Most of you know I’ve been covering the actual science on COVID since December of 2019 with daily coverage starting January 14, 2020. My goal was to ensure my audience was informed of the latest on the virus so they could survive. That goal hasn’t changed.
Just as we had in December of 2019, we still have politicians, activists and the media either straight-up lying to you, or at the very least, peddling unverified information that isn’t true. As I’ve always said, the biggest problem with the media isn’t that they are sinister, it’s that they are lazy.
For 15+ years I’ve covered the news media getting scientific stories and studies wrong. Sometimes this was to push a narrative. Other times it was simply that they didn’t understand the study’s conclusions or they went for the ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ strategy for clickbait.
The good news is that he feels great. The story should be ‘Joe Rogan gets COVID, feels great after treatment.’ That isn’t the story though. He must be sacrificed to the mask God Karen for the Cult of Mask. We must have his blood!
Enter Stuart Varney on Fox Business:
Fox Business segment slams Joe Rogan for taking ivermectin after Tucker Carlson pushed the horse dewormer
Ok, Dr. Bob Lahita now has no credibility to discuss this pandemic. None.
Dr. Lahita downplaying Ivermectin as a drug for cattle shows he isn’t in the loop about Ivermectin research over the past several years, even before the pandemic.
Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits.
Further down the line:
Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
Wow! Fauci’s NIH has research on their site showing ivermectin works against COVID. Oh, the scandal!
COVID isn’t the first virus ivermectin has been studied to use as a treatment.
Also in the NIH article:
Since 2012, a growing number of cellular studies have demonstrated that ivermectin has antiviral properties against an increasing number of RNA viruses, including influenza, Zika, HIV, Dengue, and most importantly, SARS-CoV-2.9–17 Insights into the mechanisms of action by which ivermectin both interferes with the entrance and replication of SARS-CoV-2 within human cells are mounting.
We’ve been studying ivermectin to treat the flu, Zika, HIV Dengue Fever, etc. since 2012. The idea that using ivermectin to treat a virus is, to quote Dr. Bob Lahita, “ridiculous” is … well … ridiculous. Ivermectin is also approved for use in humans for parasitic worms and diseases and has been established as safe for humans in the right dosage. He’s not only wrong, but he’s also, at least, 9 years behind the science.
So, how does ivermectin work against certain viruses, like COVID?
For the SARS-CoV-2 virus to make you sick, it has to first infect your cells.
Then while inside the cell, the virus makes heaps of copies of itself, so it can spread around your body.
The virus also has ways of reducing the way your body fights the infection.
During the infection of the cell, some viral proteins go into the cell nucleus, and from here they can decrease the body’s ability to fight the virus, which means the infection can get worse.
To get into the nucleus the viral proteins need to bind a cargo transporter which lets them in.
Ivermectin can block the cargo transporter, so the viral proteins can’t get into the nucleus. This is how the scientists believe Ivermectin works against SARS-CoV-2 virus.
By taking Ivermectin, it means the body can fight the infection like normal, because its antiviral response hasn’t been reduced by the viral proteins.
Keep in mind, that’s Drugs.com, not some guy named Kyle with a blog. The article goes on to cite several studies where ivermectin saves lives fighting COVID.
This Stuart Varney segment reminded me of when Neil Cavuto, also of Fox Business, LIED to his audience about Hydroxychloroquine. Falsely claiming ‘you will die‘ if you took it. The Stuart Varney segment may not be as unhinged as the Cavuto nonsense but it was equally inaccurate. HCQ, like all medications, isn’t perfect and some patients shouldn’t take it depending on other health issues. Again, like every other medication on the planet. HCQ has only claimed the lives of 8 people from overdosing since the 1950s. It’s a safe drug as long as you don’t have any health issues that would suffer from taking it.
You have to ask why everywhere else in the world shows overwhelmingly positive results with HCQ but we don’t. Of course, the answer is most studies done in North America only use HCQ by itself in the late stages of COVID. In those circumstances, it’s only about 21% effective. For reference, the golden child, and very expensive, Remdesivir is only about 22% effective but is universally praised by the media, politicians, and medical community. Of course, Remdesivir’s maker, Gilead, has a lot of people in their pockets and was responsible for a lot of anti-HCQ propaganda. When I took the HCQ stack, my symptoms disappeared in 2 hours. Countless others have similar stories. Did it save my life? Probably not. It did make my recovery faster.
With the constant droning on about hospitalizations overwhelming communities, should we be focusing on inexpensive and effective treatments that keep people out of the hospital?
Just because a lab shows a result, doesn’t mean it works in the real world. However, we know HCQ worked in the real world because we had thousands of doctors who treated COVID patients daily attest to how well HCQ worked. The political class in the US chose to ignore those medical professionals, with more experience treating COVID than our own doctors, and instead ostracized them as quacks. At a time when we had nothing else, taking HCQ with azithromycin and zinc would have saved countless lives. The media, activists, politicians, and ill-informed public health officials needlessly let people die.
Are there better options than HCQ now? Yes. Ivermectin is one of them. Yet the media and ‘doctors’ who are way out of their depths are smearing it again in the middle of a surge in Delta variant COVID. They are repeating their mistakes and people will die because of their hubris.
Dr. Dan Stock went viral at the beginning of August 2021 when he gave testimony at to Mount Vernon Community School Corporation in Indiana about mask mandates and more.
After our schedules not lining up we finally got together to chat about his testimony, masks, vaccines, and COVID treatments on August 13, 2021.
A lot of what he said is information I’ve been giving you throughout the pandemic and other experts have been pointing these things out as well.
Later in the show, I addressed some of his critics and how they were wrong given the published science. You can find that show on my Rumble @CaseyTheHost.
Here’s the research Dr. Stock cited in his testimony that he gave to the board for review:
Many years ago I was in a local gun store because they were a supplier to my business. In front of me was a woman and a male companion. She was there to purchase a handgun. This is in Mishawaka, IN.
Her background check was delayed. The store representative explained to her that the NICS check was delayed and they’d have to wait a few days for the check to go through. She became irate. She was convinced that the store representative was denying her purchase because she was black. He left to get his manager and she turned to me and said something to the effect of ‘can you believe this? Have you ever heard of such a thing?’ I told her I had and it was the law. If your check is delayed they can’t sell you the gun. There are various reasons the background check is delayed but it does happen to law-abiding citizens. She was shocked by what I said. I went on to explain that elections have consequences and there were many (Obama was president) who want to make these waits mandatory for every purchase. She didn’t like the idea of having to wait one bit. The absolute shock she expressed told me she’d never paid much attention to gun laws in this country. That is the case for most members of the media. Jack Colwell is just another example of this ignorance.
Colwell is a visiting journalist with the Gallivan Program in Journalism, Ethics, and Democracy at the University of Notre Dame. He also writes columns for the South Bend Tribune and Howey Politics.
He recently published an article titled Indiana is not a good neighbor. The basic premise of the article is Indiana is responsible for the gun violence in Chicago. An old, busted, debunked excuse routinely used by Democrat leaders in blue states and cities to excuse their inability to control violence in their own cities. Rest assured, if you have a high gun crime area run by Democrats, they will blame their Republican neighbors so they don’t have to take responsibility.
Let’s take the article one piece at a time.
Indiana is not a good neighbor. It’s a deadly neighbor, exporting guns to gangs in Chicago, where every weekend and on many weekdays, too, a blizzard of bullets threatens and often kills little kids as well as intended gang targets.
Most Hoosiers aren’t complicit, of course, but there is blood on the hands of those, including a lot of state legislators, who proudly point to the state’s lax gun laws that make buying a gun so easy, so fast, sometimes with no questions asked.
The notion that Indiana is a ‘deadly neighbor’ is, to put it plainly, a lie. There is no evidence that shows Indiana having primary culpability in any other state’s violent crime rates. More on that later.
Nice of him to say most Hoosiers aren’t complicit. No kidding. However, he goes on to criticize the legislature for making gun buying in Indiana easy, fast, and sometimes ‘with no questions asked.’ Another bald-faced lie. At no point in any legal gun sale are there ‘no questions asked.’ That simply doesn’t happen and is so utterly ridiculous that anyone who repeats this nonsense loses any and all credibility on this subject.
To buy a gun in Indiana, you have to do the same things you have to do in every other state with some minor details in state law.
Be 18 or older
Present state ID (racist?)
Pass a background check
To pass a NICS background check. There’s a form you fill out. I assure you, it asks questions. Lying on that form is a crime.
Additionally, you are prohibited from buying a gun if you:
Have been convicted of a felony
Have been convicted of domestic battery
Are a drug abuser or under the influence of a drug
Are an alcohol abuser or are intoxicated
Are mentally incompetent
As I mentioned earlier, if there’s a delay in your federal NICS check, you don’t get the gun.
They say they want it easy for “law-abiding” citizens to get guns for protection, for hunting, for collecting. Nothing wrong with those purposes, if those were the real purposes of all the purchasers. Too many have no intent to abide by the law. They want to get away with murder.
Thanks for accepting there’s nothing wrong with law-abiding citizens being able to protect themselves with their constitutional rights.
There certainly are those who want to buy guns to commit crimes. Criminals tend to operate that way. Luckily, very few criminals get their guns through legal means. Beyond that, how are FFL dealers supposed to read the minds of these bad guys buying guns? Colwell doesn’t know and neither does anyone else. We’re told profiling is bad. A discrimination suit would likely follow. If you meet the legal requirements to buy and own a gun and don’t do anything alarming during the purchase, they will sell you said gun with few exceptions. Gun dealers do have a right to deny the sale at any time. Then again, they may potentially deal with accusations of discrimination if they do deny a sale. That’s why I opened this column with that story.
As I mentioned earlier, Chicago criminals don’t get their guns from gun stores or gun shows anyway. Sorry folks, the gun show ‘loophole’ is a debunked lie too.
“It is rare for offenders to buy from licensed dealers, and also rare for them to steal their guns,” the study says. “Rather, the predominant sources of guns to offenders are family, acquaintances, fellow gang members—which is to say, members of their social network.”
The study found that only 3% of primary guns used in criminal activity were bought from gun stores. A total of 2 guns.
Colwell, and others, are arguing a fallacy about Indiana gun laws making it easy for criminals to buy guns because Chicago’s own criminals admit they don’t buy them from Indiana gun shops. Indiana’s ‘lax’ gun laws still prevent criminals from buying guns. Great news!
Next up is the issue of the straw purchaser.
This is someone the criminal knows and doesn’t have a criminal history or any other issues that would deny them the legal right to buy a gun. The criminal gets the straw purchaser to buy the gun, then the straw purchaser gives the gun, illegally, to the criminal. This is a crime and is against the law in Indiana and everywhere else.
Colwell points out it is alleged a straw purchaser may have obtained the gun used to murder Chicago police Officer Ella French and seriously injure her partner.
Jamel Danzy is a teacher’s aide in Merrillville, IN, and was recently released from jail by a judge who cited his lack of criminal record in the case.
While Professor Colwell convicts Danzy in his article, it is important to note that he’s not been convicted yet. Though it does look like he may be guilty. His brother believes Danzy was intimidated and forced to buy the gun in Hammond, IN, and transfer it to Officer French’s alleged killer.
Again, this is illegal. Indiana law doesn’t allow straw purchasing. So what exactly does Colwell want here? Again, he doesn’t know. There isn’t a system in place in Illinois gun laws that would have prevented a straw purchase either. The FOID card is basically a redundant background check that creates a database of potential gun owners in Illinois. When you go to buy a gun in Illinois, you have to pass the same background checks as in Indiana and straw purchases are common there.
I’d also like to point out that Professor Colwell admits that Danzy told the gun shop he was buying the gun for himself on his forms. See, there were questions asked and he answered them.
Colwell points to Indianapolis, South Bend, Mishawaka, and other cities in Indiana dealing with gun crime. There’s some truth to that. Do you know what Chicago, Indianapolis, and South Bend all have in common? Prosecutors not doing their jobs.
Chicago’s top cop blasted the court system just this last July.
Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown blasted the city’s judges and prosecutors Tuesday, at a press conference discussing the city’s bloody Fourth of July weekend, which saw record-breaking gun violence with more than 100 people shot, and at least 18 people killed.
Like other cities, Chicago is experiencing a spike in gun crime, but unlike other cities, Chicago saw more shootings over the Independence Day weekend than it did during the same holiday weekend last year. Brown, on Tuesday, said that the Chicago Police Department is stretched to the limit and blamed the city’s judicial system for turning violent offenders back out onto the street for the shocking rise in crime.
Cook County State Attorney Kim Foxx has been routinely criticized by even Chicago media for releasing felons onto the street. She dropped over 25,000 felony charges in 3 years.
Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is dropping felony cases involving charges of murder and other serious offenses at a higher rate than her predecessor.
Her predecessor wasn’t innocent either.
Cook County, IL has had a 13% decrease in guilty pleas/verdicts with a 40% rise in dropped cases between 2013-2019.
A recent review of Indianapolis’ violence issues, specifically involving guns, from March 2018 to February 2020 found around 75% of people had multiple arrests before the homicide. IMPD said on average, both suspects and victims had more than 5 prior arrests.
“The suspects, on average, were arrested at least seven times by the time of the homicide incident,” Allison Davids, Intelligence Analyst at the Crime Gun Intelligence Center, said.
The report by the National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform also said at least 39% of homicides involve a group of three or more people committing violence. In these homicides, they are either the victim, suspect or both.
So, Chicago and Indianapolis have a problem with gang violence and the legal system not keeping serious criminals behind bars. Seems like that might be more of an issue with the violence in those cities than gun laws.
South Bend has the same issue. South Bend Prosecutor Ken Cotter has also been known to release violent repeat offenders with gang affiliations. Mishawaka shares a border with South Bend and often has crime imported from South Bend.
While we are on the subject of other areas getting the blame for local crimes … Chicago is responsible for a lot of crime in South Bend/Mishawaka. Chicago gangs and drugs come here. Chicago’s Latin Kings gang is very prevalent in South Bend and even has members in local government politics and public education. If Chicago were a ‘good neighbor’ they’d get a handle on the gang and drug issues in their city so we didn’t have to deal with it here in Michiana. I wonder why Colwell didn’t bring that point up in his article?
Colwell also wrote this:
Chicago Magazine cites statistics showing that 60% of illegal firearms recovered in Chicago came from outside Illinois. Indiana was the leading exporter of the guns.
This is from a gun trace report done in 2017. Anti-gun activists have used it a lot to attack Indiana as the primary reason gang members kill people in Chicago. It is important to know there is competing research showing this data to not be accurate but we’ll take it at face value for this article. Activists and the media always leave out a critical component to that report. By far, the biggest source of guns used in crimes in Chicago … comes from Chicagoland. It’s not even close.
Cook County, IL is home to 7 of the 10 biggest suppliers of guns used in criminal activity in Chicago. Over a third of guns used in crimes come from suburban Cook County while over 40% of the guns were sourced in Illinois. Indiana was second with just 21% of those guns coming from the state. The data suggest that the main reason criminals source guns from Indiana are because Illinois gun shops sell out of supply.
If the issue were really about Indiana’s lax gun laws arming gangs in Chicago, as Professor Colwell says, then why do twice as many of those guns come from gun control utopia Illinois?
Every news channel is ablaze this week with the FBI threat assessment about the inauguration of Joe Biden. Headline after headling about extremist group plots, etc. However, the actual threat assessment report says the exact opposite. There are no identified credible threats. No threats from extremists, no cyber threats, no threats using drones … none. Had any ‘journalist’ taken a few minutes to actually read the report they’d know that and stop spreading panic porn all over the country.
Mixed in with the stories of some previous incidents, many that left out many contexts, are the actual threat assessments. They are found on pages 2 and 6.
Basically, it’s a standard threat assessment. There are no identified credible threats but authorities must be on the lookout for threats missed leading up to the event. This is a vanilla and routine threat assessment. They warn about the usual suspects, including Islamic terrorists. This isn’t stopping the media from distorting what the report actually says.
The ‘experts’ have been wrong about COVID from the very beginning, but admitting this while also admitting they have no new solutions is career suicide.
This is something I’ve highlighted for years. Radicals, extremists, and terrorists have always been able to roam Facebook and Twitter freely. A few years ago, they finally started working to remove ISIS accounts. However, death threats against conservatives or hunters are often allowed to stay up. I’ve highlighted personal experiences with this many times over the years.
If Apple and Google want to take Parler down because of what happened at the Capital, they have to take Facebook and Twitter down too. Both failed to remove Capital organizers for weeks. Both failed to remove thousands of violent threats. Both failed to remove racist posts. Far more violations happen on Facebook and Twitter, and for much longer periods of time, than on Parler. Therefore, they must be taken down if the attack on Parler was actually about what they claimed.
First, they came for Gab. Now they come for everyone else. Gab has a large and vibrant left-wing community. They aren’t ‘alt-right’ or a ‘right-wing’ platform in the least.
From WaPo:
In the days leading up to last week’s march on the Capitol, supporters of President Trump promoted it extensively on Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram and used the services to organize bus trips to Washington. More than 100,000 users posted hashtags affiliated with the movement prompted by baseless claims of election fraud, including #StopTheSteal and #FightForTrump.
The details, emerging from researchers who have combed the service in recent days, shed new light on how Facebook services were used to bring attention to and boost attendance at the rally, which turned violent when a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol while Congress was in session. The attack resulted in the death of a Capitol Police officer and four other people.
Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg has sought to deflect blame, noting the role of smaller, right-leaning services such as Parler and Gab.
“I think these events were largely organized on platforms that don’t have our abilities to stop hate, don’t have our standards and don’t have our transparency,” Sandberg said in an interview Monday that was live-streamed by Reuters.
Riiiiight.
The far bigger platform with far more users who was used far more than Parler and Gab SHOULDN’T be held to the same standards as Parler and Gab because they do remove posts sometimes. Well, so do the other platforms. Posting illegal activity is a violation of everyone’s terms of services and aren’t permitted or allowed in any capacity. Actually, Sandberg’s deflection of blame is really an indictment of Facebook.
When she says Parler and Gab a ‘smaller’ and ‘don’t have our abilities to stop hate’ she’s admitting that Facebook failed even though they are far more capable than the other two. If Facebook can’t possibly prevent this content, how are Parler and Gab expected to given their small size and lack of abilities to stop it?
The legacy press, such as the New York Times, and activist groups such as the Anti-Defamation League, each also blamed two challenger sites – Gab and Parler – rather than the big sites like Twitter and Facebook where rioters actually planned their activities.
The reality of app store bans is and always has been that Big Tech moderation policies are selectively applied. Big Tech responds not to reality but to the demands of far-left activists who clog the proverbial phone lines of Apple and Google every time a handful of offensive or illegal posts appears on our sites, while ignoring when hundreds of thousands of illegal or offensive posts appears on theirs.
We are documenting millions of illegal posts in our Liberal Hate Machine project which shows just how much hatred and bile is spewed on Twitter, one of our most major competitors. We have been collecting and analyzing over 100 million tweets in the replies section of President Trump’s Twitter account for about a year. We applied sentiment analysis to detect violent and hateful replies. Wait until you see what we found.
Twitter and Facebookboth have huge contracts with Amazon. Facebook has a data deal with Amazon that they kept secret. Twitter uses the same AWS services that Parler used. Yet Amazon hasn’t taken Twitter off the internet for far more violations over a longer period of time than Parler. Why? Probably money. A bigger customer of Amazon asks them to remove the competition and stop the bleeding from the mass exodus away from Twitter and Facebook. Amazon complies with its bigger customer’s requests.
It’s a tale as old as time and may give more teeth to the government’s anti-trust case.
