Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Peter McCullough, MD testifies to Texas Senate HHS Committee

Dr. Peter McCullough's testimony was made on March 10, 2021.  He makes the case that the failure to treat patients early is responsible for 85% of covid deaths.  Patients testing positive for covid were told there is no treatment, and that they had to recover without treatment or get sick enough to warrant hospitalization.  This was not an innocent mistake.  Doctors who treated patients were reprimanded or fired.  Given that treatments have been available since early in the pandemic, the censoring of treatment protocols is tantamount to murder.  

As you will hear, Dr. McCullough's credentials are indisputable.  

Monday, May 31, 2021

Alan Greenspan's 1966 article on gold

Gold and Economic Freedom

by Alan Greenspan
[written in 1966]

This article originally appeared in a newsletter: The Objectivist published in 1966 and was reprinted in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense - perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire - that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.

In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.

Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.

The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.

In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.

Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.

A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.

When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one-so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World Was I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline-argued economic interventionists-why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely-it was claimed-there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.

With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form-from a growing number of welfare-state advocates-was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which-through a complex series of steps-the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.


Alan Greenspan
[written in 1966]

This article originally appeared in a newsletter called The Objectivist published in 1966 and was reprinted in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Buy the book from Amazon

reprinted at 321gold

Friday, May 28, 2021

Monday, May 17, 2021

Impact of COVID vaccines on mortality

Please read this article before watching the video: 

The Same Pattern Everywhere?  Mass Vaccination triggers sharp spike in Cases and Deaths

From the article:

“New York Yankees shortstop Gleyber Torres tested positive for Covid-19 despite being fully vaccinated and having previously contracted the coronavirus during the offseason. Torres is among eight so-called breakthrough positives among the Yankees — people who tested positive despite being fully vaccinated.” (NBC News)

Credit @britishbennyboy on Twitter for the animation.

Ivermectin is being ignored in "rich" countries

"Covid-19 vaccines are reaching most emerging and developing economies in only drips and drabs, with a few notable exceptions such as Chile. In many countries, locking down entire cities or regions and paying millions of non-essential workers not to work while front-line doctors and nurses battle to contain the virus is not an option. There simply isn’t enough money available. This has left doctors and health authorities with little choice but to try out cheap, widely available generic medicines. Those drugs include ivermectin, a “well-studied, well tolerated,” (in the words of a 2013 FT article) off-patent anti-parasitical. "The results have been extremely promising, according to almost all of the clinical studies conducted thus far. Many of the studies took place in Latin America where around half of the countries in the region have used or are using ivermectin to some degree or another. A meta analysis of 42 clinical trials, involving approximately 15,000 patients, found that 83% showed improvements with early treatment, 51% improved during late-stage treatment and there was an 89% prevention of onset rate noted. Yet the studies have received scant attention in more advanced economies — so much so that the vast majority of the people I talk to here in Europe have still not even heard of the medicine."
-- It’s Time To Talk About Ivermectin Nick Corbishley March 30, 2021

Saturday, February 20, 2021

Dr. Paul Marik Discusses Ivermectin and Vitamin D

Dr. Marik also discusses the role and importance of melatonin in preventing and treating SARS-CoV-2.  This is a long interview, but worth your time considering the importance of staying healthy and how to recover your health if it starts to fade.

Monday, January 18, 2021

Smith vs. the virus

A close doctor friend of mine whose name I will withhold has urged me to get vaccinated.  She works with COVID patients, has been vaccinated, and thus far has experienced no problems. She plans to visit me in a few weeks and would be horrified if she infected me with the virus.  If I “had some sort of immunity” she would feel much better, she said.

I don’t work with patients of any kind and have not been vaccinated for anything since childhood, with the exception of a tetanus shot some years ago.  Each year the flu comes and goes, and each year it has missed me.  I’m 77, have a healthy BMI, stay active, but have what everyone calls a comorbidity: COPD that originated in my genes. 

Being in possession of a lung disease and an accumulation of many years, one could argue that I’m ripe for a virus attack. 

Is a vaccine, therefore, the best way to fend off the invader?  Does it promise immunity?  Are there better options?  How do I defeat this monster called COVID-19?

I remind myself that all life is threatened to some degree every second of the day.  We can take acknowledged precautions but they don’t come with a guarantee.  A beloved cousin of mine died in his sleep last year.  He lived clean, was younger than me, and had just finished building a kayak and was looking forward to a 350-mile group bicycle tour later that week.  

A close friend had always been a paragon of healthy living but still came down with multiple myeloma. His pro-life attitude never wavered, and he lives cancer-free today.  

I also remind myself that science is conducted under political authority.  Truth is not in the facts but in how it supports the insatiable hunger for power and revenue.  We’ve witnessed this over the years with cancer research.  Always researching, always funding, never finding.  Anyone who says they found a cure, especially if it’s cheap, becomes a hunted animal.  


Under the current COVID tyranny, doctors who announce unapproved effective treatments such as hydroxychloroquine get hit over the head.  Researchers who recommend nutritional supplements or something as common as fresh air and sunshine face the same penalty.  Yet Americans once embraced natural remedies.  

[During the pandemic of 1918], medics found that severely ill flu patients nursed outdoors recovered better than those treated indoors. A combination of fresh air and sunlight seems to have prevented deaths among patients; and infections among medical staff. There is scientific support for this. Research shows that outdoor air is a natural disinfectant. Fresh air can kill the flu virus and other harmful germs. Equally, sunlight is germicidal and there is now evidence it can kill the flu virus.

But today, acceptable cures come only from politically-connected pharmaceutical companies.

Vaccine development is normally a multi-year, multi-billion dollar undertaking, paid for by the hapless public.  Upstarts who promote supplements threaten the public’s willingness to accept a rushed vaccine and need to be brushed aside.  They also, of course, threaten a major revenue stream.  

Still, when one considers the history of vaccines there is every reason to respect them.  Vaccines have wiped out smallpox and measles, so why not COVID-19?  Sure, there’s obvious political support for a vaccine, but that doesn’t rule one out as a panacea.  

Compounding a layman’s search for a sound understanding is the ever-shifting positions of authoritative sources.  Should the public wear masks?  No, says the NEJM in April, then later in July, yes.  (Not exactly.  Their earlier post was really a “yes” that was misinterpreted. How stupid of us.)  Is the RT-PCR test being administered in a reliable manner?  We don’t know, but we’re told any test that exceeds a cycle threshold (Ct) of 35 is highly suspect and could produce a false positive.  Even the esteemed Dr. Fauci agrees.  But wait — here’s a PhD in virology who says “The false-positive PCR problem is not a problem.”  Regardless, most labs don’t report Ct.  A positive test becomes a case, whether or not the person shows symptoms.  And as testing increases, cases increase and become terrifying headlines, scaring the hell out of a compliant public. 

Yet we know people are getting sick and some are dying.  This is serious, deadly serious.

Assuming we have a choice, should we get vaccinated when our demographic becomes eligible? 

Here is how I decided.

Those warp-speed vaccines

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, tozinameran, aka Comirnaty, is one of two vaccines being given to the public.  The FDA gave emergency use authorization (EUA) to Comirnaty on December 11, and a week later issued an EUA to Moderna for their vaccine.  Both vaccines require two shots and work much the same way.

According to Comirnaty’s official description, it is for people 16 years of age or older.  It contains a messenger RNA molecule (mRNA) with instructions to produce a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.  

When a person is given the vaccine, some of their cells will read the mRNA instructions and temporarily produce the spike protein. The person’s immune system will then recognise this protein as foreign and produce antibodies and activate T cells (white blood cells) to attack it.

If, later on, the person comes into contact with SARS-CoV-2 virus, their immune system will recognise it and be ready to defend the body against it. The mRNA from the vaccine does not stay in the body but is broken down shortly after vaccination.

Continuing, we read,

Efficacy was calculated in over 36,000 people from 16 years of age (including people over 75 years of age) who had no sign of previous infection. The study showed a 95% reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in the people who received the vaccine . . .

But . . .

The impact of vaccination with Comirnaty on the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the community is not yet known. It is not yet known how much vaccinated people may still be able to carry and spread the virus.

There are at least three points to consider:

1.  Neither Pfizer nor Moderna can be held liable if you become ill or worse after being vaccinated.  You can’t sue them until 2024.  The quickest vaccine ever developed prior to 2020 was for mumps, which took four years and was licensed in 1967.  Pfizer is pushing their COVID out after 8 months, with the FDA’s blessing.  

2.  The trials (see Table 1) excluded immunocompromised patients and pregnant or breastfeeding women.  

3.  The goal of the trials was to show the vaccine prevented “symptomatic disease in vaccine recipient.”  It was NOT to show “Reduction in severe covid-19 (hospital admission, ICU, or death)” OR “Interruption of transmission (person to person spread).” In other words, the vaccine might not reduce your chances of going to the hospital or dying, and it might not reduce the likelihood of passing it on to others.  

In fairness to the vaccine makers, “Because most people with symptomatic COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms, even trials involving 30,000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease.” [source]  

This begs the question: With most people experiencing only “mild symptoms,” why the panic of rushing a COVID-19 vaccine to market, especially when there are well-known OTC prophylactics such as quercetin, zinc, vitamin C, melatonin, and vitamin D available?

We are told to wear masks, stay distant, and in some cases stay home to help reduce the spread.  If you take the vaccine none of this will change.   

If we were fighting a war, we would be killing ourselves before confronting the enemy.  With few exceptions everyone’s wearing a mask, mandated or not, and some people still get sick. (The worst part of wearing them, aside from health issues, is the obedience they reflect.  Obedience to Fauci?  He said most people don’t need them.)  Dr. Simone Gold [source, 13:12] suggests pushing back by going without a mask, not only for yourself but to serve as a role model for others to do the same.  

All the data I’ve seen suffers from serious corruption.  Testing is flawed because of the high thresholds (Ct > 35) that generate false positives; cases are defined as a positive test, whether or not symptoms are present; hospitals are rewarded for coding a patient as COVID even if they haven’t been tested in some states.  A study finding no asymptomatic transmission, followed later by one finding asymptomatic transmission only blows more smoke in our faces. 

How can you protect yourself? 

Begin with common sense.  If you’re feeling well go about your life.  If you’re sick stay away from people until you get better.  Cover your mouth when coughing or sneezing. 

Keep your immune system strong.  The ways of achieving this are almost without limit, but they include adequate sleep, regular exercise, a diet high in nutrients and low in sugar, little or no alcohol, a positive attitude to minimize stress.  Let me emphasize that: A positive attitude, not fear and depression.  And one more thing: relaxing and having fun with friends and family, an activity all but banned in 2020.  

As we age, as I certainly have, our immune system needs help.  Based on my experience and what I have read, I have a high regard for supplements.  

Keep in mind the medical establishment regards nutritional supplements with disdain.  As one nurse put it, they laugh at the suggestion they can be effective in preventing or treating anything, including COVID-19. 

Nutritional supplements are safe.  If you doubt it, look around.  Where are the bodies?  

Conversely, pharmaceutical drugs, properly prescribed and taken as directed, kill 106,000 Americans each year. That is over 2,000 each week, dead from their prescriptions.  Some physicians estimate the true number of drug-induced deaths to be far higher.

Scare-stories notwithstanding, taking supplements is not the problem; it is a solution. Malnutrition is the problem.

Powerhouse vitamins — C, D, and Zinc

Vitamin C

The way in which vitamin C fights infection is fairly simple: infections and toxins cause oxidative stress in the body.

Vitamin C is attracted to the cells that have lost their electrons due to the oxidation process and easily gives up its own, which then neutralizes the potentially harmful cells.

With a consistent and healthy antioxidant level, dangerous cells are not allowed to proliferate and we don’t get sick. [source]

Vitamin C has its detractors but . . . 

Linus Pauling personally took 18,000 mg of vitamin C daily. Although he was often ridiculed for this, it is interesting to note that Dr. Pauling had two more Nobel prizes than any of his critics. He died at age 93. Abram Hoffer, MD, a colleague of Pauling's, took megadoses of vitamin C and successfully gave it to thousands of patients over 55 years of medical practice. Dr. Hoffer died at age 91. [source]

Vitamin D

The most convincing study I’ve found was an Israeli population study conducted last year in which 14,022 subjects, aged two months to 103 years, were tested for both COVID-19 and plasma 25(OH) D levels (Vitamin D).  “After excluding the 6,215 individuals without data on plasma 25(OH)D levels, the study sample composed of 7,807 individuals.” 

Only 782 (10.1% ) of the 7,807 tested positive, which is itself encouraging given the unknown testing procedure.  Of those with a positive test, 79 (10.01%) people had sufficient levels of vitamin D (30 ng/ml or more), while 703 (89.9%) had poor vitamin D levels.

The main finding of this study was the low plasma 25(OH)D level association with COVID‐19 hospitalization as a risk factor, particularly, for patients tested positively for COVID‐19, after adjusting for age, gender, SES [socio-economic status] and chronic, mental and physical disorders. Hence, low 25(OH)D level was identified as independently associated with the likelihood of COVID‐19 infection. This finding is in agreement with the results of other studies.


Zinc is well-known as a fighter of the common cold, if it is taken early enough after onset of the sickness.  Dr. Mercola writes,

Once inside your cells, zinc prevents viral replication. This is also why zinc and zinc ionophores need to be taken very early in the illness, or as a prophylactic.

The problem is that zinc is largely insoluble and cannot easily enter through the fatty wall of your cells. Getting all the way into the cell is crucial, as this is where the viral replication occurs. This is why zinc ionophores [such as HCQ or quercetin] are so important.

Preliminary data also suggest people with low zinc levels are more likely to die from COVID-19 than those with higher levels.

Each unit increase of plasma zinc at admission to hospital was associated with a 7% reduced risk of in-hospital mortality.


I could be dead by the time you read this, but I will not have died without a fight.  Science is never settled, and what is good for one person might be life-threatening to another.  I live as I always have, without a mask, with no fear of getting close to others, getting plenty of exercise, but with a religious obedience to daily supplements.  Of all the choices I’m aware of, healthy living is the best way of keeping enemies at bay. 

I hope my good doctor friend will still pay this unvaccinated old guy a visit.




An early George Gershwin song from the musical "Miss 1917"

  Today, February 12,2024, marks the 100th anniversary of the debut of George Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" in Aeolian Hall in...