Warren said, “The idea that five extremists on the United States Supreme Court want to take us back to that world, want to treat women as second class citizens, I see this as a moment it has got to be all hands on deck, a whole of government response. I get it Congress could act, but we just don’t have the votes right now. So we need the president of the United States to act.”
“Extremists.” Five of the nine Supreme Court justices vote against infanticide, and Warren considers them “extremists.”
The socialist multi-millionaire extremist who lied about Native American heritage went on to say the President should take executive action to counter the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned.
What the administration should explore, she said, is “what can be done with federal property within the states that are hostile. How about if the federal government looks into the possibility? Can they have clinics there? Can we give advice there? How can we be helpful?”
Warren concluded, “We want to see this administration have all hands on deck. This is a five-alarm fire. We need to be fight, fight, fighting.”
It’s a five-alarm fire for Democrats because the unrestricted right to kill one’s inconvenient unborn child is a leftist sacrament.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2022-06-10 05:57:302022-06-10 05:57:45Warren: Biden Should Put Abortion Clinics on Federal Property in ‘Hostile’ States
Social media users slammed Pizza Hut this week on Twitter over its book club’s latest reading suggestion that includes a drag performer book for kids.
The restaurant’s reading club Book It! Program, which targets grades PreK-6, has listed some books focusing on the LGBTQ community on its website in light of celebrating Pride Month, including Big Wig and Be Amazing: A History of Pride.
Since 1984, Book It! has encouraged children across the country to read more as “schools across the nation and millions of children” participating in the six-month program each year, according to the program’s Facebook page.
Big Wig is still posted at Pizza Hut’s Book It! Program. Click here to see it.
Parent company Yum Brands owns Pizza Hut and Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell.
Early attempts by other conservative groups to communicate with Pizza Hut via Twitter were quickly shut down.
Kindergarten and elementary school kids are way too young to struggle with the concept of being transgender. Children are far too immature to choose a sexual preference for life especially when the overwhelming majority of kids who experiment choose to be straight. It’s irresponsible to challenge the innocence of children with transgender propaganda when a high percentage of them would have otherwise ended up taking the straight heterosexual path for life.
Pizza Hut certainly has the right to promote whatever books it wants in its library. You have the same right to object and patronize food chains other than Pizza Hut, KFC and Taco Bell who don’t spend customer money on LGBTQ propaganda.
Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge parent company Yum Brands’ officials to show respect for the innocence of children by discontinuing Big Wig and other books that push LGBTQ on young kids.
To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Florida Family Associationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFlorida Family Association2022-06-09 05:36:022022-06-09 10:36:43TAKE ACTION: Stop Pizza Hut’s ‘Book Club’ That Gives Drag Performer’s Book to Kids
As technocracy and transhumanism have risen to the fore, they have brought with them their own form of science — “scientism” — which is basically the religion of science. In other words, it’s a belief even in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, and this is a very serious problem
The clearest problem with the admonition to “believe the science” is that bona fide experts are found on all sides of any given empirical question
The scientific priesthood is intolerant to new ideas while, simultaneously, search engines and digitization of scientific literature have eroded their authority as gatekeepers of knowledge
The way things look right now, the gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood don’t seem to have any intention to open its doors to outsiders and independent thinkers. If anything, they’re trying to massively increase their control over the information we’re allowed to see and share, even to the point of proposing the creation of certifying boards to police physicians’ sharing of medical opinions
The idea that a group of people can be the sole arbiters of “truth” is irrational. Individual biases always creep in, and the greater the influence of such a group, the more ingrained and dogmatic those biases will become, until the system is corrupted to the core. One could argue that dogmatic faith in nonexistent scientific consensuses is the reason for why we are where we are today
Science has long been regarded as a stronghold of logic and reason. Scientists don’t draw conclusions based on emotions, feelings or sheer faith. It’s all about building a body of reproducible evidence. Well, that’s what it used to be, but as technocracy and transhumanism have risen to the fore, it has brought with it its own form of science — “scientism” — which is basically the religion of science. Sheldon Richman with The Libertarian Institute writes:1
“The popular slogan today is ‘Believe in science.’ It’s often used as a weapon against people who reject not science in principle but rather one or another prominent scientific proposition, whether it be about the COVID-19 vaccine, climate change … to mention a few …
The clearest problem with the admonition to ‘believe in science’ is that … well-credentialed scientists — that is, bona fide experts — are found on both (or all) sides of a given empirical question … Moreover, no one, not even scientists, are immune from group-think and confirmation bias …
Apparently, under the believers’ model of science, truth comes down from a secular Mount Sinai (Mount Science?) thanks to a set of anointed scientists, and those declarations are not to be questioned. The dissenters can be ignored because they are outside the elect. How did the elect achieve its exalted station? Often, but not always, it was through the political process …
But that’s not science; it’s religion, or at least it’s the stereotype of religion that the ‘science believers’ oppose in the name of enlightenment. What it yields is dogma and, in effect, accusations of heresy. In real science, no elect and no Mount Science exists.
Real science is a rough-and-tumble process of hypothesizing, public testing, attempted replication, theory formation, dissent and rebuttal, refutation (perhaps), revision (perhaps), and confirmation (perhaps). It’s an unending process, as it obviously must be …
The institutional power to declare matters settled by consensus opens the door to all kinds of mischief that violate the spirit of science and potentially harm the public financially and otherwise.”
Technocracy News also added a comment2 to Richman’s article, noting that “Scientism is at the root of both technocracy and transhumanism, indicating that the revolution waged against the world is religious in nature.”
Whether the war against humanity is truly underpinned by religion or not is open for debate and interpretation. But what is clear is that something has shifted science away from its conventional foundation into something that very much resembles religious faith. In other words, it’s a belief even in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, and this is a very serious problem.
Scientific Gatekeeping as a Priesthood
In “Against Scientific Gatekeeping,”3 published in the May 2022 issue of Reason magazine, Dr. Jeffrey Singer argues that “science should be a profession, not a priesthood.” Indeed, yet that’s basically what it has become. Singer starts out by reviewing the early discovery of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment against COVID-19, and the subsequent demonization of anyone who supported its off-label use.
He then goes on to discuss the scientific priesthood’s intolerance to new ideas while, simultaneously, “search engines and the digitization of scientific literature have forever eroded their authority as gatekeepers of knowledge.” He writes:4
“Most people prefer experts, of course, especially when it comes to health care … But a problem arises when some of those experts exert outsized influence over the opinions of other experts and thereby establish an orthodoxy enforced by a priesthood. If anyone, expert or otherwise, questions the orthodoxy, they commit heresy. The result is groupthink, which undermines the scientific process.
The COVID-19 pandemic provided many examples. Most medical scientists, for instance, uncritically accepted the epidemiological pronouncements of government-affiliated physicians who were not epidemiologists. At the same time, they dismissed epidemiologists as ‘fringe’ when those specialists dared to question the conventional wisdom …
The deference to government-endorsed positions is probably related to funding … President Dwight Eisenhower … warned that ‘we should be alert to the … danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific technological elite.’ Today we face both problems …
It is easy to understand why the scientific priesthood views the democratization of health care opinions as a threat to its authority and influence. In response, medical experts typically wave the flag of credentialism: If you don’t have an M.D. or another relevant advanced degree, they suggest, you should shut up and do as you’re told.
But credentials are not always proof of competence, and relying on them can lead to the automatic rejection of valuable insights … Scott Atlas, a former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford Medical School, has published and critically reviewed hundreds of medical research papers. He is a member of the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology.
Yet when Atlas commented on COVID-19 issues, the priesthood and its journalistic entourage derided him because he is ‘not an infectious disease expert’ — as if a 30-year career in academic medicine does not provide enough background to understand and analyze public health data. Why? Because this physician had the temerity to contradict the public health establishment.”
The Need to Reassess Dogmatic Thinking
Singer reviews several other examples of bonafide experts who got thrown under the proverbial bus by the medical priesthood during the years of COVID, and highlights instances where we can now, rather conclusively, prove that public health officials made bad calls.
Several studies have concluded that lockdowns had no beneficial impact on infection rates and COVID deaths, for example, while disproportionally harming the young and the poor. Yet no one has publicly admitted this strategy was an unwise one that should be permanently abandoned and never repeated.
Many studies have also demonstrated that natural immunity is better than the COVID jab, yet no changes have been made to the official recommendation to inject everyone, whether COVID recovered or not.
“Just as public health officials must abandon a ‘zero COVID’ strategy and accept that the virus will be endemic, the science priesthood must adapt to a world where specialized knowledge has been democratized,” Singer writes.5
“For scientific knowledge to advance, scientists must reach a rapprochement with the uncredentialed. They must not dismiss lay hypotheses or observations out of hand. They must fight against the understandable desire to avoid any hypothesis that might upset the health bureaucrats who control billions of research grant dollars.
It is always useful to challenge and reassess long-held premises and dogmas. People outside of a field might provide valuable perspectives that can be missed by those within it.”
Effort to Muzzle Doctors Continues
The way things look right now, the gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood don’t seem to have any intention to open its doors to outsiders and independent thinkers.
If anything, they’re trying to massively increase their control over the information we’re allowed to see and share, even to the point of proposing the creation of private medical certifying boards to police physicians’ sharing of medical opinions online and elsewhere. In a May 31, 2022, Substack article, independent medical journalist Paul Thacker writes:6
“This of course, is laughable. We have plenty of evidence that medical boards are incapable of regulating physician behavior simply by looking at the history of drug scandals in America, none of which could have occurred without the complicity of corrupt doctors — few if any of whom were later sanctioned by their own profession.
Anyone notice a medical board going after Duke University’s Dr. Ralph Snyderman for aiding the Sacklers’ opioid scheme and helping spread disinformation that these highly addictive drugs are NOT … highly addictive?
Of course not. Snyderman built up Duke University into the 3rd most prestigious medical school in the States. Despite spreading disinformation about opioids that killed tens of thousands of Americans, he’s obviously a great doctor …
Oddly enough, one of the most prolific tweeters on COVID-19 vaccines is Baylor University’s Dr. Peter Hotez. And while Hotez has spread disinformation about vaccines — in one example, stating that vaccines mandates were never going to happen and were just a dog whistle by anti-vaccine groups — don’t expect any state medical board to come after him.
The reality is that, during the pandemic, the medical profession has become cheerleaders for vaccines, not skeptics. So when a couple MDs write an essay in the NEJM saying we need to confront COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, you automatically know they don’t mean someone like Hotez who has tweeted vaccine misinformation, but who has also religiously promoted COVID-19 vaccines.”
Thacker goes on to detail the history of Dr. Edward Michna, who has spent a large portion of his career promoting and defending the use of opioids for several different drug companies. He’s also conducted several pain trials involving opioids, and despite having received many tens of thousands of dollars from opioid makers, he didn’t disclose those competing interests.
“In coming months, documents will be released, further explaining what the opioid manufacturers did. But nothing … NOTHING will happen to Dr. Edward Michna for defending these companies,” Thacker writes.7“That’s why nobody should believe … the idea that doctors can regulate doctors. Doctors have had forever to do this, and they continually fail.”
Without Free Discourse, Science Dies
It seems the moral of all these stories is that without free discourse, science cannot flourish and falsehoods become harder to weed out. Free speech is a requirement for any well-functioning system, whether we’re talking about politics, medicine, science or anything else.
The idea that a group of people, no matter how well-intended, can be the sole arbiters of “truth” is irrational on its face, because who among us can claim to know all there is to know? Individual biases always creep in, and the greater the influence of such a group, the more ingrained and dogmatic those biases will become, until the system is corrupted to the core.
One could argue that dogmatic faith in nonexistent scientific consensuses is the reason for why we are where we are today. Gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood have already allowed science to be corrupted to the point its barely recognizable. The answer, then, is not more of the same, but less. We need less censorship and more open-minded sharing of viewpoints, opinions and interpretations.
And when it comes to creating medical boards to police medical “misinformation” shared by doctors, we already know how that would work out. While Thacker doesn’t mention this, many doctors have been targeted by various professional boards, including state medical boards, for publicly opposing COVID measures such as mask and COVID shot mandates. I discussed this in “Medical Boards Hunting Down Doctors Over Mask Mandates.”
Transforming the Health Care System
In his book, “Curable: How an Unlikely Group of Radical Innovators Is Trying to Transform Our Health Care System,” Travis Christofferson addresses questions such as: “What has happened to American health care?” and “What are the foundational disruptions or corruptions in the system?”
His book, in some ways, is based on the theory promoted in Michael Lewis’ book and subsequent film, “Moneyball.” It describes how you can use statistics to massively improve a flawed system.
“Moneyball” showed how, within a simple game of baseball, you can have massive inefficiencies, and by taking away the human biases and just applying statistics to find what is undervalued, you can massively boost the performance of a team.
When I interviewed Christofferson about his book, he offered several examples of how statistics and removal of human biases can be used in the same way to improve inefficiencies within the medical system. For example, the diabetic drug metformin has “massive repositories of data” suggesting it can be useful against a plethora of chronic diseases, including cancer, and it’s extremely affordable.
The reason it’s rarely prescribed for any of these other indications is because there’s a financial motivation to capitalize on more expensive treatments, even if they don’t work well. By focusing on undervalued treatments and low-cost prevention, health care costs could be driven way down, while simultaneously improving patient outcomes.
Another example comes from Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania. By introducing a Fresh Food Farmacy for Type 2 diabetics, Geisinger Health was able to reduce its per-year outlays and cost for Type 2 diabetics by a whopping 80%. Patients with prediabetes or Type 2 diabetes are given a prescription for fresh, whole foods, and allowed two free meals a day from the Farmacy, along with intensive care and educational support.
A third example is Intermountain Health. In addition to paying its doctors a fixed salary plus bonuses based on patients’ health outcomes, they also assess differences between treatments to see which works best.
For example, patients are always given antibiotics before surgery, but it’s never been established when the optimal time to administer the drugs is. Intermountain compared medical records, finding the optimal time was two hours before surgery, which cut their surgical infection rate by more than half.
Bias Corrupts and Corruption Is Inherently Destructive
These are all examples of how we can effectively and efficiently move medicine forward. By silencing debate and discussion, and by ignoring data and statistics, which has become the norm in this COVID era, the conventional health care system is headed for collapse.
This seems particularly true when you consider hospitals have, over the past two years, completely shredded patients’ trust by mistreating and outright killing COVID-19 patients with the most dangerous treatments available. Rather than collaborating with peers, most doctors have blindly followed financially-driven and politically biased protocols handed down from the reigning “priesthood,” and the results have been nothing short of disastrous.
Speaking of disastrous, California has introduced a bill8 that will strip doctors of their medical licenses if they express medical views that the state does not agree with, basically reducing medicine to a state-sanctioned one-size-fits-all endeavor. Absolutely nothing good can come of such a plan. I discussed this in “Bill Seeks to Muzzle Doctors Who Tell the Truth About COVID.”
This bill, AB-2098, was passed by House vote (53 to 20), May 26, 2022, and is currently in the Senate.9 If this law is passed in California, we will probably begin to see similar or identical bills introduced in other states as well.
If your trust in doctors has already waned, implementation of such a law is sure to carpet bomb whatever trust is left into oblivion, because all you’ll be able to get, no matter who you go to, is the state-sponsored opinion. What happens then? How do we care for our health if our doctors are legally prevented from giving us their best advice? This is such a radical departure from sanity and sound practice that it’s hard to even imagine what medicine will look like at that point.
The answer, I believe, will be for good, caring medical professionals to start building parallel health care systems, such as those detailed in Christofferson’s book, “Curable.” We may also have to take on greater responsibility for finding solutions to our own health problems. “Take control of your health” has been my motto and tagline since I started this website, but it’s more important now than ever.
In years past, one of the greatest risks a patient faced was a doctor lacking nutritional know-how. In the future, the greatest risk could be doctors outright lying to you, even to the point of sending you to a more or less certain death, just to stay in practice. I hope it won’t come to that. But prevent it, we must resist and oppose these kinds of treacherous plots wherever and whenever they crop up.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-06-09 05:21:582022-06-09 05:26:11Why ‘Trust the Science’ Is a Con
The New York City Health Department shows how to use them “safely.”
On May 11, 2022 the New York Times reported: Overdose Deaths Continue Rising, With Fentanyl and Meth Key Culprits. The subtitle of that reports is stunning: New data shows a surge in overdose deaths involving fentanyl and methamphetamine. Overall, the nation saw a 15 percent increase in deaths from overdoses in 2021.
Let us begin by noting that fentanyl and other narcotics are illegal because they have the potential to kill or otherwise inflict serious harm.
I can still remember my dad telling me when I was a teenager, so many years ago: “nothing is so good it could not be made better, or be so bad that it could not be made worse.”
You would think that an agency called The New York City Department Of Health would be focused on the health and well-being of the residents of New York City and consequently would do as much as possible to discourage drug use, period.
After all, the massive campaign against cigarette smoking, which is ongoing to this very day, has been extremely effective in getting people who smoke to stop smoking and prevent young people from taking up that dangerous and, all too frequently, deadly habit.
Consider this item posted on the New York State Department of Health:
Today, however, in the age of radical madness, the New York City Department of Health is actually focused on preventing overdoses- not be discouraging the use of such dangerous and illegal drugs as fentanyl, but by providing a guide to the supposedly safe use of these deadly drugs!
Fentanyl use can increase your risk of overdose, especially if you do not regularly use opioids.
Fentanyl has been found in many different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, crack, methamphetamine, ketamine and pills from nonmedical sources. Anyone who uses drugs that may contain fentanyl, even occasionally, may be at risk of overdose.
To prevent an overdose:
Avoid using alone and take turns
Start with a small dose and go slowly
Keep Naloxone ready and on hand
Avoid mixing drugs
Test your drugs using fentanyl test strips
This supremely infuriating and disturbing sentence included in the guide states: “start with a small dose and go slowly.” In other words, when you first begin using these drugs in the beginning, this is the safest way to do it!
The “Health Department’s guide also includes this virtual menu of other illegal, dangerous and deadly drugs in this sentence:
fentanyl has been found in many different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, crack, methamphetamine, ketamine and pills from nonmedical sources. Anyone who uses drugs that may contain fentanyl, even occasionally, may be at risk of overdose.
Drug use is, in and of itself deadly and destructive to those who fall victim to addiction. Even those who do not die from overdoses are likely to find drug addition impacts their ability to support themselves and care for their family members. Imagine the impact that this has on the children of the addicts. Drug addiction has been cited as a factor in massive homelessness.
Then there is the issue of the crimes that addicts may commit to be able to buy the drugs they are hooked on. I would love to know how many deadly shootings involve individuals who have drugs flowing through their veins. Perhaps toxicology reports should be made public in the aftermath of a violent attack.
With all of the emphasis on gun control in the wake of mass shootings we need criminal control.
The same could be said for the accidents caused by motorists who drive under the influence of drugs and inflict injuries and death to those caught in their paths.
The drug trade also funds terrorism in the United States and around the globe as has been noted in numerous reports and various Congressional hearings.
Finally proceeds from the drug trade fund violent transnational gangs who create a veritable reign of terror in the communities in which they operate- frequently those communities are ethnic immigrant communities from around the world, because human nature is universal and the proverbial “good, bad and ugly” can be found in every race, religion and ethnicity. (My 30 year career with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service hammered this home to my INS colleagues and me. Furthermore my approximately 4 year assignment to the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration, followed up by my 10 years as an INS Senior Special Agent assigned to the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) provided me with a front line seat to the nexus between failures of border security and immigration law enforcement that undermined national security and public safety.)
Last year I wrote an article, Interior Enforcement And The Border Crisis in which I postulated that the borders of the United Sates cannot be made secure against the entry of massive numbers of illegal aliens if they faced no consequences for being illegally present in the United States. Illegal aliens only come to the United States in violation of law if they are encouraged that law enforcement authorities will ignore their violations of our immigration laws so that they can achieve whatever illegal goals motivated them to come to the United States – whether it is illegal employment, the desire to flee law enforcement in other countries because they are fugitives from justice, or because they seek to engage in activities involving gangs, narcotics, terrorism or other such dangerous activities.
Now New York City and other cities are now apparently providing a sort of “sanctuary” for drug users that imperil not protect public health and the long-term welfare of both the drug users and their family members as well as many others who may fall victim to various aspects of the drug trade even as the Biden Administration has all but dismantled the borders of the United States to not only facilitate the flow of unprecedented numbers off illegal aliens into the United States, but massive quantities of deadly narcotics as well.
The only reason that drugs are being smuggled in such huge quantities into the United States is a direct function of the fundamental economic principle of “Supply and Demand.” Our open borders facilitate the flow of fentanyl and other deadly drugs into the United States and local governments are helping to drive up and not tamp down the demand.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2022-06-08 11:54:572022-06-08 11:56:35Sanctuary Cities Now Provide Sanctuary For Deadly Illegal Drugs
The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund’s “Justice For Sale Report” reveals how the left put pro-Black Lives Matter district attorneys and state attorneys in power across the country to let criminals off the hook and endanger communities in the name of “racial justice”
The U.S. currently has 75 George Soros-backed prosecutors overseeing half of America’s 50 most populous cities, according to a new report from the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF).
Traditionally, elections for district attorney have been quiet affairs,” reads LELDF’s report. “That changed recently as millions of campaign dollars have flowed into these down ballot contests.
FINDINGS:
• The US currently has at least 75 Soros-Backed social justice prosecutors, supported through campaign dollars and/or Soros-funded progressive infrastructure groups. • These 75 prosecutors represent more than1 in 5 Americans or more than 72 million people, including half of America’s 50 most populous cities and counties. • From 2018 to 2021, Soros spent$13 million on just 10 prosecutors’ races, where his organizations were by far the biggest spender in the race and comprised the majority of the progressive candidate’s campaign spending – as much as 90% in some cases. • To date, Soros has spent more than$40 million on direct campaign spending over the past decade to elect prosecutors. • Soros uses a series of shell organizations, affiliates, and pass-through committees to steer contributions to both candidates and his robust support network for progressive prosecutors, which provide gravitas and perks to preferred prosecutors.
Here are some related articles about how Soros and Democrats are more interested in freeing criminals than protecting American citizens from crime and criminals:
Since the inauguration of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. on on Wednesday, January 20, 2021 hundred of thousands of Americans have died.
We looked at how many Americans have died since January 20, 2021 and here’s what we have found.
COVID-19:Statista reports that as of June 7th, 2022 the United States is the country with the highest number of confirmed cases and deaths. There have been 1,033,830 deaths due to Covid. Deaths attributed to COVID-19 accounted for 72.4% of U.S. excess deaths. Click here for the death rate per 100,000 by state as of June 1st, 2022.
Deaths: JAMA Network reported Between March 1, 2020, and January 2, 2021, the U.S. experienced 2, 801, 439 deaths, 22.9% more than expected, representing 522, 368 excess deaths (Table).
Deaths of Minorities:JAMA Network reported The excess death rate was higher among non-Hispanic Black (208.4 deaths per 100 000) than non-Hispanic White or Hispanic populations (157.0 and 139.8 deaths per 100 000, respectively); these groups accounted for 16.9%, 61.1%, and 16.7% of excess deaths, respectively. The US experienced 4 surge patterns: in New England and the Northeast, excess deaths surged in the spring; in the Southeast and Southwest, in the summer and early winter; in the Plains, Rocky Mountains, and far West, primarily in early winter; and in the Great Lakes, bimodally, in the spring and early winter (Figure).
Deaths by State:JAMA Network reported excess deaths were increasing in all regions at the end of 2020. The 10 states with the highest per capita rate of excess deaths were Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Arizona, Alabama, Louisiana, South Dakota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Ohio. New York experienced the largest relative increase in all-cause mortality (38.1%).
Mass Shootings 2021: The New York Times reported that the Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as one with four or more people injured or killed, not including the perpetrator, counted more than 600 such shootings in 2020, compared with 417 in 2019. That carnage has continued into 2021, with hundreds of shootings so far this year. The archive, a nonprofit organization, has counted 25 mass murders, which it defines as four or more people killed, in 2021 as of mid-November. In 2021 the number of mass shooting in the United States were: Essex, MD 4 killed; Boone, NC 4 killed; Rock Hill, SC 6 killed; Atlanta, GA 8 killed; Allen, TX 4 killed; Muskogee, OK 6 killed; Indianapolis, IN 17 killed from April 15th to January 24th; Chicago, IL 5 killed; Boulder, CO 10 killed; Colorado Springs, CO 6 killed; San Jose, CA 9 killed; Orange, CA 4 killed. Additionally, BallotPedia reported: : November 23, 2021 in Harvey, Illinois While students were leaving Thornton High School for the day, a person in a vehicle driving by exchanged gunfire with a student. No one was injured. [4]; October 26, 2021 in Chicago, Illinois Shots were fired during a fight outside Jose de Diego Community Academy. No one was injured in the gunfire. [5] ; October 13, 2021 in Chicago, Illinois Shots fired from a passing vehicle at a pedestrian struck James McDade Classical School, breaking one window. No one was injured. [6] ; October 12, 2021 in Chicago, Illinois Shots were fired at the exterior doors of Wendell Phillips Academy High School as they were opened to let students out for the day. A security guard and a 14-year-old girl were injured. [7] ; September 23, 2021 in Joliet, Illinois A window at the St. Paul School was shot out during an exchange of gunfire between two moving vehicles. Although classes were in session at the time, the students were in the basement and no injuries were reported. [8]; September 15, 2021 in Champaign, Illinois Police responded to reports of shots fired on a field between Jefferson Middle School and Centennial High School. On arriving, they found 13 spent cases but no evidence that anyone had been injured. [9] ; August 22, 2021 in Rockford, Illinois A 13-year-old boy was shot during a fist fight in the parking lot of West Middle School. He was expected to survive as of the day after the shooting. A 17-year-old was taken into custody. [10] ; June 1, 2021 in Chicago, Illinois A 17-year-old boy fired shots into a crowd outside Lincoln Park High School and grazed another 17-year-old boy’s arm. There were no other injuries. [11] ; January 10, 2021 in Springfield, Illinois A 16-year-old girl practicing driving in the parking lot of Southeast High School and a 20-year-old woman who was in the car with her were shot and injured. There were no fatalities. [12]
Mass Shootings 2022:The Washington Post reported over 200 mass shootings in 2022 to date. There have already been more than 240 mass shootings this year in the United States, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Thirty-three have taken place since a rampage at an elementary school in Uvalde, Tex., left 19 children and two teachers dead on May 24. Just this past weekend, mass shootings in multiple cities killed 11 and wounded more than 60. Mass shootings, where four or more people — not including the shooter — are injured or killed, have averaged more than one per day so far this year. Not a single week in 2022 has passed without at least four mass shootings. Additionally, BallotPedia reported: May 17, 2022 in Chicago, Illinois A gun in an 8-year-old student’s backpack at Disney Magnet School went off, injuring another student. The boy had found the loaded gun under his mother’s bed.[1]; March 29, 2022 in Chicago, Illinois Shots fired from a vehicle driving by hit Thomas A. Hendricks Community School. Although no one on campus was injured, a passenger in another car was struck by the gunfire.[2]; January 4, 2022 in Rockford, Illinois Two 17-year-old students at Auburn High School were shot while sitting in a car in the school parking lot. Both were expected to survive at the time of the shooting. Three suspects were later taken into custody.[3]
Biden and the Biden administration including the FBI, DOJ, DHS and other agencies have been in office during all of these murders.
So whose responsible? The criminals or their guns? We suggest that we are now experiencing a wave of criminality that began on January 20th, 2021 and is continuing to this day across America.
America is suffering from the very deadly Donkey Pox.
A group of doctors has filed a lawsuit against Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration for unlawfully blocking them from using ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
The suit is filed against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
It also names HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf as defendants.
In the filing, plaintiffs Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter argue that by publicly ordering health professionals and patients to avoid ivermectin, the FDA both acted outside of its authority.
They say the FDA inhibited the doctors’ ability to practice medicine.
Though the FDA has approved ivermectin to treat certain infections, the department has urged the public not to use the drug to treat COVID-19.
“Attempts by the FDA to influence or intervene in the doctor-patient relationship amount to interference with the practice of medicine, the regulation of which is—and always has been—reserved to states,” the lawsuit said.
“The FDA breached this critical boundary between federal and state authority by directing the public, including health professionals and patients, not to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19, even though the drug remains fully approved for human use.”
The filing emphasizes that the case is not about the efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID-19: rather, it said, “it’s about who determines the appropriate treatment for each unique patient and whether the FDA can interfere with that process.”
“Since the pandemic began, I have had one mission – help my patients,” Bowden said following the filing.
Slay the latest News for free!
We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.
“I provided access to testing when testing was hard to find.
“I provided treatment when other doctors told my patients to stay home.
“I have kept over 3,900 patients out of the hospital, but it hasn’t been easy.”
Bowden was “derided by Houston Methodist Hospital and forced to resign her privileges there as a result” of her ivermectin recommendations for treating COVID-19, the lawsuit said.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-06-07 08:00:042022-06-07 08:00:04Doctors Sue Biden Admin for Unlawfully Blocking Them from Treating COVID-19 Patients with Ivermectin
I will always remember more than two decades ago, Sean Hannity, saying on his radio show he didn’t care what queers did at home behind closed doors. I thought to myself, you’re Catholic and instead of lovingly condemning what God Almighty called an abomination, you just want to shush it up behind closed doors. Give an inch and they’ll take a mile. An old saying but so true.
Even way back then so many of us knew what was going to happen to normalize the immoral and dangerous PREFERRED lifestyles of sexual deviants. While the “queer community” uses those exact words, you had better not or be smeared into the next century.
We then received links to a series of articles highlighted by activist, blogger, speaker, and best-selling author who educates and inspires the public on the burning social and moral issues of the day Elizabeth Johnson:
A Texas gay bar hosted a “Drag the Kids to Pride” event where drag queen dancers provocatively gyrated in front of children as young as toddlers. Tensions flared when protesters demonstrated outside the venue hosting the drag queen show for children.
The Mr. Misster gay bar in downtown Dallas hosted the drag queen event aimed at children.
A poster for the “Drag the Kids to Pride” event claims it is the “ultimate family friendly pride experience.”
“Our under 21 guests can enjoy a special Mr. Misster Mocktails while the moms and dads can sip on one of our classic Mr. Misster Mimosa Towers,” the poster reads. “Do you want to hit the stage with the queens? We have FIVE limited spots for young performers to take the stage solo, or with a queen of their choosing! Come hangout with the Queens and enjoy this unique pride experience, fit for guests of all ages!”
The Texas gay bar said the “Drag the Kids to Pride” event was a spinoff of Mr. Misster’s Champagne Drag Brunch – which tickets start at $25 and go all the way up to $600.
So now parents are dragging their children to gay bars for what exactly? Are these parents selling their children’s innocence or paying others to take their innocence away?
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-06-07 06:46:322022-06-10 16:04:49THE QUEERING OF AMERICA’S CHILDREN: Hey Mom & Dad Now You Can ‘Drag Your Kids’ To ‘Pride’
We’re starting to see just how far abortion activists are willing to go to get their way.
Starting with violence. A radical pro-abortion group claimed credit for the Molotov cocktail attack on a pro-life office in Wisconsin and promised “increasingly extreme tactics” ahead. Pro-life workers received death threats after the attack. Two hundred students surrounded two pro-life students at a high school in New Jersey, pushing and shoving them, and tearing down their signs. Pro-abortion protesters in Los Angeles threw rocks and bottles at police, and beat one officer with his own baton. So there you have it – abortion activists are even willing to attack the police to get their way. Then you have politicians like Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot egging them on. She issued a “call to arms” and urged citizens to rise up and “fight to victory” for abortion rights – no surrender.
Then there’s the vandalism. Vandals spray-painted a Catholic church in Boulder with pro-abortion graffiti – “F- the Church”, “My Body, My Choice” and such and the like. That’s just one report. Other churches have been vandalized, too. A pregnancy help center in Florida was vandalized over the Memorial Day weekend, with “If abortions aren’t SAFE then neither are you” spray-painted on the building. This is just one report; many more many more pro-life organizations have been hit, recently.
So it’s not just spray paint; it’s intimidation, and it’s being attempted at the Supreme Court, too. Illegal protests continue outside Supreme Court Justice’s homes, and the local Progressive DA won’t do anything to stop them. Abortion activists are laying plans to shut down the Supreme Court building next Monday, to prevent the Justices from reaching their offices and issuing opinions.
Politicians in Progressive cities are signaling they won’t enforce state laws banning abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The cities include Austin, New Orleans, parts of Atlanta, Durham County in North Carolina, a Philadelphia suburb, Nashville’s county, and Fairfax, Virginia. Sixty state and local officials pledged in 2020 not to prosecute abortion if Roe goes away. None dare call it insurrection, but I will.
One thing to notice in all this is how organized it is. These are not random acts of violence. We see professionally printed signs, standard talking points, online coordination, crowdfunding, and other hallmarks of an organized effort.
So now we’re seeing how far abortion activists are willing to go to get what they want – violence, vandalism, illegal protests, attacking the police, ignoring the law, intimidation, and death threats. If you can’t persuade people, smash’em in the face and firebomb their office. It’s no longer about persuasion or winning the issue fair and square. It’s about using any means necessary to get what they want and the hell with everybody else, starting with the unborn. And it’s all supported by politicians who should be thrown out of office for their lawlessness. The law means nothing to abortion activists and their willing accomplices in government. Which is not surprising, because these people don’t even respect life itself. My mother was the best political scientist I’ve ever known. She said a society that does not respect life is in trouble. Amen to that, and I will add a society that no longer respects law will soon find it no longer has the Rule of Law, leaving it to the worst and most ruthless among us to determine what goes on here.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Skirmish - Liberato.UShttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Skirmish - Liberato.US2022-06-07 06:14:572022-06-07 12:19:46Abortion Activists: How Far Will They Go?
The topic of pregnant and nursing moms getting vaccinated under encouragement and coercion is painful. It’s painful to research, painful to write about, and painful to learn how carelessly the most precious among us are being treated. The very essence of life and nature live within pregnant and nursing mothers. Reflecting on how little regard was paid to that life is upsetting, and everything I have to report in this post is done so with a heavy heart and a hope that we’ll get through this with a renewed sense of personal autonomy when it comes to medical decisions.
Notes to Keep in Mind:
The FDA + Pfizer actively worked to keep this data hidden from sight for our lifetimes.
Academic institutions, Medical institutions, and public health agencies are all still recommending that pregnant women take the Covid-19 vaccines as a precaution against Covid.
Dr. Naomi Wolf, Project Manager Amy Kelly, and the WarRoom/ DailyClout Pfizer Documents Volunteer Research Team have uncovered so many new important pieces of information that it’s getting difficult to keep up. I highly recommend pinning DailyClout to your homepage and checking their updates often. Their team of thousands of volunteers including hundreds of lawyers is working quickly, thoroughly, and efficiently.
A lot of information and serious concerns have emerged surrounding pregnant and nursing mothers and the possible effect that the Covid vaccines are having on their babies. Dr. Naomi Wolf has been appearing on Warroom regularly to provide us with updates on the findings of her and her team. On one appearance last week Dr. Wolf broke down some of the main red flags that have emerged, with the help of a female physician who studied the data:
Pregnant women were excluded from clinical trials when they were declared safe and effective for pregnant women. Pfizer, the FDA, the CDC, the entire “medical community” and your local employer who declared that you couldn’t come to work if you’re not vaccinated have concluded that this was safe and effective for pregnant women based on trials that were done on rats in France. There have not been any human clinical trials that have been concluded by Pfizer or other pharmaceutical companies to find out if these vaccines are safe for use during pregnancy or breastfeeding. There is currently one that’s still active, has no posted results and won’t conclude until July, 2022.
The animal studies that were conducted for the trial that the NIH based their conclusions on included 44 rats and were done over a period of 42 days. There are 2 main issues with this study:
This doesn’t fulfill the requirement to ensure that the drug will do no harm to the next generation
The doctors conducting the trials have all either been employed by or owned shares of Pfizer or BioNTech. There was an attempt to hide this fact by using their initials instead of full names on the study.
All Emergency Use Authorization excludes pregnant women.
Pregnant and nursing mothers were NOT ALLOWED to participate in phases 1,2, and 3 of human clinical trials. They were included on a list of 21 conditions that were not allowed to be recruited for trials. Page 33
The Department of Defense data is showing that female soldiers are having an astronomical rate of abnormalities and fetal problems. (NOTE- Mathew Crawford of RoundingtheEarth Substack has stated that he does not believe ANY of the DOD data is reliable, as it’s been demonstrably tampered with. Having said that, there are whistleblowers on the ground who corroborate that the rates of a variety of serious medical issues have indeed skyrocketed in 2021).
Adverse Events
In the Pfizer documents that were released thanks to legal force, there is data on reported adverse events since the rollout of the vaccine. On pages 12-13 of the document labeled “postmarketing-experience” Dr. Wolf’s Team 5 found:
28% of the 270 pregnancies + 4 fetus/baby cases of adverse events were categorized as serious, including:
Miscarriages
Fetal deaths
Uterine contractions
Pre-term deliveries
Premature rupture of membranes
Fetal growth restrictions
Breastfed babies were reported to have effects such as:
Infantile vomiting
Fever
Rash
Agitation
Allergy to the vaccine
4 nursing women reported adverse events such as:
Partial paralysis
Suppressed lactation
Breastmilk discoloration
Breast pain
Migraines
The document concludes that no serious adverse events have been detected. Dr. Wolf again questions whether we, as citizens of the United States of America, must begin to consider if all of these signs put together point to a serious national security breach. She has never seen anything as bad as what we’re seeing today in her 30 years in journalism.
There is a strong case that the potential risks for pregnant women from taking the Covid vaccine far outweigh the potential benefits.
On May 17, Dr. Wolf re-appeared on Warroom shortly after the FDA and the CDC authorized the Pfizer Covid-19 booster for 5-11-year-olds. In this segment, Dr. Wolf revealed some new information about data on the vaccine for pregnant and nursing mothers:
In Scotland there is an investigation happening right now that was triggered by a threshold that was crossed regarding the number of neonatal deaths. Its double the baseline amount, and this is the 2nd time in 7 months that the rate triggered an investigation.
Contrary to BBC claims (partially funded by Pfizer) that the rise in neonatal deaths cannot be connected to the vaccine, Dr. Wolf’s team, specifically Project Manager Amy Kelly, has found conclusive evidence to the contrary in Pfizer’s own documents.
Pfizer defined exposure to the vaccine as breastfeeding. This was not disclosed to pregnant women. A research team in Germany has confirmed to Dr. Wolf that breastmilk can deliver elements of the vaccine
A baby born to a vaccinated mother died after being born bleeding from the nose and mouth.
A mother received her 2nd vaccine dose on March 17, and within 24 hours her breastfed infant developed a rash and became inconsolable. The baby died 2 days later, with evidence of liver damage and a rare blood disorder.
The history of the claims of safety and efficacy regarding the Covid-19 vaccines for pregnant and nursing mothers will hopefully result in individuals who will be held criminally liable.
Missing Data
DailyClout’s expert Team 5 research team has reported some alarming numbers from Pfizer’s documents regarding missing information. In one group of 270 pregnancies, there were “no known outcomes” for 238 of the cases.
That leaves us with 36 known outcomes. Of those 36 known outcomes, 28 babies died before or at birth. It would be really helpful to know the outcome of the remaining 238 cases.
Pieces of the Puzzle – A Timeline
March 2021 –50 participants in a clinical trial reported becoming pregnant, with some of them subsequently being dismissed from the trials. Cindy L. Weis of the DailyClout found that those 50 women have still not had their profiles updated to include pregnancy outcomes.
In the same March 2021 document, we can see that Pfizer themselves admits the following:
Available data are insufficient to inform vaccine-related risks in pregnancy.
Adverse effects from the vaccine on a breastfed child are a possibility.
July 2021- In Waterloo, Ontario between the months of January – July 2021, there were 86 babies who were born dead, otherwise known as stillbirths. The baseline rate is usually 5-6 per YEAR. One brave MP named Rick Nicholls raised the issue in a parliamentary session with great concern and passion. In response, the Minister of Health gave the answer we’re all used to. The vaccine is Safe and Effective. Just to note, there was no noticeable rise in stillbirths in 2020, the year of Covid.
September 2021 – Scotland launched it’s first investigation into an abnormal spike in newborn baby deaths that was triggered by surpassing a threshold in infant deaths that hadn’t been seen since the 1980’s. (Note- this spike did not occur in 2020, the Year of Covid)
Ashmedai over at Resisting the Intellectual Literati wrote an extensive report on fertility issues and the vaccine back in September 2021.
Is There a Plausible Basis For Fertility Concerns?
In my own community, the most prominent concern on the minds of many of the vaccine hesitant, especially young women of childbearing age, is the fear of an adverse effect on fertility. Possibly because of this, fertility concerns have also been derisively dismissed by the doctors with more passion and vengeance than for any other type of adverse effect…
August 2021- NPR reported on a survey out of the University of Chicago to investigate reports of changes in menstrual cycles after the vaccine. They received 140,000 responses.,
I ran my own VAERS report using only a few pregnancy-related keywords. The list is 769 events long, and here’s a screenshot of just a few from the first page:
December 2021 – IVF clinics reported unusual issues after the mass vaccination campaign began. Steve Kirsch covered it thoroughly.
IVF clinics started having serious problems right after the vaccines started rolling out
I just got off the phone with a woman who works at a large IVF clinic. She has to remain nameless to avoid being fired for speaking out. Nobody is supposed to know about the serious problems happening in the IVF clinics. Let me tell you what is really going on and the scientific study that explains it…
6 months ago · 498 likes · 457 comments · Steve Kirsch
January 2022- NIH funded a study that was released that reported a slight causal relationship between the Covid-19 vaccines and a lengthier menstrual cycle.
February 2022- An EU health agency announced an investigation between Covid-19 and disruptions in menstrual cycles based on reports coming in.
Josh Guetzkow reported on data from Rambam Hospital in Haifa, Israel. Vaccinated mothers were experiencing spontaneous abortions/miscarriages/stillbirths at a rate that’s 34% higher than their unvaccinated counterparts.
Stillbirths, Miscarriages and Abortions in Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Women
Data from Rambam hospital in Haifa reveal a stillbirth, miscarriage and abortion (SBMA) rate of 6% among women who never received a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to 8% among women who were vaccinated with at least one dose (and never had a SARS-Cov-2 infection…
After spending days reading reports about the horrible negative effects of fertility that are coming out in droves, I had to at least try and get some sort of response from Pfizer. After sitting on hold for a while, a gentleman named Ron got on the line. When I asked if the Covid-19 vaccine is safe for a pregnant woman to take, he read me the entire safety warning from Pfizer’s website. I then told him that I know many women who have had serious disruptions to their menstrual cycle, as well as numerous women who experienced miscarriages late term, shortly after getting one of the Pfizer vaccines. I asked him what he knows about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, given all the new information that’s come out from the FOIA requests.
He responded that he can pass me along to his managers, but first he has to read another statement, this time from the CDC. He proceeded to verbally read it for 10 minutes while I waited patiently. When he finished, surprised that I was still on the line, he asked if I had any more questions. I said yes, and asked if he wanted to be a whistleblower. He said he noted my response and passed me along to Olivia, which was pretty much a repeat of the first conversation.
I left contact information with both of them just in case, but somehow I highly doubt we’ll get a response. I did note to both of them that should they want to get on the right side of this scandal and begin to help those who are suffering, they should do so before the entire thing crumbles down.
Now What?
We’re now in May 2022. The claims of safety and efficacy don’t match their own internal documents that they tried to hide for 75 years. Yet academic institutions and public health agencies continue to insist it’s recommended for pregnant women to receive Covid-19 vaccines and boosters. Until when? Until the wave of misery gets so large that it’s no longer deniable? No one is coming to save us. Groups like DailyClout, VSRF, America’s Frontline Doctors, Children’s Health Defense, and ICAN are sources of inspiration that there are still good men out there, as well as a source of hope that through their strength and efforts, we’ll come out of the other side of this with some integrity still left in some medical professionals.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Save America Foundationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSave America Foundation2022-06-03 06:36:242022-06-04 20:04:53Vaccinated Women – Fertility Signals Are Coming Through
The New York Times concedes that mask mandates are ineffective—as President Biden fights to reinstate them.
Throughout the pandemic, few things incited more discord than the mandated use of facemasks as a preventative measure to reduce the spread of Covid-19.
At various times, merely questioning the effectiveness of masks or mask mandates could result in a social media suspension, as when Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) received the boot from YouTube for citing research that suggested cloth masks were ineffective at containing Covid (something CNN admitted months later).
A badge of honor . . . leftwing cretins at Youtube banning me for 7 days for a video that quotes 2 peer reviewed articles saying cloth masks don’t work.
While mask mandates have largely receded across the US, arguments over their effectiveness have not.
On Tuesday, President Biden’s Justice Department asked a federal appeals court to overturn a District Court judge’s order that declared the government mask mandate on airplanes, buses, and other transit unlawful, stating that the CDC had not sought public comment prior to the order and failed to adequately explain its reasoning.
The Justice Department’s timing could be inauspicious.
The same day the DOJ’s appeal was filed, The New York Timespublished an article that explores the ineffectiveness of mask mandates. David Leonhardt, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, begins by exploring an apparent paradox involving masks observed by epidemiologist Dr. Shira Doron of Tufts Medical Center: “It is simultaneously true that masks work and mask mandates do not work.”
I was an early mask adopter — & they make intuitive sense — but a growing body of evidence shows that mask mandates don't appear to make much difference at the community level. pic.twitter.com/wnfBUKcZuM
The idea that mask-wearing is effective but mask mandates are not does indeed seem like a paradox. But Leonhardt accepts the evidence that masks can mitigate the spread of Covid even as he provides copious evidence suggesting that mask mandates are ineffective.
In U.S. cities where mask use has been more common, Covid has spread at a similar rate as in mask-resistant cities. Mask mandates in schools also seem to have done little to reduce the spread. Hong Kong, despite almost universal mask-wearing, recently endured one of the world’s worst Covid outbreaks.
Advocates of mandates sometimes argue that they do have a big effect even if it is not evident in populationwide data, because of how many other factors are at play. But this argument seems unpersuasive.
After all, the effect of vaccines on severe illness is blazingly obvious in the geographic data: Places with higher vaccination rates have suffered many fewer Covid deaths.
While the idea that masks work while mask mandates do not might seem like a paradox, there’s actually a very simple explanation for the phenomenon (though it’s not the only explanation).
As Leonhardt notes, it’s quite possible that people who choose to wear masks wear them differently than people who are required to wear them.
“Airplane passengers remove their masks to have a drink. Restaurant patrons go maskless as soon as they walk in the door. Schoolchildren let their masks slide down their faces. So do adults: Research by the University of Minnesota suggests that between 25 percent and 30 percent of Americans consistently wear their masks below their nose.
“Even though masks work, getting millions of people to wear them, and wear them consistently and properly, is a far greater challenge,” Steven Salzberg, a biostatistician at Johns Hopkins University, has written.
Means and Ends
There’s an adage popular among libertarians: good ideas don’t require force. It’s a good line, but it’s also important to remember that force also yields dismal results.
Humans tend to forget this, but it’s an idea that Leonard Read took seriously. In his 1969 essay “The Bloom Pre-Exists in the Seed,” Read argued that one could reasonably predict the ends of a given action based on the means employed.
Examine the actions—means—that are implicit in achieving the goals.
Implicit in the collectivistic approach…is the masterminding of the people…The control of the individual’s life is from without. [But for] an individualist…what is valued above all else [is] each distinctive individual human being.
Any conscientious collectivist, if he could…properly evaluate the authoritarian means his system of thought demands, would likely defect.
However lofty the goals, if the means be depraved, the result must reflect that depravity.
This is why Read believed it was important to focus on means first, and ends second. Unfortunately, as a society we increasingly take the opposite approach—and we saw ample evidence of this during the pandemic, including with mask mandates.
To be sure, this is not the only explanation for the apparent paradox involving the alleged effectiveness of masks and the alleged ineffectiveness of mask mandates.
Any thinker worth his salt will tell you if you have a paradox, the first thing you should do is check your premises. It’s more than possible that one of Leonhardt’s premises—masks work, mask mandates don’t—is wrong. (Considering that prior to and during the pandemic the World Health Organization, the US Surgeon General, and the CDC all expressed doubt about the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, I’m betting on the former being wrong over the latter.)
Whatever the case may be, it’s safe to say Leonard Read would have been one of the few voices in the wilderness during the pandemic warning that non-pharmaceutical interventions (lockdowns, mask mandates, etc.) would achieve little and would likely cause serious harms—and he would have been right.
Read knew the bloom pre-exists in the seed, and that means the use of force, sooner or later, is likely going to yield rotten fruit.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-06-02 09:18:222022-06-02 09:19:32The New York Times Explains Why Mask Mandates Don’t Work
Bill Gates appears to be behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage uptake of BIOMILQ, a cell-cultured “human milk” made in a lab, along with other varieties of fake food
Nearly every large meat and dairy processor/manufacturer has also acquired or developed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes
This “protein” industry convergence is jeopardizing the resilience of the food system and reducing genetic diversity of livestock and crops
When you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources, lab-grown meat may be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork
There are signs that the fake meat industry may be failing before it ever gets off the ground; shares of Beyond Meat lost $6 billion since March 2020 due to weak sales growth
To save the planet and support your health, skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food that’s being raised using regenerative, grass fed methods
Fake food is being poised as a panacea to end world hunger and food shortages, but there’s nothing miraculous about synthetic, lab-made food. It can’t compare to food that comes from nature in terms of nutrition or environmental protection, and as we’re seeing with the mysterious infant formula shortages, when you’re dependent on fake food, your very survival is also dependent on the handful of companies that manufacture them.
With parents getting desperate in the search for infant formula, it’s eye-opening that campaigns haven’t been started to encourage new mothers to breastfeed — the best food for infants and one that also happens to be free and readily available in most cases. If you haven’t read my article on the best workaround for infant formula for those that are unable to breast feed, it is on Substack.
In the video above, you can watch a concerning timeline about why this may be, as Bill Gates appears to be behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage uptake of BIOMILQ, a cell-cultured “human milk” made in a lab,1 along with other varieties of fake food.
Bill Gates’ Formula for Disaster
In June 2020, Bill Gates announced startup company BIOMILQ, which is using biotechnology to create lab-made human milk for babies. Using mammary epithelial cells placed in flasks with cell culture media, the cells grow and are placed in a bioreactor that the company says “recreates conditions similar to in the breast.”2
This synthetic lab-made breast milk replacement raised $3.5 million in funding from Gates’ investment firm Breakthrough Energy Ventures.3 Gates has also contributed at least $319 million to the media,4 including The Guardian, allowing him to control and dictate what they print. The day after the Gates Foundation paid The Guardian its annual funding in May 2022, it released a hit piece on breastfeeding titled, “Turns out breastfeeding really does hurt — why does no one tell you?”5
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) offers also seized 588 cases of infant formula from Europe in April 2021 because it lacked appropriate nutritional labeling. In February 2021, CBP officers said they inspected 17 separate shipments of infant formula from Germany and The Netherlands, leading to a warning against buying infant formula online from overseas.
At the time, Keith Fleming, CBP’s acting director of field operations in Baltimore, Maryland, said in a news release:6
“Consumers should be very careful when contemplating the purchase of items over the internet from an international source, because they may not get what they expect. People expect that the products they purchase comply with existing U.S. health and safety laws and regulations and they’ll be safe for them or their family. That’s not always the case.”
While warning Americans against purchasing infant formula from overseas, in February 2022 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced bacterial contamination at the Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan facility,7 which is behind the current infant formula shortages. While Gates is clearly behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage BIOMILQ in lieu of breastmilk or formula, the formula shortages highlight the risks of consolidated food production.
Abbott Enriched Shareholders While Formula Sickened Babies
Corporate consolidation is rampant in the U.S. baby formula market, of which 90% is controlled by four companies. Abbot is among them, responsible for 43% of baby formula production in the U.S.8 Yet, according to a whistleblower filing from October 2021, equipment at the company’s Sturgis facility was “failing and in need of repair.”
Pitting and pinholes reportedly existed in a number of pipes, allowing bacterial contamination. Leadership was aware of the failing equipment for up to seven years before the February 2022 outbreak, according to the whistleblower’s report.9
With equipment in need of repair, and a bacteria outbreak in their formula sickening babies, Abbott used its massive profits from 2019 to 2021 to announce a lucrative stock buyback program.10 According to The Guardian:11
“Abbott detected bacteria eight times as its net profits soared by 94% between 2019 and 2021. And just as its tainted formula allegedly began sickening a number of babies, with two deaths reported, the company increased dividends to shareholders by over 25% while announcing a stock buyback program worth $5bn.”
Speaking with The Guardian, Rakeen Mabud, chief economist for the Groundwork Collaborative, added, “Abbott chose to prioritize shareholders by issuing billions of dollars in stock buybacks instead of making productive investments.”12
Big Meat and Dairy Companies Dominate Fake Meat Industry
The increasing number of plant-based fake foods and lab-grown meat companies give the illusion that consumers are getting more choices and the food industry is becoming less consolidated. However, there are still relatively few firms that are controlling the global grab for “protein” markets.
In a research article published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, Philip Howard, a faculty member in the department of community sustainability at Michigan State University, and colleagues explain how this “protein” industry convergence is further jeopardizing the resilience of the food system and reducing genetic diversity of livestock and crops:13
“Recent years have seen the convergence of industries that focus on higher protein foods, such as meat processing firms expanding into plant-based substitutes and/or cellular meat production, and fisheries firms expanding into aquaculture. A driving force behind these changes is dominant firms seeking to increase their power relative to close competitors, including by extending beyond boundaries that pose constraints to growth.
The broad banner of “protein” offers a promising space to achieve this goal, despite its nutritionally reductionist focus on a single macronutrient. Protein firm strategies to increase their dominance are likely to further diminish equity in food systems by exacerbating power asymmetries.”
Tyson and Cargill, two of the largest meat processors in the world, for instance, have invested in fake meat company Memphis Meats, which also has backing from Bill Gates and Richard Branson. Other billionaires invested in fake foods include Sergey Brin (Mosa Meat), Peter Thiel (Modern Meadow) and Marc Benioff (Eat Just).
“These companies wouldn’t be making these investments if they didn’t expect that the intellectual properties held by these start-ups will lead to monopoly profits,” Howard notes.14 In “The Politics of Protein,” a report from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food), Howard explains:15
“Nearly every large meat and dairy processor/manufacturer has also acquired or developed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes, establishing footholds in a market that is growing approximately 20% per year.
More than a dozen of these firms have also invested in start-ups that are attempting to commercialize lab-grown meat and fish. Meanwhile, Vanguard and BlackRock — two of the world’s biggest asset management firms — have investments in almost all the largest meat, dairy, and animal feed companies.”
It is important to understand why all of these fake meat products are an absolute metabolic disaster relates to the fact that they are using vegetable fats to replace animal fats. Not only are they devoid of important vitamins like vitamin A and vitamin K2, but they are loaded with the dangerous omega-6 fat linoleic acid LA.
In some cases they contain up to 10 to 20 times the amount found in meats, which will radically contribute to diseases like diabetes, obesity, cancer and heart disease.
Lab-Grown Food Is an Environmental Catastrophe
The push for fake food is being made on the platform that it will somehow save the environment from the ravages of factory farming, which has devastated the environment with its concentrated animal feeding operations and monocultures. But this, too, is misleading.
In February 2021, the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit group behind the alternative protein industry, released a techno-economic analysis of cultivated meat, which was prepared by consulting firm CE Delft.16 In it, they developed a model to reduce the current costs of cultured meat production down to a point that would make it economically feasible in full-scale plants by 2030, a model they said is “feasible.”
In attempting to create cultured meat on the scale that would be necessary to feed the world, logistical problems are numerous and, possibly, insurmountable. There are waste products — catabolites — to deal with, as even cultured cells excrete waste that is toxic.
And, the oxygen and nutrients available must be adequately distributed to all the cells — something that’s difficult in a large reactor. Stirring the cells faster or adding more oxygen may help, but this can cause fatal stress to the cells.17
The environmental “benefits” are also on shaky ground when you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources. When this is factored in, GFI’s life-cycle analysis found that cultured meat may be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork.18,19
Farmer and historian John Lewis-Stempel also points out that the world’s farmers already produce enough food for the global population: “[A]ny discussion of global food policy needs to begin with one plain fact: there is … no actual food shortage. Already, the planet’s farmers produce enough food to cater for the projected 10 billion humans of 2050. The problem is waste and distribution.”20
Yet, the push for the creation of fake protein sources continues. In the foreword to Navdanya International’s report “False Solutions That Endanger Our Health and Damage the Planet,” Vandana Shiva also details how lab-grown foods are catastrophic for human health and the environment, as they are repeating the mistakes already made with industrial agriculture:21
“In response to the crises in our food system, we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives. Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world.
Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change. The notion that high-tech, “farm free” lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today — the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.
Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to “stuff” that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process, both the planet’s health and our health have been nearly destroyed.”
Signs the Fake Meat Industry Is Stalling
For all of its fanfare, there are signs that the fake meat industry may be failing before it ever gets off the ground. Shares of Beyond Meat, for one example, lost $6 billion since March 2020 due to weak sales growth and has resorted to partnering with PepsiCo to release a plant-based jerky product.
“My analysis is the launch will do very little to increase the company’s fortunes,” writes business development consultant Victor Martino in Just Food.22 He argues that the “plant-based meat revolution” is just a PR stunt, a narrative that’s set to implode:23
“The fact is, despite increased product availability in terms of brand choices and added retail outlets, plant-based meat sales stalled in 2021, recording zero growth, according to recent research from SPINS, data commissioned and released by The Plant-Based Foods Association and The Good Food Institute.
According to the research, the total annual sales of plant-based meat in the US remained stable at $1.4 billion. That’s a continuation of the 1.4% share of total meat category sales.”
Shares of Beyond Meat and Oatly, a plant-based milk substitute, have lost more than half their value in 2022,24 but this isn’t to say that their executives are suffering. Beyond Meat’s former chief growth officer Chuck Muth sold shares valued at more than $62 million from 2019 to 2021, while Biz Stone, a current board member and Twitter co-founder, has made millions on Beyond Meat stock.25
The fact remains that when private companies control the food supply, they will also ultimately control countries and entire populations. Biotech will eventually push farmers and ranchers out of the equation and will threaten food security and human health. In other words, the work being done in the name of sustainability and saving the planet will give greater control to private corporations while weakening the population.
To save the planet and support your health, skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food that’s being raised the right way instead. When you shop for food, know your farmer and look for regenerative, biodynamic and/or grass fed farming methods, which are bringing you truly sustainable food for a healthy population and planet.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-06-02 05:13:002022-06-02 05:13:00Bill Gates’ Latest Attack, Now Targeting Moms
Africans are outraged by coverage of an outbreak of an exotic disease
There’s an outbreak of monkeypox, a simian relative of smallpox, in western Europe, North America, and Australia. There’s no monkeypox outbreak in Africa. Yet, if all you had to go by were the images initially used to illustrate news articles about the outbreak in the mainstream corporate press, you’d be excused to think that Africa was the blazing epicentre of the outbreak.
From the BBC to the New York Times, the Guardian to Reuters, coverage of the outbreak came with pictures of people of African descent, their exposed skin pocked with festering blisters. Crucially, the pictures were all old file photos, with some being from as far back as the 1990s. The only major news sites that didn’t use these photos were those not based in the West, like Qatari Al Jazeera.
Naturally, many Africans online have been blasting Western media houses for this usage and sharing recent photos of white people suffering from the disease. When the Twitter handle of a Kenyan broadcaster illustrated a post about the disease with one such picture, the comments section erupted in cheers. Even the association of foreign journalists working in Africa weighed in with a formal condemnation.
Following the backlash, many of the offending pictures have been taken down and replaced with electron micrographs of the virus that causes the disease or, in a few cases, pictures of white victims.
Unfortunately, a few articles, like this one from the BBC and this other one by the New York Times, still inexcusably sport photos of Africans suffering from monkeypox.
Why, you may ask, do Africans care so much about this? Isn’t the disease endemic to the continent, after all? Until recently, weren’t most photos depicting the disease taken in African countries, so that they were the only ones available at the outset of the outbreak? And, even if this hadn’t been the case, what’s wrong with using the images? Aren’t there black people in the West?
Well, part of the answer comes from the offending news organisations themselves. Just two years ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in Wuhan, these same institutions worked up a whole kerfuffle about keeping their coverage of the disease respectful to the Chinese people. Convinced that it was their duty to spare them the stigma associated with the disease, they contorted themselves into all kinds of shapes and forwent some of the thrills of photojournalism.
Instead of dramatic photos of intubated patients struggling for air, they elected to use images and artistic impressions of the virus in their stories. When the WHO conjured up a clumsy name for the disease that had nothing to do with its place of origin, they fell in line and carried it to all corners of the earth. And when a certain bad orange man insisted on calling it the China virus, they added it to the ledger in support of their allegation that he was a white supremacist.
Why then have they, who acted so sanctimoniously in a case where they would have been excused for using photos of victims (Covid-19 did break out in Wuhan, after all) not only not been as careful, but turned into the perpetrators of an arguably worse offense? Were they even sincere the first time? Or have two years been too long for them to keep up the act?
Many commentators have attributed malice and neo-colonialist attitudes to the journalists and editors clearing the use of the images featuring Africans. It fits into a macabre pattern of thought about Africa that Western media organisations just can’t seem to wean themselves off of. Western media, the charge goes, considers Africa to be a backward place filled with sub-human people, whose suffering can be safely ogled at by sympathetic Westerners, who have no dignity to be defended.
Though broad, this accusation isn’t spurious. It’s hard to find other reasons for the tendency of Western media to gravitate to the lens of disaster porn in their treatment of Africa. Not even in their Covid-19 coverage, when they were ostentatious about being respectful everywhere else, could they shake it off.
Instead, they were overly enthusiastic every time it seemed as though Africa was about to take a turn for the worse, and palpably disappointed with every implosion of that expectation.
To give the devil his due, though, maybe we should look for other reasons. After all, no one in the West talks louder about decolonisation, and no one wants to be thought of as an ally of marginalised groups more, than these organisations. Is it possible that Africa is just such a small part of their constituency that they don’t think about it as much, or as carefully, as they do about the rest of their readers, and so are in the dark about Africans’ perception of their attitudes?
Or maybe they do, but this is the only angle for effective storytelling about the continent. Maybe it even comes from a good place, a sympathetic posture towards a continent that’s still bottom of the global healthcare system ranks. Maybe, by using photos of Africans to illustrate a disease outbreak in the West, they are trying to get ahead of the curve, so that when the disease resurges on the continent, the spigots of assistance can flow unimpeded.
If these excuses sound unconvincing, it’s because they are. Try as I might, I cannot find any compelling alternative reasons. In a world where information is so easy to come by, it isn’t reasonable to excuse well-resourced media organisations for being too lazy to use accurate photos for their stories. They are taking photos from a literal warzone in Europe right now, for crying out loud!
And so we are left with the initial accusation. Mainstream Western news organisations have been falling into this pattern in their African coverage for far too long for it to be merely circumstantial. It is inexcusable, even by their own standards, and it’s high time they tried dealing with it.
As an Australian with conservative values and close family ties to the United States, I find mass shootings like the recent unspeakable tragedy in Texas every shade of confusing.
There is little doubt that ready access to guns in America makes the murderous fantasies of the insane more accessible, tempting, and efficient.
On the other hand, a laser focus on gun laws ignores a whole host of underlying cultural rot that contributes to these nihilistic horrors. Where do we even start? The drug epidemic, mental health, the expulsion of God from public schools, violent video games, social media, and fatherlessness (the latter especially) all play their diabolical part.
And then there’s, you know, the “right” to kill unborn children.
“I think of child sacrifice as a modern phenomenon, a barbaric one that defines this country,” mourns Maureen Dowd in a New York Times piece entitled ‘America’s Human Sacrifices’. “We are sacrificing children, not only the ones who die, but also those who watch and those who fear the future. Children having their tomorrows taken away. Small sacrifice if we can keep our guns.”
Dowd certainly puts her finger on a problem there, but without the slightest trace of irony she continues: “The Republicans are doing everything they can to stop women from having control over their own bodies and doing nothing to stop the carnage against kids; they may as well change the party symbol from an elephant to an AR-15.”
Hang on. If the radical autonomy of “a woman’s right to choose” supersedes a child’s right to not be killed in the womb, why on earth should Americans be prevented from keeping their second amendment rights to bear arms? After all, merely owning a weapon is not the same as ending a life, which is precisely what every abortion achieves.
Dowd is right to invoke abortion, but she has done so for all the wrong reasons. If we’re going to discuss child sacrifice and abortion in the same breath, let’s begin with the 63,872,429 babies killed since the passage of Roe v Wade.
The irony was likewise lost on a slew of leftwing lawmakers who sought to score political points while the news of the Texas tragedy was still fresh.
“As a nation, we simply cannot allow this to continue. Every single day, children and young people are losing their lives to people who do not value the sanctity of life and take advantage of the unabated presence of firearms in our communities,” pro-abortion Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said in a statement.
Sanctity of life? If only we were really talking about that!
Abortion advocate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was pining for a tussle with Republicans in the aftermath. “There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place,” she wrote on Twitter. “It is an idolatry of violence. And it must end.”
The word “projection” springs to mind.
It was a grim spectacle in America last week — one that continued long after the last gunshot rang out. But to make the Uvalde tragedy all about gun laws is an exercise in mostly missing the point. And to weaponise it for political gain is unconscionable.
If every gun in America were confiscated tomorrow, the endemic mass killing of abortion would, if many of the Uvalde mourners had their way, remain.
Sure, let’s talk about gun laws. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that a technocratic tweak can alleviate America’s moral malaise. And may we never speak of child sacrifice again until we make wombs safer than a Texas school.
Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate… More by Kurt Mahlburg
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-05-31 05:09:352022-05-31 05:30:15The right to bear arms is “child sacrifice” — and abortion is not?
Could a teenager’s suicide have been prevented with a simple question?
An unbearable yet too-common tragedy resulting from bullying is the suicide of its victims. It is a parent’s worst nightmare. A rash of suicides in the 1970s set Dan Olweus on the path to establishing the field of bullying psychology. Suicides have been a major trigger for anti-bullying campaigns and laws.
Despite the proliferation of anti-bullying programs and laws in the past two decades, bullying continues to be considered an epidemic, with the youth suicide rate skyrocketing during this same period.
The latest high-profile suicide tragedy to hit the national news is that of Nate Bronstein, a 15-year-old student at the exclusive Chicago Catholic prep school, the Latin School. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, the parents are suing the school for no less than $100,000,000–yes, one hundred million dollars–for failing to prevent his death. And the taxpayer–you and I–will end up footing the bill if the parents prevail.
While we tend to think of bullying as serious physical attacks or threats against victims, the great majority of bullying, including the impetus for most suicides, is not physical but verbal. Any characteristic can become the subject of bullying: intelligence, appearance, race or religion, sexual orientation, and even clothing.
An unusual casualty of the war against Covid-19
Nate may be the first case of a suicide stemming from Covid-19 insults. Students falsely accused him of being unvaccinated. Vaccination against Covid-19 has been a top priority for the administration and the appointed leaders of our public health organizations, who intentionally blamed the unvaccinated for the epidemic and encouraged the rest of us to do the same, with many celebrities and pundits answering this “call to duty”.
It is no wonder that in such a climate, a child would get extremely upset by being called unvaccinated. This is the trap that leads individuals to become the victims of non-stop bullying: they get upset because they want the insults to stop. They don’t realize that getting upset is actually what keeps the insults coming their way.
Why aren’t anti-bullying efforts working?
Why, after decades of anti-bullying efforts, laws, and research, do kids continue to be bullied in school? It’s because the prevalent approach to bullying, developed by Olweus and universally enshrined in school anti-bullying policies and laws, is predicated on the school protecting children from each other. Students and their parents are instructed to inform the school when bullying occurs. It then becomes the school’s responsibility to investigate, determine who the guilty parties are, and punish or rehabilitate them.
However, research and plain experience show that this approach does little to stop bullying, and often makes it worse. Informing the school can only work if the schools have a reliable approach to handling bullying. Usually, they don’t. Instead, they follow mandated policies of investigating, judging, and punishing, which tends to cause hostilities to escalate, for no party wants to be accused of wrongdoing. The accused typically insist on their innocence and blame the informer.
Indeed, the Tribune reports, “In November and October alone, [mom] contacted Latin more than 30 times.” While the school allegedly didn’t punish anyone, we can be sure that the kids being investigated were furious with Nate for constantly trying to get them in trouble, spurring them to call him “a terrible person” and telling him to kill himself.
The school’s denial of guilt
As virtually all schools do in response to a bullying lawsuit, the Latin School denied the accusations. The Tribune reports:
In a statement, the school called the claims unfounded. It said it “deeply grieves” the death of one of its students, but it plans to “vigorously defend itself… The allegations of wrongdoing by the school officials are inaccurate and misplaced… The school’s faculty and staff are compassionate people who put students’ interests first, as they did in this instance.”
And the school is probably right. It did attempt to solve the problem. It’s just that the idea spread by the anti-bullying establishment that bullying occurs because the schools do nothing to stop it has no basis in reality.
If you are not sure about this, try this at home, if you have children of your own. Treat the aggression between them the way anti-bullying laws require schools to do it. Investigate every complaint they bring you, conduct interrogations, and punish the wrongdoer. The likely result is that your kids will be fighting more often than ever. They will come to hate each other, and at least one of them (the one you find guilty) will end up hating you, too. Strangely, the very interventions that cause intense sibling rivalry at home are somehow expected to reduce hostilities among students in school.
There is a better way
The prevalent approach to bullying requires large investments of time and effort–which costs money–and still can result in the school being sued for astronomical sums of money for failing to stop the bullying.
All the money in the world will not put an end to bullying. What’s needed is good psychology. The policies required are not those of protecting and policing children, but teaching them how to handle insults and accusations on their own, so that attacks are nipped in the bud and don’t evolve into ongoing bullying relationships. This knowledge can be obtained essentially for free. Any counsellor or staff member can do the following with a student complaining of being bullied for being unvaccinated or any other false accusation. It involves role-playing, conducted in two stages.
Stage One
(It may go as follows):
Counsellor: Accuse me of being unvaccinated, and don’t let me stop you.
Student: You’re unvaccinated!
Counsellor: No, I’m not!
Student: Yes, you are! You are going to get us all sick and make us die!
Counsellor: That’s not true!
Student: Yes, it is!
Counsellor: No, it’s not! Why are you saying that?
Student: Because your parents are anti-vaxxers!
Counsellor: No, they’re not!
Student: Yes, they are!
Counsellor: No, they’re not!
Student: Yes, they are!
After futilely going back and forth for a while…
Counsellor: I give up. I’m not making you stop, am I?
Student: No.
Counsellor: Who’s winning?
Student: I am.
Counsellor: And aren’t you having fun seeing me get upset?
Student: Yes.
Stage Two
Counsellor: Let’s do it again. Accuse me of being unvaccinated, and don’t let me stop you.
Student: You’re unvaccinated!
Counsellor: Is that what you believe?
Student: Yes!
Counsellor: If you want to believe it, I can’t stop you.
Student: No, you can’t.
Counsellor: That’s right. You can believe anything you want.
At this point, the student probably has nothing more to say. Counsellor continues…
Counsellor: Who’s winning this time?
Student: You are.
Counsellor: You see, the kids aren’t calling you “unvaccinated” because they believe that’s what you are. They do it because when you get upset and defend yourself, you automatically lose, they have a good time, and they continue doing it to you. So, instead of defending yourself, turn the tables on them. Make them defend themselves by asking, “Do you believe it?” If they say, “Yes,” you say, “You can believe it if you wish,” and you win. And if they say, “No,” you win even bigger.
One simple question. No bullying. No suicide. No lawsuit.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-05-31 04:57:342022-05-31 05:10:54How to handle Covid-19 bullying
The FDA has authorized the use of a booster COVID-19 shot in children ages 5 to 11; less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy
Effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in children wanes rapidly; a CDC study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds, but this fell to just 28.9% by month two
There is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots as well as booster doses in adults
Artificially inflated antibodies triggered by booster shots signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health
COVID-19 shots are associated with liver injury, including liver failure that led to a liver transplant
Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and CDC data show that COVID-19 case rates among children who received two COVID-19 shots are now higher than rates in children who did not get the shots
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended its emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot to allow a booster dose for children ages 5 to 11.1 The FDA’s “evaluation of safety” for the booster dose in young children was based on a study of only about 400 children, and no meeting was held with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
The booster shot is intended to be given at least five months after the primary two-dose series has been completed, but less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy.2
“[G]iven that these children have the lowest coronavirus vaccination rate of all eligible Americans, [as most parents have wisely avoided giving their child the jab,] public health experts are not expecting a rush for the booster,” The New York Times reported,3 and this is good news, since multiple red flags have risen regarding the use of these shots, particularly among children.
COVID Shots’ Dismal Effectiveness Wanes Rapidly
Booster shots are typically released because the initial shots aren’t working as planned. This is certainly the case with COVID-19 shots, which have been found to have dismally low effectiveness rates of 12%, according to research conducted by the New York State Department of Health.4 In their rationale for why a booster dose is now needed for children, Dr. Peter Marks, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said:5
“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations.”
From December 13, 2021, to January 24, 2022, the New York State Department of Health researchers analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 years, who had received two doses of the shots. Effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%.
Protection against hospitalization also dropped, from 100% to 48%. Among 11-year-olds alone, vaccine effectiveness plunged to 11%.6 The lackluster response was blamed on the dosage discrepancies among the age groups, as 5- to 11-year-olds receive two 10-microgram Pfizer shots, while 12- to 17-year-olds receive 30-microgram shots.7
A CDC study also found that the effectiveness of two doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots against symptomatic COVID-19 infection “was modest and decreased rapidly” from December 2021 to February 2022.8 The study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds. This fell to just 28.9% by month 2.
A similar trend was seen among adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. Vaccine effectiveness two to four weeks after the second dose of the shots was 59.5%, and this fell to 16.6% during month two.9 Among adolescents who received a booster dose, effectiveness went back up to 71.1% two to 6.5 weeks later, but it’s not revealed what happened after that.
If data from adults are any indication, the boost in effectiveness from the booster will also be short-lived. Among adults, within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits due to COVID-19 decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.10
Children’s Booster Trial Didn’t Test Effectiveness
The FDA’s decision to allow a booster dose for children was based on an ongoing Pfizer trial — the same one that it used to authorize the first set of COVID-19 shots in the 5- to 11-year-old age group.
Antibody responses were evaluated in only 67 subjects who received a booster shot seven to nine months after the two-dose primary series of shots. “The antibody level against the SARS-CoV-2 virus one month after the booster dose was increased compared to before the booster dose,” the FDA noted.11
However, there is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots. The New York Times also reported:12
“In the Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial, children showed a sixfold increase in antibody levels against the original version of the virus one month after receiving the booster, compared with one month after receiving a second dose …
Laboratory tests of blood samples from a tiny subgroup of 30 children also showed 36 times the level of neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant compared with levels after only two doses. The study did not show how long the antibodies last or test effectiveness against Covid-19.”
High, Artificially Elevated Antibodies Come at a Cost
What’s more, the notion that increasing antibodies equates to disease protection and better health is misguided. Artificially inflated antibodies signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health.
Your adaptive immune system, specifically, generates antibodies that are used to fight pathogens that your body has previously encountered.13 During normal infections, your cellular immune system produces high fever and temporary T-cell elevations, along with elevated antibodies to the infection, gradually dissipate.
Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology & immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, explained, “It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”14 This is a normal response and isn’t a measure of waning immunity.
On the contrary, repeatedly, artificially inflating antibodies with booster shots comes with a cost and can lead to a “death zone,” accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson’s, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, according to tech leader and COVID analyst Marc Girardot, who urges a retreat from the vaccination “death zone” before it’s too late.15
It’s known, for instance, that certain autoimmune diseases are seen alongside high levels of antibodies.16 Further, COVID-19 shots train your body to produce singular antibodies for one spike protein and cannot compare to the protection provided by natural immunity, which occurs after recovery from an illness. Speaking with Daniel Horowitz, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explained that natural infection produces broad immunity that can’t be matched by vaccination:17
“A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike. Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again.
Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”
Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine core platform technology,18 also stated, “When it comes to COVID, public health officials have consistently downplayed and ignored natural immunity among children. Yet 81 research studies19 confirm that natural immunity to COVID is equal or superior to any ‘vaccine immunity.’”20
COVID Shots Cause Liver Failure, Other Serious Adverse Effects
A concerning number of case reports describe the development of immune-mediated and autoimmune hepatitis in the days and weeks following COVID-19 injections.21 A team of researchers collected date from such cases from 18 countries, identifying 87 patients with a median age of 48 years who developed autoimmune hepatitis-like liver injury after a COVID-19 shot.22
Typically, the liver injury was diagnosed 15 days after the shot. Most cases (59%) were attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot while 23% were linked to the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot and 18% to Moderna’s shot. All of the patients in the study recovered from the liver injury after treatment — except for one. That man developed liver failure and had to have a liver transplant. The researchers concluded:23
“SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can be associated with liver injury. Corticosteroid therapy may be beneficial in those with immune-mediated features or severe hepatitis. Outcome was generally favorable, but vaccine associated liver injury led to fulminant liver failure in one patient.”
Young children are also developing severe hepatitis at an unusually high rate and nobody knows why.24 It’s unclear how many of the children have received COVID-19 shots, but researchers did suggest that mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 infection could have left behind spike protein that’s acting as a “superantigen”25 and triggering the immune system to over-react to other viruses, such as adenovirus-41F, which is causing liver damage.26
If that’s the case, the spike protein that circulates in the body after COVID-19 shots could also be problematic, especially since “mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.”27 Other concerning adverse events have also been reported.
One study published in Scientific Reports, for instance, revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.28
COVID-19 Case Rates Higher in Injected Children
Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, making the recommendations for COVID-19 shots, and now boosters, among this population highly questionable — even ludicrous.
“Research shows that there is no benefit to children receiving a COVID shot, and in fact, the shots can cause potential harm, adverse effects and death. According to Pfizer’s own study trial data, the chance of death in children from the shot is 107 times higher than death from COVID,” Malone stated.29
The CDC’s own data also show that COVID-19 case rates among children who have received two COVID-19 shots have been higher than rates in children who did not get the shots since February 2022.30
“That’s the first time CDC recorded a higher case rate among fully vaccinated young children since data was first collected in December 2021,” Malone said,31 and perhaps it’s harbinger of things to come. Adding a booster dose to the already dangerous, ineffective and flawed COVID-19 shot recommendations for children will only add more fuel to the fire.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-05-31 04:47:562022-05-31 04:47:56107 Times the Risk, Are ‘Boosters’ Designed to Kill?
