Aletho News


Gaslighting Autism Families: CDC, Media Continue to Obscure Decades of Vaccine-Related Harm

The Defender | December 17, 2021

Media and public health officials perpetuated their entrenched practice of gaslighting autism families when earlier this month they trotted out the worn-out canard that a 23% rise in autism prevalence over a two-year period “reflects more awareness … rather than a true increase.”

The basis for this mean-spirited whopper was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) release of its biennial report on autism prevalence as of 2018.

The report estimated autism affected 1 in 44 American 8-year-olds born in 2010 (2.27%). The CDC’s prior report estimated prevalence at 1 in 54 8-year-olds born in 2008 (1.85%).

Using a different methodology, the 2019-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health situated autism prevalence for children ages 3 to 17 at 1 in 34 (2.9%).

Notwithstanding the media spin, CDC’s new report cannot hide the fact that autism rates have not stopped rising — and the trend has persisted for decades.

This was acknowledged by the report’s New Jersey author, researcher Walter Zahorodny, who states that U.S. autism prevalence — far from plateauing — “has increased continuously over 20 years.”

Zahorodny, who years ago described the situation as “urgent,” has consistently rejected “better awareness” or “changes in diagnostic criteria” as explanations.

Twenty years (the period of time during which CDC has had its tracking system in place) is itself a gross understatement — autism prevalence in the 1990s (1 in 1,000) already represented a tenfold increase over the condition’s estimated prevalence in the 1970s.

Greeting the new data with a wink and a yawn, the media also ignored the fact that some subgroups and regions are experiencing even more of a “red alert” situation.

Zahorodny called attention, for example, to the finding that autism prevalence for California’s boys is an “unprecedented” 1 in 16 (6.4%) — almost double the dreadful rate of 1 in 28 boys overall (3.6%).

The “Golden State” now has the dubious distinction of having the highest autism rate in the nation.

Moreover, recent projections by autism researchers Mark Blaxill, Toby Rogers and Cynthia Nevison suggest, if current trends continue, the autism rate could surpass 6% for ALL American children within a few years.

Although there are any number of environmental toxins that harm children’s neurodevelopment, a preponderance of information from national and international sources pinpoints vaccines as the driving factor behind the autism epidemic.

This information includes the CDC’s own data — despite the agency’s numerous fraudulent attempts to make years of troublesome findings “go away.”

Tragically, officialdom’s willful refusal to acknowledge or address vaccine-autism safety signals is no longer just an ongoing slap in the face to those directly affected — it is now affecting the U.S. population as a whole.

Why? Because CDC and Big Pharma are now using the very same playbook to gaslight victims of COVID vaccine injuries.

Omnibus Autism Proceeding trickery: a reminder

In the early 2000s — when autism prevalence had surged to an estimated 1 in 150 children — the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) consolidated 5,400 claims into something called the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP).

The claims were filed by parents who asserted vaccines had injured their children, causing seizures, developmental delays and mitochondrial injuries that ultimately led to a diagnosis of autism.

Under the VICP, vaccine-injured individuals file claims against the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters.

The adversarial process pits petitioners not just against the special masters who adjudicate the claims but also against U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys who “defend HHS.”

In the case of the OAP, the special masters told thousands of families they would make a determination about compensation based on nine “test cases” — almost immediately whittled down to six — using them to evaluate three narrowly defined theories of autism causation via vaccine injury.

Knowing that if their conclusions pinpointed vaccination as the likely culprit in even one of the test cases, the VICP might be on the hook to compensate all 5,400 families — an outcome that would have bankrupted the VICP and cast a black cloud over the entire childhood vaccination program — the special masters and DOJ then pulled a couple of fast ones.

First, HHS quietly removed one of the test cases, “Child Doe 77,” later revealed to be Hannah Poling.

After awarding millions to be disbursed over Poling’s lifetime — and admitting vaccines were responsible for her autism — the special masters sealed the documents, so the case “could not be used to establish precedent on any of the other OAP cases.”

In a parallel move to ensure none of the remaining five test cases would lead to compensation, two DOJ attorneys allegedly distorted the views of HHS’s star expert witness, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman.

At the time, Zimmerman wrote an opinion for one of the test cases in which he rejected the proposed vaccine-autism theory of causation in that specific case.

In 2019, however, Zimmerman signed an affidavit disclosing how he had informed the two attorneys during the OAP deliberations that his opinion in that one case was not intended “to be a blanket statement as to all children and all medical science.”

In fact, Zimmerman told the DOJ attorneys, he believed vaccines could indeed cause autism in some children.

As noted by journalist Sharyl Attkisson, Zimmerman’s consequential scientific opinion “stood to change everything about the vaccine-autism debate — if people were to find out.”

To make sure people did not “find out,” Zimmerman was immediately fired as an expert witness.

Even worse, DOJ’s two attorneys intentionally used Zimmerman’s statements — written for the single test case — to misrepresent his broader views, omitting the expert’s stated belief that vaccines can and did cause autism in a subset of children.

Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. described the Justice Department’s OAP cover-up as “one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history.”

This “fraud” allowed the VICP special masters to dismiss out of hand the petitions of all 5,000-plus families.

Lessons for today

At the close of 2021, autism’s annual costs — at $238 billion — are projected to more than double to $589 billion by 2030.

School districts and municipalities, tasked with providing special education services, are already “drowning” under the burden of coming up with the necessary funding.

Under the circumstances, it is a mystery why the media still get away with making the insulting case that autism awareness and better diagnosis account for the ever-higher numbers of children with autism.

The fact is that autism is, and always has been, a matter of urgent public concern, with wide-ranging impacts on families, communities and society that will endure for decades to come.

Nor is the autism epidemic limited to the United States — other countries, such as Ireland, have produced data that mirror the shocking numbers just reported by CDC for California.

With the experimental COVID shots now blazing an unfortunate trail of death and disability, both in the U.S. and internationally, many more individuals and families are entering the bizarre twilight zone until now largely inhabited by autism families.

Similar to those dealing with autism, the COVID-vaccine-injured are:

  • Finding it difficult-to-impossible to gain recognition for their injuries, encountering public ridicule and scorn rather than support for the empirical contention that vaccines triggered their damage.
  • Discovering that many in the medical community are only too willing to brush off or deny serious physical problems following COVID vaccination, instead suggesting that anxiety or the opportunely created “post-pandemic stress disorder” are responsible.
  • Belatedly discovering that vaccine injuries are a significant cause of family bankruptcy and, with manufacturers enjoying complete protection from financial liability, the prospects for injury compensation are slim to none — the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program that is supposed to provide compensation for “provable” COVID vaccine injuries hasn’t paid out a single claim.
  • Learning, with the recent greenlighting of the shots for children ages 5 to 11, that public health officials, vaccine manufacturers and policy-makers are only too willing to “throw children under the bus,” by pushing injections that offer zero benefit, pose outsized risks and jeopardize our country’s future.

In the face of these tragedies, perhaps the only silver lining that can be drawn is that the swelling ranks of the vaccine-injured, along with their families and communities, represent a mighty army — one that is likely to reject continued gaslighting and to push back against corporate malfeasance and genocidal health policies with growing determination and strength.

If one day, an OAP equivalent arises to address the tidal wave of COVID-vaccine-related injuries, this army may make it more difficult for arrogant authorities to carry out their customary dirty tricks.

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Ivermectin and the Price of Life

By Justus R. Hope, MD | The Desert Review | December 13, 2021

What is your life worth? More to the point, what is your loved one’s life worth? What value would you place on your child, your mother, father, or spouse?

When the world experienced an average of nearly 15,000 COVID deaths per day, Dr. Andrew Hill decided on the price of a human life. Dr. Hill made that calculation during a conversation with Dr. Tess Lawrie, in January of 2021, during the peak of the Winter Surge.

In a zoom conversation between Dr. Tess Lawrie, nicknamed the “Conscience of Medicine,”  and Dr. Andrew Hill, then the most influential Ivermectin advocate in the world, Dr. Hill chose dollars over human lives.

Hill’s parent institution, the University of Liverpool, had just received a 40 million dollar donation from UNITAID four days before Hill’s Ivermectin paper was published, and Dr. Hill’s conclusion was changed 180 degrees from his position just a few weeks earlier.

Andrew Hill admitted that his sponsors (UNITAID) pressured him to alter his conclusion. Hill explained, “I think I’m in a very sensitive position here.”

Dr. Lawrie called Hill out. She stated, “Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.”

Lawrie criticized Hill, “This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80%. So 80  percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s Ivermectin.”

Hill responded that the NIH would not agree to recommend IVM.

Dr. Tess Lawrie fired back, “Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby…This is bad research. So at this point, I am really, really worried about you.”

Hill answered, “Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s a difficult situation.”

Lawrie responded, “No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth… How can you deliberately try and mess up…you know? So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily – up to you? What is the timeline you’ve allowed for this, then?”

Andrew Hill reacted, “Well, I think… I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH, and the FDA, and the EMEA. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough is enough.”

Dr. Lawrie pointed out the obvious, “You’d rather… risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying…

I’m a doctor, and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on Ivermectin…Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.”

Dr. Lawrie demanded to know the identity of the unknown UNITAID author who changed Dr. Hill’s conclusions, the person whose influence was to cause so many preventable deaths.

“So who is it in UNITAID, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?”

Hill answered, “Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t…”

Dr. Lawrie pressed Hill, “Could you please give me a name of someone in UNITAID I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?

Dr. Hill evaded, “Oh, I’ll have to think about who to, to offer you with a name… But I mean this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance… Yeah, it’s a very strong lobby…”

The conversation concludes with Dr. Hill promising to do everything in his power to get Ivermectin approved if she could give him six more weeks.

Dr. Lawrie, “So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for?”

Dr. Hill, “From my side. Okay… I think end of February, we will be there in six weeks.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie, “How many people die every day?”

Dr. Andrew Hill, “Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie, “Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks… Because at this rate, all other countries are getting Ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.”

Dr. Andrew Hill, “My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum…”

Dr. Tess Lawrie, The Conscience of Medicine, concluded with this, “You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, ‘I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion anymore, and I’m going to tell the truth.’”

Finally, Dr. Lawrie added, “Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of… everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it… I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.”

The fact that Dr. Andrew Hill allowed another person to change his paper’s conclusion has been known for more than six months and was published in the book, Ivermectin for the World.

“However, he [Dr. Andrew Hill] was reigned in before more damage [to the vaccine lobby] was done:

  1. He was invited to the NIH, along with Dr. Marik, probably to give the appearance of propriety.
  2. He was given a gag order and told not to speak to any more press until The WHO made an official decision on Ivermectin. It turned out that this decision would go against the drug despite Dr. Hill’s findings.
  3. Dr. Hill’s conclusion would be changed by someone else, and the rest is history.”

What was not known, until the transcript of the zoom conference between Dr. Hill and Dr. Lawrie was leaked, were the specifics of the quid pro quo. It turns out that the height of the COVID-19 Winter surge, when about 15,000 people per day were dying, was precisely the same time as the zoom conference, held on January 18, 2021. Moreover, it was days after Andrew Hill’s University of Liverpool took the $40 million payoff.

The transcript of this conference call appeared in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.s’ book, The Real Anthony Fauci, and in this article published by The Defender newsletter:

World daily COVID deaths were averaging around 15,000 per day on January 18, 2021, and six weeks later were averaging some 9,700. Currently, the world is seeing about 7,500 per day die.

80% of these or more could have been prevented with Ivermectin, a statement with which Dr. Hill would likely agree.

Overall, since that fateful decision of Andy Hill to allow his sponsor to “change” his paper’s conclusion, 2.475 million people [11 months x 30 days per month x 7500 deaths per day] have died, 80% of them could have been saved had Ivermectin been approved. So precisely 1.98 million lives were lost as a result of the betrayal.

The price per life?

Forty million dollars was the value of the donation made to the University of Liverpool by UNITAID. This sum comes out to 20 dollars and 20 cents per life. That is what we are all worth in the calculus of the vaccine lobby.

UNITAID bills itself as a “global health agency” hosted by the World Health Organization and supported by the vaccine lobby.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed hundreds of millions to UNITAID. In October, they committed $120 million more to the new expensive Merck drug molnupiravir, a costly and genotoxic competitor of Ivermectin.

Some experts say it will stimulate the emergence of viral mutants and worsen the pandemic.

If that prospect is not concerning enough, consider this: One dose of Remdesivir, a drug that does not save lives, but one that is widely used on most United States ICU COVID cases, costs $3,100 per dose, or to put it bluntly, one dose of Remdesivir is worth roughly 153 lives. Yet, the worst drug earned the FDA’s approval while the best one, Ivermectin, was suppressed for money.

Ivermectin, a drug that has nearly eradicated River Blindness in much of the world, a safe drug already given to humans in over 4 billion doses, can be purchased mail-order from India at 1,000 12mg tablets for $163. That comes out to 16.3 cents per dose.

Dr. Alan Bain recently saved the life of 71-year-old Sun Ng thanks to a court order issued by Judge Paul Fullerton. Following the hospital’s initial refusal, Ng’s family sued Edward-Elmhurst Health and Sun Ng was administered the Ivermectin for five days. After the treatment, Ng “removed his breathing tube” and was taken out of ICU.

Sun Ng’s Recovery with Ivermectin

Dr. Bain, unable to get a local pharmacy to fill the prescription for Ivermectin, obtained the mail-order version and saved Ng’s life.

Thus, five 12 mg doses cost about 82 cents but are worth more than the 20 dollar value placed by the vaccine lobby and Andrew Hill on a human life because pennies were all it took to purchase the Ivermectin that saved Sun Ng.

Ivermectin has 27 randomized controlled studies involving tens of thousands of patients showing reduced time to viral clearance, hastened recovery time, and reduced mortality. On the other hand, the vaccine lobby’s choice, Remdesivir, was rejected by the WHO as a drug that failed to improve survival and other outcomes.

One thousand doses of Ivermectin can be purchased online for $163. Yet, UNITAID paid $40 million to change Dr. Hill’s conclusions to call for more studies [delaying Ivermectin approval], essentially condemning millions of human beings to death from COVID-19. So while 82 cents may be the price of life, it seems that twenty pieces of silver remains the price of death.

Dr. Justus R. Hope, writer’s pseudonym, graduated summa cum laude from Wabash College where he was named a Lilly Scholar. He attended Baylor College of Medicine where he was awarded the M.D. degree. He completed a residency in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at The University of California Irvine Medical Center. He is board-certified and has taught at The University of California Davis Medical Center in the departments of Family Practice and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He has practiced medicine for over 35 years and maintains a private practice in Northern California.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | 1 Comment

FDA Should Need Only ‘12 Weeks’ to Release Pfizer Data, Not 75 Years, Plaintiff Calculates

By Seth Hancock | The Defender | December 17, 2021

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials skipped the start of oral arguments Tuesday as a federal district court weighed whether the agency can take 75 years to fully release documents on Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID vaccine, according to a lawyer representing plaintiffs who sued the FDA for the documents.

A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas the agency will produce more than 329,000 related documents as fast as it can, while safeguarding personally identifiable information and Pfizer trade secrets.

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), the group behind the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and subsequent lawsuit, is seeking safety and effectiveness data, adverse reaction reports and a list of active and inactive vaccine ingredients.

PHMPT is a group of more than 30 scientists, medical professionals, international public health professionals and journalists. The group’s lawsuit argues the FDA is overestimating the time needed and understaffing the job.

“Assuming a low average of 50 pages per hour per person, even to review the hundreds of thousands of pages the FDA estimates, the agency would need just 19 reviewers to work full-time for 12 weeks to review and produce these documents — which is a tiny fraction of its approximately 18,000 employees,” said PHMPT in a legal brief filed Monday.

The day before oral arguments, the FDA released 14 document files, the largest file including 2,030 pages. PHMPT posted an updated list which shows documents released since Nov. 17.

FOIA does not mandate any particular processing schedule, only that the agency process requests “as soon as practicable,” the FDA said in a legal brief filed Monday.

“The bottom-line issue still remains what processing schedule is ‘practicable’ for the agency,” the FDA said.

At the agency’s proposed rate of 500 documents per month, the last documents would be released in 2096.

A quote from Business Intelligence Associates, an e-discovery company, estimated 400,000 pages could be produced within six to eight weeks at a cost of $132,000, according to PHMPT.

PHMPT wants the FDA documents released within 108 days. That’s the same amount of time the FDA spent reviewing the responsive documents for “the far more intricate task” of licensing Pfizer’s vaccine, the group said in its lawsuit.

Attorney Aaron Siri, who represents PHMPT, said:

“Americans must routinely produce documents, pay fines, and otherwise expend resources to comply with the law. Courts don’t inquire as to the ability or financial resources to comply with the law — they must comply.

“In fact, it would be laughable if a billionaire defendant came before a court and claimed poverty to escape making a document production, but that is the FDA’s position.”

The FDA budget for fiscal year 2019 was $6.1 billion.

In the FDA’s 64-page briefing, the agency argued it needed the full 75 years to redact and release the documents out of “fairness” to other FOIA requesters.

PHMPT defined fairness differently in its responding brief:

“Fairness would be giving millions of Americans who are mandated to receive this liability-free vaccine today assurance regarding the FDA’s review by allowing independent scientists access to the same data the FDA reviewed, without making them wait decades.

“Fairness would be allowing Americans injured by the vaccine today, who cannot sue Pfizer or anyone else for the harm, hope that independent scientists with access to that data can more readily develop treatments for their ailments.

“Fairness would be our federal health authorities allocating more than one person spending a few hours each month to review Pfizer’s documents for public disclosure after having given Pfizer over $17 billion of taxpayer money to develop and market the product.

“That would be fair to the American people.”

Siri noted that no decision has been made by the court and that a transcript of this week’s hearing should be released soon.

U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) earlier this month introduced a bill that would force the FDA to release them in 100 days.

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Witches executed 300 years ago to be posthumously pardoned

FILE PHOTO. © Getty Images / ZU_09
RT | December 19, 2021

Thousands of people, mostly women and girls, who were accused of witchcraft in Scotland hundreds of years ago are set to be pardoned following a two-year long campaign by the Witches of Scotland activist group.

The women’s alleged crimes were reportedly as varied as causing hangovers to meeting with the Devil — and more than half of those accused under the Witchcraft Act between 1563 and 1736 were executed. According to estimates cited by the Sunday Times, some 85% of the victims were female.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s administration has reportedly backed a bill proposed in parliament which calls on the government to posthumously clear the victims’ names. The likely pardon comes after a two-year long campaign led by a group named ‘Witches of Scotland’.

Activists Claire Mitchell QC and Zoe Venditozzi launched a petition on International Women’s Day 2020, demanding that the authorities pardon, apologize, and memorialize those killed as witches in Scotland. On September 1, a parliamentary committee agreed to pass the issue on to the Scottish government.

The bill granting the pardon could be passed as early as summer 2022, according to media reports. Natalie Don, a Scottish National Party lawmaker, told the Sunday Times that it was right that “this wrong should be righted, that these people who were criminalised, mostly women, should be pardoned.”

Religion and superstition-fueled witch-hunts were not unique to Scotland, with similar practices seen in west Germany, France, northern Italy, and Switzerland, and what would later become the US. Tens of thousands of women accused of witchcraft were burned at the stake or hanged over a span of several centuries.

And while in the West, the prosecution of witches ceased by the late 18th century, elsewhere in the world witchcraft is still considered a crime. Saudi Arabia, for example, established an anti-witchcraft unit in 2009 and accused women have even been put to death. Similarly, the Central African Republic doles out extremely harsh punishments to those accused of being witches.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Washington ‘hunts’ Russian citizens in third countries – Moscow

RT | December 19, 2021

Moscow has condemned the extradition of a Russian IT firm owner from Switzerland to the US. His lawyer said Washington wants to tie the man to alleged meddling by Moscow in the 2016 American presidential election.

The extradition of businessman Vladislav Klyushin is “another episode of Washington’s continuing ‘hunt’ for Russian nationals in third countries,” the Russian Embassy in Switzerland, told TASS on Sunday.

Spokesperson Vladimir Khokhlov said Moscow was “deeply disappointed” by the decision of a Swiss court to reject Klyushin’s appeal to block his extradition on Friday. The man was handed over to American police officers in Zurich on Saturday, who escorted him on a flight, according to Switzerland’s Federal Office of Justice.

The software developed by Klyushin’s media monitoring and analytics company, M13, is used by Russian state agencies, including the federal government and Presidential Executive Office, according to the firm’s website. The businessman was detained by Swiss police in March during a family skiing trip, his lawyer, Oliver Ciric, told the media.

Swiss justice officials said the US accused Klyushin of insider trading that involved “tens of millions of dollars.”

Ciric believes the persecution of the businessman is politically motivated, and that he will face “inhuman and degrading treatment” when extradited to the US.

He told The Times in September that the charges of insider trading were being used as a pretext to transport Klyushin to the US. The lawyer said his client would likely be charged with heading an alleged Russian covert operation to meddle in the 2016 US presidential election and hack the server of the Democratic Party.

In the same interview, Ciric claimed that Klyushin had access to “certain security information” related to the Russian government, and rebuffed recruitment attempts by US and British intelligence agents in the past.

The lawyer said that Klyushin’s criminal case file has been sealed by a Massachusetts court, which is “quite unusual” for financial charges that are typically publicized by a US financial regulator.

US officials accused the Kremlin of seeking to influence the vote and hacking the server of the Democratic National Committee and an email account of John Podesta, who led Hillary Clinton’s campaign against Donald Trump. Russia consistently denied these allegations. Klyushin has denied any involvement in insider trading and hacking.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Subjugation - Torture | , , , | 1 Comment

U.S. Proxy War Against Russia in Ukraine: The Afghanistan-Syria Redux Option

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 18, 2021

The United States is planning to redouble its weapons supply to Ukraine. What is shaping up is an intensified proxy war against Russia in which the Russophobic Kiev regime acts as Washington’s catspaw. The objective is to debilitate Russia in the same way the U.S. sapped the Soviet Union with a quagmire war in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

U.S. media reports cite Pentagon and Ukrainian officials saying that the Biden administration is considering a massive increase in armaments to the Kiev regime. This is on top of the $2.5 billion in military support that Washington has already given over the past eight years. The Biden administration has overseen $450 million in weaponry to Ukraine this year alone with a further $300 million budgeted for the coming 12 months. A separate proposal going through the Senate is seeking to boost military support for next year by another $450 million.

What gives added significance to this weapons pipeline is where they are being sourced. U.S. media reports say the arms are from inventories the Pentagon had allocated for the American-backed army in Afghanistan before it collapsed with the sudden Taliban victory in August. The weapons include Black Hawk helicopters and anti-armor munitions.

Other weapons under consideration for supply to Ukraine include more Javelin anti-tank missiles as well as Stinger anti-aircraft munitions.

In addition to the inventories previously allocated for Afghanistan, the U.S. is also planning weapons supplies from covert stockpiles overseen by the CIA in Romania and Bulgaria. This is the dark supply route that the U.S. and NATO allies used for arming terrorist proxies in a failed bid to overthrow the Syrian government. Russia’s military intervention in Syria in late 2015 defeated Washington’s regime-change objective in Damascus.

The year before, in 2014, the U.S. and its allies succeeded in their regime-change operation in Ukraine when an elected government friendly with Moscow was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup d’état. That coup brought to power a Neo-Nazi Russophobic regime that has been waging a civil war against the ethnic Russian population of southeast Ukraine. U.S. and NATO weapons supplies have motivated the Kiev regime to persist in hostilities despite a formal peace agreement known as the Minsk accord signed in 2015. France and Germany, supposed guarantors of the accord along with Russia, have both turned a blind eye to Kiev’s systematic violations.

Since the Biden administration took office 11 months ago, the Kiev regime has stepped up its provocations in southeast Ukraine. These provocations are ultimately aimed at destabilizing Russia. As well as weaponry, American and other NATO special forces are on the ground in Ukraine acting as “military advisors”. The accelerator for aggression has been stepped on in recent weeks.

The Kremlin has warned that the Ukrainian forces are ratcheting up hostilities towards the southeastern region that borders Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently said that the siege on the region also known as Donbass resembles a genocide.

The stark fact is that there is already a proxy war going on in Ukraine against Russia. Arguably, that has been the U.S. objective since the coup in Kiev in February 2014. The current escalation of violence by the Kiev regime with U.S. and NATO support means that there is a directive from Washington for widening the war.

Paradoxically, or perhaps more accurately, cynically, the U.S. and its NATO allies are boldly inverting reality with a torrent of claims that they are “defending” Ukraine from “Russian aggression”. Recent weeks have seen a full-court media propaganda campaign to shift the blame on an alleged Russian force build-up. Moscow has vehemently denied it has plans to invade Ukraine. It points out that satellite imagery cited by the U.S. and its allies for claiming a Russian build-up actually shows forces in established bases hundreds of kilometers from the border with Ukraine.

Taking stock of the situation: Ukrainian forces are stepping up aggression against the Russian-speaking population under siege for nearly eight years in the Donbass region. The U.S., NATO and European Union are complicit in this criminal aggression by weaponizing, training and apologizing for the Kiev regime with spurious allegations against Russia. Furthermore, there is an unprecedented build-up of U.S. and NATO forces in the Black Sea region conducting unscheduled war drills on Russia’s border. That is inescapably acting to embolden the unhinged Kiev regime, even more, to take the war to Russia.

Moscow is earnestly warning Washington and its NATO partners of red lines. Russia has called for a formal agreement to prohibit NATO expansion for Ukraine’s membership of the military bloc as well as installation of American weapons systems on Ukrainian territory.

Washington and its NATO partners appear complacent to a degree that suggests criminal complicity in fanning the tensions.

The Biden White House has already signaled that it will not reciprocate with Russia’s request for these security guarantees. Even if Washington somehow manages to muster the political will to appear to give Moscow some security reassurances, the fact remains that the U.S. and its NATO allies are already deeply involved in waging a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.

Plans for redoubling weapons flow to Ukraine from inventories allocated for Afghanistan and from covert CIA-run networks in Eastern Europe indicate the proxy war is set for a deliberate escalation.

Senior U.S. lawmakers have intimated that the preferred scenario for Washington is to create a quagmire for Russia similar to the trap set for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s. That proxy war in which the U.S. armed Mujahideen militants with Stinger missiles greatly sapped the Soviet Union leading to its demise. Those militants later evolved into Al Qaeda networks that were used in the failed U.S.-backed regime-change operation in Syria over the past decade.

The Russophobic Kiev regime is being driven to escalate its terror war against the Russian people in Donbas. The objective is to draw Russia into that war to defend people with whom it is culturally connected. The moral imperative on Moscow to act would be huge. Washington is calculating that the move turns into a quagmire that will debilitate Russia and tarnish its international standing.

But this nefarious plan – an Afghanistan-Syria redux – could so easily slide over the abyss into a full war between the United States and Russia. Moscow seems to be more cognizant of that possible disaster than Washington which is afflicted with the insouciance of arrogance.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Piers Corbyn arrested for ‘inciting violence’

RT | December 19, 2021

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s brother Piers has been arrested for allegedly calling for the offices of pro-lockdown MPs to be burnt down during a protest against vaccination mandates in Westminster.

Corbyn was arrested in Southwark, London on Sunday at 1.45am local time, according to The Guardian, which cited Metropolitan police sources. Police had previously mentioned they were investigating a video in which the anti-lockdown protest leader appeared to be advocating arson.

The brother of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn can be seen on the video, shot at Saturday’s protest outside Downing Street, calling on supporters to “hammer to death those scum who have decided to go ahead with introducing new fascism.” Informing his audience that there are websites with lists of MPs who fit that description, he recommended their constituents “go to their offices and — well, I would recommend burning them down, but I can’t say that on air.”

Audience members laugh in response, suggesting the remark was not made in seriousness, but Corbyn appears to realize he’s gone too far, repeating, “I hope we’re not on air.”

Corbyn also calls for anti-mandate protesters to “get a bit more physical,” urging demonstrators to “take down these lying vaccinators and we’ve got to take down these lying MPs.” Protesters, he said, should “support and welcome” those who have rebelled against PM Boris Johnson’s Covid-19 control measures in either party. Legislation to introduce vaccination certificates passed on Tuesday despite 99 Conservative MPs breaking with the party line to vote against it.

The protest attracted thousands of demonstrators who subsequently marched through the capital. Doctors have characterized the Omicron variant as comparatively mild, but that has not prevented governments from undergoing the now-routine process of locking down, renewing calls for vaccination and/or boosters, denouncing the unvaccinated, and unleashing the police on protesters.

Home Secretary Priti Patel demanded that police investigate the “sickening” video, urging them to “take the strongest possible action” against Corbyn. The 74-year-old was arrested on “suspicion of encouragement to commit arson.” A fixture at anti-lockdown protests since London began implementing Covid-19 restrictions, Corbyn has been arrested several times for breaching government pandemic orders.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

The FDA approves boosters for minors – without testing boosters on minors

Age group testing? Zero.

Techno Fog | December 14, 2021

Late last week, on December 9, the FDA approved the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, “authorizing the use of a single booster dose for administration to individuals 16 and 17 years of age.” The booster is to be given at least 6 months after vaccination.

Before we get to the data the FDA cited in the booster for kids aged 16-17, let’s go through the facts:

COVID-19 is not a threat to teenagers aged 16-17. On October 25, we warned that the FDA was about to approve an experimental COVID-19 vaccine for children. It seemed unnecessary to give the EUA Pfizer vaccine to minors, as CDC data showed that for children aged 5-11 years-old, there have been 1.8 million COVID-19 cases and only 138 deaths. For older kids, from our own calculations, there have been approximately 3 million COVID-19 infections for those aged 12-18 years, leading to approximately 400 COVID-19 deaths in those ages. Children who get COVID-19 (including the age range approved for the latest booster) generally have less severe symptoms. Even the CDC concedes that “children are less likely to develop severe illness or die from COVID-19.”

The Pfizer vaccine is particularly dangerous for young men aged 16-17. As we observed back in October, teenage boys are especially at risk for heart problems – like myocarditis – after getting the Pfizer vaccine:

“Boys between 16 and 19 years of age had the highest incidence of myocarditis after the second dose . . . The risk of heart problems in boys of that age was about nine times higher than in unvaccinated boys of the same age.” New York Times.

The risk of myocarditis for boys 16 – 19 years old is higher after the Pfizer second dose. What happens after the third dose??

That’s a good question.

One would rightly assume that the third dose might present more danger of heart problems than the second dose. But FDA doesn’t have the answer to this question. And why doesn’t it have the answer?

Because the FDA didn’t look.

Because the FDA decided against holding an advisory meeting to discuss the decision.

Because the FDA required ZERO tests in this age bracket before approving the latest Pfizer booster for this age bracket.

Instead, the FDA relied on prior (old) booster data from a study of “200 participants, 18 through 55 years of age.” Choosing to ignore the long-term data for the efficacy of the Pfizer booster shot, the FDA instead reviewed the old data showing “the antibody response against the SARS-CoV-2 virus one month after a booster dose of the vaccine.”

That’s it. That’s the rigorous studies that now meet FDA standards. Given the self-imposed and purposeful limitations the FDA has placed on its own own information, it has the audacity to conclude:

“The benefits of a single booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or Comirnaty outweigh the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis in individuals 16 and 17 years of age to provide continued protection against COVID-19 and the associated serious consequences that can occur including hospitalization and death.”

This is the FDA making a cost/benefit calculation without knowing the costs or benefits. It doesn’t know the real risks because it didn’t study the potential for adverse reactions in kids aged 16 – 17 years. It doesn’t know the real benefits because it chose a shitty study that was limited to one month efficacy data.

This robust FDA cost/benefit calculation might sound familiar to our loyal readers. That would be because the Government did the same thing when recommending the COVID-19 vaccines for “people who are pregnant.”

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

A Path Will Rise to Meet Us

By Charles Eisenstein | December 17, 2021

The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating.
– Mohandas K. Gandhi

I once read an account of bullying in rural America in the early 20th century. The narrator said, “If a victim did not stand up to them, there was no limit to how far the bullies would go.” He described them tying another child to the train tracks as a train approached (on the parallel track). There was no appeasing the bullies. Each capitulation only whetted their appetite for new and crueler humiliations.

The psychology of bullies is well understood: compensation for a loss of power, reenactment of trauma with roles reversed, and so forth. Beyond all that, though, the Bully archetype draws from another source. On some unconscious level, what the bully wants is for the victim to cease being a victim and to stand up to him. That is why submission does not appease a bully, but only invites further torment.

There is an initiatory possibility in the abuser-victim relationship. In that relationship and perhaps beyond it, the victim seeks to control the world through submissiveness. If I am submissive enough, pitiable enough, the abuser may finally relent. Other people might step in (the Rescuer archetype). There is nothing intrinsically wrong with submission or what improvisational theater pioneer Keith Johnstone called a low-status play. There are indeed some situations when doing that is necessary to survive. However, when the submissive posture becomes a habit and the victim loses touch with her capability and strength, the initiatory potential of the situation emerges. The bully or abuser intensifies the abuse until the victim reaches a point where the situation is so intolerable that she throws habit and caution to the wind. She discovers a capacity within her that she did not know she had. She becomes someone new and greater than she had been. That is a pretty good definition of an initiation.

When that happens, when the victim stands his ground and fights back, quite often the bully leaves him alone. On the soul level, his work is done. The initiation is complete. Of course, one might also say that the bully is a coward who wants only submissive victims. Or one might say that resistance spoils the sought-after psychodrama of dominance and submission. There is no guarantee that the resistance will be successful, but even if it is not, the dynamics of the relationship change when the victim decides she is through being a victim. She may discover that a lot of the power the bully had was in her fear and not in his actual physical control.

Until that shift happens, even if a rescuer intervenes, the situation is unlikely to change. Either the intervention will fail, or the rescuer will become a new abuser. The world will ask again and again whether the victim is ready to take a stand.

Please do not interpret this as a cavalier suggestion to someone in an abusive relationship to simply “take a stand.” That is easier said than done, and especially easy to say in ignorance of just what sort of courage would be required. In some situations, especially when children are involved, there is no way to resist without horrible risk to oneself or innocent others. Yet even in the most hopeless situations, the victim often learns a certain strength that she didn’t know she had. Because submission often leads to further, intensifying violation, eventually she will reach her breaking point where courage is born. In that moment, freedom from the abuser is more important than life itself.

The relationship between our governing authorities and the public today bears many similarities to the abuser-victim dynamic. Facing a bully, it is futile to hope that the bully will relent if you don’t resist. Acquiescence invites further humiliation. Similarly, it is wishful thinking to hope that the authorities will simply hand back the powers they have seized over the course of the pandemic. Indeed, if our rights and freedoms exist only by the whim of those authorities, conditional on their decision to grant them, then they are not rights and freedoms at all, but only privileges. By its nature, freedom is not something one can beg for; the posture of begging already grants the power relations of subjugation. The victim can beg the bully to relent, and maybe he will—temporarily—satisfied that the relation of dominance has been affirmed. The victim is still not free of the bully.

That is why I feel impatient when someone speaks of “When the pandemic is over” or “When we are able to travel again” or “When we are able to have festivals again.” None of these things will happen by themselves. Compared to past pandemics, Covid is more a social-political phenomenon than it is an actual deadly disease. Yes, people are dying, but even assuming that everyone in the official numbers died “of” and not “with” Covid, casualties number one-third to one-ninth those of the 1918 flu; per-capita it is one-twelfth to one-thirty-sixth.1 As a sociopolitical phenomenon, there is no guaranteed end to it. Nature will not end it, at any rate; it will end only through the agreement of human beings that it has ended.2 This has become abundantly clear with the Omicron Variant. Political leaders, public health officials, and the media are whipping up fear and reinstituting policies that would have been unthinkable a few years ago for a disease that, at the present writing, has killed one person globally. So, we cannot speak of the pandemic ever being over unless we the people declare it to be over.

Of course, I could be wrong here. Perhaps Omicron is, as World Medical Association chairman Frank Ulrich Montgomery has warned, as dangerous as Ebola. Regardless, the question remains: will we allow ourselves to be held forever hostage to the possibility of an epidemic disease? That possibility will never disappear.

Another thing I’ve been hearing a lot of recently is that “Covid tyranny is bound to end soon, because people just aren’t going to stand for it much longer.” It would be more accurate to say, “Covid tyranny will continue until people no longer stand for it.” That brings up the question, “Am I standing for it?” Or am I waiting for other people to end it for me, so that I don’t have to? In other words, am I waiting for the rescuer, so that I needn’t take the risk of standing up to the bully?

If you do put up with it, waiting for others to resist instead, then you affirm a general principle of “waiting for others to do it.” Having affirmed that principle, the forlorn hope that others will resist rings hollow. Why should I believe others will do what I’m unwilling to do? That is why pronouncements about the inevitability of a return to normalcy, though they seem hopeful, carry an aura of delusion and despair.

In fact, there is no obvious limit to what people will put up with, just as there is no limit to what an abusive power will do to them.

If the end of Covid bullying is not an inevitability, then what is it? It is a choice. It is precisely the initiatory moment in which the victim—that is, the public—discovers its power. At the very beginning of the pandemic I called it a coronation: an initiation into sovereignty. Covid has shown us a future toward which we have long been hurtling, a future of technologically mediated relationships, ubiquitous surveillance, big tech information control, obsession with safety, shrinking civil liberties, widening wealth inequality, and the medicalization of life. All these trends predate Covid. Now we see in sharp relief where we have been headed. Is this what we want? An automatic inertial trend has become conscious, available for choice. But to choose something else, we must wrest control away from the institutions administering the current system. That requires a restoration of real democracy; i.e., popular sovereignty, in which we no longer passively accept as inevitable the agendas of established authority, and in which we no longer beg for privileges disguised as freedoms.

Despite appearances, Covid has not been the end of democracy. It has merely revealed that we were already not in a democracy. It showed where the power really is and how easily the facade of freedom could be stripped from us. It showed that we were “free” only at the pleasure of elite institutions. By our ready acquiescence, it showed us something about ourselves.

We were already unfree. We were already conditioned to submission.

In Orwell’s 1984, Winston’s interrogator O’Brien states: “The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism.” The Covid era has seen endless indignities, humiliations, and abuse heaped upon the public, each more outrageous than the last. It is as if someone is performing a psychological experiment to see how much people are willing to take. Let’s tell them that masks don’t work, and then reverse it and require them to mask up. Let’s tell them they can’t shake hands. Let’s tell them they can’t go near each other. Let’s shut down their churches, choirs, businesses, and festivals. Let’s stop them from gathering for the holidays. Let’s make them inject poison into their bodies. Let’s make them do it again. Let’s make them do it to their children. Let’s censor their first-hand stories as “false information.” Let’s feed them obvious absurdities to see what they’ll swallow. Let’s make promises and break them. Let’s make the same promises again and break them again. Let’s require authorization for their every movement. Wow, they’re still going along with it? Let’s see how much more they will take.

I have written the above as if the bullying powers were a bunch of cackling sadists delighting in the humiliation of their victims. That is not accurate. Most people staffing our governing institution are normal, decent human beings. While it is also true that these institutions are hospitable environments for martinets, control freaks, and sadists, more often they turn people into martinets, control freaks, and sadists. These individuals are more symptom than cause of the generalized abuse of the public today. They are functionaries, playing the roles that a systemically abusive drama requires. Causing suffering is not their root motivation, it is to establish control. The quest for power doubtless finds justification in the idea that it is all for the greater good. Yes, they think, it would be bad if evil people were in charge of the surveillance, censorship, and coercive apparatus, but fortunately it is we, the rational, intelligent, far-seeing, science-based good guys who are at the helm.

Through the absolute conviction by those who hold power that they are the good guys, power transforms from a means to an end. As maybe it was to begin with—Orwell dispels the false justifications of power when he has O’Brien say:

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’

The theme resumes on the next page:

He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: ‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’

Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.

‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?

Thus it is that the privation, humiliation, and suffering of those they dominate is pleasing to the controllers. It isn’t suffering per se that pleases them. They may even consider it a regrettable necessity. It pleases them as a hallmark of submission.

Covid-era policies cannot be understood merely through the lens of public health. In an earlier series of essays I explored them from the perspective of sacrificial violence, mob morality, dehumanization, and the exploitation of these by fascistic forces. Equally important is the perspective of power. Seeing Covid through the lens of rational public health, of course we should expect the “end of the pandemic” quite soon. Seeing through the lens of power, we cannot be so sanguine, any more than the bullied child can hope the bully will stop because, after all, I’ve done everything he told me to.

The bully doesn’t want the victim to do X, Y, and Z for their own sake. He wants to establish the principle that the victim will do X, Y, Z, or A, B, or C, on demand. That’s why arbitrary, unreasonable, ever-shifting demands are characteristic of an abusive relationship. The more irrational the demand, the better. The controllers find it satisfying to see everyone dutifully wearing their masks. As with O’Brien, it is power, not actual public safety, that inspires them. That is why they roundly ignore science casting doubt on masks, lockdowns, and social distancing. Effectiveness was never the root motivation for those policies to begin with.

I learned about this too in school. In the senseless, degrading busy work and the arbitrary rules, I detected a hidden curriculum: a curriculum of submission.3 The principal issued a series of trivial rules under the pretext of “maintaining a positive learning environment.” Neither the students nor the administration actually believed that wearing hats or chewing gum impeded learning, but that didn’t matter. Punishments were not actually for the infraction itself; the real infraction was disobedience. That is the chief crime in a dominance/submission relationship. Thus, when German police patrol the square with meter sticks to enforce social distancing, no one need believe that the enforcement will actually stop anyone from getting sick. The offense they are patrolling against is disobedience. Disobedience is indeed offensive to the abusive party, and to anyone who fully accepts a submissive role in relation to it. When “Karens” report on their neighbors for having more than the permitted number of guests, is it a civic-minded desire to slow the spread that motivates them? Or are they offended that someone is breaking the rules?

It is uncomfortable for those who have knuckled under to a bully to see someone else stand up to him. It disrupts the idea of powerlessness and the role, which may have become perversely comfortable, of the victim. It invokes the initiatory moment by making an unconscious choice conscious: “I could do that too.” To resist the abuser asks others if they will resist too. It is far from inevitable that they will accept the invitation, yet the example of courage is more powerful than any exhortation.

Today a wave of resistance to Covid policies is surging across the globe. You’ll see little mention of it in mainstream media, but thousands and tens of thousands are protesting all across Europe, Thailand, Japan, Australia, North America… pretty much anywhere that lockdowns and vaccine mandates have been applied. People are risking arrest to defy lockdowns and curfews. They are walking out of jobs, losing licenses, enduring forced closures of their businesses, sometimes even losing custody of their children because they refuse to comply with vaccine mandates. They are getting kicked off social media for speaking out. They are sacrificing concerts, sports, skiing, travel, college, careers, and livelihoods. Under compulsory vaccination laws in Austria, they will soon risk prison.

Some people have much more to lose than others by speaking out, refusing vaccination, or engaging in civil disobedience. As someone who has relatively little to lose, it is not my job to demand other people be brave. It isn’t anyone’s job. We can, though, describe the reality of the situation. That fosters bravery, because it isn’t only external fear, force, and threat that breeds submission. In an abusive relationship the victim often adopts some of the abuser’s narrative: I am weak. I am contemptible. I am powerless. You are right. I am wrong. I need you. I deserve this. I am crazy. This is normal. This is OK.

When the victim internalizes the abuser, I say that the bandits have breached the castle walls. I know well what it is like to be a fugitive in my own castle, dodging the patrolling invaders to protect my secret sanity.

My understanding of the bullying victim comes from direct experience. I was among the youngest in my grade and reached puberty quite late. At age 12 I was a scrawny 4’10”, 90-pound weakling among the hulking adolescents of my former friend group. Their cruel jokes and torments were mostly not intended to cause physical pain, but rather to assert dominance and humiliate. Fighting back was not much of an option—the ringleader was literally twice my weight. When I tried to fight back, the gang looked at each other with amusement. “Uh oh,” they said, “Chucky’s getting mad! Did your daddy tell you to stand up to us, Chucky?” The next thing I knew, I was on the floor in a submission hold, surrounded by a chorus of mocking laughter. That was what happened when I resisted. Yet submission didn’t work either; it appeased them for a day or perhaps a few minutes or not at all. It was an invitation to further violence. In this difficult situation, I internalized the abusers by taking on their opinion of myself as pathetic and contemptible.4

In this case, literally fighting back was futile. My initiatory journey took the form of stepping into the unknown of finding new friends—a frightening prospect in the cacophony and chaos of the junior high cafeteria. Exiting the role of victim doesn’t usually mean physical combat or legal combat, though it might. Invariably, it means refusing to comply with violation or humiliation. In real life it could be blocking a caller, getting a restraining order, or simply running away. It cannot be a mere gesture. It must be determined and sustained until the old role no longer beckons.

It is worth noting that none of my abusers were particularly bad people. Nor were those who joined in the laughter, nor those who stood by in disapproving silence. They went on to become solid contributing members of society, good fathers and husbands. There was something in the confluence of our biographies that called them to the role of abuser, enabler, or bystander at that moment. The abuser-victim drama issues a powerful casting call. An abusive spouse may no longer occupy that role in a subsequent marriage. The roles allow each actor to discover—and possibly integrate and transcend—something in themselves. So it is society-wide as well. What will the functionaries of our abusive, degrading, oppressive system become when the drama ends? Already a lot of them are getting sick of their roles. The victim does the abuser no favor by prolonging the drama.

Earlier I wrote that often, the point of courage comes when the pain of submission grows intolerable. The erstwhile victim reaches a breaking point and throws caution to the wind. The abuser may still wield the outward apparatus of power, but no longer does that power have an ally within the victim, who becomes ungovernable. A lot of people are reaching that breaking point now. Powering the aforementioned wave of resistance is a hurricane of fury brewing just offshore of official reality. If you want to get a sense of it, subscribe to the Telegram channel “They Say Its Rare.” It displays without comment Tweets from vaccine-harmed individuals and their friends and families. Thousands upon thousands of Tweets, raw, outraged, and indignant. Most of these people will never comply with vaccination again no matter what the pressure, nor will many of their friends. Perhaps this partly explains low public uptake of boosters. (That and the fact that the first two shots did not deliver the promised rewards of immunity or freedom.)

The drama continues. The bully does not relent at the first sign of resistance. On the soul level, the bully serves his purpose only when he provokes real, sustained courage. As resistance grows, so grows the coercion. We are very nearly at a tipping point. The scale is evenly balanced—so finely, perhaps, that the weight of one person may tip it. Could that person be you? Whatever reasons you have to comply, to stay silent, to keep your head down—and they may be very good reasons indeed—please do not accept the insidious false hope that someone else will take the risk if you do not.

What can one person do? Will it matter if I resist, if too many others do not? Five percent of the population can be locked up, locked in, or locked out of society. Forty percent cannot. Will you resist and risk being one of the five percent? Safer to wait and see, isn’t it. Safer to wait until after critical mass has been reached, and join the winning side.

Of all the lies of a controlling power, the key lie is the powerlessness of its victim. That lie is a form of sorcery, coming true to the extent it is believed. All modern people live within a pervasive metaphysical version of that lie. In a Newtonian universe of deterministic forces, indeed it matters little what one person does. It is wholly irrational for the discrete and separate self to be brave, to defy the mob, or to stand up to power. Sure, if lots of people do it, things will change, but you aren’t lots of people, you are just one person. So why not let other people do it? Your choice won’t much affect theirs.

To refute that logic with logic would require a metaphysical treatise that reclaims self and causality from their Cartesian prison. So I won’t use logic. Instead I’ll appeal to Logos—the fiery logic of the heart. Something in you knows that your private struggles and the choices of just-one-person are significant. Furthermore, something in you knows when the time has come to make the choice, to be brave. You can feel the approach of the breaking point. It may feel like, “I’ve had enough. Enough!” It may be a calm clarity. It may be a leap in the dark. Probably you recognize the moment I’m describing; most of us have gone through some life initiation of this kind, bursting out of a cocoon of fear. In that moment you know something significant has happened. The world looks different. That is because it is different.

An abuser, whether a person or a system, offers an opportunity to graduate to a new degree of sovereignty. We claim by example what a human being is. When made at risk, such a claim issues forth as a prayer. An intelligence beyond rational understanding responds to that prayer, and reorganizes the world around it. We may experience this as synchronicity, which seems to happen with uncanny frequency just at those moments where one takes a leap in the dark. She leaves the abusive spouse in the dead of night with nowhere to go. Yet she is not reckless, because she knows It is time. She steps out into nothingness and Lo! Something meets her foot. A path invisible from the starting point opens with each step along it.

So it shall be. The world will rearrange itself around the brave choices millions of people are making as they trust the knowledge, It is time. If you join us, you will be witness to a most marvelous paradox. The transition to a more beautiful world is a mass awakening into sovereignty, far beyond the doing of any hero, any leader, any individual. Yet you will know that it was you—your choice!—that was the fulcrum of the turning of the age.

This is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


Estimates of Spanish flu deaths range from 17 million to 50 million. The global population was somewhat under 2 billion. In terms of life-years lost the contrast is even more stark. In the US in 1918-1919, 99% of casualties were among people under 65 years of age, and half were in people age 20-40. The median age of death with Covid is around 80.


Many experts now agree that Covid will never be eradicated, but will remain endemic for the foreseeable future.


The resemblance of school to lockdown society is uncanny. In school, one’s movements are subject at all times to authorization. A hall pass is given for essential functions. And the top authority, superseding even the principal, is the doctor’s note.


Some readers may suspect that I and my defiance of Covid orthodoxy comes from unprocessed trauma from my youth. Maybe I’ve been playing out my own psychodrama on the projection screen of current affairs, projecting abuse onto a benign public health system and its dedicated doctors and scientists. If you are tempted to discount my analysis on these grounds, please consider that I am not unaware of this possibility.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

OK, I admit I was wrong about the Democratic party

By Steve Kirsch | December 19, 2021

Here are the things I believe in:

  1. Freedom to speak the truth without censorship
  2. Science
  3. Facts
  4. Medical freedom/choice
  5. The Nuremberg Code / informed consent
  6. Allowing the public to hold people accountable
  7. Open discourse and debate to settle differences
  8. Caring for those who the government has injured

The Democrats believe (written from the perspective of the Democratic party):

  1. The truth should be censored if it conflicts with the narrative. It’s totally fine with us if you get deplatformed and/or censored on social media for telling the truth if the truth doesn’t agree with our point of view. It is well established that censorship of the truth is necessary for us to maintain mass formation. Watch this excellent 20 minute After Skool video if you haven’t seen it already. That is why no Democrat has spoken out against the Disinformation Dozen censorship list. RFK Jr. is #2 on that list. Therefore, it follows that censoring people like RFK Jr. should be a national priority and his book never should have been published. We should try to confiscate and destroy all copies of it. Book burning is back. It should be illegal to protest. And you should be thrown in jail if you speak out against the narrative. So sure, you can speak. We’ll put you in jail for 30 years after your speech.
  2. It’s not about science; it is about expert opinion from the authority we are paid to trust. The NIH, FDA, and CDC are the authorities. Democrats support the agencies without question, not what the science or the data says. So for mask wearing, for example, even though there are just 2 randomized trials, both showing masks don’t work, that is not what matters. The CDC will find lower quality studies that support their narrative and that is what we should pay attention to, not the higher quality studies.
  3. Facts don’t matter if they don’t fit the narrative. The fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of people that are vaccine injured in America today. But Facebook removed those groups, so they don’t exist anymore in the mind of Democrats. The Democrats believe what remains (no victims) are what matters. No vaccine injured means no need to meet with them. They don’t exist.
  4. The government gets to determine what you get injected with. If we think it is good for society and want to make you part of an experimental clinical trial, you can say no, but we’ll make it impossible for you to earn a living anywhere. Do what we say. You don’t get to decide what goes into your body. We know best. And we don’t have to produce a cost-benefit analysis showing a net societal benefit. Nobody has seen that because we’ve never produced it. We have the entire population totally captured and their ability to think critically has been disabled.
  5. The Nuremberg Code / informed consent is obsolete. We don’t need informed consent to inject you with a deadly vaccine. That’s so old-fashioned. People should trust the government. The government never makes mistakes. We’d never inject you if it wasn’t good for the drug companies. And despite the liability waiver, we actually don’t want to kill you. That would cut our revenue stream.
  6. Accountability isn’t necessary or desired. Why would you need accountability? If citizens have legitimate issues with government decisions, who cares? They are not in charge. Want to meet with your Representative? Not going to happen. Congressional aids have been instructed not to look at any non-government materials that don’t align with the narrative. The will only trust what the government institutions tell you, nothing else. We tell citizens to pound sand if they don’t like it. Sure, everyone knows that any Democratic chairman could have requested Fauci’s unredacted emails with just a letter to the NIH. Will we ever do that? Are you kidding me? No F@#*%! Way. We do not believe in holding people accountable. We trust Fauci. He’s the expert. After all, he is the creator of the coronavirus. What better authority to be in charge of it? And as for Maddie de Garay the 12-year-old disabled for life in the Pfizer clinical trial? Sure, we know she’s vaccine injured, but to admit that now would destroy the credibility of the FDA. We’ve made sure the press doesn’t cover it. So there is never going to be an investigation of this at the FDA and there is no Democrat who will ever push for an investigation into this clinical trial fraud. We’ve made sure that parents are never going to find out how deadly the vaccines are because they trust us and they are not smart enough to access VAERS.
  7. Open discourse and debate is forbidden. It would expose the corruption of the government institutions. This is why nobody in Congress, the Agencies, or their committees is going to engage in a debate on vaccine safety. Nobody wants the party to end.
  8. We don’t care about vaccine injured because that would blow the narrative. Look, if we admitted the obvious, that there are hundreds of thousands of vaccine injured people, that would be an admission that the vaccines are not safe. So we have to pretend all these injuries are just coincidences. And there cannot be any payouts to victims because doing that would show America that the government acknowledges the vaccines aren’t safe. This is also why no Democrat is ever going to meet with anyone who is vaccine injured: doing so would be a tacit admission that the vaccine injures people. Can’t have that. This is also why no Democrat will meet with the parents of kids and other family members who were killed by the vaccine. Can’t have that.

Am I being too cynical or did I get that right?

Full article

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Stunning Covid data from Denmark

By Alex Berenson | December 18, 2021

The Danes are now publishing extremely detailed daily data about Covid cases and hospitalizations – not just about Omicron, but all Covid variants.

And, in news that will surprise precisely no one who has been alive the last two years, they paint a picture entirely different than what the media claims.

Omicron – which continues to appear significantly less dangerous though more transmissible than earlier variants of Covid – has been used as a cover for vaccine failure.

Most new Covid cases in Denmark occur in people who are vaccinated or boosted – and that is true for both Omicron and earlier variants. More than 76 percent of non-Omicron Covid infections in Denmark are in vaccinated people, along with about 90 percent of Omicron infections.

Further, only 25 of the 561 people currently hospitalized in Denmark for Covid have the Omicron variant. The Danes do not provide an exact number for patients in intensive care with Omicron, saying only that it is fewer than five.

Perhaps the most stunning fact about Omicron and Denmark is that its rise actually parallels a marked slowdown in the growth of Danish hospitalizations and intensive care patients. Those rose roughly fivefold between mid-October and late November, as the Danes left the happy vaccine valley. Since then they have barely budged, rising about 20 percent.

Danish Covid hospitalizations over the last three months: note that the rise predates Omicron.

The Danish data also show that people with Omicron are both less likely to be hospitalized than those with other variants and released from the hospital much more quickly – in line with what South African health authorities have reported.

On Friday, for example, the Danes reported that the total number of hospital patients with Omicron since the epidemic began reached 77, up by 20 patients from Thursday.

But the number of Omicron patients currently hospitalized rose only by eight between Thursday and Friday, from 17 to 25. Thus 12 out of the 17 Omicron patients on Thursday appear to have been released overnight.

Compared to Monday’s report, the trend is even more clear. The number of Omicron cases has roughly tripled, but the number of people hospitalized has barely budged, from 14 to 25.


About the only reason for concern in any of the Danish data is that Omicron still appears to be preferentially infecting younger people – though not people under 15, who are more likely to be unvaccinated.

Overall, though, the figures out of Denmark largely back those from South Africa – and make clear that the reason that Europe has seen a massive rise in cases and hospitalizations this fall has nothing to do with Omicron and everything to do with vaccine failure.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 2 Comments

The horrifying vaccine damage testimonies of Australia’s silenced nurses

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | December 16, 2021

‘I’ve seen suffering amongst people on a level that I’ve never seen before. In the last week, I went to my 13th death or cardiac arrest and subsequent death post the vaccine’ –Paramedic, Queensland Ambulance Service

LAST week a regular reader of TCW Defending Freedom sent me a film that, despite all I already knew about Covid vaccine adverse reactions, injuries and deaths, shocked me to the core. In it more than a dozen Australian nurses and paramedics give their testimonies of what they’ve been witnessing and dealing with daily. They fear speaking out loud and openly such is the culture of silence and denial, a culture which defies conscience and medical ethics. Their voices and faces are disguised because they fear for their jobs: ‘It’s been made very clear by our registry board AHPRA that any form of speaking out against the narrative could lead to deregistration. And Queensland Ambulance has made that clear as well.’

Their need for anonymity is self-evident but equally clear is their determination to tell the world what is really happening and what the medical authorities are suppressing. I do not know who made the film but nothing about it suggests to me that it is anything but genuine.

It opens with quotes from various nurses’ and paramedics’ testimonies – their first-hand evidence of vaccine harms. Each is identified by number and job title as confirmed, in the film, by a commissioner of declarations.

What I’m seeing on the front line is that, you know, these vaccines are not as safe as we were led to believe. And in a lot of cases, they seem to be doing more harm than good.’ Paramedic (over 15 years) QLD Ambulance Service 

‘Four people in wheelchairs present back to the clinics after receiving Pfizer and they were all under 40. These were all people that weren’t able to walk. They had numbness and they couldn’t feel legs and arms.’ Vaccine clinic admin officer, QLD Health  

So there was a young person who had his jab three days prior, so he had it on the Wednesday and he was last seen well on Saturday night. Sunday morning, he was found unconscious on the floor in his own vomit, and he was diagnosed as being in septic shock and having a massive cardiac infarct. And he went to ICU. And I don’t think he recovered.’ Clinical nurse (over 15 years) QLD Health

To be honest, I just wish that we were allowed to speak about this. It is so frustrating to be in a position where we are seeing this stuff and we are seeing what these vaccines are doing and we’re not allowed to speak about it. Under the threat of losing our registration, we’ve been told that we’re not allowed to talk about these things and it is . . . I can’t even begin to put into words how frustrating it feels to be silenced.’ Paramedic, QLD Ambulance Service

Everyone’s living in fear of being reprimanded and losing their job.’ Registered nurse (over 15 years) QLD Health

We are told that as of November 1 there were approximately 7,000 Queensland Health employees yet to follow a direction from their employer requiring them to have their first Covid 19 vaccine. What follows in the film is a long edited sequence of deeply distressing accounts of the range of serious adverse vaccine events the nurses and paramedics  have been faced with, obstruction by their medical seniors and refusal to acknowledge these reactions are vaccine-related, the absence of any treatment protocols to address these ‘novel’ but extreme reaction,  a ‘normalisation’ of such reactions in the form of hospitals discharging patients still in dire need of help and, finally, expressions of deep concern that no one is being told about ‘the horrible side effects’.

You can watch the full film here below. A series of transcribed and representative quotations follow it.

‘I’ve never witnessed anything like this [inaudible], massive rise in strokes, bleed-outs, neurological disorders.’

‘I’ve noticed a big spurt in strokes. I’ve also noticed there’s been a lot of neurological conditions going on, chest pains, there’s been a lot of people presenting with chest pains post-vaccination. Sometimes it’s after the second one, two or three days, five days. Sometimes it’s immediately, the day of.’

‘Since the vaccine has been rolled out on the front line, we are seeing what I would call the effects of this vaccine. We’re seeing, well, I personally have seen an increased number of cardiac cases. In the almost 20 years I’ve been a paramedic, I’ve never before attended six back-to-back cardiac cases in one shift. In all of these patients, all six had been vaccinated.’

‘Never had a seizure before in her life. Again, healthy, well, normal 20-odd-year-old and presented with seizures, post her first Covid shot. That was two days after her Covid shot she presented with seizures on the back of no history of the same.’

The thing that bothers me the most is that we’re lying to the patients and we’re telling them that this is going to keep them safe and this is going to keep them out of hospital and this going to prolong their life. And everyone has taken the vaccine under false pretences, no one has been told that there are horrific side effects.’

‘When a patient comes to the hospital, they’e accompanied by a Presenting Problem paperwork and that paperwork clearly says they’ve had the vaccine and they’re now having what appears to be a stroke or bleedouts, bleedouts from the bowel and the . . . noses and just bleedouts, blood clots, passing large blood clots. Neurological disorders, unable to control their body. Patients are having strokes, where they’ve completely lost half the use of their body. Painful tingling in their peripheral nerves that over the next . . . over a period of time become so debilitating they need a wheelchair. I have seen on the paperwork at least four young people that . . . weren’t documented as having any co-morbidities, like . . . health issues, that had have had the vaccine and died within a short timeframe. One of them was 48 hours later. People under 50. And according to the paperwork, there was no paperwork accompanying it to say that they had other health issues.’

‘There was a lady that presented to the hospital with a severe catastrophic stroke. In the end, unfortunately, she did pass away, and her husband was of the firm belief it was the vaccine that had caused this. She had had two doses of AstraZeneca and was well, fit and active until two weeks post the vaccine.’

‘One example of a vaccination injury, which is very concerning, is young mums in their thirties ringing up and . . . or contacting us and saying they’d had a Pfizer vaccine or whatever vaccine they’ve had prior, like three days, one week, shortness of breath, chest pain. They’re generally very healthy. No issues in the past at all. And then suddenly they’ve got these issues.’

‘So often after they’ve waited their 15 minutes and the nurses have checked them off that they’re right to go, they come to the Admin at the checkout and more times than not people are very dazed and they can’t even tell me their names. And they’re sweating and they don’t look good. And we’ve had a number of people actually just drop and faint at checkout. And then they’ll need to be taken to the resus bay and monitored.’

‘What I’ve really noticed is that when this all began, everyone was quite stringently noting that the patient had had a vaccine. In the last [number of] weeks, that history-taking has dropped off. So the vaccine isn’t mentioned alongside with that presentation, it’s found out through other means.’

‘And we’ve had patients who had the first injection and died and there’s been nothing reported. No autopsy, no . . . reporting.’

‘So when these presentations first started happening, we had a team meeting and I just raised the question as to why we thought we were having so many presentations for, you know, this particular . . . you know, pleural effusion or be it the strokes. And everyone just got a little bit nervous. No one wanted to address the concerns. I just . . . I don’t know why. I think we all know it’s happening. There’s been no education as to how to even report these. Usually, you know, if anything comes . . . anything new happens, we would get these big emails of, “This is how you report. This is who you report through.” There’s been no communication at all regarding that.’

 ‘We’ve been told not to worry about it, because it’s rare. And when you’re doing one every shift, minimally, you know in your heart that it’s not rare.’

‘So many of us have wanted to come forward in regards to what we’ve been witnessing in the hospitals, the adverse reactions from these vaccines. However, any conversation around the viruses [sic, means ‘vaccines’?] within the hospital and amongst colleagues is strongly looked down upon. And that’s mostly due to the fact that we can be reprimanded by AHRPA.’

‘There was a noticeable change in approximately June or July, when there was no documentation about a person’s vaccination status. In fact, this question was not even being asked by the doctors when patients were presenting.’

‘I did speak to a doctor one day and asked if, during the admissions, if they were asking the patients if they had received the vaccine. And his reply was, “No.” When I probed further and asked him, “Why?” – because to me, that’s part of the patient’s medical . . . medication history – his reply was that, ‘Doesn’t everyone? Doesn’t everyone have the vaccine?’ To which I replied, “No.” And he just shrugged it off.’

 ‘Yeah, the wards are busier, to do with nurse-patient ratio, because we’ve got an increase of elderly patients coming in with upper gastric bleeds and they’re having scopes, but they’re not finding out what’s causing these bleeds. We’ve also seen an increase of pericarditis within elderly patients and young patients. And an increase in shingles in patients since the vaccination.’

‘It’s so under pressure because of the types of patients that are coming in now. When people come in with strokes and brain bleeds and pleural effusions, that’s not a quick stay – that’s a 28-days in ICU and a long stay on the wards. And these people are coming in not because of Covid, but because of the vaccines. They’re short-staffed because they’ve chosen to pay the people working at the vaccination hubs more than the award wage. And so every person who’s ever worked in a nursing pool or is a casual or works for agency has chosen to take up a station in the vaccination hubs. And therefore we have no staff to fall back on. That’s probably the key factor. The second factor is that our staff members that have been vaccinated are very unwell, and so there’s very high sick leave in the hospital setting.’

‘I do an eight-hour shift and we see around 300 to 400 people per day. And we have from three to five adverse reactions every day. ‘

‘I’ve seen four people develop pericarditis, post this vaccine. I’ve seen two women who develop neurological issues. One of them lost control of her legs, one of them lost control of her hands. I’ve seen a marked increase in patients who become septic days after getting the vaccine with no obvious cause of infection. I’ve seen 30-year-olds have massive strokes that shouldn’t be having strokes. They’re healthy, well, 30-year-olds. You know, there’s a marked increase in patients presenting with stroke-like symptoms, patients presenting with cardiac issues that shouldn’t have cardiac issues – healthy, well people who are presenting with arrhythmias and other cardiac problems that everything . . . the only common denominator that they all have is that these things have started post them getting this vaccine.’

And then we started seeing the bilateral pitting oedema to the legs. So if you have an underlying condition of heart failure or you’ve got renal failure, you can get swelling in your legs. These people that were coming in had neither of those background illnesses. Yet we couldn’t work out why they had this gross pitting oedema up on to their knees. And there was no inflammatory markers. There was nothing. And these poor people were quite debilitated because the swelling was painful and they couldn’t walk. So they would come in and we would be doing a whole heap of testing on them to find out what was causing it.’

‘And then the strokes started coming in. So we’ve had the intracranial haemorrhages in a wide variety of people. Intracranial haemorrhage, usually, is driven by underlying blood pressure that’s not being controlled, so you’ve got underlying hypertension or you’re on blood thinners and you have a head strike, you hit your head and then you have this intracranial bleed. But with the patients that I’ve observed, they’ve got none of those underlying conditions at the bottom of it. They just have an acute bleed. When you have an acute bleed and it’s a large volume bleed, you don’t recover from that, you end up with a brain injury.’

What I noticed at the beginning of the rollout of the vaccine was a pattern emerging where people, younger people, were coming in that we’re not used to seeing on our stroke ward. We do get young people sometimes, but a majority are, you know, older people with other co-morbidities. And the pattern that we were seeing was younger people coming in that had recently had the Covid vaccine and they were coming in and they were shocked that they’d, you know, had a stroke because they were previously well, they had no prior conditions that could possibly have led to a stroke.’

So, since the rollout of the Covid vaccines, initially we had a much higher volume of elderly patients presenting with a description of “fall from standing height”, which basically means it’s a loss of consciousness. And that, I think, is what really caught my eye first, because you might have one or two people present with this fall from standing height, but you don’t get seven or eight or ten of them coming in, all in the same day. So when they have that fall from standing height, they will either have a head injury or might break a bone or they’re just genuinely quite unwell. And I started having a look at what was this presenting cause, and most of them had just had their vaccine that week.’

‘There’s also been days where there was just one after the other, after the other, after the other of people who just can’t breathe, get the oxygen in their lungs. We’ve never seen anything like that in health. There are a lot of people getting really chronically sick and having life-changing events, and there’s nowhere for them to report it.’

 ‘I feel devastated. It’s conscience for me. Every day we go to work and we’re in total denial about what’s happening. Should this be any other drug in any other time, any other place, it would be removed from the market. Why are we not removing this drug from the market? Why are we not able to speak out? Why are we being silenced on social media? In our workplace it’s taboo, we don’t discuss it. ‘

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 4 Comments