Corrupt Government – Corrupt Science


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© January 24, 2023

Not only is the U.S. Government corrupt, but there is every appearance our government promotes harm to its citizens (once known as WE THE PEOPLE) to maintain rule and control.

Today examining:

JRH 1/24/23

Thank you to those who have stepped up!

READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. PLEASE I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:

Please Support CPCR

YOU CAN ALSO SUPPORT via buying healthy supplements/products from Online stores (mine & my Honey):

My Store (please use referral code 2388058): https://modere.co/3SrOHzI

My Better Half’s Store (please use referral code 3917004): https://dianahouk.shiftingretail.com/  

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

****************************

CDC Aware of Hundreds of Safety Signals for COVID Jab

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

January 23, 2023

Mercola.com

Rumble VIDEO: After Forcing The CDC To Release V-SAFE Data, Excessive COVID Vaccine Injuries Are Made Public!

[Posted by Sunfellow On COVID-19

Published October 5, 2022

MORE DESCRIPTION]

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In September 2022, The Epoch Times asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining results. The CDC refused. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request has now forced the release of these data, and they are stunning
  • The CDC’s PRR monitoring has identified several hundred safety signals, including for Bell’s palsy, blood clots, pulmonary embolism and death. In individuals aged 18 and older, there are 770 safety signals for different adverse events, and more than 500 of them have a stronger safety signal than myocarditis and pericarditis
  • In the 12- to 17-year-old age group there are 96 safety signals, and in the 5- to 11-year-old group there are 66, including myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction, cardiac valve incompetency, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis and appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease and vitiligo
  • The proportions of deaths, which were only provided for the 18-plus age group, was 14% for the COVID jabs compared to 4.7% for all other vaccines
  • The FDA is also required to perform safety monitoring, using empirical Bayesian data mining. The Epoch Times asked the FDA to release its monitoring results in July 2022 but, like the CDC, the FDA refused, only to admit in December 2022 they’d confirmed the Pfizer shot was linked to pulmonary embolism

In September 2022, The Epoch Times asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining results. PRR1 measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.

According to the standard operating procedures2,3 for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is run jointly by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC is required to perform these data mining analyses.

Not only did the CDC refuse to release the data, but it also provided false information — twice — in response to The Epoch Times’ questions about the monitoring being performed. As reported by The Epoch Times back in September 2022,4 the CDC initially claimed PRR analyses were “outside the agency’s purview” and that no monitoring was being done by them.

Eventually, the agency admitted it was doing PRRs, starting in February 2021, only to later claim they didn’t perform any PRRs until March 2022. The Epoch Times also cited several papers in which the FDA and/or CDC claimed their data mining efforts had come up empty handed.5 Now, we find that was all a pack of lies.

CDC Monitoring Reveals Hundreds of Safety Signals

In reality, the CDC’s PRR monitoring reveals HUNDREDS of safety signals, including Bell’s palsy, blood clots, pulmonary embolism and death — all of which, according to the rules, require thorough investigation to either confirm or rule out a possible link to the shots. As reported by The Epoch Times in early January 2023:6

“The CDC analysis was conducted on adverse events reported from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 29, 2022. The Epoch Times obtained the results through a Freedom of Information Act request after the CDC refused to make the results public …

PRR involves comparing the incidence of a specific adverse event after a specific vaccine to the incidence after all other vaccines. A signal is triggered when three thresholds are met, according to the CDC: a PRR of at least 2, a chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and three or more cases of the event following receipt of the vaccine being analyzed. Chi-squared tests are a form of statistical analysis used to examine data.

The results obtained by The Epoch Times show that there are hundreds of adverse events (AEs) that meet the definition, including serious conditions such as blood clotting in the lungs, intermenstrual bleeding, a lack of oxygen to the heart, and even death. The high numbers, particularly the chi-squared figures, concerned experts.

For many of the events, ‘the chi-squared is so high that, from a Bayesian perspective, the probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID vaccines is not higher than that of the non-COVID vaccines is essentially zero,’ Norman Fenton, a professor of risk management at Queen Mary University of London, told The Epoch Times in an email after running the numbers through a Bayesian model that provides probabilities based on available information.”

Myopericarditis Is Far From the Only Problem

One of the few side effects of the COVID jabs that the CDC has actually acknowledged is myocarditis (heart inflammation), and a related condition called pericarditis (inflammation of the heart sack). Alas, the PRR monitoring results reveal there are more than 500 other adverse events that have stronger warning signals than either of those conditions.

The proportions of reported deaths was 14% for the COVID jabs compared to 4.7% for all other vaccines.”

In individuals aged 18 and older, there are safety signals for 770 different adverse events, and two-thirds of them (more than 500) have a stronger safety signal than myocarditis and pericarditis. Of those 770 signals, 12 are brand-new conditions that have not been reported following other vaccines. Topping the list of safety signals are cardiovascular conditions, followed by neurological conditions. In third and fourth place are thromboembolic conditions and pulmonary conditions. Death is sixth on the list and cancer is 11th. Considering the uptick we’ve seen in aggressive cancers, the fact that death tops cancer really says something.
The number of serious adverse events reported between mid-December 2020 and the end of July 2022 (just over 19 months) for the COVID jabs is 5.5 times greater than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the U.S. over the last 13 years (approximately 73,000 versus 13,000).
Twice as many COVID jab reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%), which meets the definition of a safety signal.
The proportions of reported deaths, which was only provided for the 18+ age group, was 14% for the COVID jabs compared to 4.7% for all other vaccines. As noted by Fenton,12 “If the CDC wish [sic] to claim that the probability a COVID vaccine adverse event results in death is not significantly higher than that of other vaccines the onus is on them to come up with some other causal explanation for this difference.”
In the 12- to 17-year-old age group, there are 96 safety signals, including myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital ulcerations, high blood pressure, menstrual irregularities, cardiac valve incompetency, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmia, thrombosis, pericardial and pleural effusion, appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest pain and increased troponin levels (indicative of heart damage).
In the 5- to 11-year-old group, there are 66 safety signals, including myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction, cardiac valve incompetency, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis and appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease, menstrual irregularities and vitiligo.

It’s worth noting that the CDC didn’t perform its first safety signal analysis until March 25, 2022 — 15 months after the shots were rolled out. Why the long wait — especially since the CDC had announced it would begin monitoring in early 2021? Just consider, for a moment, how many lives have been lost because the CDC failed to properly monitor safety, and still drags its feet when it comes to warning people about the risks involved.

FDA Still Refuses to Share Safety Data

The FDA is also required to perform safety monitoring using another technique called Empirical Bayesian data mining. The Epoch Times first asked the FDA to release its monitoring results back in July 2022,13,14 but like the CDC, the FDA refused and insisted the data showed no evidence of serious adverse effects. In other words, “Just trust us. We’re experts.”

According to the FDA, the only potential signal they’d found through April 16, 2021, was for raised body temperature.15 Then, in mid-December 2022 — just four months after The Epoch Times tried to get these data — the FDA announced that pulmonary embolism (blood clots that block blood flow in the lungs) had met the threshold for a statistical signal, and continued to meet the criteria after in-depth evaluation, but it was only linked to the Pfizer jab.16

As noted by The Epoch Times,17 pulmonary embolism is also identified as a signal in the CDC’s PRR analysis for individuals as young as 12, which really ought to strengthen concerns.

The FDA also admitted it had already evaluated three other warning signals: lack of oxygen to the heart, immune thrombocytopenia (a blood platelet disorder) and intravascular coagulation (a type of blood clotting), but none of these continued to meet the threshold after analysis.

If the FDA was evaluating four warning signals, why did they tell The Epoch Times there was no evidence of ill effects, and why did they claim the only potential signal they’d found was slight fever? Are we to believe they discovered these signals after The Epoch Times asked for the monitoring results and then completed four in-depth investigations in four months?

Whatever the truth, it’s clear that both the CDC and FDA are not being transparent. Worse, they’ve hidden data, knowing it could mean the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands of people.

CDC Has Ignored Clear ‘Death’ Signal

The CDC ignoring a clear signal for death is probably the most egregious example of its failures as a public health institution. As early as July 2021, Matthew Crawford published a three-part series18,19,20 detailing how the CDC was hiding safety signals by using a flawed formula. In August that year, Steve Kirsch informed the agency of these problems, but was ignored.

Then, in an October 3, 2022, article,21 Kirsch went on to show how “death” should have triggered a signal even when using the CDC’s flawed formula (which is described in its VAERS standard operating procedures manual22). Here’s an excerpt:23

“The formula the CDC uses for generating safety signals is fundamentally flawed; a ‘bad’ vaccine with lots of adverse events will ‘mask’ large numbers of important safety signals … Let me summarize the key points for you in a nutshell: PRR [proportional reporting ratio] is defined on page 16 in the CDC document24 as follows …

Table 4 proportional-reporting-ratio-calculation

A ‘safety signal’ is defined on page 16 in the CDC document as a PRR of at least 2, chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and 3 or more cases of the AE [adverse event] following receipt of the specific vaccine of interest. This is the famous ‘and clause.’ Here it is from the document:

safety signal is defined on page 16

Only someone who is incompetent or is deliberately trying to make the vaccines look safe would use the word ‘and’ in the definition of a safety signal.

Using ‘and’ means that if any one of the conditions isn’t satisfied, no safety signal will be generated. As noted below, the PRR will rarely trigger which virtually guarantees that most events generated by an unsafe vaccine will never get flagged.

The PRR value for the COVID vaccines will rarely exceed 1 because there are so many adverse events from the COVID vaccine because it is so dangerous (i.e., B in the formula is a huge number) so the numerator is always near zero. Hence, the ‘safety signal’ is rarely triggered because the vaccine is so dangerous.”

A Fictitious Example

Using a fictitious vaccine as the example, Kirsch explained how an exceptionally dangerous vaccine will fly under the radar and not get flagged, thanks to this flawed formula:25

“Suppose we have the world’s most dangerous vaccine that causes adverse events in everyone who gets it and generates 25,000 different adverse events, and each adverse event has 1,000 instances.

That means that the numerator is 1,000/25,000,000 which is just 40 events per million reported events. Now let’s look at actuals for something like deaths. For all other vaccines, there are 6,200 deaths and 1 million adverse events total.

Since 40 per million is less than 6,200 deaths per million, we are not even close to generating a safety signal for deaths from our hypothetical vaccine which killed 1,000 people in a year … The point is that a dangerous vaccine can look very ‘safe’ using the PRR formula.”

Calculating Death Signal for the COVID Jab

Next, Kirsch calculates the PRR for death for the COVID jab — using VAERS data and the CDC’s definitions and formula. As of December 31, 2019, there were 6,157 deaths and 918,717 adverse events total for all vaccines other than the COVID shot. As of September 23, 2022, there were 31,214 deaths and 1.4 million adverse events total for the COVID jabs. Here’s the formula as explained by Kirsch:26

“PRR = (31,214/1.4e6) / (6,157/918,717) = 3.32, which exceeds the required threshold of 2. In other words, the COVID vaccine is so deadly that even with all the adverse events generated by the vaccine, the death signal did not get drowned out!

But there is still the chi-square test. Chi-square test results were 18,549 for ‘death,’ which greatly exceeds the required threshold of 4. The CDC chi-square test is clearly satisfied for the COVID vaccine. Because the death signal is so huge, it even survived the PRR test.

This means that even using the CDCs own erroneous … formula, all three criteria were satisfied:

1.PRR>2 [PRR greater than 2]: It was 3.32

2.Chi-square>2 [Chi-square greater than 2]: It was 18,549

3.3 or more reports: There were over 31,214 death reports received by VAERS … which is more than 3

A safety signal should have been generated but wasn’t. Why not? … Hundreds of thousands of American lives have been lost due to the inability of the CDC to deploy their own flawed safety signal analysis … It’s been known since at least 2004 that using reporting odds ratio (ROR) is a better estimate of relative risk than PRR.27 I don’t know why the CDC doesn’t use it.”

The CDC is also hiding the severity of side effects in other ways. As explained by Fenton,28 the way side effects are categorized by the CDC help obfuscate the scale of certain problems. For example, “cardiac failure acute,” “cardiac failure,” “infarction,” “myocardial strain” and “myocardial fibrosis” are listed as separate categories, even though in real life they’re all potential effects of myocarditis.

By separating them, you end up with fewer frequency counts per category, thereby giving you an underpowered chi-square test so that a warning signal is not triggered. If related categories were merged, far stronger safety signals would likely emerge.

CDC Has No Reasonable Defense

The CDC is responsible for monitoring both VAERS and V-Safe, and between these two databases, there’s no possible way they could ever say they didn’t know the shots were harming and killing millions of Americans.

The CDC also has access to other databases, including the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which (before it was intentionally altered29) showed massive increases in debilitating and lethal conditions, including a tripling of cancer cases.30

The findings in these databases have never been brought forward during any of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meetings or the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meetings, at which members have repeatedly voted to authorize the jabs to people of all ages, including infants and pregnant women.

They even added these toxic shots to the childhood vaccine schedule — which allows states to mandate them for school attendance — without addressing any of the 66 safety signals found in the CDC’s PRR analysis. The fact of the matter is that the CDC has known about these risks all along, and there’s no excuse for not sharing and acting on these data.

Help Spread the Word

Mainstream media are ignoring all of this, so help spread the word. Everyone needs to know what the CDC’s safety data reveal. To that end, here are a few suggestions for how you can help:

  • Write or call your members of Congress and ask them to investigate the CDC’s safety monitoring — We cannot have a public safety agency that is incapable of monitoring safety and taking appropriate action when problems are found, be it correcting a flawed formula or announcing that a safety signal has been detected. Of course, they must also publish their findings once an investigation has been made.
  • Contact your local newspaper and urge them to investigate and report on the CDC’s failure to act on safety signals.
  • Share the data on social media and ask why no one in the media, Congress, academia or medical community is investigating these matters.
  • Share this information with your doctor and members of the medical community.
  • Also share it with university administrators, and ask them to explain how and why, in light of these data, they are still mandating COVID shots.

Sources and References

1 All About Pharmacovigilance PRR

2 VAERS Standard Operating Procedures January 2021

3 VAERS Standard Operating Procedures February 2022

4, 5, 13, 15 Epoch Times September 10, 2022

6, 7, 10, 17 Epoch Times January 3, 2023 (Archived)

8 Josh Guetzkow Substack January 4, 2023

9, 12, 28 Where Are the Numbers? Substack January 4, 2023

11 Public Tableau PRR VAERS Data Summary 12/14/2020-7/29/2022

14 Josh Guetzkow Substack September 14, 2022

16 Epoch Times December 17, 2022 (Archived)

18 Rounding the Earth Newsletter Part 1

19 Rounding the Earth Newsletter Part 2

20 Rounding the Earth Newsletter Part 3

21, 23, 25, 26 Steve Kirsch Substack October 3, 2022

22, 24 CDC VAERS Standard Operating Procedures January 29, 2021

27 Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety August 2004; 13(8): 519-523

29 WISPolitics February 10, 2022

30 Steve Kirsch Substack February 5, 2022 DMED

© 1997-2023 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.

++++++++++++++++++++++

[INTERVIEW] Fear, Division & A Solution: A Vaccine That Could Alter DNA -Dr Alexandra Henrion Caude, Geneticist

By Gord Parks

January 23, 2023

Bright Light News

Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude, Geneticist and Director of Research at the French NIH (21 years), has serious concerns about the effects of the Covid-19 mRNA “vaccines” and the way in which they were rolled out.

Through three planned waltzes, an unsuspecting public trustingly rolled up its sleeves starting December 2020. First waltz: fear. Second: division. And the final being a solution to the fear: an unproven, harmful and, in many cases, deadly experimental injection.

On top of the overwhelming global data to support the mRNA shot harms, Dr. Henrion Caude warns of the potential for the messenger RNA to alter human DNA, both within the vaccinee and their offspring.

Dr. Henrion Caude shared her expertise and the relevant scientific data with us in Orlando, FL, January 7, 2023.

If you find this interview valuable, then PLEASE DONATE HERE TODAY so that we can bring you more or BY E-TRANSFER to gord@brightlightnews.com.

Rumble VIDEO: [UPDATED] Fear, Division & A Solution: A Vaccine That Could Alter DNA -Dr Alexandra Henrion Caude

[Posted by Bright Light News

Published January 24, 2023

MORE DESCRIPTION]

[Blog Editor: The rest of the Bright Light News post are links and PDF-info to the science of Dr. Henrion Caude exposing the dangers of the mRNA Jab.]

Copyright © 2023 Bright Light News

++++++++++++++++++++++++

PIERRE KORY: A War Is Still Being Waged Against Doctors Who Question COVID Orthodoxy

Heart Check – Go Nakamura/Getty Images

By PIERRE KORY

January 21, 2023

Daily Caller News Foundation

Two years of one-party rule in Washington are over, and the new Republican House majority must now restore balance through vigorous oversight. The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is expected to focus on allegations of collusion between social media companies and the Biden administration.

But it should expand its focus to include the government’s use of COVID to wage war against doctors — which continues to this day.

The suppression of doctors’ freedom to advise and treat patients began early in the pandemic. Promising alternative courses of treatment, such as generic drugs like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, were shouted down by false news narratives.

Media companies took their cues from public health agencies, which exaggerated concerns over people using medicines to treat COVID in ways that were not intended and against medical advice. Positive clinical data was ignored.

The next major front in the war on doctors opened up with the vaccine rollout. President Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public officials promised these novel, rushed vaccines would prevent illness and even transmission.

Biden’s declaration that, “If you get vaccinated, you won’t get COVID” has now been exposed as a lie, but it’s crucial to understand how it came to this.

In the past, broad skepticism would have greeted plans to mass distribute a “safe and effective” vaccine that was developed and approved in just 12 months.

And society would have flatly rejected government mandates that pushed people to get vaccinated or risk losing their jobs and becoming social outcasts. Science and medicine, practiced correctly, should challenge the powers that be, not blindly follow them.

But in our ongoing ordeal, no skepticism has been allowed, no discussion, no options. Those who raised questions or suggested different approaches were smeared as “deniers” or even worse, “anti-vaxxers.”

Even as the public learned more about the virus’s actual threat, the vaccines’ disappointing performance, and the tragic reality of vaccine injuries which began occurring at an unprecedented scale, the political imperative from Biden and Fauci never wavered.

They continued to preach a single-minded focus on the experimental vaccines. More and more vaccine products were rushed through Emergency Use Authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration, resulting in astronomical profits for their manufacturers.

This unholy alliance of government, the pharmaceutical industry and media deprived the public of full and fair advice from the medical community. The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), a nonprofit organization that certifies physicians’ medical licenses, has issued letters to me and my colleagues threatening our ability to practice medicine.

They accused us of spreading “misinformation” — ignoring the huge disconnect between the government’s statements and the medical reality on the ground. Despite their status as a private organization with no statutory authority, the ABIM has morphed into the “enforcement” arm of the government, wielding the ability to control certification and the livelihood of doctors, who are subject to career-ending threats for veering from the government’s narrow and singular approach.

And this month, California’s new law empowering state agencies to disbar medical professionals who deviate from the party line has taken effect. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently called California the “True Freedom State.” The scores of its residents—and its doctors—fleeing for Florida and Texas know better.

A “one-size fits all” approach to vaccines, or to any other health issue, is almost never warranted. Here, proponents of vaccine (and of government and big-tech coercion and censorship) flatly refuse to consider patient factors, such as age, medical history, and overall health, to determine who needs what treatment.

By virtue of their professional training, doctors must advise patients on available treatments and known risks of any treatment or procedure. By threatening doctors who might provide information different than their preferred worldview, ABIM is disrupting the doctor-patient relationship.

When allowed to practice their craft freely, physicians can prevent societal disaster by focusing on individual patients, informed by clinical experience.

Groups like the ABIM, and public medical officials like Fauci, should support and encourage evidence-based debate and patient-centered care.

Instead, they have suppressed both that debate and treatment approach by persecuting its proponents. This campaign must be stopped, its origins and evolution must be thoroughly documented, and it must never be allowed to recur. Physician autonomy must be restored lest all patients suffer.

Oversight is a core congressional function, and it’s particularly important when the government is under divided party control.

The new Select Subcommittee has a long to-do list, but the people deserve a thorough accounting of the ongoing war on doctors.

Pierre Kory is President and Chief Medical Officer for the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

©2023 The Daily Caller, Inc.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Major New Statement on Medical Freedom

Teenage Gal Heart Check

By Staff BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE

January 22, 2023

Brownstone Institute

This letter has been signed by Dr. Rachel Corbett, Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Melanie Gisler, Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Katarina Lindley, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Liz Mumper, Dr. Meryl Nass, Dr. David Rasnick, Dr. Richard Urso and hundreds more physicians, scientists and medical professionals.

The original authors are Michael Kane and Meryl Nass, M.D., and it is being distributed by Children’s Health Defense. Medical and scientific professionals can sign the letter, which is a basic statement of principles that should be at the core of medicines but which have sidelined or violated since the beginning of the crisis.

Executive Summary

1. There is no scientific rationale for continuing any COVID-19 mandates in 2023 and beyond.

2. Mask and vaccine exemptions must be offered at the discretion of the physician and patient as opposed to one-size-fits-all government edicts.

3. Parental rights and decisions must be preserved to ensure the health and well-being of their children.

4. The ability of medical professionals to speak freely to their patients and the public must not be compromised.

Informed consent is the basis of medical ethics. Shared decision-making is a model of the patient-physician relationship that is considered the most desirable by both the US and UK government health establishments. Patients want to make their own medical decisions, and they have the legal right to do so. They expect their physicians to share knowledge with their patients to inform the best choices.

The corollary to informed consent is that medical decisions ought to be made by individual patients based on their individual situation and personal best interest. ‘One-size-fits-all’ medicine is incongruent with these principles. It denies informed consent and personal autonomy.

During the last three years, we have experienced unprecedented interference with the doctor-patient relationship by the government. Considerable financial incentives were paid to medical industries and medical providers to offer certain treatments and to refuse others.

When financial incentives did not achieve universal vaccination, mandates were imposed. One way this was done was by requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare workers whose employers received Medicare payments after we had learned that vaccinations did not protect patients or coworkers from infection.

Grants to school districts were conditioned on mask mandates in schools. These newly imposed incentives, and punishments for noncompliance, fly in the face of long-established medical ethics, especially informed consent and shared decision-making. They must end.

COVID-19 Mandates

There is general agreement that all available COVID-19 vaccines fail to prevent viral transmission and only briefly reduce cases. After several months, people who are vaccinated become more susceptible to COVID-19 infections than the unvaccinated. Therefore, mandates for COVID-19 vaccines are scientifically and logically indefensible.

In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adapted its guidelines for managing COVID-19, quietly suggesting that both vaccinated and unvaccinated Americans should be treated identically with respect to isolation, quarantining and testing. Yet the CDC continues to exhort Americans to receive more COVID-19 vaccine booster doses and supports federally imposed vaccine mandates.

Essentially everyone in our country has been exposed to COVID-19 by now, and nearly everyone has been infected at least once. We can anticipate that the US will continue to face evolving COVID-19 variants, but we can also anticipate that COVID-19’s severity will keep weakening over time. 

Yet patients and doctors are still not permitted to choose the COVID-19 therapies best suited to each patient. Mandates must end, and patients and doctors must reassert their human and legal rights to determine the medical care each patient receives.

Vaccine and Mask Exemptions

Patients are individuals. They experience different risks from vaccinations and may have medical or psychological issues that preclude safe masking. Pretending that these differences don’t exist is denying reality. Historically, doctors were able to issue waivers for masks and vaccinations, as they were considered to have the best knowledge and judgment to issue such waivers.

Although every state by law accepts that doctors can issue medical waivers for vaccines and masks, many health and education departments have started nullifying these waivers, superseding physician authority. States have also been investigating and punishing doctors for issuing medical waivers. It appears that federal and state governments want to make themselves the arbiters of these medical decisions. This must not stand.

Parental Rights

States decide on the age of consent, and until that age is reached, parents are wholly responsible for their children, with a few limited exceptions. But during the past two years, we have seen a dangerous trend. State requirements that parents must consent to vaccinations given to their underage children are being ignored in multiple jurisdictions. This happened in Washington, DC, for children ages 11 and older by order of the Mayor and City Council. The law they passed kept the fact that their children had a medical procedure secret from the parents. While Congress, which oversees the law in the District of Columbia, could have said no, it instead failed to act. A lawsuit challenging this law was won in November 2021, so the law no longer stands in DC.

However, in Philadelphia, PA, San Francisco, CA and Kings County, WA, the local health officers issued guidelines in early 2021 allowing local medical providers to vaccinate children as young as age 12 without parental permission, which still stand.

This is a dangerous usurpation of parental rights by local public health authorities. It also violates state and federal law. Furthermore, there has been a recent accompanying trend by ‘medico-legal’ professionals to assert in published journal articles that 12-year-olds have the maturity to decide on their own medical procedures.

Most states don’t allow children to consent to use tanning salons or get tattoos below the age of consent. To bypass parents and allow underage children to decide what gets injected into them is inconsistent with state laws, medical ethics, common sense, and optimal medical care of children. It needs to end.

Free Speech for Medical Professionals

An attack on the free speech of doctors and medical scientists is being waged across America today. While controversy is inherent in scientific advancement, and scientific knowledge continuously evolves, disagreement with the federal public health recommendations has led to draconian censorship and suppression. Doctors have been investigated, lost their specialty board certifications, and even lost their medical licenses for speaking out publicly against federal guidelines.

Yet no health authority is infallible, and the COVID-19 pandemic proved this. In fact, both the World Health Organization (WHO), NIH and CDC changed their COVID-19 policies, guidelines, and recommendations numerous times throughout the pandemic.

The suppression of medical professionals’ speech is illegal, according to the First Amendment and state statutes, and must immediately end.

This letter continues to be signed by medical professionals and scientists around the world. View the growing list of signatures.

The Brownstone Institute for Social and Economic Research is a nonprofit organization conceived of in May 2021 in support of a society that minimizes the role of violence in public life.

© 2023 All rights reserved. Brownstone Institute

There is a Tyranny Frying Pan – JUMP OUT


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© December 26, 2022

YOU must become aware the current Elitist government overlords are more interested in perpetuating a godless fundamental transformation of America than in protecting Individual Liberty, Religious Liberty and honest information for WE-THE-PEOPLE to make informed decisions – or at least while we can make decisions.

It is evident that corruption among all the Branches of government (Executive, Legislative & Judicial) set up by the Founders’ Constitution is so pervasive that WE-THE-PEOPLE no longer can rely on the so-called Checks and Balances to promote the domestic/social/political welfare of American citizens.

Currently government promotes a power structure that keeps Elitist-transformists in control and WE-THE-PEOPLE in a darkness that nears a slavery of the Sheeple. The sadness of it all is that the Sheeple have become so brainwashed, most are unaware of the darkness that increasingly – step-by-step – erases Liberty. The darkness has moved so slowly, the Sheeple are not deciding if they should leap out of the frying pan of tyranny before they are totally cooked.

In light of the frying pan of tyranny, here are some cross posts of a corrupted government. Will Sheeple embrace American Patriotism AND JUMP out tyranny’s frying pan?

JRH 12/26/22

Thank you to those who have stepped up!

READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. PLEASE I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:

Please Support CPCR

YOU CAN ALSO SUPPORT via buying healthy supplements/products from Online stores (mine & my Honey):

My Store: https://modere.co/3SrOHzI

My Better Half’s Store: https://dianahouk.shiftingretail.com/  

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

**************************

Bitchute VIDEO: MISSING VAERS REPORTS: CDC ARE COVERING UP THE SCENE OF A CRIME!!

Posted by 99Percent

First Published December 26th, 2022 09:12 UTC

“Dr. Ealy has confirmed, & (Jessica Rose as well), that CDC, has removed 32,000+ records of myocarditis and pericarditis from the VAERS database between Sep & Dec 2022” -Naomi Wolf

SHARE THIS WITH EVERYONE

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Who Killed President Kennedy?

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

December 26, 2022

LewRockwell.com

In a remarkable television broadcast on December 15, 2022, Tucker Carlson made an explosive charge. He pointed out that, contrary to law, the White House was refusing to release thousands of pages of documents about the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Carlson said that these documents proved CIA involvement in the assassination and that someone within the government who had looked at these documents made a direct statement to this effect.

Here is what Carlson said: “Not long after Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald on camera in the basement of Dallas police headquarters, a lot of Americans started to have some questions about the Kennedy assassination. It was, you’d have to admit, a pretty extraordinary sequence of events. A lone gunman murders the president of the United States. And then, less than 48 hours later, that lone gunman is himself murdered by another lone gunman.

What are the odds of that? It’s one thing if you get struck by lightning – rare but possible. But if every member of your family also gets struck by lightning, all on different days, you might begin to suspect these are not entirely natural events. But oh, replied the U.S. government, they are. This bizarre chain of killings was all entirely natural.

So less than a year after the JFK assassination, the Johnson White House released something called the Warren Commission Report. And the report concluded that while their motives remained unclear, both Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby had acted alone. No one helped them. There was no conspiracy of any kind. Case closed. Time to move on.

And many Americans did move on. At the time, they had no idea how shoddy and corrupt the Warren Commission was. It would be nearly 50 years before the CIA admitted under duress that in fact, it had withheld information from investigators about its relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald.

But even then, at the time, before that was known, the government’s explanation didn’t seem entirely plausible. And some people started asking obvious questions about it. It was at that point, as Americans started to doubt the official story, that the term ‘conspiracy theory’ entered our lexicon. As Professor Lance DeHaven-Smith points out in his book on the subject, ‘The term conspiracy theory did not exist as a phrase in everyday American conversation before 1964. In 1964, the year the Warren Commission issued its report, the New York Times published five stories in which “conspiracy theory” appeared.’

Now, today, of course, the term ‘conspiracy theory’ appears in pretty much every New York Times story about American politics. It’s wielded, now as then, as a weapon against anyone who asks questions the government doesn’t feel like answering. But despite 60 years of name-calling, those questions have not disappeared. In fact, they have multiplied with time.

And here’s one of them. In April of 1964, a psychiatrist called Louis Joylon West visited Jack Ruby in his isolation cell in a Dallas jail. According to West’s written assessment, he found that Jack Ruby was ‘technically insane’ and in need of immediate psychiatric hospitalization. Those are conclusions that puzzlingly no one who had spoken to Jack Ruby previously had reached. Ruby had seemed perfectly sane to the people who knew him. Louis Jolyon West pronounced him crazy.

But what West did not say was that he was working for the CIA at the time. Louis Jolyon West was a contract psychiatrist for the spy agency. He was also an expert on mind control and a prominent player in the now infamous MKUltra program in which the CIA gave powerful psychiatric drugs to Americans without their knowledge.

So of all the psychiatrists in the world, what in the world was this guy doing in Jack Ruby’s prison cell? The media did not seem interested in finding out. In fact, the New York Times, in an extensive 1999 obituary of West, never mentioned the fact that he had worked for the CIA, much less his time in Jack Ruby’s cell, which seems relevant. So you can see why non-crazy people would wonder about what really happened. And of course, many have wondered.

In 1976, long forgotten, the House of Representatives impaneled a special committee to reinvestigate the JFK assassination. Their bipartisan conclusion? Jack Kennedy was almost certainly murdered as the result of a conspiracy. But the question is a conspiracy by whom? Well, the obvious suspect would be the CIA. Why else would the agency withhold critical evidence from investigators? Is there a benign explanation for that, for maintaining this level of secrecy for this many years? Not that we’re aware of. And it is illegal.

In 1992, Congress passed the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act. That act mandated full disclosure of all documents by 2017, 54 years after JFK was killed. The last administration promised to comply fully with that law. But under intense pressure from CIA Director Mike Pompeo, withheld, in the end, thousands of pages of CIA documents.

Today, this afternoon, the Biden administration did exactly the same thing. That would be thousands of pages of documents after nearly 60 years, after the death of every single person involved. But we still can’t see them. Clearly, it’s not to protect any person. They’re all dead. It’s to protect an institution. But why?

Well, today we decided to find out. We spoke to someone who had access to these still hidden CIA documents, a person who was deeply familiar with what they contained. We asked this person directly, ‘Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy, an American President?’ And here’s the reply we received verbatim. Quote, ‘The answer is yes. I believe they were involved. It’s a whole different country from what we thought it was. It’s all fake.’

It’s hard to imagine a more jarring response than that. Again, this is not a ‘conspiracy theorist’ that we spoke to. Not even close. This is someone with direct knowledge of the information that once again is being withheld from the American public. And the answer we received was unequivocal. Yes, the CIA was involved in the assassination of the president. Now, some people will not be surprised to hear that they suspected it all along. But no matter how you feel about it or what you thought about the Kennedy assassination, pause to consider what this means.

It means that within the US government, there are forces wholly beyond democratic control. These forces are more powerful than the elected officials that supposedly oversee them. These forces can affect election outcomes. They can even hide their complicity in the murder of an American president. In other words, they can do pretty much anything they want. They constitute a government within a government mocking, by their very existence, the idea of democracy. As cynical as we have become after 30 years of watching government officials ignore the voters who employ them, we were shocked to learn this. It’s not acceptable.” See this.

After this broadcast, Robert Kennedy, Jr, JFK’s nephew, tweeted: “The most courageous newscast in 60 years. The CIA’s murder of my uncle was a successful coup d’état from which our democracy has never recovered.”

If the CIA was involved, the obvious next question is why? Why did they want JFK eliminated? The best answer has been provided by Professor Jim Douglass in his book JFK and the Unspeakable. In brief, JFK didn’t trust the CIA and planned to dismantle it. For that reason, the CIA got rid of him before he could do it.

I interviewed Douglass over a decade ago, and her are some of the things he told me:

“Now, Jim, you were close to Thomas Merton, influenced by Thomas Merton, and part of this title comes from Merton. Would you explain that to us?

DOUGLASS: Yes, Lew. Thomas Merton wrote a book called Raids on the Unspeakable, a series of essays. He talked about the unspeakable as a kind of power and a kind of reality that went almost beyond the power of speech. It was suggested for him by the nuclear arms race, by the Vietnam War, and by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Malcolm and Martin and RFK. It was a kind of evil where we don’t want to go. That might be one way of coming up with what he meant by the unspeakable.

ROCKWELL: Well, Jim Douglass, thank goodness you have gone where maybe others have feared to go. And all the people that I’ve talk to – and I’ve read, myself, a good amount of Kennedy revisionism, but I was extremely impressed by all you’ve done. And the people I’ve talked to who are the real experts tell me this is the best book and the most important book ever written on the Kennedy assassination. So not only do you go over why, clearly, this was a conspiracy, it just wasn’t a typical lone nut who appears from time to time in American history and is of great use to the power elite, but you show us why he was killed, why this is so important, and why we should all be concerned about it, not simply a historical event we can forget about, but why it continues to have impact on the nature of American society, of the wars that the government fights, what’s happening in terms of the police state here at home, and why it affects every person here today listening to this show

DOUGLASS: Yes, I really appreciate your emphasizing the whys, because all I hoped to do was to tell the story of the why. I, of course, included the plot, but the only reason I did that was to fill in the picture. My point is not, and I did not write an analysis of the Kennedy assassination. It was to tell the story of JFK, and of all of us, for that matter. It was representing everyone in this country and, because of the nature of the conflict, in some sense, everybody in the world. We’re talking about weapons that could destroy the world. And that story, and of his turning – I use that word advisedly. It comes from the Hebrew Scriptures – his turning away from that kind of destructive power, towards peace, that’s the ‘why’ of his assassination.

ROCKWELL: You know, we hear, for example, about his speech where he said he was going to undo the CIA as an organization. Was that part of it, I mean, in terms of what the CIA did then, what it does today, what the Pentagon does, the Military-Industrial Complex?

DOUGLASS: He underwent a break with the CIA relatively early in his administration at the Bay of Pigs because he understood – he was not a stupid man. He was a very shrewd person. (Laughing) And he understood that he was being manipulated and set up at the Bay of Pigs so that he would have to call in the U.S. troops to win against Castro, and the CIA lied to him to set him up, they lied about the conditions of the uprisings that they told him were going to occur in Cuba and all this kind of thing. And the whole Bay of Pigs invasion had been organized during the Eisenhower administration. But when Kennedy realized afterwards the extent to which he had been lied and set up, he said, I want to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind. And he very deliberately did take steps to impair the CIA from doing that in the future. He fired the man in charge, Allen Dulles, who had been the cold warrior up to that point, and fired his main subordinates who had set him up in the Bay of Pigs. And then, of course, after his assassination, who does Lyndon Johnson, his successor, appoint for the so-called Warren Commission as the major influence within it, but Allen Dulles. He should have been considered, rightly, as the main suspect in the assassination rather than appointed to investigate it. That’s the fox investigating the murder in the hen house.

ROCKWELL: Can you look at the Kennedy assassination as a coup d’etat?

DOUGLASS: Yes. But it’s a very subtle coup d’etat in that the propaganda is so enormous and the transition is done so fluidly into an administration under Lyndon Johnson, that is reversing all of Kennedy’s main decision. That happens with so little disruption. I mean, Kennedy’s main advisors don’t all surrender and say this is a coup d’etat or anything like that. Everybody sort of surrenders. This is Cold War thinking. This is the mission to the Powers That Be, if you want to put it in biblical terms. And so, although it is, in fact, a coup d’etat in terms of the power – and the way Kennedy was moving, he had become so isolated, and even his closest – well, most of his closest advisers were so subordinate to the Powers That Be that it was not seen as anything like that.

ROCKWELL: Did Robert Kennedy see it as a murder by the Powers That Be, and is that why he himself was murdered?

DOUGLASS: Yes, he did. But he could not, as one individual – even though he was attorney general of the United States, he could not see a way to do anything in the extreme isolation that he and his brother together had been before the assassination. But now it was Robert Kennedy alone. He, on the very day of the assassination, within an hour, he was suspecting – well, within minutes – (Laughing) – he was suspecting it was the CIA. And he actually confronted people in the CIA that afternoon, asking them about their role in the assassination. But this was all kept very much under the visibility of anyone. And he did not come out with that view. He said to his friends that he would wait until he became president himself. That was a very tragic and fatal decision. He needed to speak up long before that. And, of course, he was never given that opportunity. And he was assassinated 15 minutes after he took the turn by winning the California primary toward becoming president of the United States.”

Isn’t it time the cover-up ended? Let’s do everything we can to release the missing documents and then get rid of the evil, war-mongering CIA. But let’s not stop there. Let’s get rid of the NSA, the FBI and the other agencies that are terrorizing and spying on the American people. [Blog Editor Bold text emphasis]

The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and . Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

When the FBI Attacks Critics as “Conspiracy Theorists,” It’s Time to Reform the Bureau

DOJ-FBI Logo

By Jonathan Turley

December 26, 2022

JonathanTurley.org

Below is my column in the Hill on the need for a new “Church Committee” to investigate and reform the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after years of scandals involving alleged political bias. In response to criticism over its role in Twitter’s censorship system, the FBI lashed out against critics as “conspiracy theorists” spreading disinformation. However, it still refuses to supply new information on other companies, beyond Twitter, that it has paid to engage in censorship.

Here is the column:

“Conspiracy theorists … feeding the American public misinformation” is a familiar attack line for anyone raising free-speech concerns over the FBI’s role in social media censorship. What is different is that this attack came from the country’s largest law enforcement agency, the FBI — and, since the FBI has made combatting “disinformation” a major focus of its work, the labeling of its critics is particularly menacing.

Fifty years ago, the Watergate scandal provoked a series of events that transformed not only the presidency but federal agencies like the FBI. Americans demanded answers about the involvement of the FBI and other federal agencies in domestic politics. Ultimately, Congress not only investigated the FBI but later impaneled to investigate a host of other abuses by intelligence agencies.

A quick review of recent disclosures and controversies shows ample need for a new Church Committee:

The Russian investigations

The FBI previously was at the center of controversies over documented political bias. Without repeating the long history from the Russian influence scandal, FBI officials like Peter Strzok were fired after emails showed open bias against presidential candidate Donald Trump. The FBI ignored warnings that the so-called Steele dossier, largely funded by the Clinton campaign, was likely used by Russian intelligence to spread disinformation. It continued its investigation despite early refutations of key allegations or discrediting of sources.

Biden family business

The FBI has taken on the character of a Praetorian Guard when the Biden family has found itself in scandals.

For example, there was Hunter Biden’s handgun, acquired by apparently lying on federal forms. In 2018, the gun allegedly was tossed into a trash bin in Wilmington, Del., by Hallie Biden, the widow of Hunter’s deceased brother and with whom Hunter had a relationship at the time. Secret Service agents reportedly appeared at the gun shop with no apparent reason, and Hunter later said the matter would be handled by the FBI. Nothing was done despite the apparent violation of federal law.

Later, the diary of Hunter’s sister, Ashley, went missing. While the alleged theft normally would be handled as a relatively minor local criminal matter, the FBI launched a major investigation that continued for months to pursue those who acquired the diary, which reportedly contains embarrassing entries involving President Biden. Such a massive FBI deployment shocked many of us, but the FBI built a federal case against those who took possession of the diary.

Targeting Republicans and conservatives

Recently the FBI was flagged for targeting two senior House Intelligence Committee staffers in grand jury subpoenas sent to Google. It has been criticized for using the Jan. 6 Capitol riot investigations to target conservative groups and GOP members of Congress, including seizing the phone of one GOP member.

The FBI also has been criticized for targeting pro-life violence while not showing the same vigor toward pro-choice violence.

Hunter’s laptop

While the FBI was eager to continue the Russian investigations with no clear evidence of collusion, it showed the opposite inclination when given Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop. The laptop would seem to be a target-rich environment for criminal investigators, with photos and emails detailing an array of potential crimes involving foreign transactions, guns, drugs and prostitutes. However, reports indicate that FBI officials moved to quash or slow any investigation.

The computer repairman who acquired the laptop, John Paul Mac Isaac, said he struggled to get the FBI to respond and that agents made thinly veiled threats regarding any disclosures of material related to the Biden family; he said one agent told him that “in their experience, nothing ever happens to people that don’t talk about these things.”

The ‘Twitter Files’

The “Twitter Files” released by Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, show as many as 80 agents targeting social-media posters for censorship on the site. This included alleged briefings that Twitter officials said was the reason they spiked the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election.

The FBI sent 150 messages on back channels to just one Twitter official to flag accounts. One Twitter executive expressed unease over the FBI’s pressure, declaring: “They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff).”

We also have learned that Twitter hired a number of retired FBI agents, including former FBI general counsel James Baker, who was a critical and controversial figure in past bureau scandals over political bias.

Attacking critics

It is not clear what is more chilling — the menacing role played by the FBI in Twitter’s censorship program, or its mendacious response to the disclosure of that role. The FBI has issued a series of “nothing-to-see-here” statements regarding the Twitter Files.

In its latest statement, the FBI insists it did not command Twitter to take any specific action when flagging accounts to be censored. Of course, it didn’t have to threaten the company — because we now have an effective state media by consent rather than coercion. Moreover, an FBI warning tends to concentrate the minds of most people without the need for a specific threat.

Finally, the files show that the FBI paid Twitter millions as part of this censorship system — a windfall favorably reported to Baker before he was fired from Twitter by Musk.

Criticizing the FBI is now ‘disinformation’

Responding to the disclosures and criticism, an FBI spokesperson declared: “The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public. It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”

Arguably, “working every day to protect the American public” need not include censoring the public to protect it from errant or misleading ideas.

However, it is the attack on its critics that is most striking. While the FBI denounced critics of an earlier era as communists and “fellow travelers,” it now uses the same attack narrative to label its critics as “conspiracy theorists.”

After Watergate, there was bipartisan support for reforming the FBI and intelligence agencies. Today, that cacophony of voices has been replaced by crickets, as much of the media imposes another effective blackout on coverage of the Twitter Files. This media silence suggests that the FBI found the “sweet spot” on censorship, supporting the views of the political and media establishment.

As for the rest of us, the FBI now declares us to be part of a disinformation danger which it is committed to stamping out — “conspiracy theorists” misleading the public simply by criticizing the bureau.

Clearly, this is the time for a new Church Committee — and time to reform the FBI.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

Jonathan Turley HOMEPAGE

+++++++++++++++++++++

14 Signs of Totalitarianism

Lenin Plaza

By Jon Miltimore

December 25, 2022

Activist Post

We all know the cons of Twitter, but one of the pros is discovering new and interesting people.

One of my favorite new follows is Benjamin Carlson, a public relations guru and former editor at The Atlantic. Carlson’s tweets are among the best you’ll find on Twitter, and he clearly has a keen understanding of the intersections between media and government, power and propaganda (both current and historically).

One of his recent tweets caught my eye, and I share an adaptation of it below.

1. Dissent is equated to violence

2. Media is controlled

3. The legal system is co-opted by the state

4. Power is exerted to quash dissent

5. State police protect the regime, not the people

6. Rights—financial, legal, and civil—are contingent on compliance

7. Mass conformity of beliefs and behaviors is demanded

8. Power is concentrated in inner ring of elite institutions and people

9. Semi-organized violence is permitted (in some cases)

10. Propaganda targets enemies of the state regime

11. Entire classes singled out for persecution

12. Extra-legal actions are condoned against internal regime opponents

13. Harsh legal enforcement against unfavored classes

14. Private and public levers of power are used to enforce adherence to state dogmas

The list is a bit troubling. At the very least, some of these techniques are playing out before our eyes. This is certainly not to say that the US is a totalitarian state, however.

There are many definitions of totalitarianism, and I don’t believe one can seriously argue that the United States has arrived there. But authoritarianism is certainly in the air, and it emanates most strongly from our nation’s capital.

While both the political Right and the political Left accuse each other of harboring tyrannical ambitions, the philosopher Karl Popper offered a clue as to when a legitimate government crosses the line and becomes a tyrannical one.

“You can choose whatever name you like for the two types of government,” Popper wrote. “I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence ‘democracy,’ and the other ‘tyranny.’”

Popper’s quote is an important reminder: the people ultimately have the right to choose their government. In his seminal Two Treatises of Government, John Locke carved out what would become the foundation of America’s founding philosophy, as FEE’s Dan Sanchez recently explained.

Equality, in the original sense, not of equal abilities or equal wealth, but of non-subjugation;

Inalienable Rights, not to government entitlements, but to life, liberty, and property;

Democracy, in the original sense, not of mere majoritarian voting, but of popular sovereignty: the idea that governments should not be masters, but servants of the people;

Consent of the Governed: the idea that governments can only legitimately govern by the consent of the governed, i.e., the sovereign people;

Limited Government: the idea that the sole purpose and proper scope of legitimate government is only to secure the rights of the people;

Right of Revolution: the idea that any government that oversteps its limits and tramples the very rights it was charged with securing is a tyranny, and that the people have a right to resist, alter, and even abolish tyrannical governments.

As the state drifts further and further from its moral purpose, it becomes more and more important to understand the rights of man and the limits of government.

Youtube VIDEO: The Ministry of Truth is Worse Than it Sounds #shorts

[Posted by Foundation for Economic Education

May 13, 2022

MORE DESCRIPTION]

A version of this article appeared on the author’s Substack.

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. (Follow him on Substack.)

His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times. 

ACTIVIST POST – ALTERNATIVE INDEPENDENT NEWS – CREATIVE COMMONS 2019

How CDC Blatantly Uses Weekly Reports to Spread COVID Disinformation: Three Examples


As you go through The Defender’s analysis on how the CDC lies via twisted and bad data conclusions to American gullible Sheeple to entice compliance, YOU need to ask yourself a question: What is the CDC motive for lying? AND: Who ultimately benefits from CDC lies? One clue: the American can’t possibly benefit from CDC lies!

JRH 7/20/22

READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. PLEASE I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:

Please Support NCCR

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

***************************

How CDC Blatantly Uses Weekly Reports to Spread COVID Disinformation: Three Examples

The authors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report are afforded the luxury of broadcasting their findings to massive audiences through media outlets that don’t hold them accountable for even gross lapses in scientific rigor.

CDC Weekly Disinformation

By Madhava Setty, M.D.

July 19, 2022

The Defender

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the primary U.S. health protection agency — publicly pledges, among other things, to “base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively.”

The CDC’s “primary vehicle for scientific publication of timely, reliable, authoritative, accurate, objective, and useful public health information and recommendations,” according to the agency, is its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The CDC states that the MMWR readership consists predominantly of physicians, nurses, public health practitioners, epidemiologists and other scientists, researchers, educators and laboratorians.

However, these weekly reports also serve as the means by which the agency disseminates its scientific findings to a much wider readership through media outlets that inform hundreds of millions of people.

Though the CDC asserts its MMWRs reliably communicate accurate and objective public health information, the reports are not subject to peer review, and the data behind the scientific findings are not always available to the public.

Moreover, when the media summarizes MMWR findings in articles intended for the general public, they often omit or misrepresent important details.

As a result, the reports often steer public opinion to a level of certainty the authors of the reports themselves cannot justify — and often, to incorrect conclusions.

As Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H., and Tracy Beth Høeg M.D., Ph.D., recently revealed, some officials within the CDC claim the heads of their agencies “are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions, that such decisions are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration and that they have a myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health.”

In this article, I will demonstrate how the CDC used three key MMWRs to compel the public to comply with pandemic response measures.

These reports were flawed to an extent suggesting more than mere incompetence or even negligence — they were deliberate attempts by CDC scientists to mislead the public.

These MMWRs address the effectiveness of mask mandates (March 5, 2021), vaccine safety during pregnancy (Jan. 7, 2022) and the risk of COVID-19 in children (April 22, 2022).

Do I need to wear a mask?

The New York Times in May ran this story, “Why Masks work, but Mandates Haven’t,” in which the author concluded:

“When you look at the data on mask-wearing — both before vaccines were available and after, as well as both in the U.S. and abroad — you struggle to see any patterns.”

But that’s not what the CDC concluded in its March 5, 2021, MMWR:

“Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation.”

How could the CDC claim there was a statistically significant decrease in cases within 20 days of mask mandate implementation if there were no patterns in the data?

The explanation is necessarily detailed because the CDC authors’ methodology is so devious. A detailed critique of the agency’s approach is offered in this preprint paper (Mittledorf, Setty) which I will summarize here.

The CDC researchers examined the number of COVID-19 cases reported each day in each U.S. county that implemented a mask mandate.

Then they calculated the Daily Growth Rate (DGR) of cases (and deaths) in each county on each day for 60 days preceding the countywide mandate and for 100 days afterward.

The authors purportedly showed the DGR fell after mandates were imposed. It is important to realize that when the DGR falls on a certain day, it does not mean that fewer new cases occurred on that day compared to the day before — it means the number of new cases is not growing as fast as it was prior to that day.

In other words, by using DGR as the measure of interest, the authors can still claim a “significant decrease in COVID-19 case growth rate” even if the number of new cases on a given day is larger than the day before.

When data for 2,313 U.S. counties were tallied into a composite graph, this is what they found:

change-case-death-growth-rate Figure 1. Image credit: CDC

Note that mandates were implemented at different times in different counties, so the “reference period” occurred at different times during the year depending on the county.

Furthermore, the plot indicates the DGR at different times relative to the DGR at the reference period.

In other words, when the plot falls below zero it does not mean the DGR is negative — it means it was less than it was during the 20 days prior to the institution of the mandate (the “reference period”).

Nevertheless, it seems that on average, the DGR falls after the implementation of mask mandates.

However, what was happening prior to the reference period?

We don’t know — and neither do the authors of the CDC report.

Figure 1 includes ranges of confidence intervals that stretch above and below that of the reference period prior to mask mandate implementation. Because the upper bound of the DGR is greater than the reference period prior to the point mandates were implemented, it is entirely possible the DGR was already in decline prior to the implementation of mask mandates.

The authors’ own data and calculations demonstrate the drop in DGR may have had nothing to do with mask mandates at all.

In other words, the authors also could have concluded mask mandates were associated with a drop in the DGR 40 days prior to their implementation.

In fact, this is clearly demonstrated in the graph. The DGR for both cases and deaths is highest in the period 20 to 40 days before the mandate.

How amazing! Masks seem to work several weeks before people are forced to wear them!

Beyond ignoring what their own data suggested, the CDC authors made two very suspicious decisions when designing their study.

The CDC chose to limit its analysis to 100 days after mandates were instituted. Was this an arbitrary length of time? Or was there another reason?

We examined data from the entire country for the period of the study and plotted the DGR for a full year here:

U.S. Daily Growth Rate Cases Figure 2

Figure 2 clearly demonstrates the DGR was already in steep decline at the beginning of the study period, just as pointed out earlier.

The graph also indicates the DGR temporarily rose at the beginning of the summer, then fell, then began to rise again at the beginning of the autumn.

Because the overwhelming majority of mask mandates began in the late spring and early summer, a 100-day window of analysis will show a declining DGR because it will miss the increase in DGR in the fall.

Also note that a shorter period of observation, say 50 days, would have resulted in equivocal or opposite findings as the summer “bump” would have made it seem like mask mandates had no effect or possibly increased the DGR.

The CDC conveniently chose an observational window that could be neatly nestled between the periods of higher DGR.

For example, the state of California imposed statewide mandates on June 18, 2020. Using CDC data, this is what a plot of the DGR for the state looks like if the period of observation were extended beyond 100 days:

Daily Growth Rate California Figure 3

The DGR at the end of the 100 days (Sept. 25, 2020) was approximately 0.5%, or about 1.5% lower than it was prior to the mandates in that state. However, two months later, the DGR had returned to its pre-mandate level.

If the CDC extended its window of analysis it would not have been able to claim there was any benefit from the mask mandates. The pattern was similar in the country as a whole, as demonstrated in Figure 2.

Did the CDC just get lucky with its window of observation? Or was the agency seeking a way to justify unpopular masking policies that had been in effect for nearly a year at the time this study was released?

At this point, any reasonable researcher would suspect the CDC’s authors were engaged in elaborate hand-waving to lead the public to a predetermined conclusion.

How can we know for sure?

If the CDC were truly interested in demonstrating a fall in the DGR due to mask mandates, the authors of the study would have asked the most basic of questions: What happened in counties that did NOT institute mask mandates during the study period? In other words, what happened in the “control” group during the same time?

Though there were 829 U.S. counties that did not implement mask mandates, the CDC researchers did not analyze any of them to test their hypothesis. Why didn’t they?

We did. From our preprint study linked above, this is what we found:

[Counties NOT Implementing Mask Mandate] Change Daily Growth Rate Figure 4

Using publicly available data from the CDC and an arbitrary “reference period” of Aug. 6, 2020 (roughly in the middle of the CDC’s study period date), we calculated the DGR in counties of seven states without mandates also fell to similar levels at the end of 100 days.

In other words, the decrease in DGR had nothing to do with the imposition of mask mandates. It was due to a predictable pattern of any infectious disease as it spreads through a population over time — whether or not people were forced to wear masks.

This would have been obvious if the CDC were actually interested in being scientific.

Nevertheless, the New York Times unhesitatingly covered the CDC’s findings on the very same day the MMWR was released in this article: “The Virus Spread Where Restaurants Reopened or Mask Mandates Were Absent.”

The Times quoted CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky who said, “You have decreases in cases and deaths when you wear masks,” and Joseph Allen, an associate professor at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who said;

“The study is not surprising. What’s surprising is that we see some states ignoring all of the evidence and opening up quickly, and removing mask mandates.”

The Times wasn’t the only media outlet to report on the flawed study.

CNBC posted this article: “CDC study finds easing mask and restaurant rules led to more Covid cases and deaths, as some states move to lift restrictions.”

And U.S. News and World Report ran an article under this headline: “Mask Use Associated With Decline in Coronavirus Cases, Deaths, CDC Says.”

In fact, more than 100 media outlets cited the CDC study within 24 hours of its release — but not one questioned the authors’ analysis.

In their defense, that is not their job. The media’s role is to simply relay what the CDC has to say. Yet without any oversight or accountability, the CDC can conclude whatever it chooses.

Because the mainstream media machine grants the CDC infallible status, the public is lured into an illusion that “the science is settled.”

But why would the CDC authors go to such lengths to manufacture an unfounded position on mask mandates? Surely they realized their methodology would be scrutinized and found to be manipulative by those who don’t consider the agency to be irreproachable. Why risk their credibility? What do they have to gain?

The MMWR was released on a Friday. On the following Monday, March 8, 2021, the CDC tells us, as NBC News reported:

“‘As more Americans are vaccinated, a growing body of evidence now tells us that there are some activities fully vaccinated people can do,’ the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky said during a White House Covid-19 briefing Monday.

“‘The latest science [emphasis added],’ Walensky said, ‘suggests that fully vaccinated people can congregate indoors with other fully vaccinated people without wearing face coverings or practicing physical distancing.’”

And there you have it.

Three days after the flawed MMWR was released, being with other human beings indoors without masks became a privilege reserved exclusively for the “fully vaccinated.”

The “latest science” must demonstrate that masks offer some protection, however miniscule. If there were no benefit to mask wearing, there would be one less carrot authorities could use to get the public to comply with their vaccine agenda.

Are COVID-19 vaccines safe during pregnancy?

In a Jan. 7 MMWR, the authors addressed another important public concern: Are the vaccines safe during pregnancy?

To answer this question, CDC authors examined the incidence of only two pregnancy outcomes: preterm births and small-for-gestational age (SGA) in unvaccinated and vaccinated mothers.

They concluded:

“CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccination for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant (including those who are lactating), who are trying to become pregnant now, or who might become pregnant in the future to reduce the risk for severe COVID-19–associated outcomes.”

Their assurances came more than a year after the first COVID-19 vaccine was granted Emergency Use Authorization, in December 2020.

In this example, CDC authors did not have to cherry-pick periods of observation or ignore control groups to make their “conclusions.”

Here, they relied on comparing two poorly matched groups of mothers (the unvaccinated were at a higher risk of pregnancy complications):

  • There were greater than 50% more mothers in the unvaccinated group classified as having inadequate prenatal care than in the vaccinated group.
  • Obesity, a risk for preterm birth, was also overrepresented in the unvaccinated group (29% vs 23.9%) compared to the vaccinated.
  • There were greater than three times more African American women in the unvaccinated group than in the vaccinated group. The CDC acknowledges African American mothers may have as much as a 50% greater risk for preterm birth compared to white mothers.
  • COVID-19 infection, another potentially important confounder, was present in the unvaccinated group at a 25% greater incidence than in the vaccinated cohort. Viral infections early in pregnancy are particularly deleterious to the developing fetus.

The differences between the two cohorts should have been obvious to the authors. Why?

Because they found the risk of preterm birth and SGA in the vaccinated weren’t equal to that in the unvaccinated group — in fact, they were lower (adjusted Hazard Ratios were 0.91 and 0.95 respectively).

These numbers were very close to being statistically significant.

Amazing. Masks prevent the spread of the disease weeks before they are mandated and now we find that the COVID-19 jabs aren’t just safe, they can actually lower the risk of preterm birth and SGA!

Why didn’t the authors report that their data indicated that COVID-19 vaccines somehow reduce the risk of these outcomes? Was it because the data weren’t quite statistically significant?

Or was it because they didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that the unvaccinated group was at higher risk for these outcomes to begin with?

But the most glaring deficit in the CDC analysis was the scarcity of vaccinated mothers who received a vaccine in the first trimester in this study.

The risk of untoward outcomes (birth defects, miscarriages) in pregnancy is greatest during the first third of pregnancy, a time when crucial embryonic structures are developing.

This is the period of time where maternal health is particularly important and exposure to toxins, infections and certain medicines must be minimized or eliminated entirely if possible.

Only 172 of more than 10,000 (1.7%) vaccinated mothers in the study received a vaccine in the first trimester.

This was acknowledged by the authors who explicitly stated: “Because of the small number of first-trimester exposures, aHRs (adjusted Hazard Ratios) for first-trimester vaccination could not be calculated.”

If they could not calculate the risk of the vaccine in the first trimester, on what basis could they assure the recently pregnant, those who are trying to become pregnant and those who might become pregnant in the future that this experimental intervention was safe?

They couldn’t — but they did anyway. And once again, mainstream media outlets wasted little time in spreading the “good news”:

  • Boston.com (Jan. 18, 2022): “New study bolsters case for COVID vaccination during pregnancy.”
  • Medical News Today (Jan. 11, 2022): “COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy not linked to adverse birth outcomes.”
  • Medscape (Jan. 12, 2022): “COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy Not Linked to Complications at Birth: US Study.”

And even on other continents:

  • Juta Medical Brief, Africa’s Medical Media Digest (Jan. 12, 2022): “COVID vaccination not linked to premature birth or unusually small babies — CDC study.”
  • newKerala.com (Jan. 8, 2022): “Researchers say COVID-19 vaccine does not disrupt pregnancy.”

Even People magazine, a go-to source for the latest in medical research and public health, helped spread the CDC gospel: “COVID Vaccines Among Pregnant Women Are Not Linked to Pre-Term Births, According to New Study.”

Should I vaccinate my child?

In this April 19 MMWR, CDC authors compared the risk of hospitalization of 5- to 11-year-old children from COVID-19 during three different time periods: pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron.

By the end of the period of observation, Feb. 28, 2022, only approximately 30% of children in this age group had received both doses of the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines. The experimental product had been authorized for these children four months prior.

Was this report a “reliable, accurate and objective” publication of available data? Or was it an attempt to persuade parents to inoculate their children by making contradictory statements and illogical reasoning?

Read on and decide for yourself.

The April 19 report uses a different set of tactics to lead the unwary reader to false conclusions. In this example, statements are made in the text of the paper that are true, but also irrelevant or misleading.

From the CDC’s own data (Table 1), among hospitalized children aged 5-11 who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, more were admitted because of COVID-19 during the Delta wave (364) than during the Omicron wave (160). These numbers were statistically significant.

Yet the authors did not mention this fact in their discussion. Instead, they chose to compare the rate of hospitalization during a single, one-week peak of each wave: 2.8 per 100,000 during Omicron, and 1.2 per 100,000 during Delta.

Clearly, it is the total number of hospitalizations that is salient when assessing the risk of the predominant variant in circulation — not the number during a brief period of each wave.

Intentionally or not, the authors suggested Omicron is even more dangerous than Delta — which is not true.

This same strategy was used in yet another MMWR (from March 15, 2022) that sought to convince parents of children under age 5 to inoculate their young children by comparing hospitalizations at the peak of each wave rather than the total number of hospitalizations.

Dr. Meryl Nass dissects that CDC report here.

What are parents to do if they believe Omicron is more dangerous than the Delta variant? The answer is apparently obvious.

The authors of the April 19 MMWR extracted hospitalization rates from 14 states for fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children in this age group: Unvaccinated kids are 2.1 times more likely to be hospitalized than those who were fully vaccinated.

Surely this should be enough to motivate the uncertain parent. However, when there is a potential risk it is imperative to assess the absolute risk of the intervention, not just the relative benefit.

In this case, the risk of hospitalization during the Omicron wave was 19.1 per 100,000 in the unvaccinated compared to 9.2 per 100,000 in the fully jabbed.

This means roughly 10,000 children had to be fully vaccinated to prevent a single hospitalization — a striking number the CDC authors did not mention.

In typical fashion, the CDC authors don’t mention the risk, which is yet to be established, of the experimental vaccine.

Though the authors accurately reported on the aggregate data, they mysteriously chose to include another statistic: 87% of hospitalized children were unvaccinated.

How could roughly 7 of 8 hospitalized kids (87%) be unvaccinated if the rate of hospitalization was only about double in the unjabbed?

The answer is that most children (70% or more) hadn’t been inoculated during this time. Why would they mention this true-but-misleading statistic?

We can’t know with any certainty, but it certainly makes a good talking point.

Forbes did not consider such questions when it ran this piece the same day: “87% Of Kids Hospitalized With Covid During Omicron Wave Were Unvaccinated, CDC Says.”

Other media outlets also fell into line and ran stories with misleading headlines based on this MMWR:

  • Axios: “CDC: 87% of children hospitalized during U.S. Omicron surge unvaccinated.”
  • BNN Bloomberg ran this: “Unvaccinated Kids Bore Brunt of Omicron Wave, CDC Report Says.” The title is not inaccurate. However, the very first line of the story predictably reads: “Almost 90% of U.S. children hospitalized for Covid during the omicron wave this winter were unvaccinated, according to a government study.”

If you read these articles you will find they all regurgitate the same misleading statements the CDC authors included in the text of their report.

On this page, there are dozens of articles titled (more or less) “Unvaccinated Children Hospitalized at Twice the Rate During Omicron Surge: US Study.” All cite the misleading MMWR.

The data that supported the fact that the unvaccinated children were twice as likely to be hospitalized was found here on the CDC website. The data from the MMWR study period has since been updated.

This is what the numbers now show:

Covid Hospitalization Vaccination Status Image credit: CDC

As of May 2022, in the 5-to-11 age group, there is a difference of 0.88 hospitalizations (3.35 – 2.47) per month in every 100,000 kids between the unvaccinated and vaccinated.

This means more than 113,000 children in that age group must receive both doses to prevent a single hospitalization per month.

In yet a final attempt to confuse the reader, the CDC authors state up front in their highlighted “Summary”:

“Increasing COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children aged 5–11 years, particularly among racial and ethnic minority groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19, can prevent COVID-19–associated hospitalization and severe outcomes.”

Read that statement closely. They clearly state that increasing vaccination coverage in this age group can prevent severe outcomes.

Can they prevent severe outcomes? Maybe. But did they? Not according to their data.

The authors later correct themselves in the body of the report: “There were no significant differences for severe outcomes by vaccination status.”

Which statement do you think the media outlets chose to publish?

No limits to their treachery . . . 

The CDC website describes its MMWR series here:

“Often called ‘the voice of CDC,’ the MMWR series is the agency’s primary vehicle for scientific publication of timely, reliable, authoritative, accurate, objective, and useful public health information and recommendations.”

If the MMWR series is “the voice of CDC,” mainstream media serves as its mouthpiece.

By working together, the CDC authors are afforded the luxury of broadcasting their findings to massive audiences through media outlets that will not — and in many cases cannot — hold them accountable for even gross lapses in scientific rigor.

In my opinion, these examples demonstrate something more than honest mistakes. These are egregious misrepresentations of data that were meant to deliberately mislead the public, public officials and the medical establishment in order to galvanize support around unpopular mandates and push the “safe and effective” narrative. [Blog Editor Emphasis]

There wasn’t a “statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 case counts associated with mask mandates.”

There wasn’t enough data to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for mothers who recently became pregnant.

The data did not demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine can prevent severe outcomes in children ages 5 to 11.

The common thread in all three of these cases is that an uninformed reader of these reports will readily conclude that getting the jab is the best way to return to normalcy or protect a young child or a pregnancy.

We can speculate that Big Pharma’s insatiable thirst for profit is behind the CDC and corporate media, but with tens of billions of dollars already earned, why are they so desperate to keep the misinformation campaign going?

The most obvious answer is that they cannot afford not to. From the initial adult vaccine trials conducted in the summer and fall of 2020 to the most recent trials in the pediatric population, all placebo recipients were given the jab after just a few short months.

This resulted in only short-term efficacy and safety data. Using trial outcomes alone, no long-term safety assessments can be made. If there is a significant risk in the middle to long term, it can be estimated only through observational studies in the population.

The unvaccinated millions and their enduring health will stand as the biggest threat to the industry’s income stream and our health authorities’ credibility.

Authors of the CDC MMWR series are not accountable to anyone, including the CDC director who parrots their findings, or the public who rely on captured media outlets to ask the right questions.

With this level of impunity, there are no limits to their treachery. [Blog Editor Emphasis]

Image credit for Figures 2-4: Josh Mitteldorf and Madhava Setty

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense. [Blog Editor: I understand the reasoning for the CHD disclaimer, but the bad science is so egregious CHD should get behind this author’s findings with a “YES! AMEN!”]

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.

© 2016 – 2022 Children’s Health Defense® • All Rights Reserved.

The Defender HOMEPAGE

Another Dose of Science Truth


Don’t be a Sheeple, Look at the Data

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© June 25, 2022

Yesterday Constitutional 10th Amendment Federalism was upheld when SCOTUS overturned past Leftist Judicial activism giving power back to the States to decide if Baby-Killing is alright or evil. Expect Dem-Marxist controlled States to perpetuate the evil Baby-Killing.

THAT SAID, I now embark on another journey of sharing actual science based on data that Globalist/Big Pharma controlled science will LIE and scream DISINFORMATION/MISINFORMATION.

ALSO, I want to share with readers the last time I shared actual empirical science facts on my limited use of Facebook, it earned me a stint in their for 3-days on my FB profile and some limited jail/restrictions as follows as of 6/25/22 (Account Status):

FB Acct Status web capture 6/25/22

So this post will not even make it to my FB profile. And to those wondering why I still use Facebook: It is the primary way this 65-year old man keeps in contact with what’s happening with my fellow Class of 1975 High School graduates (regrettably being WA State [I now live in Oklahoma], some of which have embraced Leftist brainwashing).

AND NOW the science data Global science would rather you remain Sheeple oblivious in order of my interest more than date:

I begin with Dr. Jane Ruby reporting on what should be considered FDA criminality on the Red Voice Media website entitled, “U.S. FDA Is Now A Terrorist Organization.” The video on the website spends about 4-minutes on SCOTUS revoking Roe v. Wade and the rest of 22-minute video on the FDA.

NEXT is a nearly 4-minute video of Sam Dodson FDA failures to address documented mRNA mishaps.

NEXT is a Highwire/Del Bigtree interview with Dr. Peter McCullough and Senator Ron Johnson about Medical-Political persecution of doctors not agreeing with Globalist/Dem-Marxist control-the-people science tyranny.

NEXT is a past Frontline Flash video (2:15) revealing two inherent science lies from a California Bill (AB 2098) from Dr. Peterson Pierre.

NEXT is a snippet of Ben Swann elaborating on how CCP-controlled WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus secretly got caught admitting COVID (aka CCP Virus or Chinese Virus) originated from a Wuhan Lab.

RELATED TO SWANN is an Epoch Times post ALSO on Tedros admission: “WHO and Lancet Commission Chiefs Come Out in Support of Lab Leak Theory.”

AND LAST a report from UK-oriented The Exposé where the title should pique your interest: “World Health Organization Study concludes risk of suffering Serious Injury due to COVID Vaccination is 339% higher than risk of being hospitalised with COVID-19.”

JRH 6/25/22

READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. PLEASE I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to overcome research expenses:

Please Support NCCR

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

****************************

U.S. FDA Is Now A Terrorist Organization

DOD-driven domestic bioterrorism program, and Team Enigma is back to break down the CDC’s public statement that it has no responsibility to monitor safety…

Dr. Jane Ruby – Sasha Latypova

By DR. JANE RUBY

June 24, 2022

Red Voice Media

Catch every episode of The Dr. Jane Ruby Show

Rumble VIDEO: U.S. FDA Is Now A Terrorist Organization

[Posted by Stew Peters Network 

Published June 24, 2022

MORE DESCRIPTION]

On today’s Dr. Jane Ruby Show, Dr. Jane highlights a historic day in the United States, as the Supreme Court of the nation reverses the 50-year-old Roe vs Wade decision, sending back to the 50 states, the decision to legalize or criminalize abortion. And we now have clear and present evidence that the U.S.  Food and Drug Administration is a terrorist organization colluding with a DOD-driven domestic bioterrorism program, and Team Enigma is back to break down the CDC’s public statement that it has no responsibility to monitor safety… And we conclude the show, and the week, with a very special “Ask Dr. Jane”… This is the Dr. Jane Ruby Show and you’re about to enter Truth in Medicine!

Watch the full show on premium. Not a member? Join here and support Dr. Jane: https://redvoicemedia.net/ruby

[Blog Editor: The Sasha Latypova portion is premium viewing only. I am not a premium user. If you are the premium portion is embedded in the below title.]

Dr. Jane Ruby: U.S. FDA Is A BioTerrorism Organization; CDC Says Its Not Responsible For Safety And Ask Dr. Jane (FULL SHOW)

© 2022 Red Voice Media – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Bitchute VIDEO: CALLER DROPS MASSIVE TRUTH BOMB ON FDA

Posted by BNN

Posted on June 25th, 2022 05:35 UTC

Jun 25, 2022

Bill Gates Is EVIL

Sam Dodson, an intellectual engineer, called out the FDA for doing “nothing” with the “massive safety signals,” colluding with pharmaceutical companies to suppress trial data for 75 years, ignoring fraudulent data, ignoring adverse events like myocarditis and prion diseases and ignoring issues with infertility.

MORE DESCRIPTION

+++++++++++++++++++

Bitchute VIDEO: DR. PETER MCCULLOUGH IS UNDER FIRE FROM THE AMERICAN BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE

Posted by Right2Freedom

Posted on June 23rd, 2022 03:48 UTC 

June 17, 2022
Source: www.bitchute.com/video/wt5Fua6S7G2q/

Dr. Peter McCullough is under fire from the American Board of Internal Medicine (A.B.I.M.), who is threatening his medical license for “providing false and inaccurate information to patients”. Senator Ron Johnson has responded with a call for A.B.I.M. and Dr. McCullough to participate in an open hearing on Capitol Hill, and put it all on the table of public record.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Rumble VIDEO: Frontline Flash™ Daily Dose: ‘CA AB 2098: Based On Lies’ with Dr. Peterson Pierre

Posted by Dr. Simone Gold

Published June 20, 2022

Frontline Flash™ by AFLDS.org with Dr. Peterson Pierre presents Daily Dose: ‘CA AB 2098: Based On Lies’ (Ep. 2098 – 6.20.2022). The Real Story of Good Health ~ in 120 Seconds or Less. Follow on social media @FrontlineFlash

Source: https://aflds.org/about-us/issue-briefs/issue-brief-california-assembly-bill-2098/

+++++++++++++++++++

Bitchute VIDEO: WHO CHIEF ADMITS PRIVATELY “COVID CAME FROM CHINESE LAB”

Posted by Americans United Against The New World Order

AmericansUnitedAgainstMarxismAndTheNewWorldOrder

First Published June 25th, 2022 02:01 UTC

MORE DESCRIPTION

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WHO and Lancet Commission Chiefs Come Out in Support of Lab Leak Theory

The flag of the World Health Organization (WHO) at their headquarters in Geneva on March 5, 2021. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

By Hans Mahncke

June 21, 2022 Updated: June 22, 2022

The Epoch Times

World Health Organization (WHO) Director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reportedly admitted to a senior European politician that the virus that causes COVID-19 most likely came out of a Wuhan lab. The Daily Mail reports that Tedros made the admission citing a catastrophic lab accident.

The disclosure comes on the heels of a WHO investigative report that was published earlier this month, concluding that the pandemic may have started at a Wuhan lab and that Chinese authorities have been blocking access to crucial data.

At the same time, Jeffrey Sachs, leader of the Lancet Commission on COVID-19, now says that he is convinced that the pandemic started in a lab and that SARS-CoV-2 was created with the aid of U.S. biotechnology.

Sachs made his stunning admission last week at a conference in Spain where he had been invited by former Spanish prime minister José Luís Zapatero.

The admissions from two of the world’s most prominent COVID-19 authorities, who also happen to be establishment stalwarts with a record of appeasing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is a significant development in the search for the origin of the pandemic.

Early in 2020, just as the pandemic was starting to unfold, Xiao Botao, a whistleblower from Chinapublished an article claiming that the virus had come out of a Wuhan lab. The whistleblower’s paper was quickly removed from the internet and an all-hands-on-deck effort to scrub and censor the idea of a lab leak quickly ensued.

Two institutions played a key role in that scrubbing effort. The World Health Organization and esteemed British medical journal The Lancet.

White House Chief Medical Adviser on Covid-19 Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Md., on Feb. 11, 2021. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

WHO chief Tedros and his organization famously pushed CCP propaganda, including lavishly praising Xi Jinping and claiming that the virus did not transmit between humans. Tedros also spearheaded efforts to “combat the spread of rumors and misinformation.” In addition, two separate WHO investigations aggressively dismissed the lab leak theory.

For its part, the Lancet published a statement that maligned anyone who deigned to so much as contemplate that the virus might have come out of a lab.

That Lancet statement—which was published before most Americans even knew that there was a pandemic spreading around the globe—was signed by a number of notable leaders in the field of virology and set the tone for the corporate media’s coverage.

It also served as a warning to other scientists and science publications around the globe that lab-leak discussions were off-limits.

Most virological research in the Western world is funded through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci—who was himself instrumental in shutting down any discussion of the lab leak theory—and Jeremy Farrar, the British pharmaceutical trust director who sits on billions of dollars’ worth of grant money and has long-standing ties to China’s CDC head, Gao Fu. Farrar co-authored the Lancet statement.

The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, is a recipient of the CCP’s Friendship Prize. Before the pandemic, he published a glowing tribute to Xi and the Chinese regime. Horton later went on Chinese state TV where he praised Chinese authorities, impugned Western governments, and asserted that claims that the pandemic might have started in a Wuhan lab were part of a “pandemic of disinformation.”

Horton also set up a commission to investigate “the nature, origin, and prevention of zoonotic diseases.” The focus on zoonosis—or a natural origin—meant that The Lancet had predetermined what the commission was supposed to conclude.

Sachs was appointed as head of the commission while Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance who helped Fauci funnel U.S. taxpayer money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was made a member of the group. It was Daszak’s enormous conflicts of interest, as well as the emergence of new evidence pointing to a lab leak, that led to the eventual disbanding of the Lancet Commission in September 2021.

An exterior view of building one of National Institutes of Health (NIH) inside Bethesda campus, in Bethesda, Md., on Nov. 21, 2020. NIH funds majority of biomedical research in United States. (grandbrothers/Shutterstock)

However, the group did not publicly dismiss the natural origin narrative until last week, when Sachs attended a conference in Madrid where he made his surprising admission:

“I chaired a Commission for the Lancet for two years on COVID. I’m pretty convinced it came out of U.S. lab biotechnology, not out of nature.”

Sachs’s statement is not only hugely significant because of his role as chairman of the Lancet Commission but also—and perhaps even more so—because of his admission that U.S. biotechnology was used to create SARS-CoV-2.

We have known for some time about the cooperation between the so-called godfather of gain-of-function experiments, Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina, and the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Shi Zhengli. In fact, it was the disclosure of that collaboration in a Jan. 31, 2020, article in Science magazine that led Fauci’s team to scramble to cover up the NIAID’s involvement with, and funding of, Shi’s lab.

Baric and Shi’s collaboration traces back to 2015 when they created a modified coronavirus that was not only uniquely able to latch on to human cells but also able to efficiently replicate in human lungs. While the virus they created was not SARS-CoV-2, the virus did have the attributes that we would later find in SARS-CoV-2.

Their collaboration proved that Shi had gained the technical know-how to do the kinds of experiments that might have resulted in COVID-19. Baric also sent transgenic mice with human lung receptors to Shi’s Wuhan lab. Humanized mice mimic human lung tissue and act as experimental stand-ins for humans. They are used to test whether newly created viruses can replicate and spread quickly among humans.

It is not a big leap to go from infected lab mice to infected lab workers. This is even more evident when one considers that the Wuhan lab conducted its coronavirus research under biosafety level two conditions, which even Baric acknowledged as dangerous, stating that there is much less oversight and that lab-acquired infections occur much more frequently at biosafety level two than at higher levels.

After the pandemic started, Chinese authorities directed their labs to shift coronavirus work to biosafety level three labs.

An aerial view shows the P4 laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China’s central Hubei Province on April 17, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)

But even that might not offer sufficient protection against a biosafety accident. Late last year, a lab worker in Taiwan contracted COVID-19 from handling infected lab animals in a biosafety level three lab.

To underscore how significant Sachs’s sudden shift is, he has also co-authored a paper in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calling for an independent investigation of information held by U.S.-based institutions that would reveal the origin of the pandemic.

While it is correct that Chinese authorities have been concealing crucial data from the Wuhan lab, as well as data on early patients, many of the answers to the pandemic’s origins are held in the United States by organizations such as Fauci’s NIH and NIAID, by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, by Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, and by Baric’s lab, which provided the Wuhan lab with biotechnology.

Sachs’s observations further highlight the significance of the highly unusual furin cleavage site, the part of SARS-CoV-2 that makes it so virulent. It has been known since the start of the pandemic that SARS-CoV-2 is the only coronavirus of its kind that has a furin cleavage site. But Sachs now goes further, pointing out that the critical amino acid sequence of SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site insertion happens to be identical to one that is present in the human body, strongly suggesting that it was deliberately inserted into a SARS-like virus.

Lastly, Sachs is also raising the issue of the 2018 partnership agreement between the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Daszak’s EcoHealth, and Baric that had the specific goal of inserting such furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses.

It has always strained credulity that a bat virus traversed all of China without leaving a trace only to suddenly erupt on the doorsteps of a lab that was known to have been creating COVID-like viruses. Sachs and Tedros appear to have come to the same conclusion.

The fact that the two institutions at the center of efforts to aggressively push the natural origin narrative have now changed course will give considerable momentum to finally get to the bottom of what really happened at the Wuhan lab. It also—very belatedly—vindicates Xiao Botao who, at great personal risk, tried to tell the world where the virus came from.

Hans Mahncke is a co-host of “Truth Over News” on EpochTV.

Copyright © 2000 – 2022 The Epoch Times

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

World Health Organization Study concludes risk of suffering Serious Injury due to COVID Vaccination is 339% higher than risk of being hospitalised with COVID-19

By THE EXPOSÉ

June 23, 2022

The Exposé

A new study endorsed by the World Health Organization has found that the risks of mRNA Covid-19 vaccination heavily outweigh the benefits, with scientists discovering a person is on average 339% more likely to suffer a serious adverse event such as cardiac arrest, stroke, or death due to the Pfizer Covid-19 injection than they are to be hospitalised with Covid-19.

Bi-Line Title

In 2020, prior to the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, the ‘Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations’ and ‘Brighton Collaboration’ created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines.

The list comprised adverse events of special interest (AESIs), adverse events associated with prior vaccines in general, theoretical associations based on animal models, and Covid-19 specific immunopathogenesis; the process of disease development involving an immune response or components thereof.

The World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee both endorsed and recommended the reporting of AESIs based on this priority list.

Jab Ailments Tables

Just some of the Serious Adverse Events included in the W.H.O endorsed listSource – Page 19

Scientists then sought to investigate the association between FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and serious adverse events identified by the Brighton Collaboration, using data from the still ongoing phase III randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials on which emergency authorisation was based.

Scientists discovered that in the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) greatly surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000 participants). This means recipients of the Modern injection were and are 140% more likely to suffer a serious adverse event than they are to be hospitalised with Covid-19.

In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants). This means recipients of the Pfizer injections were and are 339% more likely to suffer a serious adverse event than they are to be hospitalised with Covid-19.

Serious Adverse Events Table

Source – Page 15

Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9).

The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for Covid-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).

The combined risk reduction for Covid-19 hospitalisation equates to 4.35 per 10,000 participants. Therefore, recipients of mRNA Covid19 injections were and are on average 187% more likely to suffer a serious adverse event than they are to be hospitalised with Covid-19.

The scientists who conducted the study noted how when the FDA reviewed serious adverse events (SAEs) in relation to the Pfizer vaccine they concluded that SAEs were “balanced between treatment groups”.

But in contrast to the FDA’s questionable review, the scientists who conducted the W.H.O. endorsed study found an increased risk of all-cause serious adverse events in the Pfizer trial.

The full World Health Organization endorsed study can be viewed in full here, but the scientists concluded that a systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data should be undertaken to address questions of harm-benefit in various demographic subgroups.

However, they note that to do this full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. But unfortunately, well over a year after the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines, participant-level data remain inaccessible. With the FDA attempting to delay the release of some of this data for 75 years.

ABOUT THE EXPOSÉ

DONATE to THE EXPOSÉ

Govt. Science Greed & Lies


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© May 20, 2022

Things are getting crazy twisted by whoever actually controls the U.S. Government. At age sixty-five it feels like another dose of 1960s NEVER trust Big Brother Government and the increasingly Fascist-Marxist nature of Corporate America in collusion with ONE-WORLD Government Globalists to end individual thinking, individual Liberty and individual Laissez-Faire choices.

[Of interest further reading – The Radical Socialist Roots of Fascism: Fascism is a form of socialism. As such, it does not engage in a fight between left and right, but between different leftists ideologies; By EMMANUEL RINCÓN; El American; 3/27/21]

It should be evident to at least those paying some attention Dem-Marxists (aka the Democratic Party) have been lying for decades and since the Obama years has planted unelected Dem-Marxist bureaucrats to keep political power (Trump was their unexpected monkey wrench) and COVID fearmongering (99% survival rate) became the tool to oust any threat to Dem-Marxist power.

Dr. Joseph Mercola and Judicial Watch (including video) demonstrate who corrupt government scientists and science agencies are so consumed with greed an power, there is little evidence of protecting American citizens which taxpayers constituted them to do.

JRH 5/20/22

READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to overcome research expenses:

Please Support NCCR

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

*****************************

Government Scientists Secretly Paid Off While Hiding Data

Science Greed

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

May 20, 2022

Mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • According to government watchdog Open the Books, the National Institutes of Health and hundreds of individual scientists received an estimated $350 million in undisclosed royalties from third parties, primarily drug companies, in the decade between 2010 and 2020
  • Between 2010 and 2014, National Cancer Institute employees received nearly $113 million. The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and its leadership received more than $9.3 million
  • Federal agencies are increasingly refusing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, thereby forcing legal action. This is an obnoxious waste of taxpayer money as, by law, they’re required to release the information
  • Forced FOIA disclosures have shown the NIH lied about not funding gain of function research in China, and allowed the EcoHealth Alliance — whom they’re supposed to regulate — to write its own reporting rules. NIH has also been caught redacting information under false pretenses
  • Members of U.S. Congress are calling for an investigation into the EcoHealth Alliance, to determine the true scope of its cover-up. House investigators have found EcoHealth hid more data than previously known, including a death rate of 75% in humanized mice infected with its gain of function coronavirus

We’ve long suspected that U.S. government agencies have deep conflicts of interest, and in recent days, we’re finding these conflicts run deeper than most people imagined.

Government officials and employees are personally profiting on the taxpayers’ dime, and as conflicts of interest have increased, government’s transparency has decreased, making it more costly and time-consuming to get to the bottom of it all.

Undisclosed Royalties Paid to Hundreds of Scientists

According to government watchdog Open the Books,1,2,3 the National Institutes of Health and hundreds of individual scientists received an estimated $350 million in undisclosed royalties from third parties, primarily drug companies, in the decade between 2010 and 2020. The total amount is likely far greater, as four agencies have redacted their royalty payments.

“Because those payments enrich the agency and its scientists, each and every royalty payment could be a potential conflict of interest and needs disclosure,” Open the Books CEO Adam Andrzejewski writes.4 Why are these people getting paid? Open the Books explains:5

“The National Institute of Health [NIH], part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], is the largest biomedical research agency in the world. NIH grants over $32 billion in funding to research institutions around the world, and employs thousands of scientists to conduct research in-house.

When an NIH employee makes a discovery in their official capacity, the NIH owns the rights to any resulting patent. These patents are then licensed for commercial use to companies that could use them to bring products to market. Employees are listed as inventors on the patents and receive a share of the royalties obtained through any licensing, or ‘technology transfer,’ of their inventions.

Essentially, taxpayer money funding NIH research benefits researchers employed by NIH because they are listed as patent inventors and therefore receive royalty payments from licensees.”

Who’s Been Getting Rich on the Taxpayers’ Dime?

During a May 9, 2022, news conference with reporters, Andrzejewski stated that payments issued between 2010 and 2014 accounted for 40% of the total payouts.6 In all, 1,675 scientists received secret royalties during those years, with the average payout totaling $21,100 per person.

The five NIH employees — all of whom worked or work for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) — who received the greatest number of payments were Robert Gallo, Ira Pastan, Mikulas Popovic, Flossie Wong-Staal and Mangalasseril Sarngadharan.7

In total, NCI employees received nearly $113 million between 2010 and 2014. The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and its leadership received more than $9.3 million. According to Andrzejewski:

“Francis Collins, the immediate past director of NIH, received 14 payments. Dr. Anthony Fauci received 23 payments and his deputy, Clifford Lane, received eight payments8 …

With tens of billions of dollars in grant-making at NIH and tens of millions of royalty dollars from third-party payers flowing back into the agency each year, NIH needs to come clean with the American people and open the books. We need to be able to follow the money.9

In 2005, the Associated Press investigated and reported on NIH royalty payments, including details on who got what, and from whom. Many of those details are now kept secret, even though the payments are significantly larger, and thereby pose far greater risk in terms of conflicts of interest. As noted in the British Medical Journal at the time:10

“A patient advocacy group, the Alliance for Human Research Protection, says that patients might have thought differently about the risks of trial treatment if they knew of scientists’ financial interests.”

During a May 11, 2022, House Appropriations Committee subcommittee hearing, Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., told acting director of the NIH, Dr. Lawrence Tabak:11

“Right now, I think the NIH has a credibility problem and this only feeds into this … People in my district say, ‘Well, so-and-so has a financial interest,’ or they don’t like ivermectin because they aren’t benefitting from that royalty.

You may have very sound scientific reasons for recommending a medicine or not, but the idea that people get a financial benefit from certain research that’s been done and grants that were awarded, that is, to me, the height of the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

Tabak admitted the undisclosed royalty payments present “an appearance of a conflict of interest” and don’t appear ethical,12 but that the agency will not make recommendations on drugs based on anything other than the science.

Government’s Illegal Noncompliance Is Costly

Not only is the NIH database heavily redacted, but NIH financial disclosure forms also help hide the payouts, as they define third-party royalty payments as income received from the NIH.

When Open the Books initially filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the NIH to obtain this information, the NIH declined to respond. Only after the watchdog group sued the NIH for noncompliance were they able to pry the documentation from them, and even then, it was redacted.

The fact that government agencies are increasingly refusing to comply with FOIA laws is a serious problem, Jason Foster, president of Empower Oversight says, as “the public’s business ought to be public.” In an April 2022 Newsweek opinion piece, he wrote:13

“Last November my organization, Empower Oversight, sued the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests related to the agency’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Around half a dozen other entities have also been forced to go to court to compel the NIH to make pandemic documents public. It’s worth noting that this didn’t need to happen. Good lawyers charge hundreds of dollars an hour or more and hiring legal talent to pursue cases full time is not easy.

By forcing public interest groups to spend this money on litigation before complying with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the NIH is locking out the vast majority of Americans from accessing federal records. It takes financial resources to most effectively probe how our government operates …

We all pay extra when anyone sues the government. The process sucks up court time and expenses, and forces lawyers at the Department of Justice to get involved and collect agency documents. It would all be cheaper and faster if the NIH simply followed the law in the first place.”

Why Public Confidence Is Tanking

When federal agencies shirk disclosure laws, they also erode public confidence. Over the past 18 months, we’ve repeatedly discovered that federal officials have lied to our faces, thanks to organizations footing the bill to sue them for information they’re required to release voluntarily.

For example, as detailed by Foster,14 The Intercept sued, forcing the NIH to fess up correspondence that ended up confirming the NIH was in fact funding gain of function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Emails also showed the NIH allowed the EcoHealth Alliance to craft the language that governed this controversial and risky research, even though the NIH is supposed to regulate EcoHealth Alliance’s work!

None of this would have come to light had The Intercept not sued to force the NIH to comply with FOIA rules. Other public interest groups, such as Knowledge Ecology International and Public Citizen, have sued the agency to determine its role in the development of COVID-19 therapies.

“These requests are important because taxpayers helped subsidize vaccines for which we are now paying top dollar,” Foster notes.15

Forced FOIA disclosures have also shown the NIH is redacting information under false pretenses. In documents released to Buzzfeed, after they sued, the NIH redacted part of an email citing exemption code 7(A), which permits the withholding of “records compiled for law enforcement purposes when disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”16

Later, when senators requested the records, that passage was left unredacted. As it turns out, the redacted passage couldn’t possibly have been withheld for law enforcement purposes, because the blotted-out sentence was simply EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak telling Fauci about “work we’ve been doing in collaboration with Chinese virologists.”

In other words, the NIH simply wanted their “collaboration with Chinese virologists” to remain secret. This is profoundly dishonest, and piles insult on top of injury. Clearly, the NIH — as well as other federal agencies — have become cesspools of corruption and malfeasance.

Foster even points out that then-director of the NIH, Collins, was personally reviewing and clearing FOIA requests — “an odd use of time by the director of a public health agency in the midst of a pandemic.”17 Indeed. Rep. Dr. Neal Dunn, R-Fla., told The Epoch Times:18

“It’s no secret that the agency needs reform. Their many issues were exacerbated and highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Providing the public with transparent access to how the NIH is spending taxpayer dollars and reaching their decisions is a basic responsibility, and they must be held accountable. Now more than ever, we must commit to reforming our federal health agencies and restoring America’s trust in public health.”

The question is, can they be reformed, or is the rot too deep to clean out? Perhaps we need to strip these agencies down to nothing and rebuild from scratch?

EcoHealth Covered Up Deadly Experiments

While the news of undisclosed royalty payments to NIH scientists is gaining traction, members of the U.S. Congress are also calling for an investigation into the EcoHealth Alliance, to determine the true scope of its cover-up.

“EcoHealth reported that its infected mice had only ‘mild’ clinical symptoms when, in reality, the infection had a 75% death rate. ~ New York Post”

As reported by the New York Post:19

“Documents the White Coat Waste Project obtained via the Freedom of Information Act revealed … that in 2016, staffers at the … NIAID … worried that EcoHealth’s animal experiments ran afoul of the government’s moratorium on gain-of-function research — the practice of manipulating viruses to make them more transmissible, more lethal and more dangerous.

Instead of stopping the project, however, NIAID offered EcoHealth the chance to create its own policy governing the dangerous research, then allowed the planned animal experiments to proceed … EcoHealth promised NIAID it would stop its experiments, and immediately report, if the coronaviruses it engineered showed viral growth greater than 10 times that of the original virus.

The novel coronaviruses did get more dangerous, with viral growth 10,000 times greater than that of the original virus, and made mice very sick. We now know that EcoHealth did not properly report the increased virulence — in violation of its self-imposed grant terms.

Now, House investigators, led by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), have revealed that EcoHealth seems to have hidden far more data than previously known. Her letter to NIH notes that EcoHealth reported that its infected mice had only ‘mild’ clinical symptoms when, in reality, the infection had a 75% death rate.

EcoHealth apparently obscured the fact that its experiments caused an alarming increase in mouse deaths by deleting the word ‘dead’ from the phrase ‘dead point’ on a graph, though it appeared in earlier reports. Its omission made it look as though mice were simply carrying more of the virus, rather than dying in droves …

Investigators suggest that EcoHealth’s omission was not accidental and was ‘intended to deceive … peer reviewers.’ Had they known what was actually going on, reviewers likely ‘would have wanted to stop such risky research and not continue EcoHealth’s funding.’”

CDC in a Panic Over Own Disinformation Being Disclosed

Internal documents and emails from the U.S. Centers for Disease control (obtained through FOIA requests) reveal it too is guilty of obfuscation and cover-ups. In a report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) December 18, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was said to have “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.20

Based on this, the CDC urged everyone, including those who had previously recovered from COVID, to get the shot.

After carefully reviewing the Pfizer trial data, Rep. Thomas Massie — a Republican Congressman for Kentucky and an award-winning scientist — discovered the ACIP’s claim was completely false. Pfizer’s trial showed NO efficacy among participants with previous COVID infection, and there was no proof of efficacy in the Moderna trial either, for that matter.

In a January 30, 2021, Full Measure report,21,22 investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson described how Massie tried to get the CDC to correct its error. After multiple phone calls, CDC deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat finally acknowledged the error and told Massie it would be fixed. However, when the CDC issued its “correction,” at the end of January 2021, they did not fix the error. Instead, they simply rephrased the lie in a different way.

The “correction” still misleadingly suggested that vaccination was effective for those previously infected, even though the data showed no such thing. Now, emails reveal Massie’s discussions with the CDC ignited a firestorm of panic.23 More than 1,000 pages of emails mention Massie’s concern that they were putting out disinformation and misleading the public.

Exactly what they said is hard to determine, however, as many of the emails are 100% redacted. Some did try to defend the false information, though, highlighting certain paragraphs that might justify vaccinating people with natural immunity.

“It’s unclear why conversations between CDC officials and scientists on matters of great public health importance would be kept hidden from public view,” Attkisson writes,24 adding, “Nobody was held publicly accountable for the serious and potentially dangerous false information the CDC officials and scientists signed off on and publicized.”

In her May 9, 2022, update on the CDC’s disinformation campaign, Attkisson also points out that the CDC has been tracking and logging CDC-related tweets by members of Congress. The purpose of that Twitter post collection is unclear. Probably, someone should demand an answer.

On the whole, it seems all of our federal health agencies are corrupted and broken, possibly beyond repair. Not one of them has fulfilled their mandate to protect public health. Instead, they’ve lied to us and protected Big Pharma profits, part of which gets kicked back to them. At this point, anyone who listens to and trusts the NIH, the CDC or the Food and Drug Administration, does so at their own risk.

My latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” is an instant bestseller. After thousands of reviews it has a nearly perfect 5-star rating, so grab your copy today before it’s too late! 

Sources and References

1, 4 Open the books May 9, 2022

2, 5, 7 Open the Books NIH Royalty Disclosures Fact Sheet

3 The Epoch Times May 9, 2022

6, 8 Zero Hedge May 10, 2022

9, 11, 12, 18 The Epoch Times May 11, 2022

10 BMJ 2005 Jan 22; 330(7484): 162

13, 14, 15, 17 Newsweek April 13, 2022

16 USRTK November 5, 2022

19 New York Post May 8, 2022

20 MMWR December 18, 2020

21 Full Measure After Hours Podcast January 30, 2021

22 Full Measure News January 31, 2021

23, 24 Sharyl Attkisson May 9, 2022

© 1997-2022 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.

+++++++++++++++++++

Rumble VIDEO: NEW FDA Documents on Vaccine Safety Revealed!

Posted JudicialWatch

Published May 19, 2022

READ: https://www.judicialwatch.org/nanoparticles-materials-outside-injection-site/

Judicial Watch received 466 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines that show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Judicial Watch: Pfizer/BioNTech Study Found Lipid Nanoparticles Materials Outside Injection Site in Test Animals

JW –  Lipid Nanoparticles

By JUDICIAL WATCH Staff

MAY 02, 2022

Judicial Watch

Johnson & Johnson relied on studies showing that vaccine DNA particles and injected virus particles were still present in test animals months after injection

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it received 466 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines that show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.

Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA-based COVID vaccine relies on LNPs as a delivery system. Pfizer said in a January 10, 2022 press release that Acuitas Therapeutics LNP technology is used in COMIRNATY, the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

Judicial Watch also received 663 pages of records from HHS regarding biodistribution studies and related data for COVID-19 vaccines, which show that Johnson & Johnson relied on studies showing that vaccine DNA particles and injected virus particles were still present in test animals months after injection.

The records also show that Johnson & Johnson, as part of its submission to the FDA for approval of its COVID vaccine, did not include studies of the spike protein encoded in the J&J vaccine.

Biodistribution is a method of tracking where compounds of interest travel in an experimental animal or human subject.

Judicial Watch obtained the records in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(No. 1:21-cv-02418)) filed after the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease failed to respond to a June 8, 2021, FOIA request for:

[A]ccess to biodistribution studies and related data for the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines used to treat and/or prevent SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19.

The Pfizer records include a report, which was approved in February 2021, on the animal trials on the distribution of the Pfizer COVID vaccine in rat subjects, in a section titled “Safety Pharmacology,” the report notes, “No safety pharmacology studies were conducted with BNT162b2 [the BioNTech vaccine] as they are not considered necessary for the development of vaccines according to the WHO guideline (WHO, 2005).” Similarly, under “Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions,” is “Nonclinical studies evaluating pharmacodynamic drug interactions with BNT162b2 were not conducted as they are generally not considered necessary to support development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).”

This Pfizer report notes that when lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) “with a comparable composition,” to that used in the Pfizer COVID vaccine were injected into rats, “Total recovery (% of injected dose) of LNP outside the injection site was greatest in the liver and was much less in the spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries.” … “in summary” … “the LNP distributes to the liver.” In the detailed analysis, the report states, “Over 48 hours, the LNP distributed mainly to liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries, with maximum concentrations observed at 8-48 hours post-dose. Total recovery (% of injected dose) of LNP, for combined male and female animals, outside of the injection site was greatest in the liver (up to 18%) …”

This same Pfizer/BioNTech study notes “No genotoxicity studies are planned for BNT162b2 [the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine] as the components of the vaccine constructs are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have genotoxic potential (WHO, 2005).” Similarly, “Carcinogenicity studies with BNT162b2 have not been conducted as the components of the vaccine construct are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have carcinogenic or tumorigenic potential.”

The conclusion of the study begins: “The nonclinical program demonstrates that BNT162b2 is immunogenic in mice, rats, and nonhuman primates, and the toxicity studies support the licensure of this vaccine.” The report notes that “boost immunizations” were also being tested on the animals in the trial. Also, “Vaccine-related microscopic findings at the end of dosing for BNT162b2 were evident in injection sites and surrounding tissues, in the draining iliac lymph nodes, bone marrow, spleen, and liver.”

Also included in the Pfizer records is a report, approved in January 2021, titled “Pharmacokinetics Tabulated Summary.” A table in the report shows the biodistribution of lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA used in the vaccine using rats as the clinical trial subjects reports LNPs accumulating after 48 hours, especially in the lymph nodes, ovaries, small intestine and spleen.

A summary of a study, approved in November 2020, of LNP mRNA distribution in rats, sponsored by Acuitas Therapeutics, notes that the concentrations of the LNP mRNA saw “levels peaking in the plasma by 1-4 hours post-dose and distribution mainly into liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries over 48 hours. Total recovery of radioactivity outside of the injection site was greatest in the liver, with much lower total recovery in spleen, and very little recovery in adrenals glands and ovaries. The mean plasma, blood and tissue concentrations and tissue distribution patterns were broadly similar between the sexes and … did not associate with red blood cells.”

A September 2020 “Confidential” appendix to the clinical trial studies submitted for the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine (BNT162b2), titled “Justification for the absence of studies in CTD Module 4 (part of 2.4)” notes under “Safety Pharmacology” that “No safety pharmacology studies were conducted as they are not considered necessary according to the WHO guideline (WHO, 2005).”

And under “Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions,” is written: “Nonclinical studies evaluating pharmacodynamic drug interactions were not conducted as they are not generally considered necessary to support development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).”

Under the heading “Genotoxicity,” is: “No genotoxicity studies are planned for BNT162b2 as the components of the vaccine constructs are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have genotoxic potential (WHO, 2005).”

Regarding “Carcinogenicity (including supportive toxicokinetics evaluations)” is written:

Carcinogenicity studies with BNT162b2 have not been conducted as the components of the vaccine constructs are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have carcinogenic or tumorigenic potential. Carcinogenicity testing is generally not considered necessary to support the development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).

In a “Confidential” Pfizer study, approved in April 2020, looking at four COVID vaccine variants, the company tested a vaccine with an RNA strand “that self-amplifies upon entering the cell.” It “encodes the Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RDRP or replicase).”

In the same Pfizer study, the authors note that, “Although liver function tests will be carefully monitored during the clinical development of these vaccines, BioNTech’s prior clinical experience indicates that the distribution to the liver does not pose a safety concern.”

Also, the Pfizer study authors note, “Based on previous nonclinical and clinical experience with the three RNA platforms, a beneficial safety profile is anticipated, and may include transient local reactions (such as swelling/edema or redness) and body temperature increases.”

The Johnson & Johnson records include a 2007 study of the biodistribution of an intramuscular-administered adenovector-based viral vaccine using New Zealand white rabbits, which showed that the vaccine accumulated in “the spleen, iliac lymph node, and the muscle at the site of injection.”

A biodistribution table included as an appendix to the 2007 rabbit study showed that the vaccine DNA particles were still present in the iliac lymph nodes 91 days after injection.

A chart of pharmacokinetics data from a November 2020 report of a study on “VAC31518 JNJ-78436735,” the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, on rabbits shows collection of the injected virus particles in the spleen and iliac lymph nodes up to three months later, as well as particles found in the skin and muscle at the injection site.

In a November 4, 2020, report submitted to the FDA regarding the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine, the authors discuss the 2007 New Zealand rabbit study in which adenovirus-vectored vaccine is trialed, but note that “No pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies have been conducted with AD26.COV2.S specifically.”

The report notes that metabolism, excretion, and pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs were not studied in this trial because they are “Not applicable to vaccines.” It is also noted that “biodistribution studies have not been conducted with Ad26.COV2.S.”

A table in the report shows that the vaccine virus continued to appear in the rabbits’ iliac lymph nodes 180 days after injection.

A June 2020 “Pharmacokinetics Written Summary” for the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines notes that:

Ad26COVS1 (also known as VAC31518 or JNJ-78436735) is a monovalent, recombinant replication-incompetent adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vectored vaccine encoding a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Spike protein…. No specific pharmacokinetic studies have been performed with Ad26COVS1. However, to assess distribution, persistence, and clearance of the Ad26 vector (platform), biodistribution studies were conducted in rabbits using two other Ad26-based vaccines encoding [redacted] and [redacted] antigens…. [T]he available biodistribution results are considered sufficient to inform on the biodistribution profile of Ad26COVS1, for which the same Ad26 vector backbone is used.

“These documents show why many Americans have concerns about whether the novel COVID vaccines that were developed at such an accelerated pace were tested properly and thoroughly,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

© 2022 Judicial Watch, Inc.

%d bloggers like this: