Category: Uncategorized

I just came across an interesting observational study that was carried out in two nursing homes in Yepes, Toledo, (Spain). Before I summarize the results of this study, let me point out that it was published initially on line in January, 2021, and then in April, 2021 in a medical journal.

(Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Apr; 67: 101989.

Published online 2021 Jan 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pupt.2021.101989)

Note that the online publication was about one year ago!

[For those of you who are interested in reading the study in its entirety, here is the reference:

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7833340/#!po=34.9057)

I realize that most of you are saying something like, “no way am I going to read or much less understand a lot of medical mumbo-jumbo, so just cut to the chase.” However, after I relate the results of this study to you, I predict that many of you will find yourself clicking on and then at least skimming this surprisingly well done observational study.

I want to emphasize that the authors point out that “this study has the limitations of all observational studies. Hypotheses inferred by observational studies must be subsequently confirmed by randomized controlled clinical trials that verify the causality of a certain effect. …

Therefore, randomized controlled trials and observational approaches are complementary, and not interchangeable.”

This spiel about randomized controlled trials sounds a lot like what Dr. Fauci has said many times. I find it interesting that although I read the complete article on PMC (US National Library of Medicine;National Institutes of Health), I do not think that there has been any randomized controlled trials to confirm this interesting and remarkably inexpensive treatment for COVID-19. To that I will merely say, “Hmmm!”

As background the authors point out that the pandemic began in Toledo at the beginning of March(2020) and increased rapidly in intensity in the following weeks. They emphasize that because of the gravity of the situation in Spain, many hospitals collapsed and had to restructure their Medical Services and Intensive Care Units (ICU) to facilitate the large volume of patients. Because of the dire medical situation in Spain, the physicians in these two relatively small rural nursing homes had to basically fend for themselves, and so they used basic, inexpensive therapies in a simple reproducible laddered protocol that depended on the severity of symptoms.

The basic initial treatment consisted of:

Antihistamines every 12 h, Azithromycin 500 mg orally every 24 h for 3 days to 6days depending on the response, acetaminophen 650 mg/6–8 h if there was pain or fever, and nasal washing and gargling with sodium bicarbonate water (half a glass of warm water with half a teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate).

If the symptoms increased in severity, additional antibiotics and prednisone were used.

The study population includes 84 elderly residents and 64 employees located in two separate nursing homes.

The results:

“All of our patients evolved satisfactorily and were recovered at the beginning of June (2020). No adverse effects were recorded in any patient and no one required hospital admission. At the end of June, 100% of the residents and almost half of the workers had positive serology for COVID-19, most of them with past infection.

After starting our treatment protocol we observed a mortality rate of 0%. The comparator retirement homes (in Albacete with 1084 patients),had a mortality rate of 28%.”

Wow! Incredible! Holy Toledo!

(I told you that you might well want to look at the entire study, if nothing else to insure that I am telling the truth, the whole, truth, and nothing but the truth.)

From my perspective, a few simple questions:

Why didn’t the NIH do a follow-up double blind controlled study?

Why weren’t the results of this study publicized?

Were the encouraging results of this small observational study purposely hidden from the general public? 

And if so … Why? 

Hmmm!

12/24/

From the Wall Street Journal:

“‘Follow the science’ has been the battle cry of lockdown supporters since the Covid-19 pandemic began. Yet before March 2020, the mainstream scientific community, including the World Health Organization, strongly opposed lockdowns and similar measures against infectious disease.

That judgment came from historical analysis of pandemics and an awareness that societywide restrictions have severe socioeconomic costs and almost entirely speculative benefits. Our pandemic response, premised on lockdowns and closely related “non-pharmaceutical interventions,” or NPIs, represented an unprecedented and unjustified shift in scientific opinion from where it stood a few months before the discovery of Covid-19.

In March 2019, the WHO team declared that large-scale home quarantine was ‘not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure.’

A September 2019 report from Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security reached a similar conclusion: “In the context of a high-impact respiratory pathogen, quarantine may be the least likely NPI to be effective in controlling the spread due to high transmissibility.” This was especially true of a fast-spreading airborne virus, such as the then-undiscovered SARS-CoV-2.

Even at the outset of Covid-19, the unwisdom of lockdowns guided mainstream epidemiology. When the Wuhan region of China imposed harsh restrictions on Jan. 23, 2020, Anthony Fauci questioned the move. ‘That’s something that I don’t think we could possibly do in the United States, I can’t imagine shutting down New York or Los Angeles,’ Dr. Fauci told CNN. He likely had the scientific literature in mind when he advised that ‘historically, when you shut things down, it doesn’t have a major effect.’”

As we all are aware, lockdowns were mandated, and as with most mandates, lockdowns have not worked. Why now after almost two years of Covid-hysteria are we still flirting with and threatening a further “lockdown strategy?” Is it possible that a CYA strategy is in play? Can anyone imagine Public Health officials coming out and now saying … “Oops, sorry. I guess we made a minor mistake with our lockdown advice. Although this strategy ended up ruining the lives of millions, theoretically it probably saved the lives of many. Actually way back, we recommended lockdowns because … because we didn’t know what else to do, and certainly we just had to do something!”

‘Having to do something without knowing the efficacy of that something,’ naturally leads me to the masking of school children. OMG! To me this seems like a blindfolded man playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey … total arbitrary randomness. Evidence? Science?  … or perhaps the ultimate CYA!

For instance:

The state of Michigan released data last week that show schools with mask mandates have “similar” COVID-19 case rates to those not requiring face coverings.

The state published the “Michigan COVID Response Data and Modeling Update” on Dec. 14. The analysis examined COVID-19 data from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the Michigan Disease Surveillance System as recently as Dec. 3, of school students ages 5-18.

The report stated, “Case rates in 5–18-year-olds have become more similar across mask rule types.”

The latest reporting actually shows that schools with “few/no mask rules” had fewer 7-day average cases per 100,000 than schools where masks are required or schools with “partial mask rules.”

Despite the transmission results, health officials noted, “It remains important to mask up in indoor settings (schools and otherwise) to prevent transmission.” … This appears to be another example of CYA!  Or perhaps it is that same blind folded man and the same donkey!

What about mask mandates in general? From different researchers:

Researchers from the University of Louisville examined COVID-19 case growth and mask use in the United States, comparing states with mask mandates to states without, and found that “mask mandates and use likely did not affect COVID-19 case growth.”

“For our study, we wanted to determine if effects of mask mandates and use were observable in the general population,” Dr. Damian Guerra, an assistant professor of biology at the University of Louisville, said. “Essentially, did the theory of mask effectiveness hold up on a population-wide level?”

The results contradict the popular belief that mask mandates effectively reduce the spread of COVID-19.

“It appears that mandates and typical mask use among the public have no substantial impact on COVID-19 growth,” Guerra said. “Early in the pandemic (Summer 2020), there was an association between lower infection rates and mask mandates and use. However, this association disappeared when transmission levels rose despite increased mask use in the Fall and Winter.”

When are we going to stop this CYA nonsense and actually take the blindfold off?

12/23/21

californiacontrarian

Many of you might be getting tired of hearing incessantly from me about Ivermectin, but these interesting stories just keep popping up. Today, however, I am not going to tell you about another apparent Ivermectin success story in another country, like I did previously with Peru, Japan, and parts of Africa. Rather, I have an Ivermectin story that is daffy … “daffy” meaning silly, dotty, or crackers in Australian.

In September the Australian Department of Health put new restrictions of the use of Ivermectin by General Practitioners. Mind you they prohibited, or prevented its usage by General Practitioners unless it was being used to treat scabies or parasitic infections. The fact that the new restrictions did not ban Ivermectin if it was being used for other conditions, tells me is that Ivermectin itself cannot be an intrinsically dangerous drug. (But then we already knew that from its prior record in the 3billion patients having been treated in Africa.) In a similar use of ill-logic, it was permissible to prescribe Ivermectin if the prescriber was a specialist. Let me see if I understand … if it was prescribed by Doctor A, it was okay. Whereas if it was prescribed by Doctor B, it was not okay. How do you say ‘tomfoolery’ in Australian?

What were the reasons that the Australian Department of Health said were the reasons that they issued these new restrictions? Was Ivermectin dangerous? Did it have a lot of side-effects? Err … not apparently, as the following were given as the reasons for these new restrictions:

-“Using Ivermectin was supposedly discouraging vaccinations.” 

(Is this the ultimate non-sequitur, or what? They seem to be saying … that if one has an effective treatment for disease A, then individuals will not get the vaccine which in the short run should protect against disease A. With the risk of repeating myself …How do you say “tomfoolery” in Australian?)

-“There was a developing local shortage of Ivermectin that was used to 

   treat scabies and parasites in aborigines.” 

(In other words, it was okay to use this “dangerous” drug on the aborigines for non-life threatening conditions, but not on other Australians! How big of a problem could it be to order Ivermectin from India, where it is produced by the gazillions? This is even more “tomfoolish,” if in fact there is such a word.)

-“The doses being touted on social media were too high.” 

(Do those in the Australian Department of Health actually engage their brain before they speak? Logic would say that if the Ivermectin were being prescribed by a physician, the users of the now newly contraband Ivermectin would not have to go to social media, because the physician’s instructions would be right on the bottle. Again how do you say uber-tomfoolishness” in Australian?)

Of importance … never once is there an implication that Ivermectin is not effective for Covid. Has Down Under gone asunder?

12/22/21

How many of you can remember back when you would watch your children or your grandchildren playing youth sports, and there would always be a few unfortunate kids who appeared to have little, if any, athletic ability. For instance, when up at bat, Joey would swing and miss over and over until some coach or parent figured out some way for the child to try to save face. Typically, someone would then say. “He’s doing the best he can.” 

Now no one doubted that he was doing the best he could, but I would often ask myself, “Why is little Joey out there in the first place? Why did Joey’s parents put him in a position where it was inevitable that he would fail and embarrass himself?” Sure, Joey was probably a nice kid, but no way should he be the center of attention with a bat in his hand. No way should he continue to be placed in a situation where his chance for success is slim, and always random. Remember, as a blind squirrel can randomly find a nut, odds are that Joey will sooner or later accidentally hit the ball. However that doesn’t mean that Joey is any better at hitting.

I would surmise that each of us have known our share of Joeys, and I would also guess that at some point each of us have felt sorry for those unfortunates. However, those heightened and surreal expectations for Joey to succeed should have ended long before he became President. The incessant refrain, “He’s doing the best he can,” is no longer apropos. At some point Joey’s inability to hit the baseball is not acceptable. At some point results should dictate whether or not he should continue to stand in the batter’s box masquerading as a competent hitter. Thus far Joey has swung and missed on just about every pitch (inflation, Afghanistan withdrawal, the Keystone pipeline and the resultant explosion in gas prices, the border, etc.). Many observers worry that the next time he has a bat in his hand, a wild uncoordinated swing could result in catastrophe when the inept hitter lets the bat fly into the crowd. 

Joey may well be doing the best he can, but at some point, hopefully those who care for Joey will come to the realization that it would probably be best for Joey to put down the bat and hang up his cleats … for the good of the team!

12/20/21

www.californiacontrarian.com

A younger friend and I try to go out to breakfast about once a month or so. While I usually order the “big breakfast” with eggs, sausage, potatoes, and toast, my friend typically will get a bagel. We each have coffee, and for years have always gotten separate checks.

Last week we again met for breakfast, but whereas I ordered my usual “big breakfast,” my friend surprisingly told the waitress that he also wanted the “big breakfast,” with his eggs scrambled.

After we finished, our separate checks came. When my buddy leaned over and glanced at my check, he said, “How come your check total is less than mine? We each had the same thing except that your eggs were ‘over-easy’ and mine were ‘scrambled’.”

To that I responded, “Because I am 65, actually 66, I get the senior discount.”

While my friend’s expression conveyed that he was not happy, he furrowed his brow as if in deep thought, and said, “I want to be 65!”

He then called our waitress over, and told her that he also wanted the senior discount. Because my friend is only around fifty, she asked to look at his driver’s license. At this point he said, “It doesn’t matter what my license says. These days it apparently doesn’t matter to some what their driver’s license or their birth certificate says. As of right now, I am changing my age. It’s my right to choose what age I am.”

The waitress was clearly flummoxed, and called her boss over. “This guy says he is over sixty-five and clearly he isn’t. He doesn’t act like he’s sixty-five. He doesn’t look like he is sixty-five, and moreover I’ll bet that his license will not document that he is sixty-five.”

The boss then said to my friend, “¿Tu respuesta?”

My friend paused, but only momentarily, “This is America. It’s my right to choose what age I want to be. On some days I might feel much older than I did the day before. Certainly, if teenagers and young adults can choose to be whatever gender they want, then certainly I can choose what age I want to be. At least I have already reached the age of reason, and since there are no pills, shots, or surgery, as of right now … I am sixty-five. Comprende?

12/20/21

California Contrarian

Again for a Sunday piece, a man who is a Good Samaritan in the true sense of the word … Jim Finch.

From the Daily Kos:

In hard-hit Kentucky, one man, Jim Finch, is being hailed for stepping up in a major way to aid families during this tough time. He packed a truckload of food and his grill and took it to Mayfield, KY to help the stricken townspeople at least have food and water.

“I know they don’t have electricity. No restaurants. No running water. I just figured I would do what I could do. So I showed up with some food and some water.”

-Jim Finch, December 13th, 2021

When asked if he had a restaurant. He shook his head, “it just needed to be done,” he said. In fact, he does not have a restaurant.  He was born in Paducah, KY and appears to be in his late 30’s or early 40’s. From his town of Carrsville, he brought grab n’ go food, simple stuff as he calls it to help feed a town with no public services due to the monstrous tornado.

The world would be a better place if there were more like him. It just needed to be done, and he did it!

God bless Jim Finch. 

Many years back my wife and I liked to watch American Idol. It was singing talent show, and it produced many good singers. After American Idol ran its course we next started to watch The Voice. One of the interesting things about this show was that in the beginning all of the judges initially sat with their backs to the contestants. Presumably this was so that the appearance of the potential contestant did not influence the determination by the judges as to whether or not a singer was accepted as a final contestant. It didn’t matter if the individual was short or tall, young or old, or fat or skinny … the only thing that mattered was the quality of his/her voice.

Well it seems to me that perhaps the justice system (at least in Milwaukee County)  could make use of a similar format when deciding on bail for someone accused of a crime. Bail or no bail? How much ?

The topic of cash bail policies has come into the spotlight recently after 39-year-old Darrell Brooks Jr. allegedly plowed through a crowd of innocent people attending a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, killing six people, including an 8-year-old boy, and injuring dozens more.

Mr. Brooks was out on bail  … an amazingly low bail.

Now this is not the first time that Mr. Brooks has been the recipient of ridiculously low bail. Why is that? Could it be that Mr. Darrell Brooks Jr. was the recipient of such a low bail amount because he is black? No judge or District Attorney would ever dare to give a white person such a ridiculously low bail. Maybe it would be best, at least in Milwaukee County, to have both the judge and the District Attorney sit with their backs to the defendant when determining the bail. This way, just as on The Voice, the appearance of the defendant would not be a factor in determining his/her bail. Perhaps if the modus operandi of The Voice had been followed weeks ago, six Waukesha parade attendees would still be alive!

12/18/21

Different than usual for this site, most of what follows is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “Critical American Elections.”

Of course, I have my opinion on voter integrity, the fairness of elections, and the thievery that took place in the election of 2020. Nonetheless, I found what is contained in the following excerpts to be especially enlightening. (FYI, these excerpts will be in quotes to avoid any confusion with my salient comments.)

“Sixteen years ago, in 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform issued a report that proposed a uniform system of requiring a photo ID in order to vote in U.S. elections. The report also pointed out that widespread absentee voting makes vote fraud more likely. Voter files contain ineligible, duplicate, fictional, and deceased voters, a fact easily exploited using absentee ballots to commit fraud. Citizens who vote absentee are more susceptible to pressure and intimidation. And vote-buying schemes are far easier when citizens vote by mail.

“The Commission’s two ranking members were former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker III, a Republican. Other Democrats on the Commission were former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton. It was a truly bipartisan commission that made what seemed at the time to be common sense proposals

“How things have changed. Some of the Commission’s members, Jimmy Carter among them, came out last year to disavow the Commission’s work. And despite surveys showing that Americans overwhelmingly support measures to ensure election integrity—a recent Rasmussen survey found that 80 percent of Americans support a voter ID requirement—Democratic leaders across the board oppose such measures in the strongest terms. 

“For instance, President Biden speaking recently in Philadelphia,

condemned the idea of voter IDs. Sadly but predicably, he suggested that requiring voter IDs would mean returning people to slavery.”

OMG! Hard as I try, I do not get Biden’s analogy, but as has become commonplace for Democrats … when there is no reasonable argument for their position, they always pull out the race card!

How do other democratic countries deal with this issue?

“Of the 47 countries in Europe today, 46 of them currently require government-issued photo IDs to vote. The odd man out is the United Kingdom, in which Northern Ireland and many localities require voter IDs, but the requirement is not nationwide. The British Parliament, however, is considering a nationwide requirement, so very soon all 47 European countries will likely have adopted this common-sense policy.

“When it comes to absentee voting, we Americans are often shocked to learn that 35 of the 47 European countries—including France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden—don’t allow absentee voting for citizens living in country. Another ten European countries—including England, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, and Spain—allow absentee voting, but require voters to show up in person and present a photo ID to pick up their ballots.

“How about our neighbors, Canada and Mexico? Canada requires a photo ID to vote. If a voter shows up at the polls without an ID, he is allowed to vote only if he declares who he is in writing and if there is someone working at the polling station who can personally verify his identity. 

“Mexico recently instituted strict reforms. Voters must present a biometric ID—an ID with not only a photo, but also a thumb print. Voters also have indelible ink applied to their thumbs, preventing them from voting more than once. And absentee voting is prohibited, even for people living outside the country.”

This last paragraph should be read twice, especially in light of the fact that in Mexico the penalty for voter fraud is quite substantial.

The Democrats are implying, (although not actually coming right out and saying) that many of those that they are championing for are basically too dumb or too disinterested to vote. To that I say … if Mexico can require photo I.D.s and thumbprints to vote, tell me again the logical reason that the USA cannot do the same.

“Those who oppose election integrity reform here in the U.S. often condemn it as a means of “voter suppression.” But in Mexico, the percent of people voting rose from 59 percent before the reforms to 68 percent after. It turned out that Mexicans were more, not less, likely to vote when they had confidence that their votes mattered.”

What about mail-in voting?

I think that mail-in voting is akin to the Wizard of Oz hiding behind a curtain, and opposition to mail-in voting is like Toto pulling back the curtain to reveal the chicanery. 

“H.R. 1, the radical bill Democratic Party leaders have been pushing to adopt this year, would prohibit states from requiring voter ID and require states to allow permanent mail-in voting. And mail-in voting, I hardly need to point out, is even worse, in terms of vote fraud, than absentee voting.”

To be clear in my mind everything that the Democrats propose ‘to insure that everyone has their vote counted’ is just another way of them finagling a way to cancel out my vote with a fraudulent vote.

The talk from Hillsdale College closed with the following:

“Those opposing common sense measures to ensure integrity in U.S. elections—measures such as those recommended by the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission in 2005—are not motivated by a concern for democracy, but by partisan interests.” 

BTW: I did not need Hillsdale College to tell me that!

www.californiacontrarian.com

12/17/21

From the Washington Examiner:

“The Biden administration has failed to meet a congressionally imposed requirement that it share a breakdown of where the Afghanistan evacuation stands, including a detailed listing of whom it airlifted out of Kabul, according to a senior Senate Republican.”

The rumored response from the Biden administration, “Oops … We Forgot!”

Continuing from the Washington Examiner:

“The continuing resolution, passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on Sept. 30, included language that mandated the Biden administration provide by Nov. 29 details of Operation Allies Welcome, the government’s ongoing evacuation and resettlement initiative. 

A senior lawmaker on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee told the Washington Examiner that they have not received any information from the government as of 12/6/21, one week past the deadline.”

The rumored response from DHS, “Oops, we’ve been pretty busy dealing with Putin, the upcoming China Olympics, Jussie Smollett walk-back comments, and other things.”

H.R. 5305, the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act , requires that the DHS secretary submit a written report 60 days after the enacted date that breaks down how many Afghans are in the country. 

The rumored response from the DHS Secretary, “Oops, we thought that you guys were just kidding. We will need another couple of months.”

Still from the Washington Examiner:

“Of the 82,000 U.S. arrivals, 4,920 were U.S. citizens, 3,280 were lawful permanent residents, and the remaining 90%, or 73,800, were Afghan nationals. DHS did not further break down this group.”

The rumored last communication, ”Oops, that’s a lot of people. No way can you expect us to reliably categorize that many people.”

Finally, from the Washington Examiner:

“The DHS did not respond to a request for comment” … and this is no rumor.

12/16/21

www.californiacontrarian.com

The background from Blaze News:

A Kathleen Davies, a 63-year-old northern Virginia woman, became severely ill with COVID in October, and she has been on a ventilator since Nov. 3.

Davies was prescribed ivermectin by her family doctor, but she could not complete her regime upon being admitted to the Fauquier Hospital in Warrenton. That’s because the northern Virginia hospital refused to administer the drug, “citing medical, legal and practical concerns,” the Fauquier Times reported. This is the beginning of the INSANITY!

Davies’ son, Christopher — who works at the hospital as a radiologist technician — urged the hospital to administer the drug as his mother’s health declined and all other medical treatments had been exhausted. But the hospital continued to refuse.

(Let’s first look at this hospital’s intractable stubbornness. Is Fauquier Hospital looking out for the best interests of a very sick patient or are they playing their callow version of “it’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to?”

First off, Ivermectin had already been started. The adult levelheaded approach here would have been to continue the treatment that Kathleen Davies had already started prior to her admission. A treatment that had been begun by her outpatient physician. If the patient was going to have some disastrous anaphylactic reaction to Ivermectin, she would have already had it. INSANITY!)

After over a month in the hospital on a ventilator, finally on Dec. 6, the Davies family took legal action to compel Fauquier Hospital to administer ivermectin. Just one day later, Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge Jim Fisher agreed with the Davies family and ordered the hospital to administer the drug in compliance with the family’s wishes. Shockingly, the hospital ignored the order. INSANITY!

(Prior to this nonsense, I would have thought that the hospital and its patients would have similar goals for a variety of different reasons. But au contraire!)

“They believe it’s a fight between the rights of the hospital and the rights of citizens. They feel their rights trump her rights,” Christopher Davies told the Fauquier Times.

The hospital claimed because none of its doctors “believe Ivermectin is in Ms. Davies’s best interests and all have refused to prescribe” and because Kathleen’s doctor — Dr. Martha Maturi — did not have privileges to practice medicine at Fauquier Hospital, it could continue to ignore the court order. INSANITY!

(At this point, it appeared that this had become a matter of obstinateness on behalf of the hospital and its doctors. There were some unsubstantiated rumors that the chant, “the hell with the patient!” was heard in the hospital’s halls – supposedly coming from the ICU, from the Doctor’s Lounge, and the hospital administrators office?”

Again here there could been a relatively simple common sense solution … namely, give Dr. Maturi temporary privileges so that she could prescribe and if necessary give Ivermectin to her patient.)

But on Dec. 9, Fisher ruled that such a refusal policy is not state law and again ordered the hospital to permit the administration of the drug in compliance with the family’s wishes. Importantly, Fisher did not rule on the medical merits of ivermectin as effective treatment for COVID-19. But with all other treatment options exhausted, Fisher clearly sided with the family.

Still, the hospital refused to allow Maturi to administer ivermectin. And in a court filing on 12/13/21, the hospital began raising objections to Maturi’s medical qualifications and requested that she testify under oath.(At this point Fauquier hospital had clearly gone off its hinges!)

In a ruling on 12/13/21, Fisher held the Fauquier hospital in contempt of court, ordered the administration of ivermectin, and imposed daily $10,000 fines retroactive to Dec. 9.

Fisher held the hospital in contempt for “needlessly interposing requirements that stand in the way of the patient’s desired physician administering investigational drugs as part of the Health Care Decisions Act and the federal and state Right to Try Acts.”

Judge Fisher gave the hospital until 9 p.m. on 12/13, to administer ivermectin, or he would levy additional fines.

Kathleen Davies was given ivermectin at 8:45 p.m!!!(Now if it turns out that Ivermectin helps Kathleen Davies, good for the patient, and good for Ivermectin. If doesn’t help at this late stage of her illness, I can only wonder what might have been. Either way, my question would be …”was the falderal of all this ‘ Ivermectin I.C.U. INSANITY’ by the hospital really necessary?”)

12/15/21

www.californiacontrarian.com