During COVID, unlike in many places in the world, the vast majority of americans have received no treatment for early COVID. The use of any repurposed drugs has been greatly discouraged by our government healthcare agencies. They have put up many roadblocks, including making the drugs unavailable and causing doctors to face sanctions from medical boards. Those medical boards even suggested punishment for those who SAY the these drugs are effective. In addition, physicians now face the threat of loss of board certification for spreading “misinformation” about vaccines.
A small number of US physicians, based on their own review of the data, have chosen to take personal risk to treat patients with generic drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. 8/6/21 strong data on fluvoxamine in 1497 patients was announced. NIH and IDSA said the data was insufficient to recommend it thus implying it was better for patients to receive nothing rather than fluvoxamine. The FDA has not acted on an emergency use authorization application filed 12/21. Few have been treated with it.
Back in 2020 there was evidence that mast cells initiated cytokine storm and that the many mast cell therapies, including over the counter famotidine(Pepcid) were likely to be beneficial. NIH did nothing. Two weeks ago a 55 patient trial of famotidine(over the counter Pepcid) 80 mg 3 times a day in patients averaging 35 years old showed a statistically significant decrease in symptoms. According to its website, the IDSA hasn’t reviewed famotidine since June 2020. IDSA president elect Dr. Carlos Del Rio was unimpressed and said it doesn’t even warrant a large trial because we have drug company antivirals and monoclonal antibodies. See TrialSite News article.
Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "COVID-19" Channel
No spam - we promise
In 236 outpatients antiandrogen proxalutamide shortened the illness from 21.8 to 4.2 days. The New England Journal of Medicine wouldn’t publish the results from Brazil because they were “too good to be true” but published that monoclonal antibody sotrovomab lowered admissions and death by 85% based on 24 patients reaching the study endpoint. Consistent with the data on proxalutamide, in 40 patients in Ukraine, published in Frontiers in Endocrinology, those treated with generic antiandrogen spironolactone needed the ICU 5.8% of the time vs. 19.6% in the placebo group. NIH has done anything.
What Should Have Happened
Government healthcare agencies have done everything in their power to see that existing generic and over the counter drugs are not used to treat americans with early COVID. Hydroxychloroquine should have widely been in use for early COVID by June 2020, famotidine and ivermectin by early 2021 and fluvoxamine by August 2021. Spironolactone and/or proxalutamoide should be in use by now. Had that happened, far fewer would have been hospitalized and died, americans would have lived with far less fear. there would have been far less economic impact and our lives would have been disrupted far less. There would be widespread natural immunity. Vaccines would have been rolled out in a much more controlled and safe manor. Drug companies would have profited far less but americans would have been far better off.
Dr. Pierre Kory, Democrat Meets Senator Ron Johnson, Republican
University of Wisconsin critical care director, Dr. Pierre Kory was not a fan of hydroxychloroquine in 2020 because of the misinformation he and everyone else had gotten but he was excited about what he heard from all over the world about ivermectin and told senator Ron Johnson, republican from Wisconsin about it. Dr. Kory was concerned with the lack of action by NIH in recommending it or even studying it which he couldn’t understand.
At senator Johnson’s request, 12/8/20, along with a number of other speakers, he presented his information about ivermectin, a “miracle drug” at a senate meeting senator Johnson had convened. The democrats walked out before Dr. Kory spoke and implied he was a political hack. Dr. Kory is a democrat. He was shocked by the coverage by the NY Times. All of the speakers were dismissed as worthless. Instead of being excited about a new therapy being used all over the world, the NY Times reporter didn’t speak to Dr. Kory, didn’t look at any of the science and dismissed ivermectin as an unproven therapy like hydroxychloroquine. It was guilt by association. The NY Times has continued to attack ivermectin ever since then. Why?
Over time Dr. Kory has battled the federal government healthcare agencies, drug companies, medical journal reviewers, the press and social media over ivermectin and the other repurposed drugs which never got to americans. His group the FLCCC Alliance, which depends on donations was dropped by Paypal. They were relentlessly attacked. All along senator Johnson has been speaking out in favor of early treatment.
1/24/22 senator Johnson convened a meeting of many experts in repurposed drugs and vaccines. Also present at the meeting were the attorneys for 3 whistleblower physicians who had reviewed the Department of Defense medical data and found huge increases in many diagnoses in 2021 possibly related to the vaccines.
Senator Johnson Introduces Legislation
On February 16,2022 U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), along with Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced legislation to protect doctors, patients and prescribers. The Right to Treat Act S. 3670 will reaffirm that no federal agency has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine and that no federal law, rule, or regulation of policy will prohibit or restrict the lawful prescribing or disbursing of any FDA approved drug or Right to Try drug. Studies
Sen. Johnson said, “The pandemic exposed the fact that many doctors no longer call the shots when it comes to treating patients, the COVID Cartel does. The COVID Cartel includes the Biden Administration, federal health agencies, Big PHARMA, mainstream media, and Big Tech. The Right to Treat Act would ensure that federal health agencies return to their proper functions
of gathering and providing public health data and regulating drug safety – not telling doctors how to practice medicine. Because federal health agencies sabotaged the early treatment of COVID-19 using widely available and safe generic drugs, an untold number of people needlessly died from COVID-19. Americans and doctors should have the freedom to use fully approved
drugs without fear of reprisal. It’s time to once again let doctors be doctors and allow them to fully practice medicine.”
Sen. Braun said, “Doctors, not the federal government, know their patients best. It is critical that have the freedom to prescribe FDA-approved drugs and treatments that are the most appropriate for their patients.”
Sen. Lee said, “The federal government should not dictate individual medical cases. Patients and their doctors should be able to decide the best course of treatment for themselves, and the government shouldn’t foreclose a primary tool of medical innovation. I’m proud to join Senator Johnson in introducing this bill to protect medical freedom.”
American Physicians Decided Not To Treat Early COVID – How Did It Happen?
Many countries have had success using early COVID strategies but US physicians have done little to give any kind of therapy to americans with early COVID. How did it happen? Most credit infectious disease doctors and especially their leaders. Infectious disease doctors are generally considered by other doctors to be the best all around doctors. They deal with the sickest patients and have to have a profound all around knowledge of medicine. They don’t do any procedures which is the main way doctors make money. Being an infectious disease doctor is not a good way to get rich unless you work with drug companies. Being such terrific doctors, it is hard to figure out how they decided that no already existing drugs(repurposed) were worth even trying on COVID infected americans and managed to convince other doctors and the public that it was true. Their efforts wound up preventing COVID infected americans and indirectly those around the world from receiving treatment with these drugs which are relatively harmless, have supporting data, sometimes powerful, and should have been tried on early COVID patients.
Normally when a patient is sick their doctor will prescribe them any safe drug which might work. Any patient would want their doctor to do that but that didn’t happen during the pandemic. In 2020 there was data suggesting that 3 cheap, safe, generic and over the counter drugs, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and famotidine might be useful in early COVID but there was disagreement among physicians about the strength of the data.
NIH Chose Not to Appropriately Study Repurposed Drugs
Hydroxychloroquine, not surprisingly failed in hospitalized patients where the virus is gone and the problem is inflammation. Why did NIH not do a major outpatient study of hydroxychloroquine in early COVID where the issue is killing the virus and many people had said that that was where hydroxychloroquine was effective? Why was there no NIH sponsored trial of ivermectin until August 2021. Why was the ivermectin dose they used lower than in a trial where ivermectin showed borderline benefit and far lower than it should have been for the delta variant which was the dominant variant at the start of the study? Why was a large randomized trial of famotidine never done? Why did NIH not give fluvoxamine an EUA when it had good data in August 2021. Why have they done nothing with antiandrogens, several of which are generic? Why did they never sponsor a large trial of vitamin D, zinc or therapies to kill COVID in the nose? Why did IDSA not clamor to see these studies done?
There Was No Risk To Trying These Drugs
The worst that would have happened if these drugs had been
prescribed for early COVID is that patients would have felt that their doctor was trying to do something to help them, wasted a few dollars and the drugs didn’t work. The best that could have happened is that the drugs would have made their illness less severe, and prevented hospitalization and death. Instead patients were given no treatment and no hope, told to go home, self isolate and if they couldn’t breathe, go to the hospital where they were treated with remdesivir for $3000 which the WHO says is completely ineffective but which US hospitals are paid extra to prescribe. They would languish in hospitals who were paid extra if they died.
There are few things a doctor can do that are worse than depriving a patient of a safe drug which would have helped them. Doctors in the US abandoned the tenets of their profession and their responsibility to do everything possible to help their patients during the pandemic because the governmental healthcare agencies and the infectious disease community convinced them that it was better to give patients no treatment rather than risk giving patients something safe that might not work.
Government Healthcare Agencies Used Any Means Possible To Get Physicians To Not Use Repurposed Drugs
Through a sophisticated propaganda campaign government healthcare agencies eventually convinced most physicians and non physicians that these drugs were ineffective and possibly dangerous and to use them was unethical. They made the drugs unavailable, weaponized licensing boards and attacked all those who disagreed as antivaxxers who are spreading misinformation.
Why was it so important to infectious disease doctors that americans not get repurposed drugs for COVID when they were known to be safe and there was some data suggesting efficacy? Why was it so important to convince other physicians not to use these drugs. These drugs are FDA approved. About 20% of all drugs are used off label. Why was it not OK to use hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin off label to treat COVID when we had nothing else? Why was it OK with infectious disease doctors if pharmacists refused to sell hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for COVID? Why were the unprecedented heavy handed tactics used by the FDA with ivermectin not questioned when NIH was officially neutral and the vast majority of infectious disease doctors were uncertain about their efficacy? Why did they not object loudly when medical licensing boards, based on the advice of the FDA, suspended doctors’ medical licenses for prescribing them and allegedly spreading misinformation? Did they think it was appropriate for a Maine licensing board to order Dr. Meryl Nass, a highly decorated physician to be ordered to get psychiatric care for trying to use ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for sick patients?
Why did they participate with hospitals in fighting families in court who were trying to get ivermectin for their loved ones who were dying of COVID? Infectious disease doctors knew it was safe and posed no risk. For those families that won in court, their family member usually lived. For those who lost in court they almost always died.
Why did they participate in sham peer review which allowed hospitals to attack physicians who disagreed with government recommendations. Sham Peer Review
Hydroxychloroquine
There was dispute about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and few in the US get it while around the world it is the most commonly studied and used drug. The attachment from Peter Navarro and Dr. Steve Hatfil goes into extreme detail about how hydroxychloroquine was sidelined. Here are two other articles in support of hydroxychloroquine.
Dr. Harvey Risch, epidemiologist and data expert, showing overwhelmingly positive data for HCQ.
Ivermectin
Ivermectin, the next most commonly used drug in the world has been viciously attacked by the FDA and the press. It too is relatively harmless. It has much evidence of efficacy in observational data in over 260 million patients worldwide which few have seen. There is dispute over its randomized trial data. 4 large trials were designed, two in the US. All significantly underdosed ivermectin.
Famotidine
Over the counter famotidine appeared effective in Wuhan, then in a number of nonrandomized trials in the US. It works by blocking H2 receptors on mast cells. Many think mast cells initiate cytokine storm. NIH did nothing. IDSA last reviewed the data June 2020. Recently Dr. Tobias Janowitz showed in a 55 patient randomized trial that 80 mg 3 times a day significantly decreased inflammation and symptoms in patients averaging 35 years old. NIH ignored it and infectious disease experts said it doesn’t warrant a large trial because we have drug company antivirals and monoclonal antibodies. There is a separate attachment about famotidine and mast cells regarding COVID.
Fluvoxamine
Even when in 1497 patients in the TOGETHER trial, fluvoxamine showed a 32% decrease in admissions and a 91% decrease in mortality in those who finished the trial, NIH said the data was insufficient and IDSA concurred. An EUA application filed by infectious disease doctor Dr. David Boulware 12/21 was never acted on while Merck’s molnupiravir with great potential risk and similar efficacy data got an EUA for high risk patients. Fluvoxamine showed benefit in TOGETHER. Many of the patients in Brazil had the most dangerous variant, gamma. When the fluvoxamine data was announced 8/6 we were being pummeled by delta. Fluvoxamine could have saved many. WSJ wrote about fluvoxamine 12/28/21. In a subsequent Philadelphia Inquirer article it was noted that monthly prescriptions of fluvoxamine had risen from 105,000 a month to 130,000 a month With nothing else readily available to treat early COVID and hundreds of thousands of new infections, prescriptions should have been dramatically higher.
Antiandrogens
Dr. Flavio Cadegiani from Brazil has been looking at using androgen blockers. Men have higher mortality. Data has shown that those postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement have half the mortality. There are several generic antiandrogens, He first looked at generic spironolactone which has significant antiandrogen effects. In a Ukrainian study of 40 hospitalized patients published in Frontiers of Endocrinology, it lowered ICU admissions from 19.6 to 5.8%. Dr. Cadegiani randomized 236 outpatients to an antiandrogen proxalutamide or placebo. Proxalutamide for COVID The time to recovery of the proxalutamide treated patients was 4.2 days, placebo patients 21.8 days. Even though he could find nothing wrong with the study, Dr. Eric Rubin, infectious disease specialist and editor in chief of the the New England Journal of Medicine refused to publish it because the results were “too good to be true”.
Dr. Rubin didn’t feel the results from GSK and Vir’s antibody sotrovomab were too good to be true when he published that it decreased admissions and death 85%. The study only included 24 patients who reached the trial’s endpoints.
Alternative Therapies
Besides the NIH/IDSA.FDA failures on repurposed drugs is the lack of NIH studies or recommendation of Vitamins D and other products like zinc which appear very helpful. They have done nothing with the public regarding use of dilute povodine iodine and hydrogen peroxide intranasally which kill the virus at its point of entry. SaNOtize, dilute nitric oxide kills the virus in the nose and is sold in several countries including Israel and India.
There are a number of physician groups who have had tremendous success by using combinations of drugs but they have been ignored. Dr. Joseph Varon in Houston and many others has had much better results than average using the FLCCC Alliance’s Math+ protocol.
Drs. George Fareed and Bryan Tyson’s protocol was used to treat over 7000 patients with 3 deaths. They were banned from Twitter for publishing “misinformation”.
Why is there no protocol from any major medical center? Why did they only strictly follow NIH and FDA guidelines when they weren’t working? Were they all afraid of losing grant money by angering Dr. Fauci? Grant money is the leverage he holds over all of them. In regards to lab leak vs. natural occurrence of COVID, those “experts” who changed their minds from lab leak theory to natural occurrence were rewarded with grant money.
Medical Journals Are Influenced By Drug Companies And Are Biased Against Repurposed Drugs
Dr. Rubin is an infectious disease specialist working with the FDA on vaccines and has shown bias in favor of drug company products and against repurposed drugs. He was asked about how he knows the vaccines are safe for children. He said: “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes.” NEJM, like most medical journals is subsidized by drug companies, often by the ordering of reprints of published articles. It has gone out of its way to publish negative data on ivermectin including manipulating the work of Dr. Andrew Hill who has been recorded as admitting he changed his conclusions to appease his employer Unitaid.
Infectious Disease doctors have their own medical journals and other sources of information but most of the major drug trials are published in the US medical journals with the largest circulation, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association.The publication bias against studies of repurposed drugs in medical journals is terrible but the only ones who know about it are those who influence the reviewers to do it, those who actually do it and those who are victimized. Here is Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Flavio Cadegiani on an FLCCC video discussing the horrible problems they have faced in trying to get their research published. Find the recording here.
JAMA is supposed to be independent of the AMA but they are not. The AMA has backed every recommendation by the federal government and in fact goes a step further by recommending that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin be restricted to being used in trials. Only about 15% of US physicians are members of the AMA because they represent the government and are not an independent voice for physicians. JAMA has published many positive drug company trials of COVID therapies but chooses to only publish the most negative studies of repurposed drugs. They published the Lopez Medina study of ivermectin from Colombia 3/4/21, sponsored by 5 drug company competitors of ivermectin as if there were no conflict of interest.
Infectious Disease Doctor Leadership
The Mount Olympus of Infectious Diseases is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, NIAID, which is led by Dr. Anthony Fauci. They work closely with the pharmaceutical industry as does the Centers for Disease Control and the Federal Drug Administration. The FDA gets 75% of its money from “drug approval “ fees based on the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act which was enacted because drugs in Europe were approved much faster. This cannot be a recipe for objectivity per Forbes magazine. 75% of FDA budget comes from industry. Infectious disease doctors worship Dr. Fauci and would never contradict anything he says or does. Their unwavering loyalty is reminiscent of republicans’ loyalty to Donald Trump.
The next level of leadership for infectious disease doctors in the US is the Infectious Disease Society of America. IDSA parrots everything which comes out of the federal government healthcare agencies. No one knows how influential IDSA is with NIAID. There is no NIAID or CDC equivalent in cardiology. The American College of Cardiology, which is more clinically oriented, is the dominant force. They work closely with the American Heart Association which is more scientifically oriented. As a cardiologist I have never heard anyone question their objectivity or honesty. The stranglehold NIAID and NIH have over infectious diseases is not present for any other medical specialty.
During the pandemic, infectious disease doctors have unwaveringly promoted Dr. Fauci’s and the CDC’s policies and guidelines to the public. They have dismissed those who disagree as promoting misinformation. They feel they are uniquely qualified to analyze COVID trials when in fact many physicians in academia in different specialities can analyze the trial data just as well or better because they are not biased in favor in NIH’s position. Since infectious disease doctors are seen as the authorities in infectious illnesses, they have a lot of credibility. As a result, their recommendations are accepted by the vast majority of americans. Americans have traditionally had complete confidence in the leaders in medicine and most find it nearly impossible to believe that those in control would do anything but what is best for them.
DR. JOHN CAMPBELL ADDRESSING HIS 2.2 MILLION YOUTUBE FOLLOWERS ON HOW PHYSICIANS MANAGE PATIENTS
PHYSICIAN CORRUPTION
Physician corruption in regards to medications is not new but has become far more widespread given the amount of drug company
money involved with COVID. One of the biggest early supporters of ivermectin was Liverpool and WHO scientist, Dr. Andrew Hill whose meta analysis was very positive for ivermectin and was presented to NIH December 2021. He later worked as a consultant for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation. He had his paper retracted, now has reversed his position and has been widely quoted as a voice against ivermectin. His work has been used by the New England Journal of Medicine as evidence against ivermectin who failed to mention that he was video recorded by another prominent researcher, Dr. Tess Lawrie, whose meta analyses were strongly pro ivermectin,. He admitted to changing his position in a paper because he was ordered to by his employer Unitaid, A transcript is in Robert F. Kennedy Junior’s bestseller “The Real Anthony Fauci”. A patient’s rights group in Montpellier, France is pursuing a lawsuit against France’s National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products, or ANSM, for allegedly colluding with foreign influences to quash research into early treatment options for COVID-19, including ivermectin. Their attorney said that the Bons Sens lawsuit alleges that Hill and a French scientist colluded to commit a “scientific crime,” against those seeking authorization of early treatment options in France. Dr. Lawrie’s recording has been submitted as evidence and police are investigating.
It appears obvious that Dr. Fauci sabotaged all the promising generic and over the counter drugs. Why would he do it? He was completely committed to vaccines. He had discussed how he would love to see mRNA vaccines tried. Prior to the pandemic the vast majority of americans had never heard of Dr. Fauci. He seemed to revel in the attention and power he wielded. He wanted to do something spectacular to treat COVID, prove his ideas about mRNA vaccines and be a world hero. He let nothing stand in his way. If repurposed drugs had proven highly effective, they would surely have caused significant vaccine hesitancy because people would not fear the virus as much because effective therapy was available. Had effective therapeutic drugs been available, the vaccines would never have been implemented with so little testing. Many would have advocated a strategy of protecting those at highest risk and letting COVID run its course in the rest of the country. Those people who got infected would be treated with the repurposed drugs that were available and whatever new therapeutic drugs the drug companies developed. It would have resulted in far fewer people being hospitalized and dying and a country with enormous natural immunity.
FORCES PREVENTING INFECTIOUS DISEASE DOCTORS FROM RECOMMENDING REPURPOSED DRUGS
There were many forces acting to prevent infectious disease doctors from learning of the value of repurposed drugs for COVID. NIH, CDC, FDA in concert with medical journal editors, drug companies, the press and social media put out false and deceptive information to the public, did their best to keep positive data from the public and physicians, refused to do appropriate studies of potentially useful drugs, looked away when the FDA attacked certain drugs, refused to act when there was excellent supportive data available for repurposed drugs and colluded with drug companies to preferentially promote their products.
They did their best to control physicians’ behavior by attacking dissenters in the press, getting medical review boards to threaten them and now getting the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Board of Internal Medicine to threaten loss of board certification if they were found to have been guilty of spreading “misinformation” about vaccines.
The average infectious disease doctor cannot conceive how severely the data they got to see was manipulated. They have no idea about the publication bias against repurposed drugs by medical journals. One can understand some of infectious disease doctors’ reticence to use and recommend these drugs earlier in the pandemic based on the data they saw but much of misbehavior against repurposed drugs has become so obvious that many must realize what’s going on. When fluvoxamine in a large trial clearly showed significant benefit and could have been used to treat delta but has been ignored, I’m sure many infectious disease doctors realized that keeping it from the public was unethical but few have been giving it to patients or have advocated for its use.
Famotidine is cheap, very safe and has randomized data showing statistically more rapid improvement in symptoms than placebo with minimal side effects in a group of patients averaging 35 years old. It is unknown if will decrease admissions and mortality. No one knows how infectious disease doctors will handle it but it’s likely most will follow the advice of IDSA whose website says they have not reviewed famotidine since June 2020. Based on the comments by president elect Dr. Carlos Del Rio, who thinks famotidine does not even warrant a large randomized trial, it is very unlikely IDSA will recommend it to doctors and patients even though the vast majority of patients are receiving no treatment and almost anyone would want a cheap, safe drug which would make them get better more quickly.
Infectious disease specialist, Dr. David Boulware at University of Minnesota probably hurt his career by filing an emergency use authorization application with the FDA 12/21. Dr. Boulware and most infectious disease doctors have come out in the press as neutral about ivermectin, ignoring the observational data. He’s helping run COVID-OUT studying metformin, ivermectin and fluvoxamine. Their data will be out soon. Dr. Boulware knows that through no fault of COVID-OUT they underdosed ivermectin in their delta patients. Will they acknowledge it? Will Dr. Susanna Naggie, PI of ACTIV-6 acknowledge the same thing in her trial?
Despite the obvious things that have been done to suppress the use of repurposed drugs, no major US infectious disease doctor has spoken out publicly. Whether some wanted to and the press won’t accommodate them is unknown. For certain it would be poorly received by their peers. They would be ostracized and attacked in the media as antivaxxers and spreading misinformation.. It is likely they would be attacked by their physician review board. Their hospital might attack them with a sham peer review. Maybe the American Board of Internal Medicine would revoke their board certification. Certainly they would never receive another dollar of NIH grant money. In the infectious disease world, dissent is not tolerated from anyone, let alone from other infectious disease doctors.
So far 5.84 million people worldwide have died from COVID. Easily half of those deaths could have been prevented with generic and over the counter drugs which still are not being used. Let’s hope that senator Johnson’s efforts will result in US physicians using those drugs to help COVID patients and that infectious disease doctors will do their part to see that americans get the appropriate treatment.
VACCINES AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE DOCTORS
Infectious disease doctors with good reason are very proud of the good that has come from vaccine. Because they thought there were no effective oral drugs for early COVID and the situation was dire they felt their only hope was vaccines They looked the other way when the vaccines were fast tracked through with far less testing than usual, choosing to assume that government oversight was adequate. Other vaccines had taken 10 years to develop. They prayed that the mRNA vaccines, using new technology which had never been used in human vaccines somehow could be developed quickly and that the vaccines would be safe and effective. They should have been concerned that drug companies would put profits over protecting americans. None of them seemed worried that the vaccines might be dangerous but they should have been. The vaccines caused huge amounts of spike protein to be made. It is known to be toxic. It is carried by lipid nanoparticles which go everywhere, including across the blood brain barrier and cause inflammation.
Infectious disease doctors feel the mRNA vaccines have performed well and caused the country to have far fewer admissions and deaths from COVID than if they had not been implemented. They feel that had there not been so much resistance to them, admissions and deaths would have been much lower than they were. They have painted the 27% of the country who have steadfastly declined vaccines as villains to be scorned by the vaccinated and restricted from restaurants and other venues to prevent them from infecting the vaccinated. In JAMA 3/3/22 it is reported that 55% of the unvaccinated have antibodies consistent with prior infection. Those with prior infection generally have better immunity than those who have been vaccinated. That fact has been known for quite a while from over 100 studies but only recently did CDC director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky actually admit to it. Thus 55% of the unvaccinated have better immunity than the vaccinated and were inappropriately punished.
Most of the vaccinated feel that if 100% of the country had been vaccinated we would have herd immunity and the pandemic would be over. Most are unaware that the vaccinated, even those with boosters, frequently get infected and infect others. Those whose vaccinations are over 4 months old have little immunity. They are unaware that in many countries the majority of those hospitalized are vaccinated. Our government healthcare agencies have done little to let the public know this. CDC director, Dr. Walensky’s statement that those who are vaccinated are 99 times less likely to die of COVID is at great odds with the rest of the world,
Infectious disease doctors vigorously support vaccine mandates, including for over half of the country previously infected. They believe that those mandates resulted in far fewer hospitalizations and deaths, kept our hospitals from being overrun and made those who are vaccinated less likely to be infected by the unvaccinated. They feel it is the duty of all citizens to comply with being vaccinated and that suspending the individual rights of everyone for the good of the whole country is justified. They feel that the unvaccinated’s concerns about vaccine safety are unfounded. They feel that the only way to be certain that everyone is vaccinated is to mandate vaccination for all.
Why weren’t people allowed to get antibody testing as proof of prior infection and be allowed to decline the vaccines? The vaccinated have cards showing “proof of vaccination”. Why weren’t there cards showing “proof of infection” which implied even better immunity. The mandates meant forcing vaccination on those who were previously infected so they could maintain their jobs. That was ok with infectious disease doctors because they felt certain that it posed no risk to them. It looks like that assumption was very wrong.
Infectious disease doctors strongly resist the idea that the vaccines may be dangerous even though the toxicity of the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles are well known. Only the FDA and the drug companies actually know what’s in the vaccines. The FDA wanted 75 years to reveal the data but a judge got them down to 5 months.
During the initial randomization in Pfizer’s trial, at two months not surprisingly there were far fewer COVID infections in the vaccine group but there were 15 deaths in the placebo group and 14 in the vaccine group. Why did the FDA say nothing about Pfizer then vaccinating the control group and ruining the randomization? The VAERS reporting system, with over 1 million reports of vaccine induced harm, is voluntary and captures only a small percentage of vaccine induced injuries. Something much more robust was needed but our government and vaccine makers didn’t want that data to exist.
NIH, FDA, CDC and IDSA are silent about the revelation that insurance companies have seen a 40% increase in all cause mortality in those 18-64 in 2021 and that 3 whistleblowers reviewed Department of Defense medical data for 2021 and previous years, finding massive increases in many diagnoses including heart attack, cancer, pulmonary embolus and neurologic disorders.
Malone: Department of Defense Data Dump
Wall Street has figured it out. Pfizer stock price is down 19% and Moderna 70%.
Edward Dowd Vaccine Induced Mortality
Wall Street thinks there has been fraud involving the government, Pfizer and Moderna who are trying to cover it up. Fraud negates vaccine makers’ liability protection. Insurance companies are not going to eat the costs of that fraud. Lawyers will be out en mass soon.
Pentagon Respone to Department of Defense Data
We all hope that the infectious disease community will make a good faith effort to see if the vaccines are in fact causing great harm. So far they they haven’t. It’s unfortunate that it will take Wall Street and their lawyers to get to the truth.
Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC