CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Every American citizen should know AND DEFEND their rights under the law.
Your rights have been violated, and they continue to be violated.
Contact a good lawyer and discuss how you can best defend your rights.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results,... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results,... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both,... and if death results,... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both,... and if death results,... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
42 U.S. Code § 1985.Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(3)Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
18 U.S. Code § 248.
(a)Prohibited Activities.--Whoever--
(2)
by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;
(b)Penalties.--Whoever violates this section shall--
(1)
in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
(2)
in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both;
except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.
(c)Civil Remedies.--
(1)Right of action.--
(A)In general.--
Any person aggrieved by reason of the conduct prohibited by subsection (a) may commence a civil action for the relief set forth in subparagraph (B), except that such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(2) only by a person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship or by the entity that owns or operates such place of religious worship.
(B)Relief.--
In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. With respect to compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at any time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation.
(2)Action by attorney general of the united states.--
(A)In general.--
If the Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court.
(B)Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and compensatory damages to persons aggrieved as described in paragraph (1)(B). The court, to vindicate the public interest, may also assess a civil penalty against each respondent--
(i)
in an amount not exceeding $10,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $15,000 for other first violations; and
(ii)
in an amount not exceeding $15,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $25,000 for any other subsequent violation.
(3)Actions by state attorneys general.--
(A)In general.--
If the Attorney General of a State has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, such Attorney General may commence a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any appropriate United States District Court.
(B)Relief.--
In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties as described in paragraph (2)(B).
(Added Pub. L. 103–259, § 3, May 26, 1994, 108 Stat. 694; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330023(a)(2), (3), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2150.)
(2)
by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;
(b)Penalties.--Whoever violates this section shall--
(1)
in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
(2)
in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both;
except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.
(c)Civil Remedies.--
(1)Right of action.--
(A)In general.--
Any person aggrieved by reason of the conduct prohibited by subsection (a) may commence a civil action for the relief set forth in subparagraph (B), except that such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(2) only by a person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship or by the entity that owns or operates such place of religious worship.
(B)Relief.--
In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. With respect to compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at any time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation.
(2)Action by attorney general of the united states.--
(A)In general.--
If the Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court.
(B)Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and compensatory damages to persons aggrieved as described in paragraph (1)(B). The court, to vindicate the public interest, may also assess a civil penalty against each respondent--
(i)
in an amount not exceeding $10,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $15,000 for other first violations; and
(ii)
in an amount not exceeding $15,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $25,000 for any other subsequent violation.
(3)Actions by state attorneys general.--
(A)In general.--
If the Attorney General of a State has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, such Attorney General may commence a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any appropriate United States District Court.
(B)Relief.--
In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties as described in paragraph (2)(B).
(Added Pub. L. 103–259, § 3, May 26, 1994, 108 Stat. 694; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330023(a)(2), (3), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2150.)
22 U.S. Code § 6712
No abridgement of constitutional right
No abridgement of constitutional right
No person may be required, as a condition for entering into a contract with the United States or as a condition for receiving any benefit from the United States, to waive any right under the Constitution for any purpose related to this chapter or the Convention.
(Pub. L. 105–277, div. I, title I, § 102, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–861.)
(Pub. L. 105–277, div. I, title I, § 102, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–861.)
"Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do,
McGuire v. Corn, 92 Ohio App. 445, 110 N.E.2d 809;
as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty,
State v. Ward, 163 Tenn. 265, 43 S.W.2d 217;
as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law,
Warren v. Commonwealth, 136 Va. 573, 118 S.E. 125;
as an act which a person ought not to do at all,
Bell v. Josselyn, 69 Mass. (Gray) 309, 63 Am.Dec. 741;
Lee v. Providence Washington Insurance Company, 82 Mont. 264, 266 P. 640;
Rising v. Ferris, 216 Ill.App. 252;
as a wrongful act which a person ought not to do,
Robbins v. Commonwealth, 232 Ky. 115, 22 S.W.2d 440;
as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful,
Coite v. Lynes, 33 Conn. 109;
State ex rel. Hardie v. Coleman, 115 Fla. 119, 155 So. 129, 92 A.L.R. 988;
Minkler v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Smithers, 14 Neb. 181, 15 N.W. 330;
as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful,
White v. Lowry, 162 Miss. 751, 139 So. 874;
and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do,
National Surety Company v. State ex rel. Rathburn, 90 Ind.App. 524, 161 N.E. 832;
Dudley v. City of Flemingsburg, 115 Ky. 5, 72 S.W. 327, 60 L.R.A. 757, 103 Am.St. Rep. 253, 1 Ann.Cas. 958;
State ex rel. Jones v. Doucet, 203 La. 743, 14 So. 2d 622.
To establish malfeasance in office it is not necessary to show a specific intent to defraud, *43 or that the act is criminal or corrupt in character.
Warren v. Commonwealth, 136 Va. 573, 118 S.E. 125;
Law v. Smith, 34 Utah 394, 98 P. 300;
State ex rel. Attorney General v. Lazarus, 39 La. Ann. 142, 1 So. 361.
See also County Court of Tyler County v. Duty, 77 W.Va. 17, 87 S.E. 256."
— Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956)
https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1957/10835-2.html
McGuire v. Corn, 92 Ohio App. 445, 110 N.E.2d 809;
as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty,
State v. Ward, 163 Tenn. 265, 43 S.W.2d 217;
as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law,
Warren v. Commonwealth, 136 Va. 573, 118 S.E. 125;
as an act which a person ought not to do at all,
Bell v. Josselyn, 69 Mass. (Gray) 309, 63 Am.Dec. 741;
Lee v. Providence Washington Insurance Company, 82 Mont. 264, 266 P. 640;
Rising v. Ferris, 216 Ill.App. 252;
as a wrongful act which a person ought not to do,
Robbins v. Commonwealth, 232 Ky. 115, 22 S.W.2d 440;
as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful,
Coite v. Lynes, 33 Conn. 109;
State ex rel. Hardie v. Coleman, 115 Fla. 119, 155 So. 129, 92 A.L.R. 988;
Minkler v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Smithers, 14 Neb. 181, 15 N.W. 330;
as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful,
White v. Lowry, 162 Miss. 751, 139 So. 874;
and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do,
National Surety Company v. State ex rel. Rathburn, 90 Ind.App. 524, 161 N.E. 832;
Dudley v. City of Flemingsburg, 115 Ky. 5, 72 S.W. 327, 60 L.R.A. 757, 103 Am.St. Rep. 253, 1 Ann.Cas. 958;
State ex rel. Jones v. Doucet, 203 La. 743, 14 So. 2d 622.
To establish malfeasance in office it is not necessary to show a specific intent to defraud, *43 or that the act is criminal or corrupt in character.
Warren v. Commonwealth, 136 Va. 573, 118 S.E. 125;
Law v. Smith, 34 Utah 394, 98 P. 300;
State ex rel. Attorney General v. Lazarus, 39 La. Ann. 142, 1 So. 361.
See also County Court of Tyler County v. Duty, 77 W.Va. 17, 87 S.E. 256."
— Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956)
https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1957/10835-2.html
The organizations and corporations listed below have been violating the Constitutional rights of American citizens and committing acts that constitute Crimes Against Humanity.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC)
Has Committed and Continues to Commit Crimes Against Humanity:
Has Committed and Continues to Commit Crimes Against Humanity:
Please read this article on the CDC website where they CLEARLY state that Ivermectin has NOT been FDA approved for use in cases of scabies, but the CDC recommends it's use on an 'OFF-LABEL" basis.
The CDC instructs doctors on the off-label use of ivermectin for both classic scabies and the more serious form known as crusted scabies.
Depending on infection severity, ivermectin should be taken in three doses (approximately days 1, 2, and 8), five doses (approximately days 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15), or seven doses (approximately days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 22, and 29).
If ivermectin is safe enough for the CDC to recommend 3, 5 or 7 doses, depending on the severity of the crusted scabies, then why would it not be safe to take a lesser amount for a deadly disease such as COVID-19?
Interestingly enough, doctors are comfortable prescribing Ivermectin ON AN OFF-LABEL BASIS to treat scabies, but they are unwilling to do so for a deadly disease such as COVID-19. If it's safe enough to prescribe it off label for elderly people with scabies, why is it not safe enough to prescribe off-label for people with COVID-19?
Hypocrisy?
Depending on infection severity, ivermectin should be taken in three doses (approximately days 1, 2, and 8), five doses (approximately days 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15), or seven doses (approximately days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 22, and 29).
If ivermectin is safe enough for the CDC to recommend 3, 5 or 7 doses, depending on the severity of the crusted scabies, then why would it not be safe to take a lesser amount for a deadly disease such as COVID-19?
Interestingly enough, doctors are comfortable prescribing Ivermectin ON AN OFF-LABEL BASIS to treat scabies, but they are unwilling to do so for a deadly disease such as COVID-19. If it's safe enough to prescribe it off label for elderly people with scabies, why is it not safe enough to prescribe off-label for people with COVID-19?
Hypocrisy?
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Has Committed and Continues to Commit Crimes Against Humanity:
As late as September 18, 2020 (last updated August 27, 2020), the National Institutes of Health were actively recommending AGAINST the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19. This is DESPITE their crystal clear admission that ivermectin has an exemplary safety record and they clearly know its mechanism of action. They also openly admit that ivermectin is effective against dengue, Zika, HIV and yellow fever
Using the power of a national organization that is supposed to be dedicated to improving the health of the nation to DENY safe and effective care is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
Then the NIH proceeded to say what must be considered to be one of the most asinine statements ever made in referring to the ICON study.
The NIH stated that the reduction in mortality in the group that received ivermectin was limited to those who had severe disease! This is certainly one of the most stupid statements in history!
The NIH stated that the reduction in mortality in the group that received ivermectin was limited to those who had severe disease! This is certainly one of the most stupid statements in history!
The ICON study reduced overall mortality by 40%. It is not humanly possible to make a more asinine criticism of a successful study than to imply it was somehow not a success because it only helped really sick people NOT die.
| nih_covid-19_treatment_guidelines.pdf |
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Has Committed and Continues to Commit Crimes Against Humanity
This statement by the FDA is a blatant lie:
"Additional testing is needed to determine whether ivermectin might be safe"
Ivermectin has been approved for safety by the FDA:
The CDC (see above) recommends up to 7 doses of ivermectin for treatment of crusted scabies.
The FDA KNOWS that Ivermectin is safe:
"Ivermectin tablets are approved for use in people for the treatment of some parasitic worms (intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis) and ivermectin topical formulations are approved for human use by prescription-only for the treatment of external parasites such as headlice and skin conditions such as rosacea."
"Additional testing is needed to determine whether ivermectin might be safe"
Ivermectin has been approved for safety by the FDA:
The CDC (see above) recommends up to 7 doses of ivermectin for treatment of crusted scabies.
The FDA KNOWS that Ivermectin is safe:
"Ivermectin tablets are approved for use in people for the treatment of some parasitic worms (intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis) and ivermectin topical formulations are approved for human use by prescription-only for the treatment of external parasites such as headlice and skin conditions such as rosacea."
WHY does the FDA continue to lie about Ivermectin? Why are they fighting against a treatment that has been successful around the world? Why are they actively suppressing ivermectin?
"Products that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure COVID-19 are subject to FDA investigation and potential enforcement action if they have not demonstrated safety and effectiveness for that intended use. The task force has already worked with retailers to remove dozens of these types of product listings online.
Please help us protect public health by alerting FDA of anyone claiming to have a product to prevent or cure COVID-19 and to help safeguard human and animal health by reporting any of these products to FDA-COVID19-Fraudulent-Products@fda.hhs.gov or 1-888-InfoFDA (1-888-463-6332)."
"Products that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure COVID-19 are subject to FDA investigation and potential enforcement action if they have not demonstrated safety and effectiveness for that intended use. The task force has already worked with retailers to remove dozens of these types of product listings online.
Please help us protect public health by alerting FDA of anyone claiming to have a product to prevent or cure COVID-19 and to help safeguard human and animal health by reporting any of these products to FDA-COVID19-Fraudulent-Products@fda.hhs.gov or 1-888-InfoFDA (1-888-463-6332)."
The World Health Organization (WHO) Has Committed and Continues to Commit Crimes Against Humanity
The World Health Organization has essentially been SILENT regarding the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 around the world. This BLATANT act of omission is criminal in its intent.
https://www.who.int/news
https://www.who.int/news
Why has the WHO been silent on all of this information, and this information?
The World Health Organization CLEARLY knows that ivermectin is an incredibly safe medication. They have promoted its use in a massive way.
The World Health Organization actively opposes information that conflicts with their narrative by slandering it as mis-information and working hard to silence it.
https://www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2020-managing-the-covid-19-infodemic-promoting-healthy-behaviours-and-mitigating-the-harm-from-misinformation-and-disinformation
https://www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2020-managing-the-covid-19-infodemic-promoting-healthy-behaviours-and-mitigating-the-harm-from-misinformation-and-disinformation
IVERMECTIN FOR THE PREVENTION OF COVID-19 So WHO is telling the Truth?
https://www.thecompleteguidetohealth.com/ivermectin-for-the-prevention-of-covid-19-so-who-is-telling-the-truth.html
https://www.thecompleteguidetohealth.com/ivermectin-for-the-prevention-of-covid-19-so-who-is-telling-the-truth.html
The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Has Committed and Continues to Commit Crimes Against Humanity:
Recommendation [AGAINST] Regarding the Use of Ivermectin as a Treatment for COVID-19, 22 June 2020
| recommendation_-against-__regarding_the_use_of_ivermectin_as_a_treatment_for_covid-19.pdf |
Kaiser
Has Committed Crimes Against Humanity and Probably Will Again:
Has Committed Crimes Against Humanity and Probably Will Again:
Here is a real life example of the
insanity that we are up against:
(Redacted for privacy reasons.)
The image below is a screenshot of an email that was received by someone who thought that their doctor and health company (Kaiser) was concerned about their personal health. The patient sent the email listed below to their doctor and received this email as a response. The doctor did not reply directly to the patient. This email came from a third party (administrator).
As you will see in the text of the email below, the patient was simply asking their doctor to look into "The Borody Protocol" on their behalf.
The patient did not request a diagnosis from their doctor.
The patient did not ask the doctor for a prescription.
The patient simply asked their doctor to INVESTIGATE "The Borody Protocol."
Kaiser refused to allow the patient's doctor to even look into a potential life-saving protocol.
Ignoring a patient's direct, clear and specific request and refusing to allow a doctor to investigate a potentially life-saving therapy on behalf of that patient is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
The patient did not request a diagnosis from their doctor.
The patient did not ask the doctor for a prescription.
The patient simply asked their doctor to INVESTIGATE "The Borody Protocol."
Kaiser refused to allow the patient's doctor to even look into a potential life-saving protocol.
Ignoring a patient's direct, clear and specific request and refusing to allow a doctor to investigate a potentially life-saving therapy on behalf of that patient is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
AN EXPLANATION:
Doctors who operate their own business (fewer and farther between) have the freedom to practice the art AND science of medicine. They are free to closely observe individual patients and follow protocols that are right for their patient, not just blindly follow a one-size-fits all protocol. I have spoken directly with doctors who still have their testicles and still have a backbone (DR. B.) They are focused on helping their patients, not obeying their overlords.
Doctors who work under someone else's financial structure (Kaiser) have essentially become robots that blindly and obediently follow the protocols as commanded by their administrative masters. They will soon be replaced in large part by artificial intelligence and robots.
Insurance companies that provide liability insurance have expectations that doctors are not Wild West "cowboys" who believe that it is more important to help their patient regain their health than it is to blindly follow protocols that simply do not work.
We all need to understand what malpractice is...
Doctors who work under someone else's financial structure (Kaiser) have essentially become robots that blindly and obediently follow the protocols as commanded by their administrative masters. They will soon be replaced in large part by artificial intelligence and robots.
Insurance companies that provide liability insurance have expectations that doctors are not Wild West "cowboys" who believe that it is more important to help their patient regain their health than it is to blindly follow protocols that simply do not work.
We all need to understand what malpractice is...
FYI: Unnecessary stress and worry about one's health is a real injury.
Facebook
Has Committed Crimes Against Humanity:
Has Committed Crimes Against Humanity:
Facebook has censored (deleted) posts and deleted discussion groups that were dedicated to discussing Ivermectin.
Censoring information and thus denying access to safe and effective care is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
Censoring information and thus denying access to safe and effective care is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE TO VISIT F&¢% FACEBOOK
The New York Times
Has Committed Crimes Against Humanity and Continues To Do So On An Ongoing Basis:
Has Committed Crimes Against Humanity and Continues To Do So On An Ongoing Basis:
By presenting biased information in their "Coronavirus Drug and Treatment Tracker," The New York Times does a deep disservice to all humanity.
By only publishing "only the news that they determine is fit to print," they present their one sided view of Ivermectin as if it is the complete and balanced truth.
As of September 22 (when this information was posted), The New York Times have not updated their "Tracker" Since August 10, 2020. Clearly that is a disservice to their readers. Not only did they CLEARLY ignore the vast majority of information that was readily available on August 10, 2020, and present Ivermectin in a negative biased manner, they continue to ignore all of the information that has become available since they last updated their "Tracker."
What good is a "tracker" if it is not maintained on a regular basis?
The information on this website is all publicly available, but The New York Times refuses to include the vast majority of it in their so-called "Tracker."
That is not by accident.
Ignore-ance is not a valid excuse.
By only publishing "only the news that they determine is fit to print," they present their one sided view of Ivermectin as if it is the complete and balanced truth.
As of September 22 (when this information was posted), The New York Times have not updated their "Tracker" Since August 10, 2020. Clearly that is a disservice to their readers. Not only did they CLEARLY ignore the vast majority of information that was readily available on August 10, 2020, and present Ivermectin in a negative biased manner, they continue to ignore all of the information that has become available since they last updated their "Tracker."
What good is a "tracker" if it is not maintained on a regular basis?
The information on this website is all publicly available, but The New York Times refuses to include the vast majority of it in their so-called "Tracker."
That is not by accident.
Ignore-ance is not a valid excuse.
**********
On June 26, 2019 the New York Times published an article in which the CLEARLY stated that ivermectin was considered safe enough to give to almost everyone except the youngest infants and pregnant women.
**********
In 2011, The New York Times reported on this study, showing that ivermectin was an effective ectoparasitic drug - it kills mosquitoes that bite people who have taken ivermectin within the previous 28 days, thus lowering the rate of transmission of malaria.
**********
The biased reporting by the New York Times is a conscious crime of omission and is thus a Crime Against Humanity.
Merck
Has Committed Crimes Against Humanity:
Has Committed Crimes Against Humanity:
Merck, which originally developed ivermectin but whose patent on it expired, does not endorse its use for COVID-19 treatment.
In a statement, a Merck representative said that “following detailed review of the evidence available for ivermectin we calculated that the dose required to attain an antiviral effect would significantly exceed the doses known to be safe and well tolerated,” referencing the in vitro study. “We therefore concluded that further research to evaluate the clinical potential of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 was not warranted.”
Merck is in the process of developing its own new therapy for COVID-19, which it would presumably patent. It is also involved in vaccine trials.
In a statement, a Merck representative said that “following detailed review of the evidence available for ivermectin we calculated that the dose required to attain an antiviral effect would significantly exceed the doses known to be safe and well tolerated,” referencing the in vitro study. “We therefore concluded that further research to evaluate the clinical potential of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 was not warranted.”
Merck is in the process of developing its own new therapy for COVID-19, which it would presumably patent. It is also involved in vaccine trials.
Snopes
Has Committed Crimes Against Humanity and Continues To Do So On An Ongoing Basis:
Has Committed Crimes Against Humanity and Continues To Do So On An Ongoing Basis:
Snopes updated its article on September 9, 2020, but fails to state what was edited. Why are they hiding the version of the article that they had posted on September 8, 2020?
The Snopes article of September 8, 2020 is filled with blatant lies, false statements and mis-representations and old, old information.
One of the most egregious pieces of misinformation that Snopes published is below...
"At the time of publication, there was no emergency use authorization for ivermectin in the U.S. to prevent or treat COVID-19, a legal measure that would bypass many regulatory laws.
In short, the efficacy of ivermectin in combating COVID-19 depends on further preclinical testing and, if it were to pass, then the drug must undergo a four-part series of clinical trials as required by law. As of August 2020, it was too soon to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment or cure for COVID-19."
In short, the efficacy of ivermectin in combating COVID-19 depends on further preclinical testing and, if it were to pass, then the drug must undergo a four-part series of clinical trials as required by law. As of August 2020, it was too soon to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment or cure for COVID-19."
Please review the information on the home page of this website to understand that Ivermectin is already an FDA approved drug. NO emergency use authorization is needed!
Every doctor in the United States has the legal authority to recommend Ivermectin to their COVID-19 patients.
Ivermectin does NOT need to "undergo a four-part series of clinical trials as required by law" in order for any doctor in the United States to legally prescribe it "off-label" for their patients.
Unfortunately, Madison Dapcevich even failed to report that Ivermectin should probably not be given to her border collie Ruka, because some dog breeds ARE sensitive to ivermectin.
Every doctor in the United States has the legal authority to recommend Ivermectin to their COVID-19 patients.
Ivermectin does NOT need to "undergo a four-part series of clinical trials as required by law" in order for any doctor in the United States to legally prescribe it "off-label" for their patients.
Unfortunately, Madison Dapcevich even failed to report that Ivermectin should probably not be given to her border collie Ruka, because some dog breeds ARE sensitive to ivermectin.
The blatantly false statements published by Madison Dapcevich on Snopes.com constitute an ongoing Crime Against Humanity.
In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] has blatantly ignored recent studies regarding the benefits of vitamin D in COVID-19 patients.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is an executive non-departmental public body of the Department of Health in England, which publishes guidelines in four areas:
• the use of health technologies within the National Health Service and within NHS Wales
• clinical practice
• guidance for public sector workers on health promotion and ill-health avoidance
• guidance for social care services and users.
In response to this study;
• the use of health technologies within the National Health Service and within NHS Wales
• clinical practice
• guidance for public sector workers on health promotion and ill-health avoidance
• guidance for social care services and users.
In response to this study;
Vitamin D sufficiency, a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D at least 30 ng/mL reduced risk for adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239799
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239799
a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care said: “The latest review from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] suggests no robust evidence for vitamin D supplements reducing the severity of COVID-19.
Medical Malparactice:
