lifesitenews--2020-06-05--Doctors insist this cheap, safe drug is “key to preventing huge loss of life” from Wuhan virus

June 5 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — This is Part II of an astonishing 2-part article by LifeSite ’ s Paris correspondent Jeanne Smits on the “ spectacular ” results doctors have seen treating covid-infected patients with a drug that powerful forces are trying to stop from saving lives .
See Part I here .
Efficient use of HCQ in Senegal , Burkina Faso , South Korea… Prof Raoult has repeatedly said that poor African countries that are used to epidemics and not averse to using cheap and time-tested medication have a much lower death toll than other nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nigeria , Benin , Tchad , Cameroon , Burkina Faso and Senegal , which have widely prescribed HCQ .
Its efficiency lies in limiting contamination and viral load , which could explain the very low prevalence of COVID in African countries .
Senegal had its first case at the end of February .
It chose a light form of confinement because many people need to be able to work from day-to-day for their living ; by May 27 , the 15 million strong country had only 3,253 cases of contamination and 38 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely recognized for quickly containing the virus with measures such as massive testing and contact tracing , also included hydroxychloroquine as one of several drugs in its recommended treatment protocol .
Since the first recorded cases on February 16 , total cases reached 11,344 on May 28 , with only 269 deaths .
With its 51 million inhabitants and level of development , the country is comparable to France ( 67 million inhabitants ) where the death toll is more than 100 times higher .
Other countries using hydroxychloroquine , with or without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ ve tried confinement in Marseille , and it didn ’ t work ” Prof. Raoult was probably also under fire because from the start , he criticized the “ mediaeval ” method of confinement , insisting that the only possible way to stop an epidemic is to test , isolate those who test positive and do everything possible to treat them and prevent them from dying .
“ We ’ ve tried confinement in Marseille , and it didn ’ t work , ” he said , with reference to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 1800 ’ s .
He noted that in Spain , a study of coronavirus prevalence among people who were confined at home and those who went out to work showed that workers showed a lower contamination rate by the virus than people who “ sheltered in place.
” The strength of Raoult ’ s position lies with the success of his protocol in preventing deaths : a fact that can be verified by looking at the low death-rate at the IHU-Méditerranée which treated the largest sample of COVID-19 patients in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases treated at the IHU published on May 5 by Raoult and his teamin Elsevier showed that over 90 percent of patients treated with HCQ and azithromycin had “ good clinical outcome and virological cure ” within 10 days ; eight patients died , aged between 74 and 95 years , not from cardiac toxicity but respiratory failure .
98.7 percent of all involved patients were cured at the time of publication .
Fewer deaths in Marseille than elsewhere in France Marseille was the one place in France where most tests were done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the number of deaths in proportion to the population compared with other regions of France with comparable rates of contamination was lowest .
Before the epidemic started off , Marseille was expected to be one of the epicenters of the coronavirus , according to reliable sources from the French Ministry of the Interior .
Marseille is one of the main centers of African immigration .
The northern parts of the city are large “ ethnic suburbs ” where confinement was next to impossible to enforce , as was the case in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a higher death rate than elsewhere in France under government guidelines – no testing , no treating .
However , testing and treating as recommended by Raoult in Marseille appears to have avoided a similar outcome .
In a video published on May 19 , Raoult observed that the curve of contaminations , illness and deaths is similar in most places and that , in France , with the arrival of the warm spring days , the epidemic appears to be tapering off as he had suggested was a “ substantially possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most other similar episodes .
His comments in a previous IHU-Méditerranée video one month earlier were already optimistic .
It was published with English sub-titles and can be watched here : https : //youtu.be/eTSLFU0wL6A .
In the May 19 video , Raoult observed that the death rate in France per 1 million inhabitants is now officially at 419 , “ which is a lot , ” Raoult stated .
He recalled that in the east of France , the death rate was of 600 per 1 million inhabitants , and 500 in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Paris proper .
At the same time , in the region of Marseille ( Provence , Alps and Côte d ’ Azur ) the death rate was only 168 per 1 million inhabitants , and 140 in Marseille proper .
In other words , five times more coronavirus-infected people died in Paris than in Marseille .
At the IHU itself , where treatment with HCQ and azithromycin was given to a majority of 4,000 treated patients ( some refused , others could not receive it for various reasons , mostly because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them ) the mortality rate was of 0.5 percent of infected patients .
On May 27 , a total of 3,313 patients had been treated at IHU with the HCQ-azithromycin protocol ; only 18 of them had died .
Raoult ’ s IHU-Méditerranée institute has recently published an English abstract of its “ real-life cohort of 3,737 patients , ” showing “ a decreased risk of transfer to the ICU or death , ” available here .
Raoult underscored that in places where there was no massive testing of the population nor treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage , such as Wuhan and Italy at the beginning of the epidemic , one half of the victims were less than 70 years old .
This changed once systematic testing and treatment were introduced .
In Paris , where absence of testing and treatment remained the official rule , a much larger proportion of people under 70 died than in Marseille , where only two people aged between 60 and 70 died .
This was an answer to the criticism according to which the IHU had better statistics because it was treating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway .
Raoult now claims that his protocol was especially efficient in saving the lives of younger patients : patients who would have died if they had been in places such as Paris where many hospitals did not give the treatment .
Interestingly , the proportion of hospital workers at the IHU who have been shown to have been infected during the epidemic through PCR testing or serological tests is more or less the same as in the general population : 3.5 to 4 percent , even though they were in contact with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( of whom less than a third were effectively coronavirus-positive ) .
The reason for this is not clear – were they given HCQ preventively ?
It does show that this population that was not confined – on the contrary – was not more prone to infection than those who were .
“ There are only sporadic new cases left , ” Raoult noted .
This is also true at the national level in France , where less than 300 declared cases ( for a total of 67 million inhabitants with contamination dating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 26 .
Nevertheless , “ social distancing ” as well as masks in public transport and churches remain the rule , while at the same time HCQ-azithromycin treatment , which appears to have proved its worth , is officially banned for the few who are still falling ill. Raoult ’ s experience is matched by that of a US physician , Dr. Stephen Smith , an infectious disease specialist .
He also called the HCQ treatment an “ absolute game-changer.
” At the beginning of April he told Fox News that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treating 72 seriously ill COVID-19 patients with HCQ and azithromycin : “ I think this is the beginning of the end of the pandemic.
” It was he who briefed Donald Trump about the treatment .
By May 20 , he was telling WND about his “ frustration ” at seeing the safety of the treatment being questioned .
“ There 's just a craziness out there , and I do n't know how to correct it , ” Smith said according to WND .
“ The truth does n't matter any more.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubled down on the toxicity of a drug that is not toxic .
They 've gone around and told everybody it 's killing people .
It 's not.
” The FDA , he said , has decades of randomized , double-blind studies on hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of lupus and rheumatoid arthritis .
“ Every one of them has higher doses than anyone is giving for COVID therapy , ” he said , with some giving more than 1,000 milligrams trials a day .
“ None of them require EKG monitoring .
None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ It 's a canard.
” In Texas , Dr Ivette Lozano is having to fight to have her prescriptions honored There are more similarities between the French and the American situation , with doctors using HCQ being publicly discredited .
One Texas physician , Dr Ivette Lozano , told Fox News on May 16 that she is officially no longer allowed to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 patients since she circulated a video in which she explained her success in treating the disease with the drug .
She said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pharmacy Board had passed a mandate that that drug could not be dispensed unless it was accompanied by a diagnosis.
” In her compelling interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News , Lozano described the “ spectacular ” results she obtained with COVID-19 patients at all stages – mild , moderate and severe – and the “ ridiculous ” situation where many doctors don ’ t dare prescribe HCQ for fear of getting in trouble with their board , and now pharmacists refusing to sell the drug .
In one day , 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ swarm all over Dallas ” to obtain their prescribed treatment .
She also stated that many of her patients who are COVID-19 positive , even with high fever , were refused treatment elsewhere before coming to her clinic .
Also see her video titled “ the truth about COVID-19 ” HCQ prescriptions sky-rocketed in France – and the army has stockpiled the drug The actual use or stockpiling of hydroxychloroquine in France is also an interesting point .
In some parts of the country , prescriptions have skyrocketed , increasing by as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began .
Many of the prescriptions were in Marseille , where around 10,000 people were reportedly treated with Plaquénil in the last week of March and according to research , 41,000 people were given the drug between March 16 and April 19 .
No cases have been reported in the press of patients having died because of HCQ-cardiac related problems .
Proportionately , twice as many people received HCQ in and around Marseille than in the east of France , according to the same study by the National Agency for Drug Security ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of patients who were prescribed HCQ by their family doctors in the whole of France , especially in Paris , were members of the most affluent socio-economic groups .
The French army admitted at the end of April that it had imported chloroquine phosphate from China in sufficient quantities to fabricate injectable doses of hydroxychloroquine for the Armed Forces “ just in case.
” Will these stocks be destroyed or thrown away in the wake of the recent Lancet article ?
For that to happen , the Lancet article , which has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients in many places , would have to be taken seriously .
Prof. Didier Raoult , for one , did not do so from the start .
He insisted that as a doctor , he prefers to trust what he himself has observed rather than a study based on “ Big Data , ” a sort of “ delirious fantasy ” that does not check with what he saw while treating 4,000 patients after performing 130,000 tests .
Raoult insisted that he witnessed no serious conditions linked with the prescription @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests exist .
It is true that at the IHU in Marseille , patients were monitored closely for ventricular tachycardia and dangerous potassium levels ; outpatients were called at least every 48 hours by hospital staff to check their general condition .
The study published by The Lancet on May 22 “ compared ” an array of different treatments , including HCQ with or without azithromycin , without giving any information on dose levels or length of treatment .
Raoult called the study “ lousy ” on his Twitter account , adding in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who never saw a patient , “ distorted reality ” and refused to take real-life observable experience into account .
He said he was ready to show cause of death data at the IHU which prove that no one died of ventricular tachycardia there , whereas The Lancet paper speaks of 8 percent of deaths related to that condition .
The recent decision of The Lancet to publish an “ Expression of Concern ” vindicates Raoult ’ s criticism .
In the Lancet study on HCQ , the data are not sourced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitals the patient files were collected – and not verifiable .
The study says it has patients from five continents , but all the groups have similar compositions , regarding obesity , smoking , etc .
Raoult said it was “ strange ” to find a similar proportion of obese people in Africa and in North America for example .
“ I do not believe it .
As a doctor , I visited many places and it is not my experience , ” he said .
Raoult now considers the study , signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pure computer ” production .
More and more doubts have been raised about the sincerity of the Lancet paper .
Dozens of medical professors , ethicists , researchers and statisticians sent an open letter to the editor of that medical journal , voicing “ concerns regarding the statistical analysis and data integrity.
” These include : “ inadequate adjustment for known and measured confounders ( disease severity , temporal effects , site effects , dose used , ” no release of code or data as is normally the rule “ in the machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the absence of an “ ethics review.
” The signatories , who hail from all parts of the world and many prestigious institutions , also noted that none of the over 600 hospitals who are said to have contributed their data were identified and requests for identification received no response .
Concern number 5 is particularly revealing : “ Data from Australia are not compatible with government reports ( too many cases for just five hospitals , more in-hospital deaths than had occurred in the entire country during the study period ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ since stated this was an error of classification of one hospital from Asia .
This indicates the need for further error checking throughout the database.
” Further concerns regard “ unlikely ” data , such as “ unusually small reported variances in baseline variables , interventions and outcomes between continents , ” 100 mg higher doses of HCQ – when quoted – than are the norm in the US although 66 percent of data are said to come from North American hospitals and other implausible assertions .
In fact , if The Lancet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would mean that it included the data of each and every North American COVID-19 patient hospitalized up to April 14 , something American doctor James Todaro finds hard to believe .
On his Twitter account , he adds : “ Is there a single continent where the Lancet HCQ study numbers make sense ?
Now for Africa ... Surgisphere claims ~25 % of COVID-19 cases and 40 % of deaths had sophisticated electronic patient data records that included episodes of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation .
Doubt it.
” When questioned in the French media about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he could not believe its conclusions , which are even less accurate than mere “ Big Data ” models , because of his personal experience and the reality he sees every day , in a unit where every patient reaction to medication is discussed twice daily by the staff .
On his Twitter account , Raoult added on May 29 that he and his team have “ questions ” regarding “ the existence ” of the company that did data collecting for the Lancet study , Surgisphere .
“ To our knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a single testimony of either a partner hospital or doctor confirming that they have provided data for the study.
” A Yale study calls for urgent prescription of HCQ to COVID-19 outpatients On May 27 , a Yale professor of epidemiology , Harvey A. Risch , published a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology concluding that a hydroxychloroquine treatment combined with the antibiotic azithromycin and zinc had significant positive outcomes and that “ these medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.
” Risch noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public pressure , and new contaminations to be expected , it is important to treat COVID-19 patients before their condition worsens , as the title of his paper makes clear : “ Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic , High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.
” Noting that remdesivir shows “ mild effectiveness ” in hospital patients but that its effects early on in the coronavirus process have not been studied – and that a number of patients have to be taken off the medication because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that HCQ and associated medication has been used for hundreds of thousands of patients .
He quotes a very low mortality rate from cardiac arrythmia associated with the treatment : 9 out of 100,000 , to be compared with the many lives saved and hospitalizations avoided by the HCQ-azithromycin treatment .
“ The key to returning society toward normal functioning and to preventing huge loss of life , especially among older individuals , people with comorbidities , African Americans and Hispanics and Latinos , is a safe , effective and proactive outpatient treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he wrote .
He noted that the treatment allowed up to “ 50-fold ” efficacy when compared with standard care , and has been shown to be “ effective in preventing hospitalization for the overwhelming majority ” of at-risk patients .
Risch ’ s paper quotes several large studies involving over 1,000 patients , with not a single case of cardiac arrythmia being reported .
These massive data are being brushed aside and physicians ’ liberty to prescribe medicine as they deem fit are being trampled upon by the powers-that-be .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorable to HCQ was quoted by Prof Raoult on May 26 .
He noted that a recent article by Chinese researcher Tang et al in The British Medical Journalwas edited before definitive publication : “ Tang et al , BMJ : why were some data in favor of hydroxychloroquine , presented in the preprint version , deleted in the published paper ?
BMJ editorial board requests ?
” The removed text noted “ more rapid alleviation of clinical symptoms with SOC plus HCQ than with SOC alone.
” ( “ SOC ” means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper is presented in the BMJ as showing that HCQ does not have better outcomes and leads to more “ adverse events.
” It should also be noted that Raoult ’ s most recent published research on PCR testing of 65,992 individuals found lung lesions in 581 of the 933 patients with minimal clinical symptoms who were given low-dose computed tomography ( CT ) scans .
“ A discrepancy between spontaneous dyspnea , hypoxemia and lung lesions was observed , ” he tweeted in a summary of his findings .
In plain language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite well , with no apparent respiratory problems , can in fact have damage to their lungs and may have sequelae that should be monitored .
This finding also would justify treating asymptomatic patients testing positive to the coronavirus very early on .
The recent prohibition based on The Lancet paper will not change much in France , said Raoult , because individually , doctors still have their liberty to prescribe ; plus the cases of COVID-19 are becoming more and more infrequent .
The World Health Organization also based its previous decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the study of The Lancet .
But many countries , such as Brazil , have decided to use it massively all the same .
All in all , COVID-19 – as it has developed , climaxed and already reduced in many countries – will probably cause fewer deaths than other respiratory infections that claim over 4.25 million lives worldwide every year .
On May 27 , the world total of COVID-19 related deaths reached 351,000 , though there are many questions still open regarding co-morbidity and the principal cause of decease .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be considered high enough to justify a future lockdown ?
The powers that be have made clear that they expect “ second waves ” ( Raoult does not ; it is also he who successfully predicted that the end of lockdown in France on May 11 would not lead to a new surge of infections ) and that they have already prepared an emergency reconfinement plan .
But the general population might reject this new “ epidemic of fear .
”

HUGE MEDICAL SCANDAL: Dr Ivette Lozano described “spectacular” results she obtained with COVID-19 patients at all stages and the “ridiculous” situation where many doctors don’t dare prescribe HCQ for fear of getting in trouble with their board, and now pharmacists refusing to sell the drug.
June 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — This is Part II of an astonishing 2-part article by LifeSite’s Paris correspondent Jeanne Smits on the “spectacular” results doctors have seen treating covid-infected patients with a drug that powerful forces are trying to stop from saving lives. See Part I here.
Efficient use of HCQ in Senegal, Burkina Faso, South Korea…
Prof Raoult has repeatedly said that poor African countries that are used to epidemics and not averse to using cheap and time-tested medication have a much lower death toll than other nations. This is particularly true in Morocco, Nigeria, Benin, Tchad, Cameroon, Burkina Faso and Senegal, which have widely prescribed HCQ. Its efficiency lies in limiting contamination and viral load, which could explain the very low prevalence of COVID in African countries.
Senegal had its first case at the end of February. It chose a light form of confinement because many people need to be able to work from day-to-day for their living; by May 27, the 15 million strong country had only 3,253 cases of contamination and 38 deaths.
South Korea, which was widely recognized for quickly containing the virus with measures such as massive testing and contact tracing, also included hydroxychloroquine as one of several drugs in its recommended treatment protocol. Since the first recorded cases on February 16, total cases reached 11,344 on May 28, with only 269 deaths. With its 51 million inhabitants and level of development, the country is comparable to France (67 million inhabitants) where the death toll is more than 100 times higher.
Other countries using hydroxychloroquine, with or without other medication, are listed here.
“We’ve tried confinement in Marseille, and it didn’t work”
Prof. Raoult was probably also under fire because from the start, he criticized the “mediaeval” method of confinement, insisting that the only possible way to stop an epidemic is to test, isolate those who test positive and do everything possible to treat them and prevent them from dying. “We’ve tried confinement in Marseille, and it didn’t work,” he said, with reference to the cholera plagues that affected that city in the 1800’s.
He noted that in Spain, a study of coronavirus prevalence among people who were confined at home and those who went out to work showed that workers showed a lower contamination rate by the virus than people who “sheltered in place.”
The strength of Raoult’s position lies with the success of his protocol in preventing deaths: a fact that can be verified by looking at the low death-rate at the IHU-Méditerranée which treated the largest sample of COVID-19 patients in the world.
A retrospective analysis of 1,061 cases treated at the IHU published on May 5 by Raoult and his teamin Elsevier showed that over 90 percent of patients treated with HCQ and azithromycin had “good clinical outcome and virological cure” within 10 days; eight patients died, aged between 74 and 95 years, not from cardiac toxicity but respiratory failure. 98.7 percent of all involved patients were cured at the time of publication.
Fewer deaths in Marseille than elsewhere in France
Marseille was the one place in France where most tests were done, but it was also the place where the number of deaths in proportion to the population compared with other regions of France with comparable rates of contamination was lowest. Before the epidemic started off, Marseille was expected to be one of the epicenters of the coronavirus, according to reliable sources from the French Ministry of the Interior.
Marseille is one of the main centers of African immigration. The northern parts of the city are large “ethnic suburbs” where confinement was next to impossible to enforce, as was the case in the northern suburbs of Paris where COVID-19 led to a higher death rate than elsewhere in France under government guidelines – no testing, no treating. However, testing and treating as recommended by Raoult in Marseille appears to have avoided a similar outcome.
In a video published on May 19, Raoult observed that the curve of contaminations, illness and deaths is similar in most places and that, in France, with the arrival of the warm spring days, the epidemic appears to be tapering off as he had suggested was a “substantially possible” outcome if it were to resemble most other similar episodes.
His comments in a previous IHU-Méditerranée video one month earlier were already optimistic. It was published with English sub-titles and can be watched here: https://youtu.be/eTSLFU0wL6A.
In the May 19 video, Raoult observed that the death rate in France per 1 million inhabitants is now officially at 419, “which is a lot,” Raoult stated. He recalled that in the east of France, the death rate was of 600 per 1 million inhabitants, and 500 in the greater Paris region, and even 759 in Paris proper. At the same time, in the region of Marseille (Provence, Alps and Côte d’Azur) the death rate was only 168 per 1 million inhabitants, and 140 in Marseille proper. In other words, five times more coronavirus-infected people died in Paris than in Marseille.
At the IHU itself, where treatment with HCQ and azithromycin was given to a majority of 4,000 treated patients (some refused, others could not receive it for various reasons, mostly because it was too late for it to save them) the mortality rate was of 0.5 percent of infected patients. On May 27, a total of 3,313 patients had been treated at IHU with the HCQ-azithromycin protocol; only 18 of them had died.
Raoult’s IHU-Méditerranée institute has recently published an English abstract of its “real-life cohort of 3,737 patients,” showing “a decreased risk of transfer to the ICU or death,” available here.
Raoult underscored that in places where there was no massive testing of the population nor treatment for seropositive patients at the low symptom stage, such as Wuhan and Italy at the beginning of the epidemic, one half of the victims were less than 70 years old. This changed once systematic testing and treatment were introduced.
Saving the younger patients
In Paris, where absence of testing and treatment remained the official rule, a much larger proportion of people under 70 died than in Marseille, where only two people aged between 60 and 70 died. This was an answer to the criticism according to which the IHU had better statistics because it was treating younger people who would have been cured anyway. Raoult now claims that his protocol was especially efficient in saving the lives of younger patients: patients who would have died if they had been in places such as Paris where many hospitals did not give the treatment.
Interestingly, the proportion of hospital workers at the IHU who have been shown to have been infected during the epidemic through PCR testing or serological tests is more or less the same as in the general population: 3.5 to 4 percent, even though they were in contact with over 17,000 symptomatic patients during the epidemic (of whom less than a third were effectively coronavirus-positive). The reason for this is not clear – were they given HCQ preventively? It does show that this population that was not confined – on the contrary – was not more prone to infection than those who were.
“There are only sporadic new cases left,” Raoult noted. This is also true at the national level in France, where less than 300 declared cases (for a total of 67 million inhabitants with contamination dating several days back) were registered on May 26. Nevertheless, “social distancing” as well as masks in public transport and churches remain the rule, while at the same time HCQ-azithromycin treatment, which appears to have proved its worth, is officially banned for the few who are still falling ill.
Dr Stephen Smith: HCQ is “an absolute game-changer”
Raoult’s experience is matched by that of a US physician, Dr. Stephen Smith, an infectious disease specialist. He also called the HCQ treatment an “absolute game-changer.” At the beginning of April he told Fox News that he had seen “100 percent success” treating 72 seriously ill COVID-19 patients with HCQ and azithromycin: “I think this is the beginning of the end of the pandemic.”
It was he who briefed Donald Trump about the treatment. By May 20, he was telling WND about his “frustration” at seeing the safety of the treatment being questioned. “There's just a craziness out there, and I don't know how to correct it,” Smith said according to WND. “The truth doesn't matter any more.”
He added: “People have doubled down on the toxicity of a drug that is not toxic. They've gone around and told everybody it's killing people. It's not.” The FDA, he said, has decades of randomized, double-blind studies on hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
“Every one of them has higher doses than anyone is giving for COVID therapy,” he said, with some giving more than 1,000 milligrams trials a day. “None of them require EKG monitoring. None of them talk about increased death,” he said. “It's a canard.”
In Texas, Dr Ivette Lozano is having to fight to have her prescriptions honored
There are more similarities between the French and the American situation, with doctors using HCQ being publicly discredited. One Texas physician, Dr Ivette Lozano, told Fox News on May 16 that she is officially no longer allowed to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 patients since she circulated a video in which she explained her success in treating the disease with the drug. She said a pharmacist told her that the “Pharmacy Board had passed a mandate that that drug could not be dispensed unless it was accompanied by a diagnosis.”
Lozano said this “violates medical secrecy.”
In her compelling interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News, Lozano described the “spectacular” results she obtained with COVID-19 patients at all stages – mild, moderate and severe – and the “ridiculous” situation where many doctors don’t dare prescribe HCQ for fear of getting in trouble with their board, and now pharmacists refusing to sell the drug. In one day, 15 of Lozano’s patients had to “swarm all over Dallas” to obtain their prescribed treatment.
She also stated that many of her patients who are COVID-19 positive, even with high fever, were refused treatment elsewhere before coming to her clinic.
See Ivette Lozano’s Fox News interview
Also see her video titled “the truth about COVID-19”
HCQ prescriptions sky-rocketed in France – and the army has stockpiled the drug
The actual use or stockpiling of hydroxychloroquine in France is also an interesting point. In some parts of the country, prescriptions have skyrocketed, increasing by as much as 7,000 percent since the pandemic began. Many of the prescriptions were in Marseille, where around 10,000 people were reportedly treated with Plaquénil in the last week of March and according to research, 41,000 people were given the drug between March 16 and April 19. No cases have been reported in the press of patients having died because of HCQ-cardiac related problems.
Proportionately, twice as many people received HCQ in and around Marseille than in the east of France, according to the same study by the National Agency for Drug Security (ANSM). A relatively large proportion of patients who were prescribed HCQ by their family doctors in the whole of France, especially in Paris, were members of the most affluent socio-economic groups.
The French army admitted at the end of April that it had imported chloroquine phosphate from China in sufficient quantities to fabricate injectable doses of hydroxychloroquine for the Armed Forces “just in case.”
“Lancet-gate:” how a medical journal published a dubious paper on HCQ
Will these stocks be destroyed or thrown away in the wake of the recent Lancet article?
For that to happen, the Lancet article, which has been used to justify a general prohibition of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients in many places, would have to be taken seriously. Prof. Didier Raoult, for one, did not do so from the start. He insisted that as a doctor, he prefers to trust what he himself has observed rather than a study based on “Big Data,” a sort of “delirious fantasy” that does not check with what he saw while treating 4,000 patients after performing 130,000 tests.
Raoult insisted that he witnessed no serious conditions linked with the prescription of HCQ, as The Lancet study suggests exist. It is true that at the IHU in Marseille, patients were monitored closely for ventricular tachycardia and dangerous potassium levels; outpatients were called at least every 48 hours by hospital staff to check their general condition.
The study published by The Lancet on May 22 “compared” an array of different treatments, including HCQ with or without azithromycin, without giving any information on dose levels or length of treatment. Raoult called the study “lousy” on his Twitter account, adding in an interview that it was made by people who never saw a patient, “distorted reality” and refused to take real-life observable experience into account. He said he was ready to show cause of death data at the IHU which prove that no one died of ventricular tachycardia there, whereas The Lancet paper speaks of 8 percent of deaths related to that condition.
The recent decision of The Lancet to publish an “Expression of Concern” vindicates Raoult’s criticism.
Unsourced, “implausible” data
In the Lancet study on HCQ, the data are not sourced – it does not state from which hospitals the patient files were collected – and not verifiable. The study says it has patients from five continents, but all the groups have similar compositions, regarding obesity, smoking, etc. Raoult said it was “strange” to find a similar proportion of obese people in Africa and in North America for example. “I do not believe it. As a doctor, I visited many places and it is not my experience,” he said. Raoult now considers the study, signed by four doctors, as a “pure computer” production.
More and more doubts have been raised about the sincerity of the Lancet paper. Dozens of medical professors, ethicists, researchers and statisticians sent an open letter to the editor of that medical journal, voicing “concerns regarding the statistical analysis and data integrity.”
These include: “inadequate adjustment for known and measured confounders (disease severity, temporal effects, site effects, dose used,” no release of code or data as is normally the rule “in the machine learning and statistics community,” and the absence of an “ethics review.”
The signatories, who hail from all parts of the world and many prestigious institutions, also noted that none of the over 600 hospitals who are said to have contributed their data were identified and requests for identification received no response.
Concern number 5 is particularly revealing: “Data from Australia are not compatible with government reports (too many cases for just five hospitals, more in-hospital deaths than had occurred in the entire country during the study period). Surgisphere (the data company) have since stated this was an error of classification of one hospital from Asia. This indicates the need for further error checking throughout the database.”
Further concerns regard “unlikely” data, such as “unusually small reported variances in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes between continents,” 100 mg higher doses of HCQ – when quoted – than are the norm in the US although 66 percent of data are said to come from North American hospitals and other implausible assertions.
In fact, if The Lancet’s study is sincere, it would mean that it included the data of each and every North American COVID-19 patient hospitalized up to April 14, something American doctor James Todaro finds hard to believe. On his Twitter account, he adds:
“Is there a single continent where the Lancet HCQ study numbers make sense? Now for Africa…Surgisphere claims ~25% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths had sophisticated electronic patient data records that included episodes of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation. Doubt it.”
Big data and machine learning that contradict reality
When questioned in the French media about the Lancet study, Didier Raoult said that he could not believe its conclusions, which are even less accurate than mere “Big Data” models, because of his personal experience and the reality he sees every day, in a unit where every patient reaction to medication is discussed twice daily by the staff.
On his Twitter account, Raoult added on May 29 that he and his team have “questions” regarding “the existence” of the company that did data collecting for the Lancet study, Surgisphere. “To our knowledge, there have been many denials and not a single testimony of either a partner hospital or doctor confirming that they have provided data for the study.”
A Yale study calls for urgent prescription of HCQ to COVID-19 outpatients
On May 27, a Yale professor of epidemiology, Harvey A. Risch, published a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology concluding that a hydroxychloroquine treatment combined with the antibiotic azithromycin and zinc had significant positive outcomes and that “these medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.”
Risch noted that with deconfinement policies becoming unavoidable because of public pressure, and new contaminations to be expected, it is important to treat COVID-19 patients before their condition worsens, as the title of his paper makes clear: “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.”
Noting that remdesivir shows “mild effectiveness” in hospital patients but that its effects early on in the coronavirus process have not been studied – and that a number of patients have to be taken off the medication because of side-effects – Risch presented statistics showing that HCQ and associated medication has been used for hundreds of thousands of patients. He quotes a very low mortality rate from cardiac arrythmia associated with the treatment: 9 out of 100,000, to be compared with the many lives saved and hospitalizations avoided by the HCQ-azithromycin treatment.
“The key to returning society toward normal functioning and to preventing huge loss of life, especially among older individuals, people with comorbidities, African Americans and Hispanics and Latinos, is a safe, effective and proactive outpatient treatment that prevents hospitalization in the first place,” he wrote. He noted that the treatment allowed up to “50-fold” efficacy when compared with standard care, and has been shown to be “effective in preventing hospitalization for the overwhelming majority” of at-risk patients.
Risch’s paper quotes several large studies involving over 1,000 patients, with not a single case of cardiac arrythmia being reported.
These massive data are being brushed aside and physicians’ liberty to prescribe medicine as they deem fit are being trampled upon by the powers-that-be.
Suppressed evidence in the “British Medical Journal”?
One example of intriguing suppression of evidence favorable to HCQ was quoted by Prof Raoult on May 26. He noted that a recent article by Chinese researcher Tang et al in The British Medical Journalwas edited before definitive publication:
“Tang et al, BMJ: why were some data in favor of hydroxychloroquine, presented in the preprint version, deleted in the published paper? BMJ editorial board requests?”
The removed text noted “more rapid alleviation of clinical symptoms with SOC plus HCQ than with SOC alone.” (“SOC” means “standard of care.”) The paper is presented in the BMJ as showing that HCQ does not have better outcomes and leads to more “adverse events.”
Lung damage in asymptomatic patients
It should also be noted that Raoult’s most recent published research on PCR testing of 65,992 individuals found lung lesions in 581 of the 933 patients with minimal clinical symptoms who were given low-dose computed tomography (CT) scans. “A discrepancy between spontaneous dyspnea, hypoxemia and lung lesions was observed,” he tweeted in a summary of his findings.
In plain language, this means that people who feel quite well, with no apparent respiratory problems, can in fact have damage to their lungs and may have sequelae that should be monitored. This finding also would justify treating asymptomatic patients testing positive to the coronavirus very early on.
The recent prohibition based on The Lancet paper will not change much in France, said Raoult, because individually, doctors still have their liberty to prescribe; plus the cases of COVID-19 are becoming more and more infrequent.
The World Health Organization also based its previous decision to stop clinical testing with the molecule on the study of The Lancet. But many countries, such as Brazil, have decided to use it massively all the same.
COVID-19: a death toll with a political aim?
All in all, COVID-19 – as it has developed, climaxed and already reduced in many countries – will probably cause fewer deaths than other respiratory infections that claim over 4.25 million lives worldwide every year. On May 27, the world total of COVID-19 related deaths reached 351,000, though there are many questions still open regarding co-morbidity and the principal cause of decease.
Will the death toll of the pandemic be considered high enough to justify a future lockdown? The powers that be have made clear that they expect “second waves” (Raoult does not; it is also he who successfully predicted that the end of lockdown in France on May 11 would not lead to a new surge of infections) and that they have already prepared an emergency reconfinement plan. But the general population might reject this new “epidemic of fear.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-05--Two Conservative leadership candidates oppose COVID-19 vaccine from aborted fetal cell line

PETITION : No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus !
Sign the petition here .
June 5 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Two of the four Conservative Party of Canada ( CPC ) leadership candidates who identify as “ pro-life ” say they have objections to unethically sourced coronavirus vaccines made from fetal cells obtained from aborted babies decades ago after responding to an inquiry from LifeSiteNews on the matter .
Asked by LifeSiteNews if they approve of vaccines derived from the use of fetal cells such as Ad5-nCoV , which uses the HEK293 cell line , Dr. Leslyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strong pro-life take .
“ Canada should hold itself to the highest ethical standard possible , ” Lewis told LifeSiteNews .
“ A nation like ours with the creativeness and ingenuity of our doctors should never need to breach ethics in order to make every effort to save lives.
” Sloan responded to the question about unethically sourced vaccines such as Ad5-nCoV that they are “ reckless.
” “ Canadians should not have to choose between their health and their conscience.
” LifeSiteNews reported that the vaccine candidate Ad5-nCoV uses the HEK293 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fetal cells harvested from an aborted baby decades ago and is the property of Canada ’ s National Research Council ( NRC ) .
In May , the NRC announced a collaboration with the Chinese firm CanSino Biologics Inc. ( CanSinoBIO ) to test its trial coronavirus vaccine , known as Ad5-nCoV , in Canada .
The trial vaccine Ad5-nCoV was co-developed by the Beijing Institute of Biotechnology , Academy of Military Medical Sciences , and CanSinoBIO .
It has already been used in initial human trials since mid-March in China .
Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Canada had approved the coronavirus vaccine Ad5-nCoV to be used in human clinical trials .
LifeSiteNews also asked the other two candidates in the running for the CPC leadership , MP Erin O ’ Toole and Peter MacKay , to give their opinion regarding ethically sourced vaccines .
There has been no response from either of them .
Recently , Lewis and Sloan said they oppose a mandatory coronavirus vaccine and that a person should be able to have a choice whether or not to take one .
Sloan stated his position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email sent to his followers on May 27 , with the title “ Mandatory vaccinations ?
” Thanks , but no thanks !
” “ I am 100 % against a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination , ” Sloan said in a May 27 email .
Lewis told LifeSiteNews last week that she opposes a mandatory coronavirus vaccine .
“ I do not believe that the government should be allowed to force vaccinations on people , ” she said .
“ The decision whether or not to vaccinate should be made by Canadians under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' LifeSiteNews also asked Sloan and Lewis to give their take on whether they approve of the NRC and Trudeau government working together with China regarding a COVID-19 vaccine .
Lewis told LifeSiteNews that she does not approve of the NRC 's decision to work with China on a coronavirus vaccine .
“ China has proven they do not communicate fairly or honestly .
We should hold everything they do in regards to COVID-19 with the highest amount of suspicion.
” Sloan told LifeSiteNews that it 's “ a big red flag ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China on a coronavirus vaccine .
“ Dr .
Kulvinder Gill , president of Concerned Ontario Doctors , has rightly warned that ‘ i ) f the Trudeau government wants Canadians to trust and buy into a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine , partnering with the Chinese Communist Party ’ s military is … the most counterproductive and dangerous thing it could do ’ , ” Sloan told LifeSiteNews .
“ China concealed the seriousness of the pandemic in its early stages by repressing doctors and denying knowledge of human-to-human transmission .
Why would Canada now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that same virus ?
” LifeSiteNews also reached out to O ’ Toole and MacKay , asking them where they stand on the issue of the NRC ’ s decision to work with China .
As of publication time , there has been no response .
Trudeau said in April that he needed “ time ” to reflect upon whether or not a coronavirus vaccine would be made mandatory in Canada .
In Canada , vaccines are not mandatory at the federal level as each province is responsible for their healthcare delivery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provinces such as Ontario and New Brunswick have made certain vaccines mandatory via legislation , with a few exceptions , for children to attend public schools .
In British Columbia , parents must now provide their child ’ s immunization records for their kids to be enrolled in public and private schools .
LifeSiteNews reached out to Trudeau ’ s office for comment on whether his government supports a mandatory coronavirus vaccine .
A representative from his staff referred the question to the Canadian Minister of Health Patty Hajdu ’ s office and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Canada , and parents can opt-out .
“ Vaccinations are not mandatory in Canada ; however , in Ontario , New Brunswick and British Columbia , proof of immunization against certain vaccine preventable diseases , such as measles , mumps and pertussis , is required for children and adolescents to attend school , ” said André Gagnon , communications adviser for Health Canada , to LifeSiteNews .
“ In these provinces , parents can request that their child be exempted from the vaccination requirement on medical or religious grounds , or simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the event of a disease outbreak , unvaccinated children can be excluded from entering school until the outbreak is over .
”

Dr. Leslyn Lewis and MP Derek Sloan do not support a vaccine derived from fetal cells; Erin O'Toole and Peter MacKay did not respond.
PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.
June 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Two of the four Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leadership candidates who identify as “pro-life” say they have objections to unethically sourced coronavirus vaccines made from fetal cells obtained from aborted babies decades ago after responding to an inquiry from LifeSiteNews on the matter.
Asked by LifeSiteNews if they approve of vaccines derived from the use of fetal cells such as Ad5-nCoV, which uses the HEK293 cell line, Dr. Leslyn Lewis and MP Derek Sloan answered with a strong pro-life take.
“Canada should hold itself to the highest ethical standard possible,” Lewis told LifeSiteNews. “A nation like ours with the creativeness and ingenuity of our doctors should never need to breach ethics in order to make every effort to save lives.”
Sloan responded to the question about unethically sourced vaccines such as Ad5-nCoV that they are “reckless.”
“It is reckless and irresponsible,” Sloan told LifeSiteNews.
“Canadians should not have to choose between their health and their conscience.”
LifeSiteNews reported that the vaccine candidate Ad5-nCoV uses the HEK293 cell line, which is made from fetal cells harvested from an aborted baby decades ago and is the property of Canada’s National Research Council (NRC).
In May, the NRC announced a collaboration with the Chinese firm CanSino Biologics Inc. (CanSinoBIO) to test its trial coronavirus vaccine, known as Ad5-nCoV, in Canada.
The trial vaccine Ad5-nCoV was co-developed by the Beijing Institute of Biotechnology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, and CanSinoBIO. It has already been used in initial human trials since mid-March in China.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in mid-May that Health Canada had approved the coronavirus vaccine Ad5-nCoV to be used in human clinical trials.
LifeSiteNews also asked the other two candidates in the running for the CPC leadership, MP Erin O’Toole and Peter MacKay, to give their opinion regarding ethically sourced vaccines. There has been no response from either of them.
Recently, Lewis and Sloan said they oppose a mandatory coronavirus vaccine and that a person should be able to have a choice whether or not to take one.
Sloan stated his position regarding a mandatory coronavirus vaccine in an email sent to his followers on May 27, with the title “Mandatory vaccinations?” Thanks, but no thanks!”
“I am 100% against a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination,” Sloan said in a May 27 email.
Lewis told LifeSiteNews last week that she opposes a mandatory coronavirus vaccine.
“I do not believe that the government should be allowed to force vaccinations on people,” she said.
“The decision whether or not to vaccinate should be made by Canadians under the advice of their personal family doctor.”
LifeSiteNews also asked Sloan and Lewis to give their take on whether they approve of the NRC and Trudeau government working together with China regarding a COVID-19 vaccine.
Lewis told LifeSiteNews that she does not approve of the NRC's decision to work with China on a coronavirus vaccine.
“Not in the slightest,” Lewis told LifeSiteNews.
“China has proven they do not communicate fairly or honestly. We should hold everything they do in regards to COVID-19 with the highest amount of suspicion.”
Sloan told LifeSiteNews that it's “a big red flag” that the NRC chose to work with China on a coronavirus vaccine.
“Dr. Kulvinder Gill, president of Concerned Ontario Doctors, has rightly warned that ‘i)f the Trudeau government wants Canadians to trust and buy into a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, partnering with the Chinese Communist Party’s military is … the most counterproductive and dangerous thing it could do’,” Sloan told LifeSiteNews.
“China concealed the seriousness of the pandemic in its early stages by repressing doctors and denying knowledge of human-to-human transmission. Why would Canada now work with China to develop a vaccine for that same virus?”
LifeSiteNews also reached out to O’Toole and MacKay, asking them where they stand on the issue of the NRC’s decision to work with China. As of publication time, there has been no response.
Trudeau said in April that he needed “time” to reflect upon whether or not a coronavirus vaccine would be made mandatory in Canada.
In Canada, vaccines are not mandatory at the federal level as each province is responsible for their healthcare delivery. At the provincial level, some provinces such as Ontario and New Brunswick have made certain vaccines mandatory via legislation, with a few exceptions, for children to attend public schools.
In British Columbia, parents must now provide their child’s immunization records for their kids to be enrolled in public and private schools.
LifeSiteNews reached out to Trudeau’s office for comment on whether his government supports a mandatory coronavirus vaccine.
A representative from his staff referred the question to the Canadian Minister of Health Patty Hajdu’s office and responded saying that vaccines are not mandatory in Canada, and parents can opt-out.
“Vaccinations are not mandatory in Canada; however, in Ontario, New Brunswick and British Columbia, proof of immunization against certain vaccine preventable diseases, such as measles, mumps and pertussis, is required for children and adolescents to attend school,” said André Gagnon, communications adviser for Health Canada, to LifeSiteNews.
“In these provinces, parents can request that their child be exempted from the vaccination requirement on medical or religious grounds, or simply out of conscience. In such instances, in the event of a disease outbreak, unvaccinated children can be excluded from entering school until the outbreak is over.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-05--Churches may not return to full capacity for 1-2 years, Nova Scotia top doc says

PETITION : Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society !
Sign the petition here .
June 5 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Nova Scotia ’ s chief medical officer told an online forum last week that church services won ’ t return to full capacity for more than a year , perhaps even two .
Dr. Robert Strang , who is also on the national Special Advisory Committee on COVID-19 that advises on national policy on coronavirus protocols , made his remarks during a May 28 Global Leadership Network Forum , the Catholic Register reported .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 50 people , and “ at the most ” 100 , for a year or two until a COVID-19 vaccine is found or Canadians achieve “ herd immunity , ” Strang said .
He appeared to rule out indefinitely that church services would return to full capacity .
“ That ’ s highly questionable if that could safely be done in our new normal , ” Strang said .
The “ highest risk setting ” is one where large numbers of people gather together for long periods of time , Strang contended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing wind instruments “ substantially increase the risk ” of spreading the virus .
A vaccine is “ nowhere in the near future , ” and as for herd immunity , which he defined as “ high levels of immunity in the general population , ” there are “ a lot of questions about whether we ’ ll actually get that with this virus , ” Strang said .
Therefore , governments must use “ strong surveillance ” to get “ full control ” of the virus .
Strang made a distinction between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a healthy , viable community , ” and being designated by governments as “ essential services , ” which “ takes you down a different , bureaucratic , legal path.
” Churches now must consider how to do things “ very differently ” in a “ way that actually respects the need to play a role in protecting each other , protecting our community , ” he said .
Canada ’ s bishops appear to be accepting the government restrictions without objection .
Neil McCarthy , spokesperson for Toronto Cardinal Thomas Collins , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ archdiocese expects restrictions on numbers of worshippers when churches reopen .
“ Everyone would like to know the ‘ date ’ for each phase , but that is largely going to be determined by the health of our country and provinces , ” McCarthy said .
Collins has from the outset of the pandemic been committed to following health officials ’ recommendations and “ McCarthy hasn ’ t seen this as a suppression of religious freedom in any way , and realizes all work is to minimize risk in spreading the virus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
“ Our priority should be love of neighbour , to take care of one another .
Certainly in the short term , it will be difficult to have the wide range of programs that parishes are used to offering week to week , ” McCarthy said .
The Catholic Register also quoted Edmonton Archbishop Richard Smith as saying it “ would be my guess ” that a COVID-19 vaccine would be needed for a return to full public Masses .
However , the Calgary-based Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms ( JCCF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some religious leaders , like Cardinal Thomas Collins , don ’ t see this as a suppression of religious freedom in any way , he does not speak for everyone , ” JCCF lawyer Lisa Bildy said .
Bildy is currently working on a case in Ontario regarding the province restricting religious services to five people unless they are in cars and the particular impact of this on Orthodox Jews .
“ Arbitrary distinctions and double standards , making some gatherings acceptable when they are for an ‘ approved ’ moral cause , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely contrary to the constitutionally-guaranteed and fundamental freedoms of religion and peaceful assembly in Canada , ” Bildy told LifeSiteNews .
She pointed out that it ’ s far from settled science that such measures are needed , and that a growing body of evidence actually suggests otherwise .
Indeed , Nobel laureate and Stanford professor of structural biology Dr. Michael Levitt , Dr. Carl Heneghan , director of Oxford ’ s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine , and researcher Dr. Thomas Meunier are among experts who have criticized lockdowns as ineffective , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will cause more harm than the coronavirus itself .
“ Most of Dr. Strang ’ s prognostications about the virus appear to be speculative and ought not to be the basis of long-term policies , ” Bildy told LifeSiteNews .
“ It is unknown whether there will ever be an effective vaccine , a second wave , or even herd immunity , but the more we learn about this virus , the more we see that it is not nearly as lethal as was initially feared , unless you live in a long-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevertheless , churches now reopening in Alberta , Saskatchewan and B.C .
are subject to a number of restrictions Sunday Masses begin June 7 in Alberta with a maximum cap of one-third capacity of the church or a maximum 50 people , whichever is less .
Contrary to LifeSiteNews ’ s earlier report based on provincial guidances , Catholics in Alberta are allowed to receive Holy Communion , but only in the hand .
They are also expected to provide personal contact information when they attend Mass .
Sunday Masses begin in Saskatchewan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of one-third capacity of the church or 30 people .
Masses began May 23 in Vancouver , British Columbia .
with a cap of 50 people .
Meanwhile , churches remain closed in Ontario , and Bishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa said in a May 28 statement that he expects they will remain so until the end of June .
Cardinal Collins has established four working groups to look into a phased reopening of churches , but his public statements mention no possible date of reopening .
Bildy pointed out that governments have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other sectors .
While “ businesses , stores and manufacturers can be trusted to put measures in place to protect their workers and customers while indoors , often in numbers far exceeding 50 or 100 , and have been doing so since the pandemic was declared , ” she said .
“ Faith groups apparently can not be so trusted.
” LifeSiteNews contacted the CCCB to ask if the bishops are lobbying governments to have churches recognized as an “ essential service , ” but received no response .
Contact your bishop and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as essential services .
Contact information for bishops can be found here , and for MPs , here , or here .
Catholic layman : Why I refuse to wear mask , provide contact details before entering church

Canadian bishops appear to be accepting the imposition of restrictions without resistance.
PETITION: Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society! Sign the petition here.
June 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Nova Scotia’s chief medical officer told an online forum last week that church services won’t return to full capacity for more than a year, perhaps even two.
Dr. Robert Strang, who is also on the national Special Advisory Committee on COVID-19 that advises on national policy on coronavirus protocols, made his remarks during a May 28 Global Leadership Network Forum, the Catholic Register reported.
Churches should expect attendance to be restricted to 50 people, and “at the most” 100, for a year or two until a COVID-19 vaccine is found or Canadians achieve “herd immunity,” Strang said.
He appeared to rule out indefinitely that church services would return to full capacity.
“That’s highly questionable if that could safely be done in our new normal,” Strang said.
The “highest risk setting” is one where large numbers of people gather together for long periods of time, Strang contended. He also stated that singing and playing wind instruments “substantially increase the risk” of spreading the virus.
A vaccine is “nowhere in the near future,” and as for herd immunity, which he defined as “high levels of immunity in the general population,” there are “a lot of questions about whether we’ll actually get that with this virus,” Strang said.
Therefore, governments must use “strong surveillance” to get “full control” of the virus.
Strang made a distinction between faith communities being “essential in building a healthy, viable community,” and being designated by governments as “essential services,” which “takes you down a different, bureaucratic, legal path.”
Churches now must consider how to do things “very differently” in a “way that actually respects the need to play a role in protecting each other, protecting our community,” he said.
Canada’s bishops appear to be accepting the government restrictions without objection.
Neil McCarthy, spokesperson for Toronto Cardinal Thomas Collins, told the Catholic Register that the Toronto archdiocese expects restrictions on numbers of worshippers when churches reopen.
“Everyone would like to know the ‘date’ for each phase, but that is largely going to be determined by the health of our country and provinces,” McCarthy said.
Collins has from the outset of the pandemic been committed to following health officials’ recommendations and “McCarthy hasn’t seen this as a suppression of religious freedom in any way, and realizes all work is to minimize risk in spreading the virus,” Catholic Register’s Mickey Conlon wrote.
“Our priority should be love of neighbour, to take care of one another. Certainly in the short term, it will be difficult to have the wide range of programs that parishes are used to offering week to week,” McCarthy said.
The Catholic Register also quoted Edmonton Archbishop Richard Smith as saying it “would be my guess” that a COVID-19 vaccine would be needed for a return to full public Masses.
However, the Calgary-based Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) takes another view.
“While some religious leaders, like Cardinal Thomas Collins, don’t see this as a suppression of religious freedom in any way, he does not speak for everyone,” JCCF lawyer Lisa Bildy said.
Bildy is currently working on a case in Ontario regarding the province restricting religious services to five people unless they are in cars and the particular impact of this on Orthodox Jews.
“Arbitrary distinctions and double standards, making some gatherings acceptable when they are for an ‘approved’ moral cause, but expressly prohibiting religious services, are absolutely contrary to the constitutionally-guaranteed and fundamental freedoms of religion and peaceful assembly in Canada,” Bildy told LifeSiteNews.
She pointed out that it’s far from settled science that such measures are needed, and that a growing body of evidence actually suggests otherwise.
Indeed, Nobel laureate and Stanford professor of structural biology Dr. Michael Levitt, Dr. Carl Heneghan, director of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and researcher Dr. Thomas Meunier are among experts who have criticized lockdowns as ineffective, with Heneghan warning that the consequences of lockdowns will cause more harm than the coronavirus itself.
“Most of Dr. Strang’s prognostications about the virus appear to be speculative and ought not to be the basis of long-term policies,” Bildy told LifeSiteNews.
“It is unknown whether there will ever be an effective vaccine, a second wave, or even herd immunity, but the more we learn about this virus, the more we see that it is not nearly as lethal as was initially feared, unless you live in a long-term care facility,” Bildy added.
Nevertheless, churches now reopening in Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C. are subject to a number of restrictions
Sunday Masses begin June 7 in Alberta with a maximum cap of one-third capacity of the church or a maximum 50 people, whichever is less.
Contrary to LifeSiteNews’s earlier report based on provincial guidances, Catholics in Alberta are allowed to receive Holy Communion, but only in the hand. They are also expected to provide personal contact information when they attend Mass.
Sunday Masses begin in Saskatchewan on June 8 with a maximum cap of one-third capacity of the church or 30 people. Masses began May 23 in Vancouver, British Columbia. with a cap of 50 people.
Meanwhile, churches remain closed in Ontario, and Bishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa said in a May 28 statement that he expects they will remain so until the end of June.
Cardinal Collins has established four working groups to look into a phased reopening of churches, but his public statements mention no possible date of reopening.
Bildy pointed out that governments have placed more severe restrictions on churches than other sectors.
While “businesses, stores and manufacturers can be trusted to put measures in place to protect their workers and customers while indoors, often in numbers far exceeding 50 or 100, and have been doing so since the pandemic was declared,” she said.
“Faith groups apparently cannot be so trusted.”
LifeSiteNews contacted the CCCB to ask if the bishops are lobbying governments to have churches recognized as an “essential service,” but received no response.
Contact your bishop and MP to ask that churches be designated as essential services. Contact information for bishops can be found here, and for MPs, here, or here.
RELATED:
Catholic layman: Why I refuse to wear mask, provide contact details before entering church
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-05--Why Christians shouldn’t jump on bandwagon of progressive groups like Black Lives Matter

June 5 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – For the past week and a half , social media has melted down into a dumpster fire of virtue-signalling , accusations , anger , and finger-pointing .
If you didn ’ t black out your profile photo for # BlackOutTuesday , you were probably insufficiently committed to combatting racism .
If you didn ’ t immediately embrace Black Lives Matter , it was your knee on George Floyd ’ s neck , too .
If you refused to climb aboard the raucous bandwagon without first asking who was driving it , Christians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they were irredeemable racists .
One gets the sense that running into a view that differed from their own made these Christians feel a bit persecuted , and relished their brief participation in the ranks of the oppressed .
What has been incredibly frustrating is that the narrative of a “ divided America ” is not really accurate in this specific instance .
I ’ d wager that around 90 % of Americans agree on two things : George Floyd was brutally murdered , and the perpetrator should be brought to justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is wrong .
Responding to a murder by creating more suffering is obviously not the answer , and people of good faith agree on that .
We can all agree on these two basic facts , which means that in reality , we should have much common ground to work from .
But that discussion isn ’ t happening .
One of the reasons for that is because every social justice grifter in America is hitching their bandwagon to George Floyd ’ s hearse .
I can say , heartily , that black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree with those who insist on responding with “ all lives matter , ” because I understand that attention should be focused on the injustice at hand .
As a pro-life activist , I believe that all lives matter but spend much of my time focusing on pre-born lives .
We don ’ t need to talk about every injustice in order to speak about any injustice .
I also disagree with those who insist on dredging up George Floyd ’ s past .
Regardless of who he was and what he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a knee on his neck in the street , and the enthusiastic discussion of his criminal record is often an attempt to deflect from the crime at hand .
With all of that said , however , I can not support the organization Black Lives Matter .
As I ’ ve noted before , their guiding principles include the promotion of the LGBT agenda and new and radical interpretations of gender ( they want to “ dismantle cis-gender privilege , ” for example . )
Their leaders are , without exception , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was simply about seeking justice for George Floyd and Ahmoud Ahmary and Philando Castille , I would be happy to voice my support without qualification .
But this movement is not simply about that .
It is about remaking society and creating a progressive utopia out of the ashes of the society that we now inhabit .
And that is why I can not climb onto a bandwagon when folks with those beliefs are the ones driving it .
It has been frankly exhausting to watch progressives accuse anyone who refuses to parrot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressives—those who have not completely relinquished grip on reality—know that this is not true .
Racism is real , it is present , and anyone who doubts that should listen to the experiences of folks like Republican Senator Tim Scott .
We should have a conversation about racism , and we should take meaningful steps to address it .
I think that a majority of Americans agree on this , and that much progress could be possible .
But because political opportunists and media carpetbaggers insist on an agenda that encompasses every imaginable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been deliberately torched—and anybody who tries to say “ I agree with this and not that ” is shouted down as a racist .
The vast majority of Americans were horrified by George Floyd ’ s death .
The vast majority of Americans are willing to listen to real solutions ( if they were proposed . )
But because many social justice warriors and progressives insist that to talk about anything we must talk about everything—including issues where we vehemently disagree—the common ground vanishes , the discussion disintegrates , and nothing gets done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who do not want to address racism ” and “ let ’ s defund the police force and break the gender binary.
” There is a huge amount of space between those positions , and that is where most of us are .
It is a crying shame that the silent majority is being ignored .
Jonathon ’ s new podcast , The Van Maren Show , is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement .
A recent documentary , AKA Jane Roe , released last month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roe of Roe v. Wade , was paid to join the pro-life movement .
In the latest episode of The Van Maren Show , four of McCorvey 's close friends join Van Maren in speaking about her dedication to the pro-life movement .
Listen to McCorvey 's godmother , Lynn Mills ; pro-life activist Karen Garnett ; president of Operation Rescue Troy Newman ; and pro-life activist Patrick Mahoney .
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below :

This movement is not about giving justice to George Floyd, but about remaking society and creating a progressive utopia out of the ashes of the society that we now inhabit.
PETITION: Yes to reform. No to riots & revolution Sign petition here.
June 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – For the past week and a half, social media has melted down into a dumpster fire of virtue-signalling, accusations, anger, and finger-pointing. If you didn’t black out your profile photo for #BlackOutTuesday, you were probably insufficiently committed to combatting racism. If you didn’t immediately embrace Black Lives Matter, it was your knee on George Floyd’s neck, too. If you refused to climb aboard the raucous bandwagon without first asking who was driving it, Christians of a certain type relished telling others that they were irredeemable racists. One gets the sense that running into a view that differed from their own made these Christians feel a bit persecuted, and relished their brief participation in the ranks of the oppressed.
What has been incredibly frustrating is that the narrative of a “divided America” is not really accurate in this specific instance. I’d wager that around 90% of Americans agree on two things: George Floyd was brutally murdered, and the perpetrator should be brought to justice; and looting and burning down cities is wrong. Responding to a murder by creating more suffering is obviously not the answer, and people of good faith agree on that. We can all agree on these two basic facts, which means that in reality, we should have much common ground to work from.
But that discussion isn’t happening. One of the reasons for that is because every social justice grifter in America is hitching their bandwagon to George Floyd’s hearse. I can say, heartily, that black lives matter. I don’t agree with those who insist on responding with “all lives matter,” because I understand that attention should be focused on the injustice at hand. As a pro-life activist, I believe that all lives matter but spend much of my time focusing on pre-born lives. We don’t need to talk about every injustice in order to speak about any injustice. I also disagree with those who insist on dredging up George Floyd’s past. Regardless of who he was and what he did, he did not deserve to die with a knee on his neck in the street, and the enthusiastic discussion of his criminal record is often an attempt to deflect from the crime at hand.
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
With all of that said, however, I cannot support the organization Black Lives Matter. As I’ve noted before, their guiding principles include the promotion of the LGBT agenda and new and radical interpretations of gender (they want to “dismantle cis-gender privilege,” for example.) Their leaders are, without exception, radically pro-abortion. If Black Lives Matter was simply about seeking justice for George Floyd and Ahmoud Ahmary and Philando Castille, I would be happy to voice my support without qualification. But this movement is not simply about that. It is about remaking society and creating a progressive utopia out of the ashes of the society that we now inhabit. And that is why I cannot climb onto a bandwagon when folks with those beliefs are the ones driving it.
It has been frankly exhausting to watch progressives accuse anyone who refuses to parrot their lines as racist, when those progressives—those who have not completely relinquished grip on reality—know that this is not true. Racism is real, it is present, and anyone who doubts that should listen to the experiences of folks like Republican Senator Tim Scott. We should have a conversation about racism, and we should take meaningful steps to address it. I think that a majority of Americans agree on this, and that much progress could be possible. But because political opportunists and media carpetbaggers insist on an agenda that encompasses every imaginable social issue, the common ground has been deliberately torched—and anybody who tries to say “I agree with this and not that” is shouted down as a racist.
The vast majority of Americans were horrified by George Floyd’s death. The vast majority of Americans are willing to listen to real solutions (if they were proposed.) But because many social justice warriors and progressives insist that to talk about anything we must talk about everything—including issues where we vehemently disagree—the common ground vanishes, the discussion disintegrates, and nothing gets done. The two positions are not “people who do not want to address racism” and “let’s defund the police force and break the gender binary.” There is a huge amount of space between those positions, and that is where most of us are. It is a crying shame that the silent majority is being ignored.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. A recent documentary, AKA Jane Roe, released last month, claims that Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, was paid to join the pro-life movement. In the latest episode of The Van Maren Show, four of McCorvey's close friends join Van Maren in speaking about her dedication to the pro-life movement. Listen to McCorvey's godmother, Lynn Mills; pro-life activist Karen Garnett; president of Operation Rescue Troy Newman; and pro-life activist Patrick Mahoney. You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-05--Wisconsin govt changes course, lifts special restrictions on Catholics after bishops’ outcry

WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 5 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The Public Health Department for the City of Madison and Dane County , Wisconsin put out a new “ Forward Dane ” order today , removing a 50-person cap on in-person religious services that did not apply to any similar secular activities .
The new order came after the Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison stood up for its right to free exercise of religion .
Global law firms Sidley Austin and Troutman Sanders , along with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sent a letter to Dane County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rhodes-Conway , and Public Health Director Janel Heinrich on Wednesday , June 3 .
The letter explained that Madison/Dane County ’ s arbitrary 50-person cap on houses of worship violated the First Amendment as well as the Wisconsin Constitution .
Because the Diocese stood up for its rights , Catholic churches in Madison/Dane County will now conduct in-person Masses at the same 25 percent capacity level as secular activities such as malls and theaters , but with even more rigorous social distancing and hygiene protocols .
Under Madison/Dane County ’ s previous order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , spas , gyms , salons , museums , movie theaters , community centers , bowling alleys , skating rinks , and trampoline parks were allowed to open at 25 percent capacity , while houses of worship were subject to an arbitrary 50-person cap regardless of how large the church building was .
This meant that in some cases , Catholic churches in Madison were held to less than five percent capacity .
Madison ’ s mayor also announced that public protests were not subject to government restrictions at all .
The legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in-person worship at just 50 people was discriminatory and targeted the Catholic Church for selective enforcement .
“ We are pleased that the County and the City have ended the unequal 50-person cap on religious gatherings .
As bishop , it is my duty to ensure that Sunday Mass be available as widely as possible to the Catholic faithful , while following best practices when it comes to public health , ” said Bishop Donald Hying , Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison .
“ Indeed , in a time of deep division , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church to provide solace and comfort to all , in the great tradition of American religious freedom .
We look forward to working together with the County and City to continue the reopening process in a safe , cooperative , and responsible manner.
” After Madison-Dane County officials released the first “ Forward Dane ” executive order on May 18 which listed houses of worship as “ essential services ” thus allowing them to resume in-person services at 25 percent capacity , the Diocese of Madison quickly put together a plan for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hygiene protocols developed in accordance with CDC and WHO guidelines .
But after the Diocese announced its careful plan , the City of Madison/Dane County abruptly reversed course , adding a brand-new restriction on houses of worship , limiting them to just 50 people at each religious service regardless of the size of the building .
Following its May 22 order , the Madison/Dane County Health Department multiple times called and visited Diocesan officials and parishes to inform them that surveillance officials would be sent to churches and fines of up to $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which more than 50 people were gathered for Mass .
“ We ’ re glad that Madison and Dane County came to their senses , but it shouldn ’ t have taken so long , ” said Eric Rassbach , vice president and senior counsel at Becket .
“ The First Amendment protects both prayer and protest .
Putting an arbitrary numerical cap on worship services while allowing thousands to protest makes no sense from a legal or public health perspective .
Most other governments nationwide have already lifted their COVID-related restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should take note and come into compliance with the First Amendment .
”

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Public Health Department for the City of Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin put out a new “Forward Dane” order today, removing a 50-person cap on in-person religious services that did not apply to any similar secular activities. The new order came after the Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison stood up for its right to free exercise of religion. Global law firms Sidley Austin and Troutman Sanders, along with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sent a letter to Dane County Executive Joe Parisi, Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway, and Public Health Director Janel Heinrich on Wednesday, June 3. The letter explained that Madison/Dane County’s arbitrary 50-person cap on houses of worship violated the First Amendment as well as the Wisconsin Constitution. Because the Diocese stood up for its rights, Catholic churches in Madison/Dane County will now conduct in-person Masses at the same 25 percent capacity level as secular activities such as malls and theaters, but with even more rigorous social distancing and hygiene protocols.
Under Madison/Dane County’s previous order, shopping malls, bars, restaurants, spas, gyms, salons, museums, movie theaters, community centers, bowling alleys, skating rinks, and trampoline parks were allowed to open at 25 percent capacity, while houses of worship were subject to an arbitrary 50-person cap regardless of how large the church building was. This meant that in some cases, Catholic churches in Madison were held to less than five percent capacity. Madison’s mayor also announced that public protests were not subject to government restrictions at all. The legal letter sent on Wednesday explained that capping in-person worship at just 50 people was discriminatory and targeted the Catholic Church for selective enforcement.
“We are pleased that the County and the City have ended the unequal 50-person cap on religious gatherings. As bishop, it is my duty to ensure that Sunday Mass be available as widely as possible to the Catholic faithful, while following best practices when it comes to public health,” said Bishop Donald Hying, Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison. “Indeed, in a time of deep division, it is more important than ever for the Church to provide solace and comfort to all, in the great tradition of American religious freedom. We look forward to working together with the County and City to continue the reopening process in a safe, cooperative, and responsible manner.”
After Madison-Dane County officials released the first “Forward Dane” executive order on May 18 which listed houses of worship as “essential services” thus allowing them to resume in-person services at 25 percent capacity, the Diocese of Madison quickly put together a plan for safely reopening with rigorous social distancing and hygiene protocols developed in accordance with CDC and WHO guidelines. But after the Diocese announced its careful plan, the City of Madison/Dane County abruptly reversed course, adding a brand-new restriction on houses of worship, limiting them to just 50 people at each religious service regardless of the size of the building. Following its May 22 order, the Madison/Dane County Health Department multiple times called and visited Diocesan officials and parishes to inform them that surveillance officials would be sent to churches and fines of up to $1000 would be imposed for every instance in which more than 50 people were gathered for Mass.
“We’re glad that Madison and Dane County came to their senses, but it shouldn’t have taken so long,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The First Amendment protects both prayer and protest. Putting an arbitrary numerical cap on worship services while allowing thousands to protest makes no sense from a legal or public health perspective. Most other governments nationwide have already lifted their COVID-related restrictions on worship. The few remaining holdouts should take note and come into compliance with the First Amendment.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-05--Supreme Court to decide if adoption orgs have a right to refuse same-sex parents

PETITION : Yes to reform .
No to riots & revolution !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 5 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Trump administration and conservative Alliance Defending Freedom ( ADF ) are weighing in on the side of religious adoption agencies in Philadelphia , as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether those agencies have a right to choose to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father .
In Fulton v. Philadelphia , Philadelphia foster mothers Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch are defending the faith-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starting in 2018 , the City of Philadelphia began targeting and threatening to shut down Catholic Social Services unless it violates its sincere beliefs .
Fulton has fostered more than 40 children over 25 years in partnership with Catholic Social Services ( CSS ) in Philadelphia , and Simms-Busch is a former social worker who adopted the children she fostered through CSS .
Both mothers chose CSS because the agency shares their values and beliefs , and both have relied heavily on CSS support during their foster care journey .
A federal appeals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CSS , who have urged the Supreme Court to protect the ministry that serves Philadelphia ’ s most vulnerable , at-risk children .
“ Governmental action tainted by hostility to religion fails strict scrutiny almost by definition , ” reads an amicus brief authored by U.S .
Solicitor General Noel Francisco .
“ This court has never recognized even a legitimate governmental interest — much less a compelling one — that justifies hostility toward religion.
” “ This case concerns the application of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contract allowing Catholic Social Services to help place children in the City with foster parents , on the basis of Catholic Social Services ’ unwillingness to endorse same-sex couples as foster parents , ” it continues .
“ The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the free exercise of religion .
It also has a substantial interest in the enforcement of rules prohibiting discrimination by government contractors.
” ADF ’ s own brief makes the case that there is a “ national shortage of loving homes for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been neglected or abused and are now in state custody.
” “ Yet government officials are driving away faith-based adoption providers because those officials dislike the providers ’ religious beliefs about marriage , ” it argues .
“ Purging these providers does not help a single child find a forever home .
To the contrary , a diverse array of providers recruits more families , and faith-based agencies do some of the best work finding homes for hard-to-place children and those in large sibling groups .
Ignoring this , officials have persuaded courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of religious providers.
” In addition , a variety of social science literature supports the conviction that children are best served by homes with both a mother and a father , as each sex tends to bring unique strengthes and emphases to parenting , which complement one another ; and gives children a positive role model of their own sex as well as helping them understand and relate to the opposite sex .
By contrast , a homosexual male couple would by definition lack a mother , and a lesbian couple would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains to be seen how the case will fare at the Supreme Court , which has four consistent liberals , two consistent conservatives ( Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito ) , and three who tend to side with conservatives but remain somewhat uncertain ( Justices Neil Gorscuh and Brett Kavanaugh , and Chief Justice John Roberts ) .
Roberts in particular recently joined liberal justices as the deciding vote to allow California to continue placing severe constraints on churches ’ right to hold in-person church services .

PETITION: Yes to reform. No to riots & revolution! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Trump administration and conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) are weighing in on the side of religious adoption agencies in Philadelphia, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether those agencies have a right to choose to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father.
In Fulton v. Philadelphia, Philadelphia foster mothers Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch are defending the faith-based agency that brought their families together. Starting in 2018, the City of Philadelphia began targeting and threatening to shut down Catholic Social Services unless it violates its sincere beliefs.
Fulton has fostered more than 40 children over 25 years in partnership with Catholic Social Services (CSS) in Philadelphia, and Simms-Busch is a former social worker who adopted the children she fostered through CSS. Both mothers chose CSS because the agency shares their values and beliefs, and both have relied heavily on CSS support during their foster care journey. A federal appeals court ruled against the foster mothers and CSS, who have urged the Supreme Court to protect the ministry that serves Philadelphia’s most vulnerable, at-risk children.
“Governmental action tainted by hostility to religion fails strict scrutiny almost by definition,” reads an amicus brief authored by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco. “This court has never recognized even a legitimate governmental interest — much less a compelling one — that justifies hostility toward religion.”
“This case concerns the application of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the City of Philadelphia’s termination of a contract allowing Catholic Social Services to help place children in the City with foster parents, on the basis of Catholic Social Services’ unwillingness to endorse same-sex couples as foster parents,” it continues. “The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the free exercise of religion. It also has a substantial interest in the enforcement of rules prohibiting discrimination by government contractors.”
ADF’s own brief makes the case that there is a “national shortage of loving homes for our most needy children: those who have been neglected or abused and are now in state custody.”
“Yet government officials are driving away faith-based adoption providers because those officials dislike the providers’ religious beliefs about marriage,” it argues. “Purging these providers does not help a single child find a forever home. To the contrary, a diverse array of providers recruits more families, and faith-based agencies do some of the best work finding homes for hard-to-place children and those in large sibling groups. Ignoring this, officials have persuaded courts to overlook these realities—and the free-exercise rights of religious providers.”
In addition, a variety of social science literature supports the conviction that children are best served by homes with both a mother and a father, as each sex tends to bring unique strengthes and emphases to parenting, which complement one another; and gives children a positive role model of their own sex as well as helping them understand and relate to the opposite sex. By contrast, a homosexual male couple would by definition lack a mother, and a lesbian couple would be unable to provide a father.
It remains to be seen how the case will fare at the Supreme Court, which has four consistent liberals, two consistent conservatives (Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito), and three who tend to side with conservatives but remain somewhat uncertain (Justices Neil Gorscuh and Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts).
Roberts in particular recently joined liberal justices as the deciding vote to allow California to continue placing severe constraints on churches’ right to hold in-person church services.
Share