Third Reich Eugenics in America’s Hospitals—Part Two thumbnail

Third Reich Eugenics in America’s Hospitals—Part Two

By Kelleigh Nelson

READ: Therapeutic Nihilism by The Lords of Healthcare—Part One

“The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate. Winston Churchill in a letter to Prime Minister Asquith, advocating the forced sterilization of disabled people.”  — Winston S. Churchill

“The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failures, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies.” – H. G. Wells

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Buck v. Bell, 1927

“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding.” —  Theodore Roosevelt

Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,” which gained popularity during the early 20th century. Eugenicists worldwide believed that they could perfect human beings and eliminate so-called social ills through genetics and heredity.

The term eugenics was first coined by Francis Galton in the late 1800’s (Norrgard 2008). Galton (1822-1911) was an English intellectual whose body of work spanned many fields, including statistics, psychology, meteorology and genetics. Incidentally, he was also a cousin of Charles Darwin. “Eugenics” comes from the Greek roots for “good” and “origin,” or “good birth” and involves applying principles of genetics and heredity for the purpose of improving the human race.

Bill Gates and his father are both strong eugenicists, abortionists and depopulation proponents.  The origin of the Gates Foundation is that both his father’s foundation and his own foundation were merged into the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Link

Population control was very much a core facet of both foundations. Bill’s father was a strong eugenicist, and his son has followed in his footsteps.  Their beliefs are much like those of Margaret Sanger…only healthy seed must be sown.

The eugenics movement took root in the United States in the early 1900‘s, led by Charles Davenport (1866-1944), a prominent biologist, and Harry Laughlin, a former teacher and principal interested in breeding, who argued for compulsory sterilization. In 1910, Davenport founded the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island “to improve the natural, physical, mental, and temperamental qualities of the human family” (Norrgard 2008). Laughlin was the first director.

We have specialists who breed dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, birds, etc.  The pure breeds are more costly but gain far more in reputation.  As for human beings, the Lord told us He knew us before we were formed in the womb and every one of us is different and special.

Yet, the Margaret Sangers of the world, the likes of Hillary Clinton, who adored Sanger, would likely have every black child and a majority of whites aborted before they had a chance to take their first breath. Now they even want the ability to murder the child after birth.  And babies who survive abortion are left to die.  These were the first steps into the horrors of murdering those who are considered damaged or undesirable.

America’s 1920s Eugenics

During the 1920s American eugenics movement, laws were enacted that legalized forced sterilizations and prohibited individuals that had mental or physical defects and couples of mixed-race from marrying.  Children who were born deaf were sterilized because they were thought to be mentally deficient.

Indiana authorities believed criminality, mental problems, and pauperism were hereditary. Various laws were enacted based on this belief. In 1907, Governor J. Frank Hanly approved the first state eugenics law making sterilization mandatory for certain individuals in state custody. Indiana’s sterilizations were halted in 1909 by Governor Thomas R. Marshall.

However, by 1931, Indiana was quickly followed by California and 28 other states (Lombardo n.d.). These laws resulted in the forced sterilization of over 64,000 people in the United States (Lombardo n.d.). At first, sterilization efforts focused on the disabled but later grew to include people whose only “crime” was poverty. These sterilization programs found legal support in the Supreme Court. In Buck v. Bell (1927), the state of Virginia sought to sterilize Carrie Buck for promiscuity as evidenced by her giving birth to a baby out of wedlock (some suggest she was raped).

Lutz Kaelber, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont, gave a presentation about “eugenic sterilizations” at the 2012 Social Science History Association.  His presentation was entitled, Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States.  (This site lists each state with a short bio.)

American eugenics refers inter alia to compulsory sterilization laws adopted by over 30 states that led to more than 60,000 sterilizations of disabled individuals. Many of these individuals were sterilized because of a disability: they were mentally disabled or ill, or belonged to socially disadvantaged groups living on the margins of society.

American eugenic laws and practices implemented in the first decades of the twentieth century influenced the much larger National Socialist compulsory sterilization program, which between 1934 and 1945 led to approximately 350,000 compulsory sterilizations and was a stepping stone to the Holocaust. Even after the details of the Nazi sterilization program (as well as its role as a precursor to the “Euthanasia” murders) became more widely known after World War II (and which the New York Times had reported on extensively and in great detail even before its implementation in 1934), sterilizations in some American states did not stop. Some states continued to sterilize residents into the 1970s.

While Germany has taken important steps to commemorate the horrors of its past, including compulsory sterilization (however belatedly), the United States arguably has not when it comes to eugenics. For some states, there still is a paucity of reliable studies that show how and where sterilizations occurred. Hospitals, asylums, and other places where sterilizations were performed have so far typically chosen not to document that aspect of their history. Moreover, until now there has never been a website providing an easily accessible overview of American eugenics for all American states.

Nazi Germany Eugenics and Murder

Hitler elevated eugenics to a height previously unseen by euthanizing those who were mentally or physically disabled, elderly or weak. Hitler’s goal was the perfection of the Germanic race.  The Greek term, euthanasia denotes “good death.” Living wills were established by the Euthanasia Society of America.  There is nothing about being gassed to death or shot that denotes a “good death.”

Here is the memorial site for those children, and here is the list of where these many deaths occurred.

The United States holocaust Memorial Museum provides some of the most well-documented evidence of eugenics.  “With the patina of legitimacy provided by ‘racial’ science experts, the Nazi regime carried out a program of approximately 400,000 forced sterilizations and over 275,000 euthanasia deaths that found its most radical manifestation in the death of millions of ‘racial’ enemies in the Holocaust.”

Remember the 1936 Olympics held in Berlin, Germany where Jesse Owens won four Olympic Gold Medals for the USA.  Owens so embarrassed Hitler that he disappeared from the stands.  There were another 17 black Americans representing the USA who also won gold medals.  Jesse Owens is buried in Chicago’s Oak Woods Cemetery, where my father is also laid to rest.  Those 18 black Olympic stars spit in the face of one of history’s most evil leaders.

“Euthanasia” had several components. It consisted of the ‘T4’ gassing program in 1940-41 of mostly adult hospitalized patients in psychiatric facilities, including a “special action” against psychiatrically ill Jewish patients. It also involved the murder of psychiatric patients in Poland and other territories occupied by Germany and its allies (Italy and Japan), and extermination of others who were perceived as having become unproductive or disruptive, such as sick inmates in concentration camps (action 14f13 Himmler’s order). Moreover, it comprised “decentralized” or “wild” “euthanasia” of the old, sick and frail in hospitals after the T4 program had been stopped (Friedlander 1995; Kaminsky 2008; Süß 2000).

The program also included “children’s euthanasia.” Put in place in 1939, the program aspired, in the words of a medical observer at the Nuremberg doctor’s trial, to operate in a more goal-oriented, orderly, and “scientific” manner than these other measures (Platen Hallermund 1948, 45 child murder). Based on the mandatory reporting of malformations and disabilities among infants to health authorities, “children’s euthanasia” constituted a hallmark in history: for the first time a modern industrial nation was systematically commandeering its medical scientific apparatus to screen out members of society based on their putative lack of ability to contribute to society.

This all occurred before the vast hundreds of slave labor and murder camps took hold in their culling of Jewish, Gypsy, homosexual and resistance fighters who, throughout Europe, were slaughtered and buried in mass graves or gassed and their bodies burnt in the fires of the crematorium, their ashes dumped in mass graves or water.

America’s Killing Fields

America is following Hitler’s example of eugenics with the hospital protocol dictates handed down by unelected bureaucrats.  Disabled and aging Americans are being murdered.

Please watch Dr. Vernon Coleman’s latest 17 min. video regarding the barbaric actions in hospitals around the world.  He describes exactly what happened to Grace Schara.

Murder became common place throughout the nation’s C-19 hospital wards, but it wasn’t just the one-size-fits-all protocols that killed.

It wasn’t that 80% of those on ventilators died.

It wasn’t the remdesivir treatments at $3100 per treatment that damaged kidneys and livers.

It wasn’t that 75% of those who received three remdesivir treatments died.

It wasn’t that proper care wasn’t taken and patients weren’t turned or propped up in bed or bathed or fed.  Many were dehydrated, starving and had bedsores.

It wasn’t that patients died alone without their loved ones.

It was murder…outright sanctioned murder.

For federal money? Or for eugenics…ridding the nation of those considered undesirable, and saving the government funding of the elderly and disabled.  Or both?

Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders were placed in patients’ charts by the attending physicians or nurses for elderly, disabled and mentally or physically challenged young people.

Palliative care injections, like those used by hospice for the dying, were administered by nursing staff.  It is considered specialized medical care for people living with a serious illness, such as cancer or heart failure. Palliative care usually consists of strong pain medications which alleviate suffering and help with the remaining quality of life.

Terminal or palliative care is used by a majority of hospices today. This often involves permanently sedating the patient, allowing the patient to dehydrate and die. It looks outwardly peaceful as the patient is made to sleep in a medically-induced coma, but the patient’s death is the result. Dying of dehydration is a monstrous death. My mother was starved and dehydrated to death in 1994 in a nursing home.  It has been going on for far too long.  If you have a medical power of attorney, do not let them dehydrate you, and you must demand the proper amount of water for a body per day, not the little amount the hospital will allow, but enough to keep the body comfortable.

Terminally-sedating the patient is something that can be done in hospice that doesn’t outwardly appear like euthanasia where a lethal agent is given. Morphine is the potent opiate which directly effects the central nervous system. It has neurotoxic effects on the brain. Overdoses lead to asphyxia and respiratory depression. It slows metabolism, causes incontinence, and has acute and chronic effects on the endocrine system, blood, the heart and lungs. The hospice “cocktail” usually consists of Ativan, Haldol and Morphine.

It also doesn’t outwardly appear like assisted suicide where a patient takes a lethal medication prescribed by a physician. Terminal sedation is more subtle and deceptive.

Sars-coV-2 patients died at alarming rates because of the protocols and the C-19 test which was rigged to show false positives. Physicians were actually coached to claim C-19 as the diagnosis in order to shovel federal funds into the coffers of the medical facility.

Sanctioned Eugenics

In the March 13, 2023 issue of the New American Magazine, Rebecca Terrell’s article, Covid Hospital Rescue featured an interview of Scott Schara.  Scott, and his wife Cindy, lost their daughter Grace to hospital sanctioned eugenics.  Grace died on October 13, 2021.  Scott blames the genocidal hospital agenda with profits as its goal for the death of his youngest daughter who had Down Syndrome.

Scott described Grace as having been super high functioning.  She could read and write, drive a car, ride horses, play the violin, compose works of art and crack jokes.  Her father said, “She was my buddy.”

Grace’s life is memorialized on Scott’s website,

What happened to Grace was genocidal murder, a murder Scott and Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav have compared to the National Socialists German Workers’ Party (Nazi) in this interview.

Grace Schara, a promising young woman with Down Syndrome, died at the hands of “hospital protocols” on October 13th after being admitted on October 6th, 2021 for COVID-19 treatment. This occurred after she was given a lethal combination dosage of Precedex, Lorazepam, and Morphine within a period of 30 minutes by the attending medical team.

Her death was preventable, especially when you consider these facts:

  • Despite having NO prior authorization from her medical power of attorney, Grace was labeled DNR by the attending physician in violation of Wisconsin State Statute 154.
  • Hospital staff put Grace in restraints simply because she wanted to get up to use the restroom, a disability rights violation.
  • Medical advocate/parent was removed by an armed guard from the hospital room in direct violation of guidelines from the US Department of Health and Human Services to support and protect people with disabilities during the pandemic.
  • No one has satisfactorily explained why that particular cocktail of medicines was used. It is especially odd considering the family was told she had a good day the day before, prompting the doctor to recommend a feeding tube be placed on the morning of the day Grace later died.
  • One doctor, who reviewed the complete records provided by the hospital, wrote to the Schara family: “Precedex is a medicine used for anesthesia to put people to sleep for surgery and procedures. Depending on the dose, it can induce a coma-level sleep. On their own, Precedex, Lorazepam, and Morphine have an increased risk of serious or life-threatening breathing problems and cardiac arrest, and there’s an additive effect when used in combination. To use them like they did in a person with a diagnosis of acute respiratory distress is beyond believable as to intention.”

“Is the medical profession submitting to the U.S. ‘rationed care’ program with its death bonuses, immunity from liability and shroud of secrecy resulting from the lack of patient advocacy?” Scott asked. “When euthanasia by medical dictate is the norm, our loved ones in hospitals are in trouble.”

“It is important that everyone know Grace’s story,” said Scott Schara. “Grace, nor any other disabled person, should have to endure what she did. No family should have to live through this, either.”

Calls for Help

In Rebecca Terrell’s article, Scott tells of a call from the sister of a disabled 44-year-old man.  It was a “hospital hostage situation.”  Her brother, Robert Paiser, weighs only 40 pounds because of a rare genetic disorder which results in a steadily declining muscle mass.  Robert has a brilliant mind and his family loves him.  They were appalled at his treatment and how rapidly he was going downhill.

Scott told her, “They’re going to kill him.”  She knew that and wanted to know what to do.  Scott told her, she has to be there to advocate for Robert.  No DNR allowed, no remdesivir, no ventilator and no jabs.  Unfortunately, Robert had already received three remdesivir treatments which was like receiving six with a body weight of 40 pounds.

The 2019 Palm Clinical Trial had terminated remdesivir because half of the patients died and those who survived had kidney damage.  It was still the only drug FDA approved for treatment of Sars-coV-2.  (And just how did it get approved?)

Scott was totally dismayed that Robert had been given remdesivir and was battling COVID.  He reached out to organizations he knew who would help with hospital rescues.  Nicole Landers with the Truth For Health Foundation; Laura Bartlett, founder of the Hospital Hostage Hotline; and Greta Crawford, founder of jumped into action.

Scott went through the medical directives forms with Robert who agreed to all of them.  He then called Dr. Peter McCullough who referred Scott to Dr. Paul Marik of  Dr. Marik gave Scott the dosages for ivermectin, NAC [N-acetyl cysteine], vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, and then he said, ‘Get a budesonide treatment,’” Scott recalls. He had his wife bring some things from home and then the hospital gave Robert a Budesonide treatment.

While Scott waited for his wife Cindy, he made sure Robert was bathed, linens changed and fed.  In a short time after taking the prescribed dosages, Robert had improved.

Then a nurse came in to give him a flu shot!  (I swear these hospital people have all gone insane.)  At that point Scott said, “We have to get him out of here.”  They left despite the doctor refusing to dismiss him.  According to Against Medical Advice (AMA) they are allowed the freedom to do so.

When they were leaving, Scott asked a nurse, “I may never have this opportunity again, so I’d like to ask you a question. I just want to know, why would you do this? You know they’re trying to kill him. Why would you participate?”  Her response was “If I do not do exactly as they say, they will deport me.”  She was from the Philippines.

Scott Schara believes hospitals are targeting the disabled for two reasons.  One is for the largesse paid out to the hospitals at each step of COVID, the diagnosis, treatment and death, resulting in money from CARES (mentioned in my previous article) plus the extra 20% from Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Service (CMS).

Scott believes the other purpose is to dispose of individuals considered to be a burden on the CMS system.

Hitler copied our 1920s eugenics and expanded upon it.  Now we’re murdering disabled and elderly patients in their hospital beds.


In the early 1970s, we warned that murder of the most innocent in their mother’s wombs was a slippery slope to murdering anyone who was deemed undesirable or a “useless eater.”

America’s hospitals and nursing homes have become Hitler’s “killing fields.”

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Freedom Is The Biggest Shortage In Health Care

Moderna CEO Said He Knew in 2019 a Lucrative Pandemic Would Happen thumbnail

Moderna CEO Said He Knew in 2019 a Lucrative Pandemic Would Happen

By Catherine Salgado

During the January 18 World Economic Forum (WEF) panel State of the Pandemic at Davos 2023, Moderna CEO  said, “When the [COVID] pandemic happened, Moderna had made a hundred thousand doses in 2019 for the whole year. And I remember walking after those into the office of my other manufacturing and I say, ‘How we make [sic] a billion dollars next year?’ And they look at me a bit funny and say, ‘What?’ And I say, ‘Yeah, we need to make a billion dollars next year, there’s going to be a pandemic.’”

A very strange remark, yes? We know that Moderna was already working on a vaccine for COVID-19 before the virus was officially named, because Bancel also said that at Davos 2023. But for what was Moderna making a hundred thousand doses, when Moderna had no licensed product before the COVID vaccine? And how did Bancel know there was going to be a pandemic when he supposedly found out about COVID only in January 2020, and why would he have been excited about the prospect of a death-dealing disease of any sort?

Moderna, and Bancel, owe the world some answers.

This article was published by Pro Deo et Libertate and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Woke Universities Sacrificing Science on the Altar of Ideology and Profit thumbnail

Woke Universities Sacrificing Science on the Altar of Ideology and Profit

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Three case studies from Canada and Australia about suppression of heterodox opinions in universities.

Two thousand five hundred years ago the Greek playwright Aeschylus is reputed to have said “the first victim of war is truth.” Recent events in the academic world have demonstrated that truth is also a casualty when ideology and commercial interests are at stake.

The most recent case occurred last month at Laval University in Canada, when professor and RNA expert Patrick Provost was suspended without pay for anti-mRNA vaccine comments. Patrick Provost has run an RNA lab for 20 years and has published nearly 100 peer-reviewed studies. In 2003, Provost’s work on the role of microRNA in gene expression was named one of the 10 discoveries of the year by the Quebec Science Magazine.

Based on the government’s own hospitalization and mortality statistics for children, which are both very low, Provost said he believed the risks of Covid-19 vaccination in children could outweigh the benefits because of the potential side-effects from mRNA vaccines, which have only gone through two of the usual four stages of testing required before vaccines are approved for general use.

“I was just doing what I was hired to do,” he said in an interview. “I had some concerns about something, I searched the literature and I prepared a talk and I delivered it to the public. Being censored for doing what I’ve been trained to do — and hired to do — well, it’s hard to believe.”

“As soon as you raise some concerns about vaccines, or side-effects, or complications related to vaccines, then it’s worse than the N-word,” he continued. “You’re condemned by the media, by the government and you’re chased and put down …. We should be able to discuss any ideas — any opinions — and because I expressed opinions that went against the government narrative, I was suspended.”

Regarding the University’s reaction, one might well wonder about the fact that the top 20 pharmaceutical companies spent C$139 billion on Research & Development in 2022, a portion of which went to university researchers. Faculties of medicine are particularly favoured beneficiaries of such funding. And Patrick Provost is a professor at the Faculty of Medicine.

In an entirely different field, geophysicist Peter Ridd was sacked in 2018 by James Cook University, in Australia, for criticizing the work of a colleague studying the Great Barrier Reef. In an email to a journalist, he said the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority “is grossly misusing some scientific ‘data’ to make the case that the Great Barrier Reef is greatly damaged.” Ridd maintained that scientific organisations were “quite happy to spin a story for their own purposes, in this case to demonstrate that there is massive damage to the Great Barrier Reef.”

In a report published last year based, like Provost’s talk, on publicly available data, from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, aka the AIMS, Ridd notes that “the average coral cover as of 2022 is (…) the highest level on record. Figure 2 makes it clear that AIMS has effectively hidden the very good news about the reef between 2016 and 2022 by not publishing the Great Barrier Reef average data since 2017.”

Since 2014, the Australian government has committed A$4 billion to saving the Reef. The Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, based at James Cook University, has been a major recipient of this funding. It should be no surprise that Ridd’s colleagues did not take kindly to someone undermining the claims on which their research, and the government funding that subsidizes it, is based.

Back in Canada, Frances Widdowson, a professor of economics, policy, and justice at Mount Royal University in Alberta was fired last year after colleagues and activists called for her termination because she dared to challenge groupthink on indigenous issues. Widdowson had made the self-evident claim that residential schools provided access to education that otherwise might not have been available, which was not an endorsement of the residential school system, but a mere statement of fact. A large percentage of Indian parents willingly opted for residential schools as they were the only way for their children to get an education. Despite the factuality of the claim, she was vilified and called a “denialist.”

Widdowson observes that no one dare question indigenous leaders in Canada these days, which makes it difficult to check their claims about buried remains of children. Widdowson has remarked that while lurid talk of buried indigenous children has circulated for more than 25 years and is “now firmly ensconced within the Canadian consciousness,” there is still no hard evidence to support it. Not a single body has been found at the Kamloops Indian Residential School where 215 bodies were allegedly detected by ground-penetrating radar.

Widdowson’s words in her last hearing at the disciplinary committee just before being fired are worth quoting as a moral to these stories:

“My final thought is that I don’t think it’s understood, not just at Mount Royal but in universities generally, that there is a fundamental conflict between academic universities, academic values and these ideological types of intrusions which are put forward under a number of different names, whether it be diversity, inclusion or equity policies. (…). I’m being pushed out because I can’t accept things that I believe to be untrue. I can’t say that I think something is true when I don’t think it’s true and I think it would be a violation of my academic position to do that. And unfortunately there are people who are either opportunistic or just afraid who won’t stand behind the academic foundation of the university.”

The university is now a house without foundations. We all know what eventually happens to such houses.

A Wasteland of Corpses, Living and Dead: A Devastating Inside Look at Phoenix’s Homeless Zone thumbnail

A Wasteland of Corpses, Living and Dead: A Devastating Inside Look at Phoenix’s Homeless Zone

By Corinne Murdock

Intense poverty, frequent crime, social instability, high mortality, poor living standards: these qualities describe third-world countries. They also describe “The Zone”: the sprawling encampment of over 1,000 homeless in downtown Phoenix just blocks from the state capitol and amidst what was once a thriving business district. It’s an area where law and order don’t seem to exist; so much so that locals have given the area another, much darker nickname: “The Thunderdome.”

The crisis reached a new high after the discovery of a premature baby’s remains several weeks before Thanksgiving last year, burned in the middle of the street. A month later, a similar grisly fate befell a homeless man.

“That child burned… that was the beginning of the end for me. I don’t know why that hit us so hard,” said Karl Freund, who was leasing a building in The Zone and is suing the city of Phoenix over their handling of the homeless crisis. “Someone set a child on fire, and then two weeks later somebody burned a body just a block away. Then you see the people that are so mentally ill that you can’t place them in society. We walked out a year ago to see a girl masturbating 20 feet away from my car in the parking lot.”

Death and depravity are a common occurrence in The Zone.

Last month, Phoenix police shot and killed a Spanish-speaking homeless man who lunged at them with scissors. Attempts to incapacitate the man with stun guns were unsuccessful. Police had responded to a 911 call from a woman reporting the man approaching her aggressively while attempting to trespass her property.

Drug deals, addicts using, defecation and urination, assaults, sexual acts, and rapes are also done out in the open with increasing impunity. Gangs run the streets of The Zone, making the homeless pay for their tent space and beating them up at will. Registered sex offenders roam the streets, having been dropped off in The Zone. Businesses close but must continue paying rent.

The Zone sprung up outside Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS) Human Services Campus, an organization that provides food, shelter, and more to the homeless. It’s located in a dense and diverse business district that includes a near-historic sub shop, appliance manufacturer, cabinet manufacturer, steel manufacturer, millworker, textile company, metal supplier, door supplier, ironwork company, glass and mirror shops, counter supply store, air conditioning supply store, funeral supply store, motorcycle shop, RV shop, auto repair store, electrical supply store, art museum, custom printer, waste services, paper company, several recycling services, several automotive stores, and several transportation companies. Business owners neighboring The Zone have seen the homeless population — and attendant crime — grow over the last two years and four months.

Angie Ojile, a commercial designer and realtor in The Zone for over 20 years, said that she sees this and more every day. She said she watched four people taken out of the area in body bags in a one-day period. The level of danger is so prevalent that Ojile says that other businesses refuse to come there: pizza shops won’t deliver, and plumbers won’t service the buildings. Limitations on those services pale in comparison to her other, more pressing problem: retaining employees. Ojile told AZ Free News that one young woman she hired was initially excited to work for her, but left out of fear for her safety after several days navigating The Zone.

Ojile says the city is to blame for these troubles.

“Everything they do defies logic. It’s hurting people — not helping people,” said Ojile.

The homeless relentlessly bombard Ojile’s property with human waste, fires, garbage, drug use, assaults, and gang activity. Ojile estimates that she spends more on cleanups around her property than some pay for mortgages.

“The ground is so saturated with feces and urine, I can’t even breathe. We’ve got walls that are so full of feces, it’s disgusting. You can’t even look in that direction,” said Ojile. “We had dreams when we bought this property, and now we’re paying for it.”

Property assessments estimate Ojile’s property to be worth well over $2 million — but only if The Zone didn’t exist. A realtor told Ojile that her property was essentially worth nothing due to The Zone, and that he couldn’t sell the property in good faith due to that. Anyone who bought Ojile’s property — if buyers could be found — would find themselves in the same predicament as Ojile: unable to run her business properly, causing her to fall behind on property taxes.

Ojile said that nobody from the city bothered to return her calls for help. The supervisor representing that district, Steve Gallardo, has never returned her calls. Even an ombudsman wasn’t able to get information for her in a timely manner, something which the ombudsman allegedly remarked was unusual.

“I went to the city immediately for help, but no one would ever get back to me,” said Ojile.

This crisis hasn’t just taken a financial toll on Ojile; it has imposed a great emotional and physical toll. Ojile’s dog has gone missing three times, at least. The homeless have cut her fence to take the dog; she’s had to track down her dog in homeless tents and even an animal shelter.

Last week, Ojile became severely ill while working inside her business — a sickness unlike she’d experienced before. The room she was working in wasn’t completely insulated from the outside: she had to board over one of the windows, since the homeless would break it every time she fixed it and the city would fine her for blight over the broken window. Ojile suspected that she’d been exposed to someone smoking fentanyl.

Help from law enforcement isn’t always an option for Ojile in situations like that. According to Ojile, officers told her that they wouldn’t enforce the law equally in The Zone for fear of losing their jobs.

Phoenix Police Department (PPD) reported 278 incidents in 2020 and 206 incidents in 2021. There were around 200 incidents last year. There have been well over 4,000 calls from 2019 through last year, with over 1,200 calls for fire department assistance alone last year.

For Freund, the growth of crime in the area has reached a tipping point. He’d hoped to open a real estate office in the building he’d leased, but the state of the area hasn’t made that possible. Freund said that the PPD has not only stopped responding but stopped answering their calls.

“The day-to-day down there is unlivable for anybody and I can’t believe we subject humans to this environment,” said Freund. “Why would you subject humans to that kind of living condition? There’s prostitution, murder, physical beatings.”

Freund fought to open his business in that building, spending hundreds of thousands on property taxes, renovations, and fixing damages caused by the homeless. According to Freund, they’ve attempted to set his building on fire multiple times and stolen all of the copper wiring and pipe. He gave up hope on the property after 20 months; he managed to find another to sublet the property. The thousands he spent in property taxes and beautification wasn’t enough to spur the city to action — just as is the case for so many others in The Zone.

Although these business owners have languished for years, several weeks’ worth of sports fans visiting the city were spared the crisis. Ahead of the lucrative NFL Super Bowl and PGA Waste Management Open that were held in the Phoenix area in February, the city committed to cleanup efforts of homeless encampments. However, these cleanup efforts aren’t permanent. The homeless are free to return to the areas after cleanup ends; they already have. Only 33 of the homeless accepted services during Phase One of the city’s December cleanup, according to the deputy director for the Office of Homeless Solutions, Scott Hall.

Apart from cleanups, the city has directed their millions in funding on a “housing first” or “permanent supportive housing” model, sometimes called “affordable housing.” The theory behind this model is that the homeless will choose to seek employment, become financially responsible, and receive mental health care and/or substance abuse treatment if food and housing are provided. The theory also posits that enabling the homeless to choose their housing and support services will make them more likely to remain in that housing and stick with self-improvement initiatives.

The city has poured millions of funding to create housing; yet available housing hasn’t kept pace with the number of homeless, the retention rates of the homeless in their housing and program participation remains poor, and the crisis is progressively spreading to surrounding areas. Even so, the city allocated another $12 million last October, another $8 million last November, and another $25 million in January to prove the housing first theory correct.

The city recently unveiled their latest attempt at free housing for the homeless on Feb. 8: five shipping containers repurposed for “sustainable” housing. These living structures’ purported sustainability comes at the cost of $200,000 for one-bedroom, one-bathroom’s worth of solar panels providing power, an incinerator toilet, LED lighting, and economical heating and cooling. The Arizona Department of Housing issued a $1.2 million grant for the five units.

Then there was the 24/7, single-stall, $200,000 toilet for the homeless launched in January.

Other city initiatives providing the homeless with more resources also appear to have failed to make a noticeable impact on the crisis.

In December, the city launched an employment program that pays the homeless $65 to work five-hour shifts. However, those directly impacted by or handling the crisis say that these kinds of approaches haven’t led to lasting change.

Ojile said that the homeless she’s known for many years don’t feel like they’re getting help. Some of the homeless she knows in the area have been there for decades. They’re trapped alongside Ojile.

“We can’t get out. They’re crashing our property values,” said Ojile. “There’s people that are homeless that don’t want to be near this.”

A broker estimated the value of Ojile’s property at around $2.4 million. However, the broker informed Ojile that her property is unmarketable due to the state of The Zone.

“[The] values are based ‘as if’ the property was not associated or in proximity to the situation currently occurring adjacent to the Property (i.e. homeless, mental health, drugs, gangs, etc.). Unfortunately, the property is deemed unmarketable at any realistic value at this date due to these issues along with safety concerns that would be perceived by any prospective buyer, tenant or investor that would normally have invested in the property. Further, at this date, the city of Phoenix who is trying to manage a difficult problem, has ‘kicked the can down the road’ and now that ‘can’ is on and surrounding your property. Additionally, since you have disclosed various items to me (break-ins, been threatened, witnessed drug purchases, individuals urinating/defecating on the property, etc.) as a licensed real estate agent held to ADRE Rules and Statutes, I am required to notify all potential buyers, tenants, investors of such. Therefore, as referenced above, post touring the property, which they will see the issues firsthand and my disclosure of all facts I am aware of associated with this property, I again state that the property is unfortunately ‘unmarketable’ at this time.’” (emphasis added)

Angie’s property and others are regularly bombarded with human waste, fires, garbage, and drug use.

Judge Glock, a senior fellow with a Texas-based nonpartisan policy group called the Cicero Institute, said that leaders are gravely mistaken to believe that a housing-first approach works.

“They’re convinced by a very small group that nothing can be done, that anything that moves people off the sidewalk is cruel, and the only option is a house for every single person that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per person,” said Glock. “It’s an unfortunate mindset, but that’s what a small group of activists have convinced them.”

Jeff Taylor, chairman of the board for the Salvation Army’s western territory, said that residential behavioral health treatment needs to occur before any kind of housing efforts. Taylor shared with AZ Free News just one of many initiatives to house the homeless that failed.

“They took 20 of their star people from the shelter, they got them apartments and they went to Target and got furniture, went to Walmart, got their closets filled with clothes, moved all 20 into apartments and they had employment. Within a week they’d sold everything, and they were running drug dens out of the housing,” recounted Taylor. “The problem isn’t getting someone clean; it’s keeping someone clean. Recovery is measured in years.”

Taylor said that the homeless with mental health or drug addictions were only as good as their treatment programs. What’s more, Taylor expressed concern that the crisis would only worsen due to the newest drug to hit the streets: fentanyl. The potency equivalent of other, more costly hard drugs, such as crack cocaine and heroin, only costs $1 for fentanyl.

“This is a humanitarian crisis that will only get worse,” said Taylor. “Fentanyl is a whole other ballgame.”

Sam Stone, a Phoenix City Council candidate, said that permanent supportive housing wouldn’t incentivize the homeless to get their lives on track. Stone doesn’t live in The Zone, but he’s spent much time there over the years attempting to solve the crisis.

“We have to start from the perspective that chronic street homelessness is not an acceptable lifestyle choice,” said Stone. “What they’re talking about is just warehousing addicts and mentally ill people until they die. Without treatment for their issues, they’re never going to get better. All they ever do is demand we spend more and more money. None of that does anything to change what’s going on. You have to lead with services. You have to switch things around. You have to make it tough to live on the street and easy to get into treatment.”

Stone and others we spoke to referenced Austin, Texas, as a poster child for mitigating homelessness. Austin voters reinstated a public camping ban in May 2021, after the city council ended a similar ban that had been in place for 23 years. Encampments quickly flooded the city, and the homeless were underfoot everywhere. That reality no longer exists: the homeless are few and far between throughout the city, and shelters are operated on a closed-campus basis, meaning that the homeless have to be referred in order to receive services.

Viewing The Zone and Phoenix’s homeless crisis isn’t a partisan issue. Catherine Miranda, a newly elected Democratic state senator representing the district containing The Zone, published a lengthy article last December criticizing the city’s approach to addressing their homeless.

Miranda declared that Phoenix’s housing first dreams had failed her homeless constituents. The freshman lawmaker urged the enforcement of existing street camping bans, prioritization of short-term rather than permanent housing, and treatment of mental health and addiction problems first.

“Phoenix wants to give the homeless permanent homes without addressing the root causes of their homelessness. No wonder it’s been a disaster,” wrote Miranda. “The state and city should refocus on a ‘Treatment First’ philosophy. While the failed ‘Housing First’ model does not require treatment for drug addiction or mental health problems, programs like recovery housing tie to sobriety or mental health checkups.”

Miranda also noted that building houses takes years, resulting in the homeless continuing to live a dangerous, unhealthy lifestyle on the streets.

“While we wait years or decades for these thousands of homes to be built, they want to keep allowing our most vulnerable neighbors, who are struggling with drug addiction and severe mental illness, to live and die on our streets,” stated Miranda.

The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) annual point-in-time (PIT) homeless counts over the past few years reflect a historic high in the homeless population, the likes of which haven’t been experienced in well over a decade. Last year’s MAG counted nearly 3,100 unsheltered homeless. That’s a 131 percent increase from 2013, when there were just over 1,300 unsheltered homeless.

The 2022 PIT also reported that 44 percent of homeless were in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or safe haven programs, while 56 percent weren’t. 2020 was the first time in recent years that there were more unsheltered homeless individuals: 49 percent were sheltered homeless individuals, while 51 percent weren’t. However, this decline preceded efforts to mitigate COVID-19 spread, such as reducing shelter capacity.

In 2019, 52 percent were sheltered, while 48 percent weren’t. Even those 2019 numbers reflected a significant decline in the number of homeless seeking sheltered services: the number of unsheltered homeless increased by 22 percent from 2018 to 2019, while the number of sheltered declined by seven percent.

According to the latest Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Inventory Count, Maricopa County and Phoenix had over 12,300 beds available for homeless housing last year. Nearly 8,100 of these were permanent housing, while just over 4,200 were emergency, safe haven, and transitional housing.

Homeless deaths have also been increasing at a significant rate. The Maricopa County Medical Examiner’s Office reported that homeless deaths more than doubled from over 250 in 2019 to nearly 600 in 2020, with a slight decline to just over 500 in 2021 before skyrocketing to over 700 last year.

Though crimes and deaths have increased in the area, emergency services haven’t been able to keep up. Emails obtained by AZ Free News revealed that the Phoenix Fire Department won’t respond to calls without PPD assistance and assurance that the scene of the incident is secure, due to how dangerous The Zone has become.

Even then, police claims of an incident scene being secure aren’t always accepted by first responders. Emails revealed that the scene could span multiple city blocks and contain crowds likely to assault the emergency responders.

The emails also revealed that first responders considered the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots of 2020 to pale in comparison to the everyday dangers of The Zone. The first responders noted that they lacked adequate protection and resources to respond in that area.

“At no point during the protests did I feel like our folks were in the potential danger that they face every day responding to the area surrounding CASS,” stated the email.

Freund says he noticed a shift in the city’s handling of the homeless around November 2020. He said that the numbers of homeless in The Zone began to increase greatly around that time, and that the homeless became more resistant to residents’ requests to move. Freund said that law enforcement activity began to slow down around that time as well.

Now, Freund and leaders like Stone are warning that this problem is spreading.

“You walk into The Zone, it’s like you’re walking out of America. It’s a nightmare hellscape that shouldn’t exist anywhere in this country, but it’s also what a lot of our major cities are coming to look like,” said Stone. “Unless we start looking to get our homeless population into treatment or off the streets, The Zone isn’t going to stay in The Zone.”

This article was published by Goldwater Institute and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

What the WHO Is Actually Proposing thumbnail

What the WHO Is Actually Proposing

By David Bell

The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently developing two international legal instruments intended to increase its authority in managing health emergencies, including pandemics;

(1) Amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), and

(2) A pandemic treaty, termed ‘CA+’ by the WHO.

The draft IHR amendments would lay out new powers for the WHO during health emergencies, and broaden the context within which they can be used. The draft CA+ (‘treaty’) is intended to support the bureaucracy, financing and governance to underpin the expanded IHR.

These proposed instruments, as currently drafted, would fundamentally change the relationship between the WHO, its Member States and naturally their populations, promoting a fascist and neo-colonialist approach to healthcare and governance. The documents need to be viewed together, and in the far wider context of the global/globalist pandemic preparedness agenda.


The threat of pandemics.

The current rapidly increasing funding for pandemics and health emergencies is based on several fallacies, frequently repeated in white papers and other documents as well as the mainstream media as if they were facts, in particular:

  • Pandemics are increasing in frequency.
  • Pandemics are causing an increasing health burden.
  • Increased contact between humans and wildlife will promote more pandemics (as most are caused by zoonotic viruses).

The last pandemic to cause major mortality was the 1918-19 ’Spanish flu,’  estimated to have killed between 20 and 50 million people. As noted by the National Institutes of Health, most of these people died of secondary bacterial pneumonia, as the outbreak occurred in the pre-antibiotic era. Prior to this time, major pandemics were due to bubonic plague, cholera and typhus, all addressable with modern antibiotics and hygiene, and smallpox, which is now eliminated.

The WHO lists just 3 pandemics in the past century, prior to Covid-19; the influenza outbreaks of 1957-58 and 1968-69, and the 2009 Swine flu outbreak. The formers killed 1.1 million and 1 million people respectively, while the latter killed 150,000 or less. For context, 290,000 to 650,000 people die of influenza every year, and 1.6 million people die of tuberculosis (at a much younger average age).

In Western countries, Covid-19 was associated with deaths at an average age of about 80 years, and global estimates suggest an overall infection mortality rate of about 0.15 percent, which is similar to that for influenza.which is similar to that for influenza (0.3-0.4% with Covid in older Western populations).

Thus, pandemics in the past century have killed far fewer people and at an older age than most other major infectious diseases.

The Covid-19 event stands out from previous pandemics due to the aggressive and disproportionate responses employed, instituted contrary to existing WHO guidelines. The harms of this response have been discussed extensively elsewhere,, with little doubt that the resultant disruptions to health systems and increased poverty will cause far higher mortality, at a far younger age, than would have been expected from Covid-19 itself. Despite the historical rarity of pandemics, the WHO and partners are pushing forward with a rapid process that will ensure repetition of such responses, rather than first analyzing the costs and benefits of the recent example. This is clearly reckless and a bad way to develop policy.

The role of the WHO in public health.

The WHO, whilst having a role in coordinating cross-border health emergencies included in its Constitution, was founded on human rights principles and originally emphasized community and individual rights. These culminated in the Declaration of Alma Ata, emphasizing the importance of community participation and ‘horizontal’ approaches to care.

Apart from its basis in human rights, this approach has a strong public health basis. Improved life expectancy and major reductions in infectious disease in wealthier populations predominantly occurred through improved living conditions, nutrition and sanitation, with a secondary impact of improving basic health care and availability of and access to antibiotics. Most vaccines came later, though playing an important role in certain diseases such as smallpox. Basic nutrition and living conditions are still the predominant determinant of life expectancy, with GDP recognized as directly impacting infant mortality, in particular in lower income countries.

The emphasis of the WHO has changed over the past few decades in particular, associated with two major shifts in funding. Firstly, a large proportion of funding now comes from private and corporate sources, rather than being almost solely country-based at its inception. Secondly, most funding is now ‘specified,’  meaning it is given to the WHO for specific projects in designated geographies, rather than being used at the WHO’s discretion to address the greatest disease burdens. This is reflected in an apparent move from priorities based on disease burden to priorities based on commodities, particularly vaccines, that generate profit for its private and corporate sponsors.

In parallel, other ‘public-private partnerships’ have arisen, including Gavi, the vaccine alliance, and CEPI (dedicated solely to pandemics). These organizations include private interests on their governing boards, and address a narrow health focus that reflects the priorities of private sponsors. They influence the WHO through direct funding and through funding within WHO Member States.

Other UN agencies have evolved in similar ways, with UNICEF now heavily focused on implementing mass Covid vaccination among populations already immune, whilst children, its former focus, have had rapidly deterioratinhealth metrics. The World Bank has developed a Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF) to support related pandemic preparedness with the WHO as technical partner, in order to fund development of a surveillance, identification and response network as envisioned in the two WHO pandemic instruments (below) and backed by the recent G20 meeting in Indonesia.

The WHO pandemic instruments

The WHO is pushing two instruments to enhance its role and authority in health emergencies including pandemics; (1) Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) and (2) a new treaty-like instrument currently designated CA+.

The IHR (2005) currently has force under international law but is written as non-binding recommendations. The World Health Assembly (WHA), the governing body of the WHO, will only need a simple majority of States (97 of 194) to pass the amendments. Countries will then have 6 months in which to opt out, otherwise being considered to have accepted the amendments as existing signatories to the IHR. This opt-out period was reduced from 18 months by the WHA in 2022.

The CA+ (treaty) instrument is due to be presented to the WHA in May 2024. Adoption will require a two-thirds majority of Member States.

Both draft instruments are currently passing through a usual WHO process of open and closed committee meetings and internal and external reviews, after submission of proposals by various States. The IHR amendments process is under the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)n (WGIHR) while the CA+ instrument is under the International Governmental Negotiating Body (INB).

What the two WHO pandemic instruments will do.

As currently drafted, the CA+ and IHR amendments complement each other. The IHR amendments concentrate on the specific powers and processes sought by the WHO and its sponsors. The CA+ concentrates more on the governance and funding to support these. Specificities in both instruments will change between now and the WHA vote in May 2023 and 2024 respectively. However, in broad terms, they are currently written to achieve the following:

IHR draft Amendments:

  • Expand the definitions of pandemics & health emergencies, including the introduction of ‘potential’ for harm rather than actual harm. It also expands the definition of health products that fall under this to include any commodity or process that may impact on the response or “improve quality of life.”
  • Change the recommendations of the IHR from ‘non-binding’ to mandatory instructions that the States undertake to follow and implement.
  • Solidify the Director General’s ability to independently declare emergencies.
  • Set up an extensive surveillance process in all States, which WHO will verify regularly through a county review mechanism.
  • Enable WHO to share country data without consent.
  • Give WHO control over certain country resources, including requirements for financial contributions, and provision of intellectual property and know-how (within the broad definition of health products above).
  • Ensure national support for promotion of censorship activities by WHO to prevent contrary approaches and concerns from being freely disseminated.
  • Change existing IHR provisions affecting individuals from non-binding to binding, including border closures, travel restrictions, confinement (quarantine), medical examinations and medication of individuals. The latter would encompass requirements for injection with vaccines or other pharmaceuticals.

CA+ (treaty):

  • Set up an international supply network overseen by WHO.
  • Fund the structures and processes by requiring ≥5% of national health budgets to be devoted to health emergencies.
  • Set up a ‘Governing Body,’  under WHO auspices, to oversee the whole process.
  • Expand scope by emphasizing a ‘One Health’ agenda, being defined as a recognition that a very broad range of aspects of life and the biosphere can impact health, and therefore fall under the ‘potential’ to spread harm across borders as an international health emergency.

Both draft instruments remain under discussion, and further changes are likely. A recent external review committee report pushed back on some aspects of the IHR amendments in a report to the DG, but left much of the basis intact.

It is important to consider these texts together, and in the context of the wider pandemic preparedness agenda that includes agencies such as Gavi and CEPI, their private and corporate sponsors, and private industry lobby groups including the World Economic Forum (WEF). The WEF has been influential in promoting the agenda; CEPI was inaugurated at the 2017 WEF Davos meeting. The pandemic agenda must also be seen in the context of the unprecedented profits and wealth transfers, and the suspension of basic human rights that the Covid-19 public health response promoted.

The momentum behind the agenda

An international bureaucracy is currently being built with funding envisioned at up to $31 billion per year, including $10 billion in new funding. (For context, the entire current WHO annual budget is about $3.6 billion). This same bureaucracy will surveil for new and variant viruses, identify them, determine their ‘threat’ and then implement a response. This is essentially creating a self-perpetuating pandemic industry, with major internal conflicts of interest, funded by the world’s taxpayers but, being under a UN agency, having no national legal oversight and little accountability. Its justification for continued funding will rely on declaring and responding to perceived threats, restricting the lives of others whilst accruing profit to its sponsors through pharmaceutical recommendations and mandates.

While both texts are intended to have force under international law, countries can theoretically opt out in order to preserve their sovereignty and protect their citizens’ rights. However, low-income countries could potentially face financial pressures, restrictions, and sanctions from entities such as the World Bank that are also invested in this agenda. Of relevance, the 2022 United States National Defense Authorization Act (HR 7776-960) includes wording concerning adherence to the IHR, and action concerning countries that are uncooperative with its provisions.

What can be done

These initiatives, if continued, will reverse the direction of international public health and the WHO itself, driving back towards a colonialist and fascist approach to health governance reflecting values the world sought to put aside in the aftermath of World War Two. As the Covid-19 response demonstrated, they will have a wide and profound impact across society, removing basic human rights, increasing poverty and wealth concentration. They deserve global attention and a robust society-wide response.

Both draft instruments could be stopped by the IHR amendments failing to achieve 50 percent of Member States’ support, and the CA+ failing to achieve two-thirds majority, or, after adoption, failing to have a minimum 30 ratifications). While it is inevitable that some provisions will change prior to being put to a vote, and some amendments may fail to pass, the bureaucracy and mechanisms being built in parallel mean that the passage of any of the proposed provisions will further promote this anti-democratic approach to society. Blocking them seems vital, but the voting structure of the WHA (one country – one vote) makes international diplomacy by vested interests influential. Votes commonly depend on the views of a small group of health bureaucrats.

Blocking in national legislatures seems a very important approach, including the introduction of legislation to embed health policy including emergency responses within national jurisdictions, and specifically preventing national agencies from following external dictates.

While international coordination is important in public health, particularly in cross-border risks and disease spread, this must be at the behest of State parties. Such measures must respect the fundamental human rights principles established through the post-World War Two tribunals and treaties intended to stop colonialist and totalitarian approaches to individuals and international relations. This may require a different set of international agencies that have sufficiently strong constitutions to withstand private conflict of interest, and that cannot violate basic individual and national sovereignty. This may require defunding current agencies and replacement with structures more fit for purpose. If the world is not to be locked into a situation from which it becomes difficult to extract itself, this question must be addressed very urgently.

IHR amendments

The IHR amendments contain the most important aspects of the WHO’s pandemic preparedness initiative.

They are summarized in a previous publication, and should be read and understood alongside the CA+ zero draft.

INB CA+ zero draft

Extracts from the INB Zero Draft of the CA+.

Article 4. Guiding principles and rights

17. Central role of WHO – As the directing and coordinating authority on global health, and the leader of multilateral cooperation in global health governance

Emphasizing the central ‘directing’ role of the WHO.

Article 6. Predictable global supply chain and logistics network

2. The WHO Global Pandemic Supply Chain and Logistics Network (the “Network”) is hereby established.

3. The Parties shall support the Network’s development and operationalization and participate in the Network, within the framework of WHO, including through sustaining it in inter-pandemic times as well as appropriate scale-up in the event of a pandemic.

(b) assess anticipated demand for, and map sources of, manufacturers and suppliers, including raw materials and other necessary inputs, for sustainable production of pandemic-related products (especially active pharmaceutical ingredients)

(c) develop a mechanism to ensure the fair and equitable allocation…

Requiring (shall) Parties to support the WHO’s proposed global supply network. 3 (b) seems to imply a role for the WHO in requiring production outside of market forces. 3 (c), while seemingly innocuous and fair, would take allocation out of country purview and could be used to require compliance with WHO dictates on distribution.

Article 7. Access to technology: promoting sustainable and equitably distributed production and transfer of technology and know-how

The Parties, working through the Governing Body for the WHO CA+, shall strengthen existing and develop innovative multilateral mechanisms that promote and incentivize relevant transfer of technology and know-how for production of pandemic-related products on mutually agreed terms, to capable manufacturers,…

4. In the event of a pandemic, the Parties:

(a) will take appropriate measures to support time-bound waivers of intellectual property rights that can accelerate or scale up manufacturing of pandemic-related products during a pandemic, to the extent necessary to increase the availability and adequacy of affordable pandemic-related products;…

(c) shall encourage all holders of patents related to the production of pandemic-related products to waive, or manage as appropriate, payment of royalties by developing country manufacturers on the use, during the pandemic, of their technology for production of pandemic related products, and shall require, as appropriate, those that have received public financing for the development of pandemic-related products to do so; and …

Reflecting IHR amendment provisions on requirement to give up intellectual property, but in this case time-limited (determined by?). Includes waiver of royalty payments. As with the proposed IHR amendments, these provisions seem to impact States’ intellectual property laws.

Article 8. Regulatory strengthening

2. Each Party shall build and strengthen its country regulatory capacities and performance for timely approval of pandemic-related products and, in the event of a pandemic, accelerate the process of approving and licensing pandemic-related products for emergency use in a timely manner, including the sharing of regulatory dossiers with other institutions.

This reflects the accelerated nature of vaccines during the declared emergency for Covid-19, and the reduced regulatory oversight and safety trials related to this. This greatly reduces costs to pharmaceutical manufacturers in particular, and undercuts decades of development of regulatory oversight.

Article 12. Strengthening and sustaining a skilled and competent health and care


3. The Parties shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing an available,

skilled and trained global public health emergency workforce that is deployable to support Parties upon request, based on public health need, in order to contain outbreaks and prevent an escalation of small scale spread to global proportions.

4. The Parties will support the development of a network of training institutions, national and

regional facilities and centres of expertise in order to establish common guidance to enable more predictable, standardized, timely and systematic response missions and deployment of the

aforementioned public health emergency workforce.

Investment in building the pandemic bureaucracy that will underpin this agenda.

Article 13. Preparedness monitoring, simulation exercises and universal peer review

4. Each Party shall provide annual (or biennial) reporting, building on existing relevant reporting where possible, on its pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery capacities.

The surveillance mechanism, which appears built on the model of the review mechanism of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

Article 15. Global coordination, collaboration and cooperation

2. Recognizing the central role of WHO as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, and mindful of the need for coordination with regional organizations, entities in the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organizations, the WHO Director-General shall, in accordance with terms set out herein, declare pandemics.1

Article 17. Strengthening pandemic and public health literacy

  1. The Parties commit to increase science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population, as well as access to information on pandemics and their effects, and tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through promotion of international cooperation. In that regard, each Party is encouraged to:

(b) conduct regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation, which contribute to design communications and messaging strategies for the public to counteract misinformation, disinformation and false news, thereby strengthening public trust; and,

2. The Parties will contribute to research and inform policies on factors that hinder adherence to

public health and social measures, confidence and uptake of vaccines, use of appropriate therapeutics and trust in science and government institutions.

Provisions on managing free speech.

Article 19. Sustainable and predictable financing

1. The Parties recognize the important role that financial resources play in achieving the objective of the WHO CA+ and the primary financial responsibility of national governments in protecting and promoting the health of their populations. In that regard, each Party shall:

(a) cooperate with other Parties, within the means and resources at its disposal, to raise

financial resources for effective implementation of the WHO CA+ through bilateral and

multilateral funding mechanisms; (b) plan and provide adequate financial support in line with its national fiscal capacities for: (i) strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems; (ii) implementing its national plans, programmes and priorities; and (iii) strengthening health systems

and progressive realization of universal health coverage;

(c) commit to prioritize and increase or maintain, including through greater collaboration

between the health, finance and private sectors, as appropriate, domestic funding by allocating in its annual budgets not lower than 5% of its current health expenditure to pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery, notably for improving and sustaining relevant capacities and working to achieve universal health coverage; and (d) commit to allocate, in accordance with its respective capacities, XX% of its gross domestic product for international cooperation and assistance on pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery, particularly for developing countries, including through international organizations and existing and new mechanisms.

Setting up the financial structure, requiring certain levels of budgetary application to pandemics irrespective of burden.

Article 20. Governing Body for the WHO CA+

1. A governing body for the WHO CA+ is established to promote the effective implementation of the WHO CA+ (hereinafter, the “Governing Body”).

2. The Governing Body shall be composed of: (a) the Conference of the Parties (COP), which shall be the supreme organ of the Governing Body, composed of the Parties and constituting the sole decision-making organ; and (b) the Officers of the Parties, which shall be the administrative organ of the Governing Body.

3. The COP, as the supreme policy setting organ of the WHO CA+, shall keep under regular review every three years the implementation and outcome of the WHO CA+ and any related legal instruments that the COP may adopt, and shall make the decisions necessary to promote the effective implementation of the WHO CA+.

Establishing the governing body for health emergency surveillance and response (which appears intended to be within WHO).

Article 21. Consultative Body for the WHO CA+

  1. A consultative body for the WHO CA+ (the “Consultative Body”) is established to provide advice and technical inputs for the decision-making processes of the COP, without participating in any decision-making.

Another oversight body, part of this growing workforce supported solely for this purpose.

This article was published by Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Lying to Ourselves thumbnail

Lying to Ourselves

By Theodore Dalrymple

One of the peculiarities of our age is the ferocity with which intellectuals and politicians defend propositions that they do not—because they cannot—believe to be true, so outrageous are they, such violence do they do to the most obvious and evident truth. Agatha Christie (a far greater psychologist than Sigmund Freud), drew attention almost a century ago to the phenomenon when she had Dr. Sheppard, the protagonist and culprit of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd say, “It is odd how, when you have a secret belief of your own which you do not wish to acknowledge, the voicing of it by someone else will rouse you to a fury of denial. I burst immediately into indignant speech.”

Among the propositions defended with such suspect ferocity is that men can change straightforwardly and unambiguously into women, and vice versa. Now everyone accepts that they can change into something different from ordinary men and women, and can live as if they were of the opposite of their birth sex; moreover, there is no reason to abuse or otherwise maltreat them if they do, and kindness and human decency require that we do not humiliate them or make their lives more difficult than they are. But this is not at all the same as claiming that those who take hormones and have operations actually are the sex that they choose, or that it is right to enshrine untruth in law and thereby force people to assent to what they know to be false. That way totalitarianism lies.

To propound and defend ideas that you know are false is intellectually and morally frivolous, but it lacks the usual enjoyment that frivolity is supposed to supply. It is combined with earnestness but not with seriousness: one thinks of the Austrian saying under the Habsburgs, “the situation is catastrophic but not serious.”

An excellent example of the tendency to adopt ideas that are known to be false and yet are made the basis of policy is the Scottish government’s bill to reduce the legal obstacles to sex change. The bill proposed that adolescents from the age of sixteen could change their sex (for all legal purposes) without having to undergo any medical examination or treatment, and simply after completing three months of living as the sex that they desired to be.

Let us overlook the fact that “living as a woman” or “living as a man” implies that there is a binary distinction between male and female that is not merely a matter of social convention: no one, surely, could truly believe that after three months of role-playing, however successfully or gratifyingly to the person who role-plays, someone changes his or her sex. And this theory was put to a practical test very shortly after the passage of the bill (though it was vetoed by the British government). There was an understandable outcry in Scotland when violent sex offenders against women who claimed to be changing sex were sent to women’s prisons. The Scottish administration was forced to back-pedal, and the two were sent to men’s prisons instead.

How to explain that societies that prided themselves on having overthrown superstition and on basing themselves upon scientific enquiry nevertheless believed in the grossest absurdities?

Now according to the theory adopted by the government, these men were straightforwardly women because they identified as such. They were as female as Marilyn Monroe. Their motive for changing sex was beside the point: according to the theory, it was their self-identification that counted. And the fact that they had been violent towards women was also beside the point: a woman’s prison, after all, can be expected to house women who have been violent to women. If the administration genuinely believed the theory behind its own legislation, it would have stuck to its guns: the sex offenders who were men when they committed their offences were now women, and since women should be sent to women’s prisons, these two offenders should have been sent to women’s prisons, outcry or not.

If we try to look on this episode with the eye of a future social historian, on the assumption (by no means certain) that western societies will someday come to their senses and that their social historians will be at least moderately sensible, what will we hypothesise? How to explain that societies that prided themselves on having overthrown superstition and on basing themselves to an unprecedented extent upon scientific enquiry, and that had a higher percentage of educated people than ever before in human history, nevertheless believed in the grossest absurdities? What could have possessed them?

I think that social historians will find a clue in G. K. Chesterton’s book, Orthodoxy, though it was published more than a century before the phenomenon for which the explanation is sought, in 1908. Chesterton wrote:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered … it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.

Pity and compassion, formerly Christian virtues, are the virtues that run wild in the modern social liberal’s mind. Indeed, one might almost say that he has become addicted to them, for they are what give meaning and purpose to his life. He is ever on the lookout for new worlds not to conquer, but to pity. In his mind, pity and compassion require that he adopts without demur the point of view of the person he pities, for otherwise, he might upset him; he must not criticise, therefore. In short, if need be, he must lie, and he frequently ends up deceiving himself as well as others. And if he has power, he will turn lies into policy.

This article was published by Law and Liberty and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Thousands of Schools Won’t Tell Parents About Kids’ Gender Transition: Report thumbnail

Thousands of Schools Won’t Tell Parents About Kids’ Gender Transition: Report

By Family Research Council

More than 5,000 schools across the nation allow teachers to hide a child’s decision to identify as a member of the opposite sex from the child’s parents. The parental exclusion policy — which is heavily advocated by LGBT lobbying groups and applies to more than 3.2 million children nationally — has already resulted in the sexual trafficking of at least one young girl.

A total of 5,904 schools in 168 school districts nationwide allow, or require, teachers to conceal children’s transgender “social transition” — in which children change their name or preferred pronouns, or begin using the locker rooms of the opposite sex — from their parents. School districts keeping legal guardians ignorant about their children’s life-altering decisions stretch from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon, and from Alaska to Arizona.

“This investigation shows that parental exclusion policies are a problem from coast-to-coast — and that living in a red state doesn’t mean that families are automatically shielded from this issue,” said Nicole Neily, president of Parents Defending Education (PDE), which compiled the list. PDE discovered four districts in deep-red Kansas that have adopted the policy, crafted by LGBT activists. For example, Wichita Public Schools’ teacher training claims, “The lack of using [a child’s preferred] pronouns could lead to death.”

In all, PDE reports, such policies affect 3,268,752 students — and their parents — in 28 states and the District of Columbia.

“This list is not comprehensive,” the report notes.

A Virginia high school’s decision to conceal a teenage girl’s gender transition ended with the teen being drugged, gang-raped and, on two separate occasions, sexually trafficked. In August 2021, 14-year-old Sage began attending Appomattox County High School. Her biological grandmother, Michele, who legally adopted her, said Sage told her “all the girls there were bi, trans, lesbian, emo,” and Sage soon decided she “wanted to wear boys’ clothes.” But Michele added, Sage told school officials “she was now a boy named Draco with male pronouns. Sage asked the school not to tell me, and they did not tell me.”

After a group of boys accosted and threatened to rape her in the boys’ restroom, Michele took Sage home and found a pass made out to “Draco.” Michele said Sage was too afraid to return to school, so she ran away to meet an online “friend,” who sexually trafficked her through Washington, D.C. and Maryland. By the time the FBI found her locked inside a room in Baltimore nine days later, Michele recalled, Sage had been “locked in a room, drugged, gang-raped, and brutalized by countless men.”

“One of the expert witnesses in the hearing [on January 30] confirms that online predators do target social media accounts of children who list themselves as ‘ftm’ or ‘female to male,’” Delegate David LaRock (R-Berryville) told The Daily Signal.

But Sage’s nightmare had only begun. A judge accused Michele and her husband of inflicting “emotional and physical abuse” by “misgendering” their granddaughter. The judge had Sage committed to the male section of a children’s home, where she was “repeatedly beaten” and “given street drugs,” Michele said. Sage ran away from the home, but the FBI found her in the grips of a sexual trafficking in Texas. Sage had again “been drugged, raped, beaten, and exploited.”

“Sage isn’t unique,” LaRock told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on February 9, although “the degree to which she’s been violated is, hopefully, rare.”

Reports of schools allowing or encouraging minors to “socially transition” to another gender have trickled out, as outraged parents have taken legal action against the districts on PDE’s list. A coalition of parents sued Iowa’s Linn-Mar Community School District last summer. Last month, Amber Lavigne filed a lawsuit against the Great Salt Bay Community School in the coastal Maine village of Damariscotta — population 2,300 — after she found a chest binder in her 13-year-old daughter’s belongings. A social worker facilitated the child’s decision to identify as another gender, and the school withheld all information from her mother, according to her legal counsel. “The school never stopped trying to keep me in the dark at every turn, repeatedly stonewalling me when I tried to find out what was going on,” said an exasperated Lavigne, who is represented by the Goldwater Institute. “My parental rights aren’t up for debate: I deserve to know what’s happening to my child in school.”

“Counselors and teachers didn’t tell Sage’s family about the fact that she was transgender. And she got caught up in some horrific human trafficking issues, and they almost lost her,” Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) told a CNN townhall last Wednesday. “There’s a basic rule here, which is that children belong to parents — not to the state, not to schools, not to bureaucrats, but to parents.”

Last September, Youngkin enacted model school guidelines that affirm, “School personnel shall keep parents fully informed about all matters that may be reasonably expected to be important to a parent.” Parents may “determine (a) what names, nicknames, and/or pronouns, if any, shall be used for their child by teachers and school staff while their child is at school, (b) whether their child engages in any counseling or social transition at school that encourages a gender that differs from their child’s sex, or (c) whether their child expresses a gender that differs with their child’s sex while at school,” the guidelines add.

Despite Youngkin’s actions, the report lists seven school districts in Virginia that continue to hide social transition from parents.

To remedy the situation, LaRock introduced “Sage’s Law” (H.B. 2432), which requires school officials to contact parents if a child begins using names or pronouns not consistent with his or her sex. The bill passed the House of Delegates on February 6 by a narrow 50-48, party-line vote. (Democratic Delegate Cliff Hayes also intended to vote no.) It is currently under Senate consideration.

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is taking steps to assure no American parent is frozen out of his or her child’s life decisions. Last week, House Republicans advanced a measure barring any federally funded elementary or middle school from changing a “minor child’s gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name” on any school form, or allowing students to use the restrooms and changing facilities of the opposite sex. The House Education and the Workforce Committee adopted the measure — originally introduced as a separate bill, the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their (PROTECT) Kids Act, by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) — as an amendment to the Parents Bill of Rights (H.R. 5). Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) introduced a companion bill in the Senate (S. 200).

Walberg, an ordained pastor who once worked for the Moody Bible Institute, found it “unconscionable that some believe that parents should be kept in the dark regarding gender transitions of their own children. He urged Congress to “ensure that schools do not hide important information about children from their own parents,” “increase transparency, and defend the God-given authority and rights of parents.”

President Joe Biden is all but certain to veto such a bill. The president’s now-inactive nonprofit, the Biden Foundation, partnered with Gender Spectrum, a group whose “Gender Support Plan” tells schools to have “contingencies in place” if parents find out their child is “being supported” against their will. Since taking office, Biden has said transgenderism reflects “the image of God.”

You may see PDE’s incomplete list of the school districts that have adopted anti-parental rights transgender policies here. The group asks citizens to report such policies to PDE.

“Frighteningly, this only begins to scratch the surface of what is taking place behind closed doors in America’s schools,” said Neily. “Without a doubt, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of others with similar policies on the books.”


Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.


West Virginia Bill Offers Path forward on Higher Ed Free Speech Reform

New Kentucky Bill Would Expand Religious Freedom in Schools

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

WATCH: Biden Says Opposing the Mutilation of Children Is ‘Close to Sinful’ thumbnail

WATCH: Biden Says Opposing the Mutilation of Children Is ‘Close to Sinful’

By Jihad Watch

Old Joe Biden appeared on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show Monday night, where the guest host Kal Penn, star of the deathless classic Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, asked him about same-sex marriage and boys who want to become girls and girls boys. In response, Biden struck a moral tone, suggesting that support for same-sex marriage and the genital mutilation of children in pursuit of delusions and fantasies was simply the decent position to take, and darn it, Lunchbucket Joe didn’t see why it had to be any more complicated than that.

As we have all come to expect by now, Biden lied when he told a story that he has told before about his alleged “epiphany” on same-sex marriage. As Matt Margolis shows here, Biden claims to have begun to support same-sex marriage as a teenager, when he saw two men kissing. This was the 1950s, when no one was talking about same-sex marriage and it was extremely rare to see homosexuals kissing in public, so his story is dubious on its face. But Matt demonstrates that Biden opposed same-sex marriage decades after that, casting his entire “epiphany” into doubt. Old Joe even threw in his patented insistence “I’m not joking,” which he often says when he’s in the middle of telling a lie.

“It doesn’t matter whether it’s same-sex or a heterosexual couple, you should be able to be married.” @POTUS joins @KalPenn to discuss his evolution on same-sex marriage, and how the government can protect the transgender community.

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 13, 2023

Then, when Biden turned to discussion of today’s fashionable gender madness, the conversation got even worse.

Penn had asked the ostensible president about what the government could do to protect the “trans kids who are dealing with all these regressive state laws that are popping up right now.” Biden replied, “Transgender kids is a really harder dnnnn. Thing. What’s going on in Florida,” and here he paused, shaking his head, weary at the evil of it all, “is, as my mother would say, close to sinful.”

What’s going on in Florida? Last October, the Florida Board of Medicine voted to ban the mutilation of children in the name of attempting to aid them to pretend that they’re of the opposite sex. At a Board workshop on this issue, a woman named Chloe Cole, who had embarked upon the path that she thought would make her a man, described the monstrousness of the procedures involved in abetting these delusions:  “My breasts were beautiful, now they’ve been incinerated for nothing. Thank you, modern medicine. At 13, I started taking puberty blockers and testosterone, and at 15, I underwent a double mastectomy in which my breasts were removed and my nipples were grafted. And yet, at 16, after years of medically transitioning, I came to realize that I severely regretted my transition.”

Woke doctors sold Cole a lie: “During my diagnosis for dysphoria and the consultations for these treatments, the overall picture of my life just went completely unaddressed….I was introduced to inappropriate content and an echo chamber of far-left ideology, such as that sex and gender are separate, women are inherently victims, men are inherently superior in every way, and that dysphoric children need hormones and surgeries in order to live.” This Mengelian manipulation is what Old Joe Biden was saying it’s “close to sinful” to stop.

Old Joe rambled on semi-coherently, claiming to be on the side of the good and loving: “It’s terrible what they’re doing. It’s not like a kid wakes up one morning and says, ‘You know, I decided I want to become a man’ or ‘I want to become a woman’ or ‘I want to change.’ I mean, what are they thinking about here? They’re human beings. They love. They have feelings. They have inclinations that are… I mean, it just, to me, is, I don’t know, is, it’s cruel.” No. What’s cruel is putting children on a path that they think will help them attain their delusions, only to find that it’s impossible for them to discard what they are and become something else.

What’s cruel is Old Joe Biden pretending that any of this butchery and mutilation is compassionate. But he is determined to protect these Frankensteinian, life-destroying procedures by law: he said that we need to “make sure we pass legislation like we passed with same-sex marriage. You mess with that, you’re breaking the law and you’re going to be held accountable.”

Will Biden himself ever be held accountable for the human cost of his misplaced “compassion”? Almost certainly not. He’s more likely to get a Nobel Prize than to face the repudiation and shame that should be coming to him for endorsing this inhuman social contagion. Still, Biden’s appropriation of religious language to support this disgusting barbarism is one of the most disgraceful episodes of this singularly repulsive man’s noxious career.




Biden Claims He Had an ‘Epiphany’ on Same-Sex Marriage as a Teen, but We Have the Receipts

Trans-Biological Male Daycare Worker Charged with Sexual Abusing INFANT

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Therapeutic Nihilism by The Lords of Healthcare—Part One thumbnail

Therapeutic Nihilism by The Lords of Healthcare—Part One

By Kelleigh Nelson

“Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.  They want rain without thunder and lightning.  They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.  This struggle may be a moral one or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.  Power concedes nothing without a demand.  It never did and it never will.” —  Frederick Douglass

“History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.” — General Douglas MacArthur

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.  Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.” —  H. L. Mencken

“The greatest perpetrator of misinformation during the pandemic has been the United States government.” —  Dr. Marty Makary

I believe the entire hospital protocols were purposely murderous.  Remember, five governors put C-19 patients in nursing homes and killed off hundreds of thousands of elderly Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security residents.  Governors Newsom (D-CA), Whitmer (D-MI), Cuomo (D-NY), Wolf (D-PA), and Murphy (D-NJ) all stated that hospitals were running out of room, but what were their real motives?

Those hundreds of thousands of deaths helped to plant fear, and the oldsters needlessly died alone and without their loved ones.

The public was poisoned against repurposed cheap drugs that prevented and/or cured the virus called COVID.  Taking Hydroxychloroquine early in treatment for C-19 kept the virus from gaining a deadly foothold.  When C-19 had progressed, Ivermectin twice a day according to weight gave quick recovery to most of those without extensive comorbidities.  Adding Azithromycin and prednisone, an antibiotic and anti-inflammatory, helped to quell the cough and respiratory problems in short order.

In Argentina, Dr. Hector Carvallo’s prevention trials, with many of the repurposed-drug early treatments and prophylactic treatments, showed a 100% prevention of acquisition of Sars-coV-2 on patients who were on prophylactic ivermectin.  The molecule in ivermectin doesn’t just treat parasites, it has 22 mechanisms of action against Sars-coV-2, has seven or eight anti-viral mechanisms and it has multiple immune modification mechanisms.  In Dr. Carvallo’s study, two months of healthcare workers taking one ivermectin a week, zero contracted COVID.  In the placebo control group of 400 people, 57% contracted COVID.  This is how effective ivermectin was in prevention in a hospital setting.  You cannot make the same claim for these “vaccines.”

Those inexpensive repurposed drugs would have saved a majority of the lives lost.  Instead of allowing physicians the ability to save their patients by trying various treatments that would attack the symptoms the government, i.e., unelected councils…NIH, CDC, FDA, AMA, Medical Journals and mainstream media, claimed the 50- and 60-year-old drugs of IVM and HCQ were dangerous.


Because money was to be made, and massive reports of death created fear.  And fear created compliance and compliance was necessary to create the goal of a cure via inoculations.

The incompetent, devious and nihilistic Lords of Healthcare laughed all the way to the bank while Americans died.

Fear porn had won.

Murder for Gain

Allowing inexpensive treatments to restore health would not fill Big Pharma’s pockets. All of the unelected entities were slobbering over the filthy lucre flowing into their pockets.  The deaths didn’t matter, money was to be made.  Mass murder via government protocols was collateral damage that fueled depopulation advocates’ goals and saved government funding of the elderly who were quickly dispatched.  Hospitals loved the federal payouts for C-19 deaths.  Why wouldn’t they?  The government allocated $175 billion for hospitals and other providers in April of 2020.

Control won…first we donned the masks, then we locked down for months, closed our businesses, declared bankruptcy and when we got sick, most physicians would do nothing for us until we couldn’t breathe and then we entered the hospital to die. Most who tested positive for C-19 ended up on a ventilator…and 80% of them died. The C-19 tests were faulty, never should have been used and resulted in excessive positive results.

Ultimately, the majority of Americans willingly signed up for untested experimental injections available through Emergency Use Authorization and given “free” by the government.

If anything goes awry, Big Pharma has total immunity from legal liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).  The controversial Act was signed into law by George W. Bush in December of 2005.  It provides immunity for the “manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, and use of covered countermeasures.”  Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar declared COVID-19 an emergency and invoked the PREP Act on February 4, 2020.

On march 27, 2020, Congress quickly enacted legislation thru the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) which provided over $2 trillion in funds to address the economic impacts of the pandemic. Brookings reported unheard of massive waste, fraud and corruption.

Federal funds were disbursed to hospitals to help them cope with the C-19 emergency.  The feds paid hospitals a fee for giving a C-19 test, another fee for admittance of the patient to hospital, plus the full daily Medicare with 20% added onto the hospitalization rate, no matter the insurance status. Admission nets the hospital $13K, but when they ventilate a patient, it soared to $39K.

Medicare even announced it would pay 20% more as an add-on if hospitals used the new FDA-approved drugs for C-19!  In other words, hospitals can rake in even more if they give three treatments of Remdesivir at $3100. per treatment.  Kidney or liver failure didn’t matter to the hospital administrators…more money in their pockets. WHO recommended against using Remdesivir, but Gilead raked in over $7 billion on the sale of their drug which cost them about $10.00 per dose to manufacture.

Early HCQ or IVM treatment for COVID would have jeopardized all the hospital payments.

As Minnesota State Senator, Scott Jensen M.D. told us in countless interviews, hospitals were incentivized to code admissions as having COVID-19 even when they didn’t have positive tests!  I know of too many elderly family members who, upon autopsy, were found to have bacterial pneumonia or flu, which could have been treated and saved their lives.  Oh, that every C-19 diagnosed patient who died been autopsied.  And now with the poisonous injections, we even need more autopsies to document the effects of the jabs.

The CARES Act also provided immunity for guess who…healthcare workers treating C-19 patients.  State governors added more immunity via executive orders.

Check out the state-by-state National Survey of COVID-19 Medical Malpractice Immunity Legislation (As of November 18, 2020).

States like New York covered civil liability for injury or death alleged to have been sustained directly as a result of an act or omission by person/persons covered.

Persons included in coverage were physicians, physicians assistants; specialist assistants; nurse practitioners; licensed registered professional nurses; licensed practical nurses.

The only conduct not covered was gross negligence.

But wait a minute…isn’t “gross negligence” exactly what we saw with the promotion of these one-size-fits-all hospital protocols and the untested, unstudied, untrialed Big Pharma medications?

Remdesivir Kills

Remdesivir, sold under the brand name Veklury, is a broad-spectrum antiviral medication developed by the biopharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences.  It was a pre-existing drug candidate developed by Gilead Sciences as part of an antiviral development effort, with initial results against Ebola virus (EBOV) reported in 2015.

Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed Gilead’s remdesivir would aid in COVID recovery.  The National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, (NIAID) headed by Fauci, asserted remdesivir studies proved it effective against COVID-19.

It actually can damage your kidneys and liver.  Despite the lack of positive studies, the FDA approved Remdesivir with another Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

Remdesivir didn’t work.  Results were terribly negative.

In late August 2020, a disproportionately high number of reports of liver and kidney problems in patients receiving remdesivir were reported compared with patients receiving other drugs for COVID-19. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) also announced that its safety committee had started a review to assess reports of acute kidney injuries in some patients taking remdesivir.

Patients who knew that remdesivir was not a reliable or safe drug, were told they could instead receive Veklury, which is remdesivir.  One has to wonder; how many were fooled into being given the drug.

The oral C-19 medication, Paxlovid, wasn’t much better.  Paxlovid didn’t significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization or death in people. 

And that’s not all!  What about Operation Warp Speed Death Jabs?

Jabs, Jabs and More Jabs

You can’t tell me that pharmacists, physicians and nurses didn’t know that vaccines were supposed to be tested for years and that you never vax during a pandemic.  And what about if you’d had and recovered from C-19?  Why would you need a jab if you have natural immunity?  Common medical knowledge was thrown to the wind…and the media hawked the jabs day and night…even offering incentives.  Now this evil poison is to be given to our children before they enter the perverted government schools.  Children don’t even get COVID, so why?

Can you believe the horrific number of injections our children must now submit to?

The documents of Pfizer and Moderna, those they wanted to keep hidden for 75 years, tell the story of betrayal. The infertility, the miscarriages, the heart damage, the blood clots, the cancers, the evil destruction of healthy young bodies and the sudden deaths, all caused by one, two or five injections of the Big Pharma poison to depopulate.

Zoetis is a subsidiary of Pfizer and has quietly injected 100 million animals with the horrific mRNA technology. Livestock has also started to receive mRNA injections.


Worse yet, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation just announced a $4.7 million grant for a company that sells face masks for cows to stop their methane belches.  This is the most insane thing yet. 

It isn’t evil enough that they’re forcing these injections on our babies when they enter school. Messenger RNA and abusive and abrasive contraptions on cattle for a fabricated non-existent problem.

Mass murder of man and animals.

If ever truth fully comes to light and the American people wake up, those culpable will stand trial.

“I was just following orders” won’t hold any more water today than it did in 1945-1946.

Those who have needlessly lost loved ones want to see justice today.

The gallows await them.

“Vengeance is mine,” sayeth the Lord.

Ivermectin Saves

How many people were able to secret Ivermectin (IVM) into sick family or friends in hospital with Sars-coV-2?  I know of several, especially where the hospitals still allowed family to visit.  When this life saving drug was given, the recovery was rapid.  Within a couple days, the patient was feeling so much better and within a few more days was released to go home.

The resistance by hospitals for Ivermectin was incredibly difficult, even when an attorney had taken the case to court and the judge had instructed the hospital to give IVM.  The court battles were unconscionably difficult with IVM witnesses being called quacks.  Dying men and women were fighting for the last chance to save their lives and many were denied their “right to try” a cheap, FDA and WHO approved drug as their last and only hope since nothing but remdesivir was being offered.  Hospitals retained “godlike power” over the patients, telling them they could not choose their own care. As John Leake explains in his and Dr. Peter McCullough’s book, The Courage to Face Covid-19, “for most gravely ill patients and their families, this power resulted in death.”

The patient’s families would state in writing they would indemnify the hospitals of liability for any adverse effects of IVM and that their primary care physicians would administer the drug.  In many cases, if the court told the hospital to give the drug, one pill would be given, the patient would improve, but then the hospital would refuse to give additional medication.

Dr. Pierre Kory had testified before the Senate and showed the studies proving IVM was a valid treatment for Sars-coV-2.  Yet, the resistance was phenomenal.  After one dose, attorneys would need to return to court to order the hospital to give more than one dose of IVM.  Families would beg and plead with the hospitals to no avail.  Many had to fight to have the family doctor administer IVM or to be able to take the patient home. The hospitals demanded the patient’s physician come to the hospital to administer the drug.

Many had to find ways to smuggle IVM in to patients before they were put on vents, and those who were successful had a 100% recovery rate.

Every medical facility had bought into the government lies by the unelected councils, which used to be called Soviet, but now are pure American.  Those unelected county health departments decided masks, lockdowns, closures, mandates etc.


Dr. Vernon Coleman, who refers to himself as “the old man in a chair,” has been telling us the hard facts regarding the destruction of our medical industry.

He states, “The goal of healing has been replaced by the goal of perpetual treating. The ugliest part of this new business model is that, to keep overhead cost as low as possible, when severely handicapped and older people become ill, hospital staffs increasingly are discreetly prescribing kill shots for them, much like what might be given to an old dog or cat to end their misery. This is not a conspiracy theory, not hyperbole, and not even unusual. It is now a recognized policy in every country in which the medical system has been captured by the pharmaceutical cartel – which is most of them.”

In Part Two, we’ll discuss America’s modern-day eugenics, revived again from the 1920s and expanded to parallel Hitler’s murder of the physically and mentally unfit.

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

‘Murder!’: Jane Fonda’s Homicidal Call to Action Against Pro-Lifers thumbnail

‘Murder!’: Jane Fonda’s Homicidal Call to Action Against Pro-Lifers

By Family Research Council

Friday morning, on the infamously progressive talk show “The View,” 85-year-old actress Jane Fonda made a disturbing recommendation for dealing with pro-lifers: murder. The remarks came amid a conversation regarding Fonda’s pro-abortion activism, particularly in the months following the Dobbs Supreme Court decision last June. As hosts Sonny Hostin and Joy Behar simpered sweet nothings about Fonda winning a Nobel Prize, the conversation quickly turned awkward when Behar asked Fonda how to extend pro-abortion activism beyond merely marching and protesting.

“Well, I’ve thought of murder,” Fonda asserted, repeating the word “murder” as the women gathered around her laughed uncomfortably.

Despite the audience’s amusement and assurances from the show’s hosts that the actress was simply joking, viewers were left to wonder — does Fonda really believe that advocating for life in the womb is justification for someone to be murdered? And in a culture where progressives are keener than ever to claim that mere words can be violence, how can Fonda get away with literally suggesting murder?

Perhaps Fonda’s comments wouldn’t hit home for pro-lifers so acutely were it not for the barrage of terrorism that the pro-life community has suffered in the last year. Family Research Council has tracked over 125 instances of pro-abortion violence against pro-life pregnancy resource centers, churches, and individuals in the past year; just this week, a pregnancy resource center in Minneapolis was vandalized with the same familiar message that pro-lifers have learned to expect: “If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you.”

In many instances, pro-abortion harassment has gone far beyond vandalism and threats. A CompassCare pro-life pregnancy resource center in Buffalo, New York was firebombed in June of 2022; the attack caused $500,000 in damages and forced the center to spend the next 52 days rebuilding. Despite the violence already occurring against these charity centers, radical abortion lover Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) accused pregnancy resource centers of “torturing” women and called for their doors to be closed — a move that, were the partisan tables turned, would certainly have been characterized as an incitement of violence.

In light of Fonda’s incurable enthusiasm to do harm to those who advocate for the life of the unborn, it’s important to consider her personal background on the issue. Fonda’s mother, who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and eventually died by suicide, aborted nine of Jane’s older siblings before finally giving birth to her. Both Fonda and her mother suffered sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse. While there is certainly zero excuse for her abortion advocacy, much less her calls for violence against pro-lifers, understanding Fonda’s background helps paint a fuller picture of why she is so desperate to preserve social acceptance and celebration of abortion as a moral good rather than as the affront to human dignity that it truly is.

Just last week, conservative pundit Michael Knowles was accused of advocating genocide against people who identify as transgender because of a statement he made during a speech at CPAC. Even White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre slanderously accused Knowles of calling for the “eradication of transgender people.”

What Knowles actually said was, “For the good of society and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely, the whole preposterous ideology — at every level.”

While Knowles’s circumstances are more akin to misrepresentation, given that he never actually proposed violence against human beings, the incident still serves to prove a significant cultural point: progressives can’t have it both ways. Either words must be chosen with extreme delicacy and sensitivity because they will be construed as calls to violence — or not. And, if calls for political violence against other human beings are something to be condemned, then they must be universally condemned — even when the call is coming from inside the house.

A final (and significant) point to consider is that, even when pro-abortion advocates are not calling for murder against born people, they are nevertheless fighting desperately to perpetuate the shedding of innocent blood. Every “successful” abortion ends the life of a unique, unrepeatable human being. There can be no peaceful or nonviolent support of abortion, because to support abortion is inherently a promotion of violence.

Thankfully, given what the pro-life movement has demonstrated the willingness to withstand in the last year for the sake of protecting unborn children, it’s clear that the thoughtless snark of a Hollywood celebrity will do little to deter pro-life activism.


Joy Stockbauer

Joy Stockbauer is a correspondent for The Washington Stand.


Police Officer Smeared by ‘Religious Bigotry’ Garners Support from Faith Leaders

Florida Reminds Pro-Lifers: There is Always Ground to Be Gained

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Hospitalized With, or Hospitalized For? (A COVID Revelation) thumbnail

Hospitalized With, or Hospitalized For? (A COVID Revelation)

By Jon Sanders

You can fool all of the people some of the time; you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” The fact that this quote is attributed either to Abraham Lincoln or P.T. Barnum perhaps testifies to its originator’s bona fides at fooling people.

Either way, the temporal element of the quote gets lost in discussing the respective magnitudes of those fooled. Nevertheless, in a practical application of it, the passage of time has resulted in the various governmental narratives regarding COVID having fallen apart. Except for a few hangers-on (the “some of the people all of the time”), most now acknowledge that lockdowns were a disaster; that school closures were never necessary and that they worsened educational outcomes and preexisting divides; that vaccine skeptics were justified and not monsters after all; and even that — as stated by the headline of a recent New York Times op-ed — “The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?”

It has been three years. Isn’t it about time we got more accurate data on COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths?

In the early weeks of the pandemic, many people wanting an accurate picture of the COVID’s scope sought out clear data. These people were not government health officials, but they had technical expertise in epidemiology, medicine, health, statistics, economics, child psychology, and many other fields — an illustration of the dispersed knowledge across society that Friedrich A. Hayek wrote about. Trusted with information as free citizens, they could get an accurate read on the situation and would even be able to explain it to others.

They were not trusted with information. Still, they knew enough to see that the official numbers were terribly muddied, so they probed on. Government officials and their media gatekeepers were discomfited and encouraged people and social media to “cancel” them and bury them with invective.

Among the muddied data were COVID hospitalizations and, consequently, deaths. Former AIER president Edward Peter Stringham wrote in July 2020 about what a Texas medical care facilities managing partner had told Alex Berenson (who later took Twitter to court for suspending him at the request of the Biden administration over his COVID questioning) about cases and hospitalizations. The partner said that “discharge planners are being pressured to put COVID as primary diagnosis — as that pays significantly better. … You open up your hospitals for normal medical care and you test everyone (sic) of those patients — the result is a higher percentage of patients who have COVID — now.”

As Stringham explained, “The hospitals are under financial pressure from having to mostly stop doing business for months, so they are classifying as many people as possible as a COVID case in order to gain the subsidy offered by the federal government.”

The federal CARES Act included a 20 percent increase on Medicare reimbursement rates to hospitals for patients with a COVID-19 diagnostic code. So hospitals did have financial incentive to exaggerate the number of COVID hospitalizations and deaths.

The politicians and public health officials had their own incentives for the same — the higher numbers kept people in fear, and a fearful populace was surprisingly acquiescent to authoritarian acts hitherto unthinkable in peacetime: strict curfews, dress codes, shutting down entertainment districts, and requiring official papers to shop, dine, attend school, or travel.

But not everyone. Throughout the country, people were asking questions and hearing strange, jarring tales that nevertheless proved true. “COVID hospitalizations and deaths” also included gunshot victims, “intentional and unintentional injury, poisonings and other adverse events,” a “90-year-old man who fell and died from complications of a hip fracture,” “a 77-year-old woman who died of Parkinson’s disease,” more gunshot victims, even “a guy who was struck by lightning, fell off a roof, admitted to the hospital with serious injuries from the fall.”

These bizarre attributions were the absurd ends of the problem of “hospitalized with” or “hospitalized for” COVID that plagued researchers and questioning citizens curious about the scope of the problem. All that was known was that some people listed in the official data had been admitted to the hospital not on account of a dangerous COVID infection, which is what most people assumed the data meant, but for some other reason. But how many? What proportion of COVID hospitalizations were “hospitalized with” vs. “hospitalized for”? We didn’t even know that.

We would get the occasional glimpse that the proportion of “hospitalized with” could be quite large. On July 26, 2021, for example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report on “COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting.” The report noted that 26 percent of “breakthrough” (post-vaccination) COVID hospitalizations and 24 percent of breakthrough COVID deaths were “asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19.” But it was only concerned with COVID hospitalizations and deaths for individuals who had received vaccination, not all of them.

In September 2021, a preprint was released of a study examining Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitalizations related to COVID after vaccines became available. The study found that barely over half (52 percent) of COVID patients in the VA were hospitalized for COVID, while the remainder were there for some other reason and incidentally found to be infected. Study authors made a cogent point about the question of “hospitalized with” vs. “for”: “If hospitalizations are used as a metric for policy decision-making, patients hospitalized for the management of COVID-19 disease should be distinguished from patients who are hospitalized and incidentally found to be infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

Some areas did begin tracking the difference, including New York (57 percent “for” at the time of publication), Ontario (54 percent), and Massachusetts (30 percent).

On January 13, CNN medical correspondent Leana Wen publicly called for accurate accounting of COVID hospitalizations and deaths. In a Washington Post column, Wen highlighted data from Massachusetts showing that “only about 30 percent of total hospitalizations with COVID were primarily attributed to the virus” and discussed the problems from overcounting COVID hospitalizations.

The following day, CNN anchors questioned her assertions, with Poppy Harlow asking if she had “thought about” whether her information might “give fodder to conspiracy theorists and those who downplay COVID, to anti-vaxxers.” Wen, to her credit, noted that others’ criticism was that “You should have said this two-and-a-half years ago.” Wen said, “I think at the end of the day we just need the truth.”

On that count, Wen is right. We just need the truth.

This article was published by American Institute for Economic Research and is reproduced with permission.


There is an important runoff election for the Phoenix City Council District 6 on March 14. Conservative Sal DiCiccio (R) is term limited and will be replaced by the winner of this race. The two candidates are Republican Sam Stone and Democrat Kevin Robinson. If you live in District 6 (check here), you either received a mail-in ballot or you must vote in person (see below).

This is a very important race that will determine the balance of power on the City Council. Phoenix, like many large cities in conservative states, has tended blue with the consequences many cites suffer from with progressive governance. Have you noticed the growing homeless problem in our city?

Conservative Sam Stone is the strong choice of The Prickly Pear and we urge our readers in District 6 to mail your ballots in immediately and cast your vote for Sam Stone. Learn about Sam Stone here. Sal DiCiccio’s excellent leadership and term-limited departure from the Phoenix City Council must not be replaced by one more Democrat on the Council (Democrat Robinson endorsed by leftist Mayor Gallego). Sam Stone is a superb candidate who will bring truthful and conservative leadership to the Phoenix City Council at a time when the future of Phoenix hangs in the balance between the great history of this high quality, desert city we can live in and are proud of or the progressive ills of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Mail-in ballots were sent to registered voters in District 6 on the February 15th. Mail your ballot no later than March 7th – it must be received by the city no later than March 14th to be counted. If you are not on the Permanent Early Voting List you must cast your ballot in person.

In-person balloting at voting centers will occur on three days in mid-March:

  • Saturday, March 11: 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
  • Monday, March 13: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
  • Tuesday, March 14: 6 a.m. to 7 p.m

In-person voting can be done at the following locations:

  1. Sunnyslope Community Center, 802 E. Vogel Ave.
  2. Bethany Bible Church, 6060 N. Seventh Ave.
  3. Devonshire Senior Center, 2802 E. Devonshire Ave.
  4. Memorial Presbyterian Church, 4141 E. Thomas Road
  5. Burton Barr Central Library, 1221 N. Central Ave.
  6. Eastlake Park Community Center, 1549 E. Jefferson St.
  7. Broadway Heritage Neighborhood Res. Ctr., 2405 E. Broadway Road
  8. South Mountain Community Center, 212 E. Alta Vista Road
  9. Cesar Chavez Library, 3635 W. Baseline Road
  10. Pecos Community Center, 17010 S. 48th St.

You can also vote in person at City Hall through March 10th on the 15th floor. City Hall is at 200 W. Washington St.

Department of Energy’s Lab Leak Bombshell Exposes the Utter Bankruptcy of ‘Experts’ and the Media thumbnail

Department of Energy’s Lab Leak Bombshell Exposes the Utter Bankruptcy of ‘Experts’ and the Media

By Jarrett Stepman

In 2020, if you thought it was possible COVID-19 came from a lab in China you were labeled a conspiracy theorist, a peddler of misinformation, “bonkers,” and a racist.

Facebook and other social media removed the lab leak claim from their apps or slapped “misinformation” labels on it. Facebook did so in lockstep with the government.

So according to the standard set in 2020, the Department of Energy just came out as a racist purveyor of misinformation this week.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that, according to a classified intelligence report provided to the White House and Congress, the Department of Energy concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic likely came from a lab leak.

“The Energy Department’s conclusion is the result of new intelligence and is significant because the agency has considerable scientific expertise and oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research,” the Wall Street Journal report said.

Most Americans with common sense surmised two years ago that there was a pretty decent chance that a strange, new virus with unusual properties coming from Wuhan, China, may have had some connection to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Ah, but according to the venerated defenders of free speech in the press, thinking that a ruthlessly authoritarian regime could possibly have a virus leak from a lab and cover it up was just crazy talk. Only a racist would think that. All right thinking, not racist people, were better off assuming the virus came from someone in China eating a bat or a pangolin.

“Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not today,” wrote New York Times COVID-19 reporter Apoorva Mandavilli on Twitter in 2021.

Now, the Department of Energy didn’t confirm that COVID-19 came from a lab. There is still a great deal we don’t know, and the Chinese Communist Party has made it difficult to ascertain what really happened. In fact, we may never know what happened.

That a virus may have leaked from a lab and killed millions of people is a huge story with potentially massive geopolitical implications. But it’s still not my biggest takeaway from the Wall Street Journal report.

The big story is that when the pandemic began, when governments began instituting lockdowns and mandates, when our economy was shut down and our society sent into convulsions, the idea that the virus leaked from a lab was treated as a “conspiracy theory.” Powerful actors and interests in the United States—in the media, the government, and in Big Tech, thought it was better to suppress and denounce the story rather than seek the truth and let the American people decide what to do.

“Sen. Tom Cotton Repeats Fringe Theory of Coronavirus Origins,” read a headline in The New York Times.

“Scientists have dismissed suggestions that the Chinese government was behind the outbreak, but it’s the kind of tale that gains traction among those who see China as a threat,” a subheading on the article read.

Good work, “scientists.”

National Public Radio, you know, the outlet that continues to get millions in taxpayer dollars, was particularly aggressive in denouncing any idea that a lab leak was possible.

“Scientists Debunk Lab Accident Theory of Pandemic Emergence,” read one headline. NPR had another piece on “bonkers” conspiracy theories, which included an inset about “misinformation” like “COVID-19 was created in a lab in China.”

Even more, and this really gets to the heart of the problem, most corporate media was quicker to denounce the lab leak idea as fundamentally illegitimate than to press our government and Chinese authorities to find out if the idea was true. It was more important to “debunk” former President Donald Trump and the right-wing bad guys than to pursue truth. That was the impulse.

Don’t take it from me. MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan admitted this after the Wall Street Journal report broke.

“The simple reason why so many people weren’t keen to discuss the ‘lab leak’ *theory* is because it was originally conflated by the right with ‘Chinese bio weapon’ conspiracies and continues to be conflated by the right with anti-Fauci conspiracies,” Hasan wrote on Twitter. “Blame the conspiracy theorists.”

It’s your fault they had to censor the truth! They just couldn’t let the bad guys win. Hasan followed up, writing, “It’s hard to have a good faith disagreement about a major issue if the issue itself has been hijacked by bad faith folks.”

That’s actually true. It is hard to have a “good faith” disagreement when bad faith people in our media and institutions are willing to circle the wagons for a narrative and silence those who disagree.

“Multiple major liberal media figures are now publicly admitting their side couldn’t fathom a real discussion about lab leak theory because of Trump,” New York Post reporter Jon Levine tweeted. “In 5 years these people will look you in the eye with a straight face and say there was never any effort to shut down speculation about the covid lab leak theory and that people only think that because of right wing misinformation.”

How many times have we seen this sequence of events play out in the last few years?

Remember this in the future when you are force-fed stories about how the “experts” say this and the “scientists” say that. Left-wing institutional gatekeepers think it’s more important to give the public a bogus story or to hide from the truth because they think the most important thing in this world is to “own” the conservatives and promote their own ideology.

This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.


There is an important runoff election for the Phoenix City Council District 6 on March 14. Conservative Sal DiCiccio (R) is term limited and will be replaced by the winner of this race. The two candidates are Republican Sam Stone and Democrat Kevin Robinson. If you live in District 6 (check here), you either received a mail-in ballot or you must vote in person (see below).

This is a very important race that will determine the balance of power on the City Council. Phoenix, like many large cities in conservative states, has tended blue with the consequences many cites suffer from with progressive governance. Have you noticed the growing homeless problem in our city?

Conservative Sam Stone is the strong choice of The Prickly Pear and we urge our readers in District 6 to mail your ballots in immediately and cast your vote for Sam Stone. Learn about Sam Stone here. Sal DiCiccio’s excellent leadership and term-limited departure from the Phoenix City Council must not be replaced by one more Democrat on the Council (Democrat Robinson endorsed by leftist Mayor Gallego). Sam Stone is a superb candidate who will bring truthful and conservative leadership to the Phoenix City Council at a time when the future of Phoenix hangs in the balance between the great history of this high quality, desert city we can live in and are proud of or the progressive ills of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Mail-in ballots were sent to registered voters in District 6 on the February 15th. Mail your ballot no later than March 7th – it must be received by the city no later than March 14th to be counted. If you are not on the Permanent Early Voting List you must cast your ballot in person.

In-person balloting at voting centers will occur on three days in mid-March:

  • Saturday, March 11: 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
  • Monday, March 13: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
  • Tuesday, March 14: 6 a.m. to 7 p.m

In-person voting can be done at the following locations:

  1. Sunnyslope Community Center, 802 E. Vogel Ave.
  2. Bethany Bible Church, 6060 N. Seventh Ave.
  3. Devonshire Senior Center, 2802 E. Devonshire Ave.
  4. Memorial Presbyterian Church, 4141 E. Thomas Road
  5. Burton Barr Central Library, 1221 N. Central Ave.
  6. Eastlake Park Community Center, 1549 E. Jefferson St.
  7. Broadway Heritage Neighborhood Res. Ctr., 2405 E. Broadway Road
  8. South Mountain Community Center, 212 E. Alta Vista Road
  9. Cesar Chavez Library, 3635 W. Baseline Road
  10. Pecos Community Center, 17010 S. 48th St.

You can also vote in person at City Hall through March 10th on the 15th floor. City Hall is at 200 W. Washington St.

‘Horrifying’: Huge Proportion Of Children Pursuing Gender Transitions Are Actually Autistic, Experts Believe thumbnail

‘Horrifying’: Huge Proportion Of Children Pursuing Gender Transitions Are Actually Autistic, Experts Believe

By The Daily Caller

  • Adolescents with autism are overrepresented in the youth transgender population, and some medical professionals attribute this to autism spectrum traits such as obsessive thinking, vulnerability to body image issues and a sense of social rejection and isolation during adolescence. 
  • Dr. Susan Bradley, a Canadian psychiatrist who began working with gender dysphoric children in the 1970s, said she believed most of the children who sought gender transitions had high-functioning autism and were being exploited by the medical industry. 
  • “When somebody happens to mention that, you know, they’re trans or they hear about trans kids and go online, even if all they do is say, ‘I wonder if I’m trans,’ a lot of these kids are automatically accepted. ‘Well, you must be trans if you’ve even thought about that.’ And for them, that is a very helpful reaction, because all of a sudden, they feel as though that explains all of the trouble all the way along,” Bradley told the DCNF.

Children with autism make up an outsized proportion of the transgender-identified population, and autism spectrum traits make them particularly vulnerable to thought patterns that can lead youth to pursue gender transitions, according to research and medical professionals.

Transgender individuals are about three to six times more likely to be autistic than non-transgender people, research shows; the connection between transgenderism and autism has been a subject of interest for researchers since at least 2010, and the Gender Development Identity Service at Tavistock, the world’s largest pediatric gender clinic, came under fire in recent years over allegations that as many as 97.5% of its gender patients had autism. Dr. Susan Bradley, a Canadian psychiatrist and pioneer in treating gender dysphoria, told the DCNF that she now believes most pediatric gender patients are actually on the autism spectrum and are being exploited by medical professionals.

“When we were seeing these kids from a very young age, we had kids who would come into the clinic, a little girl who thinks she’s a boy or vice versa. It wasn’t uncommon to find that one of them thought they were a dog or a cat or something else,” said Bradley, who chaired the DSM-IV Subcommittee on Gender Disorders.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the official manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which is used for classifying and diagnosing mental disorders; Bradley led eight other doctors in establishing those guidelines in its 1994 edition.

Bradley began treating children with gender dysphoria around 1975, and over the years she observed that many of the patients had the traits of high-functioning autism, she told the DCNF. People with autism tend to focus very intensely on their subjects of interest and have great difficulty letting go of something once they believe it’s true, both of which make autistic adolescents particularly susceptible to issues with their gender identity and body image, she said.

“They have early difficulty with social understanding and the feeling that they don’t fit in; they struggle to understand that they are different in a certain kind of way that other people don’t understand either, and they often feel left out in peer groups. Many of them don’t have a good friend. They’ll often say other kids tease them or leave them out,” she said. “These kids are even less well equipped than your average teen to manage strong feelings, and they just get totally disregulated at times. That’s why they become so much more vulnerable, they get suicidal, they get anxious, depressed, very down on themselves.”

“When somebody happens to mention that, you know, they’re trans or they hear about trans kids and go online, even if all they do is say, ‘I wonder if I’m trans,’ a lot of these kids are automatically accepted. ‘Well, you must be trans if you’ve even thought about that.’ And for them, that is a very helpful reaction, because all of a sudden, they feel as though that explains all of the trouble all the way along,” Bradley told the DCNF.

Excellent analysis: Abuse, trauma, autism, and many other comorbid mental health conditions accompany Gender Dysphoria. It is important to identify and treat for these conditions instead of immediate affirmation leading to irreversible harm. Especially in children.

— Chloe Cole ⭐️ (@ChoooCole) September 26, 2022

Children with high-functioning autism previously showed up at eating disorder clinics with suicidal and anxious depression and body image distortions, but as pediatric gender clinics began cropping up, autistic adolescents began gravitating more toward those, Bradley said.

Chloe Cole, a young woman who underwent cross-sex hormones and a double mastectomy between ages 13 and 17 and now regrets medically transitioning, told the DCNF that doctors failed to meaningfully address her autism spectrum traits and the ways those impacted her gender identity.

“I’ve spoken to a non-transgender person who also was on the spectrum about some of my symptoms of dysphoria and how things like puberty felt for me, and she told me that’s literally just how it feels to be autistic and going through puberty,” Cole said. “It’s common for girls who have autism to present with some more traditionally masculine behaviors or more tomboyish personality. That was definitely my experience growing up and it made it more difficult for me to relate personally with other girls my age.”

Cole is suing the hospital and medical professionals who participated in her gender transition. Her attorneys argue that doctors should have offered her psychotherapy to address her autism spectrum symptoms and mental health issues, but instead made her gender dysphoria the top priority.

“It’s horrifying that none of these kids are really getting an appropriate screening, not only for autism, but really for a lot of other parts of their background that might play a role in the development of their dysphoria,” she said, listing social anxiety, personality disorders, depression and histories of abuse. “They’re just being allowed through the system and [their gender dysphoria] is just being treated as a completely standalone issue.”

The Clarke Institute of Toronto, which is now the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, opened its pediatric gender clinic in the mid-1970s, when clinicians were offering a therapy-centered approach and 80% to 90% of patients outgrew their gender confusion and came to terms with their biological sex, according to Bradley. The clinic eventually began putting minors on puberty blockers to alleviate gender distress in keeping with practices emerging out of the Netherlands; Bradley views this as a mistake, noting that blockers cement what would otherwise likely be a temporary transgender phase and carry serious physical side effects.

Dr. Lawrence Fung, a psychiatrist at Stanford University, believes there may be a biological factor that drives autistic people to identify as transgender and believes autistic people tend to be more androgynous; he told NPR more research was needed on the subject.

“Females on the spectrum seem to have more testosterone and masculine features on their faces. On the other hand, males on the autism spectrum – they have more feminine features,” he told the outlet.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which vocally supports medical transitions for minors, acknowledges that “autistic/neurodivergent transgender youth represent a substantial minority subpopulation of youth served in gender clinics globally,” and the group encourages providers to pursue additional training on the needs of their autistic patients in its latest standards of care. The group notes that autism traits, including rigid thinking and differing abilities to consider and plan for the future, necessitate extra time and support for gender transition patients.

“The autistic mindset tends to see things in black and white, and so if a child doesn’t feel like a girl — and this might be because they don’t feel pretty enough to be a girl — then they believe they must be a boy,” Stella O’Malley, a psychotherapist and founder of Genspect, an organization that’s critical of child transitions, told the DCNF. (RELATED: ‘Chilling Effect’: Here’s How Lawsuits Could Take Down The Child Sex Change Industry)

“Autistic people also tend to be very literal and so they can believe if people use their preferred pronouns and names, then they must be a boy. Children on the spectrum also tend to be gender nonconforming, and nonconforming in many other ways, and this leads them to believe that perhaps they must be a boy,” O’Malley said.

Transgender identification has exploded over the past decade, especially among the youth population, and clinics offering gender transition procedures to children have boomed from approximately zero 15 years ago to a current estimate of 100 in the U.S., according to Reuters. About 300,000 minors in the U.S. now identify as transgender, and approximately 10,000 to 30,000 are seeking some form of gender-related medical intervention.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.



Social issues and culture reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Unearthed Emails Show Rachel Levine Discussing ‘Potential Revenue’ From Child Sex Change Procedures

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Doctors Around the World Say It’s Time to Stop the Covid Shots thumbnail

Doctors Around the World Say It’s Time to Stop the Covid Shots

By The Geller Report

People are dying, young people, but still the Democrats are mandating it for children and banning unvaxxed athletes like Novak Djokovic from entering the country.

By: Jennifer Margulis, Joe Wang, Epoch Times, March 11, 2023:

Recently “COVID-19” and “Fauci” have been trending on Twitter. And when you click on those hashtags, you don’t get regurgitated government messaging.

Instead, you get declarations like this one from Dr. Eli David, which has been viewed 1.2 million times: “Fauci was wrong about lockdowns, masks, double-masks, Remdesivir, vaccine, boosters, and virus origin.

“Was Fauci right about anything? Give me a single thing about Covid which Fauci got right …”

Tired of Half-Truths

It’s becoming increasingly clear from social media and real life that people are tired of being lied to by government health authorities. They’re beginning to realize that these agencies don’t have their best interests in mind.

I (Jennifer) stopped to chat with an older couple enjoying the sun last week. They had set up two folding chairs by the water so they could watch the passersby and look at the shimmering Atlantic Ocean.

“You just have to enjoy every second,” the wife said. “My husband has dementia. It’s been hard. You don’t know when you’re going to go. My best friend called me sobbing two weeks ago. They found her 46-year-old son dead in his bed. No one knows why.”

“Do you know if he was vaccinated?” I asked in the gentlest tone I could muster. “I know that may sound like a strange question but … we are seeing myocarditis and pericarditis in young men post-vaccination; the Florida surgeon general no longer recommends mRNA vaccines for young men; and at least some of these sudden unexplained deaths may be due to that.”

“I didn’t know that,” she said. “But I’m sure he was vaccinated. I’ve done so many at this point, I’m radioactive!”

“We’ve had, what, five?!” she said, turning to her husband. “It’s getting ridiculous. We still got COVID, twice. We’re not doing anymore.”

Deaths Continue

There has been an upsurge in sudden, unexplained, and age-inappropriate deaths in at least 30 countries in the industrialized world.

In Ireland, so many people died in January that funerals had to be postponed, according to local news.

Ed Dowd, in his new book, “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,” argues that the sudden deaths in young people in industrialized countries is because of mRNA vaccines.

Dowd shows how the number of excess deaths in America that were attributed to COVID-19 in 2020 was actually much lower than the huge spike in sudden deaths that began in 2021 after the COVID-19 vaccines started being widely distributed.

Importantly, most of the 2021 deaths, which occurred mostly in people ages 18 to 64, were not attributed to COVID.

More Have Died After COVID-19 Vaccine Roll-Outs Than During the Vietnam War

“From February 2021 to March 2022, millennials experienced the equivalent of a Vietnam war, with more than 60,000 excess deaths,” wrote Dowd, who is an expert in following and anticipating trends and a founding partner in a global investment company called Phinance Technologies.

“The Vietnam war took 12 years to kill the same number of healthy young people we’ve just seen die in 12 months.”

Swine Flu Vaccine Program Halted After 3 Deaths

On Oct. 13, 1976, the New York Times ran a story about the swine flu vaccine.


Keep reading.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The ‘Trans’-Fem Debate: The National Version of ‘My Wife is Always Right’ thumbnail

The ‘Trans’-Fem Debate: The National Version of ‘My Wife is Always Right’

By Selwyn Duke

“A pox on both their houses,” we may say, when wishing both sides in a contest could lose. I surely feel this way, too, with the “transgender” vs. feminist debate over men masquerading as female entering women’s sports and private spaces.

Oh, I don’t fence-sit. Not only have I likely written more pieces on preposterous “transgenderism” than most any other commentator, but I even reject the term and coined a more accurate characterization of the phenomenon — the MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status) agenda. Yet I also know this:

While leftists may call that agenda a men’s-rights-movement monster, the foundation for it absolutely was laid by feminists.

You won’t hear this much in a land so “patriarchal” that a common refrain is “My wife is always right.” Of course, the poor saps thus confessing don’t really mean their wives are infallible and are actually always right; they mean the missus will never, ever admit being wrong.

The sexes have different characteristic weaknesses, with lust being one of men’s. One of women’s involves greater difficulty admitting error. Also said is that it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind, and, boy, have feminists ever done a 180 on sex differences.

That is, MUSS activists have been accused, understandably, of trying to “erase women.” Yet conveniently forgotten is that theirs wasn’t the first movement to attempt such.

Feminism was.

Up until about last Thursday (speaking metaphorically), and far from today’s dominant “gender identity” theory, feminists upheld and socially enforced an outgrowth of “gender neutrality” theory: that the sexes are the same except for the superficial physical differences and, therefore, raising them identically ensures they’ll end up identical in inclination and, even, the devout believers insisted, in abilities.

This sameness-of-the-sexes dogma (SSD) was its day’s wokeness, enforced with a pink fist inside an iron glove. An example: Self-professed feminist academic and lesbian Camille Paglia once mentioned that fellow feminists would corner her on college campuses in the ’70s and, glaring, insist that hormones didn’t exist and that, even if they did, they couldn’t possibly influence behavior.

SSD was applied to sports, too. A 2008 article titled “Women and men in sports: Separate is not equal,” whose feminist authors ask “Why is gender segregation in sports normal?” is representative. Yet certain feminists (some of whom were male, mind you) were even more radical. Two exercise physiologists predicted decades ago, after analyzing the sexes’ world records’ progression, that women would overtake men in track and field by the late ’90s. (In reality, the intersex performance gap actually widened again that decade owing to better performance-enhancing-drug testing.)

In a nutshell, feminist dogma held that men surpassed women athletically only because they’d been developing their abilities longer; allowing women to tap their potential would ensure parity.

SSD was convenient: Since belief in inherent sex differences could be used to justify different sex roles and male-only domains (e.g., police), it had to be deep-sixed. Yet, tangled web woven, doing so paved the way for today’s MUSS agenda. How?

First, feminists spent decades enforcing the proposition that “the sexes are the same except for the superficial physical differences.” Then the MUSS crew came along with a corollary:

Changing the superficial physical differences can make you the opposite sex.

Of course, MUSS activists have gone beyond even this, insisting now that identity is reality. The feminists, however, gave them the launch pad. It’s A leading to B — proposition and corollary.

Thus is it tragically comical seeing feminists such as Kara Dansky appear on Tucker Carlson’s show and call the MUSS phenomenon “men’s rights movement” handiwork and “The New Misogyny.” At age 49 (soon), Dansky is old enough to remember feminist SSD advocacy but, hey, none of this is about principle — and feminists will never, ever admit their error.

Yet her feelings are fathomable. By entering and sometimes dominating females’ sports, MUSS males have accomplished something that eluded normal men: Given the feminists a painful object lesson in reality. When you can’t even beat perhaps gelded men taking female hormones, it’s hard complaining, as in the aforementioned 2008 article, about how this Patriarchal Culture™ claims a “female body is athletically inferior to a male body.”

But it’s always men’s fault, you see. The 2008 article also laments how in our male-dominated civilization, “the shadow of female frailty still shapes the environment of sports.” Female frailty, perish the thought!

Except that now, 15 years later, ex-runner and coach Lauren Fleshman complains at Time that having girls train athletically as boys do is causing them injuries and health problems the lads don’t suffer. And whose fault is this?

Fleshman writes that sports, as we know them, were “designed by men for men and boys” and “have never been designed around” the female body’s “developmental norms.” She’s on to us, alright. Do you fancy that sports evolved organically because people wanted to have fun and learn who was stronger, faster and “better”? Ha! No, they were “designed,” beginning millennia ago in ancient Greece, by a patriarchy so clever and nefarious that it purposely made athletics incompatible with the female body.

This said, I seem to remember it being feminists who wanted Title IX, girls not only playing sports but doing so competitively, and who said the lasses could do anything boys could — and maybe better. But why argue? “My wife is always right.”

It’s ironic, though: Disputing SSD decades ago — by, let’s say, mentioning male athletic advantages and that women can’t compete with men — made you a sexist or misogynist who must be silenced via social pressure and career-destruction threats. Now feminists will write articles, produce videos, appear on shows and even before government bodies talking about a plethora of “immutable” male athletic advantages such as the benefits of testosterone, increased muscle mass, greater VO2 max, and bone structure differences (e.g., narrower pelvises). Imagine that, feminists went from not knowing in the ’70s if hormones existed to being able to write a physiology textbook. Those MUSS men sure can deliver an education.

And today, saying there’s no reason women can’t compete with men athletically renders you, again, a sexist or misogynist who should be canceled. After all, females deserve “their own sports and private spaces.”

So does this mean men get theirs back? Will institutions such as the Citadel and Virginia Military Institute and once-male-only clubs again become XY exclusive? Will boys’ sports teams now be able to reject a girl without possibly being dragged through the mud and into court? Of course not.

SSD is a problem now that it’s enabling males to enter females’ domain. But it was gospel when it enabled females to enter males’ domain.

For the record, the MUSS agenda should be eradicated, but doing so while leaving feminism intact is a half measure. Both misbegotten forces should be rent root and branch.

I won’t hold my breath waiting, however, for conservative men to stop conserving yesterdays’ leftists’ victories, such as feminism. People have short memories, it’s in fellows’ nature to play the white knight, and then, don’t forget:

My wife is always right.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to

Med School Walks Back Alleged Race-Based Programs After Federal Investigation thumbnail

Med School Walks Back Alleged Race-Based Programs After Federal Investigation

By Alexa Schwerha

The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) revised or eliminated several scholarships and programs accused by medical watchdog Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry of being discriminatory after a federal probe was launched, Do No Harm reported.

Perry filed a complaint in September 2022 against eight scholarships and programs offered by the university that he claimed violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevents race-based discrimination, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prevents discrimination based on sex, according to Do No Harm. The Department of Education (DOE) Office for Civil Rights, which investigated the matter, informed Perry Feb. 28 that the case was closed after finding “credible information indicating that the complaint has been resolved,” the letter reads.

The university made several changes to programs called into question by Perry.

The Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Student Program, which originally was available to Black/African American, Native American, Hispanic and Pacific Islander students, was renamed to become the Achieving Health Equity by Advancing Diversity (AHEAD) — Visiting Student Program. The program is available to students from underrepresented groups, students with disabilities, rural communities, first-generation students, LGBTQ students “and other students interested in diversifying the physician workforce and/or addressing healthcare disparities in the communities they serve,” according to its website.

The university confirmed to the OCR that it revised the language on its scholarship website to clarify that it does not discriminate against students of various statuses and backgrounds, the letter reads. The scholarships are “designed to promote a diversified health care workforce” and “all students are welcome to apply,” according to its website.

MUSC removed several programs from its Student Diversity Programs website including its Student Diversity Transition Forum, Visiting Externship Program, Student Ambassadors and Peer Mentors Program and its Residency Diversity Forum, according to Do No Harm. Its Mentoring Ensures Medical School Success program now reads it “does not exclude any students based on race, ethnicity or sex,” according to the website.

“Do No Harm is pleased that The University of South Carolina School of Medicine chose to eliminate its discriminatory and unlawful scholarships,” Laura Morgan, Do No Harm program manager, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “This decision shows that they are well aware that adopting racially discriminatory admissions practices under the guise of inclusivity is not only lowering standards in the name of diversity, but is in violation of federal law.”

MUSC did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

This article was published by The Daily Caller and is reproduced with permission.


There is an important runoff election for the Phoenix City Council District 6 on March 14. Conservative Sal DiCiccio (R) is term limited and will be replaced by the winner of this race. The two candidates are Republican Sam Stone and Democrat Kevin Robinson. If you live in District 6 (check here), you either received a mail-in ballot or you must vote in person (see below).

This is a very important race that will determine the balance of power on the City Council. Phoenix, like many large cities in conservative states, has tended blue with the consequences many cites suffer from with progressive governance. Have you noticed the growing homeless problem in our city?

Conservative Sam Stone is the strong choice of The Prickly Pear and we urge our readers in District 6 to mail your ballots in immediately and cast your vote for Sam Stone. Learn about Sam Stone here. Sal DiCiccio’s excellent leadership and term-limited departure from the Phoenix City Council must not be replaced by one more Democrat on the Council (Democrat Robinson endorsed by leftist Mayor Gallego). Sam Stone is a superb candidate who will bring truthful and conservative leadership to the Phoenix City Council at a time when the future of Phoenix hangs in the balance between the great history of this high quality, desert city we can live in and are proud of or the progressive ills of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Mail-in ballots were sent to registered voters in District 6 on the February 15th. Mail your ballot no later than March 7th – it must be received by the city no later than March 14th to be counted. If you are not on the Permanent Early Voting List you must cast your ballot in person.

In-person balloting at voting centers will occur on three days in mid-March:

  • Saturday, March 11: 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
  • Monday, March 13: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
  • Tuesday, March 14: 6 a.m. to 7 p.m

In-person voting can be done at the following locations:

  1. Sunnyslope Community Center, 802 E. Vogel Ave.
  2. Bethany Bible Church, 6060 N. Seventh Ave.
  3. Devonshire Senior Center, 2802 E. Devonshire Ave.
  4. Memorial Presbyterian Church, 4141 E. Thomas Road
  5. Burton Barr Central Library, 1221 N. Central Ave.
  6. Eastlake Park Community Center, 1549 E. Jefferson St.
  7. Broadway Heritage Neighborhood Res. Ctr., 2405 E. Broadway Road
  8. South Mountain Community Center, 212 E. Alta Vista Road
  9. Cesar Chavez Library, 3635 W. Baseline Road
  10. Pecos Community Center, 17010 S. 48th St.

You can also vote in person at City Hall through March 10th on the 15th floor. City Hall is at 200 W. Washington St.

Are We Medicating Millions of ADHD Children without Scientific Justification? thumbnail

Are We Medicating Millions of ADHD Children without Scientific Justification?

By Yaakov Ophir

“As glasses help people focus their eyes to see,” medical experts from the American Academy of Pediatrics rule, “medications help children with ADHD focus their thoughts better and ignore distractions.” In their view, as well as in the view of multiple other expert consortiums, the most appropriate way to treat the “lifelong impairing condition” of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is by taking stimulant medications on a daily basis.

Although stimulants, as suggested by their name, are frequently abused for stimulating (potentially addictive) sensations of high energy, euphoria, and potency, they are often compared to harmless medical aids, such as eyeglasses or walking crutches. Numerous studies, we are told, support their efficacy and safety, and evidence-based medicine dictates that these substances will be administered to children with ADHD as the first-line treatment.

There is only one, huge problem. ADHD is currently the most common childhood disorder in Western-oriented countries. Its ever-increasing rates are now skyrocketing. The documented prevalence of ADHD is not about 3 percent, as it used to be when the disorder was first introduced in 1980. In 2014, a survey by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed that over 20 percent of 12-year-old boys were diagnosed with this “lifelong condition.”

In 2020, thousands of real-life medical records from Israel suggested that over 20 percent of all children and young adults (5-20 years) received a formal diagnosis of ADHD. This means that hundreds of millions of children around the world are eligible for this diagnosis and that most of them (about 80 percent), including very young, preschool children, will be prescribed with its treatment-of-choice, as if regular use of stimulants is indeed comparable to eyeglasses.

Stimulant brands for ADHD, such as Ritalin, Concerta, Adderall, or Vyvanse rank at the top of the best-selling lists of medications for children. Indeed, the American dream may play a significant role in the proliferation of such cognitive enhancers in the US, but the rush for the magic pills crosses national borders. In fact, the ‘semi-final’ countries that are currently ‘winning’ the Ritalin Olympics, according to the International Narcotics Control Board, are: Iceland, Israel, Canada, and Holland.

But what if the scientific consensus is wrong? What if the medications for ADHD are not as effective and as safe as we are told? After all, stimulant medications are powerful psychoactive substances, which are prohibited to use without medical prescriptions, under federal drug laws. Like all psychoactive drugs, which affect the central nervous system, stimulant medications are designed to penetrate the blood-brain barrier – the specialized tissue and blood vessels that normally prevent harmful substances from reaching the brain. In this way, stimulant medications are essentially impacting the biochemical processes of our brain – that miraculous organ that makes us who we are.

In my new book ADHD is Not an Illness and Ritalin is Not a Cure: A Comprehensive Rebuttal of the (alleged) Scientific Consensus, I do my best to answer these disturbing questions. The first part of the book offers a step-by-step refutation of the notion that ADHD meets the required criteria for a neuropsychiatric condition. In fact, a close reading of the available science suggests that the vast majority of the diagnoses simply reflects common and pretty normative childhood behaviors that underwent unjustified medicalization. The second part of the book uncovers the massive evidence that exists against the efficacy and safety of the treatment-of-choice for ADHD.

Hundreds of studies, published in well-recognized, mainstream academic journals tell a totally different story than the one told by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Stimulant medications are nothing like eyeglasses. Of course, it is impossible to summarize an entire book here, but I do wish to outline three principal failures in the common comparison between stimulant medications and eyeglasses – or any other daily used, harmless medical aids for that matter, such as walking crutches.

Even without considering the specific criticism about the validity of ADHD, the very comparison between organic/bodily conditions, which are typically measured through objective tools, to amorphic psychiatric labels that rely exclusively on subjective assessments of behaviors, is inappropriate and misleading. The ‘brain deficit’ and the ‘chemical imbalance’ that have been associated with ADHD are unproven myths. Stimulants do not ‘fix’ biochemical imbalances and they can easily be used also by non-ADHD individuals to enhance cognitive performance (even though these individuals are not assumed to have this alleged ‘brain deficit’).

As opposed to visual impairments that restrict the individual’s everyday functioning, regardless of school demands, the primary impairment in ADHD is manifested in school settings. Eyeglasses and walking crutches are needed outside of school premises as well, even during weekends and holidays. ADHD, in contrast, seems to be a ‘seasonal disease’ (despite endless efforts to exaggerate and extend its negative outcomes to non-school-related settings). When schools are closed, its daily medical management is often no longer needed. This simple real-life fact is even acknowledged, to some extent, in the official Ritalin leaflet, which states that: “During the course of treatment for ADHD, the doctor may tell you to stop taking Ritalin for certain periods of time (e.g., every weekend or school vacations) to see if it is still necessary to take it.”

Incidentally, these ‘treatment breaks,’ according to the leaflet, “also help prevent a slow-down in growth that sometimes occurs when children take this medicine for a long time” – a noteworthy point that brings us to the third, and most important error in the comparison between stimulant medications and other daily, physical/medical aids, such as eyeglasses.

The benign examples used by proponents of the medications, such as eyeglasses or walking crutches are not regulated by the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Typically, these medical aids do not cause serious physiological and emotional adverse reactions. If stimulant drugs are as safe as experts say, like “Tylenol and aspirin,” why do we insist that they will be medically prescribed by licensed physicians? This question has philosophical and societal implications. After all, if the medications are safe and helpful to various populations (i.e., not only to people with ADHD), what is the moral justification to prohibit their usage among non-diagnosed individuals? This is unjustified discrimination. Moreover, why are we condemning (non-diagnosed) students who use these medications to improve their grades? If regular use of Ritalin and alike is so safe, why not place them on the pharmacies’ shelves, next to the non-prescription pain relievers, moisturizers, and chocolate energy bars?

The last rhetorical questions illustrate how far the eyeglasses metaphor is from the clinical reality and the scientific evidence regarding ADHD and stimulant medications. ADHD medications are not fundamentally different from other psychoactive drugs that cross the blood-brain barrier. At first usage, they may trigger intense sensations of potency or euphoria, but when used for prolonged periods, their desired effects subside, and their unwanted negative effects start to emerge. The brain recognizes these psychoactive substances as neurotoxins and activates a compensatory mechanism in an attempt to fight the harmful invaders. It is this activation of the compensatory mechanism, not the ADHD, that might cause the biochemical imbalance in the brain.

I realize that these last sentences may sound provocative. I therefore encourage readers not to ‘trust’ this short article blindly, but to dive with me into the deep (and sometimes dirty) water of the scientific literature. Despite the academic orientation of my book, I made sure to make the science available to most readers through plain language, illustrative stories, and real-life examples. And even if you disagree with some of its content, I am positive that, by the end of the reading, you will ask yourself, like I did: How is it possible that such critical information about ADHD and stimulant medications is being hidden from us? Does it really make sense to compare these drugs to eyeglasses? Are we medicating millions of ADHD children without proper scientific justification?

This article was published by Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.


There is an important runoff election for the Phoenix City Council District 6 on March 14. Conservative Sal DiCiccio (R) is term limited and will be replaced by the winner of this race. The two candidates are Republican Sam Stone and Democrat Kevin Robinson. If you live in District 6 (check here), you either received a mail-in ballot or you must vote in person (see below).

This is a very important race that will determine the balance of power on the City Council. Phoenix, like many large cities in conservative states, has tended blue with the consequences many cites suffer from with progressive governance. Have you noticed the growing homeless problem in our city?

Conservative Sam Stone is the strong choice of The Prickly Pear and we urge our readers in District 6 to mail your ballots in immediately and cast your vote for Sam Stone. Learn about Sam Stone here. Sal DiCiccio’s excellent leadership and term-limited departure from the Phoenix City Council must not be replaced by one more Democrat on the Council (Democrat Robinson endorsed by leftist Mayor Gallego). Sam Stone is a superb candidate who will bring truthful and conservative leadership to the Phoenix City Council at a time when the future of Phoenix hangs in the balance between the great history of this high quality, desert city we can live in and are proud of or the progressive ills of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Mail-in ballots were sent to registered voters in District 6 on the February 15th. Mail your ballot no later than March 7th – it must be received by the city no later than March 14th to be counted. If you are not on the Permanent Early Voting List you must cast your ballot in person.

In-person balloting at voting centers will occur on three days in mid-March:

  • Saturday, March 11: 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
  • Monday, March 13: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
  • Tuesday, March 14: 6 a.m. to 7 p.m

In-person voting can be done at the following locations:

  1. Sunnyslope Community Center, 802 E. Vogel Ave.
  2. Bethany Bible Church, 6060 N. Seventh Ave.
  3. Devonshire Senior Center, 2802 E. Devonshire Ave.
  4. Memorial Presbyterian Church, 4141 E. Thomas Road
  5. Burton Barr Central Library, 1221 N. Central Ave.
  6. Eastlake Park Community Center, 1549 E. Jefferson St.
  7. Broadway Heritage Neighborhood Res. Ctr., 2405 E. Broadway Road
  8. South Mountain Community Center, 212 E. Alta Vista Road
  9. Cesar Chavez Library, 3635 W. Baseline Road
  10. Pecos Community Center, 17010 S. 48th St.

You can also vote in person at City Hall through March 10th on the 15th floor. City Hall is at 200 W. Washington St.

As Fentanyl Deaths Reach Historic Highs, White House Claims Fentanyl at Border Is at ‘Historic Lows’ thumbnail

As Fentanyl Deaths Reach Historic Highs, White House Claims Fentanyl at Border Is at ‘Historic Lows’

By Family Research Council

On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre asserted that the level of fentanyl present at America’s southern border is currently “at historic lows.” Amid calls for the Biden administration to secure the border after the deaths of two kidnapped Americans in Mexico at the hands of a drug cartel, observers are pointing to vast increases in overdose deaths and human trafficking under President Biden’s watch.

As news spread of the murders of two Americans and the recovery of two others after the four were kidnapped in Mexico by members of a drug cartel in the border city of Matamoros, Jean-Pierre attempted to draw attention to the Biden administration’s efforts to enforce the law at the southern border. “Because of the work that this President has done, because of what we’ve done specifically on fentanyl at the border, it’s at historic lows,” she said at a Tuesday press briefing.

Observers were quick to question the validity of Jean-Pierre’s claim. National Review’s Jim Geraghty pointed to reports showing that “In 2021, 70,601 people died from a fentanyl overdose in the US. That figure is up 25 percent from 2020 and is nearly double the amount of fentanyl overdose deaths in 2019. … Fentanyl overdose deaths in 2021 were over 26 times higher than a decade prior.” The report further indicated that “fentanyl stands out for an 800 percent increase in overdose deaths in just four years.”

Geraghty went on to observe that Jean-Pierre may have been referring to an increase in seizures of fentanyl by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which soared from 4,800 pounds in fiscal year 2020 to 11,200 pounds in 2021 to 14,700 pounds in 2022. In just the first four months of fiscal year 2023, 12,500 pounds have been seized. “But the rising amount of fentanyl seized at the border is also an indicator that more fentanyl is coming across the border,” Geraghty noted.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has reported that the amount of fentanyl seized in 2022 amounted to “50.6 million fentanyl-laced, fake prescription pills and more than 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder. … The DEA Laboratory estimates that these seizures represent more than 379 million potentially deadly doses of fentanyl.” Notably, the DEA also reported that “[m]ost of the fentanyl trafficked by the Sinaloa and CJNG Cartels is being mass-produced at secret factories in Mexico with chemicals sourced largely from China.”

On Wednesday, Congressman Pat Fallon (R-Texas) joined “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” to discuss the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis.

“I met with the DEA a couple of weeks ago, and they say, ‘It’s a matter of accepted fact that the more drugs being seized, it’s just merely a percentage of what’s getting through,” he observed. “So it’s not a good thing. … And for unfortunate proof of that fact: we lost 108,000 Americans to opioid overdoses, [including] 80,000 to fentanyl just last year. That’s a record high. So the Biden administration doesn’t want to talk about 108,000 Americans dying. They want to talk about seizures.”

Fallon went on to assert that “the Mexican drug cartels do present a clear and present danger to the United States — they make about $25 billion [per year] in narcotics trafficking. They’re making about $12 billion [additionally] in human smuggling.”

Observers are pointing to an increase in human trafficking at the border since Biden took office in January 2021 following his administration’s reversal of a series of Trump-era restrictions on immigration. The Heritage Foundation’s Hannah Davis has found that in the last fiscal year, human trafficking arrests “rose 50%; convictions soared by 80%. The vast majority, 72%, of those trafficked in the U.S. are immigrants. Most of them are here illegally.”

Davis, a researcher at Heritage’s Border Security and Immigration Center, also pointed to a study that found that “60% of unaccompanied alien children [UACs] are caught by cartels and exploited through child pornography and drug trafficking.” She further found that in January 2023, “5,882 UACs crossed the border — an increase of more than 80% over the number logged by the Trump administration in January 2020.”

“[Biden] is facilitating the largest human smuggling operation in human history,” Fallon declared. “His policies have enriched the cartels. Their profits are up approximately 50%.”

He further explained the link between drug and human smuggling that the cartels employ. “They’ll have a bunch of illegal migrants, and they’ll exploit them by charging them about $3-4,000 a head. So that’s a direct payment to the cartels. And then they’ll say, ‘Okay, you 500 go across now.’ So they’ll flood a sector knowing that a mile or two down the road in about an hour, all of the Customs and Border Patrol’s resources are going to be sent to deal with the 500 illegal migrants, and then they just sneak across their narcotics. So one hand is pretty much washing the other.”

In light of the ongoing border crisis, the Biden administration appears to be rethinking at least a part of their immigration policies. On Wednesday, reports surfaced that the White House is considering reinstating a policy that would detain illegal border crossers, which is angering some Democrats on the Hill who say the administration’s “lack of communication on immigration-related policy decisions is an insult.”


Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.


NEW: Enormous fentanyl busts around the U.S.
@DEALOSANGELES busts 3 MX nationals w/ 1 million fentanyl pills in car.
– Michigan police make largest fentanyl bust in state history during traffic stop – enough for 3 million pills
– CBP in Nogales, AZ seize 560,000 pills in 2 days

— Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) March 10, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

House Unanimously Votes To Declassify COVID-19 Intelligence thumbnail

House Unanimously Votes To Declassify COVID-19 Intelligence

By The Daily Caller

The House of Representatives unanimously voted Friday to declassify intelligence detailing the emergence of COVID-19.

All 215 present Republicans and all 204 present Democrats voted to pass Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley’s legislation, which previously passed the Senate by unanimous consent. The White House has not signaled whether or not President Joe Biden will sign the bill, but it passed both chambers by more than the two-thirds support necessary to override a presidential veto.

The House passed S. 619 – A bill to require the Director of National Intelligence to declassify information relating to the origin of COVID-19, and for other purposes by a vote of 419-0.

— House Press Gallery (@HouseDailyPress) March 10, 2023

Covid-19 pandemic wreaked havoc across the country with almost every household feeling its effects. The United States death toll from this virus has surpassed one million people. Although concrete data is hard to lock down, millions of people are suffering from the long-term effects directly attributed to this virus. It is becoming increasingly clear that school-aged children face hurdles because of long-term school closures. The American people need to know all the aspects, including how this virus was created and specifically, whether it was a natural occurrence of the result of a lab-related event,” House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Turner of Ohio said in a floor speech.

The U.S. intelligence community is split on whether or not COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Department of Energy recently concluded with “low confidence” that the virus emerged from WIV, joining the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its assessment. The FBI views a lab leak with “moderate confidence,” while four other intelligence agencies view natural spillover as the virus’ likely origin. Two agencies are undecided.

The Chinese embassy reached out to Hawley’s office Wednesday to object to his bill, asserting that its only purpose is to “politicize and stigmatize China.”

“The move by the U.S. Congress just shows that the U.S. is going further and further down the wrong path of political manipulation. The so-called traceability report by the U.S. intelligence agency is an attempt to ‘presume guilt’ on China. It is an attempt to shift the blame from its own failure to fight the epidemic to China,” government attorney Li Xiang wrote.



Congressional correspondent.


Elon Musk Receives Ominous Warning From China After Endorsing Lab Leak Theory

House Votes To Overturn ‘Overreaching’ Biden Water Rule

Reps. Clyde, Garbarino Introduce Joint Resolution To Block DC’s Anti-Cop Law, Endorsed By DC Police Union

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

ERASING WOMEN: Biden Spits On Women Gives ‘International Women of Courage Award’ to a Man thumbnail

ERASING WOMEN: Biden Spits On Women Gives ‘International Women of Courage Award’ to a Man

By The Geller Report

By: C. Douglas Golden, The Western Journal, March 9, 2023:

How sexist is President Joe Biden’s administration? So sexist, in fact, that men are now even being given the International Women of Courage Award.

On Wednesday, in a ceremony led by first lady Jill Biden, the U.S. State Department celebrated International Women’s Day by honoring females who have made a significant contribution to the world in some way.

The recipients of the 17th annual award were an impressive lot, at least if one is to rely on the copy from a Sunday media release by the State Department.

There was Professor Danièle Darlan of the Central African Republic and former president of the Central African Republic’s Constitutional Court, who was honored for “her defense of her nation’s constitution, her heroism in safeguarding judicial independence, and her refusal to be influenced by threats or political pressure.

“Her final act as President of the Court before her removal by the government, in which she found that methods proposed to redraft the constitution were not legally sound, exemplified her unwavering commitment to the rule of law,” the media release stated.

Stop the censors, sign up to get today’s top stories delivered right to your inbox

Then there was Bakhytzhan Toregozhina of Kazakhstan: “Since January 2022, she has been the head of ‘Qantar 2022’ (January 2022) a coalition of civil society organizations working to assist victims and document human rights violations associated with the widespread unrest that occurred in Kazakhstan last January,” the release stated.

Senator Datuk Ras Adiba Radzi of Malaysia, meanwhile, “has spent most of her professional life advancing and promoting human rights, selflessly advocating for vulnerable populations and using her platforms to shed light on injustices in Malaysian society.” She’s also the first female chair of Bernama, Malaysia’s powerful, state-run media outlet.

And then there was Alba Rueda, an Argentine man who “identifies” as a “woman” and has built a career as an activist for causes that force society to officially recognize this biological impossibility.

“Alba Rueda, Argentina’s current Special Envoy for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, was the first Argentine Undersecretary for Diversity Policies in the newly created Ministry of Women, Gender, and Diversity,” stated the State Department’s word salad that was supposed to describe why he was deserving of the honor.

“Ms. Rueda was the driving force behind Argentina’s executive order on the transgender labor quota in the public sector which was converted into the Transgender Labor Quota Act,” it continued.

“She previously worked in the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights in their National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism (INADI) as well as the Argentine Secretariat for Human Rights. She is one of the founders of Argentina Trans Women (MTA) and actively engages with Notitrans, the first transgender magazine in Argentina.”

According to a computer translation of a profile of Rueda by Argentinian outfit Infobae, he is essentially a glorified campus activist who never really left campus.

“Alba is salty. She arrived in Buenos Aires in the nineties with her family and at the age of 16 she chose her name. After finishing high school at Normal 10, in Barrancas de Belgrano, she enrolled in Philosophy at the University of Buenos Aires,” the May 2022 profile of the transgender activist read.

“But after only two subjects to graduate, she dropped out, tired of the violence and discrimination of the teachers who refused to recognize her self-perceived identity and, for example, forced her to leave the classroom or prevented her from taking exams.”

EDITORS NOTE: The Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.