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

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.