COVID-19
You won’t believe the irony of this doctor’s punishment for using ivermectin to treat COVID
From LifeSiteNews
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 The ability to re-purpose safe drugs like ivermectin was revoked.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.
Can you believe that a physician who was forced to undergo this “re-education” process due to their “inappropriate” use of ivermectin to save the lives of their patients had to be exposed to this sheer hypocrisy? This is a doctor who not only drew these same conclusions based on their own search of the literature, but they witnessed these benefits multiple times in their own practice. Yet, they were punished for following the science. And this punishment forced them to “re-learn” that what they did with ivermectin is exactly what they should have done!
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.
COVID-19
US House COVID report vindicates lab leak theory but tries to defend ‘success’ of the jabs
From LifeSiteNews
“the federal government supported dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without adequate transparency or oversight, and that former White House COVID adviser and National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci “played semantics with the definition of gain-of-function research” to deny it
The U.S. House Oversight & Accountability Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has released its long-awaited After Action Review on COVID-19 and the government response, which affirms the verdict that COVID most likely originated in a lab through gain-of-function research and broadly condemns the lockdowns of personal freedom and economic activity but attempts to walk a far finer and sometimes contradictory line on the COVID vaccines.
Worked on for almost two years, the 520-page report is billed as the “single most thorough review of the pandemic conducted to date,” according to a press release from the committee.
“This work will help the United States, and the world, predict the next pandemic, prepare for the next pandemic, protect ourselves from the next pandemic, and hopefully prevent the next pandemic. Members of the 119th Congress should continue and build off this work, there is more information to find and honest actions to be taken,” said Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee. “The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a distrust in leadership. Trust is earned. Accountability, transparency, honesty, and integrity will regain this trust. A future pandemic requires a whole of America response managed by those without personal benefit or bias. We can always do better, and for the sake of future generations of Americans, we must. It can be done.”
The report concludes that COVID most likely “emerged as the result of a laboratory or research related accident,” that the federal government supported dangerous gain-of-function research (that entails intentionally strengthening viruses to better study their potential effects) in Wuhan, China without adequate transparency or oversight, and that former White House COVID adviser and National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci “played semantics with the definition of gain-of-function research” to deny it, as well as prompting creation of the controversial “Proximal Origins” paper to attempt to discredit the lab-leak theory.
It further found that officials within NIAID actively attempted to flout Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documents on the matter, such as by intentionally misspelling various names and terms so they would be harder to find in word searches.
The report goes on to conclude that the enormous sums of money the government doled out in the name of COVID relief was rife with waste and abuse, including more than $191 billion in unemployment fraud, $64 billion worth of fraud in the Paycheck Protection Program, and the loss of $200 billion due to the Small Business Administration failing to implement proper oversight and controls.
Meanwhile, the infamous “social distancing” guidance for people to stand at least six feet apart was based on “no scientific trials or studies,” but despite admitting as much, Fauci declined to push back because, in his words, it was “not appropriate to be publicly challenging a sister organization.” Face masks were similarly unsupported by the science and ultimately proven to be ineffective at limiting COVID’s spread, and widespread lockdowns of businesses and public gatherings caused significant harm to the economy, to physical and mental health, and to children’s education and social development far outweighing whatever good they may have done.
On the subject of the controversial COVID vaccines, however, the report is far more deferential. It acknowledges that the shots “had adverse events that must be thoroughly investigated,” and discusses various shortcomings in the government’s reporting systems for adverse vaccine events but still concludes that, overall, the vaccines were “largely safe and effective,” and credits them with saving “millions” of lives.
Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration initiative to develop vaccines for COVID in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take, “was a tremendous success,” the subcommittee says, and the resulting vaccines “undoubtedly saved millions of lives by diminishing likelihood of severe disease and death.” It even faults President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, who were running against Donald Trump for the White House at the time, for “question(ing) the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations” before they were released.
At the same time, the report faults the following Biden administration for mandating the shots and rushing approval of vaccine booster doses, downplaying natural immunity, failing to properly adjudicate vaccine injuries, and exaggerating the vaccines’ value.
“COVID-19 vaccines were tremendously important in reducing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and were extremely effective in doing so,” the report claims. “However, the Biden Administration oversold the power of these vaccines. On more than one occasion, President Biden himself overstated the vaccine’s ability to prevent infection and transmission. These false statements likely contributed to Americans’ confusion about COVID-19 vaccines and reduced overall vaccine confidence.”
The subcommittee report largely reiterates and aligns with a wealth of previous findings on the failures of lockdowns and forced masking, as well as the origins of COVID-19. On the subject of the vaccines, however, it neglects a large body of evidence of far more widespread harm.
The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 38,068 deaths, 218,646 hospitalizations, 22,002 heart attacks, and 28,706 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of October 25, 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.
An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID vaccines, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and offered several theories for a causal link.
In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the vaccines’ manufacturers is slated to release a report on the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of misrepresentation for calling the shots “safe and effective.” The findings of both efforts are highly anticipated.
All eyes are currently on returning President Trump, and whose health team, which will be helmed by prominent vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as his nominee for Secretary of Health & Human Services, has given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which he has long taken credit, and has nominated both critics and defenders of establishment COVID measures for a number of administration roles.
COVID-19
Just 12% of Albertans have taken latest COVID shot, data show
From LifeSiteNews
Official data from the Alberta government as of early December show that just 11.9% of Albertans, 557,702 people, have gotten the latest COVID shot, down from 16.9% last year.
Official data shows that Canadians in the province of Alberta are overwhelmingly shunning the reformulated COVID jab approved by Health Canada, with nearly 90 percent of residents overall choosing not to get the shots.
Official data from the Alberta government as of early December show that just 11.9 percent of Albertans, 557,702 people, have gotten the latest COVID shot. At the same time last year, 16.9 percent of Albertans, or 855,343, chose to get a shot.
The COVID jab uptake rate amongst kids aged 6 months to 19 years sits at just 3.76 percent. For those aged 20 to 50, the rate is only 5.6 percent.
The jab uptake rate rises significantly for those aged 50 and over, topping out at 50.4 percent for those over 90, with the overall jab rate for those aged 65 and over being 36.2 percent.
In all cases, the majority of the COVID jabs administered were done so in pharmacies.
In September, Health Canada approved Moderna’s new mRNA COVID-19 jab for all Canadians over six months of age.
The approval of the shots comes despite the fact that the nation’s very own Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) has had to pay out $14 million to those injured by the shots, a sizable figure considering most claims are still unpaid.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a recent report claims that at least one federal Canadian MP told a constituent not to speak badly of reported delays in the VISP as well as the bungling of the program in general.
The mRNA-based shots themselves have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects, especially in children. LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of the experimental jabs, which include heart damage and blood clots.
As for Alberta Health Services, which Premier Danielle Smith will soon disband, it still is promoting the COVID shots for babies as young as six months old.
-
COVID-192 days ago
New York City workers fired for refusing COVID jab ask Trump, Vance, RFK Jr. to reinstate them
-
conflict1 day ago
‘Hell To Pay’: Trump Warns Middle East Leaders, Terrorists Of Consequences If Hostages Aren’t Released
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Panda Conservation Projects Backfiring After American Zoos Dished Out Millions To China
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
‘Dark Day’: Another Western Country Backs Doctor-Assisted Suicide, Opens Door To ‘Murder Of Old And Sick’
-
Health2 days ago
Fauci admitted to RFK Jr. that none of 72 mandatory vaccines for children has ever been safety tested
-
Alberta2 days ago
Canadian gov’t lawyers request jail for Calgary pastor who protested ‘drag queen story hour’ at library
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Andy McCarthy Says Hunter Biden Was Pardoned On Charges That ‘No American’ Would Catch A Break On
-
Alberta2 days ago
Putting an end to the photo radar cash cow