Here is some information with citations you can share if you want to know the truth about Dr. Fauci and his relationship with big pharma: in the 1980s, Dr. Fauci made an announcement that the FDA should fast track AZT trials for HIV. This shocked the FDA because they knew AZT had failed as a cancer treatment. The company that makes AZT stopped trials after 17 weeks because they stated it would be "unethical" to deny it to the placebo group. AZT caused people with HIV to be more sick, die sooner, and it accelerated HIV mutations into resistant strains. Currently, AZT is not recommended as a sole treatment for HIV, and when used in combination with other drugs 50% of the people who start it have to be pulled off it. Unfortunately, many of the people with HIV who suffered because they took AZT that had been recommended for general use by Dr. Fauci (instead of last resort emergency use as approved by the FDA) are now dead. Big pharma charge $8000 per month to every person who took AZT during its height. 

After that, Dr. Fauci legally took kick-backs from pharmaceutical companies for developing and getting Interleukin-2 approved as another HIV drug. Fauci claimed he felt uncomfortable about taking the kickbacks and "donated them to charity." Still, despite Fauci's research showing Interleukin-2 helped fight HIV, four years later independent research showed Interleukin-2 was ineffective and detrimental to HIV patients because it weakened immune cells and made the ineffective. 

Dr. Fauci continued to take kickbacks from big pharma and use funds donated to the NSAID/NIH to specifically support big pharma research. This creates questionable ethics cycles: for example in the current pandemic, Bill Gates invested in Moderna and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has regularly donated money to NSAID which Dr. Fauci directed to Moderna research. Dr. Fauci became the gatekeeper between Moderna and the FDA (and here), and in an ironically similar situation to that during the AZT release, Moderna stopped placebo trials as soon as it received emergency use authorization (before determining statistically significant effectiveness or side effects) because it would be "unethical" to deny the vaccine to the placebo group. 

During the 2014 Ebola "crisis," Dr. Fauci pushed for emergency use of Remdesivir, again this drug was found to be ineffective against Ebola after independent studies. 

Dr. Fauci refuses to disclose his financial ties, but his net worth is apparently in the millions. When he completely flipflopped on masks, no one questioned him despite the NAS stating there was no scientific evidence that masks prevented asymptomatic spread (and that it was highly unlikely they did). With his past history of promoting bad drugs and flipflopping suddenly, why hasn't he been investigated?

Further, just as with AZT, Dr. Fauci again promoted Remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment and pushed it through emergency use. Independent studies showed that people who took Remdesivir early showed no statistically significant benefit (however, Remdesivir patients suffered twice the number of side effects), were ignored. Further Remdesivir did not significantly reduce death rates or rates of serious disease even in the NIH funded study. When the WHO stated Remdesivir given to the sickest later in the course of the disease did not help them at all, WHO was attacked for not taking into account people who had been given the drug earlier. In fact, Fauci has criticized all studies that show Redmesivir is not clinically effective at treating COVID-19 and comes with serious side effects (as seen in the article above). 

Although the past evidence is enough to raise question about Dr. Fauci's conduct, full research should be done, including his financial situation and how he has handled NIH funds and determined which companies get grants to perform research. At the least, the FDA should immediately cancel EUAs without independent research and full clinical trials because of the misinformation leading to deaths surrounding Dr. Fauci's previous research projects. 

Hitler's Big Lie and the COVID-19 Pandemic

I have written a new book, filled with citations to help clear up the mystery surrounding all the COVID-19 misinformation. Here is the description:

 The misinformation surrounding COVID-19 has possibly been the largest since the propaganda created in Nazi Germany. With even the CDC first telling everyone not to wear masks and now telling everyone to wear them, it can be extremely difficult to discover just what is right and what is wrong. Who do you trust? This book, filled with more than 300 cited references, was written to help you find the truth. It is a must-read if you are confused or if you want to find out if you have been able to sort through all the lies successfully. 30% of all the profits from the sale of this book will be divided equally and donated to a local YMCA and a summer camp that have been hit hard financially because of the COVID-19 business closures.

You can find the book on Amazon at the following links:

Full color version paperback: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Big-Lie-COVID-19-Pandemic/dp/B08FP5V3JN/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1597677713&refinements=p_27%3AJennifer+J.+Reinoehl&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Jennifer+J.+Reinoehl

Color E-book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08G56JQVB

Black and white version paperback & black and white large print paperback--links to be posted within the next week or so. 

I am also going to be running some Goodreads Giveaways and will post those links as soon as they are ready. 

When People in Charge Believe They Are God or the Voice of God

Sometimes, we appoint people to positions of power, and they let that power go to their heads. These people are frequently charismatic and well-spoken. However, their appointment affects their logic and reasoning skills. This can be especially dangerous when a medical authority stops looking at scientific research and believes he has found the answer to a health solution--even if that solution is extreme and not supported by facts.

The model example of this is Benjamin Rush. Benjamin Rush was a Founding Father. He was also one of the first doctors teaching at the first American Medical University. He held many high positions, but when Yellow Fever struck, he believed that he had the best idea for dealing with the plague. Bleeding patients had actually fallen out of favor in Europe. It was an old-fashioned method of dealing with disease by the 1790s. Supportive care was becoming the norm, but when Rush tried it he claimed it killed 4 out of 5 of his patients. He switched to the old tried and true method of bleeding and purgatives to make people throw up. Since severe yellow fever causes stomach bleeding, he saw that they would vomit "black bile" and felt he was doing his job to get rid of the excess. He still lost patients, so he took his measures to the next extreme. He drew so much blood from his patients, his front yard became a bloody mess--literally. He even caused the other doctors of his day to squirm. He prescribed ten times the amount of purgatives that any other doctor would prescribe. A battle between the doctors raged in the newspapers. Throughout it all Rush maintained that he never lost a patient once he enacted these measures. He believed that despite bleeding falling out of favor in Europe, America was a different place and therefore required different treatment methods. He believed there was only one disease--fever-- and there was only one treatment for that disease--aggressive bleeding. He believed God had divinely given him this idea. And he taught this to all his students and published books on it for other doctors to read.

That Rush had 5 assistants and 3 of them died during the Yellow Fever outbreak, makes the modern historian question his record. If he lost 0 of the patients he treated, how did he lose 60% of his assistants? One researcher traced as many of his patients as he could and discovered 46% of them had died from Yellow Fever. His school of medicine probably contributed to George Washington's death.
Although the debate during and after the Yellow Fever epidemic was harsh, he only was pushed into resigning from his position regulating public health. He kept his teaching job, and was almost appointed to another one, but Alexander Hamilton, one of his most vocal opponents blocked it. Rush had radical ideas, but unfortunately they were not founded on science. His zeal caused him to ignore the deaths he caused or perhaps his stubbornness caused him to keep killing others. His followers loved him regardless.

The result was that bleeding remained prominent as a treatment for more than 50 years--but only in the United States. Leaders are important, but it is also important to recognize when someone should not be in a leadership position, especially in medicine, and those people who make bad choices, such as when doctors supported smoking, they should be removed from their positions and more humble people placed there instead. Medical leaders must look at research and never assume they have all the answers.

Are Mandatory Ebola Quarentines 'Unscientific?"

In the early 90's, scientists were just getting a good understanding of HIV. The disease had been around for a long time, but it wasn't understood exactly what it was until the early 80's. In the 90's, scientists told everyone that you could not get HIV as long as you wore a condom. Some people scoffed at this. They refused to believe that a condom could protect them from HIV.

Years later, it turns out the scoffers were correct. In fact, some people have gotten HIV from others while using a condom - correctly. Here's where it gets tricky - people who have HIV have to be constantly monitored (about once every six months or so) for their viral load. The goal is to keep viral loads low. When viral loads are low, it is relatively difficult to get HIV from an infected person. Could it happen? Possibly - we can just take a group of people with HIV, lock them in a cage, monitor them for viral loads daily and then expose them to non-infect people through sexual contact and needle sharing. This would be the only true scientific way to determine whether or not they are contagious to other people during this time.

Fast forward to Ebola. Can a person who is showing no symptoms give it to anyone else? It is assumed - and I mean ASSUMED because there is NO SCIENTIFICALLY COLLECTED EVIDENCE for EBOLA on this topic at the time of this post - that a person who is not showing symptoms has a low viral load - so low it will not cause someone else to get it. At this point, people who are NOT showing symptoms also WILL NOT show positive on an Ebola test whether or not they have the disease. This is simply because our equipment is not sensitive enough to detect low levels of virus.

Based on research on other viruses, such as HIV, if a person does have a low viral load, you cannot catch the virus from them through everyday contact - holding hands, hugging, working next to them, etc. Research we DO HAVE supports this - the only documented cases we have show Ebola spreads in situations where one individual is caring for or living with an Ebola patient or where one person has contacted the dead body of an Ebola patient. The more murky method of how Ebola spreads involves contact with articles of clothing/ bedding/ and other things the patient has come in contact with. In all the documented situations, the patient must be running at least a low-grade fever to spread the disease to someone else. However, this is the most we KNOW about Ebola.

Here is the trouble with Ebola - an exposed person can have a fever of 99.6 and either be normal or or be coming down with the disease. Officially, your fever has to be over 101 to be diagnosed with it. People who are being monitored have their temperature taken twice a day. People who are "self-monitoring" are SUPPOSED to take there temperature twice a day. However, when a person does develop a symptom, such as a spike in their temperature or diarrhea, they become contagious. Ebola has a 50% case-fatality rate.

There is absolutely no way to predict when or if someone who has been exposed to Ebola will develop these symptoms. When a person develops these symptoms in public - as our last two cases of Ebola in the United States did - it becomes a logistical nightmare to track all the people they came in contact with and then monitor them. All it takes is one non-quarantined person to develop Ebola, and then our government has to put numerous man hours into tracking people. This is a fact that neither the CDC or WHO debate. If you don't want to be in quarantine, would you be willing to pay a fine covering the costs of tracking your contacts? Would you also be willing to pay for the hospitalization of others you might have exposed?

In addition, I have to question why these people would not want to voluntarily quarantine themselves? If it is not your "intent" to harm others or put them at risk, then you do EVERYTHING you possibly can to keep them from harm, not matter what the cost to yourself. If a quarantine makes the people of your community feel safer, any attempt to avoid it IS doing them harm - psychologically.

If we aren't going to rely on the old adage "it's better to be safe than sorry," I think the best case to refer people to is that of Typhoid Mary - Mary Mallon said she wasn't contagious and refused to stop taking cooking jobs. However, she was a carrier for typhoid fever - the first known person to carry the disease without having symptoms of it. We have no clue if Ebola has asymptomatic carriers. We know people can be infected with it and not show symptoms, but we do not know if they are ever contagious. Why take the chance?

New York and Ebola

Now that a doctor from New York has Ebola, they are bragging about how they will contain it because they have a "world class" health care system. Please. If they contain it, it will be solely because they had almost four weeks to watch what didn't work and learn from it. During that time, they clearly distributed protective gear to hospital workers and set up real isolation units (according to them they have one of these in the hospital where the doctor is being treated). It is almost as if they want to show how much better they are than the Texas hospital - which was given no warning.

For the virus to be in New York is a little concerning - regardless of the health care system. So far, Ebola isn't spreading to family members or other contacts - that we know of - outside of the healthcare system. That means they are either seroconverting (they get the disease and fight it off) without symptoms or they are not getting it. The CDC is missing research opportunities by not testing "contacts." We have had hundreds of opportunities to see how this virus acts in the body and learn more about it, but have not done so.

What is most disturbing about this is that when officials test Ebola patients with a blood test, they do so with the "quick" test. If the person is negative - nothing is ever said about sending it in for the long test to confirm. I did just read that the doctor has had his positive test sent in to confirm, though. This is crazy. Ebola, like HIV lies quietly in the body for a while. WHO recommends that you cannot say someone is negative until they have had the first negative test confirmed 48 hours later by the long test. There is really no need to confirm a positive test.

The true test for the U.S. comes this weekend. By next Tuesday (Oct. 28th), we need to have less than 4 new cases appear here. If no cases appear from the Texas line by November 6th, there is less than a 1% chance any will appear. By November 12th, we need to see less than 2 new cases in NY. (Yes, 4 new cases just appeared in Spain, so they are in trouble - their next milestone is to prevent 16 cases from appearing by November 7th. We really need them to meet this milestone and control the spread in Europe.)

With each new case who circulates in public, we push back the date when we can say the U.S. is Ebola free. This doctor has now pushed the date to December 6th. What is most disturbing is that with each new case we project our arrogance - this disease won't hurt us. I bet that is what the doctor was thinking too- many questioned why he waited until his fever was 103 before going to the hospital. I can tell you the reason: we have no respect for it. Even the suits doctors wear to protect themselves increases the feeling of being separate from the patient- being safe.

The only thing that has proved true so far for the 9 cases in the U.S. is that we do not seem to share it with our contacts. Some will probably say that is because we are so much more "better prepared" or "clean." I say that's not true. The real reason is that we are so much more isolated. If you get sick, does anyone show up at your door with chicken noodle soup? Does someone take care of you while you are in bed? Or wipe your brow with a cool wash cloth? Probably not. Those simple acts of caring that Americans have traded for overly active, workaholic lives, may just save us. Goodness knows that our arrogance won't.

Should We Euthanize Animals That May Have Ebola?

In Spain, when a nurse contracted Ebola, the authorities made the decision to euthanize her dog.

However, they did it based on this research paper, that has faulty reasoning in it. In it, the researchers tested the blood of a good sized sample of dogs for Ebola antigens (the things your body makes to fight a disease). They found that dogs do not show symptoms of Ebola but do produce antigens  - as do some other animals such as goats, horses, and guinea pigs. (Monkeys and pigs show symptoms.) They did this study because some humans had come down with Ebola without contacting a known source of it.

Here is where the reasoning is faulty: They concluded that because 27% of the infected village dogs (as compared to 22% of village dogs from areas without infection) had antigens they must be the source of infecting humans even though they do not show symptoms. To date, the only known animals that infected humans have been bats, pigs, and monkeys but others are suspected. These infected humans when the people came in contact with the blood of the animal - either by eating them, butchering them, or by dissecting them. If is also possible that humans can get Ebola from proximity - caring for infected caged, symptomatic animals on a daily basis, but exactly how much interaction is needed for infection is unknown.

The thing is - humans can also get Ebola and be asymptomatic. One small study found 45% of humans have antigens after being exposed to Ebola (another had a rate of 19%). (Ironically, the dog study researchers called this percentage "very rare.") In theory, that means these people get it but don't show signs of it. The dog study concluded that these humans could not be a source of Ebola for other humans, but the 5% increase in dogs in infected villages could be.

This study would have been more beneficial if the researchers had tested the humans for Ebola in the villages as well. If asymptomatic humans (those with antigens) were found to be in similar proportions in both villages - this could indicate that the increase in asymptomatic dogs was contributing to the outbreak. It would also have proven that a previous outbreak had visited the uninfected village. However, if more than 5% of the humans in the infected village had antigens - I would look at them as a source.

We know that humans who recover from the disease can still transmit it for 90 days in semen, breast milk, and blood- however, we have never tested asymptomatic patients to see if they shed the virus through any of these routes. In addition, the dog researchers never tested the dog's urine/ feces/ saliva to see if they shed the virus through these means.

In short - studying the dogs to see if, when, and how they excrete the virus would be far more beneficial than just killing them. More importantly, instead of just quarantining patients contacts and monitoring them for fever - they should also be asked to participate in studies. We need more accurate numbers of asymptomatic humans and we need to know if they are also infectious for 3 months. In the end, I think researchers will discover quarantine - not death - is an acceptable option.