On the Banks

Are We in a Pandemic? Or a "Casedemic"? Ivor Cummins Explains the Difference

 

"You will always find viruses and virus fragments when you go looking. That's the point," says Ivor Cummins, who put together the handy little graphs in the video. You can follow him on Twitter, and see some of his other work and interviews, and sign up for his newsletter here.

Says Cummins: "You must understand that our epidemic has waned - and has been replaced with an irrational, unscientific Casedemic."

This is very well presented. Also short. Please watch:

 

 

 

 

How Many of the Covid-19 Deaths Were in Fact Caused by Politicians?

 

 

From an AP article titled "New York's True Nursing Home Death Toll Cloaked in Secrecy", August 11th:

 

"New York’s coronavirus death toll in nursing homes, already among the highest in the nation, could actually be a significant undercount. Unlike every other state with major outbreaks, New York only counts residents who died on nursing home property and not those who were transported to hospitals and died there.

"That statistic could add thousands to the state’s official care home death toll of just over 6,600. But so far the administration of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has refused to divulge the number, leading to speculation the state is manipulating the figures to make it appear it is doing better than other states and to make a tragic situation less dire."

 

 

If the toll turns out to be significantly higher than previously thought (will we ever know?), this could have tremendous implications for the "outside-of-nursing-homes-CFR."

 

In case anyone isn't clear about why that matters:

 

No, it's not because I "don't care about old people", or I "don't care about people in nursing homes." (My father was in a rehab facility just before he passed away, so the accusation would be absurd.)

 

Here's why it matters:

 

We already know that Covid-19 is not much of a threat to anyone who is not either elderly, immune-compromised, or suffering from pre-existing conditions like diabetes, etc.

 

We also know that a very large percentage (40-60% in some states) of Covid-19 deaths occurred in nursing homes or other care facilities.

 

We also know that in some states, those facilities were forced to take in residents who were infected with Covid-19. This fact turned those facilities into death machines.

 

So what happens when we remove from the statistics, those deaths that were caused by the actions of politicians? The case-fatality rate for the population as a whole - including for the elderly and immune compromised, etc. - goes down even further.

 

(Yes, to be more accurate, we wouldn't just remove all of the deaths that occurred in nursing homes from Covid-19, but all "excess deaths" that occurred in nursing homes, from all "excess deaths" for the population as a whole.)

 

I don't know what that number is, obviously. We don't even have an accurate count for the number of people who died in (or, were about to die and were whisked away to hospitals) nursing homes and other facilities.

But it is becoming increasingly clear that a huge portion of the deaths due to Covid-19 in the US were in fact caused by the actions of politicians.

 

I'd like to know what the CFR is for the population as a whole, and for the elderly and at-risk, when we take those numbers out.

 

 

WTMWD #28: Daniel McAdams: What does totalitarian rule really look like?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I speak with the director of the Ron Paul Institute, Daniel McAdams, about his time spent in Hungary when it was still part of the former Soviet Union. He has some valuable insights about what life under a totalitarian state is really like, and how we can recover society one human interaction at a time.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Reporting on the protests in Berlin

 

 

WTMWD #27: Celeste McGovern: Why we should be very concerned about a Covid-19 vaccine

 

 

 

I speak with writer Celeste McGovern about the efforts to create a vaccine for Covid-19. McGovern has been writing about vaccines for many years and recently wrote a piece outlining some of the major problems we should expect to see - and in some cases have already seen - with the coming Covid-19 vaccines.

Celeste's article is here.

What Doctors Don't Tell You is here.

Some of the groups Celeste mentions:

Vaccine Choice Canada

Children's Health Defense

Also: the Informed Consent Action Network

WTMWD #26: Sheriff Mack: What to Do About Tyrants

 

 

 

 

 

 

I speak with Sheriff Richard Mack, the founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, about the unprecedented tyranny that we are now living under, and what we can do to fight it. Sheriff Mack explains how county sheriffs may be our best defense against tyrannical authorities at city, state and federal levels, and what each of us can do to help build this defense.

You can learn more about Sheriff Mack's organization, and donate to support this critical work, here:

Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.

His book, "The Victory for State Sovereignty" can be purchased here.

 

 

WTMWD #25: Why is the Attorney for Freedom so Optimistic?

 

 

 

 

My guest in this episode is not just any old guest. He was a student of my dad's, many years ago, and the way he tells it, my dad had a transformative influence on him and on the direction his life has taken. He is now (and has been for many years) a full-time liberty advocate, through his law firm "Attorneys for Freedom", and also through numerous other projects he has developed over the years. His latest being the "Live and Let Live" movement.

I talk with Marc Victor about my dad's influence on his thinking and his life, some of his latest lawsuits against tyrants, the Live and Let Live movement... and why he is optimistic about the future.

Live and Let Live.org

The website dedicated to my dad: ButlerShaffer.com

Marc's lawfirm: Attorneys for Freedom.

 

The Pharmaceutical Narrative is Failing - and a Group of Doctors is Helping Push it Over the Edge

 

Image: Public domain.

 

From my latest piece on LewRockwell.com:

 

So now we don’t have to listen to what those doctors said in front of the US Supreme Court, because it turns out that one of them has some whacky beliefs about sex with demons causing reproductive disorders. What a relief.

I’m not going to pretend that the things Dr. Stella Immanuel has said don’t sound just a little  crazy to me. They do. But I’ve been observing this game long enough to have a pretty good idea of how this works:

Someone says something that contradicts the dominant narrative (in this case, the narrative about medical science), and the machine that supports that narrative goes into overdrive to discredit them, with whatever information they can dig up–as long as it doesn’t involve discussing the actual substance of what the person has said.

I understand that for some people, maybe even for a great many, that is the end of the conversation. So for everyone who is satisfied with the “fringe doctors promoting hydroxychloroquine also believe demon sex causes fybroids” narrative–please, stop here. Your ride is over, and you may go on believing that this group of doctors and other professionals has been thoroughly discredited by these statements.

For everyone else, if you are at all interested in why such a coordinated effort has been launched to silence and discredit this group, why–even before the sex demon stuff was uncovered–videos of the group’s press conference were quickly yanked from YouTube, and why their own website was taken down without warning by its host, SquareSpace, (their new website can now be found here) then please keep reading...

 

Read the rest here.

Data in Support of, and Against, the Use of Hydroxychloroquine to Treat Covid-19

This is where I am putting all of the studies and other data that I have found on the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19. I don't claim that this is a complete list, and I welcome additional information. I am also not vouching for the quality of any of these. This is obviously a huge topic, and this post is not meant to be an analysis, but just a starting point for those who want to look at the research that has been done so far. I am aiming to make this as comprehensive a list as possible, while highlighting those studies that have either had the most impact or are the most valuable, and providing links to critiques of studies where they exist. I do NOT plan to update this ongoingly, although if something incredibly significant happens, or if I've left out something important (which I probably have), I may add it here. For a more updated accounting of studies that have been done, see this list, which I also mention below.

 

I. Studies showing that hydroxychloroquine is NOT effective (or is dangerous) against Covid-19:

1. Notably, the study (published in the Lancet) that has perhaps had the most impact on research, treatment protocols, and public perception, was retracted after independent researchers found that it was based on data that did not appear to exist. 

2. The VA study, from April, that found "...no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone." (For Didier Raoult's critique of this study, see here.)

3. This study, which did NOT look at hydroxychloroquine, but at chloroquine (which is known to be more toxic than hydroxychloroquine), but which I am including here as some may bring this up as an argument against hydroxychloroquine. It is not.

4.  The Oxford Recovery trial, which has been widely criticized for using doses of HCQ that were dangerously high.

5. The Solidarity trial, conducted by the World Health Organization "and partners", which like the Recovery trial, used excessively high dosing.

6. The Remap trial, which, like both Recovery and Solidarity, used excessively high dosing.

 

II. Lists of studies showing that it IS effective (including collections of studies showing both positive and negative outcomes):

1. This is probably the most comprehensive listing of studies, and is being continuously updated. As of August 6, it lists 67 studies, 75% showing positive results (100% of the studies that examined HCQ given early in the course of illness, showed positive results.)

2. Another good list: Sequential CQ / HCQ Research Papers and Reports January to April 20, 2020.  Executive summary:

"The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis, appears to be a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5%, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagious infectivity in most cases."

3. The White Paper from Dr. Simone Gold, discussing both safety studies and efficacy studies in support of HCQ to treat Covid-19.

4. The paper by Dr. James Todaro and Gregory Rigano on March 13, 2020, "An Effective Treatment for Coronavirus (COVID-19)", which was taken down by Google Docs (and later put back up), in support of HCQ to treat Covid-19.

5. A paper from May 27, by Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch, analyzing five studies and finding "clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients." Risch's paper also examined studies showing HCQ's safety.

 

III. Some of the more notable studies showing positive results (by notable, I don't mean that I am endorsing any of the studies or their results, only that they are some that have received the most attention):

1. Study by Didier Raoult et al: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open- label non-randomized clinical trial. I believe this was the first study on the treatment to hit the news, and it was conducted by a team led by Didier Raoult, one of the world's foremost experts on communicable diseases (listed here as the number one expert worldwide.) 

Raoult has continued to treat Covid-19 patients at his institute with HCQ, and continues to report on the results, here. And DAILY updates on their numbers are published here.

2. The Zelenko study. This was a retrospective study involving 141 patients, looking at early treatment with the triple therapy of hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin. The study found that this therapy was associated with "...significantly less hospitalizations and 5 times less all-cause deaths."

3. Chinese study, April 10 2020. "Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial." This randomized study, involving 62 patients, found that HCQ could "significantly" improve outcomes.

 

III. Country data:

1. From this piece in Newsweek, by Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch:

"...we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.

"A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients."

2. Related to what Risch says above, there is this: 

 

3. Near the end of this very long piece, which is also very much worth reading, by Filipe Rafaeli, is a rundown of the experiences of several countries and states that have used HCQ widely, including: Malaysia, Russia, Turkey, UAE, South Dakota, New Brunswick CA, Costa Rica, Morocco, India and Kazakhstan. 

The segment finishes with this graph:

 

IV. Some of the best people & organizations to follow for Covid-19 and hydroxychloroquine analysis:

On Twitter:

Gummi Bear

Ethical Skeptic

Alex Berenson

Kyle Lamb

AIER  (for policy analysis.)

 

 

 

Rhyming with Hiroshima: Not the First Time Doctors Have Fought Medical Censorship

 

 

Image: Public domain.

This is not the first time doctors have had to fight official censorship of medical information in order to do what they believe is right. From my 2011 piece on Kenzaburo Oe's "Hiroshima Notes":

 

"Today, we take for granted knowledge about the deadly effects of nuclear weapons. In fact, this knowledge was hard-won, and not with the aid of government grants and oversight but quite the opposite. Doctors and researchers had to fight the official keepers of public opinion in order to first discover and then reveal the truth about the effects of these weapons.

 

"In the fall of 1945, the U.S. Army Surgeons Investigation Team declared that all people who were expected to die from radiation effects of the bomb had already died and that no new cases would be acknowledged. Hospitals put out optimistic reports, downplaying the concerns of survivors, and telling pregnant women not to worry about any ill effects on their unborn babies. Doctors like Dr. Fumio Shigeto, the director of the Hiroshima Red Cross Hospital, surrounded by a society that seemed hell-bent on denying the effects of the bombs, worked to document the controversial connection between bomb exposure and leukemia. Even after the ban on discussing such things had been lifted, these doctors came under harsh criticism from the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission for making their concerns public.

 

"The story of those who cared for the bomb’s victims is emphatically a story of people, not institutions: “The leading role in A-bomb medical care,” writes Oe, “was not taken by the national government; quite the opposite, it was started with virtually no initial resources through the energy and efforts of the unbowing, persevering local people who had to contend with reluctant national authorities every step of the way.” The A-Bomb Hospital which Dr. Shigeto also ran, says Oe, ..”.was not built by, nor is it maintained by, the national government. It was built with proceeds from the New Year’s postal lottery.”

 

"Dr. Shigeto – a man with “neither too little nor too much hope” – had arrived in Hiroshima only a week before the bombing. Following the blast, he worked tirelessly to understand its effects on his patients:"

 

 

 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: If We Rationalize Mass Murder, We Allow it to Happen Again

 

Image: Public domain.

 

Here are some of my writings on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I try to post them every year on this date, if only to counter the flood of "yeah it was terrible how we ("we") eviscerated all those women and children but it was really their own fault because their government did bad things and besides it was the only way to save the lives of the American soldiers who were about to invade them."

And yes, there is more to the arguments than that (I go into that in the articles below.) But at their core, the arguments in favor of the bombings - or indeed, of the catastrophic fire bombings of nearly the entire country - boil down to nothing more than rationalizations for unrestrained power. What does that mean? Here, read this.

I wrote this piece six years ago, and seeing where we are today, how the powers of the state where I live have been expanded - practically overnight - to a degree I would have thought unimaginable back then... I sometimes feel as hopeless as the Peace Marchers at the World Conference in this piece. And yet we have to keep marching...

In the summer of 1963, Japanese novelist Kenzaburo Oe was asked to go to Hiroshima to write about the Ninth World Conference against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs. Oe covered the conference and also met with some of the bomb’s surviving victims and the doctors who worked to treat them. The result of this and subsequent trips over the next couple of years, became the essays that make up Hiroshima Notes published in 1965.

It was a pivotal time in Oe’s own life: His first son had just been born with a large growth on his head that would have to be removed if he were to survive. The doctors warned that the surgery would most likely leave the boy severely disabled and barely able to function. They encouraged the couple to let the boy die. As he embarked for Hiroshima, Oe and his wife had not yet decided what they would do.

It was eighteen years after the bombs had been dropped, but only twelve since the lifting of an officially enforced silence about their effects. Following the Japanese defeat, the Allied Occupation government had issued a press code that prohibited public discussion or publication of any information related to damages from the A-bomb – including information about medical treatment. This press code remained in place until 1951.

 

Of course, someone wrote in after this piece was published, to argue that the bombings were "necessary." From my reply.

There is never only one way to resolve a conflict. Ask yourself, if Truman had declared that the only way to end the war was to nuke Toledo, would you have accepted his reasoning so readily? Those who make these decisions don't look for other options, because they don't have to. They do not face the same consequences the rest of us do for our actions. As long as the state has a monopoly on justice, and on determining who gets to use violence and under what circumstances, it cannot be held accountable in any real sense. And it therefore cannot be effectively prevented from inflicting horrors like the rape of Nanjing and the bombing of Hiroshima on the rest of us.

Upon re-reading this article, I am embarrassed to see that I mis-used "beg the question" here. Mea culpa.

Finally, I posted this mention, back in 2011, of "Floating Lantern", a collection of stories and drawings by some of the survivors of the bombings. As I said in my post, if you support these acts of unrestrained brutality, you should at the very least take a close look at what it is you are endorsing.

Maybe one day we can rid ourselves of the insane notion that crimes such as mass murder are no longer crimes when they are committed by the institution of the state. If not, then look forward to even more memorials, more Peace Marches to commemorate future atrocities, and more literary collections of the memories of those who were fortunate enough to have survived the future horrors humanity will inflict upon itself because of this stupid, stupid belief.

 

 

 

Does Anyone Have the Right to be Obese?

 

According to CNN, the "US obesity epidemic could undermine effectiveness of a Covid-19 vaccine."

Says the article: 

"...scientists in the emerging field of immunometabolism are finding obesity also interferes with the body's immune response, putting obese people at greater risk of infection from pathogens such as influenza and the novel coronavirus.

In the case of influenza, obesity has emerged as a factor making it more difficult to vaccinate adults against infection. The question is whether that will hold true for Covid-19."

So let me get this straight:

 

Obesity can interfere with a person's immune response, meaning that people who are obese are more susceptible to infection - including Covid-19 infection. This means that:

 

a) They are more likely to use hospital resources, including ICUs, than others, and;

 

b) They are potentially more likely to be more prolific *spreaders* of infection, if their systems are better breeding grounds for viruses and bacteria.

 

Does this mean "we" get to mandate healthy diets? Mandate exercise? Or should hospital workers refuse care to obese people because they don't approve of their life choices that "put others at risk"?

 

Isn't that all "what we owe each other"? And what we owe "the herd"?

 

How's that collectivist healthcare ideology sounding now?

 

 

 

Are We Living Through a Re-run of Dallas Buyers Club?

 

 

I wrote this piece back in 2014, about the film "Dallas Buyer's Club", and thought I'd repost it here. (It originally appeared on Economic Policy Journal on April 8, 2014.) There is nothing new about what is happening now with hydroxychloroquine. And as long as government continues to have control over medical treatments and medication, it will continue to happen. At great cost to us all.

 

Dallas Buyers Club Nails the FDA

Libertarians are raving about Dallas Buyers Club and with good reason. One of our biggest frustrations is the near-universal tendency of human beings to form political opinions not through a rational examination of the facts and theories, but through emotional attachments. Many of these attachments are derived from stories and mythology that no amount of scholarly journal articles or sound arguments can ever successfully refute.

So it is exciting when someone comes along and distills all of the work that has been tirelessly cranked out for years by free-market analysts, and turns it into a compelling story about the indisputable evil that is the FDA.

The film is based (with a few liberties) on the life of Ron Woodroof, an electrician and rodeo enthusiast who was diagnosed with AIDS in 1985. In the film, he spends most of his time drinking, snorting coke and engaging in unprotected sex. He has no visible aspirations or humanitarian sentiments, he’s interested in nothing more than his hedonistic pursuits, and is kind of a jerk.

None of that changes when he is diagnosed with AIDS and is given approximately 30 days to live. After clarifying with the medical staff that he “…ain’t no faggot!”, Woodroof storms off into a booze and coke-filled orgy of denial. Only as the 30-day deadline approaches does he admit to himself that he is sick and decide to do something about it. He begins by bribing a hospital employee to get him a supply of AZT, then learns that the FDA-approved-for-trials drug is actually harming patients more than helping them, and ultimately finds out about some unapproved treatments that seem to be helping.

As Woodroof then struggles to first get these unapproved treatments into the US from other countries, and out to paying customers, something changes. He is transformed. Not into something warm and cuddly, but into something more believable and in a way, more moving. He is still rough and crude, still a jerk to those around him, including his transgendered business partner. He is still kind of an asshole. But he’s an asshole on a mission, and there is something beautiful about that.

Throughout, the film is clear about who the bad guys are: The FDA and its agents who forcibly prevent people from having access to treatments they believe may help them. This is something libertarians have been screaming about for decades – mostly to deaf ears.

The Independent Institute, for example, has done great work analyzing the costs vs. the benefits of the FDA. The Institute’s Daniel B. Klein offers empirical examples to demonstrate that the agency is entirely unnecessary, that drug quality and safety could easily be provided through voluntary institutions and the tort system. He writes:

“How is safety assured in other industries? In electronics, manufacturers submit products to Underwriters’ Laboratories, a private organization that grants its safety mark to products that pass its inspection. The process is voluntary: manufacturers may sell without the UL mark. But retailers and distributors usually prefer the products with it.

“Suppose someone proposed a new government agency that forbade manufacturers from making any electronic product until approved by the agency. We would think the proposal to be totalitarian and crazy. But that is the system we have in drugs…”

And:

“The FDA was much less powerful before 1962. The historical record-decades of a relatively free market up to 1962—shows that free-market institutions and the tort system succeeded in keeping unsafe drugs to a minimum. The Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy (107 killed) was the worst in those decades. (Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the United States.) The economists Sam Peltzman and Dale Gieringer have made the grisly comparison: the victims of Sulfanilamide and other small tragedies prior to 1962 are insignificant compared to the death toll of the post-1962 FDA.”

That death toll is estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. According to drug regulation expert Dale Gieringer, “The benefits of FDA regulation relative to that in foreign countries could reasonably be put at some 5,000 casualties per decade or 10,000 per decade for worst-case scenarios. In comparison … the cost of FDA delay can be estimated at anywhere from 21,000 to 120,000 lives per decade.”

It is astounding to think that the FDA is not widely recognized as the threat to public health that it is. What is so wonderful about Dallas Buyers Club is not that it expresses what so many of us already knew, but that it turns reams of policy analysis into a compelling story line with characters we care about in a way that might actually get the message through to a wider audience – including many who aren’t the least bit interested in reading policy papers.

The film also articulates the more central point about drug regulation: That nobody has the right to dictate to anyone else (with obvious exceptions such as children) what they may or may not put into their own bodies. And in one brief statement, the protagonist is able to sum up the corrupt relationship between the regulatory agency and the pharmaceutical companies it purports to regulate. Says Ron Woodroof in the film:

“Oh I’m a drug dealer? No, you’re the f***ing drug dealers! I mean goddam, people are dying. And y’all are all up there afraid that we’re gonna find an alternative without you! See, the pharma companies pay the FDA to push their product. So f*** no, they don’t want to see my research! I don’t have enough cash in my pocket to make it worth their while!”

There is another point to the film, one that was likely exaggerated for dramatic effect but is nonetheless valid. In the film, Ron Woodroof did not create the Dallas Buyers Club in order to help other AIDS victims, he created it to help himself, and in the process also ended up helping a great many other people with AIDS. The story brings to life the critical point made so long ago by Adam Smith: That one need not be motivated by a love of one’s fellow humans or concern for their welfare in order to benefit them, that free markets enable people to make each others’ lives better regardless of whether they care about each other or of what they think of each other. It is a point that those who insist that promoting liberty and free markets is “not enough” would do well to take to heart.

 

 

 

WTMWD #24: Rachel Mills on what we can learn from Haiti & how to best help those in developing countries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I speak with Ron Paul's former communications director, Rachel Mills, about her chidhood experience in Haiti, what she learned about poverty, racism and social systems. She also tells us what we can do to truly help people in underdevelolped countries.

You can find Rachel here.

And the film she mentions is here: Poverty, Inc.

 

"Numb" - a Young Teen's Stunning Short Film

 

 

 

 

BREAKING: American Doctors Address COVID-19 Misinformation

 

Are you tired of getting medical advice from a software engineer and corrupt government agencies? 

Do you want to see what actual doctors have to say about Covid-19 treatments?

Check this out (the video I've posted here is from Bitchute - I tried posting from Brietbart and YouTube yesterday, but they were taken down. I'm leaving the censorship trail up for others to see):

 

UPDATE: Well that didn't take long. The video has been taken down from where it appeared on Brietbart News:

 

...and it's also been taken down from YouTube. But this (slightly less-good quality) version remains. Let's see for how much longer:

 

...and that's gone now too. Leaving this here so everyone can see. Thankfully, there's Bitchute. You can still see the video here.

America's Frontline Doctors, a group of medical professionals, is holding a summit in Washington, DC over the next two days, to discuss the censorship and manipulation of information around treatments for Covid-19. From their website:

American life has fallen casualty to a massive disinformation campaign. We can speculate on how this has happened, and why it has continued, but the purpose of the inaugural White Coat Summit is to empower Americans to stop living in fear.

If Americans continue to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions, the great American experiment of a Constitutional Republic with Representative Democracy, will cease. 

 

UPDATE: Don't bother with the YT videos of the summit - it looks like they are starting to take those down too. But you can watch them here, on Bitchute.

You can see video coverage of the summit here.  (Until YouTube finds out about it, that is.):

 

UPDATE, July 28: America's Frontline Doctors' website has now been taken down - by SquareSpace:




So if you haven't already, here is the question you should now be asking yourself: Why would YouTube, Brietbart, Twitter, Facebook, and Squarespace all be committed to silencing discussion on the topic of Hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment for Covid-19? Why, as social-media platforms, would they have any position at all on medical matters, and more to the point, why would they want to silence information about a treatment that could potentially save lives?

 

 

Devastating Smackdown of Google's Censorship of Scientific Inquiry

 

Image: Public domain.

 

Remember the time Google deleted without warning a user's GoogleDoc document talking about hydroxychloroquine as a possible effective treatment for Covid-19? No? Well you can read about it here:

"What it does show is that WHO—whose recommendations are as good as law on the YouTube, according to its CEO—was duped into changing world health policy by a shoddy con job; one that was exposed, in part, by someone whose own work was deleted by YouTube’s parent company, and who was widely derided by the press as a MAGA conman."

And here's the document in question, back up again. I guess their Terms of Service must have changed since March 23rd.

 

 

What It's Like to Believe Everything the Media Tells You

 

 

 

Give the Pedophile Elite What they Hate Most:

 

 

 

I haven't posted much about the elite pedophile rings. Not because I don't believe they exist, but because I just haven't done enough digging to have a good opinion about what is so and what is not. But I do believe that what is in this short video is credible (yes, I've seen the Podesta emails.)

 

But that's not my point in posting this. My point is that there are issues about which I have not done enough digging to feel that I have much of value to add to the conversation. There are issues about which what I believe to be true today might be completely wrong, and I know that because I know I haven't looked into it closely enough.

 

And then there are the issues that I have been looking at pretty closely, for a number of years now. I don't claim to be an expert on these issues, but there are some things that I am confident in saying are true.

 

My point in posting this is that I understand that not everyone is going to spend the time needed to have a good grasp of every contentious issue out there - or even any single one of them. I do understand that, and there is nothing wrong with it.

 

My only request is that, if you know you have not spent much time looking into an issue, maybe think about being a little more humble in offering up your opinions. Maybe consider not becoming outraged and screaming at people and blocking and unfriending, etc. etc. over issues that you yourself don't really know that much about.

 

It seems that some of the loudest and angriest voices are also often the most ignorant. That ignorance is being weaponized by the people who love it when people are divided against each other and fighting with each other instead of fighting their common enemy-them. (Coincidentally, it also keeps everyone's attention off of the things in this video.)

 

But everyone has the power to put a dent in this. Everyone has the power to stop participating in the ignorant screaming matches, acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge on a given subject, and be willing to engage in honest conversation to discover the truth of a matter.

 

And there's nothing the pedophile elites hate more than that.

 

 

"Pay Attention to Nevada County": How to Fight Unlawful Government Orders, Pt. 1

Yesterday, three businesses in Nevada County, CA, were given "orders" by "Strike Teams" to close. 

They did not. Instead, the owners went to the County Sheriff's office and served cease and desist papers against the Nevada County Departments of Public Health and Environmental Health (under the County Health and Human Services Agency.)

Says Tara Thornton, in this video:

"Nevada County is forming the model of organization of businesses and community members to fight back and course correct on this.

"So today, three of the businesses... are here with papers to serve to the sheriff, requesting that the Departments of Public Health and Environmental Health cease and desist... these activities, because County public health requirements and restrictions are guidelines and not law..."

The complaint reads:

We are filing this formal complaint that we request you investigate regarding elected and appointed officials and their designees and representatives at the state and county level who conspired to:

a) Interfere in my right to protect my property and have been conducting unreasonable trespass,
Penal Code § 602.8;

b) Take my property without due process of Law, US Constitution, 5th Amendment;

c) Seize my business, US Constitution, 4th Amendment

d) Harass, Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6;

e) Intimidate and Coerce, Penal Code § 422.6(a);

f) Refuse to acknowledge the cease and desist warnings given by Assistance of Counsel July 15,
2020, various other in person warnings by the businessowner;

g) Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Title 18 USC §§ 241 & 242;

h) Involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended--(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction; and which are acts of domestic terrorism.  USA Patriot Act 2001, §802

Remedy seeking:

We demand that Amy Ilrani, Nicole Johnson, and all other officials of the Nevada County Departments of Public Health and Environmental Health, under the direction of the County Health and Human Services Agency cease and desist all criminal activity outlined above. The orders from the California Department of Public Health are called COVID-19 Industry Guidance, and are guidelines, are not laws, not enacted by our state legislature, and are therefore not legally binding or enforceable, and null and void. “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Marbury v Madison (1803) 5 US 137.



 

 

 

Mask Truth from a Stranger #1

 

 

From Dinene Coleman Hines, on FaceBook:

I woke up this morning bothered because I have been worried about being judged (and worse) by saying loud and clear: I don’t like wearing a mask, and I do not support mask mandates. I realized this morning that I had to write something about that because personally I don’t feel whole if I am hiding something for fear of judgment. Personal growth requires owning my beliefs and feelings.

 

Last week….

 

Standing in the aisle at the outdoors farmer’s market I feel the sun beating down. I feel sweaty with this mask (neck gaiter style) over my face. I can’t get a deep breath. It’s hot and I feel anxious which doesn’t help the breathing. And my hot breath fills my mask; a burp fills the mask with whatever I have eaten or not eaten. Blech. In this heat, outside, in the open air, everyone is wearing masks. This makes no sense to me. I don’t even buy anything because the lines are long and everyone is standing on an X, six feet apart, outside in the heat. Can't see faces, can't see smiles, can't hardly hear people talking muffled through a piece of cloth. A sudden sneeze and I put my elbow up to my nose, because it’s a habit to do that, out of courtesy. I don’t sneeze out into the air onto people. Everything is weird. I can’t leave fast enough to escape to the nearby lagoon, sit under a tree, rip the mask off, and breathe the fresh air. People jog by fully masked in the sun, around the lagoon. And only nature makes sense. The duck stuck in the brush of the floating plant island flaps his way out and escapes. The groundhog pops his head up and blinks in the sun, eventually noticing enticing weeds in the grass. We drop weeds into his hole and I feel calm again. This makes more sense than the human world right now.

 

People who reject mask mandates, and mask wearing are called selfish. Yahoo News is telling people it is okay to yell at someone for not wearing a mask. The Governor tweets almost daily about the selfishness of non-mask-wearers and encourages Californians to report their neighbors. For the greater good. What will be next after being told to yell at and report people? Think of them as full of germs and not deserving of being treated humanely?

 

But I can find studies showing the uselessness of masks. Also I can find accounts of people being harmed by wearing masks. For a friend with asthma and anxiety who has to wear a mask for hours at work, it is not easy. How will it be for the California school children who do attend school with masks required the whole day?

 

Others can cite studies saying masks are good. I don’t have energy or find it necessary to analyze all of that. But I can darn well tell you that the science is not settled and mandating unsettled science that can harm some people is unethical and violates our body sovereignty. And our bodies are not our own anymore. Next up, mandatory vaccinations. The stage is set. It is a slippery slope we are sliding down quickly.