Covid watchdog site says Alaskans died or suffered after hospitals denied treatment options By Joel Davidson Nov 22nd 2022

Covid watchdog site says Alaskans died or suffered after hospitals denied treatment options

   By  Joel Davidson    Nov 22nd 2022

By AlaskaWatchman.com

The COVID-19 Humanity Betrayal Memory Project

An ongoing nationwide project to document how Americans were treated during the Covid-19 outbreak includes several accounts of Alaskans who either died or were severely injured after receiving dangerous experimental drugs or being denied treatment options like ivermectin.

The COVID-19 Humanity Betrayal Memory Project now has nearly 350 documented case files. 

The COVID-19 Humanity Betrayal Memory Project is building an archive of what it calls “crimes against humanity committed during the COVID crisis.”

The goal is to establish a resource detailing the “individual victims of the FDA Death Protocol including remdesivir and the concerted effort to deny COVID victims safe and effective alternatives to expensive and often deadly Emergency Use Authorization drugs, victims of vaccine mandates, and others who have been harmed in the name of public health,” the website states.

The project includes hundreds of video interviews and specific data from survivors and family members of those who have died.

As of Nov. 22, the website contained 344 individual stories, including three from Alaska.

The overarching goal of the Covid19 Humanity Betrayal Memory Project is to provide information on how Americans can shed light on what happened to their friends and loved ones in order to ensure that this never occurs again.

“Everyday, we are hearing evidence of what we believe are crimes against humanity,” the website states. “We are archiving it, so that no one will ever be able to forget what was done in the name of public health … If you or someone you love has been harmed by the FDA Death Protocol including remdesivir, you can now sign up to join this amazing support group.”

Each person who contacts the group is called back for a detailed video interview, which recounts how they or their loved ones were treated by medical staff, doctors and administrators, including drugs and medical interventions.

The three Alaska stories all involve people who had not received Covid jabs. They each checked into the hospital for care and were given the experimental drug remdesivir, while being denied other treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The testimonials state that the patients were not told that remdesivir is an experimental drug, nor were they informed about its side effects. Two of the Alaskans died while in the hospital, while a third lived to personally tell his story.

ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX

The Alaska testimonies, like many of the others on the website, detail the confusion, anger and desperation which many families experienced as they watched loved ones suffer, and in many cases, die alone without effective advocates at their side.

Nationally, families are now bringing wrongful-death lawsuit claims against hospitals for administering the controversial drug remdesivir to Covid positive patients without their informed consent. These suits claim that patients were given the toxic without being properly advised of the side effects, which include acute kidney failure, liver failure and multiple organ failure. At the same time, victims claim they or their loved ones were denied more established treatments like ivermectin.

ALASKA TESTIMONIES: Below are links to the three Alaska stories

— KEVIN HITE: A 62-year-old who check into Mat-Su Regional Hospital in September of 2021. He ultimately survived after enduring what his family described as horrific treatment. Click here to watch his video and learn the details of his testimony.

— FANNIE DOWNES: A 62-year-old woman who checked into Providence Hospital in Anchorage in August of 2021. Her husband said Fannie was given inferior medical care in the days leading up to her death. Her full story is documented here.

— EDWARD “DONNIE” WILSON: A 55-year-old man who checked into Mat-Su Regional Hospital in August of 2021. His daughter relayed an account of poor treatment and the shocking death of her father. The details of Wilson’s story are here.

Click here to support Alaska Watchman reporting.

Joel Davidson 

Joel is Editor-in-Chief of the Alaska Watchman. Joel is an award winning journalist and has been reporting for over 20 years, He is a proud father of 8 children, and lives in Palmer, Alaska. 


Share this article

  Facebook  Telegram  Linkedin


  Related articles

7 Comments

  • Mongo Love CandyNovember 22, 2022 at 4:39 pmMurdering bastards!Reply
  • ClarkNovember 22, 2022 at 5:41 pmIvermectin never has been an ‘established treatment’ for Covid. Its been studied extensively and still hasn’t been proven effective. Hence why the CDC and WHO still say DON’T use it. Could be a real issue if hospitals didn’t inform patients about what treatments they were getting. But I find it highly doubtful patients weren’t told they were getting remdesivir. Unless they were on a ventilator in which case next of kin would be told/asked for consent. It had an EUA, so lawsuits arent going to accomplish much.Reply
  • @KGAK100November 22, 2022 at 6:48 pmI truly hope the details of these crimes come to light and those responsible are held to the fullest extent of the law possible its such a violation of every ethical principle this country stands for some how we have gotten to a place where i can give puberty blockers OFF LABEL mind you to teens simply with their consent but i cant give off label harmless drugs to a consenting adult to potentially save their life but instead these people were given an experimental drug without their consent and the staff in these hospitals stood there and watched them die a horrible gasping death there are no words in the english language the majority of the people no longer have any trust or confidence in hospitals they are soulless bastards i hope for justiceReply
  • Steve P PetersonNovember 22, 2022 at 6:52 pmThey want amnesty for what they have done. They might be forgiven (by some), but we will never forget what they did to our most vulnerable citizens… and got paid for each victim who succumbed to their malpractice.Reply
  • Kathy L.November 22, 2022 at 8:31 pmRemembering and honoring a saint. As I daily read “horror stories” of people I didn’t know who lived in other states, I had doubts. Little did I know and little was I prepared for all of this to hit so close to home. A dear Patriot, an older gent, was a member of our group. He was at all the rallies and was a worker of righteousness. One day, he grew ill enough with covid to go to hospital. He requested Ivermectin, Vit C & D and was denied by the hospital. He grew fearful that he might die and while he was still conscious, requested a dear friend to have power of atty. While this processed thru the court, he was put on a vent. The hospital took away his phone. No one was allowed to even see him. He was put on oxygen. It seemed he was slipping away and friends tried desperately to get him relocated to a different hospital that did treat with Ivermectin. One the day all was approved for his move, this sweet man left the earth and went to be with His Lord. Which is better! But it didn’t have to be that way, and somehow, we all feel the hospital was partly responsible. What if Ivermectin was immediately administered????Reply
  • Kathy L.November 22, 2022 at 8:47 pmHere’s another case where the right intervention would have saved a life.
    As I daily read “horror stories” of people I didn’t know who lived in other states, I had doubts. Little did I know and little was I prepared for all of this to hit so close to home. Friends of a friend down south. Her elderly mother (70) was admitted for covid. She went on fb asking for prayer. By then, everyone had heard of the success of Hydroxy and Ivermectin. The daughter told us she inquired about Hydroxy and was told by a doctor…”it doesn’t work!” In no short time, the woman was intubated, and given Remdesivir. By then, everyone had also heard how bad Rem was for people. The family was not allowed to see her in person nor were they allowed input. The doctor’s simply conveyed they were doing this, that or the other. Her condition grew worse each day. The family was only allowed to see her just before she passed. The doctors stated that her internal organs were in such bad shape (she had a collapsed lung) that if she had lived, it would have been a very long and very hard recovery. Gee…all issues caused by machines using too much force and a drug that’s really bad for you! Just like the symptoms noted in the article: acute kidney failure, liver failure and multiple organ failure. YUP…that’s what the doctor ordered. Again, this precious woman was a believer and is in heaven. But it needn’t have happened.Reply
  • CindyNovember 22, 2022 at 10:58 pmYour friend was not an aberration, nor was my husband, nor were the other two already on this website. Please everyone who lost a friend or a loved one go and document your nightmare. It is real, it happened and needs to be revealed. It is painful to remember and tell the facts but necessary for the truth to shed a light on this darkness. I know there are so many of you out there with hurt and anger this is a start to accountability for all those responsible for the deaths and harm they administered. Two other sites that I know are documenting are— Truth For Health Foundation go to Medical Legal Help and choose Sentinel Event and FLCCC Alliance go to Covid Resources and choose Testimonials. We will not shut up, comply and let our loved ones die!Reply

Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * 

Footer Light Logo and Tag

The Alaska Watchman aims to raise awareness of key issues affecting Alaskans. Coming from a broadly Judeo-Christian perspective, we are committed to the highest standards of journalism and ethical reporting.

Our reports look to inform and equip Alaskans to effectively engage the culture for the common good. Please keep your comments respectful.

CATEGORIES

NEWS TIPS

SUPPORT

© Copyright 2022 – Alaska Watchman • All Rights Reserved 

Paradigm Turbocharged: A Daunting Endowment

Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci created a formidable public-private partnership that wields incredible power over the American public, and global health and food policies.
Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates
Story at-a-glance:
  • Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci have created a formidable public-private partnership that wields incredible power over the American public, along with global health and food policies.
  • Inspired by Rockefeller’s business model, Bill and Melinda Gates donated $36 billion worth of Microsoft stock to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) between 1994 and 2018.
  • Gates also created Bill Gates Investments (BGI), which predominantly invests in multinational food, agriculture, pharmaceutical, energy, telecom and tech companies with global operations.
  • Gates strategically targets BMGF’s charitable gifts to give him control of the international health and agricultural agencies and the media, allowing him to dictate global health and food.
  • Fauci and Gates met in person, shaking hands in 2000 in an agreement to control and expand the global vaccine enterprise.
  • You can read all of the details in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s best-selling book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” which contains more than 2,200 footnotes of referenced data.

Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci have become household names in the U.S., their largely sterling reputations protected by a heavily biased press.

Less known is the deep partnership between the two — the culmination of which has created a formidable public-private partnership that wields incredible power over the American public, along with global health and food policies.

In 1913, Rockefeller created the Rockefeller Foundation, which is largely responsible for creating the Big Pharma-controlled medical paradigm that exists today.

The foundation imbued its philosophy, precepts and ideologies into the League of Nations Health Organization, which turned into the World Health Organization (WHO).

Now, Gates contributes to World Health Organization via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) as well as Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI), which was founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with WHO, the World Bank and various vaccine manufacturers.

Together, this makes Gates WHO’s No. 1 funder.

How Gates used Rockefeller’s business model

Inspired by Rockefeller’s business model, Bill & Melinda Gates donated $36 billion worth of Microsoft stock to the BMGF between 1994 and 2018. Gates also created a separate entity, Bill Gates Investments (BGI), which manages his personal wealth and his foundation’s corpus.

BGI predominantly invests in multinational food, agriculture, pharmaceutical, energy, telecom and tech companies with global operations. Federal tax laws require the BMGF to give away a portion of its foundation assets annually to qualify for tax exemption.

Gates strategically targets BMGF’s charitable gifts to give him control of the international health and agricultural agencies and the media, allowing him to dictate global health and food policies so as to increase profitability of the large multinationals in which he and his foundation hold large investment positions.

As was the case with Rockefeller, whose wealth only grew after his Standard Oil Company was forced to split into 34 different companies, Gates’ strategic gifts have only magnified his wealth. Gates’ personal net worth grew from $63 billion in 2000 to $129.6 billion in 2021, his wealth expanding by $23 billion during the 2020 lockdowns alone.

How Gates controls the WHO

How does a private citizen, not an elected official, gain so much control over a global health agency like WHO? When it was founded, WHO could decide how to distribute its contributions.

Now, 70% of its budget is tied to specific projects, countries or regions, which are dictated by the funders. As such, Gates’ priorities are the backbone of WHO, and it wasn’t a coincidence when he said of WHO, “Our priorities, are your priorities.”

As of 2018, the cumulative contributions from the Gates Foundation and GAVI made “Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO, even before the Trump administration’s 2020 move to cut all his support to the organization,” according to Kennedy.

“Plus, Gates also routes funding to WHO through SAGE [Strategic Advisory Group of Experts] and UNICEF and Rotary International bringing his total contributions to over $1 billion.”

These tax-deductible donations give Gates both leverage and control over international health policy, “which he largely directs to serve the profit interest of his pharma partners.”

Further, “Gate’s vaccine obsession has diverted WHO’s program contributions from poverty alleviation, nutrition and clean water to make vaccine uptake its preeminent public health metric.

And Gates is not afraid to throw his weight around,” according to Kennedy. “… The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.” Gates’ power has grown further due to his decades-long partnership with Fauci.

Fauci’s immense power

Alone, both Gates and Fauci wield immense power in their fields. Together, they’re a formidable, if unfortunately nefarious, force.

As the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) — “Fauci has a $6.1 billion budget that he distributes to colleges and universities to do drug research for various diseases,” Kennedy says. “He has another $1.7 billion that comes from the military to do bioweapons research.”

This is where Fauci’s power lies: in his capacity to fund, arm, pay, maintain and effectively deploy a large and sprawling standing army. The NIH alone controls an annual $37 billion budget distributed in over 50,000 grants supporting over 300,000 positions globally in medical research.

The thousands of doctors, hospital administrators, health officials and research virologists whose positions, careers and salaries depend on AIDS dollars flowing from Dr. Fauci, Gates and the Wellcome Trust (Great Britain’s version of the Gates Foundation) are the officers and soldiers in a mercenary army that functions to defend all vaccines and Dr. Fauci’s HIV/AIDS doxologies.

Along with Gates, Fauci had the power to influence funding of U.S. foreign aid to Africa for AIDS, prioritizing that for vaccines and drugs instead of nutrition, sanitation and economic development.

Yet, Fauci and his team, funded by Gates, have never created a vaccine for AIDS, despite squandering billions of dollars, and causing uncounted human carnage. In 2020, many of the Gates/Fauci HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) vaccine trials in Africa suddenly became COVID-19 vaccine trials.

As explained in Kennedy’s book, HIV provided Gates and Fauci a beachhead in Africa for their new brand of medical colonialism and a vehicle for the partners to build and maintain a powerful global network that came to include heads of state, health ministers, international health regulators, the WHO, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, key leaders from the financial industry and military officials who served as command center of the burgeoning Biosecurity Apparatus.

Their foot soldiers were the army of frontline virologists, vaccinologists, clinicians and hospital administrators who relied on their largesse and acted as the community-based ideological commissars of this crusade.

Fauci ‘enthusiastic’ about Gates COVID partnership

April 1, 2020, Fauci spoke with Gates on the phone, according to emails released in 2021. Fauci referred to the phone call in an email to Emilio Emini, the director of the Gates Foundation’s tuberculosis and HIV program, stating, “As I had mentioned to Bill yesterday evening, I am enthusiastic about moving towards a collaborative and hopefully synergistic approach to COVID-19.”

The email was part of 3,000 emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act public records request by the Informed Consent Action Network. Despite having no medical degree, Gates has been granted direct access to top government health officials, who regard him as a public health authority.

In June, Daily Mail reported:

“The Gates Foundation has committed at least $1.75 billion toward the global effort to fight the pandemic — a sum that opened doors at the highest levels of government. Following Fauci’s phone call with Gates, the Gates Foundation executive Emini emailed him to follow up and ask ‘how we can coordinate and cross inform each other’s activities.’

“‘There’s an obvious need for coordination among the various primary funders or the focus we need to have given the state of the pandemic will become lost through uncoordinated activities,’ Emini wrote.”

Fauci also said he would facilitate a call between Emini and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which provides funding for vaccine and drug development, promoting “the advanced development of medical countermeasures to protect Americans and respond to 21st century health security threats.” Daily Mail continued:

“The Gates Foundation’s partnership with BARDA resulted in at least one joint funding project. In June 2020, Evidation Health announced that BARDA and the Gates Foundation were financing an effort to ‘develop an early warning algorithm to detect symptoms of COVID-19.’

“It’s unclear whether the warning system was ever launched, and Evidation issued no further statements on the project after the initial announcement. Other emails released … make it clear that the Gates Foundation remained actively involved in the NIH’s pandemic response.”

The Fauci-Gates partnership led to $1 billion in increased funding to Gates’ global vaccine programs, even as the NIH budget itself experienced little growth.

Long before the April 2021 phone call, however, Kennedy’s book reveals that Fauci and Gates met in person, shaking hands in 2000 in an agreement to control and expand the global vaccine enterprise.

Why haven’t you heard about this before?

When you’re one of the richest people in the world, you can buy virtually anything you want — including control of the media so that it only prints favorable press. If you have enough money — and Gates certainly does — you can even get major media companies like ViacomCBS, which runs MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and BET, among others, to insert your approved PSAs into their programming — and BMGF has.

Via more than 30,000 grants, Gates has contributed at least $319 million to the media, Alan MacLeod, a senior staff writer for MintPress News, revealed.

From press and journalism associations to journalistic training, Gates is an overarching keeper of the press, which makes true objective reporting pertaining to Gates himself — or his many initiatives — virtually impossible.

Speaking with MintPress News, Linsey McGoey, a professor of sociology at the University of Essex, U.K., explained that Gates’ philanthropy comes with a price:

“Philanthropy can and is being used deliberately to divert attention away from different forms of economic exploitation that underpin global inequality today.

“The new ‘philanthrocapitalism’ threatens democracy by increasing the power of the corporate sector at the expense of the public sector organizations, which increasingly face budget squeezes, in part by excessively remunerating for-profit organizations to deliver public services that could be delivered more cheaply without private sector involvement.”

It’s a sentiment Kennedy, who believes Fauci and Gates should be investigated for criminal wrongdoing, has echoed. In an interview, he stated that billionaires are in collusion with media, corporations and politicians in order to increase their tremendous wealth:

“The most important productive strategy or the big talk around the oligarchs and the intelligence agencies and the pharmaceutical companies who are trying to impoverish us and obliterate democracy, their strategy is to create fear and division.

“So orchestrate fear, divide Republicans from Democrats and blacks from whites and get a lot of infighting so nobody notices that they are making themselves billions and billions, while they impoverish the rest of us and execute the controlled demolition of American constitutional democracy.”

For more details on how the Fauci-Gates-Pharma alliance is furthering the agenda of totalitarian control, using unfathomable power and greed — all under the guise of a pandemic — read “The Real Anthony Fauci.”

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

Never forget….Fauci turned the AIDS situation into a scare and then a crisis from which thousands of people died far too soon because Fauci was at the head of it all manufacturing fear and division. He should have been sent to prison or executed for his crimes against humanity 30-35 years ago. Incredible to see what happens when you don’t cut the head off a snake figuratively. The snake comes back to strike even harder. Fauci has been lying in the weeds for decades waiting for his moment to strike knowing full well that it WOULD come and having a clear idea of HOW it would come for 20+ years. Coronavirus is a term Fauci knew full well would be in the mainstream at some point in his miserable, useless life.

1/22/99
“GENETICALLY engineered biological weapons capable of targeting particular ethnic groups could become reality within 10 years, an expert panel warned yesterday.

Covid Coup: The Rise of the Fourth Reich. by Leonard G Horowitz. On Good Reads. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60466708-covid-coup

Viruses and other micro-organisms tailored to detect the differences in the DNA of races could offer warmakers and terrorists of the future a new means to carry out “ethnic cleansing”, said the panel convened by the British Medical Association (BMA).”

Source : Dr Leonard Horowitz book, COVID COUP: The Rise of the Fourth Reich

Can be purchased at https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/covid-coup-leonard-g-horowitz/1141040996 Barnes and Noble
It’s a phenomenal read and sited facts! This book lists details and evidence to back their fraud scam up ! https://www.independent.co….

Bad judgments and usurpations—the scam, not the germs—define this disaster’s dimensions. The COVID-19’s devastating effect on the U.S. body politic is analogous to what diseases do to persons whom age (senectus ipsa est morbus) and various debilities and corruptions had already placed on death’s slippery slope.

Outside of the few who have gained (and are still gaining) power and wealth from the panic, Americans are asking what it will take to end this outrage—not to modify it with any “new normal” decided by who knows whom, on who knows what authority. Since no one in authority is leading those who want to end it, Americans also wonder who may lead that cause. What follows suggests answers.

What history will record as the great COVID scam of 2020 is based on 1) a set of untruths and baseless assertions—often outright lies—about the novel coronavirus and its effects; 2) the production and maintenance of physical fear through a near-monopoly of communications to forestall challenges to the U.S.. ruling class, led by the Democratic Party, 3) defaulted opposition on the part of most Republicans, thus confirming their status as the ruling class’s junior partner. No default has been greater than that of America’s Christian churches—supposedly society’s guardians of truth.

Truth

Since obfuscation, pretense, and lies concerning the COVID-19 are the effective agents of the panic and of the seizure of arbitrary power, truth and clarity about it are the foundational requirements for escaping its effects. Here is a dose.

From early March 2020 on, the best-known authorities on epidemics—the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control—presented the COVID-19 respiratory disease to the Western world as a danger equivalent to the plague. But China’s experience, which its government obfuscated, had already shown that the COVID-19 virus is much less like the plague and more like the flu. All that has happened since followed from falsifying this basic truth.

Our “best and brightest,” at first having minimized fears of person-to person contagion during January and February, during which the disease spread from China to the West, then declared that the virus is unusually contagious, and posited—on zero factual basis—that it would kill up to one in twenty persons it infected—5% infection/fatality rate (IFR). Based on that imagined fatality rate, they adopted mathematical models from Britain and the University of Washington that predicted that up to two million Americans would die of it.

The U.S. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) modeled the authoritative predictions on which the U.S. lockdowns were based. Its model also predicted COVID deaths for un-locked-down Sweden. On May 3 it wrote that, as of May 14, Sweden would suffer up to 2800 daily deaths. The actual number was below 40. Whether magnifying this falsehood was reckless or willful, it amounted to shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater. What justifies listening to, and paying, people who do that kind of science?

Establishing any infectious disease’s true lethality is characteristically straightforward: test a large sample of the population proportionately representative of location, age, sex, race, socioeconomic categories. Follow up with the subjects a month later to add up the rate of infections and learn the results thereof. Period. Today, we still lack this definitive, direct knowledge of COVID’s true lethality because bureaucrats have prevented widespread testing for the purpose of firmly establishing the one figure that matters most. That is because that figure’s absence allows them to continue fearmongering.

In May the Centers for Disease Control, by then discredited professionally (though not, alas, in the mass media), was forced to conclude that the lethality rate, far from being circa 5% was 0.26%. Double a typical flu. The CDC was able to keep the estimate that high only by factoring in an unrealistically low figure for asymptomatic infections—never mind inflated figures for deaths. But the U.S. government, instead of amending its recommendations in the face of reality, tried to hide reality by playing a shell game with the definition and number of COVID “cases.”

During March and April, the authorities had defined as “cases” people sick enough to be hospitalized, who also tested positive. Whoever divided the number of reported deaths (a number inflated by a CDC directive to count deaths due to other causes as being due to COVID) by the number of cases thus defined, was predictably scared and willing to heed “the best advice”—namely societal lockdowns—on how to stay safe. That turned out to be ruinous in and of itself. At the time, they defined the number of these “cases” as the “curve” which we were supposed to sacrifice so much to “flatten,” lest the wave of hospitalizations overwhelm our health care system. Because their premises were wrong, that wave never came.

Instead, in May, as various non-official surveys were published showing that the majority of those who tested positive for COVID either barely knew that they had been infected or had not known at all, these very authorities doubled down their dishonesty. They began labeling mere infections as “cases.” They divorced reporting of these “cases” from reporting of the number of deaths, and warned the inattentive public about “spiking COVID cases” as if infection carried a serious risk. They also promoted widespread testing of wholly asymptomatic persons for current and past infections, the results of which tests were sure to produce a surging number of new “cases” thus defined.

And they toyed with reporting deaths by attributing to COVID any that “involved” or looked as if they might have involved it. They then included pneumonia, influenza, and COVID into the category PIC. That is how the death figure came to exceed 100,000. But if the CDC had used the same criterion that it did with the SARS virus, namely “severe acute respiratory distress syndrome,” the figure by the end of June would have been some 16,000.

Such naked ploys could succeed only because the media colluded in them. TheNew York Times’ May 27 lead story ominously blared: “California is the fourth state with more than 100,000 known cases.” Meanwhile, the number of deaths attributed to COVID continued dropping from ever-lower bases. By the July 1, even using the CDC’s inflated figures for COVID-responsible deaths, COVID-19’s Infection Fatality Rate for people under 70 was 0.04%. But rather than ask how clarion calls of danger comport with decreasing reports of deaths that may somehow be associated with it, the ruling class agitated to reverse returning to normal life. Be afraid, be very afraid. Heads the House wins, tails you lose.

Irrefutable if indirect indication that COVID is no plague also comes from comparison between the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 during any given period with the number of deaths due to all causes for the same period—despite official inflation in the number of deaths attributed to the virus.

The Imperial College, London’s tally for Great Britain, broken down by age of death, shows that the chances of dying from COVID-19 infection roughly track the chances of death from all causes at any given age, except for the very young. For men, the chances of death co-incident with the virus don’t exceed 1%, or the average death rate, until age 70. For women, they don’t exceed the average death rate until close to age 90. In Spain, the death rate for infected persons over 90 years oldwas 10%.

The measure of “excess deaths” tells a similar story. During the six-week peak of the COVID event in 2020, deaths in the U.S. exceeded deaths during the same period in the previous year by 82,000. Considering that, concurrently, the 2020 flu season was one of the worst on record (typically the flu is responsible for some 50,000 deaths during the season) and given the CDC-mandated conflation of COVID numbers with others, the COVID-19 pandemic in and of itself did not amount to much—except in New York City, for reasons only partly known. By the week of June 20, 2020 the CDC was reporting ZERO excess deaths—meaning that the figure for weekly deaths was within the long-term normal curve for that time of the year.

Not incidentally, in 1957 some 116,000 Americans (out of a population two thirds of today’s size) died of the flu. Ten years later, the toll was 100,000 and in 2019 it was 61,000. By June 2020 the (inflated) toll from COVID-19 stood at 100,000.

In short, COVID-19 is not America’s plague. It did not shake America. The ruling class shook it. They have not done it ignorantly or by mistake. They have done it to extort the general public’s compliance with their agendas. Their claim to speak on behalf of “science” is an attempt to avoid being held accountable for the enormous harm they are doing. They continue doing it because they want to hang on to the power the panic has brought them.

BTW: Whenever you hear someone claiming to speak on science’s behalf, referring to authorities rather than to facts and logic, you may be sure that person is a fraud.

Falsehood

Falsehood extorted shutdowns, which caused deaths and ruined lives.

“Lockdowns” of the general population had to be based on the premise that everyone is, if not equally vulnerable, then equally responsible, and hence that everyone must stay cooped up to contribute to everyone else’s safety. But because every word of that is contrary to reality, false, a lie, applying the lockdowns’ force to society has caused needless deaths and suffering.

Prefatory to considering the lockdowns’ specific effects, we must be clear about what separation of infected or possibly infected persons from presumably un-infected ones can and cannot do. This has been known to whomever wished to know it since the Middle Ages, and repeated even in the humble 1956 study guide for the Boy Scout Public Health merit badge: protecting the un-infected from infection by limiting their contact with those who may be infected depends on knowing that the people to be protected really are un-infected.

Medieval Venetians, to make sure that no one coming from places infected by the plague would bring it into the city, prevented debarking from ships coming from such places for forty days (quarantine). By the same token, quickly finding the few infected among the many un-infected, and removing them even faster along with those with whom they had been in contact (known these days as contact tracing), is effective only to the extent of the bulk of the population’s near-virginity.

But, once an infectious disease has spread within a population, quarantines and associated measures are a waste at best. Personal hygiene and minimizing contact (what we now call social distancing) retain all their natural importance for reducing any given individual’s chances of infection to some extent—perhaps even delaying chances of exposure until the disease has run its course. But, once a contagion is rooted in a population, these measures make no difference to general public health. The disease running its course means, in part, that enough people have been infected and hence will have developed immunity, that they can no longer transmit it to others (herd immunity).

That is how human communities have lived with and through history’s countless epidemics. We have seen this once again in how COVID-19 affected Sweden and U.S. states (e.g. South Dakota and Arkansas) that never did shut down. When COVID-19 hit Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that, regardless of what anyone did, some 70% of Germans would eventually become infected. And that would be that.

Isolation makes the biggest of differences, however, to sub-categories of the population that may be especially vulnerable to the disease. The Bubonic Plague was an equal-opportunity killer, as was Smallpox. COVID-19, however, seems to discriminate a lot. Yes, all diseases are most noxious to those already most debilitated. But this one seems to have done so more than most.

In Italy, 99.1% of those who died with or of COVID-19 also suffered from other diseases. But this virus obviously has a special predilection for those with type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, compromised lungs, and most of all for the very old—to the point that a study by Germany’s Ministry of the Interior asked whether it made any sense to ascribe to any cause the deaths of persons whose bodies were in the process of shutting down anyhow. By contrast, COVID-19’s effect on ordinary healthy persons is considerably milder than those of ordinary respiratory diseases. What sense, then, could general isolation ever have made in the context of COVID-19?

It made some sense in the context of the U.S. ruling class’s (tragically wrong) assumptions/pretenses/convictions (take your pick) that the COVID-19 is so infectious as well as plague-like in its lethal danger to the general population, that a wave of desperately ill and dying patients would submerge American hospitals unless its natural course were slowed. Hence all medical decks had to be cleared of all other activities, emergency hospitals had to be constructed in the parks, and the Navy’s hospital ships had to be brought in.

As we have seen, there was never the slightest evidence that the COVID-19 virus could produce mass casualties. From the first, all evidence pointed in the opposite direction. Even in New York, where Governor Cuomo hyperventilated panic, the hospitals in the park and the Navy’s hospital ship were virtually empty.

But the ruling class’s attachment to its assumptions/pretenses/convictions overrode the obvious truth that the elderly and infirm should have special isolation from contact with persons possibly infected with the virus and that the rest of the population should go about its business.

The U.S. authorities, the “experts,” the ruling class, chose to do precisely the opposite.They “locked down” a general population that is at virtually no risk, thereby delaying the virus’s spread to people it could not harm and whose infection would build herd immunity. Keeping millions of people indoors also worsened their health. Keeping people from interacting and working normally wrecked economic and social life.

Worst of all, these authorities, these experts, transferred elderly persons known to be infected with the virus into nursing homes. In Michigan, the authorities even assigned to a nursing home an aide known to be infected with the virus. As a result, the as-yet fully uncounted deaths in these facilities, which house about 1.3 million people (about 0.39% of the population) come to about half of the total U.S. death toll. That is what happened, and it is perverse. It deserves punishment.

Doubly so because of the cruelty with which it was done. As known virus carriers and unscreened persons were moved in, as the contagion raged, the debilitated, powerless inmates were prohibited visits from their families. These, being nearly all uninfected, would have posed no danger. Had the families been allowed to visit, they might have become aware of what was happening. As it was, they were powerless to save these innocents who, without advocates, were effectively condemned. One New York nurse was fired for objecting. Triply perverse, because some of the officials responsible—e.g. Pennsylvania’s Secretary of health—knewwhat they were doing enough to pull their own relatives out of danger.

Others, e.g. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who sent 4,500 COVID-infected patients from hospitals to nursing homes and blew off his responsibility for over 5,000 deaths with the words “people die,” later deflected responsibility onto what legitimately may be deemed to be national policy. He cited guidance from the Centers for Disease Control: “’Nursing homes should admit any individuals from hospitals where COVID is present.” Both the lockdown for ordinary people andthe transfer of COVID carriers to nursing homes, said Cuomo, followed CDC recommendations. Cuomo did not resist the recommendation. He was occupied trying to score political points on Donald Trump.

In May Dr. Anthony Fauci, the federal COVID team’s most influential MD, explained the counterproductive national lockdown of healthy people on national television. Earlier, he had said lockdowns were needed to preclude the overcrowding of hospitals. That having proved to be his gross professional error as an epidemiologist, he now said that extending the lockdowns was necessary to prevent so many apparently healthy young people from eventually infecting the old and infirm.

But there is zero evidence that apparently healthy (i.e. asymptomatic though infected) people infect others with the COVID-19. The evidence is that only symptomatic people (ones with coughs and sniffles) do, and that not through casual contact. Moreover, if separating known spreaders had been Fauci’s intention all along, why had the CDC ordered known COVID carriers to be shifted to nursing homes? At the very least, the man who drove the COVID team did it in a reckless manner that killed people. He too had other things on his mind—political ones.

Similarly, Governors from New York to Michigan and Illinois, to California, Oregon, and Washington have ordered citizens to stay indoors—which always was and once again proved to be the ideal environment for the transmission of respiratory viruses. Illinois’s governor criminalized more than two people in any boat. Californians have been arrested for walking on the beach, and New York City’s mayor threatened to pull swimmers out of the sea. All in the name of Science. Online searches find no science that shows viruses thriving in fresh air and sunshine, never mind in salt water. The mayor of Los Angeles ordered residents to wear masks at all times outdoors, though there is no evidence that this virus transmits through casual proximity anywhere, but especially outdoors.

In July, Anthony Fauci said that masks are necessary. But in March the same Fauci had said they did more harm than good—equally without the slightest scientific proof. Surreally, the L.A. Health Department specified that persons should wash their hands after putting on unwashed face coverings, and refrain from touching their faces—except to put on the face coverings that were supposed to make their hands dirty to begin with! Science, anybody? Fauci also guided governors to permit people to congregate by the hundreds at Walmart and Costco, but to forbid them to do so in churches. This fount of Science also gave his imprimatur to sex among strangers but advised Christians to refrain from Communion. Too intimate. What level of partisan credulity does it take to believe any of that?

One may also ask what level of partisan credulity it takes to take seriously such personages as the governors of New York, Michigan, and California and the mayors of Chicago and Los Angeles, who personally flout the regulations they try to impose on others. Restrictions for thee but not for me!

The answer really does lie in the depth of political party/class solidarity. The governors and officials who imposed, maintain, and rationalize the lockdowns are all but one (Ohio’s) Democrats. Their counter-factual assumptions/pretenses/convictions, their misrepresentations, their falsehoods and outright lies, are all about their social class’s effort to secure their privileges against an increasingly recalcitrant general population.

Politics

We begin by focusing on how seamlessly the Western world’s ruling class has translated the COVID-19 event into yet another of its weapons in the fight it has been waging this century against voters’ growing disaffection. Support for the lockdowns has become as integral to the American Establishment Left, i.e., to the Democratic Party, as belief in abortion, global warming, open borders, and censorship of whatever they choose to call “hate speech.” To understand this, one must realize that the ruling class’s campaign regarding public health, global warming, race, the rights of women, homosexuals, micro-aggressions, the Palestinians, etc. etc. have far less to do with any of these matters than with seizing ever more power for itself.

Intersectionality

We note that the language, the attitudes, by which the ruling class have hyped COVID’s health challenge have been integrated into the identities of its constituency’s manifold components so as to add force to the longstanding demands of each. How readily—how naturally—activists for Black Lives Matter, Feminism, Global Warming, etc. have adopted support of all manner of socioeconomic restrictions on the pretend-basis of saving lives from the COVID as if it were their own cause, is yet another practical manifestation of the latter-day Left’s theory of “intersectionality.” As the activists of Black Lives Matter burn down buildings, they also wear masks supposedly to show their commitment to social responsibility for public health. Nor incidentally, they also tout their commitment to LGBTQ sexuality, for abortion, and against the nuclear family. The same may be noted about every component’s support of every other.

By the same token, every one of the ruling class’s constituencies, the disparity of their foci notwithstanding, has adopted as its own the demand that voting in American elections must henceforth be “from home,” with ballots collected or “harvested” by third parties. That would shift electoral power from those who vote to those who process and count the votes—i.e. to themselves. Hence it would set the entire ruling class free from the voters.

Each sub-constituency translates the accusation into its own idiom. In America, accusations of racism are the lowest (alas the most common) form of political pandering and intimidation. Securing over 90% of the black vote being the sine qua non of the Democrat Party’s electoral successes, no one was surprised when the New York Times, followed by the rest of the major media, noted that, the COVID-19 having struck African Americans proportionately harder than other races, proves American society treats them despicably and must submit to reform.

Yet at the Times, CNN, etc. they know that this is a lie and that, regardless of race, adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infections go along with obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc. And they know as well as anyone precisely to what extent African Americans exhibit these very conditions proportionately more than other races, and that these conditions have more to do with calories today than with slavery two centuries ago.

The COVID event has also made the face mask into a physical badge of tribal identity, common to all the sub-constituencies. Wearing the mask is now about publicly distinguishing the virtuous and deploring the deplorables. North Carolina’s Democrat Governor Roy Cooper said that “A face covering signifies strength and compassion for others” and “wearing one shows that you care about other people’s health.” On the same day, New York’s Andrew Cuomo put it this way: “Wearing a mask is now cool, I believe it’s cool…. Wearing a mask is officially cool.”

Anthony Fauci, who in March had told 60 minutes “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” in May gave his scientific judgment that masks are “a symbol for people to see that that’s the kind of thing you should be doing,” while admitting that they are “not 100% effective.” He could hardly have done otherwise since the New England Journal of Medicine had said: “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers [the wearer] little, if any, protection from infection,” and is irrelevant to others in casual contact. Such a symbol of intersectional identity has it become that, as rioters were burning Minneapolis, its Democrat mayor urged the rioters whom he let burn parts of his city to make sure they wore masks while doing so.

In sum, the lockdowns have been perpetuated and prolonged by people who care more about your compliance than your health.

Regime of Fear

They are about increasing the Democratic Party’s chances in the 2020 election.

The 2016 U.S. election confronted the U.S. ruling class with the possibility that the presidency’s enormous powers might be used to dismantle its network of prestige and privileges. The public is just beginning to understand the extent to which all manner of bureaucrats and allies used their powers to try defeating the challenge of 2016, and then instituted the socio-political equivalent of basketball’s “full court press,” treating anything and everything about the Trump administration as illegitimate, running official investigations not to gather information but as pretexts for feeding slander to their media associates. They tried to catch Trump in perjury traps. They toyed with the idea of leading him into statements that might be construed as bases for removal from office. But the U.S. economy boomed. Trump’s ratings rose. As 2020 dawned and Trump seemed a cinch for re-election, the Democratic Party et al. were grasping at straws for ways of getting at him.

By the time COVID came over the horizon, thought of using it had already crossed ruling class’s minds. No conspiracy was necessary or possible. The existing party sentiment and like-mindedness were enough to produce the unanimity and uniformity with which the ruling class has used the COVID-19 event to produce, stoke, and maintain fear, to energize its constituencies’ agendas in pursuit its power.

In January 2017 Dr. Anthony Fauci, speaking at Georgetown University, said he had no doubt that the Trump administration would face a “surprise outbreak” of “infectious diseases.” A few days earlier, The Atlantic published an article titled “How a Pandemic Might Play Out Under Trump,” which wished out loud that Trump’s handling of such an event would undermine his presidency. Yet earlier, NYU professor Arthur Caplan had published an article along the same lines: “The End of Civilization and the Real Donald Trump.” In short, weaponizing a public health event had crossed eager minds.

The prospect of locking down the country, ostensibly to save it from COVID-19, offered a near monopoly of communications. Trump’s rallies were shut down. Above all, churches were shut down, as well as the countless meetings of clubs, businesses, friends, etc. that are the lifeblood of what one might call the country class. Nor may people congregate as they wish for political purposes: the strictures that North Carolina’s Democrat governor put on the Republican National Convention made it impossible to hold it in that state.

Without face-to-face contact, television became the chief means by which communication took place—but it was one-way communication, whose programming and corporate advertising—immediately—began telling the people the joys of obedience: “we are all in this together,” “ Alone, together.”

It reeks of Orwell. The companies whose advertising pays for this are household names: Adidas, Amazon, Airbnb, American Express, Bank of America, BMW, Burger King, Citigroup, Coca Cola, DHL, Disney, eBay, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, IBM, Mastercard, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Netflix, Nike, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Sony, Starbucks, Twitter, Verizon, Walmart, Warner Brothers and YouTube. The ruling class.

Driven by the politics of partisan identity, the ruling class used the COVID-19 event to collapse American life.

A glance is enough to reveal the perverse enormity of what it caused.

Because the lockdowns closed most restaurants and hotels, where about half of the nation’s calories were consumed, demand for food shifted in ways that made it impossible for distribution networks and processing plants to adjust seamlessly—especially as the government limited their operation and paid workers to call in sick. Millions of gallons of milk have been poured down drains, millions of chickens, billions of eggs and tens of thousands of hogs and cattle have been destroyed, acres of vegetables and tons of fruit disked under. Vineyards have been ripped out. This scrambled allocation and waste of food resulted in shortages. Prices in the markets rose. In some places, meat and eggs were rationed. Persons deprived of work have less money with which to pay these prices, and struggle to feed their families. This reduced countless self-supporting citizens to supplicants at food banks.

Who could produce surplus and scarcity simultaneously except sorcerers’ apprentices wielding government power? That’s expertise for you. By intentionally reducing the supply of food available to the population, the U.S. government joined the rare ranks of such as Stalin’s Soviet Union and Castro’s Cuba.

But no sane person had ever imagined the near-shutdown of a whole nation’s entire medical care except for one disease. The U.S. government did that, on the advice of its very best experts. Between mid-March to July hospitals stood nearly empty, having cleared the decks for the (ignorantly) expected COVID flood. Patients having been discouraged or forbidden to come in for other reasons, doctors and nurses were idled. Not a few were furloughed. Emergency rooms were closed to most of their customers—the poorer people who routinely get routine care there. Private clinics and practices—where most Americans get most medical care—practically shut down. Many will never reopen. Forget about dentistry. This has meant that most Americans have been left essentially without medical care for about a third of a year.

Tests missed, conditions not diagnosed, treatments forgone or delayed. Human bodies’ troubles not having taken a corresponding holiday, it is impossible to estimate how much suffering and death this lack of medical care has caused and will yet cause—all while the U.S. government was making it happen. Officials who claim to be smarter than we ordered it—for our own good, they claim.

More than forty million Americans have filed claims for unemployment assistance since the shutdowns began. To this number one must add the as-yet unknown tens of millions owners of small businesses which were forced to close or radically to reduce activity. Add to that the uncountable millions not directly affected—farmers, professionals—whose products and activities the shutdowns de-valued. Imagine the millions of careers wrecked, the shattering of dreams that had been realized by lifetimes of work, and you search for words to describe it: Catastrophe? Tragedy? Man-made, for sure.

The experts who made this happen stigmatized, tried to silence, and effectively criminalized dissent as dangerous to health and, of course, as racist. But there is zero evidence that all or any of the above measures increased anybody’s life expectancy, and plenty to the contrary. They wronged America. But why? and cui bono?

Power

All of the above served the ruling class’s overarching interest in its own power. Are there any categories of people who benefited from the shutdowns? Government gained. We know of no employee of federal, state or local government who was furloughed or had his or her pay reduced. On the contrary, all got additional power. The federal government created trillions of dollars, the distribution of which is enriching the usual suspects involved in administration. The teachers’ unions gained the power to extort concessions as a price for reopening schools. Among them, restrictions on or elimination of charter schools.

And as independent businesses were throttled, big ones grew. The biggest, Amazon, was the biggest winner. The news media, unrestricted and at the service of the powerful, themselves exercised unprecedented power. The social media platforms seconded the coup by censoring dissent from the “line” of their own most aggressive bureaucrats and officials. Try getting figures for COVID deaths and how they are counted from Google. YouTube deleted a video gone viral of two medical doctors who pointed out the truth about the COVID-19’s true lethality as dangerous disinformation, and Twitter appended a note to President Trump’s objection to voting by mail for facilitating fraud, accusing it of falsehood.

Prohibitions such as of playing in the park or swimming in the sea are mere devices to train the public to accept unlimited bureaucratic discretion. You may congregate at Costco, but not at church. Failure to obey regulations will land ordinary citizens in jail, while the jails release robbers and child molesters. You may not exceed limits on occupancy or fail to wear a mask. You may not even sing in church. But if you and friends loot and burn the neighborhood store, the police will just stand by. Yet all Democrat governors celebrated and some joined masses of “protests”—forget about masks and social distancing. They did this not for anybody’s health but to to secure another few percentage points of the black vote for their party and to leverage their seizure of power over police forces.

We are supposed to believe that all this is dictated by “Science.” In June, 1,200 “health experts” signed a letter approving the BLM protests because, it said, “white supremacy is a lethal public health issue.” But it cautioned that “this should not be confused with a permissive stance on…protests against stay-home orders.” In short, Coronavirus restrictions, like the rest of political correctness’s commandments, are pure political weaponry—nothing short of an inversion of the American people’s priorities, accomplished by nobody’s vote. Ruling class presumption. In short, we are living through a coup d’état.

Declaring emergencies to excuse taking “full powers” is the oldest of ploys. Does anybody remember the Reichstag fire? The prospect of similar things happening in America had been rising along with the ruling class and the administrative state. The authorities’ seizure of arbitrary power in the name of expertise is the deadliest strike at our way of life. Suspending law and rights, issuing arbitrary rules of behavior, has been mostly the doing of Democrat-controlled state and local government. But the lead came from the Democrat-controlled Federal bureaucracy, empowered by a president elected as a Republican, and with the silent complaisance of perhaps a majority of Republican politicians.

The ruling class’s gains of power and money have been at the country class’s expense, and have depended on suppressing truth.

An egregious example of forcible official lying is the ruling class’s political campaign against the drug Hydroxychloroquine. President Trump had pointed to the truth that this standard treatment for malaria for more than a half century is effective against the early and mid-stages of the COVID disease. This fact had been discovered accidentally and confirmed by studies and practices in France, Spain, India, and South Korea. In April, U.S. doctors started prescribing it widely, reported good results, and took it themselves prophylactically. The ruling class found this intolerable because it contradicted its narrative that nothing could prevent the sky from falling, but above all because its success might cast a favorable light on Trump. Hence it set about canceling truth about drugs from public consciousness and substituting its own narrative.

The ruling class machine began by labeling reports of the drug’s success as “anecdotal.” Then, the Veterans Administration gave the drug in small doses to some 380 elderly patients dying with/of the COVID. Every major media outlet touted their deaths as proof of its ineffectiveness and danger. On May 22, theLancet, arguably the most authoritative medical journal, published what it called an analysis of the world’s biggest medical data base showing, definitively it claimed, that Hydroxychloroquine is ineffective, counterproductive, and dangerous. The Yale School of Medicine officially concluded that the drug is bad stuff, despite a study to the contrary by its own professor of epidemiology, Harvey Risch. The great Anthony Fauci who, when pressed hard, had said that he would take the drug were he to be sick of the COVID, then backed the political narrative by quipping that, as of now there is no treatment for COVID illness. The U.S. food and Drug Administration stopped clinical trials, pharmacy boards refused orders from physicians and retailers, and hospitals around the country required their physicians to stop treating their patients with it.

It turns out, however, that the Lancet study’s database was part of a fly-by-night, strictly political operation, and that its details are literally incredible—e.g., the number of reported Hydroxy deaths for one Australian hospital exceeded the number of total deaths for the entire country. In short, the report was another professionally unsustainable hit job. The New York Times reported that “More than 100 scientists and clinicians have questioned the authenticity” of the database as well as the study’s integrity. The Lancet withdrew it in shame.

But it was too late. Fauci and the medical establishment did not apologize. For the media and for headline-readers, the case was closed. The lie stood. Then, on July 1, Michigan’s Henry Ford health system published a peer-reviewed study that shows Hydroxychloroquine significantly cut death rates even in mid-to-late COVID cases. Again, the ruling class machine ignored the truth. Again: all mainstream news about the COVID affair is related to health only incidentally. Be very afraid.

Nor has the COVID affair to do with any emergency—except possibly the 2020 election. Democrat politicians and the stream of public service TV advertising have left no doubt that the ruling class’s objective is to establish “a new normal” by extending into the indefinite future the powers by which bureaucracies have eclipsed America’s laws and way of life.

But, as the Authorities toyed too openly with the truth, they impeached themselves and lost authority. Fewer and fewer believe what they hear from on high. As Russians under Communism learned, the truth is usually the opposite. Whenever the government reported bountiful harvests, they stocked up on potatoes.

Default, and Consequences

Fairness requires noting that, regardless of whatever America’s ruling Left has done, whatever its hopes, plans, or coordination, what actually happened to the United States of America consequent to COVID could not have happened had President Donald Trump, much of the Republican Party, and America’s religious establishment not concurred in its happening.

This is another way of saying that the ruling class rules by size and seduction, as well as by intimidation. It did not rush into imposing the shutdowns, or even into making too big a deal of COVID. Its parts and personages did not fully commit themselves until after they had convinced president Trump to give them the preclusion of opposition without which inflicting so much pain on so many would have exposed them to official and popular retribution.

President Donald Trump, having cut travel from China on January 31 and from Europe on March 12 had maintained his grip on public opinion while pointing to the evidence that that COVID is not catastrophic. He sustained accusations of xenophobia. But, as the virus took root in America, the opposition shifted to blaming him for doing nothing in the face of a plague. Countering that would have required standing on the truth, attacking the central falsehood that the COVID is a plague, and its purveyors as liars. Since the experts had been wrong again and again, this was doable.

But on March 15, Trump asked the country to shut down for fifteen days to slow the spread of the disease—to flatten the curve. Then, on March 31 the New York Times crowed victoriously that the previous week, President Trump had been stampeded to abandon his goal of restoring normal life by Easter: “The numbers the health officials showed President Trump were overwhelming. With the peak of the coronavirus pandemic still weeks away, he was told, hundreds of thousands of Americans could face death if the country reopened too soon.” Also, poll questions that framed the choice just so had helped produce another set of numbers. Said the Times: he was told that “voters overwhelmingly preferred to keep containment measures in place over sending people back to work prematurely.” Trump let himself be scared into sheltering politically under what he supposed would be the protective professional wings of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the CDC. 

Trump believed that Fauci would cooperate in a plan for reopening, and counted on the Democratic Party sharing credit for providing near a trillion dollars in relief to the people who the lockdowns were depriving of livelihood. 

But, once Trump let go of the truth, he ceded control and entered a political blind alley. Trump was giving the de facto alliance between the Democratic Party, Fauci et al., the press, and a host of profiteers public credit even as they discredited him in every way possible. They had him where they wanted him. As the lockdowns throttled America, they used the political leverage to raise demands. They aimed at his political demise as well as at economic, social, and political transformation.

The guidelines for “Opening Up America Again” that Trump unveiled on April 17 resulted from that imbalance of political credit and leverage. Far from returning the country to what it had been, the “

The Guidelines “advise” (that means “mandate” for officials who so choose) opening only to a percentage of capacity, and with restrictions—e.g. no singing in church,—that counter their reason for being. But churches and small business cannot survive at less than at full capacity. Schools set up other than for maximum concentration on the stuff to be learned are counterproductive. In short, the guidelines give federal sanction to choking America’s “main street” sector. 

The guidelines’ arguably most dangerous legacy may be their recommendation/requirement that governments certify persons’ safe status for work and public interaction by tracking and isolating persons infected with the virus—or said to be. This involves hiring hundreds of thousands of persons to enforce compliance with decreed regulations on personal behavior—effectively a “lifestyle police,” empowered at the very least to declare anyone the equivalent of “medically untouchable.” 

The governors of Michigan and California (there is no dissent among Democratic Party officials) have already defined “racism” as a major health hazard. Is there any doubt that these police will be less concerned with health as ordinary people understand it than with enforcing their chiefs’ will on political opponents? Thus, without law or trial, anyone could be separated peremptorily from job, business, or family, pending redress in the courts—which most people cannot afford. 

Were this practice adopted nationally, it really would be the centerpiece of a “new normal.” By May, New York’s mayor had already deputized hundreds of (arguably former) gang members and criminals, paying them to circulate among the general population to “encourage”—dare we say, intimidate?—citizens to follow the Mayor’s orders. He also offered rewards for reports on neighbors’ violations of those orders. This is the beginning of explicitly partisan policing more as in China than in the America in which we grew up. Not incidentally the World health Organization—an extension of China’s government, formally recommended that nations “observe active surveillance and tracing of their populations.” Presumably, when the next virus comes along, the ruling class’ arbitrary powers will ratchet up yet another notch.

Sadly Anthony Fauci, whose reputation could not withstand any sort of scrutiny, retains the capacity to mislead because no one with a major national audience has publicly scrutinized it.

All of this, one must keep in mind, is so because President Trump’s complaisance with the ruling class’s falsehoods about the virus precluded high-level affirmation of the truths that negate the COVID Coup lies and pretenses. That he gave that complaisance contre coeur is beside the point. When pressed, Trump stuck by the falsehoods, as he did on April 22, after Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, who had opposed the lockdowns, announced that he was lifting them in his state. Trump chastised him publicly in the strongest terms, prompting the media into an orgy of accusations that Kemp was turning Georgia into a death camp. As it happened, Georgia got healthy. But that did not matter. 

The biggest and most significant default however, has been that of America’s Christian churches—all of them—from their hierarchs to their priests, pastors, and ministers. Their complaisance with the lockdowns set aside a truth far more important to human dignity than anything having to do with any physical ailment—the one truth that puts all human power in proper perspective, the truth on which our civilization itself rests: that no human power can manufacture true and false, right and wrong, any more than we can make ourselves, and that, therefore, we are obliged to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”  

Jewish congregations have been similarly craven.

The churches’ agreement to suspend public worship and the distribution of sacraments also contradicted their duty. Until 2020, Christian clergy felt obliged not just to offer public worship to whomever, but also to search out the sick, to offer sacraments to the dying, especially in places where victims of plagues lay between life and death—regardless of consequences. Because surrendering to secular dictates concerning how congregants should behave, even in church cannot be justified in Christian terms it would not have crossed previous generations of churchmen’s minds. 

Had this generation of church leaders simply practiced their faith, even by merely keeping silent about the ruling class’s claims about the COVID-19 rather than ignorantly, submissively endorsing them, they would have preserved their intellectual and moral credit to help the general population to deal with the growing realization that they had been duped. Instead, they chose to be complicit with tinpot Caesars. Hence, as Americans face the bitter fact that we have been hurt worse than for nought, the churches have largely disqualified themselves as arbiters of truth.

Truth and clarity about what history will record as the 2020 COVID coup is the necessary condition for the American people to overcome its effects. Overcoming those effects must begin with discrediting those pretenses and the reputations of those who made them.

Who Will Lead Us? 

Uncompromised leadership is in short supply because few prominent persons have resisted ruling-class pressure to join its COVID narrative. But so anxious are Americans for truth about what happened, what is happening; so substantively thin are the lies on which the scam has been based, and so abundant are the resources for establishing the truth; so hungry are Americans for examples of successes in countering the scam, that a few courageous leaders in key places may suffice.

The following outlines how the U.S. Senate can function as a truth commission concerning the COVID coup’s several aspects, and how state governors so inclined can provide practical leadership to motivate, guide, and legitimize life independent of our dysfunctional ruling class.  

With regard to the latter, we note that the manner in which states and localities run by Democrats have managed the COVID event differs from that of places otherwise governed as if they were from regimes, countries, even civilizations, alien to one another. This is yet more evidence that American society has largely broken into incompatible pieces, and that avoidance of civil war may hinge on mutual tolerance of parting ways. More on that below.

Truth Commission

In the past, as the misbehavior of important persons confused and divided Americans, wise senators summoned to public hearings those involved in the controversies, put them under oath and hence possible penalty for perjury, and established the often-uncomfortable truth on which the country came together. In 1948 Senator Richard Nixon’s (R-CA) hearings showed beyond doubt how deeply Soviet intelligence had penetrated our government. Between 1951 and 1957, Senator Estes Kefauver (D-TN) exposed and hence dismantled the mafia’s control of the U.S. labor movement. In 1974 Senator Sam Ervin’s (D-NC) hearings left no doubt about President Nixon’s role in the Watergate coverup. Today, the COVID scam being based on lies and misrepresentations by countless important persons, rigorous public testimony under oath can expose them and those who spread them. 

Because of jurisdictions and/or of particularly able chairmen, the Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Oversight, on Health, Education and Labor, on Finance, and on the Judiciary, each can shine their particular lights on specific aspects of the problem.

Senator Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) Committee on Government Affairs, with oversight over the Centers For Disease Control, can set the record straight about how its relationship with China’s laboratories, with the World Health Organization and with the Chinese government itself has shaped how the U.S. government has dealt COVID. The CDC having grasped enormous powers over American life, the Committee can inquire about the level of expertise it has brought to its task. What, if anything, justifies its claim to scientific management? The Committee can also audit how the CDC’s expenditure of funds and efforts among a variety of political, non-health topics affected its readiness to deal with the recurrence of viruses from exotic places.

Its subcommittee on Oversight and Emergency Management, under Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), himself a physician, is well placed to expose who knew what about the COVID-19 virus, when they knew it, who told the public what, and on what basis. The public has noted with dismay the discrepancy and contradictions about COVID-19 from supposedly medical experts, most prominently by Dr. Anthony Fauci.  

At different times, these experts told us that the virus posed very little danger, and that it was a mortal threat to us all, that masks were useless, and then essential. On the basis of their many statements, hundreds of millions of American lives were wrecked, and millions continue to languish under “guidelines” that make no sense on their face. Expert questioning under oath in front of the cameras can let the American people judge for themselves what sense they make. The experts will have to reveal what medical expertise might have led them to stigmatize young people relatively unaffected by the COVID for going to the beach while not objecting as greater numbers of higher-risk black Americans rioted in the streets. 

The jurisdiction of Senator Charles Grassley’s Finance Committee (R-IA) includes unemployment compensation, social services, and Medicare/Medicaid. The COVID event having caused some forty million persons to file for unemployment, having placed unusual burdens on all manner of government services, and having roiled food markets in ways harmful to health as well as suggestive of possible price fixing, this Committee is well placed to unravel the causal threads between the strictures that governments have placed on the population and the troubles that ensued. Grassley, one of the Senate’s better investigators, can showcase categories and individuals hurt by the lockdowns and call governors to square the harm they caused with the benefits they claim they achieved. Who lost my job? Who destroyed my business? where do I go to rebuild what I lost? These are some of the questions that the committee can put to officials on the American people’s behalf. Grassley and ranking Democrat Ron Wyden (D-OR) can also bring to bear their staff’s expertise regarding nursing homes to probe how government policy brought about the holocaust that the COVID-19 wrought in them. 

Parents all over America wonder about the basis on which the 2019-20 school year was cut in half and the bases on which the 20-21 year was compromised. Senator Rand Paul’s Subcommittee on Children and Families can put such questions authoritatively to the officials who made that call, confront the projected risks with reality, and weigh them against the results of lost education and social disruption. 

Americans ask by what right governors and mayors essentially put people under house arrest without due process, and had them arrested for such activities as playing in the park or paddling in the sea; by what right they shut down religious services, etc. What else may government do in violation of the Bill of Rights? Under the U.S. Constitution, what limits are there on a citizen’s obligations and rights? These are some of the questions with which Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) can confront federal, state, and local officials summoned before Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution. Cruz would also summon officials of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and ask why they have not treated state and local officials’ denial of the free exercise of religion and of freedom of assembly as violations of the First Amendment. What is their understanding of civil rights? 

The American people have an interest in knowing how the mentality of current officials is changing the practical meaning of the Constitution’s words. Cruz might well ask, government officials having changed the meaning of the basic bargain between people and government, what remains of the people’s obligation to obey the government?

Exemplary Leadership

Publicly contrasting the thoughts, deeds, and consequences of the officials and professionals who made the COVID event such a tragedy with those of the officials and professionals who led in opposite directions would not be the least of the beneficent results from serious hearings. Most Americans don’t know, but should, that several U.S. States never did shut down, while others reduced activities far less than the likes of California and New York. Like Sweden’s government, these states’ officials never saw reason to believe that the COVID was the plague and believed that individual persons’ exercise of responsibility for themselves is the surest guarantee of safety for all. 

But the differences in what happened in California and Florida, in New Jersey and South Dakota do not speak for themselves. That is why the public would benefit by seeing these states’ governors defending their widely different perspectives on the COVID, and their results. 

Perspective

It should be clear that the COVID event in America is only tangentially about health. It is essentially a political campaign based on the pretense of health. Mere perusal of news from abroad is enough to see that this is true as well throughout the Western world. Throughout, the campaign by governments and associated elites has essentially smothered social and economic activity. Not least—and by no means incidentally—it has smothered the overt political opposition which had increasingly beleaguered said governments and elites throughout the Western world. 

Through the previous decade, the various failures and inadequacies of these governments and elites, of “Davos Man,” had become the prime subject of public discourse. At the very least, the COVID campaign changed the subject to physical safety and economic survival. Davos Man tightened control by using the state’s coercive power more forcefully than in wartime, covering its class by claiming to speak for “science” in a manner that precludes counterargument.

In America as elsewhere, there was no doubt about which sectors of society were on what side, who were the campaign’s protagonists, winners, and losers. The governments, their bureaucracies, the major legacy political parties, the celebrities and the media, Davos Man, were on one side. On the other were middle class people and their “populist” representatives. As the northern hemisphere’s summertime was banishing the latest respiratory virus, Davos Man strove to make as many restrictions as possible part of a “new normal.” 

In Europe as in America, the COVID affair was but the latest round in which the very same protagonists had faced off. There as here, the language and attitudes with which Davos Man denigrated its supposed inferiors in the COVID affair fit seamlessly into previous patterns of the larger, long-term struggle. Had there been any doubt that the COVID-19 virus was more an occasion than a cause, it vanished at the end of May as, on both sides of the Atlantic, Davos Man switched to berating ordinary people and their civilization and ginned up yet another campaign to beat back challenges to its power.

Source : The COVID Coup by Angelo Codevilla. https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-covid-coup/

FLCCC COVID Treatment Protocols

2022 FLCCC Educational Conference: Now available in Education on Demand – click here to learn more!×

FLCCC | Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
FLCCC ALLIANCE

COVID-19 is a treatable disease, when caught early and treated appropriately. While there is no “magic bullet,” a number of therapies and drugs with different mechanisms of action have been shown to work during various phases of the disease.

The protocols on this page represent our recommended approaches based on the best and most recent literature. The information is provided as guidance to healthcare providers worldwide and should only be used by medical professionals in formulating their approach to COVID-19. Patients should always consult with their provider before starting any medical treatment. Please do not consider these protocols as personal medical advice, but as a recommendation for use by professional providers. Consult with your doctor, share the information on this website and discuss with her/him. Please review our disclaimers, and visit our get started guide for information on how to find physicians who follow our protocols as well as information you can share with your healthcare provider.

As this is a highly dynamic topic, we will update these guidelines as new information emerges. Please check to ensure you are using the latest version of this protocol. You may need to clear your computer’s cache if you have visited the site previously.

Treatment Protocols

FLCCC Address

FLCCC Alliance
2001 L St. NW Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036

MEDIA

press@flccc.net

CLINICAL SUPPORT

clinical@flccc.net

GENERAL

support@flccc.net

SHORTCUTS
DISCLAIMER

©2020–2022 All Rights Reserved FLCCC Alliance. The information contained or presented on this website is for educational purposes only. Information on this site is NOT intended to serve as a substitute for diagnosis, treatment, or advice from a qualified, licensed medical professional. The facts presented are offered as information only in order to empower you – our protocol is not medical advice – and in no way should anyone infer that we, even though we are physicians, or anyone appearing in any content on this website are practicing medicine, it is for educational purposes only. Any treatment protocol you undertake should be discussed with your physician or other licensed medical professional. Seek the advice of a medical professional for proper application of ANY material on this site or our program to your specific situation. NEVER stop or change your medications without consulting your physician. If you are having an emergency contact your emergency services: in the USA that’s 911. Please read our complete disclaimers.

© Copyright 2022. FLCCC Alliance. All Rights Reserved.

Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy

Resource: https://covid19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/

THE VACCINES

Justice for the Vaccinated

The Vaccines

The Covid-19 vaccines are not actually vaccines but rather largely untested genetic therapies that employ previously patented technologies such as mRNA and Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs) to trick your cells into producing toxic spike proteins and ostensibly trigger your immune response.

There were a number of these developed simultaneously by the following companies in response to emergency measures introduced by governmental agencies all over the world:

  • Pfizer (USA)
  • Moderna (USA)
  • Johnson & Johnson (USA)
  • Astra-Zeneca (UK)

Moderna and Pfizer are mRNA vaccines (messenger ribonucleic acid) containing material from the virus that causes COVID-19 that gives our cells instructions for how to make a protein that is unique to the virus. Our bodies recognize that the protein should not be there and build T-lymphocytes and B-lymphocytes that will remember how to fight the virus that causes COVID-19.

AstraZeneca, Covishield, and Janssen which are (DNA) Vector vaccines- these COVID-19 vaccines use an inactivated (“replication incompetent”) cold virus called adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26). The Ad26 virus has been modified to carry the genetic code so your muscle cells can make the SARS-CoV-2 virus “spike protein”. The spike protein serves to cause your immune system to make antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus to protect you against future infection.

The Approval Process

  • On paper, COVID-19 vaccines have been treated in the same fashion as all previous vaccines approved in Canada, just in a drastically accelerated manner. Specifically, Health Canada regulates and authorizes all vaccines for use in Canada through the Food and Drugs Act. Usually, vaccines must be put through Phases I, II and III of clinical trials, with each phases including larger groups of people and testing more intensively for safety and clinical efficacy of the vaccine. Phase III trials typically include many thousands of people and must be completed have their data reviewed before a vaccine is officially approved. Phase IV is “after-market”, i.e., there is continued data collection on the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine after it has been authorized for use by the general public.
  • The Minister of Health, Patricia “Patty” Hajdu, believedi that COVID-19 presented a sufficient emergency to warrant deviation from the normal vaccine approval process. A series of Interim Orders (IO) from Health Canada effectively createdii an alternative pathway for the approval of COVID-19-related medical devices and drugs. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was the first to be approvediii under IO on December 9, 2020. Importantly, all of the vaccines that were granted effective temporary authorization under these IOs were expected to “transition to a new drug submission”iv, i.e., to apply for full authorization. Health Canada granted full authorization to the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines on September 16, 2021, and to the Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines on November 19 and November 23, 2021, respectively. This means that by these dates Health Canada had reviewed all of the available Phase III trial data and come to the definite conclusion that these vaccines were safe and effective for use by Canadians.
  • At the time of the IO authorizations, the data that Health Canada was relying on to approve the vaccines for public use were not available to the public. The data is now available. There are at least three major issues that arise, from the data and from reports relating to the data.
    • The misrepresentation of data. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is Pfizer’s deliberate confusion between Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) and Relative Risk Reduction (RRR). The former, ARR, is actually the most relevant, and is routinely used in assessing the effectiveness of treatments. At the 2-month point, very small numbers of participants had contracted COVID-19 during the trial period: 8 out of 18,198 experimental [or treatment] group (=vaccinated) participants (i.e., 0.04%) and 162 out of 18,325 placebo [or control] group (=unvaccinated) participants (i.e., 0.88%). The Absolute Risk Reduction, ARR, is the difference between 0.88% and 0.04%, i.e. the vaccine’s ARR is 0.84%. This is a disappointingly low number (from Pfizer’s perspective), but that is primarily because COVID19’s infection rate in both the placebo and the experimental groups is so low. Of course, this is a good thing for the public, strongly implying (1) that COVID-19’s infectivity rate is relatively low and consequently (2) that the benefit that the drug provides is for a very small proportion of the population. But for the drug manufacturer, this is not a good thing: their solution to this disappointing news was to use the Relative Risk Reduction, RRR, and not the industry-standard ARR. This way they calculated that the reduction was 95% (i.e., 0.84% / 0.88%). To the uninformed, 95% Relative Risk Reduction is a much more impressive efficacy number than 0.84% Absolute Risk Reduction. Unfortunately, all of the media, including so-called health journalists, behaved as if they were uninformed, bought this sleight-of-hand and unquestioningly reported 95% efficacy.
    • What the data actually tell us – The adverse events including deaths during the early trials were  minimized and/or ignored. Simply put, the results in Pfizer’s own documentation should have brought an immediate end to the trials and any public inoculation drive. While the trial showed that there was still a RRR of 91% at the 6-month point, at that time point there were 300% more related adverse events (1,311 in placebo group vs. 5,241 in experimental group), 75% more serious adverse events (150 placebo vs. 262 experimental) and even 10% more serious adverse events requiring an ER visit or hospitalization (116 placebo vs. 127 experimental). Crucially, deaths were about even in the two groups, with one more death in the experimental group (15) than in the placebo group (14). As stated earlier, the purpose of these trials is to establish safety and efficacy. By this point in time (trial ended March 2021, data published September 2021), Pfizer and anyone who read the documents that Pfizer produced, including Health Canada officials, knew that their experimental treatment was neither safe nor effective. Additionally, even in an underpowered trial for adolescent children (i.e., there were only 1,005 participants, and a Phase III trial typically contains many thousands of participants), there was at least one case indicating significant safety issues .
    • In its documentation Pfizer itself admits that they had to hire more people to capture adverse event data. In order to “alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports, Pfizer conceded that at the time of the report (end April 2021) it had already hired an additional 600 full-time staff and expected that number to increase to 1,800 by the end of June 2021. In addition, reports from a whistleblower employed briefly in 2020 by clinical trial contractor Ventavia Research Group suggest that procedures and protocols relating to Pfizer’s trials were poorly managed or entirely omitted in some instances. Based on internal documents obtained via the whistleblower, problems related to a range of issues, such as incomplete adverse event reporting, breaches of patient confidentiality (and risk of trial unblinding) and informed consent errors. Any one of the points raised above, on its own, should be sufficient to cause a responsible, diligent, conscientious and independent public health regulator to refuse – or withdraw – a drug approval. Together, they should result in an immediate and absolute refusal to expose the public to such a product. For comparison: in the 1970s, the first mass inoculation of Americans with a rushed coronavirus vaccine (against swine flu) resulted in a measured increased risk of contracting Guillain-Barré Syndrome of approx. 1 in 100,000. This risk, i.e. about 400 people with GBS among the 40 million inoculated, with an associated number of deaths apparently so small that it has not been recorded, was deemed too high to continue the national influenza immunization program. Today we have far higher risk levels for multiple conditions, including thousands of deaths, associated with these COVID-19 inoculations, and our regulatory authorities have not so much as shrugged their shoulders as they approve these products.

Menu

Copyright 2022 © VAX JUSTICE

Follow Us and Share on Social Media Please!

TwitterTiktokCannabisUsersTelegram

DONATE

mRNA Vaccines and EUA

open.substack.com/pub/rwmalonemd/p/mrna-vaccines-and-eua

mRNA Vaccines and EUA by Dr. Robert Malone

Whatever you may currently think about the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, it is a fact that more than 5.41 billion people worldwide have received a dose of some type of COVID-19 vaccine, equal to about 70.5 percent of the world population.  In the United States as of October 17, 2022, 494.74 million “initial protocol doses” of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine have been administered, together with 138.16 million “booster” doses. 265.59 million US residents have received at least one dose, and 226.59 million have completed the initial vaccination protocol (see this link), out of a total population of 335.49 million (67.5%). In terms of the logistics of development, manufacturing and deployment of a novel injectable biologic product, this is undeniably a major achievement.

Of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine doses administered in the United States as of October 19, 2022:

375.64M doses of Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech 237.61 doses of Moderna

Total U.S. of 613.25M mRNA vaccine doses administered. 

In the European Union, the corresponding numbers are:

641.89M doses of Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech 153.16M doses of Moderna

EU total of 795.05M mRNA vaccine doses administered

Grand Total of 1 Billion

408.3 million doses of mRNA vaccines in these two regions. All this involves a novel technology, product and large scale manufacturing process which was created, passed non-clinical and clinical development and was massively manufactured, distributed and globally deployed in less than three years.

At a meeting of the Special Committee of the European Union Parliament held on 11 October 2022 to discuss the findings regarding COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations for the future, a Pfizer executive confirmed that the vaccine had never been tested for its ability to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus before being put on the market. Data emerging since the introduction of the vaccine indicates that it is in fact unable to do so, thereby refuting the claim that the COVID-19 Passports provide any guarantee of protection.  In other words, although governments throughout the world employed a wide range of propaganda and censorship methods to promote these products as both safe and effective at stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there were no studies performed prior to this distribution which even tested how well the products would prevent the spread of COVID-19 disease.  It is not an exaggeration to state that this massive deployment has been the largest clinical experiment performed on human beings in the history of the world. 

All of the mRNA vaccine doses administered in the United States (to both citizens and military personnel) have been provided under “Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA), which is to say that although the FDA has licensed the Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech and Moderna vaccines for some age cohorts, the firms have elected to not manufacture, distribute, or market these licensed products in the United States.  The reason for this is not clear, but appears to relate to both liability issues as well as conditions placed by the FDA involving additional clinical studies, safety monitoring (pharmacovigilance)  and product disclosures once the products begin to be marketed.

From the standpoint of the vaccine manufacturers, EUA is a preferred pathway for marketing their products.  A single purchaser (the US Government) provides complete liability indemnification, a guaranteed market with very little oversight, and manages both the distribution and marketing.  In the case of all unlicensed products, the manufacturers are prohibited from marketing them, but under EUA the US Government has been doing this for them, and has been acting in coordination with corporate media, social media, and large technology firms to suppress any discussion of risks or limitations of the products.  From the standpoint of the vaccine manufacturers, this is all profit and no risk; a perfect business model.  Why would they ever want to consider taking up the burden of actually producing and marketing the licensed version of these products?

EUA is a process defined by US federal law (21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 – Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies) which in the case of these mRNA-based products involves biological products which are not approved, licensed, or cleared for commercial distribution.  Specifically, the statute authorizes “the introduction into interstate commerce, during the effective period of a declaration under subsection (b), of a drug, device, or biological product intended for use in an actual or potential emergency.”  Continued “Emergency Use Authorization” of these vaccines requires “a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents”. Once the domestic emergency has passed (ergo “a determination by the Secretary, in consultation as appropriate with the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of Defense, that the circumstances described in paragraph (1) have ceased to exist”),  “A declaration under this subsection shall terminate”.  In other words, when there is no longer an emergency, the “Emergency Use Authorization” for the product will cease, and the vaccine products will return to their status as not approved, licensed, or cleared for commercial distribution.  These products remain experimental, and are only to be used for a limited amount of time during an ongoing emergency. 

“Pseudouridine likely affects multiple facets of mRNA function, including reduced immune stimulation by several mechanisms, prolonged half-life of pseudouridine-containing RNA, as well as potentially deleterious effects of Ψ on translation fidelity and efficiency.”

Based on the currently available information, it appears to me that the extensive random incorporation of pseudouridine into the synthetic mRNA-like molecules used for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may well account for much or all of the observed immunosuppression, DNA virus reactivation, and remarkable persistence of the synthetic “mRNA” molecules observed in lymph node biopsy tissues (Roltgen et al. 2022). Many of these adverse effects were reported by Kariko, Weissman et al in their 2008 paper  “Incorporation of pseudouridine into mRNA yields superior nonimmunogenic vector with increased translational capacity and biological stability” (Kariko et al. 2008) and could have been anticipated by regulatory and toxicology professionals if they had bothered to consider these findings prior to allowing emergency use authorization and widespread (global) deployment of what is truly an immature and previously untested technology.  Therefore, neither the FDA, NIH, CDC, nor BioNTech (which employs Dr. Kariko as a Vice President) nor Moderna can claim true ignorance.  To my eyes, what we have seen is more appropriately classified as “willful ignorance”.

Based on my review of the scientific data, it is my opinion that the random and uncontrolled insertion of pseudouridine into the manufactured “mRNA”-like molecules creates a population of polymers which may resemble natural mRNA, but which have a variety of properties which are clinically relevant. These characteristics and activities may account for many of the unusual effects, unusual stability, and striking adverse events associated with this new class of vaccines. These molecules are not natural mRNA, and they do not behave like natural mRNA. 

The question that most troubles and perplexes me at this point is why the biological consequences of these modifications and associated clinical adverse effects were not thoroughly investigated before widespread administration of random pseudouridine-incorporating “mRNA”-like molecules to a global population. 

Biology, and particularly molecular biology, is highly complex and interrelated.  Change one thing over here, and it is really hard to predict what might happen over there. That is why one must do rigorously controlled non-clinical and clinical research. Once again, it appears to me that the hubris of “elite” high status scientists, physicians and governmental “public health” bureaucrats has overcome common sense, well established regulatory norms have been disregarded, and patients have unnecessarily suffered as a consequence.  These products do not use natural mRNA, and referring to them as mRNA vaccines is misleading.  I recommend that, in the future, these products which employ a synthetic unnatural polymer which is not natural mRNA, should be designated using a different term, such as Ψ-mRNA genetic medicines.

The Forgotten Side of Medicine ~ How Corruption Dictates the Practice of Medicine

Steve Kirsch recently wrote an excellent article highlighting three “scientists” whose guideline recommendations were ultimately responsible for the deaths of nearly a million Americans. 

To summarize: It shows that there are dozens of treatments for COVID-19 that have numerous peer reviewed studies demonstrating their efficacy.  Despite those existing therapeutics and countless petitions for their usage, the committee responsible for developing the guidelines on what is an appropriate treatment for COVID-19 has only approved remdesivir, which is a toxic drug with no therapeutic value for treating COVID-19.  As a result, a dangerous drug has been mandated, while many drugs that would save lives are prohibited in most medical systems.

Evidence based medicine is commonly thought to mean “the best evidence” dictates the standard of care. In reality, it typically means financial interests dictate the standard of care and “evidence” is just used as a smokescreen to justify profiteering. This table that I initially discovered from Kirsch’s article provides clear and unambiguous proof of that contention. See if you can figure out what the circled drugs (those which received an EUA) all have in common!

Because I expected the conflicts of interests of the committee that determined the COVID-19 treatment guidelines to follow the typical pattern, I did some digging and discovered a lovely web of corruption that entangled many of its members.  The purpose of this article is to explain the typical pattern and illustrate how it was followed in this case.  I am doing this because I believe the first step to moving beyond that pattern is to recognize its existence. For those of you who do not need the context, please skip ahead to the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines section.

Introduction

There are two ways you can observe most organizational systems:

•As someone trapped inside the system observing their surroundings.

•As an outside observer who sees the entire system as a whole.

Since we typically do not explore or examine systems that are outside our everyday lives, we will typically experience the first type of observation. This occurs after life circumstances force us to become stuck in a system, which happened to many of us who were swept into the maelstrom of COVID-19.

Two of my central principles for understanding the architecture of modern society have been the relentless creation of hierarchal systems and the monopolization of resources that are essential for life. 

In regard to the first principle, no matter where you look, a typical pattern is always followed: a hierarchy is established, significant investment is created to establish the importance of the hierarchy, and the top of the hierarchal pyramid is bought out (often through bribes) so that a small investment at the top can be leveraged to control an entire population. 

In regard to the second, those with obscene fortunes seem to always find ways to monopolize resources essential for life and transform them from something each person can independently produce to something they must continually work to obtain. For example, it is extremely common after communist revolutions that the independent farmers in the nation will either be prohibited from farming or executed, allowing agriculture to be transitioned to a state-run enterprise.  Once this happens, everyone is forced to work for the state or starve, which leads them to becoming obedient subjects that can be easily exploited for their labor.

In most cases when the monopolization of a life essential resource occurs, the new approach is hailed as a technological miracle and this is used to encourage people to let go of their traditional and self-sufficient approach. The new “miraculous” approach is initially deemed “superior” but before long turns out to be worse than the now abandoned initial approach.

The Green revolution is an excellent example of this (more and more fertilizers herbicides and pesticides are needed to produce the same agricultural input). For example, Bill Gates, under the guise of “charity,” has frequently made people in Africa abandon their traditional self-sufficient forms of agriculture and switch to modern chemical-intensive industrial agriculture. Before long, this spikes their price of food and farming supplies (which must be purchased from a multinational corporation like Monsanto). As we are now hitting an unprecedented global wave of fertilizer and food inflation, it is likely that millions who were coaxed into abandoning their traditional forms of agriculture will starve to death.

I have similar reservations about our current transition to green energy technologies. I know of numerous proven effective technologies that could lessen the environmental impact of our energy consumption. However, none of the technologies currently being evaluated meet this fundamental criteria. Instead, each one further centralizes control over this life essential resource, and in the future will likely be used to significantly limit unauthorized consumption of energy or transportation once our existing fossil fuel infrastructure is displaced. For example in light of recent political developments, concerns have begun to be raised over the switches existing in electric cars that can turn them off remotely.

Medical Inflation

Those two principles (rigid hierarchal organization and monopolization of a life essential resource) also happened with the medical industry and really kicked into gear when the Rockefellers (and to some extent Carnegie) bought the AMA and invested a great deal of money into standard medicine (often called “allopathic” or “biomedical” medicine).  A variety of competing schools of medicine were removed from the United States, and the practice of medicine was monopolized (those curious to learn more can find more details in this freely available classic).

This proved to be an excellent investment and the effect of this monopolization is striking:

Numerous changes in society emerged to support this medical paradigm. Some of the most important were as follows:

•Society was conditioned to believe that they needed a doctor to be healthy, rather than health being viewed as something each individuals was empowered to seek for themselves. This effectively created an unlimited demand for medical services, and as the above graphs show, an ever-growing need for medical spending. Medical Nemesis by Ivan Illich was the earliest work I was able to locate detailing this change and its consequences.

•Things that genuinely improve public health (and thereby reduce medical expenses) are typically not allowed to emerge, while pointless initiatives that do not improve public health (water fluoridation or annual flu shots) are continually promoted. Likewise, basic health education is not taught to most people, and instead health behaviors developed by corporate interests constitute the majority of “health education” (industry funded nutrition textbooks for example are very common in college courses). In short, there are dozens of simple and obvious policy changes that many have independently identified which could rapidly improve public health and save a lot of money, but despite decades of campaigning to enact them, most have never been adopted.

•Hundreds (or possibly thousands) of highly effective medical treatments for common diseases have been kept off the market to preserve the market for expensive but ineffective treatments that often require lifelong purchasing. For example, prior to the legislative battle to legalize acupuncture, I remember cases where Chinese immigrants were raided at gunpoint for practicing acupuncture in their own community without a license. For those interested, I’ve spent decades tracking those “forgotten cures” down, and while I have found many that for one reason or another were oversold and didn’t really work, I also found many others that were highly effective.

•Every medical service or product is designed to encouraged the consumption of more medical services or products.

•A rigid hierarchy was created to support this monopoly.

Medical Hierarchies

The first hierarchy relates to the right to practice medicine. A large debate exists over whether or not a license should be required to practice medicine. The trade-off is that if no license is required, unqualified practitioners who might harm the public are allowed to practice, while if a license is required, the practice of medicine is monopolized (making medicine much more expensive) and medical practitioners are unable to provide life saving medicines they believe in.

I will now examine a few levels of this hierarchy:

•Medical boards have the power to pull the licenses (and hence careers) of any physician who does something “bad.” Unfortunately, since medical board members are directly appointed by governors, they often end up with crooked and corrupt members (one colleague who served on a midwestern medical board attested to this). Some of the reasons why medical boards exercise their authority are definitely valid, but many others are done to target physicians who step outside the line of what prevailing interests want done. This has happened for a long time. Here are a few examples:

1. After SB 276 was signed in 2019, writing vaccine exemptions was for all practical purposes outlawed in California and I heard of numerous cases where doctors wrote a single justified exemption and then had their license terminated. For this reason, doctors in California will not even write exemptions for patients who nearly died from their first COVID-19 vaccine (ie. from anaphylaxis or a heart attack).

2. The federation of state medical boards put out a statement that publicly promoting any type of COVID “misinformation” (ie. mask efficacy, early treatment options, vaccine safety concerns) could be used to take away a physician’s license.

3. Physicians have had their license suspended for using early treatment options that have FDA approval for other conditions.

The experiences of Robert Malone’s colleague Meryl J. Nass MD is a well known example of the above, but there are many others as well.

As you might imagine, it is quite easy for corporate interests to influence the composition of medical boards (as they are composed of individuals appointed by the governor). In the late 1990s the opioid manufacturers concocted the idea of having present levels of pain be the 5th vital sign and hence measured at every visit.

Since their opioids had “no addictive potential” once this epidemic of “unrecognized” pain emerged (since everyone was encouraged to say they were in pain) the manufacturers managed to lobby the medical boards into taking the position that failing to treat pain with an opioid as malpractice. Once that happened, to protect their licenses, any physicians who had hesitations providing opioids to patients started giving out opioids like candy and this created the current opioid epidemic which has been beyond devastating for many poorer regions of the USA. The problem is massive; hundreds of thousands of people have died from drug overdoses since COVID (which is a figure comparable to the death count from COVID).

•It is very difficult for physicians to work privately in independent practice (a variety of factors have been put in place to force this change over the last 10-20 years). Instead they are required to work at corporate, federal or state jobs where they are largely at the mercy of the institution they work for to follow its policies.

It is for this reason that as soon I was able to, I stopped working for an institution that controlled my practice of medicine.

During the pandemic, many physicians who had serious concerns about the existing approach towards COVID-19 attempted to do things differently, and were frequently shut down by their institution. This led to physicians being fired for not telling their patients the vaccine was “safe and effective” and others such as Paul Marik MD having to sue their hospital in order to be permitted to prescribe a treatment they felt could save the lives of their patients (where no effective treatment was currently available and the patients were frequently expected to die otherwise). Trump’s “Right to Try” law was meant to address this issue, but corporate management has largely superseded it.

•Everyone in medicine is taught to defer to the judgement of a doctor. Hence if you want to do some type of medical treatment and the doctor does not “approve” it, you can’t. In nursing textbooks, it is repeatedly hammered in to always defer to a doctor’s judgement. Nurses typically spend significantly more time with patients where they can see and in their hearts question the human cost of an enforced medical regimen. In contrast, physicians (the ones with authority over the patient), due to their time constraints, typically spend very little time with their patients and are much more detached and isolated from them. This results in bypassing the human connection that should be necessary in medical decision making being bypassed. This type of organizational structure has been used in numerous inhumane systems in the past.

Similarly, many individuals who have found their loved ones in the hospital have been told that unless the supervising doctor approves it, they cannot have any other type of therapy administered. Since many hospitals would not change their policy, numerous lawsuits have been filed to permit patients expected to die to receive ivermectin for example. To my knowledge, in each case where the lawsuit ordered ivermectin to be administered, the drug then saved the patient’s life.

To further illustrate this hierarchy, I know a few physicians with active medical licenses who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Each told me during their hospital stay their that care was continually mismanaged, they had to constantly be on the alert for a fatal medical error, and many of their reasonable requests were not approved by the doctor supervising their hospital care.

•Medical schools to a large extent select for individuals who do not challenge the system, and once in medical school, they rigidly target anyone who is not compliant and obedient to the existing hierarchy to ensure that they will not graduate.

The medical education process is extremely difficult (you have to work brutal hours which break a certain number of medical students and resident physicians each year, and suicide is quite common) and many aspects of the education could be equated to a form of hazing. These types of experiences are known to produce subservience to a system and have been utilized in many fields besides medicine throughout history.

Finally, there is a massive financial cost to become a doctor (most physicians now graduate with between $200,000 to $400,000 of debt at ~7% interest) which leaves many doctors who want to do things differently being completely unable to challenge this system.

The second hierarchy is “medical evidence.” When evidence based medicine was initially introduced, it was a very good and needed paradigm. Many horrific and harmful practices were in wide usage that evidence based medicine had relegated to the dustbins of history. However, medical evidence also follows a hierarchy which rejects foreign or competing ideas, and the upper levels of this hierarchy is bought out by pharmaceutical interests. Here are some examples:

•In order for a study to “matter,” it has to be published in a prestigious journal. The problem is that with the occasional exception of the British Medical Journal, none of the prestigious journals will ever publish studies which go against the existing narrative. “Controversial” studies that merit publication are continually rejected, while bad studies that support mainstream views are regularly published.

One of the better-known recent examples involved The Lancet publishing a study showing hydroxychloroquine was unsafe and ineffective, which was used to end trials of HCQ globally. This study used blatantly fake data and was eventually retracted after readers complained.

The Journal of the American Medical Association appears to be the most biased publication in this regard, and in most cases you can predict what an entire article will say on a topic before you even read it (ie. does the COVID vaccine have any possible harm associated with it…no). The one interesting exception I have seen to this was a recently published study debunking the use of ivermectin. Here the conclusion of the article argued against the use of ivermectin, while the actual data argued for it, raising the possibility the authors phrased the conclusion to say the opposite of their results so that JAMA would publish the study (it is very common for conclusions in journal articles to not be representative of their results).

•In order for a study to be published in most journals, it has to pass “peer review.” In most cases, peer review will hold ideas challenging the existing narrative to either a high standard or an impossible-to-meet standard. Conversely, if an idea agrees with existing narratives, it is held to a very low standard in order to be published. This is an extremely common issue and why much of the most useful research I come across is not published in peer reviewed journals.

•In order for a study to be conducted, it frequently needs approval from the FDA (or an equivalent) and in most settings needs approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB). In general, it is very difficult to get approval from the FDA to conduct any type of study unless a lot of money is behind the endeavor (for example I was familiar with multiple teams who had safe and effective treatments for COVID with supporting data that nonetheless could not receive FDA approval to begin their human trials). Similarly, despite the fact that extremely unethical human experiments are often conducted under an IRB, IRBs typically will not approve “controversial” research, leading to it not being done.

As a result, I frequently hear of fascinating therapeutic discoveries made outside the normal research process through trial and error that greatly benefit those who receive them, but in most cases these approaches can never be published because no IRB is willing to evaluate them. An excellent 2016 article published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (a group that has also continually advocated for COVID patients) summarizes how many actually useful medical discoveries are made in independent clinical practice, but the recent hierarchal shifts in medicine have made it so this process is becoming continually rarer and rarer.

The accepted practice of medicine is also a hierarchy largely dictated by “medical evidence.” The existing hierarchal structure here makes it so that contrary research that does end up being published nonetheless is prevented from challenging the status quo. I will review some key examples:

•Medical practice is largely determined by “guidelines” that each physician is expected to follow. In most cases if you follow existing guidelines (ie. don’t treat someone with COVID until they have respiratory failure, then put them on a ventilator and give them remdesivir), you get paid and cannot get in trouble. If you do not follow guidelines, it becomes possible for you to be sued for medical malpractice, health care systems will fire you, and medical boards may take your license.

To illustrate physician attachment to guidelines: Throughout the pandemic I have participated in an online forum that approximately 100,000 US healthcare workers use. As you would imagine, the general mentality there is very conventional. One of the more interesting things I noticed in the early days of the pandemic was health care providers desperately asking for and enthusiastically sharing COVID-19 treatment guidelines from various academic institutions, while at the same time aggressively shooting down independent suggestions or ideas raised by individual physicians.

Guidelines are supposed to be made by impartial committees of experts tasked with reviewing the existing evidence in order to determine the most appropriate guidelines. In reality, as pointed out in Steve Kirsch’s article, these committees are extremely biased, and selectively choose evidence supporting the prevailing narrative.

In most cases, the decision of these unelected guideline committees goes unchallenged and even though they should not be (as discussed later), they are in effect the law.

The only exception I know of occurred when the Lyme community sued the Infectious Disease Society of America (which has also published widely cited COVID treatment guidelines I and others strongly disagree with). The lawsuit challenged IDSA’s guidelines that argued against the use of antibiotics for chronic Lyme disease, which was frequently being used by insurers to deny payment for those treatments and as a basis for authorities to crack down on those treatments being administered in private practice.

•Many people can only afford medical care covered by their insurance. In most cases, insurance will only pay for treatments supported by guideline committees and forces providers to spend most of their time fulfilling requirements of the insurance companies rather than treating patients. As you would imagine, significant financial entanglements exist between hospital systems, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies (for example they often share interlocking board members), which further incentivizes specific therapeutic approaches.

The insurance dynamic creates the unfortunate situation where many people who need help for a condition must depend on word of mouth to identify a physician outside the insurance system who they have to pay for out of pocket. Provided they find the right physician and can afford their care (each of which is often not the case), these individuals often are able to recover from their illness.

•Reciprocally, insurance companies will often pressure health care providers to perform certain services for each patient that “improve quality of care.” If you follow those suggestions (which frequently results in most of the visit being taken up to do so), you are paid more by the insurance companies. Since everyone in health care is tight on money, those incentives result in significant pressure being put on physicians from their administrators to follow those suggestions.

The problem is that many of these suggestions encourage doing things I do not believe help patients and often harm them. For example, one of the reasons doctors aggressively push vaccines to their patients is because insurance companies pay them significantly more for all visits if most of their patients (especially children) are vaccinated. Similarly, one of the reasons why hospitals have been so aggressive in forcing ventilation and remdesivir (to the point they will fight expensive lawsuits to continue doing so), is because Medicare, in accordance with the COVID treatment guidelines, pays them a lot more to manage (and then kill) their patients in this way.

•Federal, state and municipal law enforcement authorities will frequently target those who promote treatments that violate guidelines. In my own experience (and for many others), IV vitamin C has been extremely helpful in certain (but not all) COVID cases. There is also research showing a benefit in COVID from this therapy Nonetheless, the guidelines recommend against it and individuals who publicly promoted IV vitamin C (at a time when no treatment for COVID-19 was available) had their clinics raided and were criminally charged.

•The media will attack any controversial treatment by claiming there is no evidence for it, and simultaneously refuse to report any evidence that emerges in favor of it. Likewise, Big Tech aggressively censors anything that goes against the existing medical narrative. For example, early in the pandemic, a video was posted by a leading researcher who had conducted clinical trials on using IV vitamin C for COVID-19 presenting his data to the NIH. This video was removed by Youtube shortly afterwards for violating their COVID misinformation policy.

How the Hierarchy is Bought Out

As you might imagine, the hierarchy outlined before is immensely susceptible to bribery. As so much money is in health care, this is what always happens.

•When the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed in 2010, its goal was to make health care more affordable. In 2009, total USA healthcare costs were 2.6 trillion dollars. In 2020 it was 4.3 trillion dollars (compared to wages going from $40,711.61 to $55,628.60 per the SSA). As this data shows, Obamacare failed its stated objective. I believe the central problem with Obamacare was that the medical industry is the largest lobbyist in Congress. Because of this, they were able to craft Obamacare to benefit their industry and thereby remove each provision that would have achieved the stated goal of the Affordable Health Care Act, leaving us instead with a variety of highly problematic federal regulations.

•The pharmaceutical industry is the largest sponsor of the mainstream media. For this reason, they prevent stories critical of pharmaceutical products from being discussed and regularly air stories promoting pharmaceuticals. Likewise, they will relentlessly attack anything that opposes mainstream pharmaceutical positions (frequently “cancelling” it and labelling it unscientific and without evidence). During COVID-19 this trend has accelerated following the Biden administration dispensing 1 billion dollars to news outlets across the political spectrum in return for positive coverage of the vaccine. I do not know of any past precedent for this.

Many journalists have complained about their inability to criticize dangerous pharmaceutical products, and to my knowledge, Tucker Carlson is the only individual with a mainstream platform who has (occasionally) spoken out against the industry. In recent times Big Tech and Big Pharma (who during Obama’s presidency became the core sponsors of the Democrat Party) have financially merged with each other, and like the media Big Tech now has a similar commercial interest in protecting Big Pharma’s monopoly.

•Most medical journals are primarily funded by pharmaceutical companies. Because of this, there is a strong bias to publish questionable industry sponsored trials. Conversely, there is also a strong bias to not publish data supporting alternative therapies that challenge their sponsors (an early example of this this is explicitly detailed and can be found within the 2001 book Heart Frauds but I am sure many earlier ones exist). As many of you have noticed, this publication bias has gone into overdrive throughout COVID-19.

•”Large randomized double-blind studies” are typically considered to be the best form of evidence, and many individuals will reflexively dismiss a study unless it fulfills that criteria. The problem is that these types of studies are immensely expensive to conduct, and in most cases can only be done if a pharmaceutical company sponsors them.

As you might expect, numerous studies have shown that when pharmaceutical studies are compared to noncommercial studies, industry studies tend to greatly overestimate the benefits of a drug and understate its harms. This is due to them having a large number of (fraudulent) tricks to create the “scientific” outcome they want. One of the best known recent examples concerned an article in the BMJ discussing a whistleblower who provided proof widespread fraud occurred during Pfizer’s vaccine trials.

While a small benefit can be attributed to the placebo effect (hence suggesting the need for a “placebo controlled trial), in most cases, the bias that emerges from the inherent conflict of interest in a pharmaceutically sponsored trial greatly exceeds the placebo effect. This is extremely important to understand, but rarely understood.

Even in non-blinded studies where a large magnitude of benefit is found (which greatly exceeds any possible placebo effect) those results are typically ignored or dismissed in favor of corporate sponsored research. A sad reality with many scientific publications is that if you read the author conflict of interest disclosures (which intentionally omit key details) and see who sponsored the study of the study, you can typically predict most of what will be written within the publication.

•Most researchers and academic institutions are extremely short on money. Because of this, they are forced to accept pharmaceutical money for any type of research they want to do, and in most cases not ask questions that will upset their sponsors (and even when honest researchers exist, administrators directly concerned with institutional finances will keep them in line). To a lesser extent, they can also function through public grants, but as detailed in “The Real Anthony Fauci” the grant system has been compromised so only researchers who support the mainstream narratives (and have not opposed Anthony Fauci) can get grants. Many respected scientists I have learned a great deal from, believe the corruption of the grant system, which Fauci is largely responsible for, has prevented American science from developing innovative scientific discoveries that were frequently developed in the past.

•In many cases, guideline committees are composed of individuals who have a direct financial conflict of interest over the guidelines they are promoting. The Lyme disease lawsuit for instance was filed on this basis. Malcom Kendrick an English physician who has done an excellent job illustrating many of the scams conducted by the pharmaceutical industry provided one of the best examples for this concept in his book Doctoring Data.

Many physicians are of the opinion statins (which lower cholesterol) have minimal benefit in preventing heart disease and expose patients to frequent and significant adverse effects, but since statins were put on the market, guideline committees have continually lowered the acceptable blood levels of cholesterol, thereby significantly increasing the pool of people who could take statins (leading to the situation that on almost any medical board examination, the correct answer is almost always “give the patient a statin”).

Kendrick’s specific example was that on the guideline committee responsible for determining who needed to receive statins in the United States, every single person who was on the committee (except the chair who was legally barred from it) had a financial conflict of interest with statin manufacturers. As you might guess, one of the quality metrics that administrators have held meetings on and which I was forced to attend regarded not enough “eligible” patients at the clinic being prescribed statin therapy.

•One of Fauci’s major achievements was turning the NIH and NIAID into pharmaceutical production pipelines. This was largely accomplished by allowing federal officials who were involved with the discovery or development of a pharmaceutical that went to market receive royalties for the drug once it was approved that often vastly exceed their salary.

As a result, there is an inherent conflict of interest to push unsafe or ineffective pharmaceuticals through the regulatory process. This frequently happens, whereas non-commercial enterprises focused on public good can almost never receive approval for a medication. Many outside observers believed based on the existing data, remdesivir should not under any circumstances have received an FDA approval, yet it did, largely due to the FDA electing to waive all the required safeguards (such as needing to consult an outside advisory panel) put in place to prevent something like this from occurring.

One of the most interesting aspects of this scheme (detailed in the Real Anthony Fauci) was that Fauci developed a large network of principal investigators (PI’s are needed to run clinical trials) who hold significant sway in getting IRBs around the country to approve ethically questionable trials needed to get unsafe drugs to market. The Real Anthony Fauci also discusses the retaliation faced by honest regulators who raise objections to problems with those trials.

In short, pharmaceutical companies have always bribed regulators, but Fauci had the unique accomplishment of transforming this into being an integral part of the HSS where the regulators would often take it upon themselves to solicit those bribes.

•Lastly, physicians in everyday practice are remarkably susceptible to being bribed, and a cornerstone of the pharmaceutical industry is sending sales reps to convince physicians to prescribe their medications. A small number of physicians refuse to see reps under any circumstances as they feel it is immoral for their own financial self interest to influence their treatment of patients. Typically however, pharmaceutical reps are remarkably effective at accomplishing their goal of selling their chosen medication and many academic physicians who widely promote pharmaceutical products receive immense payouts for doing so.

Revisiting HIV

In my initial post on this substack, I stated I was able to predict much of what has happened with COVID three months before the pandemic started. This was because I have found whenever a formula is discovered which “works” it is typically reused over and over.

The story of HIV, for those interested was originally detailed in Peter Duesberg’s book Inventing the AIDS Virus, and then subsequently further discussed in The Real Anthony Fauci. Fauci’s conduct during this period appeared to have laid the blueprint for what was done with COVID.

At the start of the HIV, there was no cure and many members of the gay community suffered severe disease or died. As time moved forward, independent physicians working in the community discovered a variety of effective treatments for the AIDS patients, some of which were alternative therapies, but most of which utilized repurposed FDA approved drugs. Like the stories shared in those books, a few of my own friends worked in HIV hot spots during this time, and each found they were able to save the lives of their patients if they abandoned government recommendations and tried their own protocols.

Despite endless requests to study these approaches, Anthony Fauci blocked every single one from being studied or adopted into standard of care. In parallel, he pushed along research on a highly toxic drug, AZT. AZT had originally been intended to be used for chemotherapy, but was abandoned as it proved to be too toxic.

While AZT should have never been approved, Fauci was eventually able to manipulate one (terrible) study enough that alongside sufficient pressure being applied to the FDA, earn AZT an FDA approval. Once AZT entered the market, as was obvious from the existing clinical trial data, it significantly worsened the prognosis for AIDS patients, something both reported in each of those books and also reported to me by a few colleagues who observed it enter the market. Despite being responsible for killing many members of the gay community (who at the time protested against Fauci for being a mass murderer), Fauci was hailed a hero, became one of the most influential members of the US government, and made a lot of money in the process.

COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

At the start of COVID-19, the WHO made the curious announcement that Remdesivir would be the standard of care for COVID-19, despite almost no evidence existing to support this decision. After finding out the drug was a nonspecific viral RNA polymerase inhibitor, I became worried it would likely be somewhat toxic to cells, as broad spectrum antivirals tend to overlap with chemotherapy drugs (AZT being one example).

My initial suspicion was that Remdesivir would also affect cellular RNA polymerases (the classic example you learn in medical school are poisonous wild mushrooms triggering organ failure through this mechanism). As I began hearing of reports of organ failure near the start of the pandemic from physicians in China, I prayed we would not see a repeat of AZT. Since that time, significant evidence against Remdesivir has been uncovered suggesting it should have never been brought to market and to some extent, like AZT, it appears Remdesivir has caused significant harm.

As I observed the trajectory COVID-19 was headed in, I formed the hypothesis that a new lucrative drug needed to be put onto the market which could be theoretically argued to treat COVID-19 (“remdesivir must work since it is a non-specific viral RNA polymerase inhibitor”) but in reality would not be effective and instead would worsen and prolong the pandemic. I suspected this strategy would be adopted since the profit from selling the drug could be channeled into keeping effective therapies off the market long enough for vaccines to enter the market. This sadly appears to be what exactly happened once the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel of the NIH made remdesivir the standard of care for COVID-19.

Reference Link : A Midwestern Doctor / Substack

CDC Members Own More Than 50 Patents Connected to Vaccinations | LawFirms.com

CDC Members Own More Than 50 Patents Connected to Vaccinations
The CDC Immunization Safety Office is responsible for investigating the safety and effectiveness of all new vaccinations; once an investigation is considered complete, a recommendation is then made to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) who then determines whether the new vaccine will be added to the current vaccination schedule. Members of the ACIP committee include physicians such as Dr. Paul Offit, who also serves as the chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Offit and other CDC members own numerous patents associated with vaccinations and regularly receive funding for their research work from the very same pharmaceutical companies who manufacturer vaccinations which are ultimately sold to the public. This situation creates an obvious conflict of interest, as members of the ACIP committee benefit financially every time a new vaccination is released to the market.
— Read on www.lawfirms.com/resources/environment/environment-health/cdc-members-own-more-50-patents-connected-vaccinations

COVID Help: $300,000 to Study How Traditional College Grading Perpetuates Systemic Inequalities | Judicial Watch

COVID Help: $300,000 to Study How Traditional College Grading Perpetuates Systemic Inequalities

A public university is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Biden administration’s fraud infested COVID relief fund to study how traditional grading in college perpetuates systemic inequalities toward nontraditional and rural students. “Common classroom practices, such as grading and the use of grades to assess knowledge and performance, may have unintended consequences on students who invariably derive an awareness of their own academic abilities from the results of those grading structures,” according to the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is doling out the money. “In fact, these traditional practices may inadvertently create and promote inequities among different student groups, particularly in large enrollment courses, but these issues have largely been unexplored.”

Beginning early next year, the agency will give North Dakota State University (NDSU) $300,000 to explore the phenomenon. The project is officially titled “Reimagining Grading to Support Nontraditional and Rural Students in High Enrollment, Gateway STEM Courses” and it will be funded by the American Rescue Plan of 2021, the nearly $2 trillion measure passed by Democrats to provide immediate and direct relief to families and workers impacted by the COVID-19 crisis through no fault of their own. When the law passed last spring, the Biden administration promoted it as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in history that would build a bridge to an equitable economic recovery. The administration justified the measure by asserting that the public health crisis and resulting economic crisis devastated the health and economic wellbeing of millions of Americans, particularly people of color, immigrants, and low-wage workers.

The reality is that a lot of the money—billions and counting—has gone to unrelated causes and the administration’s monstrous taxpayer funded COVID relief program is rife with fraud and corruption. The problem is so bad that the Department of Justice (DOJ) created a COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to “enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.” The special unit has been quite busy prosecuting a multitude of scams, false statements, and money laundering related to pandemic relief. This month House Republicans issued a report documenting 500 days of massive waste, fraud, and abuse in the American Rescue Plan. It includes more than $783 million in stimulus checks for convicted prisoners including the Boston Marathon bomber, $40 million to expand libraries in Delaware, $2 million for a Florida golf course and $16 million for electric vehicle charging stations in Maine and $20 million to modernize the state’s fish hatcheries. The list goes on and on.

The scathing report may seem like the $300,000 for the latest questionable project is a drop in the bucket, but it highlights that cash flow has not been deterred by waste. The NDSU researcher (Tara Slominski) who will conduct the study beginning next year claims in a university article that that traditional grading practices perpetuate systemic inequities for college students. “Her work will directly address this challenge by providing STEM faculty with equitable and practical assessment and grading approaches to better support today’s college students,” the piece states, adding that the work will create more equitable learning environments. Slominski teaches biology at NDSU and has already developed a curriculum to promote success among at-risk students. She claims that “the findings from this work will help faculty across the country and across disciplines create more equitable learning environments that are better suited to support the needs of today’s college students.”

The NSF, which funds more than a quarter of research conducted at American colleges with its $8.5 billion annual budget, explains that Slominski’s postdoctoral research fellowship project seeks to examine the impact of grading practices on self-concept and STEM persistence with a special focus on rural and nontraditional students. “The project has promise to produce new insights about equitable classroom and grading practices for rural and nontraditional students that are compatible with the constraints of high enrollment gateway courses,” the agency writes in the grant announcement. It is not clear how this may provide immediate and direct relief to families and workers impacted by the COVID-19 crisis through no fault of their own as the American Rescue Plan intended.
— Read on www.judicialwatch.org/grading-perpetuates-inequalities/

US Firms Report Huge Dip in China Sales as Beijing Continues ‘Zero-COVID’ Measures

US Firms Report Huge Dip in China Sales as Beijing Continues ‘Zero-COVID’ Measures

Several major companies, including Starbucks, Apple, Estee Lauder, and other U.S.-listed companies have warned in quarterly earnings reports that China’s “zero-COVID” controls will severely drag down profit and impact business. 

International companies have faced a number of operational challenges in China, and the recent tightening of pandemic restrictions will only continue that trend. According to Bank of America’s proprietary model, S&P 500 companies in China have fallen to the lowest since the second quarter of 2020. 

Since mid-March, China has been battling an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant by enacting swift lockdowns and travel restrictions across its major cities. Health authorities have logged over 15,000 daily new infections of COVID-19 since April, with the country reporting 12,939 positive cases on May 5. 

READ MORE ON CHINA’S CORONAVIRUS SITUATION:

Starbucks and Apple both reported a decrease in same-store sales of over 20 percent — far worse than the 0.2 percent decrease analysts expected, according to FactSet. Starbucks said its in-person sales had gone down by 23 percent since the lockdowns in Shanghai began. 

“Conditions in China are such that we have virtually no ability to predict our performance in China in the back half of the year,” Starbucks Interim CEO Howard Schultz said

The coffee giant suspended its guidance for the rest of the fiscal year, or the remaining two quarters. However, Starbucks said it still expected its business dealings in China to grow larger than its homegrown U.S. audience in the long term. 

Despite nearly all its final assembly plants in Shanghai being given the green light to restart production, Apple said the lockdowns would likely impact sales in the current quarter from $4 billion to $8 billion — a “substantially” higher number compared to the last quarter. The other factor affecting sales is the ongoing chip shortage, Apple executives said during an earnings call on April 28. 

The effects from China’s lockdowns in Shanghai, and now Beijing, have exacerbated the decline in semiconductor imports by over 5 percent in the first two months of 2022 during a global chip shortage.

“Covid is difficult to predict,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said after describing those estimated costs, according to a transcript from the call obtained by StreetAccount.

Apple also blamed ongoing COVID-19 disruptions for affecting consumer demand in China.

People line up to be tested at a nucleic acid testing station in Beijing, China on May 6, 2022. (Image: JADE GAO/AFP via Getty Images)

Beijing tightens restrictions

Authorities in China’s capital announced Friday, May 6, that all non-essential services in its sprawling district of Chaoyang, home to embassies and large offices, would close until further notice. Mass testing will also resume in at least four districts over the weekend.

Unlike other countries, which have loosened their controversial pandemic restrictions, the Chinese authorities have doubled down on their ruinous zero-tolerance approach. The latest lockdown in Shanghai was brought on at the end of March as health experts using a more targeted anti-epidemic regime were apparently sidelined in favor of the draconian “zero-COVID” policy. 

Meanwhile, organizers of the Asian Games, originally scheduled to take place in the eastern city of Hangzhou in September, also announced today that the event would be postponed until 2023 due to COVID restrictions. 

“We will try to cooperate,” Hu, a 42-year-old finance professional from Beijing told Reuters

“But I also hope that the government can introduce some policies that will not affect the overall life of citizens. After all, we all have mortgages and car loans,” Hu, who gave only her surname in fear of retaliation from the government, said. 

Beijing authorities are scrambling to avoid an explosion in cases like the one that forced the financial hub of Shanghai into complete lockdown for over a month, resulting in severe losses to its financial and economic sectors as most stores and businesses were forced to remain closed for weeks on end. 

The prolonged lockdowns also negatively impacted the psychological health of its residents, with some committing suicide by jumping off rooftops as they reached their breaking point, and others starving to death after completely running out of food and water, and unable to leave their homes to procure more. 

Recently, Shanghai appeared to ease some restrictions, allowing an estimated 4 million people to leave their homes. However, as new infections continued being found, authorities again tightened restrictions in certain areas, notifying residents that the lockdowns would continue until the virus is ”fully brought under control.”

China’s top officials defend ‘zero-COVID’ protocols 

US Firms Report Huge Dip in China Sales as Beijing Continues ‘Zero-COVID’ Measures

Several major companies, including Starbucks, Apple, Estee Lauder, and other U.S.-listed companies have warned in quarterly earnings reports that China’s “zero-COVID” controls will severely drag down profit and impact business.

International companies have faced a number of operational challenges in China, and the recent tightening of pandemic restrictions will only continue that trend. According to Bank of America’s proprietary model, S&P 500 companies in China have fallen to the lowest since the second quarter of 2020.

Since mid-March, China has been battling an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant by enacting swift lockdowns and travel restrictions across its major cities. Health authorities have logged over 15,000 daily new infections of COVID-19 since April, with the country reporting 12,939 positive cases on May 5.

READ MORE ON CHINA’S CORONAVIRUS SITUATION:

Citizen Journalist Jailed in Shanghai for Speaking Out Against ‘Zero-COVID’ Policy

Shanghai Reverses Decision to Loosen COVID Restrictions Despite Prolonged Suffering and Economic Damage

Desperate Residents Protest Shanghai Lockdown: ‘You are driving people to their deaths’

Starbucks and Apple both reported a decrease in same-store sales of over 20 percent — far worse than the 0.2 percent decrease analysts expected, according to FactSet. Starbucks said its in-person sales had gone down by 23 percent since the lockdowns in Shanghai began.

“Conditions in China are such that we have virtually no ability to predict our performance in China in the back half of the year,” Starbucks Interim CEO Howard Schultz said.

The coffee giant suspended its guidance for the rest of the fiscal year, or the remaining two quarters. However, Starbucks said it still expected its business dealings in China to grow larger than its homegrown U.S. audience in the long term.

Despite nearly all its final assembly plants in Shanghai being given the green light to restart production, Apple said the lockdowns would likely impact sales in the current quarter from $4 billion to $8 billion — a “substantially” higher number compared to the last quarter. The other factor affecting sales is the ongoing chip shortage, Apple executives said during an earnings call on April 28.

The effects from China’s lockdowns in Shanghai, and now Beijing, have exacerbated the decline in semiconductor imports by over 5 percent in the first two months of 2022 during a global chip shortage.

“Covid is difficult to predict,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said after describing those estimated costs, according to a transcript from the call obtained by StreetAccount.

Apple also blamed ongoing COVID-19 disruptions for affecting consumer demand in China.

People line up to be tested at a nucleic acid testing station in Beijing, China on May 6, 2022. (Image: JADE GAO/AFP via Getty Images)

Beijing tightens restrictions

Authorities in China’s capital announced Friday, May 6, that all non-essential services in its sprawling district of Chaoyang, home to embassies and large offices, would close until further notice. Mass testing will also resume in at least four districts over the weekend.

Unlike other countries, which have loosened their controversial pandemic restrictions, the Chinese authorities have doubled down on their ruinous zero-tolerance approach. The latest lockdown in Shanghai was brought on at the end of March as health experts using a more targeted anti-epidemic regime were apparently sidelined in favor of the draconian “zero-COVID” policy.

Meanwhile, organizers of the Asian Games, originally scheduled to take place in the eastern city of Hangzhou in September, also announced today that the event would be postponed until 2023 due to COVID restrictions.

“We will try to cooperate,” Hu, a 42-year-old finance professional from Beijing told Reuters.

“But I also hope that the government can introduce some policies that will not affect the overall life of citizens. After all, we all have mortgages and car loans,” Hu, who gave only her surname in fear of retaliation from the government, said.

Beijing authorities are scrambling to avoid an explosion in cases like the one that forced the financial hub of Shanghai into complete lockdown for over a month, resulting in severe losses to its financial and economic sectors as most stores and businesses were forced to remain closed for weeks on end.

The prolonged lockdowns also negatively impacted the psychological health of its residents, with some committing suicide by jumping off rooftops as they reached their breaking point, and others starving to death after completely running out of food and water, and unable to leave their homes to procure more.

Recently, Shanghai appeared to ease some restrictions, allowing an estimated 4 million people to leave their homes. However, as new infections continued being found, authorities again tightened restrictions in certain areas, notifying residents that the lockdowns would continue until the virus is ”fully brought under control.”

China’s top officials defend ‘zero-COVID’ protocols

After the Standing Committee of the Communist Party’s Politburo held a quarterly economic meeting on April 28, Chinese state media reported Wednesday that China would fight any comment or action that “distorted, doubted or repudiated” its “zero-COVID” policy.

The Politburo, the top-ruling body of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), saw its 25 members, including leader Xi Jinping, vow to speed up the implementation of existing tax-cut and supportive policies, as well as the introduction of new monetary policy tools to enhance investments during the fiscal meeting.

According to a statement released after the meeting, new regulatory policies for several industries were also revealed, with tech giants Alibaba and Tencent hoping they will be greeted with good news ahead of next month’s regulatory meeting with the country’s tech sector.

“We must insist on the policies of preventing both inbound infections and a domestic rebound of cases, and [adhere to] dynamic Zero-Covid, doing our best to protect people’s lives and minimize its impact on the national economy and society,” the statement said.

Relaxing COVID controls, however, which are in place in dozens of cities across the world’s second-largest economy, would lead to large-scale infections, it warned. After the Standing Committee of the Communist Party’s Politburo held a quarterly economic meeting on April 28, Chinese state media reported Wednesday that China would fight any comment or action that “distorted, doubted or repudiated” its “zero-COVID” policy.

The Politburo, the top-ruling body of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), saw its 25 members, including leader Xi Jinping, vow to speed up the implementation of existing tax-cut and supportive policies, as well as the introduction of new monetary policy tools to enhance investments during the fiscal meeting.

According to a statement released after the meeting, new regulatory policies for several industries were also revealed, with tech giants Alibaba and Tencent hoping they will be greeted with good news ahead of next month’s regulatory meeting with the country’s tech sector.

“We must insist on the policies of preventing both inbound infections and a domestic rebound of cases, and [adhere to] dynamic Zero-Covid, doing our best to protect people’s lives and minimize its impact on the national economy and society,” the statement said.

Relaxing COVID controls, however, which are in place in dozens of cities across the world’s second-largest economy, would lead to large-scale infections, it warned.