Feb 042021

John William Godward Dolce Far Niente (Sweet Idleness, or A Pompeian Fishpond) 1904



One year into the continuing COVID emergency, it’s high time to ask questions about the “legal status” of various measures and restrictions applied by various governments- as well as their other policies. Having those questions asked out in the open is good for everyone, not least for the governments themselves. If only because a government doesn’t make law, it is only supposed to abide by it while governing.

Which means the law has to be tested by courts. That someone would have to start a court case to do this in these unusual and “extreme” times is already a step too far; courts should take that upon themselves (and I know, courts don’t usually do that). Whenever a government announces another measure or restriction, its legality should be tested immediately. It is not a good sign that this hardly appears to happen. The government itself should initiate the process.

Imagine if a court waits a year or more to issue an opinion on the measures, and finds -some of- them to be illegal. How do you explain that to people, as a government, or as a court? People who’ve lost their jobs, their savings, their businesses, and are then told it was all illegal to begin with?! Nobody should want that mess.


Much of what governments decide is presented as being justified by the term “emergency”. But this particular “emergency” has lasted for a year now, and you could begin by asking a court how long an “emergency” can and should be able to last. Also, what extra powers can a government claim just because it chooses to label something an emergency? Before you know it, it starts to feel like a dictatorship.

Applicable legislation will differ from country to country, but there is little doubt that in most western democracies, laws concerning the legal powers of a government will be quite similar. If only because they copied from each other all the time. Governments do all appear to think they have a lot of power, though, and I personally would like to see where that power is engraved in their respective laws, and what part of it is truly democratic.

A bit of an aside, something I’ve talked about multiple times, and something I think perhaps originates in legal overreach: Our societies appear to have become one dimensional (never a good idea) : governments act as if there is only one problem, COVID, and discard all others, cancers, mental health, economic bereavement.

Also one dimensional: the only response to COVID is a vaccine; all other possible responses are ignored. This is curious in a 3-dimensional world, though perhaps not in a one dimensional one. Still, even there too, the law must be tested.


Back to legal issues: Does a government have the legal standing to force millions of people not to work, millions of businesses not to open, millions of kids not to go to school? My answer would be: perhaps, but certainly never before they’ve exhausted every single other avenue to solve the problem they seek to solve.

And that is something no government I’ve seen has done. Still, what does the law say? If and when you, as a government, allow an emergency to last for a year, then what part of the blame for that falls on you?

For instance, none have attempted to boost the immune systems of their citizens, they’ve simply put facemasks on weak immune systems. But COVID is a disease that attacks weaknesses in the immune system. And we know most westerners have a vitamin D deficiency, especially in winter, which hugely weakens their immune systems. Still, governments declare month after month of lockdowns and measures without having provided adequate vitamin D, which is dirt cheap, to their citizens, and then tell them to go get vaccinated, or else.

And there’s more: Professor of Medicine Dr Peter McCullough says: “..the virus invades inside cells, so we have to use drugs that go inside the cell and work to reduce viral replication“. “The drugs that work within the cell and actually reduce viral replication are hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, doxycycline and azithromycin” Have you seen those drugs made available, let alone promoted, where you live?

You don’t even have to make vitamin D and ivermectin mandatory to make them work, people will take them voluntarily. Plenty studies say that boosting your vitamin D levels decreases your risk of getting infected with COVID as well as dying from it by 50% or more. And then you take it from there: things will add up: 50% now, becomes 50%+x next week, and so on. Who needs a vaccine at all? And that’s before you even mention ivermectin, of which Dr Pierre Kory said: “If you take ivermectin, you won’t get sick”. As in: end of story, end of problem.


Whether a government can make a vaccine mandatory is questionable to begin with. But a vaccine that hasn’t been approved, other than through an emergency authorization, and for which proper research won’t be completed for at least two-three years? What is the legal basis for that? On top of that, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are based on mRNA technology that has never before been tested on humans. How do you legally make those mandatory? How slippery is this legal scale, and how far have we already slid down it?

And then we want to issue vaccination passports to prove people have had a jab or two of these untested things? Look, they may well work, but we don’t know that, and we won’t for quite some time. But in the meantime we still want to curtail people’s freedom of movement for not getting an untested vaccine?

These questions have nothing to do with anti-vaxxers, if anything they’re about blind pro-vaxxers. And about the law. Go ask a judge, go ask the highest court in your land, what their respective laws say about this situation.


The following, sent to me by a friend, is from a Greek lady, Nelly Psarrou, who has a background in Political science and Law. She’s asking the questions in her country that everybody should ask in theirs. You can’t let a government absorb emergency powers without asking these questions. It is too dangerous.



Whether or not you get vaccinated, get informed!


1. Vaccination, like any medical action, requires citizen consent. Consent is not regarded as valid if it is not fully informed, nor “if it is the result of deceit, fraud or threat, or conflicts with the demands of decency” (Medical Code of Ethics, Greek law 3418/2005). Failing this, the consent is waived and the person/body who has exerted the pressure or extortion to vaccinate is subject to penal sanctions and/or civil damages in the event of harm.

2. Vaccination is not a prerequisite for the exercise of any other institutional requirement, such as education or otherwise recognized basic right such as the right to employment and free movement. Correspondingly, no private company has the legal authority to impose restrictions violating citizens’ constitutional rights. Discrimination and Stigmatization are forbidden (Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, UNESCO). Moreover, imposition of a medical action in any manner constitutes torture and is illegal.

3. Non-consensual participation by citizens in medical research is specifically forbidden, as prescribed by the Nuremberg Code instituted following the trial of the Nazi-collaborator doctors. Any coercion of people to participate in research transforms them into experimental animals and amounts to a reintroduction of Nazi practices and crimes on a public health pretext.

The COVID19 vaccine has an emergency licence (not final approval), which means that research and clinical studies are still under way (they are to be completed in 2023)! It is INVESTIGATIONAL, as declared by the companies themselves, and any forced vaccination with it by any means (legal obligation, extortion, fraud) falls in the category of coercion in research, which is BANNED under numerous laws and international agreements and has penal and civil consequences.

4. As indicated by doctors and companies, the vaccines HAVE NOT BEEN STUDIED to determine whether they reduce viral infection or to ascertain the duration of immunity and/or the effects of their interaction with other drugs or vaccines. Therefore, neither are other people protected from infection by the virus, nor will restrictions be lifted – as is now announced.

5. The measures themselves which have been imposed are both illegal and unscientific. They are illegal in so far as they impose medical actions (e.g. the mask), they impose individual administrative measures restricting freedoms without individual legal mandate (Article 5 of the Constitution) and THEY ARE NOT EMERGENCY AND TEMPORARY (for example since June everybody talks about a second wave of viral infection, and this has already lasted for months).

The measures are unscientific in many ways. Specifically a) they ignore the strengthening of primary health care, which is demanded by all scientific specialists. b) they impose lockdown, which is classifiable, from a medical viewpoint, as a criminal policy (it does not reduce infections and it increases mortality from other causes, worsening health overall – mental illness, cancellation of programmed examinations and operations, c) they impose masks (which is a medical action) outdoors, which does not provide protection against the virus as they themselves assert: “they are a “symbolic measure”, a slogan which says MASKS EVERYWHERE! ) d) they focus on vaccination as the only solution, instead of including the existing possibility of effective treatment with pharmaceutical drugs.

6. From the moment that vaccinations started, serious side-effects have already been recorded, auto-immune reactions but also deaths, which are, however, attributed to underlying conditions. The provision of new vaccines stopped immediately, the official justification being the impossibility of production – which had just commenced. At the same time doctors working with the government as advisors are evidently in receipt of funding from the same companies that are producing the vaccines: that amounts to, and/or would amount to, “conflict of interest”. Finally, the Prime Minister has claimed falsely that vaccination is voluntary, yet as early as 25/2/2020 the Parliament had voted the relevant laws: they are simply not in a position yet to enforce them because they do not have the vaccines.

What is most important is that citizens are denied information and doctors of alternative persuasion are muzzled, ridiculed and hounded! The mass media have already been paid for spreading this disinformation, with the 40 million euros “for strengthening information on the Corona virus” and the writing off of 30 million euros of debt. And we know that information is the most precious value in a society of freely thinking citizens. This, informing our fellow human beings is the number one priority and a socially responsible action. Seek out the information and disseminate it freely.

1. For all the above, articles with data: www.nellypsarrou.com
2. The views of numerous specialists: Radio Crete (the programs of the journalist Sachinis (in Greek) https://www.youtube.com/user/984radio



As for point 6 and 7, I think it’s not very useful to claim doctors and media are being paid off, without linking to evidence you have of that. Stick with the legal issues if you can’t.

And the legal issues raised by Nelly Psarrou look strong. Time for a lawyer and a court.




We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.



Support the Automatic Earth in 2021. Click at the top of the sidebars to donate with Paypal and Patreon.


Aug 202020

Édouard Manet Woman with a jug 1858-60



John Day is one of the “resident physicians” at the Automatic Earth, who posts on a very regular basis in our Comments section.

I asked him recently for an update of preferred treatments for Coronavirus/COVID19, because I noticed new treatments being discussed, in particular ivermectin/doxycycline, which appeared to be taking the place of hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin in some cases.

As per John, below, there doesn’t seem to be much difference; that is, both do fine, if and when applied in timely fashion. In combination with zinc, of course. Azithromycin and doxycycline are antibiotics.

We’ve been discussing HCQ for a long time here, and John’s been a fan since even before he started treating patients with it.

Did you notice that the first criticisms of HCQ in the US et al were all about the death risk, and now that’s totally gone, and people like Fauci only claim it’s ineffective?! And it probably is, if taken too late, or without zinc, but have you ever seen Fauci mention zinc in the discussion?

An estimated 200 million Africans were given chloroquine as a malaria drug since the 1960s, and there’s not one report I’ve seen of people dying from it. It’s still prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, no reports of significant numbers of deaths there either.


John provides an overview here of recent developments, reports etc., which is of necessity always in transition. Keep on checking back. Delve in deep or just scan for essentials.

Even earlier than HCQ and ivermectin, and as John again repeats, you need vitamin D, which is essential for strenghtening the linings of blood vessels and lymphatic vessels, and is sort of your first defense against a potential infection with a virus that attacks exactly those, before it happens. Boost your vitamin D levels as a precaution; it’s cheap and effective.

But I’m not the doctor, John is:



John Day: This is a lot, folks, and I did not really delve into use of high dose steroids, ventilators and paralyzing medicines in hospital treatment. We should be avoiding that whole scenario. I remember when AIDS became a disease for outpatient treatment. That was dramatic. Pills that worked made it possible.

Roger Seheult MD Discusses the role of vitamin-D in helping the body fight the effects of SARS-CoV-2 virus, with special focus on the arterial lining, the endothelium, where the battle for life is fought. Recent paper has more vitamin-D data, and it’s all the same, just more. Take 5000 units per day, or whatever it takes to get your level above 60. He recommends 50,000U initial dose for all hospitalized patients.

Look at 11:30 to 13:30 (the last 2 minutes) for specifics on vitamin-D in hospital by this critical care pulmonologist. This COVID-19 update series is excellent!

JCEM paper cited in lecture: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/97/8/2792/2823373

Charoenngam/Holick paper cited in lecture: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342970598_Immunologic_Effects_of_Vitamin_D_on_Human_Health_and_Disease

This is a comprehensive aggregation of papers relating directly to Vitamin-D levels and supplementation in COVID-19 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7276229/

This much cited Indonesian study , reported in June, is included in the above analysis, and is worth its own link: https://emerginnova.com/patterns-of-covid19-mortality-and-vitamin-d-an-indonesian-study/

My general advice for people over 100# is to take 5000 units of vitamin-D daily, long term, unless you have not been taking it, in which case, take 10,000 units vitamin D3 daily until Thanksgiving or Christmas or New Years Day or something. If you weigh 80# take 4000 units per day, 60# gets 3000 units, etc.

This is the influential study from Bangladesh, reported in July, which prompted the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh to change from hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin to ivermectin/doxycycline. It explains the known antiviral mechanisms at work very well.

A Case Series of 100 COVID-19 Positive Patients Treated with Combination of Ivermectin and Doxycycline

Dr Alam’s randomized, controlled follow-up trial is approved and funded and underway

Dr. Alam Gets his Randomized Controlled Trial Approved by the Bangladesh Medical Research Council

This paper explains that ivermectin blocks a transport mechanism that viral RNA and proteins need to get from the cytoplasm, into the nucleus, where the machinery for viral replication exists. Ivermectin turns the nuclear-membrane into a wall against coronavirus, and some other viruses, too. The broad spectrum antiviral ivermectin targets the host nuclear transport importin ±/≤1 heterodimer

Ivermectin helped sick hospitalized patients in Florida survive, especially some of the sickest ones. Conclusions and Relevance: Ivermectin was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients who required higher inspired oxygen or ventilatory support. These findings should be further evaluated with randomized controlled trials.

More News on Dr. Borody’s Ivermectin proposal

More News on Dr. Borody’s Ivermectin proposal

Here is my essay on the sick husband and wife I treated with Ivermectin, zinc and doxycycline last week. She gets nauseated from the zinc, but they both got out of crisis right away. He still feels tired and coughs.

A randomized trial of ivermectin/doxycycline, vs hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin in COVID-19 patients (I see no reason not to use both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Mechanisms of action would be complementary. It is being proposed and has been done.)
This trial found the treatments to be similarly well tolerated and similarly beneficial.(Ivermectin was better, not to statistical significance.)

A compilation of hydroxychloroquine studies treating COVID-19, and in-vitro studies, to date and summarized. Thanks Marc.

Hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin + zinc got more patients home from the hospital than hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin without zinc:

Dr Raoult’s large scale and successful study of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. (Not randomized with a placebo arm, since people were dying and placebo was already known to the investigators to lead to more deaths than treatment.) Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis.

Treatment with HCQ-AZ was associated with a decreased risk of transfer to ICU or death (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.18 0.11-0.27), decreased risk of hospitalization e”10 days (odds ratios 95% CI 0.38 0.27-0.54) and shorter duration of viral shedding (time to negative PCR: HR 1.29 1.17-1.42). QTc prolongation (>60/ ms) was observed in 25 patients (0.67%) leading to the cessation of treatment in 12 cases including 3 cases with QTc> 500/ ms. No cases of torsade de pointe or sudden death were observed.

Here is an ongoing prospective, randomized American study, which does assign people to HCQ/Azithromycin or clever placebo pills.
Zinc is not part of it.

Here is Gummi Bears’ “Deep Dive on Hydroxychloroquine” from last month. Scroll down 2/3 of the way and see the national responses to initiation of HCQ/Azithro treatment in Brazil, Algeria and Morocco. Deaths plateau in 10 days, while cases keep rising to a much later plateau.




We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, your support is now an integral part of the process.

Thank you for your ongoing support.



Support the Automatic Earth in virustime.