The Geneva Conventions War With Forced Vaccines thumbnail

The Geneva Conventions War With Forced Vaccines

/in , , , , , , , /by

By Rod Thomson

Combining various international treaties since its inception in 1864, the Geneva Conventions were originally intended for, and still stand as, protections for soldiers and civilians in wartime. So, with the vaccines for COVID being discussed as a possible crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Code, which falls under the Geneva Conventions, the question arises: Are we at war? 

During what became known as “The Doctors’ Trial” after WWII, concerns arose about medical experimentation on humans.

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from those conducted before the war by German and American scientists. They showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation.” (Emphasis mine). Thus, the Nuremberg Code was created comprising ten points outlining acceptable medical research and standards.

Part I of this series is entitled, “How the Nuremberg Code Applies to the Vaccine.” It explains the doctrine of voluntary and informed consent of the participant in medical applications under the Code. Its “adoption into the 1949 Geneva Conventions later gave [it] international standing. Breaking from the Convention’s intent presumably constitutes a war crime.”

More importantly, the term “medical experimentation” as stated in the Nuremberg Code is defined in Part 1.

My argument in Part I of this series asks why, since the Code falls under the Geneva Conventions, ought not the Conventions’ umbrella classification applying to “wartime” victims also extend to the Code’s intention by default? And, if true, where do civilians fall? Of course that’s a legal question and I don’t pretend to be an attorney. But it seems to me that the presumption could easily be made. Yet no one is making it.

That said, why have tens of thousands of doctors recently signed on to what’s being called the new “Nuremberg Trials 2021?” Legal proceedings have been filed against the CDC, the WHO and the Davos Group for crimes against humanity by over a thousand attorneys worldwide.

Led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, the “Nuremberg Trials 2021” team argues that the vaccines are in violation of Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. It claims that Article 32 states that “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. And, “according to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.”

Indeed, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirms that Article 32 specifies that “protected persons must not in any circumstances be used as ‘guinea-pigs’ for medical experiments. ‘Biological experiments’ are also prohibited by the other three Conventions of 1949.”

I believe, as laid out in Part 1, that there are convincing arguments as to why the COVID-19 vaccines fall into the “experimental” definition of the Nuremberg Code in multiple ways.

Regardless, on a deeper dive into Article 32, its title is telling. The formal document, shown in an uploaded PDF version from the United Nations, is called the “GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949.” Again the reference to wartime is notable.

Cornell Law School says that, “[t]he Geneva Conventions … provide minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who become victims of armed conflicts.” It doesn’t say ‘victims of unarmed conflicts.’

Multiple educational resources concur with the aforementioned references to “wartime” terms, including World Atlas. It states that “[t]he Geneva Conventions refer to international agreements that are made up of four treaties and three protocols that define the treatment of people during a war.” (Emphasis added.)

How can it be, then, that the Nuremberg Code, falling under the Geneva Conventions, could be used in any argument against the COVID vaccine during a time of peace? Recent history offers some clues.

In an intriguing article from Wired published on Nov. 7, 2002, it seems as a country we’ve travelled this road before. The article’s title reads, “Forced Vaccines Haunt Gulf Vets — Rule No. 1 in the Nuremberg Code for conducting medical experiments: Get the subjects’ consent.” The author explains how our soldiers were given non-FDA-approved drugs prior to deploying to Desert Storm. Many returned with assorted unexplained illnesses.

“‘We had a third day of shots before we went over (to the Gulf),’ said the ex-Ranger, who requested anonymity because his Army Reserve commitment [had] yet to expire. ‘Guys in other units only had two, but most Rangers had three. They wouldn’t tell us what they were for.’”

According to the article, the question of forced vaccines had been addressed years before. “In a February 1953 directive, Defense Secretary Charles Wilson established what [was] still the ‘law of the land’ governing such experimentation. Consistent with the Nuremberg Code, the directive’s cornerstone is voluntary consent,’ according to Wilson.

“‘The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,’ Wilson wrote, ordering that such consent be given in writing before at least one witness. Wilson also banned use of ‘force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion’ in obtaining consent. When did that change?

“Did the Pentagon obey this directive during the Gulf War? According to Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, it did not. The administration of experimental drugs without consent was, Orient said, ‘the first instance in which an official government agency officially sanctioned the direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.’” And it was intentional!

“In a 1994 report called Human Experimentation and Other Intentional Exposures Conducted by the Department of Defense, [the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs] claimed that “‘[t]he results of our investigation showed a reckless disregard that shocked me,’ said Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. ‘The Pentagon … threw caution to the winds, ignoring all warnings of potential harm, and gave these (investigational) drugs to hundreds of thousands of soldiers with virtually no warnings and no safeguards.’”

“‘There is no provision in the Nuremberg Code,’ the Rockefeller Committee report concluded, ‘that allows a country to waive informed consent for military personnel or veterans who serve as human subjects in experiments during wartime or in experiments that are conducted because of threat of war.’”

If it protects our soldiers then in time of war, one would think it would also protect our civilian populations who are NOT in a state of war, right?

Responding to the accusations at the time, a Pentagon spokesperson stated: “‘[i]n all peacetime applications, we believe strongly in informed consent and its ethical foundations…. But military combat is different.’

In other words, according to the Pentagon in 1994, the Nuremberg Code only applied to soldiers in peacetime. It seems the narrative changes by what the “powers that be” deem convenient, at any given time.

In my book and articles, I habitually reference radical leftist Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, because it contains the tactics by which the left endeavors to transform America to socialism and then communism. As important as his thirteen tactics, however, are his lesser-known eleven rules of ethics of means and ends. They provide a window into why the left, and Democrats by extension, can justify their out-of-control unethical behavior.

“Alinsky’s third rule of ethics of means and ends, ‘in war the end justifies almost any means’, applies to the left’s unapologetic, unethical shaming of all things conservative.” (Rules for Deplorables, pg. 215)

Arguing for the new “Nuremberg Code 2021” wouldn’t require convincing others that we’re at war with China per se (as if they even needed such justification). In order for the experimental vaccines to be criminalized, just say: We’re at war with the left!

If, on the other hand, the Pentagon’s position in 1994 is considered, then the Code’s “informed consent and its ethical foundations” are binding “in all peacetime applications” stays. They can’t have it both ways.

Necessarily, Alinsky’s fourth tactic, “make the enemy live up to its own book of rules,” must be applied. If the original Nuremberg Code of 1949 falls under the “wartime” parameters of the Geneva Conventions, and the vaccine is indeed “experimental” as my Part I of this series argues, then the signers of the “new Code” may well have a case.

It’s a fact that the military knowingly condoned experimental medical treatment well after the 1949 Nuremberg Code was established under the Geneva Conventions. And, that they felt justified in doing so. Why on earth should Americans believe the government would follow ethical standards now?

The simple answer is, we shouldn’t. Whether Americans accept it or not, we are in a state of war for the very survival of our country. The enemy should neither be trusted nor obeyed.

We ought to be fighting for transparency, the right of informed consent, and most importantly, the right to freedom of choice. If we do not stand strong for these minimal protections now, we are not mere guinea pigs, we are the experiment itself.

COLUMN BY

CATHI CHAMBERLAIN

Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at Cathi@RulesforDeplorablesBook.com.

RELATED TWEET:

This is how Romania does it….70% of all citizens refusing the Jab and dictatorships…. pic.twitter.com/oJjujjFhnN

— 🔴⚪️💙 DEAN 🔴⚪️💙 (@777DEAN777) December 4, 2021

EDITORS NOTE: This The Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like us on Instagram

Majority Of Voters Worry About Vaccine Side Effects, Oppose Federal Mandates thumbnail

Majority Of Voters Worry About Vaccine Side Effects, Oppose Federal Mandates

/in , , , , /by

By Pamela Geller

Why are top athletes dropping face-first onto playing fields worldwide? Why is the New England Journal of Medicine dropping research like this the day before Thanksgiving?

Thank the former top NYT science writer (now banned on Twitter) for this –

Reader Alert: Majority Of Voters Worry About Vaccine Side Effects, Oppose Federal Mandates

Developing … https://t.co/2bIE9tpqXQ

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) December 3, 2021

The jab does not prevent contraction or stop the spread,

Many thousands have died of COVID fully jabbed,

The jab causes variants

Tens of thousands have serious medical problems because of the jab,

and Many have died specifically of the jab.https://t.co/eTY7ohDvau

— Lyudmila Skarkov (@LSkarkov) December 2, 2021

RELATED VIDEO: Inside Australia’s Covid internment camp.

RELATED TWEET:

Wait, she’s being held even after testing negative? pic.twitter.com/477gH6q60T

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 3, 2021

RELATED ARTICLES: 

EXCLUSIVE: People of New York Uniting Against MANDATES. Taking Action!

U.S. Covid-19 Deaths in 2021 Far Surpasses 2020’s – When There was No Vaccine

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.

Respecting the Corona Virus thumbnail

Respecting the Corona Virus

/in , , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

It is one thing to describe something. It often is different actually to experience it. In this case we are talking about the Corona virus.

I am a 73-year-old, unvaccinated male in generally good health who came down with the Chinese virus almost exactly two weeks ago. It came along just in time to screw up Thanksgiving and the beginning of Hannukah.

Everyone is different and so what I will describe is simply my experience.  Of course, that could differ from another person’s experience. No doubt many had it easier, and a number had it worse. Overall, I feel fortunate it was not worse than it turned out to be. I feel bad for those who have had a more severe case or lost someone they loved.

My wife had it first so we went down pretty much two days apart. She had a milder case and I had it a bit more severe. I had all the standard ailments: cough, fever and chills, loss of taste, brain fog, fatigue, and weakness. The body wanted to sleep, even after the most minor exertion. Weakness followed in the wake of other symptoms retreating.

The beginning was mild, days three to four were rough, and by the end of the first week, I started feeling better, and have continued to gain strength. As I write, we are exactly two weeks from initial symptoms, and I was able to take a short hike and get outside in the glorious sunshine.

I used the word respect in the title. My wife and I expected to get infected and were surprised it took so long. We never curtailed our activities, flew on airplanes, hugged friends and relatives, lived as best we could in this confusing period. Thus, we were exposed. We knew if we got it, it could be severe but chose to live our lives without undue fear. We knew from others and from reading, most will recover but a minority of those with preconditions and advanced age are at greater risk. We did not take the bug for granted.

We know so many vaccinated people who have gotten it, we decided we would take our chances getting natural immunity, which seems far superior to the short-term benefits of the jab. That was our decision to make and we faced the consequences.

We pre-positioned ivermectin which we took for five days, had thermometers, oximeters to watch oxygen levels, took our own blood pressure, and tried to get extra rest.

Over the recent weekend, news of the Omicron variant hit the news. Stock markets tanked and Governor Kathy Hochul of New York declared a state of emergency. She said she was concerned about a cold-weather variant, even though it came from South Africa, where it is summer. No cases have been reported in New York, but she has gone into “emergency mode.” The doctor who discovered the new variant has described it as “mild.”

Still, though, Governor Hochul thought it was wise to panic.

Meanwhile, the Courts are striking down Federal vaccine mandates, and the White House just caved on mandatory vaccines for Federal employees.

As we suggested earlier, a healthy respect for the bug certainly is due, and intelligent people should take preparations because it is clear the much-touted vaccine does not stop one from getting it.  The virus will do its thing, therefore respect its power. As a society, we are not going to stop it. It was foolish to think we could. Better to be prepared and learn to live with it.

Having gone through this now on a personal level, turning our society inside out seems both unnecessary and damaging.

The arrogance of our officials is on display. Not only do they think by seizing power and changing the Constitutional order they can change these natural processes, they continue to behave this way in the face of obvious failure. Stifle your hubris. You are not going to stop the virus and you are not going to change the climate of the earth either.

During the worst of the illness, I thought to myself, despite all the inflation of prices, the disruption of life government policy has caused, I still got it and must suffer through it. While many of us will get it, we all, in the end, suffer alone. And so, must my fellow citizens. Government cannot save us.

The chief job of any public officials is to protect the liberty of its citizens.

Having just come through this experience, I have to say the fear mongers have done a great disservice to the world. The virus is nasty to be sure, but not so much nastier than other illnesses I have had. Such concentration on ineffective vaccinations while largely ignoring, dare we say even prohibiting, the development of treatments, looks particularly stupid.  This is particularly so as it becomes clear the vaccines don’t work as advertised and that variants and boosters will be in a constant arms race.

My wife and I had to jump through a number of hoops to get the ivermectin we wanted. The government did not only not help, it actually actively got in the way of us helping ourselves. Big media and much of the medical profession were equally useless.

Respecting and fearing are two quite different things. Taking steps to inform people objectively, giving them broad choice for their individual circumstances, respecting their autonomy to make decisions, respecting their property, prosperity, and liberty; all seem to be much better than the one size fits all dictatorial panic from “experts” like Dr. Fauci and Governor Hochul.

When you look at the actual results of policy, Sweden and Florida, look so much better than Austria and New York, it can’t be ignored. And if the health outcomes are not demonstrably better in Austria and New York, how can these constant panic attacks by the government be justified?

It is time for government and health professionals to grow up and show some maturity. Most of us will survive this thing, but we may not survive the destruction to society these Covid policies are inflicting.

We have reached a point where the governmental reaction to Covid poses a greater threat to both health and liberty than the virus itself. Respect the power of the virus but governmental panic neither stops the virus nor helps the people.

As government becomes so much more entangled in our lives, it is worth asking, if I am going to get it and suffer with it, is the government over reach in my interests or theirs? And why in the heck are our tax dollars being used to develop this plague, that was then set upon the land?

The virus needs to be respected but irrational fear is hardly a helpful public policy.

While the government did little to get me through this virus, I have renewed respect for the wonderful body God gave me. I took some meds, drank water, and slept. My immune system, which runs pretty much on its own, did the rest. That is true for most Americans and that is why about 99% of us will survive.

That is something truly to be thankful for.

Covid-19 exposes the link between Safetyism and Wokeism thumbnail

Covid-19 exposes the link between Safetyism and Wokeism

/in , , , , /by

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

‘Wokeism’ and ‘Safetyism’ are closely linked.

In their now justly famous 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff proposed “Safetyism” as the name for a novel “moral culture” that had originated on college and university campuses and was rapidly colonizing the larger American culture. Haidt and Lukianoff define Safetyism as “a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.”

This was followed by other cultural treatments, such as Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning’s The Rise of Victimhood Culture, some of which more emphatically connected this novel Safetyist culture to the new form of political leftism that has been increasingly ascendant since at least 2013. It’s often been referred to as “social justice” leftism but is increasingly being labelled “Wokeism,” “woke leftism,” or some variant thereof.

The core of this ideology consists in a combination of philosophical postmodernism and political leftism; like classical Marxism, it dictates that all social phenomena are to be viewed through a lens of oppression and domination, but it extends this Marxist thesis beyond economic class to encompass all social identities whatsoever. The goal of this ideology is to categorize all such identities as either “oppressor” or “oppressed” and to politically mobilize the latter against the former.

When the Covid-19 pandemic hit, my first thought was that a Safetyist culture, as ours had increasingly become, was the worst possible type of culture for handling such a threat to public health. My concern wasn’t only that such a culture would prioritize safety from the virus over all other concerns, such as the negative impacts of economic lockdowns.

I also worried that Covid-19 protective measures would provide cover for the spread of Wokeism.

The alliance of Safetyism and Wokeism

Why would I think this? Because Safetyism and Wokeism are fellow travellers, joined at the hip in many more contexts than not. They find their greatest purchase in the same demographics, most prominently what Charles Murray identified in Coming Apart as the “new upper class,” the elite-educated members of which “run the nation’s economic, political, and cultural institutions.” This class includes politicians and the wealthiest percentile of managers and professionals, as well as “journalists, academics, and public intellectuals in general.”

Safetyism and Wokeism also originate from the members of this “new upper class” and the institutions they control, not least academia and the postmodernist leftists dominating it. And the two ideologies also share a host of characteristic features. Because bureaucratic elites’ heavy-handed response to Covid-19 is rooted in Safetyism, submission to Covid-19 Safetyism also strengthens Wokeism, even if only indirectly.

A prime feature of both Safetyism and Wokeism is the semantic inflation of safety-related terms and concepts—including, most prominently, “safety” itself. As Haidt and Lukianoff note, “In the twentieth century, the word ‘safety’ generally meant physical safety. . . . But gradually, in the twenty-first century, on some college campuses, the meaning of ‘safety’ underwent a process of ‘concept creep’ and expanded to include ‘emotional safety.’”

In the case of Covid-19 Safetyism, the lines between physical safety and psychological comfort are blurred almost as frequently as in the case of Wokeism. The most glaring example of this is the infamous “wearing cloth facemask while alone outside” phenomenon, something I observe with astonishing frequency.

Other parallels are hard to miss. One of the most obvious is the institution of a novel orthodoxy, the censorship of any heterodox opinions, and the ostracism of heretics who dissent from the orthodoxy.

In the case of Covid-19 Safetyism, we see safety measures being carried out under the aegis of “The Science,” as though scientific findings always reach uniform conclusions that conveniently align on one side of the political divide. Invocations of “The Science” often function dogmatically rather than rationally in this context, and any dissent is vigorously suppressed. For example, now-credible theories about the virus accidentally leaking from a Wuhan research lab were initially met with an exasperated dismissal that was nearly uniform in the mainstream media. Often in the name of safety, progressives invoke science as a supposedly indisputable basis for their positions.

Another parallel between Wokeism and Safetyism is captured by Douglas Murray’s “runaway train” metaphor in his 2019 book, The Madness of Crowds: namely, the more identity-based oppression is actually eliminated, the more inflated claims of oppression become relative to reality, which propels the proposal of more extreme policies (the closer the train gets to its destination, the more it speeds up). The most familiar examples of such “progressophobia” from Wokeism concern race, as when Ibram Kendi characterized the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by saying “racism did not end—it progressed,” or as when Charles Blow wrote that “American racism has evolved and become less blunt, but it has not become less effective” since the era of slavery and the Civil War.

Such claims echo ones made earlier by academics, such as Critical Race Theory progenitor Derrick Bell, who in 1987 wrote that “progress in American race relations is largely a mirage,” and Microaggression Theory progenitor Derald Wing Sue, who in 2010 wrote that racial microaggressions “may have significantly more influence on anger, frustration, and self-esteem than traditional overt forms of racism.”

If conditions have not in fact improved for a historically oppressed group, then the unsafety of that group would indeed warrant radical, progressive policies to rectify this. Conversely, if we admit that progress has been made on a given problem, we would have to admit that the threat has subsided, which would diminish the need for affirmative policies that purportedly combat it. In other words, the political activation potential for supposedly oppressed groups would decrease. If people recognize significant improvements in a given form of oppression, the basis for a political ideology almost entirely founded on the goal of solving that problem would be severely weakened. Moreover, it would threaten the perceived legitimacy of those empowered to enforce those policies.

Safetyism and medical theatre

The ballooning of what is considered “safety” has also led to resistance to rational argument about the relevant evidence.

Consider many universities’ mask policies. Masks are often required for those indoors at all times except when alone in a room, any type of mask satisfies this requirement, and the vast majority of people wear cloth or surgical masks that are only really effective in preventing spread by respiratory droplets. But transmission by respiratory droplet occurs primarily through coughing and sneezing, which are symptoms of Covid-19, and all persons exhibiting such symptoms are typically barred from public university spaces by school policy. So what rational purpose does requiring non-N95 masks serve?

At this point, some people might propose that such policies constitute “medical theatre.” This point is worth considering for a moment. What is the purpose of theatre? Generally speaking, theatre aims to elicit audience emotions rather than conduct rational argument. And it is impossible to miss how frequently Safetyist rhetoric, specifically vis-à-vis Covid-19 policies, is framed in terms of feelings of safety that are decidedly irrational.

At Rice University, an assistant teaching professor and health sciences advisor recently went on record as saying: “I am fully vaccinated, but I have two young children who are ineligible to be vaccinated. . . . With masks, I personally feel more comfortable being in the classroom and have less worries about exposing my children to the virus through me.” Never mind that the sort of transmission these masks prevent is already prevented by other policies, and never mind that children face miniscule risk from Covid-19. The point, at least from the perspective of medical theatre, isn’t to make people safer, but to make them feel safer.

Still, why not just wear a mask without objection if it does in fact make others feel safer—isn’t this an altruistic end worth some minor inconvenience on your part? I hear this argument all the time, often formulated as: “Just don’t be a jerk.”

If it sounds familiar, that’s because it was first and frequently deployed in defence of mandating the use of people’s “preferred pronouns.” Rather than signifying objective reality, Woke and Safetyist language alike more often cater to subjective desires and are used to manipulate emotions. Both Safetyism and Wokeism elevate people’s subjective and emotional experiences (so long as they point in a progressive direction) over biological reality and scientific fact.

Resisting Wokeism and Safetyism’s expanding frontiers

The point is that Safetyism and Wokeism leverage our altruistic instincts to effect submission to irrational policies that were never designed to be rationally justifiable in the first place. Instead, it seems increasingly clear, both ideologies function sociologically like religion. More and more people seem to be noticing this, both in relation to Covid-19 Safetyism and in relation to Wokeism. But what goes less remarked upon is the connection between these two novel forms of secular religion, and specifically how they mutually reinforce one another.

For consider: if you are willing to submit to irrational Covid policies for the sake of helping others feel safer—however irrational you may think those feelings are—then why wouldn’t you do the same in the case of the various norms and policies of Wokeism? The future frontiers of Wokeism are often unpredictable, and its awakenings might demand of dissenters impossible violations of conscience—as they already have for many.

As Safetyism’s star continues to rise, so will Wokeism’s, and for the same sorts of reasons. And if Wokeism is the great threat to free speech, impartial justice, and liberal education that it is so often—and rightly—made out to be, then its connection to Safetyism should be sufficient reason to resist unreasonable Covid-19 policies. It is time for both conservatives and traditional liberals to wake up to this reality, which requires more consistently translating our convictions into action.

This article has been republished from The Public Discourse with permission.

Did They Murder Him? thumbnail

Did They Murder Him?

/in , , , , /by

By Save America Foundation

“Self-control is strength. Right thought is mastery. Calmness is power.” – James Allen

Please watch the below video of Dr. Andreas Noack, a chemist and graphene expert unlike any under in the EU. He got attacked on a livestream months ago by special police for laughable reasons.

Now, just hours after publishing this work, the forces that be decided that he hit the mark so hard with uncovering their plans, that they decided to take him out.

Was this a hit by the elite to silence this good doctor for exposing their ugly truths? You decide.

Forbidden Knowledge in a column titled “German chemist Dr. Andreas Noack was arrested by and armed police unit during YouTube live stream” reported:

On November 18, 2020, well-known German chemist and a top graphene expert in the EU, Dr Andreas Noack was arrested by an armed police unit in the middle of his YouTube livestream.

Now, just hours after publishing his latest video a few days ago, he died suddenly and mysteriously.

Best News Here in an article titled “Murder? Just Hours After Publishing the Secret of the Vax the Doctor Is Dead (Must Video)” reported:

This video is of This is Dr. Noack, a chemist and graphene expert unlike any under in the EU. He got attacked on a livestream months ago by special police for laughable reasons.

Now, just hours after publishing this work, the forces that be decided that he hit the mark so hard with uncovering their plans, that they decided to take him out.

Was this a hit by the elite to silence this good doctor for exposing their ugly truths? You decide!

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

JOE: “In order to beat this pandemic, we need to go to where it came from in the rest of the world. We also need to vaccinate the rest of the world!” https://t.co/zebg94X1mU

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) December 3, 2021

Dying COVID-19 Patient Recovers After Court Orders Hospital to Administer Ivermectin thumbnail

Dying COVID-19 Patient Recovers After Court Orders Hospital to Administer Ivermectin

/in , , , /by

By Pamela Geller

While mandating ineffective vaccine, the Biden administration and its media ministry of propaganda has directed no efforts into treatment of the Chinese virus.

On the contrary, they have worked to keep effective treatments away from the American people. The fraudulent Democrat regime is the enemy of the people.

By: Matthew Vadum,  Epoch Times, December 1, 2021:

An elderly COVID-19 patient has recovered after a court order allowed him to be treated with ivermectin, despite objections from the hospital in which he was staying, according to the family’s attorney.

After an Illinois hospital insisted on administering expensive remdesivir to the patient and the treatment failed, his life was saved after a court ordered that an outside medical doctor be allowed to use the inexpensive ivermectin to treat him, over the hospital’s strenuous objections.

Ivermectin tablets have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat humans with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. Some topical forms of ivermectin have been approved to treat external parasites such as head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea. The drug is also approved for use on animals.

Remdesivir has been given emergency use authorization by the FDA for treating certain categories of human patients that have been hospitalized with COVID-19. But the use of ivermectin to treat humans suffering from COVID-19 has become controversial because the FDA hasn’t approved its so-called off-label use to treat the disease, which is caused by the CCP virus also known as SARS-CoV-2.

Critics have long accused the FDA of dragging its heels and being dangerously over-cautious and indifferent to human suffering in its approach to regulating pharmaceuticals, a criticism that led to then-President Donald Trump signing the Right to Try Act in May 2018. The law, according to the FDA, “is another way for patients who have been diagnosed with life-threatening diseases or conditions who have tried all approved treatment options and who are unable to participate in a clinical trial to access certain unapproved treatments.”

Medical doctors are free to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID-19, even though the FDA claims that its off-label use could be harmful in some circumstances. Clinical human trials of the drug for use against COVID-19 are currently in progress, according to the agency.

The drug “most definitely” saved the elderly patient’s life “because his condition changed right immediately after he took ivermectin,” attorney for the family, Kirstin M. Erickson of Chicago-based Mauck and Baker, told The Epoch Times.

Sun Ng, 71, who was visiting the United States from Hong Kong to celebrate his granddaughter’s first birthday, became ill with COVID-19 and within days was close to death. He was hospitalized on Oct. 14 at Edward Hospital, in Naperville, Illinois, a part of the Edward-Elmhurst Health system. His condition worsened dramatically and he was intubated and placed on a ventilator a few days later.

Ng’s only child, Man Kwan Ng, who holds a doctoral degree in mechanical engineering, did her own research and decided that her father should take ivermectin, which some medical doctors believe is effective against COVID-19, despite the FDA’s guidance to the contrary.

But against the daughter’s wishes, the hospital refused to administer ivermectin and denied access to a physician willing to administer it.

The daughter went to court on her father’s behalf and on Nov. 1, Judge Paul M. Fullerton of the Circuit Court of DuPage County granted a temporary restraining order requiring the hospital to allow ivermectin to be given to the patient. The hospital refused to comply with the court order.

At a subsequent court hearing on Nov. 5, Fullerton said one physician who testified described Sun Ng as “basically on his death bed,” with a mere 10 to 15 percent chance of survival. Ivermectin can have minor side effects such as dizziness, itchy skin, and diarrhea at the dosage suggested for Ng, but the “risks of these side effects are so minimal that Mr. Ng’s current situation outweighs that risk by one-hundredfold,” Fullerton said.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction that day directing the hospital to “immediately allow … temporary emergency privileges” to Ng’s physician, Dr. Alan Bain, “solely to administer Ivermectin to this patient.”

The hospital resisted the order on Nov. 6 and 7, denying Bain access to his patient. The hospital claimed that it couldn’t let Bain in because he wasn’t vaccinated against COVID-19 and that its chief medical officer wasn’t available to “proctor” Bain administering ivermectin.

The daughter’s attorneys filed an emergency report with the court on Nov. 8 and Fullerton heard from both sides. The judge admonished the hospital and restated that it must allow Bain inside over a period of 15 days to do his job. When the hospital filed a motion to stay the order, Fullerton denied it, again directing the facility to comply.

The ivermectin appears to have worked, and Sun Ng has recovered from COVID-19. He was discharged by the hospital on Nov. 27.

“My father’s recovery is amazing,” his daughter, Man Kwan Ng, said in a statement.

“My father is a tough man. He was working so hard to survive, and of course, with God’s holding hands. He weaned off oxygen about three days after moving out of the ICU. He started oral feeding before hospital discharge. He returned home without carrying a bottle of oxygen and a feeding tube installed to his stomach. He can now stand with a walker at the bedside and practice stepping. After being sedated for a month on a ventilator in ICU, his performance is beyond our expectations. Praise the Lord.”

Attorney Erickson said the “happy” end result here provides “hope for the nation.”

“We get calls from all over the place,” she told The Epoch Times. “People that want to sue hospitals after someone’s passed, they wanted to get the medicine and couldn’t. Obviously, that’s a different, difficult case because a medical malpractice case is very difficult.”

People just want to do what’s best for their family members and “find ivermectin themselves” and have it on hand “and use it when someone starts to develop symptoms,” Erickson said.

She said her legal team and client were “really thankful” that Ng recovered and “we salute” Judge Fullerton, Dr. Bain, and others, as well as the hospital for abiding by the court order in the end.

For more information on ivermectin and how to obtain it, Erickson said people should visit the website of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance at Covid19CriticalCare.com.

Keith Hartenberger, system director for public relations for Edward-Elmhurst Health, declined to comment.

“We’re not able to comment due to patient privacy guidelines,” he told The Epoch Times by email.

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.

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

Challenging Technocensorship, Rutherford Institute Appeals to Federal Court to Prohibit Facebook From Censoring COVID-19 Vaccine Critics thumbnail

Challenging Technocensorship, Rutherford Institute Appeals to Federal Court to Prohibit Facebook From Censoring COVID-19 Vaccine Critics

/in , , , , /by

By Editorial Staff

Rutherford Institute Appeals to Federal Court to Prohibit Facebook From Censoring COVID-19 Vaccine Critics

Warning against the rising threat to free speech posed by the government’s collusion with large technology companies in order to regulate and control what ideas can be shared on the internet and through social media, The Rutherford Institute has asked a federal appeals court to reverse a lower court ruling and prohibit Facebook from censoring and de-platforming critics of the COVID-19 vaccine in violation of the First Amendment. In calling on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the lawsuit in Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook to move forward, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that Facebook acted in concert with U.S. government officials and agencies to suppress and punish Children’s Health Defense for sharing information critical of the COVID-19 vaccine.

“We should all be alarmed when prominent social media voices are censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that are deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous, extremist or conspiratorial,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “At some point, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes ‘extremism,’ we might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other and subjected to technocensorship.”

Founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending childhood health epidemics by exposing causes, eliminating harmful exposures, seeking justice for those injured, and establishing safeguards to prevent future harm. CHD, an outspoken critic of the proliferation of childhood vaccines, seeks to inform the public about vaccines and the health dangers posed by vaccines and wireless technologies. CHD’s mission has brought it in conflict with the pharmaceutical industry, which obtains huge profits from the sale of vaccines; the United State government, which accepts millions of dollars in funding from the pharmaceutical industry; and big-tech internet companies that profit from expanded wireless technologies. Crucial to CHD’s mission of educating the public is its use of social media, including Facebook, to provide links to studies and information provided by experts on public health that exposes the dangers of vaccines. However, since January 2019, Facebook has waged a campaign to discredit CHD: repeatedly posting labels and overlays on CHD’s Facebook page labeling information provided as “false,” preventing persons visiting CHD’s Facebook page from making donations to CHD; and otherwise asserting that CHD violated Facebook’s terms of service by posting false information. In August 2020, CHD filed a lawsuit alleging that Facebook’s actions, in retaliation for CHD’s speech critical of vaccines and wireless technologies, violated the First Amendment’s guarantee to freedom of speech. The lawsuit alleges that Facebook acted at the behest of and in concert with the U.S. government to suppress “vaccine misinformation.” In June 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment lawsuit. The social media giant argued that because it is a private entity, it is not subject to the First Amendment.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

*****

This article was published on November 9, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Rutherford Institute.

VIDEO REPORT: “Leaky” Covid Vax Enhancing Mutations, Spreading Disease thumbnail

VIDEO REPORT: “Leaky” Covid Vax Enhancing Mutations, Spreading Disease

/in , , , /by

By Graham Ledger

Florida governor Ron DeSantis (monoclonal antibodies) saved more lives this year than Dr. Fauci’s diabolical, crippling vax formula ever did. In fact, the shots are causing more harm than good by allowing variants (mutations) to grow and thrive and become more powerful due to the “leaky” nature (not stopping transmission) of the vax.

In this edition of the Ledger Report, Graham Ledger speaks with board certified Dermatologist Dr, Jon Ward about the so-called vaccines, Florida, Vitamin D and the importance of early (non-vax) treatment for Covid.

Please subscribe free to The Ledger Report by clicking here: www.GrahamLedger.com

EDITORS NOTE: This The Ledger Report video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Judge Stops Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate in Medicare, Medicaid Facilities in 10 States

/in , , , , , /by

By Joe Mueller

U.S. District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on Monday ordered a preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration, stopping mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for health care workers in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) facilities.

“Because it is evident CMS significantly understates the burden that its mandate would impose on the ability of healthcare facilities to provide proper care, and thus, save lives, the public has an interest in maintaining the ‘status quo’ while the merits of the case are determined,” Schelp wrote in a 32-page memorandum and order in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri.

Missouri Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt led a 10-state coalition filing the lawsuit on Nov. 5 to stop the CMS vaccine mandate. On the courthouse steps in St. Louis, Schmitt, a candidate for the seat of retiring Republican U.S. Senator Roy Blunt, stated many will benefit from the ruling.

“This is a significant ruling and the first of its kind in the country,” Schmitt told reporters. “What the court said today was CMS and the Biden administration has no statutory authority to do this, none whatsoever.”

Starting in late October, Schmitt led coalitions of states in filing three lawsuits against federal vaccine mandates – for federal contractors and federally contracted employees, for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s mandate on private employers with 100 or more employees, and CMS.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans blocked the private-sector OSHA mandate earlier this month.

Schmitt said Monday’s ruling will help all Missourians and all served in CMS facilities.

“Our office may have led the charge on this, but it is the health care workers in Missouri and across the country, it’s the rural hospitals here and elsewhere facing certain collapse due to this mandate, and it’s the patients of those hospitals who are the real winners today,” Schmitt said.

Judge Schelp stated five times in the ruling that it’s likely Schmitt and the coalition will ultimately succeed if the ruling is appealed. The ruling only applies to the 10 states in the lawsuit – Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

“I would expect this to be appealed and I would expect this to go all of the way to the Supreme Court,” Schmitt said. “But the fact is we won.”

The ruling stated CMS lacked clear authorization from Congress to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine. Currently, CMS doesn’t require any vaccinations for health care workers.

“CMS failed to adequately explain its contradiction to its long-standing practice of encouraging rather than forcing – by governmental mandate – vaccination,” Schelp wrote. “For years, CMS has promulgated regulations setting the conditions for Medicare and Medicaid participation; never has it required any vaccine for covered facilities’ employees – despite concerns over other illnesses and their corresponding low vaccination rates.”

Schelp also stated CMS violated its own regulations by not accepting comments on policies.

“Moreover, the failure to take and respond to comments feeds into the very vaccine hesitancy CMS acknowledges is so daunting,” Schelp wrote.

Schelp highlighted the vaccine mandate’s negative impact on staffing at rural hospitals.

“As an example, for a general hospital located in North Platte, Nebraska, implementation of the mandate would result in the loss of the only remaining anesthesiologist,” Schelp wrote. “Understandably, without an anesthesiologist, there could be no surgeries – at all. Thus, such a loss irreparably causes a cascading effect on the entire facility and a wide range of patients. Other examples show the mandate’s far-reaching implications not just on the administration of health care itself, but the functioning of the facilities in general.”

Schmitt said the virus will always be present and the federal government needs to understand citizens and their rights.

“The truth is COVID is with us and there is always going to be a variant,” Schmitt said. “But I think the people have had enough of the government locking people down. They have had enough of government instituting mask mandates and vaccine mandates. Every time there’s an overreach, we’re going to push back.”

Bureaucrats who have never driven the back roads of Missouri or visited its rural hospitals have no idea of the effects of the vaccine mandate, Schmitt said.

“Here in flyover country, we’ve had enough and we’re going to fight back every single time they try to take our freedoms away,” Schmitt said.

*****

This article was published on November 29, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

Trump’s White House Doctor Calls Omicron A Midterm Elections Trick thumbnail

Trump’s White House Doctor Calls Omicron A Midterm Elections Trick

/in , , , , /by

By Pamela Geller

Omi-con is merely the Democrats’ ticket to stealing 2022 mid-terms.

Trump’s White House doctor calls omicron a midterm elections trick

“Here comes the MEV – the Midterm Election Variant!” Ronny Jackson tweeted Saturday.

By Joseph Guzman | The Hill, Nov. 29, 2021

  • Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) spoke out on news of the omicron variant Saturday.
  • “They NEED a reason to push unsolicited nationwide mail-in ballots. Democrats will do anything to CHEAT during an election – but we’re not going to let them!” he said.
  • The World Health Organization (WHO) classified a new coronavirus variant, dubbed omicron, a “variant of concern” on Friday.

A Republican lawmaker who previously served as White House doctor under former presidents Trump and Obama claims Democrats will use the new coronavirus variant of concern to cheat in the midterm elections.

The World Health Organization (WHO) classified a new coronavirus variant, dubbed omicron, a “variant of concern” on Friday due to preliminary evidence suggesting it carries an increased risk of reinfection compared to other variants. WHO officials said the new variant poses a “very high” risk across the globe, but noted that there is still much to learn about the strain.

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) spoke out on news of the variant of concern Saturday, saying the strain would serve as a pretext for absentee voting, which Democrats would use to somehow cheat in the 2022 midterm elections.

“Here comes the MEV – the Midterm Election Variant!” Jackson tweeted Saturday

Here comes the MEV – the Midterm Election Variant! They NEED a reason to push unsolicited nationwide mail-in ballots. Democrats will do anything to CHEAT during an election – but we’re not going to let them!

— Ronny Jackson (@RonnyJacksonTX) November 27, 2021

“They NEED a reason to push unsolicited nationwide mail-in ballots. Democrats will do anything to CHEAT during an election – but we’re not going to let them!” he added

Jackson’s office did not immediately respond to Changing America’s request for comment.

Jackson was appointed as a White House physician during the George W. Bush administration and shot to national prominence in 2018 when he gave former president Trump a glowing medical evaluation.

A March report from the Pentagon’s inspector general found that Jackson carried out “inappropriate conduct” during his time as White House doctor. The report said Jackson disparaged, belittled, bullied and humiliated subordinates, creating a toxic work environment. It also found that he used alcohol while on duty.

Jackson has explicitly denied the report’s findings.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Now Telling Americans To Wear Masks Indoors

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.

VIDEO: New Variant, New Marxist Attack on Liberty thumbnail

VIDEO: New Variant, New Marxist Attack on Liberty

/in , , , , , /by

By Graham Ledger

Mankind has no control over viruses unless mankind is stupid enough to create one in a lab in China and then if mankind then is stupid enough to jab millions of humans with “vaccines” that do not stop the spread of said virus! Idiots! Or, are these Marxists simply doing their jobs?

In this edition of The Ledger Report, Graham Ledger looks at the actual science behind the virus and the so-called vax and the constitutional solution to these Marxist attacks.

Please subscribe free to The Ledger Report by clicking here: www.GrahamLedger.com

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

VIDEO: The COVID Con is the ’76 Swine Flu Fiasco on Steroids thumbnail

VIDEO: The COVID Con is the ’76 Swine Flu Fiasco on Steroids

/in , , , , /by

By Selwyn Duke

In a social media feed Monday, I came across a 1979 60 Minutes segment on the propaganda surrounding the 1976 swine flu panic. Many of us had already heard about how the event was reminiscent of today’s COVID-1984 con, but actually watching the segment drives home how striking the parallels between the two disease scares are. Exaggerations of the bugs’ severity, media propaganda and fear-mongering, an effort to vaccinate the whole nation, serious vaccine-coincident side-effects, and an apparent government cover-up of the latter were all elements of the ’76 fiasco just as they epitomize what’s occurring today.

The segment opened with late 60 Minutes host Mike Wallace saying:

The flu season is upon us. Which type will we worry about this year, and what kind of shots will we be told to take? Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nation-wide outbreak, a pandemic.

Well, 46 million of us obediently took the shot, and now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from Uncle Sam amounting to three and a half billion dollars because of what happened when they took that shot. By far the greatest number of the claims — two thirds of them — are for neurological damage, or even death, allegedly triggered by the flu shot.

(Transcript hat tip: WanttoKnow.info.)

Eerily reminiscent of today, one vaccine-induced problem was Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which also has apparently been induced by the coronavirus genetic-therapy agents (GTAs, a.k.a. “vaccines”). Wallace spoke to a woman thus afflicted; he also mentioned vaccine-coincident deaths. The video is below and well worth watching.

Yet there also were a number of differences between then and now, with a notable one being the 60 Minutes report itself. While Wallace was a liberal, the media was not so much in the Establishment tank that it wouldn’t expose its day’s “COVID” con. Thus did Wallace talk about the “U.S. government’s publicity machine,” reveal lies told by officials and grill ex-CDC head Dr. David Sencer, who devised and pushed the swine flu program and who looked in his interview a bit like a kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

(This said, that the swine flu fraud occurred during the tenure of President Gerald Ford, a Republican, certainly must have made the story more appealing to the EneMedia.)

Could you imagine Dr. Mouth (Anthony Fauci — “fauci” means “mouth” in Italian) being likewise grilled by the mainstream media today? Imagining it is a nice fantasy for anyone who’d like to see the imperious Dr. Mouth take one on the chin, but it’s a fanciful fantasy. Only the mainstream media have access to the man, and they’re busy deifying our prevaricating pooh-bah of pandemic prescriptions, who just recently went unchallenged in an interview after saying “I represent science.” (Narcissistic much?)

Another difference between 1976 and today is that because we weren’t as far down the Big Brother rabbit hole and Americans were more faith- and freedom-oriented — and because we weren’t facing a scary “novel” virus — lockdowns and other restrictions never materialized. In fact, I was a child at the time and don’t remember the disease being a factor in our lives at all. Along with a car trip from Jacksonville to Key West, Florida with my mother, most memorable to me about that year is that it was the Bicentennial, and quarters bearing a colonial drummer image; and red, white and blue themes, were everywhere.

We could use the spirit of ’76 — the real ’76 — today. But speaking volumes about our time is that even the spirit of 1976 now seems, relatively speaking, almost quaint and boldly and unapologetically American.

Contact Selwyn Duke; follow him on Gab, MeWe, or Parler; or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

Is it Ximicron or Omicron? Whatever you call it, the argument for boosters sounds like mumbo-jumbo thumbnail

Is it Ximicron or Omicron? Whatever you call it, the argument for boosters sounds like mumbo-jumbo

/in , , , , /by

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Politicians are just grasping at straws. That’s not science.

Insanity is famously doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Like writing columns about Covid-19. Or attributing lines to Einstein we have no reason to suppose he really said. In the wise words of Abraham Lincoln, “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet just because there’s a picture with a quote next to it.” Or everything the government tells you including about how well it’s dealing with a pandemic.

My excuse for writing about Covid-19 again is that it is the biggest, or at least most obsessive, news story I’ve seen in a long, long time in this business. And very revealing, too, about how governments think and how we do.

We have yet another variant, called “Omicron” because they didn’t think “Xi” was funny in Beijing, and what isn’t funny in Beijing isn’t funny to the World Health Organization. And funnily enough there’s this thing called evolution which the materialists were so keen on they put “Darwin” fish with legs on their cars until it turned out diseases get to do it too. Nature is ingenious but not squeamish.

We on the other hand are very squeamish. We don’t want to get sick. Illness is medieval. Back then people had bad teeth and died of stuff. Whereas we moderns have philosopher William Barrett’s “illusion of technique” where there’s meant to be a scientific, mathematics-based solution to any and every problem including the human condition.

Thus when a plague comes along the authorities cannot throw up their hands and go “Bummer, a disease, try not to die.” They must fix it. So they threw us all into massive lockdowns with a firmly fatuous “Two weeks to flatten the curve”.

It has since become a rather poorly-kept secret that their real concern wasn’t our health but that of the government medical system. But for all the lurching about and disingenuous rhetoric, there was a shared assumption between the state and citizens that it was their duty and our right to have the disease banished by technique.

So when lockdowns didn’t do it, they said vaccines would. And when some vaccines came along governments had to say they were totally great and there was this huge supporting conformist hysteria to “get the jab” and if you asked questions you were shamed or worse. Including about why the vaccines didn’t work very well or last.

Here I strike an unaccustomed pose of moderation. I got my shots on the prudent grounds that they posed an even lower risk to me than the virus… and the countermeasures. I didn’t buy the extreme position on either side. But I really wanted the nagging and lockdowns to stop. So I did my part. Now I am routinely asked for proof of vaccination, and when I ask “against what?” people laugh nervously.

Don’t think I’m an anti-vaxxer. On the contrary, I’m vaccinated against many diseases you really don’t want to come calling, like smallpox, pertussis and “hib”. (Google it. Yuck.) I got those shots decades ago. And I’m still immune. Yay vaccines.

Now I hear that because of Omicron “It’s time to start aggressively rolling out boosters to Canadians who received their second dose 6 months or more ago.” And “Wear a good mask. Get vaccinated. Don’t be a jerk.” And “Omicron is already everywhere…. Time for widespread boosters.” All tweeted or retweeted by just one friend who’s a keen, nay obsessive, observer of public affairs.

There are thousands just like him. There’s that conformity again. And the twisted logic, because if the vaccines worked properly we wouldn’t need boosters, whereas if they don’t boosters won’t help. It’s an extension of the argument that everyone must get vaccinated because otherwise the unvaccinated will infect the vaccinated and vice versa, whose reliance on vaccines both working and not working violates the “excluded middle” recognized as fundamental to logical thought since Aristotle’s day. But not in our enlightened times.

Since Ximicron is a new variant we don’t even know whether current vaccines would protect us against it with or without boosters. Or if it’s very virulent. But we’re dealing with mumbo-jumbo with social benefits not medicine, just as politicians going we’re totally ready one day and everybody under the bed it’s safe there the next is reassurance not information.

There was a time when new medical treatments had to undergo prolonged, even excessive, testing with none of that “her body her choice” nonsense about experimental options. Now they’re pumping us full of novel spike proteins over and over in a panic and calling us jerks if we worry that it might not be entirely safe or sensible.

Why? Because a technique must work, and this one’s all we have, so it must be the ticket.

Somebody has lost their mind. And it wasn’t Einstein.

COLUMN BY

John Robson

John Robson is a documentary film-maker, columnist with the National Post, Executive Director of the Climate Discussion Nexus and a professor at Augustine College. He holds a PhD in American history from… More by John Robson

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hello world, Omicron hasn’t made Africa more dangerous!

If you want assisted suicide in Germany, first you must get vaxxed

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

Mini-Mengele: Fauci Declares “I AM SCIENCE!” thumbnail

Mini-Mengele: Fauci Declares “I AM SCIENCE!”

/in , , , /by

By Pamela Geller

He’s a madman. Mad with power. Unelected, unpopular with immense power.

.@TuckerCarlson mocks Fauci’s response to criticisms following damning revelations in unearthed emails:

“I am science, says the Sun King, Tony Fauci— our own Louis XIV.” pic.twitter.com/Jhml6WHXl9

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) June 10, 2021

Fauci saying, “I represent science” is like Louis XIV saying, “I am the state!”

pic.twitter.com/JBitZewGDK

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) November 30, 2021

Anthony Fauci Unleashes the Fury of Conservative America

By Darragh Roche, November 30, 2021:

Fauci Fires Back At Rand Paul After He Tells Him To Resign: ‘He Is Egregiously Incorrect’

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s recent interview with CBS’s Face the Nation has been met with anger and strong criticism by several figures in conservative circles after he said he represents science.

Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), offered his own criticism of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) during his Sunday interview, laughing off Cruz’s call for him to be prosecuted for lying to Congress.

The Republican senator responded to Fauci’s remarks on Fox News on Monday and he was not alone in his harsh assessment of the infectious diseases expert’s comments.

Cruz told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that Fauci was “the most dangerous bureaucrat in the history of the country.”

He said Fauci had talked “about hurting science but I don’t think anyone has hurt science, has hurt the credibility of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], has hurt the credibility of doctors more than Dr. Fauci because throughout this pandemic, he’s been dishonest, he’s been political, he’s been partisan.”

Cruz went on to reiterate his accusation that Fauci had lied to Congress over National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for gain-of-function research in a lab in Wuhan, China and cited U.S. law under which those who lie to Congress can be prosecuted.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, gain-of-function research is “research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.” It is generally intended to better study or understand certain diseases.

Fauci has denied lying to Congress and laughed off the idea he could face prosecution on Sunday. He has also denied that the NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Coronavirus is thought to have originated from the Chinese city, and some have said that it may have leaked from a lab in the vicinity.

“I have to laugh at that. I should be prosecuted? What happened on January 6 senator?” Fauci said, responding to a question about Cruz’s push for prosecution.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who has frequently clashed with Fauci, shared a clip of the CBS interview on Twitter on Sunday where the NIAID director said “I represent science” while responding to his critics.

“The absolute hubris of someone claiming THEY represent science,” Paul said. “It’s astounding and alarming that a public health bureaucrat would even think to claim such a thing, especially one who has worked so hard to ignore the science of natural immunity.”

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) accused Fauci of being partisan during an interview with Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle on Monday.

“It’s just another example of the incompetence of the Biden administration. They think Tony Fauci remains a credible and impartial messenger about the Wuhan coronavirus,” Cotton said.

The absolute hubris of someone claiming THEY represent science. It’s astounding and alarming that a public health bureaucrat would even think to claim such a thing, especially one who has worked so hard to ignore the science of natural immunity. https://t.co/rcDezphVRR

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) November 28, 2021

RELATED ARTICLE: Rand Paul: Fauci Science Declaration ‘Conjures Up Images of the Medieval Church’

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.

Omicron Crackpots thumbnail

Omicron Crackpots

/in , , , , /by

By Save America Foundation

I wish I could say I trust my government, but I don’t, not when they’re so obviously full of phony-baloney about COVID and trying to get me to believe the stupidest things.

When the medical trials first launched it was one shot, then two. Then passports/segregation. Now 3 shots, with Israel on their 4th and booster interval shortened to 3 months. It could also be a two dose Omicron booster.

Informed consent was never on the table.

Pure insanity…

— Kris Eriksen 🇨🇦 (@KrisEriksen77) December 1, 2021

Joe Biden said yesterday people should get vaccinations and booster shots to ward off the Omicron variant.  What he didn’t tell you is that people infected with the Omicron variant in Africa and Australia were fully vaccinated.  He also didn’t tell you Moderna’s chief executive is out there saying the current vaccines most likely won’t protect you against the Omicron variant and new vaccines are needed.

This whole vaccine thing is out of whack to begin with.  The emphasis has always been on vaccines, while the idea of effective treatment for COVID, strangely, has never gotten much attention.  Hydroxychloroquine was dismissed early on, despite the fact a survey of 6,000 doctors worldwide found it was the best treatment based on their clinical experience.  Ivermectin also got short shrift, even though it’s been endorsed by the Tokyo Medical Association and basically fixed India’s COVID problem.   Now comes the nail in the coffin for our government’s phony narratives about hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin:  There are now 67 studies showing Ivermectin and 298 studies showing hydroxychloroquine are effective in treating COVID-19.  But you have to sue your doctor and your pharmacist if you want to be treated for COVID with Ivermectin.  Why is that?  Do you want to follow the science or follow the government pied pipers who, themselves, might just be following the money?

Speaking of science, there are a hundred studies showing masks are not materially effective in reducing COVID transmission and are actually harmful to wear.

So much for the mask narrative, but the wheels are coming off other government narratives about COVID, too.  ‘The vaccines are effective’ – no, breakthrough cases are on the rise as vaccine efficacy drops below 50 percent.  They said close the schools even though the risk to kids was miniscule and closing schools didn’t lower the child mortality rate.   They ignored natural immunity and kept pushing the vaccines even though almost 150 million Americans have natural immunity from having been exposed to coronavirus.

Recently, Fauci claimed to be the science and above criticism – the same guy who first said masks are meaningless and ended up telling you to wear two of them.  If it’s true he is now the science, how do you explain this? – Fauci said in the 1980s that kids could get AIDS from routine nonsexual contact.  Not true.  He also said heterosexual AIDS would become 10 percent of all AIDS cases.  It’s never even been close to that.  Flash forward to COVID and we see Fauci initially saying it’s nothing to worry about, it’s just a bad flu, and you can’t rely on models to make predictions, but then he went on to rely on models to make predictions.  Fauci also claimed hydroxychloroquine was actually dangerous, but he was already in possession of information showing it was effective.  Sorry Fauci lovers, but something’s not right with that guy.

To sum up, everything government officials are telling you about COVID is wrong and there is no reason for you to believe them.

Germany reports highest COVID death toll in 9 months.

If only they’d had mandatory mask rules and vaccine passports.

Oh, they did.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) December 1, 2021

Some people are speculating about motive, saying public health officials are deliberately lying, in cahoots with the vaccine manufacturers, and deliberately killing people.  I’ll leave the speculation to others.  it’s enough for me to know I can’t rely on the government, that it’s up to me to seek out the correct information, and I’m ultimately responsible for the choices I make.  That may sound novel to you, but it’s the way it’s supposed to be in a self-governing Republic composed of what are supposed to be self-governing individuals.

Sorry if I’ve shattered your faith in government, but you never should have had that much in the first place.

Visit The Daily Skirmish

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

“I have been stunned at the response – and especially from Britain. Nothing I have seen about this new variant warrants the extreme action the UK government has taken in response to it.”

– Dr Angelique Coetzee, who alerted the world to the Omicron varianthttps://t.co/fdrZ8Wpn4c

— James Melville (@JamesMelville) December 1, 2021

RELATED ARTICLES:

Problems with Covid Shots harder to deny! Plus the Insane hype from the left on new SA Covid strain.

 Shots harder to deny! Plus the Insane hype from the left on new SA Covid strain.

COVID Vaccines: The Dog Is Chasing Its Tail.

Dr. Marik: Medical Tyranny Continues thumbnail

Dr. Marik: Medical Tyranny Continues

/in , , , , /by

By Save America Foundation

“There are far, far better things ahead than anything we leave behind.” – C. S. Lewis.

The judge in Dr. Marik’s Virginia case denied an order to preliminarily stop the Norfolk hospital from interfering with Dr. Marik’s administration of Ivermectin and other proven Covid treatments to his in-hospital patients.

However, the court granted a future trial on the merits. It’s mindboggling why the judge didn’t see an urgency to immediately stop the hospital from killing its patients. There is nothing humane or normal when it comes to genocide.

Also note the hospital lied by omission in the preliminary hearing that no retaliation against the doctor would or had occurred when the administrator was doing just that by taking action to suspend the doctor’s in-hospital privileges.

This case is a big deal and the arrogant hospital administrator has now damaged his credibility before the judge by lying to the court in the preliminary hearing. Let’s hope there is a speedy trial in the case. I’m sure Dr. Marik will not have difficulty coming up with a host of renowned medical doctors in support of his case.

The world has gone mad when doctors and their consenting patients have to get court orders to practice medicine that will save a patient’s life.

Here is the full story:- A little long but a must read and share. Fred B.

Top ICU Doctor Suspended After Suing Hospital for Banning Life-Saving Covid Treatments.

A top critical care physician who filed a lawsuit against Sentara Norfolk General Hospital over its ban on administering life-saving drugs to treat COVID patients, has had his hospital privileges suspended.

Dr. Paul Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School and director of the ICU at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, learned about the 14-day suspension when he arrived to work on Saturday and found a letter on his desk.

The letter was dated Nov. 18 — the same day Marik appeared before a judge in Norfolk Circuit Court requesting a temporary injunction to lift the ban, Marik’s attorney said.

Judge David Lannetti did not grant the temporary injunction, but did determine Marik had standing to bring his lawsuit, allowing the case to move forward which will give Marik the opportunity to “establish his right to administer life-saving treatments that patients have been prohibited access to by Sentara,” the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) said in a statement.

Sentara’s attorneys didn’t tell Marik about the suspension during Thursday’s hearing, nor did they mention it to the judge, said Marik’s attorney, Fred Taylor, a partner at the Virginia law firm Bush & Taylor.

In a Nov. 22 letter to the judge, Marik’s attorney accused Sentara of making a material misrepresentation during the hearing by failing to disclose the letter and telling the court the hospital would not retaliate against Marik for filing the lawsuit.

“Evidently Sentara chose, for reasons of its own, not to disclose this suspension either to the court or the plaintiff during the hearing,” Marik’s attorney told the judge.

In his letter, Taylor told the judge:

“The letter [from Sentara to Marik] gives no explanation whatsoever for the ‘coincidence’ of Sentara’s choosing to suspend Dr. Marik at this particular moment, leaving only one realistic conclusion. Sentara has engaged in a blatant act of retaliation against Dr. Marik for filing this suit and for exposing to the public Sentara’s unlawful unjustified denial of safe, potentially life-saving medicines to its COVID patients in violation of Virginia statutory law and public policy.”

In Sentara’s letter to Marik, hospital officials summoned Marik to a proceeding scheduled for Dec. 2 during which, the hospital said, “no lawyer representing Dr. Marik will be permitted and no recording/video or transcript … will be made.”

Sentara said its suspension of Marik was based in part on an allegation that he informed COVID patients that his “hands were tied” and there was nothing more he could do for them.

Taylor’s letter to the judge stated:

“At the just-concluded hearing on November 18, 2021, Sentara expressly represented to this Court that it would not discipline Dr. Marik in any way for informing his COVID patients that Sentara was preventing him from giving them alternative treatments that are, in his medical judgment (and based on unrefuted evidence) safe, and potentially life-saving and medically appropriate for them.

“Yet, Sentara has now done exactly that. Indeed it had apparently already done exactly that when it was representing to the Court that it would not do so. International or not, this was a materially false representation made to the court, and Plaintiff respectfully requests that Sentara be held to account for it.”

During the Nov. 18 hearing, Sentara’s attorney, Jason Davis, raised the issue of whether Marik has standing in the case. To have standing in a lawsuit, Marik needed to show he had a stake in its outcome or suffered an injury.

Sentara said Marik did not have standing to bring his case because he hadn’t been harmed.

“Obviously, patients who are dying in the ICU can’t come to court,” Marik told The Defender. “Sentara hospital lied continuously and incessantly but at this type of hearing, I was not in a position where I could challenge the falsities.”

Taylor accused Sentara of attempting to deprive Marik of standing through a “retaliatory, pretextual suspension that Sentara kept secret from the Court, perhaps hoping Dr. Marik would respond to Sentara by offering to drop his suit if Sentara would withdraw its suspension.”

In his letter to the judge, Marik’s legal team called for a supplemental hearing to redress the new facts previously hidden from the court by Sentara.

Sentara ban on certain COVID therapies violates U.S., Virginia medical laws, lawsuit alleges

Marik filed his lawsuit against Sentara Healthcare on Nov. 9, arguing the organization is endangering the lives of its COVID patients by preventing him from using his treatment protocol, which he says has reduced mortality rates in the ICU from approximately between 40% and 60% to less than 20%.

The lawsuit alleges Sentara’s ban on the use of certain therapies against COVID violates U.S. and Virginia medical laws and the concept of informed consent — whereby “patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care.”

Marik called Sentera’s ban on administering certain medicines for COVID patients “unprecedented” and “cruel” during his Nov. 18 testimony requesting a preliminary injunction to lift the ban.

In his motion, Marik said patients are dying “unnecessarily and unlawfully” because Sentara Healthcare is “preventing terminally ill COVID patients from exercising their right to choose and to receive safe, potentially life-saving treatment determined to be appropriate for them by their attending physician.”

In an interview with The Defender, Marik said the hospital is prohibiting the use of a COVID protocol called “Math +.” The protocol includes treating COVID patients with many drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which has determined the drugs are safe and effective.

Instead, according to the lawsuit, Sentara recommends doctors use “toxic drugs” like Remdesivir — an expensive medication associated with severe side effects — because the hospital receives a bonus each time doctors prescribe it.

In a press release, Marik said:

“This case is about doctors having the ability to honor their Hippocratic Oath, to follow evidence-based medicine, and to treat our patients the best we know how. Corporations and faceless bureaucrats should not be allowed to interfere with doctor-patient decisions, especially when it can result in harm or death.”

“Our COVID-19 protocol is based on the best scientific data available, yet Sentara claimed the medications I used were toxic and harmful, which is an absolute lie,” Marik told The Defender. “It is so outrageous.”

Marik explained:

“What happened was I was using MATH+ and I was using these medications, which I think are effective. All drugs we use are FDA- approved and very safe and they’ve been proven to be very effective for COVID, but I was banned from using them because they were dangerous, toxic and there was supposedly no data to support their use. It’s a big lie.

“What they [the hospital] want me to use is Remdesivir. We know Remdesivir increases death by 3%, increases the risk of hospital stay and increases the risk of kidney and liver failure. It does not improve patient outcomes. It is toxic. But the hospital gets a bonus if Remdesivir is prescribed. They profit from the expensive drug but not the cheap drug that people can afford.”

Marik, a highly published physician with 35 years of experience, said Sentara also tried to criticize his character, even though they appointed him as the director of ICU.

Marik said he could no longer stand by while patients died unnecessarily without proper treatment, so he had no choice but to file a lawsuit allowing him and his colleagues to administer a combination of FDA-approved drugs and other therapies that have saved thousands of critically ill COVID patients in the last 18 months.

Until September, doctors had been allowed to use ivermectin and the other medicines — ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) IV, bicalutamide, dutasteride, finasteride and fluvoxamine — to treat COVID patients.

But after the FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) warned against using ivermectin and other medicines for COVID patients, Sentara officials created new guidelines ordering doctors not to use the drugs.

​​Marik argued Sentara’s COVID Comprehensive Treatment Guidelines are “preventing terminally ill COVID patients from exercising their right to choose and receive safe, potentially life-saving treatment.”

Math+ protocol used around the world to safely treat COVID

According to an FLCCC press release, the MATH+ protocol, used by Marik and physicians around the world to treat COVID, is saving lives. However, since the prohibition went into place, there has seen a sharp rise in inpatient mortality.

Marik said he and his colleagues started using the Math+ to treat COVID in March 2020, because the national and international bodies provided no guidance. “So we put together guidelines and started using the protocol on March 24, and it has evolved over time as science has evolved,” he said.

The MATH+ protocol, designed for hospitalized patients, counters the body’s overwhelming inflammatory response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The protocol is based on numerous medical journal publications and decades of research — and is founded upon the belief that hyper-inflammation, not the virus itself, damages the lungs and other organs and leads to death.

The MATH+ protocol is well-tolerated with no reports of adverse medical events, FLCCC said in a press release.

According to Dr. Joseph Varon, a renowned critical care specialist recently recognized by the United Nations for his life-saving work, the MATH+ COVID treatment protocol has achieved at least a 50% reduction in deaths from the virus in the hospitals where he serves as chief of staff.

“We take an oath as doctors to do no harm,” said Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of FLCCC. “I can’t think of a way of doing more harm to a patient than to not administer a treatment that you know can help them. No doctor should be forced to watch their patient die knowing that more could have been done to save them, and that is exactly what Sentara is doing.”

Medications are safe and FDA-approved, but hospital wants to use ‘toxic’ drugs

Marik said until Oct. 5, he was able to use most of the medications on the MATH+ protocol except for ivermectin, which was banned in May or June.

“They’re turning this into an ivermectin thing and it’s a very safe drug — more people have died from aspirin or Tylenol,” Marik said. “It is one of the safest drugs on the planet and the data is irrefutable, but somehow with COVID it has become a toxic medication.”

Marik explained:

“What do you have to lose when a patient is dying? When a patient is dying we do everything we can to save their lives and this system and many others are prohibiting them from getting every possible medication they can. That’s how we practice medicine, we do what we can to save the person.”

Marik said it is important for people to understand that 40% of drugs in the ICU are used off-label. “That’s the standard of care,” Marik said. “Pre-COVID, the FDA encouraged use of off-label drugs and you didn’t need informed consent to use them.”

Marik said 30% of drugs prescribed in the hospital settings are used off-label and 90% of people are discharged with prescriptions for drugs being used off-label.

For example, Marik said aspirin is recommended for atrial fibrillation — an irregular heartbeat — but that’s an off-label use. With MATH+, Marik said he can talk to families to see if they want to do it, but he can’t prescribe it. Their only option is to take a toxic therapy or transfer to another hospital potentially hundreds of miles away to utilize an alternative protocol.

Marik said:

“I try to emphasize these patients are dying. That’s why they’re there. It’s an absurd proposition to propose that I get consent from the family — or tell the families they have alternatives, but I can’t use them here, and then I have to transfer them to another hospital, which is very time-dependent.

“The longer I wait, the worse the outcome and it’s a major undertaking. To transfer an ICU patient hundreds of miles away to another hospital is impracticable.”

Marik said the hospital thinks they can do whatever they want because they control the media and they control the press, and he was put in a position where we had no option but to bring the suit.

Sentara pressured scientific journal to retract paper on COVID treatments co-authored by Marik

According to MedPage Today, the same day Marik filed his lawsuit, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) retracted an article, co-authored by Marik, on the MATH+ protocol, which includes the use of ivermectin.

Marik said the hospital pressured the journal to retract the article because it supported the use of alternative protocols, and showed a reduction in ICU mortality.

The retraction notice cited a communication it received from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, “raising concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 hospital mortality data reported in the article pertaining to Sentara.”

In an email to MedPage Today, Sentara wrote:

“Sentara Healthcare felt obligated to reach out to JICM with our concerns about Sentara Norfolk General Hospital data that the authors used to make conclusions, and provide accurate data to the journal. After a thorough review by JICM’s editorial board, the article was retracted. The journal followed their retraction guidelines and procedures.”

Taylor told MedPage Today in an email, the lawsuit is not about a journal article.

“This case is about whether a hospital administration can legally prohibit critically ill COVID patients from receiving information — and treatment, if they so decide it is medically appropriate for them — about safe, FDA-approved, and potentially life-saving medicines as determined by their attending physician,” Taylor said.

A Sentara spokesperson said in a statement to MedPage Today:

“Sentara generates treatment guidelines by engaging multi-disciplinary groups of clinicians to review literature, care standards and provide expert advice. In most situations, physicians are able to deviate from guidelines to individualize care for patients. However, in some scenarios, treatments that may potentially harm patients or that are widely considered to be outside the standard of care may be limited.”

The spokesperson said the CDC, NIH and FDA “currently do not recommend the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 due to a lack of evidence regarding its safety and efficacy.”

Marik said when he and his colleagues published their paper on MATH+, they published statistics from Sentara.

“The hospital has their own protocol and they weren’t happy the director of the ICU was using his protocol and not their protocol,” Marik said. “It was a review paper and in it we quoted mortality statistics from Sentara. The chief of the hospital gave me the data on the mortality statistics, and we had approval from the Institutional Review Board to collect data and publish it.”

After it was published, Marik said they accused them of providing false and misleading data.

“The data is accurate but obviously, with time there are some additional patients that are going to die, and that’s inevitable with any paper,” Marik said. “On follow-up, mortality went from 6.6% to 10%. They complained to the medical school, and the medical school agreed with me.”

Marik said he updated the journal article to include a note, but Sentara pressured the journal to retract the article, claiming the data was false, and then used the fact the journal article was retracted against him.

Marik said he did not bring this lawsuit because he has something to gain, it’s because he has a responsibility to his patients and physicians across the country and the world.

“I think what they need to know is that the hospital is interfering with the physician and patient relationship. The physician decides what is in the best interests of the patient, and what they’re doing is unprecedented,” Marik said. “The hospital is telling me how to treat my patients, and it goes against basic Hippocraticic principles.”

Marik said he refuses to watch another patient die from COVID knowing he was not allowed to give them proven treatments that could have saved their life.

“This case is a test case that will have implications for physicians and patients across the country,” he said.

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

COLUMN BY

Megan Redshaw

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Maskless Joe Biden Caught Violating Mandates (Again)

OSHA’s Big ‘Oops’

/in , , , , , /by

By Carmel Richardson

The bureaucracy’s reversal on the vaccine mandate for businesses is a win for state sovereignty, not to mention the American people

After delaying two months before producing a rule pursuant to the White House’s September announcement that businesses with 100 employees or more would have to require the Covid-19 vaccine, the Department of Labor has now suspended enforcement of the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for private businesses.

The rule was initially challenged by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, along with the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, who filed a lawsuit requesting a preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to stop the mandate from being enforced. A total of 12 states are suing to block the federal vaccine mandate for employers. After the federal appeals court temporarily halted the order, the Department of Justice requested the halt to be lifted, but the appeals court upheld the stay.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) should “take no steps to implement or enforce the mandate until further court order,” writing that the administration’s vaccine and testing mandate was “fatally flawed.” The court ordered OSHA not to enforce the requirement “pending adequate judicial review” of a motion for a permanent injunction. The court’s decision prompted OSHA to suspend the rule.

The court’s shutdown confirms what many suspected when OSHA delayed for weeks before publishing the rule: The legal grounds for enforcing a federal vaccine mandate on private businesses seems to be shaky at best. And yet, does it matter? Plenty of private businesses have already required their employees to take the shot, and are unlikely to roll that back, even in the wake of OSHA’s reversal. The Biden administration, too, is still pushing ahead, urging businesses to continue to implement an employee mandate, even if the state lacks the power to enforce it. Besides, how many people, besides those who are paid to read the news, are paying close enough attention to know the difference?

Once again, what matters seems less and less to be the actual tenets of law, and more and more to be who holds the reigns of power. Like with the eviction moratorium extension, the Biden administration has effectively said “maybe it’s illegal, but we’re going to try anyway.” Except this time, a few states rattled the cage.

The key silver lining here, thus, is a glimmer of state sovereignty. The pressure of a handful of states saying no, thank you, we’ll decide if we want to mandate a vaccine in our state, is significant, whether it weighed directly or indirectly on the decision. This was a win for localism, and it can and should be the model for governors and state legislatures going forward. Appeals to constitutionalism may fall on deaf ears, but four states—or 12—can keep the bureaucratic arm of the federal government out of local affairs if they have the courage to take serious action.

*****

This article was published on November 18, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

OSHA’s Big “Oops!”

/in , , , , , /by

By Carmel Richardson

The bureaucracy’s reversal on the vaccine mandate for businesses is a win for state sovereignty, not to mention the American people

After delaying two months before producing a rule pursuant to the White House’s September announcement that businesses with 100 employees or more would have to require the Covid-19 vaccine, the Department of Labor has now suspended enforcement of the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for private businesses.

The rule was initially challenged by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, along with the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, who filed a lawsuit requesting a preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to stop the mandate from being enforced. A total of 12 states are suing to block the federal vaccine mandate for employers. After the federal appeals court temporarily halted the order, the Department of Justice requested the halt to be lifted, but the appeals court upheld the stay.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) should “take no steps to implement or enforce the mandate until further court order,” writing that the administration’s vaccine and testing mandate was “fatally flawed.” The court ordered OSHA not to enforce the requirement “pending adequate judicial review” of a motion for a permanent injunction. The court’s decision prompted OSHA to suspend the rule.

The court’s shutdown confirms what many suspected when OSHA delayed for weeks before publishing the rule: The legal grounds for enforcing a federal vaccine mandate on private businesses seems to be shaky at best. And yet, does it matter? Plenty of private businesses have already required their employees to take the shot, and are unlikely to roll that back, even in the wake of OSHA’s reversal. The Biden administration, too, is still pushing ahead, urging businesses to continue to implement an employee mandate, even if the state lacks the power to enforce it. Besides, how many people, besides those who are paid to read the news, are paying close enough attention to know the difference?

Once again, what matters seems less and less to be the actual tenets of law, and more and more to be who holds the reigns of power. Like with the eviction moratorium extension, the Biden administration has effectively said “maybe it’s illegal, but we’re going to try anyway.” Except this time, a few states rattled the cage.

The key silver lining here, thus, is a glimmer of state sovereignty. The pressure of a handful of states saying no, thank you, we’ll decide if we want to mandate a vaccine in our state, is significant, whether it weighed directly or indirectly on the decision. This was a win for localism, and it can and should be the model for governors and state legislatures going forward. Appeals to constitutionalism may fall on deaf ears, but four states—or 12—can keep the bureaucratic arm of the federal government out of local affairs if they have the courage to take serious action.

*****

This article was published on November 18, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

Phoenix City Council Could Shoot Down COVID Vaccination Mandate thumbnail

Phoenix City Council Could Shoot Down COVID Vaccination Mandate

/in , , , /by

By Cole Lauterbach

Members of the Phoenix City Council are demanding a vote on a previous decision to adhere to President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate.

In response to City Manager Jeff Barton’s decision the city is considered a federal contractor and must adhere to Biden’s mandate, Councilwoman Ann O’Brien wrote Mayor Kate Gallego to demand the council has a say on the matter.

The mayor agreed with O’Brien and added the issue for consideration at a future meeting.

“I am not anti-vaccine; I am anti-mandates,” O’Brien said in her Nov. 24 announcement. “I am pro-personal choice and I believe that Phoenix employees will do the right thing and make decisions that are right for them and their families.”

A discussion will be held Dec. 7 by the city’s policy workgroup.

Barton used the significant amount of federal dollars the city received to justify the decision to implement the Jan. 18 vaccination deadline.

“Due to the number of federal contracts held by the city of Phoenix, we are considered a federal contractor,” a letter from Barton read. “As such, all city employees are subject to the provisions outlined in the Executive Order, which requires all employees, regardless of telework status or if you previously tested positive for COVID-19, to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by January 18, 2022, except in limited circumstances where an employee is legally entitled to an accommodation.”

In reaction to Barton’s edict, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) and the United Phoenix Firefighters Association Local 493 (UPFA) joined Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s lawsuit against Biden’s vaccination mandate. The addition of the unions expanded the legal challenge to include federal contractors.

Unless the federal contractors or employees prevail in their legal challenge to Biden’s mandate, vaccination holdouts among the city’s 13,000 workers – including police and firefighters – who do not receive an exemption face suspension and eventual termination. 

In a Nov. 22 letter to Barton, Councilman Sal DiCiccio warned the mandate would lead to a severe worker shortage that could put residents in danger.

“The decision will compromise vital city-wide services to our residents, including public safety, which this Council has been aware of the alarming crime data and how the city is struggling to hire and retain personnel,” DiCiccio wrote.

*****

This article was published on November 29, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

Taking the Booster thumbnail

Taking the Booster

/in , , , /by

By Paul Gottfried

I dutifully took the Moderna COVID vaccine booster on Nov. 5 at the advice of my younger brother, who practices medicine. Two hours after this ordeal, I began to feel chills and suffer from a very upset stomach. These symptoms vanished two days later, and I resumed my normal routine, which includes jogging.

However, a week ago the unpleasant symptoms that I thought I was rid of returned, and I have been dealing with them ever since.

Some family members insist that it’s all in my imagination and I am not really feeling sick. If I am, the symptoms are from a low-grade flu that I picked up somewhere—perhaps while walking out of the pharmacy where I received the booster shot. There is no way, I have been assured, that the booster could have occasioned this degree of discomfort because that’s not supposed to happen. If I listened to National Public Radio, I would know that the booster has only minor side effects and that dwelling on them is characteristic of right-wing extremists, who are probably fascists and support the Jan. 6 “insurrection.” But of course, a million illegals crossing our Southern borders, Black Lives Matter protests in densely populated urban centers, and planeloads of unidentified Afghan “refugees” can do nothing to raise our infection totals because President Biden is okay with these developments.

I can no longer abide by the craziness unleashed by the nonstop politicization of the COVID epidemic. On one side I receive messages from agitated correspondents who tell me that the vaccine is being used to exterminate white people since blacks are mostly reluctant to receive the jab. I’m also told that the vaccine is causing the rapid spread of COVID, and so we should daily gorge ourselves on towering heaps of vitamins to protect ourselves from the disease-bearing recipients of the vaccines, who are making everyone else sick before dropping dead.

On the other side we have the leftist true believers who sound equally insane. From the moment the present salvific administration took over in Washington, taking the vaccine became a sacrament, like having a late-term abortion, teaching Critical Race Theory, or undergoing sex-change treatment. Although Joe and Kamala were vaccine-skeptics until they took office, the entire world must now be vaccinated, even those who have already had COVID and consequently built-up natural immunity.

I have heard leftist true believers insist that those who have not received the Biden—no longer Trump—vaccine should not be treated if these miscreants take sick. They should be allowed to waste away in the hovels inhabited by Deplorables, although those who rail against them would not have demanded this course of action when Biden and Harris were wary of the vaccine last year.

Allow me to make my own position on this matter unmistakably clear. Despite all the unpleasantness that came out of my decision to take the booster, I would do it again because of the limited degree of immunity that it affords senior citizens like me. I ascribe the after affects entirely to the jab and find ample confirmation daily for my assumption. I know of many others who are complaining about the same symptoms after having received the booster, and those who have communicated this information to me are entirely reliable sources, not anti-vaccine zealots.

That said, I am utterly exasperated by those who push the leftist party line about the vaccine. They blithely go on denying that a procedure Joe, Kamala, the media magnates, and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stand behind cannot have the unpleasant consequences from which I am obviously suffering. I am supposed to believe that there is no causal relation between two temporally contiguous happenings that I have experienced, receiving the booster, and then coming down with symptoms that I’m still trying to shake. It is insisted that the two are not related, because if they are, then that would contradict an ideologically determined narrative.

Meanwhile, I continue to receive messages from the other extreme, suggesting that I have taken a catastrophic step by being injected with a fake vaccine serum that could kill me. But I may have a chance of surviving if I start swallowing loads of dietary supplements. Is there any way to make both hysterical sides disappear?

*****

This article was published on November 17, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from Chronicles.

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.