Reasonable Questions Regarding COVID-19

Reasonable Questions Regarding COVID-19

The information presented below is the result of a sincere, diligent and objective pursuit of truth. We are simply seeking answers to common sense questions. You’ll notice that these are not rhetorical questions. We’re sincerely looking for answers. If you can provide them for any, or all, of the questions below please post them in the comments section at the bottom of this page. We welcome feedback from anyone!

Question #1: Why should we trust the CDC with pandemic and vaccine guidance when they base many decisions on zero scientific data?

We expect the absolute best of scientific research and evidence-based medicine from our health agencies. This is especially true for the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), because they’re providing the recommendations to the U.S. government, health professionals, businesses and the general public regarding the COVID pandemic response.
 
Dr. Anthony Fauci said: “Science really dominates when you think in terms of public health measures. And when you lead in the sense of developing guidelines, developing recommendations, that you have to base that on fundamental scientific evidence and data.” (Source at 14:44)
 
Why then is the CDC making health recommendations and scientific claims that are not based on evidence and data?
 
On their website, the CDC pledges to the American people that they will “base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively.”
 
But just a few weeks after the very first COVID vaccine was administered, equipped with zero studies and zero data on potential adverse effects for pregnant women or their babies, the CDC encouraged them to get vaccinated anyways.
 
On December 29th 2020, the CDC tweeted the following: “Pregnant? You may discuss COVID19 vaccines with your doctor, but it’s not required before vaccination. While studies have not yet been done, experts believe mRNA vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to pose a risk for pregnant people.”
 
The CDC acknowledged “studies have not yet been done” on pregnant women but they say “experts believe” the COVID vaccine is “unlikely to pose a risk for pregnant people”.
 
The use of the term “believe” is a clear and egregious affront to science, and is unbecoming of an institution that pledges to “base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data”.
 
Interestingly, this tweet was subsequently deleted.
 
More Evidence
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.”
An organization called ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) challenged this claim. Operating under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) they formally requested “all documents sufficient to support that the immunity conferred by COVID-19 vaccines does not contribute to virus evolution and the emergence of variants.” Their full letter of request to the CDC can be viewed here.
 
They asked the CDC to provide the evidence to substantiate their claim. Since they claim it is a “FACT” surely they have the data/studies/evidence to support it.
 
The CDC responded to the FOIA request with the following statement: “A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.” Their full response can be viewed here.
 
At the very least this is negligence or incompetence. At the very worst it is blatant lying and malfeasance. Either way, the CDC’s inadequate response to a reasonable request for transparency deeply undermines their credibility as a health and scientific authority. And it keeps happening…
 
Even More Evidence
The above example is not the only case where the CDC failed to provide evidence to substantiate their claim. This whole FOIA exercise was repeated with the same result regarding the following claims on the CDC’s webpage entitled Facts About COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines”…
 
  1. “COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cannot give someone the virus that causes COVID-19 or other viruses.”
  2. “They do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way.”
  3. “The mRNA and the spike protein don’t last long in the body.”
View the archived CDC webpage here.

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 children?

The CDC says that every child six months and older should get the COVID vaccine. But the COVID vaccine for children is distributed under EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) which means much shorter trial times (8 weeks instead of the usual 5 to 10 years) and, therefore, zero data on potential long-term adverse effects like cancer, impairment to fertility, genetic damage, etc.
 
The CDC will argue these potential risks are justified because there is a health emergency that is addressed with the vaccine. But is there really a health emergency for children? We now know that generally healthy children are largely unaffected by COVID. According to this preprint study, the COVID infection fatality rate for those under 20 years of age is a staggering 0.0003%. Furthermore, there don’t appear to be any documented and confirmed cases of generally healthy children dying from COVID.
 
According to Johns Hopkins researchers, of all patients who died of COVID-19, 83.29% of them had at least one comorbidity. Comorbidities include developmental disorders, intellectual disabilities, spina bifida, kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, cancer, etc. (Source – Page 17)
 
The same study also found: “Among patients with no comorbidities, the youngest age group, 0 to 18, had 0.00 percent mortality (no deaths)” during a five month study period. (Source – Page 20)A joint report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association observed that “children were 0.00%-0.24% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 3 [U.S.] states reported zero child deaths. In states reporting, 0.00%-0.01% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death.” (Source – Page 4)
 
Possible Response #1
Some people 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 are also relatively low; certainly not at a level that can reasonably be considered an “emergency”, especially with the much less virulent Omicron variant.
 
Dr. Eliza Holland and Dr. Nikki Johnson, both pediatricians, penned an Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal in which they said: “the risk of serious disease from Covid has always been low in otherwise healthy children.” (Source)
 
A UK Government publication entitled “COVID-19 Green Book” states: “Children and young people have a very low risk of COVID-19, severe disease or death due to SARS-CoV-2 compared to adults.” (Source – Page 38)
 
Newsweek article points out that “COVID-19 hospitalizations among children have been inflated by at least 40 percent” and that “hospitalizations among children were already extremely low relative to adults, but the new figures cut the key coronavirus metric by nearly half and make the actual rates among kids even smaller.”
 
Even Dr. Anthony Fauci acknowledged that hospitalizations among children were being overcounted, saying in an MSNBC interview: “If you look at the children who are hospitalized, many of them are hospitalized with COVID as opposed to because of COVID. And what we mean by that… If a child goes in the hospital they automatically get tested for COVID and they get counted as a COVID hospitalized individual. When, in fact, they may go in for a broken leg or appendicitis or something like that. So it’s overcounting.”
Possible Response #2

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.

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)So why aren’t we 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)

So, again, the question remains… Where is the COVID emergency for children? And if, indeed, there is no real emergency, why are we giving them an “emergency use” vaccine?

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)

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 each vaccine was made available to the public… “The COVID 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 Own 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)

FDA’s briefing document for the Johnson+Johnson vaccine states: “Important missing information includes… use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders, use in frail patients with comorbidities (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic neurological disease, and cardiovascular disorders).” (Source – Page 55)
 
FDA’s briefing document for the Moderna vaccine states: “There are currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in subpopulations such as… pregnant and lactating individuals, and immunocompromised individuals.” (Source – Page 50)
 
Difficult to Weigh the Risks
Dr. David Berger said: “Our team found minimal data on pregnant women or those with pre-existing allergic, hyperinflammatory and autoimmune conditions. If this data is not available it will be very difficult for individuals to weigh the risks and benefits, which is fundamental to making an informed decision.” (Source)
 
No Science
Gary Null, PhD said: “If you had a vaccine that was about to be given to a pregnant woman wouldn’t you first ask ‘Was there a study of vaccinated women, some given a placebo and some given the vaccine, and then followed through a pregnancy to see the outcome?’ That would be reasonable for the doctor to suggest that. That has never been done. There’s been no study on vaccinated women versus unvaccinated women”.
 
Ethical Concerns
He continued: “There was no study on women with cancer, men with cancer, people with autoimmune conditions — that’s one-third of the entire American population. None, zero studies. They were all excluded from the initial trials. And yet these are the very people getting [the vaccine]!” (Source – 4 min, 53 sec)
 
Why were people not made aware of this critical information? Instead they were told unequivocally that the vaccines are safe.
 
Possible Response
Some may say the above data is from the initial trials that were conducted over two years ago. But today we have observational data that affirms the safety of the vaccines.
 
While it is true that we now have observational data, the fact remains that no such data was available upon the initial vaccine rollout and that this critical detail was omitted by public health officials, the CDC, doctors and the mainstream media. Furthermore, the data below were extracted from more recent documents regarding approved vaccine and booster shots.
 
In Pfizer and Moderna’s Own Words
The fact sheet for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine says that it “has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility.” (Source – Page 21). Note: Carcinogenicity is the potential for a substance to cause cancerGenotoxicity is the potential for a substance to cause damage to DNA or genetic information.
 
The fact sheet for Pfizer’s Bivalent Booster says studies regarding “vaccine-related adverse effects on female fertilityfetal development, or postnatal development” were conducted on female rats. (Source – Page 35)
 
Pfizer’s “summary of risk management plan” document states: “List of important risks and missing information: Important identified risks: Anaphylaxis, Myocarditis and pericarditis [heart inflammation]. Important potential risks: Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) including vaccine associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD). Missing information: Use in pregnancy and while breast feeding; Use in immunocompromised patients; Use in frail patients with co-morbidities (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, chronic neurological disease, cardiovascular disorders); Use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders; Interaction with other vaccines; Long term safety data.” (Source – Page 3)
 
The fact sheet for Moderna’s Bivalent Booster says available data on “pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine associated risks in pregnancy.” (Source – Page 34)
 
Possible Response
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?

Despite all of the potential harmful effects outlined above, health authorities and doctors have assured the public that the benefits of the COVID vaccine outweigh any risks.
 
So then what are the benefits?
 
The Vaccine Does Not Protect Against Infection
The Supreme Court of the state of New York ruled on 10/24/22 that “being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting… COVID-19.” (Source – page 11)
 
In this video, Bill Gates acknowledged that the COVID vaccines “are not infection blocking.”
 
The Vaccine Does Not Prevent Transmission
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said on CNN: “Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta with regard to sever illness and death. They prevent it. But what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.” (Source)
 
The Vaccine Does Appear to Reduce Severe Symptoms, However…
If the only real benefit of the vaccine is that it reduces severe symptoms, we already demonstrated above that the vast majority of generally healthy people, especially children, are not being hospitalized due to severe COVID symptoms.
 
Also, we must not forget that many people, if not most, who contracted the virus did not experience any symptoms in the first place (were asymptomatic carriers). This was the case before any vaccines were available or before they were widely distributed. After all, the concern of asymptomatic spread was the justification cited by many governments around the world for implementing strict lockdowns. See the UK Government’s tweet below…
 
Possible Response
Some may contend that despite these points, millions of people worldwide still died from COVID-19 and countless others were hospitalized. Therefore a vaccine was, and is, needed to prevent severe symptoms and, perhaps, death.
 
Indeed, it is a great tragedy that many have succumbed to COVID-19, and many more experienced severe life-threatening outcomes, sparking extreme fear and longing for a vaccine. But the greater tragedy is that the overwhelming majority of these people did not receive adequate early treatments.
 
Such treatments would have drastically reduced, and even prevented, many hospitalizations and deaths. These early treatments seem to be ignored when assessing the vaccine’s risks versus rewards. Early treatments would have greatly reduced the need for a COVID vaccine and any potential reward it offered.
 
More details in the next section…

Question #5: Why didn't health agencies recommend a single early treatment protocol for COVID-19?

Astonishingly, 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 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

  1. Stay home except to get medical care.
  2. Monitor your symptoms carefully. Have someone look for emergency warning signs… and call 911 if you’re showing signs.
  3. Rest and stay hydrated.
  4. Get tested if you have COVID-19 symptoms.
  5. If you have a medical appointment, call ahead and let them know you may have COVID-19.
  6. Wear a mask over your nose and mouth if you must be around others.
  7. Cover your cough and sneezes and wash your hands often.
  8. Stay in a specific room and away from others in your home. Use a separate bathroom if possible.
  9. Avoid sharing personal items.
  10. Clean and disinfect areas you share with others.

Absent from CDC’s recommendations were any treatments that may have helped a person get better. Other than a brief mention to “rest and stay hydrated”, the CDC’s 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 advises people about what to do if one suspects they have COVID symptoms…

Once 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)

Treatment Protocols Were Available Near the Beginning of the Pandemic
As early as the summer of 2020, many doctors published various early treatment COVID protocols using safe therapeutics and FDA approved repurposed drugs. Here are a few of those protocols:


 
To view the full list of protocols click here.
 

Studies on the therapeutics used in many of the 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.

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 the many egregious lies stated about this long-standing drug:

  • “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 facts about Ivermectin…

  1. “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.”
  2. “Merck has donated four billion doses to prevent river blindness and other diseases in Africa and other places where parasites are common.”
  3. “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.”
  4. “Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines.”

All four of the above points were excerpted 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.

Ivermectin: A “Wonder Drug”
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:
 
“Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use.”
 
“There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.”
 
“Public health specialists worldwide are now calling for greater and more extensive use of ivermectin, labeling MDA [Mass Drug Administration] of the ‘wonder drug’ quite simply as ‘an underutilized public health strategy.’”
 
Finally, despite the claim that there is no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19″ (as stated in the video above), we present numerous studies that show the opposite, with a special emphasis on Dr. Pierre Kory’s research and use of Ivermectin.
 
Possible Response
Some may point out that Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug and COVID-19 is a respiratory virus, so its “mechanisms of action” render it useless as a treatment.

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 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.”

Also, the use of a drug to treat a condition other than what it was originally developed for is not uncommon in the practice of medicine. This is referred to as “off-label” use or “drug repurposing” and is an integral part of combating outbreaks.
 
Authors of this study say: “Development, validation, and approval of COVID-19 specific drugs takes years. Therefore, the idea of drug repositioning, also known as repurposing, is an important strategy to control the sudden outbreak of life-threatening infectious agents that spread rapidly.”

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 scientists being censored for giving their professional opinions on COVID?

On July 27th 2020, as virtually the entire world was on lockdown out of fear of the COVID pandemic, a group of medical doctors stood at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC and held a press conference to inform the public that there was hope in the form of a readily available, safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.
 
They shared data, as well as one story after another of how they were administering this treatment in their clinics and that it was saving their patients’ lives. They urged people to consult with their own doctors regarding this treatment and also requested the NIH to review their data.
 
The video was livestreamed on YouTube and quickly became the most viral video of all time, tallying an incredible 17 million views in just 8 hours! Here is a brief excerpt from that video…
Instead of promoting this video by highlighting it and recommending it to as many viewers as possible, YouTube deleted it.
 
Why?
 
On December 8th 2020, Dr. Pierre Kory testified in a Senate hearing that Ivermectin is a viable treatment for COVID-19. After presenting numerous anecdotes of effective firsthand use in his sick patients, along with extensive clinical data, a short video clip of his testimony surged to over 4 million views. But again, YouTube deleted it.
 
Why?
According to YouTube’s COVID-19 medical misinformation policy: “YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ (LHA) or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.” They define treatment misinformation as: “Content that recommends use of Ivermectin… for the treatment of COVID-19.”
 
YouTube, and ironically the WHO, seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Ivermectin is on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines as well as all the expert testimonies, and testimonials, that Ivermectin is truly a “wonder drug” that is protecting people from COVID-19 and saving countless lives.
 
Arbiters of Medical Truth
Since the beginning of the pandemic, countless doctors, scientists, epidemiologists and eminently qualified experts in their respective fields have removed from the COVID-19 discourse. Buoyed by the so-called Trusted News Initiative, media and tech conglomerates have asserted a monopoly over the dissemination of information and have seemingly assumed the role of “Arbiters of Medical Truth”.
 
It has led to many medical and scientific experts losing their YouTube and social media accounts and, therefore, losing their voice in the digital public square. The effect of this censorship has been profound.
 
Censorship is Anti-Science
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty said: “Science and censorship are absolutely incompatible. Science is about conjecture and reputation and hypothesis and empirical evidence… Good science is characterized by ongoing debate, open-ended conversation, always an openness to new data.” (Source at 54:28)
 
Dr. Kelly Victory said: “Robust, vigorous, respectful debate is the cornerstone of science, it’s a cornerstone of healthcare, and medicine is predicated on it.” (Source at 1:17:11)
 
Censorship Creates an Illusion of Consensus
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said: “You can’t have good public health policy in this kind of environment. People are afraid to speak up… Even qualified people are afraid to say ‘no’ because they’re afraid [that] they’ll lose their ability to make a living, they’ll lose their reputation. And they stay silent as a result.”
 
“The illusion is that there was a scientific consensus, that all the smart people agreed. But actually that was never true. The censorship was used to create that illusion of consensus.” (Source at 1:13:33)
 
Censorship Has Horrific Effects on Public Health
The censorship that Dr. Bhattacharya is referring to is not only being undertaken by tech and media companies, but it is now being codified into law…
 
California Assembly Bill No. 2098 states: “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19.”
 
The bill defines “misinformation” as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” But, as alluded to by Dr. Bhattacharya above, how can you have a real and genuine scientific consensus when there is widespread censorship?
 
The California bill forbids any information “contrary to the standard of care” but the standard of care for patients is always changing based on new information ascertained through the scientific method.
 
Dr. Drew Pinsky points out: “This [bill] creates vast, sweeping powers for the [medical] board to encumber doctors’ licenses for speaking other than the standard of care. [But] the standard of care is frequently wrong, frequently needs to be pushed back on, frequently needs to be changed and frequently harms patients.” (Source at 49:10)
 
Pam Popper, Executive Director of Wellness Forum Health, said: “This leads to groupthink, it’s designed to do that. So a doctor in a hospital or a medical institution sees a friend get in trouble… [their] license is suspended… Well that brings everyone in line, doesn’t it?” (Source at 20:19)
 
Dr. Drew continues: “The California law 2098 may make it impossible to… even just raise questions and to do anything other than orthodoxy, which is not medicine and not science.” (Source at 22:49)
 
But perhaps most horrifying, as Dr. Kelly points out, is that censorship of doctors “eliminates the critical concept of informed consent… You as a patient have absolutely no reason to trust in anything your doctor tells you. Not because your doctor is an idiot, but because your doctor is under a gag order. This is horrific.” (Source at 39:34)
 
Researchers in this study point out: “Censorship and silencing practices can have far-reaching consequences, manifested in the violation of freedom of speech and of ethical principles, harming science, and potentially risking public health and safety.”

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 in easy-to-understand terms…

Vaccine Makers Ignore FDA Guidelines
By reporting RRR only and not ARR, the pharmaceutical companies are going directly 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)

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?

Referring to the COVID vaccine trials and the analysis of their resulting data, Dr. Anthony Fauci said: “When people have skepticism about the science, you’ve got to convince them – and I think it’s easy to do – that the process is both transparent and independent, and not influenced by non-scientific factors.” (Source at 16:46)
 
Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, said: “We need to be as forthcoming of data as we possibly can. And from my perspective, short of trade secret manufacturing information, we’re going to encourage the [vaccine] manufacturers to be absolutely transparent with data.” (Source at 35:48)
 
His comments echo his words which are published on the FDA’s website: “The process of vaccine development and FDA’s evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines is and will continue to be as open and transparent as possible.”
 
But Aaron Siri, Managing Partner of Siri & Glimstad, said: “The FDA’s promise of transparency is, to put it mildly, a pile of illusions.” (Source)
 
This is because the FDA, after Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests compelling them to release Pfizer’s vaccine trial data to the public, initially requested a release rate of just 500 pages per month. Considering the data is in excess of 329,000 pages, under those terms a full release would not occur until the year 2076!
 
If the FDA is so committed to transparency, why are they not more forthcoming with the data?
Peter Doshi, Senior Editor at British Medical Journal (BMJ), said: “So while we’re told to keep following the science, what we are following is not a scientific process based on open data. We’re following a process in which the [the vaccine trial] data are treated as secret. And in my view there’s something very unscientific about that… Yet we are not just asking, but mandating millions of people take these [vaccines]. Whatever word you want to use to describe this situation, without data it’s not science.”
 
A judge ultimately ruled that the FDA must produce 55,000 pages every 30 days.
 
Mr. Siri notes: “This is a great win for transparency and removes one of the strangleholds federal ‘health’ authorities have had on the data needed for independent scientists to offer solutions and address serious issues with the current vaccine program.” (Source)
 
Possible Responses
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.

Question #10: Why are doctors and health officials making conclusions without a shred of evidence?

The many news clippings below report people dying days, hours and even minutes after receiving the COVID vaccine. Is this evidence that it was the vaccine that caused their deaths? No, because it is within the realm of possibility that it was mere coincidence. However, this does appear to be evidence of a vaccine cover-up.
 
While no one can say with certainty that the vaccine was the cause of death, likewise, no one can say with certainty that the vaccine was not the cause of death. Then why is it that in every one of the news reports below, the vaccine was either proclaimed as not being the cause of death, not suspected, or completely ignored?
 
Such proclamations are being made before any autopsies were performed and, in some cases, made at the scene where the death occurred. Given the circumstances, the least reasonable conclusion for health officials to make would be: “We simply don’t know if it was the vaccine or not”.
Click here to view all the news reports illustrating how doctors and health officials are making conclusions without a shred of evidence.
Save to Favorites

No account yet? Register

Notifications
Notify me of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments