Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

Biden’s FDA Has Reportedly Not Proven Any Babies Died From Baby Formula


REPORTED BY DYLAN HOUSMAN, HEALTHCARE REPORTER | May 13, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/05/13/fda-baby-formula-shortage-abbott-bacteria-plant/

Biden's FDA May Have Played A Huge Part In The Baby Formula Shortage
(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

President Joe Biden’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may have directly contributed to the ongoing nationwide baby formula shortage without proving any babies died from baby formula.

The FDA announced Feb. 17 that a major Abbott Nutrition plant in Michigan, responsible for producing massive quantities of baby formula, was under investigation for links to bacterial outbreaks, including salmonella. The agency helped Abbott initiate a recall of its baby formula. Yet neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) nor the FDA have been able to prove that any babies got sick from Abbott’s formula, according to The Wall Street Journal.

There were two types of infections initially reported to the FDA, and linked back to the Abbott facility: Cronobacter sakazakii and salmonella. FDA inspectors found bacteria at the Abbott plant, but the company has strongly denied that it’s actually responsible for the reported infections, according to the outlet.

The company claims the evidence is on their side. The places at the facility where FDA inspectors found bacteria were not in contact with formula products, and genetic tests performed by the CDC determined that the cronobacter strains in the facility did not match those which caused the infections, according to The WSJ, citing Abbott. That hasn’t stopped the Biden administration from blaming Abbott for the shortage. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the cause of the shortage was not anything to do with the Biden administration, but was caused by Abbott making “unsafe” baby formula. (RELATED: Lawmaker Says Migrants Are Getting ‘Pallets’ Of Baby Formula Amid Nationwide Shortage)

“The issue here is that a manufacturer was taken offline because they did not produce a safe baby formula,” Psaki said Thursday. “I think it’s also important to note that the reason we’re here is because the FDA took a step to ensure that babies were taking safe formula. There were babies who died from taking this formula, so they were doing their jobs.”

Abbott said it will begin ramping production back up next week, if approved by the FDA, the WSJ reported. But it will take weeks for the facility to get fully back online, the company said, meaning the shortage intensified by supply chain woes and inflation could continue. 

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The FDA is planning a therapeutic jihad on American children in June


Commentary by Daniel Horowitz | May 12, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-fda-therapeutic-children-2657308197.html/

Typically, a lack of efficacy and a cataclysmic level of hundreds of different side effects would be reason to take a therapeutic off the market. But in the post-Nuremberg Code era we find ourselves in, such outcomes serve as a resume enhancer for the product. The FDA is planning a blitz of increased approvals of the shots on the youngest of Americans, yet not a single national Republican has stood up and said “No.” Only one governor, Ron DeSantis, has recommended against their use in children. Which will be the first state to block implementation of the FDA’s new therapeutic jihad on behalf of Big Pharma?

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) has an ambitious schedule for this coming June. Here are its upcoming meetings.

June 7: Approval of Novavax first time for those over 18.

June 8: Approval of Moderna in teenagers.

June 21: Approval of Moderna in kids under 6.

June 22: Approval of Pfizer in kids under 5.

June 28: Exploring new shots for new variants.

Isn’t it interesting how they are meeting about the need for new shots for the current variants after already likely approving old shots on babies who don’t need the shots and for a variant that hasn’t existed for over a year?

Here we have many European countries banning the Moderna shot on those under 30 because of myocarditis, yet our government will likely expand its use to babies at a whopping dose of 25 micrograms! We now have over 1.2 million adverse events reported to VAERS, and CDC researchers admitted in a JAMA paper that the myocarditis numbers – just shy of 40,000 – are “likely” underreported. Also, we now know that Pfizer and the FDA knew about 1,223 deaths shortly after release. As for Moderna, we don’t have a single court-released document from the company yet, so who knows what they are hiding?

It would be one thing to approve something that worked amazingly for COVID despite terrible side effects. But the shot is a complete bust.

The expectation of negative efficacy from these shots has become so widely accepted that now the only question is who is the next famous politician or celebrity to get COVID multiple times after having gotten three or four shots. Take a look at this chart from the Walgreens COVID-19 index of all its testing this past week broken down by vaccination status:

Have you ever seen a vaccine of which the more doses you get, the more likely you are to test positive? Notice how the unvaccinated account for a lesser share of cases than either their share of the population or of Walgreens-administered COVID tests. The results are based on 81,818 tests administered nationwide in Walgreens stores from May 2 through May 8.

So now they want to take vaccines with such counterproductive outcomes and foist them upon children? Remember, the FDA has already demanded the manufacturers produce a study on subclinical myocarditis. In its Pharmacovigilance Plan Review Addendum for Comirnaty, the agency cited one study at the time of Pfizer’s approval noting that subclinical myocarditis might be 60 times as prevalent as clinical myocarditis. That would bring down the 1 in 1,000 rate among young males to as low as 1 in 17 for subclinical ticking time bombs!

Let’s not forget that in all the children’s trials, there were zero deaths and hospitalizations in the placebo groups. So, what exactly were we trying to protect against – even before we knew the shots weren’t effective and possibly negatively effective? Cold or flu-like symptoms? Well, here is the data of side effects from Moderna’s 5-11 trial:

“The most frequently reported adverse reactions were pain at the injection site (92%), fatigue (70%), headache (64.7%), myalgia (61.5%), arthralgia (46.4%), chills (45.4%), nausea/vomiting (23%), axillary swelling/tenderness (19.8%), fever (15.5%), injection site swelling (14.7%) and redness (10%).”

So even before we get to more serious side effects like heart inflammation, we have a massive percentage of children getting flu-like symptoms from the shots, which is what they would get anyway from the virus. How can this pass the threshold of any principle laid out in the Nuremberg Code or the Helsinki Declaration?

It’s gotten so bad that Pfizer and Moderna can no longer rely upon dubious trials showing a 90% reduction in COVID. Especially for young children, even for mild infection, they couldn’t even manipulate any data showing any degree of efficacy, so they had to rely on an arbitrary measure of antibody titers rather than clinical outcomes. In shocking statement before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, conceded they would approve the shots on young children even if the manufacturer’s own dubious data shows less than 50% efficacy (and even that is only for minor illness).

“If these vaccines seem to be mirroring efficacy in adults and just seem to be less effective against Omicron like they are for adults, we will probably still authorize” because they nonetheless reduce the risk of severe disease in the mildest COVID variant, Marks revealed during the May 9 briefing.

Just keep in mind that, according to the CDC, 74.2% of kids 0-11 already got natural immunity from prior infection. So not only will they fail to test kids for antibodies before injecting them, but even the remaining quarter who might be COVID-naive, they are trading risk of death and severe side effects (and pervasive mild side effects) for a possible tiny degree of very short-term efficacy against sniffles, but a long-term negative efficacy against those sniffles. A preprint study by the NY State Department of Health in February showed that the Pfizer shot was just 12% effective against the first Omicron variant for 5- to 11-year-olds, but drops to -41% after just 42 days!

How can any of these shots be administered until we understand why so many data points seem to show intensifying negative efficacy with time? It’s like investing in a stock that first goes up for a few weeks, but then you erase all the gains within a few days and then gradually lose all your principal investment. Every Republican claims to be pro-life, but distributing these shots to young children is not pro-life, even if they are not quite mandated. Would they sit idly by if the federal government distributed abortifacients throughout their states?

Pro-abortion groups claim responsibility for setting fire pro-life office on fire: report


Reported By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter | Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/pro-abortion-groups-take-credit-for-fir-at-pro-life-office.html/

The pro-life group Wisconsin Family Action had its headquarters attacked with two Molotov cocktails and graffiti following the leaking of a draft opinion of a United States Supreme Court case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationwide. | Screenshot: Twitter/AlexanderShur

Authorities are investigating after groups of pro-abortion advocacy organizations identifying themselves as “Jane’s Revenge” claimed credit for vandalizing the headquarters of a pro-life advocacy group in Wisconsin, vowing to carry out future attacks if their pro-life counterparts do not “disband.” 

Robert Evans, a reporter with the Netherlands-based news operation Bellingcat, took to Twitter Tuesday to share the contents of a message he received from Jane’s Revenge, which purportedly claimed responsibility for the vandalism at Wisconsin Family Action’s headquarters in Madison, Wisconsin, on Sunday.

The exterior of the pro-life organization’s headquarters was vandalized with graffiti, a molotov cocktail was thrown through a window and an office at the facility was set on fire. 

Earlier this week the office of a Wisconsin anti abortion organization was firebombed.

I have received a statement from the group claiming responsibility. They call themselves “Jane’s Revenge” (a reference to the Jane Collective).

More follows.https://t.co/wgGX3l5DEU— Robert Evans (The Only Robert Evans) (@IwriteOK) May 10, 2022

The incident at Wisconsin Family Action is one of several examples of violence directed at pro-life groups and churches following Politico’s publication of a draft U.S. Supreme Court opinion that suggests the court could reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Jane’s Revenge, which described itself as “not one group, but many,” attributed the act of vandalism to outrage over the leaked Supreme Court opinion. The Christian Post has not independently verified the validity of the statement shared by Evans. Evans said the statement was sent to him through an anonymous intermediary that he trusts. The statement is titled “first communique.”

The Madison Police Department told NBC15 that it is aware that a group claimed responsibility for the attack on the Wisconsin Family Action office and is working with federal law enforcement to determine the claim’s validity. A spokesperson for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told The Guardian that the agency is aware of the claims of responsibility but couldn’t offer further comment.

The message began with an insistence that “[t]his is not a declaration of war” as “war has been upon us for decades,” which “they did not want and did not provoke.” The group stated that “we been attacked for asking for basic medical care.”

“[T]oo long have we been shot, bombed, and forced into childbirth without consent,” the message stated.

The reported Jane’s Revenge communication said the vandalism at Wisconsin Family Action “was only a warning.”

“We demand the disbanding of anti-choice establishments, fake clinics, and violent anti-choice groups within the next thirty days,” the group added. “This is not a mere ‘difference of opinion’ as some have framed it. We are literally fighting for our lives. We will not sit still while we are killed and forced into servitude.”

The message proclaimed: “We have run thin on patience and mercy for those who seek to strip us of what little autonomy we have left” before accusing the pro-life movement of instigating violence in the forms of “bomb[ing] clinics and assassinat[ing] doctors with impunity.”

The most notable example of violence against abortion doctors is the assassination of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009. Still, for the most part, violence against abortion clinics and doctors has been rare.

“Medical imperialism will not face a passive enemy,” the statement reads. “Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings. And we will not stop, we will not back down, nor will we hesitate to strike until the inalienable right to manage our own health is returned to us.”

Evans said the group told him that “we are in your city” and “we are in every city,” promising that “next time the infrastructure of the enslavers will not survive.”

Wisconsin Family Action had initially attributed the vandalism at its headquarters in Madison to “Anarchy 1312,” noting that a logo featuring the phrase was painted on one of its exterior walls.

Last year, before the Supreme Court announced its intention to hear the challenge surrounding Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence included “ideological agendas in support of pro-life or pro-choice beliefs” on a list of domestic violent extremists that “pose an elevated threat to the homeland in 2021.”

The document referred to them as “abortion-related domestic violent extremists.” Examples of pro-abortion violence include the 2009 murder of pro-life activist Jim Pouillon and the 2016 arson at a pro-life pregnancy center in New Mexico. 

More than a year after the DNI included “abortion-related domestic violent extremists” on a list of national security threats, abortion has emerged as a flashpoint in American politics following the publication of the draft opinion in the New Mexico case, which is not final.

The attack on the Wisconsin Family Action office is not the only incident of vandalism targeting pro-lifers since the Dobbs draft was leaked last week. Other examples of such violence include the targeting of Catholic churches in Colorado and Texas with graffiti containing pro-abortion messages, the theft of the tabernacle at another and an arson attack at Oregon Right to Life’s headquarters. 

A series of dueling protests are scheduled to take place this weekend, with Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Women’s March collaborating to hold “Bans off our Bodies” events in Washington, D.C. and several other cities Saturday. At the same time, Students for Life of America plans to hold counterprotests in Washington and eight other cities.  

Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com

Planned Parenthood Profits Big from Getting Kids Hooked on Transgender Hormones Through The School-To-Clinic Pipeline


REPORTED BY: JARED ECKERT AND EMMA SOFIA MULL | MAY 10, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/10/planned-parenthood-profits-big-from-getting-kids-hooked-on-transgender-hormones-through-the-school-to-clinic-pipeline/

Planned Parenthood building

Long the nation’s chief abortion provider, Planned Parenthood has branched out. Its latest endeavor? Sterilizing America’s youth. Planned Parenthood has quietly been in the gender transition business since at least 2017. Today, more than a third of its offices — 239 clinics in more than 40 states — provide transgender services. And it’s not stopping there.

While those seeking puberty blockers or surgical procedures are referred elsewhere, Planned Parenthood is offering access to cross-sex hormones, promoting gender ideology in sex ed programs, and establishing “well-being centers” in local high schools. The organization is looking to cash in on gender transition for years to come.

Easy Access

Just how readily does Planned Parenthood provide the gender-confused with cross-sex hormones? Consider the case of detransitioner Helena Kirschner. She received testosterone during her first visit — without blood work or a mental health referral.

Sadly, Kirschner is not the exception. Offices guarantee that patients can receive hormones without an evaluation of their mental health. They also promise that, in most cases, patients can expect same-day prescriptions.

Already thousands of kids are getting hormones like candy. Three California regional offices of Planned Parenthood recorded almost 4,000 gender-related visits from July 2019 to June 2021. In one California region, more than 750 cycles of hormones were prescribed in a year. These numbers are not representative for California; other Planned Parenthood offices in the state don’t even bother reporting these services.

Planned Parenthood offices state they only offer hormones to minors aged 16 or older with parental consent, but that is not the whole truth. In California, minors may receive “sensitive care,” like transition services, without parental permission. Given Planned Parenthood’s past deception, there’s no reason to think the organization won’t bend its own rules for profit.

And that’s just California. Thirty-three states plus D.C. have laws that, to some degree, allow minors to obtain routine health care without parental consent. In states where “gender affirming care” is deemed “medically necessary,” minors may be able to transition without parents knowing. And hormones may just be one Planned Parenthood appointment away.

All of this is deeply troubling. Despite Planned Parenthood’s deceptive marketing, transition is not proven to be the best medical practice. We know that 88 to 98 percent of gender dysphoric kids will reconcile with their biological sex if allowed to go through puberty “untreated.” Moreover, those who do transition are estimated to be 19 times more likely to commit suicide than their peers.

Comprehensive Sex-Ed

Even before Planned Parenthood helps minors transition, it teaches them to desire it. Across the country, schools hire Planned Parenthood or its affiliates to lead sex ed. And its reach is not insignificant. Nationally, 1.2 million students receive Planned Parenthood’s affiliate sex ed programming each year, according to the organization’s last annual report.

While curriculum requirements vary by state, these programs promote everything from abortion and the morning-after pill to gender fluidity and transition. By indoctrinating youth, the abortion giant creates the demand it needs to profit from gender services.

Well-Being Centers

But creating demand does not stop with sex ed. Planned Parenthood wants to cement a permanent school-to-clinic pipeline. In 2019, the abortion giant announced it would open 50 “wellbeing centers” in Los Angeles high schools. These centers will offer “health and wellness education services, sexual health services,” and more.  Innocuous as these services appear, they exist to market Planned Parenthood’s services. Handpicked staff will provide transition support and chemical abortion.

Ultimately, Planned Parenthood’s rapid expansion of services should raise alarm. Planned Parenthood is no longer a danger just to the pregnant and the unborn, but to every teen as well.

Legislation Needed

Thankfully, state and federal policymakers can help protect minors from falling prey to these “services.” By enacting bills like Arkansas’ SAFE Act, states could stop Planned Parenthood and others’ efforts to mislead minors. Instead of passing bills that undermine parental rights (as California has done), states should work to ensure parental rights are upheld and respected.

In Congress, members must remain vigilant against the Equality Act, which would make the school-to-surgery pipeline a permanent fixture of American society. Lawmakers should also consider Hyde-like riders to ensure the Biden administration can’t redirect federal dollars to help Planned Parenthood sterilize our kids.

Elected officials who haven’t been bought out by woke corporations can learn from the far-left’s tone deafness. Policies that protect kids and empower parents are popular with voters, especially parents. By championing parents and children, legislators can stop bad actors like Planned Parenthood from preying on the vulnerable.


Jared Eckert is a research assistant in The Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family. Emma Sofia Mull is a graduate of the think tank’s Young Leaders Program.

Author Jared Eckert and Emma Sofia Mull profile

JARED ECKERT AND EMMA SOFIA MULL

MORE ARTICLES

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Reversal of Roe will make state courts great again


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | May 06, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-reversal-of-roe-will-make-state-courts-great-again-theblaze-2657292558.html/

Leftists do not like legislative bodies and believe they should wield the least power precisely for the very reason Madison said: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Legislators are elected by the people, constantly stand for re-election (most state legislators are in cycle every two years), all the proceedings are publicized, there are several layers of public votes, and the process in every state (except Nebraska) is bicameral. This is why leftists instead love the courts and bureaucracies, because they can achieve their goals without the disinfecting power of public scrutiny and without the deterrent of public reprisal.

Anyone who supports democratic values should embrace the opportunity to steer contentious issues away from the courts and toward legislative bodies. Obviously, state legislatures are the best suited to deal with contentious issues – not only because they are the closest to the people but also because there are 50 states. We have a divided country and can easily sort out our divisions through a degree of political and even physical self-separating. The reality is that not a single Democrat-controlled state will vote to curtail abortions, because the Supreme Court did nothing but reverse the judicial interference in the issue to ensure that legislatures are free to deal with it.

In light of the fallout from the impending reversal of Roe, there is an uncanny and somewhat perverse political dichotomy unfolding between the two parties. Republicans seem to be defending the “independence” of the court and exalting it to this supreme status above the other branches. Democrats, on the other hand, are trying to delegitimize judicial power because of the perception that they will face a long-term conservative majority on the court. However, if both sides really placed democratic values over politics, they would agree to a grand bargain to devolve power on every contentious issue to the states. This would mean that all cases adjudicating novel rights that only leftists believe in would be dealt with in the respective states. But it would also mean that cases dealing with gun rights would be up to the states.

Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe that there is a difference between bogus rights and foundational rights spelled out in the federal Constitution, such as self-defense, and that should be binding on the states. Ideally, we have the right to petition a federal court for redress if our gun rights are infringed upon. But if that is going to allow courts to perpetuate judicial supremacy and use it as a cudgel over red states, I’m more than glad to devolve all these issues to the states.

Such an arrangement would unfortunately cement the status of blue states as incorrigible Marxist dictatorships, but they are already there anyway. The courts – including the so-called conservative Supreme Court – have barely laid a glove on the COVID fascist regime in blue states. And many courts have prevented red states from blocking these tyrannical laws, such as federal courts requiring red states and counties to have mask mandates.

Conservatives would be naive not to push for a grand bargain ending judicial supremacy. We would benefit so much more than we lose. At present, we rarely benefit from judicial oversight when blue states violate foundational rights, yet we get crushed in red states by the courts vitiating every commonsense policy by creating phantom rights. As of now, we have a “conservative” Supreme Court that has prevented red states from cleaning up homeless encampments, from defining marriage, from keeping the sexes separate in private bathrooms and dressing rooms, from keeping sports sperate, from enforcing immigration law, and from many aspects of fighting crime.

However, let us not forget that for those who still like judicial oversight over broadly political issues, it’s not like the state legislatures won’t have competition. Overshadowed in the politics of the U.S. Supreme Court is the fact that all 50 states have their own constitutions and state judiciaries, including courts of last resort. Let’s not forget, it wasn’t until 1875, in the twilight of the Reconstruction era, that Congress transferred authority over most constitutional questions from state courts to lower federal courts, and it wasn’t until 1914 that Congress granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all cases heard by state supreme courts.

Thus, all these decisions we see from the federal courts creating phantom rights can still be done on the state level with regard to the state constitutions – for better or worse. If Democrats so fervently want to enshrine their morals and political aspirations into constitutions, they can do so in the states they control.

Except there is one difference. State judiciaries, for the most part, are elected either initially or through retention ballot. There are only seven states where the voters never get a crack at judicial selection: Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Most of them are solid blue states, and Rhode Island is the only state that mirrors the federal system, in which the judges are never subject to review by the voters and serve a lifetime tenure. In four of those states, the judges are subject to a specific term and must at least stand for re-nomination before the legislature, and New Hampshire and Massachusetts have an age tenure limit of 70.

Inevitably, given the polarization of our society, we disagree not only on policy but on the Constitution itself. This is why any case implicating a constitutional right will invariably be political. Thus, if we are going to place politics in the courts, it’s better to do it in the bodies that are elected and closer to the people.

Collectively, this will make state judicial elections great again and will make state legislatures more consequential and powerful. If we are going to have the courts decide every political and social issue, let’s at least have this debate at the local level. Yes, there will be times when the labyrinth of state laws and constitutionally protected rights might get confusing and even clash, but I’d rather a patchwork of law than uniformity of tyranny.

This is also a wake-up call to conservatives in red states. Many conservatives focus solely on congressional elections, but they need to pay attention to state judicial races. A lot of red states have non-partisan elections, which allows stealth leftists to glide into office. It might be a good idea to make these elections partisan. Let’s face it: There is nothing in politics that is not partisan, especially as it relates to the most consequential legal questions. Let’s be open about it and sort out our disagreements through the diversity of the 50 states. That is the only way to agree to disagree in an agreeable fashion.

Transgender HS science teacher tells US Education Dept. senior adviser: Students should be taught that ‘not all egg producers are women’


Reported by DAVE URBANSKI | April 27, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/teacher-eggs-women-doe/

A transgender high school science teacher — during a video conference that included a U.S. Department of Education senior adviser — declared that students should be taught that “not all egg producers are women” along with other gender-inclusive principles.

In a Twitter video posted by Libs of TikTok, the teacher in question — Sam Long — tells other conference participants — including Christian Rhodes, senior adviser to the secretary at the Department of Education — that it’s necessary to be a “stickler for inclusive language” in the classroom. Rhodes — who previously served as chief of staff for the DOE’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education — is seen nodding as Long speaks about inclusivity. Long adds that “I mostly taught biology,” which is about “life and living things” — and that “we need to be clear that we’re including all living things, including all people …”

Long then says when teaching about “cell division or reproduction, a lot of textbooks, a lot of existing teaching will say, ‘Women produce eggs; males are more likely to be colorblind; the mother carries the fetus for this many months.'” Long then says “some ways we can show our support for trans and non-binary students is to clean up that language … we can be more accurate and be more inclusive.”

The teacher then declares, “I would say, ‘No, it’s not women that produce eggs; it’s ovaries that produce eggs.’ That’s accurate. That’s precise. We’re acknowledging that not all women produce eggs, and not all egg producers are women, for example. And we’re teaching students that language matters.”

Long — the only individual heard speaking in the video — is in the bottom-left square in the following screenshot; Rhodes is in the bottom-right square:

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @libsoftiktok

The date and purpose of the video conference aren’t clear, although Libs of TikTok said in the text accompanying the video that the Department of Education “held a training for teachers to learn how to be inclusive” toward “tran[s] and non-binary K-12 students.” Libs of TikTok also said the USDE is “promoting” the ideas the teacher espoused in the clip:

The Department of Education on Wednesday didn’t immediately reply to TheBlaze’s request for comment regarding its position on gender-inclusive language — such as “not all egg producers are women” — or the video conference’s purpose.

In the video, Long mentions a website — Gender-Inclusive Biology — that Long founded with “two other trans-identified high school teachers” as well as the site’s language guide that helped inform Long’s inclusive-language push stated in the clip.

Long wrote last month in a National Education Association member spotlight that “when students learn biology, they are entitled to see their lives reflected in this so-called study of life. I grew up learning that a baby is made when a sperm cell from the dad meets the [egg cell] from the mom and that’s not good enough. For today, that language doesn’t represent our diverse genders, sexualities, and families in our schools. So, I created genderinclusivebiology.com, a growing collection of resources and training on how to teach accurate inclusive and future-ready biology, and I look forward to continuing the work of creating classrooms where every student belongs.” The essay’s bio states, “Sam Long is a Science Teacher in Denver, Colorado.”

Mandatory Face Coverings’ Only Purpose Was Promoting Fear


REPORTED BY: HRAND TOOKMAN | APRIL 21, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/21/mandatory-face-coverings-only-purpose-was-promoting-fear/

woman in a face mask

A lot of people will claim the masks were about establishing and maintaining control. That’s fair, but it wasn’t their primary purpose.

Author Hrand Tookman profile

HRAND TOOKMAN

MORE ARTICLES

Now that a judge has stayed the federal mask mandate on public transportation, it’s important to have an honest accounting of what this entire mask situation was truly all about. A lot of people will make a lot of claims. A tiny sliver will continue to claim mask mandates actually helped mitigate the spread of Covid-19. They will be the outliers because, in terms of stopping the spread of Covid or any other virus, wearing a mask is the equivalent of doing a rain dance: it might make you feel better, and some quacks will tell you it works, but ultimately it does nothing except make you look foolish and give you a false sense of security. (Vaccine mandates were the modern equivalent of burning witches at the stake.)

It was all so stupid and foisted on us by people we’re supposed to trust, which is why we need this honest accounting of what it was really all about. A lot of people will claim the masks were about establishing and maintaining control. That’s fair, but it wasn’t their primary purpose. The primary purpose of the mask mandates was to make every person who wore one a walking advertisement for fear. If you were wearing a mask, then you were doing your job, because you had given up your right to free expression and replaced it with one, constant sentiment: “I’m afraid, and you should be too.”

That was the main purpose of the masks. That’s why they wanted everyone to keep wearing them. It was about control, yes, but far more than that, it was about promoting fear. That’s why they lied about the threat Covid poses. That’s why they inflated the number of deaths, counting so often all who died with as having died from. That’s why they convinced so many Americans that the threat of hospitalization or death is exponentially higher than it actually is. (For the record, the survival rate for Covid is 99.7 percent for unvaccinated adults, 99.9 percent for vaccinated adults, and 100 percent for unvaccinated children.)

All they did the entire time was work as hard as they could to promote as much fear as possible, and masks were an excellent weapon they could force on you to help spread their message of constant fear, division, and dehumanization. The mask stripped you of your right to free expression and replaced whatever you wanted to communicate with one single piece of speech: “Be afraid.”

That was the primary purpose. That’s why they were all so fired up about it. That’s why they were all so desperate for you and everybody else to wear them.

It’s important we have our heads around that because it will help us avoid letting them do it again in the future. It wasn’t just about control. It wasn’t just about dividing and dehumanizing us. It wasn’t just about turning us against each other and forcing us to deny science so we could devastate each other’s social, psychological, and emotional health.

All of those were welcome byproducts to the “public health experts” and other elites who to this day claim masking provides value. But the primary purpose was to promote fear, and to stifle your speech and expression so you perpetually signaled that fear to everyone else.

You were obedient, yes. But more than that, you were afraid. That was the message, whether you wanted to send it or not. It was the primary reason they made everyone wear them, and it’s important we never let them do that to us again.


Hrand Tookman is a Cleveland, Ohio native with a background in interpersonal communications. He writes with an objective of exposing media bias, and inspiring unity in defiance of so many forces today that thrive off of division.

Doctors: Biden Administration’s Dangerous Push for Trans Treatments for Kids Falsifies Science


REPORTED BY: JANE ROBBINS | APRIL 19, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/19/doctors-biden-administrations-dangerous-push-for-trans-treatments-for-kids-falsifies-science/

pride parade

HHS isn’t run by honest medical professionals. It’s in the grip of ideologues determined to destroy troubled children.

Author Jane Robbins profile

JANE ROBBINS

MORE ARTICLES

The nation’s public-health establishment lost all credibility during the Covid era by either ignoring or politicizing scientific data. But health bureaucrats seem to have learned nothing. With respect to the highly charged issue of gender dysphoria, they continue to substitute politics for science when necessary to advance the leftist narrative.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released an official document designed to enshrine experimental medical interventions as the standard treatment for transgender-identifying children. Prepared by HHS’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA), the document is a political statement unmoored from actual medical research.

According to Gender-Affirming Care and Young People,” medical interventions such as puberty-blocking drugs, wrong-sex hormones, and surgical mutilation are “crucial to overall health” of young people confused about their sex. (For what it’s worth, OPA falls under the supervision of Dr. Rachel Levine, a man who identifies as a woman.) The document complements a proposed rule announced by HHS in March, mandating insurance coverage for such “gender-affirming care.”

But the claims made in HHS’s new release have been deftly dismantled by an organization of physicians and scientists who still care about reality, and about ethical medical practice. The Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM which exists “to promote safe, compassionate, ethical and evidence-informed healthcare for children, adolescents, and young adults with gender dysphoria”  points out that HHS’s discussion is deeply misleading and indeed dangerous. SEGM identifies seven serious misrepresentations of fact crammed into the two-page HHS document. Most of these involve cherry-picking, distorting, or simply ignoring the results of studies on the many facets of so-called gender-affirming treatment.

HHS Mischaracterizes Studies

For example, HHS flatly mischaracterizes a study that failed to find any benefits of “social transition” (presenting oneself as the opposite sex, with a new name, hairstyle, dress, etc.). As SEGM notes, the HHS document cites that study for the opposite conclusion, “wrongly assert[ing] that social transition improves functioning.” HHS presumably assumes readers won’t read the actual study and thus will accept the agency’s false claims about its findings.

SEGM identifies other falsifications of the supposed mental-health benefits of wrong-sex hormones and surgeries. HHS’s “claims of benefits coming from cherry-picked studies do not hold up when the entire body of evidence is properly evaluated in a systematic and reproducible way,” according to SEGM.  

The design of the studies cited by HHS made it impossible to link medical interventions and improved mental health, SEGM observes. By contrast, multiple European studies “concluded that there is a lack of convincing evidence for the mental health benefit for children and adolescents of either puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.”

SEGM notes, in fact, that the Swedish health authority warned that “the risks of puberty suppressing treatment . . . and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases.”

HHS ignored all this research, which would have led honest medical professionals to at least acknowledge the scholarly debate about the wisdom of these interventions. But HHS isn’t run by honest medical professionals. It’s in the grip of ideologues determined to drive troubled children and their families into the clutches of the trans industry.

Dishonest Use of Data on Suicide

SEGM also criticizes the HHS document for dishonesty about the related issue of suicide among trans-identifying youth. In claiming alarmingly high rates of suicidal ideation in this population — a claim routinely used to pressure desperate parents into consenting to dangerous medical interventions — HHS relies only on “a low quality, non-probability online survey.”

In fact, SEGM reports, “recent research from one of the world’s largest pediatric gender clinics estimated the rate of suicide in trans-identified youth as 0.03% over a 10-year period, which is comparable to youth presenting for care with mental health problems.”

Even more critically, despite HHS’s strong implication that drugs, hormones, and surgeries reduce suicide rates, SEGM clarifies that “no study to date has demonstrated that transition reduces the rate of serious suicide attempts.” Is HHS afraid that telling the truth about suicide will make parents less likely to place their troubled children on the trans-industry conveyor belt?

Puberty Blockers Are Not Fully Reversible

The mendacity of HHS extends beyond misrepresenting or ignoring studies. For example, the document states, without supporting citation, that puberty blockers are fully reversible (i.e., natural puberty will resume once the drugs are discontinued). But SEGM warns about the utter dearth of research supporting this claim. In fact,

concerns have been raised that puberty blockers are psychologically irreversible (since over 95% of all treated youth proceed to cross-sex hormones), that they may harm bone development, may permanently alter the brain, that it is not yet known how they affect other vital organs, all of which undergo significant structural changes during uninterrupted puberty.

Once again, public-health agencies in Europe are more honest. As SEGM reports, Britain’s National Health Service says that “[l]ittle is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.”

But ignoring the risks of these interventions is HHS’s modus operandi. SEGM calls out the HHS ideologues for mentioning only the supposed (in some cases imaginary) benefits of interventions while failing to mention documented risks to bone development, cardiovascular health, and the mental health of patients who later regret their transition decisions.

Sterility Expected After Trans Treatments

SEGM particularly targets HHS’s failure to mention the effect on reproductive health, which is supposed to be the focus of Levine’s Office of Population Affairs. “When puberty blockers are administered in early puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones,” SEGM notes, “sterility is expected.”

HHS is silent about this potentially devastating consequence. Nor does it acknowledge the “serious ethical questions about whether adolescents can be considered competent to waive their future reproductive rights at an age when they are unlikely to be able to appreciate or predict the importance of fertility to their adult selves.”

Ethics, it appears, is not HHS’s strong suit.

HHS also misleads in stating that mutilating surgeries are “typically used in adulthood or case-by-case in adolescence.” In fact, as SEGM notes, draft recommendations from the influential (though highly politicized) World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) urge broad availability of mastectomies to patients at age 16.

Even worse, patients as young as 13 had their healthy breasts removed as part of a study funded by the National Institutes of Health – i.e., by you and me through our tax dollars. The HHS bureaucrats who prepared this report surely knew this, but distort the facts.

This HHS document, then, is a farce. As SEGM summarizes, HHS inadequately reviewed the scientific literature, issued “biased recommendations that do not acknowledge the low quality of evidence,” failed to solicit input from professionals and patients whose experiences contradict the government narrative, and utterly ignored possible alternatives to medical interventions, such as psychotherapy. The result:

This incomplete representation of the relevant issues is likely to mislead the public to believe that this is the best and only alternative, particularly when no other alternatives are mentioned. The public is also likely to erroneously assume that the risks of affirmative care are low. Patients and families are not capable of providing valid informed consent when the information they receive is inaccurate and incomplete

If the public-health establishment wants to rehabilitate its tattered reputation after the Covid debacle, this isn’t the way to do it. Health policy is too important to be entrusted to political hacks.


Jane Robbins is an attorney and a retired senior fellow with the American Principles Project in Washington DC. In that position she crafted federal and state legislation designed to restore the constitutional autonomy of states and parents in education policy, and to protect the rights of religious freedom and conscience. She is a graduate of Clemson University and the Harvard Law School.

Far-Left Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo Lashes Out at Prosecutors After Two of Her Staffers Indicted in $11 Million ‘Vaccine Contract’ Investigation


Reported By Cristina Laila | Published April 14, 2022

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/far-left-harris-county-judge-lina-hidalgo-lashes-prosecutors-two-staffers-indicted-11-million-vaccine-contract-investigation-video/

Harris County, Texas – Two of Judge Lina Hidalgo’s staffers were indicted this week after prosecutors expanded the investigation into an $11 million ‘vaccine outreach contract’ awarded to one of the judge’s political cronies.

Texas Rangers last month raided the office of Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo and executed a search warrant related to an $11 million ‘vaccine outreach contract’ awarded to one of the judge’s friends. Recall, radical far-left judge Lina Hidalgo was one of the most aggressive Covid tyrants in Texas during the pandemic. While she was threatening to jail and fine people for violating her Covid rules, she was secretly trying to award one of her political cronies an $11 million ‘vaccine outreach’ contract.

Hidalgo panicked and canceled the $11 million vaccine contract after questions were raised that it was with a one-person firm with no experience.

Two of Hidalgo’s staffers were indicted this week after Texas Rangers obtained a new search warrant and requested the Google accounts of Lina Hidalgo and 6 of her senior staffers. Hidalgo lashed out at county prosecutors during an interview with ABC 13, calling the charges ‘partisan politics.’

“At best, this is going forward with a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts and at worst, it is the weaponization of the criminal justice system for political purposes so I’m not going to play into that,” Hidalgo whined to ABC13 on Wednesday. “My staffers are hardworking people. They work day and night for the people of Harris County and we’ve got work to do, like this catalytic converter issue or like childhood education, homelessness, huge wins.”

ABC 13 reported:

In her first on-camera comments about the indictment of two current and one former staffer, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo attacked county prosecutors for weaponizing the system with a “flimsy” case.

Alex Triantaphyllis, who is Hidalgo’s current chief of staff but was her deputy chief of staff at the time the allegations took place; Aaron Dunn, then a senior advisor for public safety and emergency management at the county; and Wallis Nader, who is Hidalgo’s deputy policy director, were indicted Monday. Each one of them was indicted on one count of misuse of official information and one count of tampering with a government record.

Investigators allege Triantaphyllis, Dunn and Nader steered a nearly $11 million COVID-19 vaccine outreach contract to a small Houston-based firm and shared proposal documents with the company before they were made public.

Search warrants include text messages and emails between Triantaphyllis, Dunn and Nader about the contract before it was awarded, but Hidalgo’s legal team has said the snippets of messages in the warrants doesn’t offer the full picture.

“The facts just don’t add up as they’re being presented,” Hidalgo said during her interview. “It’s the middle of an election year and I think it’s very clear that the motivations around this are just to harm me politically and it’s very sad to see the criminal justice system used that way.”

When ABC 13 reporter Steve Campion asked Hidalgo, who still hasn’t been charged, if she’s afraid she will be indicted, she said, “No. I mean, look, I don’t know how far this is going to go and it’s very easy when you present one-sided facts to the grand jury. Everybody knows a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if that’s all they see.”

Cristina Laila

Cristina began writing for The Gateway Pundit in 2016 and she is currently the Associate Editor.

Fox News Reporter Benjamin Hall Lost Limbs and One Eye No Longer Works After Ukraine Attack


Reported By Cristina Laila | Published April 7, 2022

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/fox-news-reporter-benjamin-hall-lost-limbs-one-eye-no-longer-works-ukraine-attack/

As previously reported, Fox News reporter Benjamin Hall was critically injured last month while covering the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Details of the attack, which killed Hall’s colleagues, cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski and fixer Oleksandra “Sasha” Kuvshynova, are still unclear, but Hall updated the public on his injuries.

“It’s been over three weeks since the attack in Ukraine and I wanted to start sharing it all. But first I need to pay tribute to my colleagues Pierre and Sasha who didn’t make it that day. Pierre and I traveled the world together, working was his joy and his joy was infectious. RIP” Benjamin Hall said next to a photo of Pierre Zakrzewski.

Benjamin Hall said he feels ‘pretty damn lucky to be here’ after he lost limbs, one eye no longer works and his hearing is blown.

“To sum it up, I’ve lost half a leg on one side and a foot on the other. One hand is being put together, one eye is no longer working, and my hearing is pretty blown… but all in all I feel pretty damn lucky to be here – and it is the people who got me here who are amazing!” Hall said next to a photo of him in a stretcher.

Cristina Laila

Cristina began writing for The Gateway Pundit in 2016 and she is currently the Associate Editor.

Biden declares support for trans surgeries, puberty blockers for kids, adolescents


Reported By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor | Thursday, March 31, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/biden-admin-supports-trans-surgeries-puberty-blockers.html/

President Joe Biden declared his support for allowing children and adolescents with gender dysphoria to undergo body mutilating surgeries or use puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to look more like the opposite sex despite unknowns about longterm side effects. In multiple documents released Thursday, which is observed by some as the Transgender Day of Visibility, the Biden administration backed what it described as “gender-affirming health care” for children.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs released a document titled Gender Affirming Care and Young People.”

The document states that “early gender-affirming care” for non-binary or trans-identified minors “is crucial to overall health and well-being as it allows the child or adolescent to focus on social transitions and can increase their confidence while navigating the healthcare system.”

The document lists “top” surgeries —  elective mastectomies and breasts enhancements — and “bottom” surgeries — removal of genitals — as “gender-affirming care.”

The document states that the surgeries are “[t]ypically used in adulthood or case by-case in adolescence.”

“Gender-affirming care is a supportive form of healthcare. It consists of an array of services that may include medical, surgical, mental health, and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people,” stated OPA.

“Medical and psychosocial gender affirming healthcare practices have been demonstrated to yield lower rates of adverse mental health outcomes, build self-esteem, and improve overall quality of life for transgender and gender diverse youth.”

HHS’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Child Traumatic Stress Network released a document titled Gender-Affirming Care Is Trauma-Informed Care.”

The network’s document defined gender-affirming care as including so-called “evidence-based interventions such as puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones” and proclaimed that “gender-affirming care is neither child maltreatment nor malpractice.” The statement comes as officials in Texas have defined administering puberty-blocking drugs on children who question their gender as “child abuse” and experimental since the Food and Drug Administration has not approved such drugs for that use. 

“There is no scientifically sound research showing negative impacts from providing gender-affirming care,” the network’s statement adds. “[Transgender, gender diverse, and intersex] youth can thrive when they are supported and affirmed in their identities and their identity development.”

An entry on Mayo Clinic’s website states that drugs aimed at blocking puberty “might” help reduce depression among youth. “However, puberty suppression alone might not ease gender dysphoria,” said the clinic, adding, Using medication to delay puberty “beyond one’s peers can be stressful,” and thus, a child “might experience lower self-esteem.”

The conservative American College of Pediatricians, an association of physicians and healthcare professionals “dedicated to the health and well-being of children,” has long voiced its opposition to using puberty-blocking drugs on children suffering from gender dysphoria.

“There is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender-believing youth,” the organization said in a statement.

“This means that youth transition is experimental, and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions. Moreover, the best long-term evidence we have among adults shows that medical intervention fails to reduce suicide.”

“Temporary use of puberty blocker Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of many serious permanent side effects including osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility,” the American College of Pediatricians added. “In addition to the harm from Lupron, cross-sex hormones put youth at an increased risk of heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, blood clots and cancers across their lifespan.” 

The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued medical guidelines that support the surgical and hormonal transition of trans-identified children and adolescents.

“Often, pubertal suppression creates an opportunity to reduce distress that may occur with the development of secondary sexual characteristics and allow for gender-affirming care, including mental health support for the adolescent and the family,” an October 2018 AAP guideline states

Supporters of puberty blockers have long claimed that puberty blockers’ impact on children is reversible and are designed to give children with gender dysphoria more time to decide which gender they identify as. Proponents also claim that once adolescent users stop taking puberty blockers, their puberty resumes. The new OPA document claims that puberty blockers are reversible.

However, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service reports that “[l]ittle is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.”

“Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be,” the NHS website explains. “It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.”

As teens who are 16 or over and have been on puberty blockers for at least a year are eligible to start cross-sex hormones in the U.K., the NHS warns that those “hormones cause some irreversible changes,” such as breast development and deepening of the voice. 

“Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility,” the NHS website added. “There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment.”

The state of Texas has made headlines in the last year as Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton and the state’s child services agency have questioned whether prescribing puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones to minors could constitute “child abuse.” In February, Paxton issued a formal opinion stating that prescribing puberty blockers or conducting sex-change surgeries on children with gender dysphoria “can legally constitute child abuse under several provisions of chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code.” Texas is also investigating whether AbbVie Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., manufacturers of puberty blockers, have been engaging in deceptive advertising practices. Paxton’s office had issued Civil Investigative Demands against the two companies, seeking to determine “whether these manufacturers of puberty-blocking drugs deceptively advertised and promoted hormone blockers for unapproved uses without disclosing the potential risks to children and their parents.”

“Companies should never promote or supply puberty blockers for uses that are not intended or approved,” stated Paxton. “I will not allow Big Pharma to misleadingly promote these drugs that may pose a high risk of serious physical and psychological damage to Texas children who cannot yet fathom or consent to the potential long-term effects of such use.” 

The Biden administration has challenged Texas, with the president claiming that his administration is putting “Texas on notice that their discriminatory actions put children’s lives at risk.” The administration issued guidelines saying that it may violate federal law for Texas to charge doctors who administer gender reassignment surgeries or puberty blockers on children with “child abuse.”

Earlier this month, Paxton sued the Department of Health and Human Services and argued that the federal government is misinterpreting federal law and that Texas law does allow him to label such acts as “child abuse.” A state appellate court struck down Abbott’s directive instructing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to “conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of any reported instances of these abusive procedures.”

The attorney general’s office has asked the Texas Supreme Court to reverse the lower court decision blocking the directive. 

As a result of the governor’s directive and attorney general’s opinion, the Houston-based Texas Children’s Hospital stated earlier this month that it will pause “hormone-related prescription therapies for gender-affirming services.”

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

In case of nuclear attack, government advises face masks and social distancing in shelters


Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | February 28, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/in-case-of-nuclear-attack-government-advises-face-masks-and-social-distancing-in-shelters-2656809436.html/

In the case of nuclear war, the federal government wants Americans to know they should socially distance and wear face masks when sheltering from nuclear fallout.

The Ready Campaign, a government program meant to prepare Americans for emergencies, advises Americans to maintain six feet of social distancing and to wear face masks when sheltering indoors to avoid nuclear fallout. Nuclear fallout is the dangerous aftermath of a nuclear explosion, when the highly toxic radioactive particles expelled into the atmosphere fall back to earth.

According to the Ready Campaign, you should find shelter in the nearest brick or concrete shelter following a nuclear explosion. After removing contaminated clothing and washing areas of unprotected skin, you should protect yourselves from COVID-19. 🤣

“Go to the basement or middle of the building. Stay away from the outer walls and roof. Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and those who are unable to remove masks on their own should not wear them,” the recommendations say.

“Stay inside for 24 hours unless local authorities provide other instructions. Continue to practice social distancing by wearing a mask and by keeping a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who not part of your household,” they continue. 🤣😂

And in the case that authorities mandate evacuation to an emergency shelter, the government wants you to bring resources to stop the spread of COVID-19.

“If you are told by authorities to evacuate to a public shelter, try to bring items that can help protect yourself and your family from COVID-19, such as hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol, cleaning materials, and two masks per person,” the government says.

The website indicates that it was last updated on Feb. 25, but was updated in November 2020 to include information related to COVID-19. The threat of nuclear war has reached its highest point in decades over the weekend after Russian President Vladimir Putin put Russian nuclear forces on high alert.

Russian media outlets, which are propaganda machines for the Kremlin, are also stoking nuclear tensions. One state media anchor even floated nuclear war by wondering why “we need the world if Russia won’t be in it?”

Media Blackout: Nasal Spray that is 99% Effective Against COVID-19 in its Phase 3 Clinical Trial – Now Approved in India, Israel, Bahrain, Indonesia & Thailand


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published February 25, 2022

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/media-blackout-nasal-spray-99-effective-covid-19-phase-3-clinical-trial-now-approved-india-israel-bahrain-indonesia-thailand/

The Canadian pharmaceutical company SaNOtize Research & Development Corp., (SaNOtize), and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited (Glenmark), announced earlier this month the successful outcomes of a nasal spray in its Phase 3 clinical trials and now approved by India’s drug regulator as a treatment for adult patients with COVID-19 who have a risk of progression of the disease. TrialSite is the first to report on this.

“The study confirmed that SaNOtize’s Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS) represents a safe and effective antiviral treatment that shortens the course of COVID-19, and could prevent the transmission of COVID-19,” according to their news release.

The SaNOtize Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS) is designed to kill the Covid-19 virus in the upper airways, preventing it from incubating and spreading to the lungs. It contained anti-microbial properties with a direct virucidal effect on Covid-19.

Read their news release published at Business Wire and below:

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study at 20 clinical sites across India that evaluated 306 patients, NONS reduced the SARS-CoV-2 log viral load in COVID-19 patients by more than 94% within 24 hours of treatment, and by more than 99% in 48 hours as compared to saline control.

Treatment also demonstrated, in the high-risk group (n=218), a statistically significant greater proportion of patients who achieved a combination of clinical and virological cure, based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Progression Scale. Moreover, the median time to negative PCR, in this group, was 4 days in the treatment group compared with 8 days in the control. Test subjects included patients infected with different variants, likely including Delta and Omicron. There were no significant adverse health events recorded in the Phase 3 trial, or in over 500 subjects treated so far with NONS in clinical trials.

The reduction in log viral load corroborates the reduction of viral load in the UK Phase 2 trials (a reduction of 95% in 24 hours and 99% in 72 hours), conducted in March 2021 by Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and Berkshire and Surrey Pathology Services, and published in the Journal of Infection in August 2021.

“These results definitively substantiate the safety and efficacy of NONS in the fight against COVID-19,” said Dr. Gilly Regev, SaNOtize Co-Founder and CEO. “We are thrilled to be able to provide COVID patients with an affordable product that has been shown to deliver a faster cure. And with the proven safety profile of NONS, we look forward to this becoming the first line of treatment and potentially defense for COVID infection worldwide.”

The SaNOtize treatment is designed to kill the virus in the upper airways, preventing it from incubating and spreading to the lungs. It is based on nitric oxide (NO), a natural nanomolecule produced by the human body with proven anti-microbial properties shown to have a direct effect on SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The pharmacology, toxicity, and safety data for NO use in humans has been well-established for decades. The NO molecule released from NONS is identical to the one delivered in its gaseous form to treat persistent pulmonary hypertension, or Blue Baby Syndrome, in newborn babies.

With the receipt of manufacturing and marketing approval from India’s drug regulator, SaNOtize’s strategic partner, Glenmark, will launch NONS commercially in India under the brand name FabiSpray®. The approval is for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19 who have a risk of progression of the disease, which includes either persons over the age of 45, non-vaccinated people and/or those with comorbidities. Glenmark entered into an exclusive long-term strategic partnership with SaNOtize in August 2021 to manufacture, market and distribute NONS for COVID-19 treatment in India and other Asian markets including Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Nepal, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam.

NONS has a marketing authorization as a Class I Medical Device in the EU. NONS is also approved and being sold in Israel, Thailand, Indonesia, and Bahrain, under the name enovid or VirX.

“As viral load is an important determinant of disease severity and transmission of COVID-19 infection, demonstration of reduction in the viral load is expected to have significant clinical consequences from a patient and community perspective,” said Dr. Monika Tandon, Senior Vice President and Head – Clinical Development, Global Specialty/Branded Portfolio for Glenmark. “In the current scenario, with new emerging variants exhibiting high transmissibility, this novel product provides a useful option in the world’s fight against COVID-19.”

Glenmark will submit the clinical trial data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in order to share its findings.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trials – Details

  • Patients in the Glenmark Phase 3 clinical trial in India self-administered a dose of 2 sprays per nostril, six times a day for a seven-day treatment period, along with standard supportive care.
  • The primary and secondary outcome measures demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the NONS treatment arm over the control arm, which was administered normal saline nasal spray as placebo in double-blind manner.
  • The trial also included a subgroup analysis for patients with a high risk of disease progression, including either non-vaccinated patients, patients in middle- and older-age groups, and/or patients with co-morbidities.
  • Reduction in log viral load in the NONS group was statistically significant and superior to the control group in the full population and high-risk population (p < 0.05). Similar results were seen in the un-vaccinated group. The primary endpoint was achieved and confirmed in all analyses.
  • Significantly higher proportion of patients became negative on the RT-PCR test in the NONS group as compared to the placebo group. The time to virological cure was four days in the NONS group and eight days in the placebo group (p < 0.05).
  • A significantly higher proportion of patients demonstrated a 2-point clinical status improvement on the WHO Progression Scale, the most clinically validated point system used in clinical trials, in the NONS group as compared to the placebo group in the high-risk group (p < 0.05).
  • Data suggests role of NONS in prevention of COVID-19, which is consistent with a faster viral reduction.
  • NONS was safe and well tolerated by all patients who were part of the clinical trial. There were no reports of moderate or severe or serious adverse events or death in the study. An independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) concluded that NONS was safe in COVID-19 patients.

“NONS destroys the virus, blocks entry into the nasal cavity and halts replication of the virus, which rapidly reduces viral load. This is important because viral load has been linked to infectivity, poor health outcomes and complications from Long COVID,” said Dr. Chris Miller, Chief Science Officer and co-founder of SaNOtize. “Amid evidence of waning efficacy for some vaccines and higher breakthrough rates, there is currently a lack of an antiviral therapy that is effective against COVID-19 and its variants that can be made widely and affordably available to the public. This is what makes NONS a critical weapon in ending the pandemic and preventing future outbreaks.”

Jim Hoft

Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.


Texas attorney general calls trans surgeries, puberty blockers ‘child abuse’ in formal opinion

By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor | Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-ag-says-puberty-blockers-for-trans-kids-child-abuse.html/

Transgender
A sign outside a classroom taken in 2016. | REUTERS/Tami Chappell

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has released a formal opinion concluding that performing certain gender reassignment procedures on children constitutes child abuse under state law. In Opinion No. KP-0401, released last Friday, Paxton said that certain sex-change procedures and treatments “can legally constitute child abuse under several provisions of chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code.” Such procedures and treatments include castration, the removal of healthy body parts as well as the prescription of puberty-blocking drugs among others. 

“Beyond the obvious harm of permanently sterilizing a child, these procedures and treatments can cause side effects and harms beyond permanent infertility,” the opinion states. 

“The medical evidence does not demonstrate that children and adolescents benefit from engaging in these irreversible sterilization procedures.”

Paxton argued that such invasive gender reassignment procedures, like removing private parts, “would deprive the child of the fundamental right to procreate, which supports a finding of child abuse under the Family Code.”

“Because children are legally incompetent to consent to sterilization, procedures and treatments that result in a child’s sterilization are unauthorized and infringe on the child’s fundamental right to procreate,” the opinion continued.

“The lack of authority of a minor to consent to an irreversible sterilization procedure is consistent with other law. The federal Medicaid program does not allow for parental consent, has established a minimum age of 21 for consent to sterilization procedures, and imposes detailed requirements for obtaining that consent.”

In a statement Monday, Paxton said that there was “no doubt that these procedures are ‘abuse’ under Texas law, and thus must be halted.”

“The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) has a responsibility to act accordingly. I’ll do everything I can to protect against those who take advantage of and harm young Texans,” he added. 

Last August, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Commissioner Jamie Masters published a letter asserting that “genital mutilation of a child through reassignment surgery is child abuse, subject to all rules and procedures pertaining to child abuse.” 

Masters’ letter came after Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott requested that the agency “issue a determination of whether genital mutilation of a child for purposes of gender transitioning through reassignment surgery constitutes child abuse.”

Last December, Paxton’s office announced an investigation into Endo Pharmaceuticals and AbbVie Inc. under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act due to the promotion of medications as puberty blockers. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of puberty-blocking drugs for the sake of gender transition but has approved such medication for children who start puberty at a very young age.  Some medical organizations, however, contend that puberty blockers and other gender transition procedures for minors can be beneficial to children suffering from gender dysphoria.

The American Medical Association, for example, released an open letter last April arguing that state governments should not prohibit gender reassignment procedures for youth.

“Such decisions must be sensitive to the child’s clinical situation, nurture the child’s short and long-term development, and balance the need to preserve the child’s opportunity to make important life choices autonomously in the future,” stated the AMA in a letter.

“We believe it is inappropriate and harmful for any state to legislatively dictate that certain transition-related services are never appropriate and limit the range of options physicians and families may consider when making decisions for pediatric patients.”

According to the Mayo Clinic, the benefits of puberty-blocking medicines for gender dysphoria “might” include reducing depression among youths and preventing the need for future surgery. Nevertheless, the clinic warns that taking puberty blockers remains a “big step” that can have a long-term impact on bodily growth, bone density and fertility.

“In addition, delaying puberty beyond one’s peers can be stressful,” the Mayo Clinic explained. “Your child might experience lower self-esteem.”

The conservative American College of Pediatricians, an association of physicians and healthcare professionals “dedicated to the health and well-being of children,” has long voiced its opposition to using puberty-blocking drugs on children with gender dysphoria. 

“There is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender-believing youth,” the association says in an online statement. “This means that youth transition is experimental, and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions. Moreover, the best long-term evidence we have among adults shows that medical intervention fails to reduce suicide.”

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

The Centers for Disease Control’s Lies Have Destroyed Its Legitimacy


REPORTED BY: Dr. GREGG SCHMEDES | FEBRUARY 22, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/22/the-centers-for-disease-controls-lies-have-destroyed-its-legitimacy/

Centers for Disease Control headquarters

On August 6, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control released a report that the agency claimed showed “Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection.” This assertion came amidst a public battle with Sen. Rand Paul, as the CDC released this data from Kentucky, Paul’s home state.

Yet after indisputable scientific evidence continued to pile up in favor of natural immunity, the CDC finally capitulated on January 19, 2022, recognizing the superiority of natural immunity over vaccination alone: “Between May and November 2021, people who were unvaccinated and did not have a prior COVID-19 infection remained at the highest risk of infection and hospitalization, while those who were previously infected, both with, or without prior vaccination, had the greatest protection.”

The CDC’s reversal came after its previous discounting of natural immunity caused mass layoffs, nursing home resident isolation, and hospital staffing shortages. It must not be forgotten or overlooked, and the CDC must be held accountable.

Last summer, guided by the CDC, President Biden claimed, “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the IC unit, and you’re not going to die.” Biden also spread misinformation about vaccinations preventing the spread of Covid-19 by stating, “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations.” 

Who is harmed the most by health misinformation produced by our president and his agencies? Those with low health literacy. Our rich-poor gap is growing in this country and lying about health issues only exacerbates it.

A Positive Test Doesn’t Always Mean Infectiousness

A deeper dive into the August natural immunity study reveals methodology that can be recognized as illogical, even to those without medical experience. The CDC researchers created two groups. The case group included people who tested positive in 2020 and then tested positive again during a two-month window in 2021. The control group included people who had a positive test in 2020 without another positive test during this artificial two-month window.

The study observed that non-vaccinated group registered a positive test 34.4 percent of the time, compared to 20.3 percent of fully vaccinated individuals. The CDC falsely defined the case group’s second positive test as a “reinfection.” This is the central lie of the study. This data conveniently omitted data on people actually becoming symptomatic or what a common person would call “reinfected.”

To illustrate this point, consider if a Covid-recovered person comes into contact with Sars-Cov-2 in their community. They might test positive on a PCR test. Their body can remember the virus, fight it off, and the person never becomes ill. However, shortly after the exposure, a PCR swab can detect bits of genetic material (even if it’s unviable virus). Therefore, this study could be more of a reflection of people’s likelihood of re-exposure to Sars-Cov-2, not reinfection, as the CDC claimed.

By conflating exposure and reinfection, the CDC misled the public. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated, “This study shows you were twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

This guidance came when mounting evidence indicated Covid vaccines quickly lose their effectiveness against infection and transmission, which the CDC loathed to admit. Unfortunately, Walensky’s guidance undermined the credibility of the CDC for generations to come.

As a physician, it’s frightening that a public health official made a policy recommendation based on such a flawed study. We should encourage critical thinking and scientific skepticism, but such a blatantly flawed study design should not be tolerated in our leading health institutions.

Not an Isolated Incident for the CDC

This isn’t the only time the CDC has been caught misleading the public. Drawing ire from the medical community, the was an uncontrolled study of students in Arizona that Walensky referred to in discussing the CDC’s mask guidance for schools. This study defined a “covid outbreak” as “two or more” positive lab tests among students or staff. So, if your school had two asymptomatic third graders, you’ve got a “covid outbreak” on your hands. Even worse, the study weighted such an “outbreak” equally to a school with dozens of symptomatic teachers or students. According to the CDC, two equals 50—at least for “covid outbreaks.”

In a Georgia study that actually had a sufficient control arm, the CDC minimized the fact that there was no statistically significant difference between masked and unmasked student groups. They’ve also minimized the importance of diet and exercise during the pandemic. They failed to effectively communicate evidence-based, life-saving outpatient treatment protocols. The list goes on.

Why This Matters So Much

How does minimizing natural immunity cause harm in the real world? There are at least three deadly repercussions.

First, many hospitals following the CDC’s guidance mandated that only vaccinated health-care workers be allowed to work at their facilities. This means naturally immune health-care workers were wrongly excluded from the workforce. Based on a toxic lie fabricated by the CDC, hospitals continue to experience staffing shortages, contributing to the hospitalization overcapacity narrative they’ve used to demonize the unvaccinated.

Second, the same problem arose for nursing homes, where seniors were denied visitation rights from unvaccinated, naturally immune family and friends, even though less protected vaccinated people were allowed in. Lack of care workers also prevents patients from being discharged from hospitals to care facilities.

Third, the natural immunity lie also stripped countless Americans of their health coverage and livelihoods. During the delta wave, for example, a worker at Los Alamos National Laboratories was fired from his job for religiously objecting to vaccination, despite working entirely from home and having recovered from a previous Covid infection. The CDC now admits this worker’s immunity provides protection superior to that of his co-workers who had merely vaccine-induced immunity at that time. He lost his job while the less protected did not. By denying natural immunity’s superiority to vaccine-induced immunity, how many others have been fired and lost health-care access the moment we need our population to be at its healthiest?

Punishing People We Should Have Praised

Naturally immune people should have been identified early in the pandemic as the most protected, ushered into hospitals and nursing homes to serve our vulnerable, and certainly should have been allowed to keep their jobs. By refusing to acknowledge the harms of lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination, the CDC has brought everlasting shame to itself. There is clear evidence these types of interventions carry measurable risk. A better approach would have been to honestly discuss the risks and benefits with the public, much like I discuss surgical risks and benefits with my patients. This is the very tenet of informed consent, and better communication always results in a better relationship.

Americans need an unbiased, incorruptible, and credible CDC that provides reliable and scientifically sound public health guidance. These lies have de-legitimized and undermined public confidence in the institution of the CDC itself.

The consequences of lying about Covid-19 will spill into other areas of health care. Millions of Americans have lost trust in our hospitals and institutions and are now resorting to “under the table” health care. In health care, loss of trust equals lack of access. The CDC must return to the basics of evidence-based medicine to overcome its crisis of legitimacy.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The lies about vaccine efficacy are exposed, so Scotland stops publishing data


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | February 18, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-lies-about-vaccine-efficacy-exposed-so-scotland-stops-publishing-data/

If the truth hurts your narrative, you must censor it. But what if your own information harms your own narrative? Well, then you stop publishing it. For the past few months, Scotland has been publishing age-stratified case rates by vaccination status in a very well broken-down chart every Wednesday afternoon, similar to the way the U.K. published the data every Thursday. The common thread observed from these trends was that the unvaccinated had the lowest case rate, the double-vaccinated had even higher death and hospitalization rates, and the triple-jabbed gradually had increasingly higher case rates, which clearly doesn’t portend good news even for hospitalization and death in the long run. When people like me started using their data, we were lambasted by the “fact-checkers” paid for by Big Pharma. Now Scottish health officials announced they will not be publishing the data at all.

“Public Health Scotland will stop publishing data on covid deaths and hospitalisations by vaccination status — over concerns it is misrepresented by anti-vaxx campaigners,” reports the Glasgow Times.

The notice of change was published on page 29 of the latest, and evidently final, Wednesday report from Feb. 16. “PHS is aware of inappropriate use and misinterpretation of the data when taken in isolation without fully understanding the limitations described below,” they decried.

You mean like screenshotting their own charts?

Obviously, there can be confounding factors, but those factors actually cut both ways. However, at the end of the day, these are age-stratified adjusted case rates per 100,000 and are completely fair game to use. No vaccine that is anywhere near as effective as they make it out to be should be netting these results.

Here is the latest case rate chart from the final report:

As you can see, for the past two weeks they have been placing disclaimers at the bottom of the charts.

What the chart clearly shows is what we have been seeing throughout the world — from the U.K., Canada, and Israel, for example — namely, that the second shot has gone negative a long time ago and the third shot is gradually following in the same direction. The public health officials themselves are demanding that people get boosters because they say the other shots wane. Well, logic would dictate that now that we are three to five months into the boosters in most places, they are waning as well. We also know that waning efficacy is potentially associated with a Trojan horse effect of antibody dependent disease enhancement, something the FDA admitted was never studied in the long run (at the time they thought the shots wouldn’t wane) but would be a risk “potentially associated with waning immunity.”

The main argument of those who are against us screenshotting their own charts to point out what they themselves have admitted is a speculative theory that perhaps the vaccinated test more often than the unvaccinated. That is a purely speculative confounding factor in the favor of the vaccine, but here is a concrete proven confounder against the vaccine: Scotland counts the first 21 days of the first vaccine as unvaccinated and the first 14 days of the third vaccine as double-vaccinated. We already know from Alberta’s data (which of course they also took down since we cited it) that roughly 40% of cases, 47.6% of hospitalizations, and 56% of deaths among the vaccinated occurred within 14 days of vaccination! So if anything, many of the cases and deaths ascribed to the unvaccinated are caused by the immune suppression of the first shot, and many cases and deaths ascribed to the double-vaccinated makes that cohort look even worse than it already is in order to ameliorate the image of the boosters.

Furthermore, if the higher case rates among the vaccinated are the result of a higher testing rate, then why would the double-vaxxed also be worse off than the unvaccinated for hospitalizations and deaths, as PHS has been showing for weeks in its other charts?

It’s quite evident that everyone is tested in the hospital. If anything, it stands to reason that the unvaccinated would be more aggressively tested even when admitted for other ailments and therefore potentially be roped into incidental hospitalization counts more often than the vaccinated. For example, in June 2021, Scripps Health in San Diego announced it would only test unvaccinated asymptomatic patients but not the vaccinated. Clearly, the testing requirements of the unvaccinated and the counting of the (immune-suppressed) partially vaccinated as unvaccinated would be confounding factors for woefully overestimating unvaccinated hospitalizations, not the other way around.

Also, why would the triple-vaxxed test less often than the double, who test more often than the single or unvaccinated? And why would the waning always continue in the same direction throughout the pandemic? As you can see from the U.K. Health Security Agency weekly reports, the efficacy of the shots constantly wanes with every new weekly report, a phenomenon that cannot be explained away by testing rates.

Clearly, this picture points to dangerous waning efficacy that plagues every cohort within a few months.

The bottom line is that during the final week of reporting in Scotland, just 12% of the deaths are among the unvaccinated, and that is including the 21-day grace period of counting the single-jabbed as unvaccinated. Nobody is suggesting that there is no efficacy for some people for a period of time against serious illness before the shots wane. But to suggest that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, to ignore the negative efficacy on infection which has been true across the board since last summer, and to obfuscate the concern of waning efficacy on critical illness even as they themselves demand boosters defies willing suspension of disbelief.

Unbelievably, PHS admits that the shots first suppress the immune system before they ramp up antibodies. But instead of using this as a strike against the shots, they use that is a strike against the unvaccinated and assert that it is a factor for why you can’t even compare hospitalization or death rates. “Individuals who have not completed their vaccine schedule may be more susceptible to a severe outcome and could result in higher COVID-19 case, hospitalization and death rates in the first and second dose vaccine groups,” claims PHS in the report.

But if that is true, that is the fault of the manufacturers who made a shot that first makes you vulnerable during an ongoing pandemic. It’s one thing to have a shot that makes you more vulnerable for a few weeks during the off-season of a virus. But to do so during the pandemic is akin to telling someone in a foxhole during a firefight that they will be safer in a bunker 100 yards ahead but must first run across the field to get there. The risk of making that run should be counted against the bunker option, not the foxhole.

In other words, as I wrote in my original piece on the Scottish data that was “fact-checked,” “You have to look in totality where we are headed rather than manipulating a snapshot of time.” You can’t just pull out one period of time of some efficacy for some people. You need to consider the following:

  • Vaccine injuries short term and long term, known and unknown;
  • Other safer treatment options for COVID itself;
  • A leaky vaccine that wanes in efficacy and runs the risk of enhancing the virus itself even while offering temporary protection for some;
  • The cost to the immune system of constantly boosting people to deal with the abovementioned concern of waning efficacy and enhancement.

The bottom line is that the social media guardians are looking at a snapshot of time. If they were to study the trajectory and progression of the virus and the vaccine throughout the year, they would recognize an unmistakable pattern of waning and then negative immunity. A large study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Weil Cornell Medicine-Qatar found (table 3) that the Pfizer vaccine waned very quickly after four months. By seven months, when adjusted for those in Qatar who already had prior infection, the Pfizer shot was -4% effective against transmission and just 44.1% effective against severe illness. Also, effectiveness against asymptomatic infection was -33% after seven months.

Swedish preprint study in October 2021 looked at 1.6 million people in Sweden to examine infection rates and critical illness rates by vaccination status. They found a sliding scale of efficacy that wanes with time, but eventually turns negative. Here is a presentation of fully adjusted vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection for various demographics after 210 days:

Clearly, it was known early on that the vaccine wanes and has the potential to go negative even with Delta, for which both natural infection and the vaccines offered better immunity. It stands to reason that this is certainly the case with Omicron, making it abundantly clear that the negative efficacy rate has more to do with potential Trojan horse antibodies than it does with vaccination-status bias of testing rates.

So what’s the solution? Go for a fourth and fifth shot? This week, Israeli researchers published a preprint study on the efficacy of the fourth shot, which found that after just one month, Pfizer’s shot is down to 30% efficacy and Moderna is down to 11%. At the same time, “Local and systemic adverse reactions were reported in 80% and 40%, respectively.” They conclude, “Low efficacy in preventing mild or asymptomatic Omicron infections and the infectious potential of breakthrough cases raise the urgency of next generation vaccine development.”

Remember, the FDA’s industry guidance for EUA status (p. 13) requires a 50% threshold of efficacy to even get emergency use authorization, much less full approval!

Thus, who is actually misreading or inappropriately using data here?

The Israeli study also concluded that “most of these infected HCW [health care workers] were potentially infectious, with relatively high viral loads. Thus, the major objective for vaccinating HCW was not achieved.” Full stop. The biggest public policy debate is over the fact that somehow you not getting the shot affects other people. Here we see that even people with four shots were still infectious with high viral loads. To what degree the shot offers some degree of protection from serious illness for some people for some period of time should be a decision left to the people. Perhaps other people would like to choose therapeutics that offer protection that don’t run the risk of severe adverse reactions. But none of that should have bearings on another human being, and none of that should justify human rights violations.
This entire saga began with censorship of the work of others because the narrative assertions could not withstand peer review. Now we’ve come full-circle, in which the governments’ own data must be censored because the narrative assertions cannot withstand the scrutiny of their own data.

Bill Connor Op-ed: COVID lockdowns proven ‘ill-founded,’ but media ignores


Commentary By Bill Connor, Op-ed Contributor | Friday, February 11, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/covid-lockdowns-proven-ill-founded-but-media-ignores.html/

Dr. Anthony Fauci
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing to discuss the ongoing federal response to COVID-19 on May 11, 2021, in Washington, D.C. | Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images

In late January, Johns Hopkins published an intensively researched and explosive study about the destructive results of COVID-19 lockdowns: “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality.” Researchers concluded “while this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted … In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

The report asserted that while the lockdowns cut death rates by, at most, .2%, they indirectly caused substantial deaths associated with the lockdowns, like the increase in drug overdose deaths of 78,056. The study went so far as to conclude, “Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand.” This is in stark contrast to the claims by many leading health experts, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who have claimed the lockdowns saved “millions” of lives and were worth the damage it has caused to the American people and the economy. John Hopkins is arguably the top university in the world in health care-related fields, so this report is unimpeachable and demanding of full coverage.

Unfortunately, the media’s stake in previously defending lockdowns while slamming lockdown critics has caused a dangerous censoring of the report. Let me explain.

As reporter Joseph A. Wulfsohn has observed “the John Hopkins study received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week. According to Gabien transcripts, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC all ignored the anti-lockdown findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as ‘superspreaders’.” It wasn’t just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings.”

This is part of a disturbing media trend Americans have seen with other stories like the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and the censoring/downplaying of the lab leak theory of COVID origin. When information disputes the progressive talking points, the information is suppressed.

The John Hopkins researchers not only showed the indirect damage of lockdowns, but even found the lockdown policies likely helped further the spread of COVID: “[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness … often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places.”

This is in addition to a survey showing around 97% of American teachers claim students experienced learning loss. Skyrocketing unemployment and the shuttering of small businesses caused further havoc. The lockdowns turned out to be worse than useless. This information is critical as we must prepare to handle further waves, or even new pandemics.

During the lockdowns, which were primarily pushed and enforced by Democratic politicians, the media was relentless in denigrating the critics. They went so far as to claim, as Dr. Anthony Fauci has, that opponents of lockdowns are actually opponents of “science.” The following quote from the Global News was repeated in substance by much of the mainstream media over the past two years: “But defying lockdowns because you’re fatigued by the pandemic is completely different than what many of these protesters are doing, which is denying the science … (their actions) seems so counter-rational that it has to be emotionally fueled.”

It’s time for the Center for Disease Control, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and much of the mainstream media to show a modicum of humility. They have been proven wrong about the lockdowns. At the same time, some level of accountability is demanded of those who attacked lockdown critics. Freedom of speech was attacked over and over the past two years by those screaming about the dangers of “misinformation” or “disinformation.” It continues to this day.

As with the Global News article, the Left has even questioned the psychological well-being of lockdown critics, similar to what was done in the Soviet Union to those criticizing the party line. We have seen the same treatment of those who questioned the “party line” about COVID coming from a wet market, and not the Wuhan Institute of Virology (which most scientists now agree was the likely origin of COVID-19).

The Progressive Left, including allies in the media, cannot be allowed to continue their monopoly on what constitutes “science” and suppress everyone else. Science comes from continually questioning and demanding proof. That didn’t happen with lockdowns, and hundreds of millions suffered. Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). When it comes to determining the truth in this world, let’s allow the debates and disagreements necessary to find the truth.

Bill Connor, a retired Army Infantry colonel, author and Orangeburg attorney, has deployed multiple times to the Middle East. Connor was the senior U.S. military adviser to Afghan forces in Helmand Province, where he received the Bronze Star. A Citadel graduate with a JD from USC, he is also a Distinguished Graduate of the U.S. Army War College, earning his master of strategic studies. He is the author of the book Articles from War.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: GOP governors must ban shots for babies and toddlers


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | February 01, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-gop-governors-must-ban-shots-for-babies-and-toddlers-2656528942.html/

It’s utterly senseless. Pfizer is now asking to authorize a dangerous, outdated shot for babies and toddlers, for whom the virus does not pose a statistical risk and for a virus against which the shots have failed to show any benefit. Yet, just as taxes and death are a certainty in life, you can bank on the FDA never turning down any Pfizer request. This is where Republican governors must serve as the safety net for the people. They must actively oppose expanding the shots to the final control group against the greatest experiment on mankind.

In one of the most shocking and immoral moves since the beginning of the pandemic, Pfizer is submitting its request this week for emergency use authorization of its COVID shot for babies as young as 6 months old through 5 years old. They are quite literally pushing a shot with the hopes of ameliorating symptoms (not stopping transmission) of a virus that is a cold for young children and much less dangerous than RSV. But here’s the kicker: The trial they conducted showed that two doses failed to even produce positive results, and they are still working on a trial for a three-dose regimen. Plus, we have a new variant. So, what exactly are they seeking authorization for?

As other countries are already recommending against vaccinating those under 12, our government will likely approve this shot for babies and young children based on a failed trial. There was never any efficacy in the shot because no child in the trial got seriously ill to begin with. So, they chose a trial endpoint around levels of antibody titers. Putting aside for a moment the premise that higher antibody titers (as opposed to T cells) are necessarily a good thing and won’t cause original antigenic sin, their own trial failed to achieve these endpoints in 2- to 4-year-olds. Which is why Pfizer announced in December that it was beginning a trial on a three-dose regimen. So how can they seek authorization of the failed two-dose trial for what is essentially a new virus?

One of the precepts of the Nuremberg Code: “The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.” There is no way pursuit of an already flawed vaccine can be justified on young children, even if it still had a degree of efficacy and wasn’t outdated. A recent study from the U.K. showed that even immunocompromised children were not at an elevated risk for severe COVID. The study of 1,527 immunocompromised children and young adults found “no increased risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.” None of those even more vulnerable children died.

While there likely have been a tiny number of severely ill children who have died of the virus, it’s extremely hard to tell how many of the recorded deaths were legitimately caused by the virus itself. A large COVID study conducted in Germany found just three pediatric COVID deaths out of a million. The same analyst found zero deaths occurred in children under 5.

Already among older children, no positive benefit was found in the vaccine, even when the vaccine was working better. An Israeli study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found ZERO deaths or severe illnesses BOTH in the vaccinated and in the control (unvaccinated) groups of 12- to 18-year-olds in a 29-day follow-up of their vaccination. Under what pretext could the government possibly justify COVID as an emergency in this age group, and based on what evidence does this vaccine address that “emergency?”

On the flip side, the CDC, in a study in published in JAMA just conceded that the VAERS data on myocarditis was indeed an accurate reflection of an increased risk of heart inflammation following the vaccines. “Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men,” concluded the CDC researchers. “This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.”

More broadly, over 22,600 vaccine deaths and over 1 million injuries have been reported to VAERS. We already know from previous studies that VAERS only captures 1% of adverse events, and no other shot has come with such a stigma against reporting it for harm, often at the threat of the physician losing his job. Medicare data seems to hint at a much broader cohort of vaccine casualties. The military’s epidemiological database also seems to indicate a very disturbing trend of neurological and cardiological disorders rising in association with the take-up of the vaccine.

How can this be foisted upon the youngest children — with no apparent benefit — when they concede, “Long-term outcome data are not yet available for COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis cases”?

There are no long-term cancer studies, there are no long-term studies on what this does to one’s immune system, and there are no long-term studies on autoimmune diseases, even though the VAERS data and the Pfizer surveillance data from early 2021 raises some concerns. Plus the vaccine is for a virus that is not a threat to children.

Think about it: Monoclonal antibodies can get their existing EUA pulled based on the arrival of a new variant, yet shots that have already proven to be outdated – and are associated with greater infection rates – can secure official full approval and then EUA for babies with a new variant that was never run through a clinical trial.

As such, for a governors to merely take a neutral stance while allowing this travesty to plague the children of their states is unacceptable. Governors have a responsibility to direct their respective health departments to conduct the proper oversight that the FDA has abdicated and demand a moratorium on shots for children until a proper cost-benefit analysis can be conducted. At a minimum, they should join together in a lawsuit to enjoin the EUA because Pfizer has failed to prove the shots meet the eligibility thresholds in the EUA statute.

Moreover, Republican governors and legislators have an obligation to treat Pfizer like Planned Parenthood and cut all political ties with the company’s lobbying groups. Bio-medical fascism and the breach of informed consent is a greater pro-life cause than opposition to abortion right now, because its practitioners are encouraging all children to get something with only a potential downside. It is the equivalent of forcing abortions upon us, not just permitting them.

The final precept of the Nuremberg Code reads as follows: “During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.” If after everything we have learned, they won’t even discontinue this experiment on babies, then we truly have learned nothing since that dark era of history.

‘We have failed our children’: Goldie Hawn warns COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed mental trauma on an entire generation of kids


Reported by PAUL SACCA | January 28, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/goldie-hawn-children-covid-mental-health/

Goldie Hawn warned that the national trauma inflicted on children by the COVID-19 pandemic is approaching and “could very well surpass” the dread brought on by the 9/11 terror attacks and the Cold War. In an op-ed for USA Today, Hawn described how she saw her “entire world get ripped apart” by the threat of all-out nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1956 when she was in the fifth grade. After being shown a graphic and grim educational film about the dangers of nuclear war, the then-11-year-old Goldie Hawn ran home during lunch to call her mother at work and told her, “Mommy, come home quick! We’re all going to die!” Hawn said the threat of nuclear holocaust inflicted trauma on her for years.

“Even in high school, I’d hear a siren in the morning and be too terrified to go to school that day,” Hawn wrote. “This was a specific trauma that affected me, but it was a collective trauma, too – an entire generation of American children was, in some form or another, taught to think of nuclear holocaust as a real threat.”

Hawn compared the collective trauma endured by her generation to the upheaval other generations experienced – such as children who watched the Challenger space shuttle disaster happen live on Jan. 28, 1986, the kids who witnessed the Twin Towers collapse from the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the youngsters who have had their lives turned upside down by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We all know how magical a child’s imagination can be – the wonderful worlds they create in their minds. But there’s a flip side to the joyful creativity that can turn a big cardboard box into a spaceship,” the “Overboard” actress articulated. “A child’s mind exposed to real-world fear, without the ability to properly process it, can go down dark passages leading to nothing less than existential dread.”

Hawn explained that the COVID-19 pandemic has robbed adults and children of critical “support structures that all humans depend on for perspective, encouragement, and love.”

“The COVID era has changed our children’s lives in far more real, tangible ways — social distancing, school closures, daily mask use,” she added. “Kids are afraid of people, spaces, even the air around them – a level of constant fear not seen in decades.”

Hawn cited a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found emergency room visits for suspected suicide attempts by adolescent girls spiked nearly 51% in 2021 and almost 4% for boys. The movie star noted that U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy cautioned in December that the COVID-19 pandemic has had “unprecedented impacts on the mental health of America’s youth and families.” She also linked to a declaration of national emergency in child and adolescent mental health by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children’s Hospital Association.

“As health professionals dedicated to the care of children and adolescents, we have witnessed soaring rates of mental health challenges among children, adolescents, and their families over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbating the situation that existed prior to the pandemic,” the declaration stated in October. “Children and families across our country have experienced enormous adversity and disruption.”

Hawn commented on the alarming concerns about the mental health of America’s youth, “This tells us that as a nation, we have failed our children.””We are not properly funding preventive care and early interventions that normalize the mental struggles every individual has at some level,” the Academy Award-winning actress wrote. “There are everyday tools for mental fitness, just as there are for exercise and healthy eating; we just don’t teach them in any systematic way to our nation’s children.”

Hawn called for “helping children understand the chemical reactions that occur in their mind” when they hear the “latest horrifying statistic or headline on the evening news.” She said that understanding how the brain works will provide children with “the patience and confidence to put things in perspective, rather than fall victim to the emotions of the moment and end up in a helplessness that leads to depression and sometimes self-harm, the kind we are seeing in record numbers among children.”

She warned that the answer is not to allow kids to “be over-diagnosed or shuffled through a system that screens and treats extreme cases after they are too late.”

“We will survive the COVID-19 pandemic, but I’m not sure we can survive an entire generation whose collective trauma sends them hobbling into adulthood. We need more research, more preventative care and more early intervention. And there’s still time,” Hawn concluded. “If we get it right, today’s kids could emerge as the strongest generation America has ever produced.”

Hawn also made headlines this week when she appeared on “The Megyn Kelly Show” and proclaimed that Hollywood celebrities need to entertain the public no matter what political affiliations they have. “I stay in my lane,” Hawn declared when it comes to spouting political opinions.

Boston hospital takes dying patient off heart transplant list because he’s unvaccinated


Reported by PHIL SHIVER | January 25, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/hospital-takes-unvaccinated-man-off-heart-transplant-list/

The family of a patient who is fighting for his life is speaking out after a Boston hospital removed him from its heart transplant list because he is unvaccinated against COVID-19.

David Ferguson told WBZ-TV this week that his 31-year-old son DJ Ferguson’s heart has deteriorated to the point that it will no longer work on its own. Thankfully, he was first in line to receive a heart transplant. Yet because of his unvaccinated status, the hospital ruled that he was no longer eligible for the transplant.

“My son has gone to the edge of death to stick to his guns, and he’s been pushed to the limit,” Ferguson told the outlet, adding that his son simply won’t get the shot. “It’s kind of against his basic principles, he doesn’t believe in it. It’s a policy they are enforcing and so because he won’t get the shot, they took him off the list of a heart transplant.”

In a statement, Brigham and Women’s Hospital confirmed its decision to remove Ferguson from the list, saying, “Like many other transplant programs in the United States — the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors required for transplant candidates in the Mass General Brigham system in order to create both the best chance for a successful operation and also the patient’s survival after transplantation.”

Man Can’t Get Heart Transplant Because He’s Not Vaccinated Against COVID www.youtube.com

Woman says she came down with cough, conjunctivitis after assisting at crash site with 100 CDC quarantine center-bound monkeys


Reported by SARAH TAYLOR | January 25, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/woman-says-she-came-down-with-cough-conjunctivitis-after-assisting-at-crash-site-with-100-cdc-quarantine-center-bound-monkeys/

The driver who stopped to assist when she saw a wrecked truck carrying 100 lab monkeys says that she now has conjunctivitis and a cough after one of the long-tailed macaques hissed in her face. Michelle Fallon of Danville, Pennsylvania, said that she was driving down a Pennsylvania highway on Saturday morning when she saw a truck in front of her crash and dump its cargo, the Daily Mail reported on Tuesday. The cargo? One hundred lab monkeys en route to a Florida lab for testing.

Fallon told PA Homepage that she immediately pulled off the road to offer assistance to the driver. She got out of her car and walked toward the accident, believing that there were cats inside the crates.

“I was close to the monkeys, I touched the crates, I walked through their feces, so I was very close,” she said. “So, I called (a helpline) to inquire, you know, was I safe? Because the monkey did hiss at me and there was feces around, and I did have an open cut, they just want to be precautious.”

Fallon said that the day after the accident, she developed a cough and pinkeye, which drove her to the emergency room for treatment. Upon arrival, Fallon recounted her incident with the monkeys, which prompted doctors to administer a series of rabies shots and antiviral drugs out of an abundance of caution. The Daily Mail reported that Fallon added that she was also being monitored for monkey herpes virus B.

“What a day!” she said in a Facebook post obtained by the outlet. “What a day! I tried to help out at an accident and was told there were cats in the crates. So, I went over to pet them only to find out they were monkeys. Then I noticed that there was three in each, with some completely broken, so I knew four had got away.”

She continued, “I came home to go to bed, and my aunt ran into a news crew, and she found out not to get too close to the monkey. Well, I tried to pet one. I touched the crates and walked in poop. I was told meet the police at the scene to talk about exposure. … I spoke with the police and a woman from the CDC I am getting a letter and I’m very low risk for I don’t know what yet. But my symptoms are covid symptoms. Like seriously. A day from hell!”

According to the report, all monkeys — which had just arrived in the U.S. from Mauritius that same day — that were said to have escaped at the accident’s onset have been recovered. Authorities immediately issued a statement telling area residents to avoid engaging with the monkeys, which were headed to a CDC-approved quarantine facility.

Rochelle Walensky says CDC is ‘pivoting’ the language of what it means to be fully vaccinated


Reported by PAUL SACCA | January 22, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/rochelle-walensky-says-cdc-is-pivoting-the-language-of-what-it-means-to-be-fully-vaccinated-2656460867.html/

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said the health agency is pivoting on the CDC’s language of what it means to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

“And what we really are working to do is pivot the language to make sure that everybody is as up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines as they personally could be, should be, based on when they got their last vaccine,” Walensky said during Friday’s press briefing from the White House COVID-19 response team.

“So, importantly, right now, we’re pivoting our language,” Walensky added. “We really want to make sure people are up to date.”

Walensky defined “up to date” as: “That means if you recently got your second dose, you’re not eligible for a booster, you’re up to date. If you are eligible for a booster and you haven’t gotten it, you’re not up to date and you need to get your booster in order to be up to date.”

Only weeks ago, Walensky said the CDC is not changing the definition of what it means to be fully vaccinated.

“So, individuals are considered fully vaccinated against COVID-19 if they’ve received their primary series,” Walensky said during a Jan. 5 White House press conference. “That definition is not changing.”

“But consistent with how public health has historically viewed or even talked about how we recommend vaccines, we are now recommending that individuals stay up to date with additional doses that they are eligible for,” the CDC director added.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1002033887191548

According to the CDC website, an individual is “up to date” after two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson. The CDC does not indicate a booster is required to be fully vaccinated. Last month, Dr. Anthony Fauci said the definition of what is considered “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19 will inevitably change to include booster shots.

“It’s gonna be a matter of when, not if,” the definition changes, Fauci said during a CNN interview.

“But when you’re talking about optimal protection, there’s no doubt now from the data we have, that to be optimally protected you have to get a third shot of an mRNA and a second shot of a J&J,” Fauci said during an interview with MSNBC in December.

“The discussion of whether or not the definition of fully vaccinated should include that third shot boost is certainly ongoing and it is certainly on the table,” explained the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden. “I would not be surprised at all if within a reasonable period of time that changes. But right now, we’re sticking with the original definition of fully vaccinated.”

New York State Gov. Kathy Hochul also proclaimed that she intends to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include booster shots.

“At some point, we have to determine that fully vaccinated means boosted as well,” Hochul said last month. “And we’ll give people a sufficient timeframe to make that happen.”

Suicide is now a public health epidemic, not a personal problem


Reported By Hedieh Mirahmadi, Exclusive Columnist | Thursday, January 20, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/suicide-is-now-a-public-health-epidemic-not-a-personal-problem.html/

suicide depression
Unsplash/ Just Jack

The Surgeon General recently reported that our teenagers are more at risk of suicide since the pandemic than ever before in our nation’s history. Their feelings of isolation, uncertainties about the future, substance abuse, and other problems occurring in the home have triggered soaring rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts nationwide. Young people across every socio-economic class, race, and ethnicity are affected, with 6,600 teenagers committing suicide in 2020 alone. Our children are dealing with more uncertainty than any other generation in history. The average American youth will have seen close to 200,000 violent acts on some form of media by the time they turn eighteen, and most no longer live in two-parent households that provide emotional support. Consequently, many have an over-dependence on their peers, which ends up creating greater emotional instability.

During a recent podcast episode, my husband I were surprised to learn how many people in the church were affected by the horrible tragedy of suicide. Out of a dozen live listeners, five of them had an immediate family member who either attempted or committed suicide – including myself. My husband shared how in his early twenties, he placed a loaded gun inside his mouth, having lost the will to live. Interestingly, a commercial on TV about starving kids in Africa ultimately shocked him back into the reality that his life was worth living. For another, her son’s girlfriend committed suicide right before Christmas while pregnant with his child. It shook the family to their core, but their faith in God is helping them heal. 

For myself, I deal with the powerlessness that comes from being the parent of a child who struggles with mental illness and thoughts of suicide. My faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and knowing my daughter has also accepted Christ comforts me and allows me to surrender the burden to Him. Yet, I can’t help but face the very real notion that God is ultimately in control and none of us know what life may have in store. Kay Warren, whose son took his own life in 2013, eloquently expressed the paradox in this way:

“My hope was pretty much centered around what could happen here. Rather than taking the longer view, sometimes things don’t happen the way we want them to here on Earth…Yet I can be safe and secure and even joyful with that confidence of what God is doing, ultimately.”

When anxiety about ourselves or our loved ones builds up inside, the real danger is turning away from the Lord and towards ourselves. Whether it’s money, social distancing, escapism in substance abuse, anger, or resentment against the “other,” none of these offer a real solution to the problem. In the midst of being threatened, we must realize God is our refuge. The pressure should lead us to run towards God for rest and peace rather than running away.

The threats we all face are real. People are losing their jobs, loved ones are dying, and our country is deeply divided along political lines. Suicide is now a public health epidemic, not a personal problem. We cannot treat it like something that just happens and cannot be prevented. Whether we’re health care providers, teachers, friends, or family members, we need to change our attitude towards the issue if we hope to reverse this alarming trend.

In fact, the existence of a national mental health crisis is the one issue that receives overwhelming bipartisan support. Instead of capitalizing on it, this Administration again misses the mark and decides to tackle suicide in a deeply contentious approach. Rather than creating programs to address the root causes of suicide, like improving access to mental health services or eliminating the erratic COVID restrictions, the White House strategy focuses on reducing suicide through better gun control. It is as if our government is tone-deaf, ignoring the disturbing trends in self-harm, feelings of hopelessness, and trauma from the COVID hysteria happening in cities across America. One expert refers to it as “Mask induced psychosis.” No one disputes the statistics that guns are the most common method of suicide, but shouldn’t our focus be on reducing the stressors that lead people to choose a weapon in the first place?

The past couple of years of lockdowns, financial chaos, martial pressure, and trauma for our children has taken a toll on all of us. Regardless of what the government may or may not do, the church should be a place of hope and acceptance. Survivors can be overwhelmed by feelings of anger and guilt because everyone seems to think they could’ve prevented it somehow. Yet, the reality is suicide is impossible to predict.

Having faith in the Lord does not mean we can always handle life’s unpredictability. Let us reduce the stigma of needing help for ourselves and our loved ones so we can pray and support one another. We need to provide resources for those struggling with mental illness so they do not face their demons alone.

“The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness” (Lamentations 3:22-23).

https://player.edifi.app/embed/index.html#/channels/Living-Fearless-Devotional/26358

Hedieh Mirahmadi was a devout Muslim for two decades working in the field of national security before she experienced the redemptive power of Jesus Christ and has a new passion for sharing the Gospel.  She dedicates herself full-time to Resurrect Ministry, an online resource that harnesses the power of the Internet to make salvation through Christ available to people of all nations, and her daily podcast LivingFearlessDevotional.com.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The danger of the momentum behind N95 respirators


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | January 20, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-danger-of-the-momentum-behind-n95-respirators/

Were the cloth masks just for psychological training purposes to get us to the main course of obsequious servitude to the gods of Fauci?

It took nearly two years, but the “public health experts” are finally admitting what industrial hygienists knew from day one: Masks do not work against airborne viruses. Yet rather than immediately remove these draconian restrictions – including masking 2-year-olds on airplanes and schoolchildren for hours on end in many states – they are seamlessly gliding into the new position of promoting N95 respirators. Following the inveterate patterns of the past two years, they use the failure of their first position to their advantage to further panic people into blindly following their next recommendation … until that becomes a mandate as well.

On Jan. 2, former FDA administrator Scott Gottlieb, the media’s go-to “expert” on all things pandemic, admitted what we all knew since 2020 but that got us banned from social media for saying so. “Cloth masks aren’t going to provide a lot of protection, that’s the bottom line,” said Gottlieb on Meet the Press. “This is an airborne illness. We now understand that, and a cloth mask is not going to protect you from a virus that spreads through airborne transmission.”

Well, some of us knew that early on in the pandemic.

Two days later, the New York Times ran an article telling people where to get N95s, states began mailing out N95 variations, and the CDC put out a new message, which between the lines, gives the impression that if you are not wearing an N95, you don’t really have protection. The Biden administration plans to distribute millions of them to local pharmacies. But is there really any evidence that the same people who were wrong about masks are now suddenly connected to God’s word when it comes to respirators? And who says it is safe for people to wear something like that for long periods of time, which until now required rigorous testing, medical exams, and training?

Yes, N95s, unlike masks, actually meet the standard for PPE in hazardous environments. But for which sort of hazard? Not an airborne respiratory virus. Stephen Petty, a certified industrial hygienist and hazardous exposure expert, sent me a copy of an N95 usage label made by 3M that he enlarged into an infographic. It turns out the company’s own disclosure blows up the myth of using an N95 for viral protection.

The label confirms what everyone understood prior to the mask mania of COVID: Neither masks nor N95 respirators can stop aerosols, certainly not viral ones, which are much smaller than bacteria. What’s truly revealing is that the label recommends against relying on them for source protection even against asbestos particles, which are on average 5 microns – 50 times larger than SARS-CoV-2 virions.

A large randomized controlled trial published just months before the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 — before masking became a political and social control tool — showed no benefit to N95s over surgical masks in terms of protection against the flu. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” concluded the authors of the large trial, published in JAMA on Sept. 3, 2019.

Also, remember, that most people are not wearing sealed N95s. They wear the respirators loosely on their faces as they do surgical masks. Also, many of them are the Chinese version KN95s. Even the CDC admits, “About 60% of KN95 respirators NIOSH evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 did not meet the requirements that they intended to meet.”

The same study (Shah et.al.) that found just 10% and 12% reduction in aerosols for cloth and blue surgical masks respectively, actually found that KN95s worn improperly with 3mm gaps between the face and the respirator, as most people wear them, only offer 3.4% filtration efficiency – less than the cloth masks.

And remember, these studies are all conducted in labs, not in the real world, where no study has shown a statistically significant benefit to masks, and the basic epidemiological data has disproven the efficacy for two years.

Take Austria, for example, where they have been mandating N95 respirators in stores. Can you spot the efficacy?

The notion that children can properly wear a form-fitted N95 that effectively seals is both absurd and dangerous. And anything else will absolutely not work. There’s clearly an inverse relationship between safety and efficacy. The only thing that might possibly work will cause danger, which is why the federal government has long mandated very specific criteria for wearing respirators.

“While some misrepresent N95s as masks, they are actually respirators and will require one to follow the OSHA requirements for respirators under the Respiratory Protection Standard (RPS) 29 CFR 1910.134 (e.g., written program, medical clearance, initial fit testing, annual fit testing, no facial hair, worker training),” said Petty in an interview with TheBlaze. Stephen Petty has served as an expert witness in hundreds of industrial hazardous exposure court cases and now serves as a witness for those bringing lawsuits against irresponsible mask mandates. Here is a list of OSHA requirements, per Petty’s presentation, that would have to be met for usage of N95 respirators:

There’s a good reason why these requirements were put in place by OSHA. To the extent one actually properly seals an N95 respirator to the face (which few will do), it causes significant medical concerns. Here are some findings from an extremely exhaustive qualitative and substantive evaluation of 65 mask studies by German researchers:

In nine of the 11 scientific papers (82%), we found a combined onset of N95 respiratory protection and carbon dioxide rise when wearing a mask. We found a similar result for the decrease in oxygen saturation and respiratory impairment with synchronous evidence in six of the nine relevant studies (67%). N95 masks were associated with headaches in six of the 10 studies (60%). For oxygen deprivation under N95 respiratory protectors, we found a common occurrence in eight of 11 primary studies (72%).

Thus, to the extent anyone could achieve a meaningful degree of efficacy against virus particles with a respirator – something yet to be proven – it will come at a terrible cost. Even with regular masks, before our public health officials lost their minds (and hearts), it was understood that they are not harm-free. Here is a write-up from the Missoula, Montana, city health department recommending against the use of masks during wildfire season in Montana:

Masks are uncomfortable (they are more comfortable when they are leaky – but then they do not provide protection). They increase resistance to airflow. This may make breathing more difficult and lead to physiological stress, such as increased respiratory and heart rates. Masks can also contribute to heat stress. Because of this, mask use by those with cardiac and respiratory diseases can be dangerous, and should only be done under a doctor’s supervision. Even healthy adults may find that the increased effort required for breathing makes it uncomfortable to wear a mask for more than short periods of time. Breathing resistance increases with respirator efficiency.

The Montana Department of Health emphatically writes in bolded letters that N95s that seal are the only things that might help against smoke particles (which are around 1 micron, 10 times larger than most viral virions), but warns of health risks. “Note that respirator masks should be a last resort, as they are difficult to fit correctly, decrease oxygen intake, are hot, and can easily leak when worn improperly.” They go on to add, “People who are not physically fit may experience difficulty going about daily tasks due to reduced oxygen intake. It is more important to have enough oxygen than to have clean air – if you are using a respirator and feel faint, nauseous, or have trouble breathing, take the mask off.”

On the Washington Department of Health’s website guidance for wildfires, it is made clear that “masks are not approved for children” and that “it is harder to breathe through a mask, so take breaks often if you work outside.” The Sacramento County Department of Health Services states, “N95 respirator can make it more difficult for the wearer to breathe due to carbon dioxide buildup, which reduces the intake of oxygen, increased breathing rates, and heart rates.”

Just a year ago, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky swatted down the idea of wearing N95s. “They’re very hard to breathe in when you wear them properly,” Walensky said. “They’re very hard to tolerate when you wear them for long periods of time.”

Thus, whether we are talking about masks or N95s, it’s quite evident that they are either unsafe or ineffective. They can often be both unsafe and ineffective, but they can never be effective without being unsafe, unless worn by the right person with the right training in limited environments for short periods of time.

And this is just the scope of physical harm. One speech therapist in Palm Beach County is seeing a 364% increase in referrals from pediatricians for babies and toddlers with speech delays. “It’s very important that kids do see your face to learn, so they’re watching your mouth,” said a clinic director and speech-language pathologist at the Speech and Learning Institute in North Palm Beach.

How our governments can mandate something this immoral and illogical on our bodies indefinitely without due process, evidentiary standards, or a constitutional interest balancing test is astounding. Every state needs a constitutional amendment explicitly banning this from ever happening again. Biden promised 100 days of mask-wearing, but we are now approaching a full year without any end in sight.Just remember, if a government can criminalize our breathing without due process, what can it not do to us without recourse?

Israel Study Finds 4th Booster Shot Ineffective — Moderna and Biotech Stocks Are Cratering


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published January 19, 2022

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/israel-study-finds-4th-booster-shot-ineffective-moderna-biotech-stocks-cratering/

An Israeli study found that the 4th COVID booster shot is ineffective in preventing the disease.
This is horrible news for the Medical Industrial Complex.

Via James Cintolo.

A study out of Sheba Medical Center in Israel has proven that a 4th dose of either Pfizer or Moderna is ineffective against Omicron. Preliminary data was released on Monday 1/17/22 showing high antibody titers but low protection. Here’s an examination of the data, and 3 lessons we can learn from this.

To start, 274 healthcare workers at Sheba Medical Center received a 4th dose. Specifically, 154 received Pfizer, and 120 received Moderna. They were compared with a control group of nearly 6,000 healthcare workers that didn’t receive a booster. Prof. Gili Regev-Yochay, lead researcher commented, “We see an increase in antibodies, higher than after the third dose,” he stated. “However, we see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose”. T elaborate, around the same number of individuals that received 4 doses experienced as many breakthrough infections as those who received 3. That said, there are a few lessons to learn from this.

This may explain the crash in vaccine stocks Moderna and BioTech.

Alex Berenson reported:

The hedge funds have finally realized there will be no fourth shot. And that mRNA technology, erm, still has a few issues to work out. (1 billion people aren’t gonna love hearing that, but too late now. Mistakes were made, stuff happens, amirite?)

Moderna and BioNTech are down 8-10% today, 60% since August. Oh, how I wish I could have shorted them.

Jim Hoft

Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

CDC Says Natural Immunity Outperformed Vaccines Against Delta Strain


Reported by DYLAN HOUSMAN | HEALTHCARE REPORTER | January 19, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/01/19/cdc-natural-immunity-outperforms-vaccination-covid-19-coronavirus/

CDC Says Natural Immunity Outperformed Vaccines Against Delta Strain
(Photo by Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images)

Natural immunity from prior infection granted stronger levels of protection against the Delta variant of COVID-19 than vaccination alone, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in a study released Wednesday. Before Delta became dominant, individuals who had natural immunity were experiencing higher case rates than individuals who were only vaccinated, the study found, but after Delta took hold, those with natural immunity caught COVID-19 less frequently than those who were only vaccinated.

The study examined four categories of people — unvaccinated and vaccinated who survived a previous COVID-19 infection, and unvaccinated and vaccinated who had never been infected — in California and New York between May and November 2021. The highest case rates were among those who had neither been vaccinated or previously infected. The most protection against infection and hospitalization was in those who had both been vaccinated and survived an earlier bout with the virus.

The agency cautioned that the data in question only measured results against the Delta variant and that Omicron may present new challenges that alter the calculus of natural immunity versus vaccination. 

Biden administration officials and some public health experts have repeatedly downplayed the effectiveness of natural immunity against COVID-19, but this study is only the latest to indicate that recovery from prior infection can at least rival, if not surpass, that offered from vaccination alone. Most research has shown that for maximum protection against reinfection or severe illness, those who were previously infected should still get vaccinated.

Many legacy media outlets covered the study by minimizing the finding that natural immunity outperformed vaccines and emphasizing that a combination of both provided the best protection. Headlines from the New York TimesAssociated PressCNN and others claimed that vaccination offers the “best” or “safest” protection according to the study.

In a press call Wednesday, the CDC’s Dr. Benjamin Silk, an epidemiologist that co-authored the study, did not elaborate on the increased protection natural immunity provides and repeated the administration line that every American should get vaccinated.

Doctor who quit her job after being suspended for promoting ivermectin, criticizing mandates sues Houston Methodist Hospital for COVID data, financial reports


Reported by SARAH TAYLOR | January 19, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/doctor-suspended-for-promoting-ivermectin-sues-houston-methodist-hospital-covid-data-financial-reports/

Dr. Mary Bowden, who was previously suspended from Houston Methodist Hospital for spreading what the hospital said was “misinformation” surrounding COVID-19 and who later quit her job there, is suing the hospital, the Texan reported. Bowden, a private-practice otolaryngologist, promoted ivermectin as a viable COVID-19 treatment in 2020 — a move with which her employers took grave issue.

She announced the lawsuit on Monday and in a press conference said that she is demanding data from the hospital on the effects of COVID-19 vaccines along with financial reports. During the conference announcing the pending litigation, Bowden said, “Medical freedom has been hijacked by hospitals, big pharma, insurance companies, and the federal agencies.” Bowden added that she and investigative reporter Wayne Dolcefino requested the information contained in the lawsuit in November and December, but the hospital reportedly did not respond.

The outlet reported that the suit — which was filed in state district court on Monday — is requesting “financial documents detailing all revenue generated at the hospital throughout he COVID-19 vaccination program, including details about reimbursements or payments from government, insurance companies, and patients.” The suit is also requesting information about “any financial arrangements with pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 treatments.”

Bowden’s suit also states that the hospital should make public the number of all recently admitted COVID-19 patients who were fully vaccinated and how many employees are experiencing breakthrough infections.

Bowden also pointed to the hospital’s 2019’s assets — which reportedly totaled approximately $4 billion — and said that the public is entitled to know how those assets have increased after 2019 and amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

“I want to make this clear,” she said during the conference. “I’m not seeking any financial gains from this or personal gain, I’m simply seeking the truth, which we all deserve.”

Attorney Steve Mitby, who is representing Bowen, said that he fully expects that he and his client will receive the records.

“It’s state law,” he insisted.

Bowden added, “We all know that early COVID treatment works, it saves lives, and I’m not going to be silenced, intimidated, or bullied by Houston Methodist, Houston Chronicle, or anyone else who wants to target physicians that question the narrative.”

In November, Mitby said that Bowden had never peddled disinformation, as a Stanford University-trained physician who has had vast experience in treating coronavirus patients.

“She is helping her patients, through a combination of monoclonal antibodies and other drugs, to recover from COVID. Dr. Bowden’s proactive treatment has saved lives and prevented hospitalizations,” he said at the time. “Dr. Bowden also is not anti-vaccine as she has been falsely portrayed. Dr. Bowden has opposed vaccine mandates, especially when required by the government. That is not the same as opposing vaccines.”

A Houston Methodist spokesperson declined to comment when approached by the Texan for its report.

Stunning new data shows risk of death from Omicron is 91% lower than Delta, CDC-funded study says


Reported by PAUL SACCA | January 13, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/omicron-variant-compared-delta-cdc-study/

The Omicron variant of COVID-19 is far milder than Delta, according to a new study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The eye-opening data revealed that those infected with the Omicron variant are 91% less likely to die than those who are infected than the Delta strain.

The clinical study was conducted by Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care system – which operates 138 medical offices and 13 medical centers, plus has an affiliation with 37 community hospitals in Southern California. The study analyzed 52,297 Omicron cases and 16,982 Delta cases in Southern California between Nov. 30, 2021, and Jan. 1, 2022.

The study found that those infected with the Omicron variant were 53% less likely to have symptomatic hospitalization, had 74% less chance of being administered to the intensive care unit, and had a 91% lower risk of death compared to individuals with the Delta variant. Only one person of the more than 52,000 people with Omicron died, versus 14 deaths in the 16,982 with Delta. In addition, there were zero patients with Omicron who required mechanical ventilation, according to the research.

“Hospital admissions occurred among 235 (0.5%) and 222 (1.3%) of cases with Omicron and Delta variant infections, respectively,” the authors of the study said.

Patients infected with Omicron had a median duration of hospital stay of three fewer days than those with Delta.

“During a period with mixed Delta and Omicron variant circulation, SARS-CoV-2 infections with presumed Omicron variant infection were associated with substantially reduced risk of severe clinical endpoints and shorter durations of hospital stay,” the authors of the study concluded.

The CDC-funded study – which has not yet been peer-reviewed – did not reveal the ages of those who died or their vaccination status. On Wednesday, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky shared the study on Twitter.

Despite the promising news, Walensky tempered the optimism by saying, “While less severe, #Omicron is much more transmissible & we are seeing the unprecedented impact. Over 1M cases in a day, 99% of counties with high transmission & strained healthcare systems. Protect against #COVID19: get vaccinated + boosted, wear a mask & stay home if sick.”

While speaking at a White House Covid-19 Response Team briefing on Wednesday, Walensky said public health officials will monitor “deaths over the next several weeks to see the impact of Omicron on mortality.”

“Given the sheer number of cases, we may see deaths from Omicron, but I suspect the deaths we’re seeing now are still from Delta,” the CDC head revealed.

The Omicron strain became the dominant variant in mid-December and now accounts for an estimated 98.3% of all new cases, according to CDC data. There were 829,209 cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. on Jan. 12 compared to 90,024 cases on Dec. 12.

On Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci acknowledged how transmissible the Omicron variant is and said nearly everyone will contract it.

“Omicron, with its extraordinary, unprecedented degree of efficiency of transmissibility, will ultimately find just about everybody,” Fauci told J. Stephen Morrison – senior vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Those who have been vaccinated … and boosted would get exposed. Some, maybe a lot of them, will get infected but will very likely, with some exceptions, do reasonably well in the sense of not having hospitalization and death.”

Also on Tuesday, U.S. Food and Drug Administration acting commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock said that “most people are going to get COVID.”

“I think it’s hard to process what’s actually happening right now, which is: Most people are going to get COVID,” Woodcock said at a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing. “And what we need to do is make sure the hospitals can still function, transportation, you know, other essential services are not disrupted while this happens.”

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Biden’s Vaccine Mandates


Reported by Katie Pavlich@KatiePavlich | Posted: Jan 13, 2022

Read more at https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/13/breaking-scotus-n2601816/

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Biden's Vaccine Mandates

Source: (AP Photo/LM Otero)

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to strike down President Joe Biden’s Wuhan coronavirus vaccine mandate for private businesses. Justices upheld his executive order requiring vaccination for healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding. 

The ruling on vaccine requirements for private businesses with more than 100 employees was decided 6-3. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented. 

“The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, recently enacted a vaccine mandate for much of the Nation’s work force. The mandate, which employers must enforce, applies to roughly 84 million workers, covering virtually all employers with at least 100 employees. It requires that covered workers receive a COVID–19 vaccine, and it pre-empts contrary state laws. The only exception is for workers who obtain a medical test each week at their own expense and on their own time, and also wear a mask each workday,” the opinion states. “OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here. Many States, businesses, and nonprofit organizations challenged OSHA’s rule in Courts of Appeals across the country.”

“The Fifth Circuit initially entered a stay. But when the cases were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, that court lifted the stay and allowed OSHA’s rule to take effect. Applicants now seek emergency relief from this Court, arguing that OSHA’s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful. Agreeing that applicants are likely to prevail, we grant their applications and stay the rule,” the opinion continues. 

Further, the Justices pointed out the risk from Wuhan coronavirus exists outside of the work place and therefore, limits OSHA’s regulatory power. 

“COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the ruling states.

The separate ruling on vaccine requirements for healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid was decided 5-4. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito dissented. 

“The Government has not made a strong showing that this agglomeration of statutes authorizes any such rule,” Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. “The Government proposes to find virtually unlimited vaccination power, over millions of healthcare workers, in definitional provisions, a saving clause, and a provision regarding long-term care facilities’ sanitation procedures. The Government has not explained why Congress would have used these ancillary provisions to house what can only be characterized as a ‘fundamental detail’ of the statutory scheme. Had Congress wanted to grant CMS power to impose a vaccine man- date across all facility types, it would have done what it has done elsewhere—specifically authorize one. “

This post has been updated with additional information. 

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Why did Scotland experience a spike in infant deaths?


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | January 11, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-why-did-scotland-experience-a-spike-in-infant-deaths/

One of the most durable public health trajectories over the past 50 years has been the consistent decline in infant mortality in countries with first-world health care. Yet in September, Scotland experienced such a spike at least in neonatal deaths that it rivaled levels not seen since the 1980s. What on earth would cause such a sudden bizarre spike? Nobody seems to have the answer — nor do they want to study all of the potential culprits.

In September, Public Health Scotland announced that 21 newborns had died that month, triggering an investigation because the numbers rose above an upper control limit for the first time in four years. According to the Herald Scotland, “the figure for September – at 4.9 per 1000 live births – is on a par with levels that were last typically seen in the late 1980s.”

As you can see from the Public Health Scotland (PHS) data, the upper control limit was breached in September, which PHS believes “indicates there is a higher likelihood that there are factors beyond random variation that may have contributed to the number of deaths that occurred.” After all, the five-year average appears to be about 2.2 per 1,000 live births, so September’s numbers are more than double the average.

Although the incidents of neonatal death tend to fluctuate every other month, the levels appear to be elevated, on average, without the usual intermittent dips below the baseline throughout the entire year of 2021. This is astounding given how much the general trend of infant mortality has declined since the 1980s.

Based on media reports, it appears that the entirety of the public health investigation revolved around whether COVID itself was the culprit of the unusual number of neonatal deaths. The problem is that we didn’t see any of this death in the first year of the pandemic. Also, it was only infants who seemed to experience a sharp increase in death, the least likely cohort to be affected by the pandemic.

In December, PHS announced that based on preliminary findings, it has no evidence that COVID was the culprit. “There is no information at this stage to suggest that any of the neonatal deaths in September 2021 were due to Covid-19 infection of the baby,” said PHS, according to the BBC. “Likewise, preliminary review does not indicate that maternal Covid-19 infection played a role in these events.”

Well, that’s pretty obvious, but what is the culprit for such an unusual trend?

“Preliminary information on prematurity suggests that the number of babies born at less than 32 weeks gestation in September 2021 was at the upper end of monthly numbers seen in 2021 to date. This may contribute to the neonatal mortality rate, as prematurity is associated with an increased risk of neonatal death.”

But why would that cause neonatal deaths not seen since the 1980s, and why would there be more prematurely born babies?

With so many other vaccine safety signals being seen, there is no desire to even look at the possibility that an experimental shot that was not studied in pregnant women – yet was widely distributed to them – had something to do with it. We have no idea what caused this spike, but here’s why any logical person would commence an inquiry around the shots.

  • We know that this shot has caused menstrual irregularities like we’ve never seen before. A University of Chicago survey sought to recruit 500 women with menstrual irregularities in order to study the cause and effect, and instead, researchers got 140,000 submissions. One study found that 42% of women experienced heavier bleeding, while only 44% reported no changes to their menstrual cycles. A whopping 66% of post-menopausal women experienced breakthrough bleeding. This all goes to show how the 20,000 menstrual irregularities reported in VAERS are a joke because the system only captures a fraction of the adverse events.
  • As of Dec. 31, there were 3,511 miscarriages reported to VAERS. Remember, this is something that is extremely hard to pin on the vaccine, so the fact that so many felt they could report it demonstrates there is likely a woeful underreporting rate. Here is the presentation from Open VAERS, which shows the number of reported miscarriages peaking around August/September in the United States.

Does any of this mean we can conclusively say the shots are causing reproductive issues? No. But there certainly are a lot of safety signals that should be followed up on rather than dismissed. I asked Dr. James Thorp, a Florida-based OB/GYN and maternal-fetal medicine specialist with over 42 years of experience, if he was concerned about these signals. “To the extent of a broad statement that menstrual irregularities are usually minor issues is a true statement,” he said. “However, in the context of the massive increase in menstrual irregularities associated with the vaccine, there are very serious potential implications. It supports the cumulative evidence that the jabs’ lipid nanoparticles concentrate in the ovaries and affect/infect/expose ALL ovum to the LNP and cargo mRNA [and] is extremely serious.”

Thorp notes that the LNPs can be inflammatory and they likely penetrate every area of the body and, by extension, the fetus. “The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) easily pass through all the natural barriers that God created in the human body. LNPs are extremely small spherical particles with an outer lipophilic (fat-soluble) membrane containing the mRNA cargo. There may be billions of LNPs in the COVID-19 jab that do not remain in the deltoid muscle; they are readily dispersed throughout ALL bodily tissues, easily pass through the maternal blood-brain barrier, the placental barrier, and the fetal blood-brain barrier.”

Thorp observes that whereas men continuously make more sperm throughout their lives, women have a finite number of eggs, which means that “every single one is exposed to the LNPs for life.”

Previous studies have shown nanoparticles to be a source of fetal inflammation. “Nobody knows the potentially catastrophic results of this,” warns Thorp. “In my area of expertise of maternal-fetal medicine, we have researched for decades on the catastrophic effect of inflammatory processes that may occur in the fetus and may result in miscarriage, fetal malformation, fetal death, neonatal death, infant death, permanent major newborn damage, permanent major autoimmune damage, permanent cognitive damage, permanent impairment of the immune health, and unleashing of infections and cancers.”

Just how concerning is the VAERS data so far? Dr. Thorp created a chart to compare the rate of miscarriages and fetal deaths (defined together as “pregnancy loss”) per month reported to the system for the COVID shots as compared to all other shots.

As you can see, we have seen 50 times the rate of reporting per month of miscarriages for this vaccine than the other vaccines put together. Thorp mentioned on my show that lest people think he opposes vaccines, he particularly recommends the flu and pertussis vaccines to his pregnant patients. You can see the rate of reporting for pregnancy loss among those shots is very low.

Now look at the rate of fetal malformations that have been reported to VAERS for COVID vaccines as compared to others.

Thorp requested that anyone who had the jab pushed on her in her pregnancy and believes she has suffered adverse effects in herself, her pregnancy, or her newborn to please contact him at jathorp@bellsouth.net.

Given that Scotland seemed to have experienced the most obvious safety alarm signal, why aren’t they looking into any of this? Well, in the richest of ironies, Glasgow Royal Fertility Clinic, one of the top fertility clinics in Scotland, has announced it will not serve any women without the shot. Why do they so badly not want a control group from which to study?

FOUND IN MY IN-BOX


January 11, 2022

Massive 145-Country Study Shows Sharp INCREASE of Transmission and DEATH After Introduction of COVID Vaccines


Reported By Julian Conradson | Published January 9, 2022

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/massive-145-country-study-shows-sharp-increase-transmission-death-introduction-covid-vaccines/

Instead of bringing an end to this pandemic as promised, the widespread rollout of the experimental vaccines has actually caused a sharp increase in Covid-19 cases and deaths across the world, according to a recently published preprint study that looked at data from the 145 of the most vaccinated countries in the world. The 99-page study titled Worldwide Bayesian Causal Impact Analysis of Vaccine Administration on Deaths and Cases Associated with COVID-19: A BigData Analysis of 145 Countries” found that in the US specifically, the jab has caused a whopping 38% more Covid cases per million – and an even more astonishing 31% increase in deaths per million.

In total, researchers found that almost 90% (89.84%) of the 145 countries experienced this negative effect from the vaccines after they were made available.

From the study:

“Results indicate that the treatment (vaccine administration) has a strong and statistically significant propensity to causally increase the values in either y1 [variable chosen for deaths per million] or y2 [variable chosen for cases per million] over and above what would have been expected with no treatment.

y1 showed an increase/decrease ratio of (+115/-13), which means 89.84% of statistically significant countries showed an increase in total deaths per million associated with COVID-19 due directly to the causal impact of treatment initiation [vaccines].

y2 showed an increase/decrease ratio of (+105/-16) which means 86.78% of statistically significant countries showed an increase in total cases per million of COVID-19 due directly to the causal impact of treatment initiation.”

Researchers performed a causal analysis comparing both pre- and post-treatment periods to come up with the difference in cases and deaths since the implementation of the vaccine by analyzing publicly available COVID-19 data to determine the effect of their widespread rollout. After eliminating all results from countries with low vaccination rates or incomplete data, there were 128 countries with sufficient data on deaths (y1) and 103 countries to examine total cases (y2), which comprised a total of 145 unique countries.

Perhaps the most telling part of the study’s results is that the countries which recorded the fewest Covid deaths in 2020 were the ones to experience the largest increases in cases and deaths once the vaccine was introduced, with some of them seeing increases as high as over a thousand percent.

“Countries with few COVID-19 deaths in the year 2020 appear to have fared the worst of all countries after vaccine administration (e.g Thailand, Vietnam, Mongolia, Taiwan, Seychelles, Cambodia, etc.).

The causal impact results from vaccine administration seen in these countries [is] hundreds or thousands of percentage increases in total deaths and cases per million.

we can be most statistically confident in due to the direct increase of COVID-19 associated deaths and cases after vaccine administration, where prior to vaccine administration there were few or none.”

In the study’s conclusion, researchers warned that the substantial increase in deaths and cases should be “highly worrisome” for the policymakers around the world who have been promoting the experimental vaccines as the “key to gain back our freedoms.”

“The statistically significant and overwhelmingly positive causal impact after vaccine deployment on the dependent variables total deaths and total cases per million should be highly worrisome for policy makers. They indicate a marked increase in both COVID-19 related cases and death due directly to a vaccine deployment that was originally sold to the public as the ‘key to gain back our freedoms.’ The effect of vaccines on total cases per million and its low positive association with total vaccinations per hundred signifies a limited impact of vaccines on lowering COVID-19 associated cases.

These results should encourage local policy makers to make policy decisions based on data, not narrative, and based on local conditions, not global or national mandates. These results should also encourage policy makers to begin looking for other avenues out of the pandemic aside from mass vaccination campaigns.”

In short, this is just the latest evidence that we have been lied to throughout the entire manufactured pandemic.

These experimental, rushed vaccines have done nothing but make things worse and have only spurred the transmission of new variants that have prevented the world from putting this virus in the rearview mirror.

Several studies have come to similar conclusions as this one, with two recently coming out that confirmed essentially the same thing – these vaccines actually are causing more illness than they prevent.

And that’s just referring to Covid illness, it’s to say nothing of the substantial increase of other ailments and life-threatening conditions that have been sweeping the country.

Hospitals are currently ‘overwhelmed’ with patients that are ‘sicker than ever,’ and it’s not Covid.

After FDA says it can release COVID-19 vaccine data by 2097, federal judge orders all info to be shared this year


Reported by PAUL SACCA | January 07, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/fda-vaccine-data-release-judge/

The Food and Drug Administration was told that it can’t take 75 years to release COVID-19 vaccine data. On Thursday, a federal judge in Texas ordered the FDA to greatly increase the number of documents it releases each month that pertain to the agency’s approval process for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency launched a Freedom of Information Act suit against the FDA in August. The international group consists of “public health professionals, medical professionals, scientists, and journalists,” including academics and medical experts from Yale, Harvard Medical School, and UCLA.

The nonprofit organization “exists solely to obtain and disseminate the data relied upon by the FDA to license COVID-19 vaccines” and “takes no position on the data other than that it should be made publicly available to allow independent experts to conduct their own review and analyses.”

The FOIA request asked the FDA to expedite the release of roughly 450,000 pages of material regarding the COVID-19 vaccine that was used by the health agency during the process of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine licensing approval. The FDA said it could only release 12,000 pages by the end of January and a “minimum” of 500 pages a month thereafter – which means it could be the year 2097 before all of the documents are made public. The FDA blamed staffing issues as the reason for the slow pace of the release of the documents, claiming that it only has 10 employees to review FOIA requests.

“It is important for the FDA to perform a careful line-by-line, word-by-word review of all responsive records before producing them in response to a FOIA request,” Suzann Burk – who heads the FDA’s Division of Disclosure and Oversight Management – said in a declaration filed with the court.

Burk noted that it takes a worker eight minutes per page to perform a close review of the documents.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth ordered the FDA to significantly increase the output of the data release.

“The Court concludes that this FOIA request is of paramount public importance,” Pittman – who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump in 2019 — declared.

In his four-page order, Pittman quoted a statement that James Madison wrote in a letter to W.T. Barry in 1822, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

Pittman also cited a 1962 quote from former President John F. Kennedy, “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

Pittman ordered the FDA to produce 55,000 pages every 30 days, “with the first production being due on or before March 1, 2022, until production is complete.” This forces the FDA to release all of the Pfizer vaccine data by the end of the summer instead of by 2097.

Attorney Aaron Siri – who represents Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency – reacted to the federal judge’s decision.

“This is a great win for transparency and removes one of the strangleholds federal ‘health’ authorities have had on the data needed for independent scientists to offer solutions and address serious issues with the current vaccine program – issues which include waning immunity, variants evading vaccine immunity, and, as the CDC has confirmed, that the vaccines do not prevent transmission,” Siri wrote on his Substack account.

“No person should ever be coerced to engage in an unwanted medical procedure,” he added. “And while it is bad enough the government violated this basic liberty right by mandating the Covid-19 vaccine, the government also wanted to hide the data by waiting to fully produce what it relied upon to license this product until almost every American alive today is dead. That form of governance is destructive to liberty and antithetical to the openness required in a democratic society.”

Reuters reported, “The Justice Department, which represented the FDA in the litigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday evening. Pfizer, not a party to the suit, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”

Vaccine Microchip Developer: There’s No Stopping This Technology ‘Whether We Like It or Not’


Reported By Jack Davis | January 3, 2022

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/vaccine-microchip-developer-no-stopping-technology-whether-like-not/

A technology company that markets microchips believes that its invention is just the thing to serve as a way to document a person’s coronavirus vaccination status.

The Swedish startup DSruptive Subdermals is touting its microchip, which measures 2 millimeters by 16 millimeters and is injected under the skin, according to the Express.

Hannes Sjoblad, managing director of the company, said critics of the technology fail to understand that it can be put to good use.Advertisement – story continues below

“This technology exists and is used whether we like it or not,” he said. “I am happy that it is brought into the public conversation.”

“New technologies must be broadly debated and understood. Smart implants are a powerful health technology,” Sjoblad said.

GO TO https://www.westernjournal.com/vaccine-microchip-developer-no-stopping-technology-whether-like-not/ IN ORDER TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: 6 important COVID data points that destroy the prevailing narrative


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | January 03, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-6-important-covid-data-points-that-destroy-the-prevailing-narrative/

When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus.” ~Dr. Fauci, Face the Nation, May 16, 2021

“Negative efficacy.” Get used to that term, because every day more data suggests we are already in the vaccination twilight zone of all pain and no gain – just as with the lockdowns.

It is tearing humanity apart. COVID fascism is the most serious human rights threat we’ve faced in our lifetimes, and the latest science and data demonstrate that it’s all built upon a false premise. While people tuned out the news over the holiday week, many have missed the growing incontrovertible evidence that not only is there risk and zero benefit to taking any of the COVID shots, but there is actually negative efficacy against the virus. In other words, not only does it put you on the hook for known and unknown short-term and long-term injury without stopping COVID, it now, actually, makes you more vulnerable to COVID.

As you read these latest points, just remember that this is the injection for which police in Europe are now using dogs and batons against those protesting it. All these human rights abuses for a shot that, especially with the new variant, has become moot.

1) 96% of all Omicron cases in Germany among vaccinated: The respected Robert Koch Institute reported last week that among the 4,206 Germans infected with Omicron for whom their vaccination status was known, 95.58% were fully vaccinated. More than a quarter of them had booster shots. Given that the overall background rate for vaccination in Germany is 70%, this means that the shots now have a -87% effectiveness rate against Omicron.

2) Omicron among vaccinated outpacing unvaccinated by 28% in Ontario: The government in Ontario posts continuous data on case rates by vaccination status. The fact that the vaccinated have rapidly overtaken the unvaccinated in new infections demonstrates a clear negative effect of the shots against Omicron.

3) In Denmark, 89.7% of all Omicron cases were among fully vaccinated: As of Dec. 31, just 8.5% of all cases in Denmark were unvaccinated, according to the Statens Serum Institut. Overall, 77.9% of Denmark is fully vaccinated, and Omicron seems to hit younger people for whom there is a greater unvaccinated pool, which indicates clear negative efficacy. Even for non-Omicron variants, the un-injected composed only 23.7% of the cases.

4) Just 25% of the Omicron hospitalizations in the U.K. are unvaccinated: Not only are the vaccinated more likely to contract Omicron, but they are likely more at risk to be hospitalized. While American hospitals put out unverifiable information about “nearly everyone seriously ill with COVID being unvaccinated,” the U.K. continues to put out quality continuous data that shows the opposite. According to the U.K.’s Health Security Agency’s latest “Omicron daily overview,” just 25% of those in the hospital with suspected Omicron cases are unvaccinated.

Although that is roughly in line with the percentage of unvaccinated overall in the U.K., we know that Omicron cases are overwhelmingly among younger people who have a greater share of the unvaccinated. Dr. Abdi Mahamud, the WHO’s incident manager for COVID, said last week that Omicron has not hit most of the elderly yet.

According to the latest U.K. vaccine surveillance report (p. 21), between 32% and 40% of the age groups under 40 are unvaccinated. Which means that, with a 25% hospitalization rate, the unvaccinated are very possibly underrepresented in the Omicron hospitalized population, which again indicates negative efficacy to the shots.

5) 33 of 34 hospitalizations in Delhi hospital were vaccinated: The Indian Express reported that 33 of the 34 people hospitalized for Omicron in Delhi’s Lok Nayak hospital were fully vaccinated. Two of them received the booster shot. While some of them were international travelers, it’s important to remember that India has a much lower vaccination rate than the West. This is another small indication that not only might one be more likely to get Omicron after having gotten the shots, but possibly could be more vulnerable to hospitalizations, very likely due to some form of antibody dependent disease enhancement (ADE).

6) Vaccinated exponentially more likely to get re-infected with COVID: new preprint study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely, relative to someone with prior infection who was not vaccinated. Although overall re-infections were rare, vaccination was a greater risk factor of re-infection that co-morbidities!

Hence, the findings of this first-in-its-kind study harmonize with what a Public Health England survey found in October; namely, that the vaccines seem to erase a degree of N (nucleocapsid) antibodies generated by prior infection in favor of narrower S (spike) antibodies. “Recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination,” stated the week 42 report from the U.K. (p. 23).

This finding also correlates with what researchers from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid found last year – that the second dose of the vaccine “determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.” In that report, researchers already observed that other research has shown “the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”

At this point, how is there any benefit, much less a net benefit, from the shots? There are currently 21,000 deaths reported to VAERS, along with 110,000 hospitalizations and over 1 million total adverse events. Most deaths and injuries are never reported to VAERS. Now that the efficacy is, at best, a wash and at worst negative, why are we not discussing the short-term and long-term liabilities of the shots?

Remember, the VAERS numbers don’t even begin to quantify the long-term concerns, such as cancer and auto-immune diseases. A heavily redacted analysis of the Pfizer shot (p. 16) from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Agency (TGA) flatly conceded, “Neither genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies were performed.”

Consider the fact that the CEO of Indiana-based life insurance company OneAmerica, which has been around since 1877, revealed last week that the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old Hoosiers is up 40% from pre-pandemic levels. That is four times above what risk assessors consider catastrophic. Yes, some of this has been due to the virus, but given the age group, OneAmerica CEO Scott Davidson said that most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths. Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, who spoke at the same news conference as Davidson, said that Indiana hospitals are flooded with patients “with many different conditions.” Any wonder what those ailments are if not COVID itself? Indeed, those who say the injections are a “medical miracle” are correct, just not in the way they meant it.

Florida surgeon general says Biden admin is ‘actively preventing’ distribution of monoclonal antibody treatment amid Omicron surge


Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | December 29, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/florida-surgeon-general-says-biden-admin-is-actively-preventing-distribution-of-monoclonal-antibody-treatment-amid-omicron-surge-2656193093.html/

The Biden administration is “actively preventing the effective distribution of monoclonal antibody treatments” for treatment of COVID-19, according to Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo. In a letter addressed to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Ladapo said the federal government’s abrupt pause of monoclonal antibody treatment distribution is causing “another immediate and life-threatening shortage of treatment options to the State of Florida.”

Florida state Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo (Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

“The sudden suspension of multiple monoclonal antibody therapy treatments from distribution to Florida removes a health care provider’s ability to decide the best treatment options for their patients in this state,” Ladapo wrote.

“This shortsightedness is especially evident given that the federal government effectively prohibited states from purchasing these monoclonal antibodies and serving their populations directly,” he continued. “Florida is a large, diverse state with one of the highest percentages of seniors in the U.S., and we must empower health care providers to make decisions that will save the lives of Americans everywhere without the dictates imposed by the federal government.”

Ladapo concluded his letter by using President Joe Biden’s own words against him, writing:

President Biden recently stated there is no federal solution to COVID-19, and solving this pandemic will happen at the state level. Therefore, as Surgeon General, I respectfully request that you allow states and healthcare practitioners to provide treatment options that best benefit the communities they know and serve.

Indeed, while speaking to governors on Monday, Biden said, “Look, there is no federal solution. This gets solved at a state level.”

Last week, the Biden administration ceased the distribution of COVID-19 antibody treatments from Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

In a joint statement, the Food and Drug Administration and the Office of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response explained the decision was needed because the Omicron variant “may be associated with resistance to monoclonal antibodies.” Some states, in fact, are already running out of their monoclonal antibody supply.

Texas announced Tuesday that its infusion centers have exhausted the state’s supply. The statement noted “the federal government controls the distribution of monoclonal antibodies.” Texas public health officials said that new oral antiviral drugs authorized by the FDA may be an alternative treatment, but noted the initial distribution of such drugs will be limited and that “the federal government will also control their distribution.”

Although monoclonal antibodies have been denounced in lieu of vaccines, Forbes noted that monoclonal antibodies “have proven to be a valuable asset in the war against COVID-19.”

South Africa study suggests Omicron infection could boost immunity against Delta variant


Reported by CHRIS PANDOLFO | December 28, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/south-africa-study-suggests-omicron-infection-could-boost-immunity-against-delta-variant-2656172040.html/

Preliminary findings from a study suggest that infection with the Omicron variant of coronavirus could boost a person’s immunity against the more severe Delta variant.

South African scientists at the Africa Health Research Institute in Durban examined 33 unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals who had contracted the Omicron variant, Reuters reported. They found that people who were infected with Omicron developed enhanced immunity to the Delta variant. Their immunity was even stronger if they had previously been vaccinated against COVID-19. The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, also finds that Omicron could displace Delta as the dominant coronavirus variant.

“The increase in Delta variant neutralization in individuals infected with Omicron may result in decreased ability of Delta to re-infect those individuals,” the study’s authors said.

Researchers found that neutralization of Omicron increased 14-fold over 14 days after participants were enrolled in the study. They also found there was a 4.4-fold increase in neutralization of the Delta variant. The study’s authors explained the results are “consistent with Omicron displacing the Delta variant, since it can elicit immunity which neutralizes Delta making re-infection with Delta less likely.”

Scientists are optimistic that if Omicron proves to cause less severe disease than Delta, the pandemic may finally end. The ultimate question is whether Omicron is less pathogenic compared to Delta. “If so, then the incidence of COVID-19 severe disease would be reduced and the infection may shift to become less disruptive to individuals and society,” the authors wrote.

There is reason for hope. The wave of Omicron cases experienced in South Africa quickly subsided within weeks after it was first reported, even though only 48.3% of the population is fully vaccinated, according to Our World in Data. Alex Sigal, a professor at the Africa Health Research Institute in South Africa, explained on Twitter Monday that if Omicron behaves as observed in South Africa, it will “help push Delta out” and possibly lead to the end of COVID-19 disrupting our lives.

Previous studies from South Africa have indicated there is reduced risk of hospitalization and severe disease in people infected with the Omicron variant compared with Delta, though the authors caution that some of this is likely due to high population immunity, Reuters reported.

COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. have risen in recent weeks as Omicron variant cases have surged, causing new daily average case records in several states. As of Monday morning, more than 71,000 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized across the U.S., according to the Department of Health and Human Services. At the height of the Delta variant surge this year, more than 100,000 people were hospitalized with COVID-19, according to UPI.

“Brain Bleeds, Heart Attacks in Younger 50-Year-Olds. No Doctor Will Admit This Is from the Vaccine. They Won’t Make the VAERS Re­port.” – Southern California Nurse


Reported By Joe Hoft | Published December 27, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/brain-bleeds-heart-attacks-younger-50-year-olds-no-doctor-will-admit-vaccine-wont-make-vaers-report-southern-california-nurse/

A report coming out of Southern California notes that nurses are beginning to speak out about COVID vaccine concerns and observations.

The Conejo Guardian reports:

Ventura County nurses from differ­ent sectors and specialties are coming forward to blow the whistle on what they deem serious lapses in local health care practices, mostly related to COVID-re­lated protocols, “vaccine” mandates and politically and financially motivated bul­lying of medical staff, which these health care workers say is seriously compromis­ing the general quality of local care.

The Guardian spoke with multiple nurses of various ages and at different stages in their careers, all of whom work in medical care settings or hospitals in Ven­tura County. Each preferred to speak un­der a pseudonym for now. Each described seriously declining standards of care, at­mospheres of intimidation and fear in hospitals, and distrust and disillusionment among medical professionals.

“Before COVID, nurses, staff and the community were confident in treatment modalities and in doctors’ competencies,” says one nurse. But now, “People are con­fused.”

“They’re very confused,” agrees a veter­an Ventura County nurse. “I think doctors are confused.… I don’t think the commu­nity’s confident. I’m not.… Because where’s the truth?”

Most shocking, perhaps, is how doctors and administrators refuse to re­port the rising number of unexplained medical problems in otherwise healthy people as potential adverse reactions to COVID-19 experimental vaccine shots. To suggest that these shots are the cause of any medical problem — or that they are contributing to the alarming rise in non-COVID-related hospital popula­tions — invites professional ridicule.

The report continues:

Angela, a nurse for more than 25 years, confirms that in her hospital’s emergency room, they say they are seeing more heart problems in young adults, which are never reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Re­porting System (VAERS) as potential ad­verse reactions to COVID “vaccinations.”

Another nurse, Jennifer, says ER nurs­es privately say they are seeing “all the clot­ting, bleeding and things you would expect from the vaccine six months later — brain bleeds, heart attacks in younger 50-year-olds. No doctor will admit this is from the vaccine. They won’t make the VAERS re­port.”

When Daniel asked fellow nurses and practitioners if they report to VAERS, they looked at him like, “What’s that?”

“I’ve seen people in their thirties [with these problems], and the doctor’s just like, ‘Oh, you have s—y genes,’” he says. “I’m like, are you kidding me?”

In an updated article, more nurses are speaking out:

After the Conejo Guardian’s report on alarming trends in Ventura County hospitals, more nurses have come forward to affirm the rise in unexplained heart problems, strokes and blood clotting in local vaccinated patient populations. They also say doctors refuse to consider that these could be adverse reactions to Covid shots.

Sam, a critical care nurse at an ICU in a Ventura County hospital, came forward because, “I’m tired of all the B.S. that’s going on,” he told the Guardian. “It’s crazy how nobody questions anything anymore.”

Americans in the medical community are beginning to speak up.  It is insane that the status of patients does not include whether the patient was vaccinated for COVID or not.  This is common sense and should be the law.

Joe Hoft

Joe Hoft is the twin brother of TGP’s founder, Jim Hoft, and a contributing editor at TGP. Joe’s reporting is often months ahead of the Mainstream media as was observed in his reporting on the Mueller sham investigation, the origins of the China coronavirus, and 2020 Election fraud. Joe was a corporate executive in Hong Kong for a decade and has years of experience in finance, IT, operations and auditing around the world. The knowledge gained in his career provide him with a unique perspective of current events in the US and globally. He has ten degrees or designations and is the author of three books. Joe is currently co-host of the morning radio show in St. Louis at 93.3 “Tomorrow’s News Today”. His new book: ‘In God We Trust: Not in Lying Liberal Lunatics’ is out now – please take a look and buy a copy. @joehoft

Swedes Are Implanting Microchip Vaccine Passports. It Won’t Stop There


Reported BY: JOE ALLEN | DECEMBER 23, 2021

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/23/swedes-are-implanting-microchip-vaccine-passports-it-wont-stop-there/

A skinput system projecting tech onto a person's arm

Last week, the world glimpsed a future in which vaccine passports are implanted under the skin. A viral video from South China Morning Post profiled a Swedish start-up hub, Epicenter, that injects its employees with microchips.

“Right now it is very convenient to have a COVID passport always accessible on your implant,” its chief disruption officer, Hannes Sjöblad, told the interviewer. Oddly enough, he repeatedly spoke of chipping “arms” when we clearly see a woman opening doors with her hand.

Two years earlier, Sjöblad told ITV, “I want us humans to open up and improve our sensory universe, our cognitive functions. … I want to merge humans with technology and I think it will be awesome.”

Naturally, some Christians see the Mark of the Beast. In a sane world, the idea of having your hand chipped to access public goods or private property—to receive a mark in order to “buy, sell, or trade”—should alarm anyone, regardless of religious persuasion. The same goes for using an implanted brain-computer interface to access the digital realm, as Elon Musk plans to do with Neuralink.

Yet for a growing fringe, this invasive tech isn’t just desirable. It’s already normal. Presently, some 5,000 Swedes use implanted radio frequency identification (RFID) chips to open doors, pay cashless, present medical records, access concert venues, and ride public transportation. According to Ars Technica, as of 2018 an estimated 50,000-100,000 people worldwide have microchip implants, primarily in their hands.

A 2019 analysis in Nature reported about 160,000 people have deep brain stimulation devices implanted in their heads. Currently, this is only done out of necessity to treat disorders like epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease, or even addiction and depression. Of these devices, only 34 are true brain-computer interfaces. However, with current advances in technology, enormous injections of capital, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) recent approval, that number will rapidly climb.

Hurtling Toward a Hybrid Humanity

Enthusiasts say they aim to propel these technologies from healing to enhancement. In 2018—the same year Biohax gained international attention for chipping thousands of Swedish hands—MIT Technology Review boosted it with the fawning headline: This company embeds microchips in its employees, and they love it.”

Since the first human-grade RFID implant was patented in 1997, followed by FDA approval in 2004, subdermal microchips have become just another device in a growing cyborg toolkit. Drawing on that cache, the Internet of Bodies paradigm has gained enormous traction among the medical establishment. At the extreme end, the concept of natural-born humanity is to be abolished.

For more than six decades, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has funded Human 2.0 projects, with particular interest in brain-computer interfaces. Citing these and many other human-machine hybrids, the World Economic Forum’s chairman Klaus Schwab recently spelled out his vision of civilizational transformation. His widely read books—“The Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2016) and “The Great Reset” (2020)—both describe inexorable progress toward total technocracy. The same idea emerges in a 2019 government analysis by Policy Horizons Canada, entitled “Exploring Biodigital Convergence.” According to the authors, “Digital technology can be embedded in organisms [and today] biotechnology may be at the cusp of a period of rapid expansion—possibly analogous to digital computing circa 1985.” Its success will hinge on sweeping surveillance. The document goes on to describe tracking chips, wearable bio-sensors, internal organ sensors, Web-connected neurotech, swallowable digital pills—merging body and brain with the digital beehive.

Last spring, the UK’s Ministry of Defense published the jarring study, Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm.” The authors promise this “will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behaviour, and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.” Surveying today’s cyborgs, they write, “Once inserted, these ‘chips’ can…replace many of our keys and passwords, allowing us to unlock doors, start vehicles, and even log onto computers and smartphones.”

All the above authors fret over ethics in a perfunctory fashion, but most accept the “inevitable” fusion of man with machine. If military strategists, corporate elites, and government officials are taking this prospect seriously, so should we.

The New Normal Is Total Digitalization

For people with any sense at all, the notion of having a microchip jabbed into your hand (or your head) triggers animal revulsion. Disturbing as it may be, a more immediate concern is the widespread use of non-invasive biometric systems.

Wherever the New Normal takes hold, access to society is granted or denied on the basis of arbitrary “health and safety” concerns. Today, it’s masks or vaccine status. Tomorrow, it could be ideology. Authorities don’t have to chip you if they can simply scan your smartphone and tell you to get lost, or lock you in your dwelling pod whenever “the numbers” rise.

To cite one common example among many, the biometric company Clear rode the Patriot Act to prominence. Today, Clear is contracting to provide biometric and QR code-based vaxxports to fully jabbed citizens on the go. It won’t stop there. Not without a fight. As Clear’s CEO Caryn Seidman-Becker told CNBC last year, “Just like screening was forever changed post-9/11, in a post-Covid environment you’re going to see screening and public safety significantly shift. But this time it’s beyond airports. It’s sports stadiums, it’s retail, its office buildings, its restaurants.”

Taking a more cerebral angle, tech mogul Bryan Johnson founded Kernel to develop non-invasive brain-scanning helmets to enhance your health and happiness. The devices can also gather users’ neurological data. Last summer, Johnson told Bloomberg Businessweek that by 2030 he’d like to put his BCI helmets in every American household. These people want to completely transform our mental and physical spaces. It isn’t even a secret. They want some form of transhumanism, whether they use the term or not. It’s past time to smash their devices.

America Cannot Let This Happen

One by one across the globe, canaries are falling dead in the digital coal mine. We see implanted vaxxports in Sweden, lockdowns for the unvaccinated in Austria and Germany, and yes, quarantine camps in Australia. The Untact program in South Korea is specifically designed to replace human interaction with social robots and the Metaverse. At the pandemic’s outset, American writers at The Atlantic and CNN urged U.S. leaders to adopt Chinese authoritarianism. Their wish is beginning to come true.

While I doubt any population will be forcibly chipped like wayward housecats—at least not in the near future—no nightmarish policy is truly off the table. In the past 21 months, the United States has seen mandated mRNA gene therapies, QR code-based vaccine passports, mass deletion of supposed “misinformation,” and even drone surveillance to monitor social distancing. Meanwhile, more young adults died from fentanyl overdoses than from any transmissible disease.

If the biosecurity state can force you to wear an obedience mask to buy groceries, what can’t they do? Resist their measures at every turn. Drag these people down from the seats of power. Dismantle the structures they’ve already put in place.

I’m no absolutist. Tools are tools, and every naked ape needs one. For the most part, I couldn’t care less if techno-fetishists chip themselves or refashion their appendages. Had their subculture remained on the fringe, I’d still find such people fascinating. But that’s not what’s happening. Riding waves of germaphobia—the ultimate organic disruption—tech titans and their think tank ministers are establishing a secular religion. The world’s wealthiest men, wielding the most powerful tools on earth, are erecting inescapable systems of control. We can’t combat them if we don’t acknowledge what they are.

Scientism is their faith. Technology is their sacrament. Their cult is a cyborg theocracy. Even if they rain fire from the sky with the press of a button, never bend the knee to their silicon gods.


Joe Allen is a fellow primate who wonders why we ever came down from the trees. For years, he worked as a rigger on various concert tours. Between gigs, he studied religion and science at UTK and Boston University. Find him at www.joebot.xyz or @JOEBOTxyz.

Boston imposes proof of vaccination requirement for indoor activities


Reported by CHRIS PANDOLFO | December 20, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/boston-imposes-proof-of-vaccination-requirement-for-indoor-activities-2656077123.html/

Boston on Monday became the latest Democrat-run city in the United States to require proof of COVID-19 vaccination to participate in city life. Mayor Michelle Wu (D) announced that the city will require proof of vaccination for indoor recreational activities including restaurants, gyms, theaters, sports venues, and many other businesses. The requirements will take effect on Jan. 15. According to Boston’s public health commission, there are 464,610 fully vaccinated city residents, about 68% of the population. Nearly one-third of all Bostonians will be unable to participate in public indoor activities after the requirements go into effect.

Additionally, city employees will be required to get vaccinated, she said at a press conference where protesters blew whistles, shouted “Shame on Wu,” and sang “The Star-Spangled Banner,” WHDH-TV reported.

“There is nothing more American than coming together to ensure that we’re taking care of each other,” Wu said to the protesters.

Under the previous vaccine mandate, city workers had the option of submitting to regular virus testing if they did not want to receive one of the vaccines. But now there will be no testing option. City employees may apply for a medical or religious exemption from the mandate. Wu said that about 90% of the city’s roughly 18,000 workers are already vaccinated.

“The vast majority of COVID-related hospitalizations are of unvaccinated individuals, which is impacting our entire health care system and compromising the health of our communities,” she said. “Today’s steps to protect community members in certain indoor establishments and throughout our city workforce will help ensure that everyone in Boston will be safe.”

The additional coronavirus restrictions come amid fears that the Omicron variant will make the winter surge of COVID-19 in several northeastern states worse.

Dr. Bisola Ojikutu, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission, warned that new positive cases had increased nearly 90% compared to two weeks ago and said the city is now averaging 369 new cases per day. Hospitalizations have increased 60% in the last two weeks.

Though some private businesses have imposed their own mask and vaccine requirements, and there were small business owners appearing at the press conference in support of the mayor’s announcement, the Massachusetts chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses called the new mandate an additional burden on struggling businesses.

“It is unfortunate that, once again, private businesses are being placed in the unenviable position of having to enforce another government health directive,” Christopher Carlozzi, the organization’s director, said in a statement.

Video: UPenn trans swimmer demolishes female competition by almost 40 seconds: ​’Just to show you how absurd this is’


Reported by PHIL SHIVER | December 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/video-trans-swimmer-destroys-female-competition/

University of Pennsylvania transgender swimmer Lia Thomas — formerly known as Will Thomas — has garnered national media attention in recent weeks for shattering collegiate swim records that were previously held by biological women, sparking fresh accusations of unfair competition.

Thomas, who competed as a male at the school during her freshman, sophomore, and junior years, decided to undergo a year of testosterone suppression treatment ahead of her senior year in order to compete as a female. To no one’s surprise, the biological male is dominating the competition.

But it’s one thing to hear about Thomas’ newfound domination, and another thing entirely to see it. A new video that surfaced online shows just how wide the gap is between Thomas and the women competing against her.

“Just to show you how absurd this is. Here’s the trans swimmer ‘Lia’ Thomas crushing all of the female competitors by 40 seconds,” Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh tweeted in a caption to the video. “This is what that looks like in real time. A total farce.”

The video showcases the tail end of Thomas’s incredible performance during the 1,650-yard freestyle race at the Zippy Invitational Event in Akron, Ohio, during which Thomas bested the second-place finisher by an eye-popping 38 seconds.

During the video, the narrator quips that “the lefties have just gone a little too far with this one” while pointing out how fast Thomas swam in relation to the competition. He then painstakingly points out the numerous times that female swimmers make their turns and continue racing while Thomas rests having finished well ahead of them.

“Thomas is a 6-foot 3-inch strapping young man coursing with testosterone and here he is in a girls swimsuit competing with the girls,” the narrator says.

Since the story started receiving national attention, at least two teammates of Thomas’s have spoken out about the unfair situation. One anonymous teammate said last week that having Thomas on the team is something that “secretly everyone just knows it’s the wrong thing to do.”

“When the whole team is together, we have to be like, ‘Oh my gosh, go Lia, that’s great, you’re amazing.’ It’s very fake,” the team member told Outkick.

Another teammate expressed that the entire team is “angry” over the situation.

“They feel so discouraged because no matter how much work they put in it, they’re going to lose,” she explained. “Usually, they can get behind the blocks and know they out-trained all their competitors and they’re going to win and give it all they’ve got.”

“Now they’re having to go behind the blocks knowing no matter what, they do not have the chance to win. I think that it’s really getting to everyone,” the female swimmer continued.

The team member added that amazingly Thomas, unfazed by the criticism, has been bragging about being No. 1 in the country amongst female swimmers.

“Well, obviously she’s No. 1 in the country because she’s at a clear physical advantage after having gone through male puberty and getting to train with testosterone for years,” the swimmer said. “Of course you’re No. 1 in the country when you’re beating a bunch of females. That’s not something to brag about.”

Thomas responded to some of the criticism recently in a podcast interview with SwimSwam.

Penn’s Lia Thomas Opens Up On Journey, Transition To Women’s Swimmingyoutu.be

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The vaccines are working … exactly as they were designed


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | December 16, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-vaccines-are-working-exactly-as-they-were-designed

“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” —George Orwell

There is nowhere to run or hide from the growing observations that the closer we come to universal vaccination rates in many countries, the worse the pandemic has become. We have always known that leaky vaccines have the potential to create viral enhancement, but the recent data is unmistakable. At the same time, the COVID cultists are panicking over an emerging variant that actually might be the mildest of all while mainly affecting the vaccinated — a perfect refutation to the mass vaccination push. All signs point to the need to suspend the shots and focus exclusively on monoclonal antibodies and other early treatment. Or is there an ulterior motive?

At this point, we better pray that Omicron becomes dominant in the U.S. as quickly as possible. The most devastating observation of 2021 is that more people have died from COVID under the mass vaccination regime during the existing variant than before there was a single jab. According to the CDC’s “Data Table for Daily Death Trends,” there have been 127,184 COVID deaths from September 1 through November 30 this year, which is 45% greater than the 87,829 recorded deaths over the same period in 2020. And some of the deaths from this year are still lagging and likely to be updated.

Typically, viruses mutate down and become less virulent. Last year, there was much less built up immunity, we had fewer treatment options, and we had zero vaccines. It is nearly impossible to ignore the fact that the narrow-spectrum leaky vaccine has made the virus much worse.

During the peak of the winter wave in January, there were 19 recorded deaths for 15- to 17-year-olds. In August, when the vaccines began to leak and we likely experienced vaccine-mediated viral enhancement, kids noticeably got sicker. Although deaths were still very rare, there were 63 recorded deaths among that age cohort, and the numbers have generally remained higher.

Imagine if we had put all the funds for the leaky shots into the monoclonal antibodies and an outpatient treatment regime built on the latest research of dozens of therapeutics that have shown promise in combatting the virus. Yet rather than focus on alternatives and investigate what went wrong with the injections, our establishment leaders are doubling down, even as the failure is undeniably in plain sight. As such, it’s hard to escape the sinister conclusion that they intended this all along.

Consider the fact that Cornell University has an ironclad vaccine and mask mandate, yet 3.5% of the entire campus tested positive last week alone. The school has now switched to online learning.

Consider the fact that before the NFL season started, 52 of 53 players on the L.A. Rams’ roster were vaccinated. Now they lead the league with 11 players on the COVID list.

Consider the fact that Newton, Massachusetts, has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, with 97% of the entire population vaccinated, including 99% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 87% of 5- to 11-year-olds. Yet, despite this and indoor mask mandates, the town has more cases than this time last year and is likely headed toward a record.

Consider the fact that a country like South Korea barely recorded deaths during the entire pandemic, but now has many more cases and deaths, with nearly all adults vaccinated and one of the highest vaccination rates for a country that large (over 50 million).

Consider the fact that England and France, both with very high vaccination rates and large prior COVID waves, have recently set case records.

Likewise, Portugal, with the highest double-vaxxed rate in Europe, now has more cases than during the winter peak.

Several months ago, a Harvard study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, the only one to look at thousands of U.S. counties and different countries to study correlation between vaccination rates and case rates, found zero correlation. “In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people,” concluded the author.

The establishment suggests that the shots at least provide some with temporary protection from critical illness. But what good is that if the shots actually make the virus more virulent for everyone and then offer a degree of preventive protection for its consumers while screwing everyone else?

Let’s not forget that Dr. Fauci warned from day one that you need a perfect vaccine because a half-baked one runs the risk of making the virus worse. In an interview with Mark Zuckerberg last March, Fauci said in response to those who wanted rushed vaccines, “If you vaccinate someone, and they make an antibody response, and then they get exposed and infected, does the response that you induce actually enhance the infection and make it worse? The only way you’ll know that is if you do an extended study [not on volunteers, but on the public].”

“This would not be the first time, if it happened, that a vaccine that looked good in initial safety actually made people worse,” he continued when the Facebook CEO pressed him on rushing forward with a vaccine.

A month later, Fauci warned at a press conference that “the worst possible thing you could do” is vaccinate someone and create enhancement.

Well, a year and a half later, isn’t that exactly what we are seeing? Remember, the FDA warned during the initial emergency approval period that “risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown.” And that’s at a time when the FDA didn’t know just how badly these shots would wane … or did it? Is it perhaps the intent to create the need for endless shots to fix the immune suppression and viral enhancement created by the first round – just like a heroin addict who constantly needs more poison to temporarily assuage the latest withdrawal symptoms, until he descends into a death spiral?

It is now universally accepted that the vaccine first suppresses your immune system, possibly for six weeks following the first shot, before it provides any protection for a few months thereafter. To encourage people to vaccinate even more while the numbers are high is the surest way of enabling more people to get the virus. This will create an endless feedback loop, driving a vicious cycle of suppressed immune systems, vaccine-mediated viral enhancement, and excess mortality from both the side effects and from COVID, which in turn generates fear to pressure more boosters in the hardest-hit areas. The German state of North Rhine-Westphalia is making boosters available for people to take every four weeks. Thus, the more the shots fail, the more the makers succeed. It’s no longer enough to oppose mandates. It’s time to stand athwart history and yell “STOP” to this entire vicious cycle.

Hospitals: You know, maybe firing unvaccinated staff isn’t such a great idea after all


Reported by CHRIS FIELD | December 13, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/hospitals-you-know-maybe-firing-unvaccinated-staff-isn-t-such-a-great-idea-after-all-2656021804.html/

Hundreds of thousands of hospital staff members — from nurses and doctors to janitors and receptionists — worked in hospital settings for nearly a year dealing with COVID patients while unvaxxed. They did their duty and were repeatedly heralded as heroes. But after the vaccines came out, how were they treated by the same society and government that had just sung their praises?

President Joe Biden rewarded them by issuing a mandate that health care workers at facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid money would have to get vaxxed or hit the bricks. And because many hospital systems across the U.S. were waiting for the government to act first to give them cover, they followed suit and issued their own mandates. But it didn’t work out as well as they’d hoped.

Hospitals, which were already facing labor shortages before the pandemic began, saw thousands of nurses exit instead of taking the jab, the Wall Street Journal reported. Add to that the fact that those hesitant to get the vaccine made up 30% of all staff, not just nurses, and you’ve got the makings of what experts call a “fustercluck.”

Hospitals needed a way to get out from under their self-imposed staffing crisis created, at least in part, by their mandates. Enter the late-November federal court suspension of the feds’ vax mandate. After a federal judge temporarily blocked the mandate, the Journal reported, some of the nation’s biggest hospital systems suddenly decided to drop their own ill-considered vaccine mandates.

HCA Healthcare, Tenet Healthcare Corp., AdventHealth, and the Cleveland Clinic all announced they are dropping their jab requirements, which had exacerbated the hospitals’ cost of labor problems and caused all kinds of issues with staff retention, the paper said.

The Journal talked to employee benefits lawyer Wade Symons, who noted the “mass exodus” debacle and said facilities that don’t have the vax requirements “could be a magnet” for health professionals looking to practice health care away from mandates.

Alan Levine, CEO of Ballad Health, which has 21 hospitals in Tennessee and Virginia with 14,000 employees, said the federal court did everybody a favor by stopping the mandate, the Journal said. According to Levine, his company had 2,000 folks unvaccinated, and he said that canning that many people “would have been devastating to our system.”

HCA, which has one of the country’s largest collections of hospitals with some 275,000 employees, announced last month that all of its workers would need to be vaxxed by the federal Jan. 4 deadline, but then suspended the oh-so-very-important vaccine policy after the court ruled against the Biden administration.

Other hospital systems are still holding fast to their jab mandates, though, the Journal said. Kaiser Permanente and New York’s Northwell Health combined have let go of about 2,000 employees for refusing the jab, with many more on the chopping block should they not hit the deadline.

Judge holds hospital in contempt of court for refusing ivermectin to COVID patient on ventilator, ignoring court order


Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | December 14, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/judge-holds-hospital-in-contempt-of-court-for-refusing-ivermectin-covid-patient/

A Virginia hospital was held in contempt of court Monday after refusing to administer ivermectin to a woman who has been battling COVID-19 since early October.

Kathleen Davies, a 63-year-old northern Virginia woman, became severely ill with COVID in October, and she has been on a ventilator since Nov. 3. Davies was prescribed ivermectin by her family doctor, but she could not complete her regimen upon being admitted to the Fauquier Hospital in Warrenton. That’s because the northern Virginia hospital refused to administer the drug, “citing medical, legal and practical concerns,” the Fauquier Times reported. Davies’ son, Christopher — who works at the hospital as a radiologist technician — urged the hospital to administer the drug as his mother’s health declined and all other medical treatments had been exhausted. But the hospital continued to refuse.

So on Dec. 6, the Davies family took legal action to compel Fauquier Hospital to administer ivermectin. Just one day later, Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge Jim Fisher agreed with the Davies family and ordered the hospital to administer the drug in compliance with the family’s wishes. Shockingly, the hospital ignored the order.

“They believe it’s a fight between the rights of the hospital and the rights of citizens. They feel their rights trump her rights,” Christopher Davies told the Fauquier Times.

The hospital claimed because none of its doctors “believe Ivermectin is in Ms. Davies’s best interests and all have refused to prescribe” and because Kathleen’s doctor — Dr. Martha Maturi — did not have privileges to practice medicine at Fauquier Hospital, it could continue to ignore the court order.

But on Dec. 9, Fisher ruled that such a policy is not state law and again ordered the hospital to permit the administration of the drug in compliance with the family’s wishes. Importantly, Fisher did not rule on the medical merits of ivermectin as effective treatment for COVID-19. But with all other treatment options exhausted, Fisher clearly sided with the family.

Still, the hospital refused to allow Maturi to administer ivermectin. And in a court filing on Monday, the hospital began raising objections to Maturi’s medical qualifications and requested that she testify under oath.

The hospital said in its motion, in part:

Fauquier Medical Center requests that Dr. Maturi be made available to testify under oath regarding her qualifications, the discussions, steps taken and ultimate decision that she is unable to care for Mrs. Davies. Both parties have been working together to comply with the court’s order; however, as it stands, neither the hospital nor the plaintiff has been able to find a physician capable of assuming care for Mrs. Davies while she remains in critical condition in the ICU.

In a ruling on Monday, Fisher held the Fauquier hospital in contempt of court, ordered the administration of ivermectin, and imposed daily $10,000 fines retroactive to Dec. 9.

Fisher held the hospital in contempt for “needlessly interposing requirements that stand in the way of the patient’s desired physician administering investigational drugs as part of the Health Care Decisions Act and the federal and state Right to Try Acts.”

“No good reason or good cause was given, other than convenience, for the need of a formal ‘attending physician’ when there are at least three physicians involved in the patient’s care. The relief herein can be accomplished without requiring anyone serving in the role of ‘attending physician,'” the order explained.

Fisher gave the hospital until 9 p.m. on Monday to administer ivermectin, or he would levy additional fines.

Kathleen Davies was given ivermectin at 8:45 p.m.

‘Public health [officials] don’t get to tell people what to wear’: Democratic governor declares that COVID-19 emergency is ‘over’


Reported by PAUL SACCA | December 13, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/public-health-officials-dont-get-to-tell-people-what-to-wear-democratic-governor-declares-that-covid-19-emergency-is-over-2656015099.html/

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis – a Democrat – declared that the COVID-19 pandemic is “over.” Breaking from the Democratic Party, Polis added that he would not be implementing another statewide mask mandate despite the Omicron variant spreading easily.

“Everybody had more than enough opportunity to get vaccinated,” Polis told Colorado Public Radio on Friday. “Hopefully it’s been at your pharmacy, your grocery store, a bus near you, [or at] big events. At this point, if you haven’t been vaccinated, it’s really your own darn fault.”

“I didn’t hesitate to [issue a statewide mask mandate] in the emergency. The emergency is over,” Polis stated. “You know, [state] public health [officials] don’t get to tell people what to wear; that’s just not their job.”

“Public health [officials] would say to always wear a mask because it decreases flu and decreases [other airborne illnesses],” Polis stated. “But that’s not something that you require; you don’t tell people what to wear.”

“You don’t tell people to wear a jacket when they go out in winter and force them to [wear it],” Polis added. “If they get frostbite, it’s their own darn fault. If you haven’t been vaccinated, that’s your choice. I respect that. But it’s your fault when you’re in the hospital with COVID.”

“And at this point, I think it’s almost like they made a deliberate decision not to get vaccinated,” he noted. “I still encourage everybody who hasn’t been vaccinated to get protected. And for those who are, make sure to get that booster after six months. The data shows it’s important and very likely even more so with this omicron variant.”

Polis said he supported local jurisdictions instituting their own mandates according to their individual needs, but that the state should stay out of it.

New York judge orders girl, 11, to get COVID vaccine, siding against child’s scientist father in legal dispute with her mother


Reported by PAUL SACCA | December 09, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/new-york-judge-orders-girl-11-to-get-covid-vaccine-siding-against-child-s-scientist-father-in-legal-dispute-with-her-mother-2655963999.html/

An 11-year-old girl has been ordered to get vaccinated against COVID-19 by a judge in upstate New York. The ruling sides with the child’s mother and against the girl’s father — who is a scientist and a professor, according to the New York Post.New York

The daughter is in the middle of a messy battle between the divorced couple. The mother — Jeannie Figer — wants to get her 11-year-old daughter vaccinated against COVID-19. She notes that the estranged pair’s other two daughters — ages 17 and 19 — have already been vaccinated against COVID-19. However, the father — Donald Figer — was hesitant about allowing his youngest daughter to be vaccinated. The father — who is reportedly vaccinated against COVID-19 — said he wants to wait for his young daughter to be vaccinated until more information becomes available on the long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on children.

He is reportedly a professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology. The Rochester Institute of Technology lists Figer as the director of the Center for Detectors, and a professor in the College of Science with appointments in the Astrophysical Science and the Technology Ph.D. program and the Microsystems Engineering Ph.D. program. “He is a leader in developing and deploying new photon detection technologies,” the school states.

Monroe County Supreme Court Justice Richard Dollinger said he was “somewhat perplexed that an accomplished scientist and professor would oppose a child vaccine authorized by the CDC and universally encouraged by state and local physicians and other health officials.”

The judge said it “could be years before any researchers have exacting accounts of either the short or, long term consequences of the administration of this vaccine on 11-year-old girls.”

“Waiting — to be ‘sure,’ as the father asks — is simply untenable, when the specter of a killing or incapacitating disease is swirling in the environment surrounding this young girl,” Judge Dollinger said. “The wait, requested by the father, could extend beyond the term of the virus, as scientists may never catch up to this ever evolving and elusive virus and variants.”

“This Court, weighing the child’s best interests, cannot wait for the vaccine’s side effects or efficacy to be scientifically established beyond a reasonable doubt or even to the father’s satisfaction,” the judged ruled. “The imminent risk of contracting the disease is too high and the consequences of acquiring it potentially too dire.”

The judge noted that Monroe County recently declared a state of emergency because of rising hospitalization rates related to COVID-19. The judge sided with the mother, who is reportedly an attorney. He ordered the mother to schedule an “immediate appointment” for the child to be administered a COVID-19 vaccination “as soon as possible.”

On Oct. 29, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for kids ages 5 through 11 years old. This isn’t the first time that COVID-19 vaccines have been front-and-center in legal disputes between divorces.

In August, a Chicago mother was temporarily stripped of her parental rights over her 11-year-old son by a judge because she was unvaccinated. The judge asked the woman what her vaccination status was during a child support hearing with her ex-husband. A judge rescinded the ruling weeks later.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The country that ‘succeeded’ against COVID with masks has the highest case rate in the world


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | December 07, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-the-country-that-succeeded-against-covid-with-masks-has-the-highest-case-rate-in-the-world-theblaze-2655944084.html/

Those who believe in the freedom of bodily autonomy are celebrating a slew of recent court rulings enjoining the Biden administration’s injection mandate. However, no GOP state attorney general has bothered to fight the equally immoral, illogical, and inhumane mask mandates that are still in place. Despite nearly two years of evidence that strict mask-wearing has zero effectiveness in stopping the spread, the mandates on 2-year-olds on planes and in many schools still continue. Slovakia is a perfect case study of the mask mendacity.

On May 13, 2020, the Atlantic published an article lauding Slovakia for, at the time, having the lowest per-capita COVID death rate in Europe. The article’s prediction should now be the laughingstock of the world:

When this pandemic ends, and when the reckoning over how the world responded invariably begins, Slovakia will likely be among those highlighted as a success story, whereas the United States—which was supposed to be the country best prepared for such a crisis—will be remembered as among those that suffered the worst. How Slovakia was able to flatten its curve comes down to more than just quick decision making and the widespread adoption of face masks. Perhaps the greatest lesson to be learned from Slovakia is of the value of leading from the front.

Slovakia was so worried about masks that the country even got Taiwan to donate hundreds of thousands of these useless cloths as part of a bilateral trade agreement.

Well, that was before Slovakia’s first winter wave. One can excuse people for mistaking low spread at the time for mask efficacy rather than the fact that the country just didn’t get its turn yet. But for countries to continue this inhumane mandate despite what we now know demonstrates that masks are not a means to public health but an end in themselves of tyranny.

At over 2,000 new cases per million per day, according to Our World in Data, Slovakia now has more cases per capita than any country in the world. To put this in perspective, that is almost three times the level of the winter peak in the U.S., a country that has not exactly performed well in the pandemic!

It’s true that some individual states closer to the size of Slovakia have had more severe waves. However, even the worst counties in the upper Midwest are tracking about 1,200 new cases per million per day.

And here is the epidemiological curve presented by the inimitable Ian Miller, juxtaposed to policy solutions:

It’s not just Slovakia. Wherever you turn in Europe, both masks and vaccine mandates have failed miserably, and the spread is now worse than ever. Belgium is now six weeks into the new mask mandate, and it has more cases than ever before, even though the Belgians already suffered one of the deadliest waves in all of Europe. Oh, and 87.4% of adults are vaccinated.

To begin with, the CDC, as late as May 2020, was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford also summarized six international studies that “showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”

The only randomized controlled trial studying mask efficacy against COVID published last year was the now famous Danish study that failed to show any meaningful reduction in spread from mask-wearing. Then, several months ago, the media trumpeted a large study done in Bangladesh that seemed to show efficacy. Well, now that the authors have released the actual data, we see that indeed no such claim can be made from the study. It turns out that out of over 340,000 individuals over a span of eight weeks, there were only 20 fewer cases of COVID detected in the mask group over the control group – 1,106 symptomatic individuals confirmed seropositive in the control group and 1,086 such individuals in the treatment group.

Even these results are hard to interpret because of numerous confounding factors. University of California Berkeley professor Ben Recht critiqued the study as follows:

This study was not blinded, as it’s impossible to blind a study on masks. The intervention was highly complex and included a mask promotion campaign and education about other mitigation measures including social distancing. Moreover, individuals were only added to the study if they consented to allow the researchers to visit and survey their households. There was a large differential between the control and treatment groups here, with 95% consenting in the treatment group but only 92% consenting in control. This differential alone could wash away the difference in observed cases. Finally, symptomatic seropositivity is a crude measure of covid as the individuals could have been infected before the trial began.

Given the numerous caveats and confounders, the study still only found a tiny effect size. My takeaway is that a complex intervention including an educational program, free masks, encouraged mask wearing, and surveillance in a poor country with low population immunity and no vaccination showed at best modest reduction in infection.

In other words, you can now add this to a list of 400 studies compiled by the Brownstone Institute that fail to find any correlation between public policy interventions and better pandemic outcomes.

It’s not OK for Republican-controlled states to continue to ignore the facts that masks are inhumane and they simply don’t work. Consider the fact that Head Start has now mandated masks on 2-year-olds, many of whom have special needs. Oregon has moved to make its mask mandate permanent. Why are no red state governments at least suing against the federal mandates, and why are so few red states even banning mask mandates within the states?

The courts are all political. They only responded to the lawsuits against the vaccine mandate when they saw robust political opposition within the political branches of the red states. They see no such opposition regarding the mask mandates. Thus, absent a unified effort from state attorneys general, they are unlikely to respond to a handful of individual lawsuits. The same legal rationale denying the feds the power to force vaccines also denies them the power to cover our breathing holes. But the courts only respond to political momentum.If nearly two years of masking failing to work anywhere is still not enough to end the most invasive human mandate of all time, then we truly are no longer a free people.

Dr. Fauci: ‘There is a Misplaced Perception About People’s Individual Right to Make a Decision that Supersedes the Societal Safety’ (VIDEO)


Reported By Cristina Laila | Published November 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/fauci-misplaced-perception-peoples-individual-right-make-decision-supersedes-societal-safety-video/

Dr. Fauci on Sunday told CBS “Sunday Morning” senior contributor Ted Koppel that there’s a “misplaced perception” about people’s rights superseding “societal safety.”

“One of the things that to me was most difficult to accept is that we put together a good plan for how we were going to try and dampen down the spread of infection early on thinking that that was accepted by everybody,” Fauci said to Koppel. “And then, the next day you have the president [Trump] saying, ‘Free Michigan. Free Virginia.’ I didn’t quite understand what the purpose of that was, except to put this misplaced perception about people’s individual right to make a decision that supersedes the societal safety. That, to me, is one of the things that, I think, went awry in all of this.”

“Did you ever raise that with President Trump?” Koppel asked.

And this is precisely why Fauci, an unelected bureaucrat (and sociopath), should NEVER make decisions for the American people.

VIDEO:

Watch the full interview below:

Cristina Laila

Cristina began writing for The Gateway Pundit in 2016 and she is currently the Associate Editor.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Sweden obliterates the lie of ‘vaccines’ as ticket to ending pandemic


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-sweden-obliterates-the-lie-of-vaccines-as-ticket-to-ending-pandemic/

It is now undeniable that in almost every part of North America, Europe, and East Asia, the pandemic is more prolific than it ever was before a single person was vaccinated, even though most of those countries have nearly every adult vaccinated. Thus, it is impossible to deny that vaccinologists like Geert Vanden Bossche and Luc Montagnier were correct when they predicted that mass vaccination with a suboptimal, non-sterilizing vaccine in middle of a pandemic would create vaccine-mediated viral enhancement. It’s hard to imagine how people who pushed this strategy didn’t see this coming.

The typical retort to this allegation is that it’s all the fault of “the Delta” and that somehow things would have been even worse without the shots. The problem with this assertion is that we are seeing the sharpest waves ever in the most vaccinated countries. Also, the fact that Sweden has never gotten a Delta wave demonstrates that natural immunity alone would have ended this pandemic.

Central and Eastern Europe are now on fire from the latest wave of the virus, which some researchers suspect is no longer Delta. Putting the variant aside, every single European country has gotten at least one wave of the virus — to varying degrees of severity — since Delta proliferated in June. The one exception is Sweden. The Scandinavian country now has the second lowest case rate in all of Europe, but more importantly, unlike Spain, which is the lowest, the Swedes never experienced a single Delta wave (as Spain did in July).

Even other Scandinavian countries like Iceland and Norway, which seemed nearly impervious to this virus until the past few months, are suffering their largest waves to date.about:blank

As you can see, even the Scandinavian countries or other countries that currently have low case rates all had one or two Delta waves since June – except for Sweden.

It is self-evident that Sweden’s natural immunity was able to preclude any major Delta wave — the only country in Europe to accomplish this feat. Although Sweden currently has a high vaccination rate — slightly higher than that of the U.S. — the Swedish government didn’t start its vaccination drive until much later than the U.S., U.K., and other countries that have had two Delta waves.

According to the narrative of the masters of the universe, Sweden should have been particularly vulnerable to Delta, while the U.K. should have coasted through it. Instead, the opposite occurred.about:blank

Let’s look at the vaccination curves of Sweden and Ireland and then compare their case rates over the past 4-5 months.

As you can see, the two countries have similar vaccination curves, but Ireland wound up jabbing an even greater percentage of its population. What are the results?

Thus, it wasn’t the vaccination success that stemmed the tide of this variant in Sweden, because Ireland should be doing even better. It’s that Sweden was lucky to have achieved herd immunity before the disastrous vaccination campaign made the pandemic worse. With most of the population likely already immune, they are not harmed by any form of vaccine-mediated viral enhancement.

If we look at other countries that have higher vaccination levels than Sweden, among them some of the most vaccinated countries on earth, they have all done worse than Sweden since the mass vaccination commenced in the spring. This includes both countries like Belgium that already had the virus bad, as well as countries like Iceland and Singapore, which never seemed to have a problem prior to the mass vaccination.

Case rates:

Vaccination rates:

What is abundantly clear is that a vaccine that, to begin with, doesn’t stop transmission and gradually wanes is not a vaccine and, in fact, makes the virus learn to grow stronger and more durable. “Delta” was not inevitable, nor are the coming variants. Sweden could have declined to vaccinate a single person and its curve would have looked the same, because it’s clear from its contrast to every other country as a stark control group that its population’s greater natural immunity is the active ingredient responsible for the country’s success. The mass vaccination, on the other hand, is now the greatest obstacle to ending this pandemic in countries that have not achieved herd immunity through prior infection.

Let’s not forget that Sweden conducted the most comprehensive long-term study of vaccine effectiveness in the world and found that after 6-7 months, “no effectiveness could be detected” from the Pfizer shot. In fact, the study found negative efficacy after 210 days for those over 50, which harmonizes with what we are seeing before our very eyes throughout the world. For some older adults, the shots are as much as -77% effective, and the numbers seem to drop every month.

As one retired California nurse asked of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, “Why do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn’t protect the protected in the first place?”

Mark Levin: DeSantis was right, and Fauci was wrong


Reported by BLAZETV STAFF | October 21, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/shows/levintv/ron-desantis-mark-levin?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

On “LevinTV” this week, BlazeTV host Mark Levin explained why he believes Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ responses to COVID-19 — whether prioritizing care for the elderly and nursing home facilities from the very beginning of the pandemic, refusing to issue mask and vaccine mandates, or fighting the federal government’s attempt to cap the distribution of antibody treatments to his state — have been way out in front of any other political leadership. Could this be a preview of the 2024 presidential election?

Levin pointed out that the Harvard-educated governor studies the most current COVID data on a daily basis and makes his decisions accordingly, as opposed to leaders who blindly follow the advice of Dr. Anthony Fauci or comply with the political narrative of the day. As a result, Florida’s current (as of Monday, Oct 18, 2021) COVID death rate (per 100,000) is one of the lowest in the country.

Watch the video clip below to hear Mark Levin break it all down:

Disclaimer: The content of this clip does not provide medical advice. Please seek the advice of local health officials for any COVID-19 and/or COVID vaccine related questions & concerns.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: