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 The ability to re-purpose safe drugs like ivermectin was revoked.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
Canadian judge rejects complaint against maskless workplaces as frivolous
From LifeSiteNews
Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne ruled that Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda’s complaint of feeling ‘unsafe’ following the end of mask mandates in federal workplaces was unreasonable
A federal judge ruled that complaints that maskless workplaces pose a danger to employees’ health are frivolous, ending the final chapter of COVID regulations.
According to information published on January 15 by Blacklock’s Reporter, Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne ruled that Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda’s complaint of feeling unsafe following the end of mask mandates in federal workplaces was unreasonable.
“The applicant’s concern about an unsafe workplace was based on his assessment that a significant number of people would return to the workplace under the return-to-work model, that any of these people may have contracted Covid-19 and that the non-mandatory recommendations and precautions relating to Covid-19 fell short of what he believes would be a safe work environment,” wrote the court.
Masks were mandated in federal workplaces from April 20, 2020, to February 14, 2023, under the direction of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. At the same time, millions of Canadians were forced to mask in public settings such as grocery stores or hospitals.
After the mandate had lifted, Juzda, a “fully vaccinated” individual without any particular health issues, complained that he felt unsafe in the Gatineau headquarters.
“I must excuse my right to refuse work that constitutes a danger,” he wrote, referencing the Canada Labor Code that allows federally regulated staff to refuse work “that constitutes a danger to the employee.”
Juzda claimed that masking “reduces the risk of contracting Covid-19 but is of limited effectiveness if not combined with other measures, particularly during prolonged exposure to unmasked infected individuals such as being nearby in an indoor office for an entire day.”
“Covid-19 is a disease that in addition to often being extremely unpleasant during the acute period poses significant risks including death,” he continued.
“Handwashing and workplace cleaning are of minimal use in limiting the spread of Covid-19,” Juzda claimed.
His complaint was quickly dismissed as “frivolous” by executives, a move which Duchesne agreed with, calling Juzda’s concerns unwarranted.
Indeed, LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on overwhelming evidence showing that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission of COVID and that they come with harmful effects.
Back in 2021, 47 studies confirmed the ineffectiveness of masks for COVID, while 32 more confirmed their negative health effects.
According to another 2021 report, more than 170 studies have found that masks have been ineffective at stopping COVID and instead have been harmful, especially to children.
In fact, in 2020, before masks were widely mandated, Canada’s chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam admitted that masks were not effective in preventing COVID.
“There is no need to use a mask for well people,” she said in the first few weeks of the pandemic. “It hasn’t been proven really to protect you from getting the virus.”
COVID-19
Canadian parents wary of COVID, flu shots for children
From LifeSiteNews
Government research has found that Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with COVID or flu shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects
Canadian parents are remaining wary of COVID and flu shots for children despite ongoing publicity campaigns.
According to in-house research by the Public Health Agency obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, many Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with the experimental COVID shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects.
“Continued monitoring of parental knowledge and views around Covid-19 and influenza are important to adapt public communication and education accordingly,” the report said.
“Monitoring parental attitudes is essential to predict expected vaccine take-up and guide education and awareness efforts to promote vaccination,” it continued.
In Canada, COVID shots are both approved and encouraged for all children over six months of age, despite the fact that the latest Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots for children under 12 were only granted emergency use authorization in the U.S.
The research asked parents if they planned to give their children updated COVID shots, to which only 17 percent said they “definitely will”; 26 percent said they “probably won’t”; and 28 percent said they “definitely won’t.”
Those who planned to refuse the reoccurring shots revealed they were “concerned there was not enough research on the vaccine,” questioned the effectiveness of the shots, mistrusted the government information surrounding COVID shots, or their doctor had never mentioned it.
Similarly, 19.5 percent reported being “somewhat hesitant” to give their child the COVID shot, while 21 percent said they were “very hesitant.”
Likewise, parents were hesitant to give their children annual flu shots, over concerns of it being unnecessary and potential side effects.
According to 2021 data, only 17.49 percent of children ages five to 11 in Canada have received at least one dose of the COVID injection. Additionally, of elementary school-age kids who have had both doses of the COVID shots, only 0.6 percent are counted as “fully vaccinated.”
Parents’ hesitancy to jab their young children comes after research has proven that the COVID shots are not only unnecessary but pose serious health risks, especially to children.
Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.
The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects, such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.
The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.
A report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed at least 21,000 side effects, with 24 deaths of American children ages 12 to 17 after COVID shots.
-
Addictions2 days ago
Nanaimo syringe stabbing reignites calls for involuntary care
-
National2 days ago
Trudeau Must Resign From Board Overseeing Leadership Race and Call for Investigation Into Foreign Interference
-
illegal immigration1 day ago
50,000 Students Missing: Trudeau’s Immigration Circus Hits New Low
-
City of Red Deer1 day ago
Council ends reduced fine option for early ticket payment, school and playground zones start at 7 AM
-
City of Red Deer1 day ago
City Council suspends payments on Westerner’s $19 million loan
-
Business1 day ago
FDA bans commonly used food dye
-
Business2 days ago
You Now Have Permission to Stop Pretending
-
Alberta1 day ago
Electronic monitoring of repeat offenders begins