Connect with us

COVID-19

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

Published

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 The ability to re-purpose safe drugs like ivermectin was revoked.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 guidelinesAmerican 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.

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

COVID-19

Nova Scotia drops COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers amid ongoing staffing crisis

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Nova Scotia Health Authority is allowing unvaccinated staff to return to work when the new policy takes effect on February 26 after more than two years of being on unpaid leave.

Nova Scotia has dropped its vaccine mandate for healthcare workers amid an ongoing staff crisis.

On February 21, the Nova Scotia Health Authority announced that it will no longer require proof of COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers and is encouraging staff members who were suspended because of the mandate to return to work.

“By removing the mandatory vaccination requirement, both organizations aim to offer flexibility and support to employees, onsite medical staff, and preferred candidates,” read a joint statement from Nova Scotia Health and IWK Health.

“Staff members who chose not to receive vaccines or submit proof of immunization, when the policy was implemented, may have the opportunity to return to active employment,” the statement promised.

Under the new policy set to take effect February 26, staff members “who chose not to receive vaccines or submit proof of immunization will be eligible to apply for onsite medical privileges with Nova Scotia Health and IWK Health, provided they meet all other necessary job requirements.”

Starting in November 2021, Nova Scotia mandated the experimental vaccine for healthcare workers. Those who refused the shot were placed on unpaid leave.

 According to a letter sent to The Canadian Independent, the province is telling unvaccinated healthcare workers to return to work when the new policy takes effect.

The email informed them that it is “imperative” to reach out to their manager to “confirm your intention to return to work or resign employment with Nova Scotia Health.”

“We understand this update may raise questions and concerns associated with a return to work,” the email stated. “We encourage you to reach out to your manager to discuss any supports and resources you may need to assist with your transition back to the workplace.”

The policy change comes amid record-high healthcare wait times of 27.7 weeks, the longest in the past 30 years and 198% longer than the 1993 average of 9.3 weeks.

The data surveyed 1,200 Canadian doctors across 12 specialties and 10 provinces. The report found that Nova Scotia had the longest wait time of 56.7 weeks, followed by Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick with 55.2 weeks and 52.6 weeks, respectively.

Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers remain in place across Canada despite the critical staff shortages in hospitals. While some provincial governments have lifted their mandates, many hospitals still require the experimental vaccine.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Most Canadian nurses were hesitant to take COVID jab: gov’t data

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Researchers found that over 50 percent of nurses in Canada and nearly a third of doctors were hesitant to take the experimental COVID vaccine, but did so anyway to keep their jobs amid workplace mandates.

A recently unveiled survey has found that a significant number of Canadian healthcare workers, including most nurses, were hesitant to take the experimental COVID shots, and only did so because it was mandated across the sector.   

According to a survey conducted by the Public Health Agency of Canada, results of which were obtained February 19 by Blacklock’s Reporter, 59 percent of healthcare workers were hesitant to take the experimental COVID vaccine, but many chose to put aside their concerns as the shot was mandatory to keep their jobs.  

“The prospect of losing their employment played a role in their decision to get vaccinated or not,” the report, titled National Cross-Sectional Survey Of Health Workers Perceptions Of Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness, found.  

“They expressed significant hesitation towards COVID-19 vaccines due to the speed of vaccine development and their perception of the potential for side effects,” it continued.  

The research found that 31 percent of doctors and 54 percent of nurses admitted “some level of hesitancy” to take the shot. The report found that “concerns about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines were among the largest factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy.” 

LifeSiteNews has published comprehensive research on the dangers of receiving the experimental vaccine, including heart damage and blood clots.    

A recent study done by researchers at the Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest  found that 17 countries have a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots and boosters.  

However, despite their concerns, the report found that 89 percent of healthcare workers took the shot, mostly due to fears of losing their job.  

“Vaccine mandates were one of the most commonly reported reasons for getting vaccinated among respondents with a high proportion of nurses indicating it was the sole reason for vaccination,” the report said. 

Another revealed that vaccines were “developed in a matter of a couple of months and handed out like candy.”  

“I have a family and a mortgage it was like, what would I be able to do to make the same amount of money?” a third questioned.  

According to the report, 8 percent of workers refused the shot entirely, 87 percent of whom said they were concerned about the long-term effects of the vaccine, while 72 percent said they rejected that the vaccines were being mandated.  

64 percent of those who remained unvaccinated despite mandates said they lacked “confidence in Canada’s regulatory system,” 52 percent thought “the impact of COVID infection is greatly exaggerated,” 45 percent had religious reasons, and 20 percent were planning to become pregnant. Respondents were allowed to select more than one reason for opposing vaccination.

Notably, the survey found that “the proportion of self-reported infection did not vary significantly based on vaccination status,” meaning vaccinated healthcare staff were just as likely to transmit COVID as vaccinated ones.  

Currently, vaccine mandates for healthcare workers are still in place in many jurisdictions across Canada, despite a critical staff shortage in plenty of hospitals. While some provincial governments have lifted their mandates, many hospitals still require the experimental vaccine as a condition of employment.   

However, many healthcare workers have refused the vaccine and are appealing the mandates. In November, hundreds of British Columbia healthcare workers joined together to sue Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry for ongoing COVID shot mandates preventing them from working.      

Similarly, Ontario pro-freedom Dr. Mark Trozzi plans to appeal after he was stripped of his license for critiquing the mainstream narrative around the COVID-19 so-called “pandemic” and the associated vaccines.   

Continue Reading

Trending

X