Debate: The Art of Deception

If you think for one minute that the Democrat machine, with billions, possibly trillions of dollars at stake, was going to allow their ultimate candidate for president go genuinely spontaneous, wholeheartedly truthful, unrehearsed and unscripted, into a make it or break it presidential debate, you live in an immature, inexperienced, and woefully uninformed, emotionally influenced, and dangerously unrealistic world! Apparently, those responsible for the preparation of former president Donald Trump did!

This debate demonstrated the fundamental weakness of a tremendously fractured and disorganized republican party. A layman such as myself realizes that when your adversary has everything to gain even though you feel you may have not as much to lose, common sense directs you to prepare in such a way as to not allow them to gain a single advantage. Your preparation consists of preparing an offense that succeeds against your adversary’s strongest possible defense. That demands an understanding of the adversary’s capabilities, of their tactics when confronted, and of the source of their confidence.

Kamala Harris has made herself a known quantity throughout her legal and political career. She will very effectively say and do whatever she has to in order to achieve her most coveted goals. ‘Reproductive rights’ is her ticket to establishing power over the man that defends the biblical and traditional role of the family. She is out to extinguish his traditional role in the family, his traditional character valuations, and even his motivation to support his family and provide a sanctuary, the family home, the traditional house. This is what makes Kamala the most formidable presidential candidate for the Democratic machine. She is uniquely willing to follow a script that is so full of lies and deceit that only the most radical feminist, Marxist, of despotic women of the Democratic machine would agree to follow.

If Kamala was this capable on her own, we most certainly would have heard from her much more often as vice president, given the inability of the president himself. Her debate performance was Kamala. She prosecuted the mythical misdeeds of Donald Trump with a convincing drama of a seasoned prosecutor. The most important point of this post is that the tactics and the script comes from a source much more capable and powerful than she, and that is the source of her confidence. Make no mistake, the tactics in the script do have a signature, of one who wants to make a hero of the worker who is willing to give up his or her ability to compete in the free market according to their skills, their hard earned accomplishments, their demonstrated talents, and their traditional character values. This is the signature of one who intentionally proclaims every conservative value phrase and intends to use it to accomplish the exact opposite of its original meaning. This is what society commonly refers to as a snake. This is the signature of one who is despotically and successfully running the private economy of the United States to the ground in order to gain the economic cooperation of the young people into becoming dependent on government assistance through every economic milestone, inculcating in them a Marxist system of values that subjugates their individual contributions to that of society, stealing their personal motivation to compete in the marketplace of ideas and innovation. He has successfully created a sustained economic inflation in order to give the young people little choice but to accept the government assistance and the radical values it espouses for spending the money they could have earned on their own!

It is no accident that every negative claim thrown at former President Trump and his constituency is exactly what their own machine has intentionally implemented against them. They have intentionally lied about his words and his actions, and his affiliations. They promote these lies through the media as propaganda designed to justify their actions against him, as in the Jan. 6th speech, and as in the speech he gave regarding the Charlottesville, VA violent protest. They lie about his intentions as President, that he will act as a dictator forcing people to live against their values and beliefs when, in fact, they are planning to overturn Roe vs Wade to force the entire country to make late term nonthreatening abortions available everywhere by paying for it. They are intentionally allowing states to allow illegal immigrants to register to vote in the upcoming election. They are planning, by executive fiat, to allow illegal migrants to become full fledged citizens without assimilating and swearing to uphold and defend the US Constitution as the document we have traditionally recognized to limit the power of the federal government.

Harris was jettisoned with a script of offenses that placed the former president on the defensive, and a list of conservative key value phrases that the script writer intended to deceive the most naïve of our young people. How many of our young people understand the difference between Harriss’s use of the word ‘opportunity’ when she claims to provide an ‘opportunity economy’ and what opportunity really refers to in economics. The script writer knows that the naïve conservative might confuse one with the other. Her idea of opportunity economics is one in which those with a certain level of income get a certain amount of government grants and credits to afford the lifestyle that those who earn a higher level of income do. Those who earn a higher level of income will be taxed more in order for the government to afford those grants and credits. This will force small business owners to shrink their workforce and become hostage to the government’s prescribed values such as DEI and ESG in order to be granted the money to hire a prescribed workforce, one certainly not based on the business owner’s valuation of merit. Opportunity in economics means the freedom to choose a better way to invest your own money, not the government’s. The crucial difference is that opportunity is what results from a competitive free market, the freedom to choose a better product, a better job, a better private investment strategy, etc.

The idea of any administration that claims to “love small business” yet is out to load up on disincentives to invest in the private market and shrink the discretionary income of the middle class is actually intending to control business opportunity across the board by using taxpayer money to help those who align with the administration’s values, providing the space, the building, the utilities, etc… to learn how to manage a small business with those values. This, of course, is to pose an unfair advantage to the existing private small businesses that rely on their customer’s discretionary income.

Harris’s claim to restore law and order is not intended to support and encourage the prosecution of violent crime but rather to radically alter the profile of metropolitan police departments such that they adopt measures to negotiate with criminals in order to provide them free financial support after they’ve committed their crimes. Violent criminals will be apprehended only to be rewarded with food, housing, healthcare, and mental health, at taxpayer’s expense, for the promise of not re-committing their crimes. They will push the narrative that the crimes are committed because of their disenfranchisement in society, not because of deeply engrained mental deficits requiring isolation from society at large, an underground supply of illegal weapons, and the emotional support and influence from the gang lifestyle. The Biden administration has done everything to discourage just those police officers who give their all to protect the innocent, those who actually expect the risk they took to apprehend those violent criminals to be worthy of just prosecution. Not surprisingly, she will encourage and support the prosecution of those who dare to expose and interfere with this outrageous plan. She will impose federally mandated policing protocols and prosecute any that violate those protocols.

This is all according to Obama’s original intention to transform policing across the country by edict and FBI intervention, one department at a time. As some of the more socialist European countries adopt this policing style, this is well intentioned to become a globalist policing style to be eventually imposed upon all the nations. The underlying belief is that society must bare the cost of this great transformation.

This could only work if we could transform murderers into productive citizens that lose their threat to society. The inconvenient truth is that we cannot! A complete understanding of human nature is that within any society, there will always be individuals who develop such an intensity of hatred, fear, and resentment that render them simply unable to imagine a manner of dealing with life except to eliminate the people who they believe to be the cause. as of today, no amount of human intervention has been shown to guarantee that they will not become a repeat offender. The discussion of why that is so is so delicate and controversial that we have not been able to execute it successfully so far.

Nevertheless, let me give this a shot. We can all agree that humans are not designed to be morally perfect. We may all agree that we did not design our own DNA as humans. Therefore, we have not been endowed with the chemistry that leads us to moral perfection but we have been allowed with a chemistry that allows us to choose our morality if we choose to choose it. Humans are the only creatures that are not inherently good because of this higher ability to choose. Raising children affirms our understanding of this freedom of choice as we register their first “no” at the terrible age of two. We see that passively it is much easier to disobey, to defy authority, to give in to temptation to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right thing. Without a positive influence, without meaningful and supportive parental relationships, it becomes much more difficult to choose the more disciplined behavior. So far, most of us can agree on these things. Upon what basis do we as humans choose our behavior? We make these choices upon the sum total of beliefs we have accumulated throughout our life experience. We decide to trust the brakes of a vehicle based on the belief that they are functional. Otherwise we would test them before each trip. We believe the elevator will not drop to the ground based on a belief that it has been working until now and that nothing has happened in between to render it dangerous. We also believe these things will work based on an assumed frequency of failure. So, our beliefs are based on life experience and assumptions. We choose our risks in life based on these assumptions.

Some people believe that a human society can progress morally solely upon its own resources. They believe that most humans inherently choose to do the right thing. They also believe that violent criminals can be rehabilitated solely by societal resources. Yet, today we see that violent crime is exploding amongst the adolescent and young adult population around the world. Life experience should inform us that left to themselves, their belief systems and their assumptions will fail them.

Logically, whenever anything that we rely on is not guaranteed to stay on track, we place guard rails and/or a sensing mechanism that is designed to keep it on track. By historical experience, we, as a human society, were not designed to stay on track reliably. Hence, religion! Humans have always been known to require an imposed belief system designed to keep us on track. As any government decides to absolutely control societal behavior it naturally seeks to neutralize whatever prior belief system supersedes it. A dangerous number of our American population does not agree or take it seriously enough! Yet they have no clue as to how serious a challenge it is to live in a society where government imposes a belief system contrary to their own. The general Christian belief is that our top loyalty is to our God and by His authority we are to respect legitimate, lawful civic authority which does not threaten the ability to live by His values and commands. Any government which seeks to control the individual’s behavior beyond the limits of the US Constitution will threaten this religious freedom. Just as the Jewish people in Germany could not wholeheartedly endorse Hitler’s communism, neither can the Christians in the US endorse socialism. Yet, this is exactly what is being exercised by this present administration, in full awareness of their assault on religious freedom!

American law is based upon the Constitution which prioritizes protecting the individual citizen from being controlled by government except where it infringes upon the Constitutional rights of other individual citizens. American law, rather, is designed to economically incentivize individuals to respect lawful authority and pursue happiness by competing economically. The protection of individual economic freedom is one of the cornerstones of the US Constitution, having resulted in the opportunity that traditional legal immigrants have risked everything to come here for from one generation to the next. It had a recognized inherent value around the world. The globalists are desperately out to extinguish this value in our society by replacing it with an emotional entitlement mentality that is supported socially. Kamala Harris fulfils her role when she repeats and promotes their idea of “fair share”. They have successfully enshrined pure envy as a moral value by having this administration repeating the phrase “fair share” to mean that the average large business characteristically does not pay the taxes the government deserves. It is also used to mean the equal distribution of equity in all its forms regardless of merit. In the United States, the private corporation’s “fair share” of tax burden is the amount that does not unreasonably impinge on corporation’s ability to compete within its industry in the US and the US industry to compete around the world. This administration, in following the globalist agenda seeks desperately to violate this important principle. Until the free market is extinguished, corporate profit is what determines our standard of living and even our ability to defend our sovereignty as a nation! It is unconstitutional to artificially cap the very means of our economic freedom. “Fair share” also means the income that is legitimately, legally earned according to individual merit, not what your highest paid counterpart at work gets paid.

Our young people are trading the value of economic freedom in the way of opportunity for government established entitlement. They are, in the same vein, trading the only belief system in the world that protects them against a tyrannical government for that belief system that will hold them as economic slaves to the global elites, having less and less of their income to save and spend on their own, having less choice of what to eat, where to live and in what kind of abode, where to work and in what capacity. Today, being unaware and unappreciative of the ultimate sacrifices of generations past as they open their refrigerators to choose what to eat and choose where to apply for work upon completion of the degree they chose to pursue, they are taking all these freedoms for granted. Kamala Harris, by introducing price controls and capping corporate profit across our industries, will bring the free market to a grinding halt, creating unemployment largely among the most skilled and experienced workers in every industry. This will bring about the greatest impoverishment of the middle class and subsequently the entire country. The shock amongst our young people that it was upon their own permission that all this transpired will come too late. Only then will they realize that they used their hard won freedoms to permanently remove them.

This is all by design. The debate was merely an opportunity to sell the fake economics as “opportunity economics”, where in reality, individuals that favor the administration will be given large amounts of government assistance to start and run small businesses and be regulated according to DEI and ESG. This money will undoubtedly come from the increased corporate income tax, especially from those entities that refuse to abide by DEI and ESG. Kamalanomics is Bidenomics on steroids, which is the intended hastening of Obamanomics! Obama himself warned the public in a speech where he stated that those companies that resisted his values were going to have a tougher time. Through the deception of narratives, the global elitists, through Barak Obama are successfully bringing the US economy into a position of becoming more and more dependent on other nations for the support of its own. An overwhelming dependence on other economies inevitably erodes national sovereignty as with the member nations of the European Union. As Germany had exhausted its ability to underwrite the socialist economies of Greece and Spain, a globalized interdependence of national economies, the stated goal of the UN Agenda 30 which was signed by Obama, is destined to impoverish the world by impeding each nation’s ability to create wealth.

The values of economic and religious freedom authorized by our Constitution come from the strong influence of the biblical beliefs of the founders. The reason that “social conservatives” are still passionately adamant about defending these freedoms is that history has demonstrated their absolute success in the face of the abject failure of socialism and communism. I also believe that these values succeed because God allows them to.

There is only one solution: the only solution that has ever worked in the United States. To believe that those of us that understand the necessity of preventing this transformation to socialism through intentional and despotic deception can be achieved by ourselves is to dispel the reality that the success of establishing and defending freedom in this country has never been accomplished without fervent prayer, and a total resolve to faithfully rely on Christ to lead our steps and direct our communication, to give us the moral courage to do the right thing and stand for Him while at the same time defending our Constitution! There is an abundance of incontrovertible evidence of this in the historical personal letters of our founders and of our veterans in the face of every challenge to our individual freedom and national sovereignty.

Pulling Out of the UN’s Clutches On the World’s Healthcare

The Trump administration formally withdrew from the WHO due to mishandling of COVID 19. The actual withdrawal is not valid until a year from July 6th as the UN requires one year’s notice in order to pull out.

The announcement in the liberal media is followed by rhetorical comments from the democrats, including Senator Menendez(D) calling the move “chaotic and incoherent”, and California US rep. (D) Eric Swalwell calling it “irresponsible, reckless and utterly incomprehensible”. The liberal media, in classic attack mode, only took statements from the democrats, not a single republican. This media is always ready to use any major decision president Trump makes to make him look dumb and inept. They never apologize after the results prove to be beneficial overall for the entire country. There is the assumption that the WHO has somehow helped us limit the actual damage of the virus, in terms of businesses lost, our death rate, and the extent of serious disease. Why is it not logical that the WHO was initially responsible for misrepresenting the true virility of this virus, claiming that it was not spread from human to human, recommending that travel bans were inappropriate. Why is it not logical that sensationalizing the spread of the virus now is just ridiculous fearmongering given that the death rate and rate of serious illness is actually decreasing as the virus spreads. Why is it not logical to withdraw form an agency that ignores a cheap and effective drug proven to prevent and limit the severity of the disease. These socialist activists actually believe that it is logical and beneficial to continue to pay a doctor who misses lifesaving opportunities and then is not able to help us in the midst of our disease, severely restricting our lifestyle without reasonable evidence. Once we stop using the total number of “cases” as the indicator for whether or not to increase social restrictions and extend lockdowns, president Trump’s decision to pull out of the WHO, which is an arm of the UN, will prove itself right and this media will grow silent. This is one of the first major attempts of the UN, through the WHO, to severely restrict our lifestyle at the expense of everyone’s livelihood without reasonable evidence of its effectiveness. It just happens to severely impact the private sector of the US, the UN’s biggest obstacle to globalization of healthcare.

Henry Ford Health System of Southeast Michigan enrolled 2,541 patients in an HCQ study where patients were given one of four alternatives: HCQ alone reduced mortality by 49%; HCQ with Azythromycin by 23.9%; and Azythromycin alone by 15%; placebo death rate was 26.4%. The study was published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. Patients were not randomly assigned as in the other studies but rather assigned according to their risk for cardiac complications. They were also treated early, before they developed severe symptoms, 82% within the first 24 hrs. of admission, 91% within the first 48 hrs. of admission. Critics stated that patients treated with HCQ were given twice the dose of steroid, dexamethasone, as those that did not receive HCQ.

Even as these reporters cover a successful HCQ trial, they try to discredit it because the patients were assigned to receive HCQ according to cardiac risk factors. They tout the two studies, the NIH study of 470 patients and the UK Oxford study of 11,000 patients that concluded that HCQ was not only ineffective but dangerous as the trials were stopped. These medical journalists know full well that for HCQ to work, it must be given early to those with no heart disease. They also know that it should be given with zinc to be maximally effective. There was no mention of the various successful studies which assigned patients according to this knowledge. They also tout their political bias by including that president Trump “touted the drug heavily”. In addition, they described the positive impression given by Peter Navarro, White House trade advisor as a final comment after the description of the two failed drug studies. This kind of reporting to include blatant political bias has become the pattern wherever the topic is HCQ. This is not only an effort to discredit HCQ but also scare people away from requesting HCQ for treatment. This report got out lightning fast in an effort to make sure it was reported in a negative light.

On July 3rd, the WHO modified their mask policy to recommend that only those that are sick and those caring for them should wear a mask.

On the same day, July 3rd, the US Surgeon General urges caution not to interpret a flat death rate while case numbers are increasing in the US as an improvement as the death rate may lag the new cases by at least 2 weeks. He uses this to make the case for wearing masks and social distancing among the young people during their 4th of July outings, so as not to give it to their older relatives. What he fails to mention is that the vast majority of young people may already have COVID 19 and the chances of passing it to their relatives while asymptomatic are extremely low. The soaring death rates of March and early April were mostly due to prison inmates, nursing home patients, and the immuno-compromised living within the community. The flattening death rate is due to the virus still spreading to those sectors of their society balanced off by the declining death rates in other states. The death rates themselves are most likely greatly inflated as the actual number of infected individuals is unknown due to the unknown number of asymptomatic infected people. The apparent decrease in death rates may also be due to the effectively increased testing, not necessarily an increase in infection rate. Why would we not be taking large enough samples of the asymptomatic younger population and getting an idea of the number of those individuals not yet infected. If we find that the young people are not a significant threat to one another, then maybe we could be wiser about what kind of businesses we choose to open up. It would make no sense to keep gyms closed just as these were vitally instrumental in encouraging our hardest working cohort of the younger population to maintain their overall health. It would also make no sense to keep parks and beaches closed for the same reasons. If we were really serious about preventing actual serious disease, we would simply continue to quarantine the symptomatic individuals, treating them early with HCQ and zinc. We would also emphasize the already known ways of bolstering immune health among our young population.

On July 4th, the WHO reversed their mask policy from Friday June 3rd to include everyone who is not able to do social distancing,” such as on pubic transportation, in shops or in other confined or crowded areas”. This was presumably in response to the increasing number of positive cases in certain US states and in other countries which are experiencing the same sort of increase. It went on to say that the the mask should consist of 3 layers made of fabric of different material. Once again, the WHO acting as if it was a fact that increasing numbers are a direct threat to the public, resulting from people not wearing masks. This came curiously after Dr. Fauci’s latest press conference in which he demonized those who would not wear a mask in public.

Dr. Bill Fisher, Houston, Texas ER physician described the number of asymptomatic cases coming into the ER, most likely for other reasons than COVID, and the 20 % that are testing positive. He asserts that they are just as contagious as “everyone else”, obviously including those that are symptomatic. This is the basic illogical inference that Dr. Fauci is single handedly trying to make for the entire world! This is the basis upon which he can, with a lot of authority, mandate that the entire country use lockdowns to slow the spread of infection. This infers that slowing the rate of spread of the virus will minimize the actual rate of death and serious illness. To mandate that we shut down the US economy and try to slow the spread of a virus that is not threatening to 90% of the population demonstrates a huge level of desperation. Again, these assertions have now become completely illogical, and if they actually studied the contagiousness of asymptomatic people who have tested positive and remain asymptomatic for 2 to 3 weeks, these assertions would be absolutely fraudulent. Dr. Fisher does state that the ICU beds are at capacity, but did not disclose how many of the COVID 19 patients are in the ICU due to COVID 19 and how many are testing positive but are not there due to progression of COVID 19.

Toward the end of March, Moody’s Analytics in India warned of a progressive financial decline in the world economy in the months to come as the world central banks lose the ability to bolster up their economies. The initial lockdowns in the US is expected to bring our GDP from 2.6% in January to -4.9 % in Mach to make an annual GDP of -0.5%. As of March 24th, Major firms were expected to cut employment and investment. President Trump has made a huge difference by allowing the Fed to produce stimulus checks which allowed many businesses to rehire those that were furloughed or rehired. Still, the extended lockdowns are absolutely unaffordable on the local level and on the macro level. If we continue to lock down, we will surely experience the economic fallout from the economic fallout in a worse way!. The liberal media and those voices from the unaffected will always produce the most moral outcry for continuing the lockdowns. They cry louder than those business owners now going under and those about to be unemployed. The social impact of a world economy in decline is inevitably going to be an increased infant mortality rate around the world and nationally in the US, a significant increase in diabetes and heart disease amongst the younger population, costing the US much more in social services.

Here then, are some major individuals and groups of notable experts around the world that would come to the president’s defense regarding his decision about pulling out form the WHO and encouraging certain governors to do everything possible to help businesses open up:

Twelve major scientists and researchers all agree that fearmongering and lockdowns were an unprecedented overreaction to COVID 19 based on the data available 3 months ago in March. They all agreed that the lockdowns are more likely to produce more harm than the virus itself due to the social upheaval and the economic decline it produces so quickly.

Thanks to Off-Guardian.org for putting this together.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi is a specialist in microbiology. He was a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.

What he says:

We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realise that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.

[The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.

What he says:

Politicians are being courted by scientists…scientists who want to be important to get money for their institutions. Scientists who just swim along in the mainstream and want their part of it […] And what is missing right now is a rational way of looking at things.

We should be asking questions like “How did you find out this virus was dangerous?”, “How was it before?”, “Didn’t we have the same thing last year?”, “Is it even something new?”

That’s missing.

Dr Joel Kettner is professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.

What he says:

I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m trying to understand why.

[…]

I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people. I worry about many, many consequences related to that.

[…]

In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases reported is 1 per 1000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported is 1 per 20,000. So maybe that would help to put things into perspective.

Dr John Ioannidis Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).

He is also the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.

As a physician, scientist and author he has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, data science and clinical research. In addition, he pioneered the field of meta-research. He has shown that much of the published research does not meet good scientific standards of evidence.

What he says:

Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.

The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.

[…]

Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes.

[…]

If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average.

– “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data”, Stat News, 17th March 2020

Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry. He also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the science-based television show Tatzpit.

What he says:

Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country. In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.

[…]

In every country, more people die from regular flu compared with those who die from the coronavirus.

[…]

…there is a very good example that we all forget: the swine flu in 2009. That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination against it. But what? At that time there was no Facebook or there maybe was but it was still in its infancy. The coronavirus, in contrast, is a virus with public relations.

Whoever thinks that governments end viruses is wrong.

– Interview in Globes, March 22nd 2020

Dr Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specialising Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.

What he says:

We have reliable figures from Italy and a work by epidemiologists, which has been published in the renowned science journal ‹Science›, which examined the spread in China. This makes it clear that around 85 percent of all infections have occurred without anyone noticing the infection. 90 percent of the deceased patients are verifiably over 70 years old, 50 percent over 80 years.

[…]

In Italy, one in ten people diagnosed die, according to the findings of the Science publication, that is statistically one of every 1,000 people infected. Each individual case is tragic, but often – similar to the flu season – it affects people who are atthe end of their lives.
[…]
If we close the schools, we will prevent the children from quickly becoming immune.
[…]

We should better integrate the scientific facts into the political decisions.
– Interview in St. Galler Tagblatt, 22nd March 2020

Frank Ulrich Montgomery is German radiologist, former President of the German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical Association.

What he says:
I’m not a fan of lockdown. Anyone who imposes something like this must also say when and how to pick it up again. Since we have to assume that the virus will be with us for a long time, I wonder when we will return to normal? You can’t keep schools and daycare centers closed until the end of the year. Because it will take at least that long until we have a vaccine. Italy has imposed a lockdown and has the opposite effect. They quickly reached their capacity limits, but did not slow down the virus spread within the lockdown.

– Interview in General Anzeiger, 18th March 2020
Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist. He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.

What he says:

The new pathogen is not that dangerous, it is even less dangerous than Sars-1. The special thing is that Sars-CoV-2 replicates in the upper throat area and is therefore much more infectious because the virus jumps from throat to throat, so to speak. But that is also an advantage: Because Sars-1 replicates in the deep lungs, it is not so infectious, but it definitely gets on the lungs, which makes it more dangerous.
[…]

You also have to take into account that the Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement. Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics. But the question is whether he would not have died anyway, even without Sars-2.

– Interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine, 16th March 2020
Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. – A team of researchers from the Institut Hospitalo-universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille and the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for the government of France under the ‘Investments for the Future’ programme.

What they say:

The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.

[…]
This study compared the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries (1.3%) with the mortality rate of common coronaviruses identified in AP-HM patients (0.8%) from 1 January 2013 to 2 March 2020. Chi-squared test was performed, and the P-value was 0.11 (not significant).

[…]

…it should be noted that systematic studies of other coronaviruses (but not yet for SARS-CoV-2) have found that the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is equal to or even higher than the percentage of symptomatic patients. The same data for SARS-CoV-2 may soon be available, which will further reduce the relative risk associated with this specific pathology.

– “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data”, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 19th March 2020
Dr. David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center

What he says:

I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.

– “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?”, New York Times 20th March 2020

Michael T. Osterholm is regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
says:

Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold.

[…]

[T]he best alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for serious disease continue to work, keep business and manufacturing operating, and “run” society, while at the same time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as aggressively as possible. With this battle plan, we could gradually build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on which our lives are based.

Using A Pandemic To Empower The WHO

COVID-19 TREATMENT FRAUD

June 30, 2020

According to the plan for a COVID vaccine, everything is going just fine. Whatever the CDC and NIAID come up with will be given and it will be a mandatory vaccine. The fear factor has been successfully installed by sensationalizing the spread of the virus even if its mortality and morbidity has dramatically decreased.

Dr. Fauci, head of the White House Coronavirus Task Force that produced the initial guidance on the management of the outbreak in the US is now sensationalizing the rising rate of the spread of the virus in states that have relaxed their recommended restrictions. Even though the rate of infection no longer correlates with the death rate or even the rate of serious disease, he is still calling for more stringent measures to contain the virus fully, totally ignoring the economic impact for the whole of the country in his exhortations. This is one huge effort to fraudulently maximize the public demand for his vaccine that is currently in phase 3 trials, which entails the testing of the vaccine on patients for effectiveness. It also maximizes the public demand for his chosen first line drug for COVID 19, Remdesivir. Its actual performance is guaranteed not to diminish the demand for the vaccine. This is the same doctor who collaborated with a researcher Dr. Gallo who claimed to have discovered the AIDS virus. Having designed a test which produces a large incidence of false positives because the test doesn’t actually detect the virus. Managing a budget of millions of taxpayer dollars, and in addition, being funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Clinton Foundation, Dr. Fauci gave the pharma company Gilead millions of dollars to produce a severely corrosive drug, AZT for HIV/AIDS prevention to those who merely had risk factors for AIDS. The FDA approved the drug despite it having failed 2 of 4 drug trials. Dr. Fauci, in his 37 years in the NIAID arm of the NIH, he was unable to come up with a vaccine for the AIDS virus. Now, with a great big opportunity to produce another vaccine, he is once again giving Gilead millions of dollars to produce Remdesivir, another risky drug trialed on Ebola, which to date only decreases the duration of COVID illness by an average of 3-4 days. It has not yet even been shown to improve survival of the disease. This, in complete ignorance of the much cheaper, more widely available anti-malarial drug HCQ which is far more effective in deterring the severity of the disease itself. This fits Dr. Fauci’s plan for drumming up desire for a vaccine for COVID. He is actually attempting to coerce the country to shut down its economy just for the purpose of having the general population require the vaccine. In leading the smear for HCQ, Dr. Fauci has fraudulently produced a perceived threat of a virus that now produces fairly mild symptoms, if any at all, in the vast majority of healthy, productive adults.

Meanwhile, in the country that is the main supplier of HCQ, India, the death rate from COVID 19 is the lowest by far , 1 per million, as compared to the average western countries, 50 per million. A whopping 80% of healthcare workers given HCQ as a prophylactic don’t get infected. It also greatly reduces the mortality rate upon being used therapeutically.

Dr. Fauci speaks as if this is a doomsday scenario because the shear number of infections have sharply risen. This is to imply that there will be more deaths and severely ill people than we would have if everyone continued the lockdown and complied with all his recommended restrictions. There is no explanation about why the death rate and hospitalization rate for COVID have continued to decline in those same areas. He actually believes that if he and the democrat governors and mayors and the media continue to focus on the rising infections, he can contain the virus so that there will actually be a public demand for his vaccine, while Remdesivir continues to be sold at $2340 per person. The US government has invested $3 billion on 6 companies to develop a vaccine and 3 companies to manufacture it. The US National Stockpile now has 63 million doses of HCQ that is not allowed to be used as in the successful trials in New York.

Dr. Fauci is committing this fraud in total collaboration with the CDC and the World Health Organization in order to achieve a global healthcare system that will impose its remedies on the entire world all at the same time in an insane effort to spread the cost of healthcare evenly around the world.

June 23, 2020

What a stark difference between the way the two medias depict the current progression of COVID 19!  The liberal media portrays it as a worsening progression due to people being too lax about social distancing and wearing masks.  They insinuate that the overall increases in cases is a threat to the larger community and our economy without claiming any logical basis.  They immediately focus on President Trump’s rally while having stayed completely silent about the risk of spread engendered by the protests. Dr.  Tom Inglesby from Johns Hopkins makes a large distinction between large indoor gatherings vs large outdoor gatherings, implying that the President’s rally was much more risky than the protests. They refute the president’s claim that the coronavirus is fading away, stating that there are increases of cases around the world and concur with the WHO that states that this is a serious matter of concern.  They make a concerted effort to mislead the country about the fact that the president was referring to  the virus causing milder symptoms, especially amongst the younger community, as stated by other health professionals around the world. They accentuate the importance of waiting until there is a vaccine available which they admit will most likely not be until next year.  They also emphasize the importance of contact tracing and quarantining.  They present this without considering the impact on our economy and its consequences. 

The conservative media focuses on the overall death rate of the US dropping by 40% in the last 2 weeks, attributing it to social distancing and adherence to wearing masks.  This media does emphasize the importance of distinguishing both hospitalization rates and death rates.  The waning of the severity of the disease is attributed to possible mutations of the virus and a lower viral load.  They emphasize the importance of cautious re-opening, warning of the resurgence of the virus if not done carefully enough.  The increase in cases amongst the younger population is attributed to the successful protection of the older population and increased testing.  One expert emphasized the need to be vigilant about the hospital bed capacity. 

Interestingly enough, after HCQ being re-instated by the WHO as a legitimate trial drug to be available to symptomatic patients, it has completely vanished from the media.  There is no formal study as to how many people benefited from HCQ with zinc, and how many could have benefited from it.  There is no discussion about how this regimen could be the key to saving our remaining vulnerable population. Frustratingly, what is also being completely disregarded is the hospitalization rate of people under 55 due to COVID 19 specifically.  The importance of the mildness of symptoms among our young people is also under-appreciated.  These two factors should be used to emphasize the importance of facilitating herd immunity among them.  There is one expert that discussed this but in a very confusing  manner.  What is being completely avoided is any discussion about the viral concentration and the fact that it is most likely decreasing significantly amongst everyone overall globally.  Too much focus on that could lead to a public inquiry about how an artificially high concentration of this virus could have caused the unusually high severity and death rate in the first 4-6 weeks, curiously followed by such a significant decrease in overall death and  severity globally.  If it can be shown that the both the severity of the illness and the threat to the larger community is fading, then it threatens the importance of inoculating the larger community.  The liberal media is doing everything to fear-monger everyone to slow or totally avoid the spread of the virus in order to uphold the value of the development of the vaccine!  There is this concerted effort by those directly connected to the CDC to depict a dire need for a vaccine.  How is it that the president has it right again despite the outrageous disinformation campaign led by the CDC and the liberal media?  How is it there is no differentiation between those ICU beds being taken by the prison and nursing home population as opposed to those from the larger community?  These are very important pieces of the logical argument for lifting or prolonging local lockdowns.

June 4, 2020

Wouldn’t you know, the LANCET just retracted their study of the huge multinational trial led by the WHO involving HCQ after it had been investigated for unsupported statistical information, blamed on the hospitals providing the information to a third party medical statistics organization. The WHO had halted the trial based on their study. As a result, the WHO had no recourse but to resume the trial. Had the study not been discovered to be faulty, this huge trial would have been halted with the worldwide conclusion that HCQ is useless and dangerous for treatment of COVID 19.

May 25,2020

President Trump disclosed today that he is taking hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic to Covid-19 with the approval of his physician, who stated that “After numerous discussions he and I had about regarding the evidence for and against the use of hydroxychloroquine, we concluded the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the relative risks”. Is this a logical action to take for the president of the United States? Well, in review of all the evidence that I have come across in the last 3 months, the answer is a definitive yes!

In as early as mid February 2020, there was evidence that hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc was making a dramatic difference in South Korea. Then, March 21st, Israel’s pharmaceutical company Teva donated 6 million doses of hydroxychloroquine to the US. that was to be distributed to hospitals.

There is a huge coordinated smear campaign against hydroxychloroquine which is being propagated by the NIH (National Institutes of Health) for the purpose of preserving the value for mass vaccination against COVID-19. If there actually was an effective treatment for COVID-19 or any coronavirus, there would be little purpose in vaccinating the entire population. There may still be value for vaccinating the immunocompromised and the elderly. This would certainly and substantially diminish the profit that pharmaceutical companies have made on Remdesivir or any other antivirals. More impactfully, it would deny government agencies around the world the opportunity to enforce the behavioral compliance to be vaccinated “for the greater good”. Well, hydroxychloroquine is now proving to be that threat to government agencies and big pharmaceutical companies. The proof is definitely now being made.

Basic science research has shown us that HCQ facilitates a greater amount of zinc to enter the cells and prevent the coronavirus from replicating itself inside the cell.

There have been several overwhelmingly successful HCQ trials in the US, in South Korea, France and Belgium. Dr. Vladimir Zalenko, a community physician in Kyrias Joel, NY, a Hassidic Jewish community hard hit with COVID-19, combined all the evidence thus far produced in South Korea and France and treated 405 patients in the high risk category for COVID-19 since beginning of March with nearly 100% effectiveness. He accomplished this by combining HCQ with Azithromycin and Zinc. A study out of NYU Grossman School of Medicine on 900 patients found that as half of the patients were given zinc in addition to HCQ and Azithromycin had a 1.5 times greater chance of recovery to discharge and 44% less likely to die. On April 10th, a French study of 1,061 patients resulted in 91.7% virologic cure while 10 patients were transferred to ICU and 5 patients, from age 74-95, died. There was no evidence of cardiac toxicity. Dr. Grace at Lennox Hill hospital claimed on national media that he is treating over 100 patients with HCQ and that none have died.

Both the media and our federal health agencies are blatantly ignoring these studies to proclaim HCQ ineffective and dangerous. The report done by Elizabeth Cohen, medical correspondent for CNN…has been touting the failures of HCQ and the fact that the Lancet study of May 22nd showed that HCQ was ineffective and dangerous, producing cardiac arrhythmias. She did not mention that it was given to patients with heart disease in a late phase of the COVID infection, not to patients who were just turning symptomatic where it had already been proven to be effective.

So why is there a concerted smear campaign against HCQ on the part of the liberal media and the CDC and NIH? How does a relatively inexpensive drug like HCQ threaten these people? It is not merely Trump Derangement Syndrome. Even if president Trump were not to have promoted HCQ there would still be an all out war against it.

The COVID pandemic is too large an opportunity for the CDC to miss out on for the purpose of retaining ownership and control of its “cure”, not just in the US but globally. It legitimizes behavioral control of large populations while also gaining access and taking part in the distribution of individual’s private health information. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, it is comprised of people very much sympathetic to the civil rights movement. Today in healthcare, this for them means achieving an equal distribution of healthcare equity. It assumes that the “privileged” sector of society will always be favored by the owners and providers of healthcare. Their organizational structure prioritizes the distribution of healthcare equity as one of their main offices is the Office of Minority Health and Health Equity. The CDC originated from an initial private organization funded by the Rockefeller foundation, dedicated to preventing, yes, malaria in the US, particularly in the south. The CDC is quite versed in occurrence of side effects of hydroxychloroquine at therapeutic doses. It had been on the FDA’s list of safe and effective drugs since the 1960s.. They have dropped it from this list only upon the occurrence of COVID-19. The CDC has since ballooned into a huge multinational organization that has declared control over the the prevention of all communicable diseases, along with gun control. They, along with the federal regulatory agencies of healthcare have systematically overhauled the provision of healthcare so as to be able to monitor, in real time, and control the distribution of treatment and medication down to the minute of professional attention and the mg of each medicine administered anywhere and everywhere in the US and many other countries. For these reasons its size and power is largely supported by the liberal democratic politicians and the largest pharmaceutical industry leaders. The largest pharmaceutical companies compete for CDC led vaccine development contracts and for FDA approval of new drugs. They are among the heaviest lobbyers of the democratic arm of congress.

Just as the CDC could not tolerate the discovery of an effective cure to the coronavirus, neither could the large pharmaceutical companies stand to lose out on an immense source of lobbying capital, and neither could the democratic party stand to lose that large an opportunity for financial support. Therefore, on behalf of the CDC and the NIH, the large pharmaceutical companies, and the democrats in congress, there must not be a legitimate alternative to expensive, less effective drugs, nor a vaccine to manage this pandemic. An already widely distributed cheap medication like HCQ would crash this party way too hard! No, this would be another serious obstacle to the ultimate goal of global control of healthcare equity by an international CDC and other international organizations such as the WHO. So there lies the desperate attempt and mad rush to discredit HCQ by implementing large trials that are designed to make it appear ineffective. All these trials are administering HCQ without its essential primary agent, zinc and aimed at patients who by enlarge have already suffered an irreversible destruction of lung tissue and other organ function. They are administering their own drugs to those who show much more promise of survival. Even as Remdesivir, a much more expensive and less experienced drug has been shown to be minimally effective, it has been declared the more likely frontline treatment for COVID-19. Just in the last few days, three federal agencies started a trial of just 19 patients using a cancer drug approved to treat blood cancers. The trial is aimed at patients who have developed serious symptoms requiring hospitalization. It has already been shown that these patients would more likely benefit from HCQ/zinc/Azythromycin at a fraction of the cost of this new cancer drug. This is a blatant, unprecedented and concerted campaign to depreciate HCQ. All this while the HCQ trials that include zinc are being run by doctors who have no ability to enlist a large patient cohort. Yet in any other setting, their results would prompt a credible and definitive study that would be stopped as soon as it replicated the doctor’s results, upon which HCQ/zinc/Azythromycin would be declared as the frontline treatment for COVID-19 with the exception of progressed heart disease or end stage respiratory and multi-organ failure. This could have saved the lives of thousands of patients by now. It could also be declared as the frontline prophylactic in the setting of future local epidemics.

The vaccine, by the time it became widely available to the public, would be largely outdated. By early next year, the only individuals that would benefit are those that would not yet have been exposed and are susceptible to developing a serious respiratory illness. Granted, the vaccine would be a great value for them at that time. The next generation of elderly such as myself would already have been exposed and therefore not be threatened with a serious illness. This eventuality would seriously hamper the CDC’s aspirations of distributing the vaccine among the larger population. On the other hand, if a significant portion of the larger population remains unexposed, then they remain a threat to the vulnerable sector of society and thus could be obligated to be vaccinated by law. This, I believe, is the ultimate real goal of the CDC and WHO. It is the only condition that would maintain the value of the impending vaccine.

Popular support for the vaccine is also essential. Without sufficient fear of being unprotected from a formidable health threat, it would be too difficult to find enough people willing to take a risk and participate in the safety trials early on as in mid March 2020. The only way for the public to be willing to take such a risk would be in the context of an uncontrolled spread, causing serious illness and death. In early February, the WHO was proclaiming that there was no scientific evidence to support banning international travel. So, many passengers arrived from China before the travel ban was imposed by president Trump, and before there was enough effective screening at our international airports. These were the unnecessary and illogical acts of omission by the CDC and WHO that produced the worldwide need and value for a vaccine.

Now, the priority for these organizations is the prevention of herd immunity. Now that we have flattened the curve and shown that there are enough medical resources to treat the remaining future symptomatic cases of COVID, we are experiencing the political response of persistently imposing nondiscretionary, all encompassing statewide lockdowns along political lines at a huge cost to the future taxpayers of the country, not to mention threatening their future local economies. This, all supported by the CDC with the intention of having an unexposed population to vaccinate. This would also create a recurring population that would be need to be vaccinated on some recurrent basis.