Ha! I wish I could take credit for that, but I ripped off Don Surber. Hey, no shame in that, right? (For the younger generation: Quisling)
Anyway, H/T to my Dutch friend. This is self explanatory:
Tony Shaffer told me that Bill Barr called him personally and asked him to stop investigating 2020 election fraud.— Chase Geiser (@realchasegeiser) May 28, 2021
Have you ever heard of an AG calling a private citizen and asking them to quit looking into something?!
Here's the full video 👇https://t.co/XrZqopyTen pic.twitter.com/4CJn79PJCW
Now, in fairness, what's actually said in the short video clip is that Bluto told Tony to turn everything over to the FBI. At least that's Shaffer's version. Implicit in that, of course, is the idea that, Hey, Tony my friend, back off and let the Bureau handle this! We'll handle this!
As a follow on to the Covid post from yesterday, In Case You Had Any Doubts, do yourself a favor and read this Zerohedge piece that Ray SoCal linked in a comment. It works from a long article by another Nick Wade type guy--IOW, another former NYT guy (Michael Capuzzo) who's late to the game but does a good job documenting what's happened and is still going on--this time re the US Government's attempt to suppress Ivermectin--a drug that won its inventor the Nobel Prize and is one of the safest most widely effective drugs in the world:
"I Don't Know Of A Bigger Story In The World" Right Now Than Ivermectin: NYTimes Best-Selling Author
The hope is that, with the imprimatur of an honest to God MSM journalist, this story will now get the attention it deserves and will make others feel empowered to dig deeper.
Of course, this is only one chapter of the "Biggest Story In The World". There are important chapters about the Trump saga: the Clinton Russia Hoax, the Deep State conspiracies, the Soros angle, the Great Reset, Covid (of course), Election 2020, the betrayal of Trump, and so much more.
Now, since ZH doesn't quote this--and that's not a slam, Capuzzo's article is very long and detailed--here's a portion from the original that I found to be very powerful:
Everywhere the problem was the same, Kory said. The WHO, NIH, and other public health agencies were suddenly recommending only COVID-19 therapies proven by the “gold standard” of large randomized controlled trials of treatment and placebo groups, which were powerful but had several limiting flaws, including the fact that they took months to complete and cost ten to twenty million dollars that only big pharmaceutical companies could afford. They had thrown out all the other time-tested forms of clinical and scientific medical investigation still taught in all the medical schools, such as observational trials (which had eliminated widespread crib death), case histories, and anecdotes. They also restricted the use of essential off-label and generic drugs with blatant disinformation campaigns that reminded Kory of big tobacco’s efforts to hide the dangers of smoking. In effect, the public health authorities eliminated the full toolbox of essential scientific methods and drugs that doctors use every day, including the most effective early, prophylactic, and late-stage treatments for COVID-19, which were developed by frontline doctors, not pharmaceutical companies.
Kory never tires of reminding critics that the modern Hippocratic Oath, the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, makes it abundantly clear that all medical research is secondary to the doctor’s clinical judgement in the moment, whether the patient is dying of COVID-19 or giving birth. The doctor is morally compelled to use their best clinical judgement and the “best available evidence” in that instant, not tomorrow or next year when more data is published. As the WMA puts it: “The health of my patient will be my first consideration.” Clearly the medical establishment is now routinely violating that ancient oath, Kory says, and as a result he “feels estranged from most, but not all, of my colleagues.”
In the new world of medicine, the COVID world, he says, “Only big randomized controlled trials by big pharma/big academic medical centers are accepted by big journals, while others are rejected,” while only studies in big journals are accepted by big public health agencies for drug recommendations, and only drugs recommended by big public health agencies “escape media/social media censorship.”
“This leaves you with a system where the only thing that’s considered to have sufficient evidence or proven efficacy is essentially a big new pharmaceutical drug,” he adds. “If it doesn’t come from the mountaintop, it doesn’t exist,” Kory says. “The people on the ground, we cannot do any more science that’s considered credible. We’re discredited as controversial and as promoting unproven therapies and our Facebook groups are shut down, Twitter accounts are locked, YouTube videos are removed and demonetized. It’s really almost totalitarian what’s happening when we’re just well-meaning scientists trying to do the right thing by our patients.”
As Kory left the Senate hearing room that morning in December after his Ivermectin testimony, his face was dark with disgust. The hearing was dead before it started. When Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin (with whom Kory decidedly shares no political sympathies) called the hearing on early COVID-19 treatments, The New York Times ran an advance story eviscerating it as a panel of anti-science kooks promoting “fringe theories,” a “forum for amplifying dubious theories and questionable treatments pushed by President Trump,” including hydroxychloroquine. The hearing was boycotted by all seven Democrats (who have received a total of $1.3 million in big pharma bucks from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Gilead, and others), and four of the seven Republicans, including Utah’s Mitt Romney (more than $3 million received from big pharma), Ohio’s Rob Portman ($542,400), and Florida’s Rick Scott (more than $1 million in stock in Gilead Sciences, maker of Remdesivir).
Michigan Senator Gary Peters, the Democratic chairman, walked out after reading an opening statement saying the hearing was “playing politics with public health.” Kory was outraged. “I want to register my offense at the ranking member’s opening statement,” he said. “I was discredited as a politician. I am a physician and a man of science. I’ve done nothing, nothing, but commit myself to scientific truth and the care of my patients.”
But the next day the assault continued. “All the gods of science and medicine” as Marik calls them, descended to crush the little Nobel-Prize winning pill. The New York Times headlined, “A Senate hearing promoted unproven drugs and dubious claims about the coronavirus,” slamming Ivermectin as unproven, but never mentioning Kory or his testimony. In subsequent days, the WHO guidelines committee, after promising a thorough review for months, quashed Ivermectin without a vote, as a lesser advising committee threw out all the strongest evidence first—including the WHO consultant’s own report—and “having thrown out most of the evidence,” Kory said, “they called the remaining few crumbs of very low certainty.”
How does Bluto Barr, disgraced former AG, fit into this? It's all part of The Greatest Story Ever ... Not Yet Told? (h/t Fulton Oursler).
In other words, we’re on our own.ReplyDelete
"Some question the existence of a campaign to prevent discussion of Ivermectin. It isn't even hidden."ReplyDelete
"Despite persuasive evidence, YouTube forbids claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for covid. Removed congressional testimony."
rules for posting content on YouTube include
"Don't post content on Youtube if it includes any of the following
Content that recommends use of Iver. or HCQ for the treatment of Covid
Claims that Iver or HCQ are effective treatments for Covid
I’m surprised with Trump gone they are still censoring Ivermectin. I figured it was just Trump Hatred.ReplyDelete
It seems now more related to money.
I’m starting to ask the question on any government action, such as a new law, regulation, or tax - who benefits?
I am surprised YouTube has left this video of Brett Weinstein up. He and his wife all but claim the suppression of Ivermectin was a crime against humanity. Apparently, if Ivermectin had been acknowledged as a potential therapy, the “vaccines” could never be given emergency use authorization.ReplyDelete
I hope an armada of malpractice lawsuits are launched against the medical establishment. A few months back I suspected I might have been infected. While waiting for the test results I asked my G.P. if he was willing to prescribe Ivermectin. His reply: “No way. That stuff will kill you!” Time to find a new doctor.ReplyDelete
Good luck with that.ReplyDelete
Doctors across the country doing telemedicine visits and proviing ivermectin plus protocol for its use for prevention and early treatment, respectively:
…providing ivermectin plus protocol for its use...Delete
This page lists M.D.s prescribing Ivermectin:Delete
Although ivermectin cannot be directly compared to a vaccine, let’s look at its efficacy. Research has demonstrated that using this medicine for prophylaxis can reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection by 92.5%. This is based on seven controlled trials on over 2,600 patients. Six of these were prospective trials, as opposed to the retrospective studies that some opposed to other preventative COVID-19 treatments have criticized. Three of those six were both prospective and randomized, meeting anyone’s standard for a credible study.ReplyDelete
Each subset of these trials shows the same thing: ivermectin reduces the chance of infection by over ninety percent. That’s not only comparable to the claims made for AstraZeneca’s vaccine. It’s significantly better, especially for short to medium term before we have global herd immunity through vaccination.
The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel, following World Health Organization guidelines for meta-analysis of data, has recommended its use both to prevent and treat COVID-19. In so doing, they followed evidence that ivermectin both reduces the risk of infection and the risk of bad outcomes for those who get infected.
Thanks for that.Delete
Regarding Barr ... he sure said the right words in various speeches and judging from the publicly recorded winks from Trump to Barr, Trump did not have a clue.ReplyDelete
Trump is not a Jesus figure in this, but it is clear that our government, who we did not elect, but was appointed by Trump or who we did elect and Trump helped get elected, was flat out against him and his agenda.
This is a failure of massive proportions that demonstrated we have no say in our government if the government deems it so.
Now, come to think about ... what if Trump is part of all this ... willingly or forced, but still part of it?
Ya see how bad this is? We have to question everything and everyone because our government is not ours.
What I have learned the last few years, is that DC is a pit, almost as wide as the Lord’s grace and as deep as Hades, and filled to the brim with the most viciuos backstabbing vipersReplyDelete