Tuesday, April 7, 2020

I put up this video of the young New York doctor who says that the ventilating being done on Corona patients is often wrong; it is inappropriate; it is doing more harm than good; and it may be killing people. 


He said that what he is seeing is not like the standard ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) but more like high altitude sickness, in which the muscles that work the lungs are working fine. Yet, there is hypoxemia (low blood oxygen). Then, an Italian Dr. Gattinoni published something similar, also comparing it to air sickness. Dr. Gattinoni wrote of the disassociation between having good lung mechanics yet low blood oxygen. 


Well, if the patient has no problem expanding his or her chest, and they have the energy to do it, there is no need for a ventilator. If anything, you give them oxygen-enriched air but let them breathe it themselves.   

But why, if the lungs are working OK, is the patient's blood oxygen so low? Dr. Gattinoni speculated that perhaps there is a loss of "lung perfusion regulation" and "hypoxic vasoconstriction." 

So, he's saying there could be a problem on the receiving end. Think of it like a hand-off.  The lungs are doing their job, but the blood vessels aren't cooperating. They won't take up the new oxygen that is being delivered. 

So really, he's saying that he thinks the problem is circulatory. 
But, could a virus do that? 

First, let's note that there is an acknowledgement here that, very likely, Corona patients have been killed by treatment. And when you die of treatment, you are not dying of the Corona virus.

Second, I have been reading about the immunological response to viral pneumonias, such as this article. It was written before SARS-Cov-2, but it refers a lot to SARS-Cov-1. 


As I read it, it sounds like the waging of a large-scale war. So, how could asymptomatic people who are infected be doing that? If that was going on in their bodies, don't you think they would feel it? Senator Rand Paul, after having his Corona test which tested positive, went to the Senate gym to lift weights and swim, and I just can't accept that he was "infected." Even if you presume that they really did find and duplicate some Corona RNA (and I don't) it must have just been there and not have gained a foothold in him. It could not have been wildly replicating in his body because if it was, his immune system would have had to respond, resulting in symptoms. 

When I have a question, I ask Mr. Google: How do asymptomatic Corona carriers, who never have symptoms, get over the infection? 

If you plug that into the search box, you will see that it mostly brings up how the asymptomatic can be contagious, but not how they, themselves, recover without manifesting symptoms. 

But, my priority now is to understand why the Covid patient with sufficient breathing mechanics isn't able to maintain his or her blood oxygen.


Sunday, April 5, 2020

I have been invited to speak at a conference in November about the innocence of Jack Ruby. Of course, it hinges on whether the Corona crisis is resolved, and if it isn't, then all bets are off- on everything. But, I'm thinking positive. 

And the theme of my talk will be that multiple streams of evidence support the innocence of Jack Ruby. And that increases the certainty that he was innocent exponentially. 

We've been hearing that term "exponential" lately connected the Corona crisis because they have a test in which they take a bit of RNA, that they presumably got from you, and amplify it exponentially, and if it amplifies, they say it is from the Corona virus. I'm not so sure.

But, another example of exponentiality are the odds of you winning the lottery. If it was just one number, your odds of winning would be 1 in 45. But, do you know what they jump to if it was just 2 numbers? It jumps to 1 in 1920 chance of winning. It's much harder, isn't it? 

So, that's what having multiple streams of evidence does in this case, and it applies to Oswald as well as Ruby. I have often said that with Oswald, we have a match of both the man and the clothes between him and the Doorway Man, and that increases the certainty that he was the Doorway Man exponentially. 

Why do I say that? I say it because there is a great wide world of men out there, and there is a great wide world of clothes, and any of the men can wear any of the clothes. They are entirely separate things, so when you match both, it's like getting two numbers right in the lottery. And actually, the odds of that NOT being Oswald are more like one in a million.

So, let's examine it in the case of Jack Ruby. First, there is the photographic evidence which establishes that he was no match to the Garage Shooter. There are no frontal images of the Garage Shooter, but we do have side images of him, although his hat obscures his face. Still, we can compare them to Ruby.

So, on the left is Ruby from the Midnight Press Conference on Friday night. Often, that image has been falsely assigned to Friday afternoon, but it is definitely from Friday night. That newspaper in view is the Saturday morning edition of the Dallas Morning News. Ruby did not go to the DPD on Friday afternoon. He said he didn't, and phone records prove it. He was not stalking Oswald. But here, notice that Ruby was much thinner than the Garage Shooter who was a very pudgy guy. Ruby was taller, and the Garage Shooter was quite short, the shortest man in the garage, that we know of. At 5'9", Ruby was average height. There is no way he could be that short guy. 

Their hair in back was different. 

So, the Garage Shooter had very long hair in back, especially for 1963. And there is something else I shall point out for the first time. It just occurred to me: The fact that his neck is razored so cleanly tells you that his hair was styled to be like that. It wasn't just overgrown between haircuts. On Ruby, on the right, the abundant stubble on his neck, which goes all the way down to his shirt collar, tells you that he was just a long way out from his last haircut. So, he has that scruffiness back there which the Garage Shooter does not have. It is a very different picture, and it, in itself, is a dealbreaker. They cannot possibly be the same man.

There are a lot more comparative images I could show, but I only have time for one, and it is the one frontal image of the Garage Shooter that was taken on the third floor of the PD about two minutes after the shooting. Note, we are certain that this is the 3rd floor because of a meticulous analysis done by the Wizard. But, officially, Ruby wasn't even on the third floor at the time, that he was taken from the Jail Office to the 5th floor, with no stops in-between. That man is actually FBI Agent James Bookhout. They blackened his eyes to stripes in order to obscure him.  

Here is the comparison to Ruby on the left. Ruby had a MUCH longer neck. He had a longer and gaunter face. The man on the right had a much rounder face. Their hair looks similar, but actually, neither is authentic. Ruby had much less hair than that, and, and Bookhout's was no doubt doctored to match what they did to Ruby. Ruby's nose was much broader, wider at the bottom. So, we are talking about a pinched nose on the right and a pyramidal nose on the left. And finally, I'll point out that Ruby had a long forehead (the distance from his eyebrows to his hairline) whereas, the other man had a very short forehead.   
So, they are different men, and there is no doubt that they are not the same man. And that, by itself, settles it. Absolutely nothing more is needed to establish that Ruby was not the shooter. But, there is more, and I'll start with the behavior of the police. 

I call this the penguin collage because those cops remind me of huddling penguins. The huge guy in the middle with his back to us isn't real. He was there, but he was a skinny guy, Detective Thomas McMillon. They enhanced his size just to increase coverage. 
They figured they could get away with that, that nobody would notice. But, they were wrong. But, what are those cops doing? Do you think they are struggling with Ruby?

They are not struggling with him. They are just covering him up. This was the ONLY time, in all of police history, that police moved a violent offender somewhere without cuffing him first. My father was a policeman for 45 years, first in New York, and then in Los Angeles, and he said that, without exception, the first thing you do with a violent offender is get him in cuffs. But, they didn't do that here. They took him into the jail office WITHOUT cuffing him. Why? It's because they knew he wasn't Ruby, and they did not want to expose his face. So, this is aberrant, inexplicable behavior on the part of the Dallas Police, and it is a piece of evidence that points to the innocence of Jack Ruby.

Then, how did they know what they were doing? Nobody yelled, "Let's take him into the Jail Office!" They just did it. And, there were two ways in: the very wide double doors and the narrow door in the corner. How did they all know to go to that door? IT WAS ALL WORKED OUT IN ADVANCE. No mindreading or ESP was necessary.  

Then, there are the lies told by the Dallas detectives. James Leavelle said that he saw Ruby coming in; that he tried to jerk Oswald behind him; and then he shoved on Ruby's left shoulder with his right hand. He didn't do any of those things, and the films tell us that. Leavelle didn't begin to react to the Shooter until after the shot went off. He didn't even look in the direction of the shooter until the shot went off.  

Then, there was Detective Jim Combest, who said that Oswald was communicating in the Jail Office. Everyone else said that Oswald was completely unconscious and unresponsive. But, Combest said Oswald was shaking his head, with his eyes open, responding to Combest's question. I don't know what emboldened Combest to tell such a lie. He said that he effectively asked Oswald if he wanted to confess anything, seeing that he was about to die, and Oswald shook his head no. It can't be true. They were all huddled around Oswald's body on the floor. At least, that's what we are led to believe, as we look at them in the WFAA footage. Was Oswald really lying there? I don't know. But, I do know that Combest was a liar. 

L.C. Graves said that he rode to Parkland Hospital in the ambulance. He did NOT, and he could not have. There was no room for him. Here is the layout. 

It was a station wagon. Hardin and Wolfe were in the front seat. There were separate seats in back. The left seat was folded down for Oswald's stretcher. Dr. Frank Bieberdorf sat in the right seat. Oswald's body occupied the left side of the rear, and Leavelle and Dhority were on the right side. And that's it. There was no place for Graves. And we know what Graves did because we can see it in the KRLD footage. He went and got a squad car, and he followed the ambulance out on Commerce Street. And by the time they got to Parkland Hospital, he was in front of it, leading it. 

So above, that is L.C. Graves following the ambulance after it left for Parkland. 
And above, is Graves leading well ahead of the ambulance as they arrived at Parkland. How did he get ahead of the ambulance? That I can't tell you. But, that he did that is certain. But, what's even stranger: why would he lie about this? Why didn't he just say that he took a squad car? 

These are only some of the lies told by the Dallas Police. There are plenty more. 

Then, there is the problem of Ruby getting into the garage, supposedly getting past the witless Officer Roy Vaughan. Well, Vaughan was not witless. He went on to become the Chief of Police of Midlothian, Texas, and he followed that with a 13 year career as a Municipal Judge. Vaughan swore that Ruby did NOT get past him. He swore it to his last breath. But, Ruby said he got in that way, and there is no reason to doubt him either. He accepted responsibility for shooting Oswald (only because Dallas Police told him that he did it; he had no memory of doing it and no plan to do it). But, since he was accepting responsibility for killing Oswald, why would he lie about how he got in there? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. 

But, the fact is that RUBY KNEW VAUGHAN. Vaughan had forgiven a traffic violation for him once for being a "friend of the Department." So, it's no wonder Ruby remembered him. But, Ruby said he did NOT recognize the officer on foot who was there when Rio Pierce pulled out and talked to him. Ruby also said that Pierce and that officer on foot were the only ones he saw. He did not report seeing two other officers in the car with Pierce. 

What happened is that Ruby got there early, about an hour early, before Vaughan was placed there. Ruby was already tucked away up on the 5th floor when Vaughan began his shift guarding the Main Street ramp. So, Vaughan didn't lie. And Ruby didn't lie. The Dallas Police lied. They set up Vaughan to be the fall guy. 

Then, there is the timeline. Ruby said that he got up "early" on Sunday morning. He didn't say exactly what time, but it had to be by 8, don't you think? Then, he just got dressed and ate breakfast. He had the tv while he ate, and he browsed through the paper. And then he left for downtown. He was 5 minutes away. Hells Bells, you could have given him nearly two hours to leisurely eat breakfast, and he'd still have gotten to Western Union by 10:00. And guess what? When Ruby gave his account to the Warren Commissioners, he said that he sent the money order at 10:15. Very quickly, a SS agent corrected him, very gently, "No, Jack, it was 11:15." And Ruby didn't dispute it. He didn't dispute anything. He was very respectful of authority. But, what Ruby said was correct. He did get there an hour earlier. But, what about the paperwork, you say? I say: fake, fake, fake. You realize that the first thing they did when they got Ruby up to the 5th floor was strip him down to his underwear. That's in the record. Vincent Bugliosi even reported it in Reclaiming History. They needed Ruby's suit to give it to Bookhout to wear during the televised spectacle. But, at the same time, they grabbed his paperwork from Western Union and replaced it with bogus paperwork showing a later time. 

Then, there is this gem: The Shooter wore light socks, and Ruby wore black ones on 11/24/63.

So, they had to scramble fast for this one and say that they replaced every stitch of clothing on Ruby's body, including his socks. You understand that it was a City Jail where prisoners were held for about 24 hours and then released or sent to the County Jail, at the discretion of the judge. They didn't provide ANY uniforms or clothing to prisoners. Nothing. They didn't provide any clothes to Oswald. The clothes he wore on Sunday they got from his room. But, we're supposed to believe that that they replaced all of Ruby's clothes, including his underwear, even though the very next day he was sent to the County Jail? It's all just a pack of lies. 

There are plenty more streams of evidence that Ruby was innocent, but my time is up. But, I am telling you, with 1000% certainty, that Jack Rubenstein was innocent, that he did NOT shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no more chance that Ruby shot Oswald than that Oswald shot Kennedy from the 6th floor. And he would have had a hell of a time doing that considering that he was in the doorway at the time.  

And to anyone who believes that Oswald was innocent, I've got news for you: If you don't recognize and accept the innocence of Jack Ruby, then you are completely in the dark about the JFK assassination, and you might as well know nothing about it. And if you continue to endorse Ruby's guilt, then you are just a puppet of the killers and plotters, and you are doing their bidding. Jack Ruby was innocent, and I am telling you that with 10,000% certainty. I would bet my life on it in a heartbeat. 
This addresses the big baffling question: why a virus that causes no disruption in many people, and only slight disruption in most people, causes death in others. 

They admit that, visibly, the Corona virus causes nothing more than a positive test result in some people. And they have provided no evidence of any changes in their bodies. They wax on about a silent struggle going on, but it's all supposition. 

And keep in mind that we're not talking about just a few "asymptomatic carriers." We're talking about a ton of them because at this point, people are distancing, even from the well, and those with symptoms aren't even going out.  Of the newly diagnosed, how many of them know who infected them? And put aside medical workers. So, excluding medical workers, what new infectees report being around, in close proximity to a suspiciously sick person or one known to have Corona virus? It has to be very few. So, we are at the point where this whole pandemic is being fueled by "asymptomatic carriers." And for it to continue, the number of asymptomatic carriers will have to keep rising.   

The article admits to 20% of infectees being asymptomatic carriers, but that is surely low. In Iceland, they are finding that half their infectees are asymptomatic. And in the small Italian town of Vo Eugenio, they tested all 3300 people in the town and found that the majority of infectees were asymptomatic.  

But, they claim to know that "the virus is proliferating in the bodies of the 'silent spreaders'" even though they don't get sick. But, that is purely an assumption. They don't provide any evidence for it. They just assume it. 

There has definitely been a shift in thinking. Early on, Dr. Fauci said that silent spreaders have never been the prime movers of any epidemic or pandemic. But now, they have to go to that space because everyone is aware; they are practicing social distancing; even from the asymptomatic. The symptomatic- they're not even going out. They're staying home. I ask you, the reader, when, of late, have you seen someone out in public who was hacking, coughing and looking febrile? So yes, we are at the point now where they have to attribute the spread of the epidemic to silent spreaders: they have no choice.  

Dr. Edward Jones-Lopez said that 50% of those infected don't know that they have it; and presumably don't get sick. And that of the 50% who do show symptoms, 30% have mild to moderate symptoms, from which they recover spontaneously, while 20% get very sick and could die. 

Now, I don't know where he got those figures from. He may have just been bloviating. But a span of effects that goes from nothing to death is the biggest span there is.  So, what is causing death among the few? 

They are saying it is a destructive immunological response to the virus, that does as much or more damage as the virus; that the virus causes the immune system to go haywire. It is an immunological storm, in which the body destroys its own tissues and organs.  

But note first that inflammation is inherently defensive and restorative. It's not an attack on oneself. It is a useful and necessary marshaling of resources to rectify something that is wrong. In January I had hernia surgery, and afterwards, I had some inflammation for a while. I was advised to put ice on it, but I didn't. I had no desire to inhibit the inflammation. I was not afraid of it. I knew it was healing. So, I didn't use ice, and I didn't take anti-inflammatory drugs, as advised. The result was that I healed VERY quickly. I was back to doing everything in less than a month.  It was amazing.  

I get it that there are people with abnormalities whose immune systems malfunction, for whom inflammation can be destructive. And I feel very sorry for those people. But, I am not one of them, and I have a lot of trouble applying it to random people across a population.   

It's all just supposition. It's pure speculation. What do we really know? And by we, I mean you and I. We know that they have this very shaky pcr test, that they consider infallible, even though it is designating a great many people as infected who appear not to be. And just because authority won't consider false positives doesn't mean you and I shouldn't.  

And in individual cases when they tell us that someone died of the Corona virus or Corona complications, they don't tell us how. They don't tell us that someone died because he suffocated to death; or because his heart failed; or his kidneys failed.  They just glibly tell us that he died of Corona virus or Corona complications. Why are people willing to accept that? Why don't they demand full disclosure? 

And if you think it's a matter of privacy, this is affecting every person on this planet. This is unprecedented  because even during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the whole world didn't shut down. I hope that you are as rattled by the highly manipulative reporting that is going on as I am.  





Saturday, April 4, 2020

Corona update for April 4. Brook Baldwin, a young woman who is an anchor at CNN, announced that she tested positive after experiencing mild symptoms: mild fever and some aches. But, she insists that she's all right; that it's very minor, and it sounds like it's already passing. She said that she has been practicing all the social distancing. "But, it got me anyway." Really? Are you sure? Maybe the test is bogus.
Senator Rand Paul is being pilloried because after being tested for Corona virus, he went to the Senate gym to lift weights and swim. If they think it's so terrible, maybe they should close the Senate gym and pool. But, they're missing the most important point, which is, that he isn't sick. If he's going to the gym and lifting weight and swimming, he's not sick. And to believe that he is sick and fighting a virus just because of that test, well, you are putting too much stock in that test. Me, I don't put any stock in it. The test does nothing but determine whether some RNA, of unknown origin, that presumably got taken taken out of you, got duplicated because of things that they did to it. And even if it does get duplicated, there's no proof that it came from the Covid-19 virus.
In Iceland, they are determined to test everyone in the country, and so far, among the positives, half of them aren't sick at all. Did I mention it was half? So, what do you think? That all of them are infected but asymptomatic? This is Iceland. Was there any traffic at all between Iceland and Wuhon? And if you think it came from others who got infected, note that the only way to Iceland is by plane, which means that that the airlines have passenger lists for all the flights to Iceland in January and February. If they have the means of contacting and testing every Icelander, then they have the means of contacting all those passengers and finding out if any of them were sick or tested positive for Corona. We're talking about winter, and there is probably very little tourist travel to Iceland in January and February. Plus, we've all known about this since January, and if a person was sick, he probably would get tested, and then he'd probably cancel his trip to Iceland. So, I'm thinking that what visitors they had probably were healthy. So now, we're back to assuming that asymptomatic carriers are infecting and creating more asymptomatic carriers, but that is a whole lot of asymptomatic carriers for a deadly virus. They're telling us that the flu has a fatality rate of just .1% but that for Corona virus, it's as high as 3%. That's 30x more lethal. And yet, the world is full of asymptomatic carriers. Maybe it's true what they say, that if something doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger.
In the Italian village of Vo Eugenio, they tested all 3300 residents, and the majority of the positives were asymptomatic. So, how about questioning the validity of the test?
So, what are YOU going to do if you have been practicing social distancing, diligently, but then you get tested and found to be positive? Are you just going to say, "Damn! It got me!" like Brook? Or, since you know that it has an average incubation period of 5 days, are you going to think back about every contact you have made to figure who could have given it to you? And if the only contacts you have had, outside your family, are just that you've been going to Whole Foods to shop as needed, are you going to assume that one of the customers or the cashiers gave it to you? But, they weren't coughing or acting the least bit sick, were they? So, then what? Are you going to assume that one or more was an asymptomatic carrier? "Asymptomatic carrier" is the password to evade the reality that this test is bogus. Not saying that the ones who are sick aren't sick. Just saying that the test is horse shit.

Thursday, April 2, 2020

This is an open letter to Chancellor Merkell of Germany from the top infectious disease specialist in that country, Dr.Sucarit Bhagdi concerning the Corona virus pandemic. He never overtly questions the accuracy and reliability of the pcr test, but, he does point out that in Italy, they had very old people in the hospital dying of various degenerative diseases, and in some cases doing Covid-19 tests on them post-mortem, and if it came back positive, attributing their deaths to the virus. This is a very impassioned speech, and I hope you'll listen to it.


Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Roy, your sister Aliceli did not die from Corona virus. She must have had a catastrophic event, such as: a heart attack, stroke, or pulmonary embolism. She worked on Tuesday, so she must have been mostly OK, right? And then she died on Friday. But, please talk to your daughter or niece, Jhoanna, who talked to your sister in-between. Jhoanna said that your sister sounded fine on the phone and complained of nothing, and she said nothing about having Corona. Not a word. But on Friday, her husband called the hospital because she was in a bad way, and she was DOA. But, they have never said that the disease can progress that fast. They have been saying that symptoms start mildly, and if it's going to worsen, it takes 10 days to reach a dire state. The Corona virus can't attack you like a guided missile. So, if she was working Tuesday and then died Friday, it means that something catastrophic must have happened to her, internally, and most likely a vascular accident. It's just too short a timeline to think otherwise. If this seems intrusive and insensitive, I apologize. But, this crisis is affecting the lives of everyone on Earth, and we all need to know the straight scoop.
It's even worse than I thought. Araceli Illagan died on Friday, not Saturday. And she did work on Tuesday.

MIAMI (CBSMiami) — An ICU nurse at Jackson Memorial Hospital died Friday from the Coronavirus. Araceli Buendia Ilagan worked at Jackson for 33 years. It is not clear when or where she contracted the virus. She last worked at Jackson on Tuesday when she reportedly began showing symptoms.

This is from her niece in England, who is also a nurse:

Buendia (the niece) said that Ilagan had called her just a few days earlier to check on her and also mentor her on how to care for patients with COVID-19 in the U.K. "She told me she's doing fine ... Never did I expect that this would happen to her," said Buendia, who also said her aunt had doted on her since childhood because she never had children.

RC: So, this was one nurse talking to another nurse, and obviously, the niece in England did not hear her aunt panting, gasping or in distress.

Buendia said her aunt, the stalwart nurse, who never complained or showed frailty, had mentioned nothing about the illness or even that she had been feeling symptoms.

RC: And again, the niece, who is a nurse, detected no signs of distress over the phone.

Her niece said she was shocked with the devastating speed with which the virus killed her. She died as soon as she got to Jackson Memorial. "Her husband told us that he just saw her on the floor, and she was not breathing properly anymore," Buendia told ABC News on Monday. "He just rushed her to the hospital. It happened so fast. He is shocked, and I'm very surprised because I didn't know that she was feeling anything."

RC: Araceli must have had a catastrophic event: either a heart attack, a stroke, or a pulmonary embolism. They are blaming her death on the virus, but there is no way the virus could have killed her so suddenly. That's impossible.