Broken Truth

In an incredible interview on PBS’s “Off the Record”, Ted Nugent dropped a hilarious bomb on the host and panel of the show.

This was one of the funniest moments of the COVID experience. In hindsight, the entire panel and their opinions on J6 and the COVID-19 vaccine now appear to the fools Nugent made them out to be.

You can see the full interview here at the 21 minute mark.

broken truth is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

At a recent Freedom Council panel, a group of distinguished attorneys, including Alan Reinach Esq, Steven Warshawsky, Tom Connors, Sujata Gibson, and Rachel Rodriguez, dove deep into the intricacies of religious exemptions and employer mandates in the context of the Supreme Court's decision in Gerald Groff v. United States Postal Service. Here's a breakdown of the key points discussed:

Groff's Impact on Religious Accommodation:

* The Supreme Court's decision redefined "undue hardship" under Title VII, moving away from the "de minimis" standard to a requirement that employers must show substantial burden or cost to deny religious accommodations. This shift was described by Alan Reinach as a "gift" to those advocating for religious freedoms in the workplace.

* The case involved Gerald Groff, a postal worker who was dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. This case highlighted the necessity for a fact-specific inquiry into what constitutes an undue hardship, potentially leading to more cases reaching jury trials.

Navigating Legal Challenges:

* Administrative Procedures: Before heading to court, employees must file claims with agencies like the EEOC for a right-to-sue letter. The choice between federal or state routes was discussed, with state laws sometimes offering better protections or fewer hurdles.

* Legal Theories and Claims:

* Harassment and Retaliation: Rachel Rodriguez pointed out scenarios where employees felt pressured or retaliated against for not getting vaccinated, drawing parallels to traditional harassment claims where employment conditions are tied to altering personal beliefs or practices.

* Constitutional Claims: Sujata Gibson outlined potential constitutional angles, including free exercise, establishment clause, and equal protection claims, emphasizing how vaccine mandates could infringe on these rights by not being neutral or generally applicable.

* Pleading Religious Beliefs: Tom Connors and others stressed the importance of clearly articulating religious beliefs in legal pleadings, ensuring they are framed in a way that courts cannot easily dismiss. This includes using language that ties beliefs to a higher moral code or divine guidance.

Employer Scrutiny and Sincerity:

* The panel debated employer rights to question the sincerity of religious beliefs. There was consensus that while sincerity could be questioned, the process should not devolve into a "heresy inquisition." Sujata Gibson referenced legal precedents that caution against government entanglement in defining what constitutes a religious belief.

* Interactive Process: Unlike the ADA, Title VII doesn't specifically mandate an interactive process for religious accommodations, but courts have inferred a requirement for cooperation in good faith between employee and employer.

Defense Against Claims:

* Undue Hardship: Post-Groff, employers need to demonstrate a substantial burden, not just a minor inconvenience. The panel discussed tactics to counter employer defenses, particularly around economic or logistical impacts, and emphasized the necessity of individualized assessments.

* Expert Witnesses: The importance of expert testimony, especially in cases involving health and safety, was highlighted. Steven Warshawsky noted the strategic use of experts to contest the effectiveness of vaccines in workplace safety arguments.

Future Directions and Strategies:

* Collaboration: Suggestions were made for lawyers to work together, particularly in preparing expert witnesses for depositions to streamline legal efforts across similar cases.

* Privacy and Other Claims: There was discussion on combining religious discrimination claims with privacy issues, especially when employers delve into personal religious beliefs in a manner akin to medical inquiries under the ADA.

* Legislative and Judicial Watch: The panel underscored the need to stay updated with legislative changes and judicial interpretations, particularly after significant rulings like Groff, which could influence future cases.

The panel concluded with a call for continued collaboration among legal professionals to advocate effectively for religious freedoms in employment settings, reflecting on how recent legal changes have reshaped this landscape.

Attorneys can join Freedom Counsel by visiting FreedomCounsel.org.

broken truth is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In a recent public statement, Katie Hopkins, known for her provocative commentary, has taken aim at her former employers in the media, questioning their silence on an issue she deems critical: excess deaths. In this transcript, Hopkins doesn't shy away from confronting mainstream media outlets like The Sun, Mail Online, Fox News, BBC, and LBC, by name, over what she perceives as a glaring omission in their reporting.

“Where are you?”

Hopkins begins by directly addressing these media giants, asking pointedly, "Where are you? And who is paying for your silence?" She refers to data purportedly published in the Lancet, emphasizing that the information is available and should be readily covered by journalists. According to Hopkins, the data shows alarming figures regarding excess deaths in England, surpassing any similar period in recent history, especially in the first six months of 2023 with 28,000 excess deaths.

She specifies that these deaths are particularly notable among young and middle-aged males, with a significant portion due to heart conditions. Hopkins highlights a stark statistic from the Lancet: 47% of these deaths are from unexplained heart conditions, with a 44% increase in heart disease in the 50 to 64 age group post-COVID.

A Call for Action

Hopkins doesn't just present the data; she uses it as a catalyst to question the motives behind the media's coverage—or lack thereof. She implies that these deaths, occurring in people's homes, might be linked to something "malevolent" in their system, a phrase that could be interpreted as suggestive of conspiracy or at least a significant oversight in public health reporting.

The Implications

This critique from Hopkins taps into broader public discourse around trust in media, the transparency of health statistics, and the potential long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her mention of the Lancet suggests an appeal to scientific authority, although without direct citation, it's challenging to verify the exact source or context of these claims.

Her call to "just print the graph" underscores a demand for visual proof and direct communication of data to the public, bypassing what she sees as media gatekeeping or bias. This approach aligns with a growing sentiment among some segments of the public for raw, unfiltered information, particularly when it comes to health crises.

Media and Public Health

The issue Hopkins raises touches on a sensitive point in journalism and public health - the responsibility of media to report comprehensively on health statistics, especially when they could indicate broader societal issues or policy failures. However, the media's role also includes verifying and contextualizing information, which might explain hesitance or cautious reporting on such contentious topics.

Conclusion

Katie Hopkins' critique is a loud call to action, demanding that media outlets address what she sees as a significant public health anomaly. While her approach is direct and confrontational, it highlights an ongoing debate about the relationship between media, public health transparency, and the responsibility of journalists in a post-COVID world. Whether her claims will spur further investigation or discussion remains to be seen, but they certainly add to the conversation on how we understand and react to health data in the public domain.

* Note: This post reflects on the claims made by Katie Hopkins but does not independently verify the data or statistics mentioned. Readers are encouraged to seek out and review primary sources for comprehensive understanding.

broken truth is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Lara Logan's Explosive Testimony on Media Censorship: A Call to Defend the First Amendment

In what could be described as a seismic moment for journalism and free speech advocates, Lara Logan, an award-winning investigative journalist, delivered a powerful and unfiltered speech during a Senate hearing. Her words, now circulating across various platforms, paint a stark picture of what she perceives as a dire threat to the principles of free speech in the United States.

A Legacy of Truth-Telling

Lara Logan isn't just any journalist; her career spans over 30 years, filled with stories from the front lines of global conflicts, interviews with world leaders, and personal experiences that have tested her resilience and integrity. This background lends significant weight to her critique of the current media landscape, where she accuses the industry of straying from its foundational mission to report the truth without fear or favor.

The Age of Information Warfare

Logan opened her testimony by declaring that we are living in an "age of information warfare," where propaganda isn't just a tool but the entire arena in which battles are fought. This statement sets the tone for her argument: the media's role has shifted from informing the public to controlling it, with narratives shaped not by journalistic ethics but by political motives and corporate interests.

The Attack on Free Speech

One of the most compelling parts of Logan's speech is her defense of free speech. She references the case of Tucker Carlson, who was criticized for merely interviewing Vladimir Putin, highlighting how such backlash represents a betrayal of free press principles. This incident, according to Logan, is symptomatic of a broader malaise where political allegiance overshadows journalistic integrity.

The Censorship Network

Logan delves into what she calls a "vast censorship network," involving not just media outlets but also government agencies and non-profits. She points out the irony of taxpayer money funding efforts that might undermine the very freedoms they're supposed to uphold. Her critique extends to organizations like Media Matters for America, accusing them of masquerading as watchdogs while acting as political operatives.

Personal Trials and Tribulations

Her speech isn't devoid of personal anecdotes. Logan recounts her brutal assault in Egypt, illustrating the physical and now, the metaphorical violence journalists face. She speaks of being targeted, her work questioned, her character maligned, painting a vivid picture of the personal cost of standing against the tide.

A Call to Arms for Journalists

The essence of Logan's message is a call to arms for journalists to reclaim their role as guardians of truth rather than gatekeepers of information. She urges a return to journalism's roots, where the truth, regardless of its alignment with political or corporate agendas, is paramount.

The Broader Implications

What makes Logan's speech resonate beyond the confines of a Senate hearing is its broader implications for democracy. A free press is often described as the bedrock of democracy; without it, the public loses its ability to make informed decisions, leading to a manipulated, rather than a participatory, society.

Moving Forward

Logan's testimony leaves us with profound questions about the future of journalism in America. How do we ensure media outlets serve the public interest rather than their own? How can we protect journalists from becoming casualties in this information war? Her speech isn't just a critique; it's a wake-up call for media, government, and citizens alike to reflect on the values we hold dear and the structures that threaten them.

Conclusion

Lara Logan’s speech at the Senate hearing is more than a personal account of a journalist's journey through adversity; it's a stark warning against the erosion of free speech and the First Amendment. As we digest her words, we must consider how to safeguard these fundamental freedoms in an era where information is power, and control over it can be used as a weapon. Her testimony should serve as a catalyst for change, urging all stakeholders in the information ecosystem to recommit to the principles that have long defined American democracy.

broken truth is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Jillian Michaels, known for her straightforward approach and deep dives into health topics, recently took to her platform to explore a contentious issue: the safety testing of vaccines, particularly in light of criticisms from figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Her investigation into the matter provides an interesting perspective on how vaccines are tested before being administered, especially to our most vulnerable - children.

The Spark of Curiosity: The discussion around vaccine safety intensified for Michaels when media outlets attacked Kennedy for questioning the robustness of vaccine testing. Intrigued by the controversy and skeptical of outright dismissals, she decided to look into the matter herself, especially focusing on the Hepatitis B vaccine, which she finds particularly suspect given its recommended administration to newborns despite their low risk of contracting the disease.

Exploring the Official Guidelines: Michaels referred to information on HHS.gov, where vaccines are described as undergoing safety testing before licensure by the FDA and subsequent recommendations by the CDC. However, she pointed out a lack of detail regarding the nature of these tests:

* Pre-licensure Testing: The website mentions testing and evaluation but lacks specifics on the types of clinical studies conducted.

* Post-licensure Monitoring: While ongoing safety monitoring is noted, there's no mention of how long this monitoring lasts or the methods used.

The Hepatitis B Case Study: To illustrate her point, Michaels focused on the Hepatitis B vaccine:

* Recombivax HB (Merck): She navigated to the FDA's package insert for this vaccine, where the clinical trials experience section revealed:

* Only 147 healthy infants and children were involved in the safety trials.

* These participants were monitored for merely five days post each dose, with no mention of a placebo group or long-term studies.

* Engerix-B (Another Hep B Vaccine): Similarly, this vaccine's safety review was conducted over just four days, again lacking long-term data or a placebo control.

Jillian's Takeaway: Michaels isn't suggesting vaccines cause autism or advocating against vaccination. Instead, her critique is centered on the demand for comprehensive, high-standard research:

* Gold Standard Trials: She echoes Kennedy's call for randomized, controlled trials which are considered the gold standard in medical research, highlighting the current practices seem far from this ideal.

* Public Health Policy: She questions why vaccines like Hepatitis B are on the mandatory schedule for newborns without robust testing, especially given the demographic's risk profile.

Conclusion: Jillian Michaels challenges the public narrative that vaccines undergo extensive safety testing. Her investigation suggests that the process might not be as thorough as claimed by some media or health officials. She calls for transparency and rigorous scientific scrutiny, aligning with Kennedy's push for safer, more thoroughly tested vaccines.

Call to Action: Michaels urges her followers and the public to critically assess information, especially when it concerns health policies affecting children. She encourages everyone to look up the data themselves, question the status quo, and demand better from public health institutions.

Her post not only stirs debate but also invites a deeper discussion on how public health decisions are made, the role of pharmaceutical companies, and the need for accountability and transparency in vaccine safety protocols.

PS I was able to clean up the reverb in her original post and share it back to her on X. She gave me a little “thank you”. Love her!

Introduction: Nicole Sirotek, an experienced critical care and flight nurse, provided a poignant testimony about her experiences during the COVID-19 crisis in American hospitals. Her narrative sheds light on the systemic issues and personal challenges faced by healthcare workers and patients.

Early Intervention and Care:

* Personal Background: Sirotek's journey into nursing was influenced by her child's congenital heart condition, giving her a deep appreciation for medical professionals.

* Role During the Pandemic: Initially deployed to New York City in May 2020, she aimed to assist with ventilator management for COVID-19 patients, bringing her expertise in critical care.

Observations and Allegations:

* Negligence and Malfeasance: Sirotek described witnessing what she termed as "gross negligence" and "medical malfeasance" in hospital settings. She claimed that many patients were not dying from COVID-19 but from the lack of proper care.

* Pharmaceutical Interference: She criticized the use of remdesivir, noting its fatal outcomes in some patients, and questioned the early treatment strategies adopted by hospitals.

* Lack of Basic Care: She highlighted disturbing instances where patients were denied basic care necessities like food and water, describing conditions as akin to those in a "concentration camp."

Advocacy and Response:

* American Frontline Nurses: Sirotek founded this organization to advocate for better patient care and to share information based on nurses' firsthand experiences.

* Controversial Statements: Her claims include strong assertions about pharmaceutical companies experimenting on marginalized communities, and she expressed frustration over the lack of response from regulatory health bodies.

Vaccine-Related Incidents:

* Sirotek related an incident involving a young child with a heart attack post-vaccination, emphasizing the challenges in getting medical acknowledgment of vaccine injuries due to financial disincentives for hospitals.

International Comparison:

* She contrasted the U.S. healthcare response unfavorably with that of developing countries where she had worked, suggesting that care in the U.S. had deteriorated to substandard levels.

Conclusion:

* Role of Nurses: Sirotek underscored the vital role nurses play as the bridge between doctors and patients, often overlooked in discussions about healthcare policy and practice.

* Gratitude for the Platform: She thanked Senator Johnson for providing nurses an opportunity to voice their concerns, emphasizing the importance of their perspective in understanding the full scope of the healthcare crisis during the pandemic.

Nicole Sirotek's testimony provides a critical insider's view on the challenges and ethical dilemmas within American hospitals during the COVID-19 outbreak, highlighting a need for reflection and reform in patient care practices.

broken truth is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In a fiery speech, human rights attorney Leigh Dundas draws a chilling historical parallel between the strategies employed by Goebbels and Hitler during WWII and current public health measures. Dundas challenges the legality and ethics of potential new restrictions due to RSV, arguing that such measures are not only unnecessary given the low mortality rate but also unconstitutional. She passionately declares resistance against any new lockdowns, masks, or business closures, emphasizing the defense of American freedoms.

A passionate defense of freedom

In a bold and confrontational speech, human rights attorney Leigh Dundas addresses an assembly, invoking a historical comparison to the tactics used by Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler, who reportedly decided to use disease control measures like business closures and quarantines as a method to control populations during WWII. Dundas criticizes what she perceives as similar modern tactics being proposed to manage the spread of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which she notes has a very low mortality rate among children, specifically mentioning the death rate as four one millionths of a percent.

She argues that the current discussion and plans for managing RSV through lockdowns, masks, and quarantine are not only unnecessary due to the low threat level but also potentially unlawful. Dundas points out that the emergency measures previously allowed under executive orders related to COVID-19 do not legally apply to RSV under the government code's definition of an emergency, which involves significant disruption to public health and safety.

Dundas accuses the assembly of attempting to secure funding and control through fear, labeling it as "fraud" if they proceed with these measures. She vehemently opposes any new restrictions, asserting that they infringe on constitutional rights and American freedoms. Her speech ends with a strong declaration of resistance, stating that "We will never lock down again. This is the hill we die on," underscoring a firm stand for liberty and against what she sees as unwarranted governmental overreach.

broken truth is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In June 2022, the USFDA CBER committee voted on whether to approve the covid vaccines for children. Internet hero Sam Dodson blew the roof off with an epic statement of fact that got tens of thousands of views on X and across the internet.

Follow Sam on Substack, too!

Dodson's analysis, derived from his personal research into mRNA technology, paints a chilling picture of risks that were overlooked or ignored by those in charge.

What Dodson Reveals:

* Misleading Information: Initially, the public was reassured that the vaccine would remain localized at the injection site. Dodson claims biodistribution studies prove otherwise, showing the vaccine components spread throughout the body, affecting major organs like the heart, liver, and spleen.

* Unprecedented Risks: He discusses the use of a pegylated lipid in the vaccines, a substance never before mass-injected into humans. This lipid, part of the lipid nanocomplex, has been linked in animal studies to severe health issues like heart attacks following multiple doses.

* Reproductive and Autoimmune Concerns: Dodson highlights concerns over the vaccine's impact on reproductive health, pointing out the concentration of the nanocomplex in the ovaries. He also discusses the potential for autoimmune reactions, including myocarditis, which has been reported in vaccine recipients.

* The Spike Protein Dilemma: According to Dodson, the spike protein produced by these vaccines can interfere with critical cellular processes, leading to a range of health issues from autoimmune diseases to neurological and reproductive problems.

* Suppression of Concerns: Perhaps most damning, Dodson accuses regulatory bodies of ignoring or suppressing warnings about these risks, including studies showing the vaccines' potential to cause T-cell exhaustion and other serious health issues.

* Call to Action: With a voice of urgency, Dodson calls for an immediate halt to the use of these vaccines, especially in vulnerable populations like children, for whom there is no clear clinical benefit.

Introducing the “Hall of Fame”

There have been so many powerful moments of heroes standing up for rights over the past several years. I’m going to create a new segment of my BrokenTruth.TV main page to highlight these citizens who stood up to tyranny as part of a ‘Hall of Fame’.

Sign up for my free mailing list so you don’t miss them as they drop! If you sign up for a paid account, even better! Thanks!

It’s ok to sign up. I don’t bite…hard.

In December 2022, Senator Ron Johnson of the United States convened hearings to delve into the ongoing COVID-19 vaccine scandal. The focus was on scrutinizing the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines, particularly concerning their administration to children. At the heart of this inquiry was Dr. Renata Moon, a seasoned pediatrician with over two decades of experience, who presented a stark revelation about the information—or lack thereof—provided to healthcare providers regarding these vaccines.

The Blank Insert Revelation

Dr. Moon shared a striking discovery: when she examined the package insert of the mRNA vaccine intended for children, she found it was entirely blank, a phenomenon she had never encountered in her long career. This absence of information was not just a clerical error but a significant breach in the process of informed consent. Traditionally, package inserts provide detailed data about the vaccine's contents, potential side effects, and administration guidelines. Without this, how could medical professionals adequately inform parents about the risks and benefits of vaccinating their children?

The Pressure on Physicians

The hearings highlighted an uncomfortable reality for many healthcare professionals. Dr. Moon described an environment where physicians were under pressure to promote the vaccine as "safe and effective," with little room for questioning or sharing observed adverse reactions. This pressure was not just professional but existential, threatening their licenses and careers if they deviated from the narrative. Such an atmosphere stifled open discussion and critical evaluation, crucial for medical advancements and patient safety.

Adverse Reactions and the Silence

Amidst the promotion of the vaccine, reports of adverse reactions were rising. Dr. Moon pointed out the significant increase in cases of myocarditis, particularly in young males, following vaccination. These incidents, along with other serious side effects like strokes and blood clots, were being reported with an alarming frequency. Yet, these signals were often dismissed or minimized by those in authority, despite the undeniable data from safety monitoring systems like VAERS showing an unusual spike in adverse events.

The Ethical Dilemma

The central theme of Dr. Moon's testimony was the ethical quandary of informed consent. She argued that true informed consent requires both information and the freedom to choose without coercion. However, with mandatory vaccination policies looming and the silencing of dissent within the medical community, this fundamental right was being eroded. Parents were left in a scenario where their decision-making was influenced more by fear and mandate than by informed choice.

The Global Perspective

Interestingly, Dr. Moon brought to light the contrasting approaches of different nations. Several countries had either restricted or completely banned the use of these mRNA vaccines for children due to safety concerns, a policy starkly different from the U.S. This global disparity in response underscores a critical question about the integrity of scientific discourse and decision-making processes in vaccine policies.

A Call for Transparency and Freedom

Dr. Moon's testimony was not just a recount of her experiences but a call to action for transparency, scientific integrity, and the preservation of personal and medical freedom. Her narrative challenges the medical community and policymakers to reevaluate how new medical interventions are introduced, especially when they involve the most vulnerable populations like children.

Conclusion

The hearings concluded with a poignant reflection on the state of medical science and freedom in America. Dr. Moon's revelations serve as a beacon for those advocating for a more open, informed, and ethical approach to public health policy. As America grapples with these issues, her story might just be the catalyst needed for a broader, more critical examination of how healthcare decisions are made and communicated, ensuring that they uphold the principles of informed consent and patient autonomy.

A presentation to Idaho lawmakers by Dr. Moon

broken truth is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In a revealing interview with Dr. Robert Seik, a Doctor of Pharmacy affiliated with The Wellness Company, the discussion shed light on the intricate dynamics between Big Pharma, independent pharmacies, and public health during the COVID-19 era. Here's a summary of the key points:

Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin Controversy:

* Dr. Seik highlighted the suppression of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis. Despite evidence suggesting benefits, these drugs were often denied by major pharmacies and criticized by health authorities, potentially due to financial interests in promoting vaccines and other high-revenue treatments.

Nevada's Hydroxychloroquine Stash:

* An intriguing point was made about Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak stashing a large supply of hydroxychloroquine in the state's prison system, suggesting a disparity in treatment availability for the general public versus a select group.

Pharmacists' Role:

* Pharmacists faced ethical dilemmas when refusing to dispense these drugs on political grounds rather than medical rationale, which Dr. Seik finds outrageous. He emphasized the pharmacist's role should be advisory, not prescriptive, regarding treatment choices.

Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and Market Control:

* The interview discussed how PBMs, often owned by or closely linked with large chain pharmacies, control a significant portion of drug claims, potentially squeezing out independent pharmacies through unfair reimbursement practices. This control raises questions about antitrust laws and the integrity of pharmaceutical distribution.

Clinical Trials and Drug Suppression:

* Dr. Seik critiqued the manipulation of clinical trials, particularly in Brazil, where hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were either overdosed or underdosed to yield biased outcomes. He advocates for a meta-analysis approach to understand drug efficacy better rather than relying on potentially manipulated single trials.

The Wellness Company's Approach:

* Dr. Seik’s involvement with The Wellness Company focuses on providing alternatives to mainstream pharmaceutical practices, promoting natural health solutions, and ensuring availability of drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin based on patient need rather than corporate interest.

Public Health and Natural Alternatives:

* The conversation extended beyond pharmaceuticals to lifestyle and natural health practices. Dr. Seik suggested simple, cost-free health improvements like vitamin D from sunlight, barefoot walking for natural antioxidant effects, and dietary zinc sources like black pepper.

Future of Health Care:

* The overarching theme was a call to re-evaluate our health care system, encouraging a blend of conventional medicine with integrative, natural approaches. Dr. Seik envisions a future where health care focuses more on wellness, reducing dependency on prescription drugs through better nutrition and lifestyle.

This interview not only critiques the current pharmaceutical landscape but also offers a hopeful vision for a more holistic, patient-centered approach to health care, emphasizing the role of independent pharmacies and natural health in the modern medical paradigm.

It’s ok to subscribe. Really.

Follow up from this interview:

Steve Sisolak, Nevada governor, bans malaria drugs for coronavirus patients

Nevada Governor Found Hoarding Hydroxychloroquine After Banning DrugVICTOR JOECKS: Nevada stockpiles hydroxychloroquine, potential coronavirus drug, which Sisolak restricted

Hydroxychloroquine drastically reduces immune activation in HIV-infected, antiretroviral therapy–treated immunologic nonresponders