LOCKDOWNS KILL PEOPLE, NOT VIRUSES

Thanks to Dale Steinreich at LRC. 

"He listens to people both inside government--public health officials--and . . . from the academic science, medical scientists, epidemiologists . . ."

Many of the attacks against Trump's handling of the Coronavirus and lockdown are designed to distract from who has the real authority to turn the lockdowns on and off.  When folks claim that Trump isn't following the evidence or the science or the experts, that's a pretty hard one to defend because none of are reporters auditing White House meetings of C-19 Task Force personnel, like Fauci, Redfield, Atlas, and others.  We don't know specifically who Trump is reading or following.  In the clip below, however, Atlas tells us that Trump listens to experts and gets information from scientific journals.  How you can track his decision-making process beyond that is, well, beyond me.  Atlas points to Trump advocating for reopening, but where is that happening?  Why isn't it statewide or country-wide?  If herd immunity is so great, which I am in agreement with its proponents, why are we still hearing about testing and screening badges which is only the preliminary stages for vaccine passports if one ever wants to fly?  It must be a case that there are too many fingers in the pot of COVID with each one profit-seeking on the backs of a crushed economy.  

Atlas says that "Trump stated presciently that the cure cannot be worse than the problem."  

Okay, so that sounds like Trump was a sound, astute advisor to public policymakers on COVID, but was he really?  I like Atlas.  His voice on the White House COVID Task Force is a breath of fresh air against the vaccine-only narrative that Fauci is nursing.  And yet I hear Atlas parrot the same remarks regarding vaccine.  At the 4:02 mark, Atlas says

This is a national strategy the President articulated.  He says it all the time, and in the meantime, he's doing a lot of great things, like as a patient he's showed recently like Operation Warpspeed with new drug development, facilitating the record timing of a safe and effective vaccine that we anticipate very soon. 

"Stopping COVID-19 at all costs is highly destructive."  Atlas is right on this.  

Dr. Scott Atlas:
These lockdowns are a luxury of the rich. The President understands that people need to work, the working-class need their jobs, children need to go to school, it's harmful to do otherwise. || #IngrahamAngle #Covid19 pic.twitter.com/1VTOUHS2OQ

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) October 7, 2020

He continues, 

46% of the top 6 cancers went undiagnosed during the first 3 months of this lockdown.  And what that means is more than half of breast cancers, by the way.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.  It's not just that hospitals were closed, it was that fear was instilled, sort of a frenzy of fear in the American public and all over the world.  What we see is that of the 650,000 people on chemotherapy, half didn't get their chemo.  We had 2/3 of cancer screenings not get done.  Half of child immunizations weren't getting done.  And the other impacts are even more harmful.  25% of kids in the United States, 18-24, one-fourth had suicidal ideation, meaning that they thought of suicide, during the month of June.  I mean this is so destructive, not just to our children who are being harmed by the school closures but really this lockdown would be what I'd call the luxury of the rich.  This is really a class problem here, where the affluent elites don't understand--the President understands--that people need to work.  The working class needs their jobs.  Children need to go to school.  And it's very harmful to do otherwise.  

Ingraham interrupts him, saying

Working-class people are doing better in the states that did not lockdown or already reopened.  What does Biden mean by "national strategy"?  There's a complete fallacy that President Trump is not following the science.  President Trump follows the science.  He listens to people both inside government--public health officials--and he also gets information from the academic science, medical scientists, epidemiologists, from places like Harvard and Stanford and Oxford, top people in the world, and these people agree very much with his strategy--protect the vulnerable as much as we can, and open up because of the harms of that.  This is a national strategy the President articulated.  He says it all the time, and in the meantime, he's doing a lot of great things, like as a patient he's showed recently like Operation Warpspeed with new drug development, facilitating the record timing of a safe and effective vaccine that we anticipate very soon.  

NIH policy regarding COVID is to wear a mask when you cannot social distance? 

So now I have my doubts about Atlas. 

"Instead of pursuing research on treatment, the pharmaceutical industry has focused solely on vaccination"

What I liked about her presentation is that she explains what a lot of the terms thrown around in the war on COVID mean, explanations that you'll never hear from AIDS, and now COVID, pitchman, Fauci.  She explains where the highest numbers of deaths from COVID are coming from.  She explains why in the sub-Sarahan Desert there were no deaths.  She's terrific.  

I am doubling down on the videos here in this post because there's no guarantee that YouTube won't pull the one below.  The original of this video I found at LRC, by Lew Rockwell, a video that is uploaded on Bitchute.  In searching for some details on Dr. Lee D. Merritt, an orthopedist from Onawa, Iowa, I came across this article where the video below was posted.  

From the article, she writes

For decades, physicians have been taught—and have told patients—that antimicrobials do not help viral diseases. But when studying the response of COVID-19 to the antimicrobial agents chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Lee Merritt, M.D., writes, in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: “Like Rip Van Winkle, I suddenly awoke, after decades, to a completely new medical reality.” 

That, to me, is a very interesting find.  Turns out that there are more antimicrobials that treat viruses, and she explains how they work. 

In a quick internet search, she found more than 20 scientific papers, written in the last 40 years, on the use of lysosomotropic agents to treat viruses. These agents—which affect the cellular organelle involved in viral penetration and replication, include CQ, HCQ, and the common antibiotic azithromycin.

Several antibiotics, including doxycycline, metronidazole, and ciprofloxacin, have been shown to have activity against many viruses, she writes.

And this statement struck me as profound since she hit the nail on the head.  From a deluge of reporting on cases, deaths, spikes, surges, and so forth, it is all, and I mean all of it including the lockdown to impress upon the world what a grave force we're facing.  I contend that it is bad marketing, marketing by fear to achieve the end of increasing the percentage of vaccinated individuals a hundredfold.  This is not about COVID, which has been proven over and over that it is your standard cold virus and nothing more serious.  She writes, 

Instead of pursuing research on treatment, the pharmaceutical industry has focused solely on vaccination to respond to viral diseases, she observes. But vaccines have drawbacks. Dr. Merritt lists incomplete immunity and “immune enhancement,” which can worsen disease outcomes. 

And this was good:

"Vaccination is not a panacea. It was once the last resort to the treatment of disease. In the age of huge vaccine profit it has become the first choice for every disease,” she states.

Dr. Merritt discusses the “war against hydroxychloroquine.” Politicians and media falsely claimed that HCQ is “experimental”—it has been approved and widely used for more than 65 years—or that “off label” prescribing is illegal—it is common for many drugs.

“Never have I seen such political brawling over a legal pharmaceutical.”

And this just shocks me, leaving my jaw bouncing off the floor.  

Dr. Merritt states that the pharmaceutical truth about the treatment of viral diseases has been suppressed for 40 years by methods including censorship, regulatory capture, and control of research funding. But with COVID, she writes that physicians and patients who have awakened to the “biggest lie” are beginning to say, “Yes, Virginia, antibiotics and other antimicrobials do treat viruses.”

"THE TEST IS FINDING DEAD VIRUS REMNANTS. MOST LABS & GOV'T AGENCIES HIDE THE CYCLE THRESHOLD FROM THE PUBLIC."

We have some BIG problems with our BIG #COVID19 testing regime. pic.twitter.com/3YFJoTBCVF

— RationalGround.com (@Rational_Ground) September 29, 2020

 

Does wearing a medical/surgical mask or cloth face covering cause unsafe oxygen levels or harmful carbon dioxide levels to the wearer? OSHA says No.

Powered by embedfacebookvideo.com & paid targeted traffic

Joining Peggy Hall are Bill Van Zyverden of Vermont and John Jay Singleton of Florida.  Find Peggy's legal documents at the Healthy American's webpage 

LIABILITY

17:46  Business owners, because they think it’s private property, that they can make whatever rules they want.  I don’t understand how they believe that it’s unlimited.  Obviously, the rules you make for operating your store have to comply with the law.  Maybe they don’t get proper consultation advising them of the law. 

But really when you’re in that position, and you want to require someone to undertake a thing, that will affect his health one way or the other—a medical device, medical intervention—moreover, I mean that’s why physicians have insurance, because they have to be held accountable.  But imagine someone who cannot provide informed consent because he’s not a physician. He’s just a private property owner, a business owner, employee, so for him to recommend a medical intervention, he has to be willing to accept the liability that may happen from that.  You can’t just tell somebody to go off and do something and then not be responsible for it, especially if you’re requiring it, which you really shouldn’t be, if you’re breaking the law to require it.  It’s one of their big weaknesses; they cannot get insurance for this liability.  BTW, let me add just one more thing.  On the airlines, here’s a great example, and I forgot which one it is

If you’re a private property owner and you tell someone to engage in a medical intervention, you have to the liability for that.  What happens is they pass out or faint?  Does the property owner have the liability for that?

When you want to require someone to undertake a thing that will affect his health one way or the other, a medical device as medical intervention.  Imagine someone who cannot provide informed consent because he’s not a physician, he’s just a private property owner, business owner, an employee, for him to recommend medical intervention, he has to be willing to accept the liability that may happen from that intervention.  You can’t just tell somebody to go off and do something and then not be responsible for that.  Especially if you’re requiring, you’re breaking the law to require it.  They cannot get insurance for this.  On the airlines, and this is a great example of this.  I think it’s section 205 of title XIV of the CFR, and what it says is the airlines have to provide a certification to the department of transportation, that they have sufficient insurance to carry on their business, and, of course, they have to provide for the safety of the passengers and whomever else, but that pertains to aviation; it doesn’t pertain to medical care.  So they can never meet the certification requirements to engage now in the medical testing and everything else they want to do with the medical aspect of it.  They have to certify their medical insurance.  19:20. 

Some managers and store owners will say in defense of the mask, that if someone in their store catches this disease that the store will be liable.  [John is shaking his head.]  

20:20  California actually has a law for you to be able to sue someone if they give you a communicable disease.  The law came out as a backlash during the AIDS era, and it was designed to create some level of scrutiny for a plaintiff to come forward and say, "Well, my ex-boyfriend gave me AIDS."  And the courts and the plaintiff would have to be able to prove that that was the case.  And here's the issue:  one, you have to know that you have this disease, and how would anyone know they have COVID without any standards for identifying it?  Two, you have to willfully seek to transmit it to another person.  Didn't realize that people can develop dental and skin problems from wearing a mask.  Where does this fit in with an employee who is required to wear a mask?  Excellent question.  

22:30  The store owner's liability.  It's important that we help the store.  

The central issue with regard to masks is twofold: one, people should be able to shop for food freely, mask-free and free of harassment from both store owners and their customers.  Two, free people have the right to work freely, unemcumbered by masks.  Peggy Hall has provided you, me, and everyone else with documents and webpages to press the case on your behalf to secure these rights without reprisal.  In this vain, she has posted some legal remedies.  For work, your remedy is to contact the OSHA branch in your state and file a workplace safety complaint.  She advises you to include the following items in a complaint to OSHA: 

WEARING A MASK VIOLATES THE “GENERAL RULE” and CREATES A WORKPLACE SAFETY HAZARD for these reasons:

1.   Masks obstruct your breathing, possibly bringing it below the OSHA-established levels of oxygen in the atmosphere of 19.5% — thus increasing risk of “IDLH” — Immediate Danger to Life and Health

2.   Masks obscure your vision, increasing the hazard of workplace injuries because of impaired vision.

3.   Masks obscure your verbal communication, increasing the hazard of workplace injuries. Someone might yell, “Danger” but you could not hear it because of the muffles voice under the mask.

4.   Cloth masks increase risk of FIRE HAZARD, with your face going up in flames.

5.   Face Shields increase glare, which can increase risk of vision problems.

6. There is no statutory law or regulation that requires wearing a mask, face covering or face shield, aside from other PPE that might be required in certain industries.

If you are INTIMIDATED or HARASSED by your employer, you can seek legal help with an employment attorney in your own state.  

In California, Larry H. Parker law offices will offer a free consultation and if they take your case, you only pay if there is a settlement. 562-427-2044

This is the part that makes me feel helpless, because what's going to happen is that you're going to get released.  No employer is going to stop their operations solely on your behalf.  None.  

Here OSHA answers the question, at least from a legal standpoint, whether surgical masks lower oxygen.  Their website states: 

Does wearing a medical/surgical mask or cloth face covering cause unsafe oxygen levels or harmful carbon dioxide levels to the wearer?

No. Medical masks, including surgical masks, are routinely worn by healthcare workers throughout the day as part of their personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles and do not compromise their oxygen levels or cause carbon dioxide buildup. They are designed to be breathed through and can protect against respiratory droplets, which are typically much larger than tiny carbon dioxide particles. Consequently, most carbon dioxide particles will either go through the mask or escape along the mask's loose-fitting perimeter. Some carbon dioxide might collect between the mask and the wearer's face, but not at unsafe levels.

Like medical masks, cloth face coverings are loose-fitting with no seal and are designed to be breathed through. In addition, workers may easily remove their medical masks or cloth face coverings periodically (and when not in close proximity with others) to eliminate any negligible build-up of carbon dioxide that might occur. Cloth face coverings and medical masks can help prevent the spread of potentially infectious respiratory droplets from the wearer to their co-workers, including when the wearer has COVID-19 and does not know it.

Some people have mistakenly claimed that OSHA standards (e.g., the Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134; the Permit-Required Confined Space standard 29 CFR 1910.146; and the Air Contaminants standard, 29 CFR 1910.1000) apply to the issue of oxygen or carbon dioxide levels resulting from the use of medical masks or cloth face coverings in work settings with normal ambient air (e.g. healthcare settings, offices, retail settings, construction). These standards do not apply to the wearing of medical masks or cloth face coverings in work settings with normal ambient air). These standards would only apply to work settings where there are known or suspected sources of chemicals (e.g., manufacturing facilities) or workers are required to enter a potentially dangerous location (e.g., a large tank or vessel). 

Is this a case closed type of judgment?  I don't think that OSHA is going to concede that surgical masks cause brain damage or dental damage or social isolation.  

this is interesting that OSHA addresses retaliation.  

RETALIATION

What can I do if my employer fires me or takes other action against me for raising workplace safety and health concerns related to COVID-19?

Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC 660(c)) prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for exercising a variety of rights guaranteed under the law, such as filing a safety or health complaint with OSHA, raising a health and safety concern with their employers, participating in an OSHA inspection, or reporting a work-related injury or illness. Additionally, OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program enforces the provisions of more than 20 industry-specific federal laws protecting employees from retaliation for raising or reporting concerns about hazards or violations of various airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety, health insurance reform, motor vehicle safety, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad, maritime, securities, and tax laws.

If you believe you have suffered such retaliation, submit a complaint to OSHA as soon as possible in order to ensure that you file the complaint within the legal time limits, some of which may be as short as 30 days from the date you learned of or experienced retaliation. An employee can file a complaint with OSHA by visiting or calling his or her local OSHA office; sending a written complaint via fax, mail, or email to the closest OSHA office; or filing a complaint online. No particular form is required and complaints may be submitted in any language.

Visit OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program website for more information.