|
from Mercola Website
One was with a lung and ICU specialist, Dr. Pierre Kory, who is also the president and chief medical officer 1 of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).
The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of Ivermectin:
In another episode, Weinstein interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine technology: 6
In both instances, YouTube deleted the videos:
Also here, and Full '3h 18m' Video Interview here...
Why...?
In the wake of this targeted takedown, podcast host Joe Rogan invited Weinstein and Kory in for an "emergency podcast" about the censorship of Ivermectin.
As noted by Weinstein in a June 23, 2021, tweet,
Indeed, we now know that early treatment is crucial to prevent complications, hospitalizations, death and/or long-haul syndrome, so censoring this information is inexcusable, and has without doubt resulted in needless deaths.
What Is Misinformation?
As Weinstein explains, there are several things in dire need of discussion.
For starters, there's the issue of YouTube's community guidelines and posting rules, which are so vague that it's impossible to determine beforehand if something is going to be deemed in violation.
Violations, in turn, threaten the ability of people like Weinstein to make a living. His entire family depends on the income generated through his YouTube channel.
He now has two strikes against him, where YouTube claims he's been posting "spam" and "medical misinformation." One more, and the entire channel will be demonetized.
A central problem here is,
YouTube has taken the stance that anything that goes against what the World Health Organization (WHO) says is medical misinformation.
However, the WHO doesn't always agree with other public health agencies.
For example,
So, is the CDC putting out medical misinformation?
Censorship Is a Disinformation Tool
As Weinstein rightly points out, if the WHO (or virtually every federal regulatory agency for that matter) has been captured and is being influenced by industry, in this case Big Pharma, and is itself putting out information that goes against medical science, then this is something that must be discussed and exposed.
That is precisely what he did in the two episodes that YouTube wiped.
If an organization is putting out medical misinformation, and talking about this is censored, the end result is going to be devastating to public health.
Overall, we're in an untenable situation, Weinstein says, as people are losing their livelihoods simply for discussing the science and laying out the evidence.
The fact that YouTube is making up the rules as they go is clear.
One of Weinstein's interviews was deemed to be "spam."
YouTube obviously couldn't determine what was incorrect about it so they simply made up an excuse to take the video down.
Or more likely, they knew exactly what they were doing and removed it because it countered what appears to be their primary agenda, which is to promote the COVID jab.
As noted in the featured interview, censorship is actually a form of disinformation, which is defined as,
A perfect example of this is the suppression of the lab-leak theory.
For a year and a half, no one was allowed to discuss the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a Wuhan lab. There's no telling how many tens of thousands of people lost their social media accounts, including yours truly, because they violated this rule.
The lab-leak theory was "debunked," according to all the industry-backed fact checkers. Now, all of a sudden, the evidence has somehow taken root and everyone is talking about it.
Mainstream media pundits are squirming in their seats, trying to explain why they overlooked the obvious and roundly dismissed the evidence for so long. What was "misinformation" yesterday is now "fact."
Who decided this? Big Tech censored verifiable facts for a year and a half, and there's every reason to assume they censored it on behalf of someone.
They grossly misinformed - nay, disinformed - the public, yet they're not held accountable for any of it.
The Manufacturing of Medical and Scientific Consensus
As noted by Weinstein, the idea that medical and scientific consensus can be established seemingly from one day to another in the middle of a 'pandemic' involving a novel virus is simply not believable.
It cannot happen, because scientific and medical consensus arises over time, as experts challenge each other's theories.
A hypothesis may sound good, but will break apart once another piece of evidence is added.
What happened here, however, over the last year and a half, is that a consensus was declared early on, and subsequent evidence was simply discarded as misinformation.
The examples of this are numerous.
The lab leak theory is another example.
As noted by Weinstein, they willingly roll the dice when it comes to the novel COVID shots, yet apply ridiculously high standards of safety and effectiveness when it comes to off-patent drugs that have decades of safe use.
There's something very unnatural and unscientific about all of this, and that raises serious questions about intent.
For all the talk about preventing dangerous misinformation being spread by the average person, governments, Big Pharma, Big Tech and nongovernmental organizations that have a great deal of influence over nations, have in fact engaged in the biggest disinformation campaign in human history.
The question is why...?
As noted by Kory, over time, he has developed a deep cynicism about many of the agencies and organizations that are supposed to protect public health, because their recommendations and conclusions do not comport with good science.
And, if we trust them exclusively,
The thing is, there must be a reason for why they don't follow the science, and that, most likely, is because they're beholden to financial interests.
If the science doesn't support those financial interests, it's disregarded.
This is why, by and large, there's a very clear dividing line between those who promote the ideas of the WHO, the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and those who don't.
Alternatively, they recommend natural products like vitamin D, which is virtually free, especially if you get it from optimal sun exposure.
Gold Standard Evidence Supports Ivermectin
As noted by Kory, while the WHO insists large RCTs must be completed before Ivermectin (or Hydroxychloroquine) can be recommended, RCTs actually are not the gold standard in terms of scientific evidence. Meta-analyses are...
The reason for this is because any given trial can be skewed by any number of protocol factors.
When you do a meta-analysis of several trials, even if those trials are small, you have the best chance of detecting signals of danger or benefit because it corrects for flaws in the various protocols.
In the case of Ivermectin, FLCCC recently conducted a meta-analysis 8 of 24 RCTs, which clearly demonstrates that Ivermectin produces,
They also found that when used as a preventive, Ivermectin,
In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.
In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took Ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take Ivermectin.
In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater.
Still, according to the FLCCC,
The FLCCC also points out that Ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in,
For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed Ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.
In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of Ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%.
Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.
Importantly, ivermectin's effectiveness also appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world.
Kory also points out that once you can see from clinical evidence that something really is working, then conducting RCTs becomes unethical, as you know you're condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death.
This is, in fact, the same argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.
All of that said, RCT evidence for Ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial, 9 which began June 23, 2021.
Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.
How Ivermectin Works
While Ivermectin is best known for its antiparasitic properties, it also has both antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties.
With regard to how it can help against SARS-CoV-2 infection, studies 10 have shown Ivermectin lowers your viral load by inhibiting replication.
In "COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope," I review data showing a single dose of Ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours.
When you add all of these benefits together, it seems fairly clear that Ivermectin use could vaporize this 'pandemic'.
Where You Can Learn More
While Ivermectin certainly appears to be a useful strategy, which is why I am covering it, it is not my primary recommendation.
In terms of prevention, I believe your best bet is to optimize your vitamin D level, as your body needs vitamin D for a wide variety of functions, including a healthy immune response.
As for early treatment, I recommend nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment, 16,17 which is inexpensive, highly effective and completely harmless when you're using the low (0.04% to 0.1%) peroxide concentration recommended.
All of that said, Ivermectin and several other remedies certainly have a place, and it's good to know they exist and work well.
On the whole, there's really no reason to remain panicked about COVID-19.
If you want to learn more about Ivermectin, there are several places where you can do that, including the following:
Sources and References
|
