VIDEO: The Plan to Turn You Into a Genetically Edited Human Cyborg thumbnail

VIDEO: The Plan to Turn You Into a Genetically Edited Human Cyborg

/in , , , , /by

By MERCOLA Take Control of Your Health

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The U.K. Ministry of Defense and the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning stress that human augmentation needs to be a key area of focus to win future wars
  • Human augmentation will not be restricted to the military ranks. It’s really a way to further separate classes of humans, with the rich and powerful elite eventually using their augmented “super-human” status as justification to rule everyone else
  • The goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution — introduced and pushed by the World Economic Forum — is transhumanism, the merging of man with machine
  • Human augmentation can directly affect behavior, either positively or to the detriment of that person
  • In the transhumanist view, the human body is a “platform” that can be augmented in myriad ways, physically, psychologically and socially

A May 2021 project report by the U.K. Ministry of Defense, created in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning, offers shocking highlights of the dystopian cybernetics future that global technocrats are pushing mankind toward.

The report, “Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project,”1 reviews the scientific goals of the U.K. and German defense ministries, and they are precisely what the title suggests. Human augmentation is stressed as being a key area to focus on in order to win future wars.

But human augmentation will not be restricted to the military ranks. It’s really a way to further separate classes of humans, with the rich and powerful elite being augmented “super-humans.” It’s worth noting that anything released to the public is a decade or more behind current capabilities, so everything in this report can be considered dated news, even though it reads like pure science fiction.

“… the field of human augmentation has the potential to transform society, security and defense over the next 30 years,” the report states. “We must begin to understand the implications of these changes and shape them to our advantage now, before they are thrust upon us.

Technology in warfare has traditionally centered on increasingly sophisticated platforms that people move and fight from, or artefacts that they wear or wield to fight with. Advances in the life sciences and converging developments in related fields are, however, beginning to blur the line between technology and the human …

Many technologies that have the potential to deliver strategic advantage out to 2050 already exist and further advances will undoubtedly occur … Our potential adversaries will not be governed by the same ethical and legal considerations that we are, and they are already developing human augmentation capabilities.

Our key challenge will be establishing advantage in this field without compromising the values and freedoms that underpin our way of life …

When we think of human augmentation it is easy to imagine science fiction inspired suits or wonder drugs that produce super soldiers, but we are on the cusp of realizing the benefits in a range of roles now. Human augmentation will help to understand, optimize and enhance performance leading to incremental, as well as radical, improvements.”

Changing What It Means To Be Human

As noted in the report, “Human augmentation has the potential to … change the meaning of what it means to be a human.” This is precisely what Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), has stated is the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution.2

WEF has been at the center of global affairs for more than 40 years, and if you take the time to dive into WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution material, you realize that it’s all about transhumanism. It’s about the merger of man and machine. This is a dystopian future WEF and its global allies are actively trying to implement, whether humanity at large agrees with it or not.

Schwab dreams of a world in which humans are connected to the cloud, able to access the internet through their own brains. This, of course, also means that your brain would be accessible to people who might like to tinker with your thoughts, emotions, beliefs and behavior, be they the technocratic elite themselves or random hackers. As noted by history professor Yuval Noah Harari in late 2019, “humans are now hackable animals.”3 As noted in the featured report:4

“Human augmentation will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behavior and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.

Future wars will be won, not by those with the most advanced technology, but by those who can most effectively integrate the unique capabilities of both people and machines. The importance of human-machine teaming is widely acknowledged but it has been viewed from a techno-centric perspective.

Human augmentation is the missing part of this puzzle. Thinking of the person as a platform and understanding our people at an individual level is fundamental to successful human augmentation.”

Key words I’d like to draw your attention to is the affirmation that human augmentation can “directly enhance behavior.” Now, if you can enhance behavior, that means you can change someone’s behavior. And if you can change a person’s behavior in a positive way, you can also control it to the person’s own detriment.

Theoretically, absolutely anyone, any random civilian with a brain-to-cloud connection and the needed biological augmentation (such as strength or speed) could be given wireless instructions to carry out an assassination, for example, and pull it off flawlessly, even without prior training.

Alternatively, their physical body could temporarily be taken over by a remote operator with the prerequisite skills. Proof of concept already exists, and is reviewed by Dr. Charles Morgan, professor in the department of national security at the University of New Haven, in the lecture below. Using the internet and brain implants, thoughts can be transferred from one person to another. The sender can also directly influence the physical movements of the receiver.

The Human Platform

On page 12 of the report, the concept of the human body as a platform is described, and how various parts of the human platform can be augmented. For example:

  • Physical performance such as strength, dexterity, speed and endurance can be enhanced, as well as physical senses. One example given is gene editing for enhanced sight
  • Psychological performance such as cognition, emotion and motivation can be influenced to activate and direct desired behavior. Examples of cognitive augmentation include improving memory, attention, alertness, creativity, understanding, decision-making, intelligence and vigilance
  • Social performance — “the ability to perceive oneself as part of a group and the readiness to act as part of the team” — can be influenced. Communication skills, collaboration and trust are also included here

They list several different ways to influence the physical, psychological and social performance of the “human platform,” including genetics (germ line and somatic modification), the gut microbiome, synthetic biology, invasive (internal) and noninvasive (external) brain interfaces, passive and powered exoskeletons, herbs, drugs and nano technology, neurostimulation, augmented reality technologies such as external holograms or glasses with built-in artificial intelligence, and sensory augmentation technologies such as external sensors or implants. As noted in the report:

“The senses can be extended by translating frequencies beyond the normal human range into frequencies that can been seen, heard or otherwise detected. This could allow the user to ‘see’ through walls, sense vibrations and detect airborne chemicals and changes to magnetic fields.

More invasive options to enhance existing senses have also been demonstrated, for example, coating retinal cells with nanoparticles to enable vision in the infrared spectrum.”

They also point out that, from a defense perspective, methods to de-augment an augmented opponent will be needed. Can you even imagine the battlefield of the future, where soldiers are barraged from both sides with conflicting inputs?

As for ethics, the paper stresses that “we cannot wait for the ethics of human augmentation to be decided for us.” There may even be “moral obligations” to augment people, they say, such as when it would “promote well-being” or protect a population from a “novel threat.”

Interestingly, the paper notes that “It could be argued that treatments involving novel vaccination processes and gene and cell therapies are examples of human augmentation already in the pipeline.” This appears to be a direct reference to mRNA and vector DNA COVID jabs. If so, it’s an open admission that they are a human augmentation strategy in progress.

The Challenge of Unintended Consequences

Of course, there can be any number of side effects and unintended outcomes when you start augmenting an aspect of the human body or mind. As explained in the featured report:

“The relationship between augmentation inputs and outputs is not as simple as it might appear. An augmentation might be used to enhance a person’s endurance but could unintentionally harm their ability to think clearly and decisively in a timely fashion.

In a warfighting context, an augmentation could make a commander more intelligent, but less able to lead due to their reduced ability to socially interact or because they increasingly make unethical decisions. Even a relatively uncontentious enhancement such as an exoskeleton may improve physical performance for specific tasks, but inadvertently result in a loss of balance or reduced coordination when not being worn.

The notion of enhancement is clouded further by the intricacies of the human nervous system where a modifier in one area could have an unintended effect elsewhere. Variation between people makes designing enhancements even more challenging.”

Still, none of that is cause to reconsider or slow down the march toward transhumanism, according to the authors. We just need to understand the human body better, and for that, we need to collect and analyze more data on human performance, behavior, genetics and epigenetics. As noted by the authors:

“Devices that track movement, heart rate, oxygenation levels and location are already commonplace and will become increasingly accurate and sophisticated, making it possible to gather an increasingly wide array of performance data in real time. We can also analyze data in ways that were impossible even five years ago.

Artificial intelligence can analyze massive sets of information almost instantaneously and turn it into products that can inform decision-making. This marriage of data collection and analytics is the foundation of future human augmentation.”

Lab-Grown Designer Babies

As mentioned, by the time a technological advancement is admitted publicly, the research is already a decade or more down the road. Consider, then, the February 1, 2022, article in Futurism,5 which announced that Chinese scientists have developed an artificial intelligence nanny robot to care for fetuses grown inside an artificial womb. According to Futurism:6

“The system could theoretically allow parents to grow a baby in a lab, thereby eliminating the need for a human to carry a child. The researchers go so far as to say that this system would be safer than traditional childbearing.”

As of now, the AI robot is only in charge of lab-raised animal embryos, as “experimentation on human embryos is still forbidden under international law.” However, that could change at any time. In May 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research went ahead and relaxed the rules7 on human embryonic experimentation.8

Up until then, the rule had been that no human embryo could be grown in a lab environment beyond 14 days. Human embryos may now be grown beyond 14 days if certain conditions are met. In some countries, laws would still need to be changed to go beyond 14 days, but regardless, there’s no doubt that as transhumanism gets underway in earnest, ethical considerations about growing babies in laboratories will be tossed out.

Combine the announcement of an AI robot nanny to care for lab-grown embryos with the 2018 announcement that Chinese scientists were creating CRISPR gene-edited babies. As reported by Technology Review, November 25, 2018,9 “A daring effort is underway to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing.”

The embryos were genetically edited to disable a gene called CCR5, to make the babies “resistant to HIV, smallpox and cholera.” The embryos were then implanted into a human mother using in vitro fertilization. At the time, the lead scientist refused to answer whether the undertaking had resulted in a live birth, but shortly thereafter it was confirmed that one trial participant had indeed given birth to gene-edited twins in November 2018.10

In June 2019, Nature magazine published an article11 questioning whether the CRISPR babies might inadvertently have been given a shorter life span, as research had recently discovered that people with two disabled copies of the CCR5 gene were 21% more likely to die before the age of 76 than those with one functioning copy of that gene. The babies might also be more susceptible to influenza and autoimmune conditions, thanks to this genetic tinkering.

Should We Breed Chimeras to Satisfy Need for Organs?

Ethical considerations about animal-human hybrids (chimeras) will probably also fall by the wayside once transhumanism becomes normalized. Already, human-monkey hybrid embryos have been grown by a team of Chinese and American scientists.12

The hybrid embryos are part of an effort to find new ways to produce organs for transplant patients. The idea is to raise monkeys with human-compatible organs that can then be harvested as needed. Here, the embryos were grown in test tubes for as long as 20 days — and this was done before the ISSCR officially agreed to relaxing the 14-day rule.

The question is, if this kind of research ends up being successful, and the creation of animals with human organs is actually feasible, at what point does the chimera become a human?

How do we know that what looks like a monkey doesn’t have a human brain, with the intelligence that goes with it? Taking it a step further, even, what’s to prevent scientists from growing human organ donors? Human clones, even? It’s a slippery slope, for sure.

Privacy in the Age of Transhumanism

Perhaps one of the greatest concerns I (and many others) have is that not only are we moving toward a merger of man and machine, but at the same time we’re also increasingly outsourcing human morality to machines. I cannot imagine the end result being anything but devastating. How did that happen? Timandra Harkness, a BBC Radio presenter and author of “Big Data: Does Size Matter?” writes:13

“As the recent pandemic years have shown, the desire to be free from scrutiny unless there’s a good reason to be scrutinized is widely seen as, at best, eccentric and, at worst, automatic grounds for suspicion.

We simply can’t articulate why a private life is valuable. We have no sense of ourselves as autonomous beings, persons who need a space in which to reflect, to share thoughts with a few others, before venturing into public space with words and actions that we feel ready to defend …

Part of the appeal of technologies like AI is the fantasy that a machine can take the role of wise parent, immune to the emotion and unpredictability of mere humans. But this tells us less about the real capabilities of AI, and more about our disillusionment with ourselves.

The urge to fix COVID, or other social problems, with technology springs from this lack of trust in other people. So does the cavalier disregard for privacy as an expression of moral autonomy.

Technology ethics can’t save us, any more than technology can. Even during a pandemic, how we regard one another is the fundamental question at the root of ethics. So we do need to treat technology as just a tool, after all. Otherwise we risk being made its instruments in a world without morals.”

The Human Platform

On page 12 of the report, the concept of the human body as a platform is described, and how various parts of the human platform can be augmented. For example:

  • Physical performance such as strength, dexterity, speed and endurance can be enhanced, as well as physical senses. One example given is gene editing for enhanced sight
  • Psychological performance such as cognition, emotion and motivation can be influenced to activate and direct desired behavior. Examples of cognitive augmentation include improving memory, attention, alertness, creativity, understanding, decision-making, intelligence and vigilance
  • Social performance — “the ability to perceive oneself as part of a group and the readiness to act as part of the team” — can be influenced. Communication skills, collaboration and trust are also included here

They list several different ways to influence the physical, psychological and social performance of the “human platform,” including genetics (germ line and somatic modification), the gut microbiome, synthetic biology, invasive (internal) and noninvasive (external) brain interfaces, passive and powered exoskeletons, herbs, drugs and nano technology, neurostimulation, augmented reality technologies such as external holograms or glasses with built-in artificial intelligence, and sensory augmentation technologies such as external sensors or implants. As noted in the report:

“The senses can be extended by translating frequencies beyond the normal human range into frequencies that can been seen, heard or otherwise detected. This could allow the user to ‘see’ through walls, sense vibrations and detect airborne chemicals and changes to magnetic fields.

More invasive options to enhance existing senses have also been demonstrated, for example, coating retinal cells with nanoparticles to enable vision in the infrared spectrum.”

They also point out that, from a defense perspective, methods to de-augment an augmented opponent will be needed. Can you even imagine the battlefield of the future, where soldiers are barraged from both sides with conflicting inputs?

As for ethics, the paper stresses that “we cannot wait for the ethics of human augmentation to be decided for us.” There may even be “moral obligations” to augment people, they say, such as when it would “promote well-being” or protect a population from a “novel threat.”

Interestingly, the paper notes that “It could be argued that treatments involving novel vaccination processes and gene and cell therapies are examples of human augmentation already in the pipeline.” This appears to be a direct reference to mRNA and vector DNA COVID jabs. If so, it’s an open admission that they are a human augmentation strategy in progress.

The Challenge of Unintended Consequences

Of course, there can be any number of side effects and unintended outcomes when you start augmenting an aspect of the human body or mind. As explained in the featured report:

“The relationship between augmentation inputs and outputs is not as simple as it might appear. An augmentation might be used to enhance a person’s endurance but could unintentionally harm their ability to think clearly and decisively in a timely fashion.

In a warfighting context, an augmentation could make a commander more intelligent, but less able to lead due to their reduced ability to socially interact or because they increasingly make unethical decisions. Even a relatively uncontentious enhancement such as an exoskeleton may improve physical performance for specific tasks, but inadvertently result in a loss of balance or reduced coordination when not being worn.

The notion of enhancement is clouded further by the intricacies of the human nervous system where a modifier in one area could have an unintended effect elsewhere. Variation between people makes designing enhancements even more challenging.”

Still, none of that is cause to reconsider or slow down the march toward transhumanism, according to the authors. We just need to understand the human body better, and for that, we need to collect and analyze more data on human performance, behavior, genetics and epigenetics. As noted by the authors:

“Devices that track movement, heart rate, oxygenation levels and location are already commonplace and will become increasingly accurate and sophisticated, making it possible to gather an increasingly wide array of performance data in real time. We can also analyze data in ways that were impossible even five years ago.

Artificial intelligence can analyze massive sets of information almost instantaneously and turn it into products that can inform decision-making. This marriage of data collection and analytics is the foundation of future human augmentation.”

Lab-Grown Designer Babies

As mentioned, by the time a technological advancement is admitted publicly, the research is already a decade or more down the road. Consider, then, the February 1, 2022, article in Futurism,5 which announced that Chinese scientists have developed an artificial intelligence nanny robot to care for fetuses grown inside an artificial womb. According to Futurism:6

“The system could theoretically allow parents to grow a baby in a lab, thereby eliminating the need for a human to carry a child. The researchers go so far as to say that this system would be safer than traditional childbearing.”

As of now, the AI robot is only in charge of lab-raised animal embryos, as “experimentation on human embryos is still forbidden under international law.” However, that could change at any time. In May 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research went ahead and relaxed the rules7 on human embryonic experimentation.8

Up until then, the rule had been that no human embryo could be grown in a lab environment beyond 14 days. Human embryos may now be grown beyond 14 days if certain conditions are met. In some countries, laws would still need to be changed to go beyond 14 days, but regardless, there’s no doubt that as transhumanism gets underway in earnest, ethical considerations about growing babies in laboratories will be tossed out.

Combine the announcement of an AI robot nanny to care for lab-grown embryos with the 2018 announcement that Chinese scientists were creating CRISPR gene-edited babies. As reported by Technology Review, November 25, 2018,9 “A daring effort is underway to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing.”

The embryos were genetically edited to disable a gene called CCR5, to make the babies “resistant to HIV, smallpox and cholera.” The embryos were then implanted into a human mother using in vitro fertilization. At the time, the lead scientist refused to answer whether the undertaking had resulted in a live birth, but shortly thereafter it was confirmed that one trial participant had indeed given birth to gene-edited twins in November 2018.10

In June 2019, Nature magazine published an article11 questioning whether the CRISPR babies might inadvertently have been given a shorter life span, as research had recently discovered that people with two disabled copies of the CCR5 gene were 21% more likely to die before the age of 76 than those with one functioning copy of that gene. The babies might also be more susceptible to influenza and autoimmune conditions, thanks to this genetic tinkering.

Should We Breed Chimeras to Satisfy Need for Organs?

Ethical considerations about animal-human hybrids (chimeras) will probably also fall by the wayside once transhumanism becomes normalized. Already, human-monkey hybrid embryos have been grown by a team of Chinese and American scientists.12

The hybrid embryos are part of an effort to find new ways to produce organs for transplant patients. The idea is to raise monkeys with human-compatible organs that can then be harvested as needed. Here, the embryos were grown in test tubes for as long as 20 days — and this was done before the ISSCR officially agreed to relaxing the 14-day rule.

The question is, if this kind of research ends up being successful, and the creation of animals with human organs is actually feasible, at what point does the chimera become a human?

How do we know that what looks like a monkey doesn’t have a human brain, with the intelligence that goes with it? Taking it a step further, even, what’s to prevent scientists from growing human organ donors? Human clones, even? It’s a slippery slope, for sure.

Privacy in the Age of Transhumanism

Perhaps one of the greatest concerns I (and many others) have is that not only are we moving toward a merger of man and machine, but at the same time we’re also increasingly outsourcing human morality to machines. I cannot imagine the end result being anything but devastating. How did that happen? Timandra Harkness, a BBC Radio presenter and author of “Big Data: Does Size Matter?” writes:13

“As the recent pandemic years have shown, the desire to be free from scrutiny unless there’s a good reason to be scrutinized is widely seen as, at best, eccentric and, at worst, automatic grounds for suspicion.

We simply can’t articulate why a private life is valuable. We have no sense of ourselves as autonomous beings, persons who need a space in which to reflect, to share thoughts with a few others, before venturing into public space with words and actions that we feel ready to defend …

Part of the appeal of technologies like AI is the fantasy that a machine can take the role of wise parent, immune to the emotion and unpredictability of mere humans. But this tells us less about the real capabilities of AI, and more about our disillusionment with ourselves.

The urge to fix COVID, or other social problems, with technology springs from this lack of trust in other people. So does the cavalier disregard for privacy as an expression of moral autonomy.

Technology ethics can’t save us, any more than technology can. Even during a pandemic, how we regard one another is the fundamental question at the root of ethics. So we do need to treat technology as just a tool, after all. Otherwise we risk being made its instruments in a world without morals.”

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Premeditated Genocide by the Medical Drug Cartel thumbnail

Premeditated Genocide by the Medical Drug Cartel

/in , , , , , , /by

By Kelleigh Nelson

“In a sense, bioterrorism phase one was rolled out. It was really all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation.” – Dr. Peter A. McCullough

“Dr. McCullough gives us a stark and clear summary: ‘Remdesivir has two problems. First, it doesn’t work. Second, it is toxic and it kills people.’” – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“One-third of teens and young adults reported worsening mental health during the pandemic. According to an Ohio State University study, suicide rates among children rose 50 percent. A study in August 11, 2021 by Brown University found that infants born during the quarantine were short, on average, 22 IQ points as measured by Baylor scale tests. Some 93,000 Americans died of overdoses in 2020—a 30 percent rise over 2019.” –  Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“This vaccine is directly killing individuals…It can damage you, no doubt about it.  The scoreboard is lit up as bright as it can be: death, hospitalization, cardiac and neurologic injuries, miscarriage, still birth, it can’t get worse.  I can’t think of any drug or any injection that is as dangerous as this group of vaccines, in particular, the Pfizer vaccine.” –  Dr. Peter A. McCullough

The killing fields of America are here.  We are at a crossroads.  Death by government and Big Pharma is staring us in the face.  This isn’t the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment by our US Health Department, this isn’t the cancer-causing polio vaccine injections of the 50s, or the plutonium experiments on babies and military in the 40s, all of which were evil unto themselves and totally unconstitutional.  This isn’t even the heinous abomination of millions upon millions of European Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust.  No, as evil as these past genocides were, COVID hospital protocols and multiple C-19 “vaccines” are a worldwide genocide proliferated by the medical drug cartel and their mafioso friends.

The determination to preserve medical freedom is in our hands…and the war is on against the mandated murderous jabs by government, Big Pharma and their stakeholders.  These pharmaceutical companies are bringing in billions with this evil inoculation, and now they’re on their 4th booster jab despite thousands of deaths and adverse effects. They’re targeting our infants and toddlers but the FDA has refused, for the time being, approval of these jabs for children six months to five years.

Canadian truckers who want the jab mandates stopped have been arrested and their trucks hauled away after the government cut off their food and fuel.  Trudeau’s totalitarian edicts have destroyed any semblance of freedom in Canada.  Without truckers, supplies will be even more limited, but the elitists will never starve.

Forced vaccines are not new.

History Repeats

Mandatory vaccination has happened before…with smallpox 135 years ago.  Here’s what a Midwest doctor told Steve Kirsch:

What is currently happening with the COVID mandates and protests is nearly identical to what happened 135 years ago with the smallpox vaccine campaigns, where the vaccination made smallpox epidemics worse, the vaccines killed a lot of people, the public refused them and governments responded by harsher and harsher mandatory vaccination laws.

Eventually one of the largest protests of the century broke out in 1885, vaccine mandates were scrapped in one area in favor of alternative management of smallpox, and this is what actually ended smallpox.

My belief is that this is a very important message to get out to the current protest movement and will do a lot of good if it does.

I wrote a 10-page concise but detailed and referenced summary of everything that happened which I want to be made available (but I do not want credit for).

The entire summary can be found here and I would greatly appreciate it if you could bring awareness to this issue.

The deadly mistakes of 135 years ago are evident today.  Interestingly enough, the smallpox vax was forced upon our military after 9/11 and it caused myocarditis.

Vax Injuries

Three respected immunologists, Dr. Luc Montagnier (who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of the HIV virus, and who recently passed away), Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, the most published immunologist in history, and Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, a top immunologist in the Netherlands, have all warned that when you mass vaccinate in the middle of an active outbreak, you cause variants to emerge.  American dissident physicians have stated the same.

Dr. Bhakdi comments, “There is a good possibility that whoever orchestrated this knows exactly what they’re doing, and they are doing it on purpose to maintain the new variants and the consequences, which is essentially a psyop to cause a global psychosis due to fear, lockdowns and face diapers.”

In this 17-minute video, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi explains the irrefutable bodily damages from the jab.  People who died after having the vaccine, had family-requested autopsies and nothing was found until Dr. Arne Burkhardt performed more thorough autopsies.  Burkhardt is one of the most experienced pathologists in Europe.

In the organs of 90% these people Dr. Burkhardt found clear evidence of auto-immune attack by killer lymphocytes on the tissues, the main organs being the heart, the lungs and the liver.  His article, “Notes and recommendations for conducting post-mortem examination (autopsy) of persons deceased in connection with COVID vaccination,” is posted on Doctors for Covid Ethics. The data is so damning and proves these inoculations are killing the young and the old.

It is now known that auto-immune attack reactions, leading to self-destruction, are being triggered by these “vaccines.”  Dr. Bhakdi states, “What Arne Burkhardt found was that in 90% of the deceased, age 28 to 90, women and men, one to one, who would never have thought they’d die because of these ‘vaccines,’ the same pathological findings were found in all of them. When Dr. Burkhardt says killer lymphocytes have invaded the hearts and lungs, and sometimes other organs of these people, the question arises, ‘Why the hell do killer lymphocytes invade the organs?’  The only answer is that these organs are producing the targets that are seen by the killer lymphocytes, and that target is the viral protein.”

What is going to happen?  Bhakdi says, “Your lymphocytes and the cells responsible for immune control over your body are dying. They are responsible for controlling viruses and every other disease that attacks the body.

Because of the jabs, the immune system is dying. The result will be high incidences in various countries of tuberculosis where it is now dormant. Tumor cells are no longer under control causing increased numbers of cancers, as evidenced by pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole of Idaho, viruses, herpes, Epstein-Barr, Cytomegalovirus (CMV) which kills babies in the womb, toxoplasmosis, and a horrifying number of other illnesses.

Dr. Bhakdi tells us, “Clearly the ‘vaccines’ are not working – a fantastic business circumstance for Big Pharma to continue generating income with ‘boosters’ – but not so good for humanity.”

Two high school basketball players suddenly dropped dead on the court last week with heart problems.

Bill Gates, who is the principal investor in many of these COVID jabs, stipulated that their risk is so great that he would not provide them to people unless every government shielded him from lawsuits, just like they shield the pharmaceutical giants who made these mRNA jabs.

Pfizer announced that the COVID-19 “vaccine” it makes with BioNTech registered a staggering $36.8 billion of sales in 2021.

Meanwhile, Moderna’s CEO dumped his stock and deleted his twitter account.  The Moderna CEO’s strange moves came shortly after a former Blackrock executive began investigating the death statistics from insurance companies and funeral homes.

Deadly Hospital Protocols/Remdesivir

Registered nurse, Nicole Sirotek spoke out at Senator Ron Johnson’s hearing of “dissident” medical professionals who were speaking the truth about the injections and the hospital protocols for treatment of COVID.  Watch her eight-minute talk.

Ms. Sirotek states that she didn’t see a single patient die of COVID, she’s seen a substantial number of patients die of negligence and medical malfeasance. She was told by the staff that they were just following orders.  She stated that she saw the pharmaceutical companies rolling out remdesivir on the patients, when they had no right to treat them.  She said everyone saw that this FDA approved costly drug was killing the patients and they had less than a 25% survival rate if they received more than two doses at an extremely high cost, not to mention the destruction of their kidneys/liver.

So why in the world would the FDA approve a drug that must be monitored for kidney/liver failure? The FDA now approves the drug to treat “non-hospitalized patients.” The drug is administered through an IV, and patients must be closely monitored. But non-hospitalized?  Doctors have sounded the alarm for months, but their voices have fallen on deaf ears.

Remdesivir is first degree murder.  It is being used to kill us.

The antiviral drug is owned by Gilead Sciences and developed with investment from the federal government, that being NIAID and the CDC at a tune of $79 million. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation owns a $$6.5 million stake in Gilead.  It had languished for years with no apparent commercial use.  But remdesivir was a big win for Gilead when it was given to half the patients hospitalized with COVID.  Link  Anthony Fauci knew of remdesivir’s toxicity when he orchestrated its approval for COVID patients.

Dr. Fauci has persistently insisted on double-blind randomized placebo trials for medicines he dislikes (those that compete with his patented remedies) and airily fixed the NIAID study of remdesivir by changing the endpoints midstream to favor the drug.  He has never demanded randomized studies to confirm safety of the combined 69 vaccine doses currently on the childhood schedule.  Every one of these vaccines is regarded as so “unavoidably unsafe” in the words of the 1986 Vaccine Act (NCVIA) and the Supreme Court, that their manufacturers have demanded, and received, immunity from liability.  Page 35, The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Nicole Sirotek tells of a 10-year-old she had to have flown out who had received the first jab the previous day and had myocardial infarction.  She says, “The doctors won’t believe it and use victim shaming claiming it’s anxiety or stress, but if they put down that it was a vaccine injury, the physician and corporation, the hospital or clinic actually won’t get reimbursed, so it is labeled as anxiety or neuropathy, or Guillain-Barre Syndrome.”

Hospitals receive payments for testing every patient for C-19, every diagnosis and every ‘COVID death,’ as well as any time they use remdesivir and mechanical ventilation. They don’t get a special bonus if you live, so is it any wonder patients still aren’t receiving appropriate care?

WHO has issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients!

Dr. Paul Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School and former director of the ICU at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, learned about his 14-day suspension when he arrived to work last November and found a letter on his desk.  Because he would not treat patients with remdesivir when he was at Sentara, but wanted to save their lives with alternative inexpensive repurposed drugs, he was suspended for two weeks.  Dr. Marik has testified that remdesivir increases the risk of death.  Sentara eliminated one of the finest physicians they had, a physician who actually developed a treatment for sepsis that saves 50-80% of patients.  Marik is the co-founder of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, (flccc.net) which offers prevention and treatment protocols for COVID.

Negligence and Medical Malfeasance

Nicole also said that she had worked in other countries on the COVID virus, and she sees America’s healthcare as so deteriorated as to be like that of third world countries. She said she was getting reports from the organization she founded, America’s Frontline Nurses, saying that patients were not getting food or water.  “How come a patient hasn’t been fed in nine days who isn’t intubated and is telling that they would like to have food?!”  She said she’s had patients on vents who haven’t been bathed, fed, given water or turned to avoid bed sores.

“If you ask me, this isn’t a hospital, it’s a concentration camp. Nowhere in the United States do we isolate people for hundreds of hours at a time with no human contact.  It’s not even allowed in the prisons.  You cannot isolate prisoners beyond a certain period of time because it’s horrible for their mental health and it’s considered inhumane.  However, in these hospitals now, we’re allowed to isolate patients from their families for days, and you have to say goodbye to them over an iPhone.”

In this latest horrifying story, a father was forced to leave his teenage Down Syndrome daughter who was sick with C-19, after four days of being by her bedside.  The hospital actually threw him out.  The guard who walked him to his car told him to seek a higher authority.  They sent their other daughter in to be with her, but most shocking was that one of the physicians put a “Do Not Resuscitate” on his daughter’s chart and hours before she died, Grace received an assortment of drugs – including three doses of lorazepam and a dose of morphine.  The parents watched their daughter die via FaceTime while their other daughter screamed for the nurses.  They were outside the door and would not come into the room to save the teen they had just murdered with drugs that were used for palliative care, not for the Wuhan virus.

How can anyone call this anything but mass murder?!

Critical Against Government?  You’re a Domestic Terrorist

The Biden administration has designated free speech as a terrorist threat when it criticizes the federal government.  The Department of Homeland Security U.S. terrorism threat summary includes spreading ‘disinformation’ about not trusting government! 

It states,

(1) the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions.

This bulletin is in effect until June 7, 2022.

Our dissident physicians, scientists and nurses, along with authors, journalists and American citizens are now considered domestic terrorists for freely speaking/writing our beliefs.

Conclusion

In 1860, Frederick Douglass commented, “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.”

Silence is not golden!  The medical drug cartel mafia are determined to quell the truth as well as the dissidents who utter it. It is essential that no voice of truth be stilled!

They must hear the cry of FREEDOM!

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Big Pharma Exposed, Scientists Speak Out About Vaccine Mandates

RELATED VIDEO: Medical Racism in the USA

VIDEO: The Sinister Plot for Doctors to Rule the World thumbnail

VIDEO: The Sinister Plot for Doctors to Rule the World

/in , , /by

By Martin Mawyer

Here’s this week’s Shout Out Patriots Show: The sinister plot for doctors to rule the world!​

The one thing liberals have perfected is to cloak evil in sheep’s clothing.

During the past two years, cities, counties and states have begun issuing proclamations declaring that ‘Racism is a Public Health Crisis.’ More than 200 such proclamations have been published so far, with some claiming the situation is so dire it’s an emergency.

But underneath this sinister cloak to help “Black and indigenous people of color,” the ultimate goal is for doctors to rule the world.

Sound far-fetched?

How can that be when we are STILL witnessing doctors using the Covid pandemic to control who we see, where we eat, where we go, what medicine we can take, what passports we must possess, and what jobs we can keep?

In this episode of Shout Out Patriots, we explain how the medical profession plans to use ‘Racism as a Public Health Crisis’ to ‘rewire’ society. (Rewire? What they really mean to restructure and control society!)

First, their goal is to have government agencies declare racism a public health crisis.

The second is to tie racism into virtually every illness suffered by blacks and people of color – diabetes, obesity, asthma, heart disease, and more.

Think I’m exaggerating?

Read this from the American Medical Association as it explains that illnesses suffered by blacks and people of color should no longer be attributed to biology but to racism:

“The AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

Get it? Blacks and people of color get sick because of racism, not flu bugs, not risky health behavior, not biology.

The third is to offer the cure. As we report in this episode of Shout Out Patriots, doctors are calling for a ‘rewiring’ of society.

That would mean requiring employees to be subjected to anti-racist training, which is already happening in some cities and states.

That would also mean making demands for changes in housing, employment, and other ‘race-based corrections,’ as the AMA reports.

‘It’s going to require proactive action,’ says Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public health Association.

It’s also going to require putting un-elected doctors, lots of them, doctors like Anthony Fauci, in control of our lives.

Download or stream our recent episode of Shout Out Patriots to learn what we think about this plan to put doctors in control of the world. (For a better listening and viewing experience, download the episode to avoid buffering delays)

Thank you and remember to help us keep our podcast going strong and increase its reach!

©Martin Mawyer.

RELATED ARTICLE: We should be questioning the global suppression of early treatment options for COVID-19

URGENT: New Research Turns Up Yet More mRNA Vaccine Dangers thumbnail

URGENT: New Research Turns Up Yet More mRNA Vaccine Dangers

/in , , , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

A preprint in Cell finds vaccine-driven original antigenic sin is deeply powerful. Also: vaccine-generated spike protein circulates in the blood and vaccine mRNA persists for months in lymph nodes

mRNA from the Pfizer and Moderna shots can be found in lymph nodes for at least 60 days after injection.

By: Alex Berenson, February 11, 2022:

Free-floating spike proteins circulate at high levels in the blood after vaccination.

Vaccinated people infected with variants of Sars-Cov-2 produce antibodies biased toward the original and now extinct variant – rather than the one that has actually infected them.

Conspiracy theories from Dr. Kennedy-Mercola’s We Hate Vaxxxines Digest?

No.

Findings from a preprint in Cell, among the world’s leading scientific journals. Almost 50 researchers worldwide collaborated on the work, which Cell released online two weeks ago.

The preprint has received little attention, possibly because it discusses the potential implications of its findings only obliquely. In discussing the fact that the mRNA hamper the immune response to new variants, the researchers offer extra doses as a potential solution, for example:

Additional booster doses may be able to compensate for relatively decreased binding to new viral variant antigens, potentially decreasing the public health impact of antibody response imprinting.

Nonetheless, the preprint’s findings destroy comforting fictions about the mRNA shots, including that the body quickly destroys the genetic material in the jabs – as Reuters and other “fact-checkers” have long insisted.

In fact, researchers found vaccine mRNA in the germinal centers of lymph nodes for 60 days after the shots (as long as they checked).

The germinal centers play a crucial role in the immune system, where B-cells – which help produce long-term immunity – mature and learn to make antibodies to infection more efficiently.

The researchers also reported finding vaccine mRNA outside the germinal centers, though rarely.

The mRNA shots cause the body to make huge amounts of spike protein. Vaccine advocates have generally argued that those proteins remain bound to the cells where they were produced.

But the researchers also said they had found spike protein in the blood following mRNA shots at levels as high as those produced by coronavirus infection itself:

At least some portion of spike antigen generated after administration of BNT162b2 becomes distributed into the blood. We detected spike antigen in 96% of vaccinees in plasma collected one to two days after the prime injection, with antigen levels reaching as high as 174 pg/mL. The range of spike antigen concentrations in the blood of vaccinees at this early time point largely overlaps with the range of spike antigen concentrations reported in plasma in a study of acute infection.

Aside from that, everything is fine and we have nothing to worry about.

LINK TO PAPER

Freedom Convoy Goes Global thumbnail

Freedom Convoy Goes Global

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

FreedomConvoy USA “We have a right to resist and we have an obligation and duty to do so!”

This is the greatest gift America gave to the world. Freedom. We may be crippled now, under siege by a fraudulent regime that stole the election but the rest of the world has taken on the mantle of freedom.

Fight fascism. Now is the time.

Massive freedom demonstrations in Canberra, Australia pic.twitter.com/VrugHFG3Sm

— Honkmaster Poso 🎺 (@JackPosobiec) February 12, 2022

The Freedom Convoy reaches Paris today. pic.twitter.com/LkaHzq172R

— Aaron Ginn (@aginnt) February 12, 2022

WATCH: Paris police break the window of a freedom convoy member pic.twitter.com/pLiHc18GH8

— Election Wizard 🚛 (@ElectionWiz) February 12, 2022

BREAKING: Macron’s forces unleash tear gas on freedom demonstrations in Paris, some hits café full of families pic.twitter.com/xFoyzI2vy4

— Honkmaster Poso 🎺 (@JackPosobiec) February 12, 2022

Pay attention to how these alleged “free countries” & “democracies” treat their own people putting together freedom convoys to peacefully oppose government tyranny.

Watch and retweet every video you can find online, and never forget it.

— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) February 12, 2022

The people want FREEDOM

pic.twitter.com/1EbeN7L1BY

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) February 12, 2022

We are experiencing levels of global fascism unseen since WWII.

Advanced civilizations are treating their citizens as slaves and turning weapons of war on them when they protest.

This is unsustainable.

The decentralized freedom movement is poised to collapse regimes world wide

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) February 12, 2022

Police fired tear gas at demonstrators on the Champs-Élysées avenue in Paris on Saturday shortly after a “Freedom Convoy” protesting against Covid-19 restrictions made it into the French capital.

Cars carrying protesters managed to get through police blockades in central Paris to snarl traffic around the Arc de Triomphe monument.

Reporting from the Champs-Élysées, FRANCE 24’s Catherine Norris-Trent said the situation turned tense shortly after lunchtime. “There are numerous police vehicles here and cars from the so-called “Freedom Convoy” – protesters who, despite the ban, have driven into Paris and they’re blocking this roundabout. Police have been trying to clear them out, they’ve been asking people to clear the scene and there have been scuffles here,” she said.

RELATED ARTICLE: Freedom Convoy Border Blockades Expand, Justin Trudeau Soils His Pants

RELATED TWEET:

After dismantling the barriers around the War Memorial in Ottawa, Veterans say the Lord’s Prayer and sing O Canada. pic.twitter.com/AiuTXgqL67

— Bret 🍁 (@Bret_Sears) February 12, 2022

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

The COVID Vax Bioweapon thumbnail

The COVID Vax Bioweapon

/in , , , , , /by

By Save America Foundation

I believe that there was a bioweapon unleashed on the world, via a series of events that have taken place over the last 2 years.  But the bioweapon is not a virus, it is the product that was sold to us as the remedy to the so-called pandemic.  To argue my position on this matter I am going to start with the fact that the term pandemic has been used loosely by government and media to instill fear among the masses.  The definition of pandemic was actually changed back in 2009 by the WHO when we had that pesky swine flu.  The new definition doesn’t seem to differ much from the definition of epidemic.  The term pandemic as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary:

Pandemic; păn-dĕm′ĭk

adjective

  1. Widespread; general.
  2. Epidemic over a wide geographic area and affecting a large proportion of the population.
  3. Affecting a whole people or a number of countries; everywhere epidemic.

Now compare to the definition of epidemic from the same source:

Epidemic; ĕp″ĭ-dĕm′ĭk

adjective

  1. Spreading rapidly and extensively by infection and affecting many individuals in an area or a population at the same time.
  2. Widely prevalent.
  3. Common to, or affecting at the same time, a large number in a community; — applied to a disease which, spreading widely, attacks many persons at the same time; See endemic.

Prior to 2009, Pandemic was defined by the WHO as, “An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

The term epidemic has remained the same, which seems to suggest that someone wanted to use the terms pandemic and epidemic interchangeably,probably to make it appropriate to fit the narrative of the day.

The second point I want to illustrate is the use of the word vaccine.  This definition has been changed by the CDC twice in the last two years.  The COVID jabs are in reality, a form of gene therapy.  An experimental gene therapy, as we know that the shots were given for the longest time under EUA.  The use of the word vaccine here is an attempt to take advantage of the immunity from liability that has been recognized for Bid Pharma regarding the development of vaccines since 1986, when congress acted to implement this sweetheart deal.   Is this push to use “vaccine” an admission that they were expecting severe injury and death from the get go?

Now we will address deaths that were attributed to COVID.  These “COVID deaths” were mostly made up of people that died from other conditions, or comorbidities, within a 28 day window prior to their death.  They wanted us to believe that there was massive, widespread death, globally, but the criteria wreak of ambiguity to the point where manipulation of data was a certainty as they had to promote hysteria so that the “vaccine” was profitable beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.  In Fall of 2020, the CDC released data revealing only 6% of COVID deaths resulted from COVID alone, in the absence of any other health problems.    The remaining 94% of these deaths attributed to COVID occurred in patients with 2.6 additional conditions/causes per death.  This means that 164,280 of the deaths up to this point (Fall 2020) occurred in patients suffering from other potentially fatal illnesses while only 9,857 were from COVID alone.  These are people that died in the hospital, and just happened to test positive upon their arrival, even though it was not the reason why they were there.  The best way to interpret this is that these people died with COVID, not of COVID.

On to the mask controversy, Dr. James Meehan, an ophthalmologist that went to school at the University of Oklahoma and has a practice in Tulsa, Oklahoma, has been very vocal about this subject and has received a lot of attention for speaking out, not all positive as one could expect.   Dr. Meehan has pointed out that new research has shown that cloth masks may be increasing the aerosolization of the SARSCov2 virus into the environment, causing an increase in the transmission of the disease.  He also references an increase in cases of facial rash, fungal and bacterial infections including bacterial pneumonia since this mask circus began back in 2020.  Hold that thought and let’s jump back to the early 20th century during the Spanish Flu outbreak, where they implemented mask mandates just like today.  These mandates were met with public resistance even back then.  Many pictures from this era show groups of people sporting masks.  Ok stay with me here, the National Institute of Health (NIH) acknowledges on their own .gov website, that most deaths occurring during this time of the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918, were a result of bacterial pneumonia.

And to conclude I want to reference the average age of recorded COVID deaths compared to the average age of those that died during the Spanish Flu outbreak and how these numbers fit into the big picture.   The average age of recorded COVID deaths is 80 + years.  The average age of death for people in the midst of Spanish Flu was in the late 20’s.  Keep in mind that the average age of death for COVID patients here actually surpasses that of the current average life expectancy.

Take all of this information that I have laid out here and see the blatant deception by the so-called experts, and their willingness to double down on their inconsistency and obvious lies and you can see that COVID was only the vehicle to drive public fear and that “the virus” was a massive Psyops, perpetrated on the American people by the government and the corrupt healthcare industry.

One can see how important it was to make people afraid of the virus, so that they would line up for the real bioweapon, the COVID death jabs, incorrectly labeled vaccines to provide legal protection for big pharma when we reached the point we are at now. 

Deaths skyrocketed in 2021 after the jabs were introduced, some died of acute reactions like anaphylaxis while others will have other complications over the long term, such as autoimmune disease and general weakening of the immune system, blood clots, heart attacks, neurological symptoms, and let’s not forget a substantial increase in cancer cases as we have heard recently from Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist and founder of Cole Diagnostics.  Dr. Cole says, “In the laboratory, I’m seeing an uptick in cancers that I shouldn’t be seeing at rates I shouldn’t be seeing in age groups I shouldn’t be seeing,” Cole told The Epoch Times.  A major Swedish study suggests that the spike protein your body starts making after the introduction of these jabs, inhibits our body’s ability to repair DNA and has been linked to cancer cases.   The study cites that,

“the SARS–CoV–2 spike protein significantly inhibits DNA damage repair, which is required for effective V(D)J recombination in adaptive immunity.”

All of this info out there and there are still people that are displaying a level of cognitive dissonance that may prove fatal. The sad part of this whole thing, is that people have volunteered to have this bio weapon injected into their body because they were psychologically conditioned to feel that getting the jabs was a necessity for them to survive. This is one of the most consequential atrocities that has ever been unleashed on mankind. It has damaged our children, our collective mental health, and society as a whole. All perpetrated by global elites to hasten the implementation of The Great Reset. History will hopefully show that the experts led the masses to slaughter here, and I still hope that there is some recourse that can be taken by the jabbed to rectify the damage that has been done to them. The Great Awakening continues to gain steam.

Grasshopper’s Patriot Blog.

©Jason Brown. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: DHS Says COVID Misinformation Is Inspiring Terrorism, But It Won’t Provide Any Evidence

EDITORS NOTE: This Grasshopper’s Patriot Blog column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Watch DeSantis on Mask Mandates: ‘The Science Didn’t Change —The Political Science Changed’ thumbnail

Watch DeSantis on Mask Mandates: ‘The Science Didn’t Change —The Political Science Changed’

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Spot on! DeSantis is awesome. What he would do to Biden or Harris on the debate stage. It would not be pretty.

The medical science on forced masking children didn’t change — the political science did. In Florida, we never imposed state mask mandates, and we liberated children and parents from the local authorities that did. We hope every jurisdiction will follow suit. pic.twitter.com/Dz4SgObVJx

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) February 8, 2022

WATCH DeSANTIS DESTROY DEMS ON MASKS: ‘The Science Didn’t Change —The Political Science Changed’

By The First, February 10, 2022

Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) took a moment out from talking infrastructure improvements to discuss the latest trend of blue states lifting mask mandates.

“These kids are so much happier being able to go to school without having to wear masks for 8 hours a day. Remember this: the medical science didn’t change, the political science changed.”

“They feel the heat. They know voters are tired of perpetual lockdown policies…they know they’re fixing to get whooped at the polls.”

DeSantis shared his message on Twitter:

“The medical science on forced masking children didn’t change — the political science did. In Florida, we never imposed state mask mandates, and we liberated children and parents from the local authorities that did. We hope every jurisdiction will follow suit.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Judge blocks schools from enforcing Democrat Gov. Pritzker’s mask, vaccine mandates, refers to policies as ‘type of evil’

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

‘We Can’t Expect Them To Tell Us How To Live’: NYT Writer Questions ‘Follow The Science’ Guidance thumbnail

‘We Can’t Expect Them To Tell Us How To Live’: NYT Writer Questions ‘Follow The Science’ Guidance

/in , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

David Leonhardt, a writer for The New York Times (NYT), questioned some of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidance in a Friday article amid a rollback of several coronavirus restrictions across the country.

Leonhardt opens his piece by noting how the CDC warns against medium-rare hamburgers because they were “undercooked” and therefore could pose a threat. He also notes how eating raw cookie dough is ill-advised among, other apparently common things.

“If you happen to be somebody who engages in any of these risky activities, I have some bad news for you this morning: You apparently do not believe in following the science,” Leonhardt wrote.

Leonhardt said the “instinct” to follow the science “is both understandable and profoundly decent” especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, “but it has led to a widespread misunderstanding.”

“Many people have come to believe that expert opinion is a unitary, omniscient force. That’s the assumption behind the phrases ‘follow the science’ and ‘what the science says.’ It imagines science almost as a god -Science- who could solve our dilemmas if we only listened.”

Leonhardt said individuals are forced to make trade-offs about science, pointing to COVID-19 restrictions as an example.

“Covid restrictions – mask mandates, extended quarantines, restrictions on gatherings, school closure during outbreaks – can both slow the virus’s spread and have harmful side effects. These restrictions can reduce serious Covid illness and death among the immunocompromised, elderly and unvaccinated. They can also lead to mental-health problems, lost learning for children, child-care hardships for lower-income families, and isolation and frustration that have fueled suicides, drug overdoses and violent crime.”

Leonhardt noted how the CDC sometimes can “miss the big picture,” pointing to the CDC’s reluctance to urge mask use and slowness “to admit that outdoor masking has little benefit.”

“As you think about your own Covid views, I encourage you to remember that C.D.C. officials and other scientists cannot make these dilemmas go away,” Leonhardt wrote. “They can provide deep expertise and vital perspective. They are also fallible and have their own biases.”

Democratic-led states, like New Jersey, New York, Delaware, and Connecticut, lifted their mask requirements recently, but President Joe Biden voiced disagreement with the decisions.

“It’s hard to say whether they’re wrong, here’s the science saying now that masks work, masks make a difference,” Biden said. “And there’s a relationship, I think there’s only one governor drawing back immediately and most of them are somewhere in the end of February, March, April. They’re set[ting] a time limit and I assume it has something to do with whether the Omicron variant continues to dive in fewer and fewer cases.”

“I committed that I would follow the science,” Biden continued. “And the science as put forward by the CDC and the federal people and I think it’s probably premature but it’s a tough call.”

The CDC recommends individuals wear a mask indoors regardless of their vaccination status.

COLUMN BY

BRIANNA LYMAN

Reporter. Follow Brianna on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Follow The Science’ Crowd Finally Admits Their COVID-19 Censorship Was Political

NYC To Fire 3,000 Unvaccinated City Workers Friday

New Zealand Police Arrest 120 At Anti-Mandate Protest Outside Parliament

DHS Says COVID Misinformation Is Inspiring Terrorism, But It Won’t Provide Any Evidence

Understanding the Covid Odds thumbnail

Understanding the Covid Odds

/in , , , , /by

By John Tierney

If you’ve been vaccinated and still feel mortally threatened by the virus, please read this.

It’s obviously not easy to give up fear of Covid-19, to judge from a recent survey showing that the vaccinated are actually more frightened than the unvaccinated. Another survey found that most Democratic voters are so worried that they want to make it illegal for the unvaccinated to leave home. But before you don another mask or disinfect another surface, before you cheer on politicians and school officials enforcing mandates, consider your odds of a fatal Covid case once you’ve been vaccinated.

Those odds can be gauged from a study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, published by the Centers for Disease Control. They tracked more than 1 million vaccinated adults in America over most of last year, including the period when the Delta variant was surging, and classified victims of Covid according to risk factors such as being over 65, being immunosuppressed, or suffering from diabetes or chronic diseases of the heart, kidney, lungs, liver or brain.

The researchers report that none of the healthy people under 65 had a severe case of Covid that required treatment in an intensive-care unit. Not a single one of these nearly 700,000 people died, and the risk was minuscule for most older people, too. Among vaccinated people over 65 without an underlying medical condition, only one person died. In all, there were 36 deaths, mostly among a small minority of older people with a multitude of comorbidities: the 3 percent of the sample that had at least four risk factors. Among everyone else, a group that included elderly people with one or two chronic conditions, there were just eight deaths among more than 1.2 million people, so their risk of dying was about 1 in 150,000.

Those are roughly the same odds that in the course of a year you will die in a fire, or that you’ll perish by falling down stairs. Going anywhere near automobiles is a bigger risk: you’re three times more likely during a given year to be killed while riding in a car, and also three times more likely to be a pedestrian casualty. The 150,000-to-1 odds of a Covid death are even longer than the odds over your lifetime of dying in an earthquake or being killed by lightning.

The CDC study didn’t extend through the surge of the Omicron variant, but there’s no reason to think that the odds going forward are worse. While Omicron was much more infectious than previous variants, spreading widely among the vaccinated as well as the unvaccinated, it typically caused milder symptoms. Now that the Omicron surge seems to have peaked, it has left huge numbers of people with what researchers call “super immunity” from both the vaccine and an infection. Studies have shown that natural immunity is much stronger and longer-lasting than vaccine immunity. So whatever new variant emerges, much of the population will confront it this year with stronger immunity than last year. And the odds of survival will improve further thanks to new antiviral drugs reported to reduce Covid mortality by some 90 percent.

*****

Continue reading this article at City Journal.

In Canada it’s trucks versus tweets and the trucks are winning thumbnail

In Canada it’s trucks versus tweets and the trucks are winning

/in , , , , , /by

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has called the truckers out for antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, homophobia, and transphobia. Huh?

Freedom Convoy protesters open up about standing for their beliefs

Two weeks ago, the “Freedom Convoy” began in earnest, with thousands of truckers from every province crossing Canada’s icy highways to take their grievances over vaccine mandates to the nation’s capital.

After many dramatic twists and turns, hundreds of trucks and thousands of protesters still clog up Ottawa’s streets. Two of North America’s most important border crossings also remain blockaded.

Perhaps most surprising of all, the demonstration seems to be working. As of yesterday, four provincial Premiers announced plans to either eliminate or roll back key Covid measures — in Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Prince Edward Island.

While decision-makers are eager to distance their decision-making from the protests, there is no doubt that the mood is melting in Canada. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has endured days of heckling in parliament —from both the right and the left — over his handling of the protests, with increased calls for him to reopen the country or at least listen to the truckers.

Trudeau has spent much of the last fortnight out of the public gaze. But he has been at the forefront of the Twitter war. In one tweet he characterised protesters as antisemites, Islamophobes, anti-Black racists, homophobes, and transphobes (an impressive list!). In another, he framed them as vandals, thieves and wavers of racist flags. Predictably, his words got the Twitter mobs baying.

Today in the House, Members of Parliament unanimously condemned the antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, homophobia, and transphobia that we’ve seen on display in Ottawa over the past number of days. Together, let’s keep working to make Canada more inclusive.

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 1, 2022

Evidence for some of these claims is there, but scant. Footage has circulated of two lone actors, one waving a Confederate flag and one waving a Nazi flag. The former was heckled by crowds until he left the protest. He kept his identity tightly concealed, making it likely he was there to quite literally wave a false flag. The latter is still unidentified, even after a $6,500 reward was offered for leads on his identity.

Ottawa’s police chief and mayor have happily taken part in the war of words, which has helped keep things spicy on social media. Police Chief Peter Sloly warned of a “volatile” and “increasingly dangerous” situation and made repeated forecasts of impending violence that have failed to materialise. Mayor Jim Watson called a state of emergency, warning that the downtown occupiers posed a “serious danger and threat to the safety and security of residents”.

Following an injunction, honking has been banned for ten days in Ottawa, and over a thousand tickets have been given out for excessive noise and parking infractions. The city has also seen some 23 arrests over the two-week period, all in relation to “mischief”, resisting arrest, and similar misdemeanours.

The news media has likewise done its best to demonise the protest. An impressive video still circulates on Twitter — a compilation of media reports describing the demonstration as “sedition”, an “insurrection”, “a threat to democracy”, and worse. Nevertheless, even if residents and city officials are at their wits’ end, the drama in Ottawa remains leagues behind the melodrama.

Amazing compilation of media elites denouncing Canada’s Freedom Convoy. “Sedition. Insurrection. A threat to democracy.” “This city is under siege.” “Insurrection by airhorn.” “There haven’t been any violent outbursts however horns have been honking.”pic.twitter.com/0T3LhpbK5P

— Michael P Senger (@MichaelPSenger) February 9, 2022

Indeed, a Daily Mail journalist recently published a report after spending a full week on Ottawa’s streets trying to get a read on the situation:

“Since DailyMail.com arrived in Ottawa last week we have seen no indication of violence or vandalism or any extremist political agenda. In fact, the demonstrations have shown the opposite. Supplies brought in for the protesters also include bouncy castles for children as protests continue into the second week…

“Every trucker DailyMail.com spoke with said they came to protest non-violently and their only reason being there was to free Canada of its covid mandates. Truckers were conscientious of the public streets and kept them free of litter. They also shovelled snow and threw down de-icer making the streets and sidewalks easier to walk on.”

The report’s headline aptly summarises the disconnect between the online and real worlds: “Freedom Convoy truckers say Trudeau and North America’s liberal media are falsely demonising them as ultra-right-wing crazies. And after spending a week in their midst, the Mail’s reporter can only conclude these peaceful, good-natured protestors are 100% correct about that – if nothing else.”

On the pretext that the demonstration had become violent and unlawful, GoFundMe shut down a US$10 million fundraiser and refunded donors. Not to be deterred, organisers set up a new campaign via GiveSendGo that quickly raised US$8 million — but just today, the Ontario government was successful in convincing a court to freeze access to those funds, too.

If the last fortnight is anything to go on, this will only harden the demonstrators’ resolve. When police began seizing fuel from truckers, protesters saw the humorous side. They were soon seen carrying jerry cans en masse through the city — whether full or empty — to confound law enforcement officials, thereby turning the humble jerry into a symbol of Canadian dissent.

The propaganda war on Twitter will no doubt continue, but nothing beats the real world. And in the real world, the truckers are winning.

Resolution Against Assisted Suicide Introduced in Congress thumbnail

Resolution Against Assisted Suicide Introduced in Congress

/in , , , , , /by

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

A resolution against assisted suicide, coming from the most unlikely of places, has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.  The sponsor is a Democrat from California. I know it’s hard to believe, since California Democrats have done as much as anybody to drag the country Left, and it’s the Left that’s been actively pushing assisted suicide.

You could be forgiven for thinking assisted suicide is needed to deal with infrequent cases of intractable physical pain.  That was the original rationale that got some states sold on the idea, way back when.  However, advances in modern pain medicine have wiped that rationale out completely.  The resolution points out that fear of pain is almost at the bottom of the reasons people now give when requesting assisted suicide.  Losing autonomy and enjoyment in life now rank at the top.  So the rationale has loosened and people can now seek government help to kill themselves just because they’re tired of living.  Assisted suicide numbers keep increasing in jurisdictions where it is allowed, proving that critics were right to warn we were heading down a slippery slope.

The resolution lays out many reasons to reverse course.  First and foremost, the elderly, the disabled, and the depressed are often pressured by family members, financial heirs, and even medical professionals into killing themselves.  There are no controls on this in assisted suicide laws.  Society has an interest in protecting the vulnerable from coercion and the disabled from negative stereotyping.

Second, assisted suicide is permanent while the desire to end one’s life is often temporary or can be resolved in a different way.  There are ways to deal with depression or fears of being a burden on others.  Depression is treatable.  Also, there have been stories about adult children wanting to care for their elderly parents and feeling their lives would not be complete without that experience.

Third, assisted suicide laws are full of holes, like Swiss cheese.  There is no requirement a medical attendant be present in the event of complications, for example.  The dirty little secret is that assisted suicide is often a protracted and painful death, sometimes lasting four days.  Assisted suicide laws provide very little in the way of mandatory reporting, leaving major questions unanswered about whether it is staying within the bounds of the law.  Not only is there lack of transparency about what’s really going on, there is also deliberate subterfuge.  Some states require physicians to report the cause of death as the underlying condition, covering up just how many assisted suicides there really are.  This is by design.  The Left always has to hide what it’s doing and its true agenda, and they’re hiding the ball here.

Finally, medical prognoses are often mistaken.  There are countless stories of people living for years who were told by doctors they only had weeks or months to live.  How would you like to be cheated out of years of your life because your doctor was wrong and you believed a mistaken prognosis?

The use of federal funds for assisted suicide or advocacy for assisted suicide was prohibited during Bill Clinton’s presidency.  The current resolution aims to keep it that way and prevent the federal government from supporting assisted suicide in any way.  Also, the resolution points out that assisted suicide, while adopted in a handful of states, has been rejected over 200 times in 30 states since the Left started agitating for it in earnest in 1994.

The resolution does not touch on my main concern about this subject.  It’s a very short jump from government-assisted suicide to government-directed death.  There is no doubt in my mind the Left wants the power to tell you when to die and assisted suicide laws are just the first step, no matter how warm and fuzzy, or ‘compassionate’, the Left makes them sound.  Government-directed death is the true hidden agenda – that’s what’s really going on here.  You’ve been had.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

‘Lockdowns Had Little to No Effect on COVID Mortality’: New Johns Hopkins Study thumbnail

‘Lockdowns Had Little to No Effect on COVID Mortality’: New Johns Hopkins Study

/in , , , , /by

By Brad Palumbo

But the costs of these draconian measures weren’t minimal at all.

We’re into year three of the COVID-19 pandemic. From mask mandates to vaccine passports, government restrictions on our liberties remain in place. But, thankfully, at least in the US, the era of lockdown orders confining Americans’ to their homes to “slow the spread” is over.

Unfortunately, a new meta-analysis of studies shows that all the pain and sacrifice we endured from those orders achieved little—despite their tremendous costs.

The new research review was led by economist Steve Hanke and published by Johns Hopkins University. It evaluated 24 relevant studies examining lockdown stringency, the impact of stay-at-home orders, and the effectiveness of specific restrictions. The meta-analysis concludes that “lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

Why wouldn’t stay-at-home mandates effectively combat the pandemic? Well, to some extent they simply delayed the inevitable. Plus, research has shown that most COVID-19 spread actually occurred at home.

“Micro evidence contradicts the public-health ideal in which households would be places of solitary confinement and zero transmission,” University of Chicago economist Casey B. Mulligan concluded. “Instead, the evidence suggests that ‘households show the highest transmission rates’ and that ‘households are high-risk settings for the transmission of [COVID-19].’”

So, however disheartening it may be, it’s hardly surprising that Hanke and co. found such minimal public health impact from lockdown policies.

“Stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average,” their new research concludes. “[Stay-in-place orders] were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific [non-pharmaceutical restriction] studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.”

But the costs of these draconian measures weren’t minimal at all. They devastated the economy, pummeled the working class, fueled a youth mental health crisis, led to record-breaking drug overdoses, worsened a crime wave, delayed life-saving medical treatments, and so much more.

These devastating results offer a vivid reminder of a crucial lesson. When central planners, in their hubris, ignore the fact that their actions will have sweeping consequences beyond their intentions, human suffering ensues.

“It’s not enough… to endorse legislation that has a nice title and promises to do something good,” economist Robert P. Murphy wrote for FEE. “People need to think through the full consequences of a policy, because often it will lead to a cure worse than the disease.”

When it comes to lockdown policies, the “cure” has indeed proven far more harmful than helpful.

*****

This article was published by FEE, Foundation for Economic Education and is reproduced with permission.

Biden’s Mask Mandate War on We The People thumbnail

Biden’s Mask Mandate War on We The People

/in , , , , , , /by

By Dr. Rich Swier

“For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” – H. L. Mencken, American journalist, essayist, satirist, cultural critic.

Government mandates on getting vaxxed and wearing masks has been a contentious issue from the start. It is now coming to a head in Canada with the truckers Freedom Convoy and across America as well.

The Daily Mail’s Ronny Reyes, in anBlue surgical face masks are only 10% effective in preventing COVID infection, new study finds”  wrote:

  • University of Waterloo researchers find most cloth masks are only 10% effective
  • Researchers warn most cloth masks do not cover the face properly  
  • N95 or KN95 masks were found to be the most effective at filtering aerosols
  • Study also found that even ‘moderate ventilation’ matches the best of masks in terms of protection against COVID-19
  • Mask debate remains contentious in the country as delta variant spreads 

Masks and mask mandates

Masks have now become a big issue and Biden administration/CDC guidelines on wearing masks are coming into question.

It seem that governors of blue states are now gradually unmasking their people. It appears that their people have had enough and with the midterm elections on the horizon that Biden, CDC and the Democrats masking of America has fallen out of favor. Why, because it is impacting the economy, culture and health of Americans.

But Biden isn’t backing down, he’s doubling down on mask mandates.

During the February 9th, 2022 White House press conference Jen Psaki was asked about the White House’s COVID-19 policies. Watch the entire February 9th press conference:

Psaki was questioned about the economy, Covid restrictions and about blue states, like New York, lifting their mask mandates and a return to normalcy. The first question ask:

And if I could ask a question about — New York, today, was the latest to work on their mask mandates.  Several states are now, it seems, well ahead of the federal government in explaining the path out of the pandemic.  Is the President now falling behind states in explaining to Americans how are — we all can, sort of, resume our normal lives and get back to normalcy?

When asked if citizens should follow the CDC mask guidelines Psaki said,

“Yes. This is where we would advise any American to follow the CDC guidelines … no parent who wants to send their kid with a mask should be penalized. No teacher who wants to wear a mask should be penalized, or school district who makes that choice should be penalized.”

Question:

Jen, quick follow-up on that.  Does the administration risk looking out of touch with where the country is heading, in terms of lifting these mask mandates, if the CDC doesn’t revise its guidelines?

Answer:

Well, again, we understand where the emotions of the country are, right?  People are tired of masks.  I would say not even — if you look at the polling though, there’s also a huge chunk of people who still want masks.  Right?  So, it’s not even that specific.  It’s just that, as you noted, there are some states that are moving towards rolling back or giving more choice to local communities about how they will implement these requirements.

But, again, from the federal government, what our responsibility to do is to abide by what the President committed to on the campaign, which is to listen to scientists, listen to data.  That doesn’t move at the speed of politics; it moves at the speed of data.  And they — Dr. Walensky committed to — conveyed — or, I should say, confirmed that they were evaluating this at the CDC.

Following the data, not the politics

Psaki’s February 9th, 2022 statement is at best a lie and at worse a myth. To repeat Psaki said, “But, again, from the federal government, what our responsibility to do is to abide by what the President committed to on the campaign, which is to listen to scientists, listen to data.  That doesn’t move at the speed of politics; it moves at the speed of data.”

But the data is already in on the usefulness of masks.

Dr. Nancy Messonnier, Director of the Center for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases said on January 31st, 2020,

We don’t routinely recommend the use of face masks by the public to prevent respiratory illness. And we certainly are not recommending that at this time for this new [Covid] virus.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said,

[T]he average American does not need a N95 mask. These are really more for health care providers. He was echoed by Robert Redfield, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that there ‘is no role for these masks in the community’.

A 2011 randomized clinical trial found that medical masks offered no protection at all.

A 2015 study concluded rates of infection were especially high in cloth masks, finding particle penetration in nearly 97 percent of them.

A 2016 paper that analyzed six clinical studies found that N95 respirator masks fared no better than medical masks in preventing respiratory infection.

As recently as April 7, a paper analyzing data from 15 randomized trials concluded that,

“[C]ompared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases for influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”

Perhaps similar reasoning guided the CDC’s about-face in April when it issued guidance recommending the use of cloth face coverings for healthy individuals (though the World Health Organization still advises against them).

The Bottom Line

Masking America isn’t about science or data. Masking Americans is purely politics and all about control. How do we know? Because 221 House Democrats voted to block the  “Unmask Our Kids Act.”

The Daily Callers’ Nicole Silverio in an article titled, “White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday there is a “distinct difference” between Democratic governors scrapping mask mandates and Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ handling of COVID-19” reported:

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday there is a “distinct difference” between Democratic governors scrapping mask mandates and Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ handling of COVID-19.

“We had another state today drop the indoor mask mandate as the CDC is confirming that their guidance is not changing. But these decisions that are being made at the local level… are out of step with the science,” one reporter began. “So, why are we not hearing the same messaging criticizing states that are, you know, making these moves like we heard previously with, for instance, Ron DeSantis?”

“I would say there is a distinct difference between standing in the way, which Ron DeSantis did — or, Governor DeSantis, I’ll give him his full title — of teachers, school administrators and others taking steps to protect the students and their school communities,” Psaki answered. “There’s a difference between standing in the way of it — threatening to pull back funding — and allowing for local school districts to make choices, which is what a number of these states are doing.”

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) wrote:

In a sense, the mask craze is largely about managing our fears. As my colleague Sean Malone recently observed, when people are afraid they’re much more willing to accept anything they believe might make them a little safer. Even really bad policies and ideas.

The illusion of safety. It’s a powerful thing. For both humans and governments, it would seem.

John F. Kennedy said, “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

Masks don’t make us safer according to the data and science. However, the myth that they do is driving individuals, communities, government at all levels force We The People into believing that masks work.

What we are witnessing is mass formation psychosis.

Biden’s mask mandate war on we the people will continue and we the people will either succumb or fight back.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: GOP’s Youngkin Was Villain for Lifting Mask Mandate. Dem Phil Murphy a Hero for Doing the Same.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden May Permanently Ban Air Travel for People Who Had a Mask ‘Incident’ While Airborne

221 House Democrats Vote to Block “Unmask Our Kids Act”

James Carville Wants to Punch Unvaxxed in the Face: ‘You’re a Piece of Sh*t’

Pfizer Quietly Adds Warning That ‘Unfavorable Pre-Clinical, Clinical, or Safety Data’ May Impact Business

Blue States Back Down on Mandates

‘Mass Formation Psychosis’

The COVID Quacks Were Wrong About Everything thumbnail

The COVID Quacks Were Wrong About Everything

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

The COVID quacks were wrong about everything.  Let’s take a quick trip through their latest blunders, shall we?

They were wrong about masks.  They finally admitted the cloth masks they’d been telling everybody to wear for two years are worthless and everybody should wear N95 masks.  They’re wrong about that, too.  N95 masks cause higher carbon dioxide levels, cognitive impairment, headaches, cardio-pulmonary stress, and even fatal heart attacks.

They were wrong about the definition of COVID deaths.  Public health authorities have routinely inflated the numbers by including people who die from other causes but happen to test positive for COVID.  The CDC finally admitted maybe that wasn’t a good idea and they really should separate out the number who are hospitalized for other reasons and test positive after being admitted for something else.  We’ve been jumping up and down about this for two years and we were right.

They were wrong about lockdowns. Twenty-four studies now show lockdowns “have had little to no public health effects, [but] have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.”

They were wrong about mandates and are now back-pedaling in Illinois, New York, three Canadian provinces, and Sweden.  Just the News  NBC-5 Chicago  Reuters  AP  The Democrats in control of Virginia’s state senate just voted to make masks optional in school.   Why is this happening now?  As Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis put it, the medical science didn’t change, but the political science has.  Government officials now realize they’ve taken this COVID mandate thing just about as far as it will go.  People aren’t putting up with mandates anymore.  The mandates are becoming more unpopular by the day and the Democrats in control of places like Illinois and New York can see the November elections barreling down the tracks at them like a freight train.

The quacks were wrong about natural immunity.  They tried to argue people who caught COVID did not develop natural immunity to the disease.  The CDC now admits there is natural immunity and it actually works better than the vaccines.

They were wrong about COVID vaccines stopping transmission of disease. The director of the CDC later admitted the vaccines do not prevent transmission. You can be vaccinated and still pass the virus to other people.

They were wrong about how susceptible kids are to the disease.  Zeke Emanuel claimed unvaccinated kids are in danger of contracting the virus and getting a “serious condition of Omicron.”  When his argument was demolished, he claimed he “misspoke”.  Sure.

They were wrong to ignore vitamin D.  The information has been out there for a long time, but public health authorities ignored it.  Now, a study validates vitamin D deficiency makes people 14 times more susceptible to serious COVID and to die from the disease.

Fauci was wrong and flip-flopped on masks, on whether the vaccinated should wear masks, on whether kids should be in school, and on how much people should interact with each other during the pandemic.  Ron DeSantis put the flip-flops in a campaign ad and Fauci comes off looking like an idiot, because he is.

So, they were wrong about masks, COVID deaths, lockdowns, mandates, natural immunity and lots of other things.  What else are they wrong about, hmm?  Vaccine safety, maybe?  They keep saying the COVID vaccines are safe, but over 23,000 Americans have died within 14 days of being vaccinated, so far.  Where are the government safety studies that are supposed to be done when a vaccine disaster strikes?  What has the government decided about doing such studies? I’m trying to find out. I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the CDC for this information. First, they delayed, saying my request was ‘complex’, but now they’ve put it in the ordinary queue.  What does that really mean?  Does it mean they’ll take 75 years to answer like the FDA tried to do in another COVID vaccine FOIA case recently?  I’m not willing to wait 75 years. I will soon take steps to speed things up and put my request under court supervision.  Stay tuned.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Over-the-Counter Ivermectin? It Could Be Coming to a State Near You—Despite FDA Concerns thumbnail

Over-the-Counter Ivermectin? It Could Be Coming to a State Near You—Despite FDA Concerns

/in , , , , /by

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

The ivermectin controversy has sparked a wider debate about medical freedom.

A new bill recently introduced in New Hampshire would allow residents to get ivermectin from pharmacies without first getting a prescription or approval from a doctor. The legislation, titled House Bill 1022, is still in committee, but the state House of Representatives is slated to vote on it in the coming weeks.

The purpose of the bill is to provide wider access to ivermectin for those who want to take it as a treatment for COVID-19. Thus far, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the drug for treating COVID-19, but many believe it is an effective treatment and are eager to have it on hand should they be infected with the virus.

Though the FDA has not weighed in on this bill in particular, the agency has made it clear that they have serious concerns about the use of ivermectin for this purpose.

“The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock,” they write on their website. “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19,” they continue. “There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. It is not okay.”

You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it. https://t.co/TWb75xYEY4

— U.S. FDA (@US_FDA) August 21, 2021

The caution isn’t only coming from the FDA, however. As Newsweek reports, “a number of medical experts testified in opposition to the bill during a legislative session [in January].”

Part of the opposition is undoubtedly due to concerns about safety and efficacy, but there are also concerns about what the bill specifically allows and requires. To address these, the House committee is considering certain bipartisan amendments, such as “requiring that patients who receive the drug are informed that its use for COVID-19 is ‘off-label’ and setting guidelines for tracking any adverse effects.”

Though ivermectin received very little attention when the pandemic first broke out, its use in treating COVID-19 has become increasingly well known, and, in recent months, polarizing. In particular, the drug garnered significant public attention when comedian and podcaster Joe Rogan disclosed in September that he was using it to treat COVID-19 after getting a prescription from his doctor.

Rogan’s announcement led many CNN commentators to claim he was taking “horse dewormer”, since the drug is often used to treat parasites in horses and other livestock. This was misleading, however, since the drug is also approved for human use to treat certain infections.

The whole spat came to a head when Joe Rogan interviewed Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent, in October. “Does it bother you that the network you work for out and out lied, just outright lied about me taking horse dewormer?” Rogan asked Gupta. “They shouldn’t have said that,” Gupta replied. “Why did they do that?” Rogan pressed. “I don’t know,” Gupta responded.

CNN’s rhetoric aside, the question of whether it’s appropriate to prescribe ivermectin to COVID-19 patients remains divisive. A doctor in Virginia, for instance, recently resigned from his position at a medical school after losing a court battle over whether he could prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19. Meanwhile, a doctor in Minnesota who recently served in the Minnesota Senate and is now running for governor is under investigation for prescribing the drug to COVID-19 patients. And in Canada, a doctor has had his medical license restricted because of his views on COVID-19, and one of the restrictions is that he is not allowed to prescribe ivermectin.

Despite the pushback, many doctors in the US continue to prescribe the drug for COVID-19. One such physician is Dr. Joseph Varon, who is the chief medical officer at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston. “My love for [ivermectin] is based on my personal use and good outcomes my patients have had,” Dr. Varon told the Houston Chronicle back in August. “Once you see it work, it is difficult to deny its usefulness.”

But while many doctors support the treatment, many others are strongly against it. For instance, Dr. A. Clinton White, a professor of infectious disease at University of Texas Medical Branch, has said many of the trials that seem to show the benefits of ivermectin were “deeply flawed and likely reflected biases.”

This statement about the trials is worth noting, because it gets at one of the core problems with the whole debate. The problem is that the safety and efficacy of this treatment is fundamentally an empirical question, one that most of us simply aren’t qualified to speak to. Typically, the solution to this problem is to rely on experts who can interpret the data for us. But when the experts themselves disagree, there’s not much we can do except hope that the results of future trials will be more conclusive.

But while the jury may be out regarding the empirical data, the ethics of making this drug available are a completely different question, and this is a question lay persons can weigh in on.

The argument for allowing people to access ivermectin, or any drug for that matter, rests on the principle of self-ownership. As Murray Rothbard explains in For a New Liberty, “the right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to ‘own’ his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference.”

This may sound simple enough, but it has profound implications. If you really own your body, that means you and you alone have the right to decide what goes in it and what doesn’t. If someone coercively prevents you from taking a drug, they are effectively saying they have a higher claim on your life than you do. And that holds true whether that someone is acting by themselves or on behalf of a government.

“When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us,” said Ron Paul, “we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.”

Another phrase that’s often used for the self-ownership position is bodily autonomy. Notably, the word “autonomy” comes from the Greek words auto, which means “self”, and nomos, which means “law.” So in essence, autonomy is about having a “self-law” or being “self-governing”.

Now, many people give lip service to the idea of bodily autonomy with phrases like “my body, my choice.” But holding that principle consistently means removing all restrictions about what people can do with their body. After all, you can’t be “self-governing” if you’re simultaneously being governed by other people.

Of course, some people will use their freedom to make bad choices and will have to suffer the consequences, but this is nothing new. We let people take all sorts of health and safety risks out of respect for their autonomy, such as with diet, alcohol consumption, smoking habits, and extreme sports.

And while some people may use their freedom to make bad choices, many others will use it to make good choices that the government is currently preventing them from making, such as taking drugs that could save their life.

Now, whether ivermectin is one of those lifesaving drugs is currently up for debate. But what shouldn’t be up for debate is each individual’s right to make their own medical decisions.

COLUMN BY

Patrick Carroll

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

RELATED TWEET:

Students whose families oppose masks arrive at a Loudoun County school board meeting carrying baskets full of affidavits.pic.twitter.com/b9zlATl42x

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) February 9, 2022

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

Abrams Required Schoolkids to Mask Up So She Could Go Maskless thumbnail

Abrams Required Schoolkids to Mask Up So She Could Go Maskless

/in , , , , /by

By Discover The Networks

President-wannabe and voter fraud enthusiast Stacey Abrams, who sparked controversy by appearing maskless among dozens of masked-up children during a recent visit to a Georgia elementary school, did so “on the condition that everyone around her” wore a face covering — including the children, her campaign said.

Over the weekend, a photo surfaced showing the failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate grinning amid dozens of children at Glennwood Elementary School in Decatur. City Schools of Decatur mandate masks for students and employees. Nationwide outrage ensued.

“Her campaign said she wore a mask to the event and only removed it so she could be heard by students watching remotely and for a handful of photos on the condition that everyone around her was wearing face-coverings,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

Georgia gubernatorial candidate, former Sen. David Perdue (R-GA), slammed Abrams and other Democrats in an “Unmask Our Kids” digital ad, and changing his Twitter header to the now-infamous image of the unmasked Abrams surrounding by masked-up elementary school children. The photo includes the caption, “Unmask Our Kids.”

“In so many ways,” tweeted former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, “this picture embodies the elitism, arrogance, cruelty, science denial, and glib authoritarianism of Joe Biden’s Democrat Party.

He left out “blatant hypocrisy,” but otherwise, Miller’s message was spot on.

Stacey Abrams

32 Known Connections

Condemning America’s “Systemic Racism”

In July 2020, Abrams told The Washington Post:

“[W]rit large, our challenge in America is that justice does not get meted out equally. In fact, it doesn’t even humanize many blacks who are killed, particularly by those who are sworn to protect them. And so I think this racial moment we are having begins with this conversation of extrajudicial killings, but it cannot be divorced from the disproportionate number of deaths by black Americans based on COVID-19, the disproportionate effect of infection rates, and the economic collapse that is hurting black and brown communities at higher rates than anyone else, and the lack of attention being paid to the disproportionate number of people of color who also face voter suppression. The systemic racism that we see in our society is wrapped into everything from our environment to criminal justice to the application of justice, and the moment we try to say that these things are separate, we set ourselves up once again for the kind of protest and demonstrations we see now. But the extent to which we acknowledge that these are interwoven, through systemic racism, systemic inequities, and systemic injustice, then we can begin to start to address them.”

To learn more about Stacey Abrams, click here.

RELATED TWEET:

Students whose families oppose masks arrive at a Loudoun County school board meeting carrying baskets full of affidavits.pic.twitter.com/b9zlATl42x

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) February 9, 2022

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All The Institutions Failed thumbnail

All The Institutions Failed

/in , , , , , /by

By Jason Garshfield

The next pandemic might be more serious. But if the “experts” try to sound the alarm, the public will have no faith in them.

As the continued coronavirus lockdowns come to be gradually recognized as the grave error that they were, we must acknowledge the discomfiting fact that every single elite institution in the world got the pandemic response spectacularly wrong.

Governments were wrong. Virtually every nation, to varying degrees, went along with the CCP-inspired radical new lockdown model, as did most subnational governmental bodies.

Academics and experts were wrong. Leading scientists went far beyond their expertise in calling for sweeping policy changes, while the universities themselves scammed their students by switching to virtual learning but demanding full tuition.

The media was wrong. Most mainstream outlets fell in line as enthusiastic propagandists for the lockdown-and-mandate regime, mocking and censoring dissenting voices.

The entertainment industry was wrong. Actors, musicians, athletes, and other prominent cultural influencers used their considerable public sway to promote a “new normal” from whose worst impacts they were shielded.

International organizations were wrong. The World Health Organization misled the public again and again, while the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and others saw the crisis as a springboard from which to implement a set of long-desired social changes.

Billionaires and major corporations were wrong. These institutions, which one would ostensibly expect to be the most libertarian, went above and beyond in acting as enforcers for mask and vaccine mandates. Indeed, some (no names need be said here) had a financial interest in perpetuating lockdowns.

The legal system was wrong. While the Supreme Court may have overturned the Biden vaccine mandate, the same federal court system—including many conservative judges—were frequently happy to allow “public health” to serve as a constitutional workaround. So, for that matter, were many once-respectable civil libertarians.

There were a few exceptions, mainstream figures who were willing to go against the grain and speak out against lockdowns. But they were just that: exceptions. The overwhelming majority of these institutions were clearly and unequivocally wrong.

Never before has anything like this happened; it is a historical first. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is now widely considered to be a mistake, but even that did not receive unanimous institutional support. It was denounced by prominent celebrities, and several major allies, including France and Germany, refused to fight. Imagine if there had been such high-level dissent from the lockdown regime.

The simple truth is that everyone to whom we would look for guidance during a time of crisis completely bungled this one. The economic and social damage done by lockdowns will take decades to repair, and it has come about thanks to a group of leaders who confidently, self-assuredly, and condescendingly led us all in the wrong direction.

The damage to public trust, however, maybe the worst of all.

Contrary to some popular sentiment, it is not a bad thing that we have experts or elite institutions. None of us, no matter how bright or diligent, are able to solve every complex problem for ourselves. Reliance on expertise is a heuristic and on the whole a useful one. The same goes for talented artists, news organizations that keep us aware of important information, and businesses that provide valuable consumer products. None of these are bad in their conception.

Citizenship in a free society requires a certain healthy skepticism of these institutions, but it also requires some base level of trust. Institutional trust was badly battered in the Trump years, but it was still strong enough in March 2020 that when President Trump and Dr. Fauci stood side-by-side and told us that we would have to serve our nation by social distancing for two weeks, most of us went along.

That trust has now been lost. It is highly likely that a large section of the public will never do what elite institutions tell them to again—and will in fact do the exact opposite. They will reflexively see a group of power holders who are at best incompetent and at worst malicious.

The problem with crying wolf, though, is that sometimes there is a real wolf. The next pandemic might be more serious. But if the “experts” try to sound the alarm, the public will have no faith in them—and justifiably so.

The only hope we now have is to so thoroughly and transparently reform these institutions that they might regain some measure of public trust. It is not enough to move on from this purgatorial era of lockdowns, as we are (hopefully) now starting to do. After World War II, we did not merely bask in the victory. We also took steps to hold the direct perpetrators responsible and ensure that the lessons learned in the war would not be forgotten.

The same must be done here. We must have a full, exhaustive public audit that exposes exactly how and where it all went so badly wrong, how the most powerful people in the world could have come to implement a policy so massively misguided as planetwide lockdown, and to hold the globe in thrall to that self-evidently insane policy for two full years. Bad actors must be removed from these institutions whenever possible, and reforms must be put in place to prevent such a catastrophe from happening again.

If we can have a commission to investigate the riot at the Capitol on January 6, we can certainly have one dedicated to plumbing the depths of this great error.

It seems highly unlikely at this point that the major institutions will do anything other than stubbornly double down on their mistakes. But they must change. In the face of such massive failure, the only alternative to institutional reform would be institutional destruction, an outcome for which none of us should hope.

*****

This article appeared in The American Conservative and is reproduced with permission.

MASS MURDER: A Medical System That Has Lost Its Direction and Soul thumbnail

MASS MURDER: A Medical System That Has Lost Its Direction and Soul

/in , , , , , /by

By Kelleigh Nelson

“People were dying, [yet] all of my ideas were getting shouted down. My superiors were showing up [to my clinical meetings] and getting me to stand down, because I was entertaining the idea that we should do this, that and the other thing, and they didn’t want anything to be done.” – Dr. Pierre Kory

“This is a war on cheap repurposed drugs.” –  Dr. Paul Marik before testifying on NH Bill that would make Ivermectin available OTC in NH.

“I never thought I’d see the day where doctors are censored, and patients are kept from care.” –  Dr. Peter McCullough

“An epidemic, either naturally caused or intentionally caused, is the most likely thing to cause…say…10 million excess deaths.” –  Bill Gates – 2017

Were we lied to about the number of deaths from Covid?  Yes!  Were the tests run at cycles too high to purposely show false positives? Yes!  Could someone pass the virus if asymptomatic? No!  Was social distancing valid?  No!  Were masks beneficial? No!  Was the lockdown effective in stopping the viral spread?  No!

Have nearly half of small businesses been destroyed? Yes!  Has the economy tanked?  Yes!  Have the big box stores benefitted? Yes! Has domestic abuse risen?  Yes!  Has drug addiction climbed?  Yes!  Have suicide rates escalated? Yes!  Have mental and physical problems risen?  Yes!  Have children lost IQ from the masking? Yes!  Are children disabled via speech impediments and learning disabilities because of the lockdowns and masking?  Yes!

Have the AMA, CDC, FDA, NIH protocols saved patients?  Hell no!  They have purposely murdered hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, who could have been saved.  The dissident doctors, scientists and healthcare workers know there are repurposed drugs (inexpensive and available) that could have saved up to 86% of those who perished.  Have those same stakeholders lied about Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin?  Yes, even Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine lied.

Have we been sold a lie via fear mongering and media propaganda?  Yes! Has the government enacted mandates that are unconstitutional?  Yes!  Has the Bill of Rights been violated?  Yes!

Are the COVID jabs dangerous to your health and wellbeing? Very!  Are the actuarial tables showing a rise in deaths of young people who had the jab?  Yes!  Are our soldiers being disabled by the jab? Yes! Have we been lied to from day one about the creation of this Wuhan virus and who is responsible?  Yes!

Was the CIA involved in planning this pandemic?  Yes!  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci, states that there were over 20 “pandemic” simulations beginning in 2000, and Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci and the CIA were involved in every one of them. “The CIA wrote the script, high-level CIA officials participated in every one of those pandemic simulations.”

Kennedy states, “So they practiced again and again and again: How to use the pandemic as a pretext for imposing totalitarian controls and for obliterating liberal democracy across the planet.”

This was all part of a decades-old globalist-devised blueprint for the future.

“New World System”

The previous two nightmare years were engineered decades ago and exposed in the 1960s.  Dr. Vernon Coleman’s short 17-minute video explains what the globalist architects were up to back then and where we are today…frighteningly close to completion!  He mentioned a dystopian lecture by Dr. Richard Day.

In March 1969, Dr. Richard Day, Professor of Pediatrics at Mt. Sinai Medical School in New York gave a chilling lecture about the “New World System.” Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  He told of future plans, whether as a forewarning or to unburden himself.  He spoke as though he had colluded with the blueprint designers.  His warnings for the future were uncannily accurate.

Dr. Lawrence Dunegan attended Dr. Day’s lecture. The audience was told not to take notes, but he later recorded his recollections of what was said by Dr. Day. Two of the three tapes made by Dr. Dunegan were transcribed and can be accessed at this website.  It’s all there, and we’re experiencing everything Dr. Day told the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society 53 years ago.  I urge you to fully peruse the website it as it contains vital information not included in this article.

Dr. Coleman exposed the highlights of Dr. Day’s lecture.  Day warned that in the future, the elderly would be eliminated by making it more difficult for them to access medical care.  He stated that social chaos would be promoted, travel would be restricted, hospitals would become jails, private medicine would be eliminated, the incidence of heart attacks would be deliberately increased, the world population would be reduced, information would be controlled, fake science would be used to promote the myth of global warming, there would be cameras everywhere, sports will become unisex, ID cards will be implanted, food supplies would be controlled, the weather would be controlled, and the people would be controlled.

He also warned that books would be banned and removed from libraries if they were considered dangerous.  Professor Day also stated that television sets would be able to watch the people who watch them and that new diseases would be deliberately introduced.

Dr. Coleman mentioned we were warned in the 80s that everyone would be affected by AIDS, and by the 2000s, medical organizations were constantly producing unsubstantiated scare stories.  Today the beat goes on…

Our Soulless Medical System

Dr. Dunegan was shocked when Dr. Day stated, “Some of you will think I’m talking about Communism. Well, what I’m talking about is much bigger than Communism!”

Of the over 40 topics discussed in the transcribed two tapes, I’ve included only a few of Dr. Dunegan’s statements, those that pertain to the medical industry.  My comments are in italics.

  • Limiting access to affordable medical care.

A big item that was elaborated on at some length was the cost of medical care would be made burdensomely high. Medical care would be connected very closely with one’s work but also would be made very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to people beyond a certain time. Unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without care. And the idea was that if everybody says, “Enough! What a burden it is on the young to try to maintain the old people,” then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done humanely and with dignity. Then the example was – there could be a nice farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. Then after the party is over, they take the “demise pill.”

  • Planning the control over medicine.

There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled.  Insurance is the racket they’ve been using to control what you are allowed and not allowed.

This has already been exacerbated by Obama’s euphemistically named, “Affordable Care Act.”  The cost of insurance and thus medical care has risen exponentially, along with the cost of prescription medications.  More at the Link.

  • Elimination of private doctors.

The image of the doctor would change. No longer would he be seen as an individual professional in service to individual patients.  The doctor would be gradually recognized as a highly skilled technician – and his job would change. The job is to include things like executions by lethal injection.

Healthcare providers in other countries ravaged by COVID have decided that age 60 is the cut off age for life or for use of resources that can benefit younger patients.

Last December, New Zealand okayed euthanasia for COVID patients.

Nine states (CA, CO, HI, ME, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WA) and DC legalized physician-assisted suicide via legislation.  One state, (MT) has legal physician-assisted suicide via court ruling.

The image of the doctor being a powerful, independent person would have to be changed. Dr. Richard Day went on to say, “Doctors are making entirely too much money. They should advertise like any other product.” Lawyers would be advertising too.

Lawyers already are advertising, and very few physicians still have single practices.  All of them are working for an employer in a group practice, which can advertise. 

Keep in mind, this was an audience of doctors; being addressed by a doctor. And it was interesting that he would make some rather insulting statements to his audience without fear of antagonizing us. The solo practitioner would become a thing of the past.

They have.

A few die-hards might try to hold out, but most doctors would be employed by an institution of one kind or another. Group practice would be encouraged, corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image of medical care gradually became more and more acceptable, doctors would more and more become employees rather than independent contractors. Along with that, of course, unstated but necessary, is the employee serves his employer, not his patient.

  • New difficult to diagnose and untreatable diseases.

The next heading to talk about is Health and Disease. Day said there would be new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. They would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable – at least for a long time. No elaboration was made on this, but I remember, not long after hearing this presentation, when I had a puzzling diagnosis to make, I would be wondering, “Is this a case of what he was talking about?” Some years later AIDS developed. I think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I now think that AIDS probably was a manufactured disease.

Covid has never been isolated, neither have any of the so-called “variants.”

  • Suppressing cancer cures as a means of population control.

Cancer. He said, “We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it’s ever decided that it should be released. But consider – if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as of something else.”  Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.

And there’s all the money made from those stricken with the disease.

  • Inducing heart attacks as a form of assassination.

Another very interesting thing was heart attacks. Day said, “There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of assassination.” Only a very skilled pathologist who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing. I thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear from this particular man at that particular time. This, and the business of the cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in my memory, because they were so shocking and, at that time, seemed to me out of character.

He then went on to talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the same framework. People would have to eat right and exercise right to live as long as before. Most won’t. In retrospect, I tend to think he meant high salt diets and high fat diets would predispose toward high blood pressure and premature arteriosclerotic heart disease. And that if people who were too dumb or too lazy to exercise as they should, then their circulating fats go up and predispose to disease.

Dr. Day also said something about diet information would be widely available, but most people, particularly stupid people, who had no right to continue living anyway, would ignore the advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted good. There were some other unpleasant things said about food. I just can’t recall what they were. But I do remember having reflections about wanting to plant a garden in the backyard to get around whatever these contaminated foods would be. I regret I don’t remember the details about nutrition and hazardous nutrition.

Researchers are now putting COVID mRNA vaccines in lettuce, spinach and edible plants to vaccinate the unvaxxed.

Anybody who was lazy enough to want convenience foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he didn’t deserve to live very long.

This was all presented as sort of a moral judgement about people and what they should do with their energies. People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right are better people – and the kind you want to live longer.

Look at the rise in heart attacks with the COVID vax, not to mention a shortened life because of myocarditis, pericarditis, and a destroyed immune system.

Professor Day also mentioned the need for more jails, and using hospitals as jails.  Hospitals could serve as jails. Some new hospital construction would be designed so as to make them adaptable to jail-like use.

Haven’t we already seen this very thing happen to many elderly patients and only by the grace of God have families and attorneys gotten them out of these new COVID-death prisons.  Attorneys Report Spike in Calls for Help from Families of Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

All of this was forecast in 1969, and nearly everything Dr. Day lectured about has already happened…and at an increasingly accelerated rate.  Today, medical care for the un-jabbed is being denied, social credits are being introduced, and the mandatory childhood jabs are on their way to kill or sterilize our children.  Babies and toddlers are next.

What has occurred in the last two years is a culmination of these plans. The hospital protocols for COVID are a death sentence and the unvaxxed “pure bloods” are also paying a hefty price.

Vax Mandates

A three year old boy was denied heart surgery in Germany, the UK and Israel because his parents weren’t “vaccinated.”  Finally, he was flown to Greece where the surgery was performed.

A Boston hospital refused a 31-year-old man a heart transplant because he did not want to be inoculated with C-19 jabs.  One look at the myocarditis and pericarditis stats after these vax injections would deter anyone, yet medical personnel, who are supposed to stay informed, either know nothing, or continue to protect themselves rather than their patients.  They follow their employers’ mandates.

Cleveland Clinic has made it mandatory for anyone receiving a transplant to be Covid jabbed.  A kidney transplant became available for Mike Ganim via a friend of the family.  But then devastating news was dropped on them when Cleveland Clinic said the donor had to have the C-19 vax in order to “protect” everyone.  The donor had religious reasons, including freedom, for her refusal of this inoculation.

The U.S. Navy is violating a court order by allegedly blocking treatment for a traumatic brain injury and inflicting other forms of punishment on SEALs who requested religious exemptions to the coronavirus “vaccine,” according to a new legal complaint.

Adverse Effects and Fatalities

The military’s mandated injections resulted in a high rate of disorders, ailments and death, as well as the onset of COVID-19, influenza, pneumonia, and over 100 other conditions.

The findings of the Department of Defense (DOD) whistleblowers, as told to attorney Thomas Renz, are consistent with remarks from OneAmerica CEO J. Scott Davison, who stated during a call hosted by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and the Indiana Hospital Association that “working age people (18 to 64) are dying at a rate that is 40% higher than pre-pandemic rates.”

Healthy young sports figures are dying because of the vax; 108 FIFA footballers and over 400 athletes dead from heart failure in six months.

Journalist and commentator Daniel Horowitz, who spoke with attorney Renz before Senator Ron Johnson’s panel discussion, explained in an article published January 26th that the doctors “queried the numbers for hundreds of codes from 2016 through 2020 to establish a baseline five-year average.”

An alarming increase in cancer, miscarriages and myocarditis was found in addition to many other diseases (as outlined in Senator Ron Johnson’s letter to DOD Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III).

  • Hypertension — 2,181% increase
  • Diseases of the nervous system — 1,048% increase
  • Malignant neoplasms of esophagus — 894% increase
  • Multiple sclerosis — 680% increase
  • Malignant neoplasms of digestive organs — 624% increase
  • Guillain-Barre syndrome — 551% increase
  • Breast cancer — 487% increase
  • Demyelinating — 487% increase
  • Malignant neoplasms of thyroid and other endocrine glands — 474% increase
  • Female infertility — 472% increase
  • Pulmonary embolism— 468% increase
  • Migraines — 452% increase
  • Ovarian dysfunction — 437% increase
  • Testicular cancer — 369% increase
  • Tachycardia — 302% increase

Medical Propaganda

There are hundreds of thousands of incidences of hospital protocols for COVID patients and those who received the jabs resulting in death.  COVID fatalities are kept high despite available repurposed drugs and OTC supplements. Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine and supplements are cheap, can be used at home, will keep you out of hospital and are on the WHO’s Model List of Essential Medicines.  These effective medications have purposely been maligned, not only by the media, the snakeholders and the majority of medical caregivers, but by The Lancet medical journal and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Robert Kennedy Jr. states, “Somebody at the very pinnacle of the medical cartel had twisted arms, kicked groins, and stoved in kneecaps to force these periodicals to abandon their policies, shred their ethics, and spend down their centuries of hard-won credibility in a desperate bid to torpedo HCQ.  To date, neither the authors of the false anti-HCQ claims, nor the journals, have explained who induced them to coauthor and publish the most momentous fraud in the history of scientific publishing.”

The globalist goals were always pointed at a “vaccine,” where billions would funnel into the pockets of Gates, Fauci, and their friends in Big Pharma.  Thus, the maligning of repurposed wonder drugs, and the murder of millions was accomplished to fill the coffers of the depopulation enemies of freedom and complete the Great Reset.

Conclusion

There can be only one conclusion.  Mass Murder was planned and we are the prey.

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

Did Dismissals Of Safe Outpatient Drugs Cause Needless Covid Deaths? thumbnail

Did Dismissals Of Safe Outpatient Drugs Cause Needless Covid Deaths?

/in , , , /by

By Clayton Fox

It wasn’t until April 2021 that the National Institutes of Health announced it would fund a large clinical trial to study repurposed drugs.

For the first nine months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were no officially approved outpatient treatments for combating the disease. The medical establishment expressed extreme caution regarding such treatments, and these warnings were amplified by major media hostile to President Trump, as when he touted the anti-malaria medicine hydroxychloroquine.

Although an estimated 12% to 38% of prescriptions are written for U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs used “off-label” (including Botox and Viagra), Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, declared early on that providers should dispense only medicines proven to be safe and effective for COVID patients through “randomized, placebo-controlled trials.” These can take months or years to conduct, often at great cost.

Some governments and independent practitioners considered that standard a recipe for inaction that meant likely death for untold numbers of victims. These medical dissenters instead treated COVID-19 as physicians have long responded to newly emerging infectious diseases: by administering designer cocktails of cheap, safe, and readily available agents – in this case including hydroxychloroquine, antibiotics, aspirin, and vitamins – that had proved effective in treating similar illnesses or showed promise due to mechanisms of action.

RealClearInvestigations spoke or corresponded with 12 such advocates for early outpatient treatment globally — from California, Texas, and Honduras to France, Israel, and India. These physicians used their clinical experience to make educated guesses about what combinations of drugs might work. Few used the same cocktail, but all insisted the treatments proved most effective when administered as early as possible.

Researchers knew fairly early in the pandemic that COVID infections progressed through several stages. For example, it was known in March 2020 that the illness progressed from a viral phase to massive inflammation across the body. Anti-inflammatory drugs – such as colchicine, the choice of Dr. Darrell DeMello in Mumbai – could have been given at clinicians’ discretion.

By June 2020, it was known that COVID could cause major blood clotting. The blood thinner Plavix, another choice of Dr. DeMello, is often used to prevent and treat clotting. As Dr. Brian Tyson, a primary care physician in Imperial County, Calif., who champions outpatient treatment, explained, if patients are “showing inflammatory changes, let’s use an anti-inflammatory. We see people getting clots, dying of coronary artery clogs, let’s use a blood thinner.”

It wasn’t until April 2021 that the National Institutes of Health announced it would fund a large clinical trial to study repurposed drugs, including some of those favored by several of the doctors RCI interviewed. Why wasn’t there greater urgency to conduct studies like this one?

President Trump’s advocacy of HCQ put him at odds with the Washington media and medical establishment. This may in part have colored public perceptions of the use of off-label drugs in the U.S. Articles in the highly influential medical journal The Lancet played a significant role – with one that pooh-poohed HCQ being retracted after proving fraudulent. Although HCQ is used around the world every day to treat various illnesses in adults and children, including lupus and malaria, health officials cast it as potentially dangerous. “As a result,” Dr. Scott Atlas, the often-dissenting adviser to the Trump White House Coronavirus Task Force, writes in “A Plague Upon Our House,” his new tell-all, “doctors were blocked from prescribing the drug, even though prescribing any other approved drug for an off-label use was routine.”

U.S. tech giants censored much discussion of outpatient treatment, branding it “misinformation.” YouTube in particular has silenced heterodox thinking, suspending the YouTube channel of Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a proponent of early treatment who convened two hearings on the matter in late 2020, and removing several of Senate colleague Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) YouTube postings.

Most of the regimens advocated by early outpatient treatment proponents also included ivermectin (IVM), a common drug that became controversial in the U.S. after the podcaster Joe Rogan said his doctor prescribed it off-label to him once he contracted COVID. Media voices opposed to unapproved treatments described the drug – widely given to people and livestock – as a “horse dewormer.” The FDA advised against using IVM against COVID – yet IVM is one of the repurposed drugs being tested in the NIH-sponsored trial that began in June.

Dr. Miguel Sierra-Hoffman, an associate professor of infectious disease at Baylor Scott & White Hospital and of pulmonary medicine at Texas A&M University, who has overseen the care of thousands of COVID patients at multiple hospitals, remains convinced that the embrace of outpatient treatments early on would have been a difference maker – and an economical one. “If we had given people aspirin, ivermectin, colchicine, and if they get complicated, a little dexamethasone, we could have saved the world with one dollar.”

For his part, Sen. Johnson blames public health authorities for orchestrating a broader campaign against early treatment with repurposed drugs. “Rather than seriously consider evidence showing the potential of early treatments including ivermectin, your agencies prefer to mischaracterize, conflate and misconstrue anything that goes against the mainstream narrative and the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry,” he wrote in an October 2021 letter to Biden administration health officials.

*****

This article was published in The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Today is the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation thumbnail

Today is the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation

/in , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

We are constantly told the opposite by propagandists in the West, but the reality is that female genital mutilation (FGM) is justified in Islamic law. It is practiced by some non-Muslims, but only in majority-Muslim areas where the influence of Islamic culture, mores and law is all-pervasive.

Today is International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. As an Iranian women’s rights activist, I condemn FGM & I fully support my sisters who fight with it around the world.

This practice has no medical benefits and is a form of violence against women. #EndFGM pic.twitter.com/pREXsGEggH

— Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) February 6, 2022

“It is a religious thing. Do you want to change religion?” said one Egyptian in response to a campaign to eradicate female genital mutilation. “You only listen to what the West is saying.”

The establishment media ignores the fact that FGM is mandated in Islamic law: “Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) (by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the bazr ‘clitoris’ [this is called khufaadh ‘female circumcision’]).” — Umdat al-Salik e4.3, translated by Mark Durie, The Third Choice, p. 64

Why is it obligatory? Because Muhammad is held to have said so: “Abu al- Malih ibn Usama’s father relates that the Prophet said: ‘Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women.’” — Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75

“Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: ‘Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.’” — Abu Dawud 41:5251

That hadith is classified as weak, but this one is classified as sahih (reliable): “Aishah narrated: ‘When the circumcised meets the circumcised, then indeed Ghusl is required. Myself and Allah’s Messenger did that, so we performed Ghusl.’” — Jami` at-Tirmidhi 108

If Muhammad had the genitals of his favorite wife, Aisha, mutilated, that is a strong endorsement of the practice from the man who is an “excellent example” (Qur’an 33:21) for Muslims.

Why does it matter whether or not FGM is Islamic? Because the practice will never be eradicated if its root causes are not confronted. As long as those Muslims continue to believe that Allah and Muhammad want it done, for some that will override all other considerations, in the United States and everywhere else.

COLUMN BY

ROBERT SPENCER

RELATED ARTICLE: Muslim cleric defends capital punishment for those who leave Islam

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

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.