Social Media Censorship is not Speech

anti-social media, Big Tech, ,

My Amicus Brief in 5th Court of Appeals Docket #: 21-51178 NetChoice v. Paxton (Appeal by TX AG Paxton of preliminary injunction against Texas anti-social medial censorship bill H.B.20) is delivered to the Court.

Amicus-Brief–NetChoice-v-Paxton-unofficial.PDF

Amicus-Motion–NetChoice-v-Paxton-unofficial.PDF

Social media platforms are not media, but platforms used by the users to communication and to create media.  Platforms themselves are not media companies, but telecommunications services providers. The Platforms have never marketed themselves as media, press, or publishers.

Platforms operate under their contracts (which are to be constructed by courts in each separate case; their terms of service are illegal and invalid) with the users and consumer protection laws.

Platforms are state actors, and must respect the First Amendment rights of their users. Most of the censorship by the Platforms lacks necessary communicative elements to even claim the First Amendment protection. Continue reading Social Media Censorship is not Speech →

Molnupiravir Armageddon

healthcare, L1,

Molnupiravir Extends COVID-19 Viral Phase, Evidenced by the High Frequency of Rare and Dangerous Mutations in SARS-COV-2, preprint, 2021-12-20

Unexpected Mildness of Host-Induced Mutations in SARS-COV-2, preprint, 2021-12-08

Treating a Pandemic Respiratory Disease with a Mutagen is a Doomsday Scenario, preprint, 2021-12-02

AMDAC used the decision-making process in authorization of Remdesivir (Remdeathivir) as the precedent for decision-making on Molnupiravir not knowing that Remdesivir is harmful, and its authorization was corrupt. Continue reading Molnupiravir Armageddon →

Molnupiravir Poisons Bone Marrow when it is Needed Most

healthcare, ,

7 days at 0.4x human dose (in dogs) is equivalent or exceeds 2.8 days at the human dose. Thus, the human bone marrow is already impaired on the day 3. Production of B-cells and other immunity functions are weakened. This is consistent with the clinical trials’ results: the patients given Molnupiravir within the first 3 days from symptoms onset had much worse outcomes than the patients given Molnupiravir later. This is because the bone marrow has already done its job creating B-cells to fight SARS-COV-2 after 3 days from symptoms onset, typically.

Bone marrow toxicity of Molnupiravir, in the Merck’s own brief:

Bone marrow/hematopoietic findings 

In the 1-month repeat-dose toxicity study in dogs (doses of 6, 17, and 50 mg/kg/day), mild dose-related hematologic findings affecting all cell lines were observed following 7 days of dosing. 

Continue reading Molnupiravir Poisons Bone Marrow when it is Needed Most →

Molnupiravir worsens COVID-19, re-analysis shows

healthcare, ,

My preprint Re-Analysis of Molnupiravir Trials, Phase II/III is published by the TrialSite News. It is paywalled, but a free copy is here Molnupiravir-Trial-2.pdf.

The main observation is that the earlier patients are started on Molnupiravir, the worse their outcomes tend to be. Also, the Molnupiravir arm of the the Part 2 Trial had 33% higher risk of hospitalization or death, compared with the placebo arm. Conclusion: Molnupiravir is not effective for COVID-19. Continue reading Molnupiravir worsens COVID-19, re-analysis shows →

Ubiquinone and COVID-19

healthcare,

2021-11-30 update: (Saini 2011, PMCID: PMC3178961) Coenzyme Q10: The essential nutrient: “CoQ10 plays a significant role in boosting the immune system and physical performance…” – maybe

Ubiquinone (CoQ-10, CoQ10, MytoQ) might have strong prophylactic and/or therapeutic activity against COVID-19. People taking Ubiquinone were found to have 5.7x lower rates of hospitalization with COVID-19 in Israel. The sample was small, though, and the methodology did not allow to check for confounding medications. Continue reading Ubiquinone and COVID-19 →

Some Spike Mutations of B.1.1.529 were Observed in Molnupiravir Patients

healthcare, ,

Some spike mutations of the new variant of concern B.1.1.529 were observed in patients receiving Molnupiravir with the frequency >5%: del143, del144, del145, N501Y, and P681H.

Two of them (del143 and del145) were not in any prior VOC, and the other two were only in Alpha.

Molnupiravir has been authorized in the UK. Some countries started using it without authorizing. Also, significant quantities of Molnupiravir have been manufactured and shipped all over the world. Continue reading Some Spike Mutations of B.1.1.529 were Observed in Molnupiravir Patients →

Molnupiravir: mutagenic, carcinogenic, authorized in the UK

healthcare, preprint,

Published in TrialSite News on November 6, 2021 (behind paywall). Download PDF: Molnupiravir Mutagenic Carcinogenic TSN.pdf

The UK authorization of Molnupiravir for mild/moderate COVID-191 says a lot about the current COVID-19 derangement syndrome. Molnupiravir’s efficacy is marginal, but its mutagenicity and carcinogenicity are real. The tidbits of information published by the UK’s MHRA include bone marrow toxicity discovered in some early trials, something suggested earlier in an article2 on this site. Thus, Molnupiravir is likely to cause leukemia.

The re-analysis of the data in Merck’s press release from October3, suggests that the announced results show much lower efficacy than claimed, even without questioning the conduct of the trial and reporting. Merck’s failure to publish that data is alarming. Merck also failed to disclose the outcomes from patients who were recruited after the cut-off date for the intermediate review.

The UK authorization also reveals that the population in Merck’s trial was younger and less at risk than the general population. When treated with Molnupiravir, the trial population had worse outcome than the comparable general population not treated with Molnupiravir. Continue reading Molnupiravir: mutagenic, carcinogenic, authorized in the UK →

Google Plunders the Web

Big Tech, google,

Google and other Big Tech companies were mostly honest, value-creating enterprises until around 2008. The main factor behind Big Tech’s wealth, and the collapse of honest journalism and civil society, was Google and Microsoft’s plundering of content from millions of websites with impunity. Here, I am focused on text-based content, like news, commentary, scholarly and scientific works—in other words, the works that contain or create human knowledge. Continue reading Google Plunders the Web →

“Doctor Google” vs IVM and Licensed Physicians

Big Tech, google,

October 29: added a YouTube screenshot, falsely and harmfully claiming that the FDA is a ‘national health authority‘ (the bottom of the article).

July 24 was celebrated by COVID-19 treating physicians, scientists, and their supporters as Ivermectin Day. For Google, it was another “no cure for COVID-19” day. It returned results denying effectiveness of Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment.

Google markets its search for medical information as a medical advice (simultaneously denying that) on the most frequently searched topics, which include COVID-19. It claims to offer information on symptoms, treatment, prevention, and safety, which is refined by its doctors (rather than received from third parties).

As an additional fee for its medical advice, Google also stores and uses the customer’s (patient’s?) medical searches information. Of course, it also shows ads.

Continue reading “Doctor Google” vs IVM and Licensed Physicians →

Big Tech vs Medicine

Big Tech, healthcare, L0,

This article was first published in TrialSiteNews behind a paywall.

The root cause of many of the disastrous responses to this pandemic is the global echo-chamber created and sustained by Big Tech. Big Tech companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple – in that order) systematically endorse false information and harmful governmental decisions, reject effective treatments, and collude among themselves to eliminate any dissenting views.

For example, no matter how many doctors and even politicians become convinced that Ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, Big Tech maintains its anti-Ivermectin position. The narrative that “Ivermectin as a treatment against COVID-19 is disinformation” is ingrained in the brains of Big Tech’s low- and middle rank censors, encoded in its databases and AI, and even in its business relationships. It is highly unlikely that any of Big Tech’s high-level executives would step in to change this narrative. Initiating such a change would almost an admission of guilt, acknowledging that their company imperiled millions of people who would have greatly benefited from the treatment.

Big Tech is much more powerful than Big Pharma. Big Tech is also accustomed to impunity, unlike Big Pharma. During this pandemic, Big Tech has added to its valuation >$3 Trillion (yes, with T), much more than Big Pharma can dream of. Continue reading Big Tech vs Medicine →

Google Spies on .gov Sites

18 USC Ch. 115, Big Tech, google, ,

Shockingly most US government and military websites contain Google Analytics, which sends information about every visitor, on every page, back to Google. Google combines this data with the information it has on that visitor, collected on other websites and in other Google products, and uses it across its products. By itself, the data sent by these websites to Google might be of little value, but Google identifies the visitor via his/her IP address and/or cookies, and adds this data to the user’s ever-growing profile. All of this is done without the knowledge or permission of the user.

Google and its subsidiary YouTube use this information for many purposes, the most benign of which is ad targeting. For example, one might target audiences who were interested in the information on a certain government website. Some Google insiders have direct access to this information.

Theoretically, Google employees can correlate visits to the FBI Tips website with other web activities by the same person, and to aid the persons of interest. Also theoretically, Google can use data from visits to courts’ websites to forecast litigation against it and its partners.

These are  grave violations of our Constitutional rights, especially under the Fourth Amendment. This is also another way in which Google assumes the role of a state actor, which is still subject to all Constitutional restrictions on  government powers. Continue reading Google Spies on .gov Sites →