A Yale University professor and renowned cancer researcher has pored over the COVID-19 literature and treated several dozen patients. He can remain silent no longer.

Dr. Alessandro Santin, a practicing oncologist and scientist who runs a large laboratory at Yale, believes firmly that ivermectin could vastly cut suffering from COVID-19. Santin joins a growing group of doctors committed to using the safe, generic drug both as an early home treatment to prevent hospitalization and alongside inpatient treatments like steroids and oxygen.

"The bottom line is that ivermectin works. I've seen that in my patients as well as treating my own family in Italy," Santin said in an interview, referring to his father, 88, who recently suffered a serious bout of COVID. "We must find a way to administer it on a large scale to a lot of people."

The European database of suspected drug reaction reports, EudraVigilance, is now tracking reports of injuries and deaths following the experimental COVID-19 "vaccines."

Here is what EudraVigilance states about their database:

This website was launched by the European Medicines Agency in 2012 to provide public access to reports of suspected side effects (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions). These reports are submitted electronically to EudraVigilance by national medicines regulatory authorities and by pharmaceutical companies that hold marketing authorisations (licences) for the medicines.

EudraVigilance is a system designed for collecting reports of suspected side effects. These reports are used for evaluating the benefits and risks of medicines during their development and monitoring their safety following their authorisation in the European Economic Area (EEA). EudraVigilance has been in use since December 2001.

This website was launched to comply with the EudraVigilance Access Policy, which was developed to improve public health by supporting the monitoring of the safety of medicines and to increase transparency for stakeholders, including the general public.

The Management Board of the European Medicines Agency first approved the EudraVigilance Access Policy in December 2010. A revision was adopted by the Board in December 2015 based on the 2010 pharmacovigilance legislation. The policy aims to provide stakeholders such as national medicines regulatory authorities in the EEA, the European Commission, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers, as well as the pharmaceutical industry and research organisations, with access to reports on suspected side effects.

Transparency is a key guiding principle of the Agency, and is pivotal to building trust and confidence in the regulatory process. By increasing transparency, the Agency is better able to address the growing need among stakeholders, including the general public, for access to information. (Source.)

After a globally coordinated campaign involving over 100 mainstream media outlets, 12 state attorney generals, and a Congressional hearing, to discredit, defame, vilify and otherwise de-platform a number of prominent health freedom advocates and whistleblowers, thousands of supporters have risen up to speak out against this failed attempt to divert attention from vaccine safety concerns, draconian government regulations, and the growing socio-economic and psychological harms the government's response to COVID has wrought upon millions of citizens.

Soon after two organizations calling themselves the "Center for Countering Digital Hate" and "Anti-Vax Watch" published a document titled, The Disinformation Dozen: Why Platforms Must Act on Twelve Leading Online Anti-Vaxxers on March 24th — which received international media amplification across at least 100 different news outlets — a tidal wave of social media responses inundated their posts on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, calling them out for their clearly hypocritical behavior in viciously attacking and defaming 12 prominent health freedom advocates and whistleblowers.

Just like the COVID vaccines, use of masks (instead of respirators) to block transmission of a virus was only authorized as experimental use. As such, according to law, it must be optional. If we are going to passively allow governors and governments to make this medical device mandatory, what is to stop them from making the vaccine mandatory?

As I've mentioned before, both the FDA and OSHA have made it clear over the years that only respirators, not masks, are considered valid PPE to block transmission of a respiratory virus. Which is why mask manufacturers must continue to place a disclaimer on their labels that the product does not work for airborne viruses. The CDC is lying to the public and giving them a false sense of security by suggesting masks are valid medical devices for COVID. That is why the FDA was forced to use an Emergency Use Authorization - the same process used for the vaccines - to approve masks as medical devices to be used as source control to reduce the spread of COVID on April 24, 2020.

In case you needed another reason to get your COVID-19 vaccination, Krispy Kreme is sweetening the deal — it's giving free doughnuts to anyone with proof of vaccination, all year long.

Starting Monday, any customer with a valid COVID-19 vaccination card will receive a free Original Glazed doughnut at participating locations nationwide. The iconic doughnut shop specifies that any guests who have received at least one of the two shots of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine, or one shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine qualify for the promotion.

All you need to show is your vaccination card to redeem your doughnut — a vaccine sticker is not valid.

COVID-19 vaccines are still considered to be experimental and some recipients have experienced horrible side effects from taking it. This includes actor/lawyer/writer/comedian, Ben Stein. Some recipients have also died after taking it, leading many European countries to suspend certain versions.

So despite all the public service announcements and government pressure to take the shot, there are people who still don't want it - even health care workers.

Kroger isn't mandating COVID shots but is offering $100 to employees who take them. Some businesses are also offering other incentives to customers.

There follows a guest post by Lockdown Sceptics' regular Guy de la Bédoyère.

Just when you thought the Covid madness couldn't take any more twists, here comes another one but you'd better brace yourself. The BBC's Science Correspondent James Gallagher has a startling revelation that the common cold (the rhinovirus) can suppress COVID-19 because it's so tough the SARS-CoV-2 virus gets pushed out of the way to make room for it. The news comes from the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Here's the summary:

Human rhinovirus triggers an innate immune response that blocks SARS-CoV-2 replication within the human respiratory epithelium. Given the high prevalence of human rhinovirus, this interference effect might cause a population-wide reduction in the number of new COVID-19 infections.

From a host's perspective, HRV [Human Rhinovirus] infections, which are usually associated with mild disease, stimulate an antiviral response that prevents infections by more severe (and sometimes lethal) viruses such as SARS-CoV-2.

An independent panel of medical experts overseeing AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine trial accused the pharmaceutical company of cherry-picking favorable data, The New York Times reported.

The Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) alleged that AstraZeneca misrepresented the results of its coronavirus vaccine trial when it announced Monday morning that the vaccine had 79% efficacy at preventing symptomatic coronavirus, according to the NYT. The panel wrote a sharply-worded letter to the British pharmaceutical company and U.S. health officials hours after the results were released, triggering the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to issue a statement expressing concern.

The DSMB's letter said AstraZeneca calculated its efficacy rate based on data that was "most favorable for the study as opposed to the most recent and most complete," the NYT reported.

Public Health officials won't reveal specifically where in New Brunswick more than 40 cases of a mystery neurological disease have been identified, citing the "sensitive" and "confidential" nature of the information.


News last week that a cluster of cases of an unknown neurological disease has been found in New Brunswick immediately had residents of several communities on edge.

First diagnosed in 2015, according to a Public Health memo sent this month to medical professionals, the disease appears to be concentrated in the Acadian Peninsula in northeast New Brunswick and the Moncton region in the southeast. Forty-three cases have been identified, and five people have died.

The ketogenic diet (in earlier iterations known as the Atkins diet and the Low Carb High Fat diet) has been vilified for decades by members of the nutrition establishment, because it is pretty much telling people to do the exact opposite of what the establishment is telling them to do. While official diet guidelines recommend cutting down on fat intake, the ketogenic diet instead recommends cutting down on carbohydrate intake. Since cutting down on one of the sources of energy virtually requires increasing intake of the other, the two diets are completely incompatible.

The reason proponents of a low fat diet are so against the ketogenic diet is because they believe that fat, and in particular saturated fat, causes heart disease. But this belief has become increasingly hard to maintain over the last couple of decades. In spite of the fact that populations around the world have been dutifully following advice from nutritionists to cut down on fat intake, they've actually gotten fatter and more diabetic. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome (a combination of central obesity, type 2 diabetes, and high blood pressure) has exploded since governments started recommending that people cut down on fat. And metabolic syndrome is one of the leading risk factors for heart disease.

This suggests that the nutrition establishment has got everything terribly wrong. It suggests that it's a high intake of carbohydrates that is responsible for the current poor metabolic health of western populations, rather than a high fat/saturated fat intake. Of course, the data suggesting this is all observational, and observational data can show correlation, but they cannot prove causation.

So, let's look at what the randomized controlled trials of the ketogenic diet have to say on the matter. A systematic review and meta-analysis was published in Nutrients in July 2020 that gathered together all the trials of a ketogenic diet. The review was funded by the South Korean government.