Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

You won’t believe the irony of this doctor’s punishment for using ivermectin to treat COVID

Published

2 years ago

10 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Dr. Byram W. Bridle

This punishment forced the physician to ‘re-learn’ that what they did with ivermectin is exactly what they should have done!

When I heard the following story I was flabbergasted and knew that I must share it. It is one of those truthful tales that leaves you shaking your head in near disbelief…

I recently chatted with a physician who had their license restricted because they used ivermectin to prevent severe disease and save the lives of their patients with COVID-19. They did this because they kept abreast of the latest evidence with respect to ivermectin and COVID-19. As we all know, this challenged the prevailing but now ever-so-obviously misleading “COVID-19 narrative” that pervaded the past few years. This doctor is a gem. We need our hospitals and medical practices filled with these kinds of doctors; not the parrots that could only regurgitate “safe and effective” whenever their lips parted.

The licensing body for this physician made them undergo re-training so they could become educated about what the primary scientific literature says about COVID-19. Remember, a key reason this doctor was forced into “re-training” is because they dared to follow the real science and promote ivermectin as a truly safe and truly effective early intervention strategy to protect people from getting severe COVID-19. They had successfully implemented this strategy with many patients, thereby saving many lives. Then, their ability to do this was stripped from them because the cheap, off-patent, previously readily available drug that was deemed one of the safest and most important by the World Health Organization, was vilified. The ability to re-purpose safe drugs like ivermectin was revoked.

With this background in mind, check out what happened during this great doctor’s “re-education program”…

They were required to do some of their re-education using a website at McMaster University, which is in the city of Hamilton in the province of Ontario in the country of Canada. This university lays claim to being the birth-place of what is called “evidence-based medicine” (it seems obvious to me that the practice of modern medicine should always be based on evidence, but my purpose here is not to delve into the nomenclature). Here is what they say at this link:

McMaster and the Faculty of Health Sciences is considered the birthplace of evidence-based medicine, which is described as one of the most important medical advances in the past 150 years, according to the British Medical Journal. EBM integrates the best research data with clinical expertise and patient values, with the goal to use the best evidence to give patients the best possible care. [Emphasis added.]

This sounds great, doesn’t it?

They offer resources on this webpage to allow physicians to find the evidence they need to “give patients the best possible care”:

Under the heading “Find Evidence,” McMaster University states the following:

We search the published literature and compile public health relevant reviews – eliminating your need to search and screen individual databases.

Did you catch that? A physician would not need to search elsewhere because McMaster University has already done this for them; they have identified the best available evidence. Remember this!

If you click on the link on the page that says “Search healthevidence.org,” it takes you to a page where, as implied, one can search for health evidence with the intent to provide the highest quality, vetted data to be used “to give patients the best possible care.”

The good doctor told me that one of their searches was for “ivermectin, covid-19.” Considering that they were undergoing “re-education” for having the gall to use ivermectin in their personal quest to “give [their own] patients the best possible care,” they were shocked by what they found. And I was so shocked by what I heard that I immediately did the search myself to confirm it. So, last night (November 28, 2023), I typed “ivermectin, covid-19” into the search engine:

And this was the result:

Note that only one article came up. But, it certainly does look like a good one. After all, it is a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. It was vetted by McMaster University, the birthplace of “evidence-based medicine,” and highlighted as the key document to, as the title of the article implies, “inform clinical guidelines.” “Health Evidence” (i.e., McMaster University) gave it a high rating.

When you select the article, this is what you see:

Here is the full citation:

Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Dowswell T, Fordham EJ, Mitchell S, Hill SR, et al. (2021). Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis to inform clinical guidelines. American Journal of Therapeutics, 28(4), e434-e460.

I clicked on “View Quality Assessment” and this is what it looks like:

Here is a close-up:

It gets highly rated; an 8 out of 10 to be exact. Note that it gets a checkmark for “the certainty of the review’s conclusions.” After all, a physician would want to be certain that the evidence they are using to inform their clinical practice is solid.

So, brace yourself for this. The article draws the following conclusions:

[E]vidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Houston, we have a problem…. - Block Street Journal - Medium

Highly-trained physicians should not be forced to endure this kind of circular hypocrisy!

I conducted my own extensive review of the literature with respect to ivermectin and COVID-19. Especially when one removes the several studies that had fatal design flaws, I came to the same conclusion as both the good doctor and McMaster University. Sadly, this conclusion that “large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin” was never promoted by the power-brokers of public health. So, in the present day, this conclusion needs to be modified to say:

Large reductions in COVID-19 deaths WERE possible using ivermectin.

I mourn for the many people that would have been alive today had physicians been allowed to “follow the [REAL] science.”

As a scientist of integrity I am appalled by how our medical professionals of integrity have been and are still being treated. It is abhorrent. I will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with these brothers and sisters and continue to call out the hypocrisies of their health care licensing bodies. If the public cares about their health, they will too. After all, we should all want to be cared for by critically thinking, deeply caring health professionals, not the parrots that have proven to be highly susceptible to propagandizing.

Perhaps it is time for the people running the colleges that oversee health professionals to undergo re-education.

Who wants to take a guess as to how long it will take for McMaster University to alter the results of this particular literature search to match “the narrative” as opposed to the truth?

Reprinted with permission from COVID Chronicles.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Crime / 6 hours ago

UK finally admits clear evidence linking Pakistanis and child grooming gangs

Business / 6 hours ago

Trump family announces Trump Mobile: Made in America, for America

conflict / 7 hours ago

Trump leaves G7 early after urging evacuation of Tehran

Alberta

Alberta announces citizens will have to pay for their COVID shots

Published on June 16, 2025

By

From LifeSite News

By Anthony Murdoch

The government said that it has decided to stop ‘waste’ by not making the shots free starting this fall.

Beginning this fall, COVID shots in the province will have to be pre-ordered at the full price, about $110, to receive them.  (This will roll out in four ‘phases’. In the first phases COVID shots will still be free for those with pre-existing medical conditions, people on social programs, and seniors.)

The UCP government in a press release late last week noted due to new “federal COVID-19 vaccine procurement” rules, which place provinces and territories as being responsible for purchasing the jabs for residents, it has decided to stop “waste” by not making the jab free anymore.

“Now that Alberta’s government is responsible for procuring vaccines, it’s important to better determine how many vaccines are needed to support efforts to minimize waste and control costs,” the government stated.

“This new approach will ensure Alberta’s government is able to better determine its overall COVID-19 vaccine needs in the coming years, preventing significant waste.”

The New Democratic Party (NDP) took issue with the move to stop giving out the COVID shots for free, claiming it was “cruel” and would place a “financial burden” on people wanting the shots.

NDP health critic Sarah Hoffman claimed the move by the UCP is health “privatization” and the government should promote the abortion-tainted shots instead.

The UCP said that in 2023-2024, about 54 percent of the COVID shots were wasted, with Health Minister Adriana LaGrange saying, “In previous years, we’ve seen significant vaccine wastage.”

“By shifting to a targeted approach and introducing pre-ordering, we aim to better align supply with demand – ensuring we remain fiscally responsible while continuing to protect those at highest risk,” she said.

The jabs will only be available through public health clinics, with pharmacies no longer giving them out.

The UCP also noted that is change in policy comes as a result of the Federal Drug Administration in the United States recommending the jabs be stopped for young children and pregnant women.

The opposite happened in Canada, with the nation’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) continuing to say that pregnant women should still regularly get COVID shots as part of their regular vaccine schedule.

The change in COVID jab policy is no surprise given Smith’s opposition to mandatory shots.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, early this year, Smith’s UCP government said it would consider halting COVID vaccines for healthy children.

Smith’s reasoning was in response to the Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force’s “COVID Pandemic Response” 269-page final report. The report was commissioned by Smith last year, giving the task force a sweeping mandate to investigate her predecessor’s COVID-era mandates and policies.

The task force’s final report recommended halting “the use of COVID-19 vaccines without full disclosure of their potential risks” as well as outright ending their use “for healthy children and teenagers as other jurisdictions have done,” mentioning countries like “Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the U.K.”

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children and all have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies.

Many Canadian doctors who spoke out against COVID mandates and the experimental mRNA injections were censured by their medical boards.

LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of the experimental COVID mRNA jabs that include heart damage and blood clots.

Continue Reading

International

Pentagon agency to simulate lockdowns, mass vaccinations, public compliance messaging

Published on June 12, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

With lockdowns, mass vaccination campaigns, and social distancing still on the table from the last around, it appears that AI and Machine Learning will play a much bigger role in the next.

DARPA is getting into the business of simulating disease outbreaks, including modeling interventions such as mass vaccination campaigns, lockdowns, and communication strategies.

At the end of May, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) put out a Request for Information (RFI) seeking information regarding “state-of-the-art capabilities in the simulation of disease outbreaks.”

The Pentagon’s research and development funding arm wants to hear from academic, industry, commercial, and startup communities on how to develop “advanced capabilities that drive technical innovation and identify critical gaps in bio-surveillance, diagnostics, and medical countermeasures” in order to “improve preparedness for future public health emergencies.”

As if masks, social distancing, lockdowns, and vaccination mandates under the unscientific guise of slowing the spread and preventing the transmission of COVID weren’t harmful enough, the U.S. military wants to model the effects of these exact same countermeasures for future outbreaks.

The RFI also asks participants “Fatality Rate & Immune Status: How are fatality rates and varying levels of population immunity (natural or vaccine-induced) incorporated into your simulations?“

Does “natural or vaccine-induced” relate to “population immunity” or “fatality rates” or both?

Moving on, the RFI gets into modeling lockdowns, social distancing, and mass vaccination campaigns, along with communication strategies:

Intervention Strategies: Detail the range of intervention strategies that can be modeled, including (but not limited to) vaccination campaigns, social distancing measures, quarantine protocols, treatments, and public health communication strategies. Specifically, describe the ability to model early intervention and its impact on outbreak trajectory.

The fact that DARPA wants to model these so-called intervention strategies just after the entire world experienced them suggests that these exact same measures will most likely be used again in the future:

“We are committed to developing advanced modeling capabilities to optimize response strategies and inform the next generation of (bio)technology innovations to protect the population from biological threats. We are particularly focused on understanding the complex interplay of factors that drive outbreak spread and evaluating the effectiveness of potential interventions.” — DARPA, Advanced Disease Outbreak Simulation Capabilities RFI, May 2025.

“Identification of optimal timelines and capabilities to detect, identify, attribute, and respond to disease outbreaks, including but not limited to biosensor density deployment achieving optimal detection timelines, are of interest.” ­— DARPA, Advanced Disease Outbreak Simulation Capabilities RFI, May 2025.

With lockdowns, mass vaccination campaigns, and social distancing still on the table from the last around, it appears that AI and Machine Learning will play a much bigger role in the next.

For future innovation, the DARPA RFI asks applicants to: “Please describe any novel technical approaches – or applications of diverse technical fields (e.g., machine learning, artificial intelligence, complex systems theory, behavioral science) – that you believe would significantly enhance the state-of-the-art capabilities in this field or simulation of biological systems wholistically.”

Instead of putting a Dr. Fauci, a Dr. Birx, a replaceable CDC director, a TV doctor, a big pharma CEO, or a Cuomo brother out there to lie to your face about how they were all just following The ScienceTM, why not use AI and ML and combine them with behavioral sciences in order to concoct your “public health communications strategies?”

When you look at recently announced DARPA programs like Kallisti and MAGICS, which are aimed at creating an algorithmic Theory of Mind to model, predict, and influence collective human behavior, you start to get a sense of how all these programs can interweave:

“The MAGICS ARC calls for paradigm-shifting approaches for modeling complex, dynamic systems for predicting collective human behaviour.” — DARPA, MAGICS ARC, April 2025

On April 8, DARPA issued an Advanced Research Concepts (ARC) opportunity for a new program called “Methodological Advancements for Generalizable Insights into Complex Systems (MAGICS)” that seeks “new methods and paradigms for modeling collective human behavior.”

Nowhere in the MAGICS description does it mention modeling or predicting the behavior of “adversaries,” as is DARPA’s custom.

Instead, it talks at length about “modeling human systems,” along with anticipating, predicting, understanding, and forecasting “collective human behavior” and “complex social phenomena” derived from “sociotechnical data sets.”

Could DARPA’s MAGICS program be applied to simulating collective human behavior when it comes to the next public health emergency, be it real or perceived?

“The goal of an upcoming program will be to develop an algorithmic theory of mind to model adversaries’ situational awareness and predict future behaviour.” — DARPA, Theory of Mind Special Notice, December 2024.

In December 2024, DARPA launched a similar program called Theory of Mind, which was renamed Kallisti a month later.

The goal of Theory of Mind is to develop “new capabilities to enable national security decisionmakers to optimize strategies for deterring or incentivizing actions by adversaries,” according to a very brief special announcement.

DARPA never mentions who those “adversaries” are. In the case of a public health emergency, an adversary could be anyone who questions authoritative messaging.

The Theory of Mind program will also:

… seek to combine algorithms with human expertise to explore, in a modeling and simulation environment, potential courses of action in national security scenarios with far greater breadth and efficiency than is currently possible.

This would provide decisionmakers with more options for incentive frameworks while preventing unwanted escalation.

We are interested in a comprehensive overview of current and emerging technologies for disease outbreak simulation, how simulation approaches could be extended beyond standard modeling methods, and to understand how diseases spread within and between individuals including population level dynamics.

They say that all the modeling and simulating across programs is for “national security,” but that is a very broad term.

DARPA is in the business of research and development for national security purposes, so why is the Pentagon modeling disease outbreaks and intervention strategies while simultaneously looking to predict and manipulate collective human behavior?

If and when the next outbreak occurs, the same draconian and Orwellian measures that governments and corporations deployed in the name of combating COVID are still on the table.

And AI, Machine Learning, and the military will play an even bigger role than the last time around.

From analyzing wastewater to learning about disease spread; from developing pharmaceuticals to measuring the effects of lockdowns and vaccine passports, from modeling and predicting human behavior to coming up with messaging strategies to keep everyone in compliance – “improving preparedness for future public health emergencies” is becoming more militaristically algorithmic by the day.

“We are exploring innovative solutions to enhance our understanding of outbreak dynamics and to improve preparedness for future public health emergencies.” — DARPA, Advanced Disease Outbreak Simulation Capabilities RFI, May 2025.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Trending

X