And now we are sending BILLIONS over there. The more we know, the darker, more evil it gets.
This is a catastrophe of unimaginable proportion.
Excerpt:
There is one Sub-Award that stands out among the rest, and it was awarded to Labyrinth Global Health INC for “SME Manuscript Documentation and COVID-19 Research”.
An award for Covid-19 research isn’t exactly shocking when the world is allegedly in the grip of a Covid-19 pandemic, but considering the fact the sub-contract was awarded 12th November 2019, at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19, the award for Covid-19 research should come as a shock to everyone. [Click here to view the document]
But the shock doesn’t end there, because the place the contact for Covid-19 research was instructed to take place was Ukraine, as was the entire contract awarded by the DOD to Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
The world first started to hear about a novel coronavirus in early January 2020, with reports of an alleged new pneumonia-like illness spreading across Wuhan, China. However, the world did not actually know of Covid-19 until February 2020, because it was not until the 11th of that month that the World Health Organisation officially named the novel coronavirus disease Covid-19.
So with this being the official truth, why does United States Government data show that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) awarded a contract on the 12th November 2019 to Labyrinth Global Health INC. for ‘COVID-19 Research’, at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19?
The shocking findings, however, do not end there. The contract awarded in November 2019 for ‘COVID-19 Research’ was not only instructed to take place in Ukraine, it was in fact part of a much larger contract for a ‘Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine’.
Perhaps explaining why Labyrinth Global Health has been collaborating with Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, and Ernest Wolfe’s Metabiota since its formation in 2017.
The Government of the United States has a website called ‘USA Spending‘, an official open data source of federal spending information. According to the site as of 12th April 2021, the US Government has spent a mind-blowing $3.63 trillion “in response to COVID-19”. But that’s not the only information on Covid that can be found on the site.
Hidden within the ‘Award Search’ are details on a contract awarded by the Department of Defense to a company named ‘Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp‘, which is allegedly “a global engineering, procurement, consulting and construction company specialising in infrastructure development”.
The contract was awarded on September 20th, 2012 and is described as “Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services”. Obviously, this is very vague and most likely of little interest to anyone who happens to stumble across it. But there is something contained deep within the details that should be of interest to anyone and everyone.
The ‘Award History’ for the contract contains a tab for ‘Sub-Awards’ detailing the recipients, action date, amount, and a very brief description for 115 Sub-Award transactions. Most of the Sub-Awards are extremely mundane for things such as “laboratory equipment for Kyiv”, or “office furniture for Kyiv”.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-20 08:52:512022-05-20 08:52:51United States D.O.D issued a contract for ‘COVID-19 Research’ in Ukraine 3 months before COVID-19 officially existed
As the nation awaits a landmark abortion ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, newly released polling data show that the majority of Americans support limits on abortion.
Convention of States Action, along with the Trafalgar group, released a new poll showing that 57.6% of Americans say “abortion should only be legal in specific circumstances.” Those limits vary based on the voters’ preferences but include limiting which trimester abortions can be performed or allowing abortions only in cases of rape or incest.
Overall, though, unfettered abortion access has very little support. The poll found that only 11.6% of those surveyed said “abortion should be legal up until the moment of birth, including partial-birth.”
“The left is pulling out all the stops in an attempt to create the perception that a majority of Americans support unrestricted abortion,” said Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action. “But as these numbers show, American voters – including more than a third of Democrats – have paid attention to the science of fetal development, and support a variety of restrictions on abortion.”
After documents were leaked from the Supreme Court, the high court is now expected to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow individual states to determine their own abortion laws. That decision, though, has not been finalized.
The issue has become a major political football with the upcoming midterm elections. Republicans have focused on economic issues, and are expected to make big gains in November. Democrats, though, have said the abortion issue could be used to turn the tables this fall.
The poll, though, found independents favor restrictions, with 54.6% of surveyed independent voters saying abortion “should only be legal in specific circumstances.” On top of that, one out of three Democrats supports strict limits on abortion.
According to the poll, 45.3% of surveyed Democrats say “abortion should be legal in the first and second trimesters” while only 18.8% say abortion “should be legal up until the moment of birth, including partial-birth.”
America is now aware of the Department of Homeland Security’s new ‘Disinformation Governance Board’. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called disinformation a “threat” that needs to be addressed with federal law enforcement power. (Is it coincidental that Elon Musk will shortly take Twitter private and re-establish a free speech platform in America?)
This new DHS office is the Biden Speech Police and represents an existential threat to our First Amendment and our Republic. Please click the adjacent red TAKE ACTION link for the resources to inform your Senators and Representatives about this unconstitutional and tyrannical assault on American Free Speech and our fierce rejection of it.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-05-20 03:55:002022-05-20 03:55:00Majority of Americans Support Restrictions on Abortion As Nation Awaits Supreme Court Ruling
Yesterday, I filed suit in federal court against HHS for failing to give me records on COVID vaccine safety I had requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
Let me back up to the beginning. In 1976, U.S. regulators pulled the swine flu vaccine from the market after it was linked to 25 deaths. In stark contrast, U.S. regulators have not pulled the COVID vaccines from the market despite almost 28,000 deaths in the U.S. alone that could be linked to the vaccines. So here we have a situation that is potentially more than a thousand times worse than the swine flu vaccine, but the government has left the COVID vaccines on the market. Not only that, the government spent a billion dollars to have media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post tell us the vaccines are safe. We have gotten government by phony narrative instead of a legitimate public health response. If the vaccines are safe, the government would not have had to spend a billion dollars trying to convince us of that.
In 1990, the government instituted a vaccine adverse event reporting system – VAERS. There have been a relative handful of adverse reactions to various vaccines reported every year since, but the line went straight up off the chart when the COVID vaccines were introduced. The purpose of the reporting system is to prompt the government to conduct safety studies when it looks like there’s a problem. I hadn’t seen any government safety studies of the COVID vaccines so, last November, I asked HHS for any studies they had performed and for any memo explaining their decision to perform, or not perform, such studies.
In response, I got back a government website URL where a number of studies are posted. As a group, they claim various adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines do not outweigh the benefits of the vaccines. Only one of the studies addresses mortality – the elephant in the room, the idea that the COVID vaccines just might be killing people by the thousands. That study, performed by a mix of CDC, Kaiser Permanente, and Pfizer-tied scientists did not look at the VAERS data. It performed a statistical analysis on another database. Unsurprisingly, it found “no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients.” However, “causes of death were not assessed” in individual cases and it was published last October. There have been an additional 12,000 deaths in the U.S. alone possibly caused by COVID vaccines since then [see The Daily Skirmish – 10/20/21], deaths your government has not investigated.
I never got the decision memo or most of the other records I requested. HHS was in bad faith because they referred my request to the CDC, a single component of HHS, when the decision about safety studies might have been made by the HHS Secretary or other leadership office. The CDC, from whom I received a handful of records, was in bad faith for initially claiming my request was burdensome and that other agencies and the manufacturers would have to be consulted. This was a lie because, when I asked for expedited processing, they gave me records the very next day. I went back to HHS, asking for an agency-wide search on an expedited basis limited in some respects to the subject of mortality, but there was no response. So I sued them yesterday. Now it’s out of their hands and a federal judge will decide what records I get.
I filed requests for expedited processing with the CDC and HHS because the CDC had initially wanted to leave the document production schedule open-ended and HHS had delayed matters by closing my case file in bad faith. I wasn’t willing to wait 75 years to find out when I might get records, which is how long the FDA, another HHS component, had demanded to produce records in another FOIA case, that one regarding the Pfizer vaccine. The FDA was shot down by a court which initially shortened the record production schedule from 75 years to eight months, although the litigation went on from there.
The government has 30 days to answer my complaint, and we’ll see what happens.
In the course of all this, I amassed over a hundred articles pointing to safety problems with the COVID vaccines, including mortality, and saw in a database there are thousands more. No, the government does not get to sweep this under the rug. I want to know what the government decided about mortality studies and why. I want to know why the government did not pull the COVID vaccines from the market when the situation is potentially more than a thousand times worse than the swine flu vaccine disaster.
Tomorrow, I’ll tell you about some of the COVID vaccine adverse reaction articles I gathered. They’re eye-opening.
EXPOSED – Pfizer vaccine in the UK. Deaths and injuries include: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, Bell’s Palsy, nervous system disorders, immune system disorders, psychiatric disorders and blindness.
16 people are now blind after covid jab – Latest AstraZeneca deaths and injuries. As well as blindness, some of the many injuries include: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, sepsis, paralysis, Bell’s Palsy, deafness and covid-19.
22 residents dead in three weeks in Basingstoke nursing home – ‘It is understood the outbreak started as residents began to have their coronavirus vaccines…’
A 41-year-old Portuguese mother of two who worked in paediatrics died at a hospital in Porto just two days after being vaccinated against covid-19
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-19 18:52:292022-05-19 18:52:29COVID Vaccine Deaths: What Did the Government Know and When Did It Know It?
A Democratic witness testified that men can get pregnant and have abortions during a Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday on abortion access and care.
Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop first asked witness AVOW executive director Aimee Arrambide how she defines a “woman.”AVOW is a pro-abortion non-profit organization working to secure unrestricted access to abortion for Texas.
“I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,” Arrambide said.
“Ok. Do you believe then that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop followed up.
“Yes,” Arrambide responded.
Q: “Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” –@RepDanBishop
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 18, 2022
Bishop also asked reproductive healthcare Dr. Yashica Robinson, who uses “she/her” pronouns, if she could define what a “woman” was prior to questioning Arrambide.
“It’s important for you to understand why I said I use ‘she/her’ pronouns,” Robinson said. “It’s because I understand that for people-”
Bishop then cut her off and again asked “what is a woman?”
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things we do, and so the reason why I use ‘she’ and ‘her’ pronouns is because I understand there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way, and I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way that they desire not to be called,” Robinson said.
Bishop again asked if she was going to answer his question about the definition of a “woman.”
“I’m a woman,” Robinson said.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition you could give me?” Bishop asked.
Robinson said that the most comprehensive definition she could provide for the time being.
A “woman” is defined as “an adult female person,” according to Merriam-Webster. A female has XX chromosomes while men have XY chromosomes. Men do not. have the same reproductive organs that females have and are unable to get pregnant or receive an abortion.
Robinson and Arrambide are not the only ones unable to provide a definition of what a “woman” is. The Daily Caller reached out to every Senate Democrat to see if any of our leaders would provide a definition. Each request was met with silence. Only 15 Republican Senators were willing to provide a definition of what a “woman” is when questioned by the Caller.
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson also dodged the question during her hearing, telling Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn she is “not a biologist” and therefore could not define what a “woman” is.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-19 18:52:282022-05-19 18:52:28Dem Witness Says Men Can Get Pregnant And Have Abortions
The Evangelical Lutheran Church, a mainstream church with around 3,000,000 U.S. members and its very own openly Transgender Bishop the Rev. Megan Rohrer, a former lesbian who claims now to be non binary and who likes to be known as “they or them” pronouns, just declared that their 1991 social teachings document is the basis of their support for abortion – otherwise known to others as murder.
That transgendered female former lesbian Bishop, who will lead 65 synods from its church in San Francisco stated prior to the ordination, “ I step into this role because a diverse community of Lutherans in Northern California and Nevada prayerfully and thoughtfully voted to do a historic thing. My installation will celebrate all that is possible when we trust God to shepherd us forward.”
Really?????? This was Gods work?????
Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, the actual head of the ECLA, says the church rightly teaches that abortion should be regulated BUT NOT outlawed. The church – if you can call it that – says that a fetus is a human life and is a neighbor of – wait for it – the woman and the community!!!
So the developing life, the future human being and the mother of that human life are just neighbors!! The Church teaches that abortions of fetuses from their church members is not only a decision of the mother or father but rather it happens in the community. That is with God, family, partners, friends, doctors and pastors.
Her words:- “While the leaked draft does not represent the Supreme Court’s ruling in its final form; nevertheless, it contradicts this church’s teaching. This church teaches that abortion and reproductive health care, including contraception, must be legal and accessible.”
I am sure God, my God, is not ever on the side of murdering the fetus in a disgusting and savage act that is acceptable to the extremists and leftists in our country. All the others in on the decision are doing the work of Satan. Plain and simple.
America. How is this even remotely acceptable to any bible believing, Christian male or female? How can those 3,000,000 so called members even insult God by calling themselves Christians? These people are not only sick, they are evil.
Let me tell you all one thing that is as sure as the nose on your face. This humble scribe will not EVER be calling anyone who claims to be a different sex to that they were born, a “they” or “them.” They can call themselves whatever the heck they want to but guess what? They have either an X or Y chromosome which makes them a male or female.
In 1000 years, if a body is dug up and examined, do you think they will say ahhhh… that was a transgender? A non binary? A member of the LGBTQUI community? A confused individual? A pervert?
No is the answer. They will run a test and the result will be either male or female, the two sexes placed on earth by God. Placed to breed and raise families together.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-19 05:51:372022-05-19 05:51:37The Evangelical Lutheran Church Comes Out in Support of Abortion!
This is a plan that Congress and the public need to fight vigorously.
The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.
“On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America’s healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization’s governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).” — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
“This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as ‘Provisional agenda item 16.2’ at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022.” — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
“These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations.” — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
“The targeted nation is also required to send WHO any relevant genetic sequence data.” — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
“Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to “verify” the event before taking action.” — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
Unfortunately, this “next pandemic” is neither far off nor a hypothetical “conspiracy theory.” According to multiple credible reports from the U.S. Department of State, to the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, China has been preparing for bio-warfare using pathogens for more than six years.
A WHO with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should respond to a future pandemic? Perhaps by forcing the U.S. to turn over supplies and equipment to China because of its larger population? How about an international organization that would have the power to mandate whether we should be required to be vaccinated with a particular vaccine, say China’s inferior SINOVAC vaccine? Or imagine a WHO that has the power to impose what mandates or lockdowns a country would be required to impose, say like China’s current lockdown of Shanghai? Unfortunately, the WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China’s Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen.
The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.
The World Health Organization (WHO), the organization that has unhesitatingly been doing China’s bidding during the COVID pandemic, is reportedly now planning to orchestrate a massive new power grab to internationally control the response to any future global pandemic. The plan is apparently to make the health of Americans dependent on the whims of China — which is both actively seeking to displace the US as the world’s leading superpower and has for years been working on new means of bio-warfare.
It is a plan that is being voted on next week: Congress and the American public need to fight vigorously — and FAST.
On May 4, a meticulous report, Biden Handing Over U.S. Sovereignty to WHO by Peter Breggin MD and Ginger Ross Breggin, raised an alarm. On May 2-28, 2022, the Biden Administration has proposed amendments to the WHO that “will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation.”
The danger is that China, according to reports, has actively been working on gene-splicing and globally collecting DNA with an eye to developing new lethal viruses that could be used for bio-warfare. They would be able target people who are genetically not Chinese, while bypassing people who genetically are Chinese. China expert Gordon Chang recently warned:
For at least a half‑decade, maybe a little bit longer, Chinese military researchers have been openly writing about a new type of biological warfare. This was, for instance, in the 2017 edition of “The Science of Military Strategy,” the authoritative publication of China’s National Defense University.
“They talk about a new type of biological warfare of “specific ethnic genetic attacks.” In other words, pathogens that will leave the Chinese immune but sicken and kill everybody else, which means that the next disease from China can be a civilization killer….
A lot of military analysts talk about how the first seconds of a war with China are going to be fought in outer space. They are going to blind our satellites, take them down, do all sorts of stuff. Those statements are wrong.
The first day of war against the United States occurs about six months earlier, when they release pathogens in the United States. Then we are going to have that day in space. The war starts here, with a pathogen ‑‑ a virus, a microbe, a bug of some kind. That is where it begins.
The Biden administration’s amendment will make the US legally obligated by international treaty to follow whatever the WHO decides. According to the Breggins:
On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America’s healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization’s governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).
This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as “Provisional agenda item 16.2” at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022.
These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations.
If passed, the Biden Administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States. The same threat looms over all the U.N.’s 193 member nations, all of whom belong WHO and represent 99.44% of the world population….
These regulations are a “binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.” U.N. members states can be required by law to obey or acquiesce to them….
The targeted nation is also required to send WHO any relevant genetic sequence data.
Worse:
The contents of the proposed amendments were not made public until April 12, 2022, leaving little time to protest before the scheduled vote.
The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes. The power to declare health emergencies is a potential tool to shame, intimidate, and dominate nations. It can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation.
In addition:
The sweeping new powers will be invested in the Director-General of WHO to act on his own. The Director-General is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, commonly known as Tedros. Tedros, the first non-physician director-general of WHO, is an extremely controversial Marxist activist and politician from Ethiopia installed by the Chinese Communist Party.
And:
Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to “verify” the event before taking action.
In 2020, the Trump administration initiated pulling the U.S. out of the WHO because of its wretched track record during the COVID pandemic. It was slow to identify the threat of COVID, and differential to the wishes of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its messaging about COVID despite questions from Taiwan about the human-to-human transmissibility of the virus, which the CCP was falsely denying and the WHO simply ignored. The WHO was also unable to convince the CCP for the need for greater transparency, or even allow an open discussion about the origins of the virus. Early on, the WHO embraced the CCP narrative that the virus had developed naturally, and attacked any mention that the virus might have escaped from a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan.
Memories of how the global community responded to the pandemic are still fresh in everyone’s mind. Many members of the diplomatic corps in the Netherlands, at the time, acknowledged the poor record of the WHO but believed that pulling out of the WHO during the pandemic would be a mistake. They also believed an after-action review of the WHO would have to wait until the pandemic was under control; then there could be accountability and reform for this failed organization.
Boy, were they wrong. As the pandemic is now waning, instead of an accountability review, the WHO and member states are envisioning a massive expansion of its role as an international organization to control the planet during the next pandemic.
Unfortunately, this “next pandemic” is neither far off nor a hypothetical “conspiracy theory.” According to multiple credible reports from the U.S. Department of State, to the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, China has been preparing for bio-warfare using pathogens for more than six years.
The United Nations has been furthering this scheme. According to the Breggins:
On January 26, 2022, the same U. S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva sent a one-page memo to WHO confirming that the amendments had been sent. It also contained a brief report by the same Loyce Pace, Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs HHS. Most importantly, the memo listed all the nations backing the U.S. amendments. The size and power of the group guarantee that the amendments will be passed if unopposed by significant outside pressure.
Here are the 20 nations, plus the European Union, listed by the U.S. as supporting the amendments:
Albania, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, India, Jamaica, Japan, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Peru, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Member States of the European Union (EU).
The European Union, a globalist organization, has been among the biggest backers of increasing WHO”s global power.
China has, for years, been “collecting the DNA of foreigners while prohibiting Chinese DNA to foreign researchers,” according to Chang. He added that the country’s behavior of collecting the DNA of foreigners while prohibiting Chinese DNA to foreign researchers supports this theory.
“We’ve got to be extremely concerned because that is not consistent with a country that wants to cooperate with the rest of the world. That is consistent with a country developing biological weapons,” he cautioned.
“People have said biological weapons don’t work. Well, we do know they work because we had the coronavirus, which may or may not have been a biological weapon,” Chang clarified, “but we do know that it crippled the United States and that’s what Beijing is really looking for.
Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelming. On May 7, 2021, journalist Sharri Markson disclosed in The Australian that:
Chinese military scientists discussed the weaponisation of SARS coronaviruses five years before the COVID-19 pandemic, outlining their ideas in a document that predicted a third world war would be fought with biological weapons.
The document, written by People’s Liberation Army scientists and senior Chinese public health officials in 2015, was obtained by the US State Department as it conducted an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, The Weekend Australian has confirmed.
The Australian added: “Robert Potter, a digital forensics specialist who has worked for the US, Australian, and Canadian governments, and has previously analyzed leaked Chinese government documents, verified the authenticity of the document.”
Despite its obvious failures and kowtowing to the Chinese Communist Party, there are nevertheless those — one can only imagine why — who apparently see a WHO ruled by China as capable of assuming this global role.
These countries have sought to expand the authorities of the WHO to include legally binding requirements on all nations, a financial structure that will stabilize its position, and the ability to establish tools, norms, and protocols internationally for the next pandemic. This is how the WHO, and some member states, see the future of the WHO — an untransparent, unaccountable international organization able to establish by edict how the world and nations must respond to future health crises.
Countries regrettably embracing this call include the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, as well as the head of the European Union. Although it does not seem logical, these countries — apart from the UK which by now should know better — have historically put unfounded faith in the success and primacy of international organizations. The refrain often offered in diplomatic circles when discussing failed international organizations is “better together.” Better to be talking in the confines of failed or failing international organizations than to fight for reform, which might require pulling out of them to create the type of pressure that would force change. Many countries promised to join the U.S. in fighting to reform the WHO once the pandemic ended. They are now fighting to expand its authority — with no reform.
A WHO with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should responds to a future pandemic? Perhaps by forcing the U.S. to turn over supplies and equipment to China because of its larger population? Especially at a time when reports are that China is working on a virus that is even more lethal? How about an international organization that would have the power to mandate whether we should be required to be vaccinated with a particular vaccine, say China’s inferior SINOVAC vaccine? Or imagine a WHO that has the power to impose what mandates or lockdowns a country would be required to impose, say like China’s current lockdown of Shanghai? Unfortunately, the WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China’s Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen. No country should ever give away its potential right to survival to any other country. We are seeing now how this cavalier abdication of sovereign, national responsibility is playing out with the world’s betrayal of Ukraine, which gave up its nuclear arsenal in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in exchange for fake promises — from countries including Russia — that its borders and sovereignty would be protected and secure.
The WHO, unaccountable for its performance, is not the kind of authority we as Americans should want to see in an untransparent, unaccountable organization, especially one that appears beholden to the Chinese Communist Party. Even now, in just one year, 2021, the CCP has murdered at least 64,000 Americans by the fentanyl poison it sends into the US through America’s open border with Mexico. What better way to cripple a country, especially the U.S, than to arrange for it to be unable to defend itself?
This November, American citizens will be able to hold our elected officials accountable for their performances during the COVID pandemic. Voters in all states will be able to hold their elected officials accountable.
Imagine the lack of accountability if elected officials could simply respond by saying, “those were the requirements of the WHO; we had to follow them.”
We already hear state and local officials identifying federal officials and the CDC as being responsible for the decisions they made. We should want to clearly understand who is responsible and accountable. And it should not be — ever — an international organization of anonymous, faceless bureaucrats over whom we have no control.
The WHO is opportunistically using the COVID pandemic to try to expand its reach and authority. The closing remarks of WHO’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, at the December meeting of the World Health Assembly, were: “We are one humanity. We have one planet. We have one health. And we have one WHO. Your WHO.”
Congress and the Biden Administration should not succumb to this latest siren song for globalism — or any other, frankly. America works best when it leads within the international community, not when it cedes national authority to untransparent, unaccountable organizations, particularly those which have shown that they have China’s — not America’s — best interests at heart.
Peter Hoekstra was US Ambassador to the Netherlands during the Trump administration. He served 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives representing the second district of Michigan and served as Chairman and Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He is currently Chairman of the Center for Security Policy Board of Advisors.
America is now aware of the Department of Homeland Security’s new ‘Disinformation Governance Board’. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called disinformation a “threat” that needs to be addressed with federal law enforcement power. (Is it coincidental that Elon Musk will shortly take Twitter private and re-establish a free speech platform in America?)
This new DHS office is the Biden Speech Police and represents an existential threat to our First Amendment and our Republic. Please click the adjacent red TAKE ACTION link for the resources to inform your Senators and Representatives about this unconstitutional and tyrannical assault on American Free Speech and our fierce rejection of it.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-05-19 03:55:002022-05-19 03:55:00DANGER: The WHO’s Death Trap for the US
For parents who rely on baby formula—whether by choice or due to medical necessity—the nationwide baby formula shortage has become increasingly difficult to ignore. According to the Wall Street Journal, Walgreens, Target, CVS, and Kroger have all begun rationing supplies of formula.
Covid lockdowns, combined with a product recall by formula manufacturer Abbott Nutrition have created a very real shortage in a product that is key for proper nutrition in many children.
With the shortage has come the usual half-baked bromides about “evil corporations” and how baby formula companies are supposedly not regulated enough. Throw in a few references to “late-stage capitalism” and you’ll get a good taste of the usual “blame capitalism” narrative that accompanies every bout of shortages or rising prices.
Formula Is Heavily Regulated and Subsidized
In reality, federal government intervention in the formula market is rampant. Thanks to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), formula companies are heavily subsidized by voucher programs which mean that the US government is “provid[ing] more than half of the formula that is used in the US.“
Within these voucher programs, funds are funneled to select corporations through programs that grant a formula company “the exclusive right to have its formula provided to WIC participants in the State.” In practice, this means the largest companies with the most lobbyists are able to dominate the subsidized portion of the market. Since the subsidized portion of the market is so huge, that usually means those companies dominate the market overall. This makes it harder for newcomers to break into the market and offer any real competition. This means the marketplace becomes reliant on a small number of large firms.
The anticompetitive nature of federal WIC policy is just one aspect of how little the formula market has to do with anything we might call “the free market.”
Protectionism Prevents Access to Foreign Formula
Another major and important factor is the restriction on foreign imports enforced by federal law.
The US regime overall is very protectionist when it comes to dairy products in general, and formula is certainly no exception. As one pediatric medical journal states flatly “Infant formula in the United States is highly regulated.” This can be seen clearly in protectionist trade laws imposed on formula in the guise of protecting consumers.
As Derek Thompson at The Atlantic notes, Food and Drug Administration “regulation of formula is so stringent that most of the stuff that comes out of Europe is illegal to buy here due to technicalities like labeling requirements.”
These bureaucratic requirements fall under “non-tariff barriers,” which in many cases present even greater barriers than tariffs.
But tariff barriers are significant as well. Thompson also notes that
U.S. policy also restricts the importation of formula that does meet FDA requirements. At high volumes, the tax on formula imports can exceed 17 percent. And under President Donald Trump, the U.S. entered into a new North American trade agreement that actively discourages formula imports from our largest trading partner, Canada.
However, those products that jump through all those hoops face further restrictions. The FDA mandates that even qualifying formula manufacturers must wait ninety days before marketing any new formula.
Trade restrictions function to prevent reliable lines of importation of foreign formula. Thanks to that ninety-day delay on marketing, foreign suppliers can’t introduce new products to the market quickly, either.
So, if you have adopted children, a double mastectomy, or some other reason for needing formula for your baby, you can thank advocates of tariffs and other trade restrictions for shortages.
Protectionists and Their Excuses
Naturally, the baby formula protectionists have plenty of excuses for why their preferred form of central planning and big-government intervention in the marketplace is “necessary.” They’ll insist that FDA regulations are necessary to protect children—as if European baby formula is not already heavily regulated. European infant mortality also tends to be lower than US infant mortality, so the claim that protectionism is “for the children” is clearly baseless.
These facts, however, don’t prevent Trump-style protectionists from claiming government regulations are good “because China.”
Secondly, the protectionists are likely to claim that government control of formula—and all other dairy-based imports—are important because they “protects jobs.” What protectionists are really saying is that you and your family must just do without essential goods in order to protect a small number of corporations that dominate the formula marketplace thanks to US regulations.
Protectionism Means Punishing Entrepreneurs
Finally, there is little doubt that if the federal government actually allowed some true degree of freedom in the formula marketplace that entrepreneurs would step in to import formula to meet the need quickly.
This, of course, can’t happen because these entrepreneurs don’t want to be jailed, sued, and otherwise destroyed by federal bureaucrats. After all, protectionism must be enforced by federal police and federal courts, and that means fining and jailing any importers who run afoul of the law. Protectionism is fundamentally about using violence against Americans who try to bring goods to market in ways that the protectionists don’t like.
Once again, the anticapitalist “fair trade” advocates and advocates of WIC corporatism who caused these shortages will likely escape unscathed. Formula industry lobbyists will deploy and ensure nothing is done to endanger the protection-induced profits at the dominant firms. Welfare-state leftists will ensure that the federal government continues to subsidize these corporations as well. Rightwing protectionists will continue to insist that foreign goods must be kept out to make America great.
America is now aware of the Department of Homeland Security’s new ‘Disinformation Governance Board’. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called disinformation a “threat” that needs to be addressed with federal law enforcement power. (Is it coincidental that Elon Musk will shortly take Twitter private and re-establish a free speech platform in America?)
This new DHS office is the Biden Speech Police and represents an existential threat to our First Amendment and our Republic. Please click the adjacent red TAKE ACTION link for the resources to inform your Senators and Representatives about this unconstitutional and tyrannical assault on American Free Speech and our fierce rejection of it.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-05-19 03:50:002022-05-19 03:50:00Baby Formula: Thank Protectionists and the FDA for the Shortage
Randall Smith: 16,000,000 dead black babies and counting. All those demonstrating to protect the abortion industry are not only on the wrong side of history, they’re also racist.
There’s been a lot of discussion recently about the upcoming Dobbs decision, in which the Supreme Court might finally overturn the Court’s deadly earlier decisions in Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton. Many of the articles bemoaning the coming decision have been filled with incivility, mindless vitriol, fear-mongering, absurd non sequiturs, and outright lies.
When the Supreme Court overturned its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick seventeen years later in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas – thereby protecting homosexual activity – liberals weren’t screaming that Brown v. Board of Education was next, because they knew that would have been an absurd non sequitur.
And today, no progressive liberal would find it acceptable were a conservative group giving out the home addresses of the dissenting judges in Dobbs, so that groups of angry demonstrators could gather outside their homes to pressure them to change their minds. No, only one side may do these things.
Well, to those defending Roe, I have only one thing to say: You’re on the wrong side of history.
I’ve always wanted to say that. Mostly just to show people on the other side how it feels. I do in fact believe that those who are arguing for abortion are on the wrong side of history and that, in fifty years, with advances in neonatal care and greater knowledge of the developing child in the womb, abortion will be seen as barbaric as slavery does to us today.
And just for the record, if you study history, you’ll find that when your side is the side that’s using euphemisms to cover up what you’re doing – breaking windows, lying, threatening people with violence, and stirring up mob anger, fear, and resentment – you usually are on the “wrong side of history.”
But simply saying to one’s opponents, “You’re on the wrong side of history,” is no argument. It is the verbal equivalent of a patronizing pat on the head. Imagine making a sophisticated argument about something only to have your interlocutor blurt out: “Well that’s just stupid!” or “You’re just wrong!” Now, I may be wrong; I may even be stupid. But you will have to make an actual argument to show that.
Too many people today assume they have no need to make logical arguments and can instead simply assume that “all good and sensible people” agree with them because, well, “it’s obvious.” The problem is, it almost never is, and with especially controversial issues, such as abortion, you can’t simply assume it is. What you are saying when you claim, “It’s obvious,” is that the people who disagree with you are stupid — too dense to see what’s “obvious.”
So I’m not going to simply say to those who disagree with me about abortion, “You’re on the wrong side of history.” I think they are; they obviously think they’re not. Fine. We need to move on and get to some real arguments and actual data.
“Disparate impact” and racial bias seem to be popular topics at the moment. You can barely go more than a day or two without a discussion of them showing up on the mainstream media. So let’s talk about them with reference to abortion.
The claim one often hears is that overturning Roe would be “disastrous” for the black community. But here is the reality:
Abortion is the leading cause of death for African Americans, more than all other causes combined, including HIV, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease.
Abortions are performed on black women at a rate 3.5 times higher than white women; black women have over 30 percent of abortions though they are only 12.6 percent of the population.
Over their lifetimes, black women average 1.6 more pregnancies than White women but are 5 times more likely to have a pregnancy that ends in abortion.
Approximately 360,000 pre-born black babies are aborted every year, nearly 1000 per day.
More than 16-million black babies have died by abortion since 1973.
The percentage of the black population in the U.S. has dropped from 12.6 percent in 2010 to 12.4 percent in 2020. The black population in the U.S. (41 million) has dropped precipitously below the Hispanic population (63 million), numbers that would be radically different had 16 million black lives mattered enough to society to protect them from abortion and raise them to fruitful adulthood.
You might be thinking, “Yes, but the abortion providers didn’t abort these black children because they were black.” First, liberals never allow this excuse when it comes to any other “disparate impact” case. And second, are you so sure?
Everyone admits now that the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood, began her “Negro Project” in 1939 to stop the growth of the black population. And it’s still the case that 79 percent of Planned Parenthood surgical abortion facilities are within walking distance (2 miles) of relatively high black and/or Hispanic populations. Black women are five times more likely to have an abortion than white women. If that isn’t evidence of “systemic racism,” then the term is meaningless.
So all you people demonstrating to protect the abortion industry, you’re not only on the wrong side of history, you’re also racist.
You? No, not you! You’re the good people! Sixteen million dead black babies and counting, and you’re absolutely certain the people pushing back against this racial genocide are the horrible, evil ones, and you – you – are the people who will be judged by history as the ones who really cared about the black community.
And you are so certain of this, in fact, that you’re willing to silence your opponents, terrorize them in mobs, lie repeatedly, vandalize churches, disrupt church services, desecrate religious sacraments, tear down free women’s care centers that provide women the resources to make the choice not to terminate the life of their unborn child, and even overthrow the democratic process itself, all so that some women can terminate the lives of their unborn sons and daughters
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-17 16:51:242022-05-17 16:51:24Abortion and the Genocide of the Black Community
In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she’d seen evidence of fraud in the trial
With the release of Pfizer trial data — which they tried to withhold for 75 years — additional problems suggestive of fraud and data manipulation are coming to light
Trial site 1231, located in Argentina, somehow managed to recruit 10% of the total trial participants, 4,501 in all, and they did so in just three weeks, and without a contract research organization — a feat that has many questioning whether fraud was committed
The lead investigator for trial site 1231 is Dr. Fernando Polack, who also happens to be a consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (RBPAC), a current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, an investigator for Fundación Infant, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, and the first author of Pfizer’s paper, “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” published at the end of December 2021
Site 1231 held a second enrollment session, given the designation of “site 4444.” The 4444 trial site data raise another red flag. It supposedly enrolled 1,275 patients in a single week, from September 22 through 27, 2020 — the last week that recruitment could take place to meet the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December 2020. Was “site 4444” fabricating data to create the appearance that the jab was having an effect?
In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she’d seen evidence of fraud in the trial.
Data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind. The revelation was published in The British Medical Journal. In his November 2, 2021, report, investigative journalist Paul Thacker wrote:1
“Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight …
[F]or researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety … Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.”
Jackson, a former regional director of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at several sites in Texas, repeatedly “informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns and data integrity issues,” Thacker wrote.
When her concerns were ignored, she finally called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and filed a complaint via email. Jackson was fired later that day after just two weeks on the job. According to her separation letter, management decided she was “not a good fit” for the company after all.
She provided The BMJ with “dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails” proving her concerns were valid, and according to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator.
BMJ Report Censored
Disturbingly, social media actually censored this BMJ article and published pure falsehoods in an effort to “debunk” it. Mind you, the BMJ is one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world! The Facebook “fact check” was done by Lead Stories, a Facebook contractor, which claimed the BMJ “did NOT reveal disqualifying and ignored reports of flaws in Pfizer’s” trials.2
In response, The BMJ slammed the fact check, calling it “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.”3,4,5 In an open letter6 addressed to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, The BMJ urged Zuckerberg to “act swiftly” to correct the erroneous fact check, review the processes that allowed it to occur in the first place, and “generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.” As noted by The BMJ in its letter, the Lead Stories’ fact check:7
Inaccurately referred to The BMJ as a “news blog”
Failed to specify any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
Published the fact check on the Lead Stories’ website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”
Pfizer Trial Data Raises Suspicions of Fraud
Now, with the release of Pfizer trial data8 — which they tried to withhold for 75 years — internet sleuths are finding additional problems suggestive of fraud and data manipulation. May 9, 2022, a Twitter user named Jikkyleaks posted a series of tweets questioning data from Pfizer trial sites 1231 and 4444.9
Trial site 1231, located in Argentina, somehow managed to recruit 10% of the total trial participants, 4,501 in all, and they did so in just three weeks, and without a contract research organization (CRO). CROs like the Ventavia Research Group, which Jackson worked for, provide clinical trial management services. The lead investigator for trial site 1231 is Dr. Fernando Polack,10 who also happens to be:11
A consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (RBPAC) since 2017
A current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee
An investigator for Fundación Infant,12 which is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation13
The first author of Pfizer’s paper,14 “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” published at the end of December 2021
As noted by Jikkyleaks, Polack “is literally the busiest doctor on the planet,” because in addition to all those roles, he also managed to single-handedly enroll 4,500 patients in three weeks, which entails filling out some 250 pages of case report forms (CRFs) for each patient. That’s about 1,125,000 pages total. (CRFs are documents used in clinical research to record standardized data from each patient, including adverse events.)
This recruitment also took place seven days a week, which is another red flag. “Weekend recruitment for a clinical trial would be odd. Staff are needed to fill out that many record forms (CRFs) and there are potential risks to the trial, so you need medical staff. It would be highly unusual,” Jikkyleaks notes.
Is Polack just a super-humanly efficient trial investigator, or could this be evidence of fraud? As noted by Steve Kirsch in the featured video and an accompanying Substack article,15 Polack is the coordinator for a network of 26 hospitals in Argentina, so perhaps it’s possible he could have recruited 57 patients per week per hospital, but it seems highly unlikely.
Questions Surround Site 4444 Data
Now, “site 4444” does not exist. It’s actually the same as site 1231. It appears site 1231 held a second enrollment session, and these were for some reason given the designation of 4444. The 4444 trial site data raise another red flag.
Site 4444 (the second enrollment session for site 1231) supposedly enrolled 1,275 patients in a single week, from September 22 through 27, 2020, and the suspicious thing about that — aside from the speed — is the fact that this was the last week that recruitment could take place to meet the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December 2020. Jikkyleads writes:16
“My guess: they needed enough numbers of ‘positive PCR tests’ in the placebo group to show a difference between groups for that VRBPAC meeting on the 10th Dec, and they didn’t have them. So, site 4444 appeared and gave them their ‘perfect’ result. Bravo.”
“Was there fraud in the Pfizer trial? Without a doubt. The story of Maddie de Garay is a clear case of that. Brook Jackson has evidence of fraud; she has 17 lawyers working for her. If there wasn’t fraud, these lawyers wouldn’t be wasting their time.
This new data on Site 1231/4444 looks suspicious to me. It looks too good to be true. But we can’t make the call without more information. Undoubtedly, the mainstream media will not look into this, Pfizer will remain silent, and Polack will be unreachable for comment. The lack of transparency should be troubling to everyone. That is the one thing we can say for sure.”
Pfizer Documents Reveal COVID Jab Dangers
Among the tens of thousands of Pfizer documents released by the FDA so far, we now also have clear evidence of harm. For nurse educator John Campbell, featured in the video above, these documents appear to have served as a “red pill,”18 waking him up to the possibility that the jabs may indeed be far more dangerous than anyone expected, including himself.
In the video, Campbell reviews the documents listed as “5.3.6. Postmarketing Experience,” which were originally marked “confidential.” They reveal that, cumulatively, through February 28, 2021, Pfizer received 42,086 adverse event reports, including 1,223 deaths.
To have 1,223 fatalities and 42,086 reports of injury in the first three months is a significant safety signal, especially when you consider that the 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled after only 25 deaths.
As noted by Campbell, “It would have been good to know about this at the time, wouldn’t it?” referring to the rollout of the jabs. Campbell has been fairly consistent in his support of the “safe and effective” vaccine narrative, but “This has just destroyed trust in authority,” he said.
158,000 Recorded Side Effects — A World Record?
The first really large tranche of more than 10,000 Pfizer documents was released March 1, 2022. (You can find them all on PHMPT.org.19) In this batch were no less than nine single-space pages of “adverse events of special interest,” listed in alphabetical order20 — 158,000 in all!
To see the first page, click the link below. The first side effect on this shockingly exhaustive list is a rare condition known as 1p36 deletion syndrome. This condition, caused by the deletion of DNA in chromosome 1p36, results in developmental delays, severe intellectual disability, seizures, vision problems, hearing loss, breathing problems, brain anomalies, congenital heart defects, cardiomyopathy, renal anomalies, genital malformation, metabolic problems and more.21,22
Life expectancy depends on the amount of DNA that has been deleted. This, at bare minimum, sounds like something a pregnant woman might want to know before she gets the shot.
After reviewing some of the released CRFs in the March 1 tranche, investigative journalist Sonia Elijah also discovered several problems, including the following:23
Patients entered into the “healthy population” group who were far from healthy — For example, one such “healthy” participant was a Type 2 diabetic with angina, a cardiac stent and a history of heart attack.
Serious adverse event (SAE) numbers were left blank — Ventavia site No. 1085 has a particularly large number of missing SAE numbers.
Missing barcodes for samples collected — Without those barcodes, you can’t match the sample to the participant.
Suspicious-looking SAE start and end dates — For example, the so-called “healthy” diabetic suffered a “serious” heart attack October 27, 2020. The “end” date is listed as October 28, the next day, which is odd because it was recorded as serious enough to require hospitalization.
Also, on that same day, October 28, the patient was diagnosed with pneumonia, so likely remained hospitalized. “This anomaly raises doubt as to the accuracy of these recorded dates, potentially violating ALOCA-C clinical site documentation guidelines for clinical trials,” Elijah writes.
Unblinded teams were responsible for reviewing adverse event reports for signs of COVID cases, and to review severe COVID cases — Yet in some cases they appear to have dismissed the possibility of an event being COVID-related, such as pneumonia. This despite the fact that Pfizer’s protocol (section 8.2.4) lists “enhanced COVID-19” (i.e., antibody dependent enhancement) as a potential side effect to be on the lookout for. As noted by Elijah:
“Inadvertently, this could have led to bias, as the unblinded teams would have been aware which participants were assigned the placebo and those who received the vaccine. They might have been under pressure by the sponsor for the trial to go a certain way and for events like ‘COVID Pneumonia’ to be classified simply as pneumonia.”
Impossible dating — The diabetic who suffered a heart attack followed by pneumonia (which may have been unacknowledged COVID pneumonia) died, and the date of death is listed as the day before the patient supposedly went for a “COVID ill” visit.
Clearly, it’s impossible for a dead person to attend a medical visit, so something is wrong here. The clinical investigator note states: “There cannot be a date later than date of death. Please remove data from the COVID illness visit and add cough and shortness of breath as AEs (adverse events).” “What kind of pressure was being exerted here?” Elijah asks.
Second dose administered outside the three-week protocol window.
Observation period appears to have been an automatic entry — According to the protocol, each participant was to be observed by staff for a minimum of 30 minutes.
A majority of the CRFs state 30 minutes, which raises the question: Were participants observed for adequate amounts of time, or did they simply put down “30 minutes” as an automatic entry? Why is there so little variety in the observation times? If participants were not adequately observed, their safety was put at risk, which was one of Jackson’s concerns.
Adverse events listed as “not serious” despite extended hospital stay — In one case, the participant fell and suffered facial lacerations the day after the second dose and was hospitalized for 26 days, yet the fall was not reported as serious.
Other anomalies in this particular case include listing the fall as being caused by a “fall” unrelated to the study treatment, and the facial laceration being the result of “hypotension” (low blood pressure). The SAE number is also missing for the facial lacerations.
Elijah writes, “Doubts can be raised over the credibility of this information given the fall and facial lacerations were intrinsically related. So, if facial lacerations were due to ‘hypotension’ then the fall should be due to that too.” Might low blood pressure be an effect of the experimental shot? Possibly. Especially when you consider the patient fell the day after being given the second dose.
Even more suspicious: the causality for the fall was recorded as “related” (to the treatment) on the serious adverse event form, but listed as “not related” on the adverse event CRF. A note states, “Please confirm correct causality.”
Dismissing brand new health problems as unrelated to the treatment — For example, in one case, a female participant with no medical history of impaired kidney function was diagnosed with kidney stones and severe hypokalemia, requiring hospitalization, one month after her second dose. Yet despite her having no history of kidney problems, both events were dismissed as “not related” to the study treatment and no further investigation was done.
In closing, Elijah wrote:24
“All the evidence gleaned over a limited time appears to back up whistleblower Jackson’s claims of poor trial site data management and raises questions as to how Ventavia conducted the Pfizer clinical trials.
The errors and anomalies in the CRFs also allude to her claims that the clinical research associates were not trained adequately, with many having had no prior clinical experience history. If such egregious findings are true at these sites, could they manifest at other trial sites around North America and beyond?”
Can You Trust Pfizer?
Pfizer, which was quickly given emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 mRNA gene therapy shot, has a long list of criminal verdicts against it:
In 2002, Pfizer and two subsidiaries paid $49 million to settle civil claims that it had failed to report best prices for its drug Lipitor, as is required under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Statute.25
In 2004, a Pfizer subsidiary Warner-Lambert pleaded guilty and paid more than $430 million to settle criminal charges and civil liability from fraudulent marketing practices.26
In 2007, another subsidiary was found guilty of paying out kickbacks for formulary placement of its drugs and had to pay a fine of $34 million.27
Two years later, in 2009, Pfizer was found guilty of health care fraud and ordered to pay the largest penalty ever for this kind of offense.28 When announcing the record penalty of $2.3 billion against the drug giant, the U.S. Department of Justice said one of the charges was a felony. The other charges stemmed from false actions and false claims submitted to federal health care programs.
In 2010, the company was again ordered to pay $142 million in damages for fraudulent marketing and promoting the drug Neurontin for unapproved uses.29
Less than 10 years later, in 2018, Pfizer was again caught in an illegal kickback scheme and agreed to pay $23.8 million to resolve claims that it used a foundation as a conduit to pay the copays of Medicare patients taking three of its drugs.30
As noted in the journal Healthcare Policy in 2010,31 “Pfizer has been a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” The article also highlights the crimes of Johnson & Johnson, another COVID jab maker.
Despite its tarnished history, we’re now expected to trust that everything Pfizer does is above-board. I don’t think so. A company that continues getting caught committing the same crimes over and over again clearly has a deeply established ethical rot within its corporate structure that fines simply have no effect over.
Has Pfizer committed fraud in its COVID jab trials as well? It sure looks that way. Time will tell whether attorneys will have enough for a conviction in the future. If fraud did take place, Pfizer can (and likely will) be held liable for the more than one million injuries its injection has caused in the U.S. alone, and we all look forward to that reckoning.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-17 03:51:422022-05-17 03:51:42Is This Why Pfizer Wanted Trial Data Buried for 75 Years?
Border security experts expect the nation will bear the consequences of more illegal immigration whether the Biden administration ends a key public health measure by the end of the month or does it later.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced last month that the policy, known as Title 42, would expire May 23. Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has estimated that could mean an influx of 18,000 migrants a day who cross the border illegally.
“There are too many Democrats pushing back, too many Democrats terrified of the consequences, because the [Department of Homeland Security] itself, Biden’s DHS, was predicting a doubling or more of the flow across the border if they lifted Title 42,” Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Daily Signal in a recent interview.
“But it is going to be lifted at some point,” Krikorian said of Title 42.
Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., are among the most vocal Democrats calling for the Biden administration to keep the public health policy in place.
Title 42 is a provision of a 1944 law meant to stop the spread of communicable diseases.The provision allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take emergency action in March 2020, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, to authorize border authorities to quickly expel illegal immigrants and deny entry to asylum-seekers.
Although the measure hasn’t stopped huge numbers of illegal immigrants from crossing the southern border and immediately claiming asylum, it has made it easier for the Border Patrol to send back illegal aliens.
‘Enormous Pressure From Left’
Once Title 42 is gone, unlawful border crossers will have the right to have their asylum claims adjudicated on American soil.
“Unless Congress intervenes and passes a law saying they can keep it in place and the president signs it, it just seems to me it’s going to have to be lifted at some point because the president is also getting enormous pressure from this hard left,” Krikorian told The Daily Signal.
“When they do that,” he added, “it’s going to be bad news on the border and it’s going to be worse news for the Democratic Party, because the more they keep delaying it, the closer and closer it gets to the election.”
The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates strict enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws and opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, organized a visit to the border in South Texas last month that The Daily Signal joined.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas met Tuesday in Washington with Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard.
Mayorkas “spoke of the United States’ whole-of-government strategy to prepare for the CDC’s announced May 23, 2022, end to the exercise of its Title 42 authority,” according to the department’s readout of the meeting.
Expulsions Under Title 42
After the CDC invoked Title 42, the Border Patrol had about 2.9 million encounters with illegal immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border between April 2020 and March 2022, according to a study by Pew Research. March is the most recent month for which such data is available.
About 1.8 million of those encounters, or 61%, resulted in illegal immigrants being expelled under Title 42, according to Pew. The 1.1 million remaining encounters ended with illegal immigrants being detained, at least temporarily, rather than sent back.
Expulsions were based largely on whether the migrants came as families and whether children were involved.
Under the Biden administration, about 88% of the 1.8 million expulsions since 2020 under Title 42 were of single adults, while 11% were families and 1% were unaccompanied minors.
About 60% of those expelled came from Mexico, 15% came from Guatemala, 14% from Honduras, 5% from El Salvador, and 6% from other countries, according to Pew.
COVID-19 isn’t the only public health concern to consider, said Chris Cabrera, spokesman for the union National Border Patrol Council Local 3307, which represents nonsupervisory Border Patrol employees who work in the Rio Grande Valley.
“It’s to the point where everybody I work with, every single person, has had COVID,” Cabrera told a group gathered in Texas for the border tour sponsored by the Center for Immigration Studies.
But, the union spokesman said, some Border Patrol agents have contracted communicable diseases while policing the border that doctors have had trouble diagnosing.
‘Spinning Your Wheels’
If Title 42 ends, it will bring more chaos to the southern border, said Michael Salinas, a retired Border Patrol agent who was on the front lines for 34 years.
“Pretty much, there’s going to be nobody out in the field,” Salinas told The Daily Signal.
“The Border Patrol knows where they’re at,” the veteran agent said of these so-called got-aways. “But if they don’t have access to it because they’re stuck processing or prepping people for transport to processing centers, it takes away from all that. So you’re just spinning your wheels.”
The Center for Immigration Studies’ Krikorian said he expects that Biden and congressional Democrats will try to kick the can down the road, but that it can’t go on forever.
Events may depend on what faction in the Biden administration prevails, he said:
There are two factions in the administration on this immigration issue. They both believe the same thing. In other words, everybody in the administration wants basically amnesty for all the illegals and unlimited immigration in the future, and all that stuff. It’s not really at all a policy dispute, it’s a political dispute.
Krikorian said White House chief of staff Ron Klain and Susan Rice, director of the Domestic Policy Council, are trying to take a more politically acceptable approach to illegal immigration in the short term.
“The people like Ron Klain and Susan Rice, who are at least a little bit more in touch with reality … the point is they’re more cautious politically,” Krikorian said. “But then everybody who’s in charge of immigration policy are radicals. They’re anti-borders radicals.”
America is now aware of the Department of Homeland Security’s new ‘Disinformation Governance Board’. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called disinformation a “threat” that needs to be addressed with federal law enforcement power. (Is it coincidental that Elon Musk will shortly take Twitter private and re-establish a free speech platform in America?)
This new DHS office is the Biden Speech Police and represents an existential threat to our First Amendment and our Republic. Please click the adjacent red TAKE ACTION link for the resources to inform your Senators and Representatives about this unconstitutional and tyrannical assault on American Free Speech and our fierce rejection of it.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-05-16 03:50:002022-05-16 03:50:00Lifting Title 42 Will Mean Fewer Border Patrol Agents in Field
As if the Biden regime couldn’t be more evil, they are blaming desperate American mothers for the baby formula shortage.
“What we are seeing which is an enormous problem is hoarding….”
Psaki on baby formula shortage: “What we are seeing which is an enormous problem is hoarding … & people hoarding because they are trying to profit off of fearful parents.” pic.twitter.com/qtxQtnk4ng
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 12, 2022
Part 1 The Bydin administration: 1. IS HOARDING BABY FORMULA 2. Knew about the shortage since Abbott closed plant in Michigan in FEBRUARY due to contamination pic.twitter.com/ZDDJXdodVX
Jen Psaki says the baby formula shortage, is being caused by people “hoarding” it. The only ones hoarding baby formula, is the government, and sending it to our Southern border.
— LindaWhitesides🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸UltraMaga🩸 (@CALILINDAK) May 13, 2022
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-15 15:51:122022-05-15 15:51:12MONSTERS: Biden White House Blames American Moms For Baby Formula Shortage, ‘They’re HOARDING’
Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.
Disinformation is a subset of propaganda and is defined as false information that is spread deliberately to deceive people.
Malinformation or malicious information is having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone; given to, marked by, or arising from malice or malicious gossip.
In this article to expose mis, dis and malinformation we look at baby formula and Biden’s blame game campaign.
As JFK said,
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
There are a number of articles, videos and other sources that focus on food shortages that include the lack of baby formula on grocery store shelves.
It this video the White House press secretary blames mothers and parents for hoarding baby formula:
Psaki on baby formula shortage: “What we are seeing which is an enormous problem is hoarding … & people hoarding because they are trying to profit off of fearful parents.” pic.twitter.com/qtxQtnk4ng
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 12, 2022
In the below video Tucker Carlson explains that it is the government that is the largest buyer of baby formula since establishment of the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) in 1974.
Did you know these things about the Sarasota County WIC Program?
WIC services are available on a walk-in basis Monday through Thursday.
Appointments are available for those who need them.
A family of 4 earning $3,631 or less per month meets WIC income requirements.
Women are not required to show proof of pregnancy to receive WIC benefits.
Women who have had pregnancy losses [a miscarriage] are still eligible to receive WIC benefits for up to 6 months after delivery.
Breastfeeding Peer Counselors are available to provide breastfeeding support to WIC clients.
WIC has hospital-grade electric breast pumps that can be loaned to WIC mothers who have infants in the NICU. We also have single-user electric breast pumps we can give to full-time working mothers or students who are fully breastfeeding rather than receiving formula from WIC. Breast pumps are issued only during regular walk-in hours or by scheduled appointment.
WIC helps families buy fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is an equal-opportunity provider and employer.
The vast majority of baby formula purchased by WIC is from a Michigan based company, Abbott Nutrition which produces the Similac brand. Recently Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan plant was shut down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA shut down the plant in March of 2022 after federal safety inspectors found Abbott “failed to maintain sanitary conditions and procedures at the facility.”
The Biden administration knew about this shutdown but put out mis, dis and malinformation to the people by blaming the shortage on mothers and parents. When you have 53% of low income parents with vouchers seeking baby formula in super markets it is a key factor in the shortages we are seeing today.
Note that Biden’s White House warned in February of 2022 of “baby formula shortages” and that a team was working on it.
Biden’s @BrianDeeseNEC: “We were aware … back in February” of the baby formula shortage, “and we have had a team on this from the FDA and interagency process since then.” pic.twitter.com/P7AdzoFhIn
Supply chain problem, cost of food escalating and now a shortage baby formula all linked to the federal government. These problems are all inextricably connected and point to bad economic policies.
The Bottom Line
American families, especially poor families, are not first in line to get baby formula. They are actually third in line behind illegal aliens and Ukrainians.
Amid Nationwide Shortage, Biden Regime Makes Sure Illegal Immigrants Get Baby Formula First: The illegitimate regime has declared war on the American people. And it’s all been made possible by the Democrat media axis ramming this poison down our throats. https://t.co/PgEnfkjXfGpic.twitter.com/H6gaV4LMWY
The Department of Homeland Security’s website states that when Americans see something they must say something. It is the duty of every American citizen to report instances of mis, dis and malinformation to the Disinformation Governance Board for appropriate action. Even if this bad information is being passed along by those holding the highest office in the land.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-15 13:52:482022-05-15 13:52:48MISINFORMATION WATCH: Baby Formula and Biden’s Misinformation Blame Game
In 1992, researchers published data showing the quality of sperm counts in men had been cut nearly in half over the previous 50 years. A 2017 systematic review confirmed this trend, showing a 50% to 60% drop in total sperm count among men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand between 1973 and 2011
Testosterone has also declined in tandem with lower sperm counts, while miscarriage rates among women and erectile dysfunction among men have been steadily rising
We can rule out genetics as the cause, because the decline in sperm count is simply too rapid. That leaves us with environmental causes. Environmental causes can be broadly divided into two broad categories: Lifestyle and chemicals
Lifestyle factors that negatively impact fertility include obesity, smoking, binge drinking and stress
A great number of chemicals can impact fertility either directly or indirectly, but the most concerning class are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates. EDCs disrupt hormones, including sex hormones necessary for reproductive function, such as testosterone
In the After Skool video above, Shanna H. Swan, Ph.D., a leading environmental and reproductive epidemiologist and professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn school of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, examines the role of environmental toxins in reproductive health.
In 1992, researchers published data showing the quality of sperm counts in men had been cut nearly in half over the previous 50 years. According to this study:1
“Linear regression of data weighted by number of men in each study showed a significant decrease in mean sperm count from 113 x 10(6)/ml in 1940 to 66 x 10(6)/ml in 1990 and in seminal volume from 3.40 ml to 2.75 ml, indicating an even more pronounced decrease in sperm production than expressed by the decline in sperm density …
As male fertility is to some extent correlated with sperm count the results may reflect an overall reduction in male fertility. The biological significance of these changes is emphasized by a concomitant increase in the incidence of genitourinary abnormalities such as testicular cancer and possibly also cryptorchidism and hypospadias, suggesting a growing impact of factors with serious effects on male gonadal function.”
Are Humans Going Extinct?
Swan was initially skeptical, but she decided to look into it some more. To her amazement, after reviewing each of the 60 studies included in that 1992 analysis, she could find nothing to indicate that the finding was a fluke. It was the most stable trend she’d ever come across, and she spent the next 20 years investigating why human reproduction is plummeting.
In 2017, she published a systematic review and meta-regression analysis2 showing a 50% to 60% drop in total sperm count among men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand between 1973 and 2011. Overall, men in these countries had a 52.4% decline in sperm concentration and a 59.3% decline in total sperm count (sperm concentration multiplied by the total volume of an ejaculate).
Swan refers to this shocking 39-year decline as “the 1% effect,” meaning the cumulative effect that an annual change of just 1% has over time. Testosterone has also declined in tandem with lower sperm counts, while miscarriage rates among women and erectile dysfunction among men have been steadily rising.
If these trends continue, and there’s no indication that they won’t, in the not-so-distant future, we’ll be looking at a male population that is completely infertile. At that point, the human population will become extinct. Along the way, however, we’ll be facing a number of other pressing problems.
How Will We Care for Aging Baby Boomers?
Historically, the age distribution of the population has looked like a pyramid. The bottom largest section was children, the middle, slightly smaller section was working adults, and the top of the pyramid was seniors. This worked out well, because the younger population was able to financially support and care for the much smaller older segment.
We no longer have that pyramid. In most countries, the population distribution now looks like a light bulb, with a narrow base of children, a bulbous segment of adults, and a narrowing but still very large segment of older adults.
Part of the equation is the fact that life spans have gotten longer, which is wonderful. But the funds to support this aging population — through social security and Medicare in the U.S., for example — are dwindling, as the payer base is shrinking so dramatically.
Another problem is the fact that we won’t have the labor force required to keep the economy afloat. There aren’t enough children to fill all the jobs after the adult population retires.
What’s the Cause?
According to Swan, there are likely a whole host of factors contributing to this reproductive calamity. We can, however, rule out genetics, because the decline in sperm count is simply too rapid. A 50% decline in just two generations cannot be explained by genetics.
That leaves us with environmental causes. Environmental causes can be broadly divided into two broad categories: Lifestyle and chemicals. Lifestyle factors that negatively impact fertility include:
Obesity
Smoking
Binge drinking
Stress
On the chemical side, we know that a great number of chemicals can impact fertility either directly or indirectly, but the most concerning class are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).3 EDCs disrupt hormones, including sex hormones necessary for reproductive function.
Many EDCs will mimic hormones, effectively taking their place. But, of course, the chemical doesn’t function the way the natural hormone does, so whatever that hormone controls won’t function well either. As explained in the 2019 report, “Male Infertility and Environmental Factors”:4
“Classically the EDCs bind to the androgen or estrogen receptor triggering an agonist or antagonist action. These in turn lead to increased or decreased gene expression of sex-specific genes.
In addition, EDCs act on steroidogenic enzymes and the metabolism of hormones, for example, inhibit the activity of 5-α reductase, which is the most important enzyme in the production of dihydrotestosterone and hence the regulation of the masculinization of the external genitalia and the prostate.
Furthermore, P450 enzymes in the liver that metabolize steroid hormones may be affected. In animal models EDCs affect hormone receptor levels. In addition to the effect on hormone action, animal experiments suggest that EDCs may also result in epigenetic changes and miRNA levels.”
Shaw suspects EDCs are a primary culprit in infertility, in part because we’re surrounded by them every day of our lives. We’re exposed to them through our food, water, personal care products, furniture, building materials, plastics and much more.
In Utero Exposure to EDCs Can Drive Down Fertility
The most vulnerable time of a person’s life is in utero. This is when the building blocks for your reproductive system are laid down, and exposure to EDCs at this time can wreak havoc with a child’s adult reproductive capacity. Since the fetus shares the mother’s body, everything the mother is exposed to, the fetus is exposed to.
As explained in the video, a boy’s reproductive system is dependent on a certain level of testosterone for proper development. If the testosterone level is too low, his reproductive system will be impaired to some degree. In short, without sufficient testosterone, the boy’s reproductive system will “default” to female. He will be feminized, or as Shaw describes it, “incompletely masculinized.”
Phthalates Are in Everybody
Shaw was tipped off to investigate phthalates by a chemist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who noted that these EDCs have been found in everybody, including pregnant women.
Specifically, phthalates have been shown to disrupt the reproductive development of males, because they lower testosterone levels and incomplete male development in animals has now become so prevalent, there’s even a name for it: phthalate syndrome.
Animal studies have shown that when a pregnant mother is fed phthalates in early pregnancy, her male offspring will have smaller and less developed reproductive organs. His testicles may not be descended, his penis may be smaller, and his anogenital distance (the distance between the anus and the genitals) tends to be shorter.
Shaw was the first to study the anogenital distance in human male infants, and was able to confirm phthalate syndrome is occurring in humans as well. Boys born of women with high levels of phthalic metabolites in their urine — specifically those that lower testosterone — had phthalate syndrome, and the severity was dose-dependent.
Shaw then replicated the study with another set of mothers and their babies, and found the same result. The next question then is, does a shorter anogenital distance result in lower sperm count?
According to Shaw, boys with a short anogenital distance are more likely to have reproductive defects such as undescended testicles and defects of the penis. He’s also more likely to develop testicular cancer at an earlier age than normal, and he’s more likely to be sub-fertile.
So, it is her professional conclusion that phthalate exposure in utero is “undoubtedly part of the explanation of the decrease in sperm count and fertility.” Phthalates and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have also been linked to reduced bone mineral density in male teens,5 which could have significant implications later in life.
Common Sources of Phthalate Exposure
Phthalates are found in plastics. They’re what make the plastic soft and flexible, so wherever you find soft and pliable plastic, you find phthalates. Examples include:
Vinyl clothing, such as raincoats and rubber boots
Plastic shower curtains
Plastic tubing of all kinds
Foods that have been processed through plastic tubing, such as dairy products (the milking machines have plastic tubing)
Phthalates also increase absorption and help retain scent and color, so you’ll find them in:
Cosmetics, perfumes and personal care products
Scented household products such as laundry soap and air fresheners
Pesticides
As noted by Shaw, phthalates are only one class of EDCs. There are several others, including phytoestrogens, dioxins, flame retardants, phenols, PCBs and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Phthalates, however, are among the most hazardous for male reproductive health due to their ability to block testosterone.
The phenols, such as bisphenol-A (BPA), have the opposite effect in that they make plastic more rigid and hard. In the human body, they increase the female hormone estrogen, resulting in breast development and a flabby midsection. BPA also damages the DNA in sperm.6 Like phthalates, BPA and other bisphenols are extremely pervasive. They’re found in:
Personal care products such as shampoos and lotions
The Good News
The good news here is that many of the chemicals that are most harmful to reproduction are not persistent, and your body can eliminate them in four to six hours.
Sperm production take about 70 days from start to finish, so over time, a man may be able to reverse some of the damage, provided it’s not congenital. The problem, of course, is that most people are exposed to multiple sources 24/7, so successful detox means you have to stop taking them in.
Another piece of good news is that researchers have shown that if you clean up the environment of the offspring from a toxic, unhealthy rat, normal reproductive capacity is restored after three generations of clean living.
While this is a relatively quick fix for rats, the life span of which is only two years, it’s not quite as simple for humans. Three generations in human terms is about 75 years, “but we can start in that direction,” Shaw says, by making sure we a) don’t expose children to EDCs in utero, and b) eliminate further exposure during childhood if the child was exposed in utero.
Forever Chemicals in Our Food and Water
While phthalates and bisphenols are nonpersistent, PFAS — a class of chemicals that are pervasive in soil, water, and human bodies — are so persistent they’re known as “forever chemicals.” In Maine, farmers are now blowing the whistle, warning that PFAS on farmland are a “slow-motion disaster.”7
How do the chemicals get there? While spills and seepage from industrial sites are part of the problem in some areas, the most prevalent source of the contamination is biosolids — toxic human waste sludge — which is being marketed as an affordable fertilizer.
In 2019, I wrote about how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to adequately regulate the biosolids industry, thereby allowing massive quantities of toxic materials to be introduced into our food supply.
You can learn more about this in the Natural News documentary “Biosludged,” above. PFAS accumulate in the soil and is transferred into your food. Proof of this can be seen in food testing, which in 2017 found PFAS chemicals in 10 of the 91 foods tested.
Chocolate cake had the highest amount — 250 times above the advisory limit for drinking water. (There’s currently no limit for food.) Nearly half of the meat and fish tested also contained double the advisory limit for water. Leafy greens grown within 10 miles of a PFAS plant also contained very high amounts. As you might expect, PFAS also accumulate in your body.
Maine Takes Action
In Maine, PFAS contaminated water wells have sparked both outrage and action. A March 2022 article in The Maine Monitor spells out the game plan:8
“Maine is the first state to comprehensively test for the impacts of forever chemicals from sludge spreading on farmland, a practice occurring nationwide where fully half of wastewater sludge is land-applied. Consequently, Maine has had to pioneer policy actions, moving to implement recommendations of a year-long PFAS task force.
The next policy step must be passage of LD 1911, which would ban land application of sludge and the land application or sale of compost derived from sludge. Two dozen companies and municipalities are licensed to convert sludge into compost, despite the state’s own finding that 89% of finished compost samples exceeded the screening level for PFOA, a common PFAS compound.
Adam Nordell, co-owner of Songbird Farm in Unity — another site of high PFAS contamination — summarized the importance of LD 1911 this way: ‘No one can undo the historic contamination of our land. But we know enough now to turn off the tap.’
A second bill before the Legislature, LD 1639, would prevent the state-owned Juniper Ridge landfill, managed by Casella Waste Systems, from accepting construction and demolition debris that originated out of state and is laden with PFAS and other toxics, increasing the contaminated leachate entering the Penobscot River.”
Toxic Pesticides
Communities in Maryland and Massachusetts have also confirmed that pesticides used against mosquitoes were contaminated with PFAS, even though they’re not supposed to contain such chemicals. In April 2022, the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) reported:9
“EPA claimed that there were no PFAS chemicals used in this way, but independent testing10 revealed that there was PFAS contamination in pesticides being used by mosquito control districts — of 14 mosquito control products tested, half were found to contain PFAS. These products are heavily applied across communities, often weekly, from Spring through Fall.
In response to these concerns, EPA claimed that the PFAS contamination was due to leaching from fluorinated plastic HDPE storage containers. While this explanation has been touted by many as proof that PFAS contamination of pesticides is not a serious concern, the testing in Maryland and Massachusetts revealed that three products were contaminated from another source than the containers.
Beyond this kind of contamination, PFAS are active ingredients in at least 40 pesticide products used worldwide. And this only accounts for pesticides that include PFAS as an active ingredient.
PFAS products are a popular surfactant (helps spray more easily) so PFAS may also be used as inert ingredients in pesticides, which unfortunately don’t have to be reported since chemical composition falls under ‘trade secret’ jurisdiction.
It is clear that PFAS are present in a variety of commonly-used pesticide products, regardless of storage conditions. No research has been done on the synergistic effects of PFAS and pesticides — which we know pose their own set of human and environmental health risks.”
Again and again, the EPA has failed in its duty to protect public health from chemicals that wreak havoc on human health, fetal development and fertility. As noted by PAN, “EPA has engaged in a regulatory stalling tactic — changing the definition of what is considered to be a PFAS to shirk responsibility.”
The new “working definition” of PFAS has been considerably narrowed from what it was, thereby excluding many chemicals used in drugs and pesticides. To counter the EPA’s deliberate shortcomings, the U.S. Congress has also introduced a bill (HR.5987 — the PFAS Definition Improvement Act11) that would require the EPA to use the widest and most comprehensive definition of PFAS.
I join PAN in urging you to call on your representatives to co-sponsor this bill. Maine and Maryland have also proposed bills to prevent PFAS contamination in pesticides specifically.
It’s hard to be optimistic when faced with such dire statistics as a 1% reduction in male fertility per year. But if we care about life, we must at least try to turn things around. One step in the right direction would be to eliminate EDCs from common use. In the meantime, men and women of childbearing age would be wise to take precautions and clear out anything that might expose them to these chemicals in their day-to-day lives, before they try to conceive.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-14 13:51:142022-05-14 13:51:14U.S. Sperm Count Drops 50%: Are These Chemicals Part of a Depopulation Agenda?
We have lived through a period that went from mankind cannot control the weather to environmental alarmists first warning about global cooling, then global warming and now the “existential threat” of climate change.
Now we learn from Biden’s Secretary of Commerce Gina M. Raimondo that American children having clothes comes second to dealing with the “existential threat” of climate change. Watch and listen:
When the climate cools during the winter children need coats, scarves and other clothes to keep them warm and protect them from the elements. When the climate warms in the summer children need clothes to keep them cool and protect them from sunburn and overheating.
Logic right? Wrong. The climate myth trumps logic.
On February 17th, 2021 USA Today’s Kerry Breen reported:
A winter storm that pummeled the state has set record-low temperatures in cities like San Antonio, Dallas and Corpus Christi, with some areas of the state seeing single-digit and below-zero temperatures. According to NBC News, the unprecedented cold put too much strain on the state’s electrical system, meaning that more than 3 million residents of the state are dealing with rolling power outages or total blackouts.
NBC News also reported that at least 25 people have died in “weather-related fatalities” since the weekend, with the “majority” of the deaths happening in Texas.
Shoppers are ready to restock their closets for the fall and winter. But many are asking, where’s all the clothing?
Kristin Sterling was trying to do some back-to-school shopping at TJ Maxx. “I’ve been looking for baby items, as well as for a teen, a school-age child,” Sterling said. But inside, she found a much smaller selection than she has seen before. “I’m finding that there’s not that much clothing,” Sterling said.
Shoppers across the country are finding half-empty clothing racks, and shoe shelves out of popular sizes at many stores. At a Burlington store, a third of the store is now closed off with a divider. High school sophomore Mia Dressel was looking for a homecoming dress with her grandmother, but… “All the dresses were really, really short, or really long,” Dressel said.
Owing to supply-chain snarls, two-thirds of fashion executives said they are expecting to increase prices in 2022, with an average price increase of 3% across all clothing and apparel, this year’s State of Fashion 2022report by the Business of Fashion and McKinsey & Co. found.
A worrying 15% of executives polled said they planned on increasing prices by more than 10% in 2022.
Inflation in fashion is caused by a combination of material shortages, transportation bottlenecks, and rising shipping costs straining supply and demand, according to the study, which surveyed more than 220 international fashion executives and experts.
All of these things are happening now but worse. Biden’s build back better for Americans nothings built, nothings back and nothings better.
The Bottom Line
America depends on cheap and reliable power. America depends on its supply chain to deliver goods and services. America depends on our economy to provide what we need to live healthy and prosperous lives. That is now all at risk.
Biden’s green policies of eliminating fossil fuels and replacing oil, coal and natural power plants with solar and wind generators to stop the “existential threat” of climate change is destroying foundation of the economy.
From climate change to lockdown mandates we are seeing the long term impact on everything we Americans have come to depend on. Going to the supermarket or store or online and buying what we need and want is gradually going away. It’s becoming more and more common to see shortages and higher prices for essentials.
Biden’s policies are the root cause our supply chain to being disrupted.
Disruptions to the supply chain aren’t over yet. It is predicted that supply chain issues facing the United States will continue into 2022—citing demand as one of the top contributors. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which account for 40% of shipping containers entering the U.S., have already started operating 24/7 to relieve supply chain bottlenecks. But with labor shortages in both warehousing and transportation, are consumers looking at something similar—or more disruptive than—the 2020 toilet paper shortage?
[ … ]
With a quickly shifting marketplace, many companies are finding it increasingly difficult to navigate the intricacies of the supply chain. This has led to many businesses looking to outsource their logistics needs to third-party logistics warehouses and transportation providers. In 2021, users of 3PL services reported that 40% of their total logistics expenditures were related to outsourcing. Much of this growth can be directly correlated to the rise of the ecommerce industry. Considering this push of online sales, expectations for the global third-party logistics market are expected to be valued at $1.1 trillion over the next six years.
Biden and his administration have reset the priorities of America and Americans are now feeling the pinch. From Covid to Climate Change this administration has fundamentally transformed our economy from being robust, our supply chain from being dependable and our store shelves full to the polar opposite.
From baby formula, to clothing, to fuel prices to the cost of living Biden’s policies are NOT making America better, rather it is making America MUCH worse.
What is more important to you? Feeding and clothing your new born baby or climate change?
Bill Nye said,
“The less we do to address climate change now, the more regulation we will have in the future.”
Under Biden we now have more and more regulations and mandates negatively impacting our economy in the name of climate change.
How’s that working out for you now?
Choose wisely on Tuesday, November 8th, 2022 because you and your family’s long-term health, welfare and well being are at stake.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-14 12:51:462022-05-14 12:51:46Biden’s Secretary of Commerce: American children ‘having clothes comes second to the existential threat of climate change’
My wife recently rummaged through family keepsakes and found bills for an emergency hysterectomy that her grandmother had in 1944, at St. Francis Hospital in Olean, NY, in the northwestern part of the state. She was transported 20 miles by ambulance from her rural home outside of Bradford, PA.
Below, in rounded numbers, is what she was charged for the ambulance, the hospital stay, the operating room, the anesthetic, six transfusions, and drugs. A bill for the surgeon was not included, and one could not be found among the old bills.
Cost in
1944 Dollars
Cost in
2022 Dollars
Ambulance
$20
$326
32 Days Hospital
$178
$2,907
6 Transfusions
$120
$1,960
Operating Room
$15
$245
Anesthetic
$10
$163
Drugs
$15
$236
Total
$358
$5,837
Given that she was hospitalized for 32 days, there must have been complications. It’s not known what kind of hysterectomy she had, but I’ll assume for the purposes of this commentary that it was an abdominal hysterectomy, which is the most complicated kind.
I was struck by how short and easily understandable the bills were: no copays, no deductibles, no insurance gibberish, no hidden charges, no cost-shifting from those with insurance to those without. The final bill consisted of several entries on a four-inch by six-inch piece of paper.
It’s difficult to compare the foregoing costs with costs today, because there are so many variables. But some ballpark figures can give us an idea of how they compare.
Today, the cost of an average inpatient hospital stay per day is $2,607 (Source: www.debt.org/medical/hospital-surgery-costs). That’s about what my wife’s grandmother paid for 32 days in a hospital, in constant dollars.
According to womenshealth.org, abdominal hysterectomies usually leave the patient in the hospital for five days. Also, the at-home recovery period is longer than for other types of hysterectomies.
Patients are probably released from the hospital sooner nowadays for recuperation at home than they were in 1944. I’m not qualified to say whether that’s bad or good. I am qualified to say, however, that my wife’s grandmother and her husband lived in a tiny bungalow heated by a wood-burning stove. The husband left the house early in the morning and returned in the evening, on his job working alone as a pump hand for Kendall Oil in the surrounding forest. Although the Swedish immigrants were hardy folks, it would’ve been difficult for grandma to be left alone to recuperate.
According to HealthcareBlueBook.com, the average cost today for an abdominal hysterectomy is $15,321. It’s not clear what that includes.
Another source (www.sutured.com/hysterectomy-cost) says that “the total cost for hysterectomy surgery depends on a lot of factors such as the anesthetic fee, private hospital fee, private operating facility fee, the extent of surgery required. The average cost were $43,622 for abdominal, $31,934 for vaginal, $38,312 for laparoscopic, and $49,526 for robotic hysterectomies.”
Whatever the variables and whatever the source, it sure seems that hospital and medical costs are considerably higher today.
Of course, costs today include the cost of expensive technology, and survival rates have no doubt improved tremendously. On the other hand, one would have expected technology and efficiencies of scale to have improved productivity, increased efficiency, and kept costs in check.
At the risk of starting a war between left- and right-leaning economists and healthcare policy wonks, perhaps costs were lower in 1944 because patients paid the charges out of their own pocket. In other words, there was a true consumer market instead of the Rube Goldberg contraption that exists today.
*****
Mr. Cantoni was active in healthcare reform for several years at his own expense, including publishing articles in the Wall Street Journal and other publications and holding a national healthcare reform conference in the early 1990s.
TAKE ACTION
America is now aware of the Department of Homeland Security’s new ‘Disinformation Governance Board’. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called disinformation a “threat” that needs to be addressed with federal law enforcement power. (Is it coincidental that Elon Musk will shortly take Twitter private and re-establish a free speech platform in America?)
This new DHS office is the Biden Speech Police and represents an existential threat to our First Amendment and our Republic. Please click the adjacent red TAKE ACTION link for the resources to inform your Senators and Representatives about this unconstitutional and tyrannical assault on American Free Speech and our fierce rejection of it.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-05-14 03:55:002022-05-14 03:55:00Costs of a Hysterectomy in 1944 versus Now
“Whoever…with the intent of influencing any judge…in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.” – 18 US Code §1507
When Black Lives Matter race rioters burned cities and wounded thousands, Biden’s people and their media allies claimed that these were “mostly peaceful” protests.
A thug could be beheading a conservative and the media and the Biden administration would claim that the head was still mostly on. So their definition of peaceful can’t be trusted. And, there’s no such thing as a peaceful protest at a public official’s home. That’s harassment and intimidation meant to change a judicial ruling.
If conservatives were doing this to D.C. Federal judges who are engaging in blatantly partisan conduct the FBI would be called in and they’d be in jail.
But the Biden administration defends the intimidation of Supreme Court justices because it supports it.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Tuesday defended protests outside the suburban homes of conservative Supreme Court justices as “peaceful to date” — despite the fact that more of the potentially illegal rallies are planned Wednesday to pressure the judges to abandon a draft anti-abortion rights ruling.
“The president’s longstanding view has been that violent threats and intimidation of any kind have no place in political discourse. And we believe of course in peaceful protests,” Psaki said at her daily press briefing.
“So I know that there’s an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date,” Psaki later added. “And we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes and that’s the president’s position.”
Would Psaki consider protests outside her home peaceful? I suspect she would not. But as we already know, there’s a double standard.
And yet the Democrats continue to force this poison on we, the people they serve. What lengths won’t these destroyers go to to achieve their nefarious goals?
Walgreens publishes data on their Covid-19 tests. When people take the test, they are asked about vaccination status. In both of the last two updates, the unvaccinated tested positive at the lowest rate. People with three doses tested positive at the highest rate.
Rates of COVID Positivity 4/27 – 5/3
Not Vaccinated – 16.3% 1 Dose – 21.5% 2 Dose > 5m ago – 26.7% 2 Dose <= 5m ago – 20.2% 3 Dose > 5m ago – 30.1% 3 Dose <= 5m ago – 20.8%
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-12 22:51:172022-05-12 22:51:17Walgreens: Unvaxxed are testing positive for Covid-19 at the lowest rate, Triple Vaxxed at the highest
When I had the opportunity to engage one of the major candidates for Mayor of Los Angeles, I stated there are only two issues in the race. The first being proper funding and use of the police and the second being the Homeless. The candidate agreed with me and the issues for the June 7th election were defined.
Karen Bass announced her candidacy soon thereafter and took the lead in the polls. She released with great fanfare her own detailed policy on Homelessness. The policy is linked here https://karenbass.com/policies/homelessness/. I contacted her campaign to query them on what they had proposed, but they were fearful of answering legitimate questions from journalists who were not from sycophantic press outlets.
Their proposed plan left open significant items, to which I asked the following questions:
The city, county, and state have been spending extensively on this issue. How specifically does your plan differ from what has been done in the last few years?
Mayor Garcetti committed close to a billion dollars for the current fiscal year. Can you tell us how much has been spent by the city on the homeless issue during the last four years of the Garcetti administration?
Most if not all of us would like to know who Ms. Bass has in mind as the Homeless Chief since this is a critical issue in Los Angeles, so who would that be?
The plan calls for ending street encampments in the first year of her term. How exactly are you planning to clear all the encampments which appear more like MASH units moving from property to property?
I am working on a homeless issue that involves city, county, and state land. I am getting the runaround about who is responsible to do what. Specifically, how do you plan to remedy this as residents do not care whose land it is within the city’s confines? What is your response?
You state that 50% of the homeless are either mentally ill or on drugs. How did you derive that figure?
You cite that 59% of homelessness is because of economic issues. Where did you get that figure?
Are you saying that these people are gainfully employed or employable and just cannot afford housing? If so, how many homeless are currently employed as a percentage? How many go to work each day?
I have had discussions with people on the front lines of the homeless issue and have been told a significant percentage of people who are homeless in the Los Angeles area are transplants. In other words, they moved here because of the weather and particularly the government benefits provided. Your plan did not address this issue. Did the studies you cited address this issue? Why should the residents of Los Angeles pay for the costs of extensive housing, medical and other benefits to homeless people who relocate from other urban areas?
The candidates talk about how they are going to cure the homeless problem, but rarely speak of the ongoing costs. They certainly do not delve into how many of these people are not Los Angeles residents which brings to question why the people of Los Angeles are bearing the cost. People do not realize that the current combined budget for Los Angeles City and County is about $1.5 billion. That is a stunning figure which is enlarged by the amount the State of California is pouring into the problem.
The question the Bass Campaign does not want to answer is why they believe these figures — that 59% of homelessness is due to economic issues and not drugs or mental illness. Multiple workers have told me most of the people they relocate off properties where the Homeless are squatting want to stay where they are. In the case I dealt with in Studio City, some moved elsewhere while others just relocated to adjacent sites where their removal from the area was delayed for another few months.
Then Rick Caruso jumped in with his tough-guy campaign claiming he can solve the problem: https://carusocan.com/issues/homelessness/. His plan does not answer the same questions — again how much he is spending of our money housing people who are not even from this area. Building housing units without curing these people of their drug use and properly medicating them for mental health challenges is a waste. At least Caruso’s campaign consultant who drafted his plan does not perpetuate the lie that these people are homeless due to economic issues, but even their figure of how many are on the streets because of economic issues is far too high.
One highly placed source tried to help me access where this money is being spent in the city of Los Angeles. We found it was impossible to obtain the details even for highly placed city officials.
Candidates like Joe Buscaino, Kevin de Leon, and Mike Feuer need to tell us what their plans are and whether they are going to continue draining the wallets of local residents as elected officials have in the recent past with negative results.
We need answers unless you want the crime, harassment, squalor, and other despicable effects of this homeless issue to go on for another decade or more.
******
This article was published by FlashReport and is reproduced with permission from the author.
TAKE ACTION
America is now aware of the Department of Homeland Security’s new ‘Disinformation Governance Board’. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called disinformation a “threat” that needs to be addressed with federal law enforcement power. (Is it coincidental that Elon Musk will shortly take Twitter private and re-establish a free speech platform in America?)
This new DHS office is the Biden Speech Police and represents an existential threat to our First Amendment and our Republic. Please click the adjacent red TAKE ACTION link for the resources to inform your Senators and Representatives about this unconstitutional and tyrannical assault on American Free Speech and our fierce rejection of it.
Is it true that the AR-15, a popular firearm owned by millions of Americans, is a unique threat to public safety?
From Parkland, Florida, to San Bernardino, California, the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and its variants have seemingly become the weapons of choice for mass shooters in the United States.
Many people simply cannot believe that regular civilians should be able to legally own so-called “weapons of war,” which they believe should only be in the hands of the military.
According to Pew Research, for example, 81 percent of Democrats and even 50 percent of Republicans believe the federal government should ban “assault-style rifles” like the AR-15. Given the massive amount of carnage AR-15s and similar rifles have caused, it makes sense that the civilian population simply cannot be trusted to own such weapons, right?
Perhaps, but is it really true that the AR-15, a popular firearm owned by millions of Americans, is a unique threat to public safety, so dangerous that it deserves to be banned or even confiscated by the federal government?
It cannot be emphasized enough that any homicide is a tragedy, but in order to get a sense of how dangerous to public safety “assault-style” rifles are, it’s useful to compare their usage in homicide to other methods.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the CDC reports “produce more accurate homicide trends at the national level” because they capture less under-reporting than the FBI statistics.
However, the homicide data recorded by the CDC includes all homicides committed by civilians regardless of criminal intent. The FBI data instead focuses on intentional homicides (i.e murder) known to law enforcement and excludes non-negligent homicide (i.e. manslaughter.)
According to the BJS, the FBI data is “better suited for understanding the circumstances surrounding homicide incidents.” This is especially true given that the FBI, but not the CDC, records the type of firearm used in a given homicide. For the purposes of this analysis, the data from the FBI will be used.
There are two further limitations of FBI data worth noting.
Firstly, the FBI reports do not look at “assault-style” rifles specifically, but rather, murders involving all types of rifles, whether they are committed with an AR-15 or a hunting rifle.
Secondly, each year there are a few thousand homicide cases where the type of firearm used goes unreported to the FBI. This means that some murders listed under “unknown firearm” may, in fact, be rifle murders.
To account for this under-reporting, we will extrapolate from rifles’ share of firearm murders where the type of weapon is known in order to estimate the number of “unknown” firearms that were in actuality rifle homicides.
How many murders involve rifles like the AR-15?
If we take the time to look at the raw data provided by the FBI, we find that all rifles, not just “assault-style rifles,” constitute on average 340 homicides per year from 2007 through 2017 (see Figure 1.). When we adjust these numbers to take under-reporting into account, that number rises to an average of 439 per year.
Figure 2 compares rifle homicides to homicides with other non-firearm weapons. Believe it or not, between 2007 and 2017, nearly 1,700 people were murdered with a knife or sharp object per year. That’s almost four times the number of people murdered by an assailant with any sort of rifle.
In any given year, for every person murdered with a rifle, there are 15 murdered with handguns, 1.7 with hands or fists, and 1.2 with blunt instruments. In fact, homicides with any sort of rifle represent a mere 3.2 percent of all homicides on average over the past decade.
Given that the FBI statistics pertain to all rifles, the homicide frequency of “assault-style” rifles like the AR-15 is necessarily lesser still, as such firearms compose a fraction of all the rifles used in crime.
According to a New York Timesanalysis, since 2007, at least “173 people have been killed in mass shootings in the United States involving AR-15s.”
That’s 173 over a span of a decade, with an average of 17 homicides per year. To put this in perspective, consider that at this rate it would take almost one-hundred years of mass shootings with AR-15s to produce the same number of homicide victims that knives and sharp objects produce in one year.
With an average of 13,657 homicides per year during the 2007-2017 timeframe, about one-tenth of one percent of homicides were produced by mass shootings involving AR-15s.
Conclusion
Mass shootings involving rifles like the AR-15 can produce dozens of victims at one time, and combined with extensive media coverage of these events, many people have been led to believe that such rifles pose a significant threat to public safety.
However, such shootings are extremely rare, and a look at the FBI data informs us that homicide with these types of rifles represents an extremely small fraction of overall homicide violence. Banning or confiscating such firearms from the civilian population would likely produce little to no reduction in violent crime rates in America.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-05-11 20:51:492022-05-11 20:51:49Are AR-15 Rifles a Public Safety Threat? Here’s What the Data Say
Friday on MSNBC’s Deadline, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fear-mongered that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito‘s legal reasoning in a leaked draft opinion overturn Roe v. Wade is a “severe danger to the Constitution of the United States.”
Pelosi said, “We have to have clarity in what this draft decision means so that the final decision doesn’t go that far. The chief justice has said this is authentic, but it is not final. I don’t want to use the word authentic. It’s real but not final. Again, Lincoln said public sentiment is everything, and with it, you can accomplish almost anything, and without it, nothing. Women just have to weigh in. I don’t think there’s a good outcome here, but I think there’s a better outcome than what we have seen in the first draft, which is radical. It dispenses with precedent even though some of these candidates for when they were candidates for confirmation said they support it as what you’ve seen over and over and they support the precedent and what it means especially the precedent that has repeatedly been reinforced.”
She added, “We’re talking about your life, the life of women in our country, and how we have again, a calibration of all of this in Roe v. Wade and how we must have it be enshrined as the law of the land. They will make charges about it, and we have to stay very clear and very focused about what it is and what it means in people’s lives. This is a severe danger to women. It is a severe danger to the Constitution of the United States. It’s a severe danger to other rights of privacy that are in the Constitution, but again, it’s the here and now. The here and now and the focus that we must have.”
Fact checks: overturning Roe v. Wade will not ban abortion. It will simply kick the decision back to the states, many of which will vote to keep abortion legal. The decision is not a severe danger to women, the Constitution, or other rights of privacy, but that is the narrative Pelosi and her fellow radicals must hype in order to stoke panic across America.
Outraged by Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade
On May 2, 2022, Politicoreported that an unidentified individual had leaked an initial draft majority opinion, written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in which the Court had decided to strike down the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. “No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending,” said Politico. Whereas Roe had guaranteed federal constitutional protections for abortion rights, the new ruling would return responsibility for those rights to each individual state. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito wrote in his opinion, adding: “We hold that Roe and Casey [a 1992 decision that largely reaffirmed the rights set forth in Roe] must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” In response to the Court’s decision, an outraged Pelosi joined with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer in issuing the following statement:
“If the report [in the leak] is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past fifty years – not just on women but on all Americans.
“The Republican-appointed Justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.
