COVID-19, Current Events, Guest Column, Media & Press, What's New

Vaccine Deaths Pile Up Without Media Coverage

No Comments

Guest column by Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn

Switch mental gears and stop thinking about the pandemic. Think about the endless news stories you have seen and heard on all mainstream media that headline stories with a large number of deaths. The deaths may result from large scale criminal acts like mass shootings or all kinds of natural disasters. Big media makes big news when a dozen or more people get killed, or when hundreds die in floods or hurricanes. Rarely are thousands dead, but when that happens, usually in other countries, that is really big news. And it happened for the 9/11 attack when about 3,000 people died in the US.

The point of this article is that the media now is largely ignoring the thousands dying from the experimental COVID vaccines. My exhaustive analysis of medical studies and data reveal that Americans are dying in two different ways because they got jabbed.

Two types of vaccine deaths

A few thousand people have died from breakthrough infections because the vaccines are not effective in preventing a new infection.

What is now crystal clear is that the experimental vaccines lose their effectiveness over some months. The number of breakthrough infections are accelerating for two reasons. As more people get the shot a larger pool of vaccinated people drive more breakthrough infections. And now with declining vaccine effectiveness, possibly related to new variants, the odds of getting a breakthrough infection go up. While many breakthrough infections do not cause major medical problems, in a fraction of cases victims need hospitalization and some die.

The other cause of vaccine deaths are complex blood problems, namely different kinds of blood clots, the loss of blood platelets and resulting bleed events that are lethal. Think in terms of brain bleeds, strokes and heart attacks. Vaccine induced blood problems have been discussed here.

Number of vaccine deaths

My data analysis indicates that now we have probably lost close to 5,000 American lives from the two vaccine related deaths and most likely this will increase to perhaps 10,000 deaths by the end of this year.

The vaccine related deaths of many hundreds and certainly thousands of people should be a big news story. It is not. Why not? Because all of the corrupt and dishonest powers mismanaging the pandemic want to keep pushing and coercing everyone to get the shot. So, they stifle the truth about vaccine dangers.

They keep justifying this by saying that only a small statistical fraction of the vaccinated die and compare this to the over 600,000 COVID deaths that the experimental vaccines supposedly could have prevented. Here is the truth. Vaccine induced deaths cannot be prevented. They result from the deficiencies of the vaccines.

On the other hand, COVID deaths have always been highly preventable, say 85 percent or more, because since March 2020 we have known that several cheap, safe and FDA approved generics cure COVID and also can be used to prevent the infection. Plus, many of those official COVID deaths were probably for people dying from other causes; they died with COVID, not from it.

Here is what people need to keep in mind. Can you imagine anything worse than getting a shot of an experimental COVID vaccine and then sometime later dying from the infection or a blood problem? I can’t. How could the government let such vaccines be widely used? Follow the money. All the way to big drug companies making vaccines.

Breakthrough infection data

It is hard to get good, reliable data on the post-vaccination breakthrough infection death rate. The likely answer is that the government wants to keep that data as hidden as possible. Why? Because the more that Americans know about breakthrough deaths, the more they will question the medical wisdom of getting either the first shot or a booster jab.

So, what does the breakthrough death data look like? That depends where you look for the data. Can you expect to see the same numbers everywhere? No. Can you expect to see such data in your daily newspaper or on you evening network news? No.

One seemingly good source is an August New York Times compilation of breakthrough deaths from 40 states and the District of Columbia. That list yields 1,527 deaths. But when extrapolated to the whole nation, that adds up to possibly 1,899 deaths. Expectedly, all the pro-vaccine people in government, public health and the medical establishment think that kind of number is just fine.

Their argument is simple. With so many millions of people vaccinated a few thousand breakthrough deaths is acceptable. Except for those who die and their family and friends. Something akin to putting a bandage on a cut after putting some antiseptic on it and then sometime later losing a limb or your life from a terrible infection. Just one of those statistical ugly and unlikely realities. I checked out some other places for similar data. Here is what I found.

A Los Angeles Times article from May said: “In all, 160 fully vaccinated people with a breakthrough infection died during the study period. That’s 2% of those with breakthrough infections, and 0.0001% of U.S. residents who were fully vaccinated by April 30. All 160 people were between the ages of 71 and 89.” Just 160, sounds pretty good, especially compared to close to 2,000. And the statistics make it seem oh so unlikely that you will die from COVID after vaccination. That figure of 160 came from a CDC report. And there now are breakthrough deaths in much younger people.

An article from Heritage in August cited a figure of 1,507 fatal cases of breakthrough infection in line with the New York Times data. This too was cited; “164 million Americans were fully vaccinated against COVID-19, with 191 million people having acquired partial immunity through at least one dose.” Seems like you just have to bet on being statistically safe.

An August story on CNBC reported: “NBC News has found that at least 125,000 fully vaccinated Americans have tested positive for Covid and 1,400 of those have died. Still, the 125,682 “breakthrough” cases in 38 states found by NBC News represented less than 0.08% of the 164.2 million-plus people (and counting) who have been fully vaccinated since the start of the year, or about one in every 1,300.”

Here is the headline of story in New York Magazine from this month: “Don’t Panic, But Breakthrough Cases May Be a Bigger Problem Than You’ve Been Told – Current public-health messaging may understate the scale and risk.”

This was a wise observation: “a closer look at the data reveals that some of the public-health communication may be overstating the vaccine effect on transmission and understating the scale and risk of breakthrough infections, which, while far from predominant, do appear prevalent enough to be helping shape the course of the disease.”

“The message that breakthrough cases are exceedingly rare and that you don’t have to worry about them if you’re vaccinated — that this is only an epidemic of the unvaccinated — that message is falling flat,” Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina said.

Also noted was a large pre-print study published by the Mayo clinic that suggested the efficacy against infection had fallen as far to 42 percent, far below numbers in the 90s you have been hearing about since the experimental vaccines received emergency authorization. This helps explain escalating breakthrough cases.

The article also pointed these facts out: “In Utah, 8 percent of new cases were breakthroughs in early June, but by late July, as Delta grew, the share grew, too, to 20 percent (even while the total number of cases almost doubled). According to leaked CDC documents, there were, as of late last month, 35,000 symptomatic breakthrough cases being recorded each week — about 10 percent of the country’s total.

Presumably many more breakthrough cases were asymptomatic, which would drive the share up further.” But as of late May, CDC started to only count breakthrough cases resulting in hospitalization or death. Their objective was to not count more minor breakthrough cases that would reveal reduced vaccine effectiveness.

“The breakthrough problem is much more concerning than what our public officials have transmitted,” Dr. Eric Topol said. “We have no good tracking. But every indicator I have suggests that there’s a lot more under the radar than is being told to the public so far, which I unfortunate.” The result, he said, was a widening gap between the messaging from public-health authorities and the meaning of the data emerging in real time.

“I think the problem we have is people — whether it’s the CDC or the people that are doing the briefings — their big concern is, they just want to get vaccinations up. And they don’t want to punch any holes in the story about vaccines. But we can handle the truth. And that’s what we should be getting.”

Blood problem deaths

The US government is not providing good data on vaccine induced blood problem deaths. There are some websites that provide large numbers of videos about those who have died from brain bleeds, strokes and other conditions related to blood clots, loss of blood platelets and lethal bleeding. Health Impact News and 1000 Covid Stories are terrific.

Here is some data from a recent UK research study that addressed blood clots in “veins of the legs and in lung arteries.” The researchers offered rather high rates of the main blood clot/low

platelet condition from the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine: 1,000 per 100 million for people 50 and over and 2,000 per 100 million for younger people. These suggest a potential for thousands of vaccine induced blood deaths in the US. Keep in mind that many people may be dying from blood problems but no test done to verify it is caused by a vaccine.

Additionally, a Canadian doctor found evidence of microscopic blood clots in 62 percent of his patients that had received the Moderna vaccine. He predicted dire long term health impacts from these clots in capillaries. He said this: 
“The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc. The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test…The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.”

Future medical problems and deaths from the microscopic blood clots at this point are speculative.

Conclusions

Here is my logical bottom line. Getting a shot these days is gambling that you will not be that statistical fluke, dying from a lack of protection against COVID from any of the experimental vaccines. Keep in mind that with so many millions of people being vaccinated breakthrough infections are likely to keep rolling up.

And think of your gamble as related to the possibility that you might die from vaccine induced blood clots or bleeding, especially in the brain. And then add these two pieces of true science facts.

If you have natural immunity from being infected at some point your have better immunity than that conferred by the experimental vaccines. Getting a shot might cause serious medical problems if you have natural immunity.

And finally, never forget that since March 2020 we have absolute scientific truth that several cheap, safe and fully FDA approved generic medicines not only can cure COVID but also can be used as a prophylactic to prevent infection. Detailed data on these are in Pandemic Blunder. They are alternatives to the experimental vaccines, and some doctors are prescribing these generics despite actions by NIH, FDA and CDC to block wide use of them.

The main thing to fear now are increasing vaccine mandates that so many people will comply with out of sheer survival needs. Vaccine related deaths will keep being ignored by government and big media in order to safeguard the revenues of big drug companies making the vaccines.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.

COVID-19, Current Events, Featured, Media & Press, Op-eds, Politics, What's New

The Graveyard of COVID-19 Missed Information

No Comments

The British social hierarchy of the Middle Ages and beyond was divided into “three estates of the realm”: the king, the clergy, and the commoners. More modern times brought the fourth estate, the non-establishment, independent journalists. Our founders knew that for a successful democratic republic, the press had to be a watchdog. Journalists now have become morticians who embalm and bury stories at the bidding of their puppet masters. 

In many cases, the government with its media accomplices quietly plucked from the public square information that is not to their liking, irrespective of its factual accuracy. COVID-19 has brought the practice out of the shadows. With our health at stake, it is imperative that all sides of the science are available. Let the people decide. 

Welcome to the cemetery. The PCR test used to diagnose an infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was found to have as high as 97 percent of false positives for infectiousness because the test was so sensitive that it measured dead viruses that could not cause disease. Even the inscrutable Dr. Fauci agreed with that assessment.  After the distribution of the vaccines that were going to bring us back to the old normal, the CDC set strict rules for testing of vaccine “breakthrough” cases. It wanted “only specimens” that were collected with a PCR test that was much less sensitive. Was this done to make the vaccines look more effective?

It’s unlikely anyone saw that the CDC will soon abandon the PCR test. What a coincidence that a consortium backed by Bill Gates bought out Mologic, a company with a yet-to-be-approved COVID test. 

Then there’s a CDC analysis of infections and mask-wearing. “In the 14 days before illness onset, 71 percent of case-patients and 74 percent of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public.” Only 4 percent of the case-patients “never” wore a mask. The explanation was that the masked case-patients frequented restaurants and got infected when they removed their masks to eat.

The mainstream reporting of COVID-19 deaths is sensationalism at its worst. The newscasts implied any infected person would surely be on death’s door at some point. Again, the CDC’s own analysis of COVID hospitalizations showed that the risk of death while hospitalized was 0.3% for patients with no comorbidities. The analysis showed that the strongest risk factors were obesity, diabetes with a complication, and anxiety disorders. Yet we did not hear that we should lose weight and exercise. (How unfortunate that the gyms were closed.) Our mental health was tested by lockdowns and lack of socialization. 

Even French virologist and Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier was ghosted when he posited that mass vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus during the pandemic was creating variants. His science appears to have been borne out. The CDC reported an outbreak in Massachusetts where 90 percent of SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified as the Delta variant. Moreover, 74 percent of the infected were fully vaccinated. There are similar findings in the United Kingdom and Israel. In another instance, 75 to 80 percent of recently infected staff members at two University of California San Francisco hospitals were fully vaccinated. 

The most devastating missed information is the effectiveness of early treatment of COVID-19. Since February 2020, clinicians had successfully treated patients early in the disease process with hydroxychloroquine. A campaign to discredit these successes followed. When Dr. Fauci’s pet drug, Remdesivir was found to be ineffective, the media buried the study. Despite studies showing its benefit, ivermectin was given the hydroxychloroquine smear treatment. Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are fully FDA-approved, have a long record of safety, and remain on the World Health Organization list of essential medicines. What’s the problem? They are very inexpensive and generic.

With early treatment sidelined, the experimental vaccines became the panacea. But why are we expected to ignore the RNA vaccines’ role in encouraging variants and serious side effects such as heart inflammation, paralysis, and death? Could money be a motivator? Pfizer reports that will have $33.5 billion in Covid-19 vaccine sales in 2021, with even more revenue anticipated from the booster shots. Was the drug and health product manufacturers’ $171 million to lobbyists in the last 6 months intended to ensure the government’s cooperation? Are the pharmaceutical companies the Fifth Estate?

The politicians’ hypocrisy says it all. In their personal lives, Nancy Pelosi and her nephew, California’s Governor Newsom flout their own directives, with mask-less haircuts, fancy dinners, and children’s summer camps, to name a few. More galling is the “let them eat cake” attitude in their political lives. Newsom demands that all state workers—except the powerful prison guard union—get vaccinated or submit to continuous COVID tests. Pelosi commands her subjects, aka congresspersons to don masks subject to fines and arrest for noncompliance. But her majesty removes her mask for a photo op. How can anyone trust anything these soulless grifters have to say?

Do some digging. The truth is out there. 

Current Events, Guest Column, Media & Press, Politics, What's New

Anatomy of Subtle Propaganda

No Comments

Guest column by Aharon Hertzberg

The purpose of this essay is to show how someone can write an article that appears to be, and feels like, an even and balanced depiction of an issue while in reality being full-on gaslighting propaganda. Therefore, I am not trying to prove my factual assertions here, as it would double or triple the length and distract from what I’m trying to illustrate; and even if I am dead wrong factually, it is still aptly illustrated, for the reader can see the tactics and methods by which one can subtly distort facts and arguments. The following article was published by MSN:

“Can ivermectin be used to treat COVID-19? What you should know” 

Early on in the pandemic, doctors desperate for an answer for COVID-19 began reviewing whether any drugs already available could be used as an effective treatment. Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, was administered to some patients across the globe with seemingly positive effects. However, some health officials have challenged the effectiveness of the drug to treat COVID-19, creating controversy in both the medical and political spheres. 

On one side, there are doctors who say ivermectin can help end the pandemic if used globally. On the other are public health officials who have reviewed the data and say the drug’s effectiveness against COVID-19 isn’t conclusive. 

This is an accurate and fair depiction of the basic contours of the Ivermectin debate. 

Here’s everything you need to know about ivermectin and its use for COVID-19. 

This implants I the mind of the reader that what follows is sufficiently comprehensive to understand all of the salient points and arguments relevant to Ivermectin. This sense of ‘broad comprehensiveness’ is further driven home by the length of this article, which implies comprehensiveness. 

What is ivermectin? 

Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic medicine “that works by altering cellular channels,” said Dr. Soumi Eachempati, CEO of Cleared4 and former professor of surgery and public health at Weill Cornell Medical College. The drug inhibits some viruses from infecting cells, thus preventing the virus from spreading. Ivermectin is usually given to treat parasitic infections like lice and Strongyloides, according to Eachempati. 

Scientists at pharmaceuticals giant Merck discovered ivermectin in 1975 and began to use it to treat scabies, river blindness and other parasitic diseases carried by worms and lice starting in 1981. It’s on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines for a basic health care system. More than 250 million people take the drug across the globe each year, and it’s effective for animals as well. 

Although they could have done a better job explaining the background, it is immaterial to understanding Ivermectin vis a vis covid, and doesn’t give any misleading impressions. 

The drug is considered safe when taken in appropriate dosages. 

This is a bit misleading, because there is a subtle implication that there is very little room between the normal dosing range and an unsafe dose, which is not true, as Ivermectin is safe even at very high doses. 

Side effects for the ivermectin vary depending on whether it’s taken orally to treat intestinal infections or topically for skin infections. Oral tablets can cause drowsiness, nausea, vomiting and, in very rare cases, an increase in heart rate and seizures. Side effects for the topical ivermectin can include skin rash and irritation, while dry skin and stinging pain are severe and rare. 

Ivermectin is safer than Tylenol, so ask yourself: If you saw this about Tylenol, would you think that this is a fair assessment of potential side effects? Does it convey an exaggerated sense of risk? Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs ever made, dispensed >4 billion times over the past 50 years or so. Also, the vast majority of Ivermectin side effects are specific to its interactions with either river blindness or parasitic worms, neither of which is relevant to covid. 

Can ivermectin be used to treat COVID-19? 

This is where things get complicated. Public health agencies, including the Federal Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization, don’t suggest ivermectin’s use to treat COVID-19. They cite the lack of data from large, randomized trials confirming the drug’s effectiveness to treat the disease. 

True in the sense that they said it. This, however, gaslights the reader into believing that these agencies are acting on the basis of their unbiased, expert judgement, which is emphatically delusional – these agencies are as political as any govt agency. Also, there are many RCT’s, that collectively cover well over 10,000 subjects, which is definitely enough to qualify as “large”. Furthermore, the author neglects to inform the reader that these same agencies approved other interventions, such as facemasks or Remdesivir, on the basis of far less data/studies, which proves that their excuse of “lack of large RCT’s” is baloney. 

Doctors who cited multiple smaller studies and firsthand experience say otherwise. 

Credit for acknowledging clinical (firsthand) experience. But this is still very misleading. Doctors are not citing only ‘smaller studies’, they are also citing large studies, some of which are RCT’s. This gives a distinct impression that there exist no robust studies in favor of Ivermectin at all, which is emphatically untrue. 

They claim ivermectin does work to prevent people from developing symptoms from COVID-19 and can shorten recovery time for those already infected. 

This is straight up lying by omission, because the author leaves out the most important claim – the massive reduction in mortality – which is the primary benefit and the one that is most strongly demonstrative of Ivermectin’s efficacy!! The fact that mortality reduction is mentioned later almost in passing does not excuse its absence here, where the reader’s first impression of the pro-Ivermectin arguments is formed. 

What do the public health agencies say about ivermectin use for COVID-19 treatment? 

The FDA said in March it hasn’t approved the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. It warned that large doses of the drug are “dangerous and can cause serious harm.” The agency also advised against human use of ivermectin produced for animals, such as cows and horses, as the doses aren’t the same and could contain ingredients intended only for animals. 

All true – the FDA indeed made these claims (although the decision to not approve is preposterous). 

There has been a growing number of people taking ivermectin for animals as word spread on social media about its possible use to cure COVID-19. This has resulted in some people calling state poison centers after taking the incorrect dosage since the medication is intended for animals. 

This is a slanted depiction of the people who take horse Ivermectin. The reason people have done so is simply out of desperation when faced with doctor’s refusal to use it, and their pharmacy’s refusal to fill Ivermectin prescriptions, and government bans on it. This is not some wild conspiracy theory trafficked by crackpots. 

In April, the FDA reaffirmed in a post on its website that ivermectin isn’t approved to treat COVID-19 nor has it been given emergency use authorization. 

Factually true statement. However, constantly quoting the FDA and other health agencies as institutions possessing unimpeachable expertise is itself highly misleading, because it conveys to people that there is a legitimate expert opinion out there that legitimately holds that Ivermectin doesn’t work, which is profoundly wrong – there is no rational basis in fact or logic to doubt Ivermectin’s efficacy at this point, and there is considerable corruption within these highly political government health agencies.

The NIH said in February there was insufficient data to “recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.” 

They said it. It is still a misleading presentation, however - i.e., an objective description of the facts is “The NIH lied in February when they said there was insufficient data etc.”

It did say lab tests found the drug stopped the reproduction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that cause the disease. However, to be effective, the dosages would need to be “100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.” 

They did say that. This is very dishonest though. The claim about the dosage requirement is sheer scientific illiteracy. Not only does the author present this as an unchallenged scientific finding, he doesn’t ever cite the counter arguments (refutation) of the pro-Ivermectin doctors. He also fails to point out the obvious, which is that real-world observation of efficacy would completely disprove this, something that the average reader won’t think of by themselves. All in all, this claim gives a false impression that it is highly unlikely that Ivermectin could be used effectively based on the prior background clinical knowledge we have for Ivermectin. 

While some clinical studies showed ivermectin to have no benefit, the NIH said others saw a lower mortality rate among patients. However, those studies were incomplete or had methodological limitations such as small sample sizes or patients receiving additional medicine along with ivermectin, according to the NIH. 

The claim that some studies showed no benefit is false, because no legitimate studies found no benefit – there were a few corrupt, fraudulent studies that purported to show no benefit, which don’t count (these will be addressed later). This is like saying, “while some studies showed that the Earth is round, NASA said that others showed that the Earth is actually kind of flat”. 

The claim that all the studies showing benefits suffered from “methodological limitations” that are implied to be disqualifying is likewise false. Furthermore, a sufficient number of low-power studies all finding the same results is itself powerful evidence of efficacy, because the odds of running 50 small studies that show the same thing are insignificant if it’s just a fluke. 

The WHO said in March the current evidence on the use of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 was “inconclusive.” 

The WHO said it. The WHO lied. 

Who says ivermectin is a treatment, and what information do they have? 

Ivermectin’s potential use as a COVID-19 therapeutic made headway last December during a Senate Homeland Security Committee meeting called Focus on Early Treatment of COVID-19. Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist, testified about the drug’s usage for treatment of the disease. 

“Ivermectin is highly safe, widely available, and low cost,” Kory said in the Senate meeting. “We now have data from over 20 well-designed clinical studies, 10 of them randomized, controlled trials, with every study consistently reporting large magnitude and statistically significant benefits in decreasing transmission rates, shortening recovery times, decreasing hospitalizations, or large reductions in deaths. These data show that ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19.” 

During his testimony, Kory referred to a paper he authored — Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 — that was published in the May edition of the American Journal of Therapeutics. 

True! And I would add, ask yourself: does this sound remotely like how the author of this article presented the general case for Ivermectin earlier?? 

However, the author again left out the most compelling argument made, which in this case is that Dr. Kory himself had successfully treated thousands of Covid patients with Ivermectin. The clinical experience of a doctor using a treatment repeatedly on thousands of patients is far stronger evidence than any trial, for sure during a crisis. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that “Dr. Kory testified that he had used Ivermectin to successfully treat thousands of covid patients” resonates powerfully to the reader in a way that no ‘study’ ever can. 

The paper was also included in the Frontiers of Pharmacology journal in January but was then removed in March. 

They folded under immense political pressure, which is misleading by omission of the possibility that its retraction may have been the result of political influence. 

Dr. Frederick Fenter, chief executive editor of the journal, said the paper was removed due to “strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.” 

Every element of Dr. Fenter’s statement is a bold, audacious lie. 

Fenter also said the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment, which goes against editorial policies. 

Selective application of a standard which they didn’t actually run afoul of. 

A study listed in Kory’s paper gave ivermectin to 234 uninfected health care workers in Argentina and found those who received the drug were far less likely to be diagnosed with COVID. For mildly ill patients, an Iraq study saw a quicker recovery time. A trial for 400 hospitalized patients in Egypt showed a decrease in mortality in one group that received the drug along with standard care in comparison to a group with the same care that was given hydroxychloroquine. 

This is cherry picking that also avoids spelling out the clear results of the quoted studies. He could’ve cited, for example, this Argentina study, which gives a far more powerful impression of efficacy: 

Carvallo et al, RCT Prophylaxis, 1195 health care workers (HCW’s), 2 groups, 788 given 1x/week prophylaxis, control of 407 HCW’s. Results: 237/407 (58.2%) lab-confirmed covid infections in control vs 0/788 – ZERO!! - in Ivermectin arm. 

I wonder why he didn’t… 

There are also studies that show otherwise. A clinical trial of 476 patients found ivermectin didn’t improve the recovery time in patients who had COVID-19. A review of 10 random clinical trials, with more than 1,000 participants, also didn’t find improvements with ivermectin. 

Both of these studies are, literally, fraudulent junk science. The first one, Medina-Lopez, suffered from issues such as the control arm also taking Ivermectin(!!!), among other significant failings; the second, the Roman et al meta-analysis of Ivermectin RCT’s, suffered from issues such as falsely reporting results from some of the studies in a way that SWAPPED THEIR RESULTS from showing efficacy to doing worse than the control, as well as arbitrarily excluding all the RCT’s that had they included, they would have been forced to conclude that Ivermectin was, indeed, effective. 

Furthermore, there are 2 recently published meta-analyses of Ivermectin RCT’s using the highest statistical standard (Cochrane protocol), both by professional WHO expert consultants who specifically do these sorts of meta-analyses for all sorts of topics, that found that Ivermectin has a massive statistical impact by moderate quality evidence (which in layperson language means that it is a virtual lock that the effect is real, ‘moderate’ is a very technical term that refers to having specific types of evidence). 

Merck, the company that discovered ivermectin, released a statement in February saying there was “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies” and “no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease.” It also cited a lack of safety data from major studies. 

Merck lied. Merck also just signed a gov’t contract for a new anti-viral covid treatment drug they’re developing for $1.3 billion, which is an obvious conflict of interest relevant to their credibility to denounce a competing drug which if effective would mean there is no market at all for their expensive new anti-viral covid drug. The failure to acknowledge this by the author is at best indefensibly negligent. This gives the misleading impression of an authoritative source that has unique credibility to speak on the issue (because it’s their drug) saying that there’s no evidence that Ivermectin works. 

Why is there controversy over ivermectin? 

This question is inherently misleading, because anyone reading until now would intuit that of course there is a ‘controversy’ about a drug where according to one side, the other side are murderers, corrupt, and engaging in flat-put censorship. Such a question, especially after explaining the dispute, implies that it is not so clear why there would be a controversy at all, which in light of how they have portrayed Ivermectin so far is unambiguously pushing – however subtly - that Ivermectin really doesn’t have legitimate evidence backing it up. 

The debate about ivermectin’s usage to treat COVID-19 has gone from the hospital to social media, exacerbating the discourse as well as the vitriol. 

True. 

While those in support of the drug appear to want an end to the pandemic, their arguments in favor of ivermectin have become fodder for anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists. 

“Appear to want an end to the pandemic”??? Notice how the author will question the motives of the pro-Ivermectin doctors, despite them having no documented conflicts of interest, yet will not question the motives of health agencies and political doctors, despite the numerous and powerful conflicts of interest. This is subtle, but powerful, propaganda that gets the reader to associate the pro-Ivermectin doctors, but not the anti-Ivermectin health agencies, with nefarious motives (and conspiracy theorists, to whom a connection is alleged even though the author then says that it’s not the conscious objective of the pro-Ivermectin docs) without really realizing the manipulation inducing the reader to make this association. 

Groups that have spread misinformation about COVID-19 throughout the pandemic latched onto ivermectin’s usage following Kory’s Senate testimony. 

Notice also how the author doesn’t ever mention how government policies and claims have led to groups spreading misinformation about covid, such as there being no effective covid treatments as an alternate to getting a vaccine (and also such as that everyone is at significant risk from covid, facemask efficacy (which led to such cultish insanity like people wearing facemasks alone while driving), the 6-foot fairy tale, distorted vaccine risk/benefit analysis, ‘9% of US died from covid’, 50% of covid cases result in hospitalization, etc, etc, etc). Even if this is merely reflecting the prior assumptions of the author, the propaganda effect is just as real, as the reader is induced to associate only the pro-Ivermectin doctors with enabling crackpots and malicious people spreading lies, but not the government, who has been infinitely worse in this regard, as they have been the most aggressive purveyor of scientific quackery throughout the pandemic. 

Anti-vax groups on Telegram share misinformation about the vaccine while asking where they can buy the drug. Rumble, an alternative video platform to YouTube, has pages of videos falsely saying vaccines are ineffective while advising people to also take ivermectin. 

Anti-vax posts and videos can also be found on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, although the companies are attempting to take these posts down or make them harder to find. 

This is, at minimum, a clever bait and switch – the author is conflating in the reader’s mind the claim of ZERO vaccine efficacy (“ineffective” implies that it simply doesn’t work) with the claim of Ivermectin efficacy, which leads the reader to project – to some degree - the sense of obvious falseness of the zero-vaccine efficacy claim onto the claim of Ivermectin efficacy. This also propagandizes the reader to subtly project this sense of outright falseness onto all negative claims about the vaccines. 

This is also shameless propaganda maligning alternative platforms to those controlled by “Big Tech” – in other words, those that aren’t engaging in rampant communist-style censorship – as the platforms of choice for the conspiracy quacks, while whitewashing the outrageous censorship of these platforms as an appropriate tactic to stop disinformation. 

Kory was a guest on the Dark Horse Podcast hosted by Bret Weinstein, a former professor at Evergreen State College, on June 1 to talk about ivermectin. That video was eventually demonetized on YouTube and Weinstein’s channel received a strike, which prevented him from posting content for one week and could lead to its removal if he receives two more strikes within 90 days. 

YouTube says its actions on Weinstein’s videos were part of its policies. 

“While we welcome open discussions of potential treatments and clinical trials related to COVID-19 on YouTube, based on guidance from the CDC, FDA and other local health authorities, we don’t currently allow content that recommends ivermectin as an effective treatment or prevention method for the virus,” said Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson. “We craft our policies to prevent the risk of egregious real-world harm, and update them as official guidance evolves. We do allow exceptions to our policy about ivermectin, including content that also gives viewers the full context of the FDA’s current position.” 

Despite being a factually accurate depiction of YouTube’s claims regarding their own policies, this presents YouTube’s propaganda in a favorable light, which implies to the reader a presumptive degree of legitimacy that is emphatically divorced from reality – this is like citing Pravda in a way that makes Pravda look like a legitimate news source. 

Because of YouTube’s decision, the controversy over ivermectin grew and became tied to what some claim to be “big tech censorship.” 

“What some claim to be “big tech censorship””??? This is selectively disparaging the pro-Ivermectin side, as well as the government skeptics. Notice how the author never remarked the same way about the anti-Ivermectin proponents, such as “YouTube’s policies, what some claim are an attempt to combat misinformation”, etc. 

In any event, the controversy over Ivermectin became tied to the controversy about censorship BECAUSE YOUTUBE, GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, ET AL CENSORED INFORMATION ABOUT IVERMECTIN, INCLUDING WORLD-RENOWNED DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS!!!! This sentence is blatant gaslighting to obscure a simple, obvious, self-evident, objective fact. 

What is required for ivermectin to get approved for COVID-19 treatment? 

For the public health agencies, it’s going to come down to the results of large clinical studies being conducted around the world. 

This refers to a few ongoing trials, all of which are designed corruptly in a manner almost guaranteed to undermine and sabotage the potential for Ivermectin to help (ie, comically low dosing, too few doses, using it on patients weeks after symptom presentation, etc). This also neglects to mention that this is an absurd standard to use. Facemasks, for example, had no evidence of efficacy when they were mandated by every health agency, despite the massive disruption and myriad harms they caused. 

The WHO’s lead investigator tasked with reviewing the Ivermectin studies concluded in a massive Meta-Analysis study that it is demonstrably effective, with massive statistically significant effects established by moderate certainty evidence. The public health agencies are trying to destroy Ivermectin, something that this author is flipping on its head trying to imply that the health agencies are just trying to do their due diligence. 

This author avoids every truly devastating argument the pro-Ivermectin doctors have against the anti-Ivermectin forces. 

“In the UK, it was announced that ivermectin will be added to the Principle Trial, a large clinical study designed to assess potential COVID therapies for non-hospitalized therapies for patients at higher risk for severe disease,” said Dr. David Shafran, head of pediatrics at telehealth app K Health. “This should demonstrate more definitively the efficacy of ivermectin in early-stage COVID infections. Fingers crossed because it’s a cheap medication with a good safety profile. It would be great to add this to the armament of medication to fight COVID.” 

The Oxford University Principle Trial has more than 5,000 participants and will give a three-day course of oral ivermectin treatment to individuals randomly and compare their results to individuals who will receive standard care. 

The corrupt Oxford trial. 

In the US, the NIH is evaluating therapeutics for COVID-19 with its Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) master protocol. ivermectin was added in phase three of ACTIV-6, which will test the effectiveness of repurposed drugs. 

“The ACTIV prioritization group, trial team and trial oversight groups continuously track new data on any agent we are studying in our trials and evaluate that data for how it might influence our testing of that agent and the safety/well being of the participants in the trial,” said Dr. Sarah Dunsmore, a program director at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences that is part of the NIH. 

What’s unclear is how long the whole process will take. The studies need time to be completed, and then the agencies will require additional time to come up with decisions based on the data. 

This whole section is propaganda suggesting that there simply isn’t any robust data supporting Ivermectin, which is about as credible as flat-Earth theories, as well as falsely implying to the reader that the medical community is making genuine, good-faith attempts to study Ivermectin. 

As you saw, it is remarkably easy to masquerade and disguise propaganda in the language and tone of “fair and balanced”. This is exactly how gaslighting and propaganda work and why they’re so effective. 

Guest columns represent the opinion of the column’s author. The author’s analysis of the quoted article are in red/italicized font.

COVID-19, Culture & Society, Current Events, Elections, Featured, Media & Press, Op-eds, Politics, What's New

COVID-19 Won the Presidential Election

No Comments

One is hard-pressed to deny that Joe Biden is a weak, corrupt, pathologically lying, creepy dirty old man who has lived off the government teat for 50 years. And he allegedly won the 2020 presidential election. Are Americans that ignorant? Or has Joseph Stalin’s political philosophy that has been simmering in America for years finally come to fruition? COVID was the not-so-secret agent.

The COVID pandemic was Nancy Pelosi’s stated reason for inserting blanket mail-in voting into a COVID financial relief package several months before the election. This method is a breeding ground for fraud. It is not absentee voting where the voter requests a ballot. With mail-in, a ballot is sent to anyone on the voter rolls—dead or alive. Magically, after all the ballots were mailed out, the CDC announced that people suffering from COVID could vote in person as long as they told the poll workers of their condition.

During his bloody 30-year career, Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) made two immediately pertinent points. First, “Political power does not rest with those who cast votes; political power rests with those who count votes.” 

The second point lays the foundation for the first: “The press is our Party’s sharpest and most powerful weapon.” The Left’s plans for fundamentally changing America were upended by three years of peace and prosperity. Enter the media collaborators. CNN has a permanent sidebar banner with global statistics with no context. There were never stories on recoveries or successful treatments, of which there are many inexpensive, home-based therapies. Many studies demonstrate positive results from the anti-inflammatory antiparasitics hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, fluvoxasmine (antidepressant), budesonide (inhaled steroid), vitamins D and C, quercetin, and zinc. 

Social media refused to post materials favorable to the President or unfavorable to his opponent. I presume we are supposed to be impressed by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifying that he should not have censored news about Hunter Biden’s internationally sensitive business ventures. Too little, too late. But he knows that. He had a mission to complete: emulate Pravda, censor and manipulate speech, and sway the election. 

We knew this was coming. 60 years ago Nikita Khrushchev predicted of the United States, “your grandchildren will live under communism.” If we didn’t believe Stalin or Khrushchev, maybe we will believe Hollywood. Given the perpetual “2 weeks to flatten the curve” lockdown and the paucity of non-Pravda network news, 50-year-old television shows have become welcome substitutes. The 1967-68 series called The Invaders was premised on aliens from another planet descending upon Earth to “make it their world.” The aliens’ dialogue was eerily familiar to the current authoritarian COVID Great Reset social engineering blather. 

In The Ivy Curtain episode an alien “college” course instructed new alien arrivals that “fear is an emotion that dominates all human behavior.” The aliens would “use fear as a weapon, to twist anxiety into hate, suspicion into violence, cowardice into surrender.” COVID was the convenient vehicle to induce fear. Was The Invaders pure entertainment or allegory? 

On the technical side, 2019’s futuristic Terminator: Dark Fate  is prophetic. When Facebook, Google, Twitter, and big tech hyperbolically propagandizing the coronavirus – excuse me, Skynet’s machines began to overtake humans, the government told the people to hide and isolate for a while. Hiding became the “new normal” until one strong leader inspired humans to fight the machines.

The one-sided news presentation, the post-election fortuitous release of 2 vaccines and revelation of Biden’s lockdown plans, mayors and governors and congresspersons flagrantly attending and planning celebrations—maskless, opened many eyes to the media’s manipulation. Some voters are feeling like someone who got drunk in Las Vegas and woke up in bed married to a stranger or in a bathtub of ice minus a kidney. Stalin has another thought for these folks: “Words are one thing – deeds something entirely different. Fine words are a mask to cover shady deeds.” Sounds a bit like Barack Obama. President Trump’s words did not do justice to his deeds. Everything was for Americans – more jobs, energy independence, improving national parks, medical choice for veterans, prison reform, advancing historically black colleges, opportunity zones in poor neighborhoods, and on and on.

By contrast, the compassionate Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez launched the Trump Accountability Project. The hit list included individuals who worked for the Trump for President campaign, Republican National Committee, and affiliated PACs in 2016 or 2020, those who staffed his government, individuals who worked in any role as a political appointee in the Trump Administration, and those who funded him, and the millions of Americans who elected him. This hateful website silenced itself but the Stalinesque sentiment runs deep and is certain to resurface.

Culture & Society, Current Events, Elections, Featured, Media & Press, Politics, Uncategorized, What's New

Thinking Out Loud: Pravda

No Comments

We have a mentally challenged, corrupt vapid zombie running for President of our democratic republic. The media refuse to report about it. Not to mention that the real presidential candidate is a despicable corrupt politician in her own right.

The First Amendment’s freedom of the press and speech clause enhances our freedoms through flooding the “marketplace of ideas” with unlimited information. There was a time when the law wrestled with censorship of hard-core pornography. Now the media are censoring political viewpoints.

Although media outlets are not government entities, the charge of the media is to relay information, not indoctrinate. In a few short years our media — the voice of the people — have devolved into Pravda. For those who don’t remember the Soviet Union (USSR), Pravda (meaning “truth”) was the USSR’s Communist Party newspaper that disseminated only Party-approved information.

Yesterday the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation grilled the CEOs of Google, Twitter, and Facebook regarding their bias against conservative posts. Predictably, some Democratic legislators seemed to think the censorship of conservatives was acceptable. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) indeed wanted more — against conservatives only!

Suppression of free speech is a step in the long march to socialism. With socialism the state owns and operates all capital. It seems antithetical that some corporate shills (including big tech, print and television media) support Joe Biden, the Communist Chinese puppet. Think again. Biden’s platform includes re-instituting regulations, raising the minimum wage, and levying high taxes. Such policies tend to drive smaller companies out of business. With the competition eliminated, the surviving big corporations assume they will be the “chosen ones” for the government-owned means of production. After all, the government deemed the big boys “essential,” thus allowed them to operate at full throttle during the Covid lockdowns.

Remember who is really essential: you. Speak up and speak out while you still can.

“As to the evil which results from a censorship, it is impossible to measure it, for it is impossible to tell where it ends.” Jeremy Bentham, English philosopher (1748-1832)

Culture & Society, Current Events, Elections, Featured, Guest Column, Media & Press, Politics, What's New

Off the Record with Dr. Adams: Willful Ignorance

No Comments

Biden cannot be seen. He doesn’t stray far from his home in Delaware, when he does stray at all, which is very infrequently. A “lid” has been put on his candidacy perhaps because it is a pile of garbage and garbage cans need lids to contain the stink. During his rare public outings, when he starts to veer from his script his handlers nudge him, cue him or simply move him out of sight and sound. Yet people still vote for this shell of a man. Willful blindness. Blindness not only to the truth about Biden, but to the accomplishments of Trump.

Biden’s son has been exposed not just for his crack cocaine abuse, and sexual peccadilloes, which in theory shouldn’t really affect the father’s ability to run the country, but how does a self-proclaimed poor boy from Scranton, PA have multiple multi-million dollar homes on a Senator’s salary?

And how does a son with a less than stellar history and no business background have access to major corporations around the world without some sort of affiliation with Scranton Joe? Forgetting the possibility—likelihood—that Pop got nice kickbacks, let’s say for arguments sake, he didn’t. Isn’t it still corrupt to get your unqualified son employment with foreign governments (particularly hostile ones) for massive sums? Isn’t that enough corruption on its own?

The complicit media, including social media, are trying to blind us. That explains the willful ignorance of the masses who refuse to see exactly what’s still in from of them. How is it possible to say to yourself it is believable that Hunter flew on Air Force Two all around the world with Pop but they never talked business. Or that Pop was not the least bit curious about the source of his son’s wealth, or why he was accompanying Dad in the first place.  Sightseeing? You have to want desperately to ignore it. Or else you just don’t care.  

A major news outlet, respectable and thriving since its founding by Alexander Hamilton centuries ago, has been completely shut down on Twitter. A major story of our time will not be shown to the people for fear that it exposes the obvious corruption of the Biden family. Astonishingly, Twitter released a statement saying that any tweet suggesting that mail-in voting is an easy set up for voter fraud will have their tweet removed and replaced with a statement from Twitter saying that there is no proof of such. Take it from banana republics, mail-in voting is an easy way to perpetrate election fraud. Whoa, who needs banana republics! Pennsylvania no longer requires signatures.

Willful blindness rears its head here again. Massive scandals suppressed, milestone achievements in the Middle East unreported, social media accounts shut down, Big Brother is watching.  So, when the obviously compromised Joe Biden incorrectly and publicly referred (in his haze and confusion) to his rival candidate as “George,” perhaps he meant George Orwell.

COVID-19, Guest Column, Media & Press, Politics, What's New

Dr. Jane’s Pearls

No Comments

COVID-19: Who Is Responsible for ‘Unfathomable’ Deaths?

You may well ask why the U.S. should be a world leader in per-capita COVID-19 deaths. Our morning paper calls passing the 200,000 mark “unfathomable.”

A better question: Why is the death rate about 75 percent lower in many countries?

The gap seems to be between countries that treat COVID-19 early or prophylactically with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and those that, like the U.S., discourage or prohibit its use.

Findings of favorable results with HCQ or chloroquine began to be reported in global publications as early as Feb 6. Most Americans first became aware of HCQ on Mar 19, when President Trump mentioned it during a press conference, alongside other hopeful treatments. He said: “Now, this is a common malaria drug. It is also a drug used for strong arthritis… And it’s shown very encouraging—very, very encouraging early results… I think it could be a game changer. And maybe not.”

After this, the war on HCQ was on. The President was accused of “touting” an “unproven” and even “very dangerous” remedy. Most of more than 160 media reports published in April and May managed to work the adjective into headlines or opening sentences. Positive evidence mounted but was dismissed as “anecdotal.” Americans were told that we needed to await the “gold standard”—randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Organized medicine discouraged use, and state governments restricted or banned HCQ for COVID-19 (but not for lupus or rheumatoid arthritis).

The treatment of HCQ goes “from bad science to malpractice,” according to a just-released white paper “Hydroxychloroquine and the Burden of Proof: An Urgent Call to Depoliticize Medicine in the COVID-19 Pandemic,” The Economic Standard, September 2020. Take-home lessons:

  • Flawed and even falsified studies were published and promoted by media outlets eager to discredit Trump, while positive studies were impugned or ignored.
  • HCQ is commonly prescribed for at least 25 indications in addition to malaria.
  • HCQ’s prolongation of the QT interval is in the mid-range of 30 commonly used drugs.
  • Hundreds of drugs have been approved without RCTs, including tetanus vaccine, insulin, tetracycline, warfarin, heparin, prednisone, Keflex, and high-dose penicillin for neurosyphilis.
  • Only 8.5% of the American Heart Association’s guidelines are supported by RCTs.
  • A meta-analysis covering 43 studies concludes: “HCQ was found consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early, in the outpatient setting,” adding, “No credible study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or other serious safety issue was found.”
  • Four RCTs were problematic for many reasons.

A hundred thousand lives may be needlessly lost because safe, effective treatment was denied. Who is responsible? Influential bureaucrats who control policy and messaging? Social media censors? Major media outlets? Health plans and hospitals? Professional associations?

September 22, 2020

COVID-19, Featured, Media & Press, Op-eds, Politics, What's New

The New Population Control: Fear and Isolation

No Comments

Planet of the Humans, a Michael Moore vehicle, came and went with little fanfare. Perhaps it was the message that our feeble attempts at halting climate change were just that: feeble and useless. Solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars and the like were criticized as mere “band-aids” and corporate moneymakers that leave a larger human footprint on Gaia. In truth, the sole savior of the Earth is controlling the root of energy consumption: our population. 

Mother Earth aside, Margaret Sanger and her eugenicist friends tried to control population by cruel design in the early 1900s. She opposed philanthropy as it perpetuated “human waste.” To achieve world peace, Sanger proposed that “the whole dysgenic population [including epileptics, feeble-minded, prostitutes] would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.” 

Government-sponsored forced sterilizations became too much for civilized society to bear and ceased in 1981. Margaret Sanger’s legacy soldiers on, conducting “God’s work” at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics disproportionately located in minority neighborhoods. Taking it up a notch, pediatrician Governor Ralph Northam (D-Va.), who while in medical school wore either black face or a KKK hood—he doesn’t remember which—grotesquely believes it’s OK to kill babies who are born alive.

The new standard bearer for the current brand of population control is fear. Dressed as the Angel of Death, he appears on CNN as an ever-present sidebar flashing numbers of COVID-19 “cases,” rarely making the distinction between those who are ill and those who simply had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. 

We are never told that 81 percent of cases are mild. Nor are we told that well over 99 percent of Americans have recovered. We were never told that the military ships dispatched to accept patients served a handful of patients. We were not told that the death statistics include people with “presumed” COVID-19 or who died of other causes but coincidentally had a positive test. Never are we told that sadly 42 percent of American deaths were nursing home residents who make up only 0.6 percent of our population. Nor are we told that 90 percent of hospitalized patients have underlying health conditions and 80 percent of deaths are in those over 65 years. Most importantly, we are not told that deaths and hospitalizations are decreasing. 

Meanwhile, in an attempt to undermine our rays of hope, politicians are rewriting history. The woman who plans to be President irresponsibly asserted that Obama-Biden deftly handled the “Ebola pandemic.” Pandemic? Unlike the highly contagious COVID-19, Ebola virus disease was an outbreak centered in West Africa caused by a virus that was only spread through exchange of bodily fluids. The U.S. had 11 Ebola cases, 9 of whom were evacuees from, or contracted Ebola in other countries. The 2 people who contracted Ebola in the U.S. were the Ebola patients’ nurses—both of whom recovered. And at the time, infection control experts criticized the “lax” federal Ebola guidelines.

The misery campaign worked. In a few short months we have gone from level-headed folks dealing with the vagaries of life to house arrestees acquiescing to ever-changing restrictions, privacy intrusions, and punishments for noncompliance. Isolation has consequences. Verifiable domestic violence has doubled. Forty-one percent of thousands of adults surveyed by the CDC in June 2020 reported an “adverse mental or behavioral health condition,” including 10.7 percent seriously considering suicide. One study predicted 34,000 U.S. cancer deaths due to delayed diagnosis. Unscientific lockdowns are on pace to kill more people than the Devil’s spawn, COVID-19. 

The suggestion that we accept this stygian existence until a vaccine is available is magical thinking. Recently, genomic researchers reported 73 variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Variants and mutations could present a challenge for developing an effective vaccine. 

Viruses will always be part of our environment. Exploring all possible treatment options, including building our general immunity, is crucial to saving lives. Hydroxychloroquine is one such option that is effective in many patients if given early. Yet the pot-smoking President wannabe labelled our teetotaling President a “drug pusher” for speaking positively about hydroxychloroquine. And the infectious disease expert and cardiologist Bill Gates claims its side effects are severe. The President is in good company with Yale Professor Harvey Risch, MD, physician researchers, and well-respected clinicians regarding hydroxychloroquine’s overall and cardiac safety.

Our scientists and physicians are working hard to preserve our population. If we are allowed out of our cocoons, enough people might develop permanent population (“herd”) immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and the transmission of the virus could burn out. 

Fear and agenda-driven political manipulation are drowning out the facts. We may look back and find that the media-political complex is the prime method of population control. 

As Malcom X said, “you been misled. You been had. You been took.”