Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 372

Why Are Covid Death Rates in Haiti So Low?

Dr Eddy Betterman

[…]

According to reports, Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world, also happens to have the world’s lowest COVID death rates. As of the end of April, just 254 people have died in Haiti from what authorities agree constitutes COVID.

Compared to the United States, which currently has a COVID death rate of around 1,800 per one million people, Haiti has a COVID death rate of just 22 per one million people.

NPR admits in a report about Haiti that nobody there wears a mask, and daily life is normal with busy and crowded buses and markets.

“And Haiti hasn’t yet administered a single COVID-19 vaccine,” NPR‘s Jason Beaubien further reveals.

[…]

It turns out that Haiti had its own version of Tony Fauci, a man named Dr. Jean “Bill” Pape, who headed up a commission during the “pandemic” to deal with the fallout. In the end, however, the commission was dissolved because Haiti was, and continues to be, COVID-free.

“The reason mainly is because we have very, very few cases of COVID,” Pape said about why the commission was ultimately disbanded.

GHESKIO, the local health agency that Pape heads, also closed its COVID units last fall due to a lack of patients.

[…]

“Sometimes it’s two, sometimes zero, sometimes it’s 20 cases,” Pape said. “But we are not seeing a second wave as we thought would happen.”

Unlike much of the rest of the world, Haiti remained open during the “pandemic.” Outdoor markets were never closed, and people there continued working because sheltering in place and remote employment are not things that the average Haitian can afford.

“Most people don’t wear a mask,” Pape added, noting that Haitians continued working as normal throughout the pandemic because “if they don’t work, they don’t eat – their family doesn’t eat.”

When AstraZeneca tried to peddle its COVID injection on Haiti, the Haitian government denied a shipment of it. It turns out that the medical community in Haiti heard about all the “rare” side effects from the jab and thus rejected it.

“COVID did not impact us as badly,” said Dr. Jacqueline Gautier, who serves on the national technical advisory group on COVID vaccination in Haiti. “People don’t think [the vaccine] is worth it, actually.”

Another factor that makes Haiti an incredible success story compared to other nations is the fact that its population is very young. The average age in Haiti is around 23, while in the United States it is closer to 40.

Younger people tend to have stronger immune systems than older people.

“Also, there are many other major problems the country is facing,” Gautier added. “So people don’t see COVID as a major, problem for us. And who can blame them?”

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2023/09/05/nobody-died-covid-haiti-because-nobody-got-vaccinated/

New Zealand: Deaths up 14%. Births down 28%. Disability up 37%.

Guy Hatchard

THE official figures for births and deaths in New Zealand between July 1 2022 and June 30 2023 have been released. The short summary accompanying the release of the horrifying figures compares these with the previous 12 months, and reports increases in deaths and reductions in live births. The 2022/23 figures would have better been compared with the July 2018 to June 2019 totals, the first available pre-pandemic period. We report this comparison below.

There were 38,442 deaths among all ages for July 2022-June 2023 compared with 33,753 deaths in the 2018/19 period. This is an increase of 4,689 deaths (up 14 per cent) and equates to 90 excess deaths per week.

Deaths among 15-to-64-year-olds were up by 6 per cent. Figures released by the Household Labour Force Survey report the rate of disability sufficient to preclude joining the workforce among this age group has increased by 37.5 per cent over the same period and now stands at 14.3 per cent of the workforce. That is huge. Why?

Alarmingly, live births fell from 26,500 in 2018/19 to 19,185 in 2022/23, a decrease of 7,400 or 28 per cent. This is an unprecedented drop.

Covid deaths during this period averaged around two to three per week and can be discounted as a causal factor for the increase in deaths. Nor is an ageing population sufficient explanation for the figures.

We have been aware of data like this for some time now, but there has been deafening silence from our politicians, who are currently running for re-election. We are heading into this election under unusual and coercive constraints which have no precedent in our history as a nation.

Due to the events of the last three years, the machinery of government has assumed more control over our medical and food choices. The birth and death figures must be regarded as a verdict on policies which have enjoyed cross-party support.

As a result of government policies, we have lost many of our rights as citizens. None of the parties currently elected to Parliament has any plans to revoke this government overreach. So what has gone wrong and how will this affect us if we re-elect the same group of political parties to power?

Pandemic policies have established a precedent allowing the government to enforce compliance with its medical rules. They coerced almost everyone to take injections with high rates of adverse effects. Restrictions on social movement and communication have been normalised. Agreements with social media providers and the mainstream press have censored the availability of independent information and hampered scientific dialogue. Access to official public health data has been limited.

The government has passed the Therapeutic Products Bill which has legitimised the substitution of thousands of natural ingredients with untested synthetic alternatives without requirements for clear labelling. The Bill also facilitates dose restrictions and banning of many traditional herbal products and supplements at the whim of a bureaucrat.

The government has authorised the addition of fluoride to public water supplies. It has mandated the addition of chemical supplements to staple foods including a synthetic form of folic acid to flour which is hard to metabolise and inhibits some metabolic pathways vital for health.

Re-electing sitting members of parliament from any party is a prescription for more of the same. Our current politicians are refusing to face up to some hard facts. We are in the midst of a medical emergency of unparalleled proportions. Our hospitals are overwhelmed, our politicians are silent.

Unbelievably, these politicians and medical tsars continue to ignore accumulating evidence being published in learned science journals pointing to adverse effects of mRNA vaccines. Despite this, the government is still funding advertising encouraging the population to receive further booster injections. They don’t work and they endanger health.

There are no plans to investigate what has gone wrong. It is time to say goodbye to MPs from across the political spectrum who have spectacularly failed our nation in its hour of need. If they are re-elected, our ability to manage our own health choices will be gone for good.

The judgment on their competence is there in black and white from their own statistics – deaths up 14 per cent and births down 28 per cent. It doesn’t take a genius to know where this is going. Mistakes were made and they cannot be hidden or denied any longer. Some hard questions must be asked and answered.

[…]

Via https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/deaths-up-14-births-down-28-disability-up-37-wake-up-politicians/

Trump Defiantly Declares ‘WE WILL NOT COMPLY’ in Response to Efforts to Reinstate COVID Lockdowns and Mask and Vaccine Mandates

Jim Hoft

Gateway Pundit

Former President Donald Trump released a fiery video statement, vehemently opposing attempts to reinstate COVID-19 restrictions, including lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates.

Trump’s comments come amidst increased concerns over new variants of COVID-19 in an attempt to manipulate the upcoming 2024 presidential election.

In the video posted on Truth Social, Trump argued that the “left-wing lunatics” are employing scare tactics again about new COVID-19 variants to set the stage for renewed restrictions. He said that the real motive behind this is to influence the upcoming 2024 election through what he describes as an attempt to “restart the COVID hysteria.”

Below is the transcript:

The left-wing lunatics are trying very hard to bring back COVID lockdowns and mandates with all of their sudden fear-mongering about the new variants that are coming.

Gee whiz, you know what else is coming? An election. They want to restart the COVID hysteria so they can justify more lockdowns, more censorship, more illegal dropboxes, more mail-in ballots, and trillions of dollars in payoffs to their political allies heading into the 2024 election. Does that sound familiar?

These are bad people. These are sick people we’re dealing with. But to every COVID tyrant who wants to take away our freedom, hear these words, WE WILL NOT COMPLY, so don’t even think about it.

We will not shut down our schools. We will not accept your lockdowns. We will not abide by your mask mandates, and we will not tolerate your vaccine mandates.

They rigged the 2020 election, and now they’re trying to do the same thing all over again. By rigging the most important election in the history of our country, the 2024 election, even if it means trying to bring back COVID. But they will fail because we will not let it happen.

When I’m back in the White House, I will use every available authority to cut federal funding to any school, college, airline, or public transportation system that imposes a mask mandate or a vaccine mandate.

 

Trump’s comments come after Infowars reported that the Biden regime is preparing to reinstate full COVID-19 lockdowns, beginning with masking mandates for TSA and airport employees reportedly as early as mid-September.

A high-level TSA official reached out to Infowars, detailing a meeting where TSA managers were informed of new memorandums and policies that would reimplement mask-wearing.

These policies will reinstate the mask mandate for TSA and airport employees starting in mid-September.

According to the TSA official, further details on how the policy will escalate will be provided in the coming week.

The official added that by mid-October, mask-wearing will be mandated for pilots, flight staff, passengers, and all airport patrons.

Following this disclosure from the TSA official, Infowars reached out to a trusted Border Patrol source, also in a managerial position.

This source corroborated the directives, confirming that similar measures were being planned for Border Patrol personnel.

“They were told it was not a matter of “if” but “when” official Covid numbers will go back up and they expect by mid-October a return to forced-masking policies that the Biden administration previously only reluctantly ended after massive pressure,” Infowars reported.

During his show, Alex Jones warned that by December, a return to full COVID lockdown will be implemented.

Jones also said that the new variant will be super bad.

[…]

Via https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/donald-trump-defiantly-declares-we-will-not-comply/

Half of Vaccinated People Still Producing Spike Protein After Six Months

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/prca.202300048

Igor Chudov

Remember how we were told that “the vaccine stays in the arm” and that “harmless spike protein is only produced for a couple of days.” They said they were sure of that, despite no data to confirm their statements.

Well, sadly, it turns out that they lied to us. The data is now in, and it proves such claims wrong!

A clever scientific study by Brogna et al., just published, detected the presence of spike protein in COVID-vaccinated people six MONTHS after vaccination – and excluded the possibility of cross-contamination of experimental data with wild-circulating COVID infections.

What the Scientists Did

The study’s authors used a sensitive test, called mass-spectrometry to detect a specific amino-acid sequence that exists only in the vaccine-induced spike protein.

To remind my readers, mRNA COVID vaccines contain genetic code to produce the so-called “spike protein,” a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that allows the virus to penetrate and infect human cells. During the penetration process, called “fusion,” the viral spike protein changes shape, becoming a spear of sorts, penetrating the cell surface.

The only modification that both Pfizer and Moderna did was to “prefusion stabilize” the vaccine-encoded spike protein to prevent it from changing its shape and be more stable in the human body. (You can read more about it here).

The scientists decided to look for that specific, genetically modified protein component.

Experimental design: Mass spectrometry examination of biological samples was used to detect the presence of specific fragments of recombinant Spike protein in subjects who received mRNA-basedvaccines.

The replacement, using two proline amino acids, is referred to as “PP” by the study authors (PP stands for proline-proline). They are Italian and possibly did not realize that “PP” sounds naughty, so in most English literature, the sequence is called “2P”. Leaving kindergarten humor aside, the study authors zero in on the spike protein component that only exists in the COVID vaccine and does NOT occur in the naturally existing Sars-Cov-2 virus.

To be sure that their finding is not spurious, scientists included a control group of people who never received the COVID vaccines:

The study group, from southern Italy, was 40 subjects, 20 were vaccinated with the full cycle of mRNA vaccine as of April 2022, being part of the health sector, and 20 were unvaccinated with negativity for COVID-19 to nasopharyngeal test and with no titer of any antibodies. Other 20 unvaccinated persons were added that were positive for COVID-19.

The three groups were looked at.

It turns out that only the people in the vaccinated subgroup were found to carry vaccine-derived spike protein. What is worse, vaccine spike protein was found as late as six months after the last dose!

The specific PP-Spike fragment was found in 50% of the biological sample analyzed (Figures 1C–E and 2). This presence was independent of the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titer. The antibody titers had a geometric mean of 629.86BAU/mL (Figure 1E). The minimum time PP-Spike was detected was 69 days after vaccination, while the maximum time was 187days. Allcontrols (samples from unvaccinated individuals) were negative. The control group (20 unvaccinated people) was also tested after contracting COVID-19 and was negative for PP-spike.

Nowhere does the study state that spike protein production ends after 187 days – the upper limit on time after vaccination was an artifact of the study design.

This picture explains the study design, showing the location of the “stabilized 2P spike protein” amino acid sequence:

The authors explain the likely mechanism of persistent spike protein production:

Note the ominous possibility, “mRNA may be integrated or re-transcribed”. What is that?

Covid Vaccine Becomes Part of Human DNA?

An item of note is the above sentence, “It is possible that the mRNA may be integrated or re-transcribed in some cells.” The so-called reverse transcription, that is, vaccine mRNA becoming part of the human DNA genome in some affected cells, was originally dismissed without evidence by the so-called “COVID science,” until it was demonstrated in in-vitro experiments.

Similarly, human cells with COVID vaccine genetic code reverse-transcribed into them may also endlessly produce the spike protein for the affected individuals’ lives.

Does this Explain IgG4 Immune Tolerance?

The so-called immune tolerance, which is a tendency of the organism to ignore persistent pathogens instead of offering a vigorous immune reaction, may be why vaccinated people are more susceptible to frequent repeat infections and slower virus clearance.

[…]

Via https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/half-of-vaccinated-people-never-stop

 

How the Magna Carta Came About

Episode  2 The Magna Carta: Patching Up a Squabble

1215: Years That Changed History

Dr Dorsey Armstrong (2019)

Film Review

Despite the Magna Carta’s reputation as the foundation of modern democratic legal systems, it had minimal impact on the rural peasants who comprised most of England’s population in 1215. Armstrong uses most of this lecture to lay out historical background to this agreement between King John I and 25 rebellious barons.

Following the Norman conquest in 1066, the Anglo Saxon barons who controlled most English estates had their lands seized by their new Norman overlords. Most of the Anglo Saxon barons who survived went into monasteries.

Following his occupation of England, William the Conqueror continued to control much of France.* However by 1215, John I was continuously at war with the French king to keep these lands. This, along without continual wars in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, led to massive tax increases, especially after the king lost many of his French holdings (and the revenue they produced).

In the 13th century, all English land technically belonged to the Crown, with large landholders paying the king a fee for growing crops on it (cultivated by peasant serfs). In addition to increasing these fees, John I also increased the fees sheriffs paid for the right to collect taxes (which they pocketed) in their assigned jurisdictions. King John also increased his income by aforesting agricultural land to increase his income from poaching fines.**

The rebellious barons were also angry about the king’s dispute with the pope about the former’s attempt to appoint his own Archbishop of Canterbury (the nominal leader of the Catholic church in 13th century England). To punish the king, from 1208-1213 the pope put England under an interdict under which no church bells rang, no masses were held and no English Catholic could be buried in consecrated ground. John I’s reaction was to seize the revenue of all England’s Catholic churches, for which the pope excommunicated him.

The pope repealed the interdict after John I accepted the pope’s appointment of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, signed over all his remaining empire (England, Anjou, Poitu, Gascony and Ireland) to the pope and agreed to pay Rome 1100 marks a year to remain king.

The barons’ initial demand was for John I to affirm the laws of the Anglo-Saxon King Edward the Confessor and to reissue Henry I’s charter of liberty. When the king refused, the barons renounced their allegiance to the throne.

After the king appointed a royal negotiator, the 25 barons drew up the 63 clause document (later referred to as the Magna Carta). The king signed it on June 15, 1215 at Runnymede.

A few month’s later, at the king’s request, the pope declared it illegal under church law.

*In addition to Normandy, Anjou, Poitou, Gascony the English king controlled Aquitaine (acquired after William the Conqueror’s great grand son Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine. At the time, it was known as the Angevin Empire.

**Prior to 1066, forests were a commons, which meant it was legal for all British subjects to hunt enough boar and deer to feed their families. After the Norman conquest, the forest became the king’s exclusive property.

***John I’s father Henry II appointed – and later murdered – Archbishop of Canterbury Thoma Beckett.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/12392969/12392973

CO2: A Close Examination of the 97% consensus

By: Gregory Wrightstone – Executive Director CO2 Coalition

You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. You may also have heard that those who don’t buy into the climate-apocalypse mantra are science-deniers. The truth is that a whole lot more than 3% of scientists are skeptical of the party line on climate. A whole lot more.

The many scientists, engineers and energy experts that comprise the CO2 Coalition are often asked something along the lines of: “So you believe in climate change, then?” Our answer? “Yes, of course we do: it has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.” It is important to ask the right questions. The question is not, “Is climate change happening?” The real question of serious importance is, “Is climate change now driven primarily by human actions? That question should be followed up by “is our changing climate beneficial or harmful to ecosystems and humanity?”

There are some scientific truths that are quantifiable and easily proven, and with which, I am confident, at least 97% of scientists agree. Here are two:

Carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing in recent years.Temperatures, as measured by thermometers and satellites, have been generally increasing in fits and starts for more than 150 years.

What is impossible to quantify is the actual percentage of warming that is attributable to increased anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2. There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of the warming we’ve had since 1900 that was directly caused by us.

We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces, which did not cease to operate at the beginning of the 20th century.

The claim that most modern warming is attributable to human activities is scientifically insupportable. The truth is that we do not know. We need to be able to separate what we do know from that which is only conjecture.

What is the basis for the “97% consensus” notion? Is it true? 

[…]

If, indeed, 97% of all scientists truly believed that human activities were causing the moderate warming that we have seen in the last 150 years, it would be reasonable for one to consider this when determining what to believe. One would be wrong, however.

Science, unlike religion, is not a belief system. Scientists, just like anyone else, will say that they believe things (whether they believe them or not) for social convenience, political expediency or financial profit. For this and other good reasons, science is not founded upon the beliefs of scientists. It is a disciplined method of inquiry, by which scientists apply pre-existing theory to observation and measurement, so as to develop or to reject a theory, so that they can unravel as clearly and as certainly as possible the distinction between what the Greek philosopher Anaximander called “that which is and that which is not.”

[…]

The long and hard road to scientific truth cannot be followed by the trivial expedient of a mere head-count among those who make their livings from government funding. Therefore, the mere fact that climate activists find themselves so often appealing to an imagined and (as we shall see) imaginary “consensus” is a red flag. They are far less sure of the supposed scientific truths to which they cling than they would like us to believe. “Consensus,” here, is a crutch for lame science.

What, then, is the origin of the “97% consensus” notion? Is it backed up with research and data?

The earliest attempt to document a “consensus” on climate change was a 2004 paper cited by Al Gore in his allegedly non-fiction book, An Inconvenient Truth. (Gore attended natural science class at Harvard, but got a D grade for it.) The author of the cited paper, Naomi Oreskes, asserted that 75% of nearly 1,000 papers she had reviewed on the question of climate change agreed with the “consensus” proposition favored by the IPCC: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” None, she maintained, dissented from this line of reasoning.

The Oreskes paper came to the attention of Klaus-Martin Schulte, an eminent London surgeon, who had become concerned with the adverse health effects of his patients from their belief in apocalyptic global warming.

Professor Schulte decided to update Oreskes’ work. However, he found that only 45% of several hundred papers endorsed the “consensus” position. He concluded: “There appears to be little basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians, now carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients.”

The primary paper that is often trotted out in support of the notion of “97% consensus” was written by John Cook and his merry band of climate extremists. Published in 2013, it is the most widely referenced work on the subject of climate consensus and has been downloaded more than 1.3 million times.

[…]

The project was self-described as “a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the website.” The team consisted of 12 climate activists who did not leave their climate prejudices at home. These volunteers, many of whom had no training in the sciences, said they had “reviewed” abstracts from 11,944 peer-reviewed papers related to climate change or global warming, published over the 21 years 1991 – 2011, to assess the extent to which they supported the “consensus view” on climate change. As Cook’s paper said,

“We analysed a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC [climate change], published over a 21-year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).”

The paper concluded,

“Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. … Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

The paper asserted—falsely, as it turned out—that 97% of the papers the reviewers examined had explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans are causing the majority of the warming of the last 150 years.

When one looks at the data, one finds that 7,930 of the papers took no position at all on the subject and were arbitrarily excluded from the count on this ground. If we simply add back all of the papers reviewed, the 97% claimed by Cook and his co-authors falls to 32.6%.

A closer look at the paper reveals that the so-called “97%” included three categories of endorsement of human-caused climate change (Figure 1). Only the first category amounted to an explicit statement that humans are the primary cause of recent warming. The second and third categories would include most skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic warming, including the scientists of the CO2 Coalition, who accept that increasing CO2 is probably causing some, probably modest, amount of warming; an amount that is likely rendered insignificant by natural causes of warmer weather. Only by casting a wide net could Cook conclude that there is any type of “consensus.”

Figure 1 – Categories of endorsement – Cook 2013

Agnotology is defined as “the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.” This is how David Legates and his co-authors (2015) describe the Cook paper and similar attempts falsely to promote the notion of broad scientific consensus surrounding the subject of a looming, man-made, climate apocalypse.

They reviewed the actual papers used by Cook and found that only 0.3% of the 11,944 abstracts and 1.6% of the smaller sample that excluded those papers expressing no opinion endorsed man-made global warming as they defined it. Remarkably, they found that Cook and his assistants had themselves marked only 64 papers—or 0.5% of the 11,944 they said they had reviewed—as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man-made (Figure 2). Yet they stated, both in the paper itself and subsequently, that they had found a “97% consensus” explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man-made.

It appears that Cook and his co-authors manipulated the data to present an altogether untrue narrative of overwhelming support for catastrophic human-caused warming.

Note that the official “consensus” position—supported though it was by just 0.3% of the 11,944 papers reviewed—says nothing more than recent warming was mostly man-made. Even if that were the case—and the overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on that question, for it is beyond our present knowledge to answer—it would not indicate that global warming is dangerous.

[…]

More recently, in 2016, George Mason University (Maibach 2016) surveyed more than 4,000 members of the American Meteorological Society and found that 33% believed that climate change was not occurring, was at most half man-made, was mostly natural, or they did not know. Significantly, only 18% believed that a large amount—or all—of additional climate change could be averted.

[…]

Via https://co2coalition.org/media/97-consensus-what-consensus-2/

Federal Court Rules Against FDA in Ivermectin Case

Posted BY: RM | NwoReport

In a significant legal development, a Federal Court has ruled that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) exceeded its authority with its messaging against the use of Ivermectin in Americans. The court’s verdict emphasized that the FDA should not assume the role of a physician in determining treatment options.

The controversy surrounding Ivermectin has been a hot topic throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While some studies suggested potential benefits of the drug, the FDA maintained a stance against its use for treating or preventing COVID-19. This led to a legal challenge by individuals and groups advocating for Ivermectin’s use as a potential treatment option.

The court’s decision highlighted the FDA’s primary role as a regulatory body responsible for ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and medical products. It clarified that the FDA’s authority does not extend to making individualized medical decisions for patients. This ruling emphasizes the importance of allowing healthcare professionals and patients to make treatment decisions based on their unique circumstances and medical expertise.

The FDA’s messaging on Ivermectin had sparked debates and fueled conspiracy theories, with some believing that the agency was withholding a potentially effective treatment. However, the court’s decision reaffirms the need for evidence-based medical practices and underscores the importance of clinical trials and rigorous scientific evaluation in determining the suitability of drugs for specific conditions.

In conclusion, the Federal Court’s ruling regarding the FDA’s messaging on Ivermectin serves as a reminder of the agency’s role in drug regulation. It highlights the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between regulatory oversight and individual medical decisions. This decision will likely have a significant impact on future public health communications and the ongoing discussions surrounding potential treatments for COVID-19.

[…]

Via https://nworeport.me/federal-court-finds-fda-overstepped-boundaries-in-anti-ivermectin-messaging-says-fda-is-not-a-doctor/

Ten Irrefutable 9/11 Facts

By Elias Davidsson and Craig McKee

Global Research

1. U.S. authorities have failed to trace, arrest, try (prosecute), and punish anyone responsible for the crime against humanity committed on 9/11.

The mass murder committed on September 11, 2001 represents, under international law, a crime against humanity. The State where it was committed – in this case the United States of America – bears the obligation to the international community to trace, arrest, try, and punish individuals responsible for that crime.

Since 2002, U.S. authorities admit they have detained a handful of persons at Guantánamo Bay who are accused of helping to orchestrate 9/11. Their identities remain in doubt; their alleged confessions were made behind closed doors; and their trial by a military court does not fulfill minimal international norms of due process.

U.S. authorities claim to have sentenced Zacarias Moussaoui to life imprisonment for not having warned the FBI about the preparations for 9/11, an allegation he denied. No evidence was presented that he was involved in the preparations for 9/11 or knew anything about these preparations. No evidence was presented that he even knew the alleged hijackers. U.S. authorities also claim to hold, since 2003, a man by the name of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) in Guantánamo who allegedly confessed to have masterminded 9/11 and more than 30 other terrorist operations. He also allegedly confessed to having planned an attack on a bank in Washington State that did not exist until after he was already in Guantánamo. The man, whose identity remains murky and whose connection to 9/11 is limited to what he said in his ludicrous confession, has not been prosecuted, let alone sentenced. No one seriously expects him to be ever brought to trial, let alone a trial fulfilling international norms.

2. When announcing to the United Nations their decision to attack Afghanistan, U.S. authorities failed to provide evidence that the crime of 9/11 was in any way connected to Afghanistan. In fact, such evidence has still not been produced.

See the letter from U.S. Representative John Negroponte to the President of the UN Security Council, October 7, 2001 (mirrored here).

3. The United States government did not authorize an investigation of the events of 9/11 that could have fulfilled minimal international standards: The 9/11 Commission was neither independent nor impartial, and its investigation was neither thorough nor transparent.

Regarding minimal standards of investigation, see Elias Davidsson, “The Events of 11 September 2001 and the Right to the Truth.” (See this or this)

4. Despite vilifying Osama bin Laden as a terrorist leader, judicial authorities in the United States have failed to charge him in connection with 9/11. He was not even wanted in connection with this crime.

The FBI admitted in June 2006 that it possesses no concrete evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11. (See: Ed Haas, “FBI says, it has no ‘hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” Information Clearing House, June 18, 2006, mirrored here)

5. Authorities in the United States have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the 19 persons named by the FBI as 9/11 hijackers even boarded aircraft that they are alleged to have subsequently hijacked. 

To be precise: U.S. authorities have failed to produce authenticated passenger lists that would include the names of the alleged hijackers; witnesses who saw these alleged hijackers in the airports or boarding the aircraft; authenticated security-camera videos proving their presence in the airports of departure; and DNA identification of these individuals’ bodily remains (see detailed analysis in Elias Davidsson, Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11 [Algora Publishers, New York, 2013], Chapter 2).

6. U.S. authorities have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that passenger airliners crashed at the known landmarks on 9/11.

The FBI admitted in a letter to the Nevada District U.S. Court on March 14, 2008, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose, that records detailing the collection and positive identification of the wreckage of the crashed aircraft do not exist (Letter mirrored here). He thus admitted that the FBI failed to formally identify the wreckage found at the various crash sites as belonging to the allegedly hijacked aircraft. It is, therefore, not established that the allegedly hijacked aircraft crashed at these locations.

7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air.

Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011 (See, inter alia, Anemona Hartocollis, “Connecting with lost loved ones, if only by the tips of fingers,” The New York Times, September 11, 2011 [mirrored here]). U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances.

8. U.S. authorities compensated families of 9/11 victims that agreed to waive their right to further court action. The compensation exceeded by at least seven times what was paid to the families of firefighters who died in rescue operations on 9/11.

The families of 9/11 victims received from the U.S. Compensation Fund, established in October 2001, an average of $2.1 million if they agreed to waive their right to engage in civil proceedings (see, inter alia, Brian Bernbaum, “9/11 Fund Chief Faults Payments,” CBS News, 4.9.2003 [mirrored here]). As of 2013, spouses of firefighters who die in line of duty can obtain $333,605 under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) Act (42 U.S.C. 3796). The figure for 2001 was undoubtedly lower. The 95 families, who did not apply to the Compensation Fund and preferred to let courts determine their rights, obtained an average of $5.5 million in out-of-court settlements (see, Ashby Jones, “The 9/11 Victim Settlements: A Chat with Skadden’s Sheila Birnbaum,” The Wall Street Journal, 13.3.2009 [mirrored here]).

9. U.S. authorities have failed to explain the effect of numerous military drills conducted on the morning of 9/11 – including the simulation of aircraft hijackings – on the commission of the mass murder.

Military drills caused confusion and surprised military and civilian personnel responsible for air traffic, as reported in U.S. media. For example, NORAD Major General Larry Arnold said that, “By the end of the day, we had twenty-one aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” (See, Eric Hehs, “Conversation with Major General Larry Arnold,” One Magazine, January 2002 [mirrored here]). Colonel Robert Marr, NEADS battle commander, said he had been told that across the nation there were “29 different reports of hijackings.” (See, Robert A. Baker, “Commander of 9/11 Air Defenses Retires,” Newhouse News Service, March 31, 2005 [mirrored here]). U.S. authorities failed to explain how these drills affected the commission of the crime, including the apparent failure to intercept hijacked aircraft.

10. U.S. authorities promoted numerous officials who, according to the official account on 9/11, had failed to carry out their duties with regard to 9/11. Not a single person has been held accountable anywhere in government for what went wrong on or prior to 9/11.

Here are few examples: Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11, was promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2001; Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11, was promoted to head the new “Northern Command” a year after 9/11; Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director on 9/11, was promoted in 2004 to the rank of admiral; Brigadier General Montague Winfield, who on 9/11 was in charge of the National Military Command Center (NMCC), was promoted in May 2003 to the two-star rank of major general; Marion (Spike) Bowman, who blocked FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 9/11, was given an award for “exceptional performance” after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report claimed that his unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false.”

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-irrefutable-devastating-911-facts/5637525

Why Are They Talking about UFOs Instead of Covid Fascism?

Daniel Horowitz

Brownstone Institute

It was the 800-pound gorilla not in the room at the debate. It was the elephant not in the room either at the debate or during the Tucker Carlson interview with Trump, although it has a lot to do with Trump. The Fox moderators did not utter the word COVID the entire night, nor did Tucker ask Trump about his doubling down on the vaccines and refusing to acknowledge any mistakes with the lockdowns, even as the biomedical fascists begin bringing back COVID fascism.

A debate where UFOs were discussed more than the worst tyranny and genocide in American history is no debate at all.

It’s the policy that led to the greatest loss of life and now permanent destruction of the economy. Nearly every policy vice we are dealing with today flows fully or partially from the decisions that created COVID and induced the tyrannical response to it. Yet because the leaders of both parties and their respective media mouthpieces – including the top GOP gun himself – were all in on it, nobody wants a reckoning. We have not had a reckoning on emergency powers, lockdowns, masks, blocking of treatment, or the deadly vaccines and remdesivir.

As Steve Deace and I warned in our book, “Those responsible are without remorse, so there must be a reckoning. Barring that reckoning, we promise you they will make us remorseful later for not holding them accountable now.”

Well, here we are with multiple colleges and businesses, including those in red states, pushing inhumane and illogical mask mandates again. Here we are with the FDA about to approve more dangerous COVID variant-chasing shots for the fall. And here we are with the FDA approving another dangerous Pfizer shot for RSV for pregnant women, despite terrible reproductive safety signals with the company’s COVID shots and now concerns of preterm birth with its RSV serum. Operation Warp Speed was not an anomaly but a new paradigm. Public health surveillance and restriction were not an aberration from life but a new way of life for these people.

Then there is the economy. Obviously, the economy chewed up a substantial portion of the presidential debate, as well as most of our daily political discussions. But nearly every economic ill that ails us today is the result of the COVID money-printing policies. The trillions of dollars of monetary and fiscal spending created the greatest wealth gap in American history, as well as a permanently elevated cost of living.

Ron DeSantis was the only one on the stage to trace the excrement sandwich we now call our economy back to its obvious source. Otherwise, the entire existence of the past three years from hell would never have been recalled, even as many of the policies are making a comeback, with a number of them – from rushed vaccines to inflation – never having left.

The coverage of the COVID abomination even from conservative media has been muted from day one – ever since “15 days to stop the spread” supplanted life, liberty, property, and economic prosperity until this very day. I’m not going to speculate as to the rationale for this obfuscation, but it is jarring that Tucker Carlson did not ask Trump a single question about it during his carefully timed pretaped interview aired at 9 p.m. Eastern Wednesday night.

For those who think COVID fascism is over, just keep in mind:

The FDA and CDC are still funding and promoting dangerous vaccines at an even quicker pace.Remdesivir is still the treatment for COVID to this very day.Governments are still tracking and surveilling vaccination status.Masking is still the go-to policy in many settings whenever respiratory viruses spread.Our government has not slowed its gain-of-function aka vaccine research one bit.

The Biden administration just announced another $1.4 billion to develop the “next generation” of COVID shots. Where is the outrage from the GOP or even the promise to defund these shots in the upcoming fiscal year budget just weeks away?

The lesson of the muted response to COVID from the so-called right is that clearly things have not gotten bad enough. The sad and terrifying thing is that whatever they must throw at us to elicit a righteous and unified policy response will now have to be so devastating that we will likely never have the political ability to fight it even if we wanted to. Meanwhile, the vanity and political circus will continue unabated.

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/why-are-they-talking-about-ufos-instead-of-covid-fascism/

Wikipedia Is an Information Warfare Tool

Dr. Joseph Mercola

Story at-a-glanceWikipedia is the most biased encyclopedia in history, having been hijacked by U.S. intelligence, industry and the political establishment years agoAccording to Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger, U.S. intelligence has been manipulating the online encyclopedia since at least 2008, if not longerSanger noticed a bias creeping in around 2006, particularly in areas of science and medicine. Around 2010, he noticed that articles about Eastern Medicine were being changed to reflect blatantly biased positions, using “dismissive epithets” to paint this ancient tradition as quackeryOver-the-top kind of establishment bias includes Wikipedia’s assertion that the Ukraine-Biden scandal is a conspiracy theory designed to undermine Biden, even though evidence of Biden’s corruption has been made publicOne explanation for why ideological bias has taken over Wikipedia is that it’s intentionally being used as a propaganda tool by intelligence agencies and the globalist establishment that is seeking to establish a One World Government. To succeed, they can’t allow a multitude of dissenting viewpoints to proliferate, and intelligence agencies are working together to disseminate and uphold the Deep State’s narratives worldwide

Intelligence agencies have a long history of using propaganda as a tool of war, and the effectiveness of information warfare radically improved with the emergence of the internet, to say nothing of artificial intelligence and social media.

If you’re over 50, you can probably remember a time when your family had a row of encyclopedias on the bookshelf — usually obtained at considerable cost — which were perused whenever you needed to learn more about a particular topic.

Today, you can’t even give a complete set of encyclopedias away because, well, we have Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia has also become a favored propaganda tool, so to call it unreliable would be an understatement.

According to Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger — who left Wikipedia in 2002, the year after its inception — U.S. intelligence has been manipulating the online encyclopedia since at least 2008, if not longer. Sanger recently sat down to speak with independent journalist Glenn Greenwald (video above) about the subversion of the site he helped create.1

The Blatant Bias of Wikipedia

Sanger says he noticed a bias creeping in around 2006, particularly in areas of science and medicine. Around 2010, he started noticing that articles about Eastern Medicine were being changed to reflect blatantly biased positions, using “dismissive epithets” to paint this ancient tradition as quackery.

In 2012, evidence also emerged revealing a Wikipedia trustee and “Wikipedian in Residence” were being paid to edit pages on behalf of their clients and secure their placement on Wikipedia’s front page in the “Did You Know” section,2 which publicizes new or expanded articles3 — a clear violation of Wikipedia rules.

“It really got over the top … between 2013 and 2018,” Sanger says, “and by by at the time Trump became president, it was almost as bad as it is now. It’s amazing, you know, no encyclopedia, to my knowledge, has ever been as biased as Wikipedia has been …

I remember being mad about Encyclopedia Britannica and The World Book not mentioning my favorite topics, [and] presenting only certain points of view in a way that establishment sources generally do. But this is something else. This is entirely different. It’s over the top.”

Greenwald agrees, highlighting some recent examples of the “over the top” kind of establishment bias, such as Wikipedia simply declaring that the Ukraine-Biden scandal is a conspiracy theory designed to undermine Biden:

“The very first sentence reads: ‘The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was Vice President of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.’

‘As part of efforts by Donald Trump and his campaign in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump’s first impeachment, these falsehoods were spread in an attempt to damage Joe Biden’s reputation and chances during the 2020 presidential campaign,’ the Wikipedia entry still reads.

So, notice: The Biden-Ukraine scandal is — according to Wikipedia — the ‘Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory’ but the Trump controversy involving Ukraine is ‘the Trump–Ukraine scandal’. Everything is written to comport with the liberal world view and the Democratic Party talking points.”

Wikipedia’s treatment of all things COVID-related is equally skewed. It presents only the establishment’s “truth” across the board, no matter how much evidence there is to refute it.

‘Truth’ Has Been Married to Ideology

“Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia devoted to truth,” Greenwald says. The problem is that “The premise seems to be that you don’t have truth anymore independent of ideological outlook.”

We know that a great part of intelligence and information warfare is conducted online, and where, if not on websites like Wikipedia? ~ Larry Sanger

Indeed, Sanger points out that Wikipedia’s official policy even declares that 80% of Right-wing media is unreliable, and “that really, really colors the articles and what the editors allow the articles to say,” he says. Just how did we get to a point where “truth” is tied to a particular ideology? Common sense tells you it simply cannot be so.

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/09/02/wikipedia-information-warfare-tool.aspx