Dr. Fauci: What About the Immune System?
Guest Editorial by David Brownstein, M.D.
COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc across our country. Previously quiet areas are aflame now with infections. Hospitals are running out of beds just as it happened in March/April in New York City and my home town, Detroit, MI. As of August 7, 2020 the CDC states that there have been 4,962,216 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, 2,446,799 have recovered.
How did these people recover?
I was on the front lines treating COVID-19 patients outside in their cars during March and April in Michigan. We (my partners and nurses) were busy running outside in the snow, sleet, hail, and rain putting IVs in patients as they placed their arms out the car window. We successfully treated 107 patients using nutritional and oxidative therapies. My published paper, which was peer-reviewed, describes our treatment in detail: https://www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com/clinical-and-translational-research.
Dr. Fauci, who has been named America’s doctor, has been delivering information and guidance on this pandemic from the beginning. He has promoted and spearheaded the ‘warp speed’ project to develop a vaccine to treat SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Dr Fauci has kept us informed about therapies being used to treat COVID-19 including steroids, Remdesivir, dexamethasone, and hydroxychloroquine. He has convinced us, repeatedly, that a vaccine is the only way out of this mess and that we all must wait for a vaccine to be quickly brought to market.
However, Dr. Fauci has been silent on one question that urgently needs an answer; If there is no cure for COVID-19, how did the 2,446,799 COVID-19 patients recover from the illness? Dr. Fauci is not the only one that fails to answer the question of how these patients recovered from COVID-19. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continually parrot the statement that “there is no preventive, cure, or treatment for SARS-CoV-2.”
Why do you omit mentioning the importance of the immune system?
If I was at a press conference from Dr. Fauci, I would comment and ask him this, “Dr. Fauci, you keep updating us on the status of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. You provide new information on drug studies such as hydroxychloroquine and Remdesivir. You continually tell the country to keep social distancing and wear masks. Why do you omit mentioning the importance of the immune system?”
Perhaps there is a way to help COVID-19 patients survive the illness that is right in front of our noses. In fact, it has been apparent from the beginning of this illness. I think we should be focusing on how to build a strong immune system that can neutralize and fight off a viral infection such as SARS-CoV-2.
Maybe we need to shift the focus on helping people overcome coronavirus by strengthening and supporting their immune system. That should not be a radical concept. However, we seem to live in an upside-down, Alice-In Wonderland world, where the radical idea of supporting the immune system brings Federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission to silence anyone who dares to speak about such heresy. I received an FTC warning letter because I was reporting my success in treating COVID-19 patients with the hope that it would help lower the fear levels as well and help others avoid a deadly fate when confronted with it. The FTC warning letter I received stated,
“It is unlawful under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C Sec. 41 et seq. to advertise that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made. For COVID-19, no such study is currently known to exist for the products or services identified above. Thus, any Coronavirus-related prevention or treatment claims regarding such products or services are not supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. You must immediately cease making all such claims.”
I would like to know the precise moment when it became illegal to talk about supporting the immune system. As a physician, I thought a large part of my job was helping my patient strengthen their immune system. And, as a doctor, I thought I was supposed to report both my successes and failures so that others could learn from my experience […]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/dr-fauci-what-about-the-immune-system/
© 18 Aug 2020 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
The Most Revolutionary Act 
I am printing this and sending to my holistic doctor
LikeLike
You’re very lucky to have a holistic doctor, Trace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Dr. B – I am very lucky to have two!
LikeLike
Pingback: Doctor Receives FTC Warning for Citing Peer-Reviewed “Natural” Reseach for COVID19 — The Most Revolutionary Act | FREEDOM MINDS FOR THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS
https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc
I looked up what the Federal Trade Commission stands for.
LikeLike
Aren’t you able to find out what prompted the FDC to send such an egregious letter based on (presumably) the mere report you were advising patients to “keep your immune system strong as possible”?
LikeLike
Not sure how we would do that, ubercynic. The FTC, like most federal regulatory agencies, has a longstanding record of acting for Wall Street corporations rather than the public – and trying to cover up that fact.
LikeLike
“Perhaps there is a way to help COVID-19 patients survive the illness that is right in front of our noses. In fact, it has been apparent from the beginning of this illness. I think we should be focusing on how to build a strong immune system that can neutralize and fight off a viral infection such as SARS-CoV-2.”
“Maybe we need to shift the focus on helping people overcome coronavirus by strengthening and supporting their immune system. That should not be a radical concept. However, we seem to live in an upside-down, Alice-In Wonderland world, where the radical idea of supporting the immune system brings Federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission to silence anyone who dares to speak about such heresy. . . .”
I would like to ask too:
Why is the importance of the immune system not mentioned?
LikeLike
Good points, Aunty. What I really like about the documentary Plandemic II is that it includes a section explaining how John D Rockefeller (though his foundation) took control of US medical education to ensure that the primary emphasis would be on his petroleum-based pharmaceuticals, rather than prevention, nutrition, and longstanding herbal, homeopathic, and naturopathic treatments.
LikeLike
Shocking!
LikeLike
Quote: “The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continually parrot the statement that “there is no preventive, cure, or treatment for SARS-CoV-2.””
Not rocket science, this. How can there be a cure for something that doesn’t actually exist, at least in the way it is being parrottingly promoted. Meanwhile the richest psychos in the world are singing their song: To the bank, to the bank, to the bank we go… our profits are skyrocketing while we squeeze the lemony fools til their very pips squeak… oh yes! to the bank, to the bank, to the bank we go!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like I always say, Sha’Tara, you have a way with words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Alexanders' Blog.
LikeLike
COVID 19 IS IN FACT COVERT 19, A BIOWEAPON.
COVID 19 IS A EUGENICS VIRUS:
PLANNED BY ROCKEFELLER/GATES/FORD FOUNDATIONS; MANAGED BY FAUCI, CREATED IN WUHAN LAB & SPREAD BY THE CIA
A HIGHER FORM OF KILLING
With the Reinhard Gehlen spy outfit and the Project [Operation] Paperclip, scientists having been incorporated into the very heart of the U.S. and Western national security establishments and with the Bormann capital network dominating the international cartel system that stands astride the international capital markets, what we have termed the Underground Reich did indeed prevail in the post-war period.
In this program, we take a look at what a Nazi future might look like.
Central to our analysis is a look at an excerpt from testimony before a House appropriations subcommittee that was drawing up the defense budget for the following year.
(The hearings were in 1969.) The testimony discusses the possibility of using genetic engineering to produce a disease that would be “refractory” to the immune system. This is virtually the clinical definition of AIDS. It is worth noting that the project was funded, and just such a disease—AIDS—appeared in just the time frame posited. It is also worth noting that, in the 2002 edition of A Higher Form of Killing, this passage is omitted!!
“. . . As long ago as 1962, forty scientists were employed at the U.S. Army biological warfare laboratories on full-time genetics research. ‘Many others,’ it was said, ‘appreciate the implications of genetics for their own work.’ The implications were made more specific that genetic engineering could solve one of the major disadvantages of biological warfare, that it is limited to diseases that occur naturally somewhere in the world. ‘Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective micro-organism which could differ in certain important respects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.’ [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.] The possibility that such a ‘super germ’ may have been successfully produced in a laboratory somewhere in the world in the years since that assessment was made is one which should not be too readily cast aside. . .”
A HIGHER FORM OF KILLING
The Secret History of Chemical and Biological Warfare
by Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman
2002, Random House reprint edition
(Originally published 1982, Chatto & Windus)
ISBN 0812966538
336 pages, illustrated.
POPULATION CONTROL
“But he hints at a time when we might put temporary sterilants in food and water, while some of his more adventurous colleagues, no doubt impressed by pinpoint bombing in Southeast Asia would spray whole populations from the air.”
Paul Ehrlich is a nice man. He doesn’t hate blacks, advocate genocide or defend the empire. He simply believes that the world has too many people and he’s ready at the drop of a diaper pin to say so. He’s written his message in The Population Bomb, lectured it in universities and churches, and twice used America’s own form of birth control, the late-night Johnny Carson Show, to regale bleary-eyed moms and dads with tales of a standing-room-only world, a time of famines, plague and pestilence.
Together with Berkeley’s Kingsley Davis and Santa Barbara’s Garrett Hardin, Ehrlich represents a newly-popular school of academics out to make overpopulation the central menace of our age. Except for a still hesitant Pope, their crusade seems sure of success. Everyone from Arthur Godfrey to beat poet Gary Snyder to the leaders of China’s 700,000,000 (whom the populationists alternately ignore and disparage) now agrees that population growth is a problem and that something must be done. The question is what? Or, more precisely, who will do what … and to whom?
Kingsley Davis, who finds voluntary family planning hopelessly futile, suggests that government postpone the age of marriage. Garrett Hardin in the April 22 Teach-In’s Environmental Handbook urges mutual coercion mutually agreed upon. Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate tax exemptions for more than two children, forgetting that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Voluntary family planning is out and population control in, leaving those less kindly disposed to the government to see the gaunt spectre of genocide. Long before even the least of the predicted ecological catastrophes comes to pass, such fears might well turn race on race, young on old, rich on poor.
Ehrlich, recognizing this danger, aims his appeal for smaller families less toward the poor and black than toward the white middle-class American family, which consumes more resources, occupies more space, and creates more waste than any ten of its economic inferiors. But his appeal, while barely denting the great waste-production economy, will only create the self-righteousness to impose America’s middle-class will on the world.
We “are going to have to adopt some very tough foreign policy positions,”
Ehrlich explains, and limiting our own families will let us do that “from a psychologically strong position … We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control.”
Exactly what kind of power, or whether we would use it globally, or simply in countries which food shipments and “green revolutions” might save from starvation, is unclear. But he hints at a time when we might put temporary sterilants in food and water, while some of his more adventurous colleagues, no doubt impressed by pinpoint bombing in Southeast Asia, would spray whole populations from the air. If we’re so willing to napalm peasants to protect them from Communists, we could quite easily use a little sterilant spray to protect them from themselves.
PAUL R EHRLICH
Cofounder, Zero Population Growth
Paul R. Ehrlich “received his Ph.D. from the University of Kansas. Co-founder with Peter H. Raven of the field of coevolution, he has pursued long-term studies of the structure, dynamics, and genetics of natural butterfly populations. He has also been a pioneer in alerting the public to the problems of overpopulation, and in raising issues of population, resources, and the environment as matters of public policy.
Paul R. Ehrlich, Center for Conservation Biology, accessed October 7, 2007.
Curriculum Vitae – Paul R. Ehrlich, Center for Conservation Biology, accessed November 27, 2007.
Directors, David Suzuki Foundation, accessed October 7, 2007.
Strategic Advisors, Natural Capital Project, accessed October 20, 2007.
Staff, Cultural Change Institute, accessed December 12, 2010.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is the world’s wealthiest philanthropic organization and a major player in global health governance. While its emergence may be dramatic, BMGF’s role in global health mirrors the experience of the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Division nearly 100 years earlier. Both organizations provoked fear and consternation, but their supporters argued that both offered innovative techniques and filled niches governments could not or would not address. This article examines the parallels in arguments for and against the global health activities between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. It also calls into question larger questions about the role of private actors in global governance and whether their activities in recent years are really all that unprecedented.
THE DARK HISTORY OF POPULATION CONTROL
Fatal Misconception : The Struggle to Control World Population
By (author) Matthew Connelly
Listen to a short interview with Matthew ConnellyHost: Chris Gondek | Producer: Heron & Crane
Fatal Misconception is the disturbing story of our quest to remake humanity by policing national borders and breeding better people. As the population of the world doubled once, and then again, well-meaning people concluded that only population control could preserve the “quality of life.” This movement eventually spanned the globe and carried out a series of astonishing experiments, from banning Asian immigration to paying poor people to be sterilized.
Supported by affluent countries, foundations, and non-governmental organizations, the population control movement experimented with ways to limit population growth. But it had to contend with the Catholic Church’s ban on contraception and nationalist leaders who warned of “race suicide.” The ensuing struggle caused untold suffering for those caught in the middle–particularly women and children. It culminated in the horrors of sterilization camps in India and the one-child policy in China.
Matthew Connelly offers the first global history of a movement that changed how people regard their children and ultimately the face of humankind. It was the most ambitious social engineering project of the twentieth century, one that continues to alarm the global community. Though promoted as a way to lift people out of poverty–perhaps even to save the earth–family planning became a means to plan other people’s families.
With its transnational scope and exhaustive research into such archives as Planned Parenthood and the newly opened Vatican Secret Archives, Connelly’s withering critique uncovers the cost inflicted by a humanitarian movement gone terribly awry and urges renewed commitment to the reproductive rights of all people.
INFLUENCE OF EUGENICS
A key actor in this history is the US feminist and birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger. In a 2008 interview with Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National’s Phillip Adams, Connelly described Sanger as a tragic figure.
She rose to public prominence in the US before World War I as an outstanding representative of the political struggle for women’s right to safe abortion. She was persecuted and hounded by US government authorities for her pioneering stand.
But by the 1920s, she had gravitated from being a campaigner for working-class women’s rights to a supporter of efforts to restrict the right of working-class people to parent children.
In 1925 she said:
“If the millions of dollars which are now expended in the care and maintenance of those who in all kindness should never have been brought into this world were converted to a system of bonuses to unfit parents, paying them to refrain from further parenthood, and continuing to pay them while they controlled their procreative faculties, this would not only be a profitable investment but the salvation of American civilization.”
Sanger’s shift reflected a political compromise she, along with other early feminist activists such as Britain’s Marie Stopes, Japan’s Shidzue Ishimoto and Sweden’s Elise Ottesen-Jensen, made with the flagging eugenicist movement.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing this background, Dave.
LikeLike