Ivermectin works but not as much money! Follow the money.
Do the words we speak mean anything? The words we speak on any subject mean something or they do NOT. Simply, who decides what words we speak mean something or not? Does the media decide whether the words we speak are to be taken literally or not? Well, the CHO of New South Wales opened a can of worms when she said the words “New World Order”. The journalist who wrote the following says it was an “innocent slip of the tongue”! Now, if that was a slip of the tongue what other words has SHE uttered THAT are simply slip of the tongue?! I personally believe it is a whole NEW WORLD ORDER brought about by this China Virus!!!
‘Dr Kerry Chant said around 2500 words at Thursday’s New South Wales Covid-19 press conference. But it took just three of them for her to go global.
An innocent slip of the tongue from the state’s chief health officer has sent some corners of the internet into a spin, led to furious commentary by fringe commentators and pricked up the ears of conspiracy theorists everywhere.
It’s also led to articles appearing in newspapers around the world.
Those three short words were: “new world order”.
Dr Chant’s said them during Thursday’s mammoth press conference when Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced the state’s pathway to exiting some lockdown restrictions.’https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/three-words-that-sent-dr-kerry-chant-global/news-story/726cb8758017c0ee8411a42cb2cbbf1a
The Australian Greens Party is a far left Marxist party as most if not all Green Parties are. The sad part of all this is that most of the major Australian political parties are going along with many of the Greens’ issues. The non-use of Ivermectin is just one of those issues!
‘The fight for press freedom continues with Sky News Australia subjected to hours of questioning regarding its editorial choices.
Sky News Australia Chief Executive Paul Whittaker opened the Senate Inquiry into Media Diversity by rubbishing accusations that the network deliberately peddled Covid conspiracy theories. Whittaker called the assertion, ‘frankly ridiculous!’
The inquiry was put together by a Greens MP from the far-left minor party that routinely criticises Sky New Australia’s centre-right position. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young chaired the inquiry accompanied by Labor Senator Kim Carr.
Senator Hanson-Young’s topic of the day was ‘Covid-Lies’, an idea that she repeatedly used interchangeably with unresolved political subjects that remain the topic of global debate.
The inquiry unfolded in a politicised atmosphere set up by Sarah Hanson-Young, whose personal website features a ‘take action’ talking point devoted to attacking Murdoch media.
‘In an embarrassing move, Senator Hanson-Young blocked Rebel News journalists Alexandra Marshall and Avi Yemini from covering the inquiry online – apparently violating her devotion to media diversity.
Senator Hanson-Young’s specific complaint about Sky News Australia revolved around it being ‘allowed’ to discuss Ivermectin on-air as a potential treatment for Covid.
After failing to correctly pronounce Ivermectin repeatedly throughout her questions, the Senator eventually resorted to calling it ‘horse wormer’.
“Do you accept that Sky News has created and published content that is either directly or indirectly promoted disinformation about Covid and Covid-Lies in relation to restrictions, health measures, cures?” asked Hanson-Young.
Sky News Australia replied to the entire day’s questioning with an official statement.
“We operate within the same legal framework as all media and are subject to both the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice and the Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice.
“There is no evidence that Sky News breaches existing regulations or that the current regulatory framework is failing, or that further regulatory intervention is required.
“Indeed, it should be noted we have not been found in breach of the Codes of Practice for more than ten years.”
As a major news network, Sky News Australia maintains that it involves a wide range of discussion involving scientists, epidemiologists, GPs, pharmacists, researchers, chief health officers, politicians, doctors, and bureaucrats.
“But it now appears commonplace to discredit any debate on contentious issues as ‘misinformation’.
“So, the question becomes, why does a tech giant, YouTube, and faceless, nameless individuals backed by an algorithm, based in California, get to decide that holding governments and decision makers to account is ‘misinformation’? Why do they get to decide what is and isn’t allowed to be news?” added the official statement.
Despite insisting that Sky News Australia must only publish Covid information approved by the prime minister, state premiers, and the World Health Organisation – Senator Hanson-Young’s comments about Ivermectin proved inaccurate against the facts.
Ivermectin was discovered in 1975 and won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015. Its discovery led to the creation of an entirely new class of drugs for human use treating diseases and parasites. The potential for Ivermectin to assist with treating Covid was discovered because hundreds of millions of people around the world were using it safely under full FDA approval.
Its entry into the Covid conversation was heavily politicised by the American election. Ivermectin remains the subject of peer-reviewed studies, ongoing trials, and experimental use around the world – none of which involve horse paste.
Australia’s own Monash University in alliance with the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity proved that Ivermectin could kill Covid within 48 hours under laboratory conditions.
Globally speaking, the discussion on Ivermectin is far from over, with its off-label use against Covid widespread in Africa and South America. Public health experts, medical scientists, and South African health practitioners have banded together in a campaign to achieve formal approval for its use. There are similar stories in the Philippines and Latin America.
The World Health Organisation officially added Ivermectin to accepted clinical trials in March of 2021.
Senator Young’s main reasoning for wanting all discussion of Ivermectin banned was because it conflicted with official advice from the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It is difficult to find an example of this method being used to censor discussion on a media broadcaster.
Hospital admissions and injures associated with Ivermectin come from people consuming non-human approved animal treatments not the Ivermectin discussed in the studies. One could argue that governments banning the distribution of Ivermectin are the real cause behind these accidents.
Considering the ‘Ivermectin topic’ is central to both YouTube’s strikes and the Senator’s desire for stricter government regulation over the content of media broadcasters, it’s essential that this narrative is examined.
Ivermectin was not the only glaring inaccuracy brandished by those accusing Sky News Australia of misleading the public.
Labor Senator Kim Carr questioned Whittaker over a petition asking for a Royal Commission into media diversity.
This turned out to be ex-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s e-petition of ‘over half a million signatures’. The petition was earlier revealed to be riddled with computer-generated signatures and fake names, accounting to Sky News host Sharri Markson’s earlier investigation.
“Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has used this petition to launch a media inquiry into two ASX-listed companies; News Corp Australia and Nine Entertainment, to have a whole Senate inquiry into the media industry, so this petition is being used as the basis for policy formation,” explained Sharri Markson.
The fake names on Rudd’s petition included ‘this sucks’, ‘Nacho cheese’, and ‘Jesus Christ’ which were generated by off-shore bot accounts.
The inaccuracy of the petition and its subsequent failure to trigger a Royal Commission was not mentioned at the inquiry.
The Inquiry into Media Diversity played out like a witch trial against Sky News Australia specifically.
Several Sky News Australia hosts declined to partake.
“There’s only one reason why I didn’t appear at today’s Senate hearing. I will not be party to a witch hunt, nor waste my time in the services of satisfying the paranoid fantasies of a failed former PM. The Senate Committee on Media Diversity came about as a result of a petition organised by former PM Kevin Rudd,” said Rita Panahi on Alan Jones.
Anti-Murdoch voices have waged campaigns to cancel the network for many years – including the use of anonymous online trolls to harass advertisers.
The situation did not become serious until YouTube issued a strike against the digital arm of the media empire in July of 2021.
YouTube is a commercial earner for Sky News Australia with almost two million subscribers. Three strikes in 90 days results in an immediate and permanent suspension of the account, regardless of size.
Sky News Australia was forced to remove twenty-three videos that allegedly violated YouTube’s policy on Covid misinformation. The videos included content up to a year old.
“Specifically, we don’t allow content that denies the existence of COVID-19 or that encourages people to use Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus. We do allow for videos that have sufficient countervailing context, which the violative videos did not provide,” said a statement from YouTube.
The majority of the content in question fell under the banner of ‘opinion’ rather than news, but YouTube did not provide any further clarity for their strike.
To be clear, YouTube’s policies are not a statement of absolute fact, but a compliance order to keep the material on their platform consistent with the health guidance from various authorities – even if this information is contested or later shown to be false. Strikes are not removed if health information changes.
Sky News Australia Chief Executive Paul Whittaker pointed this inconsistency out to the inquiry. Whittaker also strongly rejected the claim that Sky News Australia promoted an anti-vaccination narrative.
“Sky News Australia strongly supports vaccination. Any claims to the contrary are false and a blatant attempt to discredit and harm our news service,” said Whittaker.
When Lucinda Longcroft, Director of Public Policy, Google Australia and New Zealand was asked to provide examples of left-wing content removed by YouTube, she took the question on notice.
“Our Covid-19 misinformation policies are applied equally to all YouTube content and channel owners,” said Longcroft, but did not offer any data to prove the point.
It is a widely held opinion that YouTube applies its community standards unequally to users, with many conservative accounts taken down while fringe accounts – such as domestic terror group Antifa – remain up.
“YouTube’s actions make clear that it is not a neutral platform, but a publisher selectively broadcasting content and censoring certain views, while allowing videos that are patently false, misogynistic, and racist to proliferate. […] With no transparency provided, Sky News took the proactive approach of removing a batch of videos, all published during 2020, from online platforms to ensure ongoing compliance with YouTube’s arbitrary editorial guidelines,” Mr Whittaker added.
Social Media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have become significant tools for political parties during election campaigns. As such, there is growing concern of foreign interference in Australian politics by these entities, especially when they brazenly remove elected members of parliament like Craig Kelly.
Platforms exist in a special legal limbo, where they are immune from prosecution regarding the third-party content they host on the proviso they refrain from engaging in publishing privileges. Under American Law, they are distinct from publishers and yet in the last few years they have made headlines for selective political censorship.
Whittaker insisted that the videos taken down by YouTube had no public complaints – which begs the question why they were flagged in the first place. He wrote to Google’s CEO in the hope of clarification, but received nothing in return, not even an acknowledgement of the query.
Australia’s media landscape has taken a bizarre path to this inquiry.
Chief among those leading the anti-Murdoch charge are full-time campaigner ex-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and occasional contributor ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. While the men come from opposing sides of politics, they share a history of unkind headlines enjoyed by readers at their expense.
The inquiry soon expanded to criticism regarding Sky News Australia allowing alternative discussion on Climate Change before accusing some of its hosts of racism.
This was swiftly followed by Hanson-Young asking Whittaker how many of his staff were female before elaborating that they were ‘rather young’. Her point was to suggest a power imbalance between young female producers and the more experienced network hosts.
Implying that young women are not capable of doing their jobs because of their age and gender is considered a sexist remark by most people. Whittaker was similarly bewildered by Hanson-Young’s line of questioning, pointing out that there is plenty of support for producers to do their jobs.
Inquiries are normally launched from an impartial basis so that the search for truth can be conducted without prejudice.
‘Craig Kelly is a member of the Australian government, one of only a couple standing up against tyranny, the prototype for the New World Order that has gripped the continent down under.
Kelly joins Stew Peters for a realistic look at what the rest of the world will see if we don’t rise and fight back now!’
It seems since the Wuhan virus has come upon us we have looked to our elected officials who are being run by the bureaucrats! One of these over paid people is Dr. Anthony Fauci who definitely ‘…has had himself a year (or two).
As 2020 began, he was a senior federal bureaucrat best-known for helping defang the AIDS crisis. A week before, he had turned 79, well past the standard retirement age for government employees – though he controlled a multi-billion research budget and no one was publicly suggesting he step down.
The novel coronavirus changed everything for him.
Within months, practically every American knew his name. People worldwide viewed him as their best hope to defeat Covid. As President Trump fumbled, Fauci’s authority grew.
“How Anthony Fauci Became America’s Doctor,” the New Yorker wrote in April 2020. The nickname stuck.
Once Joe Biden replaced Donald Trump, the title essentially became official. Fauci is now “Chief Medical Advisor to the President” in addition to his day job as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
He is probably the world’s best-known scientist.
He earned that title the hard way, by giving too many interviews to count. As the Washington Post explained in a glowing July 2020 profile:
At first, as soon as Fauci was anywhere, he was everywhere. The New York Times dubbed him the explainer-in-chief for all things coronavirus, and he did his explaining to Laura Ingraham and Chris Cuomo, in the largest papers and the littlest websites, on the early morning rundowns and the noontime Sunday shows. He showed up to chat with Trevor Noah and Stephen Curry.
The schedule would have been grueling for a person half Fauci’s age – especially since he had to find time between those interviews to, you know, actually track the science around Sars-Cov-2 and vaccine and drug development.
But he managed!
“With all due modesty, I think I’m pretty effective,” Fauci told InStyle. “I certainly am energetic. And I think everybody thinks I’m doing more than an outstanding job.”
With all due modesty… everybody thinks I’m doing more than outstanding job.
As the United States faces the biggest decisions yet of the epidemic – whether to force mRNA vaccines on unwilling Americans, whether to encourage booster shots for the already vaccinated – the way Fauci views himself and his critics deserves a look.
To be clear, I’m not writing today about the substance of the choices we and Fauci face.
Nor will I examine the evidence that weeks after Sars-Cov-2 emerged, Fauci appeared worried the virus had leaked from a lab in Wuhan performing the “gain-of-function” research he championed. Those are crucial topics worthy of a deep dive. For now I simply want to look at Fauci’s attitude.
Fauci has always been a skilled courtier. He said as much in a 2014 interview with the Journal of Clinical Investigation:
I think one of the best things I did was realize this is the terrain, so get used to it and get good at it. And I learned some fundamental principles. One of the first things is to understand the relationships between people in power: the Congressmen and -women, the Senators, the chairs of committees, and importantly, the Presidents of the United States. I never in my wildest dreams would have thought that I would become adviser to five separate Presidents.
Sometimes, that means making sure powerful people know how much you care about and respect them – and even love them!
But Fauci made sure that those powerful people – and everyone else – understood he was a scientist first. Sometimes he would even offer a visual aid, as the Post’s 2020 profile explained:
“Shalala [Donna Shalala, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Health and Human Services] often sent Fauci to the Oval Office when Clinton’s aides told her she had an hour with the commander in chief to do with what she wished. When Shalala asked Fauci to speak to the country, she had a special request: ‘Put on your white coat … because people trust the doc.’”
Who was Tony Fauci to argue?
Along the way, though, Fauci developed a healthy self-regard. Maybe he always had it. When President George H.W. Bush asked him to run the entire National Institutes of Health in 1989, Fauci said no. “This is not the time for the general to leave the battlefield to go back to the Pentagon,” he told Science magazine.
Woe to anyone who disagreed with him, though.
In August 2020, President Trump named Dr. Scott Atlas as a special adviser on coronavirus. Like Fauci, Atlas is a physician, although he comes from outside the public health establishment. Unlike Fauci, Atlas did not support lockdowns.
Within weeks, Fauci attacked Atlas, telling CNN that Atlas was giving Trump information that was “either taken out of context or actually incorrect.” But Fauci hoped he and Atlas could find common scientific ground, he said:
If I have an issue with someone, I’ll try and sit down with them and let them know why I differ with them and see if we can come to some sort of resolution. I mean my differences with Dr. Atlas, I’m always willing to sit down and talk with him.
Which made an interview Fauci gave to Politico in January 2021, after Biden took over, particularly interesting. Asked about Atlas, Fauci responded, “He didn’t undermine me, because I didn’t give a sh.. about him. I didn’t really care what he said.”
I didn’t give a sh.. about him.
So much for a sitting down and talking. Or a reasoned conversation about the pros and cons of lockdowns. With the public health establishment and the media on his side, Fauci was untouchable, and he knew it.
Occasionally, if Fauci were challenged hard, his mask would slip even in public. Kentucky senator Rand Paul found this out when he pushed Fauci on whether the NIH had funded “gain-of-function” research in China – research designed to make viruses more dangerous.
“Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly,” Fauci answered.
Quite frankly became a Fauci catchphrase of sorts.
Asked in October 2020 about the possibility of reaching widespread immunity against the coronavirus without waiting for a vaccine, he answered, “Quite frankly that is nonsense, and anybody who knows anything about epidemiology will tell you that that is nonsense and very dangerous.”
Anybody who knows anything about epidemiology apparently did not include the epidemiologists who had suggested the possibility.
But Fauci’s most stunning comment came two months ago, in an interview with MSNBC.
“Quite frankly, the attacks on me are attacks on science,” he said. “If you are trying to, you know, get at me as a public health official and a scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re attacking science…”
This level of arrogance would seem almost absurd if the stakes were not so high.
But they are.
The United States desperately needs a full and independent investigation into what Fauci and other officials knew about the risks of gain of function research and whether they worked to steer scientists and reporters away from examining the origins of the virus in 2020. Such an inquiry may turn out to be embarrassing for Fauci, but it should have happened already.
Even more importantly, data from Israel and increasingly the United States show that the mRNA vaccines Fauci championed are far less effective than they seemed months ago.
A rational response to their plunging effectiveness would be – at the least – to stop encouraging their use while scientists investigate why they have stopped working so quickly. Instead Fauci is pressing Americans to take a third mRNA dose in the hope it will work better and longer than the original two.
But no clinical trial data shows a third dose will reduce infections, much less hospitalizations or deaths. And a research preprint released Monday (Aug. 23) in Japan suggests the Delta variant could evolve in a way that could produce vaccine antibody-dependent enhancement, a nightmare scenario.
Figuring out whether this risk is real – and what to do if it is – will require open debate that may include uncomfortable moments for the public health advocates who have pressed these vaccines.
Instead, Tony Fauci has taken the position that questioning him is attacking science.
Unless he changes – or is forced to change – his attitude – we may have a hard time finding the answers we need.’https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/quite-frankly
Dr. Vernon Coleman says ‘…the UK Government now wants children to have an experimental jab that offers them very little but may kill them.’ https://brandnewtube.com/watch/they-killed-granny-now-they-039-re-going-to-kill-the-kids_ZFzqRTNLGgYfjXG.html
‘International best-selling author and retired medical doctor, Dr Vernon Coleman, explains why mask wearers are more likely to develop cancer.’https://brandnewtube.com/watch/masks-cause-cancer-here-is-the-proof_dpPTzdEdNxVpn4z.html
‘I have a bigger Stack planned on the Pfizer trial results.
But Israel has gone back to being more transparent, and the new data are now too bad not to highlight.
A reminder – Israel and the United Kingdom were the two major countries that vaccinated earliest and most aggressively. And they are much better at providing data than the United States – they provide updates every day, which limits their opportunities to manipulate it.
Israel is now segmenting the number of serious cases by vaccinated and unvaccinated and by age on its primary data dashboard, available here:
You can use Google translate and check it for yourself. It’s actually pretty straightforward.
So here’s the chart of new serious cases each day:
As you can see, new serious cases have risen 10-fold since the beginning of July – from roughly five a day to about 40 over the last week. The overall number of patients has soared too – from 30 to more than 200.
But how many of those people are vaccinated?
The vast majority. Israel has broken out the data in various ways at various times, but throughout July most new patients were not vaccinated.
In an effort to play down that reality, Israel has begun to provide data comparing RATES of serious illness in older people who were not vaccinated and those who were. And those show that as of now, unvaccinated people are still becoming seriously ill significantly more frequently than those who aren’t.
But that comparison hides a very big problem.
Israel did an excellent job convincing people over 60 to be vaccinated. Only about 1 person in 15 in that age range didn’t receive at least one dose. Fewer than 1 in 10 is not fully vaccinated.
Why should you care? Because the tiny fraction of older people who are unvaccinated in Israel at this point are almost certainly materially different than the vast majority who are. As far as I know, the Israel government hasn’t broken out the differences. But given the pressure to vaccinate, a significant number of those older unvaccinated people are likely simply too sick to tolerate the vaccine – especially those over 80, where overall vaccination rates are even higher.
But if they are too sick to tolerate the vaccine, they are obviously at much higher risk from Covid than the vaccinate. In other words, ability (and propensity) to be vaccinated is likely a marker for overall health. Researchers know this is true of the influenza vaccine – once they adjust for the fact that older people who get the vaccine are healthier to start than than those who don’t, the advantage the vaccine seems to offer mostly disappears.
So the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated isn’t useful.
What is useful is examining the trend among serious illness in older vaccinated people.
And it is terrible. The rate of cases has risen 12-fold IN A MONTH. On July 4th, fewer than 1 older vaccinated person in 100,000 became seriously ill. Today the rate is 10 in 100,000.
Remember – comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated at this point hardly matters. THE DARK GREEN LINE IS THE ONE THAT COUNTS:
And though we cannot be sure what will happen next, it is worth noting that rates of serious illness among the vaccinated are now as high as they were among the unvaccinated only TWO WEEKS AGO. Perhaps that’s why the Israeli government is now predicting a further quadrupling of new serious cases by the end of August:
A quadrupling would represent 800 serious cases, approaching the peak of the winter surge (which was itself probably FUELED by a spike in cases following the first vaccine dose) – and far more than at this time last year.
And remember, Israel CANNOT BLAME THE UNVACCINATED FOR THIS SPIKE – around 85 percent of adults over 30 are fully vaccinated. That’s well above the range experts said would provide herd immunity.
And yet instead of pulling back and at least considering a pause on vaccinations as it digests the disaster of the last month, Israel is going the other way – pushing a third dose on the elderly. Meanwhile the cry to mandate or quasi-mandate vaccinations in the United States is only getting louder.
What on earth is going on?’https://alexberenson.substack.com/
Believe it or not ‘The city of Montclair in Southern California has decided to “brand” its city employees like cattle based on their Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccination” status.
According to reports, controversy arose after officials ruled that “fully vaccinated” city employees still need to wear a special “sticker” on their person showing that they got injected, should they “opt out” of wearing a face mask while at the office.
Beginning next week, City Manager Edward Starr is planning to enforce the new rule, which he says is designed to ensure that Montclair is in full compliance with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s edicts concerning a “safe” return to the workplace.
Newsom is demanding that all public employees submit evidence or sign a pledge indicating that they received a Trump Vaccine if they want to stop covering their breathing holes with cloth or Chinese plastic. Montclair is taking things a step further by marking the vaccinated who choose to show their faces at work.
Starr says the “yellow star” concept is necessary “to demonstrate they have been fully vaccinated,” just like how political prisoners of the past were forced to wear arm bands so they could be easily identified by authorities.’https://pandemic.news/2021-08-02-branded-cattle-vaccinated-sticker-no-mask.html