That Explains It

Information came to me from two different sources related to COVID-19 that I hadn’t known before. It is this: It is illegal for the FDA to approve an emergency vaccine for a disease that is treatable. Similar rules apply in other countries.

There was a push—from national and worldwide governmental organizations, from the WHO, from the CDC, from NIH, from pharmaceuticals, you decide who to blame—to use a vaccine to fight this pandemic. In order to get emergency approval, they needed to deny that treatments were working.

That explains why they claimed hydroxychloroquine, zinc, various vitamins, and other treatments would not work. A number of such treatments that were working very well from the beginning—in outpatients at the onset of symptoms. For reasons that seemed mysterious, doctors would send patients home to monitor their symptoms until they worsened enough for hospitalization. (A friend’s husband was still told this just a couple of weeks ago.) Then they would get the treatments that should have been given earlier, and at that point they weren’t shown to be effective.

I’ve been watching this prejudice against treatments that work for a year now, scratching my head. Why would they purposely allow people to die rather than use what was working? I’m still puzzled by the inhumanity of that, but at least this detail about emergency vaccines not approved for a treatable disease is an explanation.

I first heard this from an interview Tom Woods did with Ivor Cummins.  Then I heard it from a doctor in Idaho, a qualified immunologist and virologist, Dr. Ryan Cole. I’ll go through some of what these two said, and then add a third doctor with a related concern.

 

Dr. Ivor Cummins with Tom Woods

Ivor Cummins
image from his website

Ivor Cummins is a biochemical engineer who has been working on health issues like cardiovascular disease for years. He has spent this past year charting data related to COVID-19, which has made him somewhat controversial, or heroic, just because the data isn’t what people are being told. Tom Woods asked him about treatments. He said he has mostly stayed out of that debate because it’s so political. But he did relate the basics. Studies were done badly—it appeared purposely. Some were withdrawn, such as the Lancet report, which was, he said,

in the shortest retraction time ever post-publishing. And that’s because they got their data from a shady outfit that ceased to exist pretty quickly. So there was an awful lot of anti-HCQ stuff, which makes me very suspect.

He didn’t go further on HCQ. But ivermectin? That’s a positive. Ivermectin hasn’t really been on my radar, but it is getting more attention recently. It’s an anti-parasitic, often used for dogs, cats, horses, and other animals. And it has been used in humans for decades, safely. It’s also cheap.

Anyway, back to Dr. Cummins. He said this of ivermectin, and then gives what he thinks is the reason it's still unknown:

Ivermectin, though, seems to have very strong data. And even the WHO a few months ago gave it a nod, and in the US, courts allowed treatment. So I don’t think they could walk away from the strength of data on ivermectin. And yet still we hear nothing.

One of the reasons—and it’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s just business reality—for a vaccine to get emergency approval, one of the crucial considerations or caveats is there can be no alternative treatment available.

And I think that was one of the major drivers for the kind of propaganda campaigns against everything that would have helped, what everyone in the business and influence knew: if there’s a credible treatment that comes out, it may stop the emergency authorization. And there was so much money and intent built up in the vaccines—including the passports, which were planned since 2017 in the EU. They have a road for vaccine passports for 2021.

So these are things that are long wanted by the most influential bodies in the world. And they’re not going to see them canceled or stymied by a nuisance effective treatment coming up. It’s just not going to happen.

I hadn’t known that about the vaccine passport plan from 2017 either.

Tom Woods, on his libertarian podcast, talks about COVID-19 almost daily, bringing in experts and guests on various aspects. So that’s a good source. He passed along a chart in his newsletter the other day, comparing Texas and Mississippi, both of which “opened up” a couple of months ago, alongside several other states that haven’t opened up yet. It has been long enough for any sudden rise to occur. Both of those open states are doing better than those that haven’t yet opened up.

New confirmed cases of Covid-1 in TX, MI, NY, NJ, and MS.
Source: Financial Times analysis of data from the Johns Hopkins CSSE.

Woods has a collection of charts you can get for free, at ChartsTheyForgot.com.

 

Dr. Ryan Cole

Just days after I heard Cummins on Tom Woods’ podcast, a friend passed along a video of Dr. Ryan Cole, giving a presentation in Idaho. He’s the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, and knows immunology and virology.

The first near half of the presentation was on Vitamin D, which bears some coverage—another day. But, about today’s thesis:

Is there a treatment for outpatient COVID?... Unfortunately, the three-letter government federal agencies have practiced therapeutic nihilism. Apathy. Complete apathy….

When, in the history of medicine, have we said to someone, “Well, gosh, you have pneumonia. But once you’re sick enough to be hospitalized in the ICU, we’ll give you an antibiotic for your pneumonia”? Insanity. Insanity.

We as physicians have collectively lost our medical minds. Just saying, “Well, gosh, you have an illness that we know is killing people around the world; why don’t you go home and just see how you do?” Insanity.

The earlier you treat, the more complications you can decrease down the road.

And you know what—there’s a treatment. Unfortunately, if there’s a treatment for a disease, the federal government cannot approve a vaccine. By law. By rule. So the NIH, who is involved in approving medications, they control the patent on the vaccine with Moderna. If the fox is not guarding the henhouse there, I don’t know who is.

That also is insanity, to have the government in bed with a private company, vending a product that they want to give to everybody. And so, when they look at the potential “therapeutics”… Conflict of interest. Federal government in bed with the vaccine company. Absolute conflict. They don’t want a therapy to work, because then they can vend their vaccine.

There have been treatments. Many. He went through several. He avoided argument on hydroxychloroquine, but he did say, “I took it for 10 months. I’ve swabbed thousands of sick people. I never got COVID. So that’s my story on that one.” He went through several others, when they’re best used as opposed to when they’ve been used:

·       Remdesivir: Six months ago the World Health Organization said, “Stop using Remdesivir. It does not add survival rate to anybody.” $3000 a pop. What are our hospitals still doing? Giving Remdesivir. When does Remdesivir work? The first 2-3 days of disease when the virus is replicating. By the time you are hospitalized, you are in a hyperimmune phase of a disease. Your immune system is what the hospital is trying to tune down. Remdesivir, again; it’s like peeing on a forest fire. It does nothing at that point, because the virus is already maximally replicated. Remdesivir—expensive, of benefit to the pharmaceutical companies and their back pocket; no benefit to your health.

·       Convalescent plasma: When does it work? The first 2-3 days of disease, when the virus is replicating. Do people get that outpatient? No, they don’t. They only get it in the hospital, when it’s not effective.

·       Monoclonal antibodies: When do those work. The first couple of days of disease, when the virus is replicating. By the time you’re in hospital, when the virus has reached maximal replication, does it work? No, it doesn’t.

·       Steroids: Do steroids work? To a degree they do, once you’re at an inflammatory stage in the hospital, yes.

Only that last one seemed to be given appropriately.

Dr. Ryan Cole at a Capitol Clarity presentation in Idaho
screenshot from here

Then Dr. Cole spent more time on the one he thinks is giving the best results: ivermectin, again:

We’re in farm country, horse country. You know, you give it to your dogs, your cats, your horses. It’s an antiparasitic. But it’s a molecule. It doesn’t read the textbook and say, “I can only kill parasites.” It’s a molecule. And, fascinatingly, it works against viruses too. Not just SARS-coronavirus, but a bunch of other viruses as well.

During the Q&A at the end, he was asked whether it was good for other things, and he added this:

It’s effective against dengue virus to a degree. Partially effective against Ebola virus. It’s effective against all coronaviruses. It’s effective against certain mechanisms of certain viral families. Yes, it is. West Nile included, which hits Idaho.

He said that in August of last year, it was found to kill coronavirus 99.9 % in petri dish studies. Yet the NIH recommended against it. They did some testing on monkey cells instead of human lung cells, and used too high a dose. “They fudged the data, unfortunately.” But it works.

The rest of the world went ahead and tried it:

So, what did the rest of the world do while we said, “Everybody go home and let your lips turn blue and come to the hospital”? The rest of the world said, “Well, let’s try it.” So what did the rest of the world do? A lot of trials.

Four billion people on the planet have taken this medication since the 1980s. This medication won the Nobel Prize for the discoverer. It is that safe. It is on the world’s safest and most essential drugs list. Four billion people have taken it, with only one or two deaths out of four billion, and those people had a genetic disorder. Super super super safe. We’ve given it to people at 30-40 times recommended dose, no adverse effect. In the world studies—and again, therapeutic nihilism here, we’re finally just starting to do some studies.

So what’s happening here in the US?

Some brave doctors in Texas, in Florida, in Wisconsin have been using it in their hospitals. They have decreased their death rates by 70-90% in their hospitals. 70-90%. In Houston, one hospital was using it; now all the hospitals in Houston are using it, because they saw what the one brave doctor was doing.

There’s this mixed prejudice about trials needing to be done by American doctors before the FDA will approve. And yet they approved the Pfizer vaccine with studies done overseas instead of here.

So it’s absolutely hypocritical of our three-letter agencies to be approving certain things that were done overseas and then not approving things that were done overseas. Placebo-controlled trials—there were 15,000 patients in meta-analysis. It has decreased the deathrate. No matter what your therapy is, ivermectin, if that is added to the mix, it decreases the deathrate by 75%, if given early by 86%.

But wait, there’s more:

100% percent of the world trials have shown benefit. Decreases acquisition. Prophylactically. I’ve been on it for two months now. In Argentina, in a hospital trial, it prevented 100% of acquisition in healthcare workers. 800 doctors and nurses were given it during their big outbreak. Of the 800, zero got COVID. Placebo group: 57% got COVID, that were not on ivermectin.

Scandinavian studies. Prevented acquisition by 88%.

And:

Multiple mechanisms of action of this molecule? Don’t have time. Long medical lecture. But it’s fun to know. The beauty of it—it can cover all the variants, because of its mechanisms. All the variants. Unlike, “Oh, we’re going to have to give you a new formulation of this vaccine or that vaccine or that vaccine.” No. The mechanisms of the action of this molecule against this virus don’t stop.

He can’t say enough good about ivermectin:

You can prophylax. You can treat. And not only that, down the road, if you have long-term symptoms, ivermectin can tune those down as well. It is a phenomenal medication. And it’s an immune modulator, not just a viral killer.

Add to that, the low cost of this treatment:

How much does it cost? Two cents. In India an entire province, 200 million people—COVID’s gone. They put little blister packs together for two cents, gave it out to their entire population. They’re at their grocery stores. They’re at their theaters. They’re walking around. They’re living normal life. Wherever it has been given in the world, they’re back to normal life.

In the US it’s compounded for about $2-5 per dose. You can get a full course of treatment for under $30 and decrease the deathrate by 75-86%.

Here’s the kicker, which agrees with what I said in February: 

Of the half million deaths we have in North America, we would have 375,000 less deaths. There is blood on the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, who have suppressed this life-saving medication. Blood on the hands of those individuals.

He mentions, by the way, that masks don’t work. The particle size is too small to be affected by a mask.

He spends some time talking about the vaccines. He’s not anti-vax. He’s used vaccines for himself and his children. But this one, he’s wary of:

By definition, a vaccine, historically, is giving a protein or an antigen or a part of the pathogen and/or a whole killed pathogen. Injecting a sequence of mRNA [messenger ribonucleic acid] into a human being is a medical device. Historically, what we’re doing right now does not fall under the definition of a vaccine.

They shifted the verbiage in some of the federal register back in October so they could approve this. So it was a sleight-of-hand to change the verbiage. What we have right now is an experimental biological gene therapy immune modulatory injection. We are injecting people with a synthetic sequence of nucleic acid. We have never done this on a large scale in human history. MRNA trials in mammals have led to odd cancers. MRNA trials on mammals have led to autoimmune diseases. Not right away. Six, nine, twelve months later.

They’ve created demand with the scarcity, so people want it. But,

The long-term safety data is not there. 50% of healthcare providers are absolutely not getting this injection. And that’s the reason….

Do the shots decrease severity of disease and hospitalization? Well, they seem to be. But they don’t fall under the definition of creating pure immunity and preventing transmission. If you’re immune after an injection, why in the world would you still have to mask and social distance?

Here's his main safety concern:

My biggest concern, honestly, is antibody-dependent enhancement reaction. You get a shot, you’re fine…. But, if you get a coronavirus shot—historically: SARS, MERS, animal coronaviruses—you get a shot, when you’re exposed to a wild type variant of the virus six, nine, twelve months later, the immune system can go haywire. In the SARS vaccine trials in the ferrets and the monkeys 100%—100%—of the animals, when exposed to wild type virus ended up with immune reaction.

I’ll quote one more doctor on that in a minute. But I wanted to add Dr. Cole’s three-fold recommendation concerning this virus:

1.       Pro hormone/Vitamin D: critical to every Idahoan’s immune health. That should be public health number 1, every fall and winter for every year for the next hundred years. Absolutely. [Worth hearing the first ten minutes of his presentation for details on Vitamin D.]

2.       There is an early prevention and treatment for COVID: ivermectin. [He suggested online pharmacies, such as MyFreeDoctor.com, if your doctor won’t prescribe it. Or share with your doctor the information from the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care website.] https://covid19criticalcare.com/

3.       Your body, your choice. In my opinion the vaccine is unproven, and long-term safety is not there.

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm

This third video was an interview on Tucker Carlson. Dr. Noorchashm is pro-vaccine, and particularly pro-this vaccine. He thinks it’s practically a medical miracle. But—and it’s a big but—he doesn’t like the way they’re pushing it. It makes no sense to vaccinate people who have a natural immunity.

Some people are having reactions, and that should be telling us something:

The signal is almost deafening. The people who are having complications and adverse events are people who have been currently or recently previously infected. I don’t think we can ignore this. There are some very, very strong anecdotal cases that are coming through, and I’m happy to talk to you about these. But I believe that we can’t trade safety for efficacy.

So, in other words, yes, this vaccine is going to be one of the most effective vaccines we’ve ever made. But if you take that efficacy and say, you know what, we’re going to sacrifice the lives of X number of Americans who are unsuspecting and trusting, I think you’re doing a real disservice. I think it’s a problem.

So there’s this disease, from which 99.5% survive—and most of the deaths are elderly with co-morbidities. You prevent people from getting treatments that are available, safe, and cheap—and censor information about them and threaten doctors who offer them. And you get people vaccinated, which is going to kill a certain number.

The people pushing this vaccine have already sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people—preventable deaths—so they could sell this vaccine. And the vaccine doesn’t necessarily cause immunity or completely prevent transmission, like an actual vaccine would. And people are at risk from it.

Harm to fetuses during pregnancy is already an issue. Harm to people who get the shot when they already have immunity is an issue. Harm to people who react to substances in it is an issue. By the way, it contains polyethylene glycol—antifreeze, to keep the vaccine from freezing in storage or transport—which 70% of people are allergic to. Some have only relatively minor reactions. Some could suffer anaphylaxis or death.

Do you want a government entity—or pressure from private businesses, for that matter—to be deciding you’re expendable? The people who prevented so many people, now dead, from getting prevention and treatment?

The vaccine passport topic is something we’ll need to cover another day. But anybody thinking that’s a good idea ought to have this information in hand first.