opednews.com/domp [.opednews.com/author/author506833.html]
Are the masses being fed talking points to prevent discussions about contextually significant information? In recent times, many people have repeated similar arguments about Donald Trump. One of these repetitive conversations goes something as follows:
An opponent of Trump says something critical of the former president, and a Trump supporter responds, "What about all the things that he accomplished?" The Trump opponent then replies, "What has he done in the last two years?" giving the Trump supporter an easy rebuttal, "He hasn't been in office for the last two years."
Trump opponents seem to be parroting the same weak arguments against the former president, time and time again, and they seem to be doing it in lockstep. But for all the people who are still intoxicated by the elixir of Trump, here are some accomplishments that you may have overlooked:
1) Shortly after being sworn in, Trump signed an executive order that gave the FBI access to data gathered by the NSA's mass surveillance program, and this intensified breach of the constitution continued for most of his presidency (adding the analytical bureaucratic capabilities of the FBI to the NSA's unconstitutional spying on US citizens).
In February 2017, it was reported how Trump had already signed a dozen executive orders, and one of them gave the FBI access to NSA mass surveillance data. This unwarranted data collection of the telephone records, emails, and web-browsing history of US citizens [click here], which was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, in 2013, was later ruled unlawful in September, 2020 (three-and-a-half years after EO-13773 was signed). In the absence of a search warrant and/or probable cause, the mass surveillance was also in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Executive Order 13773 was signed on February 9th, 2017. The order states:
". . .Sec. 2. Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to:
. . .(c) maximize the extent to which all Federal agencies share information and coordinate with Federal law enforcement agencies, as permitted by law, in order to identify, interdict, and dismantle transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations;
. . .(d) enhance cooperation with foreign counterparts against transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including, where appropriate and permitted by law, through sharing of intelligence and law enforcement information and through increased security sector assistance to foreign partners by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security"
A loyal Trump supporter may argue that expanding the intelligence community's capability to trample on the Bill of Rights could in some way be justified because it was necessary to keep the country safe. That was the same logic used to justify the surveillance-state apparatus which was created in the wake of 9/11, and most Trump supporters no longer support such authoritarianism, at least not when somebody else does it.
But anytime that anyone, ever, no matter who it is, ELEVATES SAFETY ABOVE LIBERTY, it raises a RED-FLAG for potential abuse by AUTHORITARIANS.
And while the corporate-owned "alternative" media pundits are shedding crocodile tears for Trump's vindication in the Durham Report, hardly anyone is questioning the justification for EO-13773, Trump's sole decision to give the Bureau access to data gathered by the NSA's mass surveillance program in 2017, before the unwarranted data collection was found to be unlawful [and possibly unconstitutional] by a federal appeals court in 2020.
Unwarranted spying on US citizens is most definitely in violation of the Fourth Amendment. There are no maybes about it, and Amendment IV is equally as important as Amendment II.
2) Trump and his unlikely allies in the Democratic Party managed to fool most working-class Americans into believing the domestic labor problems created by NAFTA had been resolved with the USMCA agreement (inexpensive labor due to a lack of adequate labor protection in Mexico takes manufacturing jobs away from the US; other countries have even cheaper labor, but they are also further away; both issues [and their relation to the US] impact labor, domestically and abroad).
The USMCA (NAFTA2.0) is weak, but it pacified the rightwing working-class because it's associated with Trump. The trade agreement also pacified the leftwing working-class because the Democrats modified the deal with Trumka's slightly less weak demands (regulation for production in areas with moderately low income as opposed to regions with severely low income, compared to the United States).
3) Trump managed to fool almost the entire world into believing that he and Hillary Clinton are mortal enemies, and the media helped them cover for a slip up which was caught on camera.
The 2016 Alfred E. Smith Dinner hot-mic-moment vanished quickly into obscurity. Trump and Clinton were caught praising each other and planning on working together after the election, in private, after sparring more harshly than a typical presidential race in front of the camera (e.g., "Now, you notice there is no teleprompter here tonight, which is probably smart, because maybe you saw Donald dismantle his prompter the other day," Clinton said, "And I get that. They're hard to keep up with, and I'm sure it's even harder when you're translating from the original Russian," an implication of treason). Trump was actually booed several times for his comments that evening. Before this topic disappeared into obscurity, sound bites and media spin made it appear as if the hot-mic-moment was about something entirely different. This appears to be the modus operandi of the mass media.
4) Trump and his Democrat allies were able to convince most of the left and even some on the right that opposition to the idea of an open-border policy is somehow xenophobic, and supporting policies which secure the borders of the United States is somehow immoral. China enacted a law to strengthen its border control in 2021, yet the media failed to portray them as xenophobic or immoral for doing so [click here].
The expiration of Title 42 [and the very perception that the southern US border is now less secure] has encouraged a significant increase in the preexisting mass migration to the United States. This mass migration is straining our infrastructure (churches, homeless shelters etc.), it is inhumane to the people who migrated, and despite what the media keeps repeating, the mass migration is in fact detrimental to domestic labor (see Bernie Sanders quote, below) without creating any worthwhile opportunity for most of the migrants themselves. Migrants often have second thoughts after they realizing the living conditions are not what they had envisioned. This is also true for some individuals who immigrated legally. For skilled individuals, there is opportunity for growth, but working-class opportunity is much more limited than it used to be in the US of A.
Bernie Sanders [.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0], the self-proclaimed democratic socialist, had the following to say about open borders in a 2015 interview with Ezra Klein, the editor-in-chief of Vox:
0:24 "Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal."
. . .
0:30 "Of course. I mean, that's a right-wing proposal which says, essentially, there is no United States."
. . .
0:55 "You have an obligation, in my view, to do everything we can to help poor people. What rightwing people in this country would love is an open border policy. Bring in all kinds of people to work for two, three dollars an hour. That would be great for them."
. . .
"I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country. I think we have to do everything that we can to create the millions of jobs -you know what the youth unemployment in the United of America today?"
. . .
"If you're white -white kid, high school graduate: 33%, Hispanic 36%, African American 51%. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers? Or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?"
. . .
3:19 "But I think, what we need to be doing, as a global economy, is making sure that people in poor countries have decent paying jobs, have education, have healthcare, have nutrition for their people. That is a moral responsibility."
. . .
"But you don't do that, as some would suggest, by lowering the standard of American workers, which has already gone down very significantly."
So, Communist China, Great Britain, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, and most Americans, left and right, all believed in national sovereignty before "The Trump Show." Other so-called "nations" are starting to question the logic of having a European Union as well, particularly after feeling the financial impact of its open border policy and the working-class petroleum tax. Population adjusted, Sweden has probably taken in more refugees than any other European nation.
In spite of its reputation as a "socialist" paradise (free market welfare state), Sweden is not exactly a utopia for refugees. Yes, the nation allowed many asylum seekers to live within its borders, but the social welfare of native-born Swedes was noticeably diminished, while the asylum seekers mostly live in slums. The working-class residents of other European nations have also noticed a reduction in their standard of living, which logically has contributed to the rising issue of white nationalist resurgence. This is quite similar to the rise of fascism in 20th century Germany, specifically, which was notably different from fascist Italy, in that Mussolini wasn't scapegoating minority groups (Italian fascism was still very brutal to the opposition).
Historians have noted a key distinction between Depression era Italy and Germany. While Italy was a member of the Allied Powers in WWI, Central Powers nations like Austria-Hungary and Germany faced immense hardship during the Great Depression, due, in part, to the sanctions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. In no way does this impoverishment justify the Holocaust, the 6 million Jews who were murdered by the Third Reich, but, as George Santayana has said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
5) Trump's persona is a powerful tool which has been leveraged to implement reverse psychology on the masses.
Donald Trump's image as an anti-establishment, rightwing populist and his controversial statements have contributed to the dichotomy of beliefs in the US and around the world. This is true for most hot button topics but especially so for the Covid-19 pandemic, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE ONLY EVENT IN RECORDED HISTORY THAT BECAME POLITICIZED BEFORE IT WAS EVEN KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN EVENTFUL. Does Trump really oppose the so-called establishment, or is it just an act to hinder critical thinking and the favorability of certain ideas?
Generally speaking, moderate progressives are now less supportive of international trade barriers, domestic trustbusting, peaceful relations with nuclear powers, whistleblowers, the publication of leaked information, bodily autonomy et cetera.
Also, keep in mind that within the realm of a militarized weapon such as social media, the innovators of conspiracy theories may very well be agents of the state, having the intent of creating a PSYOP smokescreen (more reverse psychology). "The Trump Show" reversed a trend where populists on the left and right were coming together and starting to see eye-to-eye on most of the important issues.
6) The events which took place on January 6, 2021, will likely be used to justify the fortification of the Capitol to prevent a potential populist uprising, which weakens the power of the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Hopefully, society will never have to exercise the Second Amendment, but it's there for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with hunting traditions or defending oneself against criminals. In spite of elitist revisionism in recent decades, the completely meek, nonradical historians who appeared on MSM documentaries in the 20th century all agreed that the word "regulated" within the 2nd amendment meant "organized," as in "self-regulated" or "well-oiled," and everyday citizens are legally allowed to join militias, as long as these groups do not plan on breaking any laws (see definition 2, OED, First Edition; "refl. 1776 ADAM SMITH W. N. IV. I. i. II. 9 The quantity of every commodity . . naturally REGULATES ITSELF in every country according to the effectual demand." --all-caps emphasis mine).
A militia is not necessarily a menacing group of people who walk down the street carrying firearms, although some states do have open carry laws. Instead, it is a group of people who meet up regularly and TRAIN with firearms (gun safety, gun maintenance, target practice, self-defense training etc., all legal activities). An oft-cited online encyclopedia used to list more than a thousand active militias in the US before conflating them with "paramilitary groups" and omitting the more moderate private militias which give important context. A well-known magician/comedian used to speak about the true meaning of Amendment II before Covid-19 propaganda shifted his values. This performer is now elevating safety over liberty in response to baseless fear.
Gun control advocates seem to be overlooking the devastating consequences of disarming the people. Removing the variable of a firearm does not prevent the malicious act of an individual. However, disarming a society does prevent the people from forming an effective militia if need be. Although the gun variable can make a potential mass shooter less effective in some circumstances (there are ways to harm large groups of people which do not involve firearms), this does not supersede the threat of tyranny. While the odds of being killed by a mass shooter are on a par with getting struck by lightning [click here.], an astronomically rare occurrence [click here], an abundance of so-called "assault rifles" would be very effective from a militia standpoint.
Many European nations and other liberal democracies around the world have effectively disarmed their people without any tyrannical uprising. However, the US would bail the people of these nations out should their government ever become tyrannical, and the leaders all know this fact. When freedom in the US is threatened, the freedom within liberal democracies around the world is also in danger.
Lysenkoism
China tried to conquer nature, along with the working-class, and Lysenkoism killed millions of people with the Great Chinese Famine of 1959 [click here]. In the 21st century, the Chinese Communist Party was responsible for another genocide, the organ harvesting of imprisoned members of the Falun Dafa religious group. A form of Buddhism with philosophical teachings, meditation and exercise practices [click here], the Falun Dafa have been referred to as a cult in the mainstream American press, which, in some instances, seems to be getting its talking points from the CCP. Even if the label "cult" were appropriate, genocide would still be a completely unacceptable course of action. Some Communist supporters who were born in the US have no sympathy for members of the so-called "cult," which is terrifying.
7) In addition to the direct accomplishments of DJT, there are some oddly coincidental synchronizations between "The Trump Show" and other events, some of which impacted the case of Julian Assange. Note the similarity to Trump's economic leverage on WHO (number 8, mentioned below).
When Assange was a political prisoner who had sought refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had already concluded that Assange "was being arbitrarily deprived of his freedom and demanded that he be released," [click here], Trump and Harvey Weinstein were frequently in the press, and the #MeToo movement reached a cult-like status.
At the time, many liberals and leftists were repeating nonsensical talking points about how rape is the only crime where the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty, AND society must unconditionally accept the word of an accuser as being the gospel truth (for any-and-all sexual-related offences; this type of crime evokes a powerfully protective emotional response which can easily lead to hysteria). Allegations must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, but this should never eclipse the presumption of innocence.
Coincidentally, Assange was accused of raping two women in Sweden back in 2010, and he had a legitimate fear of being extradited to the United States for the crime of exposing US war crimes [click here]. The circumstances surrounding these rape allegations were sketchy to say the least, and in all likelihood, it was a honeypot operation. Afterwards, Me-Too was weaponized against Assange, even if this was not the original intent of the movement.
Additionally, according to his half-brother Gabriel [click here], Julian Assange's "extradition was rejected on the 4th of January, and his bail was refused on the 6th of January." In the same Democracy Now interview, Gabriel Shipton continued, "So, the US has appealed the extradition rejection, and it's been six months now since Julian -since that extradition rejection, and we still don't know when there will be an appeal date. So, Julian has just been sitting in Belmarsh Prison for six months, not knowing when there will be an appeal heard."
Julian was arrested for "breaching his bail conditions back in 2012" on April 11, 2019 [click here]. He has been imprisoned for over 4 years now, and this is after his almost 7 years of being arbitrarily detained in the embassy. Assange's bail was refused on the very same day as the Capitol Attack in the US, and the media frenzy which followed dwarfed an otherwise newsworthy story.
8) President Trump placed economic pressure on WHO while the MSM was attacking the Organization because its 3rd interim guidance on masks did not comply with CDC recommendations, and WHO caved under the pressure.
During the two-month period when the CDC and WHO were not in agreement about masking the general public, some strange things started to happen. Media pundits began to criticize the World Health Organization relentlessly, and some even said the Organization was not following "the science." The media was choosing which experts represent science and which ones do not. While this form of elevation may not have been a new development, the target and intensity of the disparagement certainly were.
WHO was bombarded with such attacks until it published its 4th Interim Guidance, Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19, on June 5th. This publication complied with the CDC recommendation, to a degree. Some outlets continued to criticize WHO for lagging behind "the science" and making "contradictory statements" [click here] but not to the same extent as before when WHO and CDC recommendations were not so harmonious.
SABOTAGING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
In December of 2021, The American Institute of Economic Research (AIER) published the release of a FOIA request containing emails demonstrating how former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci and former NIH Director Francis Collins were SABOTAGING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD by defaming the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) authors as "fringe scientists." It's amazing how these so-called fringe scientists somehow managed to garner more than twice as many signatures as the John Snow Memorandum, its antithesis, which had the backing of establishment medical institutions [click here]. The Editorial Board of the WSJ also published an opinion piece about how Fauci and Collins were caught working with the media to disparage the GBD, its authors, and the pre-COVID principles of public health which they were promoting [click here].
In conjunction with the media barrage of WHO denigration, President Donald Trump threatened to defund the World Health Organization.
On April 14th, 2020, eight days after WHO released its report that contradicted the CDC's recommendation, Trump announced that he would be suspending WHO funds. This seemed like a deflection from Trump's own apparent mistake, his administration's slow response to the pandemic. Trump criticized WHO for being too soft on China, and the president halted funding while a review of the organization was conducted into its alleged "role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of coronavirus." The US provides WHO with more than $400 million annually, a significant portion of the organization's funding.
A little more than a month later, on May 18th, Trump raised the stakes and threatened to permanently defund WHO if the organization did not "commit to major substantive improvements in the next 30 days." Two-and-a-half weeks later, on June 5th, WHO complied with the CDC recommendations on public masking in spite of its "contradictory statements."
Trump continued his attacks on the World Health Organization, and on July 6th, 2020, he sent a formal notice of withdrawal to Congress and to the United Nations, effective July 6th, 2021. In order to withdraw from WHO, the terms of a 1948 joint resolution passed by Congress require the US to give a year's notice and to pay any outstanding fees. Giving a year's notice may have been political theater, as the president doesn't have the authority to make such a decision without Congressional approval.
President Trump might have been able to get away with redirecting funds for a border wall, but this was based on a technicality of semantics (military construction) WRT appropriated funds. Still, he might have lost that battle in the long run. On the other hand, if Congress approves funding for the World Health Organization, the president does not have the authority to divert such spending. It may have taken some time, but the judicial system would have ruled against Trump eventually.
Regardless, Joe Biden won the election and reversed Trump's withdrawal from WHO on January 20th, 2021, the day that he was inaugurated. But if the election had gone the other way, WHO would not have permanently lost its funding, and Trump would have been able to maintain his reputation [as antiestablishment] by criticizing the courts.
WHO declared the COVID global-health-emergency to be over on May 5, 2023. Some people are still routinely wearing masks in public, and many of these people will likely continue to do so for a long time. Blind opposition to Trump's views [on topics like public masking, lockdowns, and withdrawal from the World Health Organization] has a powerful influence on public opinion, one which is greater than the direct influence of the former president himself.
Reggie Littlejohn
Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, claims that the upcoming WHO Treaty will change the Organization "from being an advisory body to being a compulsory body" with enforcement capabilities [click here]. As is [click here], the treaty would also allow for mass surveillance and the suppression of so-called "disinformation." According to Littlejohn, the surveillance is similar to the social credit system utilized by the CCP. The "One Health Approach" will eliminate national sovereignty, giving WHO the authority to impose lockdowns for diseases that have yet to infect a single human being.
China's social credit system is a flexible (not clearly defined) blacklisting system which existed before the pandemic but was then applied to the mitigation of Covid-19 [click here]. A global treaty with the World Health Organization, such as the one mentioned above, would essentially dissolve the sovereignty of all nations worldwide [click here].
Littlejohn is an historic, reputable figure who advocated for the awareness of China's forced abortions under the former one-child policy [click here]. In addition, Littlejohn has been featured by C-SPAN on three separate occasions [click here].
Please visit SovereigntyCoalition.org to sign the American Sovereignty Declaration [ereigntycoalition.org/], a petition against the upcoming WHO Treaty, and write to your Representatives in the House [.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative] AND Senate [.senate.gov/senators/].
"And Xi Jinping has said that he wants to have a major hand in constructing some kind of global governance. And I believe that they're doing that through the World Health Organization, and this parallel track of China's social credit system through the surveillance, and the social listening, and the central bank digital currency, trying to track the entire world in like a Chinese style Gulag."
-Reggie Littlejohn
We don't need a "whole-of-society approach" to prevent the natural occurrence of a future pandemic, one of countless similar events endured by our species and by our collective liberty over the years. In trying to dominate nature, communism has been credited with at least two major genocides that resulted from pseudo-scientific initiatives designed to control nature and to dominate the working-class. Lysenkoism was responsible for both the Soviet Famine of 1930 and the Great Chinese Famine of 1958 [click here]. Similarities to the events of 2020 indicate that Lysenkoism was responsible for a third genocide as well.
My hypothesis:
Some scientists have speculated that the excess mortality of 2021, which was significantly greater than that of 2020, was caused by more virulent strains of COVID. Other scientists have speculated that the vaccines caused a spike in mortality. A distinct third possibility is that the increased mortality was caused by hunger-related deaths, which were caused by the lockdowns, not the virus itself.
Universal lockdowns and forced shutdowns of slaughterhouses, processing plants etc. caused shortages that inflated the cost of food. In many cases, animals were culled and crops were left in the field to rot [click here]. Increased food prices were mostly an inconvenience in affluent countries, but in poor countries, this led to food shortages. During the Great Depression, Americans died from malnutrition, not starvation. Malnutrition can also increase the odds of a fatal outcome related to an infectious disease.
According to the United Nations Global Compact, more people could die from COVID-related hunger than Covid-19 infection [click here]. Additionally, the UN World Food Program reported [click here]: "41 million people are teetering on the very edge of famine (IPC phase 4/Emergency). . .This number has risen from 27 million in 2019." In addition to conflict and climate change, the WFP cites economic pressure and the rising cost of basic food prices as a catalyst for this growing hunger crisis.
At one point, some ten thousand children were dying each month because of "COVID-related" hunger that resulted from lockdowns and supply chain issues [click here]. While this figure might be dwarfed by the total excess mortality, reported hunger-related deaths are likely an underestimate that would normally be corrected with the same evaluation as the pandemic, excess mortality. Therein lies the problem, how to determine whether to attribute certain deaths to Covid-19 infection or to lockdown-related hunger.
WHO attributes about a third of its excess mortality estimate to India [click here], a country where people were reportedly dying from hunger during the pandemic of 2020.
According to an India Times article in the Explainers section [click here], "Experts in food security referred to these deaths as 'hunger deaths,' but the state denied it, claiming that all of them were caused by diseases."
Back in 2021, many of India's 60 million inter-state migrant laborers were terrified that future COVID lockdowns would cause them to go hungry once again and force them to beg for food once again as well [click here].
Associate Professor of Economics at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA) Chinmay Tumbe has expressed concern about these "socially and politically vulnerable" migrant workers, over 900 of whom died on the way home from a mass exodus created by Covid-19 lockdowns. Activist Harsh Mander said it was "probably the greatest humanitarian crisis" they had ever seen.
Goutam Lal Meena, a migrant masonry worker earning less than six dollars a day, remarked of the refugee crisis created by India's lockdowns [click here], "I walked through the day and I walked through the night. What option did I have? I had little money and almost no food."
Additionally, media pundits in the West have blamed India's economic downturn on the nation's initial laissez faire approach to Covid-19 mitigation. However, India's economy was noticeably decelerating before the pandemic [click here].
While the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration may have given "FOCUSED PROTECTION" its name, the strategy existed long before October of 2020, when the memorandum was published (see "TARGETING" below). The basic concept was mentioned by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in a 2009 document, which says [click here]:
"Interventions TARGETING children might have been quite effective during the 1957 pandemic."
In 2009 [click here], the ECDC referred to the 1957 flu as a "lesser severe disease" and has suggested that interventions for a similar pandemic could be "more costly and disruptive than the effects of the pandemic itself."
On May 5, 2022, WHO published its estimate for the excess mortality of the Covid-19 pandemic throughout 2020 and 2021 [click here]. WHO provided a figure of 14.9 million excess deaths (range 13.3M to 16.6M) and claimed that these estimates are "a more objective and comparable measure that accounts for both the direct and indirect impacts of the pandemic." Note, WHO made no distinction between the deaths caused by the natural occurrence of a global epidemic and the deaths caused by the mitigation strategies that were implemented.
While WHO did not declare an end to the global health emergency until May 5, 2023, some epidemiologists were reporting evidence of the transition to an endemic phase back in August of 2021 (see also "Plain community" below for a timescale comparison). Dr Martin Kulldorff, one of the three coauthors of the Great Barrington Declaration, told Jan Jekielek of The Epoch Times [click here], "It shows that we are on our way from the pandemic phase to the endemic phase," --in 2021!
This was about a year after WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus omitted natural immunity from his unique description of herd immunity [click here], thus glossing over the impact natural immunity had on the 20th century pandemics. In 1957, less than 20% of the population was vaccinated [click here]. The economy was not restricted by mandated lockdowns, and there were no lockdown-precipitated, hunger-related deaths. Most global pandemics (in the traditional sense of a novel respiratory infection) last about two years, but Covid-19 may have been prolonged by the public health measures that were put in place (again, see "Plain community" below).
The WHO estimate of 13.3M to 16.6M deaths is on a par with the 1957 pandemic's mortality range, which, population adjusted, would be greater than 2.7 to 10.9 million deaths today [click here]. The 1918 pandemic, on the other hand, would have a population adjusted range greater than 98.7 to 394.9 million deaths today.
The Covid-19 mortality rate was comparable to that of the 1957 pandemic, and some of the recent deaths were actually caused by so-called "COVID-related" hunger (this term is an offensive form of spin propaganda). These HUNGER-RELATED DEATHS were the DIRECT RESULT of the mitigation strategies implemented by the people who SABOTAGED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD by referring to the GBD authors as "fringe scientists."
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [An agency of the European Union]:
"The point about costly and disruptive measures is crucial. During a pandemic with lesser severe disease and of fewer falling sick, such as those seen in 1957 and 1968, some possible community measures (proactive school closures, home working, etc.), though probably reducing transmission, can be more costly and disruptive than the effects of the pandemic itself. Hence such measures may only have a net benefit if implemented during a severe pandemic, for example one that results in high hospitalisation rates or has a case fatality rate comparable to that of the 1918-19 'Spanish flu.'"
The Plain community of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
In March of 2021, it was reported in the Associated Press that the Plain community of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Amish, Mennonite) had achieved herd immunity, one year after WHO declared the pandemic [click here]. The article then warned that this could lead to a false sense of security, that fewer people might get vaccinated after learning how the Plain community had achieved herd immunity, and that the natural immunity acquired by members of this community (or any community, for that matter) could wane, causing a resurgence of the disease.
However, it is now a well-known fact that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is at least as effective, if not more so than the vaccine. This information was available in 2021, but it was suppressed when lay people discovered the unrefereed preprint online. To date, people who were infected with COVID in 2020 have had natural immunity that protected them from every variant that has been catalogued thus far.
We have been told that it's still safer to get the jab, but it is noteworthy that none of the COVID variants devastated the Plain community, which generally avoids seeking medical attention and does not have a healthcare plan.
Meryl Nass, MD (internist/epidemiologist click here)
Canada no longer forces AVA (anthrax) vaccination on its troops due to the evidence presented by Dr Meryl Nass at the court martial hearing of Sergeant Mike Kipling, where Colonel Guy Brais, Canada's top military magistrate [at the time], stayed the charges against Kipling, ruling that his rights had been violated when his superiors ordered him to take the anthrax vaccine [click here]. Nass' Response [click here] to disgraced (Walter Reed Medical Center) former MG George W. Weightman contains the following passage:
". . .whereas the US military has resumed vaccinations, enforced with courts-martial at which the evidence [linking the AVA vaccine with Gulf War syndrome and birth defects] will never be heard."
Dr Nass' research identified the Rwanda-Burundi genocide (ca. 1978-80), which seems to have utilized biological warfare via anthrax, as only the African-owned cattle on Tribal Trust Lands were affected. Unfortunately, this region has a complicated history of violence, which also makes it difficult to discern which Rwandan genocide is which. Outside of the Central African Journal of Medicine, little has been published about the anthrax event that Dr Nass researched.
It would appear as if Dr Nass' paper [click here], "Anthrax Epizootic in Zimbabwe, 1978-1980: Due to Deliberate Spread?" is referring to the same event as Robert Mugabe, whose presidential run of Zimbabwe lasted from 1987 until 2017. Mugabe, who may have been responsible for a 1983 genocide himself [click here], accused former Prime Minister (1964-79) of the defunct, formerly-unrecognized state of Rhodesia, Ian Douglas Smith, of having committed genocide during his command [click here].
Smith did run the campaign slogan for a "whiter, brighter Rhodesia," and he did make the claim, "African leaders put power before their people." When Pavelyn Tendai Musaka offered Smith the opportunity to apologize for these alleged atrocities at an October 2000 Oxford Union debate, Smith responded, "We had no atrocities. We killed terrorists." Ian Smith also referred to the people killed by the Rhodesian regime as rapists and murderers (sound familiar? click here). Although Mugabe threatened to have Smith arrested and charged for the crime of genocide, both sides were granted amnesty in a 1979 treaty that ended the seven-year liberation war [click here].
"The more we killed, the happier we were. We were fighting terrorists" -former [UNRECOGNIZED] Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Douglas Smith, in response to the 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his administration
In addition to providing evidence that identified the Rwanda-Burundi genocide of 1978 and providing evidence that changed the Canadian government's protocol regarding the AVA vaccine, Meryl Nass has testified before Congress on numerous occasions as an expert witness on biological warfare, epidemics, the anthrax vaccine, Gulf War syndrome, et cetera. At the request of the American Journal of Public Health, Dr Nass published "The Anthrax Vaccine Program: An Analysis of the CDC's Recommendations for Vaccine Use" in 2002. She is also a longtime board member [click here] of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP).
As stated in Dr Nass' blog [click here], "'. . .chloroquine has a small toxic to therapeutic margin,' according to Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies. The drug is very safe when used correctly, but not a lot more can potentially kill." It would appear as if the establishment studies wrote off hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as being ineffective [for the treatment and prophylaxis of Covid-19] because the HCQ trials overdosed patients with the drug. Many of these COVID patients likely succumbed to the overdose of the drug, which is safe when properly administered, but their deaths were classified as COVID-related, not overdose-related.
Along with the implications of subversion, investigations launched to intimidate and punish dissenters are nothing short of McCarthyesque.
The Maine Medical Board suspended Dr Nass' medical license in January of 2022, and the fifth day of her hearing will be this Tuesday, May 30, 2023 [click here]. Children's Health Defense (CHD-TV) will be airing the event live at 9am [click here]. This page currently displays the four previous video archives of the hearing, which began in October of last year. Presumably, that same webpage will be updated as the case progresses [click here].
Meryl Nass, MD is on the Scientific Advisory Committee for Children's Health Defense, which is perfectly acceptable, and it's something the organization does not hide [click here]. There is no conflict of interest here because Children's Health Defense is not affiliated with the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine, the government agency that suspended Dr Nass' medical license. Here in the land of the free, people have the right to present their side of the story.
Although the suspension of Dr Nass' medical license resulted from an investigation into allegations that she was spreading so-called misinformation about Covid-19 [click here], Dr Nass has provided some rather compelling evidence to back her claims [click here]. Dr Nass challenged the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine to describe the alleged misinformation, and these charges were dropped. Still, the lesser charge of prescribing medications for diseases that have not been approved by the FDA remains. Off-label drug use (OLDU) is a common practice, which is neither illegal, nor is it unethical [click here], and it has even become the standard of care for some conditions [click here]. The medical board has also ordered Dr Nass to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation, falsely implying that she lacks the competence to practice medicine as a consequence of either mental illness or substance abuse.
Economic leverage, along with professional and reputational damage were applied to silence dissent WRT Covid-19.
Anyone who questioned "the science" throughout the pandemic was shamed and labeled a conspiracy theorist. Numerous doctors have had their licenses suspended or revoked for expressing their qualified opinions on Covid-19. Scientists have been the victims of smear campaigns, their reputations tarnished by a misrepresentation of the facts. Many professionals have lost their jobs because their expert opinions vary from the medical establishment or because they have refused Covid-19 vaccination.
The Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published in October of 2020, criticized the damaging effects of Covid-19 lockdowns and called for a strategy of focused protection. According to Dr Jay Bhattacharya [click here], one of the GBD's three coauthors, "people lost their jobs for signing [the GBD]."
The WHO Treaty seeks to perpetuate "the science" and suppress the dissenting opinions of experts. This form of censorship would not have been possible without "The Trump Show" and other covert manipulation tactics like the exploitation of gestalt theory principles [click here].
#ExitTheWHO
For nonbelievers, the following quote is rife with symbolism relating to the eternal class-power struggle of humanity, and for keepers of the faith [holicstraightanswers.com/gifts-understanding-wisdom/], the gifts of wisdom and understanding [.youtube.com/watch?v=9vz06QO3UkQ] are abundant (all-caps emphasis mine):
"One of the artifices of Satan is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist: another, perhaps equally fatal, is to make them fancy THAT HE IS OBLIGED TO STAND QUIETLY BY, AND NOT TO MEDDLE WITH THEM, if they get into TRUE SILENCE."
-John Wilkinson, "Quakerism Examined"
#LysenkoKills
#LockdownHunger
#WorkingClassGenocide
(Article changed on Jun 01, 2023 at 7:20 AM EDT)
1
