Coronavirus epidemic news

This short clip is very interesting. Such a lot of words expended for a simple Yes or No question. Chrystia Freeland was a professional journalist, before becoming Deputy Prime Minister, appearing on many political discussion shows.

So this is basically a Yes answer, and by only slight extension she's saying that the USA government also knew in early January.

As Madonna wears a corona crown, and the dancers are wearing gas masks, she spins around and blows upon them. They all collapse:

Not everyone is coming to the future
Not everyone is learning from the past
Not everyone can come into the future
Not everyone that's here is gonna last

In that video Madonna also sayeth:

They are so naive
They think we are not aware of their crimes

[zoom out to video of Christian clergymen]
We know, but we're just not ready to act.
[zoom out to video mocking a monk]
The storm isn't in the air
It's inside of us
I want to tell you about love and loneliness
But it's getting late now
Can't you hear outside of your supreme hoodie
The wind that's beginning to howl?
It's the future, crucifixion on a cross
Re Gates promoting population by sly vaccination to sterilize people unwillingly.
Why are we still addressing such a basic issue in the TENTH post about Gates in this thread? Sociologists say that people plan their families so as to be guaranteed to have some kids survive to adulthood. If they need to enter ten kids in the survival lottery, that's what they do.
Indeed, but Gates wants to insure that they have no kids at all, so the masses just die off - just as the Frankfurt School does by promoting sexual dissipation.
If women feel confident that their small family will survive and prosper, they don't want a huge family. Gates explains this in the 2012 video and he's explained it many other times.
The sociology is commonplace - Gates is instead promoting vaccination as a DIRECT - not indirect thru female choice - way to reduce population, just as Prince Philip wanted contraceptives dropped in the drinking water of 3rd world countries.:p

If you think that Gates is deliberately inserting Rh+ factor into vaccines, then where's your proof? Without some sort of evidence, this is just malicious defamation, and a waste of time.

[Note: a massive off-topic digression has been moved to a more appropriate thread.]
Not at all! You are misrepresenting me! He is not putting Rh factor into vaccines, rather, the Rh factor discovery inspired other researchers to investigate fertility control using immunological techniques - initially directed at plague animals such as foxes and cats in Australia (this country pioneering in vitro fertility).

Gates himself doesn't know much about the details - after all, look at his polio vaccine scandal - but he is the leader! Your defence of him is insincere since you will not face the clear implication of his description of vaccines in an "equation" for population reduction. Just like his wealth, his lecture removes human choice - the choice of mothers to have babies - by tainted vaccines that, under the guise of protecting against disease (including for minor illnesses like measles and rubella) can interfere with human reproductive potential.

The formulation of vaccines is NOT something we learn much about at medical school. It is an industry controlled by Big Pharma - and your PC principled defence of this billionaire merely makes me suspicious of your defence of someone you yourself admit you do not like! To give someone like him the benefit of the doubt!!!!!! He has to come out and clarify the video - he did not, he has not, therefore he must be presumed guilty until and unless he and his acolytes can prove otherwise.

Yours faithfully
Last edited:
It's very good. And for some reason, it hasn't been pulled down from YouTube yet, so I can paste it here. But, this is a joke! A caricature! He didn't really say these things. It's a waste of time to look for true statements about Bill Gates's intentions, in his old TED talks. Of course he's going to try to make himself sound good.
Really? He doesn't need to bother when his lecture implying direct use of vaccines for population reduction via vaccine-induced infertility remains unchallenged by the adoring PC babies! It is a waste of time for you Jerry, because you presume him to be merely a clumsy clown, so it is difficult for me to think otherwise than you are posting this to affirm Gates's comic persona and protect him thereby - which is why You Tube left it there, because it pushes clumsy, improbable and easily-refuted conspiracy theories about Gates & Co..:rolleyes:

Yours faithfully

Postscript: I wrote the above before I saw #394 where Richard has posted a 30 minute video on Gates - and reveals even a connection to Geoffrey Epstein. So I need write no more on this horrific creep (i.e. Gates, not PC Principal)!
Last edited:
I have copied the first set of questions by several MDs in an open letter to Dr. Fauci. The entire letter is published on Zerohedge here. It was also referenced in Martenson's video from yesterday where he also talked about apparently high levels of pre-existing immunity to Covid19 resulting in lower levels needed for herd immunity being needed (see at bottom of post).

Questions regarding early outpatient treatment

  1. There are generally two stages of COVID-19 symptomatic infection; initial flu like symptoms with progression to cytokine storm and respiratory failure, correct?
  2. When people are admitted to a hospital, they generally are in worse condition, correct?
  3. There are no specific medications currently recommended for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, correct?
  4. Remdesivir and Dexamethasone are used for hospitalized patients, correct?
  5. There is currently no recommended pharmacologic early outpatient treatment for individuals in the flu stage of the illness, correct?
  6. It is true that COVID-19 is much more lethal than the flu for high-risk individuals such as older patients and those with significant comorbidities, correct?
  7. Individuals with signs of early COVID-19 infection typically have a runny nose, fever, cough, shortness of breath, loss of smell, etc., and physicians send them home to rest, eat chicken soup etc., but offer no specific, targeted medications, correct?
  8. These high-risk individuals are at high risk of death, on the order of 15% or higher, correct?
  9. So just so we are clear—the current standard of care now is to send clinically stable symptomatic patients home, “with a wait and see” approach?
  10. Are you aware that physicians are successfully using Hydroxychloroquine combined with Zinc and Azithromycin as a “cocktail” for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk, individuals?
  11. Have you heard of the “Zelenko Protocol,” for treating high-risk patients with COVID 19 as an outpatient?
  12. Have you read Dr. Risch’s article in the American Journal of Epidemiology of the early outpatient treatment of COVID-19?
  13. Are you aware that physicians using the medication combination or “cocktail” recommend use within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, before the illness impacts the lungs, or cytokine storm evolves?
  14. Again, to be clear, your recommendation is no pharmacologic treatment as an outpatient for the flu—like symptoms in patients that are stable, regardless of their risk factors, correct?
  15. Would you advocate for early pharmacologic outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 patients if you were confident that it was beneficial?
  16. Are you aware that there are hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals as outpatients with this “cocktail?”
  17. Are you aware that there are at least 10 studies demonstrating the efficacy of early outpatient treatment with the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail for high-risk patients — so this is beyond anecdotal, correct?
  18. If one of your loved ones had diabetes or asthma, or any potentially complicating comorbidity, and tested positive for COVID-19, would you recommend “wait and see how they do” and go to the hospital if symptoms progress?
  19. Even with multiple studies documenting remarkable outpatient efficacy and safety of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail,” you believe the risks of the medication combination outweigh the benefits?
  20. Is it true that with regard to Hydroxychloroquine and treatment of COVID-19 infection, you have said repeatedly that “The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?”
  21. But NONE of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done in the first 5 to 7 days after the onset of symptoms- correct?
  22. All of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done on hospitalized patients, correct?
  23. Hospitalized patients are typically sicker that outpatients, correct?
  24. None of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer used the full cocktail consisting of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin, correct?
  25. While the University of Minnesota study is referred to as disproving the cocktail, the meds were not given within the first 5 to 7 days of illness, the test group was not high risk (death rates were 3%), and no zinc was given, correct?
  26. Again, for clarity, the trials upon which you base your opinion regarding the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, assessed neither the full cocktail (to include Zinc + Azithromycin or doxycycline) nor administered treatment within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms, nor focused on the high-risk group, correct?
  27. Therefore, you have no basis to conclude that the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail when used early in the outpatient setting, within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms, in high risk patients, is not effective, correct?
  28. It is thus false and misleading to say that the effective and safe use of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin has been “debunked,” correct? How could it be “debunked” if there is not a single study that contradicts its use?
  29. Should it not be an absolute priority for the NIH and CDC to look at ways to treat Americans with symptomatic COVID-19 infections early to prevent disease progression?
  30. The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus is an RNA virus. It is well-established that Zinc interferes with RNA viral replication, correct?
  31. Moreover, is it not true that hydroxychloroquine facilitates the entry of zinc into the cell, is a “ionophore,” correct?
  32. Isn’t also it true that Azithromycin has established anti-viral properties?
  33. Are you aware of the paper from Baylor by Dr. McCullough et. al. describing established mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail” exert anti-viral effects?
  34. So- the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin (or doxycycline) and zinc, the “HCQ cocktail,” is based on science, correct?
Martenson video:

In a short video discussing the revelations of an expelled CCP member, Cai Xia, she discusses Xi's delays in dealing with the Trumpelosi FauXi virus. Each of these 4 people have committed grevious sins of ommission and/or commission in creating this global chaos, leading to unprecedented distrust in previously trusted (albeit sometimes frequently misplaced) institutions.

I have copied the first set of questions by several MDs in an open letter to Dr. Fauci.

An excellent letter consisting of 120 hard-hitting questions, plus 2 bonus questions about face masks.

I would love to see Dr Fauci faced with these questions in a criminal trial, along with some questions about his financial support for amplification-of-function research in China.

Your defence of him is insincere since you will not face the clear implication of his description of vaccines in an "equation" for population reduction.

I am not defending Gates at all. The reason I am refusing to concede on this, has to do with the credibility of this website. With so many powerful, solid reasons to question Gates's role as our czar of health care, why waste time on red herrings?

For example: Gates has also been on the anti-HCQ bandwagon, such as here:

[Q]: What about the conversation around hydroxychloroquine, which the White House has promoted despite its repeatedly being shown to be ineffective and, in fact, to cause heart problems in some patients?
[A]:This is an age of science, but sometimes it doesn’t feel that way. In the test tube, hydroxychloroquine looked good. On the other hand, there are lots of good therapeutic drugs coming that are proven to work without the severe side effects.
Thus promoting the meme that HCQ is not only ineffective, but also highly dangerous. Gates is lying, and he should know he's lying. I'd like to see him in the docket with Fauci for this.
Last edited:
An excellent letter consisting of 120 hard-hitting questions, plus 2 bonus questions about face masks.

I would love to see Dr Fauci faced with these questions in a criminal trial, along with some questions about his financial support for amplification-of-function research in China.
I forgot to add that Martenson added that Fauci is on the record, years before, that HCQ was efficacious as an antiviral against coronaviruses.
Aha, so I see that it's a policy question on Postflaviana - to agree with the elites :eek:in order to make the website "credible"...
I am not defending Gates at all. The reason I am refusing to concede on this, has to do with the credibility of this website. With so many powerful, solid reasons to question Gates's role as our czar of health care, why waste time on red herrings?
...and so labelling the uncovering of the toxic vaccine agenda with its "vaccinating everybody goal" as a mere "red herring". Otherwise I would be happy with your posting.

[Off topic Fascist advocacy moved to "Guide to Fascism" thread. -JR]

Yours faithfully
Last edited by a moderator:
Aha, so I see that it's a policy question on Postflaviana- to agree with the elites in order to make the website "credible"...

No Claude, the goal is to make the website credible by sticking with facts and logic.

...and so labelling the uncovering of the toxic vaccine agenda with its "vaccinating everybody goal" as a mere "red herring".

No, the Red Herring is the idea that the claim that Gates advocated killing people with toxic vaccines in the 2010 Ted Talk. He was obviously trying to say that good health care (saving lives) would lead to population reduction through better family planning. Reading any other meaning into his words is just obtuse, and anybody who relies on that argument looks like a fool.
Corbett discusses some interesting background on the WHO, including some interesting wording in its 'constitution'. Perhaps most cogent was the contextual redefinition of 'pandemic' that occurred with the earlier H1N1 'pandemic'.

Similarly, 'JC' (from "JC on a Bike") has been making much lately of the current shift in focus from "flattening the curve" to freaking out about even 1 infection within a respective cohort, this with the knowledge that no testing available is accurate enough to detect down to just one positive case out of even hundreds tested. As such, there is no possible way to restart any economy following this insane schema. Meanwhile, Trump has just side-stepped Fauci with a new man touting achieving herd immunity.

Trump is outflanking the Dems, once again, at least in rhetoric, while Pelosi goes on record that she puts her political association with such as the dynastic Kennedy clan before all else.
Last edited:
From the Martenson forum, increasing evidence that Ivermectin is another effective tool in the fight against the covid-19 pandemic, both for treatment and prophylaxis.

This study sought to determine if ivermectin could serve as a prophylactic for those individuals who had been exposed to someone in their household that was tested positive for COVID-19....
The Zagazig University results reveal that out of 203 subjects in the ivermectin arm 15 contacts (7.4%) developed COVID-19 as compared to 59 (58.4%) in the non-intervention arm. Note, all of the subjects were symptomatic based on the study protocol, again here. According to the lead author, the difference between the ivermectin arm and the non-intervention arm was “highly significant” (p<0.001).

70% of the people in Iquitos had contracted Covid. Elias Valles is pastor of Remanente Church, the church we worked with. He is a man that I have found trustworthy over two decades of relationship. He reported that "At its peak, the virus was killing 100 people a day." The Guardian's headline was We are Living in a Catastrophe! Indigenous people along the Amazon without health care were especially vulnerable.
In that desperate place, Valles' son, Caleb, decided that something had to be done. He created a group to pray and research options to help.
An amazing discovery
Then a government nurse told him about an amazing discovery. Some of the people who were getting sick were also making extraordinarily quick recoveries. Upon further investigation, they learned that they were taking Ivermectin, a common anti-parasite drug frequently used to help both people and animals fight worms.
Caleb and his friends bought a large supply of Ivermectin. They were able to get it cheaply from veterinarians. They began to distribute it to the poor up and down the river. Their dosage varied according to weight, but averaged about 1.6 mg. Because they didn't have official approval, they kept their efforts quiet. But as word got out that people were being healed, lines began to form to buy Ivermectin. Prices soared.
Eventually thousands of injections of Ivermectin were given. Caleb estimates 15,000 people were treated with a success rate of nearly 100%. He says that a few people suffering from co-morbidities died, but the vast majority were better within a day or two.

The combined use of IOTA-CARRAGENIN AND IVERMECTIN (IVER.CAR PROTOCOL) in the prophylaxis of health agents showed an effectiveness of one hundred percent, among those who received the treatment, the study revealed.
1,195 Health Agents from different Assistance Centers voluntarily participated in the IVER.CAR protocol between June 1 and August 10, distributed in four assistance centers in Ezeiza, Caseros and Cañuelas.
Of the 1,195 Health Agents who participated in the trial, 788 received IVER.CAR, while 407 did not.
In the group that did not receive IVER.CAR, 237 infections (58%) were verified. Conversely, and n the group receiving IVER.CAR, no transmission were recorded.

Here is more information on the IOTA-CARRAGENIN seaweed extract used in this last study:

In a recent bioRxiv* paper, a research group from the Marinomed Biotech biopharmaceutical company in Austria showed that a sulfated polysaccharide iota-carrageenan has the propensity to inhibit cell entry of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by using an in vitro neutralization assay.
With millions of individuals affected by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, enormous pressure has been put on the global research community to find an effective drug or vaccine. Thus far, these efforts have been elusive, albeit several promising candidates surfaced recently.
Iota-carrageenan is a sulfated polysaccharide found in certain species of red seaweed (Chondrus crispus) with already well-established antiviral activity against respiratory viruses, which was primarily demonstrated in cell cultures and animal models.
In a nutshell, this polymer seems to stick directly to viruses, hampering in turn viral attachment to host cells. Consequently, a nasal spray containing various concentrations of iota-carrageenan has been developed and already registered as a medical device, with rhinoviruses being a prime target.
The wikipedia article on carrageenan shows chemical formulations for ten different types of carrageenan, of which three are commercially important. It also mentions that "degraded carrageenan" can be a triggering factor for Crohn's.

A nasal spray consisting of 0.12% iota carrageenan and 0.5% NaCl in water is available as an over-the-counter cold remedy in many nations all over the world, except the USA. The news-medical article says that the antiviral activity is known primarily through cell cultures and animal models, but in fact there was also a small double-blinded 2010 clinical trial in human patients demonstrating that the product reduces symptoms and shortens the course of the common cold.

The closest and lowest-cost source of the pharmaceutical product that I've been able to find is "Salinex ProTect" at, where it costs $10.99 for a 20ml bottle, plus $25 shipping to the US. Or, for your same $11 you can get a 50 gram bag of iota carrageenan from, which is enough for 40 liters of nasal spray if I'm doing the math correctly.
The "Iver.Car" prophylactic protocol is found at:

(via Google Translate)

The proposed prophylactic treatment consists of the application of ivermectin on
a solution of carrageenan, 5 times a day, for a period of 14 days.
The procedure is detailed:
1. Apply a spray of iota-carrageenan spray in each nostril and 4
sprays of the spray into the oral cavity (under the tongue, one in each
lateral and one in the oropharyngeal area)
2. Apply 1 drop of Ivermectin oral solution on the tongue.
3. Carry out this dosage schedule 5 times a day, repeating the scheme every 4
hours. The last dosage schedule of the day should be done prior to
night rest, in this case you should not wait for the 4 hour period
compared to the previous dose. Avoid food and liquid intake for 1 hour
before and 1 hour after each treatment.
4. Perform the complete treatment for 14 days.

The Ivermectin oral solution is Ivercass, which is 0.6% Ivermectin. The dispenser gives 30 drops per milliliter of solution.
In the past few days JC has made two videos discussing the Yan paper, of which the second author is revealed to be the producer of the Nerdhaspower blog. The Yan paper proposes the technical process for a lab produced Covid-19 virus. In the first paper JC goes through this in detail. For the second video, JC has had some time to reflect and proposes a couple of reasons to suspect that the Yan paper is a red herring. That the method he and others have proposed is the most parsimonious method, that of obtaining the template virus from dead miners and then running that virus through lab animals enough times to obtain the desired mutations to the gene sequence for the ACE2 receptor.

In all this there is also a focus on a specific gene sequence that vaccine and anti-viral meds, like Remdesivir, have been focusing on. But apparently Remdesivir doesn't do much against Covid-19.

The following is a discussion with Sweden's chief epidemiologist where he says that they, generally, are happy with their stance on dealing with Covid-19. Ironically, their mostly voluntary stance resulted in better aspects of behavior than many countries dictates resulted in. And, apparently Vitamin D has long been a government recommendation for Sweden and is well followed.

In his most recent video, Chris Martenson says he doesn't worry so much personally about catching the coronavirus any more, because of the effectiveness of treatments including Vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and ivermectin.

But now that President Trump has caught the virus, HCQ and AZT are out the window. In addition to the recommended Vitamin D, he's reportedly taken a dose of an experimental antibody cocktail from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Regeneron's press release about this product explains:

To develop REGN-COV2, Regeneron scientists evaluated thousands of fully-human antibodies produced by the company's VelocImmune® mice, which have been genetically modified to have a human immune system, as well as antibodies identified from humans who have recovered from COVID-19. The two potent, virus-neutralizing antibodies that form REGN-COV2 bind non-competitively to the critical receptor binding domain of the virus's spike protein, which diminishes the ability of mutant viruses to escape treatment and protects against spike variants that have arisen in the human population...
Could this be the effective and yet suitably expensive 'droid' that we've all been waiting for? has been accumulating and summarizing studies from around the world, regarding effectiveness of various treatments for covid-19. Regarding HCQ, their results are condensed in this chart...


The scatter of results is amazingly broad, especially in the "all studies" category. There are many reasons for the diversity, possibly including: variations in the study population (younger, older, pre-existing conditions), variations in cofactors (use of zinc, azithromycin & etc.,) variations in control protocols (choice of placebo, standard of care), and the biases of the researchers, which can undoubtedly manifest themselves in ways that observers such as myself can hardly imagine.

But with 172 studies, the pattern we've been seeing since April stands confirmed. With early treatment, HCQ (especially combined with zinc & AZT) can substantially reduce the risk of severe outcomes. With late treatment, or used alone, it's still likely to be somewhat effective, except when used in studies funded by major Western pharma companies.

So far, the website has only identified 15 studies of Ivermectin, in contrast to the 172 studies of HCQ. Results are similar or better to HCQ. An Egyptian study out this week does an apples-to-apples comparison with HCQ, while using Zinc and AZT as a common standard of care in the test groups. They use an aggressively large dose of Ivermectin compared to earlier studies. The result indicates that this high-dose Ivermectin protocol is exceptionally effective, much more so than HCQ.

Results: Patients received ivermectin reported substantial recovery of laboratory investigations; and significant reduction in RT-PCR conversion days. A substantial improvement and reduction in mortality rate in Ivermectin treated groups; group I (mild/moderate cases), (99%, and 0.0%, respectively) and group III (severe cases), (94%, and 2.0%, respectively) versus hydroxychloroquine plus standard care treated groups; group II (mild/moderate cases), (74% and 4%, respectively) and group IV (severe cases) (50% and 20%, respectively). Ivermectin had significantly reduced the incidence of infection in health care and household contacts up to 2% compared to 10% in non ivermectin group.
Sadly, the Western pharmaceutical / governmental complex continues to be in denial about all of this evidence, as they're preparing to push the risky, poorly tested mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and/or Moderna.