RUTHFULLY YOURS

This is a very important article………[for those with the fortitude to wade through such lengthy details. Charlotte….

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/how-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative.html

It is written by a medical doctor and consists of a list of steps that have been taken by medical authorities in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, and apparently also Russia to prevent doctors from using inexpensive hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) together with azithromycin and zinc to treat coronavirus. 

HCQ with azithromycin and zinc is the only known effective treatment (other than perhaps large intraveneous doses of Vitimin C) of coronavirus. Dr. Didier Raoult has proven its effectiveness by using the treatment on more than 4,000 patients.  A number of American doctors have reported similar success.

As regular readers of this website know, I have covered some of the deceptive practices used by CDC, NIH, WHO, and medical journals to falsely portray HCQ as a dangerous drug that kills.  Dr. Meryl Nass’ list of Big Pharma’s intentional falsifications for the sole purpose of preventing cost effective treatment of coronavirus is a long list.  It shows us the extent to which the medical profession is corrupted by money.  The reason HCQ has been blocked is to protect the market for Gilead’s Remdesivir, an extremely expensive and ineffective treatment, and to keep the option open for marketing a highly profitable vaccine that is unlikely to be effective.

To be clear, large numbers of people are suffering with serious illness and many are dying, the economy has been disrupted and people’s financial health has been impaired, all for the sake of profit for Big Pharma.
Dr. Nass points out that the National Institute of Health’s committee that sets guidelines for coronavirus treatment has 16 members with financial entanglements with Gilead, including two of the three co-chairmen of the committee.  Dr. Nass asks:  “Are you surprised that their guidelines recommend specifically against the use of hydroxychloroquine and in favor of Remdesivir, and that they deem this (Remdesivir) the new ‘standard of care’”?
Now ask yourself, when the entirety of the Western media and the medical establishment purposely cause illness and death so that money can be made, why do you believe what media and authorities tell you about George Floyd’s death and everything else?

https://spectator.org/dangerous-passivity-intellectual-right-culture-war/

It is sufficiently obvious as to not require detailed explanation that in the modern era, movements for change require intellectuals, activists, and foot soldiers at scale in order to gain traction in the public square, much less achieve some measure of the outcomes sought. 

So why is it that in a so-called “50/50” nation, the activist Left in its various forms and combinations — the Women’s March, the Resistance, Black Lives Matter, et. al. — can rally tens of thousands to the streets at the drop of a hat, while similar movements of the Right — with the notable sectarian exceptions of the March for Life and the odd gun rights rally here and there — command no such passion and obeisance? How is it that those promoting leftist causes better sustain organizational vigor despite frequently advocating for execrable objectives (such as defunding the police) utterly bereft of intellectual rigor, evidentiary support, or logical consistency, while their counterparts on the right do little more than to speak hopefully of “silent majorities” who are only ever heard from in voting booths, if at all?

Put differently, why do the winning ideals of the classically liberal right — and by winning, I mean those values that contributed to creating the wealthiest, most just society the world has ever known, and which faced down the twin collectivist evils of fascism and communism in a single 50-year period — not inspire the masses to the same degree of those failed, faded pennants carried aloft by the Left?

Classical liberalism — which for these purposes is a term that can be used interchangeably with “conservatism” or “the Right” — prevailed in history through the force of its ideas and the material, cultural and civilizational wealth made possible by their application. In its ascendancy, it had to overcome functional theocracy, the divine right of kings, manorialism, and mercantilism, and it did so through a heady combination of life-affirming foundational principles, notably that of elevating the primacy of the individual, liberty, private property, and the rule of law above competing objectives. The self-actualization and material comfort realized through the practice of these universalist principles drew wide public support, in contrast with narrower ideologies designed largely to entrench incumbent interests.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/of-pardons-and-presidents-11594584012

Say this for President Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s 40-month prison sentence late Friday: At least he did it during an election campaign so voters can add this to the ledger of character issues they take into the voting booth. Like everything else about this Presidency, its scandals, real and imagined, are public.

On the merits, the judgment of Attorney General William Barr sounds right. Mr. Barr recently called Mr. Stone’s prosecution “righteous” and “appropriate.” He had his department review the excessive recommendation of up to nine years in prison by special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors, and Justice revised its recommendation in line with what the judge ordered. 

Mr. Stone is no martyr. He is by his own description a political performance artist, and he finally ran into prosecutors who weren’t amused. There are legitimate questions about the anti-Trump bias of the jury forewoman, but the full jury found Mr. Stone lied to investigators and tried to bully witnesses. He was probably trying to protect the lies he had previously told to make himself seem more influential than he was. The proper avenue for addressing trial bias is on appeal. 

The commutation spared Mr. Stone from having to report to prison on Tuesday, where the 67-year-old would have been vulnerable to Covid-19. But Mr. Trump didn’t issue a full pardon, which means Mr. Stone’s felony conviction stands and so does his appeal. It’s too bad Mr. Trump let Mr. Barr spend political capital to recommend a lighter prison sentence only to commute that sentence later. Mr. Trump tends to do that to people who work for him.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons

Maybe the Democrats should read this to refresh their memories!