Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

Happy 4th of July!

iu-66

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

__________________

**Comment**

Never were the words in this document more important than today.

Category:

Activism, Uncategorized

ACT Now: Tell Your Officials To Make Mask-Wearing Voluntary

https://standforhealthfreedom.com/action/act-now-mandatory-masks-endanger-your-health/?

ACT NOW: Mandatory Masks Endanger Your Health and Your Liberties. Tell Your State and Local Officials To Make Mask-Wearing Voluntary.

OUR STAND

  • As the United States begins to re-open from lockdowns, jurisdictions are instituting measures that dictate how people are able to participate in society. One of the most common is compulsory mask-wearing.
  • Officials throughout the country are seeking policy guidance on masks from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has flip-flopped its position on face coverings several times since March but is now recommending that everyone wear a mask in public.
  • State and local authorities are taking varying approaches in what their emergency mask orders stipulate and how they will be enforced. Rules differ by state and are constantly changing. However, to date, only a handful of states don’t have any mandatory mask measures.
  • Though CDC’s policy guidance encourages the use of face masks, there is substantial evidence showing that masks are harmful and a lack of evidence showing they are effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus. Studies show that wearing a face covering reduces blood and tissue oxygenation — which can be deadly — while increasing carbon dioxide levels. Mask-wearing can also increase the risk of infection and the spread of viral illness, hinder detoxification that occurs via exhalation, impair the immune system and cause many other ailments, both physical and emotional. Moreover, some masks have been found to contain known carcinogens, which put people at risk from inhaling toxic chemicals and having them come into contact with their skin.
  • Lawsuits are now being filed throughout the country to challenge mandatory masks. Despite evidence of harm and questionable evidence of benefit, fall 2020 school guidelines across the country are calling for mandatory masks. Public school systems (e.g., San Diego, California) are concerned that mask requirements in the classroom will spark even more legal battles.
  • It is unethical and unconstitutional to force healthy citizens to abide by measures that can result in physical and emotional harm and that impinge on their ability to move freely throughout society without discrimination. For those with deeply held religious beliefs, mask mandates violate their ability to abide by natural law and follow their convictions to walk in faith, not fear. As such, the decision to wear a mask is a highly personal one and should not be universally mandated; measures that are meant to protect the community as a whole are ineffective if they hurt individuals in that community. Please email and tweet your lawmakers now and urge them to do their part to make sure that mask-wearing is voluntary, not mandatory.

Your home address information is required from the legislative offices to ensure you are reaching out to your designated representatives. Your email and your phone number are used to establish connection with your designated representatives. Messages from non-constituents don’t have the same impact on a legislator as messages from verified constituents, who can vote for that officeholder. We do not share your name and contact information with any third parties unless legally required to do so.

Have a question or need help?

VIEW OUR FAQS

CALL TO ACTION

Do I have to wear a mask? Should I just wear a mask to avoid being heckled or harassed? What if wearing a mask makes me feel unwell? These are just a few of the questions that people are grappling with as a growing number of jurisdictions nationwide institute mandatory mask measures.

At present, all but a handful of states call for mandatory mask-wearing, and many cities have their own mask ordinances.[1]However, Stand for Health Freedom believes that wearing a mask should be an individual’s choice. A growing contingent of individuals are concerned that mandatory mask policies jeopardize bodily, civil and constitutional rights.

Mandatory Masks Can Cause Considerable Harm and Are Not Proven Effective

Evidence that face masks reduce the transmission of viral respiratory infections within community settings is equivocal at best. A recent meta-analysis of scientific literature, including 11 randomized, controlled trials and 10 observational studies, found that there was no clear clinical or laboratory-confirmed evidence that masks prevent infection.[2] To the contrary, the study warned that facemasks “…may even increase transmission if they act as fomites [objects or materials that are likely to carry infection] or prompt other behaviours that transmit the virus such as face touching.”

This echoes World Health Organization (WHO) guidance published on January 29, 2020 entitled, “Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in healthcare settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (‎‎‎‎‎2019-nCoV)‎‎‎‎‎ outbreak.”[3] In it, the WHO says, “Wearing medical masks when not indicated may cause unnecessary cost, procurement burden and create a false sense of security that can lead to neglecting other essential measures such as hand hygiene practices.”  Furthermore, the January 2020 WHO guidance stated that “Cloth (e.g., cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance.”

Cloth masks have been found to be particularly problematic.[4] A British Medical Journal (BMJ) study published in April 2020 cautions against the use of cloth masks, citing “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”[5] The WHO affirms increased infection risk with cloth masks in its latest June 5, 2020 guidance.[6] It based its guidance on an earlier BMJ study that found the penetration of particles to be 97% in the cloth mask group, with significantly higher rates of infection and influenza-like illness.[7]

A study on the CDC website that reviewed 10 different randomized clinical trials worldwide on highly infectious respiratory virus transmission found “no significant reduction” in “transmission with the use of face masks.”[8]

Given the lack of evidence for their use,[9] and flip-flopping advice both against and for their use by authoritative health agencies like the WHO, the increasing pressure to wear masks in public — and to be able to access basic services required to maintain one’s health, liberty and livelihood — constitutes an unnecessary power grab and means of controlling the population.

Fear Is Driving Violence And Aggression

Nonstop media coverage of coronavirus has generated unprecedented levels of fear and anxiety.[10] On June 30, Dr. Anthony Fauci warned lawmakers that we could easily see 100,000 new cases of coronavirus each day.[11] Fauci stated that he is unable to accurately predict the incidence and mortality that the US will eventually see, but he declared, “It’s going to be very disturbing, I will guarantee you that.”[12]

Some individuals are now fraught with so much panic and worry that they are becoming violent toward anyone they believe is a threat to their personal safety. Aggression toward those who don’t wear masks is becoming is increasingly common and ranges from verbal threats, to assault and battery, to murder.

In March, an 86-year-old dementia patient was killed in a Brooklyn emergency room after she lost her bearings and grabbed onto another patient’s IV pole to steady herself.[13] The patient, 32-year-old Cassandra Lundy, became irate that the elderly woman, Janie Marshall, had broken social distancing guidelines and then knocked her to the floor. Ms. Marshall — who initially went to the ER for severe abdominal pains — struck her head on the floor, lost consciousness and died hours later. According to reports, Ms. Lundy, who has been charged with manslaughter, told detectives that she shoved Ms. Marshall because the elderly woman “got into the defendant’s space.”[14]

The Great Mask Divide

Masks have become one of the most controversial issues of our time. Those who are seen in public without a mask are often judged and discriminated against, even if they have a condition that precludes compliance. Harassment and discrimination have become rampant,[15] and fellow citizens are policing each other with very little to no knowledge of why someone may or may not be wearing a mask.[16]

Even in communities that have mask exceptions for certain members of the population, those individuals are no longer allowed to fully participate in society because businesses are barring them or won’t provide services to them without a mask. It’s a breach of an individual’s privacy and autonomy to not be able to go into public without being discriminated against, and banning people from entering or participating in society because they don’t wear a mask violates their constitutional rights.[17]

These types of breaches have sparked lawsuits nationwide from individuals claiming they have been personally or financially harmed from mandatory mask measures.[18][19] Some also contend that forcing people with medical conditions to wear masks violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,[20] which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability of “enjoyment of services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations by any person who … operates a place of public accommodation.”[21]

Individual Health Is The Responsibility Of The Individual, Not The State 

With unbridled governmental control throughout much of 2020 — under the guise of emergency orders needed to curb coronavirus — citizens from coast to coast have seen their civil, constitutional and religious rights trampled upon. An onslaught of executive orders have shaped nearly every aspect of our personal lives, from where we can go and what activities we’re allowed to engage in, to how we educate our children, to how we earn a living, to how we worship. They have also dictated which medical philosophies we embrace and which medical treatments we can receive. In doing so, we’ve been extremely restricted in how we’ve been able to care for ourselves and support our immune systems — and we’ve been asked to follow guidelines that are not evidence-based “for the greater good.”

Although the government plays a role in controlling the spread of infectious illness, adults are responsible for their own health; each person has the right to responsibly make choices about what precautions and perceived risks they take. It’s not incumbent on government officials to direct individual health decisions, and granting them this power is dangerous. Individuals are much more qualified than public servants to weigh the risks and benefits of their own personal actions.

Public officials should not impose mandates to seek compliance. Mandates perpetuate the idea that individuals lack the moral or intellectual capacity to make sound decisions for themselves and their children, so the state needs to do it for them. Individuals are capable of making responsible decisions, and those decisions must take a person’s whole health into account. The health of the individual cannot be forsaken or sacrificed for the collective. We can only have a healthy society when that society is made up of healthy individuals. Health is a personal right and responsibility. It is not something that we should look to the government to bestow on us or guarantee.

Masks as “Submission Signaling” 

There is no compelling scientific evidence to justify the widespread push to mandate universal mask-wearing. The demonstrated risks far outweigh the purported benefits. Whereas those who wear masks believe they are “virtue signaling” their concern for the weakest and most vulnerable among us, those who refuse to submit to authoritarian decrees do so because they believe that health is a personal responsibility — and that it is up to them to decide what precautionary measures they implement to avoid a virus with an estimated case fatality rate of .1% to .26%.[22]

At-risk populations and those who are sick can self-quarantine, and society should take the best care of them possible. However, healthy, law-abiding citizens should not be forced to take any precaution that can result in physical and emotional harm and that impinges on their constitutional rights; this includes the right to bodily autonomy, the right to move about freely, the right to participate in society and connect with others, and the right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion.

It’s Time to Stand – Urge Your Lawmakers To Make Face Coverings Voluntary

Never before has it been so important for you to stand up for your rights! Mandatory medicine and mandated interventions such as social distancing and mask-wearing have no place in a free society; citizens have the right to make responsible decisions about what is best for themselves and their children based on their own unique circumstances.

Please stand up against medical tyranny by sending your state and local officials a pre-drafted email and tweet urging them to protect everyone in the community by ensuring that masks are voluntary, not mandatory. When you are finished, please share this vital campaign with your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers. Remind them that constitutional rights don’t stop being important in times of emergency; they become more important.

SEND YOUR LETTER NOW

References

  1. https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/facing-your-face-mask-duties-list-statewide-orders
  2. https://www.qeios.com/read/1SC5L4
  3. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330987
  4. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
  5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/#__ffn_sectitle
  6. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak
  7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/#__ffn_sectitle
  8. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
  9. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
  10. https://qz.com/1812664/the-psychology-of-coronavirus-fear-and-how-to-overcome-it/
  11. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/politics/fauci-coronavirus.html
  12. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics/fauci-redford-testimony-senate-coronavirus/index.html
  13. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/nyregion/coronavirus-brooklyn-janie-marshall-cassandra-lundy.html
  14. https://patch.com/new-york/bed-stuy/social-distancing-death-suspect-held-coronavirus-packed-rikers
  15. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1143163319383637&set=gm.4087336354647037&type=3&theater
  16. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/social-distancing-rules-coronavirus.html
  17. LawCornell.edu
  18. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243643797.html
  19. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/social-distancing-rules-coronavirus.html
  20. https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/06/22/lawsuits-against-giant-eagle-mask-policy/
  21. ADA.gov
  22. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?articleTools=true

Category:

Activism, Viruses

Lyme Advocate Calls Out Researcher For Hypocrisy

https://www.change.org/p/the-us-senate-calling-for-a-congressional-investigation-of-the-cdc-idsa-and-aldf/u/2

Special Issue “Advance in Tick-Borne Diseases Research”

JUL 1, 2020 — 

———- Original Message ———-

From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: tickbornedisease@hhs.gov, jaucott2@jhmi.edu
Cc: (98 undisclosed recipients)
Date: 06/30/2020 12:54 PM
Subject: Special Issue “Advance in Tick-Borne Diseases Research”

To the Tick-borne Disease Working Group,

Here is more evidence of the global denial of persistent infection after extensive antibiotic treatment. Academics along with the US Centers for Disease Control who have followed Dr. Gary Wormser’s racketeering scheme are aiding and abetting this scientific misconduct.

Please see the following email addressed to Professors Stanek and Strle with cc; to Managing Editor, Ms. Ashlynn Wang, Microorganisms.

Carl Tuttle
———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: gerold.stanek@meduniwien.ac.at, franc.strle@kclj.si
Cc: ashlynn.wang@mdpi.com, vicario@mdpi.com, lin@mdpi.com, vazquez@mdpi.com
Date: 06/29/2020 11:59 AM
Subject: Special Issue “Advance in Tick-Borne Diseases Research”

Microorganisms — Open Access Journal

Special Issue “Advance in Tick-Borne Diseases Research”
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/microorganisms/special_issues/tick_borne_diseases

Special Issue Editors: -Prof. Dr. Gerold Stanek , -Prof. Dr. Franc Strle  

June 29, 2020

Immunology of Infection and Microbiology
Institute for Hygiene and Applied Immunology
Center for Pathophysiology, Infectiology and Immunology
Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Attn: Prof. Dr. Gerold Stanek and Prof. Dr. Franc Strle

To: Professors Stanek and Strle,

It should be known that the academics in the United States who have controlled the Lyme disease narrative for the past thirty years are defendants in a racketeering lawsuit in Texas District Court. Four of the eight insurance companies named in this suit have now settled out of court and the court has upheld the racketeering charge.

Court upholds claims under RICO, against doctor defendants
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/a6439-show_temp.pl_.pdf

One of the strategies of this racketeering scheme was to suppress evidence of persistent infection after extensive antibiotic treatment and then claim there is no evidence.

Dr. Gary Wormser of New York Medical College has had a global influence on the scientific community promoting his groupthink mentality concerning persistent Borrelia infection. (Wormser; “Chronic Lyme disease does not exist”)

Dr. Stanek, you clearly reported persistent Borrelia infection in 2001 in a 64-year-old patient despite treatment with four courses of ceftriaxone [1] but when Dr. Wormser teamed up with you and Dr. Strle in 2012 that case of chronic Lyme was omitted in your Lancet article and you and your coauthors claim that Lyme disease is easily treated. [2]

Here is a quote from your 2001 publication identifying persistent infection:

“Borrelia [the Lyme disease bacteria] may possibly be able to remain dormant in certain tissue compartments”

Here is a quote from your 2012 lancet article:

“Most manifestations of Lyme borreliosis will resolve spontaneously without treatment.”

In 2014 you and Dr. Strle published the following paper promoting antibiotic treatment:

Lyme Borreliosis (Book Chapter)   [no longer at this original link]
https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84942739356&origin=inward&txGid=D355DFF083BF00E79EB6ABEAFE4BBD9F.wsnAw8kcdt7IPYLO0V48gA%3a13

Stupica, D. a,  Stanek, G. b,  Strle, F. a

a  Department of Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
b  Institute for Hygiene and Applied Immunology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria

Abstract

A 49-year-old male, living in a Lyme borreliosis (LB) endemic region, noticed an erythematous skin rash about 10 days after a bite that in the next 2 weeks evolved to a ring-like skin lesion with diameters of 18×9. cm, i.e., presenting as typical erythema migrans (EM). The lesion disappeared spontaneously in 5 weeks; however, in the following 2 months the patient developed radicular pains, complete heart block that required insertion of transient heart pacemaker, and knee arthritis. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis revealed lymphocytic pleocytosis. High levels of serum and CSF borrelial IgG antibodies and intrathecal production of the specific antibodies were ascertained, and treatment with ceftriaxone 2. g OD intravenously for 14 days was initiated. The patient regained his physical capacity, radicular chest pain and knee swelling declined, and heart conduction abnormalities resolved. The pacemaker was removed during antibiotic treatment, and the patient’s further course was uneventful. The patient had all major manifestations of LB, which could have been prevented if EM had been recognized and properly treated. However, instead of antibiotic treatment, the physician who saw the patient at the time of EM ordered tests for the presence of borrelial antibodies, and misinterpreted negative serology as an indication against antibiotic treatment.LB is the most frequent tick-transmitted illness on the Northern Hemisphere. It is caused by certain species of Lyme borreliae. In the present report, epidemiology, etiology, mode of transmission, pathogenesis, clinical features, diagnosis and differential diagnosis, treatment and prevention of this emerging disease with increasing incidence are discussed. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

So, let’s review your position:

  • In 2001 you identified chronic Lyme disease
  • in 2012 you claimed Lyme is a simple nuisance disease
  • In 2014 Lyme became very serious requiring the insertion of transient heart pacemaker

So what’s going on here Dr. Stanek?

Have you become influenced by Dr. Gary Wormser (who is a defendant in an alleged racketeering scheme) promoting the global denial of persistent Borrelia infection and misclassification as a simple nuisance disease?

Patient testimony all across America [3] (and the globe) [4] is describing a disease that is destroying lives, ending careers while leaving its victim in financial ruin.

For the record: The maximum penalty authorized for a RICO violation here in the United States is 20 years in jail.

A response to this inquiry is requested.

Respectfully submitted,

Carl Tuttle

Lyme Endemic Hudson, NH USA

Cc: Ms. Ashlynn Wang, Managing Editor, Microorganisms
Dr. Unai Vicario, Publishing Manager , MDPI
Shu-Kun Lin, Ph.D. President, MDPI
Franck Vazquez, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer, MDPI

References:

1. Br J Dermatol. 2001 Feb;144(2):387-92.

Isolation and polymerase chain reaction typing of Borrelia afzelii from a skin lesion in a seronegative patient with generalized ulcerating bullous lichen sclerosus et atrophicus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11251580

Breier F ,  Khanakah G,  Stanek G,  Kunz G,  Aberer E,  Schmidt B,  Tappeiner G.

Author information

1Department of Dermatology, Lainz Municipal Hospital, Wolkersbergenstrasse 1, A-1130 Vienna, Austria. brf@der.khl.magwien.gv.at

Abstract

A 64-year-old woman presented with bullous and ulcerating lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSA) on the neck, trunk, genital and perigenital area and the extremities. Histology of lesional skin showed the typical manifestations of LSA; in one of the biopsies spirochaetes were detected by silver staining.  Despite treatment with four courses of ceftriaxone with or without methylprednisone for up to 20 days, progression of LSA was only stopped for a maximum of 1 year. Spirochaetes were isolated from skin cultures obtained from enlarging LSA lesions. These spirochaetes were identified as Borrelia afzelii by sodium dodecyl sulphate–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses. However, serology for B. burgdorferi sensu lato was repeatedly negative. After one further 28-day course of ceftriaxone the lesions stopped expanding and sclerosis of the skin was diminished. At this time cultures for spirochaetes and PCR of lesional skin for B. afzelii DNA remained negative. These findings suggest a pathogenetic role for B. afzelii in the development of LSA and a beneficial effect of appropriate antibiotic treatment.

PMID: 11251580

2. Lyme borreliosis.

Stanek G1, Wormser GP, Gray J, Strle F.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21903253

Excerpt:

Most patients with Lyme borreliosis have an excellent prognosis. Although most manifestations of Lyme borreliosis will resolve spontaneously without treatment, antibiotic treatment might speed the resolution of symptoms and signs, and will prevent the development of objective late complications. Precautions to prevent future tick bites should be taken to prevent re-infections.

3. Under our Skin 5min extended trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxWgS0XLVqw&feature=channel_page

4. Lyme Disease: French Association Launches Alert Against “A Bacterial AIDS”

https://fr.sputniknews.com/france/201904101040691211-maladie-lyme-association-france-droit-de-guerir-sida-matthias-lacoste/?fbclid=IwAR028YoR08pF5GkEImwiZP9JpxxVG9EURUYjsylDXgeskWk8ft4j-Us0NXE

________________

**Comment**

iu-65

Tuttle also points out that it appears members of the TBDWG are colluding with the defendants of the RICO lawsuit (Lisa Torrey vs IDSA) as one of those defendants (Eugene Shapiro) is an active member of the Working Group:  https://www.change.org/p/the-us-senate-calling-for-a-congressional-investigation-of-the-cdc-idsa-and-aldf/u/27071676?c

For more:  https://lymediseaseassociation.org/government/federal-government/govt-departments-a-policies/hhs-tbd-working-group/agencies-deny-persistent-lyme-at-wg-take-action-now/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category:

Activism, Lyme, Uncategorized

Remdesivir For COVID-19 – Not Backed By Results

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/17/covid-19-medication.aspx?

The New COVID-19 Medication Isn’t Backed by Results

The HighWire does a deep dive into Anthony Fauci’s NIH-Funded study of Remdesivir, the new Covid treatment darling approved by the FDA today, and uncovered some shocking discoveries.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

June 17, 2020

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Results from trials for the newest COVID-19 drug have disappointed. The first was stopped because of an adverse event; with the second, the WHO reported that more people died on the drug than off it; and the third investigation has significant problems with how the study was conducted
  • Gilead appears unfazed, insisting the drug is effective. The drug company is giving 940,000 vials of the drug to the U.S. government; the combination of scarcity and “generosity” will help set the price
  • Potential price gouging doesn’t upset scientists as much as the idea that a noneffective drug will be used; results from another study showed that using a combination of other drugs was effective

Big Pharma companies have worked hard to portray themselves as benevolent corporations that pour billions of dollars into the creation of drugs and vaccines. Biotech giant Gilead Sciences is no different. They manufacture remdesivir, the newest drug being hyped to treat SARS-CoV-2, which is discussed above in The High Wire video by Del Bigtree from Informed Consent Action Network.

The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), Anthony Fauci, along with the media, has been making public statements that cannot be scientifically supported.

In a press conference April 29, 2020, Fauci discussed the preliminary results of a remdesivir trial, and claimed the drug has a “clear-cut positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery. This is really quite important for a number of reasons.”1

Yet, the data from scientific studies do not support his claims. He went on to say that while a “31% improvement doesn’t seem like a knock-out 100%, it is a very important proof of concept, because what it has proven is that a drug can block this virus.”

Remdesivir Trial Stopped Early for ‘Benefit’

The most recent data on remdesivir were published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).2 Researchers concluded that the drug worked better than a placebo in reducing the amount of time it took adults to recover from COVID-19 while hospitalized. The study was stopped early for benefit.

However, as Peter Gøtzsche from the Institute for Scientific Freedom wrote, the benefit was not a reduction in mortality but, rather, in shortened hospital days — from 15 to 11 days.3 Bigtree and Gøtzsche (in the video) also pointed out there were several problems with the research design and, consequently, the data.4

The release of the study generated enthusiasm and triggered immediate action across many countries, including the U.S. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization May 1, 2020, for remdesivir, as the drug had not been approved for use. They said:5

“While there is limited information known about the safety and effectiveness of using remdesivir to treat people in the hospital with COVID-19, the investigational drug was shown in a clinical trial to shorten the time to recovery in some patients.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar praised the speed at which the FDA approved the drug for emergency use, calling it “seamless cooperation between government and private industry” and an uncommon approval “two days after the National Institutes of Health’s clinical trial showed promising results …”6

Gøtzsche7 began his written commentary by comparing the expense of remdesivir to Tamiflu, both of which have been touted for treating their respective illnesses. Swiss drug maker Roche claimed Tamiflu, used for influenza, could shorten hospital admissions by 61% and reduce the use of antibiotics to treat respiratory tract infections by 55%.

When the data were finally available for review, however, it turned out that the claims could not be supported. When Tamiflu is used at the first sign of symptoms, it only shortens the length of the illness by 17 hours. In a seemingly parallel journey, the data from the study published in the NEJM appears to have been manipulated to generate statistically significant results, as detailed by Bigtree.

Bigtree points out that Bill Gates said we need a “miracle” treatment that is 95% effective:8 Yet, as Bigtree says, and as has been documented by the CDC,9 the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford10 and corresponding studies,11 the majority of healthy people will recover from SARS-CoV-2 without any secondary effects.

The Results Don’t Live Up to the Promise

So, is Gates referring to the need for a 95% cure of the 5% who experience severe disease, since the majority don’t experience significant illness? This must happen to stop the production of a vaccine that will not have the time to undergo placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized studies to prove safety, which Fauci clearly believed was needed in February 2020:12

“We urgently need a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Although remdesivir has been administered to some patients with COVID-19, we do not have solid data to indicate it can improve clinical outcomes. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial is the gold standard for determining if an experimental treatment can benefit patients.”

In the video, Bigtree outlines the progress of the study, which includes several challenges:

  • The study evaluating the efficacy of remdesivir was designed as an “adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study” performed by the NIAID, headed by Anthony Fauci.13 An adaptive study can be changed to protect patients when the results are obvious. This happens, for instance, if the participants receiving the intervention are doing so well that those on the placebo are moved to the intervention.
  • Although Bigtree mentions a seve-point scale, the researchers wrote the initial measurement was an eight-point scale to evaluate the participant results, one of which was death.
  • While Fauci has been claiming this study is a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, the placebo that was used was a lyophilized formulation containing hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide. The placebo group, in Bigtree’s words, is receiving a known poison — not saline.
  • One month after the study began, they increased the participants from 197 to 220 and then to 286 in each arm of the study: One received remdesivir and the other got the “placebo.” At this point, there were 572 participants. By the end of the study they had increased the total group to 1063.14
  • It was also noted that with the rising number of participants, if the group ran out of the hydrochloric acid placebo, they could substitute normal saline. As Bigtree pointed out, if the trial ran out of the substance being used as a placebo, they could use what should have been used in the first place, a substance without a known effect.

In the middle of the study (April 20, 2020), the researchers changed the primary outcome measures from eight15 to just three, none of which included measurement of mortality. The idea for the drug was to keep people from dying, but the researchers stopped measuring that important outcome. The final criteria were:16

  • Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen — no longer requires ongoing medical care
  • Not hospitalized, limitation on activities and/or requiring home oxygen
  • Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities

Gøtzsche Believes the Results of the Study Are Suspect

The increasing number of participants, the “placebo” and the reduction in primary outcome measurements resulted in the conclusion that: “Remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.”17

However, as Gøtzsche pointed out, physicians use highly subjective data to determine when their patient can be discharged home. He also reports that viral load was not measured by the research team and he questions how an antiviral can be successful if it doesn’t decrease viral load.

Gøtzsche believes the researchers violated “good scientific practice to fish for subgroup results that tell a better story. But this is what the two Danish professors did.”18 He went on to describe the difference between what the Danish researchers were proclaiming and what’s evident from the statistical analysis, writing:

“What is important is that the trial statisticians tested if the primary outcome was different in the various patient categories, those who did not need oxygen, those who needed oxygen, those who needed noninvasive ventilation, and those who needed invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (the most severely ill patients).

There was no difference, which makes it even worse that the two Danish professors embarked on a fishing expedition in the data focusing on only 23 deaths in subgroup 5 out of a total of 86 deaths …”

Other Remdesivir Studies Don’t Yield Positive Results

During the same time period, another team evaluated the use of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. They conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial and enrolled patients who were 18 years and older with lab-confirmed infection in 10 hospitals in China.19

The patients had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. The primary endpoint measurement was how long it took for clinical improvement, measured up to 28 days. Adverse events were reported in 66% of those receiving remdesivir versus 50% of those getting the placebo.

The drug was stopped early in 12% of the patients for adverse effects after researchers found there was no statistically significant clinical benefit to receiving it.

Before the release of the remdesivir study published in The New England Journal of Medicine and the second study in The Lancet, Bloomberg20 reported that the World Health Organization accidentally posted results of a third study.

While the summary was removed, details were published that showed “the drug wasn’t associated with patients getting better more quickly; and 13.9% of patients getting the drug died, versus 12.8% getting standard care.”

Gilead Sciences quickly took action. Infectious disease expert Frederick Hayden, who was involved with the study, told a reporter, “That is not correct. My interpretation of them is not consistent with that headline.”21

Gilead said the study was stopped because of low enrollment, adding that the “trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir, particularly among patients treated early,” and it was expected that the following two studies would “add to a growing but still inconclusive body of evidence for remdesivir.”

Gilead appeared to be referring to the study published in The Lancet, whose authors concluded that the drug was not effective, as well as the subsequent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which had several problems with the data.

Remdesivir Hype Lining Gilead’s Pockets

On the same day The Lancet study was published — the one whose authors concluded the drug was not effective — Gilead announced “positive data emerging from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) study.”22 This implies the company may be relying on the court of public opinion, which is swayed by public relations, as opposed to scientific data.

The Alliance for Human Research Protection23 reports that Fauci has a vested interest in the development of remdesivir, and it was he who declared the results to be “highly significant.” When he was asked about the results of the study published in The Lancet, he dismissed it as “not adequate.”

Between the public relations campaign and the excitement Gilead has generated in investors and the public, they may reap a significant financial reward. The company has set up distribution in 127 countries and is expecting to begin commercial sales in June. The drug was initially developed as a potential treatment against Ebola using $79 million in U.S. funding.24

The company donated 940,000 vials to the U.S. federal government, which is in turn sending them to state health departments. However, it is not enough to treat all patients.

The state of Virginia is holding a lottery for the most severely ill patients, while doctors in Alabama have set up a task force to identify those who should receive it. The initial scarcity and apparent “generosity” will likely help Gilead set its price on the medication.

Yet it’s not the potential for price gouging that upsets most scientists. William Haseltine, a scientist whose life’s work is studying viruses and who helped lead the government’s response against HIV/AIDS, explains:

“Remdesivir doesn’t work at all, as far as I can tell, or has only a minor effect. It is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as good.”25

You Have At-Home Choices

Buried in the hype of remdesivir was another recently released published study in The Lancet,26which showed that a combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir–ritonavir, and ribavirin was a safe and effective method of reducing viral shedding and lowering hospital admissions in those who had confirmed mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

You have options to protect your health and potentially lessen the severity of the infection if you do get sick. On my Coronavirus Resource Page you’ll find some of the latest news stories and my top tips to help combat the virus. These include ensuring adequate serum levels of vitamin D, getting enough sleep, protecting your gut microbiome and using micronutrients that have demonstrated antiviral effects.

+ Sources and References

_______________________

**Comment**

Remdesivir isn’t cheap.  In fact, this article states it costs $320 per vial and will be sold for $3,120 per 6 vial treatment:  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/stunning-faucis-remdesivir-costs-9-per-dose-will-sold-3000-per-dose-china-company-linked-soros-will-also-mass-produce-drug/ That’s a lot of money for a drug that hasn’t even been shown to lower viral load.

Hydroxychloroquine in the other hand costs $1 per treatment, while chloroquine costs a measly 30 cents!  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/11/podcast-evidence-supporting-hcq-azithromycin-for-covid-19/

The article also points out an ugly conflict of interest web between Gilead, the manufacturer of Remdesivir and UNITAID which Soros, Gates, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative, are large investors – with Drs. Fauci and Birx associated with the Clinton Health Access initiative.  And of course, Dr. Fauci has worked with Gilead for a long, long time. Government employees should not be allowed to have financial ties to manufacturing companies and then turn around and make public health policy.

Excerpt:

Approximately $70 million in U.S. taxpayer funding began Gilead’s partnership with the U.S. Army, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop remdesivir. Initially for treating Ebola, it failed to show benefit and was shelved. If remdesivir is used to treat COVID-19, Gilead shareholders, not the taxpayers, will profit.

Early results of the first clinical trial of remdesivir against placebo in coronavirus showed modest benefits, according to The New York Times. Surviving patients given remdesivir were discharged four days sooner than patients given placebo, though no criteria were given for determining improvement. Death rates were not significantly different. About 25% of patients receiving remdesivir had potentially severe side effects, including multiple organ dysfunction, septic shock, acute kidney injury and low blood pressure. Another 23% showed evidence on lab tests of liver damage.

Gilead’s own press release revealed the side effect of acute respiratory failure in 6% of patients in the remdesivir five-day treatment group, and 10.7% of patients in the 10-day treatment group, clearly ominous findings with a drug designed to treat respiratory failure caused by COVID-19.

Dr. Steven Nissen, a Cleveland Clinic cardiologist who has conducted dozens of clinical trials, explained to The New York Times:

“The disclosure of trial results in a political setting, before peer review or publication, is very unusual. Scientists will need to see figures on harms associated with the drug in order to assess its benefits. … This is too important to be handled in such a sloppy fashion.”

Going back to 1997, Donald Rumsfeld chaired the Board of Directors at Gilead and after 2001 he held share packages valued at $5-25 Million. Gilead originally developed Tamiflu. George P Shultz, US Secretary of State also was on the board. He sold stocks at a value of more than $7 million. CA governor’s Pete Wilson’s wife also sat on the board.

“‘I don’t know of any biotech company that’s’ so politically well-connected [as Gilead],‘ Andrew McDonald, of the analyst firm Think Equity Partners, told Fortune.” (Source: “Virus Mania, How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics Making Billion Dollar Profits At Our Expense”)

Category:

Activism, Treatment, Viruses

US Scientist: Manufactured Pandemic: Testing People For Any Strain of Coronavirus, Not Specifically COVID-19

https://www.globalresearch.ca/manufactured-pandemic-testing-people-any-strain-coronavirus-not-specifically-covid-19/5707781

Manufactured Pandemic: Testing People for Any Strain of a Coronavirus, Not Specifically for COVID-19

The following is from a medical forum. The writer, who is a widely respected professional scientist in the US, prefers to stay anonymous, because presenting any narrative different than the official one can cause you a lot of stress in the toxic environment caused by the scam which surrounds COVID-19 these days. – Julian Rose

***

I work in the healthcare field. Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus. Not specifically for COVID-19. There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus. There are no reliable agencies or media outlets for reporting numbers of actual COVID-19 virus cases. This needs to be addressed first and foremost. Every action and reaction to COVID-19 is based on totally flawed data and we simply can not make accurate assessments. (See link for article)

__________________

**Comment**

Important excerpt from top article: 

The ‘gold standard’ in testing for COVID-19 is laboratory isolated/purified coronavirus particles free from any contaminants and particles that look like viruses but are not, that have been proven to be the cause of the syndrome known as COVID-19 and obtained by using proper viral isolation methods and controls (not the PCR that is currently being used or Serology /antibody tests which do not detect virus as such). PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome.

The problem is the test is known not to work.

It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analyzed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.

Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.

David Crowe states exactly the same thing here:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/16/does-the-coronavirus-exist/

For more on the faulty COVID testing:  

PCR:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/13/president-of-tanzania-punks-who-sending-samples-of-fruit-goats-sheep-even-motor-oil-for-covid-testing-nearly-half-come-back-positive/

Antibody:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/29/antibody-tests-for-covid-19-wrong-up-to-half-the-time-cdc-says/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/03/testing-for-covid-19-neither-necessary-nor-effective-covid-19-on-its-way-out/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/27/cdcs-deadly-testing-fiasco-centralization-of-public-health-authority-a-threat-to-national-security/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/23/cdc-covid-19-testing-contaminated-with-covid-19/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/21/study-shows-covid-19-testing-as-bad-as-lyme-msids-testing/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/18/coronavirus-covid-19-antibody-tests-do-you-really-want-one-think-hard-about-it-maybe-not/

Yet, the CDC wants to use these faulty tests on newborns and then separate them from their moms if infected:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/29/cdc-recommends-newborns-be-tested-for-coronavirus-twice-separate-from-mothers-with-confirmed-or-suspected-covid-19/

The CDC is also using these faulty tests and going door to door:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/26/cdc-goes-door-to-door-for-covid-19-testing/

Governments are using these faulty tests to issue “immunity passports”:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/28/health-passport-scandal-uk/

Right here in Wisconsin, Governor Evers is pushing ‘contact tracing’ as part of the Badger Bounce-Back Program based on faulty testing:  http://www.great98.net/2020/05/05/5-5-20-governor-evers-releases-more-information-on-contact-tracing/  DHS is coordinating the amount of tracers with the number of projected tests and positive cases with the goal of having 1,000 statewide tracers.

All of this is built upon a house of cards where testing is the foundation made of sand.

Recently I saw a post by Aurora Health which stated Wisconsin COVID numbers are growing. Sources are saying the same for many places. What they fail to tell you is:

  1. there is a lot more testing going on than before
  2. just because you test positive doesn’t mean you will have any symptoms
  3. more than 80% of people with COVID have ZERO to mild symptoms
  4. having more cases of COVID is good from the standpoint of herd-immunity
  5. viruses tend to weaken over time
  6. having a virus move through a health population quickly helps everyone
  7. isolating the healthy puts the vulnerable at risk by extending the duration of the virus
  8. “flattening the curve” was used initially to prevent hospital overload, which rarely occurred:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/16/we-could-open-up-again-and-forget-the-whole-thing/
  9. while it’s important to protect the vulnerable (elderly with comorbidities) the healthy should live freely:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/06/lockdown-lunacy-the-thinking-persons-guide/

Hopefully it is clear that it’s time to move on and listen to the wisdom of our grandmothers:

“Viruses just run their course”

Category:

Activism, Testing, Viruses