Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

My kid has covid. Now what do we do? – Dr. Peter McCullough Interview Part 2

Published

9 minute read

This may seem a little strange because I’m going to willingly breech my own doctor / patient confidentiality.  I’m not sure what my obligation is here but I know doctors are guided by the Health Information Act (HIA) and the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).  Nowadays though we all know that every time I go to coach my son’s hockey team I have to divulge my health information in front of whoever happens to be near me in front of a stranger in the entrance of a hockey rink.  In other words, I’m guessing I’ll get away with this.

Recently I asked my doctor the same question we all should be asking our doctors.  “If I get a positive covid result and I’m symptomatic, can I call you and ask for some kind of treatment?”

My doctor answered in the way I suspect most doctors would.  He looked at me quizzically and said “You mean in hospital?  You’ll be treated by the doctors there.”

That’s not what I meant and I said, “No.  I mean if I have symptoms.  Will you offer me treatment to help me stay ‘out’ of the hospital in the first place?”

My doctor is a pretty good egg and I like him and all but from his response I know that if (when) I get covid I am going to be in the same position as almost every other Albertan.  I will go home and isolate and pray that this doesn’t get serious.

I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned that doesn’t seem good enough. I’d like to think there are treatments out there and maybe that’s why I really like to research articles with data regarding Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine  (not to mention Zinc and vitamins D, and C).  Months ago these were just stories.  Then I started to meet people who told me about a family member or friend who quickly bounced back after taking treatment for covid.  Then I met a couple of those people myself.  Now I’m convinced there’s something to all these articles I’m reading.

The studies say (so does my experience with people I know) that these treatments don’t work every time.  However, if you could save even 10 percent of lives and keep even 10 percent of people out of the hospital by taking an inexpensive drug that has no serious side effects, why wouldn’t you promote the living (beep) out of that?  Seriously?  What if it was 20 or 30 or 50%.  It’s incredible to me that so many people will turn their noses at something like Ivermectin because someone on TV called it ‘horse dewormer’.  For my opinion of the people who block their ears and yell “HORSE DEWORMER” see here.  If you’ve been doing that, please stop. I guarantee you someone you know and maybe even love has either taken Ivermectin, or they’re going to want to some day. You may not know there are actually quiet a few studies.  Maybe you haven’t met anyone who swears they turned around within hours of getting treatment. But trust me, the people making decisions for us (the politicians at the very top and even more importantly the health officials) know there are treatments out there.  They’ve just chosen not to pursue them.

While those who supposedly follow the science denounce studies that looked extremely promising but were really too small, or studies that were done so far away that we simply don’t know enough to give them credence, other people who also  supposedly follow the science have found some very interesting data themselves.  Just check out this beauty from the American Journal of Therapeutics, called Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection, published back on June 21 of 2021.  This is way better than 10%. This looks really promising. This is also being completely ignored by our political leaders. Don’t ask me why. Seriously don’t ask unless you have at least 2 tall boys.

The bottom line is, after all I’ve read and seen and the people I’ve met, I refuse to believe there is no such thing as a treatment for covid.  I know they’re coming out with new ones for this specific purpose, but I’m convinced by data that there are repurposed drugs that are already doing the job. Not perfectly of course, but far better than say .. nothing.

This really gets me when I think about my children.  The thought of one of my kids getting covid and then becoming symptomatic, and then getting really ill, and then not being able to access treatment when I’m pretty sure there’s something out there that would help them…  That’s not a very nice thought.  It became real for me recently when a good friend told me his son (same age as my son) tested positive.  He knows I’m keeping up on this as much as I can and he texted to let me know (and I think ask if I could recall some of the things I’ve said to him about treatment).  I shared the video I’m sharing here, below.  I also emailed links to two very similar resources for us regular folks who can only talk about the people who actually follow the science.  I’ll include these links because I think they’re REALLY worth looking at.  Especially because there’s literally nothing else to look at when someone in your household gets a positive test result.  Here’s the Guide to Home Based Treatment for Covid from the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, and here’s the Guide to Covid Early Treatment from a group of US doctors on their website TruthForHealth.

The video below refers only to children but the two “home treatment” guides are helpful for people at any age.  I hope you never need this kind of info, but personally I don’t think we’re going to achieve the magical zero covid even if we take all the vaccine in the world. This very nasty virus is here to stay.  The way we’re going to get back to living like we should be, is with EARLY treatment.. as in BEFORE we’re deathly ill in the hospital.  I suspect we’re about 6 months away from recognized and emergency approved early treatment pills that will eventually swoop in and save the day for the vast majority.  But seriously, who cares if you put out a fire with water, or retardant, or a cut line, or by stomping on it with your foot? The important thing is that you start fighting fire as soon as you can.  For me?  I’m happy to start by throwing a little dirt on this campfire while I wait for the water bombers.

Thanks for checking this out. If you need a bit more convincing that early treatment even exists.. check out this next article.

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

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

COVID-19

House COVID Committee Confirms What We Have Long Suspected — The Feds Really Hate Transparency

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By ADAM ANDRZEJEWSKI

 

Last week details emerged from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, confirming what government transparency advocates long suspected: Federal bureaucrats are purposefully stonewalling the American people’s right to know about their government.

Republican Kentucky Rep. James Comer, who chairs the full House Oversight and Accountability Committee, read from an email that Dr. David Morens, a top aide to Dr. Anthony Fauci, sent claiming that a staffer inside the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had shown him how to erase records requested by the public.

He was corresponding with Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, the organization that used tax dollars to fund controversial gain-of-function research in Wuhan, where the COVID outbreak began. The Department of Health and Human Services has since suspended funding of EcoHealth Alliance.

Morens wrote: “I learned from our FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lady here how to make emails disappear after I am FOIA’d, but before the search starts. So, I think we are all safe. Plus, I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to Gmail.”

The implications for government transparency are enormous. How often do NIH staffers conceal what they do with our tax dollars? Why did a FOIA officer feel empowered to assist subjects of FOIA requests? How else do FOIA offers interfere with these requests? Has this behavior spread to the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies?

Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com can speak to the problem. We have spent years — and gone to court — to force NIH to reveal the royalties paid to government scientists through medical innovation licensing.

When Americans are considering a drug or therapeutic recommended by public health officials, they deserve to understand all the financial stakes at play. Were any decision makers receiving payments? Were they continuing more lucrative research at the expense of other public health solutions?

For many, the question looming largest has been whether the relentless COVID vaccine push was driven by a potential windfall for NIH and certain scientists there.

When we first filed a FOIA, the agency ignored us and then refused to release the information.

After suing, NIH was required to release the information and began doing so incrementally due to the high volume of data. Tallied from 2009 through 2020, it amounted to an enormous sum–over $325 million paid by private companies to NIH and its scientists over 56,000 transactions.

Previously, we’d also discovered that Dr. Fauci, the face of the nation’s COVID response, was the highest compensated bureaucrat in the country. He out-earned President Biden. He out-earned his own boss, then-Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak.

Along with Fauci, who scoffed at concerns about royalty payments, Tabak faced questions from Congress.

In a March 2023 budget hearing, Rep. John Moolenaar told Tabak an obvious truth: every single, secret royalty payment represents a potential conflict of interest.

“To me, one of the biggest concerns people had during this last couple years is: Were they getting truthful information from their government? Could they trust what people were saying about the medicines? To me, that creates a very disturbing appearance.”

“The idea that people were getting a financial benefit from certain research that was done and grants that were awarded, that to me is the height of the appearance of a conflict of interest,” Moolenaar concluded.

The lawmaker urged NIH to make the money trail more transparent.

It was Tabak in the hot seat again last week, as Comer recited Morens’ outrageous email message.

Was the behavior he described consistent with NIH policy, Comer asked? “It is not,” Tabak responded flatly.

Did the FOIA team at NIH help its colleagues avoid transparency? “I certainly hope not,” Tabak offered.

Hope doesn’t suffice in this situation. It demands that lawmakers strengthen transparency law, update it for the 21st century and create some consequences for bad actors.

There are a few primary ways bureaucrats and decisionmakers violate the spirit of the law.

First, they overuse a series of exemptions designed to protect national security secrets or privacy laws. Too much is omitted through these exceptions; the American people deserve the full truth.

When documents are produced, they’re too often rendered useless through excessive redactions. We’re still fighting in real time to get more pieces of the royalty puzzle revealed.

Next, unreasonable delays are blamed on staffing levels, while many FOIA-related roles sit open. Agencies must prioritize filling those seats and Congress should appropriate more of them as needed.

Finally, we have the behavior Morens describes. A post facto effort to simply abscond with the information. It’s not just a policy violation but an affront to the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. What consequences do these staffers ever truly face?

Until we get serious about protecting transparency, “FOIA lady” will be a duly anonymous symbol of what many have suspected: government employees hustling to cover their tracks.

Adam Andrzejewski is founder & CEO of OpenTheBooks.com, the nation’s largest private database of public spending.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Fauci’s Top Advisor May Have Illegally Evaded Records Requests, Experts Say

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By ROBERT SCHMAD

 

“These revelations are startling,” Judicial Watch senior attorney Michael Bekesha told the DCNF. ” It appears as though Dr. Morens and maybe others at NIH sought to circumvent, if not violate, the law by using personal email accounts and deleting emails.”

A top advisor for former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci may have illegally taken actions to avoid records requests, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

David Morens, a former senior adviser to Fauci, both deleted emails to evade Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and told people multiple times to contact him at his personal email address to get around such requests, according to emails released by the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. Morens, in his emails, also suggested that Fauci used his private email address to conduct government business.

“This is very illegal,” Matthew Hardin, a lawyer specializing in issues related to FOIA, told the DCNF.

“The Federal Records Act has strict requirements for preserving agency records in the agency’s custody for various reasons, including for purposes of facilitating the agency’s compliance with the Freedom of Information Act,” he continued. “This means that anybody conducting agency business through a ‘secret’ back channel or through Gmail is still creating a federal record, even if they are wrongfully concealing that record on a personal account instead of the government’s custody.”

In addition to using his private email address to communicate with others with the express purpose of getting around FOIA requests, Morens instructed others to reach Fauci at a private address for similar reasons.

In an April 2021 email to Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, Morens said that there is “no worry about FOIAs” as he can “either send stuff to Tony [Fauci] on his private email, or hand it to him at work or at his house.”

“He is too smart to let his colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble,” Morens continued.

“These revelations are startling,” Judicial Watch senior attorney Michael Bekesha told the DCNF. ” It appears as though Dr. Morens and maybe others at NIH sought to circumvent, if not violate, the law by using personal email accounts and deleting emails.”

Bekesha said Morens’ conduct could run afoul of the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Daszak’s EcoHealth has received scrutiny for working with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which some have posited was where the COVID-19 pandemic originated. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Energy now both believe that COVID-19 likely emerged from a Chinese lab. EcoHealth was cut off from federal funding on May 15 in part due to issues with its monitoring of work done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

Beyond using personal emails to evade possible FOIA requests, Morens also said that he worked with his agency’s FOIA office to delete records of his communications.

“[I] learned from our foia [sic] lady here how to make emails disappear after I am foia’d [sic] but before the search starts, so [I] think we are all safe,” Morens wrote in a February 2021 email. “Plus [I] deleted most of those earlier after sending them to gmail [sic],” he continued.

Morens sent multiple emails between June 2020 and October 2021 suggesting that he’d deleted his government communications. “We are all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he said in one email.

“The right of citizen access and the transparency of public records is constitutional and enshrined in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution—within the powerful Appropriations clause,” Open The Books CEO Adam Andrzejewski told the DCNF. “Such an important and significant admission of the destruction of public records begs a non-partisan, criminal investigation,” he continued.

“The question now is how often are the feds working to hide or destroy information that belongs in the public record? Is it limited to the public health complex, or is it happening all over the government?”

If Morens deleted his emails to evade FOIA, Hardin says that could constitute “destroy[ing] government property.”

Michael Chamberlin, director of Protect the Public’s Trust, told the DCNF that “federal employees are obligated to preserve federal records” and that “destroying records for the express purpose of evading FOIA is a blatant and egregious violation of this obligation and should be treated as such.”

Morens also claimed to have a “‘secret’ back channel” to Fauci, a statement he walked back during congressional testimony on Wednesday by saying that he was only joking. Morens said during his testimony he did not recall sending information related to COVID-19 to Fauci’s personal email address, but that it’s possible he did so at some point.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which the NIAID operates within, declined to comment on the specifics of Morens’ emails.

“HHS doesn’t comment on personnel matters,” a spokesperson for the department said. “HHS is committed to the letter and spirit of the Freedom of Information Act and adherence to Federal records management requirements. It is HHS policy that all personnel conducting business for, and on behalf of, HHS refrain from using personal email accounts to conduct HHS business,” they continued.

Continue Reading

Trending

X