COVID-19
Emergency of Under-Treatment – Panel of 8 prominent doctors and scientists say earlier treatment is the only way out of health emergency

Roundtable Media was launched in June, 2021 by Brock Pierce, James Heckman and David Bailey. The Digital Media and Bitcoin Pioneers are setting out to finance and distribute the work of hundreds of the world’s top journalists, activists and news producers. Click here for more information about the Roundtable Media venture.
This discussion was moderated by Rob Nelson, a former Executive Producer/Anchor with ABC, FOX, UPN, E! and A&E. Click here to see the biography of Rob Nelson, as well as the principle members of Rountable Media.
Unfortunately Youtube keeps taking down the video. We will check periodically and load the actual video when/if it comes up again. You can see it at this link.
In the meantime, the transcript is attached.
Panelists included Dr. Robert Malone, Inventor of mRNA technology, Dr. Ryan Cole, Mayo Clinic-trained, board certified pathologist who has diagnosed 300,000 patients, Dr. Pierre Kory, M.D, M.P.A, a Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist and President, Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, leader in intensive care and author of medical student textbooks used across the world. Kory has influenced the standard of care for COVID and given US Senate testimony.
Also on the panel were Dr. Richard Latell, a Family practice doctor, Dr. Heather Gessling, MD, FABFM, a Hospital Chief of staff that has been working with children and families around COVID since the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Mark MacDonald, Psychiatrist, Dr. Brian Tyson, who has possibly treated more COVID patients than anyone in the world, seeing over 6,000 of them, Dr. Richard Urso, an Ophthalmologist and inventor of FDA-Approved wound healing drug and an eye surgeon with one of the largest clinics in the country and has spent the last year and a half deep in COVID, Mathew Crawford, a Biomedical statistician with Metaprep Education Group and Moderator Rob Nelson.
Moderator: We are seeing a spread of Delta right now. Officials say we’re all going to get Delta. Should we be scared? Is Delta upon us? Are we in a permanent pandemic right now?
Dr. Richard Urso, MD FAAO: It’s like the same song, second verse. We’re going to keep seeing variants. It’s normal. I don’t expect that to change. We’re vaccinating in a very narrow framework. And so when you vaccinate just the spike, you’re going to get variants because we are doing very specific treatments, what you’re seeing now in the Delta variant is you’re seeing the same thing. Just a small change will allow the virus to mutate and get around that and you’re going to see this happen over and over again.
Moderator: Dr. Malone, We’re seeing all these variants and I think the question people often ask is, why?
Dr. Malone: This is really controversial. There’s a lot of discussion that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated and the unvaccinated are the ones that are driving these escape mutants. That from a fundamental evolutionary standpoint, as a molecular virologist, doesn’t make sense. This virus now is known to mutate and throw off mutants at a much higher rate than we expected it to be. So there are very many mutants. The virus is evolving very rapidly. This is akin to what happens if you overuse antibiotics. So in sum, what we’re doing with universal vaccination is driving towards this end point of vaccine resistant mutants. We don’t have to.
Moderator: So it sounds like we’re on the defensive. We’re trying to defensively vaccinate our way out of something that we’re already deeply in.
Dr. Cole: Here’s my optimistic view on Delta. Yes. Delta’s new, it’s shaped differently. Technically it has escaped the antibodies from the vaccine. So we give a shot, give another shot and say, we’re going to give a booster with the same shot for a virus that existed five variants ago. It’s like saying to healthcare workers, we’re going to give you a flu shot for the upcoming flu season, but we have leftover flu vaccines from four or five years ago in the freezer. Illogical, no common sense in that whatsoever. So the variant has escaped it. And if you use a vaccine only approach you select for these variants, my optimistic point is Delta is a wildfire. A lot of people are going to get it. If you look at countries that handled it right, the death rates from Delta in most countries were far lower from this variant than other variants. So I want to give that optimistic message. Does it mean people aren’t going to get sick, not be hospitalized, not going to die? No, it doesn’t mean that, but what we do need to look at, is early treatments because if you’ve been vaccinated, I think scientifically we need to be 100% honest with everybody and say, even if you’re vaccinated or you’re not. We can get the virus now, vaccinated or not. And the vaccinated can carry equal or higher viral loads.
Dr. Kory: This path that we’re on, which is this sort of monolithic vaccine only strategy. We’re explaining the science, why that can’t be the only solution. We can not vaccinate ourselves out of this problem. The positive that I want to say is that there we know of strategies. They’re actually largely being ignored and suppressed. And I don’t want to sound conspiratorial about this, but the reason why is because there’s still a firmly held belief that the vaccines will solve this. The evidence that you just articulated is that it’s becoming increasingly clear that that’s not true. And so my hopes are that more and more attention is going to be paid to the other strategies, which have so far been ignored, which is that of early treatment. Especially now that the vaccinated are getting sick. Many of the vaccinated, many people were led to believe that if you get your vaccine, we’re going to end this thing. You don’t have to worry about it. You can carry on with your lives. But guess what, we’re talking about variants. My colleagues are now talking about even scarier variants that are coming. And so we need more tools to fight this. We need more weapons to fight this. And guess what the positive message is. We have them. And I’ll tell you the strategies that we have are independent of the variants. They can handle any variant that comes at us. We just need to get that message out.
Moderator: None of you are against vaccinations in general, meaning the idea of vaccinating, you probably all have vaccinations. Your kids have vaccinations, your family, right? Is that a fair statement?
Dr. Cole: That’s a fair statement. I’ve had all my childhood vaccines as have my children. I’ve had plenty of military vaccines back in the day. I’m not anti-vaccine, never have been, but I am pro good science. And right now there’s science that’s very questionable with something that’s very quick and we’re seeing things that we’ve never seen before. So I’m hesitant in this regard.
Dr. Malone: I think that the vaccines need to be used intelligently. That’s my objection. And as Dr. Cole has mentioned this set of vaccines that we have right now, Moderna, Pfizer and J & J, they’re all gene therapy based vaccines. And they all have a common problem. They only have one antigen: the spike antigen. And when they were developing them, they didn’t realize that spike was biologically active–no fault of theirs. Everybody was in a rush. It was the fog of war and they made decisions on the fly. But now it’s time to take a breath and say, ‘Hey, does this really make sense? And where does it make sense?’ We don’t have to be just left or right. Pro or anti-vaccine, there’s a middle ground. And I’m suggesting, and I think we all are aligned that what we’re talking about is intelligent deployment, strategic and tactical deployment of vaccines. We, as a community, need to protect these people at high risk, not just here in our community, in our states, in my opinion, we need to protect the elders throughout the world. We don’t need to hoard all the vaccine for people that don’t really need it. We need to make it available across the world for all cultures, for those people that are at very high risk.
Moderator: Dr. McDonald, you’ve talked a lot about fear and about how you feel the pandemic has created almost an incurable fear.
Dr. McDonald: I think fear has really been the driving force of this pandemic from the very beginning. I said, as early as may of 2020, that we’re not in a medical pandemic, we’re in a fear of pandemic. I think that it is evolved. However, a bit beyond fear. I think that what’s driving the fear now is propaganda.
Moderator: Your point is it’s really messed kids up. And that struck me the first time I heard you say that, that, that kids, unlike adults, don’t just bounce back. That’s your point kids. And you said, you think an entire generation of kids has been screwed by this, that they will not get their psychological health back, which is really depressing. If that’s true.
Dr. McDonald: I work with children. I see kids all day long. I’m a child psychiatrist. This is happening all the time. Every day in my practice. My concern is that the developmental stage that children need to go through: babies. toddlers, young adults, is being foreclosed on them. Brown university department of pediatrics published a study two weeks ago that found that babies born after January 1st, 2020, which is when this whole pandemic started, have a IQ point drop of 20 points compared to babies born before January 1st, 2020. That’s huge. Why? They don’t see faces. They don’t play, they don’t have exposure to friends. They don’t go to school. They’re basically locked in their homes, looking at their parents for a year and a half. And their brains have not developed. My concern is that we are building a generation of young people who are so traumatized that they will never fully recover from this. And even if we give them therapy and treatment, they’re always going to be damaged. They’re always going to be scarred emotionally. I don’t mean for it to be depressing. I mean, for it to be alarming so that everyone can finally say “stop.” We’ve got to stop the damage and then figure out what to do about it.
Moderator: What does the damage to you guys actually mean?
Dr. Heather Gessling: I’ll speak to that. I think stopping the damage means to acknowledge what we have done wrong. I think that we should reverse all of the measures that have been implemented. I feel like patients, families, and parents should take it upon themselves to feel empowered. We need to get back to the basics because we’ve done this wrong for so long. It’s been so damaging. One of the books that I had in medical school and that we all had in medical school was Harrison’s principles of internal medicine. This is basic medicine. This is what we have forgotten. “Many specific host factors, (That’s us) influence the likelihood of acquiring an infectious disease, age, immunization history, prior illnesses, level of nutrition, pregnancy status, coexisting illnesses, and perhaps emotional state all have some impact on the risk of infection after exposure to a potential pathogen. All we have done is focus on one of those–immunization history. And so the factors level of nutrition, emotional state, as we have discussed can not be underestimated. The ability to provide early effective treatment should make us feel empowered. We should not feel afraid anymore.
Moderator: Are kids more at risk? The numbers don’t seem to suggest that. I mean, the number of deaths of kids from COVID was lower than the number of deaths from the flu. But now people are saying Delta’s more severe. So are kids at risk?
Dr. Urso: I’ll just give a few statistics. There are about 330 children that have died of COVID in a year and a half. There’s typically about 50,000 children per year, who die. Many more have died of drowning and car accidents. So if we look at the relative risks, COVID has killed about 330 children in the last year and a half. So I think you need to look at that as you look forward to the risk to children. Do they spread? No, they don’t spread. There’s at least seven different studies that show that essentially the spread of children to adults is close to zero. So children are not super spreaders and children don’t die from the disease.
Dr. Tyson: I own three urgent cares in the Imperial valley area, which is one of the hotbeds for COVID-19 because Mexicali sits right across from us. That’s two and a half million people. So we see about 200 to 300 patients a day. I don’t do telemedicine. We do straight face-to-face encounters. So one of the things that I wanted to differentiate was,’Are these infections truly COVID?’ because they have the cough, cold and rhinitis and sore throat. Or, are there other viruses going on? So I decided to buy a $100,000 PCR machine, and we’ve been running these PCR tests. And recently I can tell you, we’ve seen 90% of rhinovirus and also RSV in the kids. So RSV typically is a winter illness. It causes pulmonary symptoms. It causes pulmonary bronchiolitis, not bronchitis, but bronchiolitis in the lower, lower airways. And that’s why the kids are having trouble right now. It’s not in my opinion from COVID, but from RSV.
Moderator: Clearly, kids are being hospitalized. I know the CDC recently said it’s actually not a higher proportion, it’s the same proportion, but kids are getting sick.
Dr. Tyson: You’re correct to say, kids are getting sick. And, under that CDC data that Dr. Ursa was talking about, healthy children didn’t die from COVID-19. Okay. It was those children who had four or five risk factors, morbid obesity being number one, diabetes being number two and weakened immune system being number three, kids on chemotherapy and things like that. So, it’s no different than RSV, rhinovirus, influenza, that would normally take out these kids anyway, unfortunately. But yes, we are seeing a higher number of COVID cases in the morbid obese and the severity of illness in the morbid obese in kids is problematic.
Moderator: Do healthy people die of COVID? I mean, is it all comorbidities? Is it obese people? Is it people with, you know, immunocompromised?
Dr. Kory: Greatest predictor for dying from COVID is age. With every decade of life, your risk goes up and it’s a straight line. Then you have to worry about comorbidities, right? So, the diseases that they have make them more prone like obesity and diabetes. However, we are seeing younger people now coming into ICU. We are seeing relatively healthy people die. We’re now seeing people with less comorbidities than before in the first wave last spring, almost everybody was either obese or diabetic. Now we’re seeing much less of that. You know? So when my colleagues said not one healthy kid died of COVID, I would also like to say, I don’t believe that there’s anybody who’s died who’s gotten an effective early treatment.
Dr. Urso: People don’t die of the virus. They die of inflammation and they die of thrombosis. Do we have drugs for inflammation that are not off-label, steroids? There’s a bunch of drugs that are on-label that can be used for the purpose of inflammation in this disease. These are not controversial topics. There are many, many different products we can use: Lovenox, Aspirin, Eliquis, XARELTO® . There’s a bunch of drugs for thrombosis. So when people say they died of COVID, they died of an inflammatory thrombotic disease. They didn’t die from the virus running through their body. Hopefully at some point we’ll have a really good early, early treatment that’s directed to the virus itself. Right now, we have other treatments as Dr. Kory said, they weren’t originally designed for this virus, but they are very effective against this virus.
Dr. Latell: What we’re seeing now is that patients are getting early treatment with medications, such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and a host of other medications because of this free exchange of ideas and this group of physicians and others around the world.
Moderator: One thing I think we’ve all seen, Ivermectin is a great example, where the media has politicized the issue. So depending on your politics, you’re going to see one or two different things. And you’re going to hear, “oh, well, it’s horse medicine. People are taking horse medicine. But Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug for human treatment.
Dr. Kory: It’s how the system is designed, which is largely against the use of repurposed drugs. If you know what a repurposed drug is, it’s generally a drug that’s off patent and not profitable. It’s been approved for use in another disease for which it’s found to be effective. So Ivermectin is well known as an anti-parasite. In fact, the discoverers won the Nobel prize because it eradicated two globally endemic parasitic diseases. I mean, it transformed the health status of good portions of the world. We knew on the ground that corticosteroids were going to work. We knew it because of our experience treating severe lung disease. We started using it. And guess what we started to see? As we started to use steroids, people started to come off ventilators.
People who were needing oxygen were coming off oxygen, getting discharged. The entire landscape changed. And I went into the US Senate, and I testified to the world that it was critical we use corticosteroids in the hospitalized patient. And I did that at a time where every national international healthcare agency was recommending against its use because they thought it would increase mortality. And I got heavily criticized for that. It’s now the standard of care worldwide. Everything else that we’ve discovered, everything that’s in our protocols is because we have used good clinical sense, lots of experience. And we’ve used trial and error using our best judgments of risks and benefits. We don’t want to cause harm, but undertreatment and nontreatment is harm, I think this is a pandemic of undertreatment. Long-haul COVID is only caused by one thing–undertreatment. Hospitalized COVID is only caused by one thing–undertreatment. I’m even going to push the envelope here. Getting COVID is only caused by one thing, which is a lack of an effective preventative strategy. I thought, everyone thought and hoped it was going to be the vaccine. It’s not.
Moderator: You’re saying getting COVID itself is completely preventable?
Dr. Kory: There’s a number of agents that have been shown, if you take them regularly, your chances of getting COVID are far lower. For me the most effective is Ivermectin. There are dozens of trials. We’re now up to 14 trials with thousands of patients. In the trials which you take it the most frequently, you’re nearly perfectly protected from getting COVID. It is a highly effective agent. The reason why Ivermectin is so important in this disease is that it has numerous mechanisms of action. The most important mechanism is that we know it binds tightly to the spike protein. The spike protein on this virus is how it gets into our cell, how it’s allowed to replicate. If you can bind it, you can block it and you can prevent yourself from getting sick. The one caveat though, is what we’ve learned is that in the Delta variant, just like the vaccines, we have started seeing breakthroughs. So we have to change our dosing strategy of all of the trials done on Ivermectin. The strongest evidence is actually in prevention. It is a wickedly effective, highly potent preventative agent. You, if you take it regularly, your chances of getting sick or near nil.
Moderator: Matthew, you’ve done a lot of statistical research, particularly around the success of early treatments and it hasn’t gotten a lot of attention. Why don’t you take a second and talk about your findings?
Mathew Crawford: So early on, I was a little frustrated, not seeing much analysis. And so I started to reach out to doctors that I knew and said,”What do you see? And, numerous doctors told me “I’m using this and it looks good” and there wasn’t much data out. So I kept reaching out to more and more doctors around the world and eventually collected about 20,000 data points. And this is almost a year and a half ago. And it looked like those who were using Hydroxychloroquine, and especially if they included Azithromycin and zinc, or possibly another macrolide other than azithromycin, but with the zinc in particular, it looked to everybody in their communities about a 98% lower mortality rate. And this was across like seven different nations I got this data from, so put all this together and it was tens of thousands of data points by the end of last year. But it’s difficult to get a lot of this data published. I’m working on Dr. Tyson’s data right now, and we’ve had the results for months, but it’s difficult to get it published. Anything that goes against the narrative takes longer in peer review.
Moderator: Is that a valid thing that it would take longer? I mean, is that understandable or is that politics?
Mathew Crawford: “I think there’s some politics involved.”
Moderator: Dr. Tyson you’ve said you have how many deaths out of the 6,000 people you’ve treated.
Dr. Tyson: So with treatment starting from day one to 7, zero.
Moderator: Zero deaths.
Dr. Tyson: Right. With treatment starting from day seven to 14, I have four. Two died the same day they showed up at the clinic and two died in the hospital.
Dr. Gessling: And I want to say, my numbers exactly match up with Brian’s. I’ve treated about 1500 and I have had one death. And it was because there was some delay in treatment. And I know that several physicians who have treated didn’t have any deaths until approximately July, August. And that was with the change in the virus. Within a week or two, all of us were saying the exact same thing–something has changed. What do we need to do to change the protocol?
Moderator: Dr. Gosling, you’re treating vaccinated and unvaccinated,
Dr. Gessling: Absolutely. Vaccinated and unvaccinated. And so I would say in July, the majority of my sicker patients were unvaccinated. And then I noticed in August, it seemed to be about 50-50, and now it’s more vaccinated. And so it happened as a very quick change in my practice.
Dr. Latell: Dr. Tyson, Dr. Gosling and myself are family physicians. Okay. So we are the folks who have been in those front lines, getting the phone calls in the middle of the night from concerned parents. And what you’ve just heard from Dr. Kory is that if you take the right preventive plan of medications, either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin or both, you’re approaching 0% mortality.
Moderator: I Hear your passion and understand where you guys are out there in the trenches. It’s bizarre that we are facing a pandemic that has left us where we are clearly divided about the simplest thing of treatments. They’re not all going to work. Some are going to fail. You’re going to experiment, but in most diseases, doctors get in there and you figure it out. And in this one, for some reason, we got blocked into this thing where it’s like, no, no, no. And I think you have an opinion, partly why.
Dr. Kory: If we have a solution or we have effective treatments. Why aren’t they being recognized and disseminated across the world? And there’s really two forces that I think we’re up against. The first force is that in general, our health agencies are suffering what’s called regulatory capture. They’re largely driven by financial interests, external financial interests that are really influenced in making sure that the solution to the pandemic is one that is profitable. Vaccines are profitable. The other challenge that we were having, which is somewhat overlapping is that academia, which we call the ivory towers, the big academic institutions in the last 10 years, there’s been this increasing belief into the idea that the only proof of efficacy of a drug has to come out of a large double-blind randomized controlled trial. When you do a randomized control trial, you have to first make the diagnosis. Everyone has to have a positive test. They have to have symptoms. They have to be enrolled consented, randomized, and then the drug is delivered. Each one of those steps takes time. And so by the time they do these randomized control trials, oftentimes it’s very delayed. And oftentimes it’s underdosed because they’re using doses that I was using six months ago. We move with this pandemic because we can’t prove it with the one tool that we need to prove it, we are getting suppressed. And that message is getting suppressed.
Moderator: Who funds big randomized controlled trials?
Dr. Kory: That would be pharma generally. Now there is philanthropy and there is the NIH. But the NIH and pharma are quite tightly linked.
Moderator: Let’s just take a minute and address some of the vaccine related questions that I think people have. And I want to start with you, Dr. Malone, if that’s okay, because you are the one of the architects of mRNA technology. And if I were to ask you Dr. Malone, are you against the vaccine for COVID? I know your answer would be absolutely not, but you do have some issues with this particular vaccine. Why?
Dr. Malone: So thanks for that opportunity to make the point that I’m not an anti-vaxxer. I’m a guy who spent the majority of my adult life developing vaccines and trying to get vaccines licensed. For example, the Ebola vaccine that we call the Merck vaccine. This is a technology platform (m RNA) that I believe and many believe has enormous promise. And right now it’s in its infancy. The safety of the underlying technology is not yet fully demonstrated. It hasn’t been fully characterized and that will come, that’s good news. However, in the fog of war and the need to come up with something, as soon as possible, some decisions were made to move things forward very rapidly. They were based on incomplete information. People did what they did in good faith and focused on a protein that they thought was fully safe–spike protein. But now over a year later, we know that, in the virus, this protein is responsible for much of the disease that the virus causes, the pathology in your vascular endothelial cells, the coagulation. And it’s unfortunate that this particular protein in what appears to be a biologically active form, was used in these vaccines.
Moderator: What is the result of that? What does that mean?
Dr. Cole: This is a thromboembolic disease. COVID is a clotting disease. Now, when we give a spike protein to Dr. Malone’s point, that is an active biologic molecule. We chose the wrong molecule that causes disease. So what do I see under the microscope? You see these COVID skin cases, you know, these weird COVID rashes. What is that? That’s clotting in the skin.
We unfortunately have doctors that say there’s no damage from the vaccines and no deaths from the vaccines. We should use the French legal system. When we have a new product that’s never been used on humanity in the market. It’s guilty until proven innocent.
Every time there is damage or disease from that product, we need to assume that it is guilty until we prove it isn’t. So under the microscope, we see clotting in the lungs. We see clotting and the vessels. We see clotting in the brain, not from the virus, but from the spike, from the vaccine itself. Now consider the numerator and the denominator are most people going to be fine? Yes. And I want to emphasize that in our data, around the world, from the United States, from the UK, from the Euro vigilance in Europe, we have seen more death and damage from this one medical product than all other vaccines combined in the last several decades. In just a short eight month window of time, it has done more damage than any other medical product therapy, shot, um, modality of anything we’ve ever allowed to stay on the market to this point. Do I mean to a sound alarmist? No, I’m being factual. And when I look at it under the microscope, and I see the parts of people or people that are no longer with us, the damage and the disease is caused by that spike protein. It is present.
Moderator: Common sense would tell me a vaccine’s efficacy is debatable, but you couldn’t possibly know if it’s safe because you would need five, 10 years to really know.
Dr. Malone: I love your approach of, ‘let’s just think for a minute, let’s just apply common sense.’ It normally takes a decade or more to produce a vaccine that is safe and effective. And to demonstrate that it’s safe, the usual standard with the FDA is that you allow at least two years after you have administered the phase three material to at least 3000 people for a vaccine. Often the FDA wants many more people than that. And you follow them for two years at least to see whether or not they’re generating auto immune problems, et cetera. And you’re dead on. I mean, you can do the math. Okay. Have shortcuts been taken? Normally it takes three years to evaluate the data. This vaccine was deployed in, you know, eight months. Six months or less after the phase three trials were completed. So it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the common sense that we don’t have the information. In terms of safety in pregnancy, reproductive, toxicology, reproductive risks, potential birth defects. The honest truth is whatever they tell you, we don’t have the data. So whomever is speaking, if they’re telling you that it’s safe, but they haven’t actually done the studies. I think you can figure out that means that they’re not being truthful with you.
Moderator: Were pregnant women even included in the clinical trials?
Dr. Malone: Of course they weren’t. The NIH just funded the study like a week ago on reproductive toxicology and birth defects in children. The major study on potential risks in pregnancy wasn’t started until almost a month after the CDC said it’s okay to go ahead and start taking the vaccine.
Dr. Ursa: For those who don’t know, a good percentage of the COVID vaccine, the spike protein, I’m sorry, the lipid nanoparticles actually goes to the ovaries. They knew this before they started, that this was what happens. So I do think while there might not have been intent, anybody who did that kind of work would know that they [lipid nanoparticles] would actually go to those places. That’s what they do. They go through those very easily. And of course they’re carrying spike protein, and spike protein we know is going to cause inflammation in the ovaries. What do we know about that? Well, as Dr. Malone said, we don’t know what that means. Is that going to affect fertility? We don’t know. We’ve got to hope and pray that it doesn’t because many people have taken that and they now have significant inflammation that has gone to those organs.
And so we literally have pregnant women coming in. One woman had two miscarriages during her 10th week and her OB actually told her to go get the vaccine. And he cannot know that that’s safe. It’s impossible. So she just happened to have miscarriages. She’s at high risk for another miscarriage. It’s a high risk pregnancy. There’s no reason to introduce any new therapeutic of any sort in this patient. So this is what we’re seeing: a one size fits all policy. That makes no sense, and we need to stop it. And we need to adopt early treatment and other measures.
Moderator: What if your COVID recovered? You may be vaccinated, but unvaccinated and COVID recovered is a whole unique group that you actually would argue has actually more immunity and is more valuable than all the others together.
Dr. Cole: A hundred percent true if you’ve had COVID, you’re done with COVID. We don’t need to modify mother nature. And if you think of what a vaccine is, a vaccine mimics a small portion of a natural infection. So to say, a natural infection is not equal to a vaccination is insanity. In vaccinology, we’re trying to mimic a part of nature, whereas mother nature does it right. If you have had COVID you may get it again, but you’re going to get it in a much more mild manner. So as to this two tier polarization of our society–a virus isn’t politically red or blue or purple –a virus is a humanitarian issue.
And when we divide ourselves in thought and don’t listen to science anymore, we’re going down the wrong path. When we look at what’s happened to the children, going back to the children point, half of kids in the U S have already had COVID, we’re not antibody testing. We’re treating everybody with this terrible oppression of you’ve got to wear a mask. It doesn’t matter that you had COVID, you know, you’ve got to stay home. If somebody in your classroom tests positive, it denies basic science. And this isn’t upper level immunology. This is basic immunology 1 0 1. And we are forgetting what our amazing immune system does. How many of you had chickenpox when you were a kid? Probably a lot. Okay. How many have you ever gotten them again? Yeah, no. Did you need a shot? No. Have any of you had a grandma who had measles and ever got measles again? No, because her immune system works.
Dr. Malone: This gets back to common sense. Why are they telling us that natural infection isn’t protective? Why are they telling us that those of us covered still got to get the jab. There is a financial incentive here. And if there are a few examples that make it so abundantly clear one is this crazy labeling of Ivermectin as a horse paste drug. I give ivermectin to my horses, but I don’t take the horse version for myself. You know? Um, and, And the other thing is this crazy messaging about natural infection. Why are they saying these things that make no sense?
Dr. Cole: If you are under age of 50 with no comorbidities your chance of dying from this disease are about nil. And if you get early treatment, they’re even closer to nil. So if you recovered, which half of the young people in North America are, you don’t need a shot and the shot can damage the heart of children. There are more children who’ve had myocarditis, and there’s never such a thing as mild myocarditis. That’s inflammation of the heart. Once you get inflammation, get scarring, those kids’ hearts are damaged for life. There are more kids, like 5, 10, 15 kids now that have died of heart attacks after the shots. 400 plus kids that have had myocarditis, that have damaged hearts for life. That’s more than the kids that have died from COVID. Now the ratio to damaged children is much higher than due benefit. And children survive this virus at a statistical 100%. Age zero to 18 – 99.97% of children survive this virus. So why are we punishing kids for a virus they survive? It’s illogical.
Moderator: There’s lots of people who got the vaccine and are wondering how risky it is.
Dr. Malone: Here’s what I do know about multiple boosters. The immune system is really, really complex. And it’s as complex as the nervous system, which by the way, comes from the same cell type–incredibly complex. And one thing as somebody that’s been in this business and had all this training for 30 years–more is not better. The assumption that another dose is going to boost your immunity, to levels that it was previously needs to be demonstrated clearly. And the safety of that needs to be demonstrated, because as immunologists, we know darn well, there’s a thing called high zone tolerance. More is not better. More can actually suppress the immune response.
Dr. Cole: After the extra shots, we’re seeing the depletion of certain cell types. To your point, we’re starting to document it and are studying it. And to his question, why give a third shot to a virus that was gone in January and February of this year? We’re on to Delta. The booster is not something new. It’s the same shot for the virus that’s gone. Delta’s a new virus, essentially. So is there any logic to boost something that’s not even here anymore? No.
Moderator: So we’re vaccinating for COVID and we’re already on to Delta now.
Dr. Cole: The strain that we made the sequence for the spike against isn’t even circulating anymore, it’s not even here. We’re, you know, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 variants on from that. Delta is behaving as a new virus. The antibodies don’t neutralize it anymore, especially at the end terminal domain of the spike. It’s a wrong approach at this point. It is the wrong protein now, it’s not even a virus that’s here.
Dr. Littell: Everyone in my practice wishes and prays every day that COVID goes away. We don’t want to treat another patient with COVID ever, ever again, to be honest with you, my other patients have been neglected because of COVID. It’s impossible for us to keep up with the displaced.
Dr. Urso: We don’t have to know what pharma’s motives are. It doesn’t matter to me. I’m not interested. What I’m interested in is a comprehensive plan. I’m interested in contagion control. I’m interested in vaccination. I’m interested in prophylaxis. I’m interested in early treatment. The motivation side doesn’t matter. It’s the data that matters in a comprehensive plan that matters. So we don’t have to fight and say, they’re bad. We’re good. It doesn’t matter. It’s a comprehensive plan that we need to emphasize that encompasses everything
The fact of the matter is what really matters is we need to do everything all at the same time, because that’s how we do it. That’s how we’ve always done it. We’ve never done it differently. It was a shock to us to find that people were not emphasizing early treatment. That is just something that is incomprehensible. And we still don’t know the answer and we don’t care. I don’t care. We’re just going to go forward.
Audience question: After 2020 do you think there was an emergency. Is there an emergency, now?
Dr. Kory: I’m an intensive care unit physician. I take care of the patients who come at the end of the line, and I will tell you, we still are having an emergency. This is an emergency situation. If you look around the United States, there are dozens of cities and areas where the hospitals are filling. The ICU’s are filling. This is an emergency of undertreatment. There’s undertreatment early. There’s undertreatment late in the hospital using low doses of corticosteroids when we have immense amounts of data, showing higher doses are lifesaving. Combinations of therapies are life saving. We know how to get these patients better, but we have to be more aggressive at every phase. Everyone is being restricted to following the protocols that come from the top. They’re not working, they’re failing. And that’s the emergency.
Moderator: I think there is a perception because it’s been very politicized. This whole COVID thing has just been exaggerated. Your issue is we’re not treating it. Not that it’s not a real deadly disease.
Dr. Kory: Yeah. I have to tell you my perspective is quite different. I’ve never, ever walked into an ICU that’s full of every patient on a ventilator with the same disease. I’ve never seen 24 patients on a ventilator with the flu at any one time. I’ve never seen dermatologists taking care of patients on ventilators in regular hospital floors. It is getting better. We’re not in that catastrophic phase, but this is the most complex and most violent disease that I’ve seen. And the most difficult to treat in the ICU. The trick is to avoid getting into the ICU.
Moderator: Can we VAX our way out of this? Is that possible?
Dr. Malone: Now, you can run the numbers. In order to get to herd immunity, you have to have a vaccine that’s generally more than 80% effective in preventing infection, not preventing disease. To block the spread in the CDC slide deck that they leaked to the Washington post, they showed clearly, even with Delta, let alone the new variants, we cannot stop the spread of Delta. If we were to vaccinate with these leaky vaccines, which efficacy in terms of prevention of infection is something between 40 and 60%. You could vaccinate the whole world with that and you still won’t stop the spread. What you will do is select for even more potent escape, okay. That are going to blow through those vaccines. And who’s going to die? The people that we wanted to protect in the first place. No, we can’t stop it. Can we make it worse? Yes.
Dr. Cole: Again, I’m going to put it in layman’s terms. You can’t play whack-a-mole with a vaccine with the variant. Because by the time you get vaccinated against the next variant, the new one’s here and then the new ones here, and you’re not going to roll out a new one every time. So to that point, you have to focus on treating early.
Moderator: It’s not as black and white or as simplistic as it seems. We need more than anything in this country right now, in this world right now, to start having conversations we’re not having and be willing to have them. Have the guts, to have them and hear what we’re not comfortable with.
Brownstone Institute
FDA Lab Uncovers Excess DNA Contamination in Covid-19 Vaccines

From the Brownstone Institute
By
An explosive new study conducted within the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) own laboratory has revealed excessively high levels of DNA contamination in Pfizer’s mRNA Covid-19 vaccine.
Tests conducted at the FDA’s White Oak Campus in Maryland found that residual DNA levels exceeded regulatory safety limits by 6 to 470 times.
The study was undertaken by student researchers under the supervision of FDA scientists. The vaccine vials were sourced from BEI Resources, a trusted supplier affiliated with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), previously headed by Anthony Fauci.
Recently published in the Journal of High School Science, the peer-reviewed study challenges years of dismissals by regulatory authorities, who had previously labelled concerns about excessive DNA contamination as baseless.
The FDA is expected to comment on the findings this week. However, the agency has yet to issue a public alert, recall the affected batches, or explain how vials exceeding safety standards were allowed to reach the market.
The Methods
The student researchers employed two primary analytical methods:
- NanoDrop Analysis – This technique uses UV spectrometry to measure the combined levels of DNA and RNA in the vaccine. While it provides an initial assessment, it tends to overestimate DNA concentrations due to interference from RNA, even when RNA-removal kits are utilised.
- Qubit Analysis – For more precise measurements, the researchers relied on the Qubit system, which quantifies double-stranded DNA using fluorometric dye.
Both methods confirmed the presence of DNA contamination far above permissible thresholds. These findings align with earlier reports from independent laboratories in the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, and France.
Expert Reaction
Kevin McKernan, a former director of the Human Genome Project, described the findings as a “bombshell,” criticizing the FDA for its lack of transparency.
“These findings are significant not just for what they reveal but for what they suggest has been concealed from public scrutiny. Why has the FDA kept these data under wraps?” McKernan questioned.
CSO and Founder of Medicinal Genomics
While commending the students’ work, he also noted limitations in the study’s methods, which may have underestimated contamination levels.
“The Qubit analysis can under-detect DNA by up to 70% when enzymes are used during sample preparation,” McKernan explained. “Additionally, the Plasmid Prep kit used in the study does not efficiently capture small DNA fragments, further contributing to underestimation.”
In addition to genome integration, McKernan highlighted another potential cancer-causing mechanism of DNA contamination in the vaccines.
He explained that plasmid DNA fragments entering the cell’s cytoplasm with the help of lipid nanoparticles could overstimulate the cGAS-STING pathway, a crucial component of the innate immune response.
“Chronic activation of the cGAS-STING pathway could paradoxically fuel cancer growth,” McKernan warned. “Repeated exposure to foreign DNA through COVID-19 boosters may amplify this risk over time, creating conditions conducive to cancer development.”
Adding to the controversy, traces of the SV40 promoter were detected among the DNA fragments. While the authors concluded that these fragments were “non-replication-competent” meaning they cannot replicate in humans, McKernan disagreed.
“To assert that the DNA fragments are non-functional, they would need to transfect mammalian cells and perform sequencing, which wasn’t done here,” McKernan stated.
“Moreover, the methods used in this study don’t effectively capture the full length of DNA fragments. A more rigorous sequencing analysis could reveal SV40 fragments several thousand base pairs long, which would likely be functional,” he added.
Regulatory Oversight under Scrutiny
Nikolai Petrovsky, a Professor of Immunology and director of Vaxine Pty Ltd, described the findings as a “smoking gun.”
“It clearly shows the FDA was aware of these data. Given that these studies were conducted in their own labs under the supervision of their own scientists, it would be hard to argue they were unaware,” he said.
Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute in Adelaide
Prof Petrovsky praised the quality of work carried out by the students at the FDA labs.
“The irony is striking,” he remarked. “These students performed essential work that the regulators failed to do. It’s not overly complicated—we shouldn’t have had to rely on students to conduct tests that were the regulators’ responsibility in the first place.”
The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which has consistently defended the safety of the mRNA vaccines, released its own batch testing results, claiming they met regulatory standards. However, Prof Petrovsky criticised the TGA’s testing methods.
“The TGA’s method was not fit for purpose,” he argued. “It didn’t assess all the DNA in the vials. It only looked for a small fragment, which would severely underestimate the total amount of DNA detected.”
Implications for Manufacturers and Regulators
Now that DNA contamination of the mRNA vaccines has been verified in the laboratory of an official agency and published in a peer-reviewed journal, it becomes difficult to ignore.
It also places vaccine manufacturers and regulators in a precarious position.
Addressing the contamination issue would likely require revising manufacturing processes to remove residual DNA, which Prof Petrovsky explained would be impractical.
“The only practical solution is for regulators to require manufacturers to demonstrate that the plasmid DNA levels in the vaccines are safe,” Prof Petrovsky stated.
“Otherwise, efforts to remove the residual DNA would result in an entirely new vaccine, requiring new trials and effectively restarting the process with an untested product.”
Now the onus is on regulators to provide clarity and take decisive action to restore confidence in their oversight. Anything less risks deepening the scepticism of the public.
Both the US and Australian drug regulators have been approached for comment.
Republished from the author’s Substack
COVID-19
Look what they did to our antibodies

Our immune systems are supposed to fight viruses. Now they invite them round for tea. It’s all down to IgG4…
Have you heard about the IgG4 antibody switch? It’s been glossed over in official discussions about Covid-19 ‘vaccines’, but it’s the elephant in the room. Let’s break it down and explore why this may matter more than we’re being told.
The antibody switch: what’s the big deal?
Our immune system is like a well-trained army, with different types of antibodies serving as its soldiers. Among them, IgG antibodies are the frontline warriors, designed to neutralize viruses and protect us from infections. But here’s the catch: not all IgG antibodies are created equal. Think of IgG4 antibodies as the peacekeepers of the immune system. They’re not fighters like the other IgG subclasses—they’re more about tolerance, calming things down. They’re certainly not about launching an attack.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting (and worrying).
Studies have shown that repeated Covid-19 mRNA injections—especially after the second dose or booster—cause the body to switch from producing the more effective IgG3 antibodies to producing IgG4. Essentially, the immune system is shifting toward tolerance rather than attack.
Sounds harmless, right? Well, not so fast. Here’s a look at what this shift might mean:
1. More Covid-19 infections
Imagine your immune system being rewired to tolerate the virus instead of fighting it. That’s essentially what the IgG4 switch could entail. A study from the Cleveland Clinic found a troubling trend: the more Covid-19 vaccine doses a person received, the higher their risk of getting infected. This isn’t what we were promised with “safe and effective,” is it? The IgG4 antibodies might be making the body less effective at dealing with the virus, leaving vaccinated individuals more susceptible to reinfections.
2. The potential for worse outcomes
IgG4 antibodies are great if you’re dealing with allergies, as they help the body tolerate allergens. But when it comes to fighting a virus like SARS-CoV-2, this tolerance could backfire. Instead of neutralizing the virus, the immune system might let it hang around longer, potentially leading to more severe disease outcomes. It’s like inviting a burglar into your house and offering them tea instead of calling the police.
3. The risk of other conditions
This shift to IgG4 isn’t just about Covid-19. It could open the door to other IgG4-related diseases (known as IgG4-RD). These are a group of conditions where the immune system starts attacking various organs, causing inflammation and fibrosis (thickening or scarring of tissues). Examples include autoimmune pancreatitis, kidney disease, and even conditions affecting the lungs or brain. There have been reports of individuals developing these conditions after receiving the mRNA vaccines. Coincidence? Maybe. But it’s enough to warrant serious investigation.
Below is a list of IgG4-related diseases (IgG4-RD) and other pathologies associated with elevated IgG4 levels that could also be related to IgG4 rising after mRNA injections:
- Type 1 Autoimmune Pancreatitis (AIP): Chronic inflammation of the pancreas, often presenting with abdominal pain, jaundice, or weight loss. It is one of the most common manifestations of IgG4-RD.
- Sialadenitis (Mikulicz’s Disease): Enlargement of the salivary and lacrimal glands, leading to dry mouth and eyes. This is a classic presentation of IgG4-RD in the head and neck region (Stone et al., 2012).
- Retroperitoneal Fibrosis: Thickening and fibrosis of the tissue behind the peritoneum, which can lead to ureteral obstruction and kidney damage (Stone et al., 2012).
- Riedel’s Thyroiditis: A rare form of thyroiditis involving fibrosis of the thyroid gland. It can present as a hard, fixed thyroid mass that mimics malignancy (Stone et al., 2012).
- Küttner’s Tumor (Chronic Sclerosing Sialadenitis): Affects the submandibular glands, causing enlargement and fibrosis, often mistaken for a tumor (Stone et al., 2012).
- IgG4-Related Sclerosing Cholangitis: Involves the bile ducts, often associated with autoimmune pancreatitis. Can lead to jaundice and bile duct obstruction (Stone et al., 2012).
- IgG4-Related Ophthalmic Disease: Involves orbital inflammation and can cause proptosis (bulging eyes), double vision, or orbital masses (Stone et al., 2012; Uchida et al., 2022).
- IgG4-Related Aortitis and Periaortitis: Inflammation of the aorta and surrounding tissues, which may lead to aneurysms or vascular complications (Stone et al., 2012).
- IgG4-Related Kidney Disease: Includes tubulointerstitial nephritis and other renal manifestations, leading to kidney dysfunction or masses (Stone et al., 2012; Uchida et al., 2022).
- IgG4-Related Lung Disease: Pulmonary involvement, presenting with inflammatory pseudotumors, interstitial pneumonia, or pleural thickening (Stone et al., 2012).
- IgG4-Related Lymphadenopathy: Enlargement of lymph nodes that may mimic lymphoma (Stone et al., 2012).
- IgG4-Related Skin Disease: While less common, presents as various cutaneous lesions, including plaques or nodules (Stone et al., 2012).
- IgG4-Related Prostatitis: Enlargement of the prostate, causing lower urinary tract symptoms (Stone et al., 2012).
- IgG4-Related Hypophysitis: Involves inflammation of the pituitary gland, leading to hormonal imbalances such as adrenal insufficiency or diabetes insipidus (Stone et al., 2012).
- IgG4-Related Pachymeningitis: Inflammation of the dura mater (the outer membrane covering the brain and spinal cord), leading to headaches, cranial nerve palsies, or other neurological symptoms (Stone et al., 2012).
That’s not all. There are potentially broader implications of elevated IgG4 levels that we must consider:
- Repeated infections. Elevated IgG4 levels may impair the immune system’s ability to clear infections, as IgG4 is less effective at neutralizing pathogens (Aalberse, 2009; Irrgang, 2021).
- Autoimmune diseases. Elevated IgG4 levels may contribute to autoimmune processes, where the immune system attacks its own tissues (Watad, 2021).
- Cancer risks. Chronic inflammation caused by IgG4-related conditions may increase the risk of certain malignancies. While not directly caused by IgG4, this link warrants further research (Uchida, 2022).
- Idiopathic Interstitial Lung Disease. Chronic inflammation and fibrosis in the lungs may lead to respiratory symptoms, further complicating the clinical picture (Stone, 2012).
- Systemic Vasculitis. Inflammation of blood vessels associated with IgG4-RD can cause systemic complications and end-organ damage (Stone, 2012).
Why isn’t this being talked about?
Good question. The IgG4 switch is a complex phenomenon, and scientists are still trying to figure out its full implications. However, one thing is clear: this isn’t a simple black-and-white issue as the long-term effects of repeated mRNA shots are only now coming into focus.
Health agencies like the CDC and WHO argue that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks. But should we ignore potential red flags, especially when they involve changes to our immune system long term? Especially in populations that had virtually no risk from Covid-19 (i.e. children)? Absolutely not.
The science isn’t settled – but nor is this speculation
Elevated IgG4 levels are documented. Multiple studies confirm that repeated mRNA injections lead to a significant increase in IgG4 antibodies (Irrgang et al., 2021). This isn’t speculation—it’s a fact.
Case reports suggest a link. Individuals have developed IgG4-related diseases shortly after getting injected (Uchida et al., 2022). While these cases are rare, as not many practitioners have linked the Covid 19 gene therapy to a certain pathology, they highlight a potential connection that needs further investigation.
The immune response Is complex. The IgG4 switch might be the immune system’s way of adapting to repeated exposure to the spike protein in the vaccines. But this adaptation could come with unintended consequences, including reduced vaccine efficacy and heightened risk of certain diseases. And the most important question is the duration of this fact which we will only know in a decade.
More studies are needed. The science is evolving, and more research is needed to fully understand the implications of this antibody switch. For now, it’s clear that this isn’t a one-size-fits-all situation.
What can we do?
As individuals, the best thing we can do is stay informed. Ask questions if asked to be vaccinated: demand transparency, and weigh the risks and benefits of any medical intervention.
If you yourself have been affected by any of the pathologies above, even months or years after the Covid injections, ask your healthcare providers to assess a potential association. You can test for Covid antibodies (when over 1000 BAU, it is reasonable to assume that you are still producing spike proteins after the injections). You can also get tested for IgG4s (for Covid and generally), for spike proteins (in serum, immune cells, exosomes, body fluids) or for mRNA (in serum, exosomes or any body fluid).
For policymakers and health agencies, it’s crucial to continue monitoring these injections’ long-term effects and be honest about potential risks. Ignoring the elephant in the room won’t make it go away.
Final thoughts
The IgG4 switch is an alarming consequence of repeated Covid-19 mRNA vaccinations. The evidence so far suggests that this phenomenon could have significant implications for immunity, vaccine efficacy, and long-term health. It’s time to have an open, honest conversation about those ‘trade-offs’—and to keep the spotlight on the elephant in the room. This is certainly another red flag for the continuation of the Covid 19 gene therapy and adds to the calls for a moratorium of this technology. Especially considering further promotion of mRNA technologies in the US, Europe, and Russia, we urgently need independent scientists to gather at a roundtable with those pushing for even more use. The World Council for Health has repeatedly called for a moratorium on the technology. This is just the latest, essential piece we’re adding to the puzzle.
References
Aalberse, R. C., Stapel, S. O., Schuurman, J., & Rispens, T. (2009). Immunoglobulin G4: an odd antibody. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 39(4), 469-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
Bergamaschi, C., Terpos, E., Rosati, M., Angel, M., Bear, J., Stellas, D., … & Felber, B. K. (2021). Systemic IL-15, IFN-γ, and IP-10/CXCL10 signature associated with effective immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine recipients. Cell Reports, 36(6), 109504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Uchida, K., Ito, S., Nakamura, Y., Hoshino, Y., Abe, Y., Ito, T., … & Okazaki, K. (2022). IgG4-related disease after BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: A case report. Vaccine, 40(22), 3079-3082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Irrgang, P., Gerling, J., Kocher, K., Lapuente, D., Steininger, P., Habenicht, K., … & Überla, K. (2021). Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.
Kang, C. K., Kim, M., Lee, S., Kim, G., Choe, P. G., Park, W. B., … & Oh, M. D. (2022). Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 37(4), e35. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.
Lozano-Ojalvo, D., Camara, C., Lopez-Granados, E., Nozal, P., Del Pino-Molina, L., Bravo-Gallego, L. Y., … & Paz-Artal, E. (2021). Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naive and COVID-19 recovered individuals. Cell Reports, 36(8), 109570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Perugino, C. A., AlSalem, S. B., Mattoo, H., Della-Torre, E., Mahajan, V., Ganesh, G., … & Stone, J. H. (2021). Identification of galectin-3 as an autoantigen in patients with IgG4-related disease. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 147(2), 736-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Stone, J. H., Zen, Y., & Deshpande, V. (2012). IgG4-related disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 366(6), 539-551. https://doi.org/10.1056/
World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). COVID-19 vaccines: safety surveillance manual.
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Latest “Bird Flu” Psyop
-
International2 days ago
Plastic Straws are coming back! (In the US)
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Real Purpose of Net Zero
-
Business2 days ago
Trump eyes ‘reciprocal’ trade deals over flat fee tariffs
-
illegal immigration1 day ago
Will Mexico Face A Hot Shooting War With The Cartels?
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
FDA Lab Uncovers Excess DNA Contamination in Covid-19 Vaccines
-
Energy20 hours ago
There is nothing green about the ‘green’ agenda
-
Energy2 days ago
House passes bill blocking future presidential bans on hydraulic fracking