I have no qualifications in medicine whatsoever, so I have zero opinion to offer on plagues and cures. What I am copiously qualified to comment upon is the media reaction to COVID-19, and whether this is a reasonable reflection of reality. This is important, since our present situation includes huge curtailment of our normal freedoms of movement and commerce. Are those constraints proportionate, or overreach?
In particular, is the mass media performing its function of holding power (to put us under virtual house arrest) to account? There is a strong case to be made that not only is the answer “no”, but the media is actively promoting agendas that go against the public interest. For the purposes of this article, “the media” includes the major social media platforms, since they also frequently engage in (unlawful) editorialising and censorship.
We now know that the models originally used to justify lockdown policies do not reflect the real world experience: overly pessimistic inputs were exponentially compounded, resulting in paranoid forecasts. That is because COVID-19 seems to be a highly contagious condition (or maybe not), but not a particularly lethal one — when in comparison to total infections. Most people are asymptomatic, and those under 50 years of age nearly always recover.
Those who die are mostly older, and have co-morbidities: under 4% of deaths in Italy are due to COVID-19 alone. Many are concentrated in nursing homes, which by their nature bring together those unable to care for themselves and nearing the end of life; hospitals are not overloaded by such deaths. One researcher estimates a loss of 10 years of productive life for each COVID-19 death, which is awful for the individuals concerned and their families, but not a catastrophic risk for society as pandemics go.
Whilst there has been a notable increase in excess mortality in some countries and regions, it is not beyond comparison to an unusually bad influenza season. Many hospital ICUs are far below capacity, and their record in treating patients is highly variable anyhow. It seems ventilators can do far more harm than good, since the danger to life is primarily one of blood oxygenation rather than ventilation.
The experience of countries like Sweden and Belarus casts (inconclusive) doubt on the helpful effect of lockdown. There also seems to be a lack of excess mortality among “front line” workers compared to those who self-quarantined. It is therefore reasonable to inquire whether lockdown policies have a rational scientific basis, and whether the media is doing its job in questioning them — and pursuing alternatives.
When we look at the media coverage, both in the UK and US, what is prominent is a fear narrative that emphasises the high profile infections of celebrities and the deaths of some very unfortunate healthcare workers. There is hyping of the high death tolls in a few select locations (like New York), without any serious inquiry as to why they are suffering COVID-19 death notifications (not the same as deaths!) at hundreds of times the rate of comparable cities in the US and elsewhere — that didn’t even experience lockdown.
Salespeople like Bill Gates — a man with no more medial qualifications than I have, and who stands to make handsome profits from vaccines and related ID technology — are given copious screen time, and offered sycophantic interviews. His connections to people like Jeffrey Epstein, or hideous ethical record in places like India, are not mentioned. His foundation funds media companies like the BBC, creating a conflict of interest that is not revealed to the audience.
Dr Anthony Fauci — also with a financial interest — standards reasonably accused by past employees of bullying and scientific fraud, but this is not investigated. Dr Deborah Birx stands on stage and says it is policy to count all deaths with COVID-19 positive tests as being from the virus, and yet there’s no media scandal in this inflation of the numbers. Barack Obama funded the Wuhan lab to the tune of millions of dollars, even illegally during a moratorium, but this is not seen by the media as being problematic or newsworthy.
The WHO has infamously changed its tune on issues like human-to-human transmissibility of this virus. What they also did recently was delete a tweet that says infection doesn’t guarantee future immunity, since the virus mutates. This undermines the case for any viable vaccine: you rely on the past antibodies being the same ones for the future pathogen. That is already the problem for influenza, whose vaccine seems to have both efficacy and safety issues. A similar Swine Flu mass vaccination plan in the 1970s caused a disaster (but there was no need for anyone in the media to remind you of that).
The public are being scared into wearing face masks everywhere — ironically the traditional covering of slaves— by this media fear-mongering. Yet there is scant evidence of their effectiveness in containing the spread of any viral illness in public spaces, especially outdoors, and the US Surgeon General has specifically said they are neither necessary nor effective. So why are the public not told by the media their effort is likely wasted, and to keep PPE for professionals in closed spaces where it’s really needed?
It does all begin to make you wonder if there might just possibly be another agenda in play. Are “ventilators, veils, and vaccines” the best on offer? Maybe not!
It’s no secret that there are multiple potential treatments and cures for COVID-19. Plausible ones I have noted in my online research include:
- Hydroxychloriquine (HCQ), Azithromycin, and Zinc in combination (for early stage)
- Ivermectin (for late stage)
- Chlorine dioxide
- Ethanol vapour inhalation
- UV light (from within the body as well as outside)
- Nicotine
- Stem cell therapy
- High dose vitamin C
- Vitamin D
- Famotidine
No doubt there are more. What we are concerned with here is whether the media is giving the public an accurate picture of the prospect of a workable and affordable cure. COVID-19 is a novel condition, so any hope for vaccine leaves you facing both uncertainty if an effective one exists, and a possibly long wait to discover if it is safe. That’s before you consider any other risks like prion contamination.
Let’s take the first candidate, HCQ, as a case study. It is a cheap drug with a longstanding safety record for use in conditions like lupus and arthritis. It was used to treat SARS(another coronavirus) successfully back in 2005. There is a very strong inverse relationship between COVID-19 and areas using HCQ for malaria prophylaxis and treatment. Thousands of COVID-19 patients have been treated and cured by this HCQ combination — but only when it is offered early in the infection cycle. It has been vigorously promoted by many doctors, and has topped surveys of the most promising treatment. Countries like Costa Rica, Australia and Algeria have adopted it as their first option, the last citing it as “almost completely effective”.
How does the US corporate media cover this promising news? It waits until there is one trial that says otherwise! The Veterans Administration trial used a retrospective method to pick a small sample of people with co-morbidities (so they could all be about to die of cancer, for example), and gave them HCQ alone (so not in the proper combination), and not at the right time — among many other methodological failures. It has been described as a near perfect example of trial rigging .
This single example was then simultaneously blasted across dozens of outlets (no hidden coordination, of course!), declaring HCQ a failure. For example, take a look at this Reason (!) article, and search for “zinc”. Can’t find it? That’s because the whole article’s purpose is to distract you from the fact that you need the zinc ionophore to make the HCQ effective. It is a form of lying by omission, and deeply unethical.
Furthermore, extra media articles suddenly appeared trying to cast doubt on the safety of HCQ, despite it having decades of safe use with well known and modest risks (like nausea and heath rhythm changes). Given than treatment with ventilators has an 80%+ death rate for COVID-19, the safety bar we are looking to cross here is pretty low!
The collective effect of these media articles meant that search engines were flooded with negative content regarding HCQ, meaning the causal inquirer is likely to form a wrong opinion. Yet HCQ seems to be an unsung wonder-drug with decades of languishing research into how it can treat diabetes, asthma, cardiomyopathy, lymphoma, cancer, psoriasis, and even Lyme disease. The truth is hidden in plain sight, it’s just that its spread has been wildly counter-profitable.
President Trump mentioned that light therapy might be a promising COVID-19 treatment. There is a listed company that has exactly this technology — Aytu BioScience — and a trial at Cedars-Sinai hospital. The media reaction? Their explanatory video was immediately deleted by YouTube, and corporate Twitter account suspended. Yet Twitter still has plenty of child pornography left up in public… so their priorities seem rather twisted.
Likewise President Trump mentioned “disinfectant”, which is an allusion to chlorine dioxide. This has been notably promoted to the online public by Jordan Sather, whose every mention of it gets forcibly deleted by Twitter. He now has entire New York Times and Business Insider articles dedicated to discrediting him and this treatment as “bleach”. Methinks they do protest too much!
Yet putting oxygen directly into blood that lacks it, as well as a chlorine disinfectant to clean up an infection, is not beyond the limits of plausibility — and has clinical trials and patents to prove it. Including a bonus patent as a cancer cure. The failure to disclose this information discredits these media institutions as commentators on this subject.
In the case of these last two (light and disinfectant) I listened to a BBC Radio 4 broadcast where the news journalist said he had investigated whether any therapies existed behind the President’s words. He said there were none! This would leave the reasonable listener with a false impression that the President was clueless, when in reality he is subtly pointing to the work the media hasn’t brought into your attention. I don’t know if these treatments work for COVID-19, but they do objectively exist.
Vitamin D deficiency seems to be a strong predisposition to COVID-19. Vitamin D has also undergone clinical trials with positive results. High dosage vitamin C is often described as a miracle cure that has been neglected for decades by the medical establishment despite copious evidence of safely and efficacy. (It turns into hydrogen peroxide at high doses — that “disinfectant” theme recurring!) It has been brought into the standard protocols for COVID-19 by many doctors worldwide. Nutritional boosting of the public’s immune systems is notable by its absence from the media’s advice columns.
Antibody tests that were “dangerous” and “unreliable” when testing was not in vogue become important when testing is suddenly the barrier to ending lockdown. Why does the story keep changing and what are lockdown goalposts always moving?
Doctors from Bakersfield, CA who went on record to say they felt the data didn’t support the lockdown immediately got their content deleted from YouTube. Why isn’t this censorship of lockdown debate a media scandal?
The WHO’s credibility is open to question, yet YouTube insists they are the sole global authority and any dissent from their official line will have your content censored. WhatsApp wants to partner with them to prevent the spread of misinformation. Why is an unaccountable body being given power to stifle discussion and dissent?
Where are the investigations into why the numbers dying from flu have dried up? Why is the CDC even stopping publishing flu data? Why are deaths from causes unrelated to COVID-19 seemingly dropping? Are people being given the right cause of death? What are the effects of a $40k (and up) financial incentive to ventilate someone (to death)? Why is hospitalisation data being deleted? Why are there 6x the cases and 12x the deaths in comparable Democrat cities versus Republican ones? Why are the NIH and CDC changing their tune on HCQ safety? Why does the WHO say there are no COVID-19 therapies when there visibly are? Why is the CDC sending out test kits that are themselves infected?
So many questions, and yet so few media answers. You don’t need to be a “conspiracy theorist” to think that your interest might not be high up the media’s list of priorities!
In particular, the media isn’t answering the call for cheap and effective COVID-19 cures — because there’s no money in them. Follow the money to understand why the mass media is in lockstep with Big Pharma — which in the US is its biggest source of income. The US corporate media will never bite the hand the feeds them. The corruption runs deeper, but money alone is enough to explain everything at this level.
If it becomes widely known that there are cheap therapies for many common conditions (including cancer), and that these have been (violently) suppressed by a medical-media mafia to maintain profits, then the public will be in open revolt. The power of these institutions and industries will be destroyed by the revelation of long hidden cures.
Furthermore, lockdown policy is only sellable to the public if there is no plausible COVID-19 cure. The credibility of the entire health governance and national government system is at stake with COVID-19. That’s why every cure has to be put into the media’s socially engineered “memory hole” to preserve the power of the legacy structural elite.
We are experiencing a lockdown of the free flow of knowledge, as well as of people. As a result, the public is unable to resist tyrannical policies imposed under the cover of public safety. COVID-19 is George Orwell’s “1984” — playing out in reality.
Time to end this Medical Mafia Media Party.
Read It Now
