RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/yellow_fever_coming_to_the_us.html

The 19th-century viral scourge of the U.S. South known as “yellow fever” seems to be on the brink of a resurgence. Tropical disease experts predict a return of the historically devastating disease to the U.S. 

Yellow fever is still active in Latin America and Africa, causing 30,000 deaths annually, but local outbreaks have been absent here since 1905. Other tropical diseases, however, have landed on our shores. Earlier this year, several cases of malaria turned up in Florida. Mosquitoes have recently tested positive for West Nile virus in Texas. Locally-transmitted cases of Zika, dengue, and chikungunya have also been  identified in the past few years.

WHAT IS YELLOW FEVER?

Yellow Fever is a member of the Flaviviridae family of viruses and is a known arbovirus (transmitted through the bite or sting of an insect). In this case, the culprit is a mosquito known as Aedes aegypti.

Symptoms may appear within three to six days of the virus entering the body. Some experience no symptoms, but those who do experience headache, muscle pain, and nausea/vomiting. Fortunately, in most cases, symptoms subside in three to four days. If you survive the disease, it usually means lifelong immunity.

Yellow fever has no cure, and an unlucky 15-20 percent of victims, progress to a more serious second phase shortly after an apparent recovery. These develop high fever and inflammation of the liver and kidneys. Liver malfunction leads to a condition called “jaundice,” a yellowing of the skin and eyes (hence the name “yellow fever”). Damage to the GI tract leads to vomiting black blood in late stages. At this point, a death rate of 20-60 percent due to organ failure can be expected.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/09/30/berenson-no-question-govt-policy-was-to-encourage-vax-by-every-means-short-of-force/

Alex Berenson criticized recent attempts by the Left to make us forget about the vaccine mandates enacted just two years ago.

“We were all around for it,” Berenson told host Dan Proft on the “Counterculture” podcast. “It was not fifty years ago, it was two falls ago.”

“There was tremendous pressure to get vaccinated at tremendous societal cost or lose your job or potentially be excluded from shopping, as happened in some places, or being at university,” Berenson said. “There was no question that the government policy was by every means short of force, to encourage vaccination.”

Berenson is a former NY Times journalist and author of “Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives.”

He and Proft discussed “Covid 1.5” and the recent return of mask mandates and “vaccine” pressure.

This full interview is available on Rumble, YouTube, and Spotify.

Proft launched “Counterculture” — American Greatness’ newest podcast — earlier this month. He also is the co-host of “Chicago’s Morning Answer” weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. on AM 560 Chicago. A former Republican candidate for Illinois Governor, Proft attended Northwestern University and received his J.D. from Loyola University-Chicago.

https://media5.manhattan-institute.org/iiif/2/wp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F5%2Fbreast-cancer-screening-DEI-based-political-pressure.jpg/full/!99999,960/0/default.jpg

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force—a volunteer panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that makes recommendations for clinical preventive services such as screenings, counseling services, or medications—has generally been considered an honest broker, willing to buck political and popular pressures to give advice consistent with the available evidence. New USPSTF draft recommendations on breast-cancer screening suggest that this may have changed.

When the USPSTF last updated its breast-cancer screening recommendations about eight years ago, it found that, for women under 50 with an average risk of cancer, the harms of screening outweighed the benefits. It recommended routine screening for women 50 or older and advised younger women to consult with their physicians to discuss whether their history and individual risk factors warrant screening.

This recommendation echoed guidelines used around the world. The U.K, France, Denmark, and Germany, for example, screen women 50 and older, but there is no organized screening of women in their forties. Switzerland has no screening program for women of any age.

The USPSTF recently issued a draft recommendation lowering the starting age for mammography screening from 50 to 40 years. This will affect approximately 20 million additional women. It is not clear what prompted the change.

The USPSTF acknowledged that no new randomized trials of screening mammography for women in their forties have been conducted since the previous recommendation was made. Nor have new, follow-up findings emerged from the eight previous randomized trials in this age group, all of which found no significant benefit.

Instead, the task force relied on modeling studies to provide information about the benefits and harms of breast-cancer screening in different age groups. As with any model, the results depend on the assumptions made. The model assumed that screening mammography reduces breast-cancer mortality by 25 percent and concluded that lowering the starting age from 50 to 40 would result in 1.3 fewer deaths over a lifetime for every 1,000 women screened.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-food-and-drug-admin-arg1-d-pegzilarginase-aeglea-biotherapeutics-arginine-deficiency-healthcare-c9e8c21f?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

We’ve spent most of our medical careers investigating and treating rare genetic conditions, including some afflicting only a few dozen Americans. Recently, scientists developed a treatment for one such condition—arginase 1 deficiency, or ARG1-D, which causes the amino acid arginine to accumulate in the blood, harming the brain and causing seizures, stunted growth and intellectual disability. The Food and Drug Administration has refused to consider the therapy. Its decision ignores the best available data and indicates a lack of understanding of rare-disease research.

Discovering treatments for rare diseases is a daunting task. Recruiting even a few dozen people for a clinical trial requires doctors and drug companies to identify a large share of the patient population. And since the market for such therapies is necessarily small, it’s nearly impossible to attract investment. So when news emerged aboutAeglea BioTherapeutics’ ARG1-D therapy pegzilarginase, we could hardly believe it. Pegzilarginase is an enzyme engineered to lower the body’s levels of arginine. The randomized placebo-controlled study of pegzilarginase included 32 patients with ARG1-D.

The results speak for themselves. The amount of arginine present in blood plasma declined by 80% for patients on pegzilarginase. After only six months, 90.5% of patients who received pegzilarginase had normal arginine levels, and this was sustained over time. The data also suggested progressive improvements in motor function compared with a placebo. And most patients tolerated the therapy quite well.

These numbers were jaw-dropping. Which is why the FDA’s decision is incomprehensible.

PIERRE KORY, MD, MPA-https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/reports-from-the-front-lines-of-the-ef4?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email

The point of these “Reports From the Front Lines” posts is to bring to life all of the accumulating data of the mRNA vaccine’s toxicity and lethality. I am trying to relate what it is like for those professionals who are “awake” and “on the ground.” I believe the below will well manifest the lived experiences and observations of appropriately trained and concerned citizens during this historic pharmageddon.

In the below, I will share numerous “anecdotes” compiled from my ever-expanding network of contacts, colleagues, confidants, patients etc. I have no reason to believe any of these observations or reports are anything but reflective of their reality/truth. I understand that an anecdote is an anecdote. But a 100 anecdotes.. is a 100 anecdotes. And so on and so forth. You know what you can do with your pharma-conducted randomized controlled trials.

A large number of these observations come from “My Spy On The Inside” who I will call “MSOTI” below. Recall that she is a veteran ER-ICU nurse in a major academic health center. She knows pretty much everyone there; hospitalists, specialists, sub-specialists, nurse managers, blood bank technicians, department directors, IT experts, hospital administration, you name it.

She was very early to catch on to the toxicity and lethality and corruption around the vaccines and has been documenting what she is seeing. In the first 2 posts (here and here) and in what follows is, with her permission and some identifying details removed, a lot of what she has related to me in our text and telephone conversations over the past 18 months.

If the first two posts were not frightening enough, these next ones are a doozy (this is Post 3 and I have three more coming). I transcribed (and lightly edited the medical acronyms) from numerous text conversations that me and MSOTI have had over these last months, but I also included reports from others in my network.

I will start off with the below post from a commenter on my recent Substack which described the plight of the vaccine injured in our current medical system:

https://www.frontpagemag.com/cdc-confessions/

With mysterious new variants allegedly emerging, Joe Biden announces new vaccines “for everybody,” regardless of what they had done in the past. As this news breaks, former Centers for Disease Control director Dr. Robert Redfield reveals that the government health bureaucracy tried to quash discussion about the ineffectiveness of Covid vaccines.

“There was such an attempt to not let anybody get any hint that maybe vaccines weren’t foolproof, which, of course, we now know they have significant limitations,” said the former CDC director, co-founder of the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology and Chief of Infectious Diseases at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

“My position was just tell the American public the truth. There are side effects to vaccines. Tell them the truth and don’t try to package it.” In similar style, “I think we should really have confidence and not be afraid to debate the issues that we think are in the public’s interest and just tell the public the truth,” said Redfield (pictured above), who had been at odds with the government health establishment before.

In 2021, Redfield told CNN, “I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathology in Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped.” After these statements, as Vanity Fair reported, “death threats flooded his inbox,” some from prominent scientists.

“I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield explained. “I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science.” The people might expect the FBI, on full alert against “domestic violent extremists,” to investigate death threats against a public official. If any investigation took place, nothing has been reported.

In May of 2021, Joe Biden tasked the intelligence community to “redouble their efforts to collect and analyze information” on the origin of the pandemic.  Despite their efforts, in August Biden lamented that “critical information about the origins of this pandemic exists in the People’s Republic of China,” but China “continues to reject calls for transparency and withhold information.”

https://amgreatness.com/2023/09/25/censorship-is-death-of-science-and-leads-to-death-of-people/

On May 15, 1970, the New York Times published an article by esteemed Russia scholar Albert Parry detailing how Soviet dissident intellectuals were covertly passing forbidden ideas around to each other on handcrafted, typewritten documents called samizdat. Here is the beginning of that seminal story:

Censorship existed even before literature, say the Russians. And, we may add, censorship being older, literature has to be craftier. Hence, the new and remarkably viable underground press in the Soviet Union called samizdat.

Samizdat – translates as: “We publish ourselves” – that is, not the state, but we, the people.

Unlike the underground of Czarist times, today’s samizdat has no printing presses (with rare exceptions): The K.G.B., the secret police, is too efficient. It is the typewriter, each page produced with four to eight carbon copies, that does the job. By the thousands and tens of thousands of frail, smudged onionskin sheets, samizdat spreads across the land a mass of protests and petitions, secret court minutes, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s banned novels, George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and “1984,” Nicholas Berdyayev’s philosophical essays, all sorts of sharp political discourses and angry poetry.

Though it is hard to hear, the sad fact is that we are living in a time and in a society where there is once again a need for scientists to pass around their ideas secretly to one another so as to avoid censorship, smearing, and defamation by government authorities in the name of science.

I say this from first-hand experience. During the pandemic, the U.S. government violated my free speech rights and those of my scientist colleagues for questioning the federal government’s COVID policies.

American government officials, working in concert with big tech companies, defamed and suppressed me and my colleagues for criticizing official pandemic policies – criticism that has been proven prescient. While this may sound like a conspiracy theory, it is a documented fact, and one recently confirmed by a federal circuit court.

In August 2022, the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general asked me to join as a plaintiff in a lawsuit, represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, against the Biden administration. The suit aims to end the government’s role in this censorship and restore the free speech rights of all Americans in the digital town square.

Lawyers in the Missouri v. Biden case took sworn depositions from many federal officials involved in the censorship efforts, including Anthony Fauci. During the hours-long deposition, Fauci showed a striking inability to answer basic questions about his pandemic management, replying “I don’t recall” over 170 times.

Legal discovery unearthed email exchanges between the government and social media companies showing an administration willing to threaten the use of its regulatory power to harm social media companies that did not comply with censorship demands.

https://thespectator.com/topic/were-fighting-the-covid-censors-censorship/

On July 4, our Independence Day, Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction ordering the federal government to immediately cease contact with social media companies, which it had been urging to censor protected free speech. Evidence unearthed in the Missouri v. Biden case, in which we are co-plaintiffs, has revealed a vast federal enterprise dictating to social media companies who and what to censor. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Surgeon General’s office, the National Institutes of Health, the FBI, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House itself were all closely involved.

You can get a good sense of what ideas the government finds threatening from its priority list of what it does not want Americans to talk about freely: the pandemic, vaccines, wars, concerns about election fraud and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

In the Missouri case, depositions of government officials and the discovery of email exchanges between the government and social media companies show an administration willing to threaten the use of its regulatory power to harm social media companies that do not comply with censorship demands.

Social media companies rely on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes them against defamation lawsuits that traditional media are subject to. It states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” But unlike, for example, a phone company, they may still censor or decline to publish perfectly legal content protected under the First Amendment. For social media companies, losing this protection would threaten their multibillion-dollar business.

The companies understand what is at stake even if the threats are not explicit. But documents adduced in this case sometimes show explicit threats. For instance, at one point, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield announced that “the White House is assessing whether social-media platforms are legally liable for misinformation spread on their platforms, and examining how misinformation fits into the liability protection process by Section 230 of The Communication [sic] Decency Act.” The government’s message to social media companies was unmistakable: comply or else. Internal documents show company employees sometimes trying to push back on censorship demands but then capitulating.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/annals-of-government-run-medicine-d24f4656?mod=opinion_lead_pos11

One of the world’s most celebrated socialized medical systems is doing what socialized medical systems do: limiting patient care. Pending work stoppages could mean that the worst is yet to come for patients of England’s National Health Service.

For obvious reasons, American politicians seeking an even greater federal role in U.S. health care avoid discussing the staggering privations under Marxist regimes in places like Cuba and Venezuela. Instead, pols like Sen. Bernie Sanders (socialist, Vt.) point to government-run health systems within largely free, developed economies. But the U.K. is another example they’ll want to avoid.

Josephine Franks reports for Sky News that senior doctors, called consultants in Britain, will be joining their less experienced colleagues in withholding treatment:

Consultants and junior doctors are set to strike for several more days this week and early next month, bringing more chaos to the NHS after several months of walkouts and delayed appointments…
A health chief said the NHS is in “uncharted territory” due to the strikes, with thousands of patient appointments expected to be cancelled.
Saffron Cordery, deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, said this week’s strike action “can’t become the status quo”.

Sadly it can. If there’s one brutal lesson of government-run health care it’s that things can always get worse. Turning doctors into unionized government bureaucrats brings a host of problems, including the fact that politicians, not patients, decide what doctors are paid. This is of course a problem in the U.S. as well. England is a sort of preview of just how badly government management can mangle the incentives to provide medical services—and the duty to provide care. Ms. Franks continues:

On the picket lines of the March strike, junior doctors told Sky News why they were striking and described having to borrow money off family for medical exams, watching colleagues leave for better paid jobs abroad and how they were struggling to pay rent.

If anyone asks Mr. Sanders to comment, no doubt he will rail about the British government not spending enough, just as his answer to every question about U.S. health care involves a greater burden on taxpayers and fewer free choices for consumers.