Dr. Francis Boyle calls for Fauci et. al. to be prosecuted for the Covid Pandemic and Vaccines

by Peter Myers

Date: September 25, 2021

My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/Boyle-Covid-prosecute.html .

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

This is today's newsletter from my mailing list. Since the matters are urgent, I have uploaded it here.

(1) International Criminal Court - Covid as Bioweapon, Genetic Vaccines as Genocide
(2) Dr. Francis Boyle calls for Fauci et. al. to be prosecuted for the Covid Pandemic and Vaccines
(3) Dr. Geert vanden Bossch, who worked with GAVI (Gates, etc.), warns of accelerated mutations due to mass "vaccination"
(4) Did Bertrand Russell support Totalitarian World Government? - Brian Kearsey
(5) Pathologist Prof. Robert Clancy: the real reason Ivermectin is banned - "It may interfere with the vaccination programme"
(6) Florida Acquires Monoclonal Antibodies From GlaxoSmithKline After Biden Administration's Rationing
(7) A New Monoclonal Antibody Drug Is Coming To Florida For COVID-19 Treatment
(8) The Economist endorses Vaccine Mandates

(1) International Criminal Court - Covid as Bioweapon, Genetic Vaccines as Genocide
- by Peter Myers, September 25, 2021

Item 2 today is from Dr Francis Boyle, author of the Bioweapons Act. He calls for Fauci et. al. to be prosecuted for the Covid Pandemic and Vaccines. He does not mention the ICC, but that Court is the logical place for such a case to be brought.

Item 4 poses the question 'Did Bertrand Russell support Totalitarian World Government?'. Russell did indeed support World Government, because he thought that, otherwise, we would destroy ourselves via wars and overstressing the planet. However he acknowledged that such a World Government could be despotic. We are thus in a Catch-22.

Yesterday's newsletter contained two articles by Dr. Joseph Mercola (items 4 and 12). However, under pressure from the Biden admin, he removes such articles from his website after two days; so, the links I provided were dead.

However, I have found alternative links: https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2021/September/PDF/new-cache-of-documents-exposes-lies-to-congress-pdf.pdf

and https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2021/September/PDF/fauci-lied-to-congress-pdf.pdf

Yesterday's newsletter covered the case brought to the ICC, as well as DRASTIC's revelation that EcoHealth Alliance & Wuhan Institute of Virology colluded to carry out Gain of Gunction research. I have now put all of that newsletter, with updated links, online at http://mailstar.net/ICC-bioweapon-GoF.html

If you did not watch the Rebel News report on Monday's confrontation outside the headquarters of the CFMEU office in Melbourne, please do so now, at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z90GasxpcXg

The follow-up, next day, is at https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/revolution-protesters-led-by-construction-workers-in-melbourne-shut-down-major-freeways-over-covid-tyranny-and-mandatory-vaccines/

Police fired rubber bullets and tear gas.

After that, police deployed the Anti-Terrorist squad and vehicle on the streets of Melbourne: https://www.rebelnews.com/police_deploy_counter-terror_squad_on_construction_workers_in_melbourne

Sell Out of the working class by Australia's Union Leadership: https://mailchi.mp/onenation.com.au/weeklynewsletter041220-465514

(2) Dr. Francis Boyle calls for Fauci et. al. to be prosecuted for the Covid Pandemic and Vaccines

From: "Boyle, Francis A" <fboyle@illinois.edu> Subject: FW: Prosecuting Fauci, Slaoui Et Al. for the Covid Pandemic and Vaccines

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
Phone: 217-333-7954
Fax: 217-244-1478
(personal comments only)

From: Boyle, Francis A <fboyle@illinois.edu> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:34 PM To: Killeacle <fboyle@uiuc.edu> Subject: Prosecuting Fauci, Slaoui Et Al. for the Covid Pandemic and Vaccines

Professor Francis A. Boyle Before The 9/11 Lawyers Committee 20th Anniversary Conference

From 9/11-Anthrax to the Pandemic: Life & Liberty in the Balance

September 11, 2021

Host: The next great speaker we have is Francis Boyle. Let me tell you a little bit about Francis. Francis Boyle is a University of Illinois College of Law Professor and the author of the United States implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention also known as the Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act of 1989 that was passed unanimously by both Houses of the United States Congress and signed into law by President George Bush Sr. with the approval of the United States Department of Justice. The story is told in his book Biowarfare and Terrorism (Clarity Press: 2005). So I want to introduce Francis Boyle here.

And you know I first heard Francis right at the beginning of this pandemic. We didn't know each other at the time, but I'm watching this guy, he's talking about Wuhan. He's talking about bioweapons. I'm saying, "Let me listen to him." I was really impressed and then I went back to try to watch it again and it was taken down by YouTube I believe. So he was censored right from the beginning but he seemed to be right on point as we say. So, Francis, thank you very much for being here and please teach us.

Francis Boyle: Well thank you very much for having me on. My best to your viewing audience. I did want to express my sincere condolences to the families, next of kin, and friends of those who suffered and died 20 years ago today. And that's why I am here today to try to point a direction where we can go from here.

You all heard President Biden's horrendous diktat to the American people that we must take these Frankenshots. I did some work against genetically modified organisms (GMO) foods ­ they were called Frankenfoods. I will call these things Frankenshots because they are not to be dignified with the word "vaccines." And I'm here today to explain how can we fight back against a medical dictatorship that is currently being imposed upon us by Biden and his people. And here I'm just talking about the Americans, but I've consulted in Israel and other countries.

But here I'm just talking about us Americans and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's us! And what I want to outline here today is the mechanism and means whereby we can get everyone involved in the Covid-19 pandemic prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder and then second, everyone involved in these Frankenshots can be prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, on a state and local basis all over this country.

We know that the whole Federal government is in the tank there for Biden. You can't believe anything they are telling you. It's just been a pile of lies from the get-go, even under Trump. But we do have here in the United States are states attorneys, district attorneys, attorneys general, county prosecutors, etc. Last time I looked into this there were over 400 of these local prosecutors and I am recommending here today a strategy for the common ordinary everyday citizens who live in their territorial jurisdictions to go into these local prosecutors and demand the prosecution of the people involved.

I'm going to explain how this happens in a minute. But these are local prosecutors, not the Federal prosecutors. Biden's made it clear he's working with Fauci against us and he controls the Department of Justice under Garland. They're not going to help us. But these local prosecutors, they are elected by us, their salaries are paid by us, and they can be dis-elected by us. It's that simple. And so we need to get people organized and go in and demand these indictments and prosecutions by these local prosecutors. For what?

Well let me start with the pandemic itself. And here we have the very famous article that I have lectured on before, you can do Google it might still be up there, "SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus pose threat for human emergence." And it's clear if you read this article that Covid-19 is an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain of function properties. It also according to Montagnier and the Indian Scientists has HIV DNA genetically engineered into it. It has also been aerosolized by means of nanotechnology. The Wuhan BSL4 bragged that they had been able to apply nanotechnology to viruses.

So my argument here then is that everyone involved in this contract can be prosecuted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Why? I was originally hired here to teach Criminal Law to law students, future lawyers, and I taught it for seven or eight years before I moved over into teaching International Human Rights Law. But I still do criminal cases both for the defense and the prosecution on matters of principle.

Murder has a definition at Anglo-American common law that would apply to all states of the Union except as you know Louisiana that has a civil law system. I haven't studied their civil law system. But every other state in the Union has a common law definition of murder. What is murder? It's the unlawful killing of human beings with malice aforethought. Alright, let's go through the elements with respect to the pandemic.

Unlawful. Okay, everyone involved in this project at the UNC BSL3 manufacturing Covid were acting in violation of my BWATA of 1989 that was passed unanimously by both Houses of the United States Congress and signed into law by President George Bush Sr. with the approval of the United States Department of Justice. So who was involved?

Menachery, University of North Carolina. There were several others involved here from the University of North Carolina, including Ralph Baric.

The National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, they mention this fellow's name. Think about that for a second. The FDA was involved in the development of an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain of function properties, using synthetic biology and, we will see, working with Fort Detrick and the Chinese Bat Queen from the Wuhan BSL4 which was also China's first Fort Detrick. That's why you can't believe anything the FDA is telling you about the safety of any of these Frankenshots. Indeed the FDA is up to their eyeballs in offensive biological warfare Nazi death science. It's that simple and we'll continue from there.

Two foreign institutes, fine. I'm not going to get into those here.

The Department of Cancer Immunology and AIDS, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Department of Medicine Harvard Medical School. I'm a triple alumnus of Harvard. Notice Harvard Medical School is involved in developing an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain of function properties that has HIV DNA genetically engineered right into it and working with Fort Detrick and the Chinese Bat Queen from the Wuhan BSL4, China's Fort Detrick. That's also clear from this article.

Imagine that. Harvard working with Fort Detrick. As a matter of fact, Harvard is also a sponsoring institution for the Wuhan BSL4 which is China's Fort Detrick. And the chair of the Harvard chemistry department, Lieber, worked on applying nanotechnology with Fort Detrick. And Lieber was also over at Wuhan working with Chinese scientists working on applying nanotechnology to biology and also chemistry. I told you the Wuhan BSL4 bragged that they had applied nanotechnology to viruses. Why do you apply nanotechnology? To aerosolize it. That's why. For aerial delivery to human beings so we breathe it in. Reports are that from scientists at MIT Covid-19 can travel up to 28 feet, and at Cornell, 21 feet. And that's thanks to nanotechnology.

The next person on this contract, the Chinese Bat Queen, Zhengli-Li Shi. The infamous Chinese Bat Queen and a Director there at the Wuhan BSL4. One of the founders of the Chinese Fort Detrick is over there working at the University of North Carolina to develop Covid-19.

And then of course Fort Detrick is mentioned in that article. They were involved in that UNC BSL3 too, working with the Chinese Bat Queen and everyone else there.

In addition, then, if you read to the end of this article, it is funded by the National Institutes of Health under Francis Collins. He knew all about it. You can't believe anything Collins is telling you. He's lying.

And also the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that's Tony Fauci. So of course you can't believe anything he's telling you either.

And by the way, the Harvard Medical School, Biden hired this Dr. Walensky, head of CDC, from the Harvard Medical School. So of course you can't believe anything she's telling you. And CDC has been up to its eyeballs in offensive biological warfare Nazi death science dirty work since the beginning of the Reagan Administration when Reagan and his Neocons put Tony Fauci in charge of research, development, testing, and using DNA genetic engineering and now synthetic biology to manufacture every type of hideous biological warfare weapon you can possibly imagine as well as Covid-19. So all these people should be indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Now what's the next stage? Killing human beings. The estimate is excess deaths here in the United States is about a million people. As for the dangers of the SARS-CoV-2, I have a book here by Professor Zubay and his graduate students at the Columbia University Biology Department that was written in 2005, long before the current controversy arose. On page 188 of Professor Zubay's book it says: "The overall death rate of SARS patients is 14-15%." That was SARS1. Covid is SARS 2. Covid SARS 2 is SARS1 On Steroids. So this is extremely dangerous.

Now we come to the final element of murder, malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a term of art. I have to lecture my law students for four days or so going through all the different elements of malice of forethought. But here the critical element of malice aforethought is acting with grave indifference to human life. That is an element of malice aforethought. So you can have malice aforethought with people acting with grave indifference to human life. And if you read the article here "SARS-like clusters…" they admit that they were acting with grave indifference to human life. They knew how dangerous this was, and they went about it anyway. All that has now been documented from the public record. I've been saying this right from the get-go of the Pandemic on January 24, 2020.

So we have all the elements there for murder by everyone I mentioned here. So I advise all of you listening to go out and get and button-hole your local prosecutor. And don't send emails, lawyers don't respond to emails. They respond to face-to-face contact. Say I want you to convene a grand jury, I want you to present this evidence to the grand jury, I want you to try to get the return of an indictment for murder against Menachery, Baric, the Bat Queen, Francis Collins, the Harvard Medical School person, Tony Fauci, the FDA person, the rest of them, as well as conspiracy to commit murder. I believe the evidence is there.

The last time I looked there were over 400 or so of these local prosecutors around the country. I think we can get at least one of them to get indictments for murder and conspiracy to commit murder for everyone involved here on this contract for the development and research and manufacture of this offensive biological warfare weapon known as Covid-19.

Now let me move to the Frankenshots and there's no other word for them. I'm not going to dignify them with name of vaccines or alleged vaccines. Just like Frankenfoods are to foods, Frankenshots are to shots. And I want to make it clear I'm not part of any anti-vax movement. I go vax by vax in evaluating them.

But here on the Frankenshots, let me go through the elements there as well. Unlawful killing of a human being with malice of forethought. Unlawful killing, okay. Clear cut blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation. That is a Nuremberg Crime under international law for which we, the United States, prosecuted, convicted, and executed some Nazi doctors. Right. That's exactly right.

In addition the Frankenshots violate the Nuremberg Crime against Humanity. This was President Franklin Roosevelt's idea to set up the Nuremberg Tribunal. It was our idea. And in the Charter setting up the Nuremberg Tribunal there were three crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, let me quote for you crimes against humanity. This is from the Nuremberg Charter that we signed, that was President Roosevelt's idea: "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination… and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population..." This was put in there for the express purpose of prosecuting the Nazi persecution of the German Jews, their own citizens. And that is exactly what Biden and his henchpeople are doing to us Americans today. And this Nuremberg Crime against Humanity is in the Nuremberg Charter of 1945. It is in the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946. It is in the Nuremberg Principles of 1950. They are all generally recognized as basic customary international criminal law all over the world.

So we have unlawful killing. So now we come to the element of malice aforethought for the Frankenshots. And here two other elements of malice aforethought: intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm. So the people responsible for the Frankenshots will say, "Well, we never intended to kill anyone." Okay. Maybe they didn't. But they certainly intended to cause grievous bodily harm on human beings. That has been documented right from the very get-go of the administration of the Frankenshots. People are dying soon after. I don't know the exact figures. You can look at the VAERS statistics and multiply by 100. You can look at the European Health Agency. And those who do not die are subjected to serious life threatening, lifelong disabilities. So in my opinion yes we have the malice aforethought of intention to cause grievous bodily harm for the Frankenshots.

So what I would also recommend then is a second cause of action here for people all over the country to go into their local prosecutors, states attorneys, district attorneys, county prosecutors, attorneys general, and say also : I've lost loved ones living in your jurisdiction to the Frankenshots. Or I've lost friends. I have autopsy reports, I have coroners' reports saying this. And I want you to convene a grand jury and return an indictment for murder and conspiracy to commit murder against the people primarily behind these Frankenshots. And that would be Slaoui, the Director of Operation Warp Speed. You know: Beam me up, Scotty! And the chief executive officers and scientists at I would say Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Those are the Frankenshots being used here in the United States. And Health and Human Services Secretaries for Trump and Biden. And we want you to return an indictment against these people from this grand jury. It could be the same grand jury as going after the people responsible for the pandemic, for a second set of indictments here for murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the Frankenshots. I think the legal theories are sound but we basically we need the American people to get organized and go out and do this.

Finally, as you know, President Biden has ordered all US military personnel to take these Frankenshots so in my concluding words here, I know I'm sort of running out of time, I am a lawyer, I try to deal with my allotted time. The military as you know had been ordered to take these Frankenshots. I helped defend Captain Doctor Yolanda Hewitt-Vaughn who refused to give the Frankenshots for Gulf War I that resulted in the Gulf War Sickness. Out of 500,000 troops inoculated--the Pentagon lies about the figures because they know they committed a Nuremberg Crime on our own troops. But out of 500,000 inoculated, 11,000 died and about 100,000 were disabled. And those I suspect are underestimates. That's the Gulf War Sickness and that was inflicted upon our fairly healthy young men and women in our armed forces. You can extrapolate from there what is going to happen to the general population with these Frankenshots that are far more dangerous than the Gulf War I Frankenshots. Likewise, the Gulf War I Frankenshots infected healthcare workers who were treating them indicating a biological warfare agent was at work. And also family members indicating a biological warfare agent was at work. I suspect we are going to see this breaking out all over in the next two years.

So my advice to members of armed forces is that if you are given an order whether orally or in writing to take the Frankenshots, be respectful because they'll get you for contempt of a superior officer. Don't lose your cool. And say sir, I respectfully decline to take these Frankenshots. This is an illegal order in violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation that is a Nuremberg Crime under international law, and it is illegal also under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles that the United States government was responsible for at Nuremberg and we prosecuted, convicted, and executed Nazis for violating this body of law and so sir, I respectfully decline to take these Frankenshots.

Now my advice to the military at this point is with all due respect to JAG officers, I've worked with them, they're fine. But JAG officers can only do so much for you, JAG lawyers, they are in the chain of command. You are going to have to go out and get civilian attorneys who can exercise and assert your rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Now you have very substantial rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and it is a well-known principle of military law that you have no obligation to obey an illegal order.

I established that in the court-martial of the very first GI resister to Gulf War I, U.S. Marine Corporal Jeff Patterson who refused to ship out to Saudi Arabia when ordered to by President Bush Sr. saying that this was just another U.S. imperialist war for oil, which it was. He was charged with failure to obey a lawful order. I went out to Kaneohe Bay for preliminary court martial proceedings. I was out there arguing for three and a half hours that this order was illegal, not authorized by law. And the judge took it under advisement and about ten days later Patterson was out of the Marine Corps. They did not want to go to trial with this posture of the case. How I did that is explained in my book Protesting Power: War, Resistance, and Law (Rowman & Littlefield Press: 2008). So my advice would be get copies of that book, line up your civilian defense lawyers-- all military bases have around them former retired JAG lawyers and JAG judges or civilian lawyers, who specialize in the UCMJ.

This is very complicated to do. You can't really do it on your own, so get yourself civilian defense counsel. But what you can do on your own in the military personnel I'm speaking to is say, sir I respectfully decline to carry out your illegal order that I take this Frankenshot in violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation and in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles.

Thank you very much. I think I did it just on time. Thank you.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building 504 E.
Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
Phone: 217-333-7954
Fax: 217-244-1478
(personal comments only)

(3) Dr. Geert vanden Bossch, who worked with GAVI (Gates, etc.), warns of accelerated mutations due to mass "vaccination"

From: leo schmit <leoschmit@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: International Criminal Court asked to hear case that Covid is Bioweapon, Genetic Vaccines are Genocide

Thanks Peter,

Re. item (7): Montagnier - Dr. Geert vanden Bossch who worked with The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations" GAVI (Gates, etc.) has also warned WHO about the accelerated mutations and variation of the virus due to mass "vaccination".



(4) Did Bertrand Russell support Totalitarian World Government? - Brian Kearsey

From: Brian Kearsey <Kearsey@Comcast.net> Subject: RE: Bertrand Russell: Bacteriological War as a way to reduce Population

Hi Peter, I hope you are well; as always, your tireless work is much appreciated. I had criticisms of numerous works of Bertrand Russell I studied in college and since, yet he was a valuable resource as I fleshed out and honed the pedagogy for the fiercely independent private schools and homeschool centers I ran for decades. Anyone interested in his works should be aware that there is much confusion about his views. A quick perusal of the 5 star reviews on Amazon of the notes from his lecture series "THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE on SOCIETY" shows numerous people interpreting them as condoning totalitarianism, whereas several catch the fact that his views were more nuanced. I'd sum it by noting he seems to have thought world government was necessary and inevitable, yet, like Orwell and others, warned about the dystopian potential. Here are excerpts from the two I found most informative:


Steven H Propp


The "Prefatory Note" to this 1952 book states,

"This book is based on lectures originally given at Ruskin College, Oxford, England… In the second lecture, he suggests, "Communications have been hitherto the chief factor limiting the size of empires… This difficulty was diminished by railways and the telegraph, and is on the point of disappearing with the improvement of the long-range bomber. There would now be no technical difficulty about a single world-wide Empire. Since war is likely to become more destructive of human life than it has been in recent centuries, unification under a single government is probably necessary unless we are to acquiesce to either a return to barbarism or the extinction of the human race." (Pg. 26) …

In the third lecture, he acknowledges, "most civilized and semi-civilized countries known to history have had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as it can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship." (Pg. 54) …

In the sixth lecture, he asserts, "I am constantly asked: What can you, with your cold rationalism, offer to the seeker after salvation that is comparable to the cozy homelike comfort of a fenced-on dogmatic creed? To this the answer is many-sided. In the first place, I do not say that I can offer as much happiness as is to be obtained by the abdication of reason. I do not say that I can offer as much happiness as is to be obtained from drink or drugs or amassing great wealth by swindling widows and orphans. It is not the happiness of the individual convert that concerns me, it is the happiness of mankind… If people loved humanity as genuinely as they love their children, they would be as unwilling in politics as in the home to let themselves be deceived by comfortable fairy tales." (Pg. 87)

But surprisingly, he adds at the end of this lecture, "There are certain things that our age needs, and certain things it should avoid. It needs compassion and a wish that mankind should be happy; it needs the desire for knowledge and the determination to eschew pleasant myths; it needs, above all, courageous hope and the impulse to creativity. The things that it must avoid… are cruelty, envy, greed, competitiveness, search for irrational subjective certainty, and what Freudians call the death wish. The root of the matter is a very simple and old-fashioned thing, a thing so simple that I am almost ashamed to mention it, for fear of the derisive smile with which wise cynics will greet my words. The thing I mean---please forgive me for mentioning it---is love, Christian love, or compassion. If you feel this, you have a motive for existence, a guide in action, a reason for courage, an imperative necessity for intellectual honesty. If you feel this, you should have all that anybody needs in the way of religion." (Pg. 91-92)

[Unfortunately, as Russell recounted in the third volume of his autobiography, this favorable mention of "Christian love" caused him to be deluged with Christians thinking he had converted; predictably, he reacted strongly against this, and returned to his harsh denunciations of Christianity in his subsequent writings and public statements.] … The Happiness of Mankind Luc REYNAERT Reviewed in the United States on February 9, 2012 In these lectures, B. Russell explains in his characteristic sarcastic style his vision on science and society, on politics, philosophy and mankind in general. … Politics (education, holism, world government)

For B. Russell, education of the young should not be turned into pure propaganda for a political regime.

He condemns sarcastically holism: `the good of the multitude is a sum of the goods of the individuals composing it and not a new and separate good. When it is pretended that the State has a good different from that of the citizens, what is really meant is that the good of the government or a ruling class is more important than that of other people.' Holism is simply another version of arbitrary rule. For B. Russell, man's suicidal behavior should be countered by a world government which should have a monopoly of armed force in order to impose peace. This `solution' has been rightly heavily criticized by Karl Jaspers, who remarks that this monopoly can all too easily be used by (or to install) a world oligarchy.

Russell's Gospel

The ultimate aim of all `doing' should be the happiness of mankind, based on love and compassion. Man should create a good society where everybody is useful (without excessive hours of labor), where everybody is as far as possible secure from undeserved misfortune and where everybody has the opportunity for personal initiative. To build that kind of society, democracy, trade unionism and birth control are indispensable.

This book written by a superb free mind is a must read for all those interested in the world we live in.

Cheers! Brian Kearsey
Petersburgh, NY

(5) Pathologist Prof. Robert Clancy: the real reason Ivermectin is banned - "It may interfere with the vaccination programme"


A Sad and Shameful Day for Australian Medicine 13th September 2021 Comments (32)

Robert Clancy

The author is Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle Medical School. He is a member of the Australian Academy of Science's COVID-19 Expert Database

September 10, 2021, was a black day, the day a group of faceless bureaucrats known as the "Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling", through its effector arm, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), compromised medical practise and the health of their fellow Australians. The TGA used its regulatory muscle to prevent doctors at the COVID-19 pandemic's coalface from prescribing ivermectin (IVM), the one therapy available that is safe, cheap and which reduces mortality in the order of 60 per cent. This poorly conceived action threatens the high standards of medical practise we have achieved in Australia, and the credibility of the administrative structure within which medicine operates.

The immediate consequence of the TGA Notice means patients contracting COVID-19 are left to hear, "Sorry, no treatment for COVID-19 is legally available. Just go to hospital when you get very sick." In the longer term it means that bureaucrats can change the way medicine is practised for whatever reason without review by, or discussion with, the medical community. It is important for Australians to consider two issues that follow the TGA's decision: first, it adds risk to those exposed to COVID-19, putting additional pressures on health-care facilities; second, it drives a wedge into the fault lines that have appeared in medical practise during the course of the COVID-19 saga.

Looking at the first issue, the decision by the TGA to prevent general practitioners from prescribing IVM to manage COVID-19, the Notice is flawed and misleading, although giving clues to its political motivation. The evidence that IVM is safe and effective in both preventing and treating early (pre-hospital) COVID-19 is overwhelming, as has been laid out in four Quadrant articles published through 2021. Despite this evidence, every artifice has been used to quash IVM's use and to do so in unprecedented fashion. The causes for the suppression include political agendas, pressures from pharmaceutical companies, ideology and breakdown in medical communication. This latest blow by the TGA follows its previous form in shutting down use of hydroxychloroquine, another safe, effective and cheap COVID-19 therapy. Every experienced doctor prescribes drugs for "off-label" indications. It is anathema and dangerous that the doctor-patient relationship can now be over-ridden by government agendas.

The driving source of "evidence" that IVM has unproven therapeutic value is the Cochrane Review, which concluded from a single meta-analysis that the benefit in treating COVID-19 was "unproven". This was out of line with a series of supportive meta-analyses by non-conflicted competent epidemiologists. Yet results from Cochrane have singularly been adopted without criticism or discussion, initially by the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce (NCCET), then by diffusion via various professional and regulatory bodies while being fanned by an even less critical mainstream press. Thus IVM is seen by many, including some medical professionals, as the snake-oil of our age. What is not discussed is the validity of the Cochrane Review and the advisory messages from the NCCET. The influence of vested interest parties on Cochrane has been previously raised. The circumstances of generating the review by an unknown German group when experienced epidemiologists were available needs explanation. More immediately, critiques of the Cochrane analysis and the NCCET by unaligned British epidemiologists show defective methodology, cherry-picked data and exclusion of a raft of supportive data.

The information source used to formulate policy in Australia is both out of kilter with conclusions from over 60 controlled clinical trials and the positive experience recorded when IVM was used in national and regional programmes. Cochrane is an incomplete and unreliable basis for decision making on COVID-19 management in an Australian context. The views of international experts are trumped by unknown local bureaucrats.

Surprisingly, the reasons given by the TGA for their decision on IVM are not the usual mantra of "unproven", based on Cochrane, although that is left hanging as a "given". The reasons are even less defensible: "supply may become limited" (incorrect, but this nevertheless demonstrates there is a need for the drug); "concerns re toxicity due to dosage determined by social media" (this concern is easily remedied by controlling usage through front-line doctors), and, lastly, the real reason: "It may interfere with the vaccination programme". What an extraordinary statement!

The reason for "vaccine hesitancy" has nothing to do with IVM use. Doctors promote IVM as complementing the vaccine programme, which, given concerns regarding vaccine resistance caused by Delta strain of the virus and waning of post-vaccine immunity, makes early drug treatment more needed than ever. It is irresponsible to exclude IVM as a drug to control high numbers of infections that will be encountered as Australia moves out of its "bubble", irrespective of the level of vaccination. The only parts of the world not experiencing a "third wave" of infection are those where lockdowns have been avoided, such as Sweden, or where IVM is used throughout the community, as is seen in parts of South America, Mexico and India.

The real cause of "vaccine hesitancy" is lack of transparency and discussion. Where is the discussion that death from COVID-19 is one thousand times greater than reported deaths linked to the vaccine? That is a fact easily understood. There are genuine concerns about experimental genetic vaccines, yet discussion is suppressed, and these issues are treated as "best kept secrets" by authorities. Failure to openly discuss these concerns in the context of a plan for a safe future vaccine strategy is reason in itself for uncertainty and conspiracy theories. It is unacceptable to shift blame onto IVM for "hesitancy". Both vaccines and IVM are urgently needed, and suppression of IVM simply leads to unnecessary deaths and a postponed public reaction when evidence supporting the value of both becomes more widely known. Have we learnt nothing from the preventable thousand deaths that followed refusal in the US to allow cheap, safe prophylaxis against Pneumocystis infection in AIDS patients until a randomised clinical trial (RCT) was completed in the 1990s?

What is the influence of pharmaceutical companies? They have actively conspired against IVM while accepting hundreds of millions of government dollars to develop their versions of "early treatments"; in this they have been supported by the TGA that has now regulated against IVM. Meanwhile, the TGA recently registered a monoclonal antibody, Sotrovimab, based on a single small trial. This drug has a similar protection profile to IVM but costs $4,000 a dose (I support its registration, although it is hard to see how it could be superior to IVM). The TGA approved Remdesivir following one study showing its only benefit was four days less hospitalisation. Three subsequent RCTs failed to confirm benefit, yet the TGA allows the drug's continued use in Australian hospitals. Just a week ago, the TGA reported with enthusiasm discussions with Merck about "son-of Remdesivir", Molnupiravir, which comes with no clear clinical benefit noted from what are incomplete studies. The US government has bought millions of doses at $1000 per dose. Whose interests are being protected?

Second, the implications for medical practise are a more sinister and subtle consequence of the TGA decision. Preventing general practitioners prescribing IVM for early COVID-19, when there is evidence of safety and benefit, sends a concerning message to community-based doctors. It threatens the "doctor-patient relationship", as patients with COVID-19 are also aware that drugs are available which could save their lives. It also challenges the traditional role of senior medical advisers, most of whom are hospital-based with no experience of early COVID-19, and are influenced by expert bodies such as the NCCET, and of course Cochrane reports.

Cochrane is promoted as the foundation stone of Evidenced Based Medicine (EBM), the holy grail of contemporary medical practice. Dr. Dave Sackett was the "father of EBM" at Canada's McMaster University, where he and I led medical-admission teams for five years. We had numerous discussions of EBM, then in its formative stage, anticipating it would have an integrating role in medical practise. Dave died in 2015, which saved him the disappointment of seeing what has happened during COVID-19, where a limited Cochrane review is used as a lever to achieve political outcomes to the disadvantage of patients. The unravelling of well-established professional relationships between community doctors, their medical advisory structures and government bodies has not been helped by the confusion, the lack of organised education activities and the isolation enforced by the pandemic.

The authoritarian and poorly conceived interference by the TGA in the effective running of clinical medicine, and its broader implications, is a further splintering event. This is a time when everyone needs to be on message to counter a devastating pandemic. The use of blunt legal tools to threaten and bully doctors with de-registration, legal action for "advertising" and even with jail terms for striving for the transparency and common sense that has served medicine so well compromises the rules of science and the doctor-patient relationship upon which our profession is built. The answer is transparency and communication around agreed goals based on science. We should again involve all levels of health care and the public we serve. The decision-making process should include clinicians familiar with the problem to ensure the pragmatic and common-sense approach needed to get us through this pandemic with minimum damage.

Rather than create the chaos and loss of respect for an important institution that will follow continued enforcement of the current Notice, the TGA should initiate a working party that includes frontline doctors to establish an agreed treatment protocol that includes dosage, with monitoring of the outcomes. We live in dangerous times that call for new ideas able to address a real world crisis that is out of control and will only get worse without a different way of thinking.

Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM MB BS PhD DSc FRACP FRCP(A) RS(N) is Foundation Professor Pathology, Medical School University Newcastle, Clinical Immunologist and (Previous) Head of the Newcastle Mucosal Immunology Group, with special interest in airways infection and vaccine development

(6) Florida Acquires Monoclonal Antibodies From GlaxoSmithKline After Biden Administration's Rationing



September 23, 2021 Updated: September 23, 2021

The state of Florida has obtained thousands of monoclonal antibody treatments to treat COVID-19 from a UK-based company after the Biden administration's abrupt rationing of federally acquired doses.

Florida went to GlaxoSmithKline, which produces monoclonals that haven't yet been bought up by the federal government. They reached an agreement on about 3,000 doses, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Sept. 23.

"That's showing that we're going to leave no stone unturned. And, if there's somebody that needs a monoclonal antibody treatment, we're going to work hard to get it to them," the Republican told a press conference in Tampa.

The Biden administration seized control of monoclonals this month, in response to what some officials have described as a national shortage. The federal government has bought millions of doses from Eli Lilly and Regeneron. The only other monoclonal authorized for use in the United States is produced by GlaxoSmithKline, or GSK.

GSK, which didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, previously told The Epoch Times that its treatment costs $2,100 per dose, roughly the same as its competitors were charging the government.

Drug regulators in May authorized GSK's treatment, called sotrovimab, for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients 12 and older and weighing at least 88 pounds.

Regulators and state officials say the drug and similar others help keep people out of hospitals.

DeSantis estimated thousands of Floridians have been able to avoid going to the hospital after getting COVID-19 or being exposed to a positive case because of the treatments.

But, like other states across the country, Florida is struggling with a looming shortage because of the Biden administration's sudden rationing.

Florida announced last week it was in touch with GSK. Health officials in other states told The Epoch Times they're not exploring buying their own treatments, with some suggesting that cost was a factor.

Earlier this month, sites in Florida were getting more than 30,000 doses. That doesn't include hospitals. All sites could order directly however much they needed, and the federal government provides the doses for free. This week, Florida was scheduled to receive less than 18,000, state officials say.

"I would hate to see somebody who really could benefit from this treatment, not be able to have access to it. When we know that the track record has been very, very positive," DeSantis said.

He hosted Floridians who credit monoclonal treatments for their recovery.

Betsy Palmer Bigler, a former teacher in Pascoe County, got Regeneron's monoclonal antibody treatment, as did her husband and her father after her husband tested positive for COVID-19.

"I certainly feel that it saved probably one or all three of our lives," she said.

(7) A New Monoclonal Antibody Drug Is Coming To Florida For COVID-19 Treatment


WUSF Public Media - WUSF 89.7

Published September 23, 2021 at 6:01 PM EDT

Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Sept. 23, 2021, that the state will receive 3,000 doses of the monoclonal antibody treatment Sotrovimab. Gov. Ron DeSantis said the state will receive 3,000 doses of Sotrovimab, which received emergency use authorization in May, to address what he calls a shortfall in Regeneron shipments from the Biden administration.

Florida will receive a shipment of a new monoclonal antibody medication to help treat people with COVID-19 symptoms.

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday announced the shipment of 3,000 doses of a drug called Sotrovimab.

Speaking at the Florida Department of Health office in Tampa, DeSantis said the medication will help the state overcome what he says will be a shortage in the monoclonal antibody treatment Regeneron due to a roll-back by the Biden administration.

"We're going to be able to use that Sotrovimab to bridge some of the gaps that are gonna be developing as a result of the Biden administration dramatically cutting medications to the state of Florida," DeSantis said.

Florida and six other southern states were using 70 percent of the weekly Regeneron monoclonal antibody shipments from the federal government, officials said last week.

The Biden administration began rationing the treatments in response to a national shortage.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for the drug in May. It is manufactured by Glaxo Smith Kline and is available for treatment in adults and pediatric patients 12 years and older.

"The results have been very good so far," DeSantis said, "and I anticipate given how strong the clinical data has been with Sotrovimab, that we're going to continue to see very positive results going forward."

Unlike Regeneron, which is administered by injection, Sotrovimab is given only through I-V.

DeSantis said the state will prioritize getting the medication to high-risk patients.

(8) The Economist endorses Vaccine Mandates



Sep 18th 2021 edition


Why America needs vaccine mandates State pressure has a role in public health. Covid-19 jabs are no exception

Sep 16th 2021

On september 11th 2001, when al-Qaeda attacked America, almost 3,000 people died. In response the government overhauled national security and, for better or worse, struck a new balance between liberty and security. On the 20th anniversary of 9/11 roughly 3,100 people in America died because of covid-19. Another 3,100 died on September 12th. And again on the 13th.

By our estimates, based on excess deaths, the pandemic has claimed 860,000 lives in America. Yet measures to curb the virus by mandating vaccination, which the Biden administration announced on September 9th, are being treated by senior Republicans as a terrifying affront to liberty. "This is still America," tweeted Tate Reeves, the governor of Mississippi, "and we still believe in freedom from tyrants." That is fatally wrong-headed. The details of the Biden mandate could be improved on, but in democracies public health sometimes requires some coercion.

Across the world, governments from France to Australia are using pressure of one sort or another to boost vaccination. That should be no surprise. Ever since vaccines were invented, the state has asked some people to be jabbed to keep viruses such as yellow fever at bay. The justification for this intrusion was set out by America's Supreme Court as long ago as 1905: even if in most cases you are free to refuse treatment, you are not thereby free to infect other people.

The question is whether each country's requirement is proportionate. That depends on the threat and the costs and benefits of pressure. The calculus differs from one place to another.

What should not be in doubt is the danger posed by the Delta variant of covid-19. It is too infectious to be stopped simply by tracking cases. Vaccinated people, especially the elderly, gradually lose protection. If infected they can die, albeit at only one-tenth the rate of the unjabbed. Waves of infection overwhelm hospitals. Treating the unvaccinated cost $3.7bn in America, or $20,000 a patient, in August—a waste of resources.

For all these reasons, your choice over vaccination is everyone's business. It matters that only 63% of Americans aged over 12 have had two doses of a vaccine, compared with 76% of French and 85% of Danes. Delta's rapid spread through the population can be slowed by vaccination, sparing hospitals from overload and protecting vulnerable vaccinated people—for instance, the residents of old-people's homes.

Academics worry that mandates merely sort the hesitant from the hardliners. You get a rapid increase in vaccination, but only to a level at or below what it would anyway have reached. One reason for this is that those convinced of a government plot see coercion as proof. That is why it is wise to keep punishments light and to offer free tests as an alternative to jabs—something the Biden plan fails to provide, but should.

However, the evidence from France is more encouraging. In July, to much grumbling, the state required a vaccine passport or negative test for a range of activities, including visiting bars, restaurants, sports stadiums and shopping centres (see Europe section). A month later nearly 10m people had rushed to be vaccinated—and today the total share is 20 percentage points higher. Our World in Data reports that the share of French who say that they definitely will not be vaccinated fell from 35% in mid-June to 23% in mid-August, the most recent figures.

A survey of over 50 countries in August by Johns Hopkins, an American university, found that over half of unvaccinated respondents said they definitely or probably will not get a jab. Governments cannot rely on mandates alone to get them to change their mind. Instead they also need to focus on their country's particular hang-ups: Turks doubt covid-19 vaccines will work, Czechs don't like vaccines in general, Americans worry about side-effects. The one thing elected officials should not do is to reinforce vaccine hesitancy by falsely presenting all mandates as an attack on constitutional liberties. ?


Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.


Write to me at contact.html.