Setting Up Two Classes Of Citizens

On Sunday, Hot Air posted an article about Canada’s plan to tax those citizens who were not vaccinated against Covid-19. Public outcry caused the plan to be scrapped, but it is entirely possible that the plan will show up again, despite growing evidence of the ineffectiveness and dangers of the vaccine.

The article quotes the Canadian Medical Association Journal:

Quebec’s recent move to tax people who refuse COVID-19 vaccinations reopened debate about the merits of such penalties.

Premier François Legault said that choosing to remain unvaccinated has consequences for the health care system and not all Quebecers should foot the bill.

Roughly one in 10 adults in Quebec remain unvaccinated, yet they account for an outsized share of COVID-19 hospitalizations and about half of all intensive care patients.

With hospitals postponing surgeries and some 20 000 health workers sick with COVID-19, fining those who refuse vaccinations becomes “a question of fairness,” Legault said.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

But if Canada is really crazy enough to take a fresh look at this policy, what will they say to all of the people who resisted but were eventually forced to take the vaccines in light of more recent news? Keep in mind that many European nations have now stopped offering the vaccines to all but the oldest and the most at-risk. These nations include Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Norway, Italy, Spain and Sweden. Others are considering similar policies as the dangerous side effects of the vaccines for some groups become more apparent. (And that news is finally being allowed to reach the public without immediately being censored.)

If you are fired from your job, you might find a new avenue of employment later. If the government takes some of your money, you may be able to make up for the loss in the future. But once you’ve been injected with these experimental vaccines, you can never be “unvaccinated.” And if you or one of your children suddenly develop a potentially fatal case of Myocarditis, your lives aren’t going to simply “go back to normal.” And it’s worth noting that even the American government is now finally admitting that the new mRNA vaccines will not prevent you from being infected or spreading the virus to others. They just reduce the worst effects of the disease for most people. (I finally caught it in September and managed to make it through to the other side, though I still don’t fully have my senses of taste and smell back.)

The virus is here to stay and it will likely keep morphing into new variants as the seasons go by. In that regard, it’s pretty much the same as the flu at this point. Let’s not return to the craziness of 2020 and 2021, shall we? Making mistakes when we are ignorant of all of the facts about something new is excusable. Continuing to do so after more facts are known is not.

I had the virus before it was fashionable (and before the vaccine). When I had my antibodies tested more than a year later, I still had them. I realize that the virus is dangerous for some people, but I still think the best defense is your own antibodies.

 

Playing Word Games With Americans’ Health

On Saturday, The Epoch Times posted the following headline:

FDA Says Telling People Not to Take Ivermectin for COVID-19 Was Just a Recommendation

The article reports:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) telling people to “stop” taking ivermectin for COVID-19 was informal and just a recommendation, government lawyers argued during a recent hearing.

“The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin,” Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers, told the court during the Nov. 1 hearing in federal court in Texas.

“They use informal language, that is true,” he also said, adding that, “it’s conversational but not mandatory.”

The hearing was held in a case brought by three doctors who say the FDA illegally interfered with their ability to prescribe medicine to their patients when it issued statements on ivermectin, an anti-parasitic that has shown positive results in some trials against COVID-19.

Ivermectin is approved by the FDA but not for COVID-19. Drugs are commonly used for non-approved purposes in the United States; the practice is known as off-label treatment.

This is a link to a CDC Health Advisory put out on August 26, 2021. I suspect that as this case moves forward, this Advisory may disappear, so I will quote some of it here:

Recommendations for the Public
Be aware that currently, ivermectin has not been proven as a way to prevent or treat COVID19.

Do not swallow ivermectin products that should be used on skin (e.g., lotions and creams) or are
not meant for human use, such as veterinary ivermectin products.

Seek immediate medical attention or call the poison control center hotline (18002221222) for advice if you have taken ivermectin or a product that contains ivermectin and are having
symptoms. Signs and symptoms include gastrointestinal effects (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea), headache, blurred vision, dizziness, fast heart rate, and low blood pressure.
Other severe nervous system effects have been reported, including tremors, seizures, hallucinations, confusion, loss of coordination and balance, decreased alertness, and coma.

Get vaccinated against COVID19. COVID19 vaccination is approved by FDA and is the safest and most effective way to prevent getting sick and protect against severe disease and death from SARSCoV2, the virus that causes COVID19, including the Delta variant.

Protect yourself and others from getting sick with COVID19. In addition to vaccination, wear masks in indoor public places, practice staying at least six feet from other people who don’t live in your household, avoid crowds and poorly ventilated spaces, and wash your hands often or use hand sanitizer that has at least 60 percent alcohol.

The article at The Epoch Times concludes:

“The government engaged in a singularly effective campaign here to malign a common drug that has been used for a very long time and has been dispensed in billions of doses. It’s one of the most famously safe drugs in the history of human medicine. And when people did exactly what the FDA said to ‘Stop it. Stop it with the ivermectin,’ I don’t understand how that would not be traceable back to the FDA,” Kelson said.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee overseeing the case, said that he was most concerned about the social media statements because they did not include any qualifiers.

Belfer argued the statements were aimed at consumers and that the Twitter posts linked to one of the pages, which does include the qualifier.

“So it was predictable that if you include the link to the article, people will click on the link and will see the full article, which includes that disclaimer that if your doctor writes you a prescription, you should fill it exactly as prescribed,” he said.

“The plaintiffs, by their own admission, have continued to prescribe ivermectin. So they always had the authority. It may be that patients were not able to fill prescriptions, but the doctors themselves always had the authority,” he added later.

Brown said he appreciated the briefing from the parties and that he would rule “as quickly as we can for ya’ll.” As of Nov. 19, he has not issued a ruling.

The government did everything it could to prevent the use of Ivermectin. The problem with Ivermectin is that it is cheap and the pharmaceutical companies do not make a lot of money on it. The medical profession has sold its soul for money, and people around the world have did because of it. Accountability is in order.

This Is How Checks And Balances Are Supposed To Work

Despite what the mainstream media is telling you, the midterms were not a total disaster for the Republicans. The youth vote played a major role in the lack of success for Republicans–many gen X and millennials voted for student loan forgiveness and unfettered abortion rights. The student loan promise has already been taken from them. Possibly that might be a lesson for them. The popular vote was Republican, with certain Democrat strongholds preventing the Republican party from taking control of the Senate. There were some computer anomalies and ballot harvesting, but that has come to be part of elections in America. As I have previously stated, unless our voting paradigm changes, we will never see another Republican President.

Meanwhile, some of the Democrats have realized that the policies of the Biden administration are not popular with many Americans and have decided to protect their political future.

On Wednesday, Trending Politics posted the following headline:

13 Democrat Senators Revolt After Midterm Election, Deal Massive Blow to Biden’s Agenda

The article explains that thirteen Democrat Senators voted to to end the Covid “public health emergency” that the Biden administration had recently extended until April 2023.

The article reports:

While it is unclear if the House of Representatives will immediately take up the measure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now on borrowed time. Her tenure at the top of Congressional leadership is set to come to an end on January 3, 2023 with the projected incoming Republican-led House.

12 Democrats joined in with the Republicans to put an end to the Covid public health emergency declaration: Sen. John Hickenlooper (CO), Sen. Tim Kaine (VA), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sen. Joe Manchin (WV), Sen. Chris Murphy (CT), Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Sen. Jon Tester (MT), Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Sen. Mark Warner (VA), Sen. Cortez-Masto (NV), Sen. Jacky Rosen (NV) and Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY). Sen. Angus King (ME) is officially an Independent, but caucuses with Democrats.

The article notes:

Ending the declaration would weaken the federal government’s ability to respond to Covid-19 surges, the OMB claimed.

“Preserving our ability to respond is more important than ever as we head into the winter, when respiratory illnesses such as Covid-19 typically spread more easily,” the statement said. “Strengthened by the ongoing declaration of national emergency, the federal response to Covid-19 continues to save lives, improve health outcomes, and support the American economy.”

However, as the CDC earlier pointed out, over 95% of Americans have some form of protection to Covid-19. The currently predominant BA.4 and BA.5 variants are far less deadly than earlier strains, and an estimated 97% of Americans have natural immunity from prior infection, according to CDC data.

Ending the emergency would also impact the use of the vaccine, which is approved only for emergency use and would therefore end vaccine mandates.

What we saw during 2020 and 2022 was government tyranny. The government decided who could do business and who could not. The vaccine mandates created two classes of people. Many unvaccinated people were called ‘grandma murders’ despite the fact that they might have had natural immunity. Relatives were denied access to dying family members. In some states, Covid patients were sent into nursing homes to expose the most vulnerable to the disease. The government handled the Covid pandemic so badly that I sincerely question whether or not we should ever give them emergency powers again.

When Is An Emergency Not An Emergency?

On Friday, MSN reported that President Biden plans to renew the COVID-19 pandemic status as a public health emergency in January. The public health emergency was expected to expire in January. The article notes that the extension will provide free tests, vaccines and treatments. What the article does not mention is that fact that the Covid vaccine is only authorized under emergency use. If the emergency goes away, then any vaccine mandates that are still remaining will also have to go away.

The article reports:

The possibility of a winter surge in COVID cases and the need for more time to transition out of the public health emergency to a private market were two factors that contributed to the decision, the official said.

The public health emergency was initially declared in January 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic began, and has been renewed each quarter since. But the government in August began signaling it planned to let it expire in Jan.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has promised to give states 60 days notice before letting the emergency expire, which would have been on Friday if it did not plan on renewing it again in January.

Doesn’t it make more sense to declare an emergency when there actually is one instead of when there might be a possibility of one? It should also be noted that many of those in government are enjoying the extra authority the public health emergency gives them. That is another reason we need to end the emergency.

Is Accountability Coming?

On September 30, Yahoo News posted the following headline:

The FDA Misled the Public About Ivermectin and Should Be Accountable in Court, Argues the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Wow. I have no idea what the motive of the FDA was (although I could make some educated guesses), but people died because of their actions. They do need to be held accountable.

The article reports:

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) filed its motion and amicus brief Thursday evening with the federal district court in Galveston urging it to allow the lawsuit to proceed against the FDA for its misleading statements against ivermectin. In Apter v. HHS, a group of physicians sued to hold the Food and Drug Administration, a federal agency within the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), accountable for its interference with physicians’ ability to treat Covid-19.

“Defendant FDA has improperly exploited misunderstandings about the legality and prevalence of off-label uses of medication, in order to mislead courts, state medical boards, and the public into thinking there is anything improper about off-label prescribing,” AAPS writes in its amicus brief to the court. “Not only is off-label prescribing fully proper, legal, and commonplace, but it is also absolutely necessary in order to give effective care to patients.”

Yet the FDA published multiple statements and sent letters to influential organizations to falsely disparage ivermectin, implying that it was not approved for treating Covid-19. Many, including courts and state medical boards, were misled by the FDA into thinking that its lack of approval for this treatment meant that ivermectin should not be used to treat Covid-19.

“It has never been proper for the FDA to interfere with that essential part of the practice of medicine, and the FDA knows it,” AAPS informed the court. The FDA “insisted and continues to insist on interfering with the prescription of this safe medication by physicians in treating Covid-19,” AAPS added.

The article notes that AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly stated that once the FDA approves a medication as safe, then physicians have full authority to prescribe it to treat any illness.

People died because of the actions of the FDA.

Florida, Again, Takes The Lead

On Saturday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted the following headline:

Florida: Covid Vaccines Are Dangerous to Young Men

The article reports:

Yesterday, Florida’s Surgeon General issued a new guidance regarding mRNA vaccines: he said that young men between the ages of 18 and 39 should not be given such vaccines for covid:

This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks.

As such, the State Surgeon General recommends against males aged 18 to 39 from receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

An 84% increase in cardiac-related death is stunning, although in this age group the numbers would be low. As I understand it, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA, while the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines are not.

…Given the tiny risk that covid poses to young men, it seems reasonable for young men to avoid covid vaccines altogether, pending further information.

I don’t know whether the findings of the Florida study will hold up, or how the debate over the risks and benefits of various types of vaccines will ultimately be resolved (assuming it is resolved at all). But what should be blindingly obvious is that it was outrageous for the Centers for Disease Control, the federal government generally, and the government’s social media minions to try to suppress discussion of the need for, efficacy of, and risks associated with, covid vaccines. The idea that the public health establishment knew all there was to know about covid vaccines in a flash of revelation, and that any dissenting opinion or any pointing to contrary data constituted “misinformation,” is an affront to the scientific method. This is also a valuable reminder of why free speech is so important.

It is time to remove vaccine mandates and to caution people about the dangers of the vaccine. A friend of mine recently developed Bell’s Palsey after getting her booster shot. Her doctor advised her not to get any more boosters. No kidding.

Because the information on the dangers of this vaccine has been suppressed, we all need to do our own research. Too many people have had serious health complications from the vaccine. It’s time to assess the risk of the vaccine as well as the risk from the disease.

The Cure?

On Saturday, The Conservative Review posted an article about a peer-reviewed study on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating the Covid virus.

The article reports:

A new peer-reviewed study found that regular use of ivermectin reduced the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 92%.

The large study was conducted by Flávio A. Cadegiani, MD, MSc, PhD. Cadegiani is a board-certified endocrinologist with a master’s degree and doctorate degree in clinical endocrinology.

The peer-reviewed study was published on Wednesday by the online medical journal Cureus. The study was conducted on a strictly controlled population of 88,012 people from the city of Itajaí in Brazil.

Individuals who used ivermectin as prophylaxis or took the medication before being infected by COVID experienced significant reductions in death and hospitalization.

The article concludes:

The study defined regular users as those who used more than 30 tablets of ivermectin over five months. The dosage of ivermectin was determined by body weight, but “most of the population used between two and three tablets daily for two days, every 15 days.”

“Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin,” the study read. “This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.”

Cadegiani believes the study showed a “dose-response effect” – which means that increasing levels of ivermectin decreased the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Cadegiani wrote on Twitter, “An observational study with the size and level of analysis as ours is hardly achieved and infeasible to be conducted as a randomised clinical trial. Conclusions are hard to be refuted. Data is data, regardless of your beliefs.”

It’s interesting to me that those in the study took the Ivermectin before they contracted Covid.

In December 2020, The National Library of Medicine posted a report about the low death rate from Covid in African countries where Ivermectin was being used to control Onchocerciasis.

The article reports:

Results: After controlling for different factors, including the Human Development Index (HDI), APOC (African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control) countries (vs. non-APOC), show 28% lower mortality (0.72; 95% CI: 0.67-0.78) and 8% lower rate of infection (0.92; 95% CI: 0.91-0.93) due to COVID-19.

Conclusions: The incidence in mortality rates and number of cases is significantly lower among the APOC countries compared to non-APOC countries. That a mass public health preventive campaign against COVID-19 may have taken place, inadvertently, in some African countries with massive community ivermectin use is an attractive hypothesis. Additional studies are needed to confirm it.

I strongly suspect that had the pharmaceutical companies not been involved, we might have looked for a cure rather than a vaccine.

 

Can We Just Admit We Don’t Have The Answer Yet?

On Friday, The Epoch Times posted an article about the effectiveness of the Covid-19 booster shots.

The article reports:

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses dropped well under 50 percent after four months against subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19, according to a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines provided just 51 percent protection against emergency department visits, urgent care encounters, and hospitalizations related to COVID-19 during the time BA.2 and BA.2.12.1, subvariants of the Omicron virus variant, were predominant in the United States, CDC researchers found.

Both vaccines are administered in two-dose primary series.

After 150-plus days, the effectiveness dropped to just 12 percent.

A first booster upped the protection to 56 percent, but the effectiveness went down to 26 percent after four months, according to the study, which drew numbers from a network of hospitals funded by the CDC across 10 states called the VISION Network.

The subvariant was predominant between late March and mid-June.

The article also notes:

Underlining the waning effectiveness against severe illness, the majority of patients admitted to the hospitals between December 2021 and June 2022 had received at least two doses of the vaccines.

Further, the percentage of unvaccinated patients dropped during the later period, going from 41.6 percent to 28.6 percent (hospitalized patients) and from 41.4 percent to 31 percent (emergency department and urgent care patients), researchers found.

The researchers, some of whom work for the CDC, theorized that the protection—known as natural immunity—many unvaccinated people enjoy from having had COVID-19 could be a factor in the drop in effectiveness of the vaccines, even though adults with documented prior infection were excluded from the study.

“If unvaccinated persons were more likely to have experienced recent infection, and infection-induced immunity provides some protection against re-infection, this could result in lower VE observed during the BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period,” they wrote. VE stands for vaccine effectiveness.

“Although adults with documented past SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded, infections are likely to be significantly underascertained because of lack of testing or increased at-home testing. In addition, although time since receipt of the second or third vaccine dose was stratified by time intervals, on average the time since vaccination was longer during the BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period,” they added.

Although the medical community recommends flu shots every year, they also admit that predicting the particular variant of the flu that will be present during that flu season is something of a crap shoot. It seems that we are having the same problem with Covid-19, also a virus. I suspect coming up with a truly effective vaccine against Covid infections is probably about as likely as coming up with a vaccine for the common cold. I think we still have a lot to learn.

Is Anyone Surprised?

Most of us quietly acquiesced to the restrictions imposed by Washington, D.C. during the Covid pandemic. What we didn’t consider, unfortunately, was the Washington, D.C., loves power and would do pretty much anything to maintain increased power, regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says. We are about to see that principle in action.

On Thursday, Legal Insurrection reported the following:

One day, I will no longer write about covid.

But today is not that day.

After two years of covid lockdowns, restrictions, and progressive virtue signaling with promises of being able to contain an uncontainable virus, the country is seeing a surge in covid cases.

Laughably, officials say they “know how to manage it.”

Top U.S. health officials warned Tuesday that a surge of COVID-19 cases driven by the highly transmissible Omicron subvariant BA.5 has arrived, but stressed that the country has the tools — like vaccines and antiviral treatments — to prevent people from getting seriously ill.

“We know how to manage it,” Dr. Ashish Jha, coordinator of the White House’s COVID-19 response, said at a virtual press briefing. “We can prevent serious illness. We can save lives and we can minimize disruptions caused by COVID-19.”

As I predicted, the world will experience wave after wave of covid until we have built up enough immunity so future variants will join the very long list of common cold viruses. In fact, in my personal experience, I know many people who are now recovering from covid infections who did not believe me when I said that we would all, eventually, get the disease.

I predict that by the time of the mid-term election Americans will be so fearful of this new variant that drop boxes for ballots will be absolutely necessary (according to the Biden administration) to protect the health of voters. Signature matching will be waived in order to reduce the number of people handling ballots, and oddly enough, the Democrats will remain in control of Congress. I hope I am wrong, but I am not sure Americans have the backbone to stand up against the Democrat power grab that is being planned to steal the mid-term election.

The article concludes:

Dr. Anthony Fauci returned to lead the White House’s public messaging on COVID-19 this week after his own battle with the disease — urging Americans to again wear masks and get boosted amid the threat of waning immunity against surging new variants.

The administration’s 81-year-old chief medical adviser has been lying low since testing positive in mid-June.

Now recovered, the quadruple-vaccinated infectious disease expert gave a series of interviews Tuesday to warn of surging cases sparked by the latest Omicron variant, BA.5 — and caution Americans that even those recently recovered from an infection are likely still at risk.

“The threat to you is now,” Fauci warned during a White House briefing Tuesday.

After doing it Fauci’s way for two years, how about doing it my way:

    • No testing, unless symptoms warrant identification of virus.
    • Promotion of early treatment options that are inexpensive and readily accessible.
    • Focusing on good diet, vitamins and exercise as preventatives against severe covid.
    • End vaccine mandates, and allow people to make the decision about the vaccine that best suit their own risks.

Finally, end the ridiculous “public health emergency,” which at this point is a “political health emergency.”

Makes sense to me.

Somehow The Mainstream Didn’t Report This

On July 11th, The Epoch Times posted the following headline, “New Study: Unvaccinated Wrongly Maligned.” Some of us have suspected this for quite some time, but it is nice to see someone reporting it.

The article reports:

A large-scale international study of those unvaccinated against COVID-19 finds a pattern of discrimination—and a relatively low hospitalization rate.

While the study’s findings are limited by the nature of the selection process, in which unvaccinated people opted in to participate, the new study suggests that those who declined the vaccine may not be the burden to the health care system many have claimed them to be. The study is now available as a preprint (which means it hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed). It was uploaded to ResearchGate earlier this month.

The findings hold significant importance to policymakers. According to Our World in Data, 60 percent of the world is fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The 40 percent who aren’t vaccinated against the virus have been frequently blamed for the duration and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, even as vaccination rates reached up to 90 percent in many jurisdictions.

The COVID-19 virus became political because it was useful to pave the way for voter fraud. I suspect we are about to see a ‘serious outbreak’ of the virus some time before the mid-term election so that ballot drop boxes can be reinstated. If you have seen the movie “2000 Mules,” you know why that is important.

The article continues:

In many places in the United States, those who declined the COVID-19 vaccines have been discriminated against, stigmatized, and marginalized from society. Nurses and health care workers were fired, Air Force cadets were denied commissions, and family members found themselves ostracized within some of their most intimate and important relationships.

The vilification of the unvaccinated has come with the censorship of both science and personal experience. Many doctors, nurses, scientists, and other health care professionals who speak out about the safety and necessity of these vaccines have been threatened with the loss of their medical licenses, deleted from social media, canceled from events with their peers, and fired from their jobs.

The article includes information on the study that was conducted to help people who chose not to get the vaccine:

The study was conducted by Robert Verkerk, founder of the Alliance for Natural Health International, an affiliate of the CGC. A team of international scientists contributed to the research. The study analyzes the data from the CGC survey from the first five months of its operation—from September 2021 through February.

The article concludes:

For Verkerk, it’s about choice. We shouldn’t vilify those who rely on natural immunity or refuse the vaccines for religious, medical, or ethical reasons, he said.

“We have seen a dramatic erosion of the principles of medical ethics,” he wrote.

We need to respect autonomy (the right of competent adults to make individualized and informed decisions about their own medical care) and adhere to the principle of first doing no harm, as well as to the principles of beneficence and justice, according to Verkerk.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. There is a lot of good information about the vaccine and about the treatments for COVID-19.

When The Money Is More Important Than The Science

The Covid pandemic taught us a lot of things. One of the things I learned was to do my own research as much as possible. I also became more cynical about the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (currently headed by Dr. Fauci). As you may remember, early in the Covid pandemic, Dr. Fauci played down the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating the virus and limited the availability of monoclonal antibodies in some states. Dr. Fauci’s preferred treatment of Covid was a drug called Paxlovid, developed by Pfizer.

On Wednesday, PJ Media reported that Dr. Fauci had tested positive for Covid and taken Paxlovid.

The article reports:

On June 15, Dr. Anthony Fauci announced that he had tested positive for COVID-19. It was a long time coming since nearly everyone around him in the White House has tested positive at least once. In fact, the number of high-profile people with repeated infections is rising — former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Prince Charles, to name a few. Of course, what they all had in common was every single COVID jab available to them.

Fauci was no exception. When he provided an update on his condition during a conference call on June 23, he said, “I had one day of symptomatology. I started on Wednesday on Paxlovid. And I was on Paxlovid for five days. And I have now finished Paxlovid, and I am still feeling really quite fine.”

Then he gave the obligatory nod to the treatments he has advocated and even supported mandating for others. “I think I am an example, given my age, of what we’re all talking about today. I am vaccinated. I am doubly boosted. And I believe if that were not the case, I very likely would not be talking to you looking as well as I look, I think.” In reality, he has no way of knowing that, and there is no science to back it up. Still, seven days after a positive test, he appeared symptom-free and participated in a meeting.

Unfortunately Dr. Fauci suffered a rebound of Covid:

On June 28, in another interview, Fauci disclosed that he had a positive antigen test four days after finishing the course of Paxlovid. For the three days prior, his tests were negative. “So it was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound. Then over the next day or so, I started to feel really poorly. Much worse than in the first go around,” Fauci admitted. Then he shared he was back on Paxlovid since it worked so well the first time.

If Pavlovid had really worked all that well, he wouldn’t be sick and need it again.

The article notes:

Remember when President Trump took Regeneron MAs, walked off a helicopter, and returned to work two days later? Were there any news stories out of Florida about rebound infections, where infusion clinics dispensed MAs at high rates for weeks? At some point, there needs to be an inquiry about what happened to the MA program. It was the only FDA-EUA treatment that prevented severe illness in between 70% and 90% of high-risk patients through the delta wave. MAs were also effective at preventing COVID in people exposed to the virus. Paxlovid is not.

While no one should wish anything terrible on Dr. Fauci, it is important to remember how he loomed large in destroying the reputations and careers of doctors who advocated using existing drugs to treat viral replication, inflammation, and clotting. Some researchers and clinicians feel that restricting these treatments is a crime against humanity that caused thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Fauci also did not advocate for infusion centers and broad distribution of the effective MA treatment that was available last summer. Instead, we waited for a pill that doesn’t always work on the first pass, may be of no value to vaccinated Americans, and appears to be declining in efficacy because of how it works.

I am glad Dr. Fauci seems to be getting better, but what about the lies told to Americans during the pandemic? How safe is the vaccine? Does the vaccine actually work? Is the vaccine being given in America approved for other than emergency use? Why was Ivermectin trashed although it seemed to work? Why was the distribution of monoclonal antibodies limited when it was known to be an effective treatment? We will probably never know the answers to these questions because of the money behind the related decisions, but I hope the American people are now awake and realize that it is up to every individual to protect their own health–the government isn’t going to do it.

When The Numbers Just Don’t Add Up

On Saturday, Sharyl Attkisson posted an article about the number of Covid-19 cases among military veterans who have been vaccinated.

The article reports:

Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) is demanding that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prioritize Veteran care after learning of first-hand accounts from VA employees, who say Biden’s coercive vaccine mandates are causing VA workforce shortages, ultimately limiting care for veterans.

In response to these accounts, Johnson submitted a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Denis McDonough stating the following:

On May 27, 2022, I met with a group of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees regarding their concerns with the quality of care received by veterans. These health care professionals described the significant workforce shortages at the VA facilities in Wisconsin and Michigan and that the vaccine mandate is only exacerbating these shortages. The VA owes the public and our veterans answers about the steps the Department is taking to address the workforce issues and to provide the highest quality care to the finest among us.” 

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin)

…Senator Johnson also presented whistleblower data he recently obtained demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines’ ability to prevent infection. 

“Based on whistleblower data from the Milwaukee VAMC facility dashboard census count between October 22, 2021 and March 8, 2022, for 31 of the 54 days I received daily reports, at least 80 percent of VA employees who tested positive for Covid-19 were vaccinated. For 8 of those 54 days, 100 percent of VA employees who tested positive for Covid-19 were vaccinated. 

The continuation of care for our veterans should be our top priority, not politically motivated policies like vaccine mandates.” 

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin)

A letter written to Denis R. McDonough, Secretary U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, by Senator Johnson included the following statement:

In addition to these testimonials, enclosed data from the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee (Milwaukee VAMC) reveals the failure of the vaccine mandate to protect VA employees and veterans from COVID-19.  Based on whistleblower data from the Milwaukee VAMC facility dashboard census count between October 22, 2021 and March 8, 2022, for 31 of the 54 days I received daily reports, at least 80 percent of VA employees who tested positive for COVID-19 were vaccinated.[4]  For 8 of those 54 days, 100 percent of VA employees who tested positive for COVID-19 were vaccinated.[5]

I think it’s time to reevaluate the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccine.

Somehow The Mainstream Media Missed This Story

On Friday, The Epoch Times reported the following:

Pfizer hired 600 employees in the months after its COVID-19 vaccine was authorized in the United States due to the “large increase” of reports of side effects linked to the vaccine, according to a document prepared by the company.

Pfizer has “taken a multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports,” according to the document. “This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues.”

At the time when the document—from the first quarter of 2021—was sent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pfizer had onboarded about 600 extra full-time workers to deal with the jump.

“More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021,” Pfizer said.

The document was titled a “cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports” of Pfizer’s vaccine received through Feb. 28, 2021. It was approved by the FDA on April 30, 2021.

The document was not made public until the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency sued the FDA after the agency claimed it needed decades to produce all the documents relating to the emergency use authorization granted to the company for the vaccine.

Under an agreement reached in February, the FDA must produce a certain number of pages each month.

The article concludes:

Pfizer did not respond to emailed questions, including how many workers it has onboarded to deal with adverse events.

The companies that manufacture the other two COVID-19 vaccines that U.S. regulators have cleared, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, did not respond when asked if they have seen an increase in adverse events and if they have hired more employees to deal with reports.

The number of post-vaccination adverse event reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, jointly run by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has spiked since the vaccines were first cleared.

Problems linked to the vaccines include heart inflammation, blood clotting, and severe allergic shock.

Federal officials say the vaccines’ benefits outweigh the risks, but some experts are increasingly questioning that assertion, particularly for certain populations.

People should have been made aware of this as the vaccine was being pushed by the government. A vaccine that doesn’t prevent the illness and has serious side effects does not seem to be the answer to the pandemic. Please follow the link above to read the entire article. If you are not yet vaxxed, you might not want to rush out to receive the vaccination.

Do The Fact-Checkers Actually Check The Facts?

On Sunday, Forbes posted an article about fact checkers. The article specifically focuses on the fact-checkers who ‘check facts’ in the areas of Covid-19 and climate change, two of the more controversial topics of the day.

On the subject of Covid-19, the article notes:

Over two years into the pandemic, some of the most basic questions remain contentious, and even questions of data integrity remain mired in controversy. Are covid deaths over-reported since many may have died with covid rather than of covid? Did lockdowns and masks make any discernible difference to public health? Are there viable early treatments for the disease available or are vaccines approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the only way to go? Are covid vaccines safe and effective? To each of these questions, the overwhelming majority of the fact checking sites (or fact checking departments of the legacy media) support the reigning narrative articulated by big pharmaceutical companies, government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA, and key government officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci. The Biden administration welcomes this, and goes further in calling social media companies such as Facebook to partner with the White House to “fight misinformation” about covid-19.

When three distinguished medical people released the Great Barrington Declaration which contradicted the administration’s policies, their ideas were immediately squelched without debate. That’s not how science is supposed to work.

The article also discusses the climate-change fact-checkers:

Like the media coverage of covid-19, climate change headlines in the mainstream media for the past three decades have been overwhelmingly one-sided. The basic premise is that the “science is settled” as in a tweet by then U.S. President Barack Obama in 2013: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” with the obvious subtext: “Who are you to challenge this?” And, as in the covid-19 context, the marginalization of climate sceptics has a long track record.

Two examples suffice how fact checks and editorializing serve to ensure that sceptics need not apply for access to the wider public. The first relates to the London-based BBC, fondly known as “beebs”, for its authoritative news broadcasts around the world as it emerged from the ashes of World War II. The British media giant was known and praised not only for its balanced news features but also for its nature documentaries. And in this space, two celebrities with the same first name – David Bellamy and David Attenborough – emerged in the 1970s, directing fascinating TV programs on nature and the environment from every corner of the globe into tens of millions of homes. As British commentator James Dellingpole wrote in his eulogy to Bellamy who died in 2019, “both were superstars…both were well on their way to becoming national treasures.”

Yet, while one, Attenborough, basks in the glow of international fame and is invited to many of the climate conferences as star speaker and delegate, the other claimed he had become a pariah as soon as he rejected group-think on global warming – describing climate change as “poppycock”. Though his climate scepticism killed his media career he remained utterly unrepentant. The BBC itself has made it clear to its staff that it will not invite climate sceptics to its interviews and panel discussions to balance debates because the “science is settled”

The article concludes:

Without getting into details about the claims of the so-called factchecker, the key point here is to note the perversions of truth in representing the arguments critiqued in such “fact checks”. Perhaps this is best revealed by the fact that Facebook argued in its legal defence that its cited fact check was “just opinion” when faced by a lawsuit brought by celebrated journalist John Stossel who had posted two climate change videos.

Readers and viewers beware of this peculiar twist to the caveat emptor clause: the “fact checks” used by the mainstream news outlets and social media to police what you read and watch are just opinions.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We are being played.

The Elites Love To Hold On To Their Power

On Sunday, Breitbart posted an article about a recent comment by Dr. Fauci. It seems that Dr. Fauci is beginning to worm his way back into the spotlight (yes, I used that word on purpose).

The article reports:

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that new variants of COVID could cause America to reinstitute some restrictions.

Discussing the new BA.2 variant of COVID, Fauci said, “It has a degree of transmission advantage over the original Omicron. Not a multi-fold advantage. It’s about 50 to 60% or so more transmissible. It means over time. It might take over as the dominant variant. Throughout the world, it’s about 80 plus percent, 85% of the isolate. In the United States, it’s still around 30%.”

When asked about reinstating restrictions, Fauci replied:

Fauci said, “I don’t think so, George, not right now. I don’t see us going back into any very strict kind of restrictions. You have to have the flexibility. Remember when the CDC came out with the modification of their metrics which led to the guidelines of what regions or counties in the country should have masking indoor, they made it clear as you pull back on restrictions if we do see a significant surge, particularly one that might result in increased hospitalizations, we have to be prepared to pivot and perhaps reinstitute some of those restrictions.”

Notice that there is a discussion of the transmission rate of the new variant, but not of the death rate. Early on in the pandemic, many scientists speculated that Covid would continue to mutate until it reached the equivalent of the annual flu. Covid after mutating would be more contagious and less deadly. Evidently we are never going to be covid-free. However, we can be panic-free and treat this disease as the simple variant of the flu that it has become.

Politics Or Medicine?

On Friday, The Epoch Times reported that New York City Mayor Eric Adams has announced that the vaccine passport system and school mask mandates will expire on March 7th. That is good news for New Yorkers. However, don’t get too comfortable–once a system of passports to enter restaurants and entertainment venues is set up for any reason, it can be resurrected for any other reason.

The article reports:

The mayor’s decision comes as a number of other Democrat-led cities, municipalities, and states have dropped COVID-19-related rules in recent weeks. They have cited a drop in the number of COVID-19 cases nationwide.

“This is about giving people the flexibility that is needed to continue allow not only safety, but we have to get our economy back on track,” Adams told reporters during an announcement at Times Square. “It’s time to open our city and get the economy back up and operating.”

New York City, under the de Blasio administration, became one of the first places in the United States last year to impose a vaccine passport system, impacting restaurants, gyms, sports venues, concerts, and similar businesses.

Critics say that the mandate created a two-tier society of vaccinated and unvaccinated people and also led to the unfair demonization of people who haven’t received the shot. A number of protests erupted across the city with thousands of demonstrators walking across the Brooklyn Bridge and other bridges in protest of the rules.

Starting in late 2021, New York City also has laid off thousands of workers, including police officers and firemen, who did not comply with the city’s vaccine mandate.

The mandates were probably illegal in the first place, and some have been struck down by the Supreme Court. However, I suspect the larger issue here is the approaching mid-term election. The Democrat party is associated with the mandates. States like Florida and North Dakota, run by Republicans, have abandoned mask and shutdown requirements very early in the epidemic and have fared as well or better than the states with strict lockdowns and mandates. States with Republican governors have recovered economically more quickly because they have loosed many of their Covid restrictions that were put in place nationally early in the pandemic. The elections are approaching, and even Democrat-run states are trying to recover their economies before November (even though President Biden’s economic and energy policies are going to make that very difficult).

Just remember, the freedom Americans gave up during the Coronavirus has not yet been won back. Mandates and shutdowns are still possible. What we need is a Supreme Court case that will make it clear that mandated masks and shutdowns are a violation of individual liberty and are thus unconstitutional.

The Emails Tell The Story

On Monday The Federalist posted an article about the politicization of the coronavirus. The article included quotes from emails between National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins. The purpose of the emails was to create an implement the strategy to discredit information about COVID-19 that contradicted their pro-lockdown approach to curbing the virus.

The article reports:

In early October, experts in biostatics, immunology, public health policy, and more signed and released the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) urging health officials to reconsider the dangerous COVID-19 lockdown policies that “will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.” Shortly after its publication, Collins emailed Fauci to orchestrate a “quick and devastating published take down” of the GBD and the doctors promoting it.

The article includes screenshots of messages between Dr. Fauci and Francis Collins discussing how to take down the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). A smear campaign against those involved in the GBD followed. Wait! I thought science was taking opposite opinions and finding the truth.

The article concludes:

Fauci also has a damning list of COVID-19 sins that he has yet to address or apologize for. In addition to moving the goalposts to suit whatever agenda keeps him on TV and in the good graces of the corporate media, reports released this year indicate that Fauci lied to members of Congress about funding for gain-of-function research, colluded with Big Tech to shut up conservatives who questioned his motives and statements, and even authorized the torture of beagles in the name of “science.” Emails obtained by corrupt members of the media who were unwilling to criticize Fauci also detailed the bureaucrat’s tendency to hide key COVID-19 information such as mask efficacy from the public to protect himself.

Collins’ and Fauci’s demands for compliance continue as the Biden administration struggles to justify its COVID-19 response amid a climbing number of virus-related deaths in the United States. As of Monday, more than 805,000 people in the U.S. had died from COVID-19.

I think it’s time for Dr. Fauci to find another job. Fear mongering to the American people is not going to work at some point.

A Professional Stating The Obvious

Despite being part of the Trump administration, Dr. Ben Carson is not a political animal. He tends to speak his mind regardless of the political winds. On Thursday, The Epoch Times posted an article about his views on the coronavirus pandemic.

The article notes:

“We’ve been having tunnel vision” dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Ben Carson told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program.

“Let’s throw the politics out. We could solve this problem pretty quickly,” he stated in an interview that will premiere on Dec. 18 at 7 p.m. New York time.

…“Let’s look around the world at things that work. Let’s look at the fact that on the western coast of Africa, there’s almost no COVID. And let’s ask ourselves, why is that? And then you see, it’s because they take antimalarials, particularly hydroxychloroquine. Let’s study that. Let’s see what’s going on there.

“Let’s listen to these physician groups who’ve had incredible success with ivermectin. Let’s look at the results with monoclonal antibodies. Let’s look at all of these things. Let’s put them all in our armamentarium so that we don’t have a one-size-fits-all system.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at one time had authorized hydroxychloroquine for treating certain COVID-19 patients but quickly revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) in June 2020, claiming no data showed its effectiveness.

The FDA hasn’t approved or issued an EUA for ivermectin to treat COVID-19, citing the same reasons.

Using hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients has been highly controversial. Some studies show, and some doctors claim, that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin can effectively treat COVID-19 patients. A vaccine confidence insight report (pdf) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) labeled such claims as misinformation or disinformation.

“COVID is a virus. Viruses mutate. That’s what they do. And they will continue to mutate,” Carson said.

Carson pointed out that fortunately, most of the time, viruses become a little weaker with each mutation.

The article concludes:

“We have a situation where you have the government advocating that children be vaccinated, even though the risk for death for a child with COVID is 0.025 percent, essentially the same as it is for seasonal flu. You don’t see us doing all this every year for seasonal flu,” Carson stated.

“The risk of mortality for a healthy child is approaching zero, and yet we’re saying do this without knowing what the long-term risks are?” he said. “And why would you subject an innocent child to a lifetime of unknown risk? It just makes absolutely no sense.

“We need to have faith in our government. We need to have faith in our health care systems. And by injecting politics into it, I think we have put ourselves behind the eight ball. It’s going to take a while to reestablish that trust,” he said.

“Why not learn how to look at what’s logical and what makes sense? And why not encourage discussion of those things, rather than everybody getting their respective corners and shooting hand grenades at each other?”

The way out is real leadership, he said.

“The only path is strong leadership. We don’t have that.”

As I have previously stated, “How many of our CDC officials and government officials own stock in pharmaceutical companies?”

Unwarranted Fear

On Friday, The Epoch Times posted an article about the Omicron variant of the coronavirus (just for the record, moronic is an anagram of Omicron).

The article reports:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has informed The Epoch Times that it has not documented any deaths from the Omicron variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19.

According to the WHO, “for Omicron, we have not had any deaths reported, but it is still early in the clinical course of disease and this may change.”

When reached for comment by The Epoch Times, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sent its report on the Omicron variant in the United States from Dec. 1 through 8. It shows that there were no documented deaths from Omicron during that period.

The WHO’s latest weekly epidemiological update for Dec. 7 showed that all 212 Omicron cases documented across eighteen European Union (EU) countries were either mild or asymptomatic.

“While South Africa saw an 82 percent increase in hospital admissions due to COVID-19 (from 502 to 912) during the week 28 November–4 December 2021, it is not yet known the proportion of these with the Omicron variant,” the report noted.

Omicron has also been detected in the United States, first in California and later in Colorado, New York, Maryland, Utah, and many other states.

The first American patient with the variant was identified in San Francisco, testing positive for COVID-19 on Nov. 29 after returning from a trip to South Africa on Nov. 22.

The article concludes:

“No one here in South Africa is known to have been [hospitalized] with the Omicron variant, nor is anyone here believed to have fallen seriously ill with it.”

More recently, Dr. Coetzee told ThePrint that Omicron symptoms have been mild in both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

“In the beginning of any wave, children and younger people are the first to be affected,” she told ThePrint. “As the wave progresses, more elderly, people with comorbidities, start getting affected. When that happens, we will know exactly how many severe cases there are.”

Viruses are serious. People who are vulnerable need to be protected and cared for. However, we do not need to go into a panic every time a new variant shows up. Every year we deal with new variants of the flu. It is not the end of the world. It’s time to end the endless panic and fear mongering.

This Infuriates Me

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article revealing that between 100 to 200 congressional reps and/or staff and families who contracted COVID-19 were treated with the Front Line Ivermectin protocol.

The article includes the following screenshot:

The article reports:

This successful treatment is happening at the same time many congressional representatives are playing politics in favor of the vaccine; downplaying the effective anti-viral treatment and therapeutic approach with Ivermectin; and taking action to block regular American citizens from seeking similar treatment with Ivermectin.

Congress can seek treatment with a medication they simultaneously deny to others?  This is well beyond a “scandal”, and needs to be investigated quickly.

Additionally, as Merck has announced a new and similar anti-viral drug called Molnupiravir, two trial studies in India have requested to exit the trials.  Apparently the issue surrounds the new drug providing no benefit once a patient is moderately ill and hospitalized (READ MORE, Reuters Link).

The article includes the following video of Dr. John Campbell highlighting a comparison between Ivermectin and Molnupiravir :

It infuriates me that ordinary Americans were denied a life-saving treatment that was used successfully by the political elite. It may be time to un-elect everyone in our government and elect ordinary citizens to replace them.

As William F. Buckley once said:

I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

I think the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory might have higher ethical standards than those we have currently entrusted with our government.

 

The Vise Tightens

The New York Post posted an article today about a recent policy instituted by a Louisiana health system.

The article reports:

An unvaccinated spouse is about to make things a whole lot more expensive for employees of one medical system in Louisiana.

Starting in 2022, workers at Ochsner Health will have to pay an extra $100 per paycheck if their spouse or domestic partner is unvaccinated, according to nola.com.

Last year, the company spent more than $9 million on caring for COVID patients it insured, Ochsner CEO Warner Thomas told the outlet.

“The reality is the cost of treating COVID-19, particularly for patients requiring intensive inpatient care, is expensive,” he wrote.

This is intrusive. I can understand (although I don’t agree with) the idea of demanding employees be vaccinated, but any inquiry into health issues of a spouse or domestic partner seems like a total overreach. What about single employees who hang out in bars or other places where they socialize (possibly with people who are not vaccinated)? This needs to be responded to with a major lawsuit.

Playing Politics With Medicine

Yesterday The Epoch Times reported that because of the Biden administration’s recent decision to ration monoclonal antibody treatments, the State of Alabama may run out of those treatments shortly.

The article reports:

The federal government’s sudden rationing of monoclonal antibody treatments, which keep Americans who get COVID-19 out of hospitals, is hitting Alabama hard, with some sites already running out of or projected to run out of supply soon.

The antibodies are highly successful at stemming the effects of COVID-19 when given to patients soon after they contract the disease, which is caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. But a huge jump in demand in recent weeks has left what some officials have described as a national shortage, triggering the federal government to intervene and start doling out what’s left.

Stringfellow and Regional Medical Center in Anniston didn’t have any of the antibodies left on Wednesday, according to Dr. Almena Free, vice president of medical affairs and chief medical officer. Other facilities in Jefferson and Huntsville counties are struggling to source enough of the treatment, Dr. David Thrasher, a pulmonary critical care physician in Montgomery, said a day later.

“Some entities are very low on product and some project running out of product over the weekend,” Dr. Karen Landers, a health officer with the Alabama Department of Public Health, told The Epoch Times in an email on Friday.

The shortage is hitting at a critical time. Intensive care unit capacity is “beyond full,” Dr. Scott Harris, Alabama’s health officer, told reporters in a Sept. 16 virtual briefing. That means there are more people in the state that require critical care than there are beds to take care of them.

COVID-19 isn’t entirely to blame, as many patients don’t have the disease. But the monoclonal antibody (mAb) shortage will likely contribute to the issue. Some 70 percent of patients who get the treatment soon after their diagnosis don’t need hospital care, according to clinical studies and experts like Thrasher.

There was no reason for the federal government to insert itself into something that was working.

The article concludes:

Some suggested getting antibodies from GSK would prove too expensive.

“At this time we have not had any requests for it and it is quite costly,” a spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Health told The Epoch Times via email.

One course of treatment costs $2,100, a GSK spokesperson told The Epoch Times. That’s the same price per dose in Regeneron’s latest two contracts with the federal government. Eli Lilly’s is about the same.

The federal government has locked up hundreds of thousands of doses of the Regeneron and Eli Lilly medicines, and GSK’s is the only other monoclonal antibody treatment authorized for use at this time in the United States. U.S. drug regulators rejected an application for emergency use authorization for a fourth drug earlier this month.

Michigan and Alabama officials told The Epoch Times that hospitals and other providers can order directly from GSK if they wish. In the meantime, the states, like many others, are scrambling to try to redistribute supply to make sure there’s enough at each facility.

I am reminded of the following quote:

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” – Milton Friedman

Does Lying To Congress Matter?

Issues & Insights posted an article today that asks a very valid question, “Report Shows Fauci Lied To Congress — So Why Does He Still Have A Job?” That is a good question.

The article reports:

COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci has steadfastly denied that he helped fund gain-of-function research at China’s now-notorious Wuhan Institute of Virology. In recent testimony before Congress, he repeatedly denied ever doing so. But a new 900-page trove of information acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that’s not true.

It’s a huge story. Unfortunately, the mainstream media have essentially ignored it. New York Times? The Washington “Democracy Dies In Darkness” Post? CNN? Sorry, couldn’t be bothered, even though a 2015 study clearly referred to such research taking place.

It took an aggressive, left-leaning online investigative reporting site, The Intercept, to do the Big Media’s work for it by digging up the FOIA material. The mountain of papers are damning, showing clearly that a nonprofit company, EcoHealth Group, channeled federal grants from the National Institute of Health and Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease to the Chinese government-run Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“The (U.S.) bat coronavirus grant provided EcoHealth Alliance with a total of $3.1 million, including $599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans,” the Intercept reported.

“Alter bat coronaviruses” is the key phrase here, since it indicates gain-of-function experimentation, which even the Obama administration had tightly restricted.

Scientists with expertise in both viral research and government grant mechanisms call the latest evidence a smoking gun. A thread of tweets by Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard E. Enbright provides further scientific insight into what was going on.

“The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful,” Enbright wrote.

Broad Institute molecular biologist Alina Chan told The Intercept that the documents also make the lab-leak theory of the COVID-19 virus even more likely.

So why is the mainstream media ignoring this story? Because their darling Dr. Fauci might be partly responsible for a virus that has seriously damaged the economy of America and may have made a stolen election possible. It’s somewhat like a mother finding out that her son has robbed a bank. Obviously there must be some mistake.

Following The Science

There are still a lot of things we don’t know about Covid-19 or the Covid-19 vaccine. However, as time goes on, the medical community is collecting statistics that will at least give us a partial picture of the disease and immunity to it.

On August 6th, Sharyl Attkisson posted an article on her website summarizing some of the research on natural immunity and vaccine immunity to Covid-19. Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is detailed and complex, but I will post a few highlights.

The article notes:

Updated Aug. 6 with CDC analysis of Kentucky (unvaccinated Kentuckians had “2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with fully vaccinated) and national analysis in Israel (vaccinated Israelis were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection). More below.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) became one of the latest high-profile figures to get sick with Covid-19, even though he’s fully vaccinated. In a statement Monday, Graham said it feels like he has “the flu,” but is “certain” he would be worse if he hadn’t been vaccinated.

While it’s impossible to know whether that’s the case, public health officials are grappling with the reality of an increasing number of fully-vaccinated Americans coming down with Covid-19 infections, getting hospitalized, and even dying of Covid. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) insists vaccination is still the best course for every eligible American. But many are asking if they have better immunity after they’re infected with the virus and recover, than if they’re vaccinated.

Increasingly, the answer within the data appears to be ”yes.”

The article included the following:

The article notes:

Unfortunately, virologists say no commonly-used test can detect with certainty whether a person is immune. A common misconception is that antibody tests can make that determination. But experts say immunity after infection or exposure often comes without a person producing or maintaining measurable antibodies.

Because of that reality, people who have had asymptomatic infections — infections where they suffered no symptoms — have no easy way to know that they’re immune. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that the millions who know they got Covid can be assured they’re unlikely to suffer reinfection, for at least as long of a time period that scientists have been able to measure. Possibly far beyond.

This is an experimental vaccine. Remember that when you make your decision as to whether or not you are going to receive the vaccine. Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with washing your hands frequently.

 

The Correct Response

There is a new outbreak of the coronavirus. It involves the ‘delta’ variant, and possibly will eventually involve the ‘lambda’ variant. Governor DeSantis of Florida has reacted quickly to the new threat and should serve as an example to other governors.

On Thursday The Epoch Times posted an article about Governor DeSantis’ response to the new outbreak of the coronavirus.

The article reports:

Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Aug. 12 that he is launching a Rapid Response Team to dispense monoclonal antibodies to tackle Florida’s rising number of COVID-19 cases and reduce serious symptoms, preventing the potential for hospital overcrowding.

“This is probably the best thing that we can do to reduce the number of people that require hospitalization,” DeSantis said at a news conference in Jacksonville, adding that vaccines were strongly encouraged and were effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths by at least 70 percent.

“Clear benefits to this early treatment is keeping people out of the hospital and reducing mortality,” he said.

DeSantis noted the experimental monoclonal antibodies developed by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals were used by President Donald Trump after he contracted the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19, in October 2020. Trump recovered in a matter of days.

A study released in April showed Regeneron’s antibody cocktail helped people recover faster after falling ill, and when given in the early stages, could prevent people from becoming sick with the virus.

Monoclonal antibody treatment is not well known, according to the governor, because it received federal emergency use authorization around the same time as the vaccines were being approved, and that the “focus rightfully was on vaccines at the time.” He said he felt that it was important to utilize this treatment alongside vaccines, and it was, in his opinion, “the most effective yet for people who are already infected.”

The monoclonal antibody treatment has the same federal emergency use authorization that the vaccine has. The Governor’s quick reaction to the recent spread of the coronavirus will probably save lives.