Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

There’s another way to end the pandemic. Doctors can knock covid out with treatment

Published

2 minute read

While every doctor who treats patients needs to see this video, so does anyone who fears getting a positive diagnosis.  Covid-19 is treatable and if you or your loved one gets the dreaded diagnosis, you can and should demand access to treatment.  For those at highest risk of severe illness, it will increase the chances of a positive outcome by 85%.

COVID-19 is not only killing people, it’s destroying businesses, crushing dreams, and wreaking havoc on mental health.  It’s also driving a serious wedge between neighbours, communities, and society as a whole.  As Canadians helplessly watch what some are calling a race between covid variants and the effectiveness of widespread vaccination, most are unaware there’s another way out of this disaster, and doctors hold the key.

In this incredible testimony, leading medical researcher Dr. Peter McCullough addresses the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee.  The most widely published medical scholar in the world in his expertise, Dr. McCullough is an expert in the field of heart and kidney, an editor of two major journals, and an accomplished research scholar.

In this remarkable address you’ll hear that doctors haven’t been given any real instruction on how to treat patients in the time between a positive diagnosis and a week or two later when some become seriously ill.  It’s not well publicized yet, but Dr. Peter McCullough is doing all he can to let the medical community know by treating positive covid cases early, they can reduce the number of covid patients heading to the hospital by 85% !  The medical trials are legitimate.  The documentation on early onset treatment is verified.

Within two days of this testimony (March 10) the Texas Senate introduced legislation to mandate information on early treatment be provided to every positive covid-19 patient.  The key now is for doctors to act.

Here is Dr. McCullough’s recent presentation at the Capitol building in Austin, Texas.

 

Why aren’t more doctors treating covid? Doctor testifies early treatment saves lives

 

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

Kansas AG sues Pfizer for misrepresenting COVID shot as ‘safe and effective’

Published on

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach sues Pfizer for falsely claiming COVID shot is ‘safe and effective’

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Kansas’s approach of attempting to penalize Pfizer for misrepresenting the shots’ risks, rather than the risks themselves, could help get around the PREP Act, and if successful would establish a model for other states to follow.

Kansas Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach announced on Monday that he is suing pharmaceutical giant Pfizer over “multiple misleading statements” about the health risks and ineffectiveness of its mRNA-based COVID-19 shot, in a case that if successful could mark a turning point in the ongoing battle against the controversial injections.

“Pfizer misled Kansans about the vaccines’ risks, including to pregnant women and for myocarditis,” the complaint states, according to a press release from the attorney general’s office. “Additionally, Pfizer claimed its vaccine protected against COVID variants, despite data showing otherwise. The pharmaceutical giant also suggested its vaccine prevented COVID transmission, but later admitted it had never studied whether its vaccine stopped transmission.”

“The complaint also alleges that Pfizer coordinated with social media officials to censor speech critical of COVID-19 vaccines and declined to participate in the federal government’s vaccine development program, Operation Warp Speed, to avoid government oversight,” Kobach’s office further says.

READ: The Telegraph admits COVID shots may have helped cause over 3 million excess deaths

Among its attempts to deceive the public, Pfizer maintained its own adverse event database, which included cases not reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but “did not publicly release adverse events data from its database.” It also “did not disclose that its trial included only healthy individuals and excluded unhealthy individuals” and therefore “did not possess a reasonable basis to represent that it was safe for individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, who were immunocompromised, or who were pregnant or breastfeeding,” according to the lawsuit.

The complaint maintains that Pfizer’s misrepresentations, which helped the company earn $75 billion in two years, constitute violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, “regardless of whether any individual consumer ultimately received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”

In a statement to Fox Business, Pfizer responded that its claims “have been accurate and science-based. The Company believes that the state’s case has no merit and will respond to the suit in due course.”

READ: Pfizer reportedly withheld presence of cancer-linked DNA in COVID jabs from FDA, Health Canada

significant body of evidence links significant risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative. Among it, VAERS reports 37,647 deaths, 216,757 hospitalizations, 21,741 heart attacks, and 28,445 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of May 31, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

READ: Canadian father files $35 million lawsuit against Pfizer over son’s jab-related death

In Florida, a grand jury impaneled by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is currently investigating the manufacture and rollout of the COVID shots. In February, it released its first interim report on the underlying justification for Operation Warp Speed, which determined that lockdowns did more harm than good, that masks were ineffective at stopping COVID transmission, that COVID was “statistically almost harmless” to children and most adults, and that it is “highly likely” that COVID hospitalization numbers were inflated. The grand jury’s report on the jabs themselves is highly anticipated.

One long-standing impediment to holding Big Pharma accountable for the above issues has been the federal Public Readiness & Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, which, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), empowers the federal government to “limit legal liability for losses relating to the administration of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” Near the beginning of the COVID outbreak, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) invoked the act in declaring the virus a “public health emergency.”

READ: 33-year-old father dies of immune disorder linked to Pfizer COVID vaccine, doctors say

Under this “sweeping” immunity, CRS explains, the federal government, state governments, “manufacturers and distributors of covered countermeasures,” and licensed or otherwise-authorized health professionals distributing those countermeasures are shielded from “all claims of loss” stemming from those countermeasures, with the exception of “death or serious physical injury” brought about through “willful misconduct,” a standard that, among other hurdles, requires the offender to have acted “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.”

Kansas’s approach of attempting to penalize Pfizer for misrepresenting the shots’ risks, rather than the risks themselves, could help get around the PREP Act, and if successful would establish a model for other states to follow.

Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

How Did a Small Group Do This?

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By JEFFREY A. TUCKER

“You know, it’s kind of our own science experiment that we’re doing in real time.”

A very interesting study appeared last week by two researchers looking into the pandemic policy response around the world. They are Drs. Eran Bendavid and Chirag Patel of Stanford and Harvard, respectively. Their ambition was straightforward. They wanted to examine the effects of government policy on the virus.

In this ambition, after all, researchers have access to an unprecedented amount of information. We have global data on strategies and stringencies. We have global data on infections and mortality. We can look at it all according to the timeline. We have precise dating of stay-at-home orders, business closures, meeting bans, masking, and every other physical intervention you can imagine.

The researchers merely wanted to track what worked and what did not, as a way of informing future responses to viral outbreaks so that public health can learn lessons and do better next time. They presumed from the outset they would discover that at least some mitigation tactics achieved the aim.

It is hardly the first such study. I’ve seen dozens of such efforts, and there are probably hundreds or thousands of these. The data is like catnip to anyone in this field who is empirically minded. So far, not even one empirical examination has shown any effect of anything but that seems like a hard conclusion to swallow. So these two decided to take a look for themselves.

They even went to the next step. They assembled and reassembled all existing data in every conceivable way, running fully 100,000 possible combinations of tests that all future researchers could run. They found some correlations in some policies but the problem is that every time they found one, they found another instance in which the reverse seemed to be true.

You cannot infer causation if the effects are not stable.

After vast data manipulation and looking at every conceivable policy and outcome, the researchers reluctantly come to an incredible conclusion. They conclude that nothing that governments did had any effect. There was only cost, no benefit. Everywhere in the world.

Please just let that sink in.

The policy response destroyed countless millions of small businesses, ruined a generation in learning losses, spread ill health with substance abuse, wrecked churches that could not hold holiday services, decimated arts and cultural institutions, broke trade, unleashed inflation that is nowhere near done with us yet, provoked new forms of online censorship, built government power in a way without precedent, led to new levels of surveillance, spread vaccine injury and death, and otherwise shattered liberties and laws the world over, not to mention leading to frightening levels of political instability.

And for what?

Apparently, it was all for nought.

Nor has there been any sort of serious reckoning. The European Commission elections are perhaps a start, and heavily influenced by public opposition to Covid controls, in addition to other policies that are robbing nations of their histories and identities. The major media can call the victors “far right” all they want but this is really about common people simply wanting their lives back.

It’s interesting to speculate about precisely how many people were involved in setting the world on fire. We know the paradigm was tried first in Wuhan, then blessed by the World Health Organization. As regards the rest of the world, we know some names, and there were many cohorts in public health and gain-of-function research.

Let’s say there are 300 of them, plus many national security and intelligence officials plus their sister agencies around the world. Let’s just add a zero plus multiply that by the large countries, presuming that so many others were copycats.

What are we talking about here? Maybe 3,000 to 5,000 people total in a decision-making capacity? That might be far too high. Regardless, compared with the sheer number of people around the world affected, we are talking about a tiny number, a mico-percent of the world’s population or less making new rules for the whole of humanity.

The experiment was without precedent on this scale. Even Deborah Birx admitted it. “You know, it’s kind of our own science experiment that we’re doing in real time.” The experiment was on whole societies.

How in the world did this come to be? There are explanations that rely on mass psychology, the influence of pharma, the role of the intelligence services, and other theories of cabals and conspiracies. Even with every explanation, the whole thing seems wildly implausible. Surely it would have been impossible without global communications and media, which amplified the entire agenda in every respect.

Because of this, kids could not go to school. People in public parks had to stay within circles. Businesses could not open at full capacity. We developed insane rituals like masking when walking and unmasking when sitting. Oceans of sanitizer would be dumped on all people and things. People were made to be afraid of leaving their homes and clicked buttons to make groceries arrive on their doorsteps.

It was a global science experiment without any foundation in evidence. And the experience utterly transformed our legal systems and lives, introducing uncertainties and anxieties as never before and unleashing a level of crime in major cities that provoked residential, business, and capital flight.

This is a scandal for the ages. And yet hardly anyone in major media seems to be interested in getting to the bottom of it. That’s because, for bizarre reasons, looking too carefully at the culprits and policies here is regarded as being for Trump. And the hate and fear of Trump is so beyond reason at this point that whole institutions have decided to sit back and watch the world burn rather than be curious about what provoked this in the first place.

Instead of an honest accounting of the global upheaval, we are getting the truth in dribs and drabs. Anthony Fauci continues to testify for Congressional hearings and this extremely clever man threw his longtime collaborator under the bus, acting like David Morens was a rogue employee. That action seemed to provoke ex-CDC director Robert Redfield to go public, saying that it was a lab leak from a US-funded lab doing “dual purpose” research into vaccines and viruses, and strongly suggesting that Fauci himself was involved in the cover-up.

Among this group, we are quickly approaching the point of “Every man for himself.” It is fascinating to watch, for those of us who are deeply interested in this question. But for the mainstream media, none of this gets any coverage at all. They act like we should just accept what happened and not think anything about it.

This great game of pretend is not sustainable. To be sure, maybe the world is more broken than we know but something about cosmic justice suggests that when a global policy this egregious, this damaging, this preposterously wrongheaded, does all harm and no good, there are going to be consequences.

Not immediately but eventually.

When will the whole truth emerge? It could be decades from now but we already know this much for sure. Nothing we were promised about the great mitigation efforts by governments turned out to achieve anything remotely what they promised. And yet even now, the World Health Organization continues to uphold such interventions as the only way forward.

Meanwhile, the paradigm of bad science backed by force pervades nearly everything these days, from climate change to medical services to information controls.

When will evidence matter again?


Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

 

Author

  • Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Continue Reading

Trending

X