||| FROM BRUCE BENTON |||
Merck & Co. donated newly-discovered Ivermectin to treat all impacted by onchocerciasis (riverblindness) while I was Manager of the World Bank/World Health Organization effort to control the disease throughout Africa. It was a game-changer. Ivermectin has proven pivotal in the near-elimination of onchocerciasis Africa-wide where 99.6% of the world’s cases of the disease occur. It’s been a major success in global health, surpassed only by smallpox and polio eradication. More than 200 million of the absolute poor living in remote rural areas throughout the continent are now protected from unbearable, incessant itching and irreversible blindness in the prime of life.
The Ivermectin story is covered in my recent book, Riverblindness in Africa – Taming the Lion’s Stare (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2020). The drug became known as the “miracle molecule” – safe with a broad spectrum of activity against parasitic infections. It showed effectiveness against onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis, intestinal worms, head lice, and scabies. The impact of Ivermectin on human health, particularly in the developing world, has been dramatic, resulting in the Nobel Prize in Medicine awarded for its discovery, jointly to Merck’s Bill Campbell and the Kitasato Institute’s Satoshi Omura in 2015.
Ivermectin is now being touted by some for Covid-19. Why Covid-19, which is a viral not a parasitic infection? The interest in Ivermectin as a Covid-19 drug began in March 2020 when Australian scientists found that the drug inhibited replication of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory petri dish. But the dosage was at a concentration up to 2000 times higher than the standard Ivermectin dosage for treating parasitic infections in humans. After seeing those results, I contacted colleagues at Merck about prospects for treating Covid-19 with Ivermectin. Their view was that the toxic effects from the high doses required precluded its use against Covid-19.
A number of studies followed over the next 18 months. Most were too small to derive definitive conclusions. Three of the largest studies citing effectiveness against Covid-19 had serious flaws. One from Egypt failed to publish underlying data, included plagiarisms, and was eventually withdrawn. Another from Argentina, that showed 100% protection against Covid-19, is suspected of fabricated data; and one of the hospitals purportedly hosting the study denied it took place there.
Most recently, two large-scale randomized controlled studies – the gold standard in clinical trials – have shown Ivermectin to be ineffective against Covid-19. One of these, led by Ed Mills of McMaster University – which is larger than all other Ivermectin/Covid studies combined – concludes that Ivermectin has “no important clinical benefit” against Covid-19. Currently, all major reputable health organizations, i.e., CDC, NIH, FDA, WHO, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, oppose using Ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19.
Despite the solid evidence, a number of sources continue to push Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19. Consequently, there has been a dramatic increase in Ivermectin prescriptions and overdoses that caused two deaths this past September. Overdoses have been worse because people are resorting to highly-concentrated Ivermectin for large animals.
Why am I concerned? I am concerned that the dangerous use of Ivermectin as a false Covid-19 treatment, will negatively impact the legitimate and critical use of this drug to alleviate suffering for tens of millions of the poorest of the poor. This would be a tragedy. I am also concerned that the false belief that Ivermectin is effective against Covid-19 has become a major disincentive to getting vaccinated – even though vaccinations are free and have undergone the most intense safety monitoring in US history. That disincentive inhibits achieving herd immunity, which this country desperately needs to return to some semblance of pre-pandemic normality.
Bruce Benton, Orcas Island resident, is a former World Bank Manager of the Riverblindness (Onchocerciasis) Control Program for Africa, former Assistant Professor for Global Health at Georgetown University, and author of Riverblindness in Africa: Taming the Lion’s Stare (Johns Hopkins University Press, December 2020)
TOTAL BS. You are pushing the W.H.O. Lie. India has declared whole provinces Covid free by use of Ivermectin. Check the research…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/
https://principia-scientific.com/india-is-now-covid-19-free-by-using-ivermectin/
https://covid.us.org/2021/06/27/ivermectin-use-in-india/
https://c19early.com/?fbclid=IwAR02ygjvDBTHOgYj8XM2TODC7fQmGm1N80lwrOBcbpcWUQHsZZbjxRJxxoQ
I took the time to go to each of those links. And whoever “DOCTOR Edward Damargian” might be is right; they are TOTAL BS. On the other hand, the excellent explanation by Bruce Benton calmly and clearly puts the role of ivermectin (horse wormer) in perspective: quite good against against onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis, intestinal worms, head lice, and scabies in humans and useless against viral diseases such as Covid-19. What kind of an idiot thinks that worms and viruses are going to be treatable by the same chemical compound?
If you call 65 studies with 49,000 patients having an average early treatment success rate of 67%, BS, I don’t know what to tell you…
This dastardly lie that Ivermectin doesn’t work against Covid as a cheap and early treatment, has likely killed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, worldwide. It is criminal, the media censoring it by saying it is only “horse medicine”. All early treatments have been marginalized in favor of a vaccine that turns out to be potentially harmful, if not deadly, and also not very effective against Covid. (Yet, it made billions for our vaccine companies.) If you actually spend an hour and did some real research on the successes of Ivermectin in India, or if you actually read the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System data at openvaers.com about the very real dangers of these vaccines, you will hopefully realize what is going on. This is a worldwide con-job, and a deadly one. Think about it.
The comments of Edward Damarjian would be more interesting if he would share his background. For example, is he a Dr. of Philosophy? Or an MD? What is his professional or real world experience? Where does he live? He does not appear to have a Linked-In page, and the only Dr. Edward Damarjian that turned up in my google search was an obituary.
Still, I was interested in the India study he cited. I then followed up by checking the India Times web site and searched for ivermectin. An article from last September 26th begins with: “The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Task Force on Covid-19 have dropped the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drugs from their revised guidelines for the treatment of the infection.” The ICMR’s web site indicates it is part of the Indian government: https://www.icmr.gov.in/
Perhaps Dr. Damarjian’s familiarity with the India experience would allow him to put the above into a more interesting context for us?
I was an anesthesiologist. I am a first generation Armenian American. I ask you to consider this: The media, worldwide, is censoring almost all (cheap) and early treatments of Covid-19. An emergency use authorization for a vaccine can only be granted if no effective treatments exist. They would have to declare that no effective treatments existed to pull off the global vaccine rollout. China allowed passengers to fly out of its’ country, while shutting down all domestic flights within China, creating a worldwide “pandemic” that shut down for over a year, largely, the economies of Western World. (Millions in the third world are reported to have starved.) The W.H.O. has been pushing the vaccine agenda and adamantly denying that any effective (or cheap) early treatments exist. We now can see definitively that this is not true. The research I cite here is not indigestible. It is laid out very well, and easily accessible by the public. https://ivmmeta.com/ There is a worldwide effort to vaccinate the entire population of the world. Now, we know that the vaccines cause a host of problems, many, many people have died. This too is now easily accessible. Read: openvaers.com Has anyone else noticed how hard they have tried to slander this passively driven official governmental database? This database was partially created by the CDC, it isn’t some conspiracy theory. WHen you dig into that research and other sources you will find that Many people have become infertile. If you wanted to peruse a world wide depopulation agenda through vaccine induced infertility, I can see no better way. Frankly, people are living with tier heads in the sand. It doesn’t take that much conscious effort to actually read the data, even just the data I have presented here, and come to conclusions that are not aligned with what the worldwide media is portraying. Do you realize that about 90% of the worldwide media is owned by 6 global corporations? They have the resources to pull off this diabolical scam. It is time to wake up. This was a worldwide economic hit-job, I hope you all see through this and get a clue. And for God’s Sake, if you want your offspring to stay fertile, don’t inject them with this poison. Why not consider looking up what is actually in these vaccines that you are about to inject into your kid’s arms, and which many have already injected into their own. There are vaccine detox protocols available. You are watching the East take over the West, without firing a shot. Recognize what is going on. What else do you see happening around you??
Best, Ed Damarjian
Why Orcas Issues, Ed Damarjian? Moderator? This feels like trolling, to me.
Well, I call conspiracy-theory “bingo”!
And I wonder if Doc Ed is local?
Thank you Dr. Darmajian for responding. I get it that you believe all three of the US produced vaccines cause sterility, even though J&J is produced differently than the other two. But I don’t understand the part about the East Taking Over the West. Are you saying there is evidence that the Russian and Chinese vaccines are safe, while ours are not?
You were trained in anesthesiology, I was trained as a lawyer. We both were trained to look for evidence, to look for cause and effect. Yet you’ve cited no evidence, no studies which support your theory about sterility (it DOES seems a few months premature to see that trend emerging from shots given just last winter). You confidently assert that a scam is being driven by the “worldwide media”, and suggest that virtually ALL governments – be they left leaning or right-leaning – are all cowering under pressure from just 6 media companies (except possibly governments in “the East”). If you have uncovered some evidence that those media companies are working together to promote a “Big Lie”, where is your evidence?
You are free to hold your own theories, but not entitled to ask us to believe them without evidence.
Thank you, Doug, for an injection of sanity to this increasingly ridiculous conversation. And just as a side note; I AM a philosophy major and I have found over the course of a long life, that while I am greatly appreciative of the narrow technical expertise of anesthesiologists for the purposes of surgery, I am not inclined to rely upon their judgement outside of that specialty.
That anyone can think that the ENTIRE WORLD has been bamboozled by some mysterious, nefarious force is so absurd that I can’t imagine how it’s possible to contain that amount of crazy in one head. The biggest problem with any conspiracy theory is that it supposes that secrets can be kept, that vast organizations of evil-doers (to quote one of our more inelequent former presidents) are capable of achieving what has never been achieved in the history of the world. The United State military is actually one of the more efficient organizations on the planet and yet there is a reason that SNAFU and FUBAR are common military acronyms! I’m not saying, Dr. Ed, that pharmaceutical companies have our best interests at heart, clearly they value profits over health every time, but it is literally impossible to pull off a conspiracy of any real size, let alone a global one.
Why not assume the best for a change? MAYBE the breakthough mRNA vaccines are actually what they appear to be; life saving, immune boosting compounds that have prevented a devastating sickness from running like wildfire among the most vulnerable. The secondary and tertiary effects of a global pandemic can be as, or more, devastating than the actual illness. What about all the medical procedures postponed because unvaccinated Covid-19 patients are clogging the hospitals? The damage caused by this novel corona virus is NOT just the deadly consequences for the elderly and already compromised. Getting ahead of this virus is going to take vaccinating as many people as possible. No vaccine or medication is 100% effective and when you are talking about 8 billion people, there are bound to be a small fraction of people that react badly to it. The same could be said for giving aspirin to 8 billion people.
So, Dr. Ed, I suggest that instead of feeling that the world is out to get you, perhaps you should entertain the idea that most people, most of the time, are good people and want to help. And if you can’t believe that, then rely on the incompetence of large groups of people to accomplish much of anything, let alone a global conspiracy!
Recommended reading: “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” by Historian Richard Hofstadter, which appeared in Harpers magazine in 1964 and is easily found online. That’s the year Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson. Says a lot about American fondness, on both left and right but especially the latter, for conspiracy theories as a basis for political action. As occurred on January 6.
Ok, I’m going to jump into this messy debate which originally started with Ivermectin.
I write this as a fully vaccinated individual with a skeptical view.
1. Mr. Wood; as far as conspiratorial cover-ups, you have to look no further than the CIA’s failure to release mandated documents regarding the assassination of JFK. Or the origin of the US military anthrax spores that were used after 9/11. Lead FBI investigators have resigned over such issues.
2. On the subject of Ivermectin, Joe Rogan recently hosted CNN TeeVee Dr. Sanjay Gupta on his popular talk/podcast. Rogan, who had planned to get vaccinated, got Covid first. He had to rely on Ivermectin and Mono-clonal antibodies since a vaccine would not work on an infected individual.
Rogan took heat from Gupta’s flagship CNN for going on ” horse wormer”.
He held up his prescribed bottle of Ivermectin and asked CNN’s Gupta why CNN lied about his prescribed medication. Gupta folded and had to admit CNN lied.
3. The fact of the matter is, certain early treatments are available, but there is too much money on the line to use old, reliable measures before people are hospitalized. Huge money is being made right now, and the course of society is being remolded.
4. It seems this discussion is drifting towards a virus origin story. If that is the case, I recommend these articles:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/08/27/crucial-points-in-the-pandemic-origin-debate/
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-risky-virus-research-in-wuhan
And this important article, which shows that while Gain of Function research (GoF), which is risky and allows for biowarfare research, on Bat viruses was being conducted by Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill, and the virus was modified in or before 2015, and lab work was shifted to Wuhan because Obama put a stop on GoF research.
https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-%201.18787
I got more.
Sometimes people get confused when educated sounding individuals post links to scientific studies as proof of their arguments in favor of things that are outside the mainstream of professional medical thought. One way out of that confusion is to look at reputable websites in the medical field. Not “thegatewaypundit” or “Joe Rogan.”
I am also a professional critical thinker, but apparently unlike other “critical thinkers” who have posted here, I don’t consider myself qualified to fully understand and interpret the strength and reliability of medical studies. That’s why I look to the experts to sort it out. And they have been doing that. Of course, if your mentality is “my fellow Americans who are in government are all lying to me! I hold them in contempt!” then you may be beyond rational assistance. But for the rest of us who look through a positive study of Ivermectin and wonder what’s going on, our nation’s institutions are working for you:
I went to https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
Here is a lengthy quote from that page:
“Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use, whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.
However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:
– The sample size of most of the trials was small.
– Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
– Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
– Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
– The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
– The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.
Table 2c includes summaries of key studies. Because most of these studies have significant limitations, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”
I suppose you can dismiss this as “outrageous lies,” but it looks like cautious, prudent reasoning to me. Unless, of course, GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET US….
Thank you, John, for doing the research with an unbiased perspective. It is so refreshing to know that other Islanders take the deep dive of informing themselves of the Truth. Blessings to You, Spirit Eagle.
So many of the folks who claim to do their own research and to be “critical thinkers” are just cherry-picking. Using a confirmation bias filter they throw down an impressive looking (to a layman) paper and declare that anyone who disagrees is promoting lies.
Okay, I’m a professional critical thinker, too. I mean I teach critical thinking and my vocation is software testing, which means thinking critically about computers. I also wrote a book on self-education and critical thinking that was published but Scribner, in New York. So, what does that tell you? It tells you I have a high opinion of myself. And it also tells you I am not a virologist, epidemiologist, medical doctor, or anyone with an education or reputation in public health.
I know that. This is why I have to rely on experts. I don’t rely on them uncritically. But I absolutely rely on them. When they disagree, I look at the substance and style of the disagreement. I look at the relative levels of responsibility. Officials of our government have a special duty of care and are in fact bound by law not to just make things up. Whereas private citizens can say anything they want without accountability… no matter how insanely unlikely or paranoid their theories might be.
That’s why I researched the Ivermectin claims by going to a reputable source: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
And what they have to say looks like a rational answer to the wild claims that Ivermectin is some kind of wonder drug that the government somehow doesn’t want you to know about. Where exactly are the lies? Here is a quote:
“Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use, whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.
However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:
– The sample size of most of the trials was small.
– Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
– Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
– Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
– The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
– The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.
Table 2c includes summaries of key studies. Because most of these studies have significant limitations, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”
So many of the folks who claim to do their own research and to be “critical thinkers” are just cherry-picking. Using a confirmation bias filter they throw down an impressive looking (to a layman) paper and declare that anyone who disagrees is promoting lies.
Okay, I’m a professional critical thinker, too. I mean I teach critical thinking and my vocation is software testing, which means thinking critically about computers. I also wrote a book on self-education and critical thinking that was published but Scribner, in New York. So, what does that tell you? It tells you I have a high opinion of myself. And it also tells you I am not a virologist, epidemiologist, medical doctor, or anyone with an education or reputation in public health.
I know that. This is why I have to rely on experts. I don’t rely on them uncritically. But I absolutely rely on them. When they disagree, I look at the substance and style of the disagreement. I look at the relative levels of responsibility. Officials of our government have a special duty of care and are in fact bound by law not to just make things up. Whereas private citizens can say anything they want without accountability… no matter how insanely unlikely or paranoid their theories might be.
That’s why I researched the Ivermectin claims by going to a reputable source: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
And what they have to say looks like a rational answer to the wild claims that Ivermectin is some kind of wonder drug that the government somehow doesn’t want you to know about. Where exactly are the lies? Here is a quote:
“Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use, whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.
However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:
– The sample size of most of the trials was small.
– Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
– Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
– Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
– The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
– The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.
Table 2c includes summaries of key studies. Because most of these studies have significant limitations, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”
So many of the folks who claim to do their own research and to be “critical thinkers” are just cherry-picking. Using a confirmation bias filter they throw down an impressive looking (to a layman) paper and declare that anyone who disagrees is promoting lies.
Okay, I’m a professional critical thinker, too. I mean I teach critical thinking and my vocation is software testing, which means thinking critically about computers. I also wrote a book on self-education and critical thinking that was published but Scribner, in New York. So, what does that tell you? It tells you I have a high opinion of myself. And it also tells you I am not a virologist, epidemiologist, medical doctor, or anyone with an education or reputation in public health.
I know that. This is why I have to rely on experts. I don’t rely on them uncritically. But I absolutely rely on them. When they disagree, I look at the substance and style of the disagreement. I look at the relative levels of responsibility. Officials of our government have a special duty of care and are in fact bound by law not to just make things up. Whereas private citizens can say anything they want without accountability… no matter how insanely unlikely or paranoid their theories might be.
That’s why I researched the Ivermectin claims by going to a reputable source: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
And what they have to say looks like a rational answer to the wild claims that Ivermectin is some kind of wonder drug that the government somehow doesn’t want you to know about. Where exactly are the lies? Here is a quote:
“Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use, whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.
However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:
– The sample size of most of the trials was small.
– Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
– Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
– Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
– The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
– The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.
Table 2c includes summaries of key studies. Because most of these studies have significant limitations, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”
Personally, I would challenge this statement:
“Officials of our government have a special duty of care and are in fact bound by law not to just make things up.”
Watergate.. Iran Contra.. Weapons of Mass Destruction.. Anything the CIA tells us..
Don’t forget Teapot Dome and the Whiskey Ring scandal!
John, I am going to be blunt:
So what?
What are YOU offering as an alternative to basic, reasonable, eyes-open, non-obsessive trust in our fellow Americans? Is there an alternative governing concept out there– funded with the sale of survival supplies and Eric Clapton benefit concerts, perhaps, instead of our tax dollars– which you have found to be incorruptible? Or do you think if we organized ourselves into armed militias and squabbled for resources like they do in Lebanon, that will lead to a Lebanon-like utopia? (Maybe you shouldn’t google Lebanon. It will depress you.)
No, right? Please get serious.
I am a patriot. To me, that means not that I claim my country is the best, but rather that I want to make my country as good as it can be. I don’t give up on it. Please don’t you give up, either. Let’s have a healthy skepticism, but let’s not despair. Let’s not run away from people who are trying to help us.
People in government sometimes, in the past, have behaved badly or even committed crimes Still, government does have a duty of care that you and I don’t have. That’s a legal and moral fact. They mostly live up to it, which is why 911 service, and ferry service, and the court system, and roads, and fire departments, and Blackhawk rescue helicopters, etc. are standing by for you. For YOU, John Titus! And for me. We don’t have to bribe people for these things, either.
I think, in your heart, you know that the CDC is not trying to invade Iraq or sell weapons to drug dealers.
Come back to America, John. Be a patriot with us.