What If Conspiracy Isn’t a Theory?

We rational people are inclined to dismiss conspiracy theories. But what does that do for us when we come up against an actual conspiracy?

I don’t know, exactly. I’m just asking questions. Because I have lots of questions.

America's Frontline Doctors
screenshot from here

I’ve seen multiple videos this week of doctors, on the front lines, treating patients who come in with COVID-19 and testing positive. These doctors are having overwhelming—near 100%—success using the generic anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), typically in combination with zinc (the mineral, taken as a supplement) and Z-pak (azithromycin, an antibiotic, in a convenient dosage-divided package called a Z-pak). Here’s a starting list:

·         America’s Frontline Doctors video, that was taken down from YouTube, made available on The BlazeTV.

·         America’s Frontline Doctors video, redone, made available on their website. 

·         Dr. Simone Gold, one of the Frontline Doctors, talks with Glenn Beck.

·         Texas State Senator Bob Hall holds a townhall with doctors. 

HCQ has been used, safely, for around 80 years, for malaria as well as lupus and a couple of other conditions. While no drug is entirely without side effects, this one has few. One is listed as coronary problems. However, in standard dosages and usages, it is possible that no one has seen that side effect in many decades. In many countries HCQ is sold over-the-counter, so people can have some on hand in case they travel to places with malaria, as a preventative. It is inexpensive and widely available.

Back in 2005, studies showed chloroquine, a derivative of quinine, of which HCQ is a refined type, was found to be beneficial in treating SARS-type viruses. The current coronavirus, COVID-19, is a SARS-type virus (official name SARS-CoV-2), with something like 78% similarity to the last major SARS outbreak. It would seem obvious, then, that HCQ would be a first go-to drug for finding ways to treat the novel coronavirus we’re facing this year. And it was. Korea, Japan, and many African countries used it right away.

This chart shows the results of controlling the virus in countries that used HCQ early, as compared to countries that didn’t.

Comparison of countries using HCQ early to
those who did not. Image found here.

 

Oddly, in many major countries, there has been tremendous prejudice against using HCQ for COVID-19. To those of us in the US, it looked like yet another backlash against President Trump, because he mentioned it as a possible solution to the virus on March 19^th in his daily pandemic briefing.

But that doesn’t explain the huge backlash to the drug in many other countries. I’m trying to figure out what’s going on. Why is there this prejudice against a drug that has been known to be safe, has been found to be effective against this virus, and could provide a solution that would allow the panic over the spread of the virus to recede so we could get back to something like normal life?

My first awareness of the drug came the day before President Trump’s mention on March 19^th. The announcement I heard came out of a lab in France. This was one week into the shutdown of businesses here in Houston—which we were told would be only two to three weeks to prevent overwhelming the healthcare system (but are still hanging over us). Great news!I thought. I hope we learn more. The next day President Trump mentioned it, among other possibilities, and this sounded hopeful too.

Soon after, I heard an interview with a New York doctor, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who had had 100% success with, at that time, nearly 700 patients. He treated them early, as outpatients, using the combination of HCQ, zinc, and Z-pak. Zero deaths. None ever even needed hospitalization or ventilator.

I also heard a report from Dr. Robin Armstrong, in the Galveston area, a doctor I knew of, who had had dozens of nursing home residents test positive for the disease. They treated with HCQ (he didn’t mention the combination with zinc and Z-pak), and they had no deaths or hospitalizations. That’s with the most high-risk population. Backlash came against him because he is active in the Republican Party, and that supposedly made him lie for Trump’s sake? Even though any journalist could follow up with that nursing home and get corroboration.

In late May a study was published in The Lancet, supposedly debunking any and all reports of success with HCQ. That was big news, because it was a prestigious peer-reviewed journal. However, it wasn’t what it purported to be. In fact, the data could not be corroborated, and turned out to be simply a fraud, an embarrassment to major journals such as The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. Three of the four doctors signed onto the study withdrew their names, completely discrediting the report. The Lancet’s editor answered that the journal is prepared to examine methodology, but isn’t equipped to investigate the possibility that entire articles and associated data are fabricated; that kind of deception is unfortunately too easy to do.

The media narrative is still that HCQ has been discredited.

There’s a Dr. Didier Raoult, in France, who began showing HCQ’s effectiveness against the coronavirus as early as February. He reported in late May that he was finding HCQ with Z-pak helpful in the vast majority of over 1000 cases. He has so far treated over 4,000 using this protocol. It was his work that got the attention of the WHO to start a study, and yet they didn’t study what he reported.

The WHO study was first halted in late May, when The Lancet published its report. But, with its retraction, the WHO picked up again June 3^rd, studying HCQ, Remdesivir, and two other drugs. In this study HCQ was withheld until patients were hospitalized, possibly on ventilators, and likely to die. At this point HCQ was given—not in the trio combination, usually not in combination with either zinc or Z-pak. And HCQ was given in high doses, possibly harmful doses, in fact four times the amount India was using in their HCQ study. And then the WHO reported the shocking news that, while using HCQ to treat, a third of patients had died, and they recommended against its use entirely.

Well, of course. You didn’t give it at the right time. You didn’t give it in a safe dosage. And you didn’t give it in the combination shown to be working.

Imagine, if you had the regular flu, which kills large numbers of people annually. Instead of taking Tamiflu at the outset, you have that withheld until you are in the hospital with pneumonia or whatever other symptoms people get when the flu kills them. And at that point you are given Tamiflu in very large, possibly toxic, doses. That is essentially what the WHO did, rather than study whether HCQ in combination could become the Tamiflu for COVID-19. Why did they do that?

The WHO is a worldwide organization. Trump Derangement Syndrome doesn’t explain this worldwide patient-killing study. Nor does it explain the prejudice against HCQ in France—from which I first heard the success story—and other countries.

Dr. Rob Elens, a general practitioner in The Netherlands, began using HCQ + zinc with his patients and had them fully recovering within four days—much faster than the 15-21 days for patients without the treatment. Then the government threatened to remove his medical license if he didn’t stop using the treatment.  Dr. Elens was censored in a similar way to Drs. Ericksen and Massihi, from California. Their videos get scrubbed, and no one is allowed to reference them on social media.

As we saw this week, with the doctors in Washington, DC, that continues to happen. One of the main ideas in the Frontline Doctors’ video was that HCQ could be used as a preventative. It could be a way for schools to reopen; at-risk teachers or students with underlying conditions could take a low preventative dose. Front-line caregivers have been doing that.

Wednesday night Glenn Beck interviewed one of the Frontline Doctors, Dr. Simone Gold.  She mentioned that, in France, where HCQ had been considered safe and sold over-the-counter for decades, they announced a change in status on January 2020, making it available by prescription only. So I looked into that. It was true.

From a two-part story from Life Site on Dr. Raoult and hydroxychloroquine, there’s this:

When Raoult announced “game over” for the Chinese coronavirus on February 25, it came to public attention that hydroxychloroquine, a safer and better tolerated derivate of chloroquine which is itself a pharmaceutical drug derived from quinine, was no longer available over-the-counter in France since January 13, following a regulation published by delegation for Health Minister Agnès Buzyn by the General Director of Health, Jérôme Salomon.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), known as “Plaquénil” in France, was developed in Germany roughly at the same time as chloroquine in the 1930s and has been efficiently used as an anti-malaria drug since then until resistant forms of malaria appeared. It is currently used to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. Doctors have more than 80 years experience with prescribing this cheap molecule that was never considered to be a dangerous medication—until the beginning of this year.

The surprising inscription of HCQ on the list of poisonous substances, only dispensable with a prescription, only weeks before the coronavirus was identified as having entered into France, led many to wonder whether the move had been deliberate in this context.

It was underscored in particular that Buzyn’s husband, Yves Lévy, until recently head of the INSERM (National Institute for health and medical research) was a member of the French delegation present at the opening of the Wuhan P4 “high security” laboratory that conducts research on dangerous viruses, and that he also had a personal axe to grind against Didier Raoult who was one of the first to complain about a conflict of interests when Buzyn was named Health Minister and became supervisor of the INSERM—and of her own husband. These accusations were brushed aside by the mainstream press.

The timing does seem suspicious. With further looking I learned that France had actually made the status change to HCQ some months earlier, in late 2019, and just hadn’t made a formal announcement until January. But I can’t find an explanation for the change in status in the first place.

A drug being sold over-the-counter is considered safe under recommended use and dosage. That doesn’t mean that such drugs aren’t poisonous in the wrong amounts. In fact, most are. The one time I had to contact poison control was when my toddler got into a bathroom medicine cabinet (where she had previously been unable to reach) and got into some Sudafed, a decongestant. They looked like little red candies. And I had to use Ipecac to get the poison out. Another common poison is the very safe acetaminophen, brand name Tylenol. It’s one of the most common accidental and purposeful poisons.

The fact that it can be consumed in poisonous amounts does not mean it isn’t considered safe for over-the-counter sales. What evidence was used to push for the change in France? And why then? Why just before it’s needed worldwide, when it had been used safely for eight decades?

I’m sure there’s an explanation. But I don’t think it’s science based.

Here in the US, HCQ has been by prescription all along, although considered quite safe. Using it in an off-label manner should be a decision between patient and doctor. But it has gotten so that doctors are pressured not to prescribe it, pharmacists are pressured to inquire as the to purpose and not dispense it for the coronavirus, and some states have outlawed its use in treating the coronavirus. Ohio’s State Board of Pharmacy made a rule earlier this week banning the use HCQ for coronavirus, but at Governor Mike DeWine’s insistence they backtracked today and called for more data before enforcing such a rule. 

Is this apparent conspiracy against HCQ because of money? Maybe in part. Remdesivir, for example, is new and could be lucrative if found helpful, so there’s no surprise it was favored—including by Dr. Fauci, who was invested in its producer.

But I don’t think that explains it enough. Why the uproar over something that could help people, is cheap to try, and has been shown not only to not cause harm but to bring relief? And why the outcry over other remedies as well that might be useful immediately? Unless there’s a desire to keep the pandemic going, the economies of the world shut down, and society controlled—until a vaccine is developed that can be further used to enforce control?

Because I have other big questions. This is the first outbreak in which it became almost immediate policy, in countries around the world, to quarantine the healthy, rather than the sick and vulnerable. How did that become such a widespread policy, when it was in contrast to world experience and history?

It turns out that there has been planning going on for quite some time. A pandemic respiratory virus was thought to be inevitable.

Bill Gates talked about the possibility in 2018. Coincidentally, he has invested heavily in vaccines, providing them for different purposes worldwide. Some of his vaccines have been shown to cause significant vaccine injuries, often to the poor and underprivileged he has provided them to, such as India. Gates, a financial supporter of the WHO, wants to connect vaccination with basic freedoms. He has suggested that people who forego an eventual vaccination for COVID-19 should not be allowed to travel or attend school, meetings, or work. And he favors a digital ID to verify and track such data on citizens.

Coincidentally, he sent out a tweet on December 19, 2019, saying, “What’s next for our foundation? I’m particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

In September 2019 Gates participated in a “pandemic exercise,” called Event201, which was specific about response to a coronavirus outbreak—one month before it appears to have begun in Wuhan.

In 2018 a video called “A Simulation for a Global FluPandemic,” was made by The Institute for Disease Modeling, posted courtesy of the Gates Foundation, showing a flu virus originating in China and spreading across the globe, killing millions—eerily similar to what has actually happened. 

In 2017, just as the Trump administration was beginning, Dr. Anthony Fauci spoke at a conference, predicting that sometime during this administration’s term there was a high likelihood of an infectious disease outbreak. He was pushing for funding in preparation. 

Oddly, fiction appears predictive. A movie called Dead Plague (I haven’t seen it) mentions use of hydroxychloroquine. HCQ had been tried on SARS in 2005, so a good researcher probably found that for the script. The movie Contagion (very popular lately on Netflix, but I haven’t watched it either) is about a coronavirus, and it shows lockdowns, facemasks, handwashing—essentially preparing the public’s expectations for our current reality.

There’s a 2010 document, put out by the Rockefeller Foundation, called Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, with a chapter called “Lockstep,” describing a response to a global pandemic. It’s written as though it were describing a past event, but is actually predictive. Here’s a quote:

The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains.

Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers

The report goes on to describe a future even after the pandemic has been quelled:

Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability.

In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests.

Is this the actual plan, laid out a decade ago? I’d be inclined to believe it was a type of war gaming—playing out scenarios in order to come up with various plans. Except that so much has actually happened. And we don’t have a good explanation for why so many governments imposed control over citizens in otherwise free countries—in unprecedented ways.

I’m not an investigative journalist. I’m just a blogger, trying to piece together an understanding from what I read and hear and see. But from where I’m sitting right now, my best guess is that there is an actual conspiracy, on a large scale, attempting to take away freedoms from free people and impose tyrannical control over them.

I don’t know whether it’s organized. As “Marty” said in the movie Sneakers, in reference to organized crime, “It’s not that organized.” That doesn’t mean there isn’t something that attracts power mongers to act in concert toward an end that freedom lovers must resist with all our might.

If you want to do more of your own research, you can add these resources, in addition to what I’ve linked within my post:

·         Dr. Risch on Laura Ingraham’s show 

·         Sharyl Atkisson report on hydroxychloroquine from May 18, 2020

·         “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative was Created” 

·         “Israel announces antibody that neutralizescoronavirus, even amongst infected” 

·         California doctor, Dr. George Fareed, suggests prophylactic (preventative): 

·         Two-part story I mentioned above, about Dr. Raoult, of France: “The “strange” fight by world-leading infectious disease doctor to continue “spectacular” results saving covid-infected patients”

o   part I 

o   part II 

·         I hesitate to recommend this, because it reads like a long and involved conspiracy theory, but I did find the citations at the end, and some of the information, quite useful: “Stop World Control” 

The Choice Is between Freedom and Coercion

There are some things we think are self-evident, such as that we our endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which includes owning property).

But a whole lot of what was obvious, or self-evident, up until recently may not be so obvious today.

Here at the Spherical Model, we make the assumption that the good things we’re going for are freedom, prosperity, and civilization—rather than the alternatives of tyranny, poverty, and savagery. The choice seems obvious.

And yet there are many people who literally do not value freedom. It may be that they’ve had it redefined out of existence, like so many other truths. But I thought we might do a bit of awareness raising on freedom today.

Here’s how I define terms, using my 1980 Webster’s Dictionary combined with my words: 

Freedom: absence of hindrance, restraint, confinement, repression. In the political sense, it is ownership of one’s own life and the production of wealth and property that results from one’s use of life and effort. A government should protect the freedoms of life, liberty, and property; it does not grant these things, but protects them from infringement. A government that takes life, liberty, or property unjustly—when the person has not unlawfully infringed on those rights of another person—that is a tyrannical government, which is the opposite of freedom.

Political freedom means living in a society in which our God-given rights are protected rather than infringed. These would include freedoms of belief and expression, such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press, as well as freedoms of property and security, such as freedom from illegal searches and seizures and the right to bear arms.

Liberty: synonym of freedom. It is ownership of one’s own life, to pursue as one chooses, and to enjoy the fruits of one’s efforts. No person or government or other entity owns a person or controls how the person pursues happiness.

And yet, in today’s world, we have a rising generation that favors a change from our system of freedom to a tyranny they might call socialism, without knowing what that means either.

There’s another term that is useful here: Agency. Sometimes we combine it with the word free, as in free agency. You’ve probably encountered it when sports professionals leave a team and become free agents, open to a contract with another team. That might be the limit of how you've used it. But it implies the ability to choose. So you can see that agency is related to liberty.

There are various words we use as opposites to the ability to choose: coercion, oppression, tyranny.

When you look at a political ideology, you can simplify the search for the good and true by looking at its closeness to freedom, liberty, ability to choose—or by how dangerously close it is to coercion, oppression, tyranny.

·         Do you get to believe what you choose to believe?

·         Do you get to choose your profession and way of life?

·         Do you get to speak your opinions freely?

·         Do you get to associate with people you choose to associate with?

·         Do you get to enjoy the fruits of your own labors?

It wouldn’t be very convincing to offer you a truthful opposite, such as: “Wouldn’t you rather believe what we the powerful tell you to believe?” Or “Wouldn’t it be better for you if we the powerful decided what work you were allowed to do and for what pay?” Or “Wouldn’t it be better if you were allowed to speak only the words we the powerful told you to?” Or, “Wouldn’t it be better for all of us if you gave us all your earnings and we the powerful dole them out to those we favor?”

No, it has to be done more subtly than that:

·       Let’s stop others from believing things that we believe are just wrong—shut down churches, political groups, nonprofits, businesses, schools, or any individual or organization that does or says things we don’t like.

·       Let’s stop others from making a living in ways we don’t like—like using fossil fuels, or maybe just because the business owners believe things we don’t like.

·       Let’s cancel or coerce others to make them stop hurting us by saying things we don't believe—because their words are violence.

·       Let’s take the money from the rich and give it to the poor, like us, who are more deserving.

You get the idea. To someone with some enlightenment, the “progressive” or “woke” or “socially just” way is pretty dark. It takes away individual choice. It oppresses individuals. It rules over people tyrannically. If that’s OK with you as long as they’re on your side, not only is that evil of you, but it’s also just a matter of time until the powers-that-be come after you for some perceived infraction.

It’s a continuation of a very old war—a war that predates earth history. It’s a war between good and evil, between light and dark. I told this story here.   

Let me tell another old story that maybe we can apply. Versions of it show up in fantasy literature all the time. It’s from the Book of Revelation, the last book in the Bible, chapter 13 mostly. But I’ll be retelling it in a slightly more narrative form.

"La Bete de la Mer" tapestry in France, depicting
John the Revelator observing the dragon and the sea beast
image from Wikipedia

There is an evil force, in the form of a dragon, who is a scourge to all the earth. He is an enemy to light, goodness. He doesn’t build; he destroys. Chaos and coercion are his right- and left-hand weapons. He controls two monsters, hideous in form and function, who do his bidding. One monster comes up from the depths of the waters over all the earth. She is filthiness and all the worldly evils, and she rides and controls the powers of rulers and organizations over all the earth. She seduces them with power, and brings them together in secret oaths, so that they simultaneously threaten and support one another in their schemes to amass greater and greater power, buying and selling the souls of men.

The other monster comes up from the earth. Its form appears much less dangerous than the dragon, but it speaks with the tongue of the dragon. It voices the dragon’s words, which are lies. Some call it the false prophet. Another interpretation might be propaganda. It can be found flowing out of ivory and other towers, in and through the airways—redefining in the dragon’s lying lexicon what is “good” and persuading people to worship the dragon, along with his beasts.

The dragon and his forces will eventually lose in their efforts to harm and destroy all the people of the earth. Bur for now the dragon marshals his forces, stirring them up to larger and louder attacks, knowing his time is short.

What does it mean? Revelation, told in a sort of symbolic dream form, can be confusing. But suppose it does say that there will come a time when the organizations of the earth make secret agreements with one another in an effort to amass power? Is that happening? I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory; it's not theory. You might try checking these out for a sample: here, here, here, here, and here.

And about that propaganda monster—that seems like a good explanation of how:

Rioters tear down statue of
Father Junipero Serra in CA
screenshot from here

·       Religion becomes “bad,” but lasciviousness and licentiousness become “good.”

·       Treating all lives as equally valuable becomes “racist,” but favoring a particular race above all others is “social justice.”

·       An elderly friend who suggests florists who could help service a same-sex “wedding” when her religion prevents her becomes “intolerant,” but taking away that woman’s business and savings for so doing is done in the name of “tolerance.”

·       Speaking reasoned opinions with data to back them up becomes “hate speech,” but shouting down a speaker for even holding different opinions is supporting “free speech.”

·       Honoring a free nation and its flag is “hateful,” but disrespecting the flag and tearing down monuments is understandable, considering the circumstances.

You get the idea. Look at the news. Almost every story will provide an example.

The lies appeal to a certain uncivilized human characteristic: selfishness. If they’re working on you, or on someone you know, selfishness is an underlying factor, often disguised as “this makes me feel virtuous,” so you won’t look carefully enough to notice the lies.

Whether or not these are the times described in Revelation, the description seems fitting for today. We may not know how each episode will turn out, but we do know how the story ends.

In the meantime, let’s see how much loving truth-telling we can do to rescue those who might want the light of freedom, prosperity, and civilization if only they could see it.