A Tale Of Two Treatments for COVID-19

By pushing the one-size-fits-all strategy of mass vaccination, our public health officials clearly chose the wrong path. Why are so few doctors saying so?

As the evidence of vaccine failure gets more and more difficult for anyone other than the most devout Covid cultists to ignore, this would be a good time to re-evaluate why our “public health” officials blocked early treatment and tried to discredit doctors who were using their own clinical judgment to save lives.

In his recent interview with Joe Rogan, Dr. Peter McCullough suggested that the vast majority of people who died of COVID-19 in the U.S. did not receive adequate and/or early-enough treatment. McCullough estimates that 85% of Covid deaths were preventable. Given that stunning number, why wasn’t early treatment immediately embraced and used? In McCullough’s words:

“It seems to me, early on, there was an intentional, very comprehensive suppression of early treatment in order to promote fear, suffering, isolation, hospitalization and death. And it seemed to be completely organized and intentional in order to create acceptance for and then promote mass ‘vaccination.'”

This was something that was very evident to many of us from day one.

The tip off was when Bill Gates came out very early on and declared we would never “get to” go back to normal until we vaccinated the entire population of the globe. That was in the spring of 2020, before he even know how deadly the virus was, if there were existing therapeutics that might work, or whether or not the vaccines would be safe and effective. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the crony capitalist pharmaceutical companies, and an assortment of global predators like Gates, clearly had a “vaccines or bust” agenda from the beginning.

The trouble is, their lockdown policies devastated the world and their promised cure is an epic failure (albeit a very profitable one). Despite all their assurances that the vaccines would end the pandemic by blocking infection and transmission, they have done no such thing. In fact, they seem to be making things worse by suppressing the immune system and creating mutations that escape the vaccines.

In the U. S. we are ending 2021 with 36% more cases and about the same number of deaths than in the pre-vaccine era of 2020:

Clearly, relying solely on mass vaccination using an unproven technology was the wrong strategy. The suppression of early treatment will go down in history as one of the greatest crimes against humanity.

Even if we look at it using a simple medical cost-benefit analysis, putting all our eggs in the vaccine basket made no sense. Despite repeated assurances about “stopping the spread” from Fauci and the manufacturers, sterilizing immunity was not even an endpoint of the phase one clinical trials (they were only looking at “symptom reduction.”)

Given that they don’t stop infection or transmission, we can look at it this way: the mRNA injections are not only experimental and authorized for emergency use only, they aren't really vaccines because they don't provide sterilizing immunity.

They are really a gene-based treatment that "might" mitigate symptoms for certain individuals. However, they carry both short and long-term risks. Not the least of which is immune suppression, the potential for disease enhancement, and death from a variety of inflammatory events. A recent autopsy study by pathologist Arne Burkhart and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, showed that 93% of people who died after being vaccinated were killed by the vaccine.

Are there any other treatments available that might mitigate symptoms without the downsides?

Yes, and Doctors such as Peter McCullough, Pierre Kory, Brian Tyson, Vladimir Zelenko, and many others, estimate that if they had been widely used, the vast majority of people who died from Covid-19 could have been saved. The suppression of early treatment is a scandal of historic proportion and an unprecedented level of medical malfeasance.

Medical mandates are always immoral. In this case, since the Covid-19 injections don’t prevent infection or transmission, there is absolutely no rationale to argue they should be mandated for “public health” or “workplace safety” reasons. In fact, the data shows that the vaccinated are spreading the virus at the same or higher levels than those who have not had the shots.

Unlike the vaccines, these doctors say their multi-drug protocols are both safe and effective when used early. In fact, they have been used successfully all over the world. For example, ivermectin essentially wiped out Covid in India’s Uttar Pradesh and helped greatly in Japan.

Equally impressive, a recent study in the the Lancet in October of this year, found fluvoxamine reduced COVID-19 mortality rates by up to 91 percent and hospitalizations by two-thirds. This is an FDA approved drug.

So why aren’t they being used? Could it be that, also unlike the vaccines, these repurposed drugs are not very profitable for big pharmaceutical companies? Could it also be that they can’t be used for schemes like “vaccine passports?”

As Dr. Pierry Kory, a pioneer in early Covid treatment, put it recently: “Over the last two years, our political and public health authorities have talked often of trusting science to guide an effective response to this terrible virus, but their actions have more often been dictated by tribalism and greed.”

The other benefit of early treatment is the most important one of all — it does not violate the U. S. Constitution. It does not involve coercion, mandates, or make a mockery of informed consent and the Hippocratic oath. It also does not lend itself to the imposition of totalitarian “vaccine passports” and digital ID’s. But it does lead to natural immunity, which is the only hope of bringing this pandemic to heel.

In addition, the various treatment protocols can be used on a case-by-case basis, privately and confidentially, between patient and doctor. Doctors should be free to tailor medications for each patient based on their individual symptoms.

However, that is not happening because word has gone out from on high that early treatment is verboten. Unfortunately, 90% of doctors in the U. S. work for corporations these days and they are being told not to even talk about early treatment or they will lose their jobs. They have also received warnings from state licensing boards along the same lines. My own doctor confirmed this when I asked him how he treats Covid-19. Off the record, he said he agreed that treatments such as ivermectin, HCQ with Zinc, fluvoxamine, and inhaled steroids were beneficial when used early on, and certainly worth trying — but he made it clear that he could not prescribe them.

Denying patients treatments that can keep them out of the hospital and may save their lives is unethical and immoral. Especially so when you are pushing a risky new treatment that has very temporary benefits, a horrible short-term safety profile, and unknown long-term risks. The relatively small (but growing) group of doctors who have had the courage to speak out and engage in early treatment deserve our thanks and gratitude. The same goes for those taking a stand against vaccine mandates.

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, quoted above, was fired from his position at UC-Irvine for refusing to comply with the irrational and immoral vaccine mandate.

It’s way past time for their millions of colleagues around the world to join doctors like Aaron Kheriaty and make some noise with their employers and state licensing boards. It’s time for all ethical and honest physicians to oppose vaccine mandates and start demanding access to early treatment therapeutics so they can save more patients.

It’s time for them to stand up for what is right.