- MemberOctober 29, 2021 at 9:00 pm
The meanness of the “vaccinations are the only approved medicine for Covid-19” syndrome.
And that damned Remdesivir.
But Xylear, a civilian entry into the antiviral battle, has found that freedom to sell its product for prevention purposes has been threatened as though the Constitution itself has divorced the Bill of Rights and now you have crimes against humanity being FDA approved (if the FDA is ignorant of the efficacy of your product, FDA says there is no evidence that the product can “diagnose, prevent, treat, mitigate or cure” COVID-19…
It is the FDA’s non-compassionate rigidity to a policy forbidding “claims” that breaches the contract of Constitutional protection of the People. Civil disovedience to FDA is necessary IF the agency refuses to do its part and partake in internal reform. It needs to do an Emergency Use Authorization on itself in the following form: NOT enforcing the policy of prosecuting civilian companies for “unproven” medical claims that the FDA IS TOO SLOW to check out, in the current emergency of a virus changing into variants. Vaccination campaigns ARE NOT sufficient…and civilian decision-making about what to do and what not to do about prophylaxis…is taking over now. Step aside.
The VIRUS is not waiting for approval, or for evidence that the FDA knows about. The FDA’s effectiveness as a viable Food and Drug regulator is waning faster than COVID-19 victims are losing their health freedoms to buy prophylaxis products. FDA is not Constitionally mandated to be purposed by law to prevent people from buying a product that helps them endure COVID. There are fast learners and there are slow learners. The civilian companies are each a corporate person with 1st Amendment freedom of speech. Just because FDA does not keep up with real effectiveness of a company’s product, does not give it teeth to bite, devour and kill a “person” (the corporate “person” called Xlear).
Should other corporate persons (eg., Google) be punished for taking deliberate actions to violate the free speech of physicians, manufacturing companies and COVID-19 patients? How about infringing on other “corporate persons’ rights to be protected by the U.S. Constitution to engage in trade and to expect due process of law in the authorities that are delegated to protect those rights? Google has free speech, not enforcement duties to prevent others’ free speech. Claiming a fact is free speech, and that is not a right dependent on FDA’s speedy approval. The government has no standing in this Constitutional matter to claim harm from Xlear to itself or to the citizens of the USA. The FDA is engaging in a default speculation of negative proof. FDA is saying that there is no evidence when there is evidence. Xlear would stop selling its product because of zero efficacy but there is no guilt proven by FDA, mostly because FDA is slow to determine that people need prophylactics…NOW!
Xlear should not be punished either, then, but encouraged to continue in the efforts to provide a prophylaxis product.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) – Advertisements by the US nasal decongestant maker Xlear that its nose spray protects users from COVID-19 for up to four hours resulted in a request that the Justice Department penalize the firm and ban unsupported health claims in the future, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said.
- MemberDecember 11, 2021 at 5:32 pm
In defense of Dr. Tess Lawrie.
Excerpt: The crackpots were right: COVID is a racket
Exclusive: Jack Cashill quotes from RFK Jr. book exposing fraudulent demonization of ivermectin
By Jack Cashill
Published December 8, 2021 at 7:32pm
Although I will put my COVID-skeptic credentials up against anyone’s – I tried to organize a public protest on day one of the lockdown – I confess to having seen Big Health’s actions as merely misguided. I was wrong.
The “crackpots” were right. The Big Health involvement did not progress along the Eric Hoffer spectrum from a good cause to a movement with benefits to a racket. It started as a racket, a massive racket that may go down as a Mao-worthy crime against humanity.
As the princeling of America’s reigning Democratic dynasty, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has his blind spots, but his dissection of Big Health’s war, not on COVID, but on those who are actually warring with COVID, is this century’s must-read book.
Rather than summarize Kennedy’s “The Real Anthony Fauci,” allow me to excerpt one particular conversation that speaks to the enormity of the debacle. The conversation, recorded on Zoom, involves two scientists. One is Dr. Tess Lawrie, a world-renowned data researcher from the U.K. with an international reputation for integrity. The other is World Health Organization researcher Dr. Andrew Hill, a senior visiting research fellow at Liverpool University.
Lawrie and 20 of the world’s leading experts had recently performed a meta-analysis of the research done on ivermectin (IVM), and the data overwhelmingly supported its value in treating COVID-19.
Like Lawrie, Hill had been a major IVM proponent before making a very suspicious about-face. As a WHO gatekeeper and adviser to both Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation, Hill’s opinion mattered. His hasty counter-thesis blocked a worldwide ivermectin rollout.
“How can you do this?” Lawrie asks him. “You are causing irreparable harm.”
Hill explained that he was in a “tricky position” because his sponsors were pressuring him, the most important of which was Unitaid. Chairing the executive committee of Unitaid, an international quasi-governmental consortium, was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation representative. Apparently, a $150 million donation buys the best seat at the table.
Lawrie was unmoved by the “sensitivity” of Hill’s position. “Lots of people are in sensitive positions,” Lawrie challenges Hill. “They’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.”
[To read the rest of the article click on the link]