Author Archive

Despite all Evidence, ‘Powers That Be’ Continue to Push COVID Shots on Children: Sign the Petition

Let’s review the facts:
The abrupt about-face has caused many to speculate that the narrative is crumbling, and there is a scheduled end to the ‘pandemic,’
Some more facts:
  • COVID injections have utterly failed to stop transmission and infection.
  • The promise of COVID injections lessening severity and death is also a ruse as countries adopting mass ‘vaccination’ campaigns have been hit hardest with severe COVID.
  • The COVID shots have caused enhancement of variants, are dragging out the ‘pandemic,’ and have caused ADE, and more adverse reactions and death than another other vaccine in the history of VAERS.
  • Boosters wane quickly with steeply declining protection against emergency department visits as well as hospitalization during Omicron, proving they don’t lessen severity.
  • Warnings on boosters, with an health agency stating it looks like they lower the immune system.
Yet, despite these facts, the ‘powers that be’ are hell-bent on getting these experimental, fast-tracked injections into the arms of babies and children.

In light of these facts, the important question to ask is why?

Regarding children, a study by the CDC shows hospitalizations among children during the ‘pandemic’ actually declined. 

The study split the children into three age groups:

  • 0-4, overall ER visits decreased by 51% during 2020, 2021, and 2022 compared with 2019
  • 5-11 overall ER visits decreased by 22%
  • 12-17 overall ER visits decreased by 23%

Important points:

“COVID-19 visits predominated across all pediatric ages; visits for other respiratory illnesses mostly declined. Number and proportion of visits increased for certain injuries (e.g., firearm injuries, self-harm, and drug poisonings), some chronic diseases, and behavioral health concerns, with variations by age group.”

So once again, we are talking about collateral damage caused by lockdowns, not COVID.

Also important to note is that concerns about higher COVID-19 hospital admissions have been refuted.  Even Fauci, White House pandemic adviser, stated that COVID-19 cases among children were being overcounted at hospitals as kids are automatically tested when they are admitted. And the COVID PCR yields notoriously high false positive rates.  COVID is over counted everywhere.  Our corrupt government health authorities are guilty of committing egregious errors in counting COVID  cases and deaths.

In December 2021, Pfizer announced the 2-dose series wasn’t successful and did not provide immunity in 2-5 year olds, and they began trials for a 3-dose series. Despite this failure, the FDA asked Pfizer to submit an application for authorization in this age group.  Even former FDA Commissioner and current Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb, admits not enough children under five have COVID to even test the “vaccine.”  What does that tell you?  Interestingly, Gottlieb was not interviewed as a guest, but as a “CNBC contributor,” which means he also works for corporate media, demonstrating yet again the revolving door between public health, Big Pharma, and mainstream media.  But, damn the torpedoes, it’s full-speed ahead!

This means VRBPAC will be voting on authorization for a vaccine in our youngest, most vulnerable children already knowing it is not effective, and without safety data.

Eric Rubin, a member of the FDA’s reviewing committee said this was “very unusual” and that “FDA doesn’t seem to be immune to political pressures.” Jeffrey Zientz, White House Covid-19 Response Coordinator told the press the administration is ready to “hit the ground running” to vaccinate infants and toddlers as soon as they get the authorization.

Why the jab when, according to data published by the CDC, 99.99815% of children who contract COVID-19 survive. And, children are not even the spreaders. There are no long-term safety studies for this age group, or any age group, for the mRNA covid vaccines because the placebo group was “unblinded” and allowed to get the vaccine. Plus there are 36,167 adverse events reported to VAERS as of February 4, 2022 in children under 18. Source

Besides the fact there is NO emergency in this age group, and even Fauci admitting that hospitalizations attributed to COVID in kids are probably not due to COVID, the likelihood that the injections will prevent a SINGLE case of COVID-19 in adults is nearly ZERO.

Go here to listen to what an Israeli immunologist recently wrote in an open letter which states authorities have “failed miserably,” by not acknowledging that young people have a very low risk regarding COVID. Another Israeli scientist said a research paper she wrote on serious adverse reactions to the injections was squashed.

So up until now, the FDA has illegally approved all other Pfizer COVID-19 “vaccines” by simply rubber-stamping Pfizer’s own data which is hidden from the public, and recently Pfizer quietly added language warning that ‘unfavorable preclinical, clinical, or safety data’ may impact business. As Zerohedge points out, Pfizer which just forecast $54 billion for 2022 sales, appears to be anticipating some bad news and that bad news centers around disclosures of unfavorable safety data. It also probably doesn’t help that a whistleblower is pressing forward with a lawsuit against Pfizer despite the U.S. government declining to investigate the matter. It too centers around lack of safety, adverse events either not being reported correctly or being reported at all, and informed consent errors – among other things.

Dr. Weiler states that there have been a number of important breaches of ethical and legal standards involved in the activities to render the data being considered by the FDA including:

  • it is illegal to conduct medical experiments and enroll people in a clinical trial unless there is a direct potential personal benefit to them via their participation. Children do not benefit from COVID injections, and the FDA’s risk-benefit assessment was deeply flawed:
    • it failed to account for the large proportion of children who already had COVID, recovered, and have natural immunity which is superior to ‘vaccine’ induced immunity, which an FDA senior advisor admitted would result in a 45% reduction of all the benefits in the FDA’s risk-benefit analyses
    • using the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis and conservatively adjusting for those with natural immunity, the risk of hospitalization from ‘vaccine’ related heart inflammation in 5 to 11 year-old boys is greater than the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations prevented by vaccination.
    • while 118 hospitalizations are prevented by ‘vaccination’, this is at the risk of 156 vaccine related myopericarditis hospitalizations, for 5-11-year-old boys.
    • a Kaiser Permanente study found the actual myopericarditis incidence rate to be 208 cases per million children vaccinated, not the FDA’s usage of 106
    • the FDA used pediatric hospitalization rates as a marker for disease severity in children when a Stanford University study found that 45% of pediatric COVID-19 hospital admissions were unlikely to have been caused by SARS-CoV-2, and a CDC medical officer stated approximately 19% of younger children who were classified as COVID-19 hospital admissions were not primarily hospitalized due to COVID-19, yet the FDA did not adjust their assessment.
    • rather than using a weekly average COVID hospitalization rate since the start of the ‘pandemic’ the FDA used an arbitrary average of the four weeks prior to Sept. 11, 2021, resulting in a COVID-19 hospitalization rate of approximately 0.74 per 100,000 children, which is nearly double the average COVID-19 hospitalization rate of 0.4 per 100,000 children, further skewing the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis in favor of ‘vaccination’.
    • the FDA assumed a constant injection efficacy over 6 months, when it is well established effectiveness rapidly declines with one study showing a drop below 50% effectiveness after just five months.
    • FDA did not account for boosters after five months – each of which carries an additional risk of adverse events.
    • FDA only accounted for myocarditis/pericarditis risks following injections and didn’t account for anaphylaxis, Bell’s palsy, lymphadenopathy, among others.
    • data out of the UK has shown that individuals previously infected are more likely to experience systemic side-effects following COVID-19 vaccination.
    • FDA estimates that ‘vaccinating’ 1 million 5-11 year olds would prevent ONE COVID death, which would cost $39 million.
    • Sweden decided against recommending COVID-19 shots for children 5-11 years old as the benefits do not outweigh the risks.
    • Norway and the U.K. only recommend – not require- the jabs for high risk 5-11 year olds.
    • Netherlands and Norway admit children may not benefit from shots if they’ve already recovered from infection.
    • Experts admit COVID will be with us indefinitely.
  • post-EDU vaccine adverse event surveillance is a form of clinical research, and parents will not be provided, as required under the Common Rule and the rest of US 45-CFR-46, the opportunity to decline on the basis of refusal to participate in medical experimentation on their children.
  • If EUA is obtained, millions of children will be ‘vaccinated’ based on data from a scant 2 months of safety follow-up.
  • causality on post EUA ‘vaccine’ adverse events and deaths will be denied due to design, and not all events will be reported as there are no penalties for failing to report them.
  • studies that led to EUA for COVID shots for adults skipped Phase 2 trials, and the study for children combined all phases into one preventing the generation of data confirming prior adverse events found in the separate phases.
  • those injured or killed following the injections will not be able to file for compensation. HHS is both the defendant and the administrator, a clear violation of the separations of powers doctrine of the constitution and will provide testimony arguing against EACH and EVERY single case of which no participants will be able to access to cite precedent, including testimony and rulings from other cases. 
  • those suffering adverse reactions or death will have 12 months to link it to the injections and to file to the CICP for a “request for benefits” package, while Pfizer gets away with using just 2 months of follow-up for safety, and of course will not be liable for any damage.
  • Weiler states he’s had a peak at leaked data and is concerned:
    • they will not consider absolute risk reduction
    • about the continued futile use of injections that target extinct variants are linked to the easier spread of the virus from cell to cell in injected individuals
    •  they will arbitrarily subdivide subjective age groups to give more impressive results
    • they will use evidence of ‘immunity’ restricted to antibody production, when it is not indicative of long-term immunity, as well as the possibility of pathogenic priming

In January, 2022, parents in Switzerland protested over the deaths of their children from the Pfizer shots, and the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) has shown that children in England and Wales who have been fully “vaccinated” with Pfizer’s mRNA COVID shot are 5,105% more likely to die from ANY cause afterward.

This is important to understand regarding ANY children, but particularly those infected with Lyme/MSIDS, have autism, or other immune dysfunctions. These children are in harms way, yet the current “top down” federal “one size fits all” approach to medicine and vaccination is killing the most vulnerable.

California lawmakers appear to agree with DHS that those opposing experimental COVID injections are “domestic terrorists,” and “steps” should be taken to deal with them. Further, California lawmakers are underhandedly fast-tracking several child ‘health’ bills that will further erode parental rights and medical freedom if passed. CA already has a mandate for children over 12, which will begin once the shots receive full approval. Bill #1 below will go much further by requiring every child K-12 to be “vaccinated” while the shots are still under EUA.

  1. forced COVID shots for school enrollment. The unvaxxed will be forced into remote learning.
  2. allowing minors to make their own ‘vaccine’ decisions without parental knowledge
  3. health care staff must complete cultural humility training, mandating a ‘refresher training course’ if they offend someone, and imposes sanctions for non-compliance

According to Karen England, Executive Director of the Capital resource Institute, these bills dismantle Constitutional rights.  She states California is treating parents like the enemy as a co-parent in a divorce, where government is the parent with custody, and parents are the visiting parent who has little say in decisions. 

Epidemiologists in an op-ed said ‘Kids Deserve medical care driven by facts, not politics,’ and that mandating COVID shots for kids is not supported by scientific evidence and will cause more harm than good.

If you care about medical freedom, and the overbearing high-pressured sales job pushing COVID injections upon children despite all available scientific evidence, please sign and share this petition.

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

FDA Flip-Flops on Kid’s COVID Vax: ‘Worst Day for Agency in 20 Years’

http://

FDA Flip-Flops on Kid’s Vax

Worst Day for Agency in 20 Years

In 16 minutes, Dr. Vinay Prasad explains the unprecedented events unfolding before our eyes regarding the COVID shots.  Please read Dr. Weiler’s article below as he makes important points. 

I personally disagree with some of Dr. Prasad’s comments on vaccines but the bigger point is that everything going on now is a complete fiasco and is being driven by politics not science and health.  For more on the other side of vaccines: 

Pfizer Moving Goalposts on COVID-19 Vaccination Endpoints for Toddlers Tanked Their EUA Big, But it’s Par for the Course. How it Relates to Pfizer Vaccine Immune Suppression. Plan B.

Someone thought it would be a good idea to move to a secondary endpoint mid-review. That told us a lot about how bad Pfizer’s data must be for their vaccine in children and why they pulled their EUA.
James Lyons-Weiler

Remember back in the beginning when COVID-19 vaccine “efficacy” was defined as “ability to prevent transmission”? And then it became “ability to reduce death and serious illness”? And then it became “ability to produce neutralizing antibodies”? And then it became “ability to produce antibodies”?

The data leak Pfizer did to the New York Times backfired, revealing the weakness of the data to be reviewed by FDA. As Toby Rogers put it, “We Did It!” – but in reality, Pfizer and the other vaccine manufacturers – and their friends in the FDA – did it to themselves by changing the goal-post of success mid-study, after data peeking – which has been par for the course in post-marketing vaccine studies. Now we see it in pre-approval vaccine studies, and it’s never going to fly in that regulatory context.

Vinay Prasad, a pro-vaccine MD, MPH, published a YouTube video entitled “FDA flip flops on Kids Vax 6 mo to 4 years old | Worst day for the agency in 20 years | Reputation” in which he decries the same issues I published in my article calling Pfizer and FDA to task for the clear flaws in Pfizer’s pending data.

I strongly disagree with Prasad on his concern over anything that would cause people to bring all of childhood vaccinations into question. His position is based on the false premises that safety is assured and that efficacy has not waned in those vaccines*, his clear frustration at the process used by the Pfizer/NYTimes/FDA team that effected the fiasco is worth watching and hearing. (*Fudged retrospective studies cannot assure safety, and evidence of childhood vaccine failure abounds, all reviewed at jameslyonsweiler.com and elsewhere). Formal skepticism is a fundamental part of objective science, and all things must be questioned for Science to even exist.

Prasad and I also differ in that I understand that the implosion of the current regulatory fiasco is actually long overdue, whereas he (ostensibly anyway) would like to see it continue as-is. The FDA’s (and CDC’s) reputation has been propped up by fudged and manipulated retrospective studies that are incapable of determining the causality of adverse events. Also, remember, from Study 1 from Moderna, efficacy was never 95%; it was 75% due, and inflated due to their dropping patients who got COVID-19 before the second dose.

Now we have evidence that COVID-19 vaccine can lead to immune suppression via lymphocytic reduction (see Dr. Mobeen’s lecture on this, below) – meaning those who got COVID-19 after the first dose may well have been temporarily immunocompromised. That would change everything.

I cannot tell if Prasad is as upset with those involved for data results peeking and moving the endpoint goal post as he is that they did it in full view of the public. I’d like to talk with him on my podcast, but it’s not clear he’ll be responsive to invites: long ago, he blocked me on Twitter. So he’s not ready for the message that objective science comes first in all matters related to science, medicine, and public health.

Nevertheless, Prasad’s video is filled with very important points. So, I’ve placed the grammar and spelling-corrected transcript of Prasad’s video, edited only for readability. I believe his concerns are well-placed and that he reveals some critical flaws in the regulatory and economic processes and what I consider to be illegal activities. I understand, and the public should understand that those involved who have colluded to mislead the public brought this upon themselves; that the failure of the Regulatory State was? is? all but inevitable because like all false paradigms it must, in the end, be reconciled with reality.

If I were in charge of the FDA, every single efficacy calculation for COVID-19 would be re-calculated, and the program re-assessed. mRNA vaccines would reclassified as “new drugs” and everyone would start over, comparing efficacy to early interventions and treatments with inexpensive, widely available drugs and therapies.

And I would begin to deconstruct the entire regulatory framework and help the Senate build Plan B.

This post will get you thinking, so grab your coffee, tea or other, grab a notebook and jot down your thoughts. I’d like to hear from you in the comments – your thoughts and reactions to Dr. Prasad’s concerns are important!

As always, please share everywhere to get around the know-nothing censors.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/9jQTtehif34?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Transcript (editing by JLW for legibility, any meaning change is unintentional):

“Huge news today the FDA has announced that next week’s advisory committee looking at the EUA of the Pfizer beyond tech vaccine from six months to four years old is on hold we’re going to put it off two more months until we get the antibody data from the third dose this is an astonishing series of events over the last two weeks and represents I think so many things about regulatory science that we need to talk about.

So what happened well as you know and I’ve talked about on this channel before the standard of the randomized control trial in the six-month to four-year-old age group was to show non-inferior geometric mean antibody titers to show that the kids can get at least so much antibody and that was the primary endpoint of the study they shot with two doses of a three microgram dose one tenth the adult dose and they fell short after that study was run it’s been reported New York Times today that they had 60 of the target antibody levels they’re not quite where they need to be now what might a drug company have done I think under many times a drug company might have gone back to the drawing board came back with maybe a six microgram dose tried it again but what the company’s done in this case is just added on a third dose which would make it go faster they’ve added on the third dose and we’re waiting for the antibody levels.

Then all of a sudden, two weeks ago many people on Twitter started getting the bright idea perhaps even seated by the White House we don’t know where this idea comes from that we should proceed with the evidence we have now which is not quite meeting our antibody level but maybe there’s some suggestion of different symptomatic stars cove two cases in this trial and take it to EUA two doses now and let’s try to get the third dose later down the road and they advertised this in the news and it was talked about as if it was a done deal.

I think I saw news coverage saying that different locations are being told when they will get the shipment of this vaccine and how they will be able to administer it.

So they were getting ready to do it then all of a sudden today they announce that the meeting is off they’re not putting out the packet and we’re on hold until April wow I don’t know what to say I’ve been following regulatory science throughout my whole career for about 15 years now in biomedicine and I have also studied the history of regulatory science I’ve never seen anything quite like this.

This is unprecedented.

We’ve had a series of unprecedented things happen in this space.

Number one, I think we got to go back to the beginning many people were worried that Donald Trump would put the heavy hand of politics on the FDA and try to push an approval a quote-unquote October surprise and I think I was among the people who (were) concerned about that that might happen and that would delegitimize the FDA well it turned out that didn’t happen we didn’t have the October surprise in that election year but what you’re seeing now is what many people feared

I think the heavy hand of politics playing a role in the FDA over the course of the last year we have seen Marion Gruber and Phil Krauss the director and deputy director of the vaccine products division resign they’re resigning it’s widely reported under pressure from the white house to approve a boosters one-size-fits-all policy we now in this country boosting anyone over the age of 12. they were reluctant to pursue that strategy they have written now a number of op-eds critical of that strategy joined by Paul Offit who he himself is on the vaccine advisory committee and I think the question here is an important question it isn’t “do boosters benefit older people?”.

I think the answer is clear: they do benefit older people. I think the question is “do boosters benefit younger people?” and I think it’s a very different question and even though we keep seeing more and more data.

I have not yet seen persuasive data that a young healthy person between the ages of 12 and let’s say 40 even or 50 even that by giving them the additional dose that third dose you have further reduced their rate of severe disease and hospitalization I haven’t seen that data I look forward to seeing that data but I haven’t seen it to date and I think that’s what Paul Offit says and that’s what these now resigned FDA reviewers have said and that’s why they were reluctant there the other thing they did before they left

Was they expanded the sample size of the five to 11-year-old randomized control trial but we don’t know all their thinking in that space and they have never made it public and so again I encourage media outlets you need to track these two people down and conduct an interview that’s still not happened to my knowledge I’ve not seen any major media network track these two people down and ask them what are your thoughts on these other issues so enter this decision I think obviously the administration’s under a lot of pressure to make available a vaccine for pretty much everybody especially this age group that currently doesn’t have an available vaccine.

They announced two weeks ago that we’re going to do that with the data at hand now I outlined a number of concerns which is one the moment you start looking at non-primary endpoints you introduced some challenges in a regulatory space the one is it wasn’t what the trial set out to look at.

The second thing is how many times did you look at the data before you’re analyzing the data now in clinical trials as a general rule you have to pre-specify when you actually look at the data and account for the number of looks on data the more you look at the data you have to correct for the fact that by looking many, many times by mere chance alone there may be deviations in the number of events in both arms so you need to adjust for that and they’re complex statistical methods to do that, but it typically is something pre-planned and well well-orchestrated I mean this is not something that’s an unknown territory this is tried and true territory so the moment they say we’re going to look at the secondary outcome it’s unclear if they’ve done all that the next thing that’s unclear is what were the cases that they are detecting.

It’s being reported by the New York Times that there are 50 events that occur in this age group in this randomized control trial and the denominator is roughly you know in the three to four thousand ballpark 50 events and they’re saying they have a 57 reduction in uh and stars cove two cases in this group but what’s the confidence interval around that 57 percent and when you start getting down to 50 events it’s quite possible that confidence interval is very, very large possible it’s as low as 27 to 75 as some statisticians have calculated but it depends, nobody knows exactly what the confidence interval is because this is the time to event end point and you actually need the time part of it to know for sure, and so these are all kind of best back of the envelope guesses but this is a good this is a good statistician, who has posted this and I think she’s probably in the right ballpark, but that’s important because the FDA had said earlier that we would only accept a 50 more reduction for vaccines if the lower bound of the 95 confidence interval does not dip below 30 percent and it’s possible it dips below that here.

But I’ve also pointed out that even thinking down this road is kind of misguided because this is all assuming that this was the primary endpoint of the study which it is not it is a secondary endpoint of the study and secondary endpoints are known to be more subject to the vagaries of chance than primary endpoints particularly when you don’t pre-specify all these things.

So, this would insert a lot of complications into the data set I think the next big complication is how many of the cases are going to be delta and how many are going to be omicron remember we’re dealing with omicron now so I think we’re going to put less stock in delta cases.

I think the third thing will be how durable is this? Is this a short-term reduction in SARS-CoV2 (infection) or is it durable? There are now a host of data from a number of different countries suggesting that vaccine effectiveness is lower for Omicron than Delta.

That’s known, after all this is an ancestral mRNA sequence that’s in that vaccine so it’s natural that the deviations from that sequence would maybe not be covered as great but the other thing is it’s waning the vaccine effectiveness is waning with time and that’s an important factor so these are all concerns that were floating in my mind.

I made a video of this before and actually got some feedback from some very top people who thought that those concerns were reasonable but I was most concerned with the fact that you’ve lost your director your deputy director and it feels as if politics is now running the FDA that was my biggest concern and then lo and behold today just on the precipice of making this advisory committee hearing and the precipice of releasing the documents they have walked it back.

So we’re going to do it again in two months and some people online say well you know it’s better to do it right than to rush it and this is the right call but they’re missing the forest for the trees this is like somebody who created the problem and then (the same person is) defusing their own problem.

They didn’t have to go public and say we’re going to push this through they did that two weeks ago and now they’re walking it back.

It’s a political fiasco it’s a total fiasco I don’t even know how… how much I can state how bad this is.

You do not want to be playing flip-flop games with the public around vaccination more is at stake than just this vaccine all confidence in all vaccines is at stake that’s part of what’s going on right now we are living in a very important time where the fate of future vaccination campaign is being dictated by the choices we’re making right now.

I don’t want to live in a world where people lack confidence in routine childhood immunization I believe that it is a huge good and many of the programs that have promoted that are a huge good and I worry that the backlash to these FDA fiasco decisions is going to affect the things that have been done and tried and true for many, many decades.

That’s not some theoretical worry that’s a real practical worry we already see legislation in some states trying to peel back routine immunization requirements and that’s not something that I would support.

I think the problem is you’ve lost people with experience and I don’t know who’s making the call within the administration but I suspect it’s somebody who lacks experience and they lack experience with regulatory matters with evidence with these kinds of questions the other thing is they’re they don’t care as much about long-term reputation they don’t have the incentive in a transient administration to care about the reputation of the FDA itself over the long haul but the reputation of the FDA itself.

Over the long haul is the greatest thing the FDA has going for it that’s the entire thrust and strength of the FDA is their reputation and if you don’t believe me you can read the book by Dan Carpenter I think it’s called “Reputation and precedent” (it’s Reputation and Power) at the FDA it’s a nice 700-page tome but it is a brilliant account of what made the FDA the one the greatest agencies.

Now I think as somebody who studies cancer drug policy that in recent years and decades that they have largely lost a lot of that prestige but these decisions in the vaccine space are hugely influential they’re going to be seen by so many people and they can throw away more reputation in a short period of time than they can ever earn back it will take decades to rebuild trust after these kinds of decisions.

This is not a good call it’s not good to see the light at the 11th hour you didn’t have to go out there publicly and say you were going to do this that was your opportunity to make the right call I don’t know what to say everything I know about this six month to four year-old decision I am learning from leaked information leaked information on the Sunday talk shows from the New York Times.

I don’t see the data (and) this is unacceptable that you have scientists clinging to bits of information we hear in the grapevine or we see in a news story to make a decision or to think about this question they have an obligation to put this information first this is not how the FDA works the FDA doesn’t make decisions by trickling out and leaking to reporters you know I think it’s 50 events I think the denominator is this I think it’s 57 that’s not how the FDA works they carefully meticulously look at the data have pre-specified rules for what will count for approval and then make the call that’s all being violated in this case ironically the thing people feared that Donald Trump would do is actually happening right now.

It’s the heavy hand of politics influencing FDA decisions people are playing with the FDA’s credibility.

It’s not their money to play with they’re playing with it like its monopoly money it’s not going to go well.

I worry we’re going to enter a situation where we have both made some bad calls, we are boosting people who we don’t have good evidence to boost, and it may not be the right call to boost them we may be making choices around kids vaccines that are not consistent with European nations and may not always be in someone’s best interest particularly a healthy kid who’s already hadn’t recovered from COVID-19.

And (I also worry that) we’re not doing the things we ought to be doing like making sure everyone over there is 65 is boosted that’s one, two (dose) for the people who are older who don’t have documented natural immunity (because) at least one dose would be much better for them than to walk around with no doses at all have some vaccine coverage even one dose so that would mean acknowledging natural immunity and making some sort of compromise with people I think and that would also be much, much better but focusing so much on the youth on young people for (vaccination) with this kind of age gradient just doesn’t make a lot of sense and playing with the credibility and reputation of the FDA makes no sense at all.

This is bad times I worry that we’re going to end up in a terrible situation where there is widespread loss of trust in the FDA.

There’s going to be a backlash that affects really legitimate programs, I don’t I don’t want any of this.

I don’t want to see loss of confidence in vaccine programs I don’t want Paul Offit to disagree with mandates I think that when you lose Paul Offit you’ve lost a lot the man makes vaccines he’s been a crusader for vaccines and you lost him that should give you some pause I don’t want politics to set FDA policy it should not be after this is done we need some firewalls between the white house and the FDA and ironically it wasn’t trump that led to that it was this administration which is exactly the opposite of I think what many of us feared.

This is bad this is just terrible them walking it back the flip-flops the public messaging around this even the booster fiasco before where the advisory committee said no even though the President himself had promised it.

This is just terrible for the public faith in the FDA and for the faith and vaccination I don’t know what to say there should be culpability for this I think people should demand some accountability for this who made this call and that person’s got to go I think that’s a clear standard but we don’t know who makes this call that’s part of the problem.

I have proposed a bit tongue in cheek but I sincerely believe it that I believe (the Biden) administration should issue an apology to Gruber and Krause apologize to these two people they were in the right next you need to rehire them maybe as a temporary employee but you need to make it worth their while to rehire them you need to make a public promise that you’re going to let them make all the calls it’s up to them they can decide what the sample size of the study is they can decide the endpoints they can push on the companies whatever they want and you will not touch this issue again you need the administration to promise and not to touch this issue again they have to get out of the FDA and get out of the vaccine business.

This is going to end poorly there will be no winners here there’s only going to be losers I think I have never seen anything like this I think if you had consulted people who have followed the FDA for a long time you wouldn’t have ended up in this fiasco, and I think uh if the institution suffers a loss of trust, we will have lost so much.

So, I really disagree.

And then the last thing I’ll say is you know there (are) some Twitter accounts who purportedly are experts they all say the same thing as if they are in cahoots as if they’re synchronizing their messaging.

I think that’s problematic we need independent experts to be independent to make up their own mind and so I wouldn’t go on twitter and say the FDA made the right call.

That’s a false narrative the right narrative is what the hell did you do two weeks ago when you advertise this and who made that decision and why? And this reversal is a huge error and blunder, and someone needs to be fired as a result of that.

That’s what I would say and similarly, you don’t need the president to go on tv and say when boosters are ready for all you need the US Food and Drug Administration to say when their efficacy and safety standards are sufficiently met.

And I think we have a big problem, so I encourage reporters to interview these two people and two FOIA documents because I think you need to foil some emails you’ll see what’s going on over here.

And I think this was a colossal blunder a huge blunder and I think when Dan Carpenter writes his sequel to the history of the FDA I suspect he’ll write a 100-page chapter on this episode.

And I worry that we may have already done the damage.

So those are my thoughts on this new FDA decision as someone who has written a few papers you can go pull up my PubMed and all the papers I’ve written about FDA drug policy drug regulation law etc. so this is what you get on this channel and also, I was kind of annoyed so I must admit a little more annoyed than usual.

Because this is such a fiasco what are they doing God what are they doing?

I don’t think it’s controversial to say we want regulators to be separate from politicians nobody wants a politician to be deciding what things should be approved or not that’s why this is a separate agency they need to get out of this business they need to stop entirely make a promise I think reporters should ask them to promise not to interfere with the FDA’s actions ever again.

And well I don’t know what to say.

I’m saddened to see this.

Until next time.”

Prasad has many times called for increased independence of scientists studying vaccines, and seems a bit naïve on the fact that the LMO answers to Pharma due to direct-to-consumer marketing via Pharma ads. It’s the #1 source of revenue for LMO. If he understood that, he would not seem so naïve and call for the media to hold the FDA accountable.

Here is Dr. Mobeen’s review of immune suppression from Pfizer vaccination:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/7L2bFtsMh0o?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

And here is the link to my peer-reviewed proposal for Plan B.

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Stay Away From Hospitals if You Can

I woke up to this article today about a young girl hospitalized with COVID right here in Appleton, Wisconsin:  https://www.theepochtimes.com/graces-last-day-a-father-questions-hospital-protocols-leading-up-to-his-daughters-death

In short, it describes the harrowing experience of a family trying to help their special needs daughter while she was in the local hospital.  An international lawyer with Disabled Rights Advocates and legal counsel to the Truth for Health Foundation describes how if a person goes into the hospital with even a broken arm, they will be tested for COVID, which has an extremely high false-positive rate.  If they don’t test positive immediately, they keep testing until they do. Then, the patient is admitted, put on an IV bag with a tranquilizer that lowers their oxygen absorption, which then justifies putting the patient into isolation and on the anti-viral remdesivir and then given morphine and fentanyl while being deprived of nutrition.

COVID protocols are passed down hierarchically from the World Health Organization (WHO) to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institute of Health (NIH), arising from the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) and Health and Human Services authorization to release funding for the declared pandemic that sets the protocols in motion.

From there, hospitals that are federally funded through Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use coding tied to NIH and CDC-written protocols. If hospitals take that funding, they must follow those protocols, starting with ICD-10 codes (International Classification of Diseases).

The CDC and NIH protocols are based on the WHO’s 2005 International Health Regulations that directs each of its 196 signatory countries to cede all sovereign powers to the WHO in the case of a declared health emergency.

The WHO then directs the various state health bodies—in this case, the CDC and NIH—on treatment, which is why every country is responding in the same way at the same time globally.

When these protocols are passed down to the hospitals that take funding, under the emergency declaration, patients’ rights are waived under the CMS COVID waiver program in conjunction with the PREP and CARES Act, giving participating hospitals legal immunity.

This is a perfect moment to insert today’s post from a 3rd year law student’s paper advocating for a “federal” solution to Lyme.  I will repeat: putting the power into the hands of the few will follow the ‘law of unintended consequences’ and will hurt patients and doctors in the end.  COVID is a PERFECT example.  Don’t do it!

Further muddying the swamp, two men are suing the city and state of New York for unconstitutional racial discrimination for directing medical providers to consider race in distributing lifesaving COVID treatments. The plaintiffs are ineligible for treatment because they are non-hispanic whites.

Still want to put all the power into the hands of the WHO and the federal government?

https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/videos/post/frontline-flashtm-stay-away-from-hospitals-with-dr-peterson-pierre/

Dr. Peterson Pierre explains the reason hospitals are killing COVID patients.  The information is a reiteration of the excellent article written by Dr. Vliet. In short, in vast government overreach, the government is paying hospitals to do the wrong things.  The problem is so bad, some physicians have formed a new alliance, called the Pandemic Health Alliance and have drafted a “Physicians Declaration” and released it Sept. 12 at a global Covid summit in Rome, Italy.

Hospitals are using what many are terming “The Fauci Death Protocol,” which is essentially remdesivir, ventilators, and even death.

Recently, a video was put out by an attorney explaining how it is very important to plan for the potential of hospitalization and that having legal documents ahead of time could save you a lot of heart-ache.

Many patients have had to resort to the court of law to obtain life-saving treatment; however, some have failed.

http://

COVID-19 A Second Opinion

On January 24, 2022 Senator Ron Johnson invited a group of world renowned doctors and medical experts to the U.S. Senate to provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. This 38 minute video highlights the 5-hour discussion. Click here for the entire event video: https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-…

Listen to doctors who have successfully treated COVID patients.

Category:

Activism, Treatment, Viruses

Lyme Patient Writes Law Journal Article About Insurance Coverage Laws

https://www.lymedisease.org/medical-insurance-coverage-lyme/

Why Congress must enact medical insurance coverage laws for Lyme patients

Feb. 9, 2021

By Jennifer Barrett

As a third-year law student, I recently wrote a law journal article entitled: It’s About Lyme: Why Congress Must Enact Medical Insurance Coverage Laws for Lyme Disease Patients Now.

It was published in Seattle University Law Review’s online companion journal, SUpra.

This blog highlights my personal struggle with Lyme disease and my reasons for writing the article.

I first fell ill from Lyme disease at age 10. And while I suffered from severe fatigue and memory problems, I seemed to recover after two months of oral antibiotics and one month of IV antibiotics.

Some symptoms remain

I suffered from chronic back pain for the rest of my childhood, but no doctor could figure out the cause, and I lived an otherwise healthy life.  At 21, however, I developed acute sleep issues and anxiety. As a result, I went entire nights without sleeping, and these symptoms slowly got worse over the next five years.

One fall day in 2016, my health abruptly deteriorated. That morning, I felt a little dizzy walking my normal route to the train station, but I brushed it off and boarded the train. By the time I got to my destination, my heart was racing, and I felt extremely dizzy. I became so weak that I sat down on the floor of the station and realized that if I didn’t get help, I might pass out.

At the hospital, they gave me a pregnancy test, ran some standard blood work, and sent me home without a diagnosis. My white blood cell count was high, but they didn’t think that was an issue. Over the next few days, I felt very odd, I had trouble recalling things and left work early to take a nap. I saw my primary care provider who also was not sure what was wrong.

From then on, my symptoms got worse. I couldn’t walk without experiencing a wave of dizziness, I suffered from extreme fatigue, brain fog, stabbing neck pain and uncontrollable chills. At night, I struggled to breathe as I lay on the couch unable to sleep.

Going from doctor to doctor

I went from doctor to doctor trying to find the cause of my symptoms. Every time I went to the ER, they gave me a pregnancy test and discharged me. One ER doctor refused to give me a Lyme test. Another refused to believe my positive Lyme test and instead told me that I was attention-seeking and psychosomatic.

When my CDC-approved blood antibody test came back positive for Lyme, I thought I was finally on the road to recovery.  My primary care provider prescribed antibiotics, and after a few weeks of treatment, I felt fantastic. My neck pain was gone, I was no longer dizzy, and I was finally sleeping.

But when I followed up with an infectious disease doctor, he attributed my positive test results to the fact that I had Lyme when I was younger and attributed my sudden regain of health to the anti-inflammatory agents in antibiotics. He prescribed a test for every infectious disease he could think of and ordered me to stop taking antibiotics.

But as each test came back negative and my symptoms began to flare, the doctor had second thoughts. He agreed to treat me with IV antibiotics for one month, but only if I got a lumbar puncture.

At my two-week check-up, the doctor told me that my treatment would be complete after just one month of IV antibiotics, even though I was still slightly dizzy and exhausted. I decided to seek a second opinion.

A path to recovery?

Luckily this time, I found a Lyme-literate doctor who performed a very thorough evaluation of my current health and medical history and confirmed my diagnosis of Lyme disease. I finally felt like I was on a path to recovery.

Still, the path was not easy. I wanted to quit my job so badly to allow my body and mind to heal. But I was too old for my parent’s insurance plan, and I knew if I quit my job, I would lose the little coverage I had.

I faced numerous insurance claim denials, but had no strength to fight them or to look for other solutions. For example, I was unable to secure home health services for my IV antibiotics treatment. So I had to travel to a hospital, which was an hour from my work and twenty minutes from my house, every day for three months.

When I finally began feeling better, I tried to begin my life again, but something was missing. I had gone through so much that I felt the need to spread the word about the disease and give back.

I realized that I was incredibly lucky to have enough finances to pay for treatment, a great Lyme-literate doctor, and a very supportive family, who helped me tremendously. So, as soon as I recovered my cognition and felt healthy enough, I enrolled in law school in the hopes of helping others with Lyme disease and other chronic illnesses.

The need for insurance coverage for Lyme

The topic for my law journal article came from hearing stories of other patients struggling to receive insurance coverage, as well as my own personal experience. If patients are not able to pay for their medical treatment because public or private insurance does not cover it, they will likely not get better.

I wanted to provide federal legislators with strong scientific evidence, a background on the controversies associated with the illness and a concrete way to improve the lives of patients who are currently suffering.

My goal was to build on the work of local activists who have achieved incredible results passing legislation in some states, by expanding coverage on the national level.

Insurance coverage is especially critical in states with perceived lower incidence rates because it may not be a priority for those states’ legislators. My proposal is based on other federal insurance laws including the Federal Parity Law and the Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act.

Since Lyme disease patients live in every state in the U.S., federal legislation will provide insurance coverage for patients no matter where they live.

Click here to read my journal article.

Jennifer Barrett will graduate from law school this spring.

It_s About Lyme_ Why Congress Must Enact Medical Insurance Covera  This link will give the entire paper.

___________________

**Comment**

The entire paper is 35 pages long, presenting a lot of history, facts, science, and controversies.  It obviously took a lot of time to complete and chronicles important facts about the 40 year struggle patients have had in Lymeland.  Here are points I believe are important to consider:

Page 4

Lyme was not discovered in 1976 after children fell ill with JA. It has been reported in the scientific literature since the 1800’s and was even identified in Otzi the iceman, which pretty much means a type of Lyme has been around since the beginning of time.  It was officially named Borrelia burgdorferi after its “discoverer” Willy Burgdorfer (a bioweapons researcher) in 1982, but please remember there are hundreds of different strains – many of which haven’t been identified yet.

This is significant for a number of reasons:

  • Lyme has been identified globally since the beginning of time which means it’s ALWAYS been a problem.  There is the very real issue of whether it’s the same exact organism or not, which is a discussion for another day.  There are hundreds of strains and testing only picks up one.  We aren’t even broaching the topic of coinfections, which also have many strains and some of which have been bioweaponized.
  • Doctors around the world have been treating this with antibiotics forever. The fact some patients continue with persistent symptoms is also not new, and has always been a problem, but simply denied and ignored.  Polly Murray’s book, “The Widening Circle” chronicles her entire family’s bouts of health followed by bouts of illness. The waxxing/waning nature of Lyme/MSIDS has been discussed in the scientific literature for a long, long time.
  • Steere et. al initially believed it was a virus and that it would simply take its course, and because Lyme symptoms wax and wane, this also added to the unscientific belief that persists today – that it will simply go away on its own. This has also resulted in doctors not “connecting the dots” that a patient’s migratory symptoms may all be interrelated and due to Lyme/MSIDS.
  • Because of seronegativity (testing negative), this also has fed into the false illusion that this is a minor deal, because case numbers are so abysmally low based on faulty testing that the CDC in one year increased cases across the board ten fold!  Many state it’s still much higher than even this.
  • Current brain autopsies have shown viable organisms which means this can persist, sequestered in the body where most antibiotics can’t reach it in a normal way. The subsequent brain diseases will be misdiagnosed as Alzheimer’s, dementia, Parkinsons, or some other chronically progressive brain disease label.

Her statement that 160,000 NEW patients per year may experience persistent symptoms appears to be derived from approx. 30% going onto have symptoms when the true number is closer to between 40-60%.  This is pertinent because the real problem is far greater.

There exists a concern over Congress enacting legislation forcing insurance companies to pay for “clinically diagnosed Lyme and coinfections treatment, as per ILADS.”

  1. There is great polarization in the medical community, much like COVID, and there is currently TWO standards of care. Pushing for a mandate could inadvertently backfire and remove the ILADS standard all together – thereby limiting patient choice even further.
  2. A top-down federal approach could then further mandate inadequate, unscientific, and inadequate treatment. Until the issue of persistence has been resolved and accepted, there is a very real risk that only the IDSA mono therapy of doxycycline for 10-14 days would be the only standard of care, which has been proven to be insufficient in nearly every antibiotic study ever done. This then, could doom even more patients to a life-time of suffering.

While the author states that untreated Lyme can cause worsening symptoms and the risk of treatment failure, this has also been seen in treated patients which means there are far more deeper issues about treatment than meets the eye. It also shows that medicine should never be a “one sized fits all” approach, which appears to be the current federally accepted standard of care.  Just look at how COVID has been handled, with severe censorship, banning, and persecution of anyone who believes in treating it differently. Further, what she calls “late stage” Lyme can happen early. This thing doesn’t fit in a box, which is precisely why treatment should be in the hands of the doctor, not some politician, lawyer, government agency, or medical board.

Regarding 50% suffering coinfections…..again this number is highly suspect. All numbers are typically much higher in the real world.  Some of these “coinfections” haven’t even been named yet, and there are strains being continually discovered.

While the section on persistent infection is sound, it has not be accepted by public health authorities, professional medical groups, and therefore insurance companies. It should be pointed out that severe conflicts of interest exist between the groups thereby ensuring continuing biases towards chronically infected patients requiring extended care.

Interestingly, these groups continue to state extended antibiotics are too risky, when the same exact groups have no problem pushing toxic drugs like remdesivir for COVID or chemotherapy for cancer patients. The bias is plainly clear to any casual observer.

Any federal investigation into Lyme/MSIDS is squashed without a chance. This continues to play out, despite clear evidence of conflicts, bias, and impropriety including the targeting of doctors who dare to treat differently.

Page 19.

The paper gives the sad story of Dr. Burrascano who testified in the Senate about the witch-hunts against doctors who treat chronic Lyme. Karma proved it shortly thereafter when the NY medical board opened an investigation against him. It wasn’t until 2001 that 37 of the 39 charges brought against him were cleared. The stress this causes can not be overstated.  All of this led to NY adopting Resolution 2155 which essentially tells insurance companies to ‘cease and desist from targeting physicians’ until the science is settled.  The document then gives legislation in Illinois as a great example of protecting Lyme literate doctors.

But, the problem is always the ‘law of unintended consequences.’ I’ve heard from advocates in other states as well as LLMDs that doctor protection laws actually draw a target onto the backs of doctors and that doctors have had MORE issues with the state medical board AFTER this type of legislation is put into place. One thing is for sure no Lyme legislation should be considered until LLMDs have been carefully consulted. It is, after all, the foundation from which all else springs. Without good, experienced doctors, we patients would be hopelessly lost.

Page 21

The author then takes a stab at government funding for research. The problem here again is the ‘law of unintended consequences.’ In order to even discuss this with any clarity, certain hidden things need to be brought into the light.

  • Dr. Fauci, head of NIAD for 7 presidencies, and essentially present since the beginning of the Lyme debacle, has been the gatekeeper of government research funds. You want money. You have to go through Tony.
  • Fauci has a long, long history riddled with conflicts of interests. To say he’s a fan of Big Pharma and has many apron strings attached to it would be an understatement.
    • A perfect example is current COVID treatment. Old, proven, safe, cheap treatments remain unapproved while shiny new, expensive, ineffective, dangerous treatments are given FDA approval. Why is that? Money, my friends, and lots of it. The ONE NIH-funded trial, directed by Fauci, announced Remdesivir worked for COVID, but ignored mortality completely, as well as the toxic side effects. This is just one example of hundreds. BTW: this is remdesivir’s 2nd go around as it flopped for Ebola, so they dug it out of the drug graveyard for COVID to make up for lost profits.
  • COVID has hopefully demonstrated to the world that science has been completely hijacked and can no longer be trusted at face value. Big Pharma is a powerfully big monster that has a huge lobbying presence in Washington (swaying politicians), funds medical medication – which influences medicine and science at an unprecedented level. There is also a revolving door between government health agencies and Big Pharma.

In light of these three pieces of information we should conclude that throwing any amount of government money at yet more poorly done, biased research is unhelpful at best. This is hard for many patients and even advocates to understand. Money toward research is a good thing, right?  It depends.  What research and who’s doing it?   If it’s the same people doing the same biased work, no amount of money can change what’s already been predictably cast. The Klempner trial is a perfect example of this closed loop system where shoddy, biased research is still used as the law of the land. But this trial is hardly an isolated example. The ONE poorly done study for remdesivir is STILL what is used to push on hospitalizes patients to this day.  Please note that Klempner is back at it, now creating a new Lyme “vaccine”.  Research in Lymeland has been tightly controlled by what many call The Cabal.  Nearly all of them are involved with creating vaccines, and have a history with biological weapons.

They say, “There is nothing new under the sun,” and they are right.

The same people have been doing the same things for over 40 years.

Page 25

This section again points out the ‘law of unintended consequences” regarding legislation mandating insurance coverage for Lyme. Try and remember that when it comes to the law, every single word matters and can be misused, thereby actually making things worse for patients and the doctors who dare treat them. The author admits some snags have occurred as most LLMDs are not certified in the specializations listed in a statute. Further, most insurance companies consider long-term treatment for Lyme “experimental” which needs to be clearly listed in legislation regarding treatment.

Again, this is complicated stuff folks! And again, I’ll reiterate that LLMDs NEED to be in on this discussion. The more, the better. And there better also be a number of experienced attorneys that have learned from the school of hard knocks, because it doesn’t get any harder or dirtier than in Lymeland.

Page 27

The document delves into the International Classification of Diseases Codes (ICD) and that without these magical codes, you will NEVER obtain reimbursement for medical care. For decades patients haven’t been able to obtain reimbursement due to the fact that on paper, what they have doesn’t exist because there’s no code. Jenna Luche Thayer has done phenomenal work in this area. She and her husband are both patients and Jenna just happens to have previously been a government whistleblower with years of experience fighting the system – which is precisely what makes her so effective.  She has years of experience in this type of work.

Page 32

I’m struggling with the author’s title: “National problems require national solutions.” Our entire planet has been locked down due to a “national solution.” Each nation has relied on one man’s modeling, and a few figureheads in government to make decisions, and they’ve been wrong on virtually every single aspect of COVID. There have been no forth-coming apologies or changes other than them continuing to push the exact same wrong narrative they’ve held from the beginning. We should keep this backdrop in mind when discussing Lyme, because it’s quite similar. Lyme and COVID are just two of many with the same organizations/people making the decisions. Please don’t forget this!

Frankly having the federal government mandate anything scares me to death. So many things can go wrong and have gone wrong putting the power into the hands of the few. Doctors are educated to make medical/health decisions.  The power needs to be in the hands of those who spend their lives studying and in medical practice, not bureaucrats, politicians, and corrupt public health ‘authorities’ who get kickbacks on the very things they are providing guidance for.

Category:

Activism, Lyme

Approved and Non-FDA Approved COVID Treatments

Approved & Non-FDA Approved COVID Treatments

FDA approved treatments include:

  • remdesivir: cost $3,300.  FDA relied on ONE trial sponsored by the NIAID, headed by Fauci, which was NOT peer-reviewed, and which enrolled about 1,000 hospitalized COVID-positive patients, half of whom received the drug and the other half a placebo. Fauci announced that the drug “diminishes time to recovery” but doesn’t mention mortality, the true measuring stick. To date, Fauci has not made public his financial relations with the manufacturer, Gilead Sciences.
    • The treatment group had a median time to recovery of 10 days
    • placebo group had a time of 15 days
    • At 29 days, when monitoring concluded, the treatment group still had a somewhat higher recovery rate, but the difference was no longer statistically significant
    • Remdesivir has a frightening history and was pulled from a controlled trial for Ebola due to high death rates (53%).
    • Remdesivir is ineffective
    • Remdesivir is toxic and causes kidney poisoning, fluid in the lungs, organ damage, and death
    • Remdesivir received EUA designation in 2020 for COVID by the NIH panel, of which 9 had financial ties to Gilead Sciences – Remdesivir’s manufacturer.
    • Under EUA designation, a product can not be mandated by law.  Patients must provide consent including the facts:
      • they have a 99.7% chance of surviving COVID without it
      • their odds of dying increases exponentially if it is administered
      • odds of survival decrease exponentially when Remdesivir is combined with intubation  Source
  • Convalescent Plasma:  cost $5-10K. An unapproved treatment using antibodies from recovered patients.
    • In February, the FDA limited the treatments to hospitalized patients early in disease who had impaired humoral immunity 
    • In December the FDA revised the EUA again for only patients with immunosuppressive disease or who receive immunosuppressive treatments
  • Baricitinib:  cost $4,800.  An FDA approved arthritis drug which had results barely in the range of statistical significance. 
  • Monoclonal Antibody Therapy:  cost $1,000-2,000K.  While initial research showed it reduced mortality, a December study found it may no longer work on other variants.  Only one trial showed reduced hospitalization rates between 45-93% and it appears to still work against Omicron.
    • A RCT trial using bamlavivimab, a SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing monoclonal antibody in combination with remdesivir did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID.
    • Sotrovimab, given EUA status, for mild-to-moderate COVID in adults and children (12 years of age and older weighing at least 88 pounds) has been found to cause drug-resistant mutations which patients can transmit to others. The FDA now is telling 8 states to stop using it.
  • Tocukuzynab:  cost $3,200.  Another FDA arthritis drug, EUA was based on four trials.
    • 3 smaller trials showed no statistically significant improvement in recovery time or mortality compared to placebo
    • one larger UK trial showed 31% mortality in the treatment group vs 35% in the “usual care” group – also near the edge of statistical significance.
  • Evusheld:  cost $10.  A non-approved monoclonal antibody treatment only used for prophylactic use in immunocompromised patients or those allergic to COVID shots. 
  • Paxlovid:  cost $530 for a treatment. Made by Pfizer, it received EUA in 2021 and is a combo of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir for “mild to moderate” COVID patients with high risk
  • The U.S. government has agreed to buy 10 million treatment courses.
    • It is not authorized for the pre-exposure or post-exposure prevention of COVID-19
    • It is not authorized in those requiring hospitalization due to severe or critical COVID-19.
    • Please see this important video that compares ivermectin to paxlovid.
  • Molnupiravir:  cost $700.  Made my Merck, it received EUA in 2021 and has been used heavily despite federal guidelines recommending Paxlovid due to accessibility.
    • It is not authorized for use in patients younger than 18 years of age because it may affect bone and cartilage growth.
    • It is not authorized for the pre-exposure or post-exposure prevention of COVID-19 or for initiation of treatment in patients hospitalized because benefit has not been observed in people when treatment started after hospitalization due to COVID-19.
    • data suggest it may cause birth defects
    • the largest trial showed mortality risk decreased between 14-99%
    • relative risk of hospitalization or death was decreased between 1-51%
    • this states it only showed 30% efficacy against hospitalization and death
    • it showed reduced efficacy against the Delta variant
    • researchers are concerned that due to the fact it induces mutations in a virus, which could lead to new, perhaps more dangerous variants
    • The U.S. government has agreed to buy 1.7 million rounds of treatment

But in a slick move, the FDA has removed COVID testing requirements to make it even easier to obtain Pfizer (Paxlovid) and Merck (Molnupiravir/Lagevrio) COVID treatments.   Now, exposed individuals with signs and symptoms (that look like any other flu-bug), can simply waltz into their doctor’s office and be diagnosed with COVID, even if they have a negative test result: however, they still can not obtain cheap, safe, effective drugs like ivermectin, HCQ, or even vitamin C.

Unauthorized Treatments include:

  • ivermectin: costs $45-95 for a treatment.
    • one of the most extensively studied drugs as a potential COVID therapeutic, there are more than 100 studies in 27 countries involving over 129,000 people  Source
    • most of the studies show positive effects, especially early on
    • when given early it blocks hemagglutination
    • it outperformed 9 other meds including Paxlovid for treating Omicron
    • a minority were small randomized, controlled trials
    • the exception was in Singapore with over 3,000 low risk patients showing a 50% reduced risk of symptomatic infection when combined with HCQ, povidone-iodine, zinc, and vitamin C used as a prophyllactic
    • a meta-analysis of 19 RCTs indicated a risk of death reduction between 38-85%. 
    • A study in Brazil showed a 44% reduction in infection rates, 67% reduction in hospitalization rates, and 70% reduction in mortality.
    • doctors are suing the FDA for prohibiting ivermectin to treat COVID
    • courts are getting involved and to date all patients allowed to use it survive yet the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that patients can’t force hospitals to administer it – even when they’ve tried everything else and the patients will die 
    • showing a very real medical cabal, the AMA and the WISMED filed an amicus brief against ivermectin
  • HCQ: costs $7.  The first to receive EUA for hospitalized patients, the anti-viral was “too little, too late” in blocking the virus in the inflammatory phase, but few things work at that  stage
    • due to flawed research, HCQ and has showed mixed results
    • an in vitro study has shown it blocks viral entry 
    • a study found it caused 84% fewer hospitalizations 
    • a study found HCQ alone and in combination with azithromycin reduced COVID-related mortality
    • only a few dozen studies examined early treatment which have shown significant positive effects on mortality
    • 3 studies show HCQ reduces the chance of contracting COVID 
    • there has only been ONE early treatment RCT and results lacked statistical significance
    • when all prophylactic RCTs were combined in a meta-analysis, it showed risk of a positive case was cut by 28%.
    • doctor, after doctor, after doctor has used it successfully for COVID
  • Fluvoxamine:  costs $45. An antidepressant not studied as much as ivermectin and HCQ.
    • one RCT with about 1,500 people showed statistically significant reduction in hospitalization or extended emergency room by 30% 
  • Basic Compounds:  costs $3.50.
    • zinc
    • vitamin A
    • vitamin D
    • vitamin C
    • when RCTs are pooled with D & zinc, there is a statistically significant impact on mortality and other indicators
    • the question remains as to whether the compounds help in general or whether people are deficient to begin with
  • Others:  costs $10-230.  These are less researched but have shown positive results
    • providone-iodine
    • lactoferrin
    • budesonide
    • colchicine
    • favipiravir
    • metformin
    • nutraceutical – botanical agents
    • nicotine  Dr. Lee Merritt suggests chewing Lucy gum whenever you expect to be exposed and/or at the first signs of symptoms and Dr. Bryan Ardis states he will be wearing a 3.5 mg nicotine patch every day for the rest of his life.

Source

__________________

**Comment**

Please notice the price difference between approved and unapproved treatments. As they say, “follow the money,” and you will have your answer.

The issue of treatment is critical because if there are effective treatments, it makes the COVID shots null and void, which is why effective treatments are being heavily censored, denied, and banned. Hospitals and professional medical groups are completely in on the scam and are persecuting the doctors that are actively trying to help patients. It’s been a similar story in Lyme-land.

On a personal note, and again this is not a recommendation or treatment advice – I always defer you to your doctor for your own treatment, I’ve now personally seen miraculous results with ivermectin three times. I write about the first time here in the comment section. I used a combination of IV vitamin C, IV ozone, and ivermectin. The second time was in my husband.

The third time was just this past week after I developed what appeared to be a head cold that morphed into laryngitis, making it hard to speak. After fighting it for 5 days I could feel I was losing the battle and took ivermectin at night before bed. Dr. Kory’s group, FLCCC, has increased the dosage for acute, early cases:

  • 0.4–0.6 mg/kg per dose (take with or after a meal) — one dose daily, take for 5 days or until recovered. Use upper dose if: 1) in regions with aggressive variants (e.g. Delta); 2) treatment started on or after day 5 of symptoms or in pulmonary phase; or 3) multiple comorbidities/risk factors.
  • and/or Hydroxychloroquine (preferred for Omicron): 200 mg PO twice daily; take for 5 days or until recovered.

Since I’m taking it on or after day 5, I’m taking the upper dose of .6mg/kg, and since I responded so beautifully to it the first time, I’m omitting HCQ.

  • I routinely take zinc with selenium, vitamin C, D, a good multi, magnesium, fish oil, niacin, and other nutriceutricals and hormones, supplementing what my body lacks.  I’ve also starting sprouting seeds again and also making vegetable smoothies with limited fruit to up my vitamin and mineral uptake. 
  • This time, I also upped the strength of the nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment by Dr. Levy to 3% and did it 3-4 times a day but was still losing the battle until the addition of ivermectin.  Please reacquaint yourself with Dr. Levy’s Rapid Virus Recovery document to read about the treatment:  RapidVirusRecovery  Levy states 3% is perfectly safe but will work more effectively due to the strength.  It did burn a little bit, but wasn’t a deal-killer.  If this bothers you, you can add a tad of saline solution as the salt water has a soothing effect.

I can tell you that similarly to the first time I took it, my body immediately responded to the ivermectin.  It completely dried me up (had leaking eyes and nose), and felt my immune system back on track fighting within hours of the first dose.  Speaking also became easier.  I expect nothing but further improvement, just like the last time.

I can definitely see why the ‘powers that be’ are coming against this effective treatment.  When I consider the thousands upon thousands that could be alive today had they had access to this, my blood boils.  Please share with others.  We need to get the word out.

Category:

Treatment, Viruses