Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 495
November 5, 2022
Republicans’ chief House investigator vows to take on bureaucracy, starting with vaccine royalties
John Solomon
Just the News
The congressman who would lead the most powerful investigative committee in the House if Republicans win the midterms is sending an unmistakable advance warning to the permanent federal bureaucracy: It’s time to “get rid of some of these useless bureaucrats who are just a drain on the American taxpayer.”
Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the ranking Republicans on the House Oversight Committee, told Just the News on Thursday evening his top three investigative priorities include Biden family corruption, the insecure southern border and the origins and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Comer said the latter category will include a deep review of the practices of the National Institutes of Health, including the large salaries, significant autonomy and royalties for taxpayer-funded drugs and vaccines they have collected over the last two decades.
“We’re seriously concerned about not just the origination of COVID, but also a lot of the COVID spending,” Comer said during a wide-ranging interview on the “Just the News, No Noise” television show. “We’re concerned about the royalties that high ranking government officials were getting for vaccine sales. We’re concerned about the slush fund at the NIH.”
Comer’s comments came after reports indicated the soon-retiring Dr. Anthony Fauci, the NIH’s quarterback for the pandemic, was collecting the largest salary in the federal government at $434,000 a year, and will receive a lifetime pension exceeding $350,000 annually.
In addition, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) revealed this summer that 27,000 royalty payments totaling more than $193 million for drug, vaccine and other medical technologies were collected by 18,000 NIH employees.
Comer said federal bureaucrats have been given too much autonomy to act as they want without regard to the will of Congress or federal law, a dynamic he hopes to change using the power of the purse if the GOP wins control of the House in Tuesday’s midterm elections.
“One of the things that just drives me crazy is the lack of respect by these government bureaucrats that continue to do whatever they want, whenever they want,” Comer said. “And they spend whatever they want. The Congress orders these agencies to have certain budgets, they put, you know, line items in there, different types of spending. But then these bureaucrats turn around and they do what they want.”
Comer said one tool he hopes to reinvigorate is the Holman Rule, a Civil War era rule that empowers Congress to defund a federal employee, program or office with a simple majority vote if they aren’t following federal law or defying the will of Congress. Resurrecting the long-dormant rule has been suggested by some of Comer’s colleagues, including Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).
“Absolutely, it should be a useful tool for the American taxpayer,” he said of the Holman Rule. “You know, one of the main priorities for me as chairman of the House Oversight Committee will be to get the backs of the American taxpayer. Nobody’s been watching out for the taxpayers in this Democrat majority.”
The rule “is something that we should use, and we should use it every day,” Comer said. “And that’s something that I want to use in my toolbox in the House Oversight Committee to try to shrink the size of government and get rid of some of these useless bureaucrats that are just a drain on the American taxpayer.”
Comer also confirmed a story in Just the News on Thursday that he plans to investigate how the Homeland Security Department under Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has worked with a private consortium aiming to censor Americans on social media platforms. A letter was sent Wednesday demanding the agency turn over evidence to Comer’s investigators.
“This administration, this Cabinet, particularly led by Mayorkas, would label anything they disagreed with as disinformation,” he said. “We have constantly told this Cabinet and this administration to cut that out, that wasn’t legal, that wasn’t constitutional, and no tax dollars should be spent for any type of disinformation board or Ministry of Propaganda or whatever you want to call it. But yet they continue to circumvent the wishes and the orders of Congress.”
[…]
2000 Mules Investigators Gregg Phillips and True the Vote Founder ARRESTED and Taken Into Custody One Week Before Mid-Term Election
Gregg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht
This morning, Federal Judge Kenneth Hoyt held True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht and True the Vote investigator Gregg Phillips were arrested and held in contempt of court over their refusal to identify a confidential informant who helped them obtain information that led to the discovery and later, evidence that the E. Lansing, MI based election software company Konnech was storing election-related data on servers in China.
Ivory Hecker, a former Fox News reporter turned independent journalist was on the scene during the hearings in the district court.
She reports:
“Judge Hoyt orders that Engelbrecht and Phillips be held in custody for a day or more until they bring forth the information they are withholding,” Hecker tweeted. She added, “Judge says he never got a straight answer on who was in the Dallas hotel room January, 2021, and he doesn’t know how many people were there. Judge says the way Phillips and Engelbrecht talked suggests True the Vote did have access to the hacked computer data, though they deny it.
Judge Hoyt orders that Engelbrecht and Phillips be held in custody for a day or more, until they bring forth the information they are withholding.
— Ivory Hecker (@IvoryHecker) October 31, 2022
The courageous duo have been taken into custody by US Marshalls and are currently being held.
[…]
Engelbrecht and Phillips were the duo behind the bombshell documentary 2000 Mules that used geofencing data to uncover an alleged massive ballot-harvesting operation in several key states across America in 2020.
[…]
Indian and Islamic Influence in Southeast Asia
Episode 32: Southeast Asia – Indian and Islamic Influences
Foundations of Eastern Civilization
Dr Craig Benjamin (2013)
Film Review
According to Benjamin, Buddhism, Islam and other aspects of Indian culture reached Southeast Asia via the “Maritime Silk Road.” Buddhism first reached the islands of Java and Sumatra between 100 and 200 BC, traveling on to the smaller Southeast Asian Islands and Indonesia.
Soon Malayan, Cambodia and Vietnam came to be ruled by Indian-style kings who called themselves “raja” and used Sanskrit for official documents. Many of these rulers converted to either Buddhism or Hinduism, though they refused to adopt the Hindu caste system.
Funan, a prosperous former state centered in Vietnam’s Mekong River Valley, was the first Southeast Asian kingom to enthusiastically embrace Hinduism and Indian culture. Funan controlled the isthmus of Kra (on the Malay Peninsula), which meant they controlled all the sea trade to more eastern states.
During the 6th century AD, Cham and Khmer invaded Funan, establishing the Buddhist kingdom of Srivijaya in the 11th century. This powerful state controlled all Southeast Asian sea trade 400 years, when they were invaded and occupied by the South Indian Chola Empire.
Following the collapse of Srivijaya, Angkor, Singsari and Maja dominated Southeast Asian trade until the 16th century.
The Khmer state of Angkor (889 -1231 AD), the most prominent, initially adopted the prevailing Hindu religion. However in the 12th and 13th century, it became Buddhist and built phenomenal temples currently listed as UNESCO heritage sites. In 1231, it was invaded by the Thai, the temples abandoned and overgrown.
The collapse of Srivijaya also coincided with by major Muslim missionary activity (facilitated by an influx of Muslim trade) in Southeast Asia.** Mass Muslim conversions started on the north coast of Sumatra, and spread first to Malaya, then to Java and the Celebes Island and eventually to Mindanao in the Philippines.
Muslim in Southeast Asia differed significantly from other areas of Asia, in that women enjoyed more equality in the family and in public. Historically many prominent Southeast Asian traders were women, and inheritance passed through the female line.
*By the 8th century, the Muslim Abbasid Caliphate was equal in size to the Tang Empire (at the time the two largest empires in Eurasia).
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/5808608/5808673
November 4, 2022
Are mRNA Covid Jabs Destroying People’s Immune Systems?
Dr Mercola
Story at-a-glanceHospitals around the U.S. are suddenly struggling to keep up with surging rates of respiratory infections among children, such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), COVID, rhinoviruses and influenzaModerna is working on an mRNA jab for RSV, which is scheduled for release in 2023. They’re also working on a combination mRNA jab for COVID, RSV and the fluCensored scientists and doctors have long warned that the mRNA COVID jabs are destroying people’s immune systems, and that we’re going to see an avalanche of infections as immune system failure sets inThe COVID jab causes innate immune suppression, which makes you more susceptible to all kinds of infections and chronic diseases. Suppression of Type 1 interferon signaling appears to be one of the primary mechanisms by which the shot destroys immune competence, and repeated booster shots can reliably be anticipated to amplify adverse effectsThe more shots you get, the more likely you are to die from COVID. While only 34% of Canadians have received three or four doses of the COVID jab, triple and quadruple jabbed made up 81% of all COVID deaths in June 2022. Excess mortality among young children, teens and young adults is also skyrocketingHospitals around the U.S. are suddenly struggling to keep up with surging rates of respiratory infections among children, such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV),1 COVID, rhinoviruses and influenza.2 Hospital staff feign confusion, saying they have no idea what’s going on.
Meanwhile, censored scientists and doctors have long warned that the mRNA COVID jabs are destroying people’s immune systems, and that we’re going to see an avalanche of infections as immune system failure sets in.
Many Hospitals at or Near CapacityAs of the third week of October 2022, several children’s hospitals in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Connecticut and Virginia reported being at or near capacity.3 To expand capacity, officials in Hartford, Connecticut, are seeking help from the National Guard and FEMA.
According to Dr. Margaret R. Moon, co-director of Johns Hopkins Children’s Center in Baltimore, the hospital “is experiencing a surge of patients due to an increase in cases of RSV, as well as other reasons, and many surrounding hospitals are facing the same.”4
RSV typically causes mild cold-like symptoms that last for a week or two. While harmless in adults, in infants the virus can cause more severe infections such as bronchiolitis (inflammation of the smaller branches of the bronchial airways) and pneumonia.
According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data,5 58,000 children under age 5 are hospitalized for RSV each year, and the CDC’s RSV dashboard6 (screenshot below) does show that RSV is acting unseasonably. Could this out-of-season emergence of RSV have something to do with the fact that the Food and Drug Administration authorized the COVID shot for children under 5 in June 2022?7
Maybe, maybe not. It’s not a clear parallel, as RSV also rose out of season during the summer of 2021, when young children did not yet have access to the COVID shot. Parents and older siblings, however, were eligible, and there are still many open questions surrounding the issue of shedding. It’s possible that spike protein shedding from the shots were affecting younger children, suppressing their immune systems.
[…]COVID Jab Causes Innate Immune SuppressionThere’s now ample evidence showing the COVID jab causes innate immune suppression, which makes you more susceptible to all kinds of infection, not just COVID, as well as any number of chronic diseases.
In June 2022, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Dr. Greg Nigh, Dr. Anthony Kyriakopoulos and Dr. Peter McCullough published a paper10 in Food and Chemical Toxicology, reviewing the mechanisms by which the shots suppress immune function and trigger disease.
[…]
Suppression of Type 1 interferon signaling appears to be one of the primary mechanisms by which the shot suppresses and destroys immune competence, and repeated booster shots can reliably be anticipated to amplify any and all adverse effects.
Type 1 Interferon Suppression Is a Recipe for Ill HealthType 1 interferon plays an important role in the immune response to viral infections, cancer and autoimmune diseases. So, the fact that we’re now seeing significant increases in all of these conditions is not surprising.
When a cell is invaded by a virus, it releases Type 1 interferon alpha and Type 1 interferon beta. They act as signaling molecules that tell the cell that it’s been infected. That, in turn, launches the immune response and gets it going early in the viral infection. It’s been shown that people who end up with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection have a compromised Type 1 interferon response. Those who get the jab have an even more suppressed response.
Importantly, the antibody response you get from the COVID shot is exponentially higher than what you get from natural infection, and the level of antibody response rises with disease severity. So, the shot basically mimics severe infection, and this is why boosters can spell disaster.
If your Type 1 interferon response is already deficient, your immune cells are not very capable at stopping the spread of a virus in your body. Hence, the more shots you get, and the more your Type 1 interferon response is impaired, the more likely you become to develop severe infections, be it COVID or any other infection. This also means that you’re more likely to die, and rising excess mortality statistics, which I’ll review in a moment, confirm this.
Type 1 interferon also keeps latent viruses like herpes and varicella (which causes shingles) viruses in check, and when your interferon pathway is suppressed, these latent viruses can also start to emerge. And, indeed, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database reveals many who have been jabbed do report these kinds of infections.
[…]
The More Shots You Get, the More Likely You’ll Die of COVIDVideo LinkAs noted by Dr. Charles Hoffe in a September 15, 2022, interview with Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, “The more shots you get, the more likely you will die from COVID-19.” An excerpt from the interview is included above. You can find the full interview on Bitchute.14
While only 34% of Canadians had received three or four doses, the triple and quadruple jabbed made up 81% of all COVID deaths in the month of June.According to the latest data from Canada, summarized by Hoffe, 85% of Canadians have received at least two COVID shots, and in June 2022, 92% of all COVID deaths were in fully jabbed individuals. And, while only 34% of Canadians had received three or four doses, they made up 81% of all COVID deaths in the month of June.
[…]
Youths Are Dying at Frightening RatesIn the video above, nurse educator John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews the latest U.K. and U.S. data on excess deaths in the young. The U.K. is now seeing 20 to 30 excess deaths per week in the age group of birth to 24.
Excess deaths are also statistically higher in the U.S. than expected. For the age group of birth to 24, cumulative all-cause excess deaths was 16,747 as of week 35. The screenshot below, from USmortality.com,15 illustrates how the cumulative excess deaths among our children, teens and young adults have skyrocketed since June 2020.
New Zealand Security agency asking Kiwis to dob in their fellow citizens
SeemorerocksNew Zealand Security agency is asking Kiwis to dob in their fellow citizensPeople may laugh (and the message is so preposterous it is hard not to. However, although the message is delivered in a kiwi accent, which makes it all a bit naive but well-meaning this is straight out of the copybook of the KGB or Gestapo.
They may not (yet), be knocking at doors but the methods are those of any tyranny or totalitarian regime –
“if you see something, say something”
For those that don’t know, the NZSIS (Security Intelligence Service) are the country’s spooks who spy on you and I while the GCSB (Government Communications Security Bureau) are those that spy on behalf of the Five Eyes.
New Zealand security services launch initiative to help public identify warning signs of violent extremismA guide from NZ’s security services details dozens of indicators that a friend or family member could be planning a terror attack.
Our secret service is launching an initiative to help us identify people who may have been radicalised.
The guide, titled ‘Kia mataara ki ngā tohu – Know the signs, a guide for identifying signs of violent extremism’, details dozens of indicators that a friend or family member could be planning a terror attack.
The move comes as our spy chiefs identify a new and worrying type of terrorism.
‘Real risk:’ Warning as more young Kiwis being lured into violent extremist ideologies Experts warn COVID-19 restrictions and vaccine rollout could trigger terror attackTime was when the intelligence services were never seen, never heard. But now they’re loudly proclaiming your country needs you – to keep an eye on those you know, and if necessary dob them in.
“Recognising a potential warning sign and then alerting New Zealand SIS or police could be the vital piece in the puzzle that ultimately saves lives,” NZSIS Director-General Rebecca Kitteridge said.
To that end it has published a guide to help us all identify potential terrorists in our midst.
“To pay attention and to be alert so that if they see or hear about something that seems off, that worries them and concerns them, they might have a look at this information to say does this indicate to me that this person is actually on the road to committing an attack,” Kitteridge said.
The SIS has listed around 50 signs – from obvious ones like writing on a weapon as happened in Christchurch to a person developing an ‘us versus them’ worldview.
Authorities say they are usually closely monitoring 40 to 50 potential terrorists. These people used to be motivated by their white identity or by their faith but in the past six months a third group has emerged, those motivated by politics.
“So it could be the COVID measures that the Government took, or it could be other policies that are interpreted as infringing on rights and it’s a kind of what I describe as a hot mess of ideologies and beliefs fuelled by conspiracy theories,” Kitteridge said.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has weighed in on this.
“It would be wrong to imply that we have this significant surge in threat in that regard – are there individuals who subscribe to a particular ideology that may border and dip into violent extremism? Yes,” she said.
Our two most recent terror attacks were perpetrated by security-conscious lone violent extremists – hard to identify by their online activity alone. The launch of the initiative is an indicator that security services know that they can’t do it without the help of the public.
But to some the guidelines are a first step only.
“How do we upskill those people in our community who are much closer to people who might be potentially radicalised and get them to understand what it is they’re seeing, that’s our challenge,” Massey University sociologist Professor Paul Spoonley said.
Because New Zealand doesn’t want to see attacks similar to that suffered by Nancy Pelosi’s husband (sic)
See the SIS release HERE and their publication, Know the signs, a guide for identifying signs of violent extremism HERE
‘Web of Chaos’
From the New Documentary ‘Web of Chaos’: Kate Hannah, Director of the Disinformation Project
“They use Pinterest and Instagram to draw in other women who are interested in interior design, childrens’ clothing, knitting, healthy food for children, and it does draw people in towards a set of white nationalist ideas.
I mean it’s relatively easy to see, if you see a very beautiful, fair-skinned blonde or red haired child with beautiful braiding in her hair and some flowers, just step back a little bit (laughs) which is really distressing, because that’s my heritage”
Source, Web of Chaos, TVNZ:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/web-of-chaos/episodes/s1-e1
Sean Plunket of the Platform may be a bully and not a journalist in the true sense but he is asking the right questions. One can’t always choose one’s allies
[…]
Via https://seemorerocks.is/new-zealand-security-agency-is-asking-kiwis-to-dob-in-their-fellow-citizens/
Brazil: Lula’s Third Term – From Leftist to Globalist?
By Peter Koenig
Global Research, November 03, 2022
On Sunday 30 November 2022, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – or Lula for short, of the left-wing Workers Party – was elected with a razor thin margin as the new President of Brazil. He “won” the election with 50.83% of the votes against his opponent’s 49.17% (NYT 31 October 2022), the incumbent, Jair Bolsonaro, of Brazil’s right-wing Liberal Party. He is Brazil’s 38th President, in office since 1 January 2019.Lula has previously served two terms as President, from 2003-2010. The President Elect is to be inaugurated on 1 January 2023 as the 39th President. Lula is slated to be the first Brazilian President to serve three terms.
The winning-margin could hardly be slimmer. One could dare say, it’s within the regular margin of error of such elections. Under normal circumstances, a recount might be of the order. Most likely Washington would not allow it, because the US needs a “left-wing” President, as they have “allowed”, or manipulated, in the latest wave of elections, throughout Latin America.
What most people may not have realized yet, is that left and right in the traditional sense, do no longer exist. They have been overruled by “Globalism and Anti-Globalism”. The left, throughout the world has been hijacked by the neoliberal globalist complex, making us believe that the Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030 are kind of a socialist concept in which eventually all will be “equal”. As equal as in “you will own nothing but be happy”.
Therefore Washington is inclined to favor a “left” / globalist candidate over a right-wing or conservative nationalist.
Mr. Bolsonaro may be right-wing, having adopted many unpopular policies, like “privatizing” junks of the Amazon area, as well as some of the precious water resources, under- and above ground, treasured by the Amazon Region. But he is a nationalist, not a globalist at all.
What made President Bolsonaro popular among large segments of the population are his poverty alleviation efforts. For one, he has continued supporting the Bolsa Familia Program (BFP), created under Lula in 2003, to help poor families out of poverty.
The BFP family allowance program provides monthly subsidies to qualifying low-income people. The BFP is largely responsible for nearly 60 percent of poverty reduction over the past two decades. Under Bolsonaro, BFP was also expanding access of the poor to education and health services.
Realizing how covid – which Bolsonaro always looked at with skepticism – increased destitution among the Brazilian poor and transferred basic resources of low-income people through bankruptcies and joblessness from the poor upwards, putting even more people into poverty, Bolsonaro hastily designed a new social agenda, Auxílio Brasil, eventually to replace BFP.
Auxílio Brasil, initially designed as a modest pandemic bonus for the poor, was beefed-up by Bolsonaro to make more of a difference. While focusing particularly at people hit hard by covid’s economic disaster, it also continues as a BFP-like poverty alleviation program. This clear- and foresight of better economic equilibrium in the Brazilian population, has earned Bolsonaro considerable support from especially the young and destitute, and from countless favela-dwellers.
According to a World Bank report, out of the 22 million people lifted out of poverty across Latin America by pandemic-related government transfers in 2020, 77 percent of them were in Brazil. See this.
Compare that to less generous pandemic assistance offered under leftist President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico, where 3.8 million more people fell into poverty during the pandemic.
Bolsonaro’s popularity, in fact, shot through the roof, as the poor backed him in record numbers.
When Brazil’s election results emerged, the incumbent Bolsonaro kept quiet. He did not concede, not congratulate Lula. He simply didn’t respond. In a later public announcement, on 31 October, Bolsonaro briefly said that he intends to honor the Constitution and the process of transfer of power may begin. As of this day, however, Bolsonaro has not conceded – or congratulated Lula for his victory. In other words, he has not really accepted defeat (yet?).
By publicly accepting the transfer of power, but not openly accepting defeat, Bolsonaro may quietly be nudging his many followers, many of them young people; poor people, whom the poverty alleviation programs he supported helped; victims of the international covid narrative – to protest his narrow defeat. It is well known that Bolsonaro has often questioned the Brazilian election system and may believe foul play was involved.
[…]
Lula’s HistoryAs Lula is poised to take over his third term Presidency, also a first in Brazilian history, a look into Lula’s history may be of the order.
In the run-up to the 2002 Brazil elections, with Lula a favored candidate, his leftist stance led especially western media to compare him to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, whose reputation as a consequential and convinced socialist was meant to discredit Lula before the elections. To no avail.
Later as President, Lula nominated Henrique Meirelles of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party, a prominent market-oriented economist, as head of the Brazilian Central Bank. Mr. Meirelles was a former CEO of the Bank FleetBoston.
Through BankBoston, other than Bank of America, the foremost bank in New England, headquartered in Boston, Lula gained almost unlimited access to Wall Street banking. He entered into agreements with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), following all the Fund’s mostly restrictive conditionalities.
The IMF hailed Lula as a perfect leader, whom other Latin American governments could take as an example for good financial management. In his first term, Brazil’s Central Bank, budget, and debt management was basically run by the IMF and Wall Street. By 2008, after decades with the largest foreign debt among emerging economies, Brazil became a net creditor for the first time. Banks made record profits under Lula’s government.
In his second term, Lula became the undisputed master of popular affection, as the first president to bring a modest well-being to many people. Wall Street, the World Bank and IMF loved him. They would do anything to help him succeed, because Lula’s success, meant increasing access to Brazil’s enormous treasures of natural resources, minerals, water and the richest biodiversity on earth.
The 2008 crash of Wall Street, was an economic blow for the US and Europe, but Brazil continued to enjoy financial good health. The Lula administration’s economic policies helped to significantly raise living standards. According to the Washington Post, the percentage of Brazilians belonging to the middle class rose from 50% to 73% of the population. More than 20 million people rose out of extreme poverty. Under Lula, Brazil became the world’s eighth-largest economy.
In 2016, Lula was investigated for alleged involvement in two cases in the infamous corruption case, “Operation Car Wash”. The criminal investigation uncovered corruption between the State-owned oil and petrol company, Petrobrás, several construction companies, and various Brazilian politicians, to obtain secret campaign funds. The investigation was conducted under former Federal Criminal Court Judge Sergio Moro.
In 2017, Lula was found guilty and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment. Another three years were added in 2018 by the Federal Court. Lula started serving his sentence in April 2018, while his appeals were pending.
It was never clear whether Lula was really involved in the corruption scandal, judge Moro accused him of. The judge had at one point his own ambitions for the presidency, but eventually joined Bolsonaro’s cabinet in 2019.
In 2021, the Federal Supreme Court crushed Lula’s sentence, ruling that former judge Moro had no jurisdiction to investigate and try the cases. Lula was liberated and ready to become a prime candidate for the 2022 Presidential elections.
[…]
November 3, 2022
GOP majority’s to-do list includes COVID-19 response, origins — and Fauci
The Hill
Congressional Republicans are floating sweeping investigations into the Biden administration’s COVID-19 spending and are looking to tighten the purse strings on agency funding should they hold majorities after next week’s midterms.
Republicans are frustrated with what they see as the administration’s unaccountable coronavirus spending and are looking to shine a spotlight on where the trillions of dollars doled out by the White House have gone.
Polls show the House is more likely to flip than the Senate, and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) is poised to take control of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has wide jurisdiction over issues like Medicare, Medicaid, food and drug safety and the federal health agencies.
Rodgers and other GOP lawmakers have said they want to prioritize an investigation into the origins of the coronavirus, as well as the administration’s policies in response to the virus, like school closures.
“Overall, regarding the COVID response, the lockdowns, the decisions that were made in response to COVID, we want to look at the decisions that were made, what drove those decisions, and how we might want to approach that in the future,” Rodgers told Punchbowl News in a September interview.
A GOP aide said the committee is interested in holding the administration accountable for the grants from the American Rescue Plan as well as the Inflation Reduction Act. While a lot of the money was allocated, and lawmakers will want to track it, some of it has been set aside for later years.
House Republicans have long complained about how states and localities are spending COVID-19 relief funding for things that are not pandemic-related, like pickleball courts and tourist attractions. They want to know what, if any, guidance the White House has provided.
The aide said the committee is also looking to bring in officials like Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.
Brooks-LaSure has not testified since her Senate confirmation, and GOP lawmakers want a chance to grill her, especially about Medicare’s new authority to negotiate drug prices.
But public health experts are concerned that the quest for accountability in spending could lead to less money for agencies that are historically cash-strapped.
“A lot of money went out in a one-time bucket. And we really need to have sustainable funding over time,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.
“And so these budgets get cut in a way that impacts the long-term ability to maintain the limited capacity they have right now. That capacity will erode, and then our ability to respond even to routine public health emergencies will be severely impacted in a negative way,” Benjamin said.
With President Biden in the White House holding veto power over any legislation aimed at tearing down his agenda, Republicans are aware they will have to tailor their agenda.
For instance, the GOP aide said committee lawmakers will be focused on lessening the impact of the drug pricing provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, rather than repealing it outright.
Still, having agency officials responding to constant inquiries from Congress can be an effective stalling tool.
“Aggressive oversight by Republicans will just eat up a lot of staff resources that could otherwise go to running the government and addressing public health,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Republicans in both chambers are also eager to launch investigations into Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who is set to retire from government this year.
When Fauci announced his intention to retire in August, Republicans vowed to keep investigating.
“Retirement can’t shield Dr. Fauci from congressional oversight,” House Oversight and Reform Committee ranking member James Comer (R-Ky.) said in a statement at the time. Comer would likely become the chair of the committee in a Republican majority.
In the Senate, one of Fauci’s most outspoken critics is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Paul is in line to become the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee if he wins reelection and if Republicans win the majority. The panel’s current ranking member, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), is retiring.
Republicans have not been shy about launching probes into the U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic, focusing on the origins of the virus and whether the federal government — and by extension, Fauci — helped fund controversial research that might have played a role in its creation.
“It’s not about Fauci going to jail, although that probably would be appropriate,” Paul said at a Nov. 1 campaign stop, according to the News Enterprise of Elizabethtown, Ky. “It’s about finding the truth of the origins of the virus so this doesn’t happen again.”
[…]
Groundbreaking Study Details How Media, Big Tech Censored Doctors and Scientists Who Challenged COVID Narrative
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.A groundbreaking new scientific paper published Tuesday exposes the suppression and censorship of doctors and medical experts who opposed and challenged the official COVID-19 narrative.
A groundbreaking scientific paper published Tuesday exposes the suppression and censorship of doctors and medical experts who opposed and challenged the official COVID-19 narrative.Published in the sociological journal Minerva, “Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics,” details the experiences of medical professionals who spoke out against public health directives, and how they responded to efforts to suppress them.
The paper was co-authored by a team of Israeli and Australian scholars, including Yaffa Shir-Raz of the University of Haifa in Israel, Ety Elisha of The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College in Israel, Brian Martin of the University of Wollongong in Australia, Natti Ronel of Bar Ilan University in Israel, and Josh Guetzkow of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel.
As noted by Dr. Robert Malone, himself an outspoken critic of COVID-19 “orthodoxy,” the publication of this article is particularly significant as Minerva is released by “mainstream academic publisher” Springer, a “Q1 journal in its subfield” of sociology with a “decent” research impact factor in the social sciences — meaning that it enjoys a strong reputation within its academic field.
Malone said the article also is notable because one of its authors, Yaffa Shir-Raz, “broke the story with video from the internal meeting at the Israeli ministry of health” on “how they hid many of the key findings regarding the Pfizer mRNA vaccine adverse effects.”
Media, tech companies played ‘central role’ in stifling COVID policies debate
The authors summarized their paper by stating that “the emergence of COVID-19 … led to numerous controversies over COVID-related knowledge and policy” and a “perceived threat from doctors and scientists who challenge the official position of governmental and intergovernmental health authorities.”
Describing this “official position” as an “orthodoxy,” the authors said the supporters of such policies “have moved to censor those who promote dissenting views.”
“Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures,” wrote the authors.
This was accomplished by “widespread use” of censorship and of “tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position.”
As a result, wrote the authors, “In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.”
In a post on Substack, Josh Guetzkow, one of the paper’s authors, described how the study was conducted.
According to Guetzkow, the study was “based on in-depth interviews with scientists and doctors around the world who have faced censorship and suppression due to their views on COVID-19.”
Guetzkow said many of these doctors and scientists would be familiar to his audience, although their anonymity was maintained in the published paper.
He added that while “the current stark reality of censorship and suppression is also undoubtedly familiar to most people reading this, it will be news to many outside our circles.”
As a result, wrote Guetzkow, “We felt there would be value in having it documented and discussed in the peer-reviewed academic literature.”
The paper’s key finding is that “study participants reported being subject to a wide variety of censorship and suppression tactics used against them by both the medical establishment and the media, due to their critical and unorthodox positions on COVID-19.”
The “tactics of censorship and suppression” described by the study’s participants included “exclusion, derogatory labeling, hostile comments and threatening statements by the media, both mainstream and social; dismissal by the respondents’ employers; official inquiries; revocation of medical licenses; lawsuits; and retraction of scientific papers after publication.”
For example, participants reported that “mainstream media, which until then had seen them as desirable interviewees, stopped interviewing them and [stopped] accepting opinion pieces from them.”
Shortly after that, they were subjected to denigration by the media, including being disparaged as “anti-vaxxers,” “COVID deniers,” “dis/misinformation spreaders” and/or “conspiracy theorists.”
In addition, “seemingly independent ‘third-party sources,’” such as “fact-checkers” and other doctors, were used by the media to publicly undermine them — and others associated with them.
Online censorship followed for many of the doctors in question, who “reported being censored on social media networks (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, Google, LinkedIn), including removal of “some of their posts, tweets, videos or even accounts.” This would be “accompanied by a notice claiming they had violated the ‘community rules.’”
Some respondents even reported being “subjected to defamation by their own institution, with the apparent intention to harm their reputation and careers.”
Others “received a clear message from the institution where they worked that they were not allowed to identify themselves with the institution when giving an interview or a testimony or expressing their views — in some cases as a condition of renewing their contract.”
Still others were “dismissed from their institution, or were notified that their contract would not be renewed,” or in other cases, “were summarily dismissed or disqualified from prestigious positions, such as serving on leading health or scientific committees, or editing medical journals, without due process or transparency.”
This often was done in cooperation “with the media,” making sure to “spread the information about those measures through them.”
Official inquiries were another tactic of suppression faced by dissenting doctors, “such as investigating or threatening to withdraw their medical license,” filing lawsuits with significant financial claims against them, or being subjected to police searches of their private clinics.
Other doctors and researchers said their research was “retracted by the journal [which had originally published it] after publication,” while many others had their submitted papers “rejected from journals (often multiple times) without peer review” or with the “review and publication process taking many months longer than typical.”
The paper’s authors said the tactics of censorship reported by the respondents “are consistent with those identified in Jansen and Martin’s … framework on the dynamics of censorship.”
The key components of this framework include covering up information, devaluing information, reinterpreting information, censoring information through official channels and intimidating those expressing such views.
‘Shocked and surprised’ — but ‘not deterred’ — they worked on building new communities
The article also detailed how the doctors and medical professionals who participated in the study fought back and challenged efforts to stifle their views.
According to the study’s authors:
“The respondents noted that their initial reaction to the attacks and censorship was shock and surprise, since for the first time in their lives they felt excluded from the scientific/medical community, attacked by the media and sometimes by their employers, and/or disparaged as ‘conspiracy theorists.’
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-narrative-big-tech-media-censorship-doctors/
Why International Climate Summits are Doomed to Fail
By Katie Tubb
PA Pundits – International
First of two articlesRepresentatives from some 190 countries will meet in Egypt for two weeks starting Nov. 6 to “[deliver] for people and the planet” at COP27, the U.N. Conference of the Parties annual summit on climate change policy.
The predominant message at these climate conferences is one of “catastrophic” global warming necessitating policies to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions drastically.
COP27 in Egypt will likely be no different, even though last year’s conference in Glasgow, Scotland, was heralded by the United Nations and the popular press as “one minute to midnight,” “literally the last chance,” with “no more time to hang back,” and any number of other “emergency mode” warnings to catalyze “maximum ambition—from all countries on all fronts.”
Member nations of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change have met for these Conferences of the Parties since the first one in Berlin in 1995. These summits aim to establish a common understanding of global warming as an emergency, agree upon broad policy objectives, and enforce the Paris Agreement of 2015.
During the 2015 Paris meetings, governments agreed to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible … and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter” in a bid to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To that end, more than 40 countries—including the United States, Great Britain, and members of the European Union—have established policies attempting to force massive transitions of their energy sectors and economies to “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury.
Despite clear success in defining and propagating a narrative of alarm in the media and in politics, and the general awareness of Western populations, it’s fair to say that nearly three decades of COP meetings have not accomplished much in the way of their stated objective to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions globally.
Setting aside relevant questions about the degree to which anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions drive warming, global emissions have only continued to increase since the first COP at Berlin in 1995.
To put the Paris Agreement goals in perspective, carbon dioxide emissions from energy production and use (the overwhelming majority of man-made emissions) declined more than 5% in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and government responses to it. Those caused a historic retraction in economic activity and mobility, and consequently, in demand for oil, natural gas, and coal.
Despite the recession, global emissions still increased in 2020.
It appears that global carbon dioxide emissions in 2022 will again exceed pre-pandemic levels. The U.N. estimates that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise even if countries fully meet their Paris Agreement commitments.
The U.N. and the World Meteorological Society estimate that countries’ pledged emissions reductions “[need] to be … seven times higher” to meet the Paris Agreement goal. A report from the meteorological society concludes: “We are still nowhere near the scale and pace of emission reductions required.”
Government representatives who supported the radical changes heralded at COPs and enshrined in the Paris Agreement have tried to be optimistic as COP27 begins. They emphasize the net-zero emissions policies and exorbitant spending announced by many Western governments to inhibit access to conventional energy and force a transition to alternatives.
It’s one thing to intend to do something, but another entirely to actually do it. A radical energy transition is far from a foregone conclusion.
For example, the International Energy Agency’s annual “Tracking Clean Energy Progress” report considers only two components (electric car sales and lighting) of 55 technology and infrastructure components “on track” for a net-zero energy transition.
Yet even with electric car sales—one of those “on track” components—political aspirations and timetables are already starting to hit the road of reality. The International Energy Agency estimates that politicians’ aspirations for EV deployment under the Paris Agreement imply a thirtyfold increase in demand for minerals used in EV batteries by 2040.
Baked into many governments’ net-zero policies are similar leaping assumptions about the technological readiness, affordability, and deployment of adequate replacements for conventional fuels. They presume massive market shifts in multitrillion-dollar sectors of global economic activity as large as the transportation, industrial, and petrochemical sectors—free of political constraints and trade-offs.
Net-zero transition plans are more appropriately understood as a policy “gamble” that replacement energy technologies will be sufficiently available on political timelines. That gamble shows no sign of paying off.
Despite the aspirational policies attempting to define a transition away from conventional fuels, actions speak louder than words. Countries are showing every day that they are more interested in affordable energy than in paying a green premium. That’s proving particularly true in light of the energy-price crisis, whether considering China’s interest in buying Russian oil, or climate warrior Germany’s decision to hold onto coal.
If the purpose of Conference of Party summits is to instigate rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, they have failed.
Where they have been successful is in giving politicians leeway under the cloak of supposed impending catastrophe to centrally plan the energy sector and entire economies. They have also been successful in absolving those politicians of accountability for the consequences of those policies.
But with a global energy crisis in large part created and inflamed by the net-zero policies championed at these summits and enshrined in the Paris Agreement, even that “success” may (finally) be wearing thin.
[…]
Americans Skipping Meals and Medication Because They Can’t Afford Them
By Daisy Luther
An unsettling survey by the Nationwide Retirement Institute® found that the economic crisis is starting to have daily effects on Americans. Millions of people are now skipping meals, forgoing prescription medication, buying less nutritious food, and going without medical care.
It’s a concerning sign of the times when an increasing number of people can’t afford to eat properly and take their medications. Both of these things could have serious health impacts going forward, and if they can’t afford to prevent those, how will they afford to pay for treading them?
People are skipping meals.
Some would argue that Americans could afford to miss a few meals based on obesity rates in our country. But the poverty diet is no way to resolve health issues. Folks are turning to cheap, non-nutritious calories just to fill their bellies, leaving them even less healthy.
According to the survey:
Over the last 12 months, nearly two in five American households (40%) received food or goods from a food bank (22% for Millennials), and the same amount (17%) stopped buying healthier foods (organic or high-priced healthy foods).
Nearly one in five Americans (18%) say they skipped meals or didn’t buy groceries due to high inflation (including 28% of Gen Z and 23% of millennials).
One or two meals a day can meet a person’s needs if they’re nutritious. But for some, the entire concept of this is unhealthy. Pregnant women, nursing mothers, diabetics, and those with a history of eating disorders could find their health suffering.
Plus, if you are skipping meals because you can’t afford groceries, you are probably not dining on grilled chicken, organic veggies, and a green smoothie when you do eat. It’s more likely to be something along the lines of boxed macaroni and cheese or ramen noodles, just to keep the hunger at bay. I know this. I’ve been there.
People are skipping medical essentials.
Equally alarming is the fact that people are skipping medication and medical care in an effort to keep their heads financially above water. The same survey found:
Many have cancelled or postponed plans in the past 12 months to see a specialist (14%), take a prescribed medication (10%) or get an annual physical (11%) due to high inflation. Almost one-fifth of Gen Z (17%) and Millennials (19%) have cancelled or postponed plans in the past 12 months to see a mental health professional…
…As Americans brace for even bigger expenses in the future, the survey finds that one in ten (10%) have decreased their retirement plan contributions in the past year to pay for health care expenses because of high inflation…
…To find additional savings, 14% of Americans say they are considering downgrading their health insurance plan because of high inflation, which rises to 23% and 20% for Gen Z and Millennials, respectively.
These are alarming cuts. By not keeping chronic conditions under control, people risk the condition worsening, which, in the long run, will cost even more. At the same time, you can’t get blood out of a stone. If you simply have no money, you have no money. You can’t pay for these things. We can talk until the cows come home about “programs” and “assistance,” but have you ever tried getting help for medical care? Unless you are absolutely impoverished, it’s nearly impossible. And after the insurance industry caused our healthcare system to explode, paying cash for doctor’s visits and medications is a prohibitively expensive venture.
Not only are people unable to afford to take care of their physical health, but they’re also unable to take care of their mental health. We’ve posted before about the dangerous effects of medications running out in this article. As well, many who suddenly stop taking psychiatric medication end up even worse than they were before they ever started.
Add to this lack of medication and medical care all the stress of the financial crisis, and you’ve got a recipe for human disaster.
[…]
Via https://www.theorganicprepper.com/skipping-meals-medications/
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
