Connect with us

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

Brownstone Institute

FOIA Doc Shows BioNTech Founders Postdated Start of C19 Vax Project

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Robert KogonROBERT KOGON

As noted in my last article on BioNTech’s “brazen” avoidance of safety testing of its Covid-19 vaccine, BioNTech founders Ugur Sahin and Özlem Türeci claim in their book The Vaccine that the company’s Covid-19 vaccine project got underway on January 27, 2020. But documentary evidence released in response to a FOIA request (and included in the so-called “Pfizer documents”) shows that this is not true and that the company had in fact already begun preclinical, i.e. animal, testing nearly two weeks earlier, on January 14.

BioNTech R&D STUDY REPORT No. R-20-0072 is available here. The report is also referenced and discussed in an FDA submission on the preclinical study program that is available here. The below screenshot shows the study dates from p. 8 of the report.

In the book, Sahin claims furthermore that he only even became interested in the outbreak in Wuhan on January 24, after reading an article in the German weekly Der Spiegel (p. 4) and/or a submission to The Lancet (p. 6). But look again at the study dates above. BioNTech had already completed the first preclinical study for its Covid-19 vaccine the day before!

January 24, 2020 was a Friday. On Sahin’s account, he took the decision to launch his Covid-19 vaccine project over the weekend and unveiled his plans to his collaborators at BioNTech’s headquarters in Mainz, Germany on the following Monday: January 27 (ch. 2 passim and p. 42; see screencap below).

Sahin claims (p. 33) that it was at this January 27 meeting that he asked BioNTech’s animal testing team to prepare the preclinical program that was in fact already underway!

It should be noted that January 14, 2020, the start-date of the first preclinical study, was just two weeks after the first report of Covid-19 cases in Wuhan and just a day after the release of the full SARS-CoV-2 genome (drafts had been released previously).

BioNTech’s first preclinical study was evidently prepared before publication of the genome and in anticipation of it. As explained in the summary of the study (p. 6), its purpose was to test BioNTech mRNA formulated in lipid nanoparticles produced by the Canadian firm Acuitas. But the mRNA was here encoding a proxy antigen (luciferase), not the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 that would later serve as the target antigen.

The study looked at both biodistribution and immune system activation. As the FDA submission on the preclinical program puts it, “Platform properties that support BNT162b2 were initially demonstrated with non-SARS-CoV-2 antigens” (2.4 NONCLINICAL OVERVIEW, p. 7).

In The Vaccine, which was written with the journalist Joe Miller, Sahin and Türeci talk about the need to obtain the Acuitas lipids, which, they say, were more suitable for intramuscular injection than BioNTech’s own in-house lipids. But, again, they postdate the matter. Thus, on p. 52, we read: “The missing piece was still Acuitas, who had not yet consented to the use of their lipids. Then, on the morning of Monday 3 February, [Acuitas CEO] Tom Madden offered his help.” But BioNTech was already running tests using the Acuitas lipids three weeks earlier!

Furthermore, BioNTech was not able to formulate its mRNA into the lipids itself, but depended on the Austrian company Polymun to do this for it. As noted in The Vaccine (p.51), Polymun’s facilities are an 8-hour drive from BioNTech’s headquarters in Mainz. In the book, Sahin and Türeci describe the first batch of mRNA for the vaccine tests proper being packed up and driven by car to Polymun outside Vienna: “A couple of days later, a small Styrofoam box containing frozen vials full of vaccine would be driven back over the border to BioNTech” (pp. 116-117).

But presumably this same back-and-forth had to have occurred with the mRNA encoding the luciferase. This means that as a practical matter “Project Lightspeed” must have gotten underway even earlier: at least several days before the January 14 start date of the study.

Why did Sahin and Türeci postdate the launch of their Covid-19 vaccine project in their book? Well, undoubtedly because the actual start date – and we do not know when exactly the actual start date was – would have seemed far too soon. Based on the above considerations, it must have been at the latest just days after the first December 31, 2019 report of Covid-19 cases in Wuhan.

Author

  • Robert Kogon

    Robert Kogon is a pen name for a widely-published financial journalist, a translator, and researcher working in Europe. Follow him at Twitter here. He writes at edv1694.substack.com.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Preston Manning picked to chair review of Alberta’s COVID response

Published on

Premier Danielle Smith has struck a committee to investigate how the Alberta government responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and has appointed former Reform Party leader Preston Manning to chair it.

Smith, in a statement, says Manning and the panel will take feedback virtually from experts and the public, then issue a final report and recommendations by Nov. 15.

Manning is to pick the other panel members subject to approval by Smith.

The budget is $2 million, and Manning is to be paid $253,000.

Manning and Smith have been critical of government-imposed health restrictions such as masking, gathering rules and vaccine mandates during the pandemic.

Smith has questioned the efficacy of the methods and their long-term effects on household incomes, the economy and mental health.

She has criticized both Dr. Deena Hinshaw, the former chief medical officer of health, and the Alberta Health Services board for failing to provide good advice and help prepare for the pandemic, which she says forced the government to impose health restrictions and vaccine mandates.

Smith replaced Hinshaw and the board shortly after taking office in October.

The premier said Alberta needs to be ready for future health emergencies.

“There are valuable lessons we learned from the Alberta government’s response to the COVID-19 public health emergency,” Smith said in the statement Thursday.

“It’s important that we apply those lessons to strengthen our management of future public health crises, and the panel’s recommendations will be key in doing so.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 19, 2022.

Continue Reading

Trending

X