Yet Another Vit D Study

How long did The Ghost post on vitamin D during the pandemic? Sample:

https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2020/05/vitamin-d-info.html

https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2020/10/more-info-on-vit-d.html

https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2020/09/vitamin-d-deficiency-raises-covid-19.html

https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2020/11/50-v-2.html

https://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2020/12/vitamin-d-deficiency-and-covid-deaths.html

 

That's just 2020.

If you include videos I've done. I've posted on vitamin D for a long while now. YouTube deleted one of them claiming medical misinformation. Now:

And what did they find?

"Veterans with Vitamin D blood levels between 0 and 19 ng/ml exhibited the largest decrease in COVID-19 infection following supplementation. Black veterans received greater associated COVID-19 risk reductions with supplementation than White veterans. As a safe, widely available, and affordable treatment, Vitamin D may help to reduce the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic."

You don't say. It's all of two years late.

Vitamin D₃ supplementation was associated with a 33% lower risk of COVID-19 infection ending in mortality within 30 days.

Really?

We found a greater associated reduction in COVID-19 infection rates for Black patients than white supplemented patients relative to controls (Black HR = 0.71, [95% CI 0.65, 0.77]; white HR = 0.82, [95% CI 0.79, 0.86]); see Table 3. The race by treatment interaction was significant (HR = 0.86, [95% CI 0.78, 0.94]).

I see.

So to recap:

Since 2020 I've been writing on the benefits of vit D in general and per COVID in particular. I had videos deleted for "medical misinformation" for discussing that which is above in a "reputable journal."

Say, how many people died due to the suppression of this information?

"When we extrapolate our results for vitamin D₃ supplementation to the entire US population in 2020, there would have been approximately 4 million fewer COVID-19 cases and 116,000 deaths avoided. We calculated these values by applying our estimated 20% average reduction in infection and 33% reduction in mortality after infection for vitamin D₃ to a total of 19,860,000 cases and 351,999 deaths through 2020²⁹. I"

 So had people like myself been listened to we would have had an estimated 4 million less cases and 116k less deaths?  If that's the case, YouTube and other outlets that suppressed information such as that which I provided *in 2020* may, maaaay, have gotten 116k people killed.

"These back-of-the-envelope calculations may be conservative given possible reductions in COVID-19 transmission due to the general population risk reduction from broader supplementation."

That's a conservative estimate.

Now consider that Ivermectin is effective. Consider that Zinx IS effective, consider that getting people into shape (particularly aerobically) is effective. All the advice that could have literally saved at least, by their caluclations hundreds of thousands of lives. 

Hundreds of thousands dead due to collusion between the govt and big tech and  MSM to suppress information. 

I have nothing else to say.

No Liability: Example FDA

Those that follow me know that I have discussed at length the directive by NJ governor Murphy in regards to the vaccine mandate. I pointed out that the language used by the governor was very specific and was a means for him to deflect liability away from him should SHTF. in particular, he made reference to his order being within the bounds of the ADA. He also never stated that the state (or its agencies) could actually grab health records of employees. That would be a HIPPA violation. He also stated that his
"vaccine or test" policy was the "floor" and municipalities could go "above and beyond". And boy did they. Mind you I'm not saying the policy itself was lawful as I believe that per SCOTUS rulings the testing qualifies as medical battery upon those who neither with to be injected with an experimental product NOR wish to be tested for a disease they may or may not have and in the process disclose personal medical information. But that's for another day. Today is an example of how the feds have shielded themselves via language and private (and public) entities will find out that though the "vaccine" makers are not liable and the feds may not be liable, THEY will be.

"“The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin,” Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers, told the court during the Nov. 1 hearing in federal court in Texas."

And you know what? They are absolutely correct. Mind you they made some ridiculous statements but entities were free to put the FDA on ignore. But they did not.

Plaintiffs in the case include Dr. Paul Marik, who began utilizing ivermectin in his COVID-19 treatment protocol in 2020 while he was chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School and director of the intensive care unit at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital.

After the FDA’s statements, Marik was told to remove the protocol from the school’s servers while Sentara issued a memorandum to hospitals telling them to stop using ivermectin against COVID-19, with a citation to the FDA.[My underline]

Now this  appeal to authority is morally at the root of the problem. A lot of nasty stuff has been done with the "per CDC" and the like. But as I pointed out to many people these were never laws duly passed by any legislature and if you looked at the signage they clearly stated "mandate" or something of the sort which is not "law". When police came to arrest people who weren't wearing masks, etc. they arrested the person for things like "trespassing" and "public disturbance" not some CDC or FDA proclamation. 

So the offending party here is the school. Let the school point at the FDA.

"The government has moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting plaintiffs lack standing because the injuries cannot be traced back to the FDA."

 And I think they are correct. Strictly speaking. Drugs are regularly used for things not approved of by the FDA. These institutions usually don't even bat an eye. But suddenly they wanted to signal compliance and went about firing people who were looking out for their patients.  Let 'em hang. Well, let THEM sue the FDA and perhaps claim that they were mislead.

"Belfer noted that the FDA’s pages say people can use ivermectin if their health care provider prescribes it, argued the statements “did not bind the public or FDA, did not interpret any substantive rules, and did not set agency policy,” and said the FDA’s position could change in the future if new data become available."

Exactly, And we saw this in another case, I believe in England where the NHS said that it was the doctor's decision to not treat with x.  And notice the "if new data become available" part. Again, this is the CYA that all these agencies are going to use as the lawsuits pile up. However; private actors who took it upon themselves to directly harm people via extortion (do this or lose your job) Are going to be left holding the bag.

And we warned them about it.

Adventures in Clown World: Puberty Blockers

 Saw this in the NY Times and could not resist. It shows the depths of the morass the US is now in. I want to remind the reader that not too long ago "Progressives" were against things like FGM and "Conversion therapy". Let us begin:

"Is there a cost?" You'd think such questions would be asked prior to the "pausing". But of course we saw during COVID that such things as extensive research is no longer how "The Science" is done.

"The medical guidance was direct.

Eleven-year-old Emma Basques had identified as a girl since toddlerhood. Now, as she worried about male puberty starting, a Phoenix pediatrician advised: Take a drug to stop it."

In a sane country this would be a clear case of medical malpractice. This 11 year old did not identify as a girl "since toddlerhood". The kid was imitating the adults around him and following that which he found interesting and amusing. It's possible that he was the extremely curious type.  

"At 13, Jacy Chavira felt increasingly uncomfortable with her maturing body and was beginning to believe she was a boy. Use the drug, her endocrinologist in Southern California recommended, and puberty would be suspended."

Rather than deal with the discomfort of the pubescent body, she succumbed to peer pressure and the adults including the criminal endocrinologist (that's what I said), incentivized that nonsense.  You know what? I really hated the spontaneous erections I would get in school. Particularly when they happened while I was in front of class.

"“‘Puberty blockers really help kids like this,’” the child’s mother recalled the therapist saying. “It was presented as a tourniquet that would stop the hemorrhaging.”"

Puberty, a natural process that leads to biological adulthood is not a "hemorrhage".  That there are licensed medical "professionals" with this attitude who are still allowed to practice "medicine" while doctors who correctly warned about these mRNA "vaccines" are harassed and lose their livelihoods tells you all you need to know about this industry.

"During puberty, bone mass typically surges, determining a lifetime of bone health. When adolescents are using blockers, bone density growth flatlines, on average, according to an analysis commissioned by The Times of observational studies examining the effects."

Where the "professionals" just now figure out that puberty involves more than breast formation and the like.

"Many doctors treating trans patients believe they will recover that loss when they go off blockers. But two studies from the analysis that tracked trans patients’ bone strength while using blockers and through the first years of sex hormone treatment found that many do not fully rebound and lag behind their peers."

I will go out on a limb and say that these doctors believed no such thing. They had no clue and saw that they could make a few bucks and gain social credit among their peers for supporting the current thing. A real doctor would have refused to proscribe any of these things without knowing the long term data. 

It has been known that for women who have gone through menopause, that the loss of bone density is a direct result of the loss of estrogen. Strange how these professionals suddenly have no clue about this known phenomenon.

"And the New York adolescent had such a significant loss in bone density after more than two years on blockers that the parents halted use of the drugs.

“We went into this because we wanted to help,” the mother said. “Now I worry that we got into a situation with a very powerful drug and don’t understand what the long-term effects will be.”"

Like typical Americans, these people believe in the "magic pill" solutions to their problems.  Not surprised in the least bit. Of course the "medical professionals" took advantage of these desperate parents (and charged them or their insurance companies a nice mint) and rather than say "No" they apparently condemned this person to a life of weak bones. Oh yeah, no liability either.

"It didn’t take long for Cherise and Arick Basques to realize that their toddler was different. The child rejected pants, toy trucks and sports in favor of dresses, Barbie dolls and ballet. When Ms. Basques ran into a friend at a restaurant in their Phoenix suburb and introduced her then-4-year-old as her son, the child shouted: “No! I’m your daughter!”"

First thing. I don't care what the kid wants to wear in the house. Don't care what doll teddy bear, whatever they want to play with. Heck if they like ballet, don't care. Not poisoning them for it.

Secondly, I will lay the smack of a lifetime on any child of mine who thinks they can yell at me in private or public. But this accommodating rude  behaviour by children is a common theme I see with parents with kids who are "confused". 

"The next year, they allowed the child, then 5, to begin using the name Emma, grow longer hair and take other steps to socially transition. I"

Fuck that entirely. Not in my house.

" In 2019, when Emma turned 11, a physician at a local gender clinic advised starting blockers."

Criminal prosecutions for all involved.

"The first two years were promising, with the patient, by then a teen, taking Prozac in addition to the blockers. But at the start of the third year, a bone scan was alarming. During treatment, the teen’s bone density plummeted — as much as 15 percent in some bones — from average levels to the range of osteoporosis, a condition of weakened bones more common in older adults."

Whoops.

"The doctor recommended starting testosterone, explaining that it would help the teen regain bone strength. But the parents had lost faith in the medical counsel."

That testosterone wasn't gonna free was it?

"But it’s increasingly clear that the drugs are associated with deficits in bone development. During the teen years, bone density typically surges by about 8 to 12 percent a year. The analysis commissioned by The Times examined seven studies from the Netherlands, Canada and England involving about 500 transgender teens from 1998 through 2021. Researchers observed that while on blockers, the teens did not gain any bone density, on average — and lost significant ground compared to their peers, according to the analysis by Farid Foroutan, an expert on health research methods at McMaster University in Canada."

 "Increasingly clear" that what we knew before pushing this on children, is actually happening to the children. 

Oh and whoops.

" In most cases, their bone strength fully recovers after they stop the drugs at about age 11 and resume full puberty, which can last up to five years."

I'm still processing "stop the drugs at about age 11". Just thinking that in the US it is now acceptable to do this to those under age 11 possibly down to 8-9 for those early starters like I was.

"The participants, followed in one study through age 18, and in the other through age 22, saw their bones strengthen, on average, once on hormones. Still, most patients continued to lag behind their peers; trans men neared average levels, but trans women fell far below."

It's almost like there is some kind of biological determinism....

"If any harm resulted from the use of blockers, it likely would not be evident until decades later, with fractures. However, for children who already have weak bones as they start treatment, the dangers could be more immediate. While there is no systematic record-keeping of such cases, some anecdotal evidence is available."

Future civil cases will be lit.

"After more than a year on blockers, a 15-year-old in Texas, who had not had a baseline scan, showed spinal bone density so low that it was below the first percentile for the teen’s age and weight, indicating osteoporosis, according to medical records from earlier this year."

Whoops.

"Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups wrote to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, urging the Justice Department to investigate growing threats of violence against physicians and hospitals that provide transgender medical treatment to adolescents. As more Republicans frame the treatment as child abuse, some doctors have become wary of discussing their work for fear of becoming targets."

 Absolutely is child abuse and they should be afraid. They should have their licenses revoked, prosecuted criminally and bankrupted.

Rights Given To Whom?

Two weeks ago , i believe, Justice Sotomayor was confusing De-jure and De-facto during oral arguments in regards to Affirmative Action. Her colleague had to correct her. Just last week Sotomayor made another mistake that I found far more troubling. Her mistake, I feel, represents the fundamental cancer that is eating away at America and came into full view during the 2020 COVID response. First though we look at the constitution:

The US constitution opens as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note how it's we the people and not we the government agents. Notice that "we the people" establish, not "we the agents"

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. 

Note the language. "We the people"..."herein grant...". We the people grant the congress certain powers. Congress doesn't grant power to the people.

Then we have the amendments. In particular:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"Rights... retained by the people". Not granted to the people. Not given to the people. Not bestowed upon the people. RETAINED by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And because I suppose the founders figured future generations would be hard headed, they said it again with different language.

"Reserved...to the people."

In short. The people created the constitution that created the government. The people granted power to the government and whatever powers were not granted to the government is RETAINED and RESERVED by the people.

Now the reason I went through this is because this fundamental concept in American law should be well known by all SCOTUS judges. Hence this statement by Sotomayor, is in my opinion is grounds for removal.

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out the repercussions of doing so. “Neither the federal government nor the states can possibly investigate and remedy every violation of these rights that are given to people,”"

'Rights that are given to people"?

No.  rights are not given to people. People may be given privileges but they are not given rights. 

Even if one agrees with the overall case, you have to be extremely wary of language creep. Governments and their agents who believe that your rights are things they granted, will inevitably believe they can revoke said rights at will.  So whenever you hear someone say the constitution gives them the right to speech or whatever, stop them and correct them.

Garvey's Ghost TV: US Election 2022 Commentary

Rumble

BitChute

 

 

What Black NBA Players Would Do If They Were Really "Woke"

 I hope Kyrie (and Kanye) have invested their pay wisely with longevity in mind so that they do not have to depend upon outside parties in order to live out the rest of their lives. That said, I want to point out what [at least the] black players in the NBA should do if they were really woke and appalled at this clear "do what I say slave" message coming from the NBA and the ADL:

First they would give the NBA 24 hours to rescind the punishment of Kyrie. If they fail to do so the consequences would be as follows:

Second: Quit on the spot. You see how the NBA apparently has these clauses in their contracts which allows them to breech said contract based on whatever behavior they decide is verboten? Do the players have that? Well regardless. All contracts ended as of the 24 hour deadline. Any pay advances that would be covered after that 24 hour period would be returned to the respective teams.

Third: Bring back the Negro League. For basketball.  The Negro League was ended by integration as ball club owners realized they didn't have access to some of the best players as well as revenue from those fans. These players from respective teams would make their own teams (formal or informal) and play each other.

The internet has created the ability to stream games to TVs a-la, Chromecast and Airplay. The New Negro Leagues would stream their games live (and store it on friendly sites like Rumble, BitChute, Gab TV, etc.). These streams would be monetized just like Disney Plus and others.  These players could play in parks for all we care.

These players have millions of fans who would gladly watch them.  No it wouldn't be as glamorous as what they are used to but it's the principle.  The NBA would have an immediate revenue problem and possibly a long term one as new talent may be hard to come by with the competition from a free speech supporting Negro League.

Understand that nothing I'm proposing here is remotely difficult to do. All it takes is the will to do. The technology exists. The players exist and the customers exist. Heck the merchandising potential exists. All right now.

Definition Creep. Another Example

 As we watch Certain People come for Kanye and Kyrie, to the silence of all those wealthy black activists who only recently had their fists in the air talking about "black lives matter" and how much black people are oppressed. Those who got streets painted with Black Lives Matter and had people kneeling in front of them are deadly silent when Certain People come calling and giving orders. As these events happen even people who were not disposed to believing "conspiracy theories" about those Certain People will not and cannot ignore the pattern that is clear as clean water.

In our latest example of the power held by Certain People we also have the phenomenon of definition creep. This time with "terrorism". Up until recently terrorism was something that involved either killing (or trying to kill) people and or the destruction of property for political ends. You then got the definition creep by adding "terroristic threats" in which one speaks of doing such things (whether one intended to carry out said threat or not). The latter used to be protected speech, at least in the US. Now we have "level three terrorist"

So this fellow has been banned from the entire EU block. Why?

"Icke had been set to feature at an event called Together for the Netherlands, but far-left activist groups complained to the government and demanded he be barred from entering the country.

The municipality of Amsterdam also asked the Dutch IND (Immigration and Naturalisation Service) “to investigate whether Icke can be refused entry to the country,” an appeal that was apparently successful.

The municipality complained that Icke had made “anti-Semitic statements in the past that are unacceptable and deeply hurtful,” although it didn’t cite any specific examples."

So. Because he allegedly made statements about or in reference to Certain People, and those People were "deeply hurt." this guy is a "terrorist."

If I were a member of this Certain People, I would be very concerned about such actions being taken "on my behalf". The reason is that generally speaking my group is outnumbered everywhere except for Certain People country. Vastly outnumbered. And one day the people whom are being dispossessed "for my wellbeing" may just decide to exact...ummm...retribution on a mass scale and in a manner that the police cannot help.

Not that I'm advocating for such activities. I'm just pointing out that there are historical precedents for such things that could perhaps be learned from.

But back to the point of the post. It is rather interesting to see how the terrorist label has moved from actual criminal and destructive behavior to just another means to smear dissidents.