rConstitution.us
latest boundaries about
“COVID-19: A Second Opinion” Panel Discussion Moderated by Senator Ron Johnson: 5 Takeaways
Don’t take genetic vaccines. Start treatment within 72 hours. First find an independent pharmacy. Always use independent doctors. Treat at home, not in hospitals.
James Anthony
February 25, 2025
Governments can fund and influence experts, but government people are not in clinical practice and are not the preeminent research experts.
“COVID-19: A Second Opinion,” moderated by Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI, Liberty Score 72% [1]) with assistance from Dr. Peter McCullough, and posted on Rumble [2], is a panel discussion of some of the foremost clinical and research experts. These real experts are learning from clinical practice and research and are developing effective treatment protocols. This work also makes them the preeminent expert reviewers and interpreters of the government and crony influenced medical literature. They also search out evidence from other ethical researchers, and they inform us on behalf of those researchers. In all, these experts are indispensable guides.
The five-hour video format, with no transcript, is not the most efficient or dense trove of information. But this is an easily-approached introduction to some real experts and to the best understanding that they’re developing now in real time.
The panel discussion is arranged as a broad topical discussion for a general audience, not as a patient-focused second opinion. Below is a synthesis arranged to guide individual action, with a little added contextual information included.
If you could form from these experts a single amalgam and meet with him one-on-one to get a second opinion, you would want to know what course of action he would recommend for you. I think he would recommend that you consider taking the following as your next steps:
1. Don’t take genetic vaccines.
Related segment’s experts: Robert Malone [3], David Wiseman [4]
COVID-19 is a two-stage disease: first, viral growth; second, inflammation and clotting, because added oxidative stress breaks up blood vessels’ inner walls, and this produces debris that forms clots, including in the blood vessels in the lungs.
Both disease stages are dominated by the toxic action of the SARS-CoV-2 virus’s spike protein. In the first stage, the spike protein inhibits the body’s immune response. In the second stage, the spike protein increases the oxidative stress on the blood vessels’ inner walls.
All the current vaccines don’t train the immune system on the broad spectrum of the target virus’s proteins like all effective conventional vaccines do. Instead the current vaccines only train the immune system on the SARS-CoV-2 virus’s spike protein.
This narrow action drives the evolution of new, potentially harder-to-treat variants. This is the same phenomenon as when antibiotics drive the evolution of antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
The SARS-CoV-2 delta variant, for example, is more transmissible, which is usual for variants that take over. But Delta also is more virulent or harmful, which is not usual for naturally-evolved mutants. This greater harmfulness was produced by overuse of the current narrow-action vaccines.
Also, all the current vaccines cause the spike protein to be produced by the body’s cellular machinery in unknowable amounts.
Also, all the vaccines work by using genetic instructions, either mRNA or DNA, that are made more stable using synthetic lipids. In a Pfizer study submitted for Japanese regulatory approval and made public through the Japanese regulators’ procedures, such synthetic lipids were found to migrate from the injection point and concentrate in the liver and ovaries, and also cross the blood-brain barrier and go into the brain.
So then the vaccines produce the clot-inducing spike protein. Also, the vaccines’ synthetic lipids and likely also the vaccines’ mRNA or DNA migrate to and concentrate in the brain and ovaries. It’s to be expected, then, that pharmacovigilance systems are picking up early warnings of vaccine-caused heart attacks and heart damage that will be lifelong, strokes and neurological diseases, and miscarriages and menstrual bleeding.
Most people aren’t very old and don’t have the few very-compromising conditions like severe obesity, so most people aren’t at elevated risk of dying from catching the SARS-CoV-2 virus. These people clearly should not take the unusually-dangerous current vaccines and boosters.
Even the few people who are at elevated risk of dying from catching SARS-CoV-2 virus are also at risk of dying from many of these vaccine-caused conditions. Before these people consent to take these experimental, short-lived interventions that have known serious side effects, these people are morally, ethically, and legally entitled to consultations that honestly present these emerging vaccine risk data.
Not only have such consultations not been taking place, but evidence is emerging that the reporting of these side effects has been in some cases suppressed and in some cases not disseminated. Either action would render fully-informed consent impossible.
2. Start treatment within 72 hours.
Related segment’s experts for takeaways 2-4: Peter McCullough [5], Ryan Cole [6], Harvey Risch [7], George Fareed [8], Pierre Kory [9], Richard Urso [10]
In clinically-appropriate use, which is for the stage one viral growth, ivermectin has been highly safe and effective. Hydroxychloroquine has been highly safe and effective. Fluvoxamine has been highly safe and effective. Many repurposed drugs are highly safe and have been effective. In the hands of a competent clinician, any of a number of drugs is effective.
Protocols for early outpatient treatment have been developed by various doctors on the panel together with their colleagues.
What has proven most critical for saving lives has not been to use any one specific drug, but rather to simply start some suitable outpatient treatment within 72 hours of when the patient first develops symptoms.
3. First find an independent pharmacy.
Outpatient treatment has been significantly delayed by FDA, NIH, Tony Fauci’s NIAID, CDC, state licensing boards, pharmacy organizations, and in some cases individual pharmacists each practicing medicine—sometimes without medical training and always without clinical knowledge of the specific patients being treated—by blocking doctors from applying their clinical knowledge of their patients by prescribing drugs off-label.
This hurdle has been so great that the best first step in obtaining treatment is for patients to find a pharmacy that will fill prescriptions for drugs that will be used off-label to treat COVID-19.
Organizations including Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance offer lists of pharmacies that will fill these prescriptions [11].
4. Always use independent doctors.
Outpatient treatment has been significantly delayed by state licensing boards and medical organizations blocking doctors from applying their clinical knowledge of their patients by prescribing drugs off-label.
Organizations including Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance also maintain lists of doctors who will prescribe drugs off-label [12]. Pharmacies that fill these prescriptions maintain lists of such doctors too.
5. Treat at home, not in hospitals.
Related segment’s experts: Paul Marik [13], Aaron Kheriaty [14]
Failure to treat patients as outpatients has driven patients nearly through the stage one disease that responds to antivirals by the time they are admitted into hospitals.
Once they’re admitted into hospitals, patients have been given remdesivir.
Remdesivir is toxic enough to patients’ kidneys that trials of it on the deadly Ebola virus were stopped short in late 2019, just before COVID-19 arrived and resuscitated remdesivir. If antiviral treatment has been delayed sufficiently by the time a patient is admitted to a hospital, then it may already be nearly too late to use an antiviral, and in any case, remdesivir is a poor antiviral. Remdesivir itself has been seriously sickening many patients.
Also, once they’re admitted into hospitals, patients have been given the suboptimal steroid dexamethasone at suboptimal very-low doses.
The doses have been based on one trial. In this trial, the doses appear to have been intentionally chosen to be suboptimal, in order to give a small-enough response to leave space for costly branded drugs to do better and take over.
Even with the very-low dose in that trial, patients had strong-enough responses to show that a steroid can help with inflammation, as was to be expected mechanistically. But the response was very small, helping 22% of patients—not an adequate stopping point when there are further options of the same type. Even so, hospital protocols haven’t switched to better steroids and much-more-therapeutic doses.
If hospital patients’ inflammation had instead been treated under the direction of independent clinicians, the clinicians would from the start have had substantial experience treating inflammation. Better steroids, at much-more-therapeutic doses, would have been the standard of care.
Instead, the standard of care is in practice now more and more being created by Medicare bureaucrats when they choose what care Medicare reimburses. The Medicare dictates get copied by private insurers, and neither Medicare nor private insurers reimburse for other care.
Doctors who have departed from hospitals’ remdesivir / low-dose dexamethasone protocols have lost their freedom to practice medicine in the hospitals. One such doctor was an expert on the panel, Dr. Paul Marik, who throughout his career has specialized in treating intensive care unit patients.
Patients, then, have been dying in hospitals not from COVID-19 but from being systematically denied effective treatments.
Clinicians on the panel emphasized that they do everything within their power to treat patients outpatient and not have them cross the threshold into such control by hospitals. Individuals should seek the same outpatient care for themselves and their loved ones.
The failures of government legislators, executives, advisors, and licensing boards, and the failures of crony medical researchers, academic journals, drug producers, insurers, hospitals, physician practices, and pharmacies, leave individuals with just a couple of opportunities to strengthen what remains good in this system:
It’s a matter of life and liberty.
Senator Johnson said that the panel discussion only scratched the surface of its topics. This article, in turn, only scratches the surface of that panel discussion. You will learn a lot more, and you will gain more confidence, if you listen to these experts and see how well they work together here to help us.
Senator Johnson invited people who could have defended the status quo, but all declined [15]. It’s good for us that they weren’t there. They would have drastically changed the dynamic, and drastically reduced the quantity of good information that the real experts were able to provide.
When I’m facing a serious illness, I don’t go see a bureaucrat, I go see a doctor who will treat me using nothing that his best practice suggests can harm, and using everything that his best practice suggests can help.
Go and do likewise.
References
James Anthony is the author of The Constitution Needs a Good Party and rConstitution Papers, has written in The Federalist, American Thinker, Foundation for Economic Education, and American Greatness, and publishes rConstitution.us. Mr. Anthony is an experienced chemical engineer with a master’s in mechanical engineering.
Commenting