by Credit Repair News, Sebastian Pulvera on Monday 17 May 2021 02:00 AM UTC-05 | United States Credit Report Repair News. Top Stories to help consumers fix bad credit, gain higher credit score, remove bankruptcy, free annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. Free Credit Repair Counseling | (888) 502-1260 | | | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 The current globalist agenda seeks to erase history, in particular religious history which progressives believe is outdated. Religion has failed to eliminate war and poverty, deliver equality, provide reparations for slavery, and produce healthy people, say modernists who promise to "build back better." The modernist believes humanity will be saved from itself (overpopulation myth) by establishment of an expiration date for all humans (dying on time would be a dream come true for the life insurance industry), and save the planet from the false proposition of global warming/ climate change by limiting greenhouse gases (CO2). However, NASA shows carbon dioxide (CO2), which is nourishment for the oxygen-making plant world, comprises just 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is a vital nutrient for the entire plant world, and if reduced too much, all life ceases to exist. The 4th Industrial Revolution The agenda of the globalists is to create a global citizen by ending national sovereignty, and borders, and impose a centralized digital currency linked to a social health credit score, in which no one would be able to buy, sell, or travel without it, (the banking side of the Biblical "mark of the beast"). Access to money may only be granted to those who are vaccinated. Donations to church may be denied as worship centers are designated as terrorist, racist organizations. Worship will be to the all-powerful unelected global government. "The 4th Industrial Revolution" will be ushered in; the idea that automated intelligence will mate people with technology to produce super-enhanced humans here on Earth. And with this super-brain power also comes a promised eternal health via synthetic biology – – machine-grown organ transplants can finally replace the promised renewed bodies in heaven of antiquated Christianity. This is the dystopian world being forced on human populations around the globe at the present time via the banking and healthcare system. The god of technology In this cancel culture era, a progressive website claims one objective of progressives is to ban the words "God" and "Jesus" from use by the year 2030. The god of technology will replace the historical God. Technocrats will run the world. Pseudoscience has taken a front seat in the current global pandemic, and everyone can see its contrivances and failures. Humanity is now taking instructions from "scientific experts" who know what is best for the rest of us. The pandemic is just the first page of the unveiling globalist agenda. The Bible: a collection of fables and old wives tales or "scientifically accurate?" According to evolutionists, by now we should all know that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor tens-of thousands of years ago. But as scientists look in the mirror, they find their published-in-print ideas are not cast in stone. To the contrary, science validates the Biblical rendition of history and human identity. The question of human identity can only be answered by genealogy Klaus Schwab, designer of this dehumanizing, dystopian new world, says the 4th Industrial Revolution "will fuse our physical, our digital and biological identities." Essentially, humans will no longer have a mind of their own. Automated intelligence is going to "change who we are." In fact, the only answer to the question "Who are you?" is through your genealogy. You ARE "the daughter or son of your mother and father." That is who you are. Or, going further back to creation, you are a child of God (created in the image of God). It is important for humans to know where they came from. History is important, personally and generationally. Adopted children always want to know who their real birth parents were. Sidetracked by carbon dating Anything shown to have lived over 6000 years ago would overturn the Biblical account of "the beginning." Ah, but you have been taught the fossil record is far older than that. However, the fossils are dated by the rock layer they are found in, and the rock layer is dated by the fossils found within, which is circuitous reasoning. What about carbon dating of fossils that shows dinosaurs lived millions of years ago? You may need to take a short course about the flaws of carbon dating. Believe it or not, living organisms have been carbon dated to be thousands of years old. A biological clock betrays the notion humans evolved long ago So, with the question "where did I come from?" in the back of our minds, geneticists have attempted find a clock in our body that would tell us when the first humans lived. To repeat, anything dating back further than 6000 years, the Biblical time span from creation to the present, would invalidate the scriptures. There is a genetic clock in the human body. This clock is located in the mitochondria within every cell of the human body. Mitochondria can be likened to small rechargeable batteries that produce energy inside cells. These small power plants within living cells develop flaws we call mutations over time, and like a clock, assuming a certain rate of mutation, can be back-counted to indicate how long ago they occurred. This may, looking back in biological time, chronologically indicate how long ago the first person existed on the planet. Mitochondrial DNA easier to examine Surprisingly, as intricate as humans are, there are only ~25,000 genes in each cell of the human body. These genes are housed in the nucleus of the cell. A smaller number of genes, 37, are located the mitochondria. These mitochondrial power plants, 200- 300 in each cell, reside in the watery cytoplasm outside the nucleus. It is obviously much easier to backtrack mitochondrial DNA than nuclear DNA. Rate of mitochondrial mutation serves as a biological/ chronological clock Every so many years there is a mutation in the mitochondrial genome (library of genes). The rate of these mutations can serve as a sort of clock. So, geneticists have suggested there were mutations every 6,000 to 12,000 years or so. They then estimated by this back-dating method that humans as a species began some 180,000 to 200,000 years ago. However, the number of errors in the genome were very small, only 21.6 flawed nucleotides out of 16,569 DNA differences. Nucleotides are building blocks of DNA. So, geneticists realized a much shorter time span must have transpired since "Adam and Eve." When their mistake was corrected, they found Homo Sapiens dates back only 6,000 years (a 33-fold mistake). This error was reported in Science Magazine in 1998 by correcting the mutation rate in the mitochondria of females. This coincides with the Biblical record that human life began ~6000 years ago. Not the only mistake Evolutionary biologists were reluctant to admit there was bias in their backdating of human history. These discoveries were uncomfortable for evolutionists. And that wasn't their only mistake. Since then, there is new data along the male side of mitochondrial history. The error among evolutionists was mistakenly believing all mitochondrial inheritance came from the mother. It was later reported small amounts of mitochondrial DNA are also inherited from fathers. But even that was a large error. Upon reexamination it became evident that 90% of our family tree can be traced back along paternal lines. "There's not one woman who we can trace our mitochondrial history," says a prominent geneticist. Epigenetics Of interest, while the Bible teaches both Adam and Eve disobeyed God, the predilection to sin was specifically inherited from Adam (the man). And only Adam could pass on the initial mutations that sperm use to reproduce the next generation after the fall, whereas Eve's eggs were created perfectly before the fall. Women would not be able to pass on mutations until the next generation. Again, the Bible got it right genetically. However, there is more to this story. Gene mutations may not be involved at all. The misplacement or substitution of nucleotides (building blocks of DNA) results in classically described mutations. However, there can be long-standing changes in human genes without altering the sequence of DNA. There is a dynamic aspect of genes wherein proteins are produced. This is called epigenetics. Genes can be "expressed" (activated) or "silenced" (turned off) by exogenous factors like radiation, temperature, food, and quite surprisingly, behavior (way of thinking). Early life behavior can "imprint" and reprogram the brain via epigenetic memory. A detectable defect in DNA is not evident, but a long-standing epigenetic change can occur. This is part of learning and memory. This is consistent with what the Bible talks about when after Adam and Eve disobeyed God's instructions and ate from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil," (Genesis 2: 17), all succeeding generations were cursed (genes reprogrammed, epigenetically altered). The New Testament talks about "all men dying because of one man's (Adam's) trespasses, and by one man's obedience (Jesus) many will be made righteous." (Romans 5) Behavior (obedience, compliance, faith) can alter epigenetic memory. This is called "transgenerational epigenetic inheritance." But as interesting as epigenetics is, I'm off topic. Let's proceed with the discussion of mitochondrial backdating and the origins of man. Another revelation: the genetic bottleneck of the Flood About 1,660 years passed from Creation to the flood, whereas 4,369 passed from the flood to the present day. This new data reveals via mitochondrial backdating that the human genome (library of genes) went through a genetic bottleneck about 4,500 years ago. That bottleneck can be explained by the Biblical story of Noah and his family as the only remaining people on Earth after the great Flood. Then only the DNA from Noah's three sons and their wives were used to repopulate the Earth. At this point, investigation into the Y chromosome, which only males carry, is revealing. Researchers were perplexed to understand, if humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, there would be 8 to 59 times more mutations than currently observed in the Y-chromosome DNA. However, only about 4,500 years of mutations have accumulated in the paternal ancestry, which dates back to when Noah launched his ark to survive the Flood, according to the book of Genesis. Again, another confirmation of the Bible. So, technically, though Adam was the first man, modern humans are all descendants of Noah if we are to embrace the Biblical creation story followed by The Flood. A universal gene mutation stunted human lifespan As an aside, a long-ago gene mutation that affected all humans, disengaged a gene that produced an enzyme that in turn internally converts blood sugar to ascorbate (vitamin C). Most animals endogenously secrete vitamin C from their liver. But humans do not. For that gene mutation to have affected every human, again there had to have been a bottleneck in the size of the human population. That bottleneck appears to have been Noah's Flood – only 8 people, Noah and his family, survived. 
The Bible explains that humans were living up to 900 years before the flood and Biblical genealogies reveal the human lifespan began to steeply decline after The Flood. For that gene mutation to be universal there had to be a bottleneck in the size of the human population. Here again, Noah's children interbred and that is when gene mutations often occur. There is no time machine to validate all this, but the Bible genealogies explain this in terms of human lifespan. Once again, the Bible gets it right. Because of this gene mutation, humans experience heart attacks, but most animals don't. Biochemist Irwin Stone explained this problem in the 1970s and dreamed of a day when this gene mutation would be genetically corrected. Modern-day researchers show if internal synthesis of vitamin C is genetically halted in animals, they live only a third as long. This is the current human predicament. Elevation of blood vitamin C levels to that of naturally-secreting animals increases lifespan and healthspan by 2.7-fold. The most likely genetic mechanism (stop codon read-through) to reverse this gene mutation has recently been identified. If animal lab data can be extrapolated to humans, correction of this gene flaw would result in humans living hundreds of years! A nutraceutical that doubles vitamin C blood levels without dietary or supplemental vitamin C has been developed, presumably via correction of that gene flaw. Any claim such a pill prolongs human life by hundreds of years would be speculative until a decades-long longevity study could be mounted to provide conclusive evidence, but that would be impractical. However, such a development is now plausible. This is nothing globalists want to hear about. Any anti-aging technology is anathema to their current godless agenda, which is to cull the size of the world's population. This is despite the fact human populations are in decline numbers-wise in North America, western Europe, Italy and Japan, and birth rates are being curbed in India and China. Urbanization and stable economies result in women voluntarily limiting the size of their families to two children, which is population neutral. The book EMPTY PLANET tells the shocking story. The globalists are living in the past. Evolutionists are often on the same page with creationists Evolutionists have attempted to recreate the early Earth environment in the now infamous Miller-Urey experiment where various compounds combined with gases and light energy were employed to re-create the building blocks of proteins that could be combined to produce DNA, the molecule of life. Some scientists hail this failed experiment, which attempted to find the spark of life. It is described in great detail at Wikipedia. If intentional manipulation of all the elements of life could not reproduce DNA, then how could random chance? It wasn't till 1982 when it was confirmed that every element in man is found in the soil. There are 25 elements essential for human life. According to Moses, man came from the dust of the Earth. Another Biblical validation. What was missing was "the breath of life." What this experiment shows is that man is unceasingly attempting to find his origins. For now, these efforts are largely determined by predilections and preconceived world views. Nothing new under the sun It is not as if there is anything new under the sun, says the Book of Ecclesiastes. In the 1st Century the Apostle Paul wrote: "In the latter times….there will be deceivers… forbiddance of marriage and abstaining from eating meat." (I Timothy 4). That is precisely the World Economic Forum's globalist agenda and modus operandi. The world will be genderless, having relations with sex dolls, not making babies, and there will forbiddance of red meat because domestic animals produce a lot of greenhouse gases. Just how did the Apostle Paul know? Without red meat there will be massive malnutrition, especially for iron, zinc, and vitamin B12 among growing children and fertile females. The Mark of the Beast Two historical scholars speculate the Mark Of The Beast will not only be required to conduct business (Revelation 13:17 – "that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name"), but will include a carrot – a compelling benefit, to become an advanced human, a god. The requirements for that will be superior knowledge and immortality in the physical world. These scholars speculate The Mark of the Beast will be delivered through the healthcare system via an invisible particle (called atma, a Sanskrit word meaning "soul" in Hindu reincarnation teachings). It is not that globalists don't want an anti-aging pill, it is that they want to cull the world's population first and then use life-extending technology to control human populations. Those who adopt the mark of the beast will be connected to AI. The most promising anti-aging pill has been quashed and ignored by modern medicine for fear it would worsen the imagined problem of overpopulation and put modern medicine out of business. An anti-aging pill is to globalists what a garlic ring is to a vampire. The Bible "invented" super-longevity According to the Biblical record, super-longevity existed before Noah's Flood. Had there been no rebellion against God, there would have been no Flood, and no gene mutation, and therefore humans may have gone on living hundreds of years. God invented super-longevity, not any biologist. What is God's viewpoint of all this? When God faced a perverse generation, he said this in the book of Deuteronomy (chapter 32): I will erase their name from human memory, They are a nation without sense,
there is no discernment in them.
If only they were wise and would understand this
and discern what their end will be! The Lord will vindicate his people
and relent concerning his servants
when he sees their strength is gone
and no one is left, slave or free. The post The Modernist Erasure of History Would Halt Attempts To Find Human Origins appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Martin Kulldorff, one of the world's preeminent and most cited infectious disease epidemiologists from Harvard University's School of Medicine has experienced what many others in the field have experienced during this pandemic, censorship and ridicule. Kulldorff has been quite critical of the response to COVID by multiple governments, including the measures put in place to combat the spread of the virus. Sometimes it seems as if scientists and doctors who question these measures are actually in the majority, while the minority seem to get all of the attention and praise within the mainstream media. Who knows what these numbers actually look like. Lockdown measures are a great example. A wealth of data has been published in peer-reviewed science and medical journals suggesting that not only have lockdowns been inadequate for stopping the spread of the virus, but they've also caused a great deal of damage in both the health and economic sector. Two renowned Swedish scientists, Professor Anna-Mia Ekström and Professor Stefan Swartling Peterson, have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS and come to the conclusion that least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight COVID as have died of COVID. Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation. The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID at the time of the estimate. These are a few of many examples. "Lockdowns are the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 yrs. We will be counting the catastrophic health & psychological harms, imposed on nearly every poor person on the face of the earth, for a generation" —Dr Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Professor of Medicine.
That being said, an argument can, and has also been been made for lockdowns halting or slowing the spread of the virus, and there are examples of that as well. You can read about that more here. The point is that one side of the argument is censored, ridiculed, and ignored most of the time, while the other gets front and centre stage. Why? In Canada, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a note stating that physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations, and there are many of them, will be subjected to an investigation, especially if they are communicating "anti-vaccine, anti-masking and anti-lockdown statements." How is science and data that calls into question government public health recommendations "anti" anything? Why are these labels always used? Why are physicians and scientists being bullied into silence and subjected to extreme amounts of censorship on their social media platforms? Kulldorff has been one many victims of this treatment, while scientists who agree with and promote the "accepted narrative" seem to receive interview requests from mainstream media outlets all the time. This isn't normal, and it's served as a catalyst for more people to ask, what's really going on here? What Happened: Kulldorff's tweet in March suggesting that not everyone needed to be vaccinated, particularly those who have previously been infected, was labelled 'misleading' by Twitter. Tweeters were rendered unable to interact with his tweet and were instructed that 'health officials recommend a vaccine for most people'. Twitter did not provide any explanation, links, or reasoning as to why his tweet was "misleading." 
Kulldorff's opinion is something that many experts in the field have suggested. For example, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, considered by many to be the world's preeminent infectious disease expert explained that the way COVID vaccines are being promoted and the idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is unscientific and suspicious. Why? For one, there is a wealth of data showing that previous infection to COVID can provide protection, and possibly even greater and longer lasting protection than any vaccine can or ever will. Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine doctor with a hefty following on YouTube explains: I'm not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you're naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you've naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better than a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know. (source)
This statement was also recently echoed by Viral immunologist, Professor at the University of Guelph, and vaccine expert Dr. Bryan Bridle, who said in a recent interview that he would prefer natural immunity as opposed to the COVID vaccine and explains why. An analysis of millions of coronavirus test results in Denmark found that people who had prior infection, were still protected 6 months after the initial infection. Another study also found that individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed "robust" levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and "these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time." Dr. Daniela Weiskopf, Dr. Alessandro Sette, and Dr. Shane Crotty from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology analyzed immune cells and antibodies from almost 200 people who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and recovered. The researchers found durable immune responses in the majority of people studied. Antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which the virus uses to get inside cells, were found in 98% of participants one month after symptom onset. As seen in previous studies, the number of antibodies ranged widely between individuals. But, promisingly, their levels remained fairly stable over time, declining only modestly at 6 to 8 months after infection. Virus-specific B cells increased over time. People had more memory B cells six months after symptom onset than at one month afterwards. Although the number of these cells appeared to reach a plateau after a few months, levels didn't decline over the period studied. Levels of T cells for the virus also remained high after infection. Six months after symptom onset, 92% of participants had CD4+ T cells that recognized the virus. These cells help coordinate the immune response. About half the participants had CD8+ T cells, which kill cells that are infected by the virus. A recent study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection explains: Presence of cross-reactive SARSCoV2 specific Tcells in never exposed patients suggests cellular immunity induced by other coronaviruses. Tcell responses against SARSC0V2 also detected in recovered Covid patients with no detectable antibodies…Cellular immunity is of paramount importance in containing SARSCoV2 infection…and could be maintained independently of antibody responses. Previously infected people develop much stronger Tcell responses against spike protein peptides in comparison to infection-native people after mRNA vaccine.
The next question becomes, how many people have been infected? According to a meta-analysis by Dr John Ioannidis [Professor of Medicine at Stanford University] of every seroprevalence study conducted to date of publication with a supporting scientific paper (74 estimates from 61 studies and 51 different localities around the world), the median infection survival rate from COVID-19 infection is 99.77 per cent. For COVID-19 patients under 70, the meta-analysis finds an infection survival rate of 99.95 per cent. The CDC's [Centres for Disease Control] and Prevention] best estimate of infection fatality rate for people ages 70 plus years is 5.4 per cent, meaning seniors have a 94.6 percent survivability rate. For children and people in their 20s/30s, it poses less risk of mortality than the flu. For people in their 60s and above, it is much more dangerous than the flu. These estimates haven't really changed, and they are based off of the scientific consensus that more people are infected than what we have the capacity to test for. Imagine testing the entire population, how many people would have an infection? Imagine testing for antibodies, how many people would have antibodies? Some infectious viruses, like the Human metapneumovirus (hMPV) which was first identified in 2001 in Dutch children with bronchiolitis are quite infectious, just like COVID. The hMPV virus is an RNA and has been shown to have worldwide circulation with nearly universal infection by age 5. These types of viruses, including common coronaviruses, are responsible for the death of millions of children worldwide every single year. The survival rate numbers above are largely based off the idea that many more people than what we can test for are infected. If you look at the actual data and compare the number of deaths to the number of cases, you won't get a survival rate of 99.95 percent. In an interview with Greek Reporter, Dr.Ioannidis estimated that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected by COVID-19 around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases, and this was in June of 2020, so just think about how many people have been infected today. 162,891,712 have been infected up to now, that number is most likely well over a billion based on the above reasoning. Furthermore we must ask: how effective is the vaccine? We know how effective natural immunity is, that's well documented as illustrated above. Prior to the rollout of these vaccines, the vaccine manufacturers claimed to have observed a 95 percent success rate. Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal, published a paper titled "Pfizer and Moderna's "95% effective" vaccines—let's be cautious and first see the full data." Even today, there is still not enough data to tell how effective the vaccine is. A paper recently published by Dr. Ronald B. Brown, School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, outlines how Pfizer and Moderna did not report absolute risk reduction numbers, and only reported relative risk reduction numbers. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.
Brown's paper also cites Doshi's paper which makes the same point, "As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%."
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making, so why wouldn't it be reported? (source) Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in public health and clinical reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias. which ignores unfavorable outcomes and misleads the public's impression and scientific understanding of a treatment efficacy and benefits…Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public's interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent." – Brown
Fully vaccinated individuals are still testing positive for COVID. How safe is the vaccine? Reports and examples of injuries and deaths seem to be quite prevalent on social media. For example, take a look at the post below. It's from a woman named Heidi Neckelmann. The post is from her Facebook Page, it went quite viral and her Facebook Page was eventually deleted. This story is true, it was actually receiving so much attention that mainstream media picked up on it. She was the wife of Dr. Gregory Michael from California, and she claimed that in her mind, her 56-year-old husband's death was "100% linked" to the vaccine. Now, at least one doctor has come forward publicly to say he also believes the vaccine caused Michael to develop acute idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), the disorder that killed him. According to the New York Times: "Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in Dr. Michael's care, said that based on Ms. Neckelmann's description, 'I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.'"
This is one of what may be hundreds of examples that have been shared across social media, which would still make it an extremely rare event given the amount of people who have been vaccinated in the United States. 
According to the most recent data from the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, approximately 4000 people have died and more than 100,000 adverse reactions have been reported as a result of the vaccine. That being said, there is no way to determine or to verify wether any of these were actually a result of the vaccine, and therein lies the problem. Vaccine injury reporting systems are quite inadequate. VAERS has come under fire multiple times, a critic familiar with VAERS' bluntly condemned VAERS in The BMJ as "nothing more than window dressing, and a part of U.S. authorities' systematic effort to reassure/deceive us about vaccine safety." So, we don't really have a truly accurate number, when it comes to vaccine injuries in general, let alone the COVID vaccine. An HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research estimates that only 1 percent of vaccine injuries are actually captured by VAERS, but who knows? The point is we don't have an accurate and reliable reporting system. Why This Is Important: Information like this is important because the rights and freedoms of people who do not wish to take the COVID vaccine may be subjected to unfair treatment compared to those who are vaccinated. Unvaccinated individuals may be unable to travel internationally, and if they do, they may be required to quarantine. They may also be banned from certain public buildings, restaurants, sporting events and more. We have yet to see how this will all roll out. In the U.S., the CDC is allowing vaccinated individuals to take off their masks both inside and outside, while vaccinated ones are instructed to continue wearing them. That said, this doesn't apply to public indoor spaces yet. Is all of this justified given the information shared above? We are talking about people who are not even sick. The scientific evidence now strongly suggests that COVID-19 infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease compared to symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 percent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 per cent of instances. A separate, smaller meta-analysis similarly found that asymptomatic patients are much less likely to infect others than symptomatic patients. Furthermore, outside spread among asymptomatic individuals is virtually 0 percent. Why do we give governments the power to implement measures that, to a large portion of the population, simply don't make sense. How can we truly say that we live in a democracy when the will of the people, and science, is ignored and censored? Are vaccine passports and requirements to access other "amenities" we were used to prior to the pandemic truly justified? Why are governments pushing to vaccinate everybody so hard, using methods of coercion like passports and other incentives, when this type of push doesn't match up with the science? The answer to this question warrants reflection, but I will offer a hypothesis. In 2021, there is clearly a small, but vocal minority of individuals opposed to nearly all vaccinations… In response, there is a group of individuals on the other extreme. To them, either one must embrace all vaccines for all indications for all ages, or one can be lumped with the other extreme. They favor universal child vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 via an EUA, even before they have the data for that claim. They were quick to embrace vaccination for pregnant woman prior to appropriate trials establishing safety. Suppressing critical thinking to extol vaccines is also wrong and may backfire, but I believe this explains why it occurs. It is, to some degree, a counter-movement against the anti-vaxxers, which can go too far….A small faction of people vigorously opposed to all vaccination have done damage … As a reaction, many confuse [vaccine] cheerleading with science. A true scientist does not take reflexive extremes. Sadly, there are few scientists left." – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH
Prasad is an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, and has also been quite vocal about Facebook "fact-checkers", calling it scam and that what they are doing is nothing short of scientific censorship. There is data showing the vaccines are indeed working. Even scientists who support COVID vaccinations and their efficacy, like Kulldorff, have been speaking up against taking away rights and freedoms of those who are not vaccinated. For example, 22 renowned scientists published an article titled "The vaccine worked, we can safely lift lockdown." In the article, they explain, It is time to recognize that, in our substantially vaccinated population, Covid-19 will take its place among the 30 or so respiratory viral diseases with which humans have historically co-existed. This has been explicitly accepted in a number of recent statements by the Chief Medical Officer. For most vaccinated and other low-risk people, Covid-19 is now a mild endemic infection, likely to recur in seasonal waves which renew immunity without significantly stressing the NHS. Covid-19 no longer requires exceptional measures of control in everyday life, especially where there have been no evaluations and little credible evidence of benefit. Measures to reduce or discourage social interaction are extremely damaging to the mental health of citizens; to the education of children and young people; to people with disabilities; to new entrants to the workforce; and to the spontaneous personal connections from which innovation and enterprise emerge. The DfE recommendations on face covering and social distancing in schools should never have been extended beyond Easter and should cease no later than 17 May. Mandatory face coverings, physical distancing and mass community testing should cease no later than 21 June along with other controls and impositions. All consideration of immunity documentation should cease.
Kulldorff and Bhattacharya recently published a piece in the Wall Street Journal condemning the idea of vaccine passports, a measure that seems to be gaining traction in multiple countries. The Takeaway: At the end of the day, what can we really do to combat governments that continue to implement measures that seem to benefit the few, the rich and the powerful, while leaving everybody else to suffer? When so many people disagree, is peaceful protesting and voicing our concerns enough? I would argue that this is something we need to continue to do, because at some point you can only push a large group of people who disagree with governments so far, especially if you continue to spark this feeling in the majority of people. Governments cannot implement measures without justifying them in the eyes of a large group of people. Vaccines, and vaccine passports are justified in the eyes of the majority, which makes it easy for these measures to be implemented and justified. My question is, were people properly educated, or were they manipulated and coerced to support vaccine passports? We've seen what propaganda can do it the past, are we any different today? Does equality really exist in a day and age where so many people are having their voice censored, and their rights, freedoms and privacy taken taken away? Reprinted with permission from Collective Evolution. The post Why Did the Twits Censor an Eminent Infectious Disease Expert for His Opinion on Covid 'Vaccines'? appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 I've always had great respect for our legal system. It's as good as any of which I'm aware. No, I'm not naive. I'm fully aware that every institution depends on the competence and integrity of those involved and that means sometimes decisions are rendered that are wrong — muddy thinking and sometimes corrupt judges; self-seeking prosecutors; incompetent counsel; bad and poorly written laws; false testimony by liars — all contribute now and then to unjust resolutions. But in recent years, my faith has been even more badly shaken by continued and obvious corruption all the way down the line. This week there are three instances that confirm my belief that something is seriously amiss in our justice system: - The FBI's hidden and far-too-tardy acknowledgment that the Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to murder the Republican House leadership in 2017 was a domestic terrorist.
- The continued mistreatment (overcharging and continued solitary confinement) of several of the January 6 Capitol demonstrators compounded by the officials' lies about it and the Department of Justice's refusal to make available to the public the videos of that event.
- And a claim by one of the three defendants in the George Floyd case that a key witness in the Chauvin trial had been improperly coerced to change his testimony and the prosecution (the Minnesota attorney general's office) did nothing to inform the defense of the interactions the defendant asserts were coercive.
James Hodgkinson Since the press has quickly smothered this story, let me remind you. In June 2017 Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders supporter who had posted on Facebook that "Trump is a Traitor. Trump has Destroyed our democracy. It's Time to destroy Trump & Co," and had otherwise demonstrated his extreme hostility to Republicans, traveled to Virginia from his home in Illinois, and after learning that the men playing ball there were Republican congressmen, opened fired on them, wounding five people including Congressman Steve Scalise, who nearly bled to death and required multiple surgeries before he could return to Congress. While Attorney General Merrick Garland claims that white supremacists are the biggest terror threat facing us, and the press regularly hypes such a danger, the truth is that this was the most serious partisan political terrorist act in recent years on our soil. Now, four years later and hidden as deeply as possible: The FBI quietly admitted Friday that the 2017 Alexandria, Virginia, baseball field shooting that nearly killed Rep. Steve Scalise has been classified as 'domestic terrorism' carried out by a 'domestic violent extremist 'targeting Republicans after the bureau previously classified is as 'suicide by cop.' The revelation appears in the middle of an appendix on page 35 of a 40-page FBI-DHS report released on Friday titled "Security Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism." In a section describing approximately 85 different "FBI-Designated Significant Domestic Terrorism Incidents in the United States from 2015 through 2019," the Alexandria baseball field shooting appears, with the FBI categorizing the perpetrator as a "Domestic Violent Extremist" and describing the incident thusly: "An individual with a personalized violent ideology targeted and shot Republican members of Congress at a baseball field and wounded five people. The subject died as a result of engagement with law enforcement."
In October 2017, Alexandria’s top prosecutor concluding the shooting was terrorism, and both the DHS and the office of the Director of National Intelligence characterized Hodgkinson’s acts as domestic violent terrorism. Only the FBI refused to until now, when it did so as sneakily as possible. Why the sudden burst of tardy honesty in this limited hangout that ignores the FBI's role in hiding for the truth for four years? Maybe they see the pendulum swinging back and are covering their backsides. Of course, the FBI's initial lie and the intervening years make this late and buried volte-face almost worthless. (If you doubt me, ask one of your Democratic friends or any reporter you come across if they know who James Hodgkinson was and why he is newsworthy.) Read the Whole Article The post A Legal System Corrupted appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Stanley Park is one of the most beautiful recreational centers in Canada. It is, if I may be permitted to say so, the Jewel in the Crown of Vancouver, British Columbia. I am a race walker and I've entered dozens of 5k, 10k, and half marathons there. The outer track is about 6 miles; while walking, running, skating or biking around it, you can view the majestic Grouse Mountain, English Bay, the Vancouver skyline, numerous beaches, the Lion's Gate Bridge, a statue of the mermaid, the University of British Columbia, North and West Vancouver, and much much more. It is truly a trip worth taking. But all is not well in what would otherwise clearly be considered this environmental heaven. There are coyotes at large in in Stanley Park, and some of them are not at all that friendly. To wit, several joggers, passersby, tourists- over a dozen- have already been bitten and more of the same would appear to be in the offing. Say what?! Let me repeat that: in this case, man doesn't bite coyote, but coyote bites man. This species is not as dangerous as is the wolf, but if you are on the receiving end of their attentions, you'll soon realize that they are not cuddly dogs either. One woman had her hamstring tendon detached as a result of an attack. No one, yet, has been killed by any of these predators, but if these depredations continue, such a tragedy should not occasion any great surprise. Especially vulnerable would be the elderly and children. Should a baby ever be bitten, its life would be at grave risk. Are we going to wait around for that to occur? What have the authorities done so far to quell this abomination? (Is that too harsh a word? Not if you are on the receiving end of one of these beasts' attentions). In late January of this year conservation officers captured and killed two of these vicious animals. But there are an estimated dozen of them living and marauding in Stanley Park, and the authorities have taken no further action to quell this menace. Please be sitting down when you read this, otherwise you might keel over. How would a private owner of this precious real estate deal with this threat? It doesn't take an entrepreneurial genius to appreciate that one of the very first steps of a Stanley Park Corporation would be to round up all of these predators, and either place them in a zoo, or release them into the wilds where they could do no harm. Profit and loss considerations would dictate this. Apart from a few weird masochists, no one likes to be bitten by a wild animal. Read the Whole Article The post Coyotes in Stanley Park appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 
Chart from Freedom Israel Twitter: https://twitter.com/FreedomIsrael_
Covid cases have risen sharply in nearly every country that has launched a mass vaccination campaign.(Please watch this short video before You Tube removes it) Why is this happening? Mass vaccination was supposed to reduce the threat of Covid but– in the short-term– it appears to make it much worse. Why? And why is Covid now "surging in 4 of 5 the most vaccinated countries"? According to Forbes magazine: "Countries with the world's highest vaccination rates—including four of the top five most vaccinated—are fighting to contain coronavirus outbreaks that are, on a per-capita basis, higher than the surge devastating India, a trend that has experts questioning the efficacy of some vaccines … and the wisdom of easing restrictions even with most of the population vaccinated." (Covid Surges…Here's why the US should Worry", Forbes) Worse than India? How can that be? And why have 8 "fully vaccinated" members of the New York Yankees tested positive for Covid? Here's the story from the Associated Press: "New York Yankees shortstop Gleyber Torres tested positive for Covid-19 despite being fully vaccinated and having previously contracted the coronavirus during the offseason. Torres is among eight so-called breakthrough positives among the Yankees — people who tested positive despite being fully vaccinated." (NBC News) And if that's not confusing enough, check out what's going on in Cambodia. Cambodia began its vaccination campaign in early February after having compiled zero fatalities. That's right, the country had no Covid deaths until March, a few weeks after it started its vaccination program. And that's when the deaths started piling up as you can see in the eye-popping chart below. 
chart from Joel Smalley Twitter
So, let's see if we can figure this out. There were zero fatalities before the launching of the vaccination campaign, but soon after the injections began, the fatalities started to mount. Do you think there might be a connection here? Do you think that, perhaps, the deaths are linked to the vaccines? Of course, they are. And, that's why the media is trying to sweep this story under the rug. It doesn't fit with the "official narrative" about the vaccines, so they've decided to "vanish" the story altogether. "Poof" and it's gone! And, actually, it's worse than a cover-up because– shortly after Biden took office– the CDC changed its testing methodology making it harder to test positive. In other words, they rigged the system so it would look like fewer "fully vaccinated" people had contracted Covid after inoculation. Dr. Joseph Mercola explains what's going on behind the scenes: "Now, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has lowered the CT even further, in what appears to be a clear effort to hide COVID-19 breakthrough cases, meaning cases in which fully vaccinated individuals are being diagnosed with COVID-19." ("CDC embarks on a new Covid Coverup", Mercola. com) It's all a big shell game. They're gaming the system to make it look like the vaccines are stopping infection when the evidence proves the opposite. And notice the deliberately-misleading moniker the media invented for the people who get Covid after being vaccinated. They call them "Breakthrough cases". "Breakthrough"? Really? If cases surge in nearly every country that launches a mass vaccination campaign, then there's nothing "breakthrough" about it. It's the predictable result of a failed experiment. Here's more from an article titled: "Covid rates post-vaccination around the world: "… the government assumed that if 'you vaccinate lots of people and the problem goes away', but the questioners among us did not assume that. Especially having read the FDA Briefing Document for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for example, many of us had questions after reading it; on Page 42, it states: "Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccination group vs 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post-vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19. Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol-specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected." ("Covid rates post-vaccination around the world", Inform Scotland) WTF!?! So, the FDA KNEW that vaccinated people were more likely to contract Covid than those in the placebo group, but they approved the vaccines anyway?!? Is that criminal negligence or just plain old stupidity? Please. read the above paragraph again and decide whether you would have given these sketchy injections the "green light" or not? Here's more from the same article: "The following show data from around the world from some selected locations. It is, of course, vital to stress that correlation is not causation. And that there are countries where vaccine rollout does not precede or coincide with increased infections. However, I have been unable to find any nation where covid rates have begun to drop after vaccination started, or where a drop coincided with vaccination starting. In Indonesia, for example, the covid rate was falling when vaccination started and seems to have been unaffected in its trajectory by the vaccine being rolled out. The reader can look up these charts for him/herself on the website. Have a look at these and see what you make of them." ("Covid rates post-vaccination around the world", Inform Scotland) Okay, so the author is trying to put the most charitable spin on vaccine performance as possible. He says, "correlation is not causation", which means, 'Don't trust your eyes when you look at the charts' because– if you do– you'll draw the obvious conclusion that the vaccines greatly increase your chances of getting Covid in the few weeks afterwards.' The charts will also convince you that Fauci, Biden and the media have been lying through their teeth about the effectiveness of the vaccines. (Please, check out the charts in the article and judge for yourself.) Here's more: "What is very clear looking at data worldwide, is that vaccinations are certainly not associated with a reliable fall in covid cases in any predictable timeframe. This, alongside the observations in the trial, surely must be addressed. What is happening here? Is it just that vaccinations are coincidentally being rolled out at the same time as outbreaks are due? In very many places? Or is the vaccine not working immediately? If not, why not? … Or is the vaccine making people more susceptible to infection? If this is the case … is this a temporary effect? What causes it? … How long does it take for any increased susceptibility to diminish?"…We are told that everyone must be vaccinated (but) How can free informed consent be given under these conditions?" ("Covid-rates Post Vaccination around the World", Inform Scotland) These are all good questions, unfortunately, Dr. Fauci and Co. don't plan to answer any of them. Instead, their allies in the media are doing everything they can to disappear the story and deflect attention to the elusive 'variants', which is the diversion du jour. Am I being too harsh? Maybe, but maybe not harsh enough. Take a look at this clip from a piece at Conservative Woman titled "Every reason to doubt the vaccine makers' reassurances": "I have reported previously on an astonishing spike in deaths that occurred alongside an intensive vaccination campaign in Gibraltar, where the small community consequently developed the highest Covid death rate in the world. We also know that thousands of deaths have been seen in the US, EU and UK in the wake of Covid vaccinations, often immediately after the jab has been administered. The manufacturers, leading medical journals and most governments insist these deaths are unrelated to the vaccine. In many instances, the deaths and serious illness have been attributed to coincidental infection with the virus. But evidence is mounting that for some, especially the weak and elderly, the vaccine itself is creating or worsening the very illness against which it is supposed to be protective…. "…a worrying phenomenon which appears consistently in Covid vaccine studies is a spike in purported 'infections' which occurs precisely during that three-week period, and usually immediately following the jab...The researchers raise the possibility that the jab may trigger 'symptoms likened to Covid-19 symptoms including fever' in those recently exposed to the virus... He suggests the mechanism may be a depression in immunity caused by a loss of white blood cells post-jab, observed in both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca trials, making the vaccinees more vulnerable to the virus in the short term." ("Every reason to doubt the vaccine makers' reassurances", Conservative Woman) So, it could be, that something in the vaccine itself is killing people. That is one distinct possibility. Sure, the drug companies and public health officials dismiss the idea with a wave of the hand, but medical professionals and scientists think the danger is significant enough to demand that the mass-vaccination program be temporarily terminated. Some readers will recall that the Salk Institute recently released a study which showed that SARS-CoV-2's "distinctive 'spike' protein".. "damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease." Here's an excerpt from the article dated April 30, 2021: "In the new study, the researchers created a "pseudovirus" that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls. (Note– "Vascular endothelial cells line the entire circulatory system, from the heart to the smallest capillaries.") The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2's molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented. Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own." ("The novel coronavirus' spike protein plays additional key role in illness", Salk.edu) The significance of this report cannot be overstated. The Salk researchers are confirming that the main damage from Covid is caused by the spike protein not the virus. And, if that's the case, then why are we injecting people with vaccines that teach their cells to make spike proteins? It makes no sense at all. And how does this effect our understanding of the phenomenon that we've seen in countries around the world, that is, the sharp rise in cases following mass vaccination? Allow me to offer a plausible, but as-yet unproven explanation: The sharp rise in cases and deaths following mass vaccination is NOT related to Covid "the respiratory illness", but Covid "the vascular disease". The vascular component is mainly the result of spike proteins produced by cells in the lining of the blood vessels (Endothilium) that are activating platelets that cause blood clots and bleeding. The other main factor is autoimmune reaction in which the killer lymphocytes attack one's own body triggering widespread inflammation (and potential organ failure.). In short, the post-injection fatalities are caused by the spike proteins produced by the vaccines and not by Covid. Once again, look at the chart of Cambodia. There were no deaths prior to vaccination. All the deaths came afterwards. That suggests that the fatalities are attributable to the vaccines. One final thought: 118 million Americans have now been injected with a clot-generating spike protein. At present, no one seems to know of how long these potentially-lethal proteins remain trapped in the lining of the blood vessels or what damage they might eventually do. Keeping that in mind, wouldn't this be a good time to exercise a bit of caution? Now that cases have dropped sharply across the country, why not ease up on the vaccinations until we have a better grasp of the long-term risks? That would be the sensible approach, right? Just postpone further injections until product safety can be assured. If there was ever a time for caution, this is it. Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review. The post Mass Vaccination Triggers a Sharp Spike in Cases and Deaths appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 The Fed has created trillions out of thin air to boost the speculative wealth of Wall Street, but it can’t print experienced workers willing to work for low wages. The Federal Reserve is reassuring us daily that inflation is temporary, but allow me to assure you that wage inflation is just getting started and will accelerate rapidly. As I noted yesterday, the Fed can create currency out of thin and funnel it to financiers, but the Fed can’t create experienced, motivated workers out of thin air or entrepreneurs with the chops to launch and sustain real-world enterprises. Let’s start with a funny little thing called competition, which has been pushing wages down for the past 50 years. Globalization means you’re competing with every other worker on the planet for jobs in tradable goods and services, and mass immigration and relatively high birth rates means there have been more potential workers than secure jobs. Competition for paid work has been wonderful for global corporations, whose profits have soared five-fold thanks to labor arbitrage, also known as offshoring, where companies can pick and choose locales with the lowest cost labor. There’s also been fierce competition for campaign contributions, as the cost of securing re-election has soared into the millions or tens of millions for congressional seats, and the bottom 90% can’t compete with the top 0.1% in terms of lavishing millions on politicians who have become keenly attuned to the “needs” of their corporate handlers. Thanks to global labor arbitrage and the outright purchase of our pay-to-play political system, capital has skimmed $50 trillion from labor over the past 45 years. It’s all quantified in the RAND Corporation’s 2020 report Trends in Income From 1975 to 2018 that documents the $50 trillion that’s been transferred to the Financial Aristocracy from the bottom 90% of American households in the past 45 years. Time magazine’s article The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90% — And That’s Made the U.S. Less Secure lays out the key role played by our political leadership: No, this upward redistribution of income, wealth, and power wasn’t inevitable; it was a choice– a direct result of the trickle-down policies we chose to implement since 1975. We chose to cut taxes on billionaires and to deregulate the financial industry. We chose to allow CEOs to manipulate share prices through stock buybacks, and to lavishly reward themselves with the proceeds. We chose to permit giant corporations, through mergers and acquisitions, to accumulate the vast monopoly power necessary to dictate both prices charged and wages paid. We chose to erode the minimum wage and the overtime threshold and the bargaining power of labor. For four decades, we chose to elect political leaders who put the material interests of the rich and powerful above those of the American people. So now The Bill for America’s $50 Trillion Gluttony of Inequality Is Overdue (9/21/21). Consider the minimum wage as a reflection of the structural stripmining of labor. According to the BLS inflation calculator, the $1.65 per hour minimum wage I earned in 1970 on Dole’s pineapple plantation now equals $11.66 per hour–hence the calls for $12 per hour minimum wage. But we all know the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has been gamed for decades to understate inflation, and in terms of the goods and services that could be bought with $1.65 in 1970, it would take at least $18 in today’s money to buy the same basket of goods and services–if you include real-world prices for healthcare, childcare, higher education, rent, etc. In terms of competition, the worm has turned, as the number of people who are competent, reliable and willing to work for lousy pay has dwindled. While our educational system was busy trying to make every student into an engineer, coder or at least a college graduate, all the real-world skills needed to keep the real world functioning were given short shrift and denigrated in the media as unworthy compared to the fantasy of coding something and selling it to Facebook, Apple or Google for millions. The discussion about the decline of competence and reliability is one worth pursuing, but for now the point is that the decline is real, and so the competition for the competent, reliable and willing to work is heating up. As I explained yesterday in The ‘Take This Job and Shove It’ Recession, a consequential percentage of the workforce is re-thinking trading their lives for Neofeudal Debt-Serfdom. Workers in all sectors and pay scales are seeking ways to escape the meaninglessness and dead-end nature of “work” in a neofeudal economy that taxes productive labor but lets Big Tech escape taxes and regulation. There are two other dynamics in play in wages ratcheting higher: one is that wages, like taxes, ratchet higher but resist dropping back to previous levels. Once someone earns $15 an hour, they’re less inclined to accept $12 an hour, just as local governments are never inclined to lower property taxes, excise taxes, etc. to previous levels. Another is that when you have to pay one warehouse worker more money to fill the position, word gets out and every other worker in the warehouse will demand the same wage as the new hire. This is how pricing on the margins of the labor market ends up increasing the wages of the entire workforce. Corporations love to demand everyone keep their salary secret to avoid this ratcheting up from the margins (and mask various biases in pay scales), but the political winds protecting corporations at all costs are finally shifting, and it’s going to be more difficult to retain workers at $12 an hour after they heard the new employee is getting $15 an hour for the same work. Read the Whole Article The post Why Inflation Will Accelerate appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 In this Canadian Patriot Podcast discussion, Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay discusses the risks of COVID gene therapy and unpacks the content of her April 23, 2021 testimony to the CDC in Atlanta Georgia wherein she made a strong case to halt the gene therapy rollout in order to investigate several points of immediate concern. Her 3 min. testimony can be heard here. Bio: Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay is the Director of Toxicology and Molecular Biology for Toxicology Support Services, LLC. She holds a doctorate in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from the University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Houston. Dr. Lindsay has extensive experience in analyzing the molecular profile of pharmacologic responses. Her expertise centers on evaluating the complex dynamics of toxicity, such as toxicant pharmacology, exposure route, host metabolism, and subsequent cellular effects as they relate to the contribution of specific substances to impairment, health and fertility risk, and human disease. This originally appeared on Canadian Patriot. The post Dr Janci Chunn Lindsay on the Risks of Covid Gene Therapy appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 According to the Pentagon, 71% of Americans aged 17 to 24 – roughly 24 million out of 34 million people—are ineligible to join the military because of "obesity, lack of high school diploma, or a criminal record." To fill the ranks, the Pentagon and CIA recruit women with two moms and cisgender millenials of color diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. White males are not shown in the recruitment videos. This Is the New US Army that Is Up Against the Iranians, Chinese, and Russians If White Males Still Have Any Self-Respect, Expect Massive Resignations from the Marines, Paratroopers, and Special Forces. The CIA Abandons Intelligence for Woke Babble Latest CIA recruitment video: "I am a woman of color. I am a mom. I am a cisgender Millenial who has been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. I am intersectional but my existence is not a box-checking exercise." The US No Longer Has A Credible Conventional Military Force Compare US military recruitment to Chinese military recruitment and to Russian military recruitment If You Are a White Heterosexual Male Military Commander You Are Sacked for Speaking the Truth Will Self-Respecting White Males Continue to Serve in the US Military? Will they accept transgendered women of color as their superiors? The US Military serves the military/security complex's profits and an anti-white woke ideology, not the American people. The post America's Superpower Days Are Lost and Gone Forever appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 NEW YORK—Orthodox Easter Sunday came late in May this year, and I spent it at an old friend's Fifth Avenue home chatting with his young relatives. During a great lunch I thought of those calendar pages one sees furiously turning while denoting the passing years in old black-and-white flicks. Basically it was the three generations present that brought on these reflections. My host George Livanos and I have been friends since 1957, and he and his wife, Lita, have five children and fifteen grandchildren. Mind you, not all of them were present, but there were enough youngsters to remind one of the ballroom scene of The Leopard, when the Prince of Salina watches the younger generation with pride but also with sadness at having grown old. Old age for me is like being on death row albeit without having to spend time in a cell. Mind you, I kept such profundities to myself in view of the youth surrounding me. The young don't think about the man in the white suit, except perhaps where rock stars are concerned. Back in the good old days, rock stars enjoyed the mortality of mayflies, but like everyone else, they now live to a very ripe old age. Unless one has spent their life immured in a Tibetan monastery, they must know that the wrinkly Rolling Stone Mick Jagger has unnaturally reached the age of 112. It is an insult to rock, let alone to those stars who died young, to have lived so long. All living Beatles and Rolling Stones are included on the list of shame. And what about my fellow Pug, Bob Geldof? Most are fooled by his looks—ravaged, tortured, cursing—but Bob is a very happily married fellow of 107. To think Mozart never made it to 35, Chopin to 39, F. Scott Fitzgerald to 44, Papa Hemingway to 61, it's unbelievable that Paul McCartney has reached 121 years. Some say it's the water, others think it's the diet, but whatever their secrets, it's still disgraceful as hell. Rock stars should die young and have a good-looking corpse, as they used to say in long-ago Manhattan melodramas. Freddy Mercury showed the way, as did Jim Morrison, Elvis, Janis Joplin, Amy Winehouse, and that poor Buddy Holly, dead at 22, and the Big Bopper. I could go on. The Pugs Club commodore, Roger Taylor of Queen, was the youngest drummer boy in a battle that took place on June 18, 1815, outside Brussels, and he's still merrily cruising in his newly acquired 400-foot sailing boat. But enough about the man in white, who I must admit has been on my mind more than once of late. Read the Whole Article The post The Pleasure and Sadness of Growing Old appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 United State engagement in complicated overseas quarrels should be limited to areas where genuine vital interests are at stake. With the exception of the impending departure of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan, if it occurs, the White House seems to prefer to use aggression to deter adversaries rather than finesse. The recent exchanges between Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at a meeting in Alaska demonstrate how Beijing has a clear view of its interests which Washington seems to lack. Blinken initiated the acrimonious exchange when he cited "deep concerns with actions by China, including in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, cyber attacks on the United States, economic coercion toward our allies. Each of these actions threaten the rules-based order that maintains global stability. That's why they're not merely internal matters, and why we feel an obligation to raise these issues here today." He then threatened "I said that the United States relationship with China will be competitive where it should be, collaborative where it can be, adversarial where it must be" before adding "I'm hearing deep satisfaction that the United States is back, that we're reengaged with our allies and partners. I'm also hearing deep concern about some of the actions your government is taking." The Chinese Foreign Minister responded sharply, rejecting U.S. suggestions that it has a right to interfere in another country's domestic policies, "I think we thought too well of the United States, we thought that the U.S. side will follow the necessary diplomatic protocols. The United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength. We believe that it is important for the United States to change its own image, and to stop advancing its own democracy in the rest of the world." Yi had a point. Ironically, most of the world believes that the U.S. represents a greater threat to genuine democracy than does either China or Russia. In another more recent interview Blinken has accused the Chinese of acting "more aggressively abroad" while President Biden has claimed that Beijing has a plan to replace America as the world's leading economic and military power. U.S. United Nations envoy Linda Thomas-Greenfield has also delivered the same message that Washington is preparing to take no prisoners, pledging to push back against what she called China's "authoritarian agenda" through the various agencies that make up the UN bureaucracy. Indeed, the United States seems trapped in its own rhetoric, finding itself in the middle of a situation with China and Taiwan where warnings that Beijing is preparing to use force to recover its former province leave Washington with few options to support a de facto ally. Peter Beinart in a recent op-ed observes how the White House has been incrementally increasing its diplomatic ties with Taiwan even as it both declares itself "rock solid" on defending while also maintaining "strategic ambiguity." China understands its interests while the U.S. continues to be bewildered by Beijing's successful building of trade alliances worldwide. Meanwhile Russian President Vladimir Putin, reputedly an excellent chess player, is able to think about genuine issues in three dimensions and is always at least four moves ahead of where Biden and his advisers are at any time. Biden public and video appearances frequently seem to be improvisations as he goes along guided by his teleprompter while Putin is able to explain issues clearly, apparently even in English. A large part of Biden's problem vis-à-vis both China and Russia is that he has inherited a U.S. Establishment view of foreign and national security policy options. It is based on three basic principles. First, that America is the only superpower and can either ignore or comfortably overcome the objections of other nations to what it is doing. Second, an all-powerful and fully resourced United States can apply "extreme pressure" to recalcitrant foreign governments and those regimes will eventually submit and comply with Washington's wishes. And third, America has a widely accepted leadership role of the so-called "free world" which will mean that any decision made in Washington will immediately be endorsed by a large number of other nations, giving legitimacy to U.S. actions worldwide. What Joe Biden actually thinks is, of course, unknown though he has a history of reflexively supporting an assertive and even belligerent foreign policy during his many years in Congress. Kamala Harris, who many believe will be succeeding Biden before too long, appears to have no definitive views at all beyond the usual Democratic Party cant of spreading "democracy" and being strong on Israel. That suggests that the real shaping of policy is coming from the apparatchik and donor levels in the party, to include the neocon-lite Zionist triumvirate at the State Department consisting of Tony Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Kagan as well as the upper-level bureaucracies at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, which all support an assertive and also interventionist foreign policy to keep Americans "safe" while also increasing their budgets annually. Such thinking leaves little room for genuine national interests to surface. Biden's Secretary of State Tony Blinken is, for example, the perfect conformist bureaucrat, shaping his own views around established thinking and creating caveats to provide the Democratic Party leadership with some, though limited, options. Witness for example the current White House attitude towards Iran, which is regarded, along with Russia, as a permanent enemy of the United States. President Biden has expressed his interest in renegotiating a non-nuclear proliferation treaty with the Iranians, now being discussed by diplomats without direct contact in Austria. But Blinken undercuts that intention by wrapping the talks in with other issues that are intended to satisfy the Israelis and their friends in Congress that will make progress unlikely if not impossible. They include eliminating Iran's alleged role as a regional trouble maker and also ending the ballistic missile development programs currently engaged in by the regime. The downside to all of this is that having a multilateral agreement to limit Iranian enhancement of uranium up to a bomb-making level is very much in the U.S. interest, but it appears to be secondary to other politically motivated side discussions which will derail the process. A foreign and national security policy based on political dogma rather than genuine interests can obviously generate some disconnects, unlike in Russia or China, where redlines and national interests are clearly understood and acted upon. To cite yet another dangerous example of playing with fire that one is witnessing in Eastern Europe, the simple understanding that for Russia Belarus and Ukraine are frontline states that could pose existential threats to Moscow if they were to move closer to the west and join NATO appears to be lacking. The U.S. prefers to stand the question on its head and claims that the real issue is "spreading democracy," which it is not. Policy makers in Washington might consider what Washington would likely do if Mexico and Canada were to be threatened with foreign interference that might bring about their joining a military alliance hostile to the United States. The American Establishment-driven foreign policy thinking clearly has trouble in accommodating the obvious understanding that the U.S. actually becomes more vulnerable every time it interferes in China's trade practices or gives the green light for alliances like NATO to expand. Expansion of the national security policy components often brings in another client state that rarely has anything whatsoever to contribute and which, on the contrary, becomes a burden, relying for their own security on overstretched American military resources. In return, the expansion itself guarantees that a hostile and genuinely threatened Russia will take steps of its own to counter what it sees as a potential grave threat to its own security and national identity. Quite simply, America's national security should dictate that the United States treat China as a competitor rather than ane enemy while also disengaging from support and encouragement of Ukraine's irredentist ambitions as quickly as possible. A recent shipment of offensive weapons to Kiev should become the last such initiative and speeches by American politicians pledging "unwavering support" for Ukraine should be considered unacceptable. Washington should meanwhile reject any clandestine attempts to overthrow Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus and make clear to Vladimir Putin that it will not support any NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, which admitted was a pledge already made when the Soviet Union collapsed that was subsequently ignored by President Bill Clinton. Thanks to Bill, America is now obligated to defend not only Western Europe but also Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, North Macedonia, the Baltic States and tiny little Montenegro. In short, United State engagement in complicated overseas quarrels should be limited to areas where genuine vital interests are at stake. In fact, by that standard one should begin to emphasize the security impact of the crisis on America's southern border, which has a completely different genesis and is being driven by politics. As British statesman Lord Palmerston said in 1848 "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." The United States government would be very wise to be guided by that advice. The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. The post Butting Heads With China and Russia: American Diplomats Are Outclassed appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Often, the natural confluence of events results in something so elegant or complex that people see the hand of design behind the result. Even though the odds of there being a secret conspiracy or master chess player behind the result are very low, that just seems better than the odds of chance getting the result. Most conspiracy theories rely on this sort of logic. The official explanations seem so unlikely that they must be part of some conspiracy to shield the truth from the public. A good example of this is the last election. No sitting president has seen a double digit increase in his vote, but still lose. In fact, no one has been able to find an example like this in other elected offices. That's how rare it is. This once in forever thing could be accepted in isolation, but it is just one of such things. There are so many unexplained anomalies that people are naturally skeptical. The invisible hand of design, even without hard proof, seems like the more likely explanation. We may be seeing something similar happen with food. All of a sudden, we are being bombarded with agit-prop in favor of eating bugs and plant-based proteins, rather than eating beef and chicken. Beef seems to be the primary target, but that could simply be the result of the Left's long war against cows. The Left believes cows are part of a secret conspiracy against Gaia to poison the atmosphere. The "cow fart" conspiracy is as real to them as the ongoing Russian conspiracy. A few years ago, the fast food chain Burger King introduced something called an "impossible burger" which is made from grass clippings. The claim was that it tasted just like their regular burgers but was made from plants. Why they did this was never asked or explained. Up to that point, the number of people saying, "Man, I could really go for a burger made from grass clippings right now" was zero. In fact, the number remains stubbornly pegged at zero. No one wants this. Now, billion dollar companies make dumb decisions. History is full of ideas cooked up in corporate offices that turn out to be laughably stupid. Maybe this grass burger idea is just another example, like new Coke. The thing is though, they did not invent the grass burger or the idea of it. There are two companies pushing this idea. Impossible Products and Beyond Meat are producing fake meat products. It was the former who approached Burger King with the plant burger idea. Now, it is important to note here that these new fake meat products do not taste like meat as is claimed. They taste like what people who have never tasted meat think meat tastes like to humans. The fake beef has the mouth-feel of oatmeal. It is a weird sort of grainy slime when you eat it. It is not horrible and if you were starving you would probably eat it, but cannibalism would start to look appealing. Like the previous attempts to create fake meat, this new stuff is not very good. The point is the companies pushing this do not have a better mousetrap. They are not even making that claim. In fact, they make it clear that their products are not better than what they seek to replace. In their public demonstrations they concede that it is, at best, a close facsimile. Instead, they claim their products are morally superior. You see, the burger made from grass clippings and dried leaves pleases Gaia. She will therefore reward the grass eaters and punish the meat eaters. That is insane, but these products have the backing of the oligarchs. Both of these companies are supported financially by rich people. The troubled Bill Gates is behind the Impossible Burger scheme. He is the guy trying to blot out the sun because he thinks it is part of the cow conspiracy. Other oligarchs are rushing to get in on the fake meat racket as well. All of a sudden, the rich are sure real meat will go the way of the buggy whip and be replaced by bugs and grass clippings. Read the Whole Article The post Meat Man Versus Weed Man appeared first on LewRockwell.  | Sunday 16 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05 Used cars are supposed to go down in value. Last month, their value increased by more than 10 percent – something that has never happened before. Supposedly because there is a shortage of new cars – because there is a shortage of semiconductor "chips," the linchpin of all the electronics in new cars. But what if it isn't the "chips" but the electronics that are causing people to shy away from new cars in favor of less electronic used ones? They have electronics too, of course – assuming they're newer than the late 1970s, when cars began to transition from being mechanical things with the only electronic thing (other than the radio and lights, etc.) being the ignition system. But not as much. They beep and flash and generally pester less. Their engines stay on at red lights – and only shut off when you turn the key to off. Which you can get replaced at a hardware store for $5 rather than $150, at the dealer. The farther back you go, the less likely the car is to have "advanced" driver "assistance" electronics, such as Lane Keep Assist and Automated Emergency Braking. While the car press gives the impression everyone just craves such "assistance," I – a member of the car press – have never in my entire career had so many people tell me they loathe being parented by their cars. And the only way to avoid that is to avoid new cars. It is possible many are doing so for just that reason, and irrespective of any chip shortages. This could be the real reason for the surge in value of used cars – of which there is a finite supply. There is more to this story, too – as regards the chips and the electronics they govern. Particularly as regards cell phone-emulating all-digital gauge clusters and "infotainment" screens, which are becoming almost as common in new cars as air conditioning and power windows are in used cars. A lot of people don't want to drive a cell phone, in part because they know that a $30,000 cell phone is just as disposable as their $35 Wal-Mart cell phone. They are cluing in to the not-publicized-much fact that when one of these flat-screen gauge cluster/tablet-emulating LCD touchscreens goes dark, the owner's wallet goes empty. Depending on the make/model, a replacement gauge cluster/LCD touchscreen can cost as much as it used to cost to replace a transmission – and the cost to replace a new car's transmission can cost as much as used car, itself. A modern automatic transmission – which is the type of transmission almost all new cars come with exclusively – is also electronic. And so, disposable. You don't fix a cell phone. Or a modern electronic automatic. You toss it. Read the Whole Article The post Blame it on the Chips? appeared first on LewRockwell.  |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.