Evil Enough for You?

cover image from here

I’m reading The Real Anthony Fauci, by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., which is a must read this year. It’s been slow going, because I keep stopping to mark things on every page. I’ll just share a chunk today from fairly early in the book. The question it brings up is, on some kind of scale that measures horrendous evil in the world, where does this rank?

The book is 480 pages, thoroughly footnoted. I’m reading it in Kindle, so my page numbers are based on 934 pages. This section I’m quoting starts on p. 79 of Kindle:

Leading doctors and scientists, including some of the nation’s most highly published and experienced physicians and front-line COVID specialists like [Peter] McCullough, [Pierre] Kory, Ryan Cole, David Brownstein, and [Harvey] Risch believe that Dr. Fauci’s suppression of early treatment and off-patent remedies was responsible for up to 80 percent of the deaths attributed to COVID. All five doctors independently told me the same thing. The relentless malpractice of deliberately withholding early effective COVID treatments, of forcing the use of toxic remdesivir, may have unnecessarily killed up to 500,000 Americans in hospitals.

Dr. Kory says so plainly: “Dr. Fauci’s suppression of early treatments will go down in history as having caused the death of a half a million Americans in the ICU.”

These things aren’t new to us here. I’ve been quoting many of these doctors since early in the pandemic. But having all the facts laid out in a book, with references, is still kind of stunning. Piecing it together myself, it was hard to believe what I was seeing. Now it’s clear I wasn’t imagining any of it.

Half a million is a lot of deaths. The vast majority were elderly—at or beyond life expectancy, when something at some point was going to take them. But it didn’t have to be a painful illness they could have been treated for but weren’t, and which they were forced to go through alone. Even the very aged with co-morbidities, when treated early, got better—usually without hospitalization at all.

We were never “killing Grandma” by going without a mask or vaccine; Fauci was killing Grandma by withholding treatments.

The book lays out why the doctors blame mainly Dr. Fauci, and it’s convincing. For instance, the efforts of the front-line doctors who developed treatment protocols got no financing or support from any government anywhere in the world. What they got was hostility, censoring, and censuring—“much of it orchestrated by Dr. Fauci and the US health agencies.”

Kennedy recounts the unusual absence of treatment protocols from US universities:

The large universities that rely on hundreds of millions in annual funding from NIH were also antagonistic. “We didn’t have a single academic institution come up with a single protocol,” said Dr. McCullough. “They didn’t even try. Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Duke, you name it. Not a single medical center set up even a tent to try to treat patients and prevent hospitalization and death. There wasn’t an ounce of original research coming out of America available to fight COVID—other than vaccines.” All of these universities are deeply dependent on billions of dollars that they receive from NIH. As we shall see, these institutions live in terror of offending Anthony Fauci and that fear paralyzed them in the midst of the pandemic.

“Dr. Fauci refused to promote any of these interventions,” says Kory. “It’s not just that he made no effort to find effective off-the-shelf cures—he aggressively suppressed them.”

Instead of supporting McCullough’s work, NIH and the other federal regulators began actively censoring information on this range of effective remedies. Doctors who attempted merely to open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID found themselves heavily and inexplicably censored (pp. 78-79).

What kinds of things did Dr. Fauci suppress? There was this FDA example:

FDA sent a letter of warning that N-acetyle-L-cysteine (NAC) cannot be lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement, after decades of free access on health food shelves, and suppressive IV vitamin C, which the Chinese were using with extreme effectiveness.

Countries in the world that follow US recommendations had the same types of problems as the US. But other countries, more off the radar, used ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and other remedies in early treatment plans, and had much better success. We actually had a first world-country disadvantage.

Despite the censorship, some doctors treated—successfully. Most experienced zero hospitalizations or deaths among a wide variety of patients with age and co-morbidities. Early treatment made the difference.

Dr. McCullough is quoted as saying this of Fauci and those who helped him obstruct:

“You need, in short, to do the opposite of everything they did. It’s difficult to identify anything they did that was right” (p. 69).

The doctors’ estimates that 80% of deaths could have been prevented with early treatment—rather than the standard protocol of sending the patient home with directions to wait until they got sick enough for the hospital—is probably low. Probably all but the very most fragile could have been saved with early treatment.

Dr. Ryan Cole tells an example—one of his first, his own brother. Dr. Cole had come across Dr. McCullough’s protocol early on, so he was ready—

—when his overweight brother called Dr. Cole from a neighboring state on his way to the ER with a positive PCR test, labored breathing, blood oxygen at 86, and chest discomfort that he rated nine out of ten. “He has Type 1 diabetes,” explains Dr. Cole. Dr. Cole redirected his sibling to a local pharmacy and called in an ivermectin prescription. Within six hours, my brother’s chest pain was down to two out of ten due to the interferon effect of ivermectin, and within 24 hours after taking ivermectin, his oxygen was 98, and he then fully recovered” (p. 80).

Dr. Cole adds this:

“If you are under 70 years of age and have no severe preexisting illness, you can hardly die [from SARS-CoV-2 infection]. So, there is no fatality rate that can be reduced…. And for people who are elderly and have preexisting illness,” he adds, “as we know from Dr. Peter McCullough and his colleagues’ work, there are miraculously effective medicines to treat this virus so that the fatality rates go down another 70 to 80 percent, which means there is no ground for emergency use whatsoever. That’s a huge threat to the vaccine cartel and to remdesivir” (p. 81)

Motivations for murder tend to be money and power. Fauci’s incentive might have been money—big money for a vaccine everybody in the world is supposed to take multiple times, or maybe for the new remdesivir, which was as ineffective (or worse) as it was expensive. But he is already the most highly paid bureaucrat in America, at a bit under half a million a year. Maybe that wasn’t enough to satisfy him. But it ought to be enough to keep him from resorting to mass murder. He was already 80 when the pandemic started. He could have retired years ago and spent some of the money he’d accumulated on that more-than-comfortable salary.

I’m guessing power is the greater motivator for Fauci. This is an attitude he displays when he declares, “I am the science,” while offering no data, just his say so, simultaneously threatening anyone who doesn’t fall in line. It’s an ugly attribute. But it’s ugliest in someone who uses his power to control the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and considers his personal agenda more important than the lives of 500,000+ who could still be living among us if he hadn’t prevented their treatment.

We’re supposed to avoid judgment (Matthew 7:1), or maybe better put as “judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). I wonder exactly how God judges someone who purposely causes the unnecessary deaths of so many people. Even when you consider mercy, it doesn’t look good for an unrepentant mass murderer and self-imposed tyrant.

Fauci isn’t the only guilty person. He might be the ringleader. Or maybe he does the bidding of someone more hidden in the shadows. But the colleagues, the bureaucrats, the functionaries who followed him, blindly or openly—those who knew they were causing deaths but that didn’t matter to them, because they wanted funding, or their job, or whatever lure he used to bind them to this evil, they are guilty as well.

Half a million deaths to your toll is massive. It’s not in the same league as six million Jews plus 8 million others killed by the Nazis, or 62 million by the USSR, 76 million by Mao’s regime in China, or even 2.2 million by the Khmer Rouge. But those were all by regime-wielding tyrants. Fauci is what you would normally think of as a pencil-pushing doctor. Plus, they all had years, maybe decades, to commit that many murders. He’s had only an intense couple of years.

 

Regime	Span of years	Estimated deaths of own people (non-military deaths)
National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI)	1939-1945	14.2 million:[i]                 *   6 million Jews                 *   5.7 million non-Jewish Soviets                 *   2.5 million Polish, Serbs, others
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)	1917-1987	62 million[ii]
Chinese Communists under Mao	1949-1987	76 million
Khmer Rouge (Cambodian socialists under Pol Pot, patterned on Mao)	1975-1979	2.2 million (1/3 population)[iii]

 

How he got the power to shut down an economy, silence opposition, prevent treatment, and get people to willingly enforce his edicts on one another is harder to explain.

The damage done by the vaccine is evil for another day, but we ought to mention, despite the essential end of the pandemic through Omicron, which reaches practically the whole population whether you’ve been vaccinated or not, and maybe even if you’ve already recovered from COVID-19 in some other form—despite all that, they’re recommending it for six-month-olds, who have essential zero risk of death from the illness. The more we see how wrong they have been all along, the more they double down on the lie.

There’s something Jordan Peterson says about the dilemma a person had when faced with gestapo at the door while they were hiding Jews in the attic; should you lie? Peterson points out that you wouldn’t be in that dilemma if you and a lot of other people hadn’t waited until that moment to wonder about telling the truth.

The point is, once you know vaccines do not prevent infection—or spreading to others—you don’t give in to the pressure to take it. And that helps prevent you from being pressured into risking your children’s health with it, on down to your little baby.

The people attempting to invent a vaccine that would help in the pandemic may not have done wrong. But once they had to change the very definition of vaccine to allow this shot to be called one—even though it doesn’t prevent the illness and might not even lessen severity—they became complicit. Anyone who pressured others to take it, once its failings were already known and the VAERS data showed ever higher adverse reactions including death—when it’s still under emergency use authorization that shouldn’t have been granted, since there are effective treatments—is breaking the Nuremberg Code. This code was developed to prevent the world from ever again experimenting on human beings against their will.

Medical Case prosecutor details illegal experiments,
during the Nuremberg proceedings.
screenshot from video at the Holocaust Encyclopedia

For some, the vaccines might not have harmed, and maybe even helped prevent severe illness for those with comorbidities who would not get early treatment. But wherever there is risk, there has to be choice.

We said, “Never again!” We need to add, “Not on my watch!” Because the evil doesn’t lose its power until people stand up to it. It’s already unbelievably bad when the evildoers are sanguine about killing off half a million of our friends and family. But it will get worse unless we take away evil’s power by standing strong now.

---

[i] United States Holocaust Museum's online Holocaust Encyclopedia:  https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008193.

[ii] Walter E. Williams, "Socialism's Death Count," August 7, 2012. He references Rudolph J. Rummel's book and website Death by Government. 

[iii] Socialism Sucks Facebook post April 2013.

I Have More Questions

I write on the interrelationships of the political, economic, and social spheres. So why do I write so much about COVID-19? It has to do with the effect this illness—and the response to it—have had on our freedoms, our economy, and our social interactions.

I’m interested in treatments—and I wonder why they aren’t more widely known. And I’d really like to know why they have been so often censored. 

And I’m interested in mandates. Especially when the things being mandated go against science and everything we’ve known about treating disease for over a century. This seems to me to be very much related to our freedoms and threatens to affect them even more. The very idea of a vaccine mandate—knowing what we know about this one—troubles me greatly. I’m in a category of should-hesitate-to-get-the-vaccine, according to the WHO. So does that mean I should be prevented from travel and entering certain places or doing certain things, like I’m a pariah? I’m a supposed danger to society because I have a preexisting health condition that puts me at greater personal risk but no added risk to society?

The more I look at this pandemic—as it becomes endemic—the more questions I have.

Dr. Peter McCullough answered questions recently,  updating us on current COVID-19 treatments. He made three main points:

·       The virus does not transmit asymptomatically. (Since June, no more asymptomatic testing.)

·       The Delta variant is not stopped by the vaccine.

·       Early treatment is needed.

Let’s cover the relatively good news first, combining early treatment news and lack of asymptomatic transmission.

 

TREATMENTS

Dr. McCullough offers some general suggestions. He says you should evaluate yourself and your children when you get up in the morning. It used to be that we’d go to work or school with what we thought was “just a cold.” Don’t do that now. Stay home. If you isolate yourself as soon as you have symptoms, that is much more effective at stopping the spread than either masks or lockdowns. If you haven’t yet experienced symptoms, you’re not going to spread the virus.

Dr. Peter McCullough in interview with Dr. Al Johnson
screenshot from here

The good news is that the FDA has given emergency use approval for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ—which should be given along with zinc and azithromycin) and ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment. (I have read contrary information on this, so it may be that the news hasn’t yet spread.) So doctors shouldn’t fear giving it as an early treatment. HCQ appears to have a better response to the Delta variant than ivermectin. But early treatment is key. One proviso Dr. McCullough mentioned is, for African-Americans, ask if they have the genetic deficiency G6PD, which causes a blood disorder called hemolytic anemia. In any other case, use HCQ. With pacemakers, with all different types of disorders; it’s safe. It has been proven in over 65 years of use. It’s similar to Benadryl or Seldane in safety. There are over 250 studies showing it’s safe and effective as the go-to drug for COVID-19. 

Children are generally safe and don’t need treatment (drugs). If they’re healthy to begin with, they’re likely to experience no more than general cold symptoms for a few days. Last year, worldwide, there were 300 child deaths reported as COVID-19; only one had been considered a healthy child.

However, if there’s a persistent fever, they could use a child-adjusted dose of aspirin for a few days (yes, aspirin, as you would for acute rheumatic fever). Also, if the child has asthma, budesonide is the COVID-19 treatment of choice. Or they may need an oral prednisone, or maybe a Z-pak (azithromycin, an antibiotic).

Because healthy children risk only a couple of days of cold-like symptoms, there is nothing to gain from vaccination. There is much greater risk to children from a vaccine than from the virus.

Nutraceuticals are helpful for everybody: zinc, Vitamin D, Vitamin C. Also, “there’s a polyphenol supplement called quercetin,” about 500 mg daily. Those are good for everybody.

The Delta variant is the mildest so far. (New fears are out now about the Mu variant; if it has gone as others, it is milder but more contagious. However, there’s also fear it may be more vaccine resistant. He didn't comment on this.)

When you notice symptoms, he suggests getting a Sofia test.  It’s not as sensitive as the PCR test, which means, when it shows up positive, the virus is really there. No false positives, which have been a persistent problem.

And there are a couple of surprising suggestions. He has learned from oral hygienists, who have long known how to prevent the spread of viruses, you can brush your teeth with yellow Listerine, and rinse your mouth with it. You could also use a dilute human-safe hydrogen peroxide, or an ozone nasal spray. 

A nasal saline irrigation helps a couple of times a day too. That’s a neti pot. (Use distilled water, not just purified water; the minerals in non-distilled water sting. But once you’ve dissolved in the little packet of saline to distilled water, it doesn’t sting anymore. Personal experience.) It not only rinses out allergens, but also viruses and other pathogens.

He didn’t go into great detail, but there’s a solution you can use (I’m not certain how) of 1 teaspoon bleach in dilution with 500cc water.

So, a nutraceutical bundle and nasal and oral hygiene make a difference in prevention.

The treatment protocols, he reminds us, can be found at AAPSonline.org and Truth for Health Foundation, which publishes an updated list of treating physicians. Also, Dr. Al Johnson, who interviewed Dr. McCullough, has a protocol for treating long haul COVID-19, available at CovidRecoveryTreatment.com.   

The very few telemed centers have been overtaxed lately. Dr. McCullough says we need to push doctors to treat. They’ve been afraid to treat, and may not be aware of the many treatment options, or changes in FDA approvals. Give them the protocols, and insist on early treatment.

Treatment is probably not necessary for the healthy under-50—unless and until their symptoms show severity. For the over 50 or those with co-morbidities, early treatment is called for, as soon as the illness is identified.

Monoclonal antibodies, as are being done all over Florida, are useful. Regeneron is a brand name. But Dr. McCullough suggests getting this done as an outpatient. Call ahead to the ER and order it, so that you remain an outpatient. And make sure the IV is administered slowly; it must take a full hour. Too quick an infusion leads to a cytokine storm, the very thing you’re trying to prevent.

Convalescent plasma is being phased out. The problem was, they didn’t separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated when collecting blood; the vaccinated don’t have enough antibodies to be useful in the production of this treatment.

 

NATURAL IMMUNITY vs. VACCINATED IMMUNITY

Now for the questions that came up for me as I listened to Dr. McCullough and others.

He cited Israel, Singapore, and Iceland, where, during the latest surge, more than 75% of COVID-19 cases and 65% of those hospitalized are fully vaccinated. He concludes from that, it’s clear the vaccines are failing against the Delta variant. He said it’s possible, but unproven, that the vaccine helps mitigate against virulence. But there are patients dying who have been fully vaccinated.

Chart found in Epoch Times article, here.

Dr. McCullough notes the lack of attention for those who have had the illness and therefore have natural immunity. He says,

Once you’ve had it, you have full immunity. There’s never been a bona fide second case. Analysis by Murchu and colleagues in Ireland showed in 615,000 individuals, 11 studies, that even poorly defined cases that didn’t catch the original illness, if they had antibodies or some other indication that they’ve had it before, the chances of COVID-19 were way less than 1%. So, natural immunity is robust, complete, and durable. And it cannot be improved upon with vaccination.

I wondered about the “never been a bone fide second case” followed by the “way less than 1%.” While searching for the analysis by Eamon O. Murchu and colleagues, I came upon an article reprint, original by Daniel Horowitz for The Blaze, citing the Israel report in July. (And this week their report was verified by Bloomberg News. Incidentally, this fact check framed comparing getting immunity by getting ill or by getting the shots, and says getting ill is a riskier way of getting immunity. But that’s not the actual question. The real question is, for people who have natural immunity because they’ve already had the illness—219,017,517 globally as of today—is there any reason to also get the shots? And the answer is clearly no.)  

Israel National News reported: 

With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.

By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.

Recurring cases (those believed to be) are not zero; it’s 8.6 cases per 100,000. Almost none requiring hospitalization, and no deaths. Breakthrough cases (cases after vaccination) are still considerably lower than those with neither prior infection nor vaccination. But clearly the vaccine does not really prevent infection. In fact, now they’re not calling for vaccination to prevent infection; they’re calling for it to hopefully prevent serious infection. (Which, of course you could do with the nutraceuticals and other recommendations, just saying.)

In the article Horowitz offers Dr. McCullough’s more complete explanation of zero cases:

Despite the endless search by the media to find cases of severe reinfection, they have failed to find it. Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist and vice chief of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, told me in an interview that “there has never been a confirmed second infection beyond 90 days with similar or worse cardinal symptoms and confirmed PCR/Antigen/Sequencing test” in a case where the patient already had a well-documented case with acute illness. He notes that most database studies that attempt to quantify reinfection “are not sufficiently reliable to declare recurrent cases” and usually contain a false positive PCR on one or more occasions.

When I looked up the study and a couple of associated articles (such as this one), the explanation is that it’s difficult to differentiate between a new infection and persistent viral carriage (a sort of semi-dormant condition with occasional flare-ups, as is common in Epstein-Barr virus, for example). There would need to be a comparison between the genome sequencing of a banked sample from early in the illness and another sample at the time of what appears to be reinfection. That banking is almost never done, nor is the genome sequencing, because there is no reason other than to answer the question of whether it’s actually a reinfection or not in the rare instance when these cases turn up. In many “reinfection” cases, it’s often hard to determine whether the original infection was actually COVID-19, or a false positive test or misdiagnosis (or failure to accurately diagnose).

I’ve known of a number of people who say they have gotten it more than once. I know they believe so.  But my question is, did they really?

I came upon this comment in a Facebook group. Not someone I know.

Horowitz provides an explanation about the power of natural immunity from Idaho physician/researcher Dr. Ryan Cole:

Dr. Ryan Cole, a Mayo Clinic-trained pathologist who runs the largest independent laboratory in Idaho, explained to me how infection-induced immunity is much deeper and broader. “A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike,” said Dr. Cole, who has spent the past 16 months examining and culturing SARS-CoV-2 specimens. “Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again. Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”

However, in vaccine-induced immunity, according to Cole, “we mount an antibody response to only the spike and its constituent proteins.” He explains how this produces much fewer neutralizing antibodies, and “as the virus preferentially mutates at the spike, these proteins are shaped differently and antibodies can no longer ‘lock and key’ bind to these new shapes.”

Further down in the article he adds this additional explanation from Dr. Cole:

The media has focused incessantly on antibody levels and the observation that they often drop months after the infection; however, as with other viruses, that does not indicate waning immunity. “Yes, our antibody levels drop over time; however, scientifically, the memory B cells that make antibodies have been proven to be present in our lymph nodes and bone marrow,” explained Dr. Cole. “They are primed and ready to produce a broad array of antibodies upon viral pre-exposure. It would be physiologically, energetically impossible to maintain high antibody levels to all the pathogens we are constantly exposed to, and we would look like the ‘swollen Stay-Puft marshmallow man’ of lymph nodes, constantly, if the immune system were required to do that.”

This coincides with an explanation I heard from Dr. Mobeen Syed.   He was looking at this article and this study it related to.   He adds helpful little cartoon drawings to illustrate. 

Dr. Mobeen Syed explains about bone marrow plasma cells (BMPC) and long-term antibodies.
screenshot from here

So, what we know is that natural immunity gained from getting the virus and recovering is both long-lasting and robust. Immunity gained from the vaccines is somewhat helpful for a time, but less so to variants. And natural immunity is several times more powerful than vaccine immunity.

What did Israel do upon finding the vaccine was failing against the Delta virus? Decided to require more boosters, including for the previously infected. I’m baffled.

The reasons could be a difference in interpretation of the studies. Or it could be ignoring the studies for some other reason.

 

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW

I’ve been writing about treatments for COVID-19 since March 2020. While a lot of this information was censored for a long time, the truth has a way of seeping to the surface. It’s surprising to me that the standard treatment is still, “Stay home and rest until you’re sick enough for the hospital.” That makes no sense.

I’ve put a fair amount of faith in the treatments I’ve learned about. So, I’d like to know if they’re being used and people are still being hospitalized, or are these hospitalized patients still being deprived of early treatment?

We’ve just gone through our third surge, now waning I believe. By now I have known a number of people who’ve had the illness. Except for a couple overseas, I haven’t been closely acquainted enough to anyone hospitalized to ask the questions I want to know. I feel like I would be intruding into their privacy to ask these questions.

I’m not an investigative journalist. And I’m certainly not a medical researcher. But I have to wonder why someone doesn’t ask and get answers to the questions I have about treatments, about vaccine efficacy, and about natural immunity.

If I had the power to do it, I would ask the following questions of people hospitalized for COVID-19 (if the patient died or is a child, then a spouse, parent, or loved one could answer these questions for them):

THE SURVEY

1.     What was your experience when you first noticed symptoms?

a.     What were the symptoms you noticed?

b.     Did you get tested? On which day of symptoms? And on which day of symptoms did you get results? What type of test was it?

2.     Did you receive at-home treatment instructions when you got your test and/or results?

a.     What were you instructed to do?

b.     Were you prescribed or recommended to take any medications and/or supplements?

3.     Were there preventative steps you took prior to your illness (other than vaccination, which is asked below)? What were they? (Possibilities might include healthy diet and exercise, supplementing with Vitamin D, zinc, and/or Vitamin C; under a doctor’s care these might include a prophylactic dose of a drug such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. Or you may have tried something not listed here.)

4.     Do you know where you were exposed to the illness? (by a particular person, in a particular setting, at work for example, or at an event?)

a.     Did anyone else in your household get the illness? Were their symptoms mild or required hospitalization? List the various persons and the severity of their illness (ex: spouse—hospitalized, teenage son—mild).

5.     On what day of symptoms did your situation worsen enough to require hospitalization?

a.     Describe the worsened/new symptoms.

6.     What was your sequence of treatments and their results in the hospital?

7.     How long were you hospitalized?

8.     How long until you were considered over the illness—no longer contagious, and no longer in danger of succumbing to symptoms?

9.     Did you have symptoms that persisted after your apparent recovery? Such as shortness of breath, heart palpitations, brain fog, fatigue.

a.     What symptoms continued and for how long (so far, if they are still present)?

b.     Did you have symptoms that began after you thought you had fully recovered? What were they? (For example, some healthy fit patients go back to full activity and then find themselves relapsing or having the varied symptoms of long-haul COVID-19.)

c.     What treatment did you receive for long-haul COVID-19 (persistent symptoms)?

10. What was your vaccination status?

a.     Unvaccinated?

b.     One shot but not second?

c.     Two shots, but not more than 2 weeks before onset of symptoms?

d.     Two shots from 2 weeks to 6 months or longer (how much longer?) prior to onset of symptoms?

e.     Two shots plus a booster shot?

11. Had you been diagnosed with COVID-19 before?

a.     If yes, go through the above questions for that infection as well.

                                             i.    Do you have certainty—based on symptoms and/or testing and doctor’s care—that what you had previously was definitely COVID-19?

                                           ii.    When did you have the previous illness (months, weeks, and/or days before your current illness)?

12. What is your age?

13. Do you have any co-morbidities? (Common ones are obesity, diabetes, active cancer, atrial fibrillation, COPD, dementia, heart disease, hypertension, chronic liver disease, chronic renal failure, stroke.)

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.