Pardon my cynicism, but when news broke last week about the Omicron variant last week, I sensed a euphoric delight among Dr. Fauci and his corporate media enablers. Although President Biden was luxuriating at the $30 million Nantucket estate of billionaire donor David Rubenstein, Fauci was readily available for his network news sycophants to sound the alarm that Omicron was of considerable concern.
Wall Street rallied today, reportedly because investors have concluded the Omicron variant isn’t as alarming as Fauci and the corporate media wanted the public to believe. This comes as no surprise to Dr. Angelique Coetzee, a general practitioner in Pretoria and a professor at the University of Pretoria who oversees the school’s Centre for Viral Zoonoses, which are diseases transmissible from animals to people.
Coetzee, whose medical career spans more than three decades, was the physician who identified the Omicron variant in South Africa. The variant had previously been discovered in neighboring Botswana and in other south African countries. Unlike China, South Africa is transparent and co-operative with the western world and dutifully noted the Omicron discovery.
In a commentary published in The Daily Mail, Coetzee said she was taken aback by the “knee- jerk” response by the UK, and by extension the US, to ban travelers from south African countries and impose other prohibitive measures. “It seems to me that Britain is merely hyping up the alarm about this variant unnecessarily,” Coetzee said in her November 29th commentary.
What the US corporate media ignored or played down was that the patients Coetzee diagnosed with the Omicron variant were only mildly ill and none needed hospitalization. The first one mistakenly thought he had too much sun after working outside. After he tested positive for covid, so did his wife and four-month-old baby. Coetzee said most of the patients she diagnosed with the Omicron variant were young men, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. In Botswana, all the diagnosed Omicron variants involved patients who were vaccinated.
What’s notable about Coetzee is that she’s also chair of the South African Medical Association, which unlike its American Medical Association (AMA) counterpart appears to be an organization that champions medicine and promotes the interests of physicians. SAMA’s role is to advise South Africa’s Department of Health. The organization’s motto is “Uniting Doctors for the Health of the Nation.”
The AMA is a wokester lobbying organization promoting causes inimical to the interests of U.S. physicians. Among the causes it has championed is preventing physicians from prescribing the controversial drug ivermectin, which the FDA and the corporate media describe as a veterinary drug of no benefit to treating covid. The AMA partnered with the American Pharmacists Association and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists to prevent the ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat covid outside of a clinical trial.
CVS and other pharmacies are refusing to fill ivermectin prescriptions written by licensed doctors. That the AMA would support pharmacists overriding a doctor’s prescription is very alarming, particularly as CVS and Walgreen’s are looking to get into primary care and hire physicians of their own. Rest assured these physicians will be under considerable pressure to write as many scripts as possible. Americans are already overly medicated, particularly with antibiotics.
Little wonder why most licensed physicians don’t belong to the AMA. The organization is distrusted among doctors, viewed as being more concerned about its finances and the money it gets from the government and Big Pharma.
Given Coetzee’s fearlessness to publicly criticize the medical establishments of the UK and US, on a hunch I researched the use of ivermectin in South Africa. Turns out that unlike the U.S., where the majority of doctors obediently follow the orders of the government and their healthcare employers, South Africa’s physicians aggressively defend their rights to act on their knowledge, experience, and best judgment.
According to NPR, South African physicians, unable to obtain the human formulation of ivermectin, were pioneers using the veterinary version to treat covid. South Africa’s government and regulators moved to stop the practice, going so far as to ban importation of the drug into the country.
But NPR said “civil society groups,” led in some cases by “high-profile doctors,” took the government to court and prevailed. The human formulation of ivermectin is now widely available in South Africa and physicians openly prescribe the drug, despite the FDA, WHO, and South Africa’s leading epidemiologist insisting the drug is of no benefit treating covid.
The headline on NPR’s story is an example of the lengths the leftist U.S. media will go to delegitimize ivermectin: “Research Shows This Drug Shouldn’t Be Used for Covid-19 But in South Africa Many Do.” God forbid ivermectin should be mentioned in a headline bolstering search results for the drug.
I don’t want to debate ivermectin’s effectiveness treating covid, but unlike in South Africa, U.S. physicians who believe the drug has merit risk being censured and losing their licenses. Some of these physicians trained at world renowned medical schools, including an ENT doc in Texas who did her fellowship at Stanford.
One can’t honestly debate ivermectin’s possible covid benefits because any positive references to the drug are removed on social media. That the Biden Administration, the FDA, and corporate media go to such great lengths to discredit and stifle any debate about ivermectin’s effectiveness only furthers doubt and suspicions among people like me who believe nothing good ever comes from censorship and the denial of free and open debate.
Not all U.S. physicians are lemmings. In addition to those daring to challenge or question covid vaccine safety and mandates, America’s urologists do South Africa’s physicians proud.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an influential cancer organization whose guidelines are closely followed, was recently forced to reverse a decision recommending that men with low-risk prostate cancer consider active surveillance, radiation therapy, or surgery, giving equal weight to all three recommendations. The recommendation angered urologists who exclusively support active surveillance, which aims to avoid or delay treatment – and potentially life-changing side effects – until indications of disease progression. Some of America’s leading urologists were very vocal about their opposition.
Fortunately, Dr. Fauci, the FDA, and the corporate media pay scant attention to the urology issues of elder men. Otherwise, I’m sure they’d be pissing all over the NCCN’s acquiescence to physicians.