On Remembrance Day 2021, our thoughts go out to veterans of all countries who fought for the same freedoms we are still fighting for today.
My thanks to Len, D, and Brian, the fruits of whose research make up these pages.
Remember: “War” is for the purpose of declaring martial law. Declaring martial law is for the purpose of announcing the fall of the cabal and the return of the Republic.
No need to worry. White-hat action is what we’ve been waiting for.
Dr. John Campbell Compares Pfizer’s New Antiviral & Ivermectin
Joe Martino, The Pulse, November 9, 2021
In a new video Dr. John Campbell explores a pharmacological analysis comparing Ivermectin and Pfizer’s new anti-viral drug (PF-07321332).
Pfizer’s new drug is meant to be used during COVID infection to help reduce severity of disease, very similar to what Ivermectin has been used for over the course of the pandemic. A comparison of these drugs shows that they are shockingly similar with regards to how they stop viral replication.
To be clear, this comparison is not being made on the ingredients of the drugs, but their effects.
Campbell says that PF-07321332 only focuses on one biochemical modality of viral replication, yet, Ivermectin works against multiple biochemical modalities of replication. Campbell believes the use of Pfizer’s drug could cause the virus to evolve and be resistant more easily. This process would follow basically evolutionary biology tenets.
Ivermectin is a long standing anti-viral drug that many doctors and scientists claim has been working to reduce time of infection in patients with COVID. It’s a cheap drug that anyone can manufacture as no one owns the patents for it. But Ivermectin has been controversial, with much of the mainstream media alleging that Ivermectin is simply a horse de-wormer and should not be used to treat COVID-19.
It’s to be noted that it’s unclear whether mainstream journalists have spent any time truly looking into the benefits of Ivermectin, instead it appears they are in lockstep with statements coming from places like the World Health Organization.
FactCheck.org, a “fact checking organization” claims these products are not similar based on some of their ingredients, but the pharmacological outcome is incredibly similar.
With Ivermectin smeared as ‘useless’ within public discourse, Pfizer and Merck have created new and highly profitable drugs in its place.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky Gets Fact-Checked For Claiming Masks Help Reduce Transmission
Arjun Walia, The Pulse, November 9, 2021
Centres For Disease Control (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky made the following statement on the 5th of November.
Masks can help reduce your chance of #COVID19 infection by more than 80%. Masks also help protect from other illnesses like common cold and flu.
After doing so, she was fact-checked by a number of prominent medical scientists and researchers. She was not fact-checked by Facebook “fact-checkers” however, who have now removed and/or added warning labels to hundreds of millions of pieces of COVID related content from their platform. Youtube and Twitter have done the same throughout this pandemic.
Vinay Prasad MD MPH, Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco was one of the first to call out her claims. He did so in an article published by The Brownstone Institute titled, “For Whom Do The COVID Fact-Checkers Really Work?”
Let’s start with the one by Dr. Walensky. I don’t know how to put this politely, but it is a lie, and a truly unbelievable one at that. First, of all, if it were true, it would mean that masking was more effective that the J&J vaccine (implausible). Second of all, we have actual cluster RCT data from Bangladesh showing a 11% (relative risk reduction). This occurred in a massive trial where masks were provided for free and encouraged. Even here, only surgical masks worked, and cloth did not, and had nowhere near this effect size. The idea that masks could reduce the chance of infection by 80% is simply untrue, implausible, and cannot be supported by any reliable data.
We are living in a world where the CDC director can say something that is false, made-up and no institution will say otherwise. At the same time, major, venerable fact checking institutions are literally asserting as fact something which is at best unproven.
No matter how you feel about these issues; these are dangerous times. Truth and falsehood is not a matter of science but cultural power— the ability to proclaim and define the truth. If this continues, dark times lie ahead. Someday soon, we may not like who defines the truth.
Prasad, Brownstone Institute
Standford Professor of Medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya also had something to say.
There are several examples circulating online.
Many scientists who have presented evidence or shared their opinion that masks are not effective at preventing the transmission of airborne diseases have had their posts on social media removed. It happened to Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford, when he shared this article in the Spectator in November of 2020 on his Twitter feed.
Science, like this large meta-analysis, explaining why masks are not only dangerous, but may also lead to numerous health consequences in many medical fields remain unacknowledged within the “mainstream.”
What is going on? Why does the mainstream continue to fail at having appropriate conversations about controversial topics?
The mask has become so politicized that it prevents rational consideration of the evidence (even across political lines) and drives levels of acrimony, invidious actions, disdain, and villainy among wearers to each other who feel threatened by the individual who will not or cannot wear a mask. Masking Children: Tragic, Unscientific, and Damaging.
Dr. Paul E. Alexander. “Masking Children: Tragic, Unscientific, and Damaging”
One thing that seems quite evident now more than ever before in my experience as a journalist and researcher (and as a human in general), is that people are hungry for information that is deeper than what they are getting through the mainstream media. It feels as though people are beginning to recognize that there is a degree of corruption involved in our world and that politicians and traditional media outlets have been compromised in the process.