This campfire ghost story has been around since last March, but is revived and promoted now to maintain public anxiety and perpetuate the medical-industrial complex. Some background and background resources are in Daniel Horowitz’s Blaze article The Delta deception: New COVID variant might be less deadly. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
“This COVID variant will be the one to really get us. No, it’s this one. Well, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma weren’t a problem, but I promise you ‘the Delta’ spells the end of civilization.”
That is essentially the panic porn dressed up as science that we have been treated to ever since the virus declined in January following the winter spread, which appears to have given us a great deal of herd immunity. Despite the advent of the British and South African variants, cases, not to mention fatalities, have continued to plummet in all of the places…
Data clearly show ivermectin can prevent COVID-19 and when used early can keep patients from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease. It can even help critically ill patients recover.
In an interview with Bret Weinstein Ph.D., Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance discussed the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 and the shameful censoring of information about ivermectin.
Data clearly show ivermectin can prevent COVID-19 and when used early can keep patients from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease. It can even help critically ill patients recover.
Ivermectin has a long history of use as an antiparasitic, but its antiviral properties have been under investigation since 2012.
Studies have shown ivermectin inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses, inhibits inflammation through several pathways, lowers viral load, protects against organ damage, prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure, speeds recovery and lowers risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients.
Doctors have been told not to use ivermectin as large controlled trials are still lacking. However, once you can see from clinical evidence that something is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. In fact, this is the exact argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups and giving everyone the vaccine.
The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance recommends widespread use of ivermectin for all stages of COVID-19, including prevention.
In the video above, DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein Ph.D., interviews Dr. Pierre Kory about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 and the shameful censoring of information about ivermectin, which has been shown to be very useful against this infection.
It’s no small irony then that YouTube deleted this interview, which is why I embedded a Bitchute version. How this interview could possibly be labeled as misinformation is a mystery, considering all they do is discuss published research. Not to mention, they’re both credentialed medical science experts.
Kory, a lung and ICU specialist and former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is the president and chief medical officer of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Another founding member of FLCCC is Dr. Paul Marik who, as noted by Kory, is the most-published intensive care specialist who is still practicing medicine and seeing patients.
Marik, known for having created an effective sepsis treatment protocol, was asked by a group of peers early on in the pandemic to help create a treatment protocol for COVID-19. The resulting collaboration led to the creation of the FLCCC. Each of the five founding members has treated critical illnesses for decades and, as Weinstein says, they are “unimpeachable. You couldn’t ask for better credentials. You couldn’t ask for a better publication record.”
Yet, despite stellar credentials and being on the frontlines treating hundreds of COVID-19 patients, they have been dismissed as “kooks on the fringe, making wild-eyed claims,” Weinstein says. How can that be? Initially, the FLCCC insisted, based on the evidence, that COVID-19 was a corticosteroid-dependent disease and that corticosteroids were a crucial part of effective treatment.
“I was actually invited to give Senate testimony back in May  where I testified that it was critical to use corticosteroids; that lives are being lost [because we weren’t using it],” Kory says.
The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+ while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+, due to the addition of ivermectin.
The two protocols — I-MASK+ and I-MATH+ — are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine in mid-December 2020.
Since those early days, the FLCCC has been vindicated and corticosteroids, as well as blood thinners, are now part of the standard of care for COVID-19 in many places. The same cannot be said for the remainder of the protocols, however, including the use of ivermectin, which continues to be suppressed, despite robust clinical evidence supporting its use in all phases of COVID-19. As noted by the FLCCC:
“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
“… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”
As noted by Kory, they rather quickly realized that COVID-19 was a disease with very specific phases, and that successful treatment depended on the phase the patient was currently in. It starts out as a general viral syndrome, much like a cold or flu. Most patients recover without incidence. However, in a subset of patients, things take a turn for the worse after day five. Their oxygen level starts dropping and lung inflammation sets in.
“We now know that it’s a cell called a macrophage that gets activated and attacks the lungs,” Kory explains. “So, you have this sort of immune response that is attacking the lungs and the lungs start to fail … So, it’s predominantly a severe lung disease …
“We knew relatively early on that by the time they get to the ICU … there’s not a lot of viral replication going on. In fact, you can’t culture a virus after about day seven or eight. So, it’s actually a disease of inflammation, not viral invasion …
“So, you didn’t have to go after the virus at that point, you had to actually check the inflammation … What we think triggers [the] inflammation is actually the viral debris. It’s the RNA that triggers this massive response. It’s not the virus. It’s actually the debris of the dead virus that does it.”
Kory notes that after having treated the first handful of patients, he realized that anticoagulants, blood thinners, were needed, as there was abnormal blood clotting going on in all of them. Yet for some reason the medical community was, again, told not to do it because there were no clinical trials supporting the use of anticoagulants for a viral illness.
“It was bizarre,” Kory says. “They were like, you can’t observe, you can’t make clinical reasoning, you can’t deduce, you need a trial before you do [anything] … Everyone talks about evidence-based. I’m like, what about experience-based medicine? I’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why can’t I do what my experience tells me to do? …
“You couldn’t actually doctor. I felt like I was being handcuffed. I’ve never seen that in my life before … I have the sense that doctors have been forcibly demoted from the position of scientific clinician to technician …
“I’ve never been asked before to get advice from … desk jockeys. I mean, they’re not on the front lines … I’ve never been asked to do that before. I’ve always been asked to use the best extent of my experience and judgment and insight to best help the patient. That’s the oath I took …
“Instead we’re in this situation where if we open our mouth and say the wrong word, suddenly there are warnings appended to what we’ve said. It’s insane. It’s limiting discussion, limiting choices, limiting approaches.”
Overwhelming evidence for ivermectin
Kory spends a significant portion of the 2 1/2-hour interview reviewing the evidence for using ivermectin. This drug has a long history of use as an antiparasitic. It’s been credited with virtually eradicating onchocerciasis (river blindness), a condition caused by a parasitic worm. The drug was originally made from a soil organism found in Japan. However, as early as 2012, researchers started looking at ivermectin’s antiviral properties.
In April 2020, an Australian group showed ivermectin eradicated all viruses studied in as little as 48 hours, at least in the petri dish. Due to the state of emergency the world was in, some countries, including Peru, decided to recommend ivermectin to their population. It was well-known that the medication was safe, so the risk of doing so was very low.
As was the trend, Peruvian officials were roundly criticized for using an “unproven” remedy, and shortly thereafter, they removed it from the national guidelines. Some states continued to give it out, however, and according to Kory, each ivermectin campaign resulted in a precipitous decline in cases and deaths.
Marik was the first in the group to really take notice of the remarkable consistency in the studies using ivermectin. Kory dove into the research right behind him, and came to the conclusion that there indeed was something special about this drug. The population-based evidence was also very strong.
With regard to calls for randomized controlled trials, Kory points out that once you can see from clinical evidence that something really is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes more or less unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. In fact, this is the exact same argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.
“When I posted our preprint Nov.13, 2020, I literally thought the pandemic was over,” Kory says. “We showed the basic science level. We showed multiple clinical trials. We showed the epidemiologic effects.
“Everything was there to show that this is an intervention on the par of vaccines that could literally extinguish the pandemic, and quickly. I thought at the beginning that it was as simple as putting the evidence out there … and what happened? Crickets! Nothing happened …
“I cannot believe that this is occurring. Literally, people are dying because they don’t know about this medicine. Providers are being told not to use the medicine … And I’ve never studied a medicine which has more evidence than this …
“You have dozens of randomized controlled trials conducted by interested and committed clinicians from oftentimes low and middle income countries around the world.
And there’s no conflict of interest. None of them is going to make a million dollars by finding out that ivermectin works in COVID. None of them have a conflict of interest.”
Inhibits replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses — In “COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope,” I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours.
An observational study14 from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers, found only four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months developed mild COVID-19 symptoms between May and August 2020, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who had declined the medication.
Inhibits inflammation through several pathways.
Lowers viral load.
Protects against organ damage.
Prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure; speeds recovery and lowers risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients — The average reduction in mortality, based on 18 trials, is 75%. A WHO-sponsored review suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83%.
Ivermectin has been intentionally suppressed
As noted by Weinstein, ivermectin appears to be intentionally suppressed. It’s simply not allowed to be a go-to remedy. The obvious question is why? Don’t they want to save lives? Isn’t that why we shut down the world?
“I would have these data arguments,” Kory says. “But it’s not about the data. There’s something else. There’s [something] out there that is just squashing, distorting, suppressing the efficacy of ivermectin, and it’s egregious.”
Indeed, as noted by Weinstein, it’s not even difficult to prove that ivermectin is being suppressed and censored. Censorship of certain COVID-related information, such as ivermectin, is written into the community guidelines. You’re not allowed to talk about it. If you do, your post will be censored, shadow-banned or taken down. If you persist, your entire account will be taken down.
Mexico’s experience with ivermectin
Another population-based experiment that demonstrates ivermectin’s real-world usefulness occurred in Mexico. Kory explains:
“Mexico did something which I think is the model for the world. I think, on a public health level, it’s what every country in the world should adopt, at a minimum. They [had a] clinicians committee.
“They actually got expert clinicians [and] they gave them a seat at the table at the public health level. It’s called IMSS, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. That’s the agency which controls a good portion of their healthcare infrastructure, mostly outpatient, I think …
“In December, hospitals were filling. It was a crisis almost like in India. They decided to deploy ivermectin using a test and treat strategy. Basically, anyone who appeared at the testing booths, if you tested positive, you were given ivermectin at a reasonably low dose … 12 milligrams … and only two days’ worth. They got four pills at 3 mg each].
“And when they did that, you saw across Mexico this precipitous decline in deaths and hospitalizations. And, if you look a few months later, right now — and this is publicly available data — look at the occupancy of beds in hospitals in Mexico, throughout the entire country, we’re talking about 25% to 30% occupancy.
“There’s nobody in the hospitals in Mexico. They’ve basically decimated COVID in that country by using a test and treat strategy … Those were real public health leaders. They made a risk-benefit decision. They used their clinical judgment and expertise to have the right people at the table.”
As noted by Kory, the IMSS was attacked by the federal health minister, but they fought back, and laid out the evidence supporting their decision. This included studies showing a 50% to 75% reduction in hospitalizations using just that four-pill regimen.
As for the FLCCC, they recommend dosages between 0.2 mg and 0.4 mg per kilogram when taken at first signs of mild symptoms. For mild disease, they recommend continuing the drug for five days. For moderate disease, of if you start taking it late, they recommend continuing until you’re recovered
The in-hospital protocol involves higher doses. Keep in mind, however, that the FLCCC protocolsinclude several other remedies, not just ivermectin, so be sure to review the latest guidance.
Some regions in India have also used ivermectin. Kory believes the minister of Goa made some of the boldest moves in the world with regard to ivermectin, recommending all adults over the age of 18 to take ivermectin for five days, as a preventive. Uttar Pradesh also gave it out, while other states, such as Tamil Nadu, outlawed it. Here too, population-based data suggest ivermectin is tightly correlated with a decline in hospitalizations and deaths.
Where you can learn more
If you want to learn more about ivermectin, there are several places where you can do that, including the following:
Twelve medical experts from around the world — including Kory — shared their knowledge, reviewing mechanisms of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.
An easy-to-read and print one-page summary of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website.
A more comprehensive, 31-page review of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.
The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section where Kory and Marik answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use.
As noted by Lawrie during her closing address at the 2021 International Ivermectin for COVID Conference:
“The story of Ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed.
“The story of Ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.
“Had Ivermectin being employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end …
“With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors, have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.
“At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose, will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care?
“The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.”
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
Background: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. Areas of uncertainty: We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion. Therapeutic Advances: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n 5 2438; I2 5 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,”
The findings indicate with moderate certainty that ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit. Our certainty of evidence judgment was consolidated by the results of trial sequential analyses, which show that the required IS has probably already been met. Low-certainty evidence on improvement and deterioration also support a likely clinical benefit of ivermectin. Low-certainty evidence suggests a significant effect in prophylaxis. Overall, the evidence also suggests that early use of ivermectin may reduce morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. This is based on (1) reductions in COVID-19 infections when ivermectin was used as prophylaxis, (2) the more favorable effect estimates for mild to moderate disease compared with severe disease for death due to any cause, and (3) on the evidence demonstrating reductions in deterioration.
If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!(Psst: The FTC wants me to remind you that this website contains affiliate links. That means if you make a purchase from a link you click on, I might receive a small commission. This does not increase the price you’ll pay for that item nor does it decrease the awesomeness of the item. ~ Daisy)
“We have lost our minds. We have said goodbye to any semblance of rationality or assessment of data and said hello to illogical alarmism. A virus we should have been diligent and cautious about has turned into a virus we should fear, give up our liberty for, and fundamentally alter our lives to avoid.” – Alyssa Algren
After sharing the link on my Facebook page people commented things like “Ew, quackery” and various anti-Ivermectin/pro-vaccination comments. It is important to note that the people criticizing the study didn’t read it because, hey, why bother? Everyone has an (uninformed) opinion these days, and they aren’t afraid to show it.
Believe science has become a comforting social media slogan amid the past year’s chaos, but this platitude has an undertone that runs contrary to the true spirit of scientific inquiry. All too often believe science means obey authority and is used as a way to shut down debate. Science is assumed to reign supreme.
Question. Every. Thing.
Science is asking questions, observing, experimenting, hypothesizing, and testing. Science is continuous learning and acquiring new knowledge. It is never “finished” or “settled.” Science gathers data and evaluates it to form and refine theories. What is believed to be “truth” today does not guarantee contradictory evidence will present tomorrow.
For the past year and a half, we have received conflicting and contradictory information regarding the virus. (To be expected during an ever-changing event involving a new and unfamiliar pathogen.) However, “experts” are permitted to change the narrative as things progress. Meanwhile, the rest of us are expected to “trust” their guidance. Questions and skepticism are discouraged.
In What If We’re Wrong? evolutionary biologist and author Dr. Heather Heying poses the following questions:
What if SARS-CoV2 leaked from a lab?
What if there are long-term effects of mRNA vaccines?
What if Ivermectin is safe and effective as both a prophylaxis against and a treatment for COVID-19?
These are reasonable questions worthy of exploration to seek answers.
Big Tech’s Big Desire to Silence Dissent
Dr. Heying points out, those who ask questions like the ones above are called conspiracy theorists, “and worse”:
Our intentions have been questioned. We have been told to keep quiet. Some have self-censored, and others have been brought to heel by Big Tech. The powers that be at Google, for instance, had an official policy as of May 2021, which includes this line: “YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.”
This policy fundamentally misunderstands science—local health authorities and the WHO can be wrong, as can we all. Being wrong is no crime (although prevaricating to further your own agenda when lives are on the line is tantamount to one). Shutting down the voices of those who question your conclusions—while not criminal—is antithetical to science.
When scientific thinking and a careful analysis of the scientific literature leads to a different conclusion than the declarations of the authorities, what path does #followthescience suggest? Science does not operate by authority, but #followthescience is being used as a bludgeon to silence people into compliance. Freedom of expression is required if science is to function. Those who are engaging in silencing are doing neither science, nor humanity, any favours.
YouTube’s Official Policy Could Sacrifice Global Health
YouTube’s official “COVID-19 medical misinformation policy” further prohibits any claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. This despite abundant evidence that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19, including from countries where it was already in widespread prophylactic use against other pathogens.
If the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, suggested by many peer-reviewed scientific papers, is borne out, YouTube will be revealed to have been playing a very dangerous game indeed. How much health—individual and economic—will be sacrificed globally on this altar? It’s censorship in science’s clothing. Look closely, and you will find that this has little to do with science. A censor wearing a lab coat is still a censor, and censorship is fundamentally incompatible with science.
Furthermore, even if Ivermectin proves to be little help against COVID-19, the game being played by those who stand opposed to free expression is still dangerous. Policies like that of YouTube, which quash discussion and silence debate, pretend to be pro-science, but they are the opposite. This is a new orthodoxy stamping out heterodoxy, yet again.
YouTube is Not the Only Platform Engaged in Information Suppression
Facebook has slapped various warnings and disclaimers on posts that dare to mention Covid. Write a post containing the V words (virus, vaccines, vaccination), and drugs like Ivermectin and you will receive warning.
However, Facebook also slaps those warnings on posts with NOTHING to do with Covid. I experienced this last month because of a post I wrote that had nothing to do with the virus, vaccines, or Ivermectin. Or ANYTHING related to the pandemic, for that matter. The platform attached a warning to my post anyway.
So, I wrote a post about Facebook putting a warning on a non-Covid post. Warnings were also applied to that post. If it weren’t so disturbing, it would be amusing:
Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC Alliance) shares information on various Covid-19 treatment protocols. The Alliance has been doing so since March 2020. The FLCCC was formed by “a group of highly published, world-renowned Critical Care physician/scholars – with the academic support of allied physicians from around the world – to research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness.”
So either it isn’t safe, and Merck has no problem sending unsafe medications to third-world countries. Or it is safe, and Merck intentionally tries to hide a potentially effective treatment for COVID from the world.
Wait. There’s a Bit More to the Story.
Merck may have a financial interest in hiding Ivermectin’s safety and effectiveness. Why? Because Merck has developed and subsequently entered into a supply agreement with the US government for Molupiravir, an “investigational oral antiviral” drug.
Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today announced it has entered into a procurement agreement with the United States government for molnupiravir (MK-4482). Molnupiravir is currently being evaluated in a Phase 3 clinical trial, the MOVe-OUT study, for the treatment of non-hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and at least one risk factor associated with poor disease outcomes. Merck is developing molnupiravir in collaboration with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics.
“Merck is pleased to collaborate with the U.S. government on this new agreement that will provide Americans with COVID-19 access to molnupiravir – an investigational oral therapy being studied for outpatient use early in the course of disease – if it is authorized or approved,” said Rob Davis, president, Merck. “In addition to this agreement with the U.S. government, we are actively engaged in numerous efforts to make molnupiravir available globally to fulfill Merck’s commitment to widespread access.”
Through the agreement, if molnupiravir receives Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Merck will receive approximately $1.2 billion to supply approximately 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir to the United States government. Merck has been investing at risk to support development and scale-up production of molnupiravir and expects to have more than 10 million courses of therapy available by the end of 2021.
Are the people that shame, pressure, and bribe with “freebie incentives” (beer, donuts, mixed drinks, cheesecakes, and other unhealthy “rewards”) aware that safer treatments/preventatives exist? (Ivermectin) And are those people aware of the dangers associated with vaccines?
I’d say it’s likely that they are.
Breakthrough Cases Among the Vaccinated
The CDC stopped counting “breakthrough cases” (cases of infection in vaccinated individuals) unless severe disability or death occurred. Only 45% of the eligible population is fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. There was a spike in the vaccination rate in April. Since then, doses given have dramatically decreased, as shown in this graph from the CDC.
From The New York Times article: Many scientists agree: Collecting more data is always preferable to collecting less. “The virus is constantly changing, and we need to stay three steps ahead of it,” said Michael Kinch, an immunologist and associate vice-chancellor of the Centers for Research Innovation in Biotechnology at Washington University in St. Louis.
“What if a variant arises that is less responsive or, Lord forbid, unresponsive to the vaccines?” he said. “The way you stop it is good old-fashioned epidemiology, which the C.D.C. has historically done very well. But if you don’t see it coming, you can’t stop it.”
The Mainstream Is Getting on Board a Little Tiny Bit
A couple of things have recently appeared in more mainstream outlets that suggest – maybe – just maybe – Ivermectin works. This one on Yahoo refers to it as a “cheap hair lice pill from the UK” as though it hasn’t been readily available across the US for years. This article from a less mainstream source suggests the suppression of Ivermectin is nothing less than criminal.
How many dead loved ones might have lived if we’d actually “followed the science?”
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Backlogged
VAERS, a notoriously difficult system used to classify vaccine injuries as what they are, was backlogged back in May. VAERS only covers the United States and the reports represent a fraction of actual adverse reactions. The backlog got to the point where many people reported issues with the system itself, receiving error messages, reports failing to submit, etc.
There are many limitations to obtaining accurate up-to-date information from VAERS. First, VAERS website data is almost never current — reported adverse events and deaths are often backlogged, rarely entered in a timely fashion. In fact, the website even details its own limitations: “The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines… data are subject to limitations of under-reporting, reporting bias, and lack of incidence rates in unvaccinated comparison groups.” VAERS cannot demonstrate causation. Despite these known limitations, VAERS is the only vaccine adverse event reporting system available to the public.
9 New Vaccine Billionaires
Despite available potential treatments for COVID and the drastic number of vaccine injuries from the COVID vaccine, the shot fundamentally created a new billionaire class out of developers, manufacturers, and sellers of the vaccines.
A new report shows the global push to develop a vaccine for COVID-19 has spawned nine new “vaccine billionaires” who have amassed a combined net wealth of $19.3 billion.
The author of the report, People’s Vaccine Alliance, said the pharmaceutical industry’s monopoly on COVID vaccines has generated a massive increase in wealth for a handful of people.
In addition to the nine new “vaccine billionaires,” the coalition of health and humanitarian organizations, world leaders, and economists said “eight existing billionaires — who have extensive portfolios in the COVID-19 vaccine pharma corporations — have seen their combined wealth increase by $32.2 billion.”
Here’s a List of the 9 Billionaires
The article lists the 9 Vaccine Billionaires and their current net worth in billions. (B)
Qiu Dongxu – Co-founder | Senior Vice President CanSino Biologics: $1.2 B
Mao Huihua – Co-founder | Senior Vice President CanSino Biologics: $1 B
Ivermectin is one of several potentially safe and effective treatments for COVID known to the scientific community. But, for the reason cited above, no one else knows. Monopolies upon monopolies. It is astounding how much money a corporation makes when masses of consumers are terrified or forced into buying its products.
We should be enraged over how many people may have died because of a coordinated and deliberate effort to suppress research that did not benefit Big Pharma and a forcible vaccine agenda.
The Brave New World is here. It is time for Americans to take a stand before it is too late. The door of opportunity will soon close.
Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of a professional journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.
In October 2019, right before the world got hit by the biggest global pandemic since 1918 (the Spanish flu), a ranking of 195 countries on their preparedness to deal with a global pandemic was published, and the numbers 1 and 2 (top scorers) on it were two countries that turned out actually to be among the world’s worst on dealing with this new coronavirus. #1 was U.S., and #2 was UK. #3 was Netherlands. By contrast, New Zealand, which turned out to have had the best performance among all of the wealthy or high-per-capita-GDP countries, scored only #35 on it, while two of the world’s very best-performing countries at protecting their respective publics from this global pandemic, Vietnam and China, scored respectively #50 and #51, below 49 countries, all of which 49 other countries turned out to have had actually far higher proportions of their respective national populations come down with the disease and die from it.
The world’s worst-performer in the actual pandemic (according to what has been, since the pandemic’s start, the most accurate reporter on such figures) turned out to have been tiny Andorra, with a population of only 77 thousand people, but amongst countries with a population of 10 million or more, the two worst performers turned out to have been Czech Republic, where 15.6% of the population became diagnosed with the disease, and Sweden, where 10.7% did. The top scorer in the bogus October 2019 rankings, U.S., turned out to have been actually the 15th-worst (among all 195 ranked countries), at 10.4% having the disease. The #2 scorer, UK, turned out to have been actually the 48th-worst, at 7.2% having it. The #3 scorer, Netherlands, was the world’s 19th-worst, at 9.8% having it. By contrast, in New Zealand, only one person in 1,818 came down with the disease; while, in Vietnam, only one person in 5,076 did; and, in China, only one person in 15,625 did. (All of these numbers, of actual cases, that I am reporting in this article, are as-of 4 July 2021, at that most-reliable of all sites that are reporting the covid-19 numbers: www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries. I have not been getting my numbers from Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, the site that U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media use.)
The name of the October 2019, bogus-‘scientific’, ranking, was “Global Health Security Index 2019”, and it was produced by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and: “The NTI, JHU, and EIU project team — with generous grants from the Open Philanthropy Project, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Robertson Foundation — worked with an international advisory panel of 21 experts from 13 countries to create a detailed and comprehensive framework of 140 questions, organized across 6 categories, 34 indicators, and 85 subindicators to assess a country’s capability to prevent and mitigate epidemics and pandemics.” The rankings start on page 20 of the pdf, and page 19 of the document. Here are its top 10 scoring countries, in order: U.S., UK, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Thailand, Sweden, Denmark, South Korea, and Finland. All are U.S.-and-allied. The countries that are at the opposite end of the JHU rankings tend, by contrast, to be countries that the U.S.-and-allied countries condemn, sanction, and invade. (For example: Syria is one of them, and its ranking was #188 out of 195; but, in the actual figures on covid-19 performance, it has been the world’s 39th-best out of 222 countries, at 1,424 cases per million residents, or one case per 702 residents.)
Any ranking-system that after-the-fact has produced rankings that would have been more accurate if they had been exactly reversed, should be abandoned and never relied upon, except by propagandists. They are not scientific, but more like the opposite. ‘Errors’ that are of such extreme magnitude are virtually never scientific, and ought not to be treated as if they were, or had been. They cannot reasonably be assumed to have been errors.
Profit over people? What if the very industry tasked with ensuring proper healthcare was more interested in perpetually treating diseases than it was in curing them? A new report reveals how unfortunately true this notion really is.
A new report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has concluded that widespread pharma industry influence is jeopardizing the integrity of medical research and education, as well as threatening the quality of patient care.
As we have pointed out many times over the years, the pharma industry is the biggest barrier to health. Collectively making more than one trillion dollars a year from treating diseases, drug companies essentially aren’t interested in preventing or curing them. Their main interest is in ensuring they continue to exist. Across the world, it is clear that growing numbers of people now understand this.
In a recent example, a Gallup poll published in September 2019 found that pharma is now viewed as the worst industry in the United States. And in March 2019, Dutch bank ASN stopped investing in some of the world’s largest drug companies, accusing them of ‘unethical behavior’ and stating that investing in them is ‘no longer responsible’. The impact of harms caused by drugs was stressed throughout the bank’s report.
Doctors’ prescribing habits are influenced by drug reps and other industry marketing.
While there’s much to celebrate in medicine, it’s now beyond doubt that we have too much of it. Too many tests, diagnoses, pills and procedures are wasting resources that could be better spent meeting genuine need.
As a recent OECD report concluded, up to one-fifth of health spending may be wasted, and many patients “unnecessarily harmed” by treatments they didn’t need.
Antidepressants, for example, can be life-savers for some people. But drug company-funded studies have overplayed their benefits and downplayed their harms, contributing to overuse and unnecessary side effects.
Today in The BMJ a global group of researchers, doctors, editors, regulators and advocates outline key strategies to reduce the financial entanglement with industry. The first step is ensuring the evaluation of any new tests, treatments and technologies are free from industry influence.
Distorted research, education and clinical practice
A huge proportion of medical research is currently funded by industry—in the United States almost 60%. Yet there’s a mountain of evidence that company-sponsored studies tend to overstate product benefits and playdown harms.
One example is cholesterol-lowering drugs, or statins. A review analyzing almost 200 studies of statins found that company-sponsored studies were much more likely to find results favorable to the sponsors’ drug.
There’s similar distortion with devices, like pelvic mesh, used to treat pelvic organ prolapse. In this case, poor testing meant many women received the mesh without knowing the risks of horrendous harms, including severe pain, infection, and repeated surgery.
As a study of 280,000 doctors reveals, accepting just one sponsored meal is associated with higher prescribing of the sponsor’s products: a 20% increase in statins, and a doubling of antidepressants.
Industry argues it’s information helps patients, but a systematic review found differently. Doctors who accept marketing, including sales representatives, tend to prescribe more, at higher cost, and lower quality, such as prescribing an inappropriate drug, or prescribing that is not in line with guidelines.
Just look at the opioid epidemic in the United States. One study found the amount of marketing, including payments to doctors, was associated with small but significant increases in both prescriptions and deaths from overdose.
On Sunday, it was reported that the Health Ministry of Israel will recommend immunocompromised Israelis take a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, even though the pharmaceutical company has not yet sanctioned the booster shot. Immunocompromised individuals include organ transplant recipients and cancer patients. On Monday, however, the Health Ministry clarified that “there is no recommendation or decision at this stage to vaccinate the general public in Israel with a third dose.” But that is coming. We have already been told by the ruling class we need to expect a third shot to be pushed, probably around the autumn and into winter when cold and flu season kicks up.
Israel has declared that the COVID-19 experimental gene therapy shots are “less effective” against the “delta variant” so the country is now suggesting its residents get a third shot. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine appears to largely prevent hospitalization and serious cases but is significantly less effective against preventing the spread of the Delta variant of the coronavirus.
Did you catch what it “prevents”? It prevents hospitalization and serious cases. That’s it. Meaning you can still get it and pass it on to others if anything these sociopaths say can be believed. Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 has dropped by some 30 percent to 64%, given the spread of the Delta variant. The data shows that during May, when the strain was less prevalent, the vaccine was 94.3% effective, according to The Times of Israel.
Another article says that the Pfizer vaccine is “losing its effectiveness amid delta surge.” The means that as this COVID-19 virus changes and mutates, the vaccines are not working, meaning you will need an endless supply of shots whenever they decide to fear monger with a new variant.
The delta variant is taking the blame for the “vaccines” being ineffective right now. Head medical tyrant, Dr. Anthony Fauci, also made a baseless claim that over 99% of delta variant hospital deaths are in the unvaccinated. He said it, offered not one shred of evidence to back it up, and every mainstream media outlet reported on that invented statistic, and there is yet to surface any evidence to back up that lie. These people are the masters of deception:
There is not readily available data to look into and even if there was, we know what lengths they will go to to make up statistics that fit their narrative.
The fact that they have lied repeatedly and fabricated statistics from the beginning is more than enough evidence to call Fauci a liar until hard evidence surfaces. You want evidence he’s not lying? Me too. But we simply don’t have it. Perhaps those pesky unvaccinated people going out and living their lives are conveniently dying of car accidents and heart attacks, just like at the onslaught of this massive scamdemic.
On Sunday, it was reported that the Health Ministry of Israel will recommend immunocompromised Israelis take a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, even though the pharmaceutical company has not yet sanctioned the booster shot. Immunocompromised individuals include organ transplant recipients and cancer patients. On Monday, however, the Health Ministry clarified that “there is no recommendation or decision at this stage to vaccinate the general public in Israel with a third dose.”
But that is coming. We have already been told by the ruling class we need to expect a third shot to be pushed, probably around the autumn and into winter when cold and flu season kicks up.
G. Edward Griffin answers the questions of Where does money come from? Where does money go? Who makes money? The money magicians’ secrets are unveiled. We get a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money. Recorded in 1994 with more elaboration on the Fed by G. Edward Griffin.
“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”
This is a House of Rothschilds maxim, widely attributed to banking tycoon Mayer Amschel Rothschild in 1838 and said to be a founding principle for the highly corrupt banking and political system we have today.
Along with the Rockefellers, the Rothschild dynasty is estimated to be worth well over a trillion dollars.
How are these powerful families linked to the ongoing crisis of global wealth inequality, why are so many people unaware of their existence, and why doesn’t Forbes ever mention them in their annual list of the world’s wealthiest people?
Global Wealth Inequality Is Out Of Control, And It’s No Accident
In January 2014, Oxfam announced that the richest 85 people on the planet share a combined wealth of $110 trillion. The figure was based on Forbes’s rich list 2013, and it equates to 65 times the total wealth of the entire bottom half (3.5 billion) of the world’s population. While some deluded commentators welcomed this as “fantastic news,” the rest of us were disgusted.
Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam’s executive director, said at the time: “It is staggering that in the 21st Century, half of the world’s population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all fit comfortably on a double-decker bus.”
Two months later, following Oxfam’s calculation and having published the new 2014 rich list, Forbes journalist Kasia Morena did some fact-checking. She found that the number of billionaires owning the same as the poorest 3.5 billion had dropped from 85 to 67: which demonstrates an enormous widening of the global inequality gap in just one year.
Fast-forward to 2015, and another Oxfam investigation. The anti-poverty charity warned in January that if nothing is done to tackle global wealth inequality- by forcing corporations to pay their taxes and closing off-shore tax havens, for example- the richest 1% will own more than everybody else in the world combined by 2016.
In a paper called Wealth: Having it all and wanting more, Oxfam outlined how the richest 1 percent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, and will likely surpass 50% in 2016. Winnie Byanyima again warned that the explosion in inequality is holding back the fight against global poverty at a time when one in nine people do not have enough to eat, and more than a billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day.
The organization also outlined how 20 percent of billionaires around the world have interests in the financial and insurance sectors, a group that saw their cash wealth increase by 11 percent in the last 12 months.
Billionaires listed as having interests in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors saw their collective net worth increase by 47 percent, and the industry spent more than $500 million lobbying policy makers in Washington and Brussels in 2013 alone.
“Do we really want to live in a world where the one percent own more than the rest of us combined?” Byanyima asked. “The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering, and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast.”
Meet The People Who Own 50% (And Counting) Of The World’s Wealth
Here is Forbes’s (real-time) list of the 66 billionaires who (officially) own half of all global assets, and will soon own more than the rest of Earth’s seven billion population combined. They range from CEOs of large corporations to oil and gas tycoons and Silicon valley entrepreneurs.
But where are the world’s Royal families? And more to the point, where are the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers?
These two families have an unimaginable amount of wealth that surpasses the trillion mark- they are the only trillionaires in the world, and yet they are missing from Forbes’s list every single year, along with the handful of other men commonly believed to own our politicians, our media, our corporations, our scientists, and even our money supply.
Five of the most powerful and wealthiest men in the world belong to the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties. How much power do they hold, and why do we hear so little of them?
The Rothschild And Rockefeller Dynasties: With Great Power Comes Great Secrecy
Forbes’s rich list doesn’t include members of Royal families or dictators who hold their wealth through a position of power, or who control the riches of their country.
In this way, the real people pulling the strings are able to work in absolute secrecy without any media attention at all (unless it is carefully-constructed positive propaganda, like this article on the philanthropy of the Rothschilds, of course).
Forbes’s policy to exclude heads of state from the rich list explains why the Queen of England is absent, although nobody has the slightest idea of her wealth in any case: her shareholdings remain hidden behind Bank of England Nominee accounts.
As the Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002: ‘The reason for the wild variations in valuations of her private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments…Her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money. Unlike [British politicians and Lords], the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests…’
The same can be said for the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers, whose European forebears were richer than any Royal family at the time. The families are believed to have set up and own the Federal Reserve (G Edward Griffin’s The Creature From Jekyll Island and this research by journalist Dean Henderson are recommended reading if you want to get deeper into this topic).
Could this be why the families, whose power in manipulating global affairs for the past few hundred years cannot be underestimated, are protected by Forbes’s ‘don’t even go there’ policy?
Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who’s Who of the Global Elite, was apparently told in 1998 that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family was approx $11 trillion and the Rothschilds $100 trillion… what might that figure have reached 17 years later?
One can hardly begin to imagine, but maybe money isn’t the most important thing to your average trillionaire, anyway…
“The only problem with wealth is, what do you do with it?” was a rhetorical question posed by none other than John D. Rockefeller. Well, if Aaron Russo’s testimony is to be believed, all the Rockefeller riches in the world certainly won’t be used to benefit the human race…
Russo’s Rockefeller Revelations: False Flags, Power Grabs, And An Enslaved Population
Russo, a film-maker and activist who directed America: From Freedom to Fascism, claimed that Nick Rockefeller told him about ‘an event that would allow us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq’ some eleven months before 9/11, and foretold the fact that the ‘War on Terror’ would be a hoax wherein soldiers would be looking in caves for non-existent enemies (see video).
In the interview, Russo claims that he first met lawyer Nick Rockefeller after being introduced by a mutual attorney friend.
The two men hit it off, and later down the line Rockefeller apparently confided in Russo privately what his family had planned for the world: never-ending war, global population reduction, economic collapse, widespread chaos and disorder on such a scale that people would actually welcome the ultimate ‘solution’: a one-world government.
He was speaking in October 2000, and most of his predictions have now come to pass- including 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror.
Russo claimed that Rockefeller asked him to be on the Council For Foreign Relations (CFR), but the man who spent his career fighting for freedom and exposing the Fed Reserve supposedly told Rockefeller that he couldn’t possibly go along with these sinister plans for mankind.
“As much as I like you Nick, I don’t believe in enslaving people. We’re on opposite sides of the fence,” Russo told Nick. To which Rockefeller apparently replied: “Why do you care about those people? Take care of your own life; do the best you can for you and your family.” Russo concludes: “There was just a lack of caring; it was just cold.”
He goes on, “I used to say what’s the point, Nick? You have all the money in the world, you have all the power in the world, whats the end goal?” Rockefeller is said to have responded bluntly: “To get everyone chipped.” According to this theory, the families who own the banking system are bored of their wealth, it is no longer enough. To control society itself is the ultimate end-game.
According to Russo, Rockefeller told him that a global government would slowly phase out paper money from circulation, with its eventual aim being to microchip the population, turning us all into slaves of the NWO.
These are wild claims indeed, and from a journalistic point of view, they cannot be verified one way or the other. But it’s worth noting that just before Russo died in August 2007, he filmed a moving message to all Americans.
In it, he talked about how vital it is for people to continue to resist national ID cards and microchips, and fight for their individual freedoms against those who would enslave us. It’s also worth pointing out that it’s not only activists like Russo and scare-mongering patriots like Alex Jones who have tried to ‘out’ the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.
The problem is, all those who do so are silenced.
Ashley Mote, a member of the European Parliament serving British independence party UKIP, asked the following question in Brussels, and retribution was swift:
“Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to the Global Security Fund, set up in the early 1990s under the auspices of Jacob Rothschild. This is a Brussels-based fund and it is no ordinary fund: it does not trade, it is not listed and it has a totally different purpose. It is being used for geopolitical engineering purposes, apparently under the guidance of the intelligence services.
“I have previously asked about the alleged involvement of the European Union’s own intelligence resources in the management of slush funds in offshore accounts, and I still await a reply. To that question I now add another: what are the European Union’s connections to the Global Security Fund and what relationship does it have with European Union institutions?”
This is exactly the kind of question the European public would like an answer to. Yet Mote did not receive one.
Instead, the 79 year old politician was sacked from his own party, and later arrested and sent to jail for allegedly claiming false expenses during his time as an MEP.
Mote claimed throughout his trial that he was ‘targeted for being anti-Europe’, and said the money he claimed was used to pay third-party whistleblowers in a quest to uncover corruption and fight for democracy and transparency in European politics.
Like everything else relating to the people who really run the show, the truth is out there… but it’s almost impossible to pin down.
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone