Sweden's Model for COVID-19

The "new normal" is said to practice standard hygiene procedures, wear a face mask, distance ourselves 6 feet from one another in crowded areas, and wear gloves on the job. The daily attention the media has devoted to SARS-CoV-2 is second to none with case and death counts presented to its audience hourly. While much of the world closed shop at the demands of government only to enrich big business, few countries refused to lockdown and resumed business as usual integrating an escalation of health practices with those commonplace. Sweden is one of them.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden chose a route many might consider to be that of "herd immunity," a practice publicly condoned by Dr. Knut Wittowski, Ph.D., Sc.D., formerly of the prestigious Rockefeller University in New York. Rockefeller University released a statement on April 13, 2020, disclaiming a current relationship and distancing the institution from holding similar views as Dr. Wittkowski. YouTube censored an interview of the research scientist on May 16, 2020.

Sweden's controversial response to the virus is led by State Epidemiologist, Dr. Anders Tegnell, M.D., M.Sc. His position has been to treat the virus much like the seasonal flu and allow society to remain both responsible and vigilant during it's daily activities. While the numbers of casualties increased during the month of June 2020, these numbers decreased dramatically in the month of July 2020, as neighboring Scandinavian countries suffered from a significant increase in COVID-19 casualty rates.

The United States, taking a more extreme response in imposing restrictions than Sweden, at one time led the world in COVID-19 cases and deaths. Today, it continues to lead the world in the highest case rates of any country under the direction of Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, M.D., of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) with in excess of 150,000 recorded COVID-19 deaths to date, placing the country in the top 10 in the world in deaths. Dr. Fauci conceded to members of Congress last week that protests since May 2020 may have facilitated the continued spread of the virus.

Ultimately, this pandemic is by no means over. Nevertheless, the difference in statistical data between Sweden and the United States tell their own unique stories as to what practices appear to be working 5 months along and what does not navigating forward.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ): The Search for a Cure to COVID-19

As of recent, the mere mention of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has attracted a substantial amount of controversy in the media. On March 17, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci's counterpart in France, Dr. Didier Raoult, M.D., Ph.D., published a video in French claiming his clinical trial of over 1,000 patients suggested treating COVID-19 patients with Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin (HCQ-AZ) had significantly positive results. (See International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents).

On March 21, 2020, President Donald J. Trump ran with Dr. Raoult's findings to Twitter to announce:

"HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains - Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents) be put in use IMMEDIATELY. PEOPLE ARE DYING, MOVE FAST, and GOD BLESS EVERYONE!" (See @realDonaldTrump).

With the combination of President Trump's tweet and a Phoenix, Arizona couple hospitalized with the husband dying from ingesting chloroquine phosphate, this created a media firestorm. The media immediately claimed chloroquine (CQ) as dangerous without so much as identifying whether the couple consulted a physician before use, they failed to host any licensed physician as to whether the couple consumed more than needed and/or whether they used the appropriate compound.

Ever since the President's March tweet, social media giants Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have been actively working in a concerted effort to ban and suspend user accounts from sharing "medical misinformation" on HCQ when it had been approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) for medical use and prescribed by licensed medical doctors since 1955 as a treatment for patients with malaria, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, etc. Suddenly, the FDA removed HCQ as an authorized form of emergency treatment on patients outside of the hospital setting and outside of clinical trials.

On August 22, 2005, medical findings were published citing CQ as a "potent inhibitor" of SARS-CoV-1, a virus with 78% similarity to today's SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19. These medical doctors concluded:

"Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiosis and human immunodeficiency virus is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. The fact that the drug has significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic [or cure] and therapeutic use." (See PMC1232869).

This proves medical research into CQ's treatment of SARS-CoV-1  to prevent the spread of the 2002 Coronavirus has been ongoing and any expression to the contrary is categorically and patently, false. So, what is the difference with HCQ? HCQ is simply a tablet form of CQ.

On April 17, 2020, Brazilian Dr. Rodrigo Barbosa Esper, M.D., Ph.D., published medical findings by his team in treating COVID-19 patients with HCQ-AZ and the significantly positive results they experienced.

On July 2, 2020, the Henry Ford Health System published an article citing a reduction in COVID-19 deaths by at least 50% overall with the use of HCQ in patients and screening them for heart conditions prior to its use in trial. Their medical findings were published this date August 1, 2020, at the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. Dr. Anthony Fauci, M.D., whom has never treated a single coronavirus patient in his career, disputes these recent findings as 'flawed,' however, he has spent his career at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) where the findings from the August 2005 article above were published and he failed to dispute those results then.

On July 26, 2020, Yale University Epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., cited his findings of the treatment of COVID-19 with HCQ as "the key to defeating COVID-19" and publicly expressed his disappointment, as this treatment has gained more attention by its political opponents than by medical and scientific research.

On July 27, 2020, a video published by Breitbart went viral of Dr. Simone Gold, J.D., M.D., with several other licensed physicians sharing their medical findings on the treatment of COVID-19 with HCQ in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. (See Transcript). Dr. Gold's employment has since been terminated by her employer for the video.

On July 31, 2020, Dr. Dareld Morris, D.O., was published on amateur video telling the world that in his career with prescribing HCQ to a multitude of patients over the past 20 years it was never an issue in treating diseases until President Trump mentioned it.

As social media platforms continue to censor licensed physicians and corporate media continues to lambast medical experts from around the world for announcing their trial results of HCQ on COVID-19 patients, we must ask why such a level of opposition, upset and outright falsehoods?

Reparations for Black Americans

In a turn of recent events, and as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement, the California Assembly passed the Assembly Constitutional Amendment-5 (ACA5). The purpose of this is to repeal Proposition 209 and effectively terminate California Constitution Article 1 Section 31 in order to give preferential treatment to Black Americans for racial injustices suffered since the British East India Company transported African American slaves across the Atlantic from Central and West Africa to the British North American Colonies some 500 years ago.

What this bill would do is create a panel to study how reparations could be implemented statewide. A similar bill, H.R. 40, was introduced in the House of Representatives by House Democrats. HR-40 would also commission a panel for the exact same purpose as California's ACA-5 in repairing relations with Black Americans nationwide.

Historically, however, able-bodied African Americans were sold by their own flesh and blood from Central and West African countries for some goodies a few hundred years ago, many of whom were sold to the British East India Company before being sold to Spaniards under the Asiento de Negros Contract, the Utrecht Treaty of 1713, etc. In fact, slavery still exists in Africa today with Africans enslaving each other.

Ultimately, the British Crown was the greatest beneficiary of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the United States has also been in debt to the Crown since the French-Indian War. The American Revolution started over a disputed war debt owed to the Crown and the war only came to an end when the colonies agreed to repay the long-disputed war debt in the Paris Treaty of 1783.

Excerpt from Wikipedia

As a side note, Scottish debtors to the Crown were also used to populate the colonies in order to repay their outstanding debts giving rise to the term "Scot-free." Since "debtors are slave to their lenders" these Scots were provided "freedom" only under certain terms provided by their creditor leaving them debt-free in a land where they first arrived as debt slaves.

Seattle Anarchists Demand Return to "State of Nature"

Anarchists in the City of Seattle, Washington have decided to run the local law enforcement out of the area demanding the City return to operating under a "state of nature." This demand runs ignorant of the rule of law and in direct contravention to International Law under the Law of Nations.

The Law of Nations, or principles of the laws of nature, define and describe how members of a society are to behave towards each other and care for one another, especially when some members are offended by others. Pursuant to Section 4 of the Preliminaries of the Law of Nations:

"It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent. In a State, the individual citizens do not enjoy them fully and absolutely, because they have made a partial surrender of them to the sovereign." (See Section 4 of the Preliminaries of the Law of Nations).

By definition, anarchists reject the idea of a political government and desire to live out their lives autonomously free of any form of government. The problem with this idea is members of a society must either govern themselves or be governed. Autonomy requires "independence" or "self-government." Anarchy outright rejects government. Without the enforcement of the rule of law and order in society, anarchy will prevail and crime will persist. Without neutral third-parties to intervene and arbiters to judge accordingly, society is absent of any semblance of justice.

Mueller Indictment Meritless

In a recent course of events Special Counsel to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, has filed a criminal indictment against several Russian nationals amid allegations they interfered in the 2016 presidential election in support of President Donald Trump.

As of this date, the Russian Kremlin has denied and altogether dismissed the federal indictment as "baseless." After personally reading through the 37 pages of the Department of Justice indictment I must agree with Russian officials that this submission is devoid of any merit.

First, where are the sworn statements attesting under oath as to the validity of the allegations? Second, and in further aggravation for lack of supporting documentation, where are the exhibits substantiating the allegations? If we filed a complaint like this in a competent court the judge would be right to sanction us for wasting time, resources, and further assess sanctions for harassing the defending parties. The court would also be correct in dismissing the action in its entirety.

For the mere fact that the U.S.D.O.J. alleges Russian interference in the United States' internal political affairs, it alleges a violation of the Right to Self-Determination. An allegation of such magnitude must be referred to the United Nations for informal resolution. If no informal resolution can be met, then a formal grievance filed with the International Criminal Court. This way, both nations and their members would be forced to demonstrate their position on the world stage beyond empty accusations.

Anarchy vs. Statism

There is a wide-spread misconception and it has to do with the term "statism." The purpose of this blog article is to nip it in the bud once and for all. Statism, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, is:

"Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry."

The common misconception about statism is that it is "bad" and anarchy should replace it. Anarchy is simply no government. In anarchy there is neither law nor order, therefore, when disputes arise between parties there are no established systems the grieving party can proceed with to initiate a claim and seek remedy. Anarchy is not the answer.

What most people fail to understand is statism is necessary. The problem, however, is what form of statism they choose. People must either choose to government themselves through the Right of Self-Determination/Self-Exile/Self-Government or they allow others to rule over them. The bottom line is contracts and most people do not understand contracts, let alone the laws governing them.

Many years ago I was reading a brief biography on entrepreneur, lecturer and author, Robert Kiyosaki and Mr. Kiyosaki went straight to the point. The only way to create and keep wealth is to learn contracts, build a business that will sustain itself and service as many people as you possibly can. Everything you see at play on this planet is because of contracts be it money, religion, politics, education, everything. As a citizen, a contract was created to designate your role in society. It was the United States Constitution and it provides for you to simply pay taxes and don't question the public debt. See the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, if you are not agreeable to paying taxes via the Sixteenth Amendment as a Fourteenth Amendment Citizen, then you are not agreeable to your political status as a Citizen in the United States and neither favorable to the Constitution nor it's government. To top it off, you cannot directly sue the United States for a redress of grievances. Through the Incorporation Doctrine of the United States Supreme Court you are required to seek approval from your respective state and your state must take up your cause in Federal Court against the United States. There is no way around it because you are not a party to the Constitution. The Supreme Court gives you your privileges, not the Constitution itself. See Padelford, et al. v. Mayor of the City of Savannah, et al. (GA, 1854) at p. 6.

You have only two options at this juncture: (1) Remain a citizen, stop complaining and slave away, or (2) Vary your agreement, contract with others who want to self-govern and stop being subject to the whims of laws you are disagreeable to.

MIT Scientist Calls NYT Report on Syrian Gas Attack 'Fraudulent'

On April 4, 2017, the United States not only broke the news that a sarin gas attack was executed upon a civilian population in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, they immediately knew within minutes that it was the Syrian government and demanded the U.S. government take immediate military action. So, without any form of a international field investigation, President Donald Trump approved of a missile strike on Shayrat Air Base April 7, 2017.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and much of his allies in the eastern hemisphere immediately demanded Trump back off for a formal investigation to take place or an escalation of the situation would be forthcoming in retaliation for the act of war by the United States. President Trump backed off and now 2 months later MIT professor emeritus, Theodore Postol, says the story promoted by the New York Times and Bellingcat were "fraudulent," ergo fake news.

In fact, I reported the violation of International Law by the United States in this blog on April 9, 2017, hinting the United States appeared to have "pre-appointed" roles for the situation, yet the so-called "intelligence" supporting the claim that the Syrian government was the culprit remains under lock-and-key. Postol states, "It seems to me that analysts were ignorant beyond plausibility or they rigged the analysis...To me, this is malpractice on a large scale."

Perhaps when the NYT finds itself banned and in the same boat as the Daily Mail by Wikipedia for lack of "reliability" in sourcing news, they might consider stronger ethics in reporting.