[chrisk]

Hi BC and anyone else who cares to take a look,

By way of background, I share the following:

1.  The laws that were made creating so much power and authority in and by Public Health officials, Governor's, the WHO, CDC, HHS and so on were made stronger toward what we see today especially beginning after 911.  There were concerns raised way back then, some of which I was aware of and some I was not and I am sure many I still don't know about (shrug).

2.  There were concerns raised by many about these laws, including by the ACLU regarding the powers over so much of our lives, livelihoods, businesses and churches and yes even being able to gather to watch Stanford football raised together with concerns for our essential liberties, with strangely even one concern raised about our right to breathe.. (which I cannot locate, as well as much of the other things I saw and read way back then,  so just as way of background we were pretty much told by those behind the laws and those who would be empowered by the laws tha there was nothing to see here, they would certainly not violate the highest law of the land, or even the watered down highest law of the land based upon how it is limited and changed by rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

3.  Eventually model state emergency public health emergency powers acts originally authored by the higher ups in Public Health including the CDC and the non profits concerned with public health were passed in over 40 states by around 2012 in the case of bio terror attack of a new illness that led to an epidemic and then a pandemic.  The definition of these terms was later changed so it need not be quite so widespread or involve such a high percentage of people.

4.  Studies in support of the shelter in place, wearing face mask, physical distancing and closing businesses, churches and other large gatherings of people were made funded by those who helped to bring us the public health emergency powers laws.  Meanwhile it became harder to find studies on the Spanish flu and interventions introduced at that time.  If you are interested in finding them they still exist in the archives at the University of Michigan for download one page at a time as pdfs.  The new studies contradicted the old ones showing some slight benefit, but not a large one if all used together in the area of 10-30 percent.


Fast forward to the media and public authority coverage of today in 2020, Here is a brief narrative that could be better supported, but for which support was once more easily obtained:


A.  Pharmacists were instructed, maybe even ordered to track and also discourage the use of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin prior to the announcement by the WHO of the new pandemic.  Wouldn't this merit more investigation by a free and independent media, especially since studies showed this was used with success to treat SARS?


B.  The pandemic was declared, State and National emergencies were declared and much of the world including America was shut down and we were told to stay home as the correct response to the pandemic.  Where was the independent investigation by the press as to the need for this?

C.  More and more cases were reported with a case not necessarily still meaning a true infection.  The PCR method of gathering material was chosen and has since used to test and diagnose before the new illness was even properly isolated.  Where is the independent investigation into this?

D.  And then there was the media blitz, including all those ready to be aired advertisements that included encouragement to stay or "shelter" at home together.  Where was the media in investigating the need for this or reason(s) why this was being done?  What about the One World concert staying at home together or what we were told we should imagine?  and the One World concert made to support the new Public health measures and actions and yes mandates?  Why was staying at home together important and why was this media blitz and the efficacy of doing so compared to the cost not investigated much if at all independently by the press?

How about this message, where is the investigative reporting as to why this message and so many to stay at home together were given?


E.  Raoult Didier, a well known respected Medical Doctor in France found HCQ worked to a surprisingly well degree to treat SARS2 especially compared to putting patients on ventilators, drugging them and letting the die like they did in New York early on.   Was this a surprise to whatever those behind the scenes wanted for our world?  Well consider what happened next, from the politicizing of this treatment to the possible hack job studies that came out against it.  Where was the investigative journalism from a independent media or press? 


F.  Studies were made that appear to discredit the use of HCQ (many of which are in the link provided to discussion here last Spring and early summer).  Many of these studies are suspect, including using the wrong and too high amounts of HCQ, and using it with and not independent of what are called standard of care, which in some cases continued to use Remdesivir and other drugs and treatments that have been shown to not work well and maybe not so well in combination with HCQ.  This would tend to take away or hide any benefit of using HCQ.

G.  Public Health authorities and the media began campaign to discredit not just HCQ, but also those Medical Doctors and researchers who thought HCQ was a legitimate treatment.


H.  Raoult Didier keeps up the fight to allow Doctor's to treat with HCQ





What if?  What if the media is not free and independent? What will this mean for our future?  What will it mean to patients that might benefit from even HCQ and Azithtromycin? Think of the immediate studies used to justify the ban.  Were they hack jobs or real studies?  Raoult Didier is a highly respected by the vast majority of his peers French doctor.  If we allow him to be discredited and silenced, what impact might this have both now and in the future on treatments and patient care?  So, keeping the above in mind, just how free and independent is the mainstream press in relation to our leaders, entertainers, corporations, large foundations, and our "public" health authorities?  Since when has or should what is called Public Health be given so much power over so many, including our very essential liberties, medical treatments, religious freedom, and in regards to who is essential?" Is the main stream media press independent of or part of the elite gang which appears to control so much of the world today?  How can and will this impact the present and future?

Countries that don’t have free media (e.g. China) or have strong CDC(0 (e.g. Taiwan) have done very well in managing the virus.

Why would you try to claim that there is too little freedom of the press or too much power in Public Health in the US and that those are the reasons for the American failure?

The much simpler explanations (Occam’s Razor) are that Americans did not test, isolate, mask, and social distance sufficiently.  You could more easily argue from that that the US had too much freedom of expression and too little public health if your objective were to limit death.

[chrisk]

Hi BC and anyone else who cares to take a look,

By way of background, I share the following:

1.  The laws that were made creating so much power and authority in and by Public Health officials, Governor's, the WHO, CDC, HHS and so on were made stronger toward what we see today especially beginning after 911.  There were concerns raised way back then, some of which I was aware of and some I was not and I am sure many I still don't know about (shrug).

2.  There were concerns raised by many about these laws, including by the ACLU regarding the powers over so much of our lives, livelihoods, businesses and churches and yes even being able to gather to watch Stanford football raised together with concerns for our essential liberties, with strangely even one concern raised about our right to breathe.. (which I cannot locate, as well as much of the other things I saw and read way back then,  so just as way of background we were pretty much told by those behind the laws and those who would be empowered by the laws tha there was nothing to see here, they would certainly not violate the highest law of the land, or even the watered down highest law of the land based upon how it is limited and changed by rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

3.  Eventually model state emergency public health emergency powers acts originally authored by the higher ups in Public Health including the CDC and the non profits concerned with public health were passed in over 40 states by around 2012 in the case of bio terror attack of a new illness that led to an epidemic and then a pandemic.  The definition of these terms was later changed so it need not be quite so widespread or involve such a high percentage of people.

4.  Studies in support of the shelter in place, wearing face mask, physical distancing and closing businesses, churches and other large gatherings of people were made funded by those who helped to bring us the public health emergency powers laws.  Meanwhile it became harder to find studies on the Spanish flu and interventions introduced at that time.  If you are interested in finding them they still exist in the archives at the University of Michigan for download one page at a time as pdfs.  The new studies contradicted the old ones showing some slight benefit, but not a large one if all used together in the area of 10-30 percent.


Fast forward to the media and public authority coverage of today in 2020, Here is a brief narrative that could be better supported, but for which support was once more easily obtained:


A.  Pharmacists were instructed, maybe even ordered to track and also discourage the use of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin prior to the announcement by the WHO of the new pandemic.  Wouldn't this merit more investigation by a free and independent media, especially since studies showed this was used with success to treat SARS?


B.  The pandemic was declared, State and National emergencies were declared and much of the world including America was shut down and we were told to stay home as the correct response to the pandemic.  Where was the independent investigation by the press as to the need for this?

C.  More and more cases were reported with a case not necessarily still meaning a true infection.  The PCR method of gathering material was chosen and has since used to test and diagnose before the new illness was even properly isolated.  Where is the independent investigation into this?

D.  And then there was the media blitz, including all those ready to be aired advertisements that included encouragement to stay or "shelter" at home together.  Where was the media in investigating the need for this or reason(s) why this was being done?  What about the One World concert staying at home together or what we were told we should imagine?  and the One World concert made to support the new Public health measures and actions and yes mandates?  Why was staying at home together important and why was this media blitz and the efficacy of doing so compared to the cost not investigated much if at all independently by the press?

How about this message, where is the investigative reporting as to why this message and so many to stay at home together were given?


E.  Raoult Didier, a well known respected Medical Doctor in France found HCQ worked to a surprisingly well degree to treat SARS2 especially compared to putting patients on ventilators, drugging them and letting the die like they did in New York early on.   Was this a surprise to whatever those behind the scenes wanted for our world?  Well consider what happened next, from the politicizing of this treatment to the possible hack job studies that came out against it.  Where was the investigative journalism from a independent media or press? 


F.  Studies were made that appear to discredit the use of HCQ (many of which are in the link provided to discussion here last Spring and early summer).  Many of these studies are suspect, including using the wrong and too high amounts of HCQ, and using it with and not independent of what are called standard of care, which in some cases continued to use Remdesivir and other drugs and treatments that have been shown to not work well and maybe not so well in combination with HCQ.  This would tend to take away or hide any benefit of using HCQ.

G.  Public Health authorities and the media began campaign to discredit not just HCQ, but also those Medical Doctors and researchers who thought HCQ was a legitimate treatment.


H.  Raoult Didier keeps up the fight to allow Doctor's to treat with HCQ





What if?  What if the media is not free and independent? What will this mean for our future?  What will it mean to patients that might benefit from even HCQ and Azithtromycin? Think of the immediate studies used to justify the ban.  Were they hack jobs or real studies?  Raoult Didier is a highly respected by the vast majority of his peers French doctor.  If we allow him to be discredited and silenced, what impact might this have both now and in the future on treatments and patient care?  So, keeping the above in mind, just how free and independent is the mainstream press in relation to our leaders, entertainers, corporations, large foundations, and our "public" health authorities?  Since when has or should what is called Public Health be given so much power over so many, including our very essential liberties, medical treatments, religious freedom, and in regards to who is essential?" Is the main stream media press independent of or part of the elite gang which appears to control so much of the world today?  How can and will this impact the present and future?

Countries that don’t have free media (e.g. China) or have strong CDC(0 (e.g. Taiwan) have done very well in managing the virus.

Why would you try to claim that there is too little freedom of the press or too much power in Public Health in the US and that those are the reasons for the American failure?

The much simpler explanations (Occam’s Razor) are that Americans did not test, isolate, mask, and social distance sufficiently.  You could more easily argue from that that the US had too much freedom of expression and too little public health if your objective were to limit death.