RUTHFULLY YOURS

NO URL…THIS IS AN ORIGINAL COLUMN

Jews worldwide are commemorating the Jewish New Year and as they eat their challah and munch on honey and apples, conversations emerge that covid cases are increasing.  Yet, most around the lavishly adorned dining room table still resist any information about ivermectin and the thousands of adverse reactions from the covid “vaccine.” 

Yet, for those who still care about family and friends who may have been kept in deliberate ignorance by Big Pharma, and government leaders, I offer this piece.  Most people believe that in the beginning of the epidemic, there were no good treatment options and that is was sad that so many people passed away.

But there were treatment options early on that were not made available. Unfortunately, the government in tandem with Big Pharma withheld treatment options and as a consequence, thousands of people died who could have been saved. This information is emerging daily and it is a medical scandal of major proportions.  It will ultimately dwarf the DES and Thalidomide scandals of the past.

Early on, I was fortunate enough to read and hear information from informed doctors, many of whom were censored despite their knowledge and expertise. But the more I learned, the more horrified I was of the damage that was and still is being perpetuated on the American people and the world at large.

Thus, I would like to share with you some of the info I learned so you can make up your own mind.  The following hyperlinks will lead you to various sites that have explored this issue.  They are eye-openers.

At Epoch Times, the articles here expose the dangers of more covid vaccines, the actual dangers of wearing masks, and the covid 19 protocols for recovery.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dayquil-covid-vaccine-boosters-and-fda-science-medicine-study-pill-placebo-sick-bb9e457b?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

If DayQuil never seemed to unstuff your nose, now you know why: Its core decongesting ingredient, phenylephrine, doesn’t work.

That’s what a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee unanimously concluded last week, 16 years after researchers first told the agency that evidence from the 1960s and ’70s purportedly demonstrating the ingredient’s efficacy was flawed. For decades, people have been taking what amounts to a placebo.

But unlike a sugar pill, phenylephrine can cause lightheadedness, queasiness, headaches and a rapid heartbeat. What took the FDA so long to act?

Perhaps typical bureaucratic inertia and reluctance to backtrack on “settled science.” This episode mirrors the debate over Covid boosters, which the FDA approved last week, the day before its advisory committee concluded phenylephrine is ineffective. As was the case for phenylephrine, booster recommendations are based on flawed studies and extrapolations.

The FDA concluded in 1994 that phenylephrine was “generally recognized as safe and effective” when administered orally, such as in a cold syrup, “even though the efficacy data were borderline,” according to an agency staff report. Why? Because the ingredient had proved effective when administered intranasally.

Yet studies as early as the 1930s showed that significantly higher doses of phenylephrine than are safe would be needed to have a decongesting effect, since it is mostly metabolized before reaching the bloodstream. At the time, however, the FDA credited positive evidence from poorly constructed industry studies.

When the agency revisited the issue in 2007, an industry meta-analysis of prior flawed studies showed phenylephrine was effective. But as an agency scientific adviser quipped at a regulatory briefing that March, “all meta-analysis is post facto. You only do it if you know you’re going to win.” The FDA then sought more studies to measure the efficacy of higher doses—yet the three placebo-controlled trials between 2015 and 2018 were negative.

In its recent review, FDA staff concluded that early studies demonstrating the drug’s efficacy were flawed and possibly biased. Ten, all from the same industry sponsor, had “multiple methodological and statistical issues” and apparent “data integrity” problems. Two “produced near textbook perfect results that could not be duplicated in other similarly designed studies.”

https://amgreatness.com/2023/09/15/dr-robert-redfield-comes-clean-on-government-censorship/

“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.”

That was Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control during the administration of Donald Trump. Dr. Redfield recently went on record 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 Redfield, who co-founded the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology and served as the Chief of Infectious Diseases and Vice Chair of Medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

“I think we should have really 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 the former CDC director. This wasn’t the first time Dr. Redfield had been at odds with the government health establishment.

“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,” Redfield told CNN in 2021. “Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out.” 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 to investigate death threats against a public official, but reports of any such investigation are hard to find.

In 2021, Joe Biden said he would ask the intelligence community to “redouble their efforts to collect and analyze information that could bring us closer to a definitive conclusion.” The Delaware Democrat ignored a key reality about the pandemic.

The CDC deploys the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), a medical CIA, to prevent epidemics from arriving on American soil. The intrepid EIS officers failed to stop the Covid virus from arriving stateside, and their failure, like the death threats against Redfield, has not been subjected to an investigation. In early 2020, EIS veteran Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the sister of Rod Rosenstein, delivered a series of press briefings that faithfully echoed China’s talking points.

Biden medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for nearly 40 years. Dr. Fauci funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology to conduct gain-of-function research that makes viruses more lethal and transmissible. The WIV, in turn, received shipments of deadly pathogens courtesy of Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, the Chinese national who headed the special pathogens unit at Canada’s National Microbiology Lab.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/09/fifth_circuit_rebukes_fda_for_banning_ivermectin_for_covid19.html

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a unanimous three-judge decision on September 1, 2023, holding that the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) overstepped its statutory authority by attempting to ban using ivermectin to treat COVID-19. In Apter v. Department of Health and Human Services, court concluded, “FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise.”

Writing for the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Don R. Willett began the court’s opinion by citing the strident nature of the FDA’s opposition to ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. Willett opened his opinion as follows:

“You are not a horse.”

Or so the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) alerted millions of Americans via social media, midway through the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency had discerned that some people were treating their symptoms using the animal version of a drug called ivermectin. FDA decided to target the practice via the “horse” message—and others like it. The messaging traveled widely across legacy and online media. Left unmentioned in most of that messaging: ivermectin also comes in a human version. And while the human version of ivermectin is not FDA-approved to treat the coronavirus, some people were using it off-label for that purpose.

The case involved three physicians, Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul E. Marik, each of whom jeopardized his or her professional career by prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19 in defiance of the FDA warnings. Apter and Bowden claim to have treated or consulted more than 9,000 COVID-19 patients, with each experiencing a 99 percent survival rate, despite regularly prescribing them ivermectin off-label as a treatment.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/dr-doom-doubles-down-on-face-mask-double-speak/

Throughout his tenure as the leading “expert” on the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci had a bad tendency to engage in double speak when the topic of wearing face masks was thrust into the public spotlight.

For example, in the early days of the pandemic, Fauci appeared on CBS’ 60 Minutes, in which he said, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”

“While masks may block some droplets, they do not provide the level of protection people think they do,” he continued. “Wearing a mask may also have unintended consequences: People who wear masks tend to touch their face more often to adjust them, which can spread germs from their hands.”

A few days later, Fauci changed his tune, imploring Americans to wear face masks at all times, in all situations, including when they went outside. Later, he went even further, recommending that Americans wear multiple masks, calling it “commonsense” to do so.

However, we also know, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, that Fauci sent an email on February 5, 2020 to a colleague stating, “Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.”

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-the-centers-for-disease-control

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control is meeting now to discuss recommendations for the updated Covid jabs that the Food & Drug Administration approved yesterday.

Spoiler alert: the committee is likely to press the jabs on most adults, and possibly even children. The group is nominally independent, but Dr. Nirav Shah, the CDC deputy director, telegraphed this plan to The New York Times two weeks ago:

Covid can still be nasty even if it doesn’t put you in the hospital. A booster shot will reduce its potency. Shah argues that children (over 6 months old) should also get a Covid shot this fall, even though their own Covid risk is very low.

Which makes this chart, which the CDC buried on page 17 of an 18-page presentation to the committee this morning, even more stunning.

About nine out of 10 Americans over 75 hospitalized this year for Covid have received the mRNA shots. (Not with Covid, for Covid.) Similarly, five out of six Americans aged 65-74 hospitalized for Covid had been jabbed, according to the CDC. And even among adults under 50, two out of three had been vaccinated.—

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/wokeness-has-infected-the-mayo-clinic/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=second

A medical institution that has done so much good over the years is putting politics before health.

In 39 years as a practicing nurse, I urged hundreds if not thousands of patients to consider seeking additional care at the Mayo Clinic. The famous medical center, based in Minnesota and with major campuses in Florida and Arizona, is widely regarded as one of the best in the country. Yet I can no longer in good conscience recommend this once-prestigious institution. The Mayo Clinic is now fully and unashamedly woke, and worse, it’s aggressively pushing its divisive agenda on the rest of health care.

The Mayo Clinic’s descent is deeply troubling because it occupies a unique place in medicine. Its website is wildly popular with patients who want information about conditions; many travel to Mayo locations for care. Hospitals and health-care groups look to it for guidance on everything from treatment protocols to human resources to a thousand other things. As a nurse, I relied on Mayo’s professional-development tools, and physicians across the country depend on Mayo’s continuing-education courses, which cover an astounding 42 topics and specialties. It also offers conferences that draw physicians from around the world. When Mayo says, “We share our knowledge globally, impact policy, and partner with others to create lasting — and much-needed — change,” it’s understating its influence on medicine.

So it matters when the Mayo Clinic pledges a staggering $100 million to the woke agenda, as it did last fall. It’s devoting this money to “eliminate racism and advance equity and inclusion . . . and to improve health equity.” Practically, this money is going to conferences, courses, and communications that are designed to shape the entire medical field around divisive and discriminatory ideology.

I participated in one such event in early August: Mayo’s two-day “RISE for Equity” event, which offered in-person and virtual attendance for continuing-education credit. It was designed for professionals including hospital administrators, hiring managers, and health-care educators, with the goal of “advancing and directing policy, programs and institutional initiatives” across the medical landscape — i.e., every part of medicine. I encountered nothing but indoctrination.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/benbartee/2023/09/06/why-is-the-cdc-no-longer-collecting-adverse-events-reports-for-covid-19-shots-n1724876

For reasons unexplained, the CDC recently ceased its collection of adverse events reports via its “V-safe” reporting system regarding the COVID-19 mRNA injections deceptively marketed as “vaccines.”

Via Brownstone Institute (emphasis added):

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) V-safe website quietly stopped collecting adverse event reports with no reason or explanation…

VAERS and V-safe are mutually exclusive safety collection databases operated by the FDA and CDC, respectively. VAERS is an older way of collecting safety data where one can fill out a form online, or manually, or by calling a toll-free number, whereas V-safe is a device “app” which requires online registration. Both VAERS and V-safe collect personal information, lot numbers, dates and associated information, but V-safe was an active collection system geared towards a younger app-using demographic.

Here is what the V-safe website reads as of September 2:

Thank you for your participation.

Data collection for COVID-19 vaccines concluded on June 30, 2023.

If you have symptoms or health problems following your COVID-19 vaccination that concern you, please contact your healthcare provider.

You can also report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

VAERS, as I have documented previously elsewhere, is notoriously unreliable as a gauge of the actual rate of adverse events. As few as 1% of adverse events from injections are reported to the system. There are several potential reasons for this deficiency:

It is a voluntary reporting system, so healthcare providers are not ethically or legally required to report incidents of adverse events among their patients. You can imagine, as many doctors/nurses work within large medical systems intertwined with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, what kind of institutional disincentives might exist to discourage their use of VAERS.
There is no governmental oversight of complaints levied by patients to doctors and/or pharmaceutical companies to ensure that verbal patient reports ever make it into the system.
Like any government program, the VAERS system is a labyrinthine clusterf*** of bureaucratic rigmarole, and navigating it as a layperson is difficult — particularly for a patient or his/her family already distressed by a vaccine injury.
Studies have shown that, in fact, many healthcare providers themselves don’t know how to file a VAERS report.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/09/06/unexplained-excess-deaths-persist-in-post-covid-era/

According to data reported weekly by the CDC, the death rate in America remains elevated. In the six years prior to the COVID era, deaths in the United States averaged between 2.6 and 2.8 million people per year. These averages are adjusted for population growth, and with a population as large as the U.S., the numbers should be, and are, remarkably stable. During the three years immediately preceding the 2020, for example, the population growth adjusted death rate from all causes varied by only 1.5 percent.

None of that is true today. The increase in total deaths – deaths from all causes, not just COVID deaths – is up significantly. If the period between October 2019 and June 2023 had adhered to predictable mortality rates, 10.5 million Americans would have died. Instead, during that period, 12.4 people died. This prolonged period of so-called excess deaths, 17 percent above normal, is only rivaled by the estimated 675,000 deaths from Spanish Flu in America in 1918-19 when the country had a much smaller population.

To illustrate how aberrant these grim statistics are, the chart below plots on a blue line the actual weekly deaths from all causes in the United States from the Fall of 2019 through the Spring of 2023. The grey line plots how many deaths would have occurred if mortality rates had adhered to predictable trends based on highly consistent statistics from the six prior years, 2013 through 2019. The data is indisputable, even if the causes remain mired in controversy. During the so-called COVID era, nearly 2.0 million people are dead who, if it had been normal times, would still be alive today.

There appears to be no end in sight, even though the horrific surges appear to be behind us. As shown on the right edges of the chart, going into the summer of 2023, weekly deaths from all causes remained persistently higher than normal. For example, during the last week of June, which is the most recent week for which there is reasonably complete reporting, 55,000 Americans died. Based on historical patterns, only 51,000 Americans would have died. Excess deaths in the U.S. are still about 7 percent above normal.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/medical-doctors-or-social-workers

Can your doctor cure poverty? How about homelessness? Food insecurity? For that matter, does your doctor treat the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination?

Most people answer this question readily: No. Doctors are trained to treat medical conditions, helping patients lead healthier, happier, longer lives. Yet the medical elite think the answer is “yes.” For years, health disparities between white and minority communities have been attributed to the so-called social determinants of health (SDH), which include the effects of poverty on communities, the residue of historic discrimination, and purported ongoing discriminatory practices in health care. But do these factors really determine health—or are they more properly termed “social factors affecting behaviors associated with health status”? That’s not nearly as catchy as SDH. It just happens to be more accurate.

In a 2017 report, “Perspectives on Health Equity and Social Determinants of Health,” the National Academy of Medicine went further, presenting the issue through the lens of critical race theory. As the report frames it, no social comity exists to characterize human social interactions, only a dyad of oppressor and oppressed. The goal of eliminating disparities in the social determinants of health would be the achievement of true health equity, defined as “The optimal conditions for all people by valuing everyone equally, rectifying historic inequities, and distributing resources according to need.” The last phrase evokes a certain nineteenth-century social and economic philosophy. The report goes on to tie health disparities, among other factors, to the portrayal of black men in the media and to the expulsion and suspension of black children in early education.

The report’s clearest message: no one should attribute any health-care disparities to individuals’ self-determined actions. The report also decries “getting distracted by the alleged ‘deficits’ or ‘individual behaviors’ of marginalized communities” and calls for moving away from a “decontextualized, biomedical framework.”