Dr. Richard Urso's report on the role of viruses in the presence of chloroquine and cancer has important implications in medical theory

Trust in the CDC, FDA, and NIH is rapidly falling. Media refuses to report the growing catastrophe of deaths and disease from the mass "vaccination" campaign as doctors take to social media for an outlet of news. The entire premise of taking a vaccine, to take a weakened form of a virus to protect against a stronger one present in nature, does not hold when you are accepting mRNA-generated spike proteins into your body, which in turn recreate a manmade bioweapon, the spike protein, which just happens to have been inserted into a coronavirus and released into the public. In other words, the mass vaccination campaign is a big trick to get people to inject bioweapons into their bodies.

Things are very bad obviously, and people need to pay for their crimes. My purpose here is not to complain, however. The disenchanted public and doctors have to find practical ways to organize and fight back. I think they are looking for those ways. Every cloud has a silver lining.

It appears to me that the public has been lied to about more than the safety, effectiveness, and purpose of the vaccines. Accepted medical theory in general is not adding up. When we make medical theory add up, what will happen? The potential exists to change the entire industry of medicine back to what it should have been all along. There are ways to make things add up- ways that are not in practice.

I don't intend to explain medical theory, and I'll explain a statistical approach in a future article, but let's look at what I consider to be an excellent case example that highlights an inconsistency in accepted medical theory.

Dr. Richard Urso has successfully used hydroxychloroquine to treat SARS-CoV-2 patients, despite an establishment that puts out studies that say HCQ doesn't work. Dr. Urso read a study that said chloroquine didn’t work on lung cells in SARS and announced that researchers in Germany had misinterpreted their results. The German researchers published results titled "Chloroquine does not inhibit infection of human lung cells with SARS-CoV-2."

This study used human lung cells with cancer, however. They said chloroquine worked against SARS on normal kidney cells, but not lung cells with cancer. That's an interesting comparison. I'll quote Dr. Urso on the medical theory involved here.

hey @bruce24710

Dr. Richard Urso says Chloroquine kills both COVID 19 & Cancer cells!

Dr. Richard Urso: Says here malaria drug chloroquine does not inhibit SARS-CoV-2. ... So then I saw Calu-3 lung cells. So they said, hey it may work in kidney cells, but it doesn't work in lung cells. So in our evidence, yeah it can work in vitro in kidney cells but not lung cells, right? So I thought, that's interesting. I worked at MD Anderson. I was oncology, and I thought, I've heard of that cell line, Calu-3. It's an adenocarcinoma. It's a lung cancer cell. So I called corresponded with the author. I said I am so happy for your study. You just showed one of the most amazing things that I have ever seen, and I never thought I would see something so clear. You just proved when viruses and chloroquine are around, chloroquine will let the virus attack a cancer cell. Think about that. So it will protect a normal cell, but chloroquine will not protect a cancer cell. Because they're different. T he receptors are different. I mean think about that. So I told him thank you. You completely misinterpreted the data, and they hid the fact, they put it all the way down the data set. So I found it in the appendix, in little letters. Calu-3 lung cells. This is the disinformation campaign that we are faced with. ... It's unlikely to work against SARS-CoV-2. We just proved it. No, you just proved chloroquine is one of the smartest drugs in history. It will let viruses attack cancer cells but not normal cells.

(Note that Dr. Urso took the same data and made a different conclusion that the authors of the study. It is noteworthy to me that doctors can draw different conclusions from the same data set. In a future article, I will propose a method to give competing doctors a wealth of data for interpretation to settle medical theory).

Dr. Urson’s report makes perfect sense after reading literature from Dr. Robert Young. According to Dr. Young, viruses are repair proteins. This is one of those things that's both amazing and difficult to believe the first time you hear it. I will have to see evidence to fully believe it. Dr. Young says:

My studies and research suggests that the complexes science calls viruses and retroviruses as originating in and from the bodys cell as microzymian evolution. However, these complexes are created in response to an alarming situation (condition of disease) for the purpose of genetic repair. The so-called viruses and/or retroviruses are repair proteins evolved from the indestructable eternal anatomical elements of all organized genetics and cells are microzymian organization, not pathogenic organisms.

Viruses are organized around DNA or RNA, not both. Thus, they are quite probably intended to repair genetic molecules or other structures, and show up with disease symptoms because the body needs them. Since viruses require a living cell/host for reproduction, how do we know that the scenario is not set in motion for a purpose by the cell (i.e., its microzymas), rather than being the result of invasion?

The implications are huge, of course. Your body could produce viruses for the purpose of curing cancer, and some naturally occurring herbs or their derivatives could aid in this process. Call it a "theory" that the entire fields of virology and chemotherapy are designed to keep us sick and profit from it. (Note again the "silver lining" here. If I hadn't just watched the deception of a Vaxdemic unfold, I would likely have never come to question the field of virology, even though much of chemotherapy is an obvious disease-for-profit scam).

I've done a substantial amount of reading on three classes of common medicines that are being used to successfully treat SARS-CoV-2. These classes are (1) Cinchona bark derivatives (chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine), (2) Ivermectin, and (3) species of Artemisia and compounds derived from them.

It turns out that all three of these classes of "antivirals" just happen to have anti-cancer effects as well.

Now of course I'm not a doctor. But as someone with a modest background in stats, applied at times to things like making "flash counts" of five-deck card shoots at blackjack tables in Mississippi, I can tell you this.

That's one hell of a coincidence.

I'm not sure that the theories of these doctors on virus and cancer, or my intuition, are correct. I am only sure that these theories need to be pursued until the truth is known one way or the other.

To fight the disease establishment, I propose a multidisciplinary approach combining medical theory, statistical theory, and warfare theory.

I have considered the history of blockades of medicine and medical supplies in the history of war. As an analogy, or a fact, the FDA's drug approval process is a blockade of cures of diseases. The FDA is controlled by the disease establishment which approves and promotes profitable disease-causing products.

Naval blockades in war were typically enforced by large battleships controlling ports of entry. The strategy of the side being blockaded was often to run the blockades using smaller and faster boats between the larger battleships, because there was too much coastline for the opposing navy to patrol, and they did not have the resources to blast their way into the ports.

What I propose to Hippocratic doctors is this: Keep blasting away at the blockade, but also run between the blockade with some well-designed studies. Cure Cancer. Cure other diseases. Just do it, if you can. Prove your theories. Rally support among those who have become disillusioned with the establishment into a force that can bypass the entire disease establishment and cure diseases. There’s really no harm in the effort.

Jui jitsu uses the force of the enemy against them. This enemy, the disease establishment, has now generated anger in millions of people. To what purpose should it be put to use?

Continuing with the blockade analogy, trying to destroy the corruption that controls Washington DC is a laudable goal but is not a strategy that is likely to succeed anytime soon. The CDC, FDA, and NIH must be bypassed for the time being. If you cure diseases, you cannot be ignored. Then you will have the platform to retake control of government agencies.

I have a test model of the genus Artemisia that I will propose in the next few days. It is a statistical approach to identifying all of the compounds of Artemisia that have therapeutic effects against multiple diseases, as reported in a study by DoorlessCarp. It will tell the world what works in this genus, but not how. It will be up to doctors to discuss their medical theories. By design, doctors will have a substantial amount of data for interpretation.

Charles Wright