Tell Your Lawmakers We Will Not Comply With Mask Mandates
Our Stand: at-a-glance
Stand for Health Freedom believes that wearing a mask should be an individual’s choice. Mandatory mask policies are an insult to constitutional rights.
The CDC’s policy guidance still encourages the use of face masks, despite substantial evidence showing that masks are harmful, as well as a lack of evidence showing they are effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus.
The specter of COVIDrestrictions is being raised seasonally to spook Americans into compliance with public health demands; some colleges and hospitals echo the fear-mongering by demanding masks again for access.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has flip-flopped its position on face coverings so many times since 2020 that former Director Rochelle Walensky was questioned by members of Congress about the basis for the CDC’s decisions.
CDC guidance wasn’t just internally inconsistent, it was also often out of step with international assessments, including that of the WHO, showing either (a) top health officials in the world disagreed about the science supporting whether masks would stop COVID spread, or (b) mask guidance wasn’t based on science.
After seeing the harms caused by masks, combined with lack of solid evidence that they work, some states made it unlawful to mandate masks in educational settings or, in some cases, throughout the entire state.
Lawsuits have been filed across the country to challenge mandatory masks and many were won. Significantly, the masks for air travel were struck down as unconstitutional.
Email your lawmakers now to urge them to do their part to make sure that mask-wearing remains voluntary.
FLCCC knew that ivermectin worked for COVID based upon this work when it was a pre-print, however, due to not being peer-reviewed MSM completely dismissed it. They have NO EXCUSE now!
And now, even more researchcontinues to show its effectiveness for COVID as well as cancer.
The reason people couldn’t fill ivermectin scripts is because a “cartel” led by the U.S. government allegedly bribed large pharmacy chains like Walgreens and CVS with billions of dollars in contracts to promote COVID-19 vaccines and not fill prescriptions for ivermectin.
COVID-19 Excess Deaths in Peru’s 25 States in 2020: Nationwide Trends, Confounding Factors, and Correlations With the Extent of Ivermectin Treatment by State
Cite this article as: Chamie J J, Hibberd J A, Scheim D E (August 08, 2023) COVID-19 Excess Deaths in Peru’s 25 States in 2020: Nationwide Trends, Confounding Factors, and Correlations With the Extent of Ivermectin Treatment by State. Cureus 15(8): e43168. doi:10.7759/cureus.43168
Abstract
Introduction
In 2020, nations hastened to contain an emerging COVID-19 pandemic by deploying diverse public health approaches, but conclusive appraisals of the efficacy of these approaches are elusive in most cases. One of the medicines deployed, ivermectin (IVM), a macrocyclic lactone having biochemical activity against SARS-CoV-2 through competitive binding to its spike protein, has yielded mixed results in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for COVID-19 treatments. In Peru, an opportunity to track the efficacy of IVM with a close consideration of confounding factors was provided through data for excess deaths as correlated with IVM use in 2020, under semi-autonomous policies in its 25 states.
Methods
To evaluate possible IVM treatment effects, excess deaths as determined from Peruvian national health data were analyzed by state for ages ≥60 in Peru’s 25 states. These data were compared with monthly summary data for excess deaths in Peru for the period 2020-2021 as published by the WHO in 2022. To identify potential confounding factors, Google mobility data, population densities, SARS-CoV-2 genetic variations, and seropositivity rates were also examined.
Results
Reductions in excess deaths over a period of 30 days after peak deaths averaged 74% in the 10 states with the most intensive IVM use. As determined across all 25 states, these reductions in excess deaths correlated closely with the extent of IVM use (p<0.002). During four months of IVM use in 2020, before a new president of Peru restricted its use, there was a 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths and then a 13-fold increase in the two months following the restriction of IVM use. Notably, these trends in nationwide excess deaths align with WHO summary data for the same period in Peru.
Conclusions
The natural experiment that was put into motion with the authorization of IVM use for COVID-19 in Peru in May 2020, as analyzed using data on excess deaths by locality and by state from Peruvian national health sources, resulted in strong evidence for the drug’s effectiveness. Several potential confounding factors, including effects of a social isolation mandate imposed in May 2020, variations in the genetic makeup of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and differences in seropositivity rates and population densities across the 25 states, were considered but did not appear to have significantly influenced these outcomes.
Sign this petition to retract the fraudulent paper published in Nature Medicine. The virologists who published it, lied and this is now clear from their released email exchanges.
The GAO has admitted that funding to the Wuhan Lab came from the NIH. The acting director of the NIH also admitted to this in writing. While Fauci was adamantly told the public that the U.S. government did not fund this ‘gain of function’ research, his private correspondence stated he was suspicious of viral manipulation because he knew they were doing ‘gain of function’ research.
“Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on any origins stories.” (From the internal communications)
“There were mutations in the virus that would be most unusual to have evolved naturally in the bats and there was a suspicion that this mutation was intentionally inserted. Dr. Anthony Fauci, internal communications
According to Rand Paul, partisanship is keeping this from being acted upon forcing him to seek help from a local U.S. attorney in D.C. to see if he act. He also feels the current administration is keeping a tight grip on records he feels will clearly show that Fauci allowed this research that mixed viruses to make them more dangerous and more transmissible to be exempt from safety oversight from a committee.
“They are still funding this type of research.” Senator Dr. Rand Paul
This lawsuit was filed over a year ago but FDA attorney Ashley Cheung Honold is now on record stating two cringe-worthy things that medical freedom hinges upon:
The FDA never prohibited the “off-label” use of ivermectin for COVID.
The FDA is ‘held accountable by the political process,’ therefore, ‘it’s not the role of the courts to fact-check the FDA’s scientific statements.’
Houston, we have numerous problems.
This reminds me of the recent Australian Senate hearings where COVID injection manufacturers insist that people were not forced to take the experimental gene therapy injections developed by the U.S. Military as “prototypes” and “counter-measures,” which are made up of more than 99%graphene, and that are linked to more adverse reactions and death than any other vaccine in the history of VAERS.
“FDA was not regulating the off-label use of drugs. These statements are not regulations they have no legal consequences they don’t prohibit doctors from prescribing Ivermectin to treat COVID or for any other purpose. Quite to the contrary there are three instances I’d like to point the court to in the record that show that FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.”
This Substack has chronicled the illegal war on PSYOP-19 early treatment therapies by the very perpetrators of the “pandemic,” and their associated criminal mandates. It is no surprise that the most vilified early treatment repurposed drug Ivermectin has also been by far the most effective:
Ivermectin is perhaps the single best treatment not just for PSYOP-19, but for the spike protein damage that is induced by the slow kill bioweapon injections. Since the rollout of the “pandemic,” ivermectin was savaged by the quisling MSM, the various illegitimate Federal government agencies and their CDC, WHO, UN, WEF, Rockefeller and Gates “nonprofit”…
The reason that the captured FDA along with their partners-in-crime the CDC, WHO, UN, WEF, CFR, DoD, Pentagon, CIA, the illegitimate Federal government, Rockefeller and Gates “nonprofits,” et al. have targeted Ivermectin is threefold: it is exceptionally effective as an early C-19 treatment, mass administration would have resulted in plummeting global (turbo) cancer rates, and this wonder drug attenuates and reverses the slow kill bioweapon DEATHVAX™ damage.
A landmark lawsuit filed against the FDA by doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, and Robert Apter was heard in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday. Part of this lawsuit against the FDA was specific to fraudulent and illicit claims made by the agency against Ivermectin. (See link for article)
__________________
SUMMARY:
The lawyer insists the FDA did not prevent doctors from prescribing ivermectin off-label and is invoking “Sovereign Immunity.”
In the most disturbing admission, he states the FDA is ‘held accountable by the political process,’ so it’s not the role of the courts to fact-check the FDA’s scientific statements.
This lawsuit implicates and exposes the FDA for actual crimes which mainstream media won’t touch with a 10-foot pole.
Not only is ivermectin effective against COVID, worms, and other viruses, it is highly effective at preventing and treating cancer.No wonder it had to be eliminated.
Since ivermectin and fenbendazole are off-patent and they are now generic, cheap drugs, you will be hard-pressed to find much info about them. There’s just no money to be made, and therefore no incentive to educate the public about them.
This website has posted information on two of the three doctors that filed this lawsuit. Dr. Paul Marik has been an outspoken advocate for the use of ivermectin and has saved lives with it. Dr. Bowden normally an ENT, out of necessity, has become the emergency room, a primary care physician (PCP), and has kept thousands out of the hospital with early treatment. She speaks at 6:30 in this video, “COVID -19 a Second Opinion,” which is highly recommended viewing to educate yourself on the shenanigans played in hospitals to keep people from appropriate treatment.
The World Health Organization’s broad definition of health embraces physical, mental and social well-being. Expressed in its 1946 constitution alongside concepts of community participation and national sovereignty, it reflected an understanding of a world emerging from centuries of colonialist oppression and the public health industry’s shameful facilitation of fascism. Health policy would be people-centered, closely tied to human rights and self-determination. The COVID-19 response has demonstrated how these ideals have been undone. Decades of increasing funding within public-private partnerships have corroded the basis of global public health. The COVID-19 response, intended for a virus that overwhelmingly targeted the elderly, ignored norms of epidemic management and human rights to institute a regime of suppression, censorship, and coercion reminiscent of the power systems and governance that were previously condemned. Without pausing to examine the costs, the public health industry is developing international instruments and processes that will entrench these destructive practices in international law. Public health, presented as a series of health emergencies, is being used once again to facilitate a fascist approach to societal management. The beneficiaries will be the corporations and investors whom the COVID-19 response served well. Human rights and individual freedom, as under previous fascist regimes, will lose. The public health industry must urgently awaken to the changing world in which it works, if it is to adopt a role in saving public health rather than contributing to its degradation.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 