Reasonable Questions Regarding COVID-19
Question #1: Why should we trust the CDC with pandemic and vaccine guidance when they base many decisions on zero scientific data?
The CDC states on their website: “FACT: COVID-19 vaccines do not create or cause variants of the virus that causes COVID-19. Instead, COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent new variants from emerging.”
- “COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cannot give someone the virus that causes COVID-19 or other viruses.”
- “They do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way.”
- “The mRNA and the spike protein don’t last long in the body.”
ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) once again challenged these claims. They simply wanted to see the scientific evidence that the CDC relied upon to make their conclusions. But they could not provide it. Watch this 4-minute video for details…
Once again, why is the CDC giving health and medical guidance based upon zero scientific data?
Question #2: Where is the COVID emergency for generally healthy children?
Possible Response #1
Some may argue that death is not the only outcome. That many children are hospitalized due to COVID, and this should also be prevented.
But hospitalizations among children have always been relatively low, certainly not at a level that can reasonably be considered an “emergency”, especially with the much less Omicron variant.
Some people may argue that a vaccine is needed because even one child dying from COVID is too many.
While it is tragic that some children have died from COVID and that, indeed, even one death is too many, a 0.0003% fatality rate does not constitute an emergency necessitating vaccines that can potentially have fatal or debilitating adverse effects. If the argument, then, is that these effects are extremely rare, the same argument can be made that deaths from COVID among generally healthy children are also extremely rare.
According to analysts in this article: “Covid-19 has killed 280 children under 18 from January through September 2021, the time span in which the alpha and delta variants were active. Flu and pneumonia, heart disease, drowning, guns, and motor vehicles were all deadlier to children during the same time periods annually from 2015 to 2019 (the latest years with available data).”
On average, healthy U.S. children ages 0 to 14 are five times more likely to die in a car accident than from COVID-19 (Source). See the chart below.So it seems fair to ask… Why are we not declaring an emergency for children riding in automobiles?
Dr. Scott Jensen said: “I just don’t understand why we are so hell-bent on vaccinating kids under the age of 20 or 30 that have a statistically 0% chance of dying of COVID-19 disease. When we know that there are clearly evidences that this vaccine is problematic in ways we’ve never seen before, wherein the vaccine wasn’t pulled from the market.” (Source at 23:36)
Dr. Richard Fleming, cardiologist, said: “There’s no data that shows [the COVID vaccine] is beneficial for the children.” (Source at 57:04)
Dr. Drew Pinsky said: “Vaccine therapies are usually targeted. They are shingles vaccine for people over the age of 60. It’s pneumonia vaccine for people over the age of 60. I don’t give those to 12 year olds. It’s yellow fever vaccine for people traveling to endemic areas… It doesn’t make any sense to me that [the COVID vaccine] is the one and only vaccine that is completely indiscriminately distributed even though the primary illness is in the adult.” (Source at 1:00:50)
So these questions remain… Where is the COVID emergency for generally healthy children? And if there is no real emergency for them, why are we giving them a vaccine that is meant for emergency use only?
Question #3: Why is the general public not being informed about vaccine trial data gaps and unknown risks?
The message was loud and clear when the COVID vaccine was rolled out to the public… “The vaccine is safe.”
This message was delivered by the medical establishment and reinforced by the White House, government officials, mainstream media and tech companies. And this message of safety was unequivocal and without qualification.
But vaccine trial data tells a very different story… a story of “data gaps”, “missing information” and “insufficient data”.
How can the vaccines be unequivocally safe when they were not tested on many population subsets such as pregnant women, the frail elderly with comorbidities, people with autoimmune conditions, etc. They also were not tested for their potential to cause cancer (as evidenced below) and some were tested for their potential to negatively effect fertility and fetal development on female rats only.
In the FDA’s Words
The slide below was presented by the FDA at the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee for the Johnson+Johnson COVID vaccine…
The slide states: “Data Gaps/Unknown Risks… Safety in… pregnant and lactating, pediatric, immunocompromised, individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, Adverse events that are uncommon and/or require longer follow-up to be detected, Vaccine-enhanced disease: evidence suggests low risk; longer follow-up needed to fully evaluate risk.” (Source)
Some may argue that despite the risks outlined above, the benefits of the COVID vaccine outweigh their risks. This is addressed in the next section…
Question #4: Do the benefits of the COVID vaccine really outweigh the risks when all pertinent information is considered?
Question #5: Why didn't health agencies recommend a single early treatment protocol for COVID-19?
During the first two years of the COVID pandemic, U.S. health agencies (the CDC, FDA and NIH) did not recommend a single early treatment protocol. Why? Such a protocol could’ve been administered by sick people at home or by doctors in an outpatient setting when symptoms presented themselves and/or if someone tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Instead, the CDC recommended the following steps (as outlined in this 2-minute video)…
- Stay home except to get medical care.
- Monitor your symptoms carefully. Have someone look for emergency warning signs… and call 911 if you’re showing signs.
- Rest and stay hydrated.
- Get tested if you have COVID-19 symptoms.
- If you have a medical appointment, call ahead and let them know you may have COVID-19.
- Wear a mask over your nose and mouth if you must be around others.
- Cover your cough and sneezes and wash your hands often.
- Stay in a specific room and away from others in your home. Use a separate bathroom if possible.
- Avoid sharing personal items.
- Clean and disinfect areas you share with others.
Absent from the CDC’s recommendations were any treatments that may have helped a person get better. Other than a brief mention to “rest and stay hydrated”, their messaging focused on preventing the spread of the virus rather than on managing and mitigating the symptoms of the virus.
The CDC published a document in late 2021 that advised people about what to do if one suspects they have COVID symptoms…
Again, nothing about treating the symptoms.
Dr. Drew Pinsky exclaims in the 2-minute video below: “Why isn’t the public health community, as opposed to chanting about how you need to shelter in place, why aren’t they educating people about to respond to the infection when you get it?!”
Instead, ever since the early days of the pandemic, the primary message sent by seemingly every health authority and political figure given a voice by the mainstream media was that the vaccine was the only solution. Watch this 3-minute video…
But Dr. Theresa Long said: “If you’re in such an emergency… wouldn’t you try every treatment in your toolbox? This doesn’t make sense.” (Source at 1:04:40)
Most Hospitalizations and Deaths Could’ve Been Avoided
Dr. Paul Marik said: “If we had treated patients earlier with effective treatments we would’ve prevented patients progressing, we would’ve prevented patients going to [the] hospital, we would’ve prevented patients from the ICU, and we would’ve prevented patients dying… And because of this outrage… hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of patients died.” (Source at 1:36:50)
Dr. Peter McCullough said: “Every single one of my high-risk patients I’ve always treated to prevent hospitalization and death. Of the 800,000 deaths that [we’re at] right now… they’ve received either no or inadequate early treatment… I testified on March 10, 2021 in the Texas Senate [under] sworn testimony… 85% of the [COVID] deaths could have been avoided.” (Source at 3:11 and 5:10)
He also said: “Everything that we’ve done for this virus we’ve made it far worse by not treating it, keeping patients in fear [and] isolation. We’ve done multiple things that have promoted hospitalization and we’ve done multiple things that have actually promoted excess mortality, and it’s a shameful time in America and in the world.” (Source at 1.02.31)
As early as the summer of 2020, many doctors published various early treatment COVID protocols utilizing safe therapeutics and FDA approved repurposed drugs that were readily-available. Here are a few of those protocols:
Studies on the therapeutics used in many of these early treatment protocols can be found here.
Instead of considering these early treatment protocols or perspectives that promoted a non-vaccine approach to dealing with COVID, health authorities and most of the mainstream media ignored, dismissed, suppressed and/or demonized such treatments and perspectives. More details in the next section…
Question #6: Why did mainstream media and health officials lie about a safe and effective COVID treatment?
Ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug that has been in use since the 1970s to treat parasites in animals. It was approved for human use in 1987. It has a proven safety record, is extremely cheap, is available “over-the-counter” in most parts of the world, and has been successfully used by millions of people. And in early 2020, many doctors and scientists discovered it can also be used to safely and effectively treat COVID-19. See this page for the evidence supporting the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19. Refer to the section near the bottom entitled “The Totality of Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19″.
But mainstream media waged a propaganda-like campaign against Ivermectin in an effort to scare and dissuade people from taking it. The 3-minute video below documents some of the lies stated about Ivermectin:
- “Has not been proven as a way to prevent or treat COVID-19”
- “No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19”
- “Meant to deworm livestock”
- “Only suitable animals”
- “Anti-parasite horse drug”
- “There’s no clinical evidence that indicates that [Ivermectin] works.”
- “Doesn’t treat COVID”
The Facts About Ivermectin
With just a bit of sincerity, objectivity and journalistic integrity, a truth-seeking media could have easily uncovered these relevant details about Ivermectin…
- “William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering and developing avermectin, which Mr. Campbell and associates modified to create ivermectin.”
- “Merck has donated four billion doses to prevent river blindness and other diseases in Africa and other places where parasites are common.”
- “Ivermectin is safe at approved doses. Out of four billion doses administered since 1998, there have been only 28 cases of serious neurological adverse events, according to an article published this year in the American Journal of Therapeutics. The same study found that ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children and infants.”
- “Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines.”
All four of the above points are excerpts from a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug? This article concludes by saying: “If the FDA were driven by science and evidence, it would give an emergency-use authorization for ivermectin for Covid-19. Instead, the FDA asserts without evidence that ivermectin is dangerous.”
Some people may point to studies that allege danger, but a deeper look at such studies show they were underpowered, poorly designed, rife with conflicts of interest, and/or downright fraudulent. Also the number of such studies pale in comparison to the number of studies that indicate Ivermectin is safe for COVID-19.
While discussions about studies and trials can get nuanced and convoluted, the safety record of Ivermectin cannot be denied. This publication on NIH’s “National Library of Medicine” makes the following statements regarding Ivermectin:
Actually this is not accurate. In the 2-minute video below, Dr. Paul Marik says that Ivermectin “stimulates a process called autophagy, which is very important in the process of healing and it’s one of the main mechanisms that we use to help patients get rid of spike protein.” Note: Spike protein is widely considered the most dangerous part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
In the 3-minute video below, Dr. Tess Lawrie says Ivermectin “blocks the viral proteins from entering the nucleus and prevents the virus from impairing the immune system. But it also has a mechanism of action that impairs the virus’ ability to replicate… and it effects a number of inflammatory markers and reduces them.”
Dr. Kelly Victory said: “Once a medication is FDA-approved it means that it is safe for use in humans, full-stop… We have anti-seizure drugs that are used for chronic pain. We have hypertension drugs that are used for migraine headaches. We have chemotherapy drugs that are used for skin conditions, and on and on. Once a drug is FDA-approved, if it is safe for use for intestinal parasites [i.e. Ivermectin] it doesn’t become unsafe if you take it for COVID.”
She continued: “People don’t have a good understanding of this entire concept of using repurposed drugs. And that’s what we have always done in medicine, something that we are very proud of doing in medicine, something that differentiates thinking physicians from robots. It’s what makes medicine an art, and not simply something that is done by protocol and algorithm.” (Source at 14:44)
Question #7: Why are medical doctors and expert scientists being censored for giving their professional opinions on COVID?
Question #8: Why is there little concern from the FDA that COVID vaccine makers are inflating efficacy rates?
Press releases announced the Pfizer vaccine as being 95% effective, Moderna vaccine 94% effective, and J+J vaccine 67% effective. However, an important detail was excluded from the mainstream narrative… The difference between relative risk reduction (RRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR).
A Lancet Medical Journal article explains: “RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR)… considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs.”
When ARR is considered, the efficacy rates plummet…
Pfizer vaccine: 0.84% effective
Moderna vaccine: 1.2% effective
J&J vaccine: 1.2% effective
This 2-minute video explains RRR vs. ARR in easy-to-understand terms…
COVID Vaccine Makers Ignore FDA Guidelines
By reporting RRR only and not ARR, the pharmaceutical companies are going against FDA guidance outlined in their official publication entitled Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide.
It states on page 60 that information providers (i.e. doctors, medical professionals, caregivers, etc.) should communicate “absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.” (Source)
Investigative Journalist Maryanne Demasi says: “It is well established that only quoting RRR without quoting the ARR, can inflate or exaggerate an intervention’s effect size and clinical importance, as well as increase people’s willingness to receive the treatment.” (Source)
Serious Consequences For Health
Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Harding Center For Risk Literacy, says: “non-transparency is often a deliberate tactic to manipulate or persuade people… Many physicians, patients, health journalists and politicians do not understand health statistics. This collective statistical illiteracy has resulted in serious consequences for health.” (Source)
Dr. Ronald B. Brown, Ph.D said: “Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.” (Source)
Question #9: Why was the FDA not more transparent and forthcoming with Pfizer's COVID vaccine trial data?
Some may argue that the FDA does not have enough resources to review and produce that many documents in such a short period of time, or that an expedited production schedule could risk inadvertent disclosure of private information. These issues are thoroughly addressed in this letter to the court.