• long running

[eBook] The Real Anthony Fauci - Kindle Edition $2.99 (Was $22.99) @ Amazon AU

7766

I was looking at this highly-rated bestselling book recently, and the Kindle price was about AU$23. Checked back now and it has dropped $20 to $2.99. For comparison, the hardcover price is AU$44.99.

Looks like an interesting read, for anyone interested!

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace
Amazon Cloud Reader
Amazon Cloud Reader

Comments

              • +8

                @flashi007: It’s just very odd why TGA is adopting the “vaccine way or the highway” approach. If the patient has already taken the vaccine and still fell ill, why the TGA still disallows medical practitioners from prescribing certain drugs for treatment, especially when these drugs are still listed in WHO’s list of essential medicines

                https://list.essentialmeds.org/?query=ivermectin

                https://list.essentialmeds.org/?query=hydroxychloroquine

                One of them resulted in the award of Nobel prize for its invention. I get that there are still critical cases in hospital, so why is the focus so narrow on vaccines to the exclusion of other drugs? It beggars belief that the TGA is limiting medical practitioners ability to prescribe medication according to their own understanding. Repurposing drugs has always been common practice, until COVID.

                The whole “horse dewormer” message from FDA is so preposterously disingenuous it makes you wonder why they had to put it out there. Somehow people forgot that dosage matters, large dose for animals, smaller dose for human beings.

                As I said, I’m not trying to downplay the severity of cases in the ICU, but I can’t understand the role of TGA tying the hands of medical practitioners when it comes to prescription. I mean, doctors went to uni and are meant to know what’s good for their patients. Opinions may differ…

                • +4

                  @LowHangingFruit: You've posed an excellent question and one worth more then the few minutes I have to write my response. Maybe someone else can help provide some information for you but…

                  Ivermectin
                  - might be used if you suspect that a parasite may need treating (eg like a roundworm reactivation)
                  - was originally postulated as a therapy in a lab - they essentially mixed ivermectin and COVID in a petri dish and it worked. However the levels of ivermectin used in the petri dish was far far higher than the safe doses we give to humans.
                  - there is also a complete lack of good evidence for its use - most of the summary papers looking at its effect (systematic review and meta analyses) contain really poorly designed trials, with significant limitations and a lack of severe patients.
                  - I haven't looked into this for a while, but until some better data comes along, there just is no justification to prescribe it

                  Hydroxyq
                  - several reasonably good and large trials have shown no benefit in the use of it. The trials I link below aren't the only ones. They aren't perfect trials either - but there just doesn't seem to be any signal in these reasonably well designed trials (far better designed than the ivermectin ones)

                  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33031652/
                  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32409561/
                  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32706953/

                  • there are also know cardiac side effects which some people have issues with - but to be fair, if it was shown to work then it would be used

                  specific therapies
                  There are currently a few therapies we do use in Covid patients - these include
                  - steroids - both IV and inhaled
                  - antivirals - remdesivir
                  - other diseases modifying drugs - like Baricitinib, Casirivimab, Sotrovimab, etc (there are a few more)
                  - Pharmacologic prophylaxis against blood clots

                  So there is scope to treat the conditions, and depending on certain circumstances, a patient may get one or more of the drugs i mentioned above. The thing about medicine is that there are no absolutes and researchers continues. In a years time, there may be a new drug or two on the list, and others may drop-off. Thats the nature of the profession.

                  Sorry I couldn't do a deep dive - but I need to get ready for work!!!

                  • +2

                    @flashi007: Some info you won't be able to find using Google search.

                    India used Ivermectin and 1-2 other drugs ( I can't recall the name right now) to help stop their spread of Covid as their numbers were out of control. They went from hundredes of thousands of cases per day, to under 5000 per day after 5 weeks.

                    • +2

                      @Danstar: You know the Indian government have stopped using it late last year citing lack of scientific evidence.

                      Some places in Australia were using hydroxyq as well until evidence suggested it showed no benefit.

                      The Indian government made a judgement call on the evidence they had - and that use has since been rescinded.

                      • +1

                        @flashi007: Like I said, easy to find information on one side, not the other. Not at all suspicious that not one source of msm reported on this or any other Governments. It was swept under the carpet and hoped it would not come out.

                        Still didn't come out, the only information that did come out is what you just stated… #convenient

                  • +2

                    @flashi007: Thanks for your input above. I only know as much as I have read so far. Here are some key points to note:

                    There have been concerns with how the trials are conducted with regards to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) which led to conclusions of limited effectiveness, i.e. during COVID trials, HCQ was administered too late when it is most effective when administered early. In terms of side effects, HCQ has been widely prescribe in regions prone to malaria infection as a prophylactic measure, meaning that they are prescribe pre-emptively to prevent malaria, not when someone already fell ill with it. This has been happening for decades. I don't think a drug with significant side effects would continue to be prescribed in this manner.
                    https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/drugs/hydroxyc...

                    While ivermectin (IVM) has been prescribed as an anti-parasitic medication, among many mechanisms, it also acts as an ionophore for delivery of zinc into cells, which inhibits viral replication. There have been other studies suggesting IVM's effectiveness as a blocker of viral replicase. Ivermectin has been approved by FDA since 1996, so we have benefit to long term observation to assess side effects.
                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/

                    I'm only noting some points that came to mind (there are a lot more sources in the book). It strikes me a highly irregular that these drugs are dismissed very early on in the battle against COVID when they have received regulatory approval ages ago, have been widely prescribed and their side effects (or lack thereof) known. I would have thought further and better designed trials could have been conducted to confirm early conclusions about their lack of effectiveness. If they indeed work, they are also cheap because their patents have expired.

                    New antiviral tablets such as molnupiravir purportedly share the same key mechanism as ivermectin in its anti-viral properties, but at an eye-watering price, and lack of long term observation regarding side effects. Already there are concerns about molnupiravir's potential side effects with causing cancer and birth defects.

                    Monoclonal antibodies (e.g. sotrovimab, regeneron) have seen high effectiveness in battling COVID, especially when given early on before symptoms escalate. The question is why the volume of its production has not been increased to the same levels/intensity as the COVID vaccines? And are hospitals prioritising the administration of monoclonal antibodies early on so that hospitalisation can be avoided as much as possible?

                    While anecdotal, there have been quite a few cases in the US where hospitals have prevented patients on ventilators from receiving IVM, despite showing no signs of improvement from medication like remdesivir. These patients' close relatives had to go to court to force the hospitals to allow a willing doctor to administer IVM. And from all the cases where the IVM was administered, the patients recovered. I'm not saying IVM will always work, but it's telling when there is such resistance to the right to try medication, especially after all other avenues have been exhausted.

                    It did occur to me that in states like Melbourne, the government's approach toward illicit drugs is somewhat interesting, in that drug injecting rooms are advocated. We're talking about allowing people to inject themselves with illicit drug lol. Yet FDA/TGA approved drugs like HCQ and IVM receive so much scrutiny for its potential use against COVID?

                    All that being said, I think your response has given me hope that maybe hospitals in Australia are becoming wise with their treatment options (i.e. not designating the COVID vaccines as a silver bullet against COVID). But I think you cannot discount the relevance of patents and profits in motivation to promote certain courses of treatment. The motivation is simply too strong to ignore.

                    Thanks again for your input.

            • +2

              @djlee: This does mean it is still experimental. It has been through the largest trials in human history. TGA are waiting for Phase 4 trials which is basically follow-up data after an approved treatment has already been used by people. Standard practice and doesn't make it "experimental".

          • @flashi007: If I could vote this up twice I would

    • +9

      make sure never to take more than one round of chemo when you get cancer

      • +6

        Chemo is a treatment. You're already sick. Vaccine is supposed to be a prevention.

        • +5

          Varicella, Hepatitis A, and Hepatitis B all require multiple doses to be a fully effective vaccination.

        • +4

          Make sure to never reapply sun screen then

          • +5

            @ThatYodaGuy: Sunscreen won't give you myocarditis.

            • +5

              @djlee: covid will though

            • +1
            • +7

              @djlee: COVID will. Myocarditis is much more common after COVID infection, than vaccination. It has been shown that this specific heart inflammation occurs about 67 times per million males (males are much more susceptible than females) after vaccination, compared to 450 males per million following COVID infection.
              Your chance of myocarditis as a result of COVID is dramatically reduced by vaccination.

              • +2

                @Plimsol: You're not getting all the facts. If you're a male under 40, the risk of myocarditis is higher following Pfizer dose 2 and Pfizer dose 3 and Moderna dose 1 and Moderna dose 2, than from covid infection.

                Ref:

                https://youtu.be/NR_ZVzrTeYk

                https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...

                https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0

                • +4

                  @djlee: Have you read what you’re actually posting? The article you’ve linked has even lower rates of myocarditis. I was giving you some leeway (pun intended) but you’re saying it’s only less than 10 people per million?
                  I can help explain it if you like? It’s basically my job.

                • +3

                  @djlee: Nature is a highly respected journal and that article is confirming what plimsol is saying. These articles are complicated to read and understand so it’s easy to get mixed up - but the article states that in both under 40 and above 40 year olds, myocarditis from the vaccines occurs at a lower rate when compared to covid causing myocarditis

  • +29

    Thanks OP for recommending the book. I was surprised to see the discount, but I think it’s because the physical copies can’t get out quick enough. Interestingly, it is Simon and Schuster who are the publishers for the eBook edition. Still reading through (1/3 so far) and all I can say is that it highlighted many facts that are at least worth knowing, whatever your conclusions are. The author, Robert Kennedy Jr, was one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the “Roundup” weed killer class action, which was ended in billions of dollars in settlement. Also the same lawyer who won the “Gardasil” cervical cancer vaccine class action against Merck. So, he is at risk of libel if there were falsehoods in this book. He talks at length about the current COVID situation, but the focus is really to address the deeply entrenched issues with health regulators’ relationship with Big Pharma. Remember the issue about the medical treatment for AIDS highlighted in the movie Dallas Buyers Club? It’s in this book as well. I think the moment you feel you cannot ask questions without being labelled, there is a bigger problem. People are entitled to reach their own conclusions, and the author might have more extreme views about the state of affairs in healthcare regulation. But it is not ok to be judged just because you are interested in asking more questions and finding out facts. No surprise Joe Rogan Experience is crushing all other media outlets in terms of viewership.

    • +7

      Never let facts get in the way of a good story..

      Well said.

    • +12

      Thanks for an actual useful comment.

    • +6

      Thank you @LowHangingFruit for your well-informed comment!

      • +15

        Pleasure is mine. Judging from the barrage of comments you got for posting the deal, I should thank you for your courage lol. Reading long books is time-consuming, and it doesn’t help when people in general have become so accustomed to twitter feeds or news excerpts as their main information source. Trust me, I’m trying very hard not to use words like “hydroxychloroquine” or “ivermectin” in my comments given obvious reasons. Trying to spare anyone from a “misinformation” fit of rage lol

        • +2

          Almost all of them don't even know what a zinc ionophore/protease inhibitor is…

          Nor that certain (now banned from use for covid) drugs have secondary functions of being zinc ionophores… which when used early, dramatically increase intracellular zinc, that will then in term curb the viral replication process, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp).

          But there are other zinc ionophores/protease inhibitors, some of which are available otc as supplements, and some of which are only now coming on the market. i.e. merck, and pfizer's new pills, as well as remdesimir (which is given way way way too late btw).

          Personally, I have on hand quercetin phytosome, as my zinc ionophore. Which is a very high bio-available form of quercetin.

          Paper on the use of quercetin phytosome for use as a treatment of covid,
          https://www.dovepress.com/possible-therapeutic-effects-of-ad...

          For anyone interested, quercetin is just basically bioflavonoids.

          EGCG is another zinc ionophore, which is green tea extract. However, it is known to be toxic in some people, so should not be used imho.

    • +1

      I was surprised to see the discount, but I think it’s because the physical copies can’t get out quick enough.

      Huh? It's selling so well that it needs to be discounted? How does that make sense?

      • +4

        My bad, I wrote too fast, and it was too late for me to edit my comment when I realised how it sounded. What I was trying to say is that the physical copies were in short supply and the publisher couldn’t bring them out quick enough. It seems to me the author’s priority is to bring the book out to the public as quickly as possible, hence the sale of the eBook at a ridiculous price.

        • +1

          Still doesn't make sense. If this is such an important piece of information for the public why is it put behind a price?

          • +4

            @Gehirn: Since you put it that way, let me applaud you for being the true OzBargainer. You’re right, nothing beats free.

          • +8

            @Gehirn: If Covid is such a global catastrophe then why are vaccine makers not sharing their intellectual property with low income countries, where only 4% of the population are vaccinated, particularly since they were developed from funding from the US government paid for by tax payers.

            • +4

              @djlee: The same reason all other vaccines, medications and treatments aren't given out freely, however you are conflating two different issues.

              Covid is a global catastrophe though.

    • +5

      Asking questions should be welcomed. Everyone should do that. The issue lies in the people who ask questions but don’t like the answers that are given. The answers based on peer reviewed scientific research.

    • +2

      Funnily enough, Joe Rogan has also ticked off his longer term more loyal fan base by ignoring evidence and giving the spotlight to quacks with an axe to grind like McCullough and Malone.

  • +7

    Posts like this give me hope I could sell my used toilet paper. Clearly people will buy anything.

  • +6

    Pretty disgusting that the author can grift off antivax for profit.

    • +12

      Unlike Pfizer?

      • -3

        Pfizer are grifting off antivaxxers…? Well, in a way I suppose, when their products are used to try save the lives of admitted Covid patients. I wonder what they make more money off, the vaccine, or unvaxxed being in hospital?

    • +2

      By selling the eBook at $2.99 instead of $40+ (physical copy)?

  • +16

    Wow, what a response. Seems like a lot are judging a book by its cover! It would be nice if you want to neg it, to at least take the time to read it first.

    It's actually a substantial book, and is fully referenced so you can look into all the information further. From 2,650+ who have left a review on Amazon, the average rating is 4.9 out of 5.0 - feedback from those who have taken the time to read it is overwhelmingly positive.

    Anyhow, the reason for posting was to share the deal - for those who may be interested. If you're not interested, simply skip over.

    Take care everyone!

    • +8

      Judging the book not by the cover but by the several in-depth endorsements. It just seems like a book by the antivax and for the antivax.

    • +2

      Someone give me one reason why should anyone not believe the ‘oh so corrupt Fauci and his poisonous vaccine’ and believe the author of this book instead . Fauci might very well be a corrupt person I don’t know but so can be the author trying to sell his book to make money.

      One the the many reasons anyone should not believe the author is that the author clearly has a motive behind all this - to sell the book and make money.

      • One the the many reasons anyone should not believe the author is that the author clearly has a motive behind all this - to sell the book and make money

        But isn’t that the point of nearly all books?

        The only free ones I thought were propaganda ones.

        I haven’t read the book, but I do hope if it does unjustly slanders someone as high profile as Fauci, they would be sued for it. It is America after all

    • +2

      Referenced by Breitbart and so on? Or objective references?

    • +3

      Luckily the quality of the cover matches the content in this case.

  • +1

    One of the reviews mention that deaths caused by vaccines should be considered murder - but what about the potential hundreds of thousands of death caused by the unvaccinated who don’t adhere to rules and spread the virus? Shouldn’t those avoidable deaths also be considered murder?

    • +5

      lol. turn off the TV..

      Even Fauci stated 'the viral load in the nasal pharynx is no different between Vax'd & Unvax'd'

      Do some research b4 making silly remarks like that.

      • +1

        To be clear, are you saying that vaccines do not work? That vaccines do not save you from preventable deaths?

        • +5

          Is it stopping the spread?
          Does it stop you getting it?

          Isn't it the vax'd that were spreading it in Gym's/Pubs/Clubs/interstate travellers? Considering unvax'd weren't allowed to enter said premises.

          • +2

            @Bunsen: The answers are yes and yes.

            Does wearing a seat belt completely stops you from dying?
            Why don't you stop wearing it then

            Do some research please it is everywhere (or else better let someone who knows some statistics to research it for you)

            • +4

              @Surrealblank: It saddens me if that's what you believe.

              Keep up with the booster program. Pfiizer will have a new Omicron Vax out soon.

        • +6

          They reduce severe illness and hospitalisation. In the case of Omicron, they don't prevent transmission.

          There are in fact 2 studies from Canada and Netherlands that show negative vaccine effectiveness 60-90 days following 2 doses of mRNA vaccines against Omicron, so you're more likely to catch Omicron if you're vaccinated.

          ref:

          https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565v...

          https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v...

          • +2

            @djlee: medRxiv is not a peer-reviewed source as it is preprint. I would not rely on the articles you posted as medRxiv has the following caution on their front page.

            "Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."

        • +2

          During an interview with Yahoo Finance on Jan. 10, speaking about the Omicron variant, Bourla said: “We know that the two doses of a vaccine offer very limited protection, if any. The three doses with a booster, they offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths. Against deaths, I think very good, and less protection against infection.” ( youtu.be/lhMbKyDq9_w?t=96 )

        • +1

          @Old SchoolHarry Who exactly is at risk? What percentage is at risk? How we can avoid being in a risk category? Would love to hear all the health advice you're going to share to help us save lives.

          • +4

            @Villainous: Don't be 86 years old on average.

          • -1

            @Villainous: Whataboutism is a common symptom amongst the antivax and flat earthers.

            • +3

              @OldSchoolHarry: Who's an "antivaxer" or "flat earther"… I asked you a direct question. Can you answer it?

              • +3

                @Villainous: I am not a medical expert therefore I did not give out any health advice. Please read again. I too asked questions… which were answered with 'Whataboutism' as opposed to actual logic.

                Please refer to https://www.health.gov.au/ for more info on Covid-19.

                • +2

                  @OldSchoolHarry: "I am not a medical expert " Yet here you are commenting up and down about how specific people are spreading disease, vaccinations, vaccinated people, unvaccinated people…

                  • +3

                    @Villainous: If by specific people you mean those who don’t wear masks, are unvaccinated and don’t practice social distance… then yes I standby what I said. I am not a medical expert but I am also not dumb. Common sense is a thing too you know.
                    You’re questions about percentages is what you need to go to the website for.

                    • +2

                      @OldSchoolHarry: "Common sense is a thing too you know."

                      So let's apply some. Go out and look at everyones mask. Look at your own. What rating are they? How many micron do they filter down to? How many micron is C19? How much airflow moves around a mask? Are the people around you actually positive? How long do you need to be in contact with someone who is positive to have a chance of catching it? How is it transferred? What should you do if you do come in contact with someone who is positive? Can you catch it if you are vaccinated? Can you carry it if you are vaccinated? Can you transfer it if you are vaccinated?…..

                      If you are serious about preventing deaths like you said, then you should be able to answer my initial questions about who is at risk and what we can do to prevent death. If you can't then you need to move beyond your "common sense" and government websites and start doing some actual research and have conversations about covid, not attack "boogey man" groups. This is being dealt with all over the world, not just Australia. Start by listening to some doctors who are actually seeing and treating patients on a daily basis.

                      • +1

                        @Villainous: It is unclear what you are trying to achieve here but all of those questions can be answered if you just look at scientific knowledge bases such as the govt health website and other peer-reviewed articles.

                        Masks (and other PPE), vaccines and lockdowns all help to reduce the spread of Covid-19 in various capacities.

                        How about you add some value to this conversation by directing me to any actual science based resources?

                      • +1

                        @Villainous:

                        Start by listening to some doctors who are actually seeing and treating patients on a daily basis.

                        And aren’t they saying what Harry said? Get vaccination, wear mask, the better quality the better but even surgical is better than nothing etc etc.

                        What are you suggesting the doctors and nurses that treat Covid patients say? Im genuinely intrigued

  • +6

    Anti vax nonsense is not a deal.

  • +7

    Is Ozbargain slowly descending down the QAnon rabbit hole?… if so sign me up! Eneloops power the real vaccine!

  • +4

    Not a compelling deal, I tried injecting bleach and it didn't work.

    • +4

      You just need to get sunlight, you know, in the body.

  • This is what happens when an anti Liberal party "deal" is allowed to be posted and featured as a top deal. The floodgates are opened

    • +3

      And ozb's "Community Manager" was cheering on that OP for posting it, pinned his own meme gif to the top and protected that comment from being negged.

      Being impartial no longer listed in his 2022 moderator code of conduct? Or was it a case of inflated ego?

    • The OP for that sticker even advocated for people to vandalise everyone's bins with it

    • +5

      The two are unrelated. Stop trying to make everything political.

      • I'm not sure you got my point. I'm whining that anything even remotely political is allowed here. I just want bargains, not "cheap" propaganda

  • +2

    Woke australia

  • +1

    Make australia great again, let’s go trump

    • +1

      RFK Jr is an arch Democrat

  • +2

    Glad to see critical thinkers on Ozbargain

  • +9

    Appropriate uses of negative vote:
    Issue with product

    It is a rubbish book preying on those looking for the 'truth' as fed by their talking heads. I guess the banned accounts of this author, the books removal from certain places, and speaking out by his relatives is all just part of the 'conspiracy'. Not that he is spreading lies.

    • +6

      Did you read it?

      • +3

        Yes.

        • +7

          Somehow I don't believe you.

          • +3

            @DainB: Do you want me to read it to you?

            • +4

              @Gehirn: You can show us proof that you actually own it for a starter.
              But you won't.
              Because you don't.

              • +3
                • +2

                  @Gehirn: Can't say I'm surprised.

                  • +4

                    @DainB: Yeah well it's an ebook.

                    • +2

                      @Gehirn: That's a picture.

                      • +4

                        @DainB: A picture of an ebook.

                        • +2

                          @Gehirn: Yes, picture of someone else's ebook.

                          • +4

                            @DainB: No it's mine.

                            • +4

                              @Gehirn: Chapter 4, what's the quotation at the beginning of the chapter.

                              • +4

                                @DainB: I don't think I should give out free excerpts but if you insist.

                                “Doctors need three qualifications: to be able to lie and not get caught, to
                                pretend to be honest, and to cause death without remorse.”
                                —Jean Froissart 1337–1405

                                A ridiculous statement however.

                                • +4

                                  @Gehirn: Took a while for you to find it. Or did you actually went and bought it ROTFL.

                                  • +1

                                    @DainB: 🤣🤣🤣

                                  • +5

                                    @DainB: Sorry to keep you waiting 10 minutes. It was at the bottom of my ebook pile.

Login or Join to leave a comment