Fact Check: The Daily Sceptic’s Take on Triple-Vaccination and Omicron

Daily Sceptic report about preliminary analysis from the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) in December has gone viral. The ONS revealed that people who have triple vaccinations are more likely to be infected with the Omicron variant compared to the other variants. Other data also shows that Omicron is more transmissible compared to other variants and it is more likely to evade the immune response.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) looked at the data from the COVID-19 Infection Survey from November 29 to December 12, 2021. Of 1,816 individuals testing positive with COVID-19, 115 had the Omicron variant. ONS compared the characteristics of people with Omicron and Delta variants, focusing on those with strong positive results, as weaker test results are less reliable at distinguishing between variants.

Based on a two-week period, this early analysis identified seven characteristics associated with Omicron infection, one of which was vaccination status. Compared to the unvaccinated, people who had three shots of vaccine were more likely to have the Omicron variant.  

The Daily Sceptic explained that the data does not prove vaccines are to blame for increased Omicron cases among the vaccinated, but only that a vaccinated person is more likely to be infected with Omicron rather than other variants. The data suggest this is especially true for those who have received three doses of vaccine. The study does not address the effectiveness of vaccines for reducing hospitalization and death from Omicron. The study concluded that Omicron evades vaccines’ protection.

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "SARS-CoV-2" Channel

Global studies and reporting on Omicron compared

Reuters published a fact check on the ONS data and also concluded that Omicron has significant vaccine evading ability but said the findings have driven misleading social media posts that suggest that vaccines increase susceptibility to COVID-19. Jonathan Cook, communication officer at ONS, told Reuters that, regardless of the variant, the unvaccinated are more susceptible to infection.

Reuters cited a study from Imperial College London which shows that Omicron can evade immunity gained both from the two-shot vaccines and natural infection.

Nature also reported that studies from Sweden, Germany, South Africa, and Pfizer-BioNTech suggest that compared to other COVID variants, Omicron extensively blunts the potency of neutralizing antibodies, modifying vaccine effectiveness.

Booster Shot vs. Omicron

Various studies, including those from the UK Health Security Agency and University of Oxford, have shown that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against Omicron drops after 5-6 months. However, there is evidence that a booster shot increases it again.

A preprint study from Statens Serum Institut showed that vaccine effectiveness against Omicron among recently vaccinated individuals was 55% for Pfizer vaccine and 37% for Moderna vaccine. Both vaccines’ effectiveness dropped rapidly over five months, but after the booster shot effectiveness increased to 55%. A study from Israel also showed that booster shot creates protection against the Omicron variant. 

A study accepted to be published in Nature from Columbia University and the University of Hong Kong showed that Omicron resists antibodies gained from four prominent vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson, and AstraZeneca. Even with a booster shot with an mRNA vaccine, the body shows diminished neutralizing defense against Omicron. 

Speaking on behalf of BioNTech on December 8,2021, CEO Ugur Sahin said “we expect significant protection against any type of COVID-19 mediated by Omicron in individuals who have received the third vaccine.” By December 20, 2021, the story changed as Sahin warned that three shots of vaccine won’t be enough to protect against Omicron. “It is obvious we are far from 95% effectiveness that we obtained against the initial virus,” he said. The company is developing a new vaccine based on Omicron spike proteins and their 32 mutations, which they hope ready by March 2022.

“I Don’t Know How You Sleep at Night”

A nightmarish true story of how a researcher who could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives mysteriously decided not to.

Joyce Kamen

Writes Bywords · Subscribe

Jan 1311733

“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”

~ Martin Luther King Jr.

Answers to this question have changed the course of history.

  • During World War II, Oskar Schindler’s answer was to bribe Nazi officials with liquor and other luxury items to save his Jewish factory workers from deportation to Nazi work camps. He saved about 1,100 people—and depleted his entire fortune to do so.

  • In the mid-twentieth century, agriculturist Norman Borlaug responded by saving billions of people from starvation through his development of a high-yield, disease-resistant wheat. He shared his discovery with Mexico, Pakistan, India, and throughout Asia and Africa—doubling food production and decreasing the rates of starvation.

  • Harriet Tubman’s answer is legendary. Tubman was an escaped slave who returned to Maryland on numerous perilous journeys to bring other slaves to freedom. She did so over and over again at great risk to her own life and freedom. She also served as a spy to the Union army during the Civil War.

  • In the 1960s, James Harrison learned that his blood contained an unusual antibody combination that could be used to prevent a potentially fatal blood condition in babies. So Harrison’s response was to donate blood once a week, every week, until 2018—for a total of 1,173 blood donations. His blood helped create 3 million doses of the Anti-D injection and saved 2.4 million babies.

These stories illuminate the very best of humanity.

But tragically, during this pandemic, the answer to, “What are you doing for others?”given by institutional sponsors of covid-19 scientific research—and the lead researcher himself—was: Nothing. They were doing nothing for others. Instead, they knowingly and callously mounted a deadly assault on humanity. And as a result, hundreds of thousands of people are dead—having perished unnecessarily.

Here’s the wretched story.

In late 2020, Dr. Andrew Hill, a researcher at the University of Liverpool, was leading a team of researchers studying the drug ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. Their work was funded by UNITAID—a global health agency hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and supported (in large part) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Unitaid’s main donors are France, the United Kingdom, Norway, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea, Chile, and Japan.

Dr. Hill and the research team produced their meta-analysis of ivermectin in January, 2021. The paper considered eighteen studies on the thirty-five-year-old drug—which has been safely used since 1987 to eradicate parasitic pandemics in low- and middle-income countries. The study concluded that the use of ivermectin resulted in reduced inflammation and a more rapid elimination of the Sars-Cov-2 virus from the body. Six of the eighteen trials showed that the risk of death from covid-19 was 75 percent lower in patients who had moderate to severe disease.

This was absolutely tremendous news. Hundreds of thousands of lives were about to be saved from the ravages of covid-19. Said Dr. Hill at the time to the Financial Times, “The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming: get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [ivermectin]. We need to be ready.”

When Dr. Hill made that statement—to gear up for the worldwide distribution of ivermectin—nearly 15,000 people were dying across the world every single day. Dr. Hill continued, “Vaccination is central to the response to the epidemic. But [ivermectin] might help reduce infection rates by making people less infectious and it might reduce death rates by treating the viral infection.”

But just one month later, Dr. Hill’s original, positive study conclusions on ivermectin quite literally fell off the rails. And so did the fortunes of the thousands who had no idea then that they were stuck on the tracks with a freight train barreling towards them—unable to get out of harm’s way because help had been hijacked.

In late 2020, Dr. Andrew Hill, a researcher at the University of Liverpool, was leading a team of researchers studying the drug ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of covid-19. Why did he change his conclusions?

Dr. Tess Lawrie, a physician, independent WHO researcher, and Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, had heard that Dr. Hill was about to change his conclusions about ivermectin’s efficacy. So she called him on Zoom to find out why—and recorded the entire conversation.

During that Zoom call, Dr. Hill confessed to Dr. Lawrie that he was changing his study conclusions from positive to negative—because he was under pressure from his funding sponsors to do so.

Wait, what? His sponsors told him to change the study conclusions? NOT the data? What in the hell was going on?

Lawrie was furious.

We know that the studies considered in Hill’s soon-to-be-revised ivermectin paper did not change. But now the paper was going to conclude that because most of those studies in the meta-analysis contained “low-certainty evidence,” the positive results in the first iteration of the paper were now going to be characterized as being of “low certainty.”

But that’s not how it works, folks.

According to Dr. Pierre Kory, President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, “People need to understand that WHO treatment recommendation guidelines routinely include low, moderate, and high bias. They use all data to formulate their recommendations.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie, a physician, independent WHO researcher, and Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, had heard that Dr. Hill was about to change his conclusions about ivermectin’s efficacy. So she called him on Zoom to find out why—and recorded the entire conversation.

The following excerpts of Andrew Hill’s conversation with Tess Lawrie, recently printed in media stories, are from Robert F. Kennedy’s book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense).

Lawrie: I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.

Hill: You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.

Lawrie: Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground…You’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable.

Lawrie: Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.

Hill: Well…

Lawrie: This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.

Hill: There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply…

Lawrie: We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with looking at the data and reassuring everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.

Hill: Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials…

Lawrie: It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies…we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day and being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative…that is a sensitive position.

So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this.

I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.

Hill: I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival. (Author’s note: Hill says IVM has a significant effect on survival? And he STILL bows to a murderous master?)

Lawrie: No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?

You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.

Hill: Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.

Lawrie: But, Andy—know this will come out. It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.

When Dr. Hill tells Dr. Lawrie that the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) will not be on board with a positive recommendation for ivermectin, Dr. Lawrie snaps back:

Lawrie: Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: That’s not something I know about. (Author’s note: Really, Dr. Hill? I, for one, am buying it.)

Lawrie: Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.

Hill: I don’t think so. (Author’s note: I do.)

Lawrie: Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.

This is bad research…bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know…you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.

Hill: Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.

Lawrie: No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth. How can you deliberately try and mess it up…you know?

Hill: It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.

Lawrie: So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily—up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?

Hill: Well, I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH and the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough. (Author’s note: What about the people who will die of covid-19 but can be saved by ivermectin, Dr. Hill? Do they get a say about when they think enough is enough?)

Lawrie: How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.

Hill: Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future…at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there. (Author’s note: “WE’LL be there? As in, you’re in this to win it too with ivermectin? You’re in this to keep your job and a healthy paycheck, punk. Watch out for traffic jams at the cemeteries on your way to work.)

Lawrie: It’s already nailed.

Hill: No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.

Lawrie: You’d rather risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.

These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works. It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people…

I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do.

I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.

Lawrie then asks again: Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO?

Hill: It’s Unitaid.

Lawrie: All right. So who helped to…whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?

Hill: Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it…Unitaid…

Lawrie: I think that…it needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged? Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?

Hill: Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah. (Author’s note: Does Unitaid do the scientific and medical research or did you?)

Lawrie: Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?

Hill: Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t…

Lawrie: So they have a say in your conclusions.

Hill: Yeah.

Lawrie: Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?

Hill: Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name…but I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance…

Lawrie: Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?

Hill: Yeah…it’s a very strong lobby…

Lawrie: Okay. Look, I think I can see kind of a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy.

And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry…As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.

Hill: Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.

Lawrie: So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate go on?

Hill: From my side. Okay…I think end of February, we will be there, six weeks.  (Author’s note: Hey Hill, you said six weeks? 15K people dying daily? That’s 630,000 people dead. So what about pushing for it…like…right now instead? That’s hundreds of thousands fewer people dead. Do the math.)

Lawrie: How many people die every day?

Hill: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.

Lawrie: Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks…because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum… (Author’s note: “Everything you can” means searching your soul and conscience—both seemingly laying dormant—and acting to save these lives.)

Lawrie: You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, “I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion any more, and I’m going to tell the truth.” (Author’s note: So maybe, Dr. Hill, you did not have the authority to change Unitaid’s conclusions. But you shouldn’t have checked your spine at the door. You had veto power over the use of your name (which is the banner carrying your professional integrity) on that noxious paper, didn’t you? Maybe you could have said something like, “Though I led the team that conducted this research, I cannot allow my name to remain on a paper with conclusions I did not reach, words I did not write, and which will cause people to die if those words go unchallenged.” What do you think, Dr. Hill?)

Hill: What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.

Lawrie: Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of…everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.

Hill: Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ. (Author’s note: “Agree to differ?” People differ on what they like for dinner, their opinions on whether they like novocaine or gas at the dentist. But what they DON’T differ on is whether or not lives should be saved in a damn pandemic.)

Lawrie: Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.

There’s one more thing you should know.

One week prior to Dr. Andrew Hill’s pre-print posting of his revised paper, the University of Liverpool, where Hill works, received a $40 million grant from Unitaid to study infectious diseases—Dr. Hill’s specialty.

Forty million reasons to silence the irrefutable evidence for ivermectin. Forty million reasons to let folks take their inevitable place on the train tracks with permanent adhesive on their shoes.

Hill’s “six-weeks” has now turned into nearly one year—a year during which Hill threw out most of the studies in the original paper, and proclaimed that ivermectin offers no mortality benefit. “There is no longer evidence for clinical benefits after removal of trials at risk of bias or medical fraud,” Hill wrote recently.

Killer words.

And that, dear reader, is why in late February, 2021, when the WHO received Dr. Hill’s paper with the sponsors’ conclusions written in, they decided not to recommend ivermectin for covid until long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled studies could be conducted.

And that is why nearly one million people have died since Dr. Lawrie’s conversation with Hill took place. These innocent people were doomed—stuck on the tracks, unable to get out of the way of the racing covid-19 freight train.

Like Oskar Schindler, Harriet Tubman, Norman Bourlag, and James Harrison…

Unitaid, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WHO, and Dr. Andrew Hill could have done what was best for humanity. They could have looked at the unassailable medical evidence for cheap, exceedingly safe, readily available ivermectin with benevolent, humane eyes. Doing so would have certainly altered the oceans of revenue that were forecast to come from the vaccines and the novel anti-viral therapies made by Big Pharma. (No anti-viral pill can match the high safety profile of ivermectin, or its extraordinary efficacy against covid-19.) But at the same time, it would have reshaped the fates of the thousands who will never take another breath; because though their lives could have been saved, money became monarch…and the sentence was passed.

Epilogue

This is not over. Not by a long shot. The courts will have something to say about these murders that occurred (and are still occurring) throughout the world.

The BonSens citizens group in France commissioned an analysis of the text in Dr. Andrew Hill’s preprint paper and the finding was that it was highly likely that there were two and possibly three “shadow authors” involved in manipulating the text, with the intent to undermine the positive evidence on IVM. This issue is now the subject of legal action in France.

Other jurisdictions are also readying their cases against Dr. Hill.

Certainly, justice will not bring back loved ones who were sacrificed for love—of money. But it might possibly save those just alighting on the tracks.

The War on Treatment Is Fiercer Now Than Even Covid Itself Mary_Beth_Pfeiffer January 17, 2022

This article is part of a publishing collaboration between Rescue and Trial Site News. The outstanding reporting by Mary Beth Pfeiffer will be simultaneously published in both outlets. Please subscribe to Rescue and Trial Site News for incisive pandemic reporting.

Dr. Mollie James turned covid around for her brother, Nick James, by treating him at home with high-dose ivermectin for ten days, hydroxychloroquine for five days, a blood thinner, intravenous vitamin C, and—the ultimate breakthrough— four days of hyperbaric oxygen treatments. He returned to his job as an insurance agent in Iowa the next week. (Photo courtesy of Mollie James)

Omicron is tearing through the country, with Covid cases quadrupling and quintupling in thirty-five states from last winter’s peak.

That’s the bad news, but only sort of.

The good news: For the first time in twenty-two months, experts are uttering words we haven’t heard in answer to the central question: Are we nearing the pandemic’s end?

“I think we are,” said Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist and president of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.

“I am optimistic for this,” said Dr. Harvey Risch, a Yale epidemiologist and treatment advocate. “The more Omicron cases the better until the peak starts to turn downward.”

These two early treatment pioneers echo the sentiments of other experts, some guarded but mostly hopeful, that the highly transmissible, less-virulent Omicron may end covid as we know it.

“I’m so happy that Omicron is milder, that Omicron is winding up the pandemic,” said Dr. Mobeen Syed, known to a half-million subscribers of Drbeen Medical Lectures on YouTube.

From France, treatment advocate Dr. Christian Perronne, author of the aptly titled, Is There A Mistake They Didn’t Make?, told me, “It could be the end of the pandemic soon.”

By all indications, the U.S. and Europe—where a “west-to-east tidal wave” is unfolding—will follow the South AfricaUnited Kingdom model. There, Omicron rose and fell fast, obliterating the more fearsome Delta, and leading to far lower rates of hospitalization and death.

Experts are anxiously waiting for that to happen in exploding Omicron hot spots like the United States. But one certainty remains. The U.S. and first-world governments still do not want doctors to treat covid early and are doing all it can to stop them.

This article covers that ongoing problem, how to adapt to a veritable blockade on safe effective generics, and how I got around those obstacles when I got sick.

At the height of Nick James’s covid illness, he fainted twice, and his sister, Dr. Mollie James, momentarily could find no pulse. She treated him successfully at home with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, a blood thinner, intravenous vitamin C, and hyperbaric oxygen. (Photo courtesy of Mollie James)

‘I Would Not Be Here’

When Dr. Mollie James was infected with covid in March of 2020, she was working in an ICU ward in New York City, the hell of the exploding pandemic. She toughed it out because that’s all there was.

When she got sick again recently, she took a menu of trial-tested generic drugs. By then, she knew early treatments that worked—essential knowledge that is denied today, not by happenstance but by one-size-fits-all vaccine mania. 

Like Dr. James, I got covid in late 2021. I, too, was treated early—before the dreaded drop in blood oxygen that drives the untreated to hospitals. I did fine. Many people my age—north of sixty—have suffered greatly, and some have died because they were not treated at first symptoms.

Indeed, our two stories of vanquished covid—me vaccinated, Dr. James not—demonstrate what most of the “civilized” world does not know: Covid can be resolved with available drugs and the freedom to use them.

Dr. James believes she was infected last October while treating her brother, Nick, forty-one, whose severe infection, likely Delta, brought him to the brink. She had worried that her healthy but overweight sibling, he told me, was a “prime candidate for trouble.” At the height of his illness, Nick James could not breathe, fainted twice at home, and his sister momentarily could find no pulse.

Ultimately, it took high-dose ivermectin for ten days, hydroxychloroquine for five days, a blood thinner, intravenous vitamin C, and—the ultimate breakthrough—four days of hyperbaric oxygen treatments to turn covid around and keep him home. He returned to work as an insurance agent in Iowa the next week; she went back to her clinic.

How many other doctors, who mostly follow the mainstream dogma against such treatments, would have accomplished that, let alone tried?

“I feel like I would not be here if it wasn’t for her,” Nick James said.

Not Just a Cold

Omicron is undoubtedly different from the Delta variant that had sorely tested the early treatment portfolio. But it also can defy the fabled “just-a-cold” description that, in some cases, may not call for treatment.

“In November to late December,” Dr. Kory said, “I took my foot off the gas pedal and am now getting patients through with just the first-line treatments from our protocol—the combination of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and fluvoxamine.” With Delta, “I was burning through those and using second-line medicines like dutasteride and spironolactone and even third-line medicines like prednisone in almost all patients. That last wave of Delta was dreadful.” 

Another difference, Kory said: “With Omicron, I worry less about the possibility of them going into the dreaded lung phase.” Symptoms can still be significant—high fever, painful sore throat, and intense fatigue. But, he said, “I have not had to resort to second-line drugs in the last ten days.”

Other practitioners agreed. Dr. Bruce Boros, among the earliest doctors to use ivermectin, texted, “I try to get three days of ivermectin into them EARLY and they seem to perk up quickly. No hospitalizations, deaths, or vents!”

Dr. Richard Horowitz, a Lyme disease-turned-covid practitioner, treats aggressively, especially “when you’re talking about 50 percent of the people with mild or no symptoms getting long covid four weeks later.” So does Dr. Ben Marble, who runs MyFreeDoctor.com. “I OVERTREAT rather than under-treat,” he texted me.

Mary Beth’s positive covid test results.

Have A Plan

When a cloud of viral particles drifted silently into my soon-to-be-symptomatic person, I had a half dozen early treatment experts on speed dial. As a journalist who has covered the pandemic since March, 2020, I am fortunate to know doctors who reject the sicken-in-place, see-you-at-the-ER mentality.

If covid hit, our writer was ready, having bookmarked this page from the FLCCC Alliance months before. (Image Courtesy FLCCC Alliance)

But even without such access, I would have known what to do. I was already doing it. I had bookmarked the protocols page of the FLCCC. For months, I had been taking vitamins C and D, zinc, curcumin, and quercetin, along with glutathione and n-acetylcycstine in Horowitz’ protocol, with benefits I wrote about early on.

When I took sick, I continued these supplements and added a few more from the FLCCC list, including nigella sativamicrobe-fighting honey, melatonin, nasal spray and mouthwash.

The beauty of this: All of these are readily available online or in specialty stores. Moreover, studies, though preliminary, show these nutraceuticals can prevent or alleviate covid and may be enough to treat mild infections.

“Because ivermectin is so difficult [to get], using the protocols without ivermectin does become a rational thing to do,” said Dr. Paul Marik, a founder of FLCCC, in an interview.

Unfortunately, that may be the only recourse in the face of a de facto early treatment blockade, epitomized by the FDA-CDC “horse-paste” campaign.

Early covid treatment means beginning treatment at symptom onset. Mary Beth received this text from Walgreens pharmacy, who would delay her ivermectin prescription by five critical days. Luckily, she was already ready.

When I needed ivermectin most, Walgreen’s held up my prescription for five crucial days, telling me it was “delayed.” By the time I got it, I was nearly recovered, thanks to my back-up: mail-order ivermectin from India.

I took the drug under the direction of Dr. Boros, who treated his first patient by cellphone in July of 2020 in a hospital that refused to give the prescription Boros had delivered. The gasping patient took it himself and was breathing easily within 12 hours.

The lesson: Do not trust the pharmacy system to work. Nor, for that matter, a medical system ruled by agencies that falsely portray decades-old, safe drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as dangerous and see “insufficient evidence” to support the no-brainer of covid prevention, Vitamin D.

‘Use Famotidine’

Dr. Robert Malone may be among the world’s leading experts on covid, in particular vaccines. But, like me, he had trouble getting ivermectin when he and his wife, Jill, were infected late in 2021.

“We were prescribed the full portfolio of agents—which our local pharmacies would not fill,” Malone told me. “(We) ended up self treating with high dose famotidine [also called Pepsid] and adult aspirin.” Both drugs are over-the-counter. The Malones, who are both in their sixties, were better within about a week.

Malone discovered famotidine’s efficacy during his first run-in with covid in February 2020. “I thought I was going to die,” he told podcaster Joe Rogan. “My lungs were burning until I took famotidine.”

The drug has been shown effective in a handful of studies, and Malone is continuing his research—using famotidine and celecoxib (Celebrex) in a new clinical trial.

So what should patients take if they cannot get ivermectin, I asked Dr. Peter McCullough, a crusader for early, sequential, multi-drug covid treatment?

“If no IVM,” he wrote in an email, “then use famotidine 80 milligrams a day.” McCullough himself took ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine among other drugs for his covid infection, which I documented in an October 2020 article. (His updated Omicron protocol is shown below.)

Fighting the Blockade

Indeed, “no IVM” is a common refrain. Last week, a nurse in Virginia shared a voice message with me from a United Parcel Service agent, demanding a prescription and “foreign passport” before delivering ivermectin and fluvoxamine from India. (The company did not respond to three requests for an explanation.)

Patients in the UK and Canada report similar problems, while Australia has prohibited ivermectin for covid. A New South Wales resident was fined $7,992 for advertising ivermectin and zinc lozenges and claiming they were safe and effective for covid. “Border force is seizing imports,” a resident told me.

Dr. Mobeen Syed, at home January 14, 2022, recovering from a likely Omicron infection. He was denied ivermectin by a pharmacist before getting sick. Then his physician refused to refer him for approved treatments like monoclonal antibodies. (Photo courtesy of Mobeen Syed)

But it’s not just generic drugs that are hard to get. Dr. Syed’s pharmacist had earlier refused to fill a prophylactic prescription for ivermectin. So, when he who tested positive for covid last week, he asked his personal physician about government-approved early treatments such as monoclonal antibodies, paxlovid, and molnupiravir.

Testament to what Syed sees as medicine’s and government’s utter failure to treat, he said the doctor told him approval would be needed from an infectious disease physician. But, believing Syed was ineligible, the doctor was unwilling to seek it on his behalf.

“We have a very limited supply,” the doctor told him.

“How embarrassing and shameful,” he said, that even approved covid drugs are not available. “How many people could have been saved if we had given these drugs right in the beginning?”

Starting with last summer’s myth about poison-control centers overwhelmed with ivermectin calls, the struggle to obtain ivermectin has intensified. Pharmacy delays and refusals are common, escalating since the FDA’s anti-ivermectin advisoryDecember 24 to state medical boards.

(Illustration by RESCUE; Photo Courtesy of Dr. Peter McCullough)

The upshot

It may take some effort and patience, but plan ahead. Here’s how:

  • Get the supplements. Two well-supported options: FLCCC’s early treatment menu, and Dr. McCullough’s “six things in the over-the-counter toolbox.” These help prevent covid but also are essential if ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or fluvoxamine are not available. “With Omicron it’s not as critical that you have those (drugs),” Dr. Kory said. However, “they would assure more recoveries and less long-haul.” Yes, in a perfect world.

  • Assemble a list of potential practitioners. Dr. Marble’s MyFreeDoctor just moved to a new platform that will allow the donation-dependent service to add more doctors. “That is how we go from 500 patients a day [now] to 50,000 a day,” he said. The FLCCC and American Association of Physicians and Surgeons also post lists of doctors.

  • Search out pharmaceuticals. The appalling practice by pharmacists to flout doctor autonomy and reject prescriptions is forcing patients to order covid generics online. I called a company in India that runs five websites, some of which are listed on a handy how-to-get ivermectin page of the FLCCC.

Mit Patel, a marketer for the Mumbai-based company, said customers are given tracking numbers, and orders will be reshipped if they get waylaid. Three U.S. customers told me the company delivered without a problem.

“Very happy to get ivermectin in this pandemic,” said one. I’d note that these drugs should be taken under supervision of a physician, as I did for my relatively uneventful bout of Covid. I believe the drugs helped assure a quick resolution, since I most certainly was infected with Delta.

Palpable hope. But.

Some experts are still guarded on covid’s future. Dr. Boros said he is making “no predictions for the future,” while Dr. McCullough said he simply did not know if Omicron will end the pandemic. Some say another mutation could occur; others that it would only make the virus less pathogenic.

As I researched this article, the emails and texts I received, the news I read, and the comments I heard often made me smile and even tear up. The belief that Omicron is the likely end of the pandemic is causing palpable hope, even amid an unprecedented wave of cases.

Omicron is clearly a game-changer. In a large new study by researchers from Berkley and Kaiser Permanente, just 1 in 52,272 Omicron patients died, compared to 14 in 16,982 Delta patients.

In other words, it would take nearly three-quarter million Omicron patients to equal the number who died in that sample of roughly Delta 17,000 patients.

“Compare this to flu, and it is almost nothing,” Dr. Syed said. “The Omicron death rate is tens of times less than flu now, according to the data from the recent California study.”

“We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting,” Marco Cavaleri, chief of the European Union’s vaccines committee said in a press briefing January 13, pointing squarely at Omicron. Cavaleri even said, quite astonishingly, that too many boosters could impair the immune system.

Still, Pfizer promises a likely unnecessary Omicron vaccine by March. Two days ago, I received this text from the New York State Health Department: “Anyone 12+ who received their Pfizer second dose at least five months ago is now eligible for a COVID booster. Get yours today!”

“We know the boosters don’t work against Omicron,” Dr. Paul Marik, a founder of FLCCC, said in an interview, “yet all you hear is get vaxxed and vaxxed and vaxxed.” 

So will the drive to jab continue even after the pandemic winds down?

“Yes,” Marik said.

Anatomy of an antiviral: Nigella sativa (aka black cumin, charnushka, onion seed, and kaloji) has properties against covid that resemble ivermectin’s. (Illustration courtesy of the FLCCC Alliance)

My Covid Cocktail

For the record, below is the protocol I took from day one of my covid symptoms. I was fully better within about a week. I was fatigued and glum for another week, the aftermath, I think, of a brush with a disease with potentially long-term implications. I did lose my sense of smell for several weeks afterward; this resolved when, at the recommendation of Dr. Marble, I took 600 milligrams daily of alpha lipoic acid, a supplement I knew from Dr. Horowitz’s protocol. Marble’s eight months of anosmia had resolved with the supplement.

Ivermectin: 30 milligrams daily, based on 0.4 milligrams per kilogram of my weight, for ten days.

Supplements: Vitamins D and C, zinc, quercetin, curcumin, nigella sativa, honey, and melatonin.

Daily practices: Frequent gargling and nasal rinse.

Famotidine: This was recommended to me by Dr. Malone and is the only drug I took outside the FLCCC protocol; Dr. Kory told me he doesn’t see enough data yet to support it.

Monoclonal Antibodies: I was nearly better when, on day five of symptoms, I got the infusion. I had read the research. It was available back then to people my age. I went for it.

Communist Takeover: Without Firing a Shot, China Seizes Control of America's Farmlands

The Chinese Communists have their tendrils in nearly every American industry, from food production to farming, transportation, education, medicines, media, movies, etc.

U.S President Joe Biden told the media earlier in 2021 after a phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping that China was “going to eat our lunch.” Heads up, they already are- literally eating our lunch as they buy up American farmland and invest in thousands of American companies.

“The current trend in the U.S. is leading us toward the creation of a Chinese-owned agricultural land monopoly,” Representative Dan Newhouse (R-WA) warned in a recent House Appropriations hearing.

According to American Military News, Newhouse raised his concerns about Chinese land ownership as he proposed an amendment in a new agricultural appropriations bill, H.R. 4356. The amendment would block any new agricultural purchases by companies wholly or partly controlled by the Chinese government. Furthermore, it would ban existing Chinese-owned farms in the U.S. from drawing from federal agricultural support programs.

Rep. Newhouse is an agricultural scientist and served as Director of Agriculture in Washington from 2009-2013. Democrats were fearful that the amendment might cause an anti-Asian backlash through the country, but the legislative package passed the House on a bipartisan vote. The issue now is the Senate.  

Robby Starbuck, a candidate for U.S. Congress in the Middle Tennessee 5th district race, recently drew attention to the threat of Communist China buying America’s farmlands. The candidate stated on Twitter,

Raise your hand if you think we should ban Chinese companies and Chinese nationals from buying farmland in the US AND apply a yearly special tax to existing farmland owned by Chinese nationals until they sell it and apply the proceeds to local infrastructure improvements.

Our farmland is critical to our survival. Giving control of it to a communist entity is beyond stupid. It’s dangerous. They‘ll never let us control their farmland. This practice must end. US farmland should be owned by US citizens. Protect our food supply and put Americans FIRST!” 

The China Factor – it’s not all about “food security”

In December, China was accused of hoarding food such as grains, dairy, and other items, causing the price of food to climb. Of course, we understand that’s not the only reason for the price increase, but it is one. According to financial newsie, Nikkei Asia,

China’s production of wheat and other provisions, as well as the amount of land used for agriculture plateaued in 2015. “Agricultural productivity in China is low due to the dispersion of farmland and soil contamination,” said Goro Takahashi, a professor emeritus at Aichi University and expert on Chinese agriculture. “The amount of agricultural production will continue to stall as farmers migrate to urban areas.”

China currently holds the following,

  • 65% of the World’s Maize (corn)

  • 61% of the World’s Rice

  • 51% of the World’s Wheat

  • 37% of the World’s Soybeans

None of that counts meat. In 2013, WH Group, a Hong Kong company, acquired Smithfield meats, the largest pork producer. They have been a US Company since 1936 and provide about 40,000 jobs. Keep in mind that whether it’s Hong Kong or mainland China, all businesses owned by Chinese companies must be submitted to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). And much of their push is tied to the Communist’s “Belt and Road Initiative.” China also acquired pork producer Clougherty Packing in California in 2017.  With these acquisitions come acres and acres of land.

According to the agricultural news site, Agweb,

With 1.4 billion mainland citizens at the supper table, China is desperate for more farmland. Although Chinese President Xi Jinping rarely wastes a speech opportunity without mentioning food security, China is the No. 1 ag commodity importer worldwide.

Though Chinese President Xi Jinping often claims it’s all for food security, there is much more to it. According to a USDA report from 2018,

Chinese officials have ambitious strategic plans for agricultural investments to reshape patterns of agricultural trade and increase China’s influence in global markets.”

China’s Ambitions

Currently, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Oklahoma have laws against foreign investors acquiring farmland. One of the main problems is that some foreign actors, particularly China, are well-versed in hiding their land ownership. However, other states like Missouri actively welcomed foreign investment in farmland acquisition. Idaho attempted to bring in Chinese investment in 2007, but when they wanted to start a 30,000-acre industrial enclave near the Boise airport, backlash ensued, and it was not built.

The Federal law requiring foreign entities to advise the Department of Agriculture of investments in land is only haphazardly enforced, and companies from China are listed under various names. In addition, the USDA has not enforced tracking of foreign entities under the law since 2014. 

Chinese companies have various names, from “Brights Foods” to WH to COFCO Group, which operates under multiple names in multiple countries. Tracking who belongs to what is a challenging task. The Chinese Communists have their tendrils in nearly every American industry, from food production to farming, transportation, education, medicines, media, movies, etc.  All of it is alarming. And decoupling from the Chinese hydra will be daunting…even if the government tries.

“We see the trend. We see the number of acres and companies that have been purchased by the communist government of China. And we should stop it now,” warns Rep. Dan Newhouse.

Shocking Escape: Covid Whistleblower Abused in UK Hospital Rescued by Friends (Interview)

“I honestly thought I was going to die in there.” John O’ Looney

John O’ Looney is an independent coroner and funeral home director in the UK. When RAIR Foundation USA interviewed Mr. O’Looney back in September, he was adamantly against the vaccine mandates because of the shocking death toll apparently caused by the “vaccines.” Recently, he exposed the pressures coming against medical officials to falsify death certificates to inflate the number of Covid deaths artificially.

Dying with a positive Covid test and dying from Covid are two completely different things. The PCR tests used to detect Covid are inherently flawed, a fact that even the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) concedes.

O’Looney is well known for exposing the hospitals in the UK ordering nurses to administer a lethal dosage of a medication called midazolam to Covid patients, leading to even more deaths. Then on December 16, he reportedly developed Covid symptoms and was rushed to Milton Keynes, a UK hospital.

In a RAIR interview with Dr. Sam Dubè, a Canadian doctor who learned what happened to John O’Looney, Dr. Dubé revealed the nature of his hospitalization and how a team of friends rescued him over and above the objections of the hospital staff.

Now in a hospital ICU on 10 liters of oxygen, O’Looney was confronted with the very problems he already knew existed. Hospital administrators demanded he signs forms to allow them to treat him with experimental treatments. O’Looney, however, refused Remdesivir (developed initially as a failed Ebola drug), which can cause a shutdown of the kidneys. All while he was not able to breathe well.

You can hear about how he was rescued in the following RAIR interview with Dr. Sam Dubè

After his ordeal and healing at home, O’Looney issued this statement, which reads in part:

There were no excess deaths in 2020 – it is that simple, and nothing will change my mind all the minds of those in the industry who have their eyes open to this lie – and there are many.

The reality is the death rate only soared the moment they began putting needles into arms in January 2021 You can believe it or not but I was one of the people picking up these poor souls and a huge amount of them.

Fast forward and now we see a huge increase in thrombosis related deaths exclusively in jab recipients.

I was recently admitted to the ICU in Milton Keynes hospital after developing Covid symptoms.

I took three lateral flow tests whilst there and was told at the time I was not positive only to be told later on the ward I was positive so clearly it was inconclusive so I will say I felt and feel terrible still.

But fundamentally for me things to change very much in the hospitals and one of the very first people to visit me bedside was a representative from Oxford University funded by the gates foundation begging me to trial new medicines (whilst being unable to look me in the eye) not even related to Covid – naturally I declined.

I was told I would die and these medicines would be my last chance; again, I declined and stuck to my guns.

Trust me, that’s not an easy thing to do laying there in a hospital ward on your own, unable to breathe easily, and denied any family support or visits.

It is deliberate, and it is to break you. There seems to be more emphasis on encouraging me to be a guinea pig than actually treating me. I looked across at other people in the ward with sadness who were all vaccinated without exception. In fact, to my knowledge, I was the only one in the ward unvaccinated – they will probably be all gone now… And I was reminded “how selfish I was” even in the ambulance on the way there, I shit you not…. The Hospital environment has fundamentally changed beyond recognition for me, and while there were shadows and echoes of what it once was, it’s a very different place now. I suspect it is already being fully privatized; we just haven’t been told…

I feel very fortunate to have escaped hospital (I never dreamt I would have lived to say that) with the help of family in friends.

I was initially sceptical about Covid but I can confirm it’s validity and it is very nasty.But I can also tell you it is 100% man-made this is not a natural virus and this is an attack on all of us – it’s a bio weapon.

My advice to you moving forward is network, prepare and under all circumstances try to avoid going into hospital because I suspect many of the poor souls I saw in there will never ever leave having become test tubes for the Gates Foundation.

The sinister whispering the secrecy and the guilty looks amongst certain members of staff spoke volumes to me It was honestly very chilling and traumatising just seeing how it has changed – especially when I asked to leave.

The tactics used to try and force me to stay were sadistic to say the least and that is as much detail as I can go into except to say I feel very very lucky to have gotten out.

See selected coverage on Covid tyranny:

Doctor Sounds Alarm: Stillbirths Explode in Canada (Video)

In Waterloo, Ontario, 86 cases have been reported in six months, compared to typically five to six per year, says doctor Daniel Nagase.

Stillbirths in fully vaccinated women are exploding in Canada. For example, in Waterloo, Ontario, 86 cases have been reported in six months, compared to typically five to six per year, says doctor Daniel Nagase. “That is highly unusual.”

At Lions Gate Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, 13 stillbirths were recorded over 24 hours, reported the doctor. Until recently, Dr. Nagase worked at an Alberta hospital but said he was fired after treating three covid patients with ivermectin at the Rimbey Hospital and Care Centre.  

‘Vaccine’ Disinformation

Vancouver Coastal Health dismisses stillbirth claims as “rumors” and “disinformation.” However, bright Light News writes that the cases are being swept under the carpet by the government and health agencies.

As reported previously at RAIR Foundation USA, comments like these are “shockingly irresponsible considering that both the U.K. and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System documented numerous vaccine-related adverse events for pregnant women.

Prominent Virologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi warned pregnant women against the jab,

The vaccine package insert from Biotech even says that pregnant women aren’t allowed to be vaccinated because vaccine injury cannot be ruled out. And if a young woman decides to get vaccinated, she should avoid becoming pregnant for two months.

Furthermore, a recent report regarding the World Health Organization’s database, over 2 million adverse reactions to the jab have been reported in 2021 alone, with effects including stillbirth, vaginal hemorrhaging, myocarditis, brain neoplasms (tumors), spontaneous abortion, pulmonary embolism, renal failure, and hundreds of others. 

Vaccine Propaganda Campaigns Lead To Fatal Result

On Sunday, a Twitter user posted that her grandson was stillborn at the Lions Gate after 8 1/2 months of pregnancy.

 “My daughter got that damned poison vaccine one month ago because she couldn’t go to a restaurant, and people were freaking out because that she was unvaxxed. I want to sue the government.”

The woman later removed her tweet and wrote the following message:

The government’s discriminatory policies towards the unvaccinated are being compared to those of Jews during the Second World War. The same pattern of slow, systematic exclusion of people mimics the experiences of many from a period that is among the darkest times of our history.

Without scientific justification, leaders worldwide are pressuring people to get jabbed by claiming that the virus is now a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Yet, as reported by RAIR, totalitarian regimes responsible for the most horrific atrocities in history also “demonized, ostracized, and socially eradicated” individuals.

Daniel Trappe, a retired Senior Public Prosecutor in Germany and the son of Auschwitz survivors, warned against scapegoating those unwilling to receive the experimental gene-therapy injection:

I stand here as a Jew, as the son of an Auschwitz survivor. I don’t want to draw a parallel, but at the end of the 1920s, there was a slogan in Germany: ‘The Jews are to blame for everything.’

Now the unvaccinated are the scapegoats. That’s why we must fight so that something like this never causes division again!

Soviet Canada: Doctor Locked in Psych Ward Who Exposed Stillbirth Explosion in 'Vaccinated' Moms (Interview)

The Soviet Union often claimed that dissidents had “mental issues” and would lock them up in asylums, keep them drugged, and eventually they would die.

In November, Dr. Melvin Bruchet and his friend, Dr. Daniel Nagase, filed criminal charges against elected and appointed Candian government officials in British Columbia over a possible conflict of interest regarding provincial lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and vaccine passports. The doctors exposed a severe spike in stillbirths at a Vancouver hospital. The women were injected with the experimental Covid “vaccine” in all cases. In December 2021, reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s treatment of dissidents, the Canadian government targeted Dr. Melvin Bruchet and unlawfully placed him in detention against his will.

Stillbirths Explode in Canada 

In November 2021, RAIR Foundation USA reported that stillbirths in fully “vaccinated” women are exploding in Canada,

….in Waterloo, Ontario, 86 cases have been reported in six months, compared to typically five to six per year, says doctor Daniel Nagase. “That is highly unusual.”

At Lions Gate Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, 13 stillbirths were recorded over 24 hours, reported the doctor. Until recently, Dr. Nagase worked at an Alberta hospital but said he was fired after treating three covid patients with ivermectin at the Rimbey Hospital and Care Centre.” 

Soviet Style Detention

On December 8, Dr. Bruchet had an argument with a tenant over loud music in his apartment building (a relatively common occurrence). It is unclear whether the tenant reported him as a candidate for the mental health act or someone else. Suddenly, Dr. Bruchet was targeted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

While Dr. Nagase was being interviewed in his home, three RCMP squad cars and six RCMP officers descended on Dr. Bruchet and hauled him off in handcuffs for a “psych evaluation.” 

The first diagnosis made by the hospital was “frontal lobe dementia” after taking a PET scan. According to Dr. Nagase, such a situation normally does not warrant detention – just diagnosis and sending the individual home. Since Bruchet is 81, anyone outside the situation might assume that was correct. It was not.

Dr. Nagase was apprised of the situation and managed to get him out of the Psych ward on a day pass with the promise of returning on his own recognizance. Dr. Bruchet returned due to the hospital’s threats they would send the police after him.

The hospital then did a second evaluation and diagnosed him with “mania,” a condition that presumes the person may have outbursts and perhaps even be dangerous. They then took away the doctor’s phone access.

Dr. Nagase was concerned that the hospital might have given him Abilify, a medicine often used to treat mental and mood disorders that should not be given to elderly patients. In addition, the doctor was concerned because Dr. Bruchet was abnormally slurring his words. A common side effect of the powerful anti-psychotic medication.

The Soviet Union notoriously used psychiatric medicine to discredit dissidents. The Soviets often claimed that dissidents had “mental issues” and would lock them up in asylums, keep them drugged, and eventually they would die. How is this any different?

The question remains: was Dr. Bruchet unlawfully detained because he exposed the connection of stillbirths to the Covid vaccines? Or because he argued with his tenant over loud music? Or was Dr. Bruchet’s age a convenient excuse? “Dr. Mel,” as he is affectionately known, practiced medicine for many years in British Columbia.

The following is an exclusive interview with Dr. Sam Dube, a Canadian doctor who informs RAIR of the troubling situation: