Censorship and COVID Treatments
From the Emergency Use Authorization to the suppression of preexisting treatments to the mainstream censorship of Dr. Bret Weinstein and the kinds of honest, scientific discussions he facilitates. . .
Vaccines are safe, and should always be taken when there are no overwhelming risks or any safer alternatives available. Health, knowledge, and safety should be the highest priorities.
Any disagreements or discomforts with the information in this piece should not be met with an instinct to turn your back on it. Rather, one should inspect the data for themselves and debate it if they choose— none of this is opinion. And to be clear, I don't purport to be an expert in virology, immunology, or any scientific field, but my sources of understanding are of experts and of data that's peer-reviewed.
It's important not to get bogged down in tribal side-taking— that is most certainly unscientific. Through the hyper-politicization of the pandemic, we have created two polarizing sides that claim to be on the side of truth. In reality, however, both of the sensationalist extremes reach their own conclusions without much science at all— one side takes the medical establishment at its word and unwittingly neglects the wider scientific process, and the other side persistently distrusts any supposed science as null.
When talking about treatments for the pandemic, there is no use speculating. Much of what we know now shows an interesting story behind the largest Phase 3 trial in history and what forced that to fall into place.
The Vaccines and the Emergency Use Authorization
Risk-benefit ratio is a guiding principle of ethics in scientific study. It is a principle by which every decision can and should be judged.
The COVID-19 pandemic was one of the most high-stakes global matters for the scientific community in history. Ending a pandemic is no easy task (especially when the origin was deceptively spun), so following the logic of the risk-benefit ratio helps professionals navigate the crisis with sound reasoning. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic was riddled with instances where the risk-benefit ratio was completely neglected.
The primary example of this disregard for the principle was neglecting the potential risks of a vaccine pushed through Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) while ignoring already-existing treatments proven to be safe— in fact, going so far as to contradict preexisting data to claim those treatments are ineffective— and leaving reputable voices of reason stigmatized and even censored when they fall out of line with the global health establishment's narrative.
Generally, vaccines take about 10-15 years to develop with all the complex phases of testing, including: basic lab research on antigens; lab tests on tissue- or cell-culture systems, and/or animals; tests on a small group of subjects, known as Phase I; tests on hundreds of subjects, including at-risk individuals, known as Phase II; tests on thousands of subjects to find side effects not found in smaller groups, known as Phase III; and then after market authorization, there are optional Phase IV tests.
The pragmatic process requires such thoroughness because of the potential side-effects that may depend on all sorts of factors. Slowly growing the testing trials, and allowing the supervision of the effects to extend for a prolonged period of time are the primary reasons why vaccines are all very safe. With such careful attention to all excruciating details, vaccines serve the public without much, if any, downsides.
However, the question arises: What does this mean for a vaccine granted an EUA?
The simple fact behind a vaccine that was quickly put into the arms of the public without any animal trials or long term tests is that we will not know what those longer term effects are until many more years have passed.
What makes that a little brow-raising is that the short term effects have not gone as smoothly as we'd like to see. From free-wheelin' lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) carrying the mRNA that encodes the spike proteins, to the potential dangers to female reproductive health, to the spontaneous heart problems of teenage boys, the vaccines have had some hiccups.
Of course, this is not to say the vaccine is something entirely bad— in fact, the COVID vaccines are safe based on short term data (in fact, they prevent hospitalization and death). But it is to say that taking an EUA vaccine is a personal decision that requires knowledge and education. Wanting to be informed on COVID-19 vaccines is not synonymous with being a skeptic. And if one ultimately finds that they don't feel they should take these EUA vaccines and that they'd rather wait for a better-tested option, that is not to be confused with being an "anti-vaxxer" or of some fringe ideology.
The EUA vaccines require more nuance for people's decision-making on whether or not to get one of the three vaccines. When one takes into account risk-benefit ratio, the answer is different for everyone.
Should the elderly and members of the most at-risk groups get one of these vaccines? Yes. Given a global pandemic, the most at-risk have the most to gain from the experimental vaccines.
Should a twenty-two year-old healthy man get it? Well, based on the relatively low risks posed against him in comparison to other age-groups, he could wait for a better tested alternative, such as Novavax, or get what’s available.
Should someone who experienced anaphylaxis after the first dose of a vaccine get the second in order to get fully vaccinated? Very practically: no.
Given what we know in these first few months (and comparatively, it's not a lot when you think about what we'll know years down the line) there are several groups that could and maybe even should wait on getting vaccinated.
VAERS is the The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which was created by the CDC and FDA in 1990. VAERS is a voluntary self-reporting system where anyone from the patient to a family member to the physician can make a report if they suspect an adverse effect has a direct connection to the recent vaccination.
It is safe to say that not all adverse effects reported to VAERS have a direct connection to the vaccine. And it is equally as safe to say that not all adverse effects are reported to VAERS.
After vaccination, the inoculated individual is not told about VAERS— there is no requirement for it. Also, the process to file a report takes about a half an hour. There is no incentive, nor is there much knowledge of the system. In fact, it's well-known to offer underreportednumbers (roughly a 1 - 20% report rate).
It's an imperfect system, which is a real shame because clear insight into the effects of the vaccine would be useful considering the EUA.
This grows in importance when we realize that we are dealing with a free spike protein regarding these vaccines. The LNPs carry the mRNA that encode the spike protein into cells, except that instead of remaining in the shoulder where the injection took place and where cell-regeneration is easiest, the LNPs are carrying it all over the place. (This is true of Johnson & Johnson, too, because it possesses the same modified version of the spike protein.) With this wide distribution, the S1 subunit of the spike protein infiltrates cells, causing them to grow spikes that antibodies then target. However, when you put spikes on a previously smooth cell, blood vessels can get damaged. Assumptions were also made that the S1 subunit was benign, but we're seeing that it is actually cytotoxic, i.e. able to produce toxic effects in other cells. And studies show that for 48 hours these cytotoxic spike proteins are being produced, and after that period they stick around for roughly 30 days.
Byram Bridle performed a FOIA request out of Japan to get a look at a Pfizer distribution chart, and what was found was alarming.
After the 48 hour period, the highest concentrations are in the ovaries and in bone marrow. This leads to all sorts of potential long term effects (unknown at this point because no long term studies could ever be conducted on an EUA vaccine) that implicate female reproductive health, and the health of of those with weakened immune systems, such as individuals who have had cancer.
According to Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA technology, the FDA knew this. In the haste to produce vaccines, the FDA did not even require the vaccine producers to conduct toxicology reports, and thus the efficacy of anchoring the spike protein was no more than assumed.
Studies in these last few months are already showing potential risks for various individuals.
Of course, with the high distribution of a cytotoxic spike protein in the ovaries, young women and pregnant women are at risk of infertility and miscarriage. Likewise, the distribution in the bone marrow likely has grave implications for autoimmune deficiencies or cancer survivors. But what else?
Reports out of Israel show that the Pfizer vaccine may have a direct link to the development of myocarditis (a condition of heart inflammation) in teenage boys, as well as a high rate of heart attacks in teenagers globally. And kids, as a whole, see more risks than benefits in getting these vaccines.
Again, vaccines are usually the safe option, but in the case of these quickly produced COVID vaccines, it is important that the people have all the knowledge necessary in order to give their individual informed consent.
Preexisting, safe treatments
Now, of course, given the pandemic, many of the risks at play here are still, in many case, trumped by the tremendous benefits of vaccination. But what if there were already-existing drugs, proven to be safe, that were clearly effective at both treating and preventing COVID-19?
If that were the case, it would disqualify the COVID vaccines for EUA. And according to the FDA, such an authorization can only be made "when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."
Well, there are, and have been. Even before an EUA was granted drugs like ivermectin and fluvoxamine were both available, virtually harmless, and relatively cheap. Plus, we had other, easily-accessible treatments in vitamins like D3 and Zinc.
And yet, for all four of the aforementioned treatments, the FDA miraculously found no compelling evidence either for or against the treatment of COVID-19. In reality, the whole global health establishment has worked in some way to suppress already-existing treatments of COVID-19.
As Steve Kirsch, a former tech entrepreneur and founder of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, writes in his living article regarding the vaccines on Trial Site News:
"[The] NIAID (Cliff Lane) is improperly manipulating the COVID Treatment Guidelines to make it appear these drugs do not work, thus giving the world the false impression that the vaccine, even if imperfect, is the only way out. Ivermectin and fluvoxamine have been confirmed in Phase 3 trials. Ivermectin has a very high quality systematic review, the highest possible level in Evidence Based Medicine. Repurposed drugs are safer and more effective than the current vaccines."
Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug used to fight infections caused by parasites. The drug has risen to prominence recently with the advocation of Dr. Pierre Kory, a Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist. It had, beforehand, been wholly suppressed. As noted earlier, the FDA ruled there was no evidence that ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19, but various sources of data show otherwise.
In Peru, Paraguay, Mexico, and many other countries, studies have shown a miraculous effectiveness in ivermectin in its treatment and prevention of COVID-19. At this point, it is overwhelming: we had a viable weapon all along. (Dr. Tess Lawrie has also shown compelling evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy.)
Fluvoxamine is an anti-inflammation drug typically used to treat depression. Studies indicate, however, "that fluvoxamine may prevent serious breathing problems in people with mild COVID-19 illness." So as a treatment both before and after infection, fluvoxamine is another wondrous drug.
The suppression of these drugs, while being facilitated by the FDA and CDC, is surprisingly being done by their producers, too. This is particularly the case with ivermectin where Merck, its pharmaceutical producer, has come out against the science and said ivermectin has "no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19."
A reason behind that is that Merck is currently in the process of getting a new drug approved through EUA. Of course, by downplaying ivermectin, that sets the precedent that there are "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives," as the FDA notes in its requirements for EUA. Treatment therapy is a lucrative business, but should they be working out business strategies at the expense of global health?
The obvious shame here is that the global health establishment suppressed these preexisting treatments. It's hard to say exactly why. But there are no excuses. Being proactive with these treatments would frankly have saved lives.
Considering the fact that ivermectin alone can treat and even help prevent COVID, the early days of the pandemic could have been less deadly. Recall, the big concern was ICU capacity and the potential nightmare of hospitals filling beyond imagination. This meant that many people, even people sick with COVID were often sent home. They were told not to come back "unless their lips turned blue," as Dr. Malone put it.
At-home transmission was the biggest cause of the spread because sustained contact in poorly ventilated areas is the biggest infector. Data shows that exposure to the virus takes several hours before it begins to infect an individual. This means that with the horrible initial handle on the pandemic and with the fact that many people were still forced to go to work, people's homes were becoming the biggest epicenters of infection.
If ivermectin were given the recognition it so honestly deserves and has always deserved, who knows how many lives could have been spared. Even if simple and safe vitamins like D3 and Zinc were encouraged, it would have lessened the blow of the pandemic.
Brazen censorship
Facebook has been on a censorship crusade, shutting down roughly 200,000 groups that discuss adverse effects to the vaccine as well as debate the safety of the vaccines. More than that, the professionals, too, are being silenced.
Remember, it is not that these drugs fell by the waist side in an unfortunate series of events. There was a clear effort to suppress them. And with that came an almost knee-jerk instinct to silence anyone who mentions or advocates for their use.
As dystopian as it sounds, that is exactly what's been going on. Dr. Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist and influential voice of reason, is the notable target.
Weinstein, along with his wife Heather Heying (who is also a prominent evolutionary biologist) use their Dark Horse Podcast as a platform for honest, in-depth conversations that are performed in a manner that seeks to offer illuminating insights uninhibited by any constrictions of ideology.
Weinstein recently found that with two of his podcast episodes uploaded over the past month, YouTube gave each video a strike. With its mountain-like prominence, YouTube— which is the most popular video platforms for creators to reach a broad audience— keeps things strict with a three strikes, you're out policy.
So you may ask: What were the episodes on and what rules were broken?
The first was from late May which was a conversation with Dr. Pierre Kory about the wondrous efficacy of ivermectin.
The second was a discussion on vaccines, the potential harms, and the already-existing treatments with Dr. Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch.
And the rules broken? Well, a few words were said— words that contradict the global health establishment's narrative. Included in a list of things one cannot say on YouTube is, in YouTube's own words: "Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19."
As Matt Taibbi asked last week: Why Has 'Ivermectin' Become a Dirty Word?
A good question as always, Taibbi, and one amid many others.
However, when it comes to shutting down open, factual, and illuminating conversation, more than likely there is no sufficient or reasonable answer.
Weinstein has vowed to fight this censorship (as he has in the past with his Evergreen College experience), and has since switched from YouTube to Odysee for video platforms.
Any reason behind all this?
It's hard to conclusively say why any of this went on the way it did, or why such authority is being taken to control this discussion. Like the apparent cover-up over gain-of-function research, all we have are large volumes of questions that need answers.
For the global health establishment, there are some risks worth taking in suppressing preexisting, safe treatments and going all-in on the vaccines. Those risks point to a high reward that— when looked at alongside the safe treatments like ivermectin which is only about $12 a dose— point to loads of potential incentives for the global health establishment, vaccine sponsors, and their investors.
Of course, as you may recall, news broke back in March over a leaked webinar with Pfizer executives and investors where the idea of the virus never getting fully tackled seemed exciting, if not mouth-watering to those in the discussion.
On the call, Frank D'Amelio, the Pfizer CFO & Executive VP of Global Supply, said (emphasis my own):
"Now in terms of pricing, let me see if I can hit on that. So if you look at how current demand and current pricing is being driven, it's clearly not being driven by what I'll call normal market conditions, normal market forces. It's really been driven by kind of the pandemic state that we've been in and the needs of governments to really secure doses from the various vaccine suppliers. So what we believe, what I believe is as we move from a pandemic state, from a pandemic situation to an endemic situation, normal market forces, normal market conditions will start to kick in. And factors like efficacy, booster ability, clinical utility will basically become very important, and we view that as, quite frankly, a significant opportunity for our vaccine from a demand perspective, from a pricing perspective, given the clinical profile of our vaccine. So clearly, more to come here. But we think as this shifts from pandemic to endemic, we think there's an opportunity here for us."
Throughout the pandemic and throughout the process of eradicating COVID-19, conflicts of interest have cut up and down the situation, forcing a simple mission to fold into a pretzel in order to capitalize on tremendous incentives.
Vaccines are likely no different. Again, overall, the COVID vaccines are safe, and after careful inspection, many will see that the vaccines still serve as an overall benefit against the risks of the pandemic.
But when vaccines get caught up in the world of incentives, then the questions start getting uncomfortable. What other incentives would be necessary for vaccines other than the annihilation of COVID-19?
Recall the patent protections— an issue of sensitive nature because it has to do with a powerful nation, like the U.S., throwing away the profitable protections to allow other nations to utilize the vaccine recipes. The embargo on raw materials for vaccines have been lifted, but even as the Biden administration announced their intentions to lift patent protections, no actual action can be taken until it’s approved by the WTO.
Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation have been tremendously large players in the vaccine initiative. But outside of pure philanthropy, Gates has hinted at other incentives at play through this COVID vaccine process.
At the end of April, as the patent protections conversation were at their highest, Bill Gates was pressed about it by Sky News Australia, asking if lifting the protections would be helpful for global vaccine production.
Here was Gates's answer (emphasis my own):
"Well, there's only so many vaccine factories in the world and people are very serious about the safety of vaccines. And moving something that had never been done— moving vaccine, say, a from a (Johnson & Johnson) factory into a factory in India— it's novel— it's only because of our grants and expertise that can happen at all. The thing that's holding things back in this case is not intellectual property. There's not like some idle vaccine factory with regulatory approval that makes magically safe vaccines. You gotta do the trials on these things and every manufacturing process has to be looked at in a very careful way. There's all sorts of issues around intellectual property having to do with medicines, but not in terms of how quickly we've been able to ramp up volume here. You know, I remember how shocked people were when we said we were gonna do second sources in the developing country factories— that was a novel thing, we got all the rights from the vaccine companies. They didn't hold them back, they were participating— I do a regular phone calls with the pharmaceutical CEO's to make sure that work is going at full speed."
Well, as Krystal Ball— then of The Hill's Rising, now of Breaking Points— noted, Gates lied when he said that.
Here's this from The Associated Press at the beginning of March:
"In an industrial neighborhood on the outskirts of Bangladesh’s largest city lies a factory with gleaming new equipment imported from Germany, its immaculate hallways lined with hermetically sealed rooms. It is operating at just a quarter of its capacity.
It is one of three factories that The Associated Press found on three continents whose owners say they could start producing hundreds of millions of COVID-19 vaccines on short notice if only they had the blueprints and technical know-how."
Keep in mind that Gates has notably advocated for the World Health Organization's CoVax program which conspicuously upholds current patent protections in an effort to distribute vaccines to other countries. It's essentially a system based on rich countries donating to poorer ones.
The goal of the CoVax program was 2 Billion doses (which that number, alone, is insufficient). In reality, however, only 870 Million doses (less than half) have been administered.
Note, too, that Gates in 2019 posted this on Twitter: "I’m particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines."
Again, there are no conclusions to be drawn. We have nothing else to reside on other than these important and unanswered questions.
Why would vaccines be pushed so hastily through EUA? Why were they rushed when there were already-existing treatments proven to be safe? And why are voices that defy the global health establishment's narrative being silenced?
There are no definitive answers. But these facts are known, and the public is beginning to wake up to the truth about the global health establishment, about ivermectin and other treatments, and about this issue as a whole.
While The Huxleyan intends to remain free to the public, there are paid subscription offers (which would be more of a donation than receiving access to anything in particular) at $5/month, or $45/year. As always, donations are welcome and appreciated via Venmo (@john-pongratz). Again, as those are just options, everything remains free. Thank you for reading and be sure to subscribe, comment, and share!