo and only five Moderna’s vaccine. The findings, from a 30,000-subject trial that is still under way, move the vaccine closer to wide use, because they indicate it is effective at preventing disease that causes symptoms, including severe cases…. (WALL STREET JOURNAL)

The only way you could reeaally say 95% effective rate is to have [for example] 200 people, 100 of them got the real vaccine, the other 100 the placebo. All 200 were exposed equally to “The Vid” and then a result is tabulated from that. 

(RPT)

THE NEW YORK POST also discusses the issue:

“The chances of it being 98 percent effective is not great,” Fauci, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said at a Q&A with the Brown University School of Public Health in Rhode Island, according to CNBC.

Instead, Fauci said, scientists are hoping for a vaccine that is 75 percent effective — but even a 50 or 60 percent success rate would be considered a win.

“Which means you must never abandon the public health approach,” explained Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Meanwhile, a Gallup poll released on Friday found that more than a third of Americans wouldn’t take a vaccine if it were available today….

Continuing with the HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL,

“If you take it, you will not get sick,” Kory said. “It has immense and potent anti-viral activity.”

Kory said four large, randomized controlled trials with over 1,500 patients are in progress and information is being gathered on Ivermectin as a prophylaxis and the evidence collected so far has overwhelmingly shown it is immensely affective. He went on to say there are three randomized control outpatient trials underway that have shown while taking Ivermectin, the need for hospitalization or death decreases. To further bolster its claims, the FLCCC Alliance indicated a meta-analysis of the data compiled from their studies was recently completed by an independent research group and it determined the chances Ivermectin is ineffective in treating COVID-19 are 1 in 67 million.

“The most profound evidence we have is in the hospitalized patients,” Kory said. “We have four randomized control trials there, all showing the same thing: you will not die or you will die at much, much lower rates. These are statistically significant, large magnitude results if you take Ivermectin. It is proving to be a wonder drug and it is critical for its use in this disease.”

In addition, Marik said studies of pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, show a dramatic effect in reducing the risk of infection when exposed.

“If one person in your household contracts the virus you have about a 50% chance of getting COVID-19,” Marik explained. “Based on the randomized trails, if you take Ivermectin, you can reduce the risk from about 50% to about 6%.”

Marik and Kory both emphasized the need for prevention of COVID-19, rather than treatment….

Why does corporate media and health not want covid treated?

$$ Money $$

BIG-PHARMA cannot make money on anything but “vaccines.” [That have a much lower % of helping a person than cheap long tested drugs that are over the counter in most countries]

But here is the “BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS” moment, which is why I ask, WHERE IS CODE PINK?

Over 1.3-million estimated lives have been lost by not instituting early treatment protocols using Hydroxychloroquine (continuing counter found here). Not only that, but Ivermectin seems to be more effective used early. Where is Code Pink standing up in Congress showing bloody hands to Democrat Congressmen?

Here is an article by Senator Ron Johnson found in the WALL STREET JOURNAL… also found at REPLY TO NEWS in full:

Google’s YouTube has ratcheted up censorship to a new level by removing two videos from a U.S. Senate committee. They were from a Dec. 8 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on early treatment of Covid-19. One was a 30-minute summary; the other was the opening statement of critical-care specialist Pierre Kory.

Dr. Kory is part of a world-renowned group of physicians who developed a groundbreaking use of corticosteroids to treat hospitalized Covid patients. His testimony at a May Senate hearing helped doctors rethink treatment protocols and saved lives.

At the December hearing, he presented evidence regarding the use of ivermectin, a cheap and widely available drug that treats tropical diseases caused by parasites, for prevention and early treatment of Covid-19. He described a just-published study from Argentina in which about 800 health-care workers received ivermectin and 400 didn’t. Not one of the 800 contracted Covid-19; 58% of the 400 did.

Dr. Kory asked the National Institutes of Health to review his group’s manuscript outlining dozens of successful trials and to consider updating its Aug. 27 guidance in which it recommended “against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19, except in a clinical trial.” On Dec. 10, Sen. Rand Paul and I sent a letter to the NIH requesting that it review Dr. Kory’s evidence.

On Jan. 14, NIH changed its guidance to neutral by acknowledging the successful trials but determined “that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19.” On Jan. 22 I sent an oversight letter asking what actions the NIH had taken to explore the use of repurposed drugs for treating Covid-19.

Before being removed from YouTube and other websites, Dr. Kory’s opening statement had been viewed by more than eight million people. Unfortunately, government health agencies don’t share that interest in early treatment. A year into the pandemic, NIH treatment guidelines for Covid patients are to go home, isolate yourself and do nothing other than monitor your illness.

Fortunately, some doctors have the courage to ignore these compassionless guidelines and are using their expertise to develop protocols utilizing a variety of cheap, available and safe FDA-approved drugs to treat patients early and avoid hospitalization. Instead of being rewarded, they are being censored, ostracized, vilified in the press, even fired. This closed-minded approach represents a dark chapter in the history of medicine and journalism.

The censors at YouTube have decided for all of us that the American public shouldn’t be able to hear what senators heard. Apparently they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives. They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed, and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies. Government-sanctioned censorship of ideas and speech should frighten us all.

(See more at EPOCH TIMES)

Ivermectin

Hydroxychloroquine

THE AMA’s REVERSAL, BTW:

CHICAGO, IL – The American Medical Association (AMA), in a surprising move, has officially rescinded a previous statement against the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, giving physicians the okay to return to utilizing the medication at their discretion.

Previously, the AMA had issued a statement in March that was highly critical of HCQ in regards to its use as a proposed treatment by some physicians in the early stages of COVID-19. In addition to discouraging doctors from ordering the medication in bulk for “off-label” use – HCQ is typically used to treat diseases such as malaria – they also claimed that there was no proof that it was effective in treating COVID, and that its use could be harmful in some instances.

However, on page 18 of a recent AMA memo, issued on October 30, (resolution 509, page 3) the organization officially reversed their stance on HCQ, stating that its potential for good currently may supersede the threat of any potential harmful side effects.

So, there we have it. HCQ could not be approved before the election, because President Trump had recommended it. Meanwhile, with an 8o +% reduced risk of having to be admitted to the hospital if administered with Azithromycin and Zinc as soon as testing positive or symptoms occurred, many (70000+) lives could have been saved.

It has come to my attention that the resolution, while adopted got stopped before a new and valid recommendation was issued. There are powerful interests in the AMA that want to keep things as they are rather than advance real medical science based on real results, and never admit a mistake. Meanwhile, people are dying because of lack of solid, but inexpensive medical solutions.

The recommendation is still up on their website, but should it disappear, here it is , the important part part.

[….]

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to Take Action); and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA rescind its joint statement with the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health System Pharmacists, and update it with a joint statement notifying patients that further studies are ongoing to clarify any potential benefit of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA reassure the patients whose physicians are prescribing 18 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for their early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis by issuing an updated statement clarifying our support for a physician’s ability to prescribe an FDA-approved medication for off label use, if it is in her/his best clinical judgement, with specific reference to the use of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of the earliest stage of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further….

(NOQ REPORT and LEN BILEN’S BLOG)

S-o-o… It’s Not A Vaccine? (UPDATE ADDED)

JUMP TO UPDATE!

See also:

THE DAILY MAIL has something that crossed my path that I needed to comment on a bit:

  • Dr Anthony Fauci cautioned that early COVID-19 vaccines are aimed at preventing symptoms during Yahoo Finance’s All Markets Summit on Monday
  • ‘If the vaccine allows you to prevent initial infection, that would be great,’ he said. ‘[But] the primary endpoint [is] to prevent clinically recognizable disease’  
  • At least four vaccine candidates are currently in late-stage clinical trials  
  • Fauci has said he is cautiously optimistic that a vaccine will arrive by year end
  • But he warned that early vaccines may only be 50 to 60 percent effective

[….]

While the end goal of the vaccines will be to eradicate the virus, Fauci noted that developers are aiming for a simpler goal in the first round of jabs.  

‘The primary thing you want to do is that if people get infected, prevent them from getting sick, and if you prevent them from getting sick, you will ultimately prevent them from getting seriously ill,’ Fauci said at Yahoo Finance’s All Markets Summit. 

‘If the vaccine also allows you to prevent initial infection, that would be great. [But] what I would settle for, and all of my colleagues would settle for, is the primary endpoint to prevent clinically recognizable disease.’ 

THE NEW YORK POST also discusses the issue:

“The chances of it being 98 percent effective is not great,” Fauci, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said at a Q&A with the Brown University School of Public Health in Rhode Island, according to CNBC.

Instead, Fauci said, scientists are hoping for a vaccine that is 75 percent effective — but even a 50 or 60 percent success rate would be considered a win.

“Which means you must never abandon the public health approach,” explained Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Meanwhile, a Gallup poll released on Friday found that more than a third of Americans wouldn’t take a vaccine if it were available today….

GATEWAY PUNDIT then rightfully notes from the above:

  • Crazy Dr. Fauci warned in October that early COVID-19 vaccines will only prevent symptoms from arising – not block infection. Then the early vaccines are NOT vaccines. [GP continues with his thoughts] It also means the “vaccine” is just a scheme by Big Pharma, and the globalist investors, to scam trillions out of the frightened peasants and the states.

So, my thoughts are this… it is literally just another flu-like-shot. Check.

While I have issues with how the high percentages of effectiveness were reached….

Ninety-five people in the study developed Covid-19 with symptoms; of those, 90 had received a placebo and only five Moderna’s vaccine. The findings, from a 30,000-subject trial that is still under way, move the vaccine closer to wide use, because they indicate it is effective at preventing disease that causes symptoms, including severe cases….(WALL STREET JOURNAL)

The only way you could reeaally say 95% effective rate is to have [for example] 200 people, 100 of them got the real vaccine, the other 100 the placebo. All 200 were exposed equally to “The Vid” and then a result is tabulated from that. 

(RPT)

…let us assume for a moment the numbers touted early.

QUESTIONS:

  • Is it 95% effective on 50%?
  • What percentage of the 95% is effective on which part?
  • Eradicating it? or lessening symptoms, but you still get it?
  • Since it is NOT a vaccine, should restrictions (coming at some point considering the crazy level of society) on travel and work be in place?

While the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights may end up preventing government from mandating vaccines for the American people, every day we get more signs that businesses across the country and the world have no such intentions, with CBS 4 in Boston reporting a ‘Covid-19 vaccine passport’ may be required to travel in 2021 just one of the latest stories warning of what awaits us in the year ahead. Spain to keep a registry of ‘vaccine refusers’, sharing it (Italian newspaper) with other EU countries, another indication of what the ‘travel ban’ ahead might look like overseas, we learn that here in America, music venues, sporting events and theaters might soon be ‘off limits’ (Rolling Stone magazine) to those who don’t get the vaccine. And with many employers also requiring ‘the jab’ for their employees (New York Times) hinting at how bad it might soon get for people who work for someone else but don’t want to subjugate themselves to an unproven shot.

I personally think the media and Fauci and other cogs and gears need to be held in contempt of societal norms in using fake stats and fear tactics to strip people of their livelihood and rights. (DOWLOADABLE PDF: “A Scientist’s Plea: The World is Not a Safe Space” via AIER)


UPDATE via PRAGER


PART 1 (3-1-2021)

New Ivermectin Studies Confirm What Is Known

Rumble — Firstly, the best site for this is here (links at top for Hydroxychloroquine as well as Ivermectin): https://c19early.com

Dennis Prager discusses an article in Israel Times about a study regarding Ivermectin …. QUOTE PRAGER REFERRED TO:

….In Germany, apparently Ivermectin use has grown, reports Halgas. He was in touch with a physician group there that treated the elderly at a nursing home.

The mortality rate in nursing homes in that European country (Germany) is about 25% to 30%. After treating about 100 residents with Ivermectin, that rate in one case series apparently went down to about 5%—a huge difference. Of course, this isn’t the result of a formal study but nonetheless represents more real world data points….

  • Randomized Double-Blinded Clinical Trial at Sheba Medical Center: Ivermectin Materially Reduces COVID-19 Viral Shedding (TRIAL SITE NEWS)
  • Sheba Researcher: Antiparasitic Drug Reduces Length of COVID-19 Infection (JERUSALEM POST)

PART 2 (3-8-2021)

Fauci and Walensky Say “Vaccine” Does Not Work

Rumble — Dennis Prager Notes that the two leading media acolytes/revered specialists the Left follows have essentially admitted the vaccines do not work. They are essentially “prophylactics,” that do not work as well as ivermectin does (https://c19ivermectin.com). Rochelle Walensky (CDC Head) and Anthony Fauci basically have admitted this conundrum.

Asymptomatic Spread (Dr Barke and Larry Elder)

I posted this on my Facebook and got immediate reactions… here is the video:

While I mentioned in my post “I LOVE this woman!,” it is a store policy… and I myself would wear it. However, here is the comment and my responses, followed by a newer audio upload — while Jim G. responded (not effectively to include here), my only purpose here is to post some resources for people to track down:

MY RESPONSES

Here’s Dr. Fauci in January:

Click to go to NATURE

I DIDN’T POST THIS ONE… BUT THE READER HERE CAN USE IT:

Click to enlarge (Go to SOURCE)

And here is some recent audio discussing some of the above, via my RUMBLE Channel:

Larry Elder Debunks Media’s Latest Lies (“Hoax” Lie)

(An older two posts somewhat combined with a new Tweet added by Robby Starbuck)

Larry Elder goes through the lies of the media and Democrats saying Trump called the Coronavirus a hoax. Democrat politicians and the Media (and some #NeverTrumpers) continue to spread this untruth, like they did the Charlottesville Lie and the lie that Trump made fun of a man’s handicap. The other DOUBLE-STANDARD by the media is that they themselves called the Coronavirus the Chinese Virus or Wuhan Virus themselves. When the “Bad Orange Man” used it they switched gears and said it was racist.

Here are some posts I think are worthy to compliment the audio:

  • Fact Check: Did Trump Call Coronavirus a ‘Hoax’? (DAILY SIGNAL)
  • Media Claim Trump Called Coronavirus A ‘Hoax.’ But Video Shows That’s Not What Trump Said at All (THE BLAZE)
  • Woke Media Calls Term ‘Wuhan Virus’ Racist After Using Term ‘Wuhan Virus’ (THE FEDERALIST)
  • [WATCH] 35 Times the Media Said ‘Wuhan Coronavirus’ or ‘Chinese Coronavirus’ (PJ-MEDIA)

Click on the graphic to open it, then click on the graphic to enlarge it. This comes via Robby Starbuck:

Democrats and the media (and #NeverTrumpers) try to say that the Trump administration refused and slowed test kits for the Wuhan Virus (COVID-19). This just is not the case, as the interview Larry Elder excerpts from between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Hugh Hewitt (YOUTUBE) shows clearly.


BONUS


The media and Democrats push false Trump coronavirus narrative.

AMERICAN THINKER runs some good Tweets by Steve Guest (You can find the entire Twitter thread HERE):

MUZZLED?! CUT FUNDING?!

When the AP fact-checks Democrats… you know its bad. More from an earlier AMERICAN THINKER article:

To set the stage, here are a few indisputable facts:

On January 31, 2020, as China confirmed that 259 people had died and there were about 100 cases reported outside of China, President Trump ordered that the U.S. would prevent foreign nationals who had recently visited China from entering the country. He also ordered quarantined American travelers who posed a high risk.  

Democrats called Trump a racist.

Democrats were worried that Trump’s germ phobia would make him issue even more and worse racist orders.

President Trump held a press conference during which (1) he was surrounded by government scientists who explained what was going on (2) he appointed Vice President Pence, a competent, experienced administrator, to be the White House point person on coronavirus efforts.

Democrats called Pence a killer.

Democrats also announced that henceforth they would call coronavirus “TrumpVirus” because Trump had appointed Pence to oversee the administrative end of dealing with coronavirus and because Trump said there was no need for panic.

Nancy Pelosi complained that Trump had waited too long to act, even though when she spoke not a single American had died.

Elizabeth Warren said that she would end the “racist” border wall by taking all wall funds and putting them into coronavirus research (never mind that, since time immemorial, sealing borders has been one of the prime ways in which governments have been able to protect their citizens from epidemic disease).

Trump stated during the rally in South Carolina that the Democrats’ unceasing and dishonest attacks against him for his handling of the coronavirus risk were their latest hoax.

The media reported that Trump had declared that coronavirus itself was a hoax, one of the most blatantly dishonest bits of reporting ever to come from the media.

Leftists are actively hoping that coronavirus causes so much economic disruption that it will hurt Trump politically – never mind that it will also hurt ordinary Americans….

Big-Pharma Pressured Journals Regharding HCQ: Philippe Douste-Blazy

Just so you know this is an excellent example of “CONY-CAPITALISM.”

Let me just say — as a bit of a warning — I cannot find any of the below other than on questionable websites. Even the source Prager is reading from is a conspiracy laden sight. And even though Prager mentioned putting this up on his site… it never showed up — making me think his people thought the same as I have. ALSO, since I do not know French, I cannot confirm what Philippe Douste-Blazy is actually saying. ALL THAT BEING SAID, I wanted to share this now, and just know I might update the news as I either confirm or deny it’s validity.

Basically, the study Dr. Fauci used to support his claims regarding Hydroxychloroquine’s dangers has been pulled a while back, HOWEVER, the fall-out continues! But one should also be aware that Hydroxychloroquine has no patent and can be produced for pennies. GATEWAY PUNDIT has a YouTube debate between Alan Dershowitz and Robert Kennedy Jr. about the Covid-19 vaccination. In it Kennedy says:

The problem is Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our dollars into that vaccine.  He owns half the patent.  He and these five guys who are working for him were entitled to collect royalties from that. 

So you have a corrupt system and now they have a vaccine that is too big to fail.  And instead of saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake, they are saying we are going to order 2 billion doses of this and you’ve got to understand Alan with these COVID vaccines these companies are playing with house money.  They’re not spending any dime, they have no liability.  Well if they kill 20 people or 200 people or 2,000 people in their clinical trials, big deal.  They have zero liability.  And guess what, they’ve wasted none of their money because we’re giving them money to play with.

The article Dennis Prager is reading from is from HEALTH IMPACT NEWS — I am not sure the site as a whole is solid, but much of the info surrounding the story Prager is reading from is confirmed.

Here is the older interview (May 24, 2020) with Philippe Douste-Blazy, Cardiology MD, Former France Health Minister and 2017 candidate for Director at WHO, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, reveals that in a recent 2020 Chattam House closed door meeting, both the editors of the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine stated their concerns about the criminal pressures of BigPharma on their publications. Things are so bad that it is not science any longer.

Here is the full transcript of the above:

Apolline de Malherbe (French broadcaster) But it’s hard to understand why scientists would voluntarily give bias to studies

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Exactly! That’s the great question. That the great question we are all asking ourselves, finally, and you know those Chatham House lectures in London.

Apolline de Malherbe:   Remind us what is this all about? This is extremely interesting.

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: These are meetings that are completely behind closed doors, only with experts. No one can record, no one is taking any pictures. It’s only between experts.

Apolline de Malherbe:  Top secret.

 Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Top secret. But still. there was a meeting the other day, of the directors of scientific journals, like The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine…

Apolline de Malherbe: The Lancet, which is that journal which published this study we are talking about…

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: These are extraordinary journals. When it’s written in Lancet, it’s “written in Lancet”. So that’s why… Here, we’re talking about something very important this discussion that happened. And it ended up leaked: The Lancet’s boss, Horton, said: “Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data, because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want to conclude… This is very, very serious!

Apolline de Malherbe: But what you are telling us is very serious! That would mean that it is the pharmaceutical companies that are putting pressure on, including financial pressure, I guess on the scientific results! But you understand, who can we trust anymore today?

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Indeed, that’s why I allow myself to tell you about it, because it is one of the greatest subjects… never anyone could have believed. I have been doing research for 20 years in my life. I never thought the boss of The Lancet could say that and the boss of the New England Journal of Medicine too. He even said it was “criminal”, the word was used by them. That is, if you will, when there is an outbreak like the COVID, in reality, there are people… us, we see ‘mortality’, when you are a doctor or yourself, you see ‘suffering’. And there are people who see ‘dollars’, that’s it.

This first article on this I found at NIKI´S OPINION FORUM, I do not know much about this site — I would just be cautious about the rest of the site as I do not much about it:

Philippe Douste-Blazy, MD, a cardiologist and former French Health Minister who served as Under-Secretary General of the United Nations; he was a candidate in 2017 for Director of the World Health Organization.

In a videotaped interview on May 24, 2020, Dr. Douste-Blazy provided insight into how a series of negative hydroxychloroquine studies got published in prestigious medical journals.

He revealed that at a recent Chatham House top secret, closed door meeting attended by experts only, the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine expressed their exasperation citing the pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies.

He states that each of the editors used the word “criminal” to describe the erosion of science.

[….]

He quotes Dr. Richard Horton who bemoaned the current state of science:

“If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful; they are able to pressure us to accept papers that are apparently methodologically perfect, but their conclusion is what pharmaceutical companies want.”

Dr. Douste-Blazy supports the combination treatment – hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) for Covid-19 recommended by Dr. Didier Raoult. In April, 2020

Dr. Douste-Blazy started a petition that has been signed by almost 500,000 French doctors and citizens urging French government officials to permit physicians to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients early, before they require intensive care.

The issue has become highly politicized; the left-leaning politicians and public health officials are adamantly against the use of HCQ, whereas those leaning toward the right politically are for the right of doctors to prescribe the drug as they see fit.

The journal SCIENCE described the response to French President Emmanuel Macron trip to Marseille to meet Dr. Raoult who prescribes the combination drug regimen and he has documented their effectiveness.

However, public health officials, academic physicians and the media – all of who are financially indebted to pharmaceutical companies and their high profit marketing objectives – vehemently oppose the use of HCQ, and use every opportunity to disparage the drug by derisively referring to President Trump as its booster.

Masks? What Does The Science Say? (Ben Swann CDC Update)

(Remember, the same people that tell us there is more than two sexes and that we can change the planets temperature are now telling us the best way to reach herd immunity is by as little contact as possible) I clipped this just to isolate the studies aspect of the presentation, the entire segment can be seen at FOX’S YouTube Channel here (it is worth watching). BTW, I watch segments from Cuamo, and Tapper at times to get another perspective (to test my own views). I sent the full segment of this Laura Ingraham clip to a friend, and even the mention of Fox News is considered “pot stirring.” If someone sent me an MSNBC clip or a CNN clip, I would not respond with such bias. What is funny is that these same people will go around and bemoan that our society is soo split right now, not realizing that they refuse to go out of their safe zone to even consider other points of views. In other words, their Leftism in labeling other ideas as “sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted” as a way to reject even polite conversation is legend on the Left. I haven’t had cable for over 15-years, so I cannot watch any of this minus YouTube. But thank Gawd for Fox… while still a corporate entity, at least they offer a different opinion from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, NETFLIX, HULU, etc. — media and Hollywood.

There is no health crisis in California. Are we to break a Constitutional right to happiness (make a living, own land, a business) every flu season?

CALIFORNIA FLU DEATHS

  • 2018: 6,917
  • 2017: 6,340
  • 2016: 5,981
  • 2015: 6,188
  • 2014: 5,970
  • 2005: 7,553

Corona deaths are at least 25% lower than reported number, I argue well for even lower. So with the safe Birx and states that have gone through their numbers… there are a total of 5,696 deaths (7,595 official as of now) in California. See more:

[Facebook’s] so called “fact checkers” have struck again, claiming that my report on the science that proves that wearing facemasks, especially in non-medical settings does almost nothing to prevent the spread of a virus, is false… citing that it was based on old information. Now, I’m reporting on a new study created in conjunction with the World Health Organization and published by the CDC from less than 60 days ago that once again proves that there is no evidence that wearing face masks in public prevents the spread of flu-like viruses. I’m also going to show you why the Facebook fact-checking system cannot be trusted. Link to the CDC published study. This study was conducted in preparation for the development of guidelines by the World Health Organization on the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza in nonmedical settings.

Here is the CDC STUDY: “Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures”

ABSTRACT

There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. 

[….]

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of personal protective measures on influenza virus transmission, including hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette, and face masks, and a systematic review of surface and object cleaning as an environmental measure (Table 1). We searched 4 databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) for literature in all languages. We aimed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of each measure for laboratory-confirmed influenza outcomes for each of the measures because RCTs provide the highest quality of evidence. For respiratory etiquette and surface and object cleaning, because of a lack of RCTs for laboratory-confirmed influenza, we also searched for RCTs reporting effects of these interventions on influenza-like illness (ILI) and respiratory illness outcomes and then for observational studies on laboratory-confirmed influenza, ILI, and respiratory illness outcomes. For each review, 2 authors (E.Y.C.S. and J.X.) screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts independently.

[….]

HAND HYGIENE

The effect of hand hygiene combined with face masks on laboratory-confirmed influenza was not statistically significant (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73–1.13; I2 = 35%, p = 0.39)

[….]

We further analyzed the effect of hand hygiene by setting because transmission routes might vary in different settings. We found 6 studies in household settings examining the effect of hand hygiene with or without face masks, but the overall pooled effect was not statistically significant (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86–1.27; I2 = 57%, p = 0.65) (Appendix Figure 4) (11–15,17). The findings of 2 studies in school settings were different (Appendix Figure 5). A study conducted in the United States (16) showed no major effect of hand hygiene, whereas a study in Egypt (18) reported that hand hygiene reduced the risk for influenza by >50%. A pooled analysis of 2 studies in university residential halls reported a marginally significant protective effect of a combination of hand hygiene plus face masks worn by all residents (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.21–1.08; I2 = 0%, p = 0.08) (Appendix Figure 6) (9,10).

[….]

However, results from our meta-analysis on RCTs did not provide evidence to support a protective effect of hand hygiene against transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. One study did report a major effect, but in this trial of hand hygiene in schools in Egypt, running water had to be installed and soap and hand-drying material had to be introduced into the intervention schools as part of the project (18)…..

RESPIRATORY ETIQUETTE

Respiratory etiquette is defined as covering the nose and mouth with a tissue or a mask (but not a hand) when coughing or sneezing, followed by proper disposal of used tissues, and proper hand hygiene after contact with respiratory secretions (30). Other descriptions of this measure have included turning the head and covering the mouth when coughing and coughing or sneezing into a sleeve or elbow, rather than a hand. 

[….]

….Respiratory etiquette is often listed as a preventive measure for respiratory infections. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence to support this measure. Whether respiratory etiquette is an effective nonpharmaceutical intervention in preventing influenza virus transmission remains questionable, and worthy of further research.

FACE MASKS

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). …. None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35)….

[….]

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza….

SURFACE AND OBJECT CLEANING

For the search period from 1946 through October 14, 2018, we identified 2 RCTs and 1 observational study about surface and object cleaning measures for inclusion in our systematic review (40–42). One RCT conducted in day care nurseries found that biweekly cleaning and disinfection of toys and linen reduced the detection of multiple viruses, including adenovirus, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus in the environment, but this intervention was not significant in reducing detection of influenza virus, and it had no major protective effect on acute respiratory illness (41). Another RCT found that hand hygiene with hand sanitizer together with surface disinfection reduced absenteeism related to gastrointestinal illness in elementary schools, but there was no major reduction in absenteeism related to respiratory illness (42). A cross-sectional study found that passive contact with bleach was associated with a major increase in self-reported influenza (40).

[….]

Although we found no evidence that surface and object cleaning could reduce influenza transmission, this measure does have an established impact on prevention of other infectious diseases (42).