COVID Bosh: The Illicit and the Desperate
Updated: Sep 9, 2021
The lies are growing more desperate. Now more than ever, we have to cleave to what we can best discern and know to most likely, rationally, be the case.
Questions I’ve been asked, answers I’ve sought to offer.
How ‘remarkable’ truly is the COVID-19 narrative?
Governments deceiving their people with half-truths and distortions is par for the course. Those WMDs still beckon from their illusory lair. The devastating cost, futility and denouement of Afghanistan shrieks at us. But war and peace are woven in the fabric of our national narratives.
The “announcement” of a rare pathogen requiring the suspension of life as we know it, on no real data, and the stern, almost reflexive, stifling of any recommendations that seek to educate us away from raw panic, are a curious concoction.
What is remarkable is not so much the deception, but that far from the inculcated “majesty” of war and peace, and all the iconic stirrings of national identity, we were sent cowering away, over what has been akin to a medium impact influenza strain. And a pathogen, that within months we knew objectively was only of real danger for those above 65 with chronic illnesses. For the rest, 99%+ recovered. These stats methinks, do not seem to portray “apocalypse.” But the unrelenting media manic panic bombardment, and the whole paraphernalia of COVID conceit and deceit, unseated our reason, unnerved us to a degree that, given the mildness of evident facts, was “remarkable.”
Are we really that gullible as a society?
Our critical thinking faculties have been chipped away at. There always has to be an “enemy”, some plague on our way of life. This is why the collapse of the Soviet Union was so disorienting. But the speed at which an old script of hysteria can be scrapped and a new one adopted, seems to be accelerating. So, hopefully this time it’s been so egregious, that smelling salts will be better available next time.
And thanks to the valor and literal heroism of a significant few on the front lines of treatment, who would not allow the claptrap to be anointed as “reality,” we perhaps finally see the parody more astutely and acutely: medieval nostrums like lockdown, cloth masks to ward off nanoparticles as if we’re outright dunces, no “treatment” for the first time in history until someone is stricken at the extreme, indefinite usurping of civil liberties, only one source of harm remaining worthy of concern, and that, of all things, a not so “novel” coronavirus.
Forget foregone vaccinations, destroyed educations, poverty, hunger, deferred attention given to diseases whose mortality rates are many times that of C-19, ignore clear statistics of who is actually vulnerable, and of course have “therapeutics” posing as vaccines (as they don’t stop infection or transmission).
At any rate, if our threshold for cuckoldry is so low, and any new bald assertion, any outpouring of untested dogmas and reality mutilating models, is enough to render us supine, then indeed we are ripe for the plucking.
Is there a particular “incoherence” re Lockdown that particularly galls?
How shall we count the ways? First, we are told we cannot use some of the world’s most efficacious drugs like HCQ and Ivermectin without some ridiculous threshold of “randomized trials”, more on the absurdity of that standard in a pandemic situation to follow. Yet, we assert a penal concept like “lockdown”, never used since the Middle Ages, and other than as a short-term panic prescription, asserted long after it’s clear it doesn’t work.
We carry on blinkers fastened tight even when it’s clear that seasonality rules. Waves recur. It’s an airborne pathogen and you can’t “lock it in.” There is no outdoor transmission (even CDC concedes, “less than 1%” recorded cases anywhere), ergo why is the remedy to “lock in?” The best environments are germicidal air, Vitamin D enriched sunlight, and where movement is fostered.
Also, there is the spellbinding incoherence of believing that “locking up the healthy” for the first time in history even makes sense. If I am a not at risk 15-year-old, or a nominally at risk 35-year-old, how does my being “locked up” and “locked in” in any way keep a 70-year-old with cancer safer from COVID? How does my losing my childhood or my way of life not undermine rather than support the social wellbeing that provides for and endows public health? All the prudence really needed was less congestion and a little careful hygiene.
And study and after study confirms this, including the “living testimony” comparing “open” and “closed” US States, Japan vs Vietnam, Sweden vs the UK/France/Spain/Italy (and frankly even Denmark, if you make it a 2019/2020 comparison). Add in collateral damage or the impact on economic/social/psychological/health (from the panoply of what constitutes our lives and all other ignored or deferred medical needs), and you’d be coughing up the crap and the incoherence.
Early Treatments? Ivermectin, wonder drug or horse paste?
Let’s be very clear. The playbook is clear. When HCQ was showing efficacy, an ersatz fraudulent medical review, trashing its credentials made it into the Lancet no less. Medical professionals clearly saw how the data didn’t add up, the references didn’t tally, and the submission came from a company whose owner was fielding fraud charges while blatantly unqualified team members sifted the “data.” The piece was retracted, but not in time for the “stench” not to have been circulated.
Ivermectin, called by some the equivalent of “Penicillin” in terms of potential COVID impact, is now being attacked in vile ways, with a “reality disconnect” that is no less than larcenous.
Dr. Tess Lawrie in a presentation together, had us look at the WHO website, comparing Ivermectin, Remdesivir and the mRNA vaccines. On WHO’s website, there were perhaps 30 or so instances among billions of dosages since 1995 for Ivermectin. Remdesivir was in the thousands already, the mRNA numbers (even back then) were above 6,500 associated deaths in the VAERS (US adverse effects government database). And so, she asked with unanswerable logic, “Why are we worried about Ivermectin?”
3.7 billion doses have gone in African countries and beyond, since 1987, considered one of the greatest cure stories in human (not horse) medical history. And they all know this. After the initial animal applications as an anti-parasitic, Merck and WHO conducted seven years of clinical trials to demonstrate that “Mectizan” the derivation of Ivermectin being utilized, was safe for humans.
Donated by Merck to humanity, it essentially eradicated river blindness (which an estimated 50% of males 40 years and older in some countries had been blinded by). Merck’s own 2017 press release celebrated the eradication of a parasitic pandemic by Ivermectin, having saved, quoting Merck, “more than 250 million people in 32 countries.” That sounds like precisely the kind of medicine we should be quaking in terror from, if we find its uses extend beyond its already spellbinding original repertoire, right?
And its success with RNA viruses had been noted and was being medically investigated well before C-19. Not surprising given its anti-inflammatory properties. It is a Nobel Prize winning drug for its human applications and noted as one of WHO’s “Model List of Essential Medicines” for 2019. These are just facts. Jumping up and down squealing, “horses” and “trail worms” shows perhaps a parasitic infestation of that person’s own critical faculties.
The August 21, 2021 “news” articles (The Empire Strikes Back), were about poison control centers in Mississippi from people who took IVM in unspecified animal formulations. But no hospitalizations resulted. There was static re side effects, but the reporting distorted the distinction between human and veterinary applications (some of the latter are not for internal use).
Data scientist David Schein of MIT reports, “Cancer patients who were administered ivermectin at five times that standard dose daily for 180 consecutive days had no serious adverse side effects from it…” Those attempting suicide applying 1,000 times the recommended dose, recovered. One reported instance of mortality cites David Schein, “Only one 72-year-old male who took 440 times the standard dose died.” This madcap attack comes on the cusp of high priced anti-virals being prepared for release by (wink, wink) Merck itself (Molnupiravir), Pfizer and others. Billions are at stake, so why let this cheaply available, humanitarian “off label” breakthrough, with a better safety profile than
Tylenol, ride to the rescue?
For anyone that says it is not FDA approved, it is, just not for COVID. And all but one of the current C-19 drugs are also not FDA approved for COVID and are off label, as are 21% of all drug prescriptions in the US. So, might we get a grip somehow?
Different variants respond more or less it seems to various therapeutics. So, a multi-drug cocktail is what most early treatment pioneers are recommending. And it is “early treatment”, not drug “A” or “B” it seems our deranged political lobbies with zealotry only for profits (such that multiple booster shots with completely unknown consequences, literally showering the human body with spike proteins galore are fine… safety trials there anyone?), cannot brook. We are dealing clearly here with the equivalent of high crimes and misdemeanors.
What thresholds of evidence are applied?
Well, after all the clamor re Ivermectin and others, you would think “Lockdown” must have reams of data, studies, tests, assessments? Actually, it is a bastardization of a high school project that infiltrated public policy thinking, practically has never been applied since the Middle Ages, and even there not to “lock away” the healthy. And before we blew up a planet, destroyed our way of life, irretrievably made “education” obsolete for too many, we would surely have prudently explored every other option? Nope. “Two weeks to flatten the curve” and here we are today! Then came the “vaccine cavalry” which turns out to be a breeding ground for fresh variants.
The masks whereby oxygen supply is compromised, we are muzzled, children are handicapped in terms of affection and interaction, surely have been tested, randomized trials, the lot? Well, no, because they are implausible on their merits. Multiple peer reviewed papers testified against them and were cited by WHO in 2019 as a reason not to utilize them. One year later, no new data, but new ideology, and we’re off to the “face nappies” parade! Another Danish randomized trial, confirming what earlier Hong Kong and Vietnamese trials had shown since, sidelined.
And also, all the places “surging” today have had implacable mask mandates, utterly useless to fresh waves. And you have but to compare Florida to California, Sweden to just about wherever you like in 2021, reams of Africa and Asia with no “pandemic” to speak of, where cloth masks are literally petri dishes. The desperate, “maskers” who even post vaccine want to retain the “muzzle,” are clinging to the utterly catastrophic recent “Bangladeshi” study. Despite being poorly composed and conducted, it shows cloth masks decreased infection by 5% and surgical by 11%. That is so embarrassing, desperation is all that can explain touting it. Based on 95% confidence intervals for such studies, we don’t know if that’s actually any higher than 0%
Now, while applying no evidentiary thresholds at all to the bunk and blarney that make up Covidian “public health”, the evidentiary demand for all the other therapeutics (other than the miserable excuse for “vaccines” we’ve concocted, confected, and now are threatening to jab the world with), is completely at odds with what you would sanely expect in a pandemic. “Regulation” and “innovation” are different impulses, and to be applied at different moments of stability or volatility.
Of the types of studies scientists rely on, you of course have the double blinded, randomized, controlled trials. The second though, of immense value and relevance, are non-randomized but still “controlled.” The claim that only randomized controlled trials are to be trusted has kernels of truth, but also bushels of confusion to it.
The great majority of drugs, Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale reminds us, developed to treat heart diseases were the result of non-randomized trials. Cholesterol-lowering drugs were in widespread use well before randomized trials were done. Azithromycin, the most common antibiotic for children, emerged without randomized trials. Penicillin worked, and worked again, and it was deployed on that outstanding efficacy. As Professor Risch says, “I am an epidemiologist because even though I love biologic theories, I develop them all the time to study how nature works, but it is from the human empirical data that we learn how indeed nature works.”
The Cochrane Library Consortium, a British international organization formed to organize medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about interventions, studied tens of thousands of comparisons between randomized trials and their non-randomized counterparts and found that the two types of approaches arrived at virtually identical conclusions. Large amounts of consistent, clinical, empirical data, doctors deploying their wisdom and innovation and calibrating and course correcting from actual results and the vicissitudes of patient well-being -- that has always been how we have been treated, and how we have navigated our way through pathogens, diseases and all the myriad health pangs that attend our living and evolving.
What can we learn from regions rarely showcased in major media?
Zimbabwe is emerging from its third wave quite rapidly, and more decisively than the main European or American amphitheaters. Doctors took over, running an aggressive social media campaign to advocate early treatment to bypass government “censors” on that front. This went out to patients and primary care physicians by 11th July 2021, plus an intensive training campaign of 2 lectures a day for a week on how to treat COVID in an outpatient setting. This led to a vast drop in numbers and deaths. The motivation was clear. Lockdown was an economic disaster (what else?) for Zimbabwe, as 1.3 million had been added to the extreme poor via that expedient, and some studies show in congested, challenged settings in particular, overall mortality swells by a factor of 2.7 in that context.
Zimbabwe realized what we’ve known for decades, though in the US and UK we are aiming to suppress this at all costs it seems, that high levels of zinc in the cells inhibit RNA viruses. And in 2010 major research was published to show that Zinc and medications that allow zinc into the cells, stop the replication system of RNA viruses including coronavirus.
Zinc “ionophores” include (wait for it), Ivermectin, HCQ, Doxycycline, Chloroquine, Quercetin, and in March 2020, combination antiviral therapy was composed, based on earlier experience with HIV. What that experience should have taught all of us, is that initially, antiviral combination therapy is very beneficial, whereas late therapy with mono-treatments failed dismally as did attempts to create effective vaccines. Happily, we have access to insights from science, history and logic, and doctors on many front lines are just getting on with it, while regulators sputter and continue their courtly kowtowing to the powers that be.
That is clearly superior to the witch’s brew of sending patients home to get sicker, late treatment, and engendering economic collapse by following fictions of the “asymptomatic spreader” who doesn’t exist.
Globally what we are learning is, stop mass testing (the PCR test distorts massively and cannot testify to “live” virus, so it is truly spurious), focus on the symptomatic (huge amount of time and energy and money liberated), treat early with things that treat viruses (phase 1), then treat inflammatory illness if it progresses (many protocols there), and only in an extreme minority of cases, deal with thrombosis and hospital care.
What is a round-up of everything we ever/never wanted to learn about the current crop of "vaccines?"
We have never tried to vaccinate at the height of a pandemic. First, historically, safety trials take longer. Secondarily, you don’t want to “stress” the virus to the point that it takes evasive action (as is happening now), with the most vaccine resistant, infectious or virulent mutations escaping. Had we stuck with “vaccinating” the vulnerable, this wouldn’t be the issue. Why for a disease with a 99% recovery otherwise, there was any motivation to do otherwise, is a question we will be a long time answering.
The EUA for them, speaks about addressing the severity of symptoms and illness from this "gene therapy," there is no claim that they stop transmission or reinfection. By that standard, they are not really “vaccines” but “therapeutics.” And why would you mandate one therapeutic over another (say back surgery over holistic treatment and natural recovery)? And on what grounds? Surely, that’s a personal choice. How can you compel a government choice of therapeutic?
These do not confer sterilizing immunity, but natural immunity from post-infection recovery is robust, long lived, and continues as best we know, just about forever. If “reinfected” it’s a mild bout, strengthens immunity, and viral load is too low to infect anyone. As Dr. Peter McCullough indicates, not one clear case of reinfection has been reported, and while one or two “possible” instances (which were later revealed to be PCR test flops) emerged, if it existed, there would be tens of millions of examples by now. We wouldn’t be sifting needles in a haystack. It doesn’t happen, it doesn’t exist.
Delta is evading vaccines; future variants will find them irrelevant. By Pfizer saying 3-4 annual booster shots will be needed for “immunity”, they are confessing vaccine failure (that would be below 50% efficacy). The adverse effects generated by these “vaccines” are terrifying, and we do not know what further events await, lying dormant, or eroding different types of immunity. Nor do we know the consequences of injecting so much spike protein (boosters) which actually are what cause the COVID-19 illness, there is zero safety trialing, and we are continuing our desperate, profit-crazed, cult-committed bungee jump without a bungee…and for what? Yet again, on the off chance that repetition is the mother of wisdom here, 99% recovery outside the vulnerable demographic. Early treatment heartily available, easy to test and demonstrate.
The costly anti-viral pills will emerge, as eventually, the stupidity of constantly “boosting” failure (as now on heart breaking display in Israel or seeing the greatest surges as countries vaccinate more and likely convert those people into superspreaders) will get too much even for those who keep blithely acquiescing.
I suspect we cling to these crumbs lest we have to face in horror, the extremity of the charade, the fraud and the outright violence done to our interests and our lives and that of our families. But soon, even the most desperate for some reaffirmation won’t be able to find the gloss, the “lipstick” that fits the pig.
Hence the “anti-viral” can be the apogee, the miracle that transcended the “vaccination "miracle" (of bypassing animal trials, testing a small non-representative sample, making relative efficacy sound like absolute efficacy, jabbing the placebo group so the “trial” cannot continue, and chasing children who are at no risk -- with only 1 child in the US reported to have died who was not suffering from a serious comorbidity -- quite a miracle!)
And if we are so readily seduced, then we can only simper off, perfecting our “Lemming dance” for the next invocation, in search of the next enemy or moral enema.
How can there be such Monsters?
Maybe we have to look in the mirror. Maybe we realize there is an “agony” to consciousness. Perhaps we tune in when Thomas Jefferson reminds us that democracy is impossible without an “educated” electorate. Said education is an accountability and not just a privilege.
The monsters came calling. They destroyed our sense of safety, they attacked our children, they destroyed societies, they subjected people to tragic poverty, retarding gains hard won over so many decades.
We convulsed at India’s COVID, when daily 1,200 die of TB there and 2,000 of diarrhea daily. This seems not worthy of our panic or interest. Nearly 6,000 children die of hunger a day as per WHO pre COVID. What do we think that might be now? That’s not a crisis? A ridiculously hyped-up equivalent of an influenza strain is, instead, because it reaches to Beverly Hills?
In every country COVID mania is flourishing, car deaths kill many times the number “ascribed” to COVID. No more regulation there? Why not? It’s an even more decisive date with mortality as being “infected” when someone rams into you, surely?
They sent little girls into child weddings, threw youngsters into child labor, kept people from those they love at life and death moments that meant everything. Because “non-death”, some perverse “biologic survival” from a predator that primarily tracks normal mortality, should be able to assertively leech lives, experiences, weddings, funerals, celebrations, everything? When did that debate take place? Who decided?
By contrast, a generation decided to confront fascism as they chose a quality of life worth dying for. It wasn’t risk-free. Life moved on through the Spanish Flu where 50 million died! And life moved on through earthquakes, and terrorism, only to be stopped and stymied by this?
No, the real virus is our ennui, our passivity, our cowardice, our “escape from freedom” as Erich Fromm implied. And those availing of it, as CJ Hopkins has suggested, have imposed a global totalitarian cult under the guise of protecting us.
But it is less credible each day that Australia becomes a police state, people are chased and beaten by police goons for wanting to go into a mall without a “vaccine passport”, or a father with his child in an empty park is cuffed for being without a mask, or people in the thousands around the world are inspired to stand up week after week and refuse this outrage. As the authoritarianism becomes clearer, it begins to collapse, because it needs the charade. It cannot retain or extend its legitimacy otherwise. The more it is seen to be gratuitous, the more we will find the will to withdraw the gratuity.
So, ladies and gentlemen, let’s choose the world we wish to occupy and inhabit and vitalize. Let’s hold the mirrors up, as CJ writes, to the monsters that are on the prowl, and the monsters, in part, so many have allowed themselves to become. And let us decide human history surely, surely, is about the “hero’s journey” of experiencing our lives fully. And it is using the flames that accompany that journey to forge us, to fan those flames and seek the Promethean way forward.