Thursday, December 30, 2021

Kaiser Permanente Refuses to Follow CDC Science on COVID Isolation

UPDATE: Kaiser decided to get in line behind the CDC as of yesterday, they are going to the 5 day isolation.  

"For everyone who tests positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status
  • Stay home for 5 days
  • If you have no symptoms or your symptoms are resolving after 5 days, you can leave your home
  • Continue to wear a mask anytime around others for at least 5 additional days
  • If you have a fever, continue to stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever resolves without the need for fever-reducing medications"


However, they are still requiring sick and non-sick to stand in the same testing line


Kaiser Permanente (KP) joins the ranks of those who do not believe in following CDC recommendations.

The CDC recently changed its COVID protocol to:

"Given what we currently know about COVID-19 and the Omicron variant, CDC is shortening the recommended time for isolation for the public. People with COVID-19 should isolate for 5 days and if they are asymptomatic or their symptoms are resolving (without fever for 24 hours), follow that by 5 days of wearing a mask when around others to minimize the risk of infecting people they encounter. The change is motivated by science demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after."

My sister-in-law recently got COVID and was told by a KP doctor that KP is not following the CDC's 5 day isolation recommendation. KP's recommendation remains 10 days of isolation:

"If you test positive, stay home and isolate for 10 days and until your symptoms have improved."

KP apparently does not believe in following the CDC's "science". Sounds like KP and the anti-vaxxers are on the same page in distrusting CDC science, even though KP has persecuted and fired employees who did not follow CDC science about the need to be vaccinated even if one has developed truly effective anti-bodies by having survived COVID.

Personally, on this issue, I think the CDC has far superior information than KP which seems stuck on old variants and habits rather than science and testing. 

KP certainly does not carry its hypersensitive view of isolation to its testing procedures. KP does not separate people who have COVID symptoms from those who need a test in order to travel. Sick and well are all forced to stand in the same line and be tested at the same area. My sister-in-law who was clearly sick was standing in line with a lady waiting for a negative test so she could take a cruise. The KP testing line is a great place to contract COVID since the sick and the well are forced into a single line.

Thursday, December 02, 2021

Snopes Unreliable In Its Vetting of Internet Claims

After discovering a falsehood published by Washington Post opinion writer Dana Milbank on NIAID/NIH experiments on beagle puppies, I decided to see if Snopes had picked up on the problem.

Milbank claimed that the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) recommended cutting dogs' vocal cords when experimenting on them. AAALAC published a sharp refutation saying that was "not" in their standards and their organization "has not made this recommendation." [emphasis in the original text]

Snopes has an extremely long analysis done by Madison Dapcevich of the charges against Fauci and NIAID/NIH. Snopes links to well over a thousand pages of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documentation given to it by the White Coat Waste (WCW) group that uncovered details about the government funded test on beagle puppies. But Snopes takes at face value a mere statement with no backing documentation on the NIH website that:

“'All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare,' notes the agency on its website."

Even though Snopes verified that the puppies did have their vocal cords removed and were killed at the end of the experiment, Snopes required no evidence that such procedures were either necessary or humane. A mere government assertion was sufficient validation for them. Snopes:

"It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs. 

"It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were 'cut out.' In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for 'preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services' was conducted 'as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent.'

“'Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present,' the statement said. 'This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss.'

"The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare. 

“'Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study,' read the document." [emphasis added]

Snopes didn't even do the due diligence of checking with the AAALAC or even reading their website declaration that they do not recommend cordectomies. Snopes also didn't think to ask the Study Director about use of sedatives and pain killers rather than cutting the puppies' vocal cords. Cordectomies are not widely used in human or animal hospitals for reducing stress or sparing the hearing of the medical staff treating patients in pain. Why they should be used in "humane" medical experiments is a question any serious investigator should ask.

Snopes did not carry out a serious fact check on this issue. It only asked for verifiable evidence from one party, and then slid over the implications of documents verifying those claims while taking the other party's mere assertions as sufficient proof that they did no wrong. From this poorly done fact check one can only draw the conclusion that Snopes is now an unreliable source in vetting internet claims.




Dana Milbank Gave False Information about American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care Recommending Cordectomies


Dana Milbank, 2016 (Wikipedia)

Update: I'm changing the word "lied" to "gave false information". I feel sorry for Milbank who obviously does not have an inner moral compass that would raise a red flag that cutting an animal's (or maybe even a person's) vocal cords is a cruel action if not required because of some grave illness. I went to the AAALAC site because I couldn't believe such an agency would really say that. Dana Milbank did not check his source because he thinks such treatment is reasonable. I'm relieved that the AAALAC doesn't agree.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank gave false information about cordectomies being recommended by the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. He also got their name wrong. Who knows what other "facts" he made up. Below is a statement by the AAALAC refuting Milbank's assertion that they recommend cordectomies.

"October 2021

"Correction to an October 25, 2021, Washington Post opinion piece

"AAALAC International would like to note an important correction to the October 25, 2021, Washington Post opinion piece, 'Why is Anthony Fauci trying to kill my puppy?' For more than 50 years, AAALAC International has promoted the humane and responsible care, treatment, and use of animals needed to advance medical and scientific discoveries. As rightly noted in the article, this research saves lives and improves the health and well-being of both people and animals. However, the article states, 'And it is recommended by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care [sic] that the dogs undergo cordectomies to reduce anxiety (in dogs) and hearing loss (in humans) from barking.' Such a recommendation is not contained in our standards and thus AAALAC International has not made this recommendation." [emphasis in the original statement]

Wednesday, December 01, 2021

A Hospital to Skip If You Are at Death's Door: Edward Hospital, in Naperville, Illinois

According to The Epoch Times, Edward Hospital in Naperville, Illinois for over a week resisted court orders to give treatment that eventually saved his life to a man described by a doctor as having only a 10-15% chance of survival from COVID-19.

"An elderly COVID-19 patient has recovered after a court order allowed him to be treated with ivermectin, despite objections from the hospital in which he was staying, according to the family’s attorney.

"After an Illinois hospital insisted on administering expensive remdesivir to the patient and the treatment failed, his life was saved after a court ordered that an outside medical doctor be allowed to use the inexpensive ivermectin to treat him, over the hospital’s strenuous objections."

Sun Ng, 71, from Hong Kong was visiting his daughter, when he was infected with COVID-19 and within days was critically ill. He was hospitalized on Oct 14. He was intubated and placed on a ventilator a few days later. His daughter, Man Kwan Ng, asked that he be given invermectin after the hospital's remdesivir treatment failed. The hospital refused.

On November 1st, the daughter took the issue to Judge Paul M. Fullerton of the Circuit Court of DuPage County. He ruled that the hospital had to allow invermectin to be given to Sun Ng. The hospital refused to let Dr. Alan Bain enter the hospital to administer the invermectin. At another hearing November 5, the judge again ruled that the hospital “'immediately allow … temporary emergency privileges'” to Ng’s physician, Dr. Alan Bain, “'solely to administer Ivermectin to this patient.'” The hospital again refused to let Dr. Bain enter on November 6th and 7th. 

Finally, the case was again brought to Judge Fullerton on November 8th, and he ruled again that the hospital had to allow Dr. Bain admittance for 15 days to treat his patient. The hospital finally relented.

Ng recovered and was discharged from the hospital on November 27th.

“'My father’s recovery is amazing,' his daughter, Man Kwan Ng, said in a statement.

“'My father is a tough man. He was working so hard to survive, and of course, with God’s holding hands. He weaned off oxygen about three days after moving out of the ICU. He started oral feeding before hospital discharge. He returned home without carrying a bottle of oxygen and a feeding tube installed to his stomach. He can now stand with a walker at the bedside and practice stepping. After being sedated for a month on a ventilator in ICU, his performance is beyond our expectations. Praise the Lord.'”

Why the judge didn't heavily fine the hospital for ignoring his first order is anyone's guess. Why he didn't send to jail those disobeying his second order is incomprehensible. Because fines and jail time are what would have happened to you or me for disobeying court orders. No wonder hospitals act like they are above the law and are masters over their patients. It makes me think that the end of life directives they constantly talk about are so much waste paper. They may well do what they want no matter what you have authorized.

Unfortunately, this is what modern business-oriented healthcare is like. The patient is not first priority the corporation is.


Monday, November 29, 2021

Dana Milbank's Modest Proposal Is Not Satire

UPDATE: Refuting Milbank's assertion, The American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care denies that it recommends cordectomies for dogs:

"For more than 50 years, AAALAC International has promoted the humane and responsible care, treatment, and use of animals needed to advance medical and scientific discoveries. As rightly noted in the article, this research saves lives and improves the health and well-being of both people and animals. However, the article states, 'And it is recommended by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care [sic] that the dogs undergo cordectomies to reduce anxiety (in dogs) and hearing loss (in humans) from barking.' Such a recommendation is not contained in our standards and thus AAALAC International has not made this recommendation." [emphasis in the original statement]


The great Jonathan Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the public" as a satire on the "casual cruelty exhibited by individuals in Ireland with power who ignore or make worse the plight of the poor." Swift's fix was to fatten the children as much as possible and sell them for tasty eating thus eliminating the burden on poor parents to feed and clothe them until adulthood, providing the parents with some income and giving the wealthy a succulent new food item.

Dana Milbank
has done his own modest proposal on treatment of beagle puppies in NIAID testing labs, alas, not as satire. 

"Had right-wing outlets checked with the NIH, they would know that in another study, which didn’t involve Tunisia and didn’t involve flies, NIAID-funded researchers did indeed perform cordectomies on 44 beagle puppies and euthanized them after the study. And here’s why: The Food and Drug Administration requires researchers to experiment on non-rodent mammals for certain classes of HIV-AIDS drugs, and for this study specifically recommended dogs. It is necessary to use young dogs (six to eight months) to assess whether the drugs retard growth. It is mandatory that the dogs be euthanized so researchers can search for damage to organ systems. And it is recommended by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care that the dogs undergo cordectomies to reduce anxiety (in dogs) and hearing loss (in humans) from barking. (Beagles are used because of their uniform size.*)"

First, it's interesting that Milbank considers concerns about this as being from "right-wing outlets".  Nine of 24 U.S. Representatives who signed an October 21, 2021, letter of concern sent to Anthony Fauci, head of NIAID, are Democrats. The right-wing has certainly expanded if it includes them.

Second, we find out from Milbank that using dogs is recommended, using puppies is necessary, killing the puppies is mandatory and cutting their vocal cords is recommended by agencies and associations not known for particular interest in the well-being of animals. Much like lobotomies and forced sterilization were at one time recommended by people and agencies (Nobel prize, federally funded eugenics boards) who had no real interest in the well-being of the victimized individuals.

Third, Milbank informs us that this testing is IMPORTANT.

"Above all, this is no frivolous pursuit: The drugs under study are promising next-generation antiretrovirals that can be administered to HIV/AIDS patients less frequently — potentially saving countless human lives.

"No doubt people can find some clunkers in the thousands of studies NIAID funds each year — it has 10,000 active projects . . . ."

Milbank asserts these studies are "promising" and "potentially" life saving. However, Milbank does not point to even one promising or potentially life saving result from any of the tests with the beagle puppies.

Which is why the 24 U.S. Representatives asked Anthony Fauci some pointed questions.

  • How many drug tests involving dogs have been funded by NIAID since January 2018? How much taxpayer money has been spent on this testing?

  • Since the Food and Drug Administration has clearly stated that it does not require dog testing for new drugs, why has NIAID continued to commission testing on dogs?**

  • What has NIAID done to explore the use of non-canine and non-animal alternatives to meet FDA data requirements? Please describe in detail.

  • Has NIAID ever made any dogs available for adoption after the conclusion of an experiment or testing? If so, how many? If no, why not?

  • Why has NIAID contracted for cordectomies when they appear to be scientifically and medically unnecessary? What is the average cost for each cordectomy performed?***

Whether they get an answer without calling Fauci to actually testify under oath is yet to be seen.

I personally like question 3: What has NIAID done to explore the use of non-canine and non-animal alternatives to meet FDA data requirements? Actually, I would ask that of the FDA as well. It's seems like they are stuck in the 19th century and incapable of creating or using computerized models or doing non or minimally invasive MRIs, ultrasound, needle biopsies or minimal surgeries that are done regularly both in human and veterinary medicine.

A righteous person has regard for the life of his animal,
But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.
Proverbs 12:10

PLEASE write your U.S. Senators and Representative urging them to support (or introduce a senate version of) H.R. 1744 Humane Research and Testing Act of 2021. It's goals are very modest, but at least a start.


*Miniature poodle puppies (1/2" height difference from 2 months to 6 months) and adults are much more uniform in size than beagle puppies (2"-3" height difference from 2 months to 6 months) and adults, but do not have the sweet, friendly temperament of beagles. Methinks it's the beagles lack of fight that is most attractive to researchers.

**from the October 21, 2021, letter to Fauci:“The FDA itself has recently stated that it ‘does not mandate that human drugs be studied in dogs.’”

***from the October 21, 2021, letter: “This cruel procedure [cordectomy, “involves slitting a dog’s vocal cords in order to prevent them from barking, howling, or crying.”]–which is opposed with rare exceptions by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, and others”

Thursday, October 21, 2021

COVID Vaccine Persecutors Making Enemies Among the Vaccinated

COVID vaccine persecutors are making enemies among the vaccinated. I'm one of them and will do everything in my power to make sure their disgustingly oppressive tactics result in less future vaccinations rather than more.

KATU reports that the Springfield school district is treating those it has given exemptions to the same as those without exemptions. That is, they are granting religious and medical "exemptions" in name only as well as making sure the teachers can’t get teaching work elsewhere.

"The school district says Springfield has 101 unvaccinated employees, and as of November 1st; 16 of them will no longer be employed with SPS. According to a memorandum between the School District and the Springfield Education Association, educators who fail to comply will be put on unpaid leave effective October 19th through the remainder of the school year.

"However, some teachers say they are being dealt the same outcome, despite being granted exceptions.

“'So the exception was received by the district but our accommodation is that we're placed on unpaid leave the rest of the semester,' says Karri Thiele, a kindergarten teacher at Page Elementary.

"According to the memorandum, 'If a request for religious exception is granted, the district will take reasonable steps to ensure that unvaccinated licensed staff members are protected from contracting and spreading COVID-19, which may include but not be limited to requiring weekly testing, requiring licensed staff member to wear a fitted KN95 mask, and/or placing a licensed staff member in an unpaid leave status for the remainder of the school year.'

"Thiele was granted a religious exception by the district, but says the only accommodation offered to her and around 50 fellow coworkers was being put on unpaid leave effective Tuesday, which Thiele says entails no access to accrued sick time or health benefits. Teachers are also unable to find jobs teaching elsewhere, while still contracted to SPS.

“'Unless I resign my position with Springfield, I am unable to use my teaching license for the remainder of the school year,' says Thiele, who feels the district is holding unvaccinated teachers 'hostage.'”

Meanwhile the U.S. Navy is threatening to punish those who do not get vaccinated by not only discharging them but threatening to make them refund bonus incentives and pay for training they have received as well as possible court-martial.

"Officers may be subject to 'recoupment of unearned special or incentive pays' in select cases. The COVID authority also 'may seek recoupment of applicable bonuses, special and incentive pays, and the cost of training and education for service members refusing the vaccine' from sailors, the order also says.

"Unvaccinated personnel could also face a court-martial."

From the U.S. Navy Office of Information:

"For Navy service members refusing the vaccine, the CCDA also retains the authority for administrative processes regarding removal of warfare qualifications, additional qualification designations (AQD), Navy Enlisted Classifications (NEC), or sub-specialties, except in cases where removal authority is otherwise authorized by law or Executive Order.  The CCDA may also seek recoupment of applicable bonuses, special and incentive pays, and the cost of training and education for service members refusing the vaccine.

"Those separated only for vaccine refusal will receive no lower than a general discharge under honorable conditions. This type of discharge could result in the loss of some veterans’ benefits."

I originally got the vaccine and helped others get it because it seemed reasonable medically. But, no more. Political and military authorities, along with fat cat medical corporations like Kaiser Permanente, have made it a political and moral issue. They need to be opposed.


Wednesday, October 13, 2021

Kaiser Permanente: We will be safe when we are all vaccinated. Me: Not really.

My father just received a letter from Kaiser Permanente (KP) in response to our concerns over KP depriving people of their livelihood irrespective of their excellence as health care providers. It said, among other things: 

"The large number of unvaccinated individuals has created an increased risk for everyone, and we must do all we can to protect ourselves, each other, and those we serve."

. . .

"The majority of our frontline health care workers have already been vaccinated, and Kaiser Permanente required that all employees and physicians be fully vaccinated (or apply for medical or religious exemption) by September 30, 2021."

Apparently KP does not pay attention to Oregon Health Authority statistics. Currently almost 1/4th of all COVID cases are vaccinated "breakthrough" cases. And about 1/5th of all COVID deaths in August and September were vaccinated. That means that vaccinated people are a significant carrier of COVID. And as the significant death rate indicates, these cases are not the "light" cases we have been promised the vaccine would ensure.

So, we are depriving people of their livelihood for slightly better odds. Given that 75% of Oregonians are vaccinated, your chance of rubbing shoulders with them is much higher than with the 25% unvaccinated. So, though the vaccinated rate of infection is lower, you have three times as much interaction with them than with the unvaccinated. It sort of evens out as to which group is more likely to give you COVID.

KP's inability to understand implications of health data on COVID cases, does not give one much confidence in their ability to understand implications of health data on other issues.