The now near-universal revulsion at the name of Anthony Fauci is coming for every political leader who has pushed this fraud on the rest of us. This is virtually the entire text from Doctors, Lawyers & COVID. There is no moral sense in any of this.

The Drug that Cracked Covid may be the most important article you’ll read this year. There’s a lot of information there, but at its core is the story of Judy Smetkiewicz, an active 80-year-old who lives near Buffalo, New York.

Three days before Christmas, Judy tested positive for COVID-19. A week later, an ambulance transported her to hospital. By New Year’s Eve, she was on a ventilator in ICU. Her family was advised that 80% of people in her position never recover. They were told she’d likely remain that way – sedated and unresponsive, in a facility they were barred from entering – for a month before she fully succumbed and died.

But Judy’s family was pushy. They watched a video of Pierre Kory testifying before a US Senate committee a few weeks earlier (see  below). He’s an ICU doctor who has treated hundreds of COVID patients in New York City and elsewhere. In the video, he discusses Ivermectin – a safe, cheap, generic drug that has potent anti-COVID properties. This drug, he testified, is saving lives wherever it gets used.

When Judy’s family asked her ICU physician to give her Ivermectin, he refused. It hasn’t been explicitly approved by health agencies as a COVID-19 treatment, he explained, and “we don’t experiment on our patients.” Not even when they’re at death’s door, almost certain to perish anyway.

Judy’s family kept pushing. A hospital administrator finally relented, approving a single dose of Ivermectin. Less than 24 hours later, Judy no longer needed that ventilator. Shortly afterward, though, she began to decline. Her family asked for another dose of Ivermectin. The hospital refused. That’s when they hired a lawyer.

How bizarre. In the middle of a pandemic, a group of experienced, accomplished, respected physicians for whom Kory is a spokesperson say they’ve found an effective treatment. But hospitals refuse to dispense that treatment. Which compels already-traumatized families to hire lawyers.

A judge ruled in favour of Judy’s family, ordering the hospital to dispense four more doses. It refused to carry out the judge’s order. Another hearing was held. The hospital finally agreed to dispense additional doses if Judy’s family doctor wrote the prescription.

This looks, of course, like old-fashioned butt-covering. The hospital appears to have been OK with Judy dying. But not OK with using a drug off-label, even though a US government website explains this happens all the time:

Off-label prescribing is when a physician gives you a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved to treat a condition different than your condition. This practice is legal and common. In fact, one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label use. [bold added]

After spending a month in a rehab facility, Judy returned home.

If we do not approve ivermectin in Australia as a means of treating Covid then there are a lot of people in very high places who will be complicit in the deaths of many of our fellow Australians. This is one more piece of evidence: Ivermectin: Whole of Country Trials in Real Time. This is how the article begins.

The Chicoms have a better understanding of the Wuhan virus than most. Recently they increased the quarantine period for those going into China from 14 days to 21 days. Internal travel in China requires permits now.

How is the rest of the world coping?

The Czechs were having a hard time from the virus, with deaths averaging 180 per day and overcrowded intensive care units for months on end. That is until 8^th March, when ivermectin was approved for use in the country. Two months later deaths are down 93%.

Now read the rest of the article where there are additional case studies. Meanwhile, what is keeping us from approving ivermectin right now as a treatment for Covid?

Who knows what else these idiots are doing? This is from The Oz: Fauci Argued Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research Outweighed Pandemic Risk in 2012 Paper.

America’s top medical adviser for the coronavirus, Anthony Fauci, argued that the benefits of experimenting on contagious viruses – manipulating and heightening their infectious potency – was worth the risk of a laboratory accident sparking a pandemic.

In previously unreported remarks, Dr Fauci supported the contentious gain-of-­function experiments that some now fear might have led to an escape from a Wuhan laboratory causing the Covid-19 pandemic, calling them “important work”.

An investigation by The Weekend Australian has also confirmed Dr Fauci, the director of the Nat­ional Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, did not alert senior White House officials before lifting the ban on gain-of-function research in 2017.

Writing in the American Society for Microbiology in October 2012, Dr Fauci acknowledged the controversial scientific research could spark a pandemic.

“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” he wrote. “Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?

“Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Also discussed here: Fauci Pushed for ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research in 2012, Said It Was Worth the Risk of Pandemic. And here: Fauci Said Risk of Manipulating Bat Viruses Was Worth a Potential Pandemic.