Compare 379 Deaths in 25 yrs vs 16,766 Deaths Plus 798,000 Adverse Events/Injuries In Just 10 Months! Hear Sen. Ron Johnson!
Hear Ron Johnson Confirm!
What Happens When Rich Wants To Get Richer And They Run The Government? Could People Die? Could America Become Run By Socialists? Time For Americans To Choose Their Future
Instead of shouting it from the rooftop-the therapeutic that was found so effective that Mexico gave it so their country avoided our lock-downs, India used it after Utter Pradesh (population 70% of US) found it cut their death rate tremendously...but in America the news hides it and/or vilifies it.
Here's some must watch videos. Here's link on Senator Ron Johnson along with 21 other GOP members standing up to Biden. It is time to end Big Pharma and their allies gold mine...it starts with sharing these videos so more can decide for themselves. A propaganda media is no media at all and to help ourselves we must be the media and share the truths. Pray hard for God's help....all our families future is on the line.
The Cheap Cure vs The Lust For Money
Biden's Boss is China--so Who Is Running America? All Freedom loving citizens need to watch above videos---Truth is Powerful. Please share and watch what happens. Be in the David and Goliath fight. Have Faith--David did and it made the difference.
"A vaccine enforcement mechanism has been included as part of the $3.5 trillion 'Build Back Better Bill' which allows for a tenfold increase in fines for employers
They hope you won't fight against the latest Budget Package--until you read about the fines here:
More on Bernie Sanders--co authoring America's move to Socialism with Biden & Co:
Biden has lot of allies and bosses...it is going to take a lot of people praying and getting involved in politics. May God help us fight for his precious gift of our Republic that sadly we have allowed to go to hands of evil leaders and harms so many including innocent children. Don't forget God's promises and...pray daily and be strengthened.
Call to Action:
|File Size:||190 kb|
More Food for Thought:
Many governments have made nose and mouth
covering or face
masks compulsory for schoolchildren. The
evidence base for
this is weak. A large scale survey in Germany of
adverse effects in parents and
children using data of 25,930
children has shown that 68% of the participating
problems when wearing nose and mouth
This leads in turn to impairments attributable to
hypercapnia. A recent review concluded that
there was ample evidence for adverse effects of
wearing such masks. We suggest
that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence
these experimental measurements accordingly,
which suggest that children should not be forced
to wear face masks.
Harald Walach, PhD
Ronald Weikl, MD
Juliane Prentice, BA
Andreas Diemer, PhD, MD
Helmut Traindl, PhD
Anna Kappes, MA
Stefan Hockertz, PhD
Joseph L. Bourgault
commented on 04 January, 2021
I am President of a Manufacturing Company in
Saskatchewan, Canada. Under Saskatchewan
Occupational Health & Safety Rules it is illegal for
me to expose any of my Employees to a
Hazardous Environment, above 1,500 ppm CO2
levels (Atmospheric is 375 to 400 ppm), or below
19.5% Oxygen levels (Atmospheric Oxygen is
20.9%). OSHA Safety Officers have measured
at 17.4% behind an N95 mask with an IBRID 6
Gas Monitor. Del Bigtree, Medical Research
Journalist measured CO2 levels between 8,000
to 10,000 ppm behind a cloth mask and over
10,000 ppm behind an N95 mask which is
Hazardous Environment! OSHA Experts have
openly reported that face masks are hazardous to
the health of those wearing them, but are
rountinely ignored by Governments around the
world who passed these OSHA Laws based on
50 plus years of scientific research. Since when
are Governments exempt from following the laws
they legislate? Dr. Russell Blaylock, a
neurosurgeon explains that low oxygen levels
cause hypoxia, and can damage the immune
system lowering T-lymphocytes that fight viral
infections. Cloth masks filter at best to 5 micron,
the covid-19 virus is reported to be .06 to .12
micron. In other words the openings in a cloth
mask are 50 to 100 times larger than the covid-19
virus. Imagine a
screen door with opening 50 to 100 times larger
than a mosquito, how would that keep the
mosquitoes out the house! Truth does not matter
in this 2020-2021 World run by; W.H.O. & Bill
Gates, the U.N. Agenda 2030, and their plans to
reduce the world's population, e.g. Georgia
Guidestones erected in 1981 by wealthy people.
Political Leaders around the world have either
been paid off or black mailed or lack the
intelligence, wisdom and courage to do what is
right and to Stand Up for Scientific Truths that the
President of Manufacturing Company understand
is 100% Wrong in what we are doing to our
children! I pray God will have mercy on the souls
of all the cowards around the World who know
better but do nothing to stop this insanity! As
honest Abraham Lincoln would say: "Stand with
any man when he stands right and apart from him
when he is wrong." I know where I am standing!
The question is where are those who know what
is happening standing?
Thank you for publishing this Study! I am very
grateful to those who have organized this
Scientific Study to shed further light on these
"crimes against our children" and "crimes against
ignorant unsuspecting adults" who are supposed
to be protecting the children around world and
who are blindly trust corrupted Governments.
May God bless you and keep you! Sincerely,
Joseph L. Bourgault, Truth Seeker &
Saskatchewan Order of Merit Recipient, 2011
commented on 04 January, 2021
I am a Senior Industrial Hygienist of 18 years. We
are the SMEs in Respiratory Protection. I have
managed the Respiratory Protection
Program for over 76K employees. There is not
one single study showing that the wide variety of
face masks are safe for use, especially prolonged
use. I will simply put that if I ever put the public or
employees in face masks that are not ready to
protect against the hazard at hand, I would lose
my job and be fined. The United States is
violating it's very own OSHA laws and the
institution has been weaponized by politicians.
These masks are about policy, not science. None
of these face masks are rated to protect against
this virus in either direction. We are dealing with
censorship and no one is getting the truth about
these masks. The WHO stated, in March, that
these masks can cause infections if they're not
utilized properly. Throughout my career, I have
seen bacterial infections from people who were
not washing or changing out their respirators or
masks, as required. The CDC recently said that
masks cannot cause
bacterial infections. As a subject matter expert, I
know this is completely false. I did a video about
it and YouTube took it down and gave me a strike
on my channel. I am unsure why some 22-year-
old can fact check me and tell me I'm not allowed
to say anything that goes against the CDC, but
the CDC is going against the WHO. WHAT
MAKES US EVEN WORSE, IS THAT THESE
MASKS ARE IN FACT PPE. I WOULD LIKE TO
KNOW HOW IN 29 CFR 1910.132 it says if
anyone were to bring a homemade or DIY form of
PPE into the workplace, it is up to the employee
to ensure that that PPE is rated to protect them
against the hazard it is being worn for. The
amount of contradictions are astounding. PPE is
supposed to be a last resort, but we've made it
the first line of defense. These face masks are
not only hazardous to human health, but they
actually make people violate social distancing
and stand closer together. This false sense of
illusion is causing more issues
like self-contamination and cross-contamination.
commented on 06 January, 2021
I am glad to see this study. The use of masks has
bothered me for two reasons: 1) Potential
Cognitive Harm: Randomized, Controlled studies
on slightly elevated CO2 levels of 1000 to 2500
ppm show significant decreases in cognitive
functioning. The long-term implications for this
are unclear. 2) Little to no Benefit: Non-medical
masks have been
shown to block droplets, but actually increase fine
aerosol emissions. Even medical grade surgical
masks are equivocal in randomized, controlled
studies. The masks seem more designed to show
something is being done than to actually reduce
virus transmission. It seems that the health of
school children is possibly being harmed to give
the appearance of doing something. References:
CO2: 1) News Article on This Study: Savchuk, K.
"Your Brain on Carbon Dioxide: Research Finds
Even Low Levels of Indoor CO2 Impair Thinking."
California Magazine (2016).
Satish, U., Mendell, M., et al. Is CO2 an Indoor
Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2
Concentrations on Human Decision-Making
Performance Environmental Health Perspectives,
https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104789. 3) Allen,
MacNaughton, P.et al. Associations of Cognitive
Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation,
and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in
Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of
Green and Conventional Office Environments.
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 124, No
6, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510037
Lack of Effectiveness: 4)
I urge you to obtain an exemption so you can be
allowed to work without your face coverings, ET.
German neurologist Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson
states, “The reinhalation of our exhaled air will
without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a
flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the
human brain is very sensitive to oxygen
deprivation. There are nerve cells for example in
the hippocampus that can’t be longer than 3
minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive.
"The acute warning symptoms are headaches,
drowsiness, dizziness, issues in concentration,
slowing down of reaction time – reactions of the
cognitive system. "However, when you have
chronic oxygen deprivation, all of those
symptoms disappear, because you get used to it.
But your efficiency will remain impaired and the
under-supply of oxygen in your brain continues to
progress. "While you’re thinking that you have
gotten used to wearing your mask and
rebreathing your own exhaled air, the
degenerative processes in your brain are getting
amplified as your oxygen deprivation continues.
"The second problem is that the nerve cells in
your brain are unable to divide themselves
normally. So in case our
governments will generously allow as to get rid of
the masks and go back to breathing oxygen
freely again in a few months, the lost nerve cells
will no longer be regenerated. What is gone is
Letter from a Doctor to Help In These Trying Times of Covid-19:(If you would like to have a doctor speak to your club or group...please contact doctor at end of this letter. Thank you)
We have an unprecedented opportunity to help our patients and friends in preventing and effectively treating COVID-19. This is a critical time for us in medicine. You may not be aware that the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons is suing the FDA for making hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) unavailable to physicians and pharmacies.a Why are they suing to make this medication available? I believe that it is because they did the research that I have done and have come to the same conclusion: We need an effective early prehospital treatment or we cannot prevail against this virus. We have that treatment. It is hydroxychloroquin, which if given early in combination with zinc, in appropriate doses, HCQ is safe and highly effective for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19.
In fact, if hydroxychloroquine were used universally in the US for prophylaxis and treatment, the death rate could possibly be reduced from 1500 deaths a day to as little as 100 per day! This pandemic could come to a screeching halt and life could return to normal, not the new normal. Business and schools could reopen and we could prevent the worst depression in history, a depression that will kill many more than this pandemic.b
The website c19study.com is a compendium of all the studies that have been done to date, with a short explanation of the results. As of December 4, there are 192 studies, 126 of which are peer reviewed, the vast majority showing that hydroxychloroquine is safe and very effective. They estimated that 754,769 lives have been been lost worldwide by not using hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine.
Studies that support the use of HCQ report reduction in hospitalization by up to 80% and a reduction in mortality up to 80%.1,2 See also the studies below and others at c19study.com and breggin.com/coronavirus-resource-center/.
In addition, HCQ when given prophylactically for at least 6 weeks prior to exposure reduces the risk of contracting the virus by up to 80%.3 You can do the math. If HCQ was used universally in the US for prophylaxis, within 6 weeks there would be 80% less cases. And if the 20% that get sick have an 80% reduced chance of dying, then we end up with little or no pandemic.
How did I come to this conclusion since there are so many conflicting studies and information on HCQ? As most of you may not have time to review all these studies, please allow me to outline some of the highlights of the research that I have done that helped me to clear up the confusion.
First, it is important to understand the mechanism of action of hydroxychloroquine.4 It works in at least 6 ways to help defeat this virus. I will mention only two. First, it binds to the spike protein on the virus which prevents it’s attachment to the ACE 2 receptor on human cells. This prevents the viral RNA insertion into the cells in order to replicate. Since it can not attach, our T cells are then able to destroy the virus. This then, as I understand it, destroys the virus and provides T cell immunity to prevent future infection with the same virus. This is why it works well for prophylaxis and creates immunity at the same time.
Second, it is a zinc ionophore which, as you know, facilitates zinc transport into our cells. The zinc inhibits RNA dependent RNA polymerase thus inhibiting viral replication. That is why HCQ is much more effective when given with zinc.
Understanding these mechanisms of action helps to make sense of the numerous studies on HCQ, some showing benefit and others not. These are the clarifying principles:
- HCQ must be given early - less than 4 days of symptoms and no more than 7
- HCQ must be given with zinc5
- HCQ must be given in non-toxic doses
Now let me ask, why did the WHO, FDA and many state medical and pharmaceutical boards impede the use of HCQ? Why in some states (not in Alabama) is a doctor’s license in jeopardy if he or she prescribed HCQ for COVID? Why are many pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for HCQ for COVID? Here in Huntsville, I have had pharmacies refuse to fill prescriptions. Hospitals have made it hard and in some cases impossible to order HCQ for a patient, even when a patient requests it. Why did this happen especially when many initial observational and retrospective studies were showing very good results with HCQ? Why are websites being taken down and Facebook and Google removing information positive about HCQ?
The big clamp down occurred when a study was published May 22 on line by both the NEJM and the Lancet.6 The study by Mehra, et al, claimed to be a multinational registry analysis of 96,032 patients from 39 countries. The study claimed mortality in the control 9.3%, HCQ 18.0%, HCQ plus macrolide 23.8%, chloroquine 16.4%, chloroquine plus macrolide 22.2%. Immediately observant doctors and scientists questioned how Surgisphere, a company with only 11 employees, could accumulate data from 39 countries in this short of time. When hospitals in Australia and Africa started reporting that they had never given data to Surgisphere, it became obvious that the data was completely or in large part fabricated. Surgisphere immediately retracted the study on June 4 and they refused to give data to anyone. It was fictitious.7,8
Why did Surgisphere fabricate a study to discredit hydroxychloroquine, shortly after President Trump had announced on May 18 that he was taking it, and why did the NEJM and the Lancet publish it without peer review? On May 24, 2020 Philippe Douste-Blazy, Cardiology MD, Former France Health Minister and 2017 candidate for Director of WHO, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, revealed that in a recent 2020 Chattam House closed door meeting, both the editors of the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine stated their concerns about the criminal pressures of BigPharma on their publications. Things are so bad that it is not science any longer.9,10
The fall out from this fraudulent Lancet/NEJM study was immediate. The WHO recommended HCQ studies be stopped and thousands were. Good randomized controlled studies were discontinued. They also recommended against the use of HCQ. The FDA then came out against the use of HCQ and removed the emergency use authorization. Even though the study was retracted in both journals within 2 weeks, these restrictions have not been removed. Many physicians continue to be unsure of the safety of HCQ and so are not using it.
One day after the Lancet study by Surgisphere was retracted on June 4, the Recovery trial results were announced on June 5, followed shortly thereafter by the Solidarity trial, and Remap COVID trial. These studies were heralded as exceptionally good data since they were large randomized trials. The problem with the data, overlooked by most, is that these studies all used toxic doses of HCQ, 2 to 2-1/2 times the known safe dose.11 The studies claim to show no benefit. It is a miracle that they did not show harm. Why these toxic doses were chosen was either terrible lack of judgement or malicious intent to discredit HCQ. I believe that it was intentional and even criminal, using improper doses that killed patients.
Let me illustrate. What if a study on ibuprofen was undertaken using 2000mg four times daily instead of the known upper limit safe dose of 800mg four times daily? The study would show that it was either harmful or ineffective. That is exactly what these studies did, intentionally or unintentionally. Given that we know the safe dose of ibuprofen, the only apparent reason for using a toxic dose is to intentionally skew the data. I think we would all agree that such a dose of ibuprofen would be criminal.
Because of these three studies, appropriate studies that were using correct doses of HCQ were stopped such as the NIH ORCHID study12 and the hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir treatment arm of a WHO study13, that could have shown benefit of HCQ in large randomized trials.
It is not possible to go through all of the studies on HCQ. The most effective way is to review the description of the studies on c19study.com. You will note that there are far more studies showing benefit of HCQ than there are negative studies. You will also note that in the negative studies HCQ was given too late, in toxic doses, or only to the sickest of the patients. In some, it was given only at the end of life.
I believe that we can agree that Hydroxychloroquine is safe when used in doses known for decades to be safe for rheumatologic conditions. That dose is 200mg BID, after a loading dose of 400mg BID on day one. Many of you may have been discouraged from using HCQ because of studies that showed that it was either harmful or ineffective. As you review the studies below and those on the websites that I have mentioned, I think you will feel comfortable using the medication. At the end of this letter I have included 3 protocols for the safe use of HCQ, one for pre-exposure prophylaxis, one for post-exposure prophylaxis, and one for treatment of active infection with COVID. I think that you will agree that these treatment protocols are safe and well designed, because they use multiple weapons that have been shown to be effective against the virus. That would explain why my friend, Dr. Stella Immanuel, has treated over 350 COVID patients, including those in their 80s and one in her 90s with comorbidities and has had no deaths and only 2 hospitalizations. The key is early, safe treatment.
Hydroxychloroquine should not be used if the QTc is greater than 500msec. This is very rare and generally only occurs in patients on multiple QT prolonging medications. You will note that the protocol for treatment does include an EKG before treatment. Most of our EKG machines will calculate a QTc interval.
Successful use of HCQ has been widespread. Here are a few examples (references are noted at the end of this letter):
- French study. 1061 hospitalized COVID patients - 98.7% cure rate1
- Chinese study. Mortality reduced by 60%21
- Another French study. Reduced risk of transfer to ICU or Death by 82%19
- New York study. Risk of hospitalization 84% less than untreated2
- Brazil telemedicine study. Reduced risk of hospitalization by 65%22
- Mount Sinai study. Mortality in hospitalized patients reduced by 50%23
- Milan Italy. 66% reduction in mortality24
- Marseilla, France 3737 patients. HCQ with azithromycin 82% reduction of death25
There are many other studies. Now that we know that it must be used early, with zinc, and following QTc interval in appropriate patients, we should get high cure rates, greater than 80%. What we should be focusing on is teaching all of our colleagues how to use it safely for prophylaxis and treatment.
A word about prophylaxis. It is effective! Six or more prophylactic doses of HCQ used by more than 1200 health care workers in India had a remarkably high (>80%) protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 infection.13 The dose was 400mg weekly after 400mg BID loading dose on day one.
One final word on HCQ. In countries where HCQ is used weekly for the prevention of malaria, the incidence and mortality from COVID-19 is one one-hundredth of what it is in developed countries that are not using HCQ even though the developed countries have more “advanced” medical treatment and better hospitals and ICUs.14 This fact alone should tell us a lot about the benefit of prophylactic HCQ. In addition a study of 1.8 billion people showed 74.9 % decrease in mortality in countries that used early HCQ treatment compared to those that didn’t.26
We have seen unprecedented attacks by media, internet, and “specialists”, many of whom are our physician colleagues, to discredit a drug that has been used safely for decades and now is being shown to reduce mortality by 50 to 80%. Because of fraudulent studies, faulty studies, and large randomized trials that could really demonstrate the benefit of HCQ have been discontinued. At the same time remdesivir is proclaimed to be the standard of care, even though studies show only non-clinically significant benefit on mortality!15,16 Why are we using a drug with minimal benefit when a medication with high benefit and low cost is available? I do not pretend to know who is behind this, but I do know that it is well orchestrated and vicious. Someone is apparently willing to sacrifice human life for their political or economic benefit.
In addition to HCQ, we have another medication that can be used to treat this virus. It is now just gaining momentum as studies are being completed and more physicians are using it. This medicine is Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, that has potent antiviral properties. This is an incomplete list of it’s benefits:
- 44 studies to date (17 in peer review journals)
- 100% show positive results with reductions in hospitalizations and death by an average of 87%
- Ivermectin preexposure prophylaxis has been shown to prevent transmission and development of COVID-19 disease in those exposed to infected patients.
- Ivermectin hastens recovery and prevents deterioration in patients with mild to moderate disease treated early after symptoms.
- Ivermectin hastens recovery and avoidance of ICU admission and death in hospitalized patients.
- Ivermectin reduces mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19
- Ivermectin leads to striking reductions in case-fatality rates in regions with widespread use.
- The safety, availability, and cost of ivermectin is nearly unparalleled given its near nil drug interactions along with only mild and rare side effects observed in almost 40 years of use and billions of doses administered.
We are in a battle with a serious viral infection. We can not let Big Pharma, the media, the government, or whoever is interfering with our ability to give effective prehospital treatment for COVID-19.
After you review this information and the additional studies on c19study.com, if you agree that hydroxychloroquine should be made available so that we physicians can use our best judgement to treat our patients, please email me your approval as soon as possible and you can join our efforts to make HCQ and Ivermectin available.
In the meantime, until we have HCQ and Ivermectin readily available, I have two suggestions:
1.Use what HCQ is available on your most ‘at risk’ patients.
2.Put the rest on Quercetin (Q), an OTC plant flavonol supplement.
Quercetin also attaches to the spike protein on the COVID-19 virus and is a zinc ionophore. It actually attaches to the spike protein with greater affinity than HCQ.17 It can be used in patients with prolonged QTc since it actually shortens QTc interval.18 The prophylactic dose is 500mg twice a day for as long as the pandemic lasts. It should be taken with Zinc 30-60mg, Vitamin C 1000mg, and Vitamin D 2000 iu or 3000 iu daily. It can increase Coumadin levels so INR should be followed in Coumadin patients. Quercetin probably is just as effective in preventing COVID as HCQ, but it has not been studied as extensively as HCQ. There are a number of studies ongoing, however.
Now that we know the safe and effective way to use HCQ, I believe that we should be disseminating this information as quickly as possible to all of our colleagues in the state. I hope that this information is helpful as we move forward to successfully treat patients, save lives, and end this pandemic. Again, I ask that you contact me if you are in agreement that HCQ should be made available so that we can do what we are trained to do - find the best treatments and provide them to our patients.
David Calderwood, MD
COVID-19 PRE-EXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS
Hydroxychloroquine 400mg BID day one
Then 400mg each week for 3 months
Then 400mg every 2 weeks until pandemic ends
Daily- Zinc 30-60mg
Vitamin C 1-2 gms
Vitamin D3 2000 iu
COVID-19 POST-EXPOSURE PROPYLAXIS
Hydroxycholoroquine 400mg BID day one
Then 200mg days 2-5
Then 400mg weekly for 3 months
Then 400mg every other week until pandemic ends
Daily- Zinc 30-60mg
Vitamin C 1-2 gm
Vitamin D3 2000 iu
This is a small sampling of some of the studies on c19study.com:
- April 29, 2020. Northwell Health system in Circulation. 201 hospitalized patients: 3.5%
- July 1, 2020. Henry Ford study. 2541 patients. No torsades de pointes.
- May 5, 2020. Marseille, France retrospective study. Administration of the HCQ+AZ
fatality rate in patients. No cardiac toxicity in 1061 patients
- August 17. Saudi Arabia. 2733 patients found to be safe, highly tolerable and minimal
Studies that have shown no benefit are given in toxic doses, given too late, given to the sickest patients, or given without zinc.
- Recovery trial gave 2.4 gm in first 24 hours, 9 gm in 10 days-over 3 times the safe dose. The total safe dose in 5 days is 2.4 gm.
- Remap COVID - same dose as Recovery.
- Solidarity - 800mg initial dose, 800mg 12 hours later then 400mg every 12 hours for 9 more days. 8.8grams over 10 days. Just slightly less than recovery trial.
- April 11, 2020. Brazil Mayla Borba Study in JAMA. High dose 12 g in 10 days.
Effective for treatment.
1. April 20, 2020. French study. 1061 COVID Hospitalized patients 98.7% cure rate
2. April 23, 2020. Chinese study. Fatalities are 18.8% (9/48) in HCQ group, 47.4% (238/502)
in the NHCQ group (P<0.001) . Significantly reduced inflammatory cytokine IL-6
- May 5, 2020. Marseille, France retrospective study. Administration of the HCQ+AZ
fatality rate in patients. No cardiac toxicity in 1061 patients.
4. May 27, 2020. Marseille, France retrospective study. Treatment with HCQ-AZ was
associated with a decreased risk of transfer to ICU or death (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.18 0.11-
0.27), decreased risk of hospitalization ≥10 days (odds ratios 95% CI 0.38 0.27-0.54) and
shorter duration of viral shedding (time to negative PCR: HR 1.29 1.17-1.42).
5. New York Sudy. 4 of 141 treated patients (2.8%) were hospitalized, which was significantly
less (p<0.001) compared with 58 of 377 untreated patients (15.4%) (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI
0.06-0.5). Therefore, the odds of hospitalization of treated patients were 84% less than in the
untreated group. One patient (0.7%) died in the treatment group versus 13 patients (3.5%) in
the untreated group (odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.16).
6. Sao Paulo, Brazil telemedicine treatment with HCQ and azithromycin. Need for and
hospitalization was 1.9% in the treatment group and 5.4% in the control group (2.8 times
greater) number needed to treat was 28 (NNT = 28). In those who started treatment before
versus after the seventh day of symptoms, the need for hospitalization was 1.17% and 3.2%,
- June 30, 2020. Mount Sinai study. 50% reduction in mortality in hospitalized patients with
8. July 10, 2020 Milan Italy study shows 66% reduced mortality.
9. July 1, 2020. Henry Ford study. 50% reduction in mortality with HCQ alone, 24% with
HCQ plus azithromycin. Doses of meds varied and unknown, but still showed benefit.
- July 2020, Marseilla 3737 patients. HCQ with azith 82% reduction in death. 0.5%
Even more effective with zinc.
NYU Grooman School of Medicine. 1.5 time more effective when given with zinc
Effective for prophylaxis.
- Indian Health Care Worker Trial. 1173 health care workers with HCQ prophylaxis vs workers without prophylaxis by 6 weeks of taking 400mg HCQ once a week after a loading dose of 800mg, reduced COVID infections by 80%.
- Portugal study. The odds ration of [Covid-19] infection in patient with chronic treatment with HCQ is half.
3. Bulgarian study. 92.7% reduction of infection in health care worker with HCQ propylaxis
Post exposure prophylaxis.
- NEJM study. HCQ post exposure given on average 4 days post exposure and with zinc and
significant) but was started too late
- Korean study. 182 hospital patients and 22 hospital staff treated in just over 2 days post
Ivermectin prophylaxis- 3 RCT and 5 OCT all positive (4 in PEER review)
- Elgazzar, et. al. RCT. 200 HCW. 100 on Ivermectin with PPE and 100 PPE alone. 80% reduction in + PCR.
2. Shouman et al. 304 Close contacts of COVID patients. 91.3% reduction in developing COVID in Ivermectin treated compared to controls.
3. Carvallo et al. 1195 Health professionals RCT, 788 Ivermectin and 407 no treatment. 0% infections in the Ivermectin and 58% in no treatment
4. Alam et al. RCT. 118 HCW. 12 mg Iver monthly vs none. 90.6% decrease in developing COVID
- Meta-analysis. 2282 Patients from RCTs showing 75% reduction in mortality in the most severely ill.
2. Meta-analysis. Total 35 studies with 10,336 patients (17 RCT with 2528 patients)
Early treatment 84% improvement
Late treatment 39% improvement
Prophylasis 90% improvement
- Wang et al. Lancet. 237 patients randomly assigned to remdesivir or placebo. This was the study that Dr Fauci claimed demonstrated why remdesivir should be the standard of care. It showed no statistically significant decrease in mortality or recovery time. He then unmasked the study by informing the placebo patients that they were not getting the antiviral drug.
Leave a Reply.
- Please click here to use our new people news and views page. This will serve as our Social Media Page you can go to if fb stops.
- Please bookmark our webpage and use it like an app. Email us if you would like to be sent updates when videos of August 24th are ready for you.
* INDICATES REQUIRED FIELD
Click here for old articles to remember how we got to this point
are current articles.
- Please bookmark our webpage and use it like an app. Email us if you would like to be sent updates when videos of August 24th are ready for you.
Proudly powered by Weebly
Click at these pictures for link to articles and link to legislature contacts:
Mental Health Concerns Regarding the Common Core Standards
Joan R. Landes, M.A., AMHC
• No child-development experts, psychotherapists or mental health clinicians helped to
draft the Common Core (CC) standards. The inherent risks of standardizing vulnerable children were in no way addressed. The frightening high-stakes assessments have already stressed teachers and students into clinical mental health disorders.
• CC demands early cortical specialization which leaves major areas of brain activation
dormant. The heavy emphasis of CC upon left-prefrontal cortex executive functioning later handicaps the students for higher-order thinking and behaving because other large swaths of brain functioning haven’t been activated through sustained emphasis. It’s like training a child for 10 years to play the trumpet, then suddenly asking him to play baseball – it is very difficult because he specialized too much, too early.
• CC fosters curricula and teaching strategies which are developmentally inappropriate.
Numerous examples exist of CC aligned curricula which require young children to participate in “group think” which leads to peer-dependence. Other examples exist of the use of behavior/attitudinal modification techniques in the primary grades to alter children’s values and habits. These mental health interventions are dangerous in the hands of untrained school-teachers and have no business in a school that seeks to appropriately develop skills and impart knowledge.
• Approximately 20% of junior high and older students have suffered a “severe” mental
illness including depression, eating disorders, suicidality, self-mutilation, substance abuse and trauma-induced reactions. The extra stressors imposed by high-stakes CC assessments, unproven teaching strategies and inflexible requirements will induce further emotional and physical bleeding in these high-risk kids.
• CC standards ignore current psychological research and drags education back to the
industrial production practices of the 1910s. National standards prohibit meaningful customization of education. Instead of designing flexible, personalized education milestones, CC imposes heavy-handed, monolithic decrees more suitable for a manufacturing assembly line than for the cultivation of unique individuals. Expect kids with learning disabilities to suffer even more under this regimen.
• CC exploits the children of America as guinea pigs in an unethical social experiment that
no profession or government entity would tolerate. No studies have shown that national standards increase educational success. Furthermore, CC standards have NEVER been subjected to any sort of peer-reviewed research trials. Without years of field-testing, the risks of the unknown should never be foisted on our vulnerable, defenseless children. The FDA requires more testing of the food color in Kool-Aid than has been required of Common Core.
Students that can't give change is one of the obvious signs--we have failed them. Youths running around destroying their history led by Antifa --sign we have failed our Republic.
If you want to know more about the history of Common Core please watch video below.
Today we have HB440 Alabama bill sponsored by Bob Fincher (please pray and thank God for him) to repeal Common Core. Please call your legislator and tell them this issue has gone on long enough. It is time to get back to academics...pass HB440 and get us back to Pre-CommonCore so kids can dream again and their families can be built up again too, along with our nation. May the Lord bless us as we all work together to free God's children.
The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you
and give you peace.”--Please pray this blessing daily for the children and for our legislators fighting for them.
A Few More Reminders of Warnings leadership did not heed:
- The RNC (Republican National Committee) in April of 2013 passed a Resolution which says "RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the CCSS for what it is — an inappropriate overreach to standardize and control the education of our children so they will conform to a preconceived “normal,”...
- 500 Early Childhood and Education Professionals warning about "conflict with compelling new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about how young children l earn, what they need to learn, and how best to teach them in kindergarten and the early grades. " Here are names on that list: G. Rollie Adams,
President and CEO, Strong National Museum of Play, Rochester, NY
Cynthia K. Aldinger,
Executive Director, LifeWays North America, Norman, OK
Edith Adams Allison,
Learning Disabilities Specialist, Amherst, MA
Executive Director, Alliance for Childhood, College Park, MD
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH
Ruth H. Aranow,
Senior Academic Advisor, Krieger School
of Arts & Sciences, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, MD
Curator of Education, Fallingwater, Mill Run, PA
Director, Early Learning Center, Baruch College, New York, NY
Vice President, Planning and Management, Emer
itus, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
Director, Child Development Programs,
College of Marin, Kentfield, CA
Founder, Stop Homework, Brooklyn, NY
Laura M. Bennett-Murphy,
Associate Professor, Psychology, Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT
Marilyn Benoit, M.D.,
Past President, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
Karen D. Benson,
Professor, California State University, Sacramento, CA
Eugene V. Beresin, M.D.,
Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
Wendy C. Blackwell,
Director of Education, National Children's Museum, Washington, DC
Wil Blechman, M.D.,
President, Docs for Tots Florida; Past President, Kiwanis International, Miami, FL
early childhood teacher, Community School 133, New York, NY
board member, Winnetka Alliance for Early Childhood, Winnetka, IL
Paula Jorde Bloom,
Professor of Early Childhood Education, National-Louis University, Wheeling, IL
Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Psychology,
Barnard College, Columbia University,
New York, NY
Michael Brody, M.D.,
Chair, Media Committee, American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, Washington, DC
Stuart L. Brown, M.D.,
Founder and President, National Institu
te for Play, Carmel Valley, CA
Professor, Mathematics Education, Ri
der University, Lawrenceville, NJ
Executive Director, Winnetka Alliance for Early Childhood, Winnetka, IL
Professor, Early Childhood, Middle Tenn
essee State University, Murfreesboro, TN
Assistant Professor, University of Michigan, Flint, MI
Professor of Early Childhood Education,
Lesley University, Cambridge, MA
Associate Director, Center for Childhood
Deafness, Boys Town National Research
Hospital, Omaha, NE
Julie Ann Carroll,
Founding President, Winnetka Alliance for Early Childhood, Winnetka, IL
Lead Developer, Foundations of Science
Literacy, Education Development Center,
Barbara C. Chauvin,
Supervising Teacher, University of Ma
ryland Baltimore County, Catonsville, MD
Executive Director, NYC Early Childhood
Professional Development Institute, City
University of New York, NY
Executive Director, Sophia Project, Oakland, CA
Patricia M. Cooper,
Assistant Professor of Literacy and Early Childhood Education, New York
University, New York, NY
Children’s Minister, First Baptist Church, Tahlequah, OK
Colleen Cordes ,
Executive Director, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Washington, DC
Professor and early childhood teacher educator, Shippensburg University of
Pennsylvania, Shippensburg, PA
Dean, Principals’ Academy, Mobile, AL
Ellen F. Crain, M.D.,
Professor of Pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY
Professor of Psychology, City College of New York, NY
Sara McCormick Davis,
Associate Professor, University of Arkansas Fort Smith; President Elect,
National Association of Early Childhood
Teacher Educators, Fort Smith, AR
Diane Trister Dodge,
President, Teaching Strategies, Inc., Bethesda, MD
Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education, University of Michigan, Flint, MI
Professor, University of Texas, Brownsville, TX
Director, Mathematics Leadership Programs, Bank Street College, New York, NY
Professor of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Director, Early Learning Center for Research and Practice, University of Tennessee,
Carolyn Pope Edwards,
Willa Cather Professor of Psychology a
nd Child, Youth, and Family Studies,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
Professor Emeritus of Child Development, Tufts University, Medford, MA
Ann S. Epstein,
Senior Director of Curriculum Devel
opment, HighScope Educational Research
Foundation, Ypsilanti, MI
Professor, School of Education, City College of New York, NY
Professor Emerita of Education, University of Hawaii; Chair of the Advocacy
Committee, National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators, Honolulu, HI
Margery B. Franklin,
Professor Emerita of Psychology, Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, NY
Professor and Director of Early Childhood Teacher Education, Hofstra University,
Joe L. Frost,
Parker Centennial Professor Emeritus, University of Texas, Austin, TX
author and work life researcher, New York, NY
Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Educa
tion, Harvard Graduate School of
Education, Cambridge, MA
Executive Director, Florida Association for the Education of Young Children,
H. Rodney Sharp Professor of Education,
Psychology, and Linguistics and Cognitive
Science, University of Delaware , Newark, DE
Elizabeth N. Goodenough,
Lecturer in Literature, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Director, Child Development Institute
, Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, NY
Executive Director, Gesell Institute of Human Development, New Haven, CT
Professor Emerita of Nutrition and Education,
Teachers College, Columbia University,
New York, NY
Winifred M. Hagan,
Early Care and Education Consulta
nt, CAYL Institute, Cambridge, MA
CEO and co-founder, KaBOOM!, Washington, DC
Jane M. Healy,
educational psychologist and author, Vail, CO
Stanley and Debra Lefkowitz Professor
of Psychology, Temple University,
biologist, educator; Director, The Nature Institute, Ghent, NY
Carla M. Horwitz,
Director, Calvin Hill Day Care Center a
nd Kindergarten; Lecturer, Yale Child Study
Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Professor, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
Therapeutic Teacher, Trainer, and Consulta
nt; 1999-2000 North Carolina Teacher of the
Year, Project Enlightenment, Wake County Schools, Raleigh, NC
Faculty, Erikson Institute for Early Childhood, Chicago, IL
Olga S. Jarrett,
Associate Professor, Early Childhood Educati
on, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
Director, N. E. Miles Early Childhood Development Center, College of
Charleston, Charleston, SC
Professor-in-Charge of Early Childhood E
ducation, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA
Professor, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL
Lilian G. Katz,
Professor Emeritus and Co-director, Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting,
University of Illinois, Champaign, IL
Merrie B. King,
Montessori Program Director and Associate Professor of Education, Belmont
University, Nashville, TN
Ethan H. Kisch, M.D.,
Child Psychiatrist; Medical Director, Quality Behavioral Health, Warwick, RI
Robert H. Klein,
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH
Director, Center for Toddler Developmen
t, Barnard College, Columbia University,
New York, NY
Professor Emeritus, Wheelock College, Boston, MA
author and lecturer, Belmont, MA
Professor, School of Education, Mills College, Oakland, CA
Professor of Education, Mills College, Oakland, CA
Director, The Inner Resilience Program, New York, NY
Principal, Golden Valley Charter School of Sacramento, Orangevale, CA
Diane E. Levin,
Professor of Early Childhood Educa
tion, Wheelock College, Boston, MA
President, Susan Lyon Education Fou
ndation, Mills College, Oakland, CA
Yeou-Cheng Ma, M.D.,
Developmental Pediatrician, Albert Ei
nstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY
Fran P. Mainella,
Co-Chair, U.S. Play Coalition, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Professor Emeritus, Seattle University, Bellingham, WA
David Jacks Professor of Education,
ty, Stanford, CA
Gillian D. McNamee,
Professor and Director, Teacher Education, Erikson Institute, Chicago, IL
Deborah W. Meier,
Educator and Senior Scholar, New York University, New York, NY
Senior Researcher, Alliance for Childhood, New York, NY
Mary Sue Miller,
Lead Educator for Early Learning, Chicago Children’s Museum, Chicago, IL
Associate Professor of Education, W
ittenberg University, Springfield, OH
Mary Ruth Moore,
Professor, University of the In
carnate Word, San Antonio, TX
Instructional Coordinator, NYC Office of Early Childhood Education, New York, NY
Executive Director, Child Study and Developm
ent Center, University of New Hampshire,
Lee Jacks Professor Education Emerita, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Pedro A. Noguera,
Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education
and Executive Director, Metropolitan Center
for Urban Education, New York University, New York, NY
Fellow, Education Policy Studies Laboratory,
Arizona State University, Charlotte, VT
Professor of Clinical and Developmen
tal Psychology, Point Park University,
Director, California Early Childhood Mentor Program, San Francisco, CA
Vice President, Education, Human Developm
t, Workforce, American Institutes for
Research, Washington, DC
Vivian Gussin Paley,
author and teacher emerita, University of Chicago Laboratory
Schools, Chicago, IL
Kim John Payne,
director, Center for Social Sustainability, Antioch University, Northampton, MA
Jane P. Perry,
Research Coordinator and Teacher, Harold E.
Jones Child Study Center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA
Helene Pniewski, M.D.,
Developmental Pediatrician and Child Psychiatrist, Family Service Association,
Professional Development Director, Chicago Metro Association for the Education of
Young Children, Chicago, IL
Executive Director, New Mexico Association for the Education of Young Children,
Director, Goldman Center for Youth and Family, 92nd Street Y, New York, NY
Mary S. Rivkin,
Associate Professor, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD
Director of Parent/Child Programs, Free to Be Under Three, New York, NY
Alvin Rosenfeld, M.D.,
Child Psychiatrist; Lecturer, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
A. G. Rud,
Head, Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Director of Education, National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA
Susan Riemer Sacks,
Professor of Psychology, Barnard Colle
ge, Columbia University, New York, NY
President, Developmental Studies Center, Oakland, CA
Lawrence J. Schweinhart,
President, HighScope Educational Research Foundation, Ypsilanti, MI
Dorothy G. Singer,
Senior Research Scientist, Dept. of Ps
ychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Jerome L. Singer,
Professor Emeritus of Psychology,
Yale University, New Haven, CT
President, Missouri Association for the E
ducation of Young Children, Springfield, MO
Executive Director, Early Childhood Leadership
Institute, University of the District of
Columbia, Washington, DC
Director, Early Childhood Programs, Breakwater School, Portland, ME
Director, Center for Early Care and Edu
cation, Bank Street College, New York, NY
Faculty, City College of San Francisco, CA
Director, National Lekotek Center, Chicago, IL
Professor, Eliot-Pearson Department of
Child Development, Tufts University,
Frank R. Wilson, M.D.,
Neurologist (retired), Stanford University School of Medicine, Portland, OR
Writer, New York, NY
Director, Future Workforce Unit, Workforce
Solutions for Tarrant County, Fort Worth,
Author and educator, Courage and Renewal Northeast, Wellesley, MA
Principal, Federal Hocking Middle & High School, Amesville, OH
Instructor, Wheelock College, Boston, MA
Note: Signers’ affiliations are listed for identif
ication purposes only and do not signify the
organizations’ endorsement of this statement.
- Dr. Gary Thompson, a Democrat testifying as a mental health expert before the State of Wisconsin on the dangers of Common Core and testings--here is video link.
Let's Call It What It Is--Common Core aka College and Career Ready Standards Is A FAilure-look at what it did to a school that won the Dispelling the Myth Award in 2009 as top in nation now 627th of 681 Elementary Schools in Alabama...listen to Jane Robbins.
Though education elitists have tried to blame students stuck in poverty as a possible cause, American Principles Project Foundation Senior Fellow Jane Robbins believes the real explanation for students’ academic failure is obvious.
"One would ask the question, ‘What happened in American schools between 2011 and 2015 that might have had some effect on this?’ and the answer – at least the obvious answer – that one would look at first would be the implementation of Common Core," Robbins asserted.
Instead of blaming the deficiencies on the federally devised standards themselves, Robbins says Core proponents point to inadequate teacher training and a delay in providing good curriculum.
"I guess it's the natural human tendency to be defensive when something that you advocated is turning out well and say, 'Well, you know, I guess we were wrong,'” the education expert offered. “So far, we haven't heard anybody say 'I guess we were wrong,’ – and I'm not sure that we ever will."
Robbins maintains that if proponents truly cared about children, they would be doing a sober analysis of why the Common Core is not working, as well as offering ways to rescue students from the problematic federal standards...see link.
Parents of Every Color Joined Together in Florida--Alabama Needs to Do The Same...Time To Take A Stand! George Hall Elem from Top in Nation to 627th in Alabama Not Acceptable. Abolish Common Core!
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
US Constitution, 4 th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when
in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
US Constitution, 5th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
US Constitution, 9th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
US Constitution, 10th Amendment
Amid the debate over Common Core Standards for Education an aspect that seems to
be overlooked is that as part of tracking the “development” of each individual student over the
course of his/her academic career schools are required to collect data on each student covering
over three hundred (some sources state as many as four hundred) “data points.” Politifact
denials to the contrary – there are too many other sources confirming the fact – “The National
Education Data Model includes over 400 data points, including health history, disciplinary
history, family income range, voting status, religious affiliation, and on and on.” 1
A lot of this information is gathered as part of agreements made with standardized
testing (which has become the “be-all” and “end-all” of education the last twenty years). As a
teacher I remember supervising the students filling out personal data before they took each of
the tests we were forced to give. I noticed as time went on each year the questionnaires took
longer to fill out and became (in my opinion) more invasive. I’m a big privacy person.
To make it short (check out my links below for further study, if you’re interested), for
years schools have been gathering data on their students in the name of improving performance
and curriculum. As time has passed and with Common Core the scope of types of data
collected has been expanded. Now, there are supposed to be privacy protections over such
data, like Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), but in 2012 FERPA was
changed, greatly weakening it. 2 In any event, the government privacy regulations appear to
have loopholes one can drive a truck through. Information can be had, provided one uses the
proper language in his or her request.
Let me give you an idea of how it works. There isn’t supposed to be a Federal Student
Data Collection – that would be a violation of the 10 th Amendment quoted above. Remember, as
Barack Obama himself fretted in a 1995 radio interview the Constitution pretty much is a
document of “NEGATIVE POWERS” – particularly where the Bill of Rights are concerned. The
Constitution and Bill of Rights basically denies the Federal Government powers to do anything
not specifically DELEGATED to it by the Constitution. All other powers are RESERVED powers
– reserved by the States or the Individuals themselves (9 th and 10 th Amendments above).
The Federal Government isn’t supposed to have anything to do with Education because
there is no provision in the US Constitution for public education (Article I Section 8); now the
“Necessary and Proper” clause which gives Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall
be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.” That’s been nicknamed the “Elastic Clause” because it has been stretched to
cover just about anything Congress seems fit to deal with.
But there are limits to even the Elastic Clause. Congress is forced to do end runs around
their limitations to get their way; usually through Federal matching funds. It’s always the money.
The Feds dangle money; if you want the money (and I’ve never known a public institution that
didn’t) you do what the Feds want.
It’s all about the government buck.
That’s how Common Core came about. There are those who doubt – with good reason –
that the Department of Education is unconstitutional for the very reasons I’ve already stated.
One might think National Education Standards is a great idea – as an Army brat who attended
five high schools (some twice) I can see the advantages to the idea. For me, there are two
problems – one, WHO’S writing them and two – it’s unconstitutional for the Federal Government
to impose standards on the States.
This was the pesky problem the folks behind Common Core encountered when they
began to move on the idea. So they decided to let the States adopt the standards “on their
own.” Of course there was BIG money on the line. First the Obama Administration tied adoption
of Common Core to funds from its “Race to the Top” initiative. 3 This was coupled to the Bush
Administrations “No Child Left Behind” program, which required ALL students to pass certain
standards– we teachers referred to it as “No Kids Get Ahead.” But that’s for an entirely different
article. What’s important for this article is the Federal Government exerts control through
funding and that is how they persuaded the States to “voluntarily” adopt Common Core.
I’ve already mentioned the laws that are supposed to protect student (and by extension
their parents’) privacy, FERPA, but the USDOE (US Department of Education, though I prefer
the Acronym USED) has gotten around it by signing a “Workforce Data Quality Initiative” with
the US Department of Labor. The purpose of this program is allegedly “developing or improving
state workforce data systems with individual-level information and enabling workforce data to be
matched with education data.” (See Reference 1).
“The CEO of one educational technology company waxed enthusiastic about the future.
He said, ‘We are collecting billions of records of data . . . pulling data from everywhere . . . tens
of thousands of places.’ This data, he said, will help students develop the “21 st -century skills”
that the government has determined students will need.”(See ref. 1&4)
If the USDOE can share this data with the Department of Labor what’s to stop them from
sharing the data with other agencies? Could the FBI or Homeland Security get a peak? How
about the IRS?
Assurances that all data is anonymous ring hollow – according to the article referred to
already as long ago as 1999 a researcher in Kentucky was able to match 2300 “anonymous”
test takers using their data with 100% accuracy.
Which brings us to the 4 th and 5 th Amendments to the constitution; the 4 th Amendment is
designed to protect us from unlawful/unreasonable searches and seizures. How many guilty
people have “walked” because there was a problem with a search warrant or probable cause
was lacking? There’s a legal term called “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree” where evidence proving
guilt was tossed because it was improperly or illegally obtained? How about the 5 th Amendment
to the Constitution, which prevents us from incriminating ourselves in criminal cases?
One can understand the frustration of criminals getting off on technicalities, but there are
reasons for those two amendments – they are to protect the innocent. Our criminal justice
system is based on the premise that it’s better for one hundred guilty people to walk than a
single innocent person to be wrongfully convicted. We have a presumption of innocence.
I’m not a lawyer, but I taught the Constitution for almost twenty years and have studied it
longer. It seems to me that every day in our classrooms millions of students are giving away
information every day that can and may be used against them and their families depending on
winds of policy and perceived “threats.” How many parents are even aware their children are
being asked detailed questions about their personal and professional lives – not to mention their
In 1973, the US Supreme Court reversed almost two hundred years of law in their
decision Roe v. Wade. The attorneys for Roe argued the 1 st , 4 th , 5 th , 9 th , and 14 th Amendments
provided a right to privacy that extended even up to her right to kill/abort her unborn child – the
Court agreed. What had previously been a criminal act was now a protected “right.”
Now, if the right to privacy is supposed to protect abortion, how much more those of
children who do manage to be born and are being forced to divulge information in the name of
education – information that MAY be used against them one day if it is misused. How about
We live in a day when people’s lives are being ruined for even a common misstatement
made decades ago; where the government is seriously considering using background checks
and mental health exams to control gun ownership – not a bad idea on the surface, but who
determines "normal” behavior? We live in a day where some governments like China are issuing
“Social Scorecards” to their citizens 5 and private corporations are considering it and in some
ways already are. U.S. companies actually helped supply the system China uses to track its
citizens. 6 We already see forms of it in the guise of FICO scores. How long before it seems a
good idea to some in our government? If so, how long will it take for all this data being gathered
without knowledge or consent to be used against private law-abiding citizens?
There are many mental health professionals who consider religion a mental illness 7 in
spite of data that proves folks with strong religious beliefs tend to have overall better mental
health. Still, “professionals” write articles calling religion a mental illness. 8 There is a growing
hostility toward religion and the religious among mental health professionals. One psychology
professor I know of actually boasted of committing a woman found in her car praying in tongues.
She’d pulled off the road for safety. Kind of scary if you’re committed to your faith; it can be
terrifying if you’re Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian.
If one doesn’t care about having bank tellers who can’t add or subtract, the accumulation
of data with the potential for abuse in violation of our constitutional rights on so many levels
should be alarming.
1 Common Core & Data Collection | Truth in American Education; Common Core and Data Collection –
Yes, Even in Texas! | VOICES EMPOWER
2 2011-30683.pdf (govinfo.gov) FERPA
3 The Federal Hand Behind Common Core (crisismagazine.com)
4 White House Hosts “Datapalooza” built on Common Core Tests | COMMON CORE (wordpress.com)
5 Social Credit Scoring In China Extends To Foreign Businesses, Creates New Risks (forbes.com) ; How
China Is Using Big Data to Create a Social Credit Score | Time.com
6 China's Scary Social Credit System Made in USA by Google and Facebook – PJ Media; America's Social
(Justice) Credit System | The American Conservative;
7 Religion and Mental Health: What Is the Link? | Psychology Today
and-delusion/ ; This neuroscientist says religion is a mental illness | indy100 | indy100 ;
Other References: Common Core of Data (CCD) - Common Core of Data (CCD) (ed.gov)
Education Data at Your Fingertips | The Urban Institute
Common Core and Data Mining: Fact and Fiction Part II | The American Conservative
Top Ten Things Parents Hate About Common Core (thefederalist.com)