Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
December 16, 2024 - February 7, 2025
From then on, camps largely divided along political lines . . . and it had nothing to do with scientific evidence.
Adding to the public drama and confusion is a draft version of a study that apparently wasn’t supposed to be published but accidentally did get posted on the Internet. It showed that remdesivir didn’t help most Covid patients and caused serious side effects. The results were so troubling that the eighteen test subjects involved in the study were taken off the drug. The maker of remdesivir, Gilead, didn’t respond to my query about that, but has said publicly that it ended the controversial study because it couldn’t find enough volunteers to take part.
due to reports of “serious heart rhythm problems.”
With the FDA’s new maneuver, in the rare cases where it will be given in the hospital, it will be too late. That will skew any reviews of its worth, making it look like it just isn’t effective.
under unambiguous wording in section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, experimental vaccines can only be used in an emergency when no existing drugs work: “For the FDA to issue an Emergency Use Authority, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative.” Like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
A recurring lesson in science, and life in general, is that when the actions of media, government, and public officials seems so contrary to common sense: Follow the Money.
one of the authors received research funding from Gilead, the maker of remdesivir. The funding included a major $247,000 grant in 2018.
Cholesterol Conflicts
The new guidelines, under the National Institutes of Health National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), create eight million more potential customers for statins overnight!
It pushes patients toward medicine that has serious side effects ahead of safer, impactful diet and exercise changes.
Seven of the eight doctors were linked to statin makers that benefited from the new guidelines!
About one-third of the government’s Covid treatment advisory panel, or eleven members, reported having links to a drug company. Nine of the eleven named Gilead, the maker of remdesivir!
“Now people are scared to use [hydroxychloroquine]—without any scientifically valid concern,” Dr. O’Neill tells me when I follow up. “We’ve talked with our colleagues at the University of Minnesota who are doing a similar study, and at the University of Washington. We’ve treated four hundred patients and haven’t seen a single adverse event. And what’s happening is [that] because of this fake news and fake science, the true scientific efforts are being harmed. Because people now are so worried that they don’t want to enroll in the trials.” Dr. O’Neill would later say that “the saddest part” of
...more
American Journal of Therapeutics looked at fifteen studies and concluded that “ivermectin reduced the risk of [Covid] death and large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin.
The court handed Dr. Bowden and the other doctors a major victory on September 1, 2023. Responding to the FDA’s “You are not a horse” tweets that warned against ivermectin in 2021, the judges wrote: “FDA is not a doctor.” Further, the court reiterated, “FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise. The Doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s Posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to.” The judges also noted that the FDA had failed to acknowledge that a safe and effective human form of
...more
All or part of thirty-nine countries, counting both government and nongovernment medical organizations, adopted ivermectin use for Covid. But not the US.
I find myself often thinking back to advice once given to me by a government scientist. He told me, “When the CDC says to worry about something, you don’t need to worry about it. When they say not to worry about something, you should worry a lot.” It no longer sounds ridiculously conspiratorial.
the website “Retraction Watch” describes Dr. Kory as a “Wisconsin physician who has been pushing unproven treatments for Covid-19.” In most any other context, a scientist like Dr. Kory would have been described as “a cutting-edge researcher now working to identify new potential treatments for a novel virus.”
If they really are kooks, as the smears suggest, how did so many kooks manage to get licenses in the first place and practice medicine for so many decades without controversy—until Covid?
“Statistical and Numerical Errors Made by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention During the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
Is it just a coincidence that this mistake coincided with the CDC’s controversial decision to approve and start promoting Pfizer’s Covid vaccine for children as young as age twelve?
no government scientist, fact-checker, or medical reporter noticed the enormous discrepancy at the time.
Here are a few more examples of false CDC information flagged by the Krohnert analysis or others.
the dissemination in news outlets and social media means these [errors] may have massive implications on public perception.”
The important question, of course, is, What impact did the CDC’s errors have on all of us? Consider how many people relied on the CDC’s information as if it were gospel. The Krohnert paper notes that YouTube pushes out links to the CDC’s website on all videos that discuss Covid and “Spotify links select podcast episodes to the CDC website as well. Many universities, healthcare facilities, daycares, churches, businesses, schools, sports programs, and camps defer to CDC guidance for COVID-19 precautions.” Additionally, social media minders and Google give great deference to the CDC and rely on
...more
push to force small children to wear masks. The damage caused by the CDC’s negligence or corruption is arguably far worse and more encompassing than other crimes chosen for prosecution in our society on a daily basis. But government mistakes and disinformation—even if they lead to injuries or death—aren’t illegal.
Dr. Margery Smelkinson, testifying on her own behalf and not as a representative of the federal agency, stated what some of us had reported from the start: Early on, data had indicated that natural immunity after Covid infection was as good as or superior to vaccine-induced immunity.
science reporter Paul Thacker pointed out after the May hearing, “Denmark has stopped Covid vaccinations for people under 50, and Switzerland has withdrawn its Covid vaccine recommendation for all ages, but in America, the CDC still recommends infants as young as 6 months be vaccinated.”
And not once did the CDC use its own suggested “debunking” formula on its website to flag its own errors.
Dr. Ladapo wrote, “DNA integration could theoretically impact a human’s oncogenes—the genes which can transform a healthy cell into a cancerous cell. DNA integration may result in chromosomal instability. The Guidance for Industry discusses biodistribution of DNA vaccines and how such integration could affect unintended parts of the body including blood, heart, brain, liver, kidney, bone marrow, ovaries/testes, lung, draining lymph nodes, spleen, the site of administration and subcutis at injection site.”
“these vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings” because the risk of “DNA integration” had not been assessed.
no single person, let alone a public health agency insider, is qualified to conduct a thorough, fair, and hard-hitting analysis of the CDC’s shortfalls.
Put these same tasks out for bid, and I’m pretty sure competent people could do the job for far less—and perhaps improve upon outcomes.
Running funds through a private foundation like this allows the names of donors to be legally shielded from the public.
Based on its funding sources, it’s hard to view the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health as anything other than a legal influence-peddling operation that opens the door for drug companies to further direct NIH priorities, research, and spending of taxpayer money.
how much cash and attention are given to determining root causes and the factors that could be damaging so many people’s immune systems?
NIH had funded dangerous and controversial “gain of function” research in partnership with the communist Chinese lab implicated in the creation and unleashing of Covid.
The record shows that in the years before Covid-19, US and Chinese scientists partnered up to invent a vaccine for a dangerous virus that didn’t yet exist. They then created such a virus in the lab to experiment on, in order to invent the vaccine. It’s important to understand that that particular vaccine would only be useful if that particular virus somehow got loose. It somehow got loose.
in 2020, French virologist and Nobel Prize recipient Luc Montagnier alleged that Covid’s genetics were the product of “manipulation.” Montagnier was cofounder of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention, and codirected the Program for International Viral Collaboration. “Someone added sequences,” he said of Covid. “It’s the work of professionals, of molecular biologists . . . a very meticulous work.” In early 2021, Dr. Stephen Quay, MD, PhD, CEO of Atossa Therapeutics, conducted an analysis that concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Covid-19 is lab-derived.
the online interview, Daszak discussed testing modified coronaviruses on human cells and humanized mice at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). He told the host of the podcast, “The logical progression for vaccines” is to “insert” material into the coronavirus to “get a better vaccine” and “You can manipulate [bat coronavirus] in the lab pretty easily.”
The head of the special committee advising on Covid’s origin was a man whose research was implicated in Covid’s origin.
“The thing you have to understand is that while it’s called the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,’ it’s actually a biodefense research institute housed within the National Institutes of Health,” says Thacker. “That’s not spoken about much today. . . . So what he really runs is a biodefense institute. . . . I think that if Anthony Fauci had been brought on television or in White House [Covid] briefings and had been identified as ‘head of biodefense research’ and not as ‘head of an Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,’ I think this would have created a different
...more
How does one create a defensive weapon, such as a vaccine, against a biological agent that doesn’t yet exist? Answer: By creating that agent.
BMJ, which published Thacker’s investigation, responded by sending Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg an open letter. BMJ called Facebook’s “fact check” “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.”
Facebook tells the White House: “[W]e have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. This is often true content [emphasis added] . . . we’ll remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts. . . .”
That’s something the Virality Project could not permit: a free thinker drawing his own conclusions.
In another briefing, they proclaimed, “This week we saw the censorship discussion take a partisan turn. Breitbart News and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, prominent anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and foreign media outlets [sic] RT pushed similar stories about the White House’s relationship with social media.” Yet in truth, there was little partisan agreement at the time among the groups named—quite the opposite. Breitbart News typically comes from the right, while Tucker Carlson could be said to lean anti-establishment and libertarian-conservative, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was a lifelong
...more
in March 2021, came remarkable news. The Associated Press and other media outlets reported on claims that the Lancaster County Amish were the first to achieve “herd immunity.”
they failed to study the very population at issue—the Amish.
When I asked study author Rachel Stein at West Virginia University why she excluded Pennsylvania, she provided a surprising answer. She indicated she and her colleagues chose Ohio because it had a disproportionately high number of Amish and Mennonite obituaries compared to Pennsylvania and other states. According to Stein, Ohio is “home to approximately 23% of the US Amish population, but contributing 56% of the total obituaries published” and “Pennsylvania was not represented to the same degree as Ohio in the data.” Incredibly, this seems to mean that when they saw evidence of a more positive
...more