Home

  • A look at Joe Biden’s Supreme Count Nominee, Katanje ‘I am not a biologist’ Jackson

    Joe Biden’s Supreme court nominee has been in confirmational hearings for the past three days, during which time she has a) refused to state when life begins; b) demonstrated herself incapable of providing a defintion for the word woman ; c) defended her soft sentencing record for such heinous, egregious crimes as pedophilia and the publication and possession of child pornography; d) expressed sympathy for the racist, anti-semitic cult known as the Black Israelites; d) revealed herself to be a supporter of Critical Race Theory, the 1618 Project falsehoods, and the Marxist organization BLM. She is either an incredibly incompetant equity hire, or the most radical nominee to the Supreme Court in its entire history. Yet her glib refusal to respond to pertinent political and cultural questions is jarring to the general public, which is why the Democrat senators of the most radical administration in America’s history are racing to stop up the hemorrage of unadulterated ideology put forth by this candidate.

    During a questioning by Repubblican Senator Ted Cruz, who illustrated that Ms Jackson’s sentencing record for pedophiles was significantly lower than even the minimum standards established by government guidlines, Senator Dick Durban did not want to permit the judicial nominee to answer, repeatedly interupting Senator Cruz and speaking loudly over both Senator Cruz and the nominee. Never has there been a case of a judicial chairman NOT permitting the response of a judicial nominee.

    The following video, which has gone viral, perfectly illustrates that it is Senator Durman who is refusing to allow Ms. Jackson the possibility of responding, while it is Senator Crux insisting that she respond.

    Considering that Joe Biden declared that his pick of judicial nominee would be a black woman – to the exclusion of 94% of the American population, as the Black community is roughly 12%, it is ironic that the nominee herself refuses to define what a woman is.

    “I cannot define woman. I am not a biologist.” Clearly the gender issue has become one of today’s defining cultural issues, as we observe the tragic battlefield of what was once womens’ sports, or the access of fully-grown men – often pedophiles – to women’s bathrooms, but this WOMAN has obviously been instructed to dodge questions so dear to Left-wing radicals, despite her chromosomes screaming “XX: I am an immutable characteristic!”

    While describing some of the cases she has heard as a judge, Katanji Jackson warmly praised the radical cult known as the ‘African Hebrew Israelites’, claiming that it is not a religious community, but rather a cultural movement promoting veganism and a healthy lifestyle. This does not correspond to the more appropriate description of the worldwide phenomenon called the African Hebrew Israelites, or the Black Israelites, which is a group of black nationalists who believe that the Jews are not the true Israelites, but rather that Blacks are the actual Jews (the Chosen People of God) described in the Bible. They can usually be caught on video in New York or D.C. hurling racist and anti-Semitic epithets, as well as sexual slurs, at passersby, and have been immortalized in numerous videos in which they maligned and insulted the Covington kids present at the 2020 March for Life. It does seem unusual that a Supreme Court candidate would provide glowing descriptions of such a bizarre and controversial community, claiming that there is no religious basis to their movement, because the community to which she refered makes explicitly known on their homepage that they are an organization of a religious nature, and that they are the true Israelites, driven out of the Holy Land. Is Katanji Jackson completely ignorant of the cases she has heard as a judge? Or is she lying to everyone? Is it not perhaps that she is truly a dyed-in-the-wool radical ideologue?

    Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence against this nominee remains her poor track record of providing soft sentences against pedophiles and kiddy-porn users, reflective of the tendency of radical progressives to go soft on crime at the behest of their sponsor, George Soros. She fell into an expertly-laid trap by providing an apologia for what she claims is a sub-category of ‘infrequent sexual deviants’, passionately arguing that someone may gain access to the Internet only once, or occasionally, downloading thousands of images ‘accidentally’, and still be obliged to serve a lengthy sentence (which was not the case in the cases brought before her). To which Senator Lindsey Graham responded: “Good. Good! I hope you go to jail for 50 years , if you’re on the Internet trolling for images of children in circumstances of sexual exploitation! So you don’t think that’s a bad thing? I think it’s a horrible thing!” Doesn’t she want child-pornographers to be sentenced to jail for long periods of time? It seems not.

    This is because she is clearly an ideologue who believes that criminals in general should face much lighter sentences, that there is an over-incarceration problem, that criminal justice reform is much needed, that it is society’s fault, etc., and if this includes some of the perpetrators of the more heinous categories of crime, so be it.

  • Russia Accuses the U.S. of obfuscating the presence of American Bio-weapon Laboratories in Ukraine

    Until recently, I stated that the difference between what has been labeled by the mainstream media as conspiracy theories or so-called campaigns of disinformation and the actual truth, is . . . about six to eighteen monthes. However, little did I expect such a so-called Russia/China propaganda disinformation piece to be established as true within almost 24 hours.

    There are so many layers of falsehood to be revealed in this particular instance, which perhaps makes this one of the greatest cases of political disinformation in recent years. The allegation by the Russian government is of the presence of US funded biological laboratories in Ukraine being utilized to create bio-weapons.

    According to a certainRussian official: “We have found your biological material. It was developed primarily for military purposes. As it turns out, it was all happening in Ukraine. What are you doing there? It is a different continent. It shares no borders with you. There are no bases of yours. What were military doing there under the guise of scientific research? ” In other words: we’ve got you figured out. We’ve discovered that the Americans and Ukrainians are collaborating to produce these biological weapons.

    Is this claim credible, or not?

    The Russians do know a thing or two about biological weapons, as they have allegedly used at least chemical weapons against their adversaries, against political dissidents, adversaries of Putin and individuals gone afoul of his regime. Not surprisingly, for most of the Cold War, the Soviets accused the US of developing biological weapons, usually without any basis.

    Obviously, the Ukrainians came out and immediately denied than any such thing were happening.

    As published in the Kiev Post: “Recently, fake news about American military biological laboratories in Ukraine has been spread in the media and on social networks. No biological laboratories operate in Ukraine. Statements recently made by individual politicians are not true, and are a deliberate distortion of the facts.” This position was echoed by American sources as well. The political propagandists of the American liberal regime (Snopes, Politifacts, the fact checkers, bigTech, the mainstream media) blatantly stated that the Russian claim is Fake News.

    And yet, just two days ago, the undersecretary for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, admitted in a hearing before the Senate that there are, in fact, bio-labs in the Ukraine. “Ukraine has biological research facilities, which we are now quite concerned that Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. So we are working with the Ukranians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they approach.” She clearly did not want to be admitting all of this, as she spoke very hesitatingly.

    The US Embassy in Kiev admitted that the US has a profound connection with these laboratories, but that they are utilized exclusively for transparent, scientific research to prevent threats, and that the Russians are spreading disinformation, claiming that there is some sort of military operation to create biological weapons, and that this is complete nonsense. They then advise to consult the website dtra.mil for further information. Dot MILITARY. So we have been told up to this point that this was all purely transparent scientific endeavour pursued for altruistic purposes, and yet we are then directed to a military website, because the program is being directed by the Pentagon. However, the page, which had been up a few days prior, was down, just one day after Victoria Neuland had given her testimony.

    It turns out, according to the Pentagon, that the US presence dates back to a 2005 treaty signed under George Bush, some 16 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, to dismantle old soviet bioweapons laboratories. Under this pretext, the US was able to lay hold of such laboratories across numerous former soviet- block countries. Even more strangely, the links on government website to funding grants have all been deleted, although it is possible to procure older documents which establish that it is indeed the Department of National Defense funding these programs.

    So what is the truth about these laboratories?

    Let’s review: The Russians are accusing the US of developing bioweapons in Ukraine , whilst the Chinese are insisting that the US has hundreds of the laboratories all over the world, the US then states that it is not developing bioweapons, that these claims are disinformation, that they are in no way a military effort, but rather that we are actually preventing threats and performing ordinary scientific research to protect public health. So what exactly is going on?

    To what should be everyone’s dismay, tne organization that is at the heart of the management of these labs is Eco-Health Alliance. Does that name sound familiar? It should, because it is the organization that was associated with Dr. Fauci, and is wildly entangled with the gain of function research in conjunction with the Wuhan Coronavirus Institute, at the time of the Covid19 outbreak. Eco- Health Alliance is run by Peter Dajak, Dr. Fauci’s gain-of-function man, to whom Fauci gave a great deal of money in order to conduct gain-of-function research. Eco Health has recieved enormous contract from the Pentagon, and has been granted 41.91 million dollars (38 of which was awarded by the Defense Reduction Agency), making the Pentagon the largest single donor to Eco- Health, not the NIH.

    There may very well be a reasonable explanation for all of this, but what is it? Initially we were told by the entire Liberal establishment, by Bigtech, the fact checkers, the government officials, the Ukranians, that there are no bio- weapons laboratories in Ukraine. We now know that the US government has spent exorbitant amounts of money on these laboratories to update them – not dismantle them. (Even the pretext of entering into this treaty in order to dismantle the laboratories does not hold water, as it would not take seventeen years in order to do so). We have confirmation that they are performing experiments on these bioweapons, but initially, according to the US Embassy, the research was completely safe, ordinary, mundane . . . . HMMM, if the research experiments are completely safe, why would the US be concerned about Russia taking control of the laboratories? Evidently, we really are talking about very dangerous, biological materials. . . . Yet it is all about altruistic scientific research, which is why it is being funded by the Pentagon, and completely safe, because it is in the hands of the organization that was directly funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Bat Coronavirus Institute.

  • Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That Is Not Easy To Reject

    By
    Doron Levin


    “Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said.  “It has repercussions for society.  It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality.  If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person.  Who wants to be a sinner?”

    [This interview article about ‘skeptic’ climate scientist Nir Shaviv was published and then quickly pulled from Forbes.com.  We discovered the article after it was reprinted by Jim Lakely, Communications Director of the Heartland Institute. We are reprinting it here under the fair use doctrine.  Ed.]

    The U.S. auto industry and regulators in California and Washington appear deadlocked over stiff Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards that automakers oppose and the Trump administration have vowed to roll back – an initiative that has environmental activists up in arms.

    California and four automakers favor compromise, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the president’s position that the federal standards are too strict. The EPA argues that forcing automakers to build more fuel efficient cars will make them less affordable, causing consumers to delay trading older, less efficient vehicles. Complicating matters is California’s authority to create its own air quality standards, which the White House vows to end.

    However the impasse is resolved, the moment looks ripe to revisit the root of this multifactorial dustup: namely, the scientific “consensus” that CO2 emissions from vehicles and other sources are pushing the earth to the brink of climate catastrophe.

    In a modest office on the campus of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, an Israeli astrophysicist patiently explains why he is convinced that the near-unanimous judgments of climatologists are misguided.  Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate.

    “Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.”

    Shaviv, 47, fully comprehends that his scientific conclusions constitute a glaring rebuttal to the widely-quoted surveys showing that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity – the combustion of fossil fuels – constitutes the principle reason for climate change.

    “Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded.  In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”

    History is replete with lone voices toppling scientific orthodoxies. Astronomers deemed Pluto the ninth planet – until they changed their minds. Geologists once regarded tectonic plate theory, the movement of continents, as nonsense. Medicine were 100% certain that stomach ulcers resulted from stress and spicy food, until an Australian researcher proved bacteria the culprit and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

    Lest anyone dismiss Shaviv on the basis of his scientific credentials or supposed political agenda, consider the following: He enrolled at Israel’s Technion University – the country’s equivalent of MIT – at the age of 13 and earned an MA while serving in the Israel Defense Force’s celebrated 8200 Intelligence unit. He returned to Technion, where he earned his doctorate, afterward completing post-doctoral work at California Institute of Technology and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. He also has been an Einstein Fellow at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

    In other words, he knows tons more about science than Donald Trump or Al Gore.

    As for politics “in American terms, I would describe myself as liberal on most domestic issues, somewhat hawkish on security,” he said. Nonetheless, the Trump administration’s position on global climate change, he said, is correct insofar as it rejects the orthodoxy of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s findings and conclusions are updated every six years; the latest report, released this week, noted that deforestation and agribusiness are contributing to CO2 emissions and aggravating climate change.

    In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled.  Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports. The reason for the much wider variation used by the IPCC, he said, was that they relied almost entirely on simulations and no one knew how to quantify the effect of clouds – which affects how much radiant energy reaches the earth – and other factors.

    “Since then, literally billions have been spent on climate research,” he said. Yet “the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed. The proponents of man-made climate change still ignore the effect of the sun on the earth’s climate, which overturns our understanding of twentieth-century climate change.”

    He explained: “Solar activity varies over time. A major variation is roughly eleven years or more, which clearly affects climate. This principle has been generally known – but in 2008 I was able to quantify it by using sea level data.  When the sun is more active, there is a rise in sea level here on earth. Higher temperature makes water expand.  When the sun is less active, temperature goes down and the sea level falls – the correlation is as clear as day.

    “Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change,” he said. “That, in turn, implies that climate sensitivity to CO2 should be about 1.0 degree when the amount of CO2 doubles.”

    The link between solar activity and the heating and cooling of the earth is indirect, he explained. Cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere from the explosive death of massive stars across the universe play a significant role in the formation of so-called cloud condensation nuclei needed for the formation of clouds.  When the sun is more active, solar wind reduces the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A more active solar wind leads to fewer cloud formation nuclei, producing clouds that are less white and less reflective, thus warming the earth.

    “Today we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings to satellite altimetry data from the past few decades,” he said. “We also can reproduce and mimic atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence.

    “All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees.  A freshman physics student can see this.”

    Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings. “Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC.  “We know that there have been very large variations of climate in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels.  A thousand years ago the earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago the River Thames froze more often.  In the first and second IPCC reports these events were mentioned.  In 2001 they disappeared. Suddenly no mention of natural warming, no Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century.  This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.”

    Shaviv says that he has accepted no financial support for his research by the fossil fuel industry. Experiments in Denmark with Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others to demonstrate the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. In the U.S. the conservative Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy have invited him to speak, covering travel expenses.

    “The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.

    “Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said.  “It has repercussions for society.  It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person.  Who wants to be a sinner?”

    Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said.

    In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban the use of fossil fuels isn’t just misguided “it comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources, for example, will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

    “It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make, he said. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating.  The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

    For Shaviv, the rejection and closed-mindedness his minority view provoke may contain a silver lining.  Just think of the acclaim that awaits if his research — and scientific reconsideration of the current orthodoxy — one day proves persuasive.

  • The Radical Left reveals it’s Ugly Intentions once again, in its Push to Indoctrinate Little Children

    The latest news from the Usa.

    If you are an individual who makes exclusive use of mainstream media news sources, you would believe it is now ILLEGAL to say the word ‘gay’ in the State of Florida, because this Leftist propaganda echo chamber – which includes Hollywood – desires that you believe this nonsense. Mark Hammel (Luke Skywalker) tweeted out yesterday :”Gay, gay, gay, gay,gay . . ” one hundred times, and every celebrity we can think of is now tweeting out the aforementioned word, as a blow against the presumably evil, repressive State of Florida, which does of course have a fairly significant gay population living within it. Numerous individuals tweeted out yesterday that ‘they were being silenced and erased from Florida life because of this so-called ‘don’t say gay’ Bill. If you truely believed that such a Bill were being passed by the Florida legislature, and signed into law by its government you would remain calm in the knowledge that a) such a law would be a violation of the First Amendment; b) there would be significant punishment for promoting such hostile rhetoric. But of course there is no punishment, because there is no ‘Don’t say gay’ Bill in the State of Florida. Instead, there is a Bill that says that teachers are not allowed to discuss sexually sensitive issues such as gender ideology and indoctrination in age groups pre-K – 3, and that they then must avoid inapprorpiate discussions for age groups below the teenage years of questions such as sex, masturbation, birth control and abortion.

    The Bill does not use the word ‘gay’. It does mention the word ‘parent’ about thirty times, because the entire bill regards the relevance of parents and their right to be the chief authority figures making the most relevant decisions regarding if and how their children will be taught controversial sexual and gender issues. It is not the right of the schools to indoctrinate children into the belief that all forms of sex are morally equivalent, it is not up to schools to instruct upon types of sex, especially to small children, promoting the lie that men can become women and women can become men. However, the entire mainstream media, which is a partisan propaganda tool, has repeated what the Left has called this Bill and pretended that such was its actual name, demonstrating for the umteenth time that members of the Media are simply Democrat party minions.

    The so-called ‘Don’t say Gay’ Bill is a Democrat propaganda label, because, as we mentioned previously, the Bill does not even mention the word ‘gay’. Protecting the innocence of children, and granting parents the authority to raise their children as they see fit with regard to sexual morals, seems like a minimum deocratic requisite, and yet it has become the most controversial of issues. The Left has decided to embrace this question, making it the hill they are ready to die upon. Their message is that if they do not get to indocrinate all children on their particular leftist values, then a small fragment of children who may be suffering from gender disphoria are going to kill themselves. They wish to promote the idea that they are the sympathetic ones, and that all they need in order to promote their sympathy is to override your parental values and authority, destroying your relationship with your child, indoctrinating them into beliefs which you hold to be immoral. They need our children in order to promote this future dystopia, which is why they are fussing and making so much noise about a Bill which simply says that the Public School system is not allowed to indoctrinate little children with its radical sexual values. The fact that the media simply repeat the Leftist talking point of the day, universally adopting the Left’s language, is proof that they are the ultimate Democrat propaganda outlet. (Axios, Abc, NBC). Guidlines are clearly set by the White House, as the question began with Democratic activists, and the White House is run by Democratic Radical Activists – Jen Psaki called the Bill “horrific” – yes, “horrific”. So White House representatives think that if you don’t teach a four-year-old that boys can be girls and vice versa, or a second grader that all forms of sex are morally equivalent, that all lifestyle choices are exactly the same and deserve equal respect and acceptance, then you are a bully.

    Yes, according to the Left, parents are the primary obstacle to a better tomorrow. The Family – those little platoons combating world socialist domination, representing the most valuable, durable and powerful form of connection that we have, they are obstacles to the government becoming the great unifying force in American life. They want to be able to take your children away from you, they want to infiltrate the Family, in order to turn their values against your values. This is the goal of the Left. They desire it, and they will call it compassion, and any resistance will be called bullying. They would love to be able to indoctrinate our children without our consent, and they object to parents even being notified when they tell your son that he can be a she in first grade.They want to be able to teach our children about myriad forms of sexual exploration, when the kids are eight, without even informed consent. (For an idea of the radical nature of this Leftist move for sexual precociousness in children, desiring to turn them into widgets for radical leftist sexual (im)morality, check out the Sexual Education Summer Camp for children grades 3-5, in Indianapolis, that teaches kids as young as 7 about sexual education, including a condom demonstration fro children. A flier for this particular sex camp for children in N.Indianapolis, states that ‘at this age, kids are primed for learning, they are information gatherers. There is no shame or ickiness in association with using bandaids. That same philosophy is applied to the use of condoms, and other ‘barriers’, in this body-positive curriculum. In addition, kids will not be separated by gender when learning about puberty, bodies and sex, because gender is a spectrum, and everyone needs to learn about all bodies,’ according to this flier.

    Unfortunately, there are parents who will delegate their children to places such as this, which is how to explain for the video of Jason Buttigieg (the partner of Pete Buttigieg, secretary for Transportation), teaching small children to speak the pledge of allegiance to the gay flag. Parents presumably gave their permission to this, but let us withhold judgement on them for a moment of reflection: what would happen if this event were occuring without your knowledge at your child’s school, and that teachers were doing this with your children? Should that not be illegal? Remember: the people who believe these are the best values, believe that you should have no say in whether or not these values are being taught to your children, and they also believe that pledging allegiance to the American flag is equivalent to indoctrination. Hmmmm…..

    The Left decided that Disney had to sound off on this Bill, because if you are a corporation, YOU MUST DO WHAT THE LEFT EXPECTS OF YOU. Woke Capital rules the day. If you are a corporation, you can be pressured into doing most anything if there is a crowd of angry individuals shouting slogans at you. The media- who are Democratic activists; they are not out to provide accurate information- continue to lie and lie. Which is why all of their headlines contain the overt lie, namely that the aforementioned Bill is the ‘Don’t say gay’ Bill. They then go to corporations to question them regarding the motives of their ‘silence’ (Which they certainly do not do when legislative decisions are made which promote the Left’s agenda, such as when the State of NY passed a law permitting the killing of babies even after birth. Did they question any corporations about their interest in a law which sanctioned the killing of babies on the operating table? I think not. How about the defunding of police? No. The BBB economic plan? No way. )

    It is indicative of how far to the left culture has leaned, that a corporation like Disney – a corporation originally designed to produce good, wholesome entertainment for children, whilst preserving their innocence – is being called on the carpet to justify its silence in the face of the supposedly discriminatory Bill, or rather for not embracing the indoctrination of small children into sexually Leftist ideology. Disney felt the need to respond to the leftist media echo chamber, although they have not yet reponded to questions regarding their bases in countries which are objectively repressive, nor have they answered queries about the production of Mulan, shot on Chinese territory (Xinjiang) in which Uighurs are being oppressed, enslaved and tortured. Bob Chapak, Ceo of Disney, remained silent for a while. When questioned, he should have responded: we are a corporation located in numerous different polities, which does not signify that we agree with all of the policies of those polities. Chapak, however is a coward, just like almost everyone in coorporate America is a coward, but what he should fear is that Disney’s frequent capitulations to leftist dogma have tipped their content so far to the Left that it is nigh on unconsumable. Because indigestible Woke content will not be purchased by most families. In this particular case, Disney is playing an extremely dangerous game, siding with Leftist radicals who are not their principal market of consumers, over the parent body at large (and most parents don’t want their toddlers and small children learning ANY sort of sexual education, anyway).

    Chapak came out condemning the so-called ‘Don’t say gay’Bill, stating on Wednesday that he understood that ‘our original approach didn’t quite get the job done’. He called governor De Santis in order to convey his disapointment and concern, and that if the Bill were passed, it could unjustly target transgender kids and families. He also stated that he had attempted to intervene’behind the scenes’ against the passing of the Bill. This prompted an immediate response from the office of Governor De Santis. “Governor De Santis has always been open to hearing from Floridians, and having conversations about legislation, as long as those discussions are grounded in facts and not false media narratives. Anyone who has questions about the parental rights and education Bill, is encouraged to read the Bill, rather than distorted coverage in mainstream media, which regurgitates false partisan talking points. Disney contacted our office today to speak with the governor. This is the first time we have heard from Disney regarding HB1557. the governor did take the call from Mr. Chepeck. The governor’s position has not changed. No personal meeting has been scheduled yet. Disney is a family-friendly company that creates wholesome entertainment for children. The same Florida parents who take their children to Disneyland, also support parental rights and education, because they do not want their young children exposed to inappropriate content about sex and gender theory at school.”

    If Disney wishes to embrace this suicidal game, prepare to ban their content, for with such a gesture, they are communicating to all of us that they consider it acceptable for parental authority to be subverted, repressed, denied, in the name of Woke.

  • Conscientious Objection to Vaccinations Against Covid?

    By Grégor Puppinck

    Hundreds of people are invoking freedom of conscience before the European Court of Human Rights to challenge compulsory vaccination against covid. Grégor Puppinck takes stock of the European Court’s jurisprudence on the matter. Phd in law and director of the ECLJ, he is notably the author of “Objection de conscience et droits de l’homme” (Téqui, 2020), which analyses this approach. Article published in French in Valeurs Actuelles on February 9, 2022.

    In our divided society, said to be undermined by individualism, the virus has made us rediscover the tangible existence of a common good: public health, and the need for each member of society to contribute to it, which implies a degree of sacrifice. The end of compulsory military service made us forget this duty to contribute to the common good; the only thing that remained perceptible, for some French people, was the duty to contribute to the payment of taxes.
    Is it therefore out of an excess of individualism and selfishness that some people claim to escape their duty to public health by refusing the anti-covid jab, just as others refused military service while benefiting from the protection and sacrifice of the conscripts? Is it not unfair to claim exemption from this duty? And who are we to judge, to question the word of pharmaceutical experts and governments?
    Vaccination is an exception
    First of all, it must be remembered that vaccination is in itself an exception, an infringement of the principles of inviolability and integrity of the human body recognised in French and international law. When compulsory, it also violates the principle of respect for the free and informed consent of individuals prior to any medical intervention. Thus, in principle, the refusal to receive medical care – including vaccination – is a right of every patient, explicitly guaranteed by the law of 4 March 2002. Such a refusal cannot be distinguished from a conscientious objection, since the latter consists precisely in refusing to carry out an order that infringes a higher fundamental principle such as, in particular, the right to respect for life or physical integrity. Thus, there is already a genuine right of patients to conscientious objection to any medical intervention concerning them. Therefore vaccination is not imposed by force, unlike conscription in the past. In this respect, conscientious objection to vaccination is respected in principle in democratic countries. This is an important first point to stress.
    No one can be vaccinated by force
    Out of respect for the general principles of respect for the physical and moral integrity of individuals, many governments refuse to make vaccination compulsory and limit themselves to recommending it. In Europe, this is the case for Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. These countries have very good results in terms of vaccination coverage, equivalent to the countries that require vaccination. This is also important because it puts the usefulness of mandatory vaccination policies into perspective.
    Other countries, such as France, have chosen to penalise people who refuse the vaccines made compulsory by law, without however compulsorily vaccinating these people. These sanctions are either administrative (such as restrictions to access certain places or bans to exercise professions) or criminal (such as fines), the aim being to limit the risks of transmission and to encourage people to be vaccinated.
    The question of conscientious objection arises again against these constraints and sanctions: can a person who refuses vaccination invoke respect for their freedom of conscience to avoid sanctions? Faced with an ordinary obligation, it is obvious that no one can invoke their freedom of conscience to escape the application of the law. But vaccination is not an ordinary obligation: it affects the physical and even moral integrity of individuals. It is an evil for a good: an evil that can be perfectly justified, of course, but an evil all the same, in legal terms, in that it affects one’s physical integrity.
    Driven by a liberal spirit, and out of respect for the physical and moral integrity of individuals, many American states recognise the right of individuals to conscientious objection to any vaccine, even those whose usefulness and harmlessness are certain. This is also the case in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic (under conditions). In the United Kingdom, as early as 1898, the British Parliament recognised the right of parents to withdraw their children from vaccination if they considered it unnecessary or dangerous. This appears to be the first legal recognition of a right to conscientious objection, even before that regarding military service.
    The ECHR has endorsed the possibility of conscientious objection to vaccination
    The European Court of Human Rights has also endorsed the possibility of conscientious objection to vaccination in the recent and famous case of Vavřička and Others v. Czech Republic, ruled on 8 April 2021 by the Grand Chamber of that court. In an exceptional move, the French Government intervened in this case to try and convince the Court to deny any freedom of conscience in relation to vaccinations on the grounds that compulsory vaccination is binding on everyone, regardless of their beliefs. This reasoning was a fine example of circular reasoning: “vaccination must be compulsory for all, because it is compulsory for all”. The Grand Chamber of the ECHR ruled against the French Government on this central point (and in favour of the ECLJ, which also intervened) by applying to vaccination its case law recognising the right to object to military service (Bayatyan v Armenia, 2011). The result is that the refusal to vaccinate can be based on the protection of freedom of conscience guaranteed by the European Convention (in Article 9) on the twofold condition that it is motivated by “a serious and insurmountable conflict” between the obligation in question and the objector’s convictions, and that these convictions are “sincere and deep-rooted, of a religious or other nature”. In this case, the objection “constitutes a belief of sufficient strength, seriousness, consistency and importance to trigger the application of the guarantees of Article 9”. The refusal to vaccinate can therefore, under these conditions, be protected by freedom of conscience. In the Vavřička case, the Court ultimately refused the applicants this protection on the ground that their conviction lacked force, as they had invoked freedom of conscience only late in the proceedings and without sufficient substantiation.
    Conscientious objection can therefore be invoked against measures sanctioning a refusal to vaccinate, but it is not automatically recognised. It must still be proven that the refusal is based on sincere and deep-seated convictions. These may be religious or moral convictions. With regard to religious beliefs, “the State’s duty of neutrality and impartiality” prohibits any judgment on their legitimacy, unless they are contrary to public order. Respect for religious freedom then requires an attempt to accommodate the objection, to reconcile rights and obligations. In the case of moral convictions, on the other hand, the public authorities can judge them. It must therefore be argued that the refusal is motivated by such and such a conviction, for example, that it is morally unacceptable to be inoculated with a vaccine devised by means of aborted foetus cells.
    The recognition of the moral objection to a particular vaccine will then depend on the characteristics of the vaccine. This was made clear by the ECHR in the Vavřička case, stating at the outset that its judgment relates to “the usual and routine vaccination” considered “safe and effective by the scientific community” and guaranteeing collective protection against the transmission of “serious diseases”. The Court also declared the existence of a no-fault compensation scheme for side effects to be essential and took into account the transparency of the vaccine policy-making process. A vaccine that does not offer these safeguards or that does not target a serious disease could – and indeed should – be subject to serious objection.
    In addition to the characteristics of the vaccine and the disease, recognition of the moral objection may also depend on the severity of the constraints and sanctions imposed on objectors. In Vavřička, the Court found them proportionate to the objective of preventing the transmission of the diseases in question, as they were limited to a small fine (EUR 100) and the impossibility of enrolling children in day-care. The Court also made it clear that there is no need to distinguish between an obligation and a recommendation to vaccinate: as soon as there is a constraint or a sanction, it makes it an obligation. It follows that the imposition of disproportionate, inconsistent or discriminatory constraints and penalties must lead to the recognition of a violation of the objectors’ rights, even if the State has a certain margin of appreciation in this respect.
    Therefore, in the light of each criterion laid down by the European Court, it is clear that the French regime of anti-covid vaccination raises serious difficulties; and one can understand the decision of several neighbouring governments to ease their own regime.
    It is a good thing that in our European system of human rights protection, it is possible to oppose in conscience to a law when it seems manifestly unjust; for personal conscience is the ultimate guarantor of justice and freedom. This means of conscientious objection is more difficult to grasp in contemporary thought than the much more common one of invoking respect for private life. But it has the advantage of linking, through conscience, the law to justice, and of reordering to the latter the sometimes-confused attitudes of contestation and refusal.

    ECHR/Vaccines: Establishing Limits on States’ Power
    Read the full text of the petition5,519
    LATEST
    Press Release
    Preventing abortion in Europe – Conference at the European Parliament

    February 22
    Persecuted Christians: ECLJ Submits New Written Statements Highlighting Five Countries Where the Situation has Dramatically Deteriorated

    February 15
    Poland and the Influence of Pro-abortion Groups

    February 11
    The Influence of Abortion Lobbies in Europe

    February 10
    Romania: “open prison”… except for worship?

    February 9
    Mike Pompeo: “the end of Roe v. Wade as a beginning”

    February 8
    International Community Concerned About Threats to Tigray’s Cultural and Religious Heritage

    February 7
    Freedom of expression in Algeria: the case of Islamologist Said Djabelkhir







  • Killing Hydroxychloroquine

    “Most of my fellow Democrats understand that Dr. Fauci led an effort to deliberately derail America’s access to lifesaving drugs and medicines that might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and dramatically shortened the pandemic. There is no other aspect of the COVID crisis that more clearly reveals the malicious intentions of a powerful vaccine cartel—led by Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates—to prolong the pandemic and amplify its mortal effects in order to promote their mischievous inoculations. From the outset, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and other therapeutics posed an existential threat to Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates’ $48 billion COVID vaccine project, and particularly to their vanity drug remdesivir, in which Gates has a large stake.

    Under federal law, new vaccines and medicines cannot quality for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) if any existing FDA-approved drug proves effective against the same malady: For FDA to issue an EUA (emergency use authorization), there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. . . . Thus, if any FDA-approved drug like hydroxychloroquine (or ivermectin) proved effective against COVID, pharmaceutical companies would no longer be legally allowed to fast-track their billion-dollar vaccines to market under Emergency Use Authorization. Instead, vaccines would have to endure the years-long delays that have always accompanied methodical safety and efficacy testing, and that would mean less profits, more uncertainty, longer runways to market, and a disappointing end to the lucrative COVID-19 vaccine gold rush. Dr. Fauci has invested $6 billion in taxpayer lucre in the Moderna vaccine alone. His agency is co-owner of the patent and stands to collect a fortune in royalties. At least four of Fauci’s hand-picked deputies are in line to collect royalties of $150,000/year based on Moderna’s success, and that’s on top of the salaries already paid by the American public. So there was good reason that very powerful potentates of the medical cartel were already targeting HCQ long before President Trump began his infamous romance with the malaria remedy. President Trump’s endorsement of HCQ on March 19, 20207 hyper-politicized the debate and gave Dr. Fauci’s defamation campaign against HCQ a soft landing among Democrats and the media. Trump’s critics relegated any further claims of HCQ efficacy to the same anti-science waste bin as Trump’s notorious recommendation for bleach to cure COVID and his denial of climate change. But HCQ had a long history of safe medical use that got lost in the politics and propaganda. HCQ Before Dr. Fauci’s Smear Campaign Dr. Fauci’s challenge—to prove that HCQ is dangerous—was daunting because hydroxychloroquine is a 65-year-old formula that regulators around the globe long ago approved as both safe and effective against a variety of illnesses.

    HCQ is an analog of the quinine found in the bark of the cinchona tree that George Washington used to protect his troops from malaria. For decades, WHO has listed HCQ as an “essential medicine,” proven effective against a long list of ailments. It is a generally benign prescription medicine, far safer—according to the manufacturer’s package inserts9—than many popular over-the-counter drugs. Generations have used HCQ billions of times throughout the world, practically without restriction. During my many childhood trips to Africa, I took HCQ daily as a preventive against malaria, a ritual that millions of other African visitors and residents embrace. Long use has thoroughly established HCQ’s safety and efficacy such that most African countries authorize HCQ as an over-the-counter medication. Africans call the drug “Sunday-Sunday”10 because millions of them take it religiously, once a week, as a malaria prophylaxis. It’s probably not a coincidence that these nations enjoyed some of the world’s lowest mortality rates from COVID. HCQ is the #1 most used medication in India, the second-most populous nation on the planet, with 1.3 billion people. Prior to the COVID pandemic, HCQ and its progenitor, chloroquine (CQ), were freely available over the counter in most of the world, including France, Canada, Iran, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, and many other countries. In the United States, the FDA has approved HCQ without limitation for 65 years, meaning that physicians can prescribe it for any off-label use. CDC’s information sheet deems hydroxychloroquine safe for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, infants, elderly and immune-compromised patients and healthy persons of all ages. The CDC sets no limits on the lengthy and indefinite use of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of malaria. Many people in Africa and India take it for a lifetime. Since its recommended protocol as a remedy for COVID requires only one week’s use, Dr. Fauci’s sudden revelation that the drug is dangerous was specious at best. According to Dr. Peter McCullough, “To date, there has not been a single credible report that the medication increases the risk of death in COVID-19 patients when prescribed by competent physicians who understand its safety profile.” Efficacy Against Coronavirus with Early Intervention HCQ Protocol Some 200 peer-reviewed studies (C19Study.com) by government and independent researchers deem HCQ safe and effective against Coronavirus, especially when taken prophylactically or when taken in the initial stages of illness along with zinc and Zithromax. The chart below lists 32 studies of early outpatient treatment of COVID using hydroxychloroquine. Thirty-one of the studies showed benefit, and only one study showed harm. The study showing harm resulted from a single patient in the treatment group requiring hospitalization. When all the studies are collected together, despite having different outcome measures, the average benefit is 64 percent. This means that subjects who received hydroxychloroquine were only 36 percent as likely to reach the negative outcomes as subjects in the control groups. The scientific literature first suggested that HCQ or CQ might be effective treatments for Coronavirus in 2004. In that era, following an outbreak, Chinese and Western governments were pouring millions of dollars into an effort to identify existing, a.k.a. “repurposed,” medicines that were effective against coronaviruses. With HCQ, they had stumbled across the Holy Grail. In 2004, Belgian researchers found that chloroquine was effective at viral killing at doses equivalent to those used to treat malaria, i.e., doses that are safe. A CDC study published in 2005 in the Virology Journal, “Chloroquine is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread” demonstrated that CQ quickly eliminated coronavirus in primate cell culture during the SARS outbreak. That study concludes: “We report . . . that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-Coronavirus infection of primate cells . . . [both] before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.” This conclusion was particularly threatening to vaccine makers since it implies that chloroquine functions both as a preventive “vaccine” as well as a cure for SARS coronavirus. Common sense would presume it to be effective against other coronavirus strains. Worse still for Dr. Fauci and his vaccine-making friends, a NIAID study16 and a Dutch paper,17 both in 2014, confirmed chloroquine was effective against MERS—still another coronavirus. In response to their studies, physicians worldwide discovered early in the pandemic that they could successfully treat high-risk COVID-19 patients as outpatients, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a chloroquine drug alone or with a “cocktail” of repurposed medicines.

    Kennedy Jr., Robert F. . The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense) (pp.84-88). Skyhorse. Edizione del Kindle.

    So there was good reason that very powerful potentates of the medical cartel were already targeting HCQ long before President Trump began his infamous romance with the malaria remedy. President Trump’s endorsement of HCQ on March 19, 20207 hyper-politicized the debate and gave Dr. Fauci’s defamation campaign against HCQ a soft landing among Democrats and the media. Trump’s critics relegated any further claims of HCQ efficacy to the same anti-science waste bin as Trump’s notorious recommendation for bleach to cure COVID and his denial of climate change. But HCQ had a long history of safe medical use that got lost in the politics and propaganda. HCQ Before Dr. Fauci’s Smear Campaign Dr. Fauci’s challenge—to prove that HCQ is dangerous—was daunting because hydroxychloroquine is a 65-year-old formula that regulators around the globe long ago approved as both safe and effective against a variety of illnesses. HCQ is an analog of the quinine found in the bark of the cinchona tree that George Washington used to protect his troops from malaria. For decades, WHO has listed HCQ as an “essential medicine,” proven effective against a long list of ailments.8 It is a generally benign prescription medicine, far safer—according to the manufacturer’s package inserts9—than many popular over-the-counter drugs. Generations have used HCQ billions of times throughout the world, practically without restriction. During my many childhood trips to Africa, I took HCQ daily as a preventive against malaria, a ritual that millions of other African visitors and residents embrace. Long use has thoroughly established HCQ’s safety and efficacy such that most African countries authorize HCQ as an over-the-counter medication. Africans call the drug “Sunday-Sunday”10 because millions of them take it religiously, once a week, as a malaria prophylaxis. It’s probably not a coincidence that these nations enjoyed some of the world’s lowest mortality rates from COVID. HCQ is the #1 most used medication in India, the second-most populous nation on the planet, with 1.3 billion people. Prior to the COVID pandemic, HCQ and its progenitor, chloroquine (CQ), were freely available over the counter in most of the world, including France, Canada, Iran, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, and many other countries. In the United States, the FDA has approved HCQ without limitation for 65 years, meaning that physicians can prescribe it for any off-label use. CDC’s information sheet deems hydroxychloroquine safe for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, infants, elderly and immune-compromised patients and healthy persons of all ages.11 The CDC sets no limits on the lengthy and indefinite use of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of malaria. Many people in Africa and India take it for a lifetime. Since its recommended protocol as a remedy for COVID requires only one week’s use, Dr. Fauci’s sudden revelation that the drug is dangerous was specious at best. According to Dr. Peter McCullough, “To date, there has not been a single credible report that the medication increases the risk of death in COVID-19 patients when prescribed by competent physicians who understand its safety profile.”12 Efficacy Against Coronavirus with Early Intervention HCQ Protocol Some 200 peer-reviewed studies (C19Study.com) by government and independent researchers deem HCQ safe and effective against Coronavirus, especially when taken prophylactically or when taken in the initial stages of illness along with zinc and Zithromax. The chart below lists 32 studies of early outpatient treatment of COVID using hydroxychloroquine. Thirty-one of the studies showed benefit, and only one study showed harm. The study showing harm resulted from a single patient in the treatment group requiring hospitalization. When all the studies are collected together, despite having different outcome measures, the average benefit is 64 percent. This means that subjects who received hydroxychloroquine were only 36 percent as likely to reach the negative outcomes as subjects in the control groups. The scientific literature first suggested that HCQ or CQ might be effective treatments for Coronavirus in 2004.13 In that era, following an outbreak, Chinese and Western governments were pouring millions of dollars into an effort to identify existing, a.k.a. “repurposed,” medicines that were effective against coronaviruses. With HCQ, they had stumbled across the Holy Grail. In 2004, Belgian researchers found that chloroquine was effective at viral killing at doses equivalent to those used to treat malaria, i.e., doses that are safe.14 A CDC study published in 2005 in the Virology Journal, “Chloroquine is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread” demonstrated that CQ quickly eliminated coronavirus in primate cell culture during the SARS outbreak. That study concludes: “We report . . . that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-Coronavirus infection of primate cells . . . [both] before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”15 This conclusion was particularly threatening to vaccine makers since it implies that chloroquine functions both as a preventive “vaccine” as well as a cure for SARS coronavirus. Common sense would presume it to be effective against other coronavirus strains. Worse still for Dr. Fauci and his vaccine-making friends, a NIAID study16 and a Dutch paper,17 both in 2014, confirmed chloroquine was effective against MERS—still another coronavirus. In response to their studies, physicians worldwide discovered early in the pandemic that they could successfully treat high-risk COVID-19 patients as outpatients, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a chloroquine drug alone or with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature quickly confirmed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment when administered within days of COVID symptoms. Studies confirming this occurred in China,18 France,19 Saudi Arabia,20 Iran,21 Italy,22 India,23 New York City,24 upstate New York,25 Michigan,26 and Brazil.27 HCQ’s first prominent champion was Dr. Didier Raoult, the iconic French infectious disease professor, who has published more than 2,700 papers and is famous for having discovered 100 microorganisms, including the pathogen that causes Whipple’s Disease. On March 17, 2020, Dr. Raoult provided a preliminary report on 36 patients treated successfully with hydroxychloroquine and sometimes azithromycin at his institution in Marseille.28 In April, Dr. Vladimir (Zev) Zelenko, M.D., an upstate New York physician and early HCQ adopter, reproduced Dr. Didier Raoult’s “startling successes” by dramatically reducing expected mortalities among 800 patients Zelenko treated with the HCQ cocktail.29 By late April of 2020, US doctors were widely prescribing HCQ to patients and family members, reporting outstanding results, and taking it themselves prophylactically. In May 2020, Dr. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D. published the most comprehensive study, to date, on HCQ’s efficacy against COVID. Risch is Yale University’s super-eminent Professor of Epidemiology, an illustrious world authority on the analysis of aggregate clinical data. Dr. Risch concluded that evidence is unequivocal for early and safe use of the HCQ cocktail. Dr. Risch published his work—a meta-analysis reviewing five outpatient studies—in affiliation with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the American Journal of Epidemiology, under the urgent title, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis.”30 He further demonstrated, with specificity, how HCQ’s critics—largely funded by Bill Gates and Dr. Tony Fauci31—had misinterpreted, misstated, and misreported negative results by employing faulty protocols, most of which showed HCQ efficacy administered without zinc and Zithromax which were known to be helpful. But their main trick for ensuring the protocols failed was to wait until late in the disease process before administering HCQ—when it is known to be ineffective. Dr. Risch noted that evidence against HCQ used late in the course of the disease is irrelevant. While acknowledging that Dr. Didier Raoult’s powerful French studies favoring HCQ efficacy were not randomized, Risch argued that the results were, nevertheless, so stunning as to far outweigh that deficit: “The first study of HCQ + AZ [ . . . ] showed a 50-fold benefit of HCQ + AZ vs. standard of care . . . This is such an enormous difference that it cannot be ignored despite lack of randomization.”32 Risch has pointed out that the supposed need for randomized placebo-controlled trials is a shibboleth. In 2014 the Cochrane Collaboration proved in a landmark meta-analysis of 10,000 studies, that observational studies of the kind produced by Didier Raoult are equal in predictive ability to randomized placebo-controlled trials.33 Furthermore, Risch observed that it is highly unethical to deny patients promising medications during a pandemic—particularly those which, like HCQ, have long-standing safety records. So, against all that I’ve shared here, Dr. Fauci offered up one answer: hydroxychloroquine should not be used because we don’t understand the mechanism it uses to defeat COVID—another shibboleth transparently invoked to defeat common sense. Regulators do not understand the mechanism of action of many drugs, but they nonetheless license those that are effective and safe. The fact is that we know more about how HCQ beats COVID than we know about the actions of many other medicines, including—notably—Dr. Fauci’s darlings, mRNA vaccines and remdesivir. Furthermore, an August 2020 paper from Baylor University by Dr. Peter McCullough et al. described mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail” exert antiviral effects.34 McCullough shows that the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the “gun” and zinc as the “bullet,” while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral effect. An even more expansive September 30, 2020 meta-review summarizes more recent research, concluding that ALL the studies on early administration of HCQ within a week following infection demonstrate efficacy, while studies of HCQ administered later in the illness show mixed results.35 In March, 2020 Nature published a paper demonstrating the specific mechanisms in tissue culture by which chloroquine stops viral reproduction.36 In April, 2020, a team of Chinese scientists published a preprint of a 62-patient placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine, resulting in demonstrably improved time to recovery and less progression to severe disease in the treated group.37 In May, 2020, a Chinese expert consensus group recommended doctors use chloroquine routinely for mild, moderate, and severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia.38 A national study in Finland in May 2021 showed a 5x efficacy.39 And national studies in Canada and Saudi Arabia showed 3x efficacy.40 I’ll stop gilding the lily here and ask the reader: Was hydroxychloroquine some crazy baseless idea, or ought regulators to have honestly investigated it as a potential remedy during a raging pandemic? Pharma’s War on HCQ The prospect of an existing therapeutic drug (with an expired patent) that could outperform any vaccine in the war against COVID posed a momentous threat to the pharmaceutical cartel. Among the features pharma companies most detest is low cost, and HCQ is about $10 per course.41 Compare that to more than $3000 per course for Dr. Fauci’s beloved remdesivir.42 No surprise, pharmaceutical interests launched their multinational preemptive crusade to restrict and discredit HCQ starting way back in January 2020, months before the WHO declared a pandemic and even longer before President Trump’s controversial March 19 endorsement. On January 13, when rumors of Wuhan flu COVID-19 began to circulate, the French government took the bizarre, inexplicable, unprecedented, and highly suspicious step of reassigning HCQ from an over-the-counter to a prescription medicine.43 Without citing any studies, French health officials quietly changed the status of HCQ to “List II poisonous substance” and banned its over-the-counter sales.44 This absolutely remarkable coincidence repeated itself a few weeks later when Canadian health officials did the exact same thing, quietly removing the drug from pharmacy shelves.45 A physician from Zambia reported to Dr. Harvey Risch that in some villages and cities, organized groups of buyers emptied drugstores of HCQ and then burned the medication in bonfires outside the towns. South Africa destroyed two tons of life-saving hydroxychloroquine in late 2020, supposedly due to violation of an import regulation.46 The US government in 2021 ordered the destruction of more than a thousand pounds of HCQ, because it was improperly imported.47 “The Feds are insisting that all of it be destroyed, and not be used to save a single life anywhere in the world,” said a lawyer seeking to resist the senseless order. By March, front-line doctors around the world were spontaneously reporting miraculous results following early treatment with HCQ, and this prompted growing anxiety for Pharma. On March 13, a Michigan doctor and trader, Dr. James Todaro, M.D., tweeted his review of HCQ as an effective COVID treatment, including a link to a public Google doc.48,49 Google quietly scrubbed Dr. Todaro’s memo. This was six days before the President endorsed HCQ. Google apparently didn’t want users to think Todaro’s message was missing; rather, the Big Tech platform wanted the public to believe that Todaro’s memo never even existed. Google has a long history of suppressing information that challenges vaccine industry profits. Google’s parent company Alphabet owns several vaccine companies, including Verily, as well as Vaccitech, a company banking on flu, prostate cancer, and COVID vaccines.50,51 Google has lucrative partnerships with all the large vaccine manufacturers, including a $715 million partnership with GlaxoSmithKline.52 Verily also owns a business that tests for COVID infection.53 Google was not the only social media platform to ban content that contradicts the official HCQ narrative. Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, YouTube, MailChimp, and virtually every other Big Tech platform began scrubbing information demonstrating HCQ’s efficacy, replacing it with industry propaganda generated by one of the Dr. Fauci/Gates-controlled public health agencies: HHS, NIH and WHO. When President Trump later suggested that Dr. Fauci was not being truthful about hydroxychloroquine, social media responded by removing his posts. It was a March 2020 news conference where Dr. Fauci launched his concerted attack on HCQ. Asked whether HCQ might be used as a prophylaxis for COVID, he shouted back: “The answer is No, and the evidence that you’re talking about is anecdotal evidence.”54 His reliable allies at the New York Times then launched a campaign to defame Dr. Raoult.55 In the midst of a deadly pandemic, somebody very powerful wanted a medication that had been available over the counter for decades, and known to be effective against coronaviruses, to be suddenly but silently pulled from the shelves—from Canada to Zambia. In March, at HHS’s request, several large pharmaceutical companies—Novartis, Bayer, Sanofi, and others—donated their inventory, a total of 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine and 2 million of chloroquine, to the Strategic National Stockpile, managed by BARDA, an agency under the DHHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.56 BARDA’s Director, Dr. Rick Bright, later claimed the chloroquine drugs were deadly, and he needed to protect the American public from them.57 Bright colluded with FDA to restrict use of the donated pills to hospitalized patients. FDA publicized the authorization using language that led most physicians to believe that prescribing the drug for any purpose was off-limits. But at the beginning of June, based on clinical trials that intentionally gave unreasonably high doses to hospitalized patients and failed to start the drug until too late, FDA took the unprecedented step of revoking HCQ’s emergency authorization,58 rendering that enormous stockpile of valuable pills off limits to Americans while conveniently indemnifying the pharmaceutical companies for their inventory losses by allowing them a tax break for the donations. After widespread use of the drug for 65 years, without warning, FDA somehow felt the need to send out an alert on June 15, 2020 that HCQ is dangerous, and that it required a level of monitoring only available at hospitals.59 In a bit of twisted logic, Federal officials continued to encourage doctors to use the suddenly-dangerous drug without restriction for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme and malaria. Just not for COVID. With the encouragement of Dr. Fauci and other HHS officials, many states simultaneously imposed restrictions on HCQ’s use. The Fraudulent Industry Studies Prior to COVID-19, not a single study had provided evidence against the use of HCQ based on safety concerns. In response to the mounting tsunami that HCQ was safe and effective against COVID, Gates, Dr. Fauci and their Pharma allies deployed an army of industry-linked researchers to gin up contrived evidence of its dangers. By 2020, we shall see, Bill Gates exercised firm control over WHO and deployed the agency in his effort to discredit HCQ.60 Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, and WHO financed a cadre of research mercenaries to concoct a series of nearly twenty studies—all employing fraudulent protocols deliberately designed to discredit HCQ as unsafe. Instead of using the standard treatment dose of 400 mg/day, the 17 WHO studies administered a borderline lethal daily dose starting with 2,400 mg.61 on Day 1, and using 800 mg/day thereafter. In a cynical, sinister, and literally homicidal crusade against HCQ, a team of BMGF operatives played a key role in devising and pushing through the exceptionally high dosing. They made sure that UK government “Recovery” trials on 1,000 elderly patients in over a dozen British, Welsh, Irish and Scottish hospitals, and the U.N. “Solidarity” study of 3,500 patients in 400 hospitals in 35 countries, as well as additional sites in 13 countries (the “REMAP-COVID” trial), all used those unprecedented and dangerous doses.62 This was a brassy enterprise to “prove” chloroquine dangerous, and sure enough, it proved that elderly patients can die from deadly overdoses. “The purpose seemed, very clearly, to poison the patients and blame the deaths on HCQ,” says Dr. Meryl Nass, a physician, medical historian, and biowarfare expert. In each of these two trials, SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY, the hydroxychloroquine arm predictably had 10–20 percent more deaths than the control arm (the control arm being those patients lucky enough to receive standard supportive care).63 The UK government and Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) jointly financed the Recovery Trial.64 The principal investigator (PI), Peter Horby, is a member of SAGE and is the chairman of NERVTAG, the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, both important committees that give the UK government advice on mitigating the pandemic.65,66 Horby’s willingness to risk death of patients given toxic doses of HCQ fueled his subsequent rise in the UK medical hierarchy. Horby received a parade of extraordinary promotions after he orchestrated the mass poisonings of senior citizens. Queen Elizabeth recently knighted him.67 Gates’s fingerprints are all over this sanguinary project. Despite suspiciously missing pages, the published minutes of WHO’s part-secret March and April meetings show these medical alchemists establishing the lethal dosing of chloroquines (CQ and HCQ) for WHO’s Solidarity clinical trial. Only four participants attended the second WHO meeting to determine the dose of HCQ and CQ for the Solidarity trial. One was Scott Miller, the BMGF’s Senior Program Officer. The report admits that the Solidarity trial was using the highest dose of any recent trial.68 The report acknowledges that, “The BMGF developed a model of chloroquine penetration into tissues for malaria.”69 BMGF’s unique dosing model for the studies deliberately overestimated the amount of HCQ that necessary to achieve adequate lung tissue concentrations. The WHO report confesses that, “This model is however not validated.” Gates’s deadly deception allowed FDA to wrongly declare that HCQ would be ineffective at safe levels. The minutes of that March 13, 2020 meeting suggest that BMGF knew the proper drug dosing and the need for early administration. Yet their same researchers then participated in deliberately providing a potentially lethal dose, failing to dose by weight, missing the early window during which treatment was known to be effective, and giving the drug to subjects who were already critically ill with comorbidities that made it more likely they would not tolerate the high dose. The Solidarity trial design also departed from standard protocols by collecting no safety data: only whether the patient died, or how many days they were hospitalized. Researchers collected no information on in-hospital complications. This strategy shielded the WHO from gathering information that could pin adverse reactions on the dose. The report of WHO’s HCQ trial notes that WHO researchers did not retain any consent forms from the elderly patients they were overdosing, as the law in most countries requires, and makes the bewildering claim that some patients signed consent forms “in retrospect”—a stunning procedure that is unethical on its face. The WHO’s researchers noted in their interim report on the trial, “Consent forms were signed and retained by the patients; [An extremely unorthodox and suspicious procedure that suggests that there may have been no formal consents] but noted for record that, consent was generally prospective, but could (where locally approved) be retrospective.” One wonders if researchers notified their families of the high dose they were giving to their elderly parents and grandparents in locked COVID wards to which they denied family members access. The researchers evinced their guilty knowledge by concealing the research records of the doses they used in Solidarity when they filed their trial reports. They also omitted dosing numbers from the report of WHO’s meeting to determine the dose, and omitted details of dosing from the WHO’s Solidarity trial registration. Another group of researchers using overdose concentrations of chloroquine published their study as a preprint in mid-April 2020 (and quickly brought to print) in the preeminent journal, JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) In this murder-for-hire scheme, Brazilian researchers used a dose of 1,200 mg/day for up to ten days of CQ.70 According to a 2020 review of CQ and HCQ toxicity, “As little as 2–3 g of chloroquine may be fatal in adult patients, though the most commonly reported lethal dose in adults is 3–4 g.” Predictably, so many subjects died in the Brazilian high dose study (39 percent, 16 of 41 of the subjects who took this dose) that the researchers had to halt the study. The subjects’ mean age was only 55.71 Their medical records revealed EKG changes characteristic of CQ toxicity. The WHO and UK trial coordinators must have known this information, but they made no efforts to stop their own overdose trials, nor to lower the doses. Although Gates did not fund the JAMA study directly (it’s very possible he funded it indirectly through a nebulous list of funders), the senior and last author, Marcus Vinícius Guimarães Lacerda, has been a Gates-funded researcher on numerous projects. Further, the BMGF has funded multiple projects at the same medical foundation where he and the first, or “lead” author, Borba, work in Manaus, Brazil.72 (Traditionally, the first listed author is generally seen as the senior and accountable author.) Gates and his cabal used an arsenal of other deceptive gimmickry to assure that HCQ would appear not just deadly, but ineffective. Each of the studies that Gates funded failed to incorporate Zithromax and zinc—important components of HCQ protocols. All of the Fauci, Gates, WHO, Solidarity, Recovery and Remap-COVID studies administered HCQ at late stages of COVID infection, in contravention of the prevailing recommendations that deem HCQ effective only when doctors administer it early.73,74 Viewing this orchestrated sabotage with frustration, critics accused the Gates grantees of purposefully designing these studies, at best, to fail and, at worst, to murder.75 Brazilian prosecutors have accused the authors of the study of committing homicide by purposefully poisoning the elderly subjects in their study with high doses of chloroquine.76 All through 2020, Bill Gates and Fauci lashed out against HCQ every chance they got. During the early stages of the pandemic in March, Bill Gates penned an op-ed in The Washington Post.77 Besides calling for a complete lockdown in every state, along with accelerated testing and vaccine development, Gates warned that: “Leaders can help by not stoking rumors or panic buying. Long before the drug hydroxychloroquine was approved as an emergency treatment for COVID-19, people started hoarding it, making it hard for lupus patients who need it to survive.”78 This, of course, was a lie. The only ones hoarding HCQ were Dr. Fauci and Rick Bright, who had padlocked 63 million doses in the Strategic National Stockpile79—more than enough to supply virtually every gerontology-ward patient in America. Despite such efforts to create a shortage, none existed. HCQ is cheap, quick, and easy to manufacture, and since its patent is expired, dozens of manufacturers around the world can quickly ramp up production to meet escalating demand. In July, Gates endorsed censorship of HCQ recommendations after a video touting its efficacy against coronavirus accumulated tens of millions of views.80 Gates called the video “outrageous,” and praised Facebook and YouTube for hastily removing it. He nevertheless complained “You can’t find it directly on those services, but everybody’s sending the link around because it’s still out there on the internet.”81 This, Gates told Yahoo News, revealed a persistent shortcoming of the platforms. “Their ability to stop things before they become widespread, they probably should have improved that,” Gates scolded. Asked by Bloomberg News in mid-August about how the Trump White House had promoted HCQ “despite its repeatedly being shown to be ineffective and, in fact, to cause heart problems in some patients,” Gates happily responded: “This is an age of science, but sometimes it doesn’t feel that way. In the test tube, hydroxychloroquine looked good. On the other hand, there are lots of good therapeutic drugs coming that are proven to work without the severe side effects.”82 Gates went on to promote Gilead’s remdesivir as the best alternative, despite its lackluster track record compared to HCQ. He didn’t mention having a large stake in Gilead,83 which stood to make billions if Dr. Fauci was able to run remdesivir through the regulatory traps. Obsequious reporters consistently encouraged Gates to portray himself as an objective expert, and Gates used that interview to discredit HCQ, and also me. His Bloomberg questioner opened the door with a typical softball: “For years, people have said if anti-vaxxers had lived through a pandemic, the way their grandparents did, they’d think differently.” Gates replied: “The two times I’ve been to the White House [since 2016], I was told I had to go listen to anti-vaxxers like Robert Kennedy, Jr. So, yes, it’s ironic that people are questioning vaccines and we’re actually having to say, ‘Oh, my God, how else can you get out of a tragic pandemic?’”84 If he had only asked me, I could have told him! Lancetgate It remains an enduring mystery just which powerful figure(s) caused the world’s two most prestigious scientific journals, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), to publish overtly fraudulent studies from a nonexistent database owned by a previously unknown company. Anthony Fauci and the vaccine cartel celebrated the Lancet and NEJM papers on May 22, 2020 as the final nail in hydroxychloroquine’s coffin.85,86 Both studies in these respected publications relied on data from the Surgisphere Corporation, an obscure Illinois-based “medical education” company that claimed to somehow control an extraordinary global database boasting access to medical information from 96,000 patients in more than 600 hospitals.87 Founded in 2008, this sketchy enterprise had eleven employees, including a middling science fiction writer and a porn star/events hostess. Surgisphere claimed to have analyzed data from six continents and hundreds of hospitals that had treated patients with HCQ or CQ in real time. Someone persuaded the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine to publish two Surgisphere studies in separate articles on May 1 and 22. Like the other Gates-supported studies, the Lancet article portrayed HCQ as ineffective and dangerous. The Lancet study said that the Surgisphere data proved that HCQ increased cardiac mortality in COVID-19 patients. Based on this study, the FDA withdrew its EUA recommendation on June 15, 2020,88 the WHO and UK suspended their hydroxychloroquine clinical trials on May 25.89 Each resumed briefly, then stopped for good in June declaring HCQ unhelpful.90 Three European nations immediately banned use of HCQ, and others followed within weeks.91 That would normally have been the end of it, if not for the 200 independent scientists who quickly exposed the Lancet and NEJM studies as shockingly clumsy con jobs.92 The Surgisphere datasets that formed the foundation of the studies were so ridiculously erroneous that they could only have been a rank invention. To cite only one of many discrepancies, the number of reported deaths among patients taking hydroxychloroquine in one Australian hospital exceeded the total number of deaths for the entire country. An international brouhaha quickly revealed that the Surgisphere database did not exist, and soon enough, Surgisphere itself vanished from the Internet. The University of Utah terminated the faculty appointment of one of the article’s authors, Amit Patel. Surgisphere’s founder, Sapan S. Desai, disappeared from his job at a Chicago hospital. Even the New York Times reported that “More than 100 scientists and clinicians have questioned the authenticity” of the database, as well as the study’s integrity.93 Despite the barrage of astonished criticism, the Lancet held firm for two weeks before relenting to the remonstrances. Finally, three of the four Lancet coauthors requested the paper be retracted. Both The Lancet and NEJM finally withdrew their studies in shame. Somebody at the very pinnacle of the medical cartel had twisted arms, kicked groins, and stoved in kneecaps to force these periodicals to abandon their policies, shred their ethics, and spend down their centuries of hard-won credibility in a desperate bid to torpedo HCQ. To date, neither the authors nor the journals have explained who induced them to coauthor and publish the most momentous fraud in the history of scientific publishing. The headline of a comprehensive exposé in The Guardian expressed the global shock among the scientific community at the rank corruption by scientific publishing’s most formidable pillars: “The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How could this happen?”94 The Guardian writers openly accused The Lancet of promoting fraud: “The sheer number and magnitude of the things that went wrong or missing are too enormous to attribute to mere incompetence.” The Guardian commented, “What’s incredible is that the editors of these esteemed journals still have a job—that is how utterly incredible the supposed data underlying the studies was.” The capacity of their Pharma overlords to strong-arm the world’s top two medical journals, the NEJM and The Lancet, into condoning deadly research95,96 and to simultaneously publish blatantly fraudulent articles in the middle of a pandemic, attests to the cartel’s breathtaking power and ruthlessness. It is no longer controversial to acknowledge that drug makers rigorously control medical publishing and that The Lancet, NEJM, and JAMA are utterly corrupted instruments of Pharma. The Lancet editor, Richard Horton, confirms, “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”97 Dr. Marcia Angell, who served as an NEJM editor for 20 years, says journals are “primarily a marketing machine.”98 Pharma, she says, has co-opted “every institution that might stand in its way.”99,100 Cracking Down on HCQ to Keep Case Fatalities High Referring to the Lancet Surgisphere study during a May 27 CNN interview, Dr. Fauci stated on CNN about hydroxychloroquine, “The scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy.”101 And even after the scandal lay exposed and the journals retracted their articles, Dr. Fauci let his lie stand. Instead of launching an investigation of this momentous and enormously consequential fraud by the world’s two leading medical journals and publicly apologizing, Dr. Fauci and the medical establishment simply ignored the wrongful conduct and persevered in their plan to deny global populations access to lifesaving HCQ. The historic journal retractions went practically unnoticed in the slavish, scientifically illiterate mainstream press, which persisted in fortifying the COVID propaganda. Headlines continued to blame HCQ for the deaths instead of the deliberately treacherous researchers who gave sick, elderly, and compromised patients toxic drug dosages. And most remarkable of all, the FDA made no effort to change the recommendation it made against HCQ. Other countries persisted in demonizing the life-saving drug. Once the FDA approves a prescription medication, federal laws allow any US physician to prescribe the duly approved drug for any reason. Twenty-one percent of all prescriptions written by American doctors, exercising their medical judgment, are for off-label uses.102 Even after the FDA withdrew its Emergency Use Authorization and posted the fraudulent warning on its website,103 many front-line doctors across the country continued to prescribe and report strong benefits with appropriate doses of HCQ. In response, Dr. Fauci took even more unprecedented steps to derail doctors from prescribing HCQ. In March, while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, Dr. Fauci declared that hydroxychloroquine should only be used as part of a clinical trial.104 For the first time in American history, a government official was overruling the medical judgment of thousands of treating physicians, and ordering doctors to stop practicing medicine as they saw fit. Boldly and relentlessly, Dr. Fauci kept declaring that “The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).”105 Dr. Fauci failed to disclose that NONE of the trials he had used as the basis for that pronouncement involved medication given in the first five to seven days after onset of symptoms. Instead, all of those randomized controlled trials targeted patients who were already sick enough to be hospitalized. People wanting to be treated in that first critical week of illness and avoid being hospitalized were basically out of luck as Dr. Fauci moved to foreclose patients from receiving the lifesaving remedy during the treatment window when science and previous experience showed it to be effective. On July 2, following the humiliating journal retractions, Detroit’s Henry Ford Health System published a peer-reviewed study showing that hydroxychloroquine significantly cut death rates even in mid-to-late COVID cases, and without any heartrelated side effects.106 Fauci leapt to the barricades to rescue his vaccine enterprise. On July 30, he testified before Congress that the Michigan results were “flawed.”107 The FDA revocation of the EUA and Dr. Fauci’s withering response to the Michigan trial provided cover for 33 governors whose states moved to restrict prescribing or dispensing of HCQ.108 In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo drove up record death counts by ordering that physicians prescribe HCQ only for hospitalized patients.109 In Nevada, Governor Steven Sisolak prohibited both prescribing and dispensing chloroquine drugs for COVID-19.110 State medical licensing boards threatened to bring “unprofessional conduct” charges against non-complying doctors (a threat to their license) and to “sanction” doctors if they prescribed the drug.111 Most pharmacists were afraid to dispense HCQ, and on June 15, state pharmacy boards in Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island began refusing orders from physicians and retailers.112 Hospitals commanded doctors to cease treating their patients with HCQ beginning June 15, 2020.113 The NIAID halted a clinical trial of the drug in outpatients, in June 2020, only a month after it started, having enrolled only 20 of the planned 2,000 enrollees.114 The FDA blocked access to the millions of doses of HCQ and CQ that Sanofi and other drug makers had donated to the Strategic National Stockpile (with appropriate tax benefits).115 Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use treating COVID. Dr. Fauci and his HHS cronies decreed that the medication rot in warehouses while Americans unnecessarily sickened and died from COVID-19. On June 17, the WHO—for which Mr. Gates is the largest funder after the US, and over which Mr. Gates and Dr. Fauci exercise tight control—called for the halt of HCQ trials in hundreds of hospitals across the world.116 WHO Chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus ordered nations to stop using HCQ and CQ. Portugal, France, Italy, and Belgium banned HCQ for COVID-19 treatment.117 Foreign Experiences In compliance with the WHO recommendation, Switzerland banned the use of HCQ; however, about 2 weeks into the ban, Switzerland’s death rates tripled, for about 15 days, until Switzerland reintroduced HCQ. COVID deaths then fell back to their baseline.118 Switzerland’s “natural experiment” had provided yet another potent argument for HCQ. Similarly, Panamanian physician and government advisor Sanchez Cardenas notes that when Panama banned HCQ, deaths shot up, until the government relented, at which point deaths dropped back to baseline.119

    Kennedy Jr., Robert F. . The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense) (pp.85-107). Skyhorse. Edizione del Kindle.

    , , , , , , ,

  • Risposta alla lettera “Noi vaccinati” condiviso sulla pagina Facebook del Presidente delle Scuole FAES Milano: “Noi non – iniettati con il siero sperimentale”

    Noi non-iniettati non abbiamo dubbi e incertezze, come gli individui ipnotizzati dalla propaganda di Stato. Siamo certi di numerosissime fatti:

    Le persone nella vita pubblica ( come i nostri politici, e come il presidente della Scuola Faes) che deliberatamente suscitano ostilità nei confronti delle persone non-vaccinate, sono analoghe ai Nazifascisti che suscitavano l’odio verso gli Ebrei durante gli anni ’30. Se voi non siete in grado di riconoscere questo analogismo, siete voi il problema. State scegliendo di chiudere gli occhi, oppure siete in uno stato di psicosi collettiva tale di non riconoscere la realtà. ( Dichiarazione di Andrew Barr, Jews for Justice, nella lettera al arcivescovo di Canterbury, e Vera Sherav, sopravissuta dell’Olocausto).

    Noi Cattolici non-iniettati riconosciamo l’obiettiva immoralità di usufruire di un farmaco coinvolto anche minimamente con l’industria dell’aborto (dichiarazioni dei Vescovi. Schneider, Burke, Strickland, Cordileone). Non si può giustificare un Male obiettivo a fin di bene. Inoltre, concordiamo con San Tommaso Aquino, che le leggi obiettivamente ingiuste e immorali NON VANNO ASSOLUTAMENTE OBBEDITE. (ST parte I-II, domanda 95, ris. 2).

    Noi resistenti al fenomeno di Mass Formation insistiamo: Il fatto di obbligare alla sperimentazione sul proprio corpo e quello dei figli, con la coercizione, il ricatto, la minaccia – costo sospensione dei diritti naturali e costituzionali – è una pratica antitetica ai Diritti Universali del Uomo, Contro il Codice di Norimberga, e tali metodi furono praticati da regime totalitari quali il regime Nazifascista, il regime Sovietica, e la presente CCP. Il Nazionalsocialismo della Germania del Terzo Reich soggiogò i diritti dei cittadini individuali alla volontà collettiva dello Stato: esattamente ciò che sta succedendo qui. Dopo l’abolizione della sua costituzione il 23 marzo 1933, i nazisti stabilirono un regime che legittimò le leggi di Nuremberg, e negò la cittadinanza agli Ebrei, poi introdussero un ‘certificato di cittadinanza’ per il resto della popolazione. ( la nostra costituzione è tutt’ora sospesa, e l’esercitazione dei pieni diritti della cittadinanza è negata alle persone che non cedono al diktat dell’iniezione).

    Sappiamo che i vaccini a Mrna, in fase di sviluppo da ormai 40 anni, non hanno mai superato la fase B di sperimentazione, perché dopo alcuni mesi muoiono tutti gli animali coinvolti nei rispettivi sperimenti . . . .

    Noi rimaniamo sbalorditi e rifutiamo il dogma irrazionale e anti-scientifico del culto degli ipnotizzati, ribadendo in ogni luogo LA VERITà scientifica : una persona SANA NON può contagiare un’altra persona, vaccinata o non vaccinata che sia; una persona ASINTOMATICA NON può contagiare un’altra persona, vaccinata o non vaccinata che sia. Domanda per i vaccinati: la vaccinazione non doveva proteggervi da un’eventuale infezione? O la vaccinazione funziona, e siete protetti, o non funziona, ergo il vaccino è inutile, e avete gettato al vento il principio di precauzione, e accettato degli obblighi e restrizioni delle persone non-vaccinate senza logica e applicazione scientifica, ma per beneficiare chi aprofitta per mero scopo politico (divide et impera). Ricordiamo che il regime Nazista cominciò indicando il popolo ebraico come popolo di ‘portatori sani’ di varie malattie infettive ( in particolare il typhus), per cui andavano ghettizzati, e la loro circolazione limitata. Questa stessa giustificazione è utilizzata oggi per limitare le libertà civili delle persone non-iniettate.

    Sappiamo che in Italia i dati sono falsati, essendo l’opposto di altri paesi occidentali. Sappiamo che nel UK, piuttosto che negli Stati Uniti, si differenzia le persone tra gruppi di non-vaccinati, 1°,2°, e 3° dose, mentre in Italia, chi non ha ricevuto la 3° dose è registrato come non-vaccinato, e quindi le statistiche sono tutte falsificate. Le statistiche ufficiali del UK dimostrano che i vaccinati hanno 4 volte più probabilità di morire del CCP virus. Rappresentano 80% degli ospedalizzati, e 4/5 dei decessi. In Italia, tra l’altro i dati del Ministero relativi al CCP virus non sono aggiornati dal 23 settembre 2021, ma l’Istat proietta una mortalità superiore alla media degli ultimi 5 anni analoga a 2020. Con un aumento di mortalità nella fascia età attiva 15-49 anni di 40%.

    Noi sappiamo il fatto che tra 60-80% della popolazione è naturalmente immune alla CCP virus, grazie alla capacità di cross-reattività delle nostre cellule-T (vedere mio articolo su quest’argomento:https://wordpress.com/post/thebridgepontifex.com/256, e i link delle ricerche svedesi, inglesi e americani al riguardo. )

    Sappiamo evidentemente di più della professoressa di Scientismo (avida promotrice dell’Agenda 2030 della Davos) della nostra scuola (nata come iniziativa contro-culturale ma diventata serva delle valutazioni della Fondazione Agnelli e simili) che racconta la favola della proteina spike innocua, come se fosse identica a tutti gli altri coronavirus. Ma la proteina spike e le proteine esterne analoghe di virus imparentati sono ben conosciuti come tossine. E’ stato dimostrato che la Spike è “fusogenic” (un agente fusogeno) e che cause degli seri eventi trombopoenici.

    Sappiamo anche che non esiste nessun controllo di disposizione, di concentrazione dello Spike, ne della durata della sua espressione. Esistono delle variabilità enormi ed intrinseche di risposte biologiche tra individui come diretta conseguenza della (mancata) design dei sieri. Un vaccino convenzionale che non utilizzava la parte meno stabile del virus sarebbe stato (forse) meno pericoloso.

    Sappiamo ormai che le iniezioni ripetute sono cause di reazioni autoimmuni e una sorveglianza danneggiata del sistema immunitario, e cosi statisticamente si vede un aumento di infezioni, la ricomparsa di infezioni latenti, il rischio di mancanza di cancellazione di cellule cancerogene nei primi momenti post-mutazione. (I dati delle Forze Armate degli Stati Uniti aggiornati: aumento di aborto spontaneo di 300% sulla media delle ultime 5 anni, aumento di 300% di casi cancro, aumento di 1000% di danni neurologici.)

    Sappiamo delle ricerche Svedesi che dimostrano (da novembre 2021!) che lo spike entra nel nucleo e inibisce la riparazione del DNA. Si è dimostrato anche che inibisce la riproduzione di alcune cellule -T del sistema immunitario. Sappiamo che le nanoparticelle lipidiche che trasportano la proteina spike prevalentemente al cervello e alle ovaie, con un aumento di casi di cancro alla cervice di 80% nelle pazienti vaccinati.

    Hanno ucciso i nostri anziani. Per screditare l’idrossicloroquina (medicinale che – insieme con l’ivermectina – è disponibile in Africa come farmaco di banco, perché gli Africani la prendono una volta alla settimana per tutta la vita, contro la malaria. Hanno un incidenza di mortalità per il virus cinese di 14:1,000000, e un percentuale di vaccinati di 1.2%), in un finto ‘clinical trial’ pagato da Gates, hanno ucciso degli anziani malatti e poveri dei favelas Brasiliani, amministrando 1200% in più della dose indicata massima. In un’altra ricerca nel UK, hanno fatto delle manovre simili, con dosaggi analoghe, e senza gli altri farmaci con cui l’idrossicloroquina lavora sinergicamente in questo quadro clinico. (A proposito, il Remdesevir – 3,200 Euro a paziente – è ancora registrato tra le prime 3 medicinali raccomandati dal Ministero della Sanità per l’uso contro la CCP virus.)

    Visto le continue menzogne del Ministro della Sanità, crediamo che una persona di buon senso no si dovrebbe mai mettere la propria salute e quello dei figli nelle mani di chi ha negato le cure efficaci. In questa persistenza nel negare le cure vediamo il dolo. Le cure efficaci c’erano, ci sono tutt’ora, ma il Ministero della Sanità ha lasciato morire le persone malate in maniera grottesca, crudele, barbaro, mentre il governo allimentava il terrore tra il resto della popolazione. Sappiamo che la Cina ha stabilito verso la fine di febbraio 2020 il protocollo di idrossicloroquina, cortisone, azitromicina e alcuni medicinali tradizionali cinesi, ed è così che è riuscito a tornare alla normalità (communista) entro aprile 2020. La OMS l’aveva raccomandato, e noi invece l’abbiamo ignorato, sperimentando (probabilmente seguendo le istruzioni di Gates/Fauci) il Remdesevir, the KILLER – così tossico da richiedere la sospensione nei clinical trials, ma con il vantaggio di arricchire la Gilead (sponsor di Corriere della Sera) e Bill Gates, il business partner di Anthony Fauci. Spesso è stato accompagnato con Milozapam e vari opioidi, per mandare i pazienti isolati dritti all’altro mondo. E’ tutto ciò per favorire la narrativa del vaccino come l’unica salvezza.

    Noi Svegli teniamo presente il fatto che la totale distruzione della nostra economia è in atto da diversi decenni, ma che il colpo di grazia sia dovuto alla diffusione di un virus creato in laboratorio dalla Cina, e quindi che la Cina è in primis tenuto a rimborsare i danni. I co-responsabili sono certamente i nostri governatori, che hanno implementato delle misure assurde, inutili, dannosi, e che persistono nell’errore nonostante le verità scientifiche documentate in migliaia di ricerche. I vaccinati non hanno fatto nulla di scientificamente dimostrabile per ‘ la ripresa economica’ , e i non-vaccinati certamente nulla contro la ripresa. Anzi. Limitando la libera circolazione della sottoscritta, per esempio, non permettendola di fare acquisti, di viaggiare, di uscire al teatro, a cena, si potrebbe dire che il governicchio si spari un bel colpo nel piede. Ma è ben consapevole! Non credere che questo governicchio sia qui per salvare l’economia italiana, ma piuttosto per farla fare la fine della Grecia. E addio alle piccole, medie e micro-imprese italiane che furono modello per il boom di imprenditorialità mondiale dagli anni ’90 in poi.

    Sentire parlare dell’anima – ove si intuisce il giudizio di inferiorità dell’anima dei non-vaccinati- da un individuo dichiaratamente Cattolico e presidente delle Scuole Faes, nonché membro dell’Opus Dei, per un Cattolico praticante, fa venire i brividi di nausea e ribrezzo. Chiedo: chi sei tu a giudicare la mia anima, o uomo miserevole, peccatore? Il nostro Signore ci ha messo in guardia a proposito: solo Dio ci può giudicare, alla nostra morte, al Giudizio Finale, e attraverso il Sacramento di Confessione, grazie ai nostri pochi sacerdoti santi che adoperano il giudizio del Nostro Signore come alter Christus. E che quindi sono da tenere stretti, per quanto siano preziosi, NON constringendosi all’iniezione! Vergogna, Faes! Vergogna!

    In finis: Io, da Cristiana Cattolica, posso parlare per ME STESSA, e a natura dela MIA ANIMA: sono una preziosa, unica, irrepetibile, impavida figlia del Re dei Re, che mi ha insegnato di non aver paura di NULLA: “Nam etsi ambulavero in medio umbræ mortis, non timebo mala, quoniam tu mecum es.” Psalm 23:4.

    E in risposta alla minaccia palese che trapela dalle ultime due paragrafi della vostra lettera rispondo: μολὼν λαβέ!

    Milano, il 27 gennaio, 2022 Giorno della Memoria della Shoah

    , , , , ,

  • Ivermectina

    “Dall’Estate del 2020, molti medici di prima linea avevano scoperto una nuova cura per il Covid che eguagliava l’Idrossicloroquina (HCQ) per la sua incredibile e salvifica efficienza. Cinque anni prima, due scienziati della Merck avevano vinto il Premio Nobel per aver sviluppato l’Ivermectina (IVM), un farmaco di una potenza mai vista prima contro una vasta gamma di parassiti, tra cui il nematode, l’ anchilostoma, la cecità fluviale e la filariosi linfatica. Quel riconoscimento era stato l’unico assegnato dalla commissione Nobel in 60 anni ad una cura contro le infezioni virali. Nel 1966 l’ FDA approvò l’IVM e la dichiarò sicura ed efficace per l’utilizzo sugli umani. Il OMS include l’IVM (insieme all’ HCQ) nella sua lista di “farmaci essenziali”- una lista di rimedi tanto necessari, sicuri, efficaci e abbordabili, che il OMS considera essenziale un facile accesso ad essi, per “soddisfare i bisogni sanitari prioritari della popolazione”. L’ OMS ha infatti consigliato di somministrare ivermectina ad intere popolazioni per curare individui che potrebbero essere affetti da infezioni parassitiche- ciò significa che la ritengono abbastanza sicura da poterla dare anche a non diagnosticati. Milioni di persone hanno consumato miliardi di dosi di IVM, con effetti collaterali minimi. Il foglietto illustrativo dell’Ivermectina indica che il farmaco è almeno sicuro quanto i farmaci da banco più usati, come il Tylenol o l’aspirina. Alcuni ricercatori dell’ Istituto Kitasato, in Giappone, scrissero nel 2011 un rapporto che descriveva l’IVM in termini quasi mai utilizzati prima per altri farmaci: sono pochi infatti quelli che possono vantarsi seriamente del titolo di “farmaco miracoloso”, o “wonder drug”, tra cui la penicillina e l’aspirina, che sono forse i due prodotti con il maggior impatto positivo sulla salute e sul benessere dell’umanità. Ma l’ivermectina può essere paragonata a questi importanti contendenti, sulla base della sua versatilità, sicurezza, e sull’impatto benefico che ha avuto, e continua ad avere, in tutto il globo- specialmente su centinaia di milioni di persone tra le più povere al mondo. Vi sono addirittura tre statue che celebrano lo sviluppo dell’ Ivermectina: al Carter Center, alla sede centrale della Banca Mondiale , e alla sede centrale dell’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità. Infatti dal 2012 diversi studi in vitro hanno dimostrato che l’IVM inibisce la replicazione di una vasta gamma di virus. Nel 2020 Nature Magazine ha pubblicato uno studio, risalente sempre al 2020, che rivisitando cinquant’anni di ricerche ha concluso che l’Ivermectina fosse “altamente efficace contro microorganismi tra cui alcuni virus”, e ha riportato risultati di studi sugli animali che dimostravano “effetti antivirali contro virus come Zika, dengue, febbre gialla, e il virus del Nilo Occidentale”.

    Un articolo del 3 Aprile 2020 intitolato “Esperimenti in laboratorio dimostrano che l’ivermectina, un farmaco antiparassitario, elimina le cellule di Sars-Cov-2 in 48 ore”, pubblicato da ricercatori Australiani delle università di Monash e Melbourne, fece ottenere all’ IVM un’attenzione globale in quanto potenziale trattamento contro il Covid. Inizialmente la stampa internazionale era andata in estasi, sostenendo che questo faraco sicuro, abbordabile, conosciuto e facilmente ottenibile aveva demolito il Sars-Cov 2 in colture cellulari: “Abbiamo osservato che anche una singola dose può rimuovere tutto l’RNA virale in 48 ore, ma che anche dopo 24 ore ve ne era una riduzione significativa”, aveva dichiarato la responsabile della ricerca, dr.ssa Kylie Wagstaff.

    Basandosi su questo studio, l’8 maggio 2020 il Peru —in quel momento assediato da una schiacciante esplosione del COVID— adottò l’ivermectina nelle proprie linee guida nazionali. “I medici peruviani conoscevano già il farmaco, ampiamente prescritto contro i parassiti e che le autorità sanitarie sapevano essere sicuro sentendosi a proprio agio con esso” rimarca il Dr. Pierre Kory. Le morti per COVID crollarono di colpo —riducendosi di 14 volte— nelle regioni dove il governo peruviano era riuscito a distribuire efficacemente l’ivermectina. La riduzione dei decessi era correlata al grado di distribuzione di IVM in tutti e 25 gli stati. Ma nel dicembre del 2020 il nuovo Presidente del Perù, sotto la pressione dell’OMS, ridusse drasticamente la disponibilità delll’IVM e i casi di COVID schizzarono verso l’altro, con decessi che aumentarono di 13 volte. Negli studi di profilassi, l’ ivermectina si è ripetutamente dimostrata di gran lunga più efficace dei vaccini, e ad un costo che è una mera frazione di quello di essi. In Argentina per esempio, nell’estate del 2020 il dr. Hector Carvallo ha condotto una sperimentazione di ivermectina preventiva randomizzata e con uso di un “gruppo-placebo”, da cui risultò il 100% di efficacia contro il COVID. Il team di Carvallo non rilevò infezioni fra i 788 lavoratori che avevano assunto settimanalmente ivermectina, laddove il 58% degli altri si era ammalato di COVID-19. Un successivo studio osservazionale condotto in Bangladesh—anch’esso volto a investigare l’ivermectina come profilassi preventiva contro il COVID-19 fra gli operatori sanitari— riscontrò risultati altrettato spettacolari: solo 4 dei 58 volontari che avevano assunto un dose minimale di ivermectina (12 mg una volta al mese per 4 mesi) svilupparono lievi sintomi di COVID-19, a fronte dei 44 su 60 operatori che avevano invece rifiutato il farmacohad declined the medication. Inoltre, uno studio del 2021 ha evidenziato come un fondamentale meccanismo biologico dell’IVM —il legame competitivo con la proteina spike del SARS-CoV-2 non era specifica di alcuna variante del coronavirus variant and che quindi, a differenza dei vaccini, l’ivermectina sarebbe stata verosimilmente efficace contro tutte le variante future. Già il 1° marzo 2020, alcuni medici di terapia intensiva e di pronto soccorso cominciarono ad usare l’ivermectina in combinazione con idrogeno silsequioxane (HCQ) nei protocolli di trattamento precoce. Il dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter, un medico belga di stanza a Miami, cominciò ad usare il farmaco il 15 marzo e constatò un immediato miglioramento delle guarigioni. Pubblicò un eccellente lavoro al riguardo il 9 giugno. nello stesso tempo, due medici occidentali che stavano utilizzando IVM in Bangladesh, riferirono a loro volta di una percentuale molto alta di guarigioni, persino tra pazienti in stato di malattia avanzato. Dal marzo del 2020, more di 20 sperimentazioni cliniche randomizzate (RCTs) hanno confermato la straordinari efficacia contro il COVID con riguardo a pazienti sia ricoverati che ambulatoriali. Sei meta-analisi del trattamento con ivermectina su sette portate a termine nel 2021 in 2021 hanno riscontrato una notevole riduzione della mortalità da COVID-19. Gli studi attinenti all’argomento “hanno tutti mostrato un significativo beneficio per pazienti non ricoverati ad alto rischio” afferma l’eminente epidemiologo di Yale dr. Harvey Risch. I soli studi in cui la performance dell’IVM fu meno che spettacolare sono stati quelli che hanno ne hanno investigato l’efficacia in pazienti già in uno stadio terminale del COVID. E tuttavia persino questi ultimi -secondo quasi tutti detti studi- hanno mostrato benefici, sebbene in qualche misura meno sensibili. Secondo una recensione del 2020 di McCullough et al., “numerosi studi clinici —inclusi RCTs soggetti a valutazione paritaria (peer-reviewed)— hanno dimostrato una grande ampiezza di benefici dell’ivermectina nella profilassi, nel trattamento precoce, e anche nella cura dello stadio avanzato della malattia. Considerati nel loro insieme. . . decine di test clinici che sono emersi in tutto il mondo sono sufficientemente significativi per valutarne in modo affidabile l’efficacia clinica e desumerne un segnale di beneficio con accettabile sicurezza”. All’inizio di gennaio del 2021, il dr. David Chesler, un geriatra che aveva nella precedente primavera trattato 191 pazienti infetti in sette RSA della Virginia, scrisse al dr. Fauci affermando di aver ottenuto un tasso di mortalità dell’8% utilizzando l’ivermectina — la metà (cioé 146.000 morti in meno) rispetto alla media delle residenze per anziani statunitensi. Alla sua lettera a Fauci, Chesler accluse un case study valutato paritariamente il quale documentava report di efficacia del tutto simile da altri Paesi – ma né il dr. Fauci né chiunque altro del National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) risposero mai alla sua lettera. Gli Annali di dermatologia e venereologia riferiscono che ina una Casa di risposo francese, tutti e 69 i residenti —dell’età media di 90 anni— e 52 membri dello staff sopravvissero all’esplosione del COVID-19. Come emerge da tale report, avevano tutti assunto ivermectina per un’epidemia di scabbia. Il COVID decimò la comunità circostante, ma solo 7 anziani e quattro membri del personale furono contagiati, e tutti con sintomi lievi. Nessuno ebbe bisogno di ossigeno o di ospedalizzazione.

    Varie ricerche suggeriscono che L’Ivermectina possa lavorare attraverso più di 20 diversi meccanismi. Tra questi, l’Ivermectina funziona come un “ionophore,” facilitando il trasferimento di zinco dentro le cellule, che inibisce la replicazione virale. L’Ivermectina ferma la replicazione di COVID-19, l’influenza stagionale, e molti altri virus attraverso questo e altri meccanismi. Per esempio, a marzo 2021 la ricerca di Choudhury et al., ha trovato che: “L’Ivermectina si è dimostrata un Blocker di replicase virale, di protease e di TMPRSS2 umano, che potrebbe essere alla base della sua efficacia antivirale.” Il farmaco è anche in grado di ridurre l’infiammazione attraverso dei percorsi/ pathways multipli, evitando danni agli organi. Innoltre, l’Ivermectina inibisce l’abilità della proteina spike di legarsi al recettore ACE2 sulle membrane delle cellule umane, prevenendo il virus di entrarsi. Il farmaco previene le coagulazioni grazie alla sua azione di legarsi alla proteina Spike, e impedisce alla proteina Spike di legarsi al CD147 sulle cellule rosse del sangue, che altrimenti innescherebbe la formazione di coaguli. Quando i pazienti prendono IVM prima di essersi esposti al virus, il farmaco protegge dall’infezione, e quindi evita l’eventuale trasmissione, assistendo nel proteggere l’intera comunità. A marzo 2021, una ricerca pubblicata da Peter McCullough e 57 altri medici front-line da diversi paesi, ha trovato che “Le nostre cure precoci ambulatoriali sono associate a una riduzione di ospedalizzazione di 87. 6% e una riduzione di mortalità di 74.9%.” Molte altre ricerche echeggiano i risultati di dott. McCullough. La riduzione media di mortalità – basata su 18 trials cliniche- è di 75%, secondo una meta-analisi presentato alla NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. Una ricerca analitica sponsorizzata dalla OMS di 11 studi dichiara che L’Ivermectina può ridurre la mortalità causata da COVID-19 di 83%”.

    Kennedy Jr., Robert F . The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense) (pp.117-122). Skyhorse. Edizione del Kindle.

    , , , , ,

  • Early Treatment: Le Cure Domiciliari

    “I suoi critici obiettano che la strategia di dott. Fauci: “rallentare il contagio, abbassare la curva, attendere il vaccino” – esclusivamente a sostegno di una scommessa a lungo termine su dei vaccini cui efficacia era indimostrata – ha rappresentato un distacco profondo e senza precedenti da ciò che è considerato la pratica accettabile di sanità pubblica. Ma era ancor più inquietante la pratica di Fauci di ignorare o sopprimere i trattamenti precoci dei pazienti infettati e spesso terrificati. “Le miglior pratiche per sconfiggere un’epidemia di una malattia infettiva”, dice l’epidemiologo Harvey Risch, “dettano che siano messi in quarantena e curati i malatti, si protegga i più vulnerabili, si sviluppi aggressivamente l’uso dei farmaci terapeutici reindirizzati per il trattamento specifico dell’infezioni, e si utilizzi dei protocolli di trattamenti precoci per evitare l’ospedalizzazione.” Risch è uno delle autorità globali di maggior rilievo quando si discute di protocolli di trattamenti clinici. E’ l’editore di due periodici di rilievo e l’autore di più di 350 pubblicazioni peer-reviewed. I suoi studi sono stati citati più di 44,000 volte. Risch fa notare una verità dura che avrebbe dovuto informare le nostre strategie di controllo anti-Covid: “Almeno che tu non sia una nazione – isola pronta a chiudere le porte al mondo intero, non puoi fermare una pandemia virale globale, ma puoi renderlo meno letale. Il nostro obiettivo sarebbe dovuto essere la scoperta e preparazione di cure precoci che avrebbe potuto ridurre l’ospedalizzazione e la morte. Avremmo potuto togliere i denti a Covid19, rendendolo meno letale dell’influenza stagionale. Avremmo potuto farlo molto velocemente. Avremmo potuto salvare centinaia di migliaia di vite.” E’ d’accordo Dr. Peter McCullough: “Una volta che un virus altamente trasmissibile come il COVID è riuscito a far breccia in una popolazione, sarà inevitabile che sia trasmesso a ogni individuo che non ha l’immunità. Puoi rallentare la trasmissione, ma non lo puoi prevenire – sarebbe come cercare di bloccare l’alzamento della marea.” McCullough era un internista and cardiologo al Baylor University Medical Center e la Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital a Dallas, Texas. I suoi 600 articoli peer-reviewed nel National Library of Medicine rendono dott. McCullough il medico più pubblicato della storia nella sua materia specifica di malattie renali e la loro relazione alle malattie cardiovasculari – una sequela letale di COVID-19. Prima di COVID-19, era l’editore di due importanti periodici. I suoi pubblicazioni recenti includono più di 40 articoli riguardanti il COVID-19, tra cui i suoi due studi di riferimento sulla cura critica e fondamentale di questa malattia. Le sue 2 richerche riguardante le cure precoci di COVID-19 pubblicate nel American Journal of Medicine and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in 2020 sono di gran lunga i documenti più scaricati su questo soggetto. “Io ho avuto il COVID-19 con coinvolgimento polmonare,” mi ha raccontato. “Mio moglie l’ha avuto. Abbiamo avuto un decesso per covid19 nella famiglia di mia moglie . . . Io credo d’avere la stessa autorità medica di qualsiasi persona al mondo- se non di più – per esprimere una serie di opinioni e giudizi al riguardo.” McCullough osserva che “avremmo potuto ridurre drammaticamente l’incidenza di ospedalizzazione e di fatalità utilizzando dei protocolli per cure precoci e dei farmaci ‘repurposed’ riadattati includendo ivermectina e idrossicloroquinia e molti, molti altri.” Dr. McCullough ha curato 2,000 pazienti COVID con queste terapie. McCullough sottolinea che le ricerche peer-reviewed scritti in questo periodo dimostrano che le cure precoci avrebbero potuto evitare circa 80 percento dei morti attribuiti a COVID. “La strategia sin dall’inizio sarebbe dovuto essere l’implementazione di protocolli di cure precoci per fermare le ospedalizzazioni di persone che risultavano positivi ma asintomatici. Se l’avessimo fatto, avremmo potuto spingere l’incidenza di fatalità sotto i livelli dell’influenza stagionale, e avremmo potuto evitare i sovra affollamenti degli ospedali. Avremmo dovuto utilizzare dei farmaci disponibili con un record di sicurezza dimostrata, sottoponendoli a dei controlli rigorosi di rischio/beneficio,” continua McCullough. “Utilizzando dei farmaci riadattati all’uso per covid19, avremmo potuto porgere fine alla pandemia entro il maggio 2020, salvando più di 500,000 vite, se non fosse stato per l’insistenza di dott. Fauci di utilizzare remdesevir, in attesa dei vaccini.” Dott. Pierre Kory, specialista pulmonare e di TI, è d’accordo con la stima di Dott. McCullough. “L’efficacia di alcuni di questi farmaci come profilassi è quasi miracoloso, e in più, l’intervento precoce durante la settimana dopo essersi esposto al virus ferma la replicazione virale e previene lo sviluppo della tempesta citochinica e l’entrata nella fase pulmonare,” dice dottore Kory. “Avremmo potuto fermare di colpo la pandemia nella primavera di 2020.” Risch, McCullough, e Kory sono alcuni delle voci di un coro di esperti (Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier incluso) cui argomento è che avremmo potuto evitare i lockdowns cataclismici, curando a domicilio i pazienti infetti nelle prime fasi della malattia, cercando delle risorse mediche per proteggere i membri vulnerabili della popolazione, incoraggiando la diffusione della malattia nelle fascia-età estremamente a basso rischio, per raggiungere l’immunità di gregge. Loro fanno notare che l’immunità naturale, in tutti i casi conosciuti, è superiore all’immunità indotta dal vaccino, essendo più duratura (può durare tutta la vita), ed è a ampio spettro – che significa che serve come scudo contro eventuali varianti. “Vaccinare i cittadini con l’immunità naturale non sarebbe mai dovuto essere la politica della sanità pubblica, ” dice dott. Kory. Con la strategia di dott. Fauci si è visto dedicare decine di miliardi di risorse pubbliche in una scommessa ad alto rischio, nella ricerca di sviluppo di vaccini di tecnologie innovative, e nessuna risorsa per lo sviluppo di farmaci riadattati con dimostrata efficacia contro il Covid. “A livello globale, questa strategia ha tenuto sospeso il trattamento precoce per l’anno intero, mentre un virus respiratorio facilmente curabile ha fatto strage di intere popolazioni,” dice Kory. “E’ assolutamente scioccante che non sia stato consigliato nessuna cura precoce domiciliare – neanche la Vitamina D – nonstante il fatto che Fauci stesso ammette di prenderlo, e che la maggior parte del paese sia carente della vitamina, essenziale per il funzionamento del sistema immunitario.” “

    Traduzione di un estratto del libro “The Real Anthony Fauci”, Robert Kennedy Jr, Skyhorse publishing.

    , , , , , , ,

  • Natural Immunity to Sars Cov-2 due to T-Cell Cross-Reactivity

    “A short excursion into the field of immunology.
    What does immunity against coronaviruses depend on?The coronavirus binds via protein projections (so-called spikes) that recognise specific molecules (receptors) on our cell. This can be likened to virus hands grasping the handles of doors that then open to allow entry. After multiplication, viral progenies are released and can infect other cells.
    Immunity against coronaviruses rests on two pillars: 1) antibodies, 2) specialised cells of our immune system, the so-called helper lymphocytes and killer lymphocytes. When a new virus enters the body and causes illness, the immune system responds by mobilising these arms of defence. Both are trained to specifically recognise the invading virus, and both are endowed with the gift of long-term memory. Upon re-invasion by the virus, they are recruited to the new battle sites, their prowess bolstered through their previous encounter with the sparring
    partner. Many different antibodies are generated, each specifically recognising a tiny part of the virus. Note that only the antibodies that bind the “hands” of the virus are protective because they can stop the virus from gripping the handles of the door. Classical viral vaccines are designed to make our immune system
    produce such antibodies. It is believed that an individual will thus become immune to the virus.
    Three points require emphasis.

    1. If you are tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and nothing is found this does not mean that you were not infected. Severe symptoms often correlate with high production of antibodies, mild symptoms only lead to
      low antibody levels and many asymptomatic infections probably occur without any antibody production.
    2. If antibodies are found this does not mean that you are immune. Current immunological tests cannot selectively detect protective antibodies directed against the “hands” of the virus. Other antibodies show up at the same time. Testing cannot give any reliable information on the “immune status” of an individual and, as will follow next, is essentially useless.
    3. The outcome of an encounter between “protective” antibodies and the virus is not “black or white”, not a “now or never”. Numbers are important. A wall of protecting antibodies may ward off a small attack –for instance when someone coughs at a distance. The attack intensifies as the person comes closer. The scales begin to tip. Some viruses may now overcome the barrier and make it into the cells. If the cough comes from close quarters, the battle becomes one-sided and ends in a quick victory for the virus.
      So even if vaccination is “successful”, meaning that production of protective antibodies has taken place, it does not guarantee immunity. To worsen matters, antibody production spontaneously wanes after just a few months. Protection, if any at all, is at best short-lived.
      The idea of a personal “Immune Status” document is scientifically unsound.
      What happens after the virus enters the cell? Experiments conducted on mice have examined this in detail for SARS-CoV, the original SARS virus and close relative of the present SARS-CoV-2. It was demonstrated that the second arm of the immune system comes into play. Lymphocytes arrive on the scene. A coordinated series of events takes place during which helper cells explode into action and activate their partners, the killer lymphocytes. These seek out the cells that contain the virus and kill them. The factory is destroyed – the fire is extinguished.
      Cough and fever go away.
      How can killer lymphocytes know which cells to attack? Put in simple words: imagine an infected cell to be a factory that produces and assembles the virus parts. Bits and pieces that are not assembled into the viruses become waste products that the cell removes in an ingenious way: it transports them out and puts them in front of the door. The patrolling killer cells see the trash and move in for the kill.
      This second arm of our immune system is seldom talked about, but it is probably actually all-important – much more so than the antibodies that represent a rather shaky first line of defence. Most importantly, waste products derived from different coronaviruses share similarities. Killer lymphocytes recognising the waste of one virus can therefore be expected to recognise at least some of the waste of others.
      Would this imply cross-immunity?
      Yes. Coronavirus mutations take place in very small steps. Protective antibodies and lymphocytes against type A will therefore also be quite effective against progeny Aa. If B comes to visit, you get another cold and cough, but then your immune status broadens to cover A, Aa, B and Bb. The scope of immunity expands with each new infection. And lymphocytes can remember.
      Who does not recall their child’s first year in kindergarten? Oh no, not again, here comes the umpteenth cold with runny nose, cough and fever. The child is ill all through the long winter! Luckily, it gets better the second year and the third will be weathered with maybe just one or two colds. By the time school starts,
      the operational base for combating the viruses has grown rock solid.
      So what does “Immunity against coronavirus” really mean?
      Does “immune” mean that we do not get infected at all?
      No. It means we don’t fall seriously ill.
      And not getting sick does not rest solely on prevention of infection by antibodies, but more on “putting out the fire”. When a new variant appears, many people may get infected but because the fires are quickly extinguished, they will not fall seriously ill. The relative few who fare worse do so because the balance between attack and defence is heavily in favour of the virus. But in the absence of pre-existing illness, the scales tip back again. The virus will be overcome. As a rule, it is only for people with pre-existing conditions that the virus may become the last straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back. This is why coronavirus infections run a mild or even symptom-free course and why an epidemic with any “new” virus is never followed by a second, more serious, wave.
      Why do annual coronavirus epidemics end in summer? Well, just one speculation. Over 50% of the northern European population becomes vitamin D deficient in the dark winter months. Possibly, replenishment of vitamin D stores by sunshine and the shift of activities to outdoors are simple important reasons.
      What happens to the virus after an epidemic? It joins its relatives and circulates with them in the population. Infections continue to occur but most go unnoticed because of the vitalised immune system. Once in a while, someone will get his summer flu. But such is life.
      Can a similar pattern be expected with SARS-CoV-2?
      The authors believe that is exactly what we have witnessed. 85–90% of the SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals did not fall ill. Most probably, their lymphocytes extinguished the fires in time to limit viral production. Put very simply: the virus was a new variant and able to infect almost anyone. But immunity was already widespread due to the presence of lymphocytes that crossrecognised the virus.
      Does proof exist that lymphocytes from unexposed individuals cross-recognise SARS-CoV-2?
      Yes. In a recent German study, lymphocytes from 185 blood samples obtained between 2007 and 2019 were examined for cross-recognition of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results were found in no less than 70–80%, and this applied to both helper and killer lymphocytes.
      A US study with lymphocytes from 20 unexposed donors similarly reported the presence of lymphocytes that were cross-reactive with the new virus.
      In these and another Swedish study it was also found that even non-symptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infections provoked strong T-cell responses.
      We suspect that these unusually vigorous T-cell responses to a first infection represent classical booster phenomena occurring in pre-existing populations of reactive T-lymphocytes.
      Could the idea that lymphocytes mediate cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2 be
      tested?
      The concept of lymphocyte-mediated herd immunity that we present follows from the integration of latest scientific data into the established context of host immunity to viral infections. The idea can actually be put to test. Thus, in a recent study, cynomolgus monkeys were successfully infected with SARSCoV-2. Although all animals shed the virus, not a single one fell ill. Minor lesions were found in the lungs of two animals, attesting to the fact that vigorous production of the virus had taken place. In essence, these findings replicated what has been witnessed in healthy humans. Repetition of the monkey experiment in animals depleted of lymphocytes would show whether herd immunity had indeed derived from the presence of the cells.”

    (209) Jincun Zhao et al., “Airway Memory CD4+ T Cells Mediate Protective Immunity against Emerging
    Respiratory Coronaviruses,” Immunity 44, no. 6 (June 2016): 1379–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j
    .immuni.2016.05.006.
    (210) Annika Nelde et al., “SARS-CoV-2 T-cell Epitopes Define Heterologous and COVID-19-Induced TCell Recognition,” preprint, posted June 17, 2020, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-35331/v1.
    (211) Alba Grifoni et al., “Targets of T-Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with
    COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals,” Cell 181, no. 7 (June 2020): 1489–501.e15, https://
    doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015.
    (212) Takuya Sekine et al., “Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or
    Mild COVID-19,” Cell, (August 2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.017

    Excerpt from “Corona, False Alarm?” by prof. Sucharit Bhakdi e Dr. Karina Weiss

    , , , , ,