The “Public Health” version of the 1st Amendment

There’s a vacillating post at Areo, titled The Promotion of Ivermectin: A Free Speech Edge Case, arguing that some modified limited hangout version of free speech should at least be considered when public health is the question.

On the facts, and given the performance of the ivermectin prohibitionists, it’s as near the free speech edge as Omaha is near an ocean.

The article’s case depends on a critique of the paucity of ‘gold standard’ Randomized Controlled Trials conducted on ivermectin. This is the only acceptable methodology for the CDC, FDA, and Dr. Fauci. The essential question is posed as “What if some people resist vaccination because they become persuaded ivermectin is an alternative?” Before we examine the precursors to the social media ban on discussing ivermectin at the behest of the gold standard exclusivists, let’s note that they have refused an opportunity to conduct a human challenge trail.

The boots-on-the-ground clinical evidence for Ivermectin is significant. There are very well respected practicing clinical physicians recommending it in their treatment protocols. The broad empirical data from Peru and India strongly suggest calling let’s-try-ivermectin proponents conspiracists is irrational. Nonetheless, that is our situation with government approved protocols and in Big Tach political interference.

Our “public health” apparatchiks might have a more acceptable case for prohibiting experimental use of a safe drug such as ivermectin in the midst of a pandemic if anyone still trusted them. If they hadn’t started out telling us CCP virus wasn’t a problem for the US; fumbled the specification, preparation, approval, and distribution of test kits; lied about masks, mandated masks, and then lied about lying about masks; insisted the virus couldn’t possibly have escaped from a lab with a sketchy safety history, that researched bat viruses, was at the epicenter of the outbreak, erased records, refused to cooperate with investigations. And to which they had supplied funds for gain of function research.

Meanwhile, they usurped power. For example, where is it written that the CDC has authority to order payment of rents suspended? Why wouldn’t we laugh out loud at practicing bureaucrats claiming they are very embodiment science?

If all this bullshit hadn’t been combined with a lofty display of their superiority, vaccination resistance would be much less a problem.

As if that performance is not enough to make reasonable people nervous, combine it with a Twitter/Facebook/Amazon political conspiracy to prevent us from talking about anything those same bureaucrats told us was ‘settled science,’ and what do you expect will happen?

People will take ivermectin doses manufactured for horses, because their doctors are prohibited from giving them appropriate safe doses. It’s less risky than following the ‘science.’

Ivermectin, say the name

Why Has “Ivermectin” Become a Dirty Word? Read that article, then decide if you will spend the time watching a two and a half hour discussion between Bret Weinstein and Dr. Pierre Kory. The video was banned by YouTube. The copy below is found on Vimeo. For now.

COVID, Ivermectin, and the Crime of the Century DarkHorse Podcast with Pierre Kory & Bret Weinstein
Skip the first 5 minutes of music.

This is information, from impeccable sources, you probably have not heard about Ivermectin. The evidence that doctors should be allowed to use Ivermectin to treat patients with CCP virus is overwhelming, as is its prophylactic property.

Every bit of evidence is insufficient if those who insist on thinking for us don’t approve it, or of its proponent’s speech: Scientist Backing Probe Into Wuhan Lab: We Waited Because We Didn’t Want ‘To Be Associated With Trump’

You can argue that nobody died because some doctors, the MSM, bureaucrats who funded gain of function research in Wuhan, and interest conflicted NGO poobahs supported the CCP in flatly denying there was evidence for a lab leak. The same cannot be said about the suppression of information on Ivermectin.

One cause of the Ivermectin suppression is Trump Derangement Syndrome. If Trump suggested something, say the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis or hydroxychloroquine, it isn’t just wrong – decent people must not discuss it.

And how did that lab leak story work out?

Question the elite narrative on Ivermectin and you’re Trump and a conspiracy theorist. “There’s no evidence because only a double blind, random clinical trial will suffice. And we’re not gonna do that.”

You have to wonder if there is a second reason. Ivermectin isn’t under patent. Any new oral medication for the CCP virus will be.
A Pill To Treat Covid-19? The US Is Betting on It

The Happerning

Hillsdale College – National Leadership Symposium.
Address by William Happer,
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus – Princeton
How to Think About Climate Change
56 minutes (1.25 speed works)

That link is to Watt’s Up With That? because the YouTube version has a “Climate Change” “fact check” disclaimer from WikiTedia appended, and I cannot find the lecture on Hillsdale’s site. WUWT deserves a hat tip, in any case.

On the off chance that you won’t autonomically watch the whole thing based on my recommendation, at least check this 2 minutes out.

It’s the next to last question of the Q&A. It’s a core question. Any catastrophist who watches this, if they have half a clue about their own position, will bring it up. If they don’t have that clue, they’re likely to make some ad hominem objection. You’ve been warned.

Happer set the stage for how one must think about CO2 “forcing” to design climate models politically acceptable to the IPCC, but did not address it in his lecture.

I noted the rigor of those IPCC models, and the quality of the data, in December 2009: Prometheus unbound

All the models admit that CO2 alone CANNOT cause the predicted apocalypse. So, CO2 must have secondary catastrophic consequences. All the models take this as given.

It’s the “forcing” assumption: A little bit of warming from CO2 will cause increases in water vapor (by orders of magnitude the most important greenhouse gas). Atmospheric carbon dioxide iteratively “forces” more and more water vapor – creating a feedback loop that fries the planet.

Clouds are part of that “water cycle.” But they aren’t part of the modeling. The modeling that depends on a particular prediction about the water cycle: NASA: We Can’t Model Clouds, So Climate Model Projections Are 100x Less Accurate [than is required for policy decisions]

“Because the uncertainties are so pervasive, NASA concludes that “today’s models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy” if we wish to make climate projections.”

Clouds. They cannot say within 1% certainty that the models’ “forcing” policies of immiseration upon us can be used to support those policies.

TOC noted this 15 years ago.
Science tempers fears on climate change
Posted on September 4, 2006
The link in that has rotted, but I’m sure a copy of the Kyoto ‘Treaty’ is out there on the InterTubes.

I’ve looked at clouds from no sides now…
Posted on June 30, 2007
The first link in that has rotted, but the second one has not. Note “water cycle” – of which clouds are but one phenomenon unknown to IPCC “science.” That’s where the title of the post came from.

Temporal Cassandra

From 1959. 26 minutes.

From the comments:
Ayn Rand was a time traveler sent to the past to inform the future of its fate.

The sad thing is that Mike Wallace was so much better than today’s talking heads. For example, Cathy Newman.

In hindsight, we know Mike was a Leftist. He may have lacked the imagination to understand what Rand was saying, but he was polite; adding a gloss of honesty to his work. Faint praise, since Walter Cronkite and Bill Moyers did, too.

I couldn’t think of a ‘journalist’ character in Atlas Shrugged. Had to look.* There was only Bertram Scudder.**

Rand was eerily accurate in many ways, but may have understated the degradation we’ve seen in ‘journalism.’ I didn’t remember a sufficient excoriation of the press, and she had Walter Duranty as a contemporary example. Then again, the book is already over a thousand pages, and a full treatment of the press would have doubled that.

Well done, Ayn.

*That led me to an example of the nihilists Jordan Peterson despises.

“The purpose of philosophy is not to help men find the meaning of life, but to prove to them that there isn’t any… ”

“Reason, my dear, is the most naive of all superstitions… You suffer from the popular delusion of believing that things can be understood. You do not grasp the fact that the universe is a solid contradiction… The duty of thinkers is not to explain, but to demonstrate that nothing can be explained… The purpose of philosophy is not to seek knowledge, but to prove that knowledge is impossible to man.”
-Dr. Pritchett

**Scudder’s claim to fame is that he prompted D’Anconia’s “Money Speech.”

“Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of indignation, “Don’t let him disturb you. You know, money is the root of all evil – and he’s the typical product of money.”

Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Aconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?…”

So, of course, I read the whole speech again.

H/T Ragnar ;)

Bloody handed little weasel

Nice short summary of Fauci Fraud.
Fauci In 2012: Gain-Of-Function Research ‘Worth Risk Of Lab Accident Sparking Pandemic’ | ZeroHedge

In which he is quoted in response to questions from Rand Paul:

“We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he added. No matter how many times you say it, it didn’t happen.”

This kind of word play is best left to Bill Clinton. He knew succinct misdirection ‘is’ better.

I mean, “this virus?” Makes you wonder which ones he did fund. It may have been unnecessary embellishment.

Fauci knew he had to phrase his response carefully, since he is on record saying gain of function research is more important than the risk of a pandemic, and he’s about to insist vehemently that Senator Paul is a liar. Let’s just unpack that one reply to Senator Paul:

“At one time my agency did fund gain of function research in the US. But, we had to stop because of unsciency moral objections from the Obama administration. They did not understand the precautionary principle only applies to fossil fuel.

To continue GoF research we were forced to fund a third party NGO. This gave us plausible deniability, since the funding destination was almost certain to be a lab in Wuhan, China.

Since US dollars are fungible, this may or may not have probably funded GoF research at a Chinese lab specializing in coronavirus, headed by a woman nicknamed “batwoman,” who wrote a paper in 2015 about adding a spike protein to bat coronavirus enabling its attachment to human ACE2 receptors. She had long “openly participated in gain-of-function research in partnership with U.S. universities and institutions”.

Her lab was widely considered to have substandard safety protocols, in a country well known to care little for civilized norms and whose military is known to have speculated about coronavirus biological warfare. Which country obfuscated and obstructed the WHO investigation whitewash of the CCP virus origins, having earlier blamed the US Army for it, and after having delayed providing information to the world public health community at the beginning of the outbreak. In Wuhan. China.

Finally, the person who transferred US taxpayer dollars to the Chinese lab on behalf of my NIH was one of the WHO investigators. He anonymously authored a letter denying it was possible the virus was man made prior to the conclusion of WHO’s investigation. The letter, to which he adduced 27 actual signatures, concluded by stating: “We declare no competing interests.” That, of course, is not the same as not having any. I should know.”

In Fauci’s case the “it” that ‘didn’t happen’ is a matter more important than Bill’s torturing of the word “is.”

References & further reading:
The doctor who denied COVID-19 was leaked from a lab had this major bias

Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19

EXCLUSIVE: COVID-19 ‘has NO credible natural ancestor’ and WAS created by Chinese scientists who then tried to cover their tracks with ‘retro-engineering’ to make it seem like it naturally arose from bats, explosive new study claims

The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?