Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How to keep an “emergency” going forever

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | November 19, 2022

Covid rates are dropping but you want to cling on to these new emergency powers – what to do? If Covid isn’t around, citizens won’t allow these powers to be extended will they?

Well Colorado have shown us the answer.

Governor Jared Polis signed a new Executive Order on 11 November which amended the emergency Covid rules to include Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), influenza and other respiratory illnesses.

The Order says that “Colorado has seen a sharp increase in pediatric RSV infections and hospitalizations, in addition to patients with influenza and COVID-19, over the last two months”.

It then goes on to list the number of hospitalisations and the intensive care capacity. Therefore “if cases continue to increase, we may continue to see bed shortages across all hospital beds in Colorado as our state experiences a rise in COVID, influenza and RSV hospitalizations simultaneously”.

Due to staffing shortages facing hospitals related to COVID-19, RSV, influenza, and other respiratory illness hospitalizations and an associated decrease in capacity, including pediatric intensive care unit capacity, and to allow clinical staff to focus on patient care by reducing staff time associated with completing utilization reviews, I direct the Colorado Division of Insurance, pursuant to authority in C.R.S. §§ 10-1-108(7) and -109, to promulgate emergency regulations to reduce the administrative burdens associated with discharging, transferring, and caring for patients by temporarily suspending those utilization review requirements necessary to protect insured patients, including any or all prior authorization and preauthorization requirements.

And that is how you create a perpetual state of emergency. Add all types of respiratory viruses that you are on the lookout for because every winter hospitals will be full of people with some type of respiratory virus.

I wonder why they waited until after the elections to sign this Order? Strange. Let’s see how quickly other states amend their emergency orders as well. Maybe they should add in rain for the spring and sun for the summer (climate change) just to make sure the emergency lasts all year.

November 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Congressman Warren Davidson urges Congress to pass the Vaccine Passport Prevention Act

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | November 20, 2022

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) is urging Congress to pass a bill he introduced last year that would ban the use of vaccine passports for future use.

The bill is aimed at protecting Americans from the federal government’s overreach under the guise of responding to the pandemic.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The bill, called the Vaccine Passport Prevention Act, would, with a few exceptions, prevent the federal, state, and local governments, as well as private entities, from forcing Americans to provide proof of vaccination to access goods and services, and to continue working.

If passed, the legislation would allow people to sue their employers and governments for requiring proof of vaccination against the coronavirus.

The bill would only allow exemptions for schools, medical facilities, and enlisted service members. However, schools would be required to allow vaccination exemptions for medical, religious, and conscience reasons. Medical reasons would include naturally acquired immunity.

“The point of this bill is simple,” said Davidson during the bill’s introduction. “I’m committed to defending freedom. Freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed, so now is the time to act. Americans have a right to keep their medical decisions private.

“Neither businesses nor governments should compel access to confidential information as a condition of restoring our way of life. Discrimination that separates healthy people from other healthy people based on vaccine status is unconstitutional. Throughout the pandemic, we’ve seen states deny Americans a republican form of government in the name of public health. Now that the pandemic is over, they are trying to maintain power. Banning vaccine passports has become sadly necessary to thwart these naked power grabs seeking to enable even more control for big government and big business over the lives of individual Americans.”

Related:

How vaccine passports are crushing freedom, privacy, and civil liberties

November 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Portland: Anti-Defamation League Covertly Worked To Get White Good Samaritan Falsely Indicted For Murder

By Eric Striker | The Main Street Tribune | November 19, 2022

Portland Prosecutors, the Anti-Defamation League and the Anarchist Violent Extremist organization Rose City Antifa colluded to indict an innocent white man of murder, recently leaked grand jury documents show.

On July 29th, a white man named Jascha Manny was working as a doorman at Mary’s Club, a strip club in Portland’s Old Town neighborhood.

During his shift, he witnessed a group of black men threatening a couple of homeless people. The aggressors were also shining a high-powered strobe light into the eyes of the random indigent citizens.

As the encounter escalated, Manny rushed to confront the bullies in hopes that they would leave the people alone.

It was then that 19-year-old Lauren Teyshawn Abbott Jr pulled out a firearm and began shooting at Manny. The bouncer responded by returning fire, killing Abott and injuring his associate, 23-year-old Kolby Ross.

The entire incident was caught on video from multiple angles and witnesses supported Manny’s testimony, but thanks in part to the ADL’s intervention, left-wing District Attorney Mike Schmidt called a grand jury in August in an attempt to indict him for murder and assault.

During the proceedings, prosecutors centered their argument for criminal charges on prejudicial information secretly provided to them by the ADL’s “Center on Extremism,” which asserted that Manny had pro-white political beliefs.

The Jewish group, which works closely with local law enforcement and the FBI, had laundered this specious information from Rose City Antifa, a domestic extremist group that openly avows violence and was actively involved in organizing Portland’s brutal 2020 riots.

There was never any evidence that Manny was motivated by race when he decided to return fire against the blacks shooting at him. The goal of the ADL’s intervention in this case appears to have been to offend the assumed political sensibilities of jurors into indicting an innocent man.

According to local news reports, the grand jury was shown images and writings demonstrating Manny’s alleged political ideology, but after seeing mounds of exculpatory evidence, they declined to indict.

This vindication did not change the minds of left-wing activists. In response to DA Schmidt’s statement that his hands are tied, various anarchist, Jewish and liberal groups have joined forces to organize a pressure campaign to have Manny charged with hate crimes, not for his actions, but for his beliefs.

November 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | Leave a comment

Ban on Choral Singing During Lockdowns Based on Flawed Evidence

BY TOBY YOUNG | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 19, 2022

Readers will recall the ban on singing of all kinds during the lockdowns and even after they were lifted because singing was supposedly a ‘transmission risk’. Turns out, this typical piece of Covid hysteria was based on a flawed study. The Church Times has more.

The ban arose out of reports in the United States in March 2020 that 52 of 61 singers who attended a rehearsal of the Skagit Valley Chorale, in Mount Vernon, Washington, had subsequently contracted Covid. The source was judged to have been a chorister at the practice who later tested positive for the virus, and was considered the super-spreader.

The Los Angeles Times carried the headline: “A choir decided to go ahead with rehearsal. Now dozens of members have COVID-19 and two are dead.” An investigation by the county’s public-health officials was referred to in other scientific papers and widely disseminated, and, with a growing consensus that airborne droplets were spreading the virus, all indoor singing was banned.

It dealt a serious blow to many choirs, both professional and amateur. Scientific study accelerated. Two lay vicars from Salisbury Cathedral took part in rigorous trials at Porton Down, the MOD’s Science and Technology laboratory, to test how far airborne droplets could travel. These, and other studies commissioned by the Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport, were reported eventually to have given the Government confidence to reconsider appropriate mitigations.

Now a review of the Skagit case by scientists at Nottingham Trent University (NTU), Brunel University, and Brighton and Sussex Medical School, has concluded that many of the choristers’ symptoms had started too early to have been caused by the rehearsal.

In a paper entitled “The Skagit County Choir COVID-19 Outbreak: Have we got it wrong?” they review and analyse the original outbreak data in relation to published data on incubation. They conclude that it was “vanishingly unlikely that this was a single point source outbreak as has been widely claimed and on which modelling has been based”.

An unexamined assumption led to “erroneous policy conclusions about the risks of singing, and indoor spaces more generally, and the benefits of increased levels of ventilation”, the paper says.

“Although never publicly identified, one individual bears a moral burden of knowing what health outcomes have been attributed to their actions. We call for these claims to be re-examined and for greater ethical responsibility in the assumption of a point source in outbreak investigations.”

One of the co-authors, Professor Robert Dingwall, of NTU, said on Wednesday that the speed with which the choristers were being infected and displaying symptoms was implausible, and did not fit the epidemic curve.

“All the ‘mights’ got turned into definite findings by the people who quoted [the original study],” he said. “We looked at it and saw the distribution of days on which the symptoms appeared, and realised they just couldn’t all have been affected at that rehearsal – the symptoms were just appearing too quickly.”

Worth reading in full.

November 19, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

THE NEW WORLD ORDER: I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST A CONSPIRACY THEORY?

Computing Forever | November 18, 2022

Follow me on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM74uIHJKg/

http://www.computingforever.com
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Gab: https://gab.ai/DaveCullen
Subscribe on Gab TV: https://tv.gab.com/channel/DaveCullen
Minds.comhttps://www.minds.com/davecullen
Subscribe on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@TheDaveCullenShow:7
Telegram: https://t.me/ComputingForeverOfficial

November 19, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

The Alarming Rise of Mass Surveillance

By Dijana Dragomirovic | Australian Medical Network | November 17, 2022

In Australia, a team from the university of NSW (UNSW) has developed an AI-driven early warning detection system for epidemics, called EpiWatch. The system curates, prioritises and filters incoming global data to capture and detect early epidemic signals – essentially a risk analytic tool, which will help governments prioritise responses and stop early spread.

The UNSW EpiWatch team anticipates “many more pandemics will emerge, and are striving to provide an end-to-end solution that will help prevent the next pandemic and ensure health security for all”.

The recent pandemic which started in 2020 witnessed in many countries the fast mobilisation of a raft of Government responses that included social distancing, fines, lockdowns, imprisonment, mask wearing, contact tracing and PCR testing. We must also not forget the relentless and heavy-handed campaign to take a provisionally approved experimental mRNA therapy, mandates and proof of vaccine certificates in order to work, have surgery, see loved ones, marry, bury loved ones, study, shop, worship, play or travel.

While an early detection system may be a useful innovation, the omnipotent view that it will “ensure health security for all” is concerning. The epidemic system is one thing, what is more important to know is how and for what reasons politicians, global organisations such as the WHO, profit seeking companies, foundations, NGOs and powerful bureaucrats will use this information. Another vital component not factored into this equation is an individual’s health and human rights. In Australia many liberties were breached over the past three years and continues to be breached by government and business to this day. Case in point: there are thousands of healthy doctors and nurses willing to work, but cannot because vaccine mandates are still in force.

With the current global mindset held by the various dominating governmental and business superclass, AI systems such as EpiWatch may provide them with even more powers to enforce a complete surveillance state and it will be conveniently enforced under the guise of public health or public confidence in health and safety. Both surveillance systems and government responses are at a high risk of being deployed with very little investigation and debate.

History has demonstrated that new governmental powers obtained in times of crisis frequently outlast the initial danger. After 9/11, governments throughout the world hastened the powers of law enforcement, gave state departments and agencies broader capabilities with little accountability, increased distrust of and discrimination against vulnerable groups and systemised mass surveillance as a ‘necessary’ safety response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the constant replay of restrictions, use of the military and police, locking down and restricting the movement of healthy individuals, shutting down industries and then ‘here are your freedoms back’ may now act as a catalyst for harms of this nature. In Australia, authorities and businesses took advantage of the public health emergency to enact intrusive surveillance and restrictions with almost zero checks and balances in place.

EpiWatch and other start-ups alike are willingly playing their part in a much larger surveillance ecosystem and are failing to incorporate clear privacy and mitigation tools against potential abuse of power by state and non-state actors.

Surveillance 21st Century Style

Today, security agencies, government ministers and bureaucracies are ushering in problematic digital technologies. What we do as a society next will determine the future of our health systems and laws, the safeguarding of our bodily integrity, privacy, national sovereignty and other fundamental liberties.

It is crucial for the public to consider and openly debate whether specific new surveillance techniques are desirable and necessary in a democratic society. Greater engagement is needed to reject exaggerated or unrealistic claims made by developers of high-tech AI, AR (Augmented Reality) or ML (Machine Learning), and pressure needs to be exerted on elected officials to control the bureaucracy, respect existing laws and enact laws with robust privacy and bodily autonomy protections. Nations are implored to take the initiative. However, only people, communities and global cooperation will be able to rein in present power excesses, imbalances and slow the ‘spread’ of the developing AI and digital surveillance state threatening to capture every person and nation.

November 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Workers’ Compensation: A Pathway to Immediate Relief for COVID Vaccine Injury Victims?

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 16, 2022

Could employees injured by a COVID-19 vaccine that was mandated by their employer get relief under the U.S. workers’ compensation program?

Some lawyers think so — including three who spoke with The Defender about specific workers’ compensation strategies that may help private-sector employees who sustained COVID-19 vaccine injuries obtain financial relief.

The attorneys also suggested that the more people file claims for their COVID-19 vaccine injuries, the more employers — and their insurers — may feel pressure to reconsider employer-mandated vaccines in the future.

Noting that the number of workplace disability claims in the U.S. increased in early 2021 — the same time COVID-19 vaccines were rolling out — lawyers interviewed for this story detailed the steps involved, the benefits that may be available and the potential hurdles claimants may face, and how to overcome the challenges of locating a suitable attorney and doctor to assist with the claims.

In the U.S., the workers’ compensation program — available in all 50 states — provides an option for employees of companies and businesses that mandated COVID-19 vaccination.

Filing a workers’ compensation claim doesn’t preclude an employee from filing claims via other legal channels. But it does provide the potential to receive immediate financial relief and medical treatment and also, possibly, long-term support.

Workers’ compensation provides possible recourse for vaccine-injured workers

The three attorneys — Ben CarlisleRay L. Flores II and Patrick R. Hollingsworth — are experienced in legal areas of relevance to those injured by the COVID-19 vaccines. Carlisle and Hollingsworth’s firms specialize in workers’ compensation claims, while Flores is experienced in issues of health freedom rights.

Flores told The Defender that workers’ compensation is “a much easier system to navigate” than the PREP Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act) of 2005 or the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which are the traditional avenues to submit claims related to vaccine injuries.

Flores said the PREP system is “impossible to get through,” which has led to a situation where “everybody thinks there’s nothing that can be done.” However, he said, “I’ve cited in several places [that] PREP does not preclude workers’ compensation.”

In an Aug. 24 interview with CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD,” Hollingsworth said this means that “if you were mandated to take the COVID vaccine as a condition of employment and you were injured, you are entitled to file a workers’ compensation claim.”

Carlisle noted that the two legal avenues are “not mutually exclusive, it’s not one or the other,” but that workers’ compensation claims are “an avenue that’s a lot easier right now.”

Carlisle also pointed out that workers’ compensation “is a no-fault system” in states like New York, where he is licensed, “so there are a lot fewer hurdles you have to jump through.”

Carlisle said “no-fault” means that employers can’t hide behind claims that the government compelled them to issue a mandate:

“That’s not a defense … It’s no-fault. I don’t have to prove it’s anyone’s fault. I don’t have to prove Pfizer was negligent. I don’t have to prove the employer was negligent.

“All I have to do [is] to prove that they were within the course and scope of their employment and they got injured and that their vaccination relates to that injury. That’s it.”

Hollingsworth, in a May 23 presentation, explained that employees also can file workers’ compensation claims in situations where, even without an explicit mandate, an employee faced “coercion, exclusion, discrimination,” where they were “ostracized by their co-workers or it was strongly suggested that they get the vaccine.”

“I believe you would be able to show … causation there, whether your employer requested you to have it, mandated or not,” Hollingsworth said.

Many different types of injuries can be considered work-related, as long as “employment is the main factor that exposes him or her to the situation that caused the injury,” Hollingsworth said, adding that some states, such as California, often liberally construe facts in favor of the injured worker.

Hollingsworth also said case law has often recognized compensation for aggravation of “pre-existing non-industrial issues related to … vaccination,” such as if the vaccine “aggravated a pre-existing autoimmune disorder or pre-existing heart condition.”

Employees also sometimes can make claims of psychological and emotional distress.

“You’re allowed treatment and in other cases, additional compensation for any psychological damage as a result of said injuries,” Hollingsworth said. “If you’re having any kind of physical reaction to a vaccination, like an anaphylactic shock or any other kind of subsequent injury, we could even go as far as to allege emotional distress.”

He added:

“Many [claimants] didn’t want to get the vaccination and were told they were going to be terminated. It caused severe emotional distress for them to have to choose between injecting themselves or not wanting to take the shot.”

Cumulative adverse health effects, such as “a large buildup of toxicity,” resulting from multiple vaccinations and boosters also could form the basis for a claim, said Hollingsworth in the May presentation, as could secondary injuries, such as falling and getting injured after fainting, if the vaccination caused the initial fainting.

Carlisle told The Defender, “This is a workers’ compensation claim … it’s not a lawsuit. It’s a claim for benefits that you’re entitled to. That’s why you don’t have to prove negligence. You don’t have to prove fault. Anything you do in workers’ compensation will not exclude you from pursuing other avenues of justice.”

Hollingsworth said such claims are “just starting to roll in” as “people are becoming aware of their rights under workers’ compensation.”

Carlisle, who filed two such cases, said soon after mandates were implemented, he had tweeted a warning to employers that they might be liable for workers’ compensation claims in the future. “At the time, I think 10 people saw [that tweet],” he said.

However, “a million people have viewed” his Nov. 4 tweet about his first workers’ compensation hearing against an employer-mandated vaccine: “The judge found sufficient evidence to proceed. Trial set for January.”

Conversely, navigating other avenues of justice has proven challenging for the overwhelming majority of claimants.

Describing it as “a dead end,” Flores told The Defender there have been only six claims approved for payment under the CICP, or Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. All of them were for vaccine injuries, and payment in all cases is pending a review of eligible expenses.

Appearing on CHD.TV in August, Flores said, “Workers’ compensation is considered your primary avenue at the beginning of a work-related vaccine injury … the PREP Act is considered a last resort.”

The standard of evidence is much higher in PREP Act cases as compared to workers’ compensation cases, Flores said.

“PREP cases can only be filed in Washington, D.C., District Court in the event of serious injury or death and when willful misconduct can be alleged,” Flores said.

However, before you can file a lawsuit in district court, you have to first file a claim with the CICP, then wait 240 days. If you reject the CICP offer, or don’t hear back, then you can file in D.C. District court — but only if there is serious bodily injury or death and you can prove willful misconduct.

Flores said the PREP Act covers COVID-19 vaccine injury claims, as this act “is only for emergency medical countermeasures.” He added, “so everything falls under the PREP Act if there’s any injury.”

This makes a workers’ compensation claim more attractive for most vaccine injury victims, Flores said. “If you file a workers’ compensation claim, not only does the claim get started, there are initial payments that start being made right out of the gate.”

Hollingsworth said he and other workers’ compensation attorneys “work on contingency, so it doesn’t cost anything to file.” He told CHD.TV viewers in August that it’s a “no-lose situation” for applicants.

“The attorneys taking the case, at least here in California, charge anywhere between 15-18%, sometimes up to 20% at some firms if it’s a very complex case that drags on, but usually it’s 15%,” Hollingsworth said. “There’s no upfront fee, there’s no filing fee, there’s no cost deducted from your recovery. It’s all paid for by the insurance carrier. So there’s really no reason not to file [a claim] if you’re injured.”

File workers’ compensation claims as quickly as possible, attorneys say

Hollingsworth told The Defender that, in many states, such as California, potential applicants have one year from the date of knowledge of their injury to file a claim with their employer. In New York, however, the statute of limitations is two years, Carlisle said.

In his May presentation, Hollingsworth explained the importance of filing workers’ compensation claims early. “You want to file a claim immediately. Oftentimes, many issues come up as to communicating your injury to your supervisor or as a liability issue. If you don’t communicate the injury right away … it could be a basis for denial.”

This is applicable even in cases where the adverse effects following vaccination are minor, as this may still help a future claim.

“Most people suffer just soreness in the arm or swelling or redness,” Hollingsworth said. “If you’re having any of those, I would probably advise filing something just to get it acknowledged immediately that there was an issue, so that if there is a more significant injury further down the road, at least acknowledge that you had a reaction at the outset of any kind.”

According to Carlisle, this is because most states specify a shorter period of time to report injuries to an employer:

“In New York and … probably a lot of states, you’ve got 30 days to provide notice of the injury. That doesn’t mean you’re bringing a claim. It just means you’ve got to tell your employer, ‘I took this shot, you made me take it, and now I’m missing time from work.’ That satisfies your notice requirement.”

Carlisle said it’s best to provide notice in writing, and there are other advantages to promptly reporting an injury to employers.

“If the employer pays what we call an advance payment of compensation, if they pay for your lost time or they pay for your medical, then that tolls the statute,” meaning that the statute of limitations is frozen, Carlisle said.

According to Hollingsworth, employers are required to disclose information about workers’ compensation to employees when an injury is reported:

“If you bring it up to your employer … and the employer tells you to pound sand and they don’t provide you the requisite claim form that they’re required to under the law, that tolls the statute of limitations.

“It’s usually very easy to overcome the statute of limitations in workers’ compensation. That doesn’t mean you should sit on your rights forever. But it shouldn’t be a deterrent from at least attempting to bring a claim.”

Workers’ compensation cases move faster than civil litigation

Speaking to CHD.TV in August, Hollingsworth said the average workers’ compensation case lasts between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half years. Cases sometimes run longer though, “especially if there’s a lengthy course of medical history.”

Cases can sometimes be processed quickly, however. Carlisle said his first COVID-19 vaccine injury client came to him in September, and the first hearing in that case was held a month later.

He described the typical process:

“If it’s controverted, you’re going to be in front of a judge within about a month. If you don’t show medical, the board’s not going to schedule a hearing until you have a medical report that says ‘this individual was injured and I think it’s related to X.’ It’s a pretty low standard. The standard is sufficient medical to proceed.

“If you have sufficient medical to proceed, you’re going to get in front of a judge. The judge will then direct the insurance carrier to get their own opinion [within 30-45 days]. If their doctor says that it’s related, then we’re done … But if their doctor says it’s not related, then we depose the doctors. That takes another couple of months. Then we get a decision from a judge.”

After this, said Carlisle, an appeals process may follow.

“If either side wants to appeal, you could be waiting up to a year for the board panel to give you a decision. And if either party wants to appeal that to a full board panel, you’re looking at another six months to get that second decision.”

Further appeals could add six months to a year.

“I’d say at the far end, you’re looking at about 18 months before you’re going to get a final decision from the full board. But oftentimes people stop even just at that, the regular board panel level.”

During this process, claimants are entitled to benefits, Hollingsworth told CHD.TV:

“Workers’ compensation is administrative law, so there’s no jury trial, it’s all bench trials. You litigate in front of an administrative law judge. You’re entitled to certain benefits, and they’re pretty much the same in every state: you can receive medical treatment to cure or relieve the illness or injury that you have.

“Once your claim is accepted, that’s paid for by the workers’ compensation insurance, you’re entitled to two years of temporary disability in California [but] that may vary by state.”

In his May presentation, Hollingsworth outlined the early stages of the legal process:

“[There’s a] claim form that gives employers legal notice that you are filing a work injury claim, which starts tolling some of the time limits for investigation, denial, delay … In California, we have a 90-day period to investigate the claim.

“Once the form is received, employers and insurance must provide initial treatment of up to $10,000 while the investigation takes place and/or until the claim is denied or delayed. Oftentimes, there’s an employer-level investigation … If their claim is denied or delayed, we have what’s called the agreed medical evaluation.”

Hollingsworth also described the medical process:

“There’s a medical-legal process whereby a doctor determines causation. If your case is denied, you can pick any treating physician you want to evaluate you and give a medical opinion as to whether the vaccination caused your injury or not.

“Then there’s … a qualifying medical evaluator process … where the parties select a state-appointed doctor in a particular specialty — we’re trying to use allergy medicine doctors here, internal medicine doctors — and they write a medical-legal report to establish what caused the injury, the nature of the injury.”

According to Carlisle, the compensation received during this period would cover any medical expenses related to the injury:

“Anything that’s a consequence of the initial injury would be covered medically. So those are the benefits that you receive in [workers’ compensation cases] … Any kind of treatment that’s related to your claim, the insurance carrier pays 100%. There’s no out-of-pocket expenses for the claimant.

“And if something develops down the road that’s a consequence of the original injury, like say you were on your way to a medical appointment and you got in a car accident, they consider that a consequential injury. Then anything that happened in that car accident is a consequence.”

Lost time from work is also covered during this period, said Carlisle.

“Any time you have to lose time from work because of your injury, you’re entitled to lost time,” he said. “There’s a formula to figure out how much you get paid, but it’s all based on what you were getting paid when you were working.”

Hollingsworth told The Defender that temporary disability payments are also made during this period:

“Most states have a temporary disability program for up to 104 weeks. So you get two years of temporary disability. So if you can’t work or if you had to retire or you’re so sick that you can’t work, you’re entitled to two years of temporary disability, which [in California] is two-thirds of your wages to a maximum of $1,500 a week … tax-free for up to two years while you’re dealing with your injury or until a doctor declares that you’ve reached your maximum medical improvement.”

In his May presentation, Hollingsworth said this period could be extended:

“You can’t get it longer than 104 weeks [unless] you have … a severe condition … we have passed exceptions for amputations, chronic or severe conditions, hepatitis B and C — which has been shown to possibly be caused by vaccination — severe burns, HIV, eye injuries, chemical burns and pulmonary fibrosis.”

Also, depending on the circumstances, temporary disability can ultimately lead to the issuance of a permanent disability benefit.

“Permanent disability is a percent of your whole-person impairment,” Hollingworth said. “If you have 70% permanent disability and above, this would possibly qualify you for a life pension. When you get a final report from all the doctors, you’re going to get a permanent disability rating for your injuries.”

These permanent disability benefits may cover new health issues that arise in the future. “If you need medication for your heart to continue working or you need a heart transplant down the road or something, this is something that they’re going to be on the hook for,” Hollingsworth said.

Carlisle noted that, in New York at least, there also is the possibility to settle the case, where both parties would then “look at the lifetime value of the claim” and then “either close out the indemnity, or just the medical or just the indemnity or both, and in that case, claimants would be looking at a lump sum recovery … by virtue of a settlement.”

Families who lost a loved one because of vaccine injury, where the vaccine was mandated by the employer, may apply for workers’ compensation death benefits, Hollingsworth said.

In California, the death benefit is $320,000 for an individual with two dependents, and $250,000 for an unmarried person with no dependents.

In his May presentation, Hollingsworth said that in California, this benefit is paid out as “two-thirds of your average weekly wage” but “oftentimes people want to settle for a lump sum, depending on the nature of the case, which is often discounted at present value.” He added that families would be “entitled to funeral and burial expenses.”

According to Hollingsworth, “Every state has workers’ compensation laws and employers are required by law in most states to have workers’ compensation insurance” and “it is illegal for employers to discriminate based on work injury.”

Claimants concerned that their employer will retaliate if they file a claim have protected status under the law, Hollingsworth told CHD.TV in August:

Retaliation is oftentimes something we see that people are hesitant to file their workers’ compensation claims because they are afraid their employer is going to then terminate them. If they do that based on your workers’ compensation filing status as an injured worker, they would be subject to a wrongful termination lawsuit, a discrimination lawsuit as well on top of that, whereby you can get reinstated to your job if you get terminated.”

For federal employees, there is a separate federal worker’s compensation system. “The federal government is a little bit more difficult to navigate and less likely to be successful [because] they’re the ones mandating it all,” Hollingsworth said, “and finding an attorney for that unfortunately is going to be difficult.”

For state and local government employees, some localities may be self-insured and handle their own claims, in which case “they’re entitled to the same benefits you would get if you worked for a private entity,” he said.

How do you find a suitable attorney for your workers’ compensation claim?

Hollingsworth, speaking to CHD.TV in August 2022, emphasized the importance of hiring an attorney who specializes in workers’ compensation law, stating “You want to really make sure that they only specialize in workers’ compensation, as other attorneys aren’t really familiar with how workers’ compensation works.”

During the same broadcast, Flores said that such firms typically accept most cases. “One of the good things about finding a firm is that workers’ compensation — as opposed to other types of law — chances are the firm is going to take your case,” he said, “although with the vaccine injury, there may be a bit of a hurdle to jump over.”

In the same broadcast, Hollingsworth also advised the public to ensure that, during any workers’ compensation hearings, “an attorney is handling your case and not a hearing representative,” noting that vaccine-related cases are “contentious” and require “someone that knows the law, that’s experienced.”

Flores referred to legal resources compiled by Children’s Health Defense, including locating attorneys in their state who handle workers’ compensation cases (see attorney search engine, find legal help and find a lawyer by practice area and state), and also emphasized the importance of educating lawyers on such issues, telling The Defender :

“The more information that we have available to the injured party or to the attorneys, then that will reverberate so that they’re not going to turn away the business. That’s another benefit of what we’re trying to do, to educate the lawyers as well.”

What about finding a doctor to back up your claim?

A significant obstacle often reported by vaccine injury victims — including some interviewed by The Defender — is locating a doctor willing to draw a connection between their symptoms and their vaccination in their diagnosis.

Carlisle told The Defender, “That’s going to be the biggest hurdle, just finding those doctors.” The second “tricky part,” he said, is that “they have to be licensed by the Workers’ Compensation Board in order to get reimbursement from the insurance carrier.”

Hollingsworth also recognized this obstacle but said he believes the tide is changing. He told CHD.TV in August:

“In terms of workers’ compensation … there are a lot of doctors who are afraid to come forward who do believe in what we’re doing, but that’s changing. Even doctors that are skeptical, who were on the other side, are seeing such an influx of young injured people coming to their practices, especially the internal medicine doctors, the heart doctors … we’re seeing a changing of the tide.”

Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis support Hollingsworth’s assertion that there is a growing number of vaccine injury victims. The data indicate a significant increase in disability claims in 2021 and 2022.

The number of disabled individuals in the U.S. hovered between 29.974 million in April 2016 and 30.612 million in April 2017, while the number of disabled persons in the workforce ranged between 5.811 million in October 2015 and 6.335 million in June 2017.

By October 2021, these figures increased to 31.195 million and 6.987 million, respectively. And by October 2022, the figures were 32.819 million and 7.797 million.

According to American Progress, quoting BLS data, the number of non-disabled people in the civilian population and in the workforce decreased in 2021.

American Progress and other media blamed the increase in disabled workers on “long COVID,” but previous analysis featured by The Defender demonstrated that disability claims in 2021 and 2022 corresponded with vaccination peaks one to two months prior.

Educating doctors about vaccine injuries is key, Hollingsworth said:

“We have to help educate them to the risks associated with the vaccines, and I think that is going to take a little time and could be a difficult hurdle to overcome … Physicians do not want to admit that’s a potential possibility, although I am starting to get more people telling me that they are starting to acknowledge it.”

Hollingsworth highlighted state medical boards as an obstacle for doctors who recognize that some of their patients are vaccine-injured:

“Part of the reason why [doctors are] having a hard time is because of the medical boards that have been coming down against doctors speaking out about the COVID vaccines.

“We have in California here a law that passed saying that doctors can be disciplined for ‘COVID misinformation,’ whatever that means. Doctors are worried that they’re going to lose their license or have some kind of disciplinary action taken if they say that the vaccine caused an injury.”

However, Hollingsworth said he believes there are doctors who would be cooperative with patients who seek to file workers’ compensation claims.

“I think that as things move forward, there are more and more doctors that have no choice but to acknowledge what’s happening and will be advocates,” he said.

During his May presentation, Hollingsworth also advised those seeking to file a claim to visit an independent doctor instead of working with a doctor in major medical systems, such as California’s Kaiser Permanente, who “more likely than not is going to look for a way not to find [a claim] work-related for whatever internal political reasons.”

Hollingsworth also advised claimants to pay particular attention to their medical records, because “medical reporting is something that is so poorly done and can often be fatal to your case because of such negligence,” adding that once a mistake enters one’s records, “it’s hard to get it changed.”

Carlisle is compiling a list of cooperative doctors and invites others to join. “Doctors, if you’re willing to give an honest causal relationship opinion, please let me know. I’ll add you to the list of doctors people can find.”

Pressuring employers and insurers to discourage future mandates

For Hollingsworth, workers’ compensation claims serve a dual purpose: not only do they represent an effort to get a degree of compensation and justice for those who were injured by mandated vaccines, but they also are intended to pressure employers and insurers.

He said:

“Through some strategy of a mass filing of injury claims for workers’ compensation, hopefully it will get the attention of insurance companies and therefore employers.

“Large employers specifically will take notice if people start filing these claims and then hopefully maybe rethink some of the mandatory vaccination policies they may have if it hits them in the pocketbook.”

He added his hope that this pressure would lead them to reconsider future mandates.

Carlisle told The Defender :

“I’d like to show people that there are consequences for fascism. The merger of state and corporate power is something we should all be very concerned about. If you just go along with what the state tells you to do and then all of a sudden you’re the one holding the bag for the liability, I sincerely hope it’s a wake-up call.

“That’s absolutely the strategy here, to get people to stand up and assert their rights and to get employers to realize, ‘if I go along with this, if I don’t stand up to the government, if I impose these mandates myself, I’m opening up myself to liability that the government’s not going to indemnify me for, and certainly not Pfizer and certainly not Moderna.’”

According to Flores, the added benefit, regardless of the outcome, is that the employer’s workers’ compensation premiums are going to go up,” likely compelling employers to reconsider mandatory vaccination in the future.

Remarking on the possibility that employers, once hit with workers’ compensation claims and higher insurance premiums, will then turn around and sue the government or the vaccine manufacturers, Carlisle said this might be a possibility, in addition to lobbying efforts to develop a compensation fund.

Carlisle told The Defender :

“I’m going to think that they’ll absolutely try … I would say their chances of success against Pfizer and Moderna are probably not so great, but against the government, I think if there are enough people … that say, ‘hey, you guys did this to us, you put us in this position, you’re going to have to set up some kind of fund’.

“I anticipate, honestly, that lobbyists are going to go to [the state] and they’re going to [lobby for] some kind of vaccine injury fund to compensate all these people that were required to take the jab by virtue of governmental mandates.”

Ultimately, we are in “uncharted waters” according to Hollingsworth, who said the workers’ compensation system has never been tested on a “vaccination that’s being forced en masse upon employees.”

He told CHD.TV that, as a result, “Especially at the outset, these are going to be hard-fought cases because the ramifications of a mass filing of workers’ compensation claims with severe injury is going to be devastating to these employers and insurers.”

Hollingsworth told The Defender that this process “is going to take time” but as “more people are communicating . . . , the more people start to suffer from injury, over time I think you’re going to see an increase in people filing.”

However, one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome, he said, is “human cognitive dissonance,” as “we have an idea of what vaccinations are … and that they’re safe and effective. The rhetoric has been pounded into people’s heads for so long where you’re having to overcome their own individual cognitive dissonance.”

He added:

“A lot of people aren’t sure if they were injured or not. They don’t know what’s causing it. The doctor gaslights them and tells them ‘it was something else’ … Don’t be afraid to second-guess the doctors or the information. Just keep reaching out until you find someone that knows what they’re talking about.”

The information provided does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice. All information, content and materials are for general informational purposes only. This may not constitute the most up-to-date legal information. Please contact a qualified workers’ compensation attorney in your state to obtain advice with respect to any work-related legal matter without delay. 


Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

November 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

G20 Declares Vaccine Passports Will Be Adopted For International Travel

By Richie Allen | November 17, 2022

The leaders of the G20 have been meeting in Bali over the past two days.

The G20  is an intergovernmental forum made up of 19 countries and the EU.

It claims to work on the global economy, international financial stability, climate change, and sustainable development.

The White House has just published the declaration signed by each of the G20 leaders at the conclusion of the two day summit. It makes for very interesting reading.

Read the full declaration here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/16/g20-bali-leaders-declaration/

Pay attention to Paragraph 23.

It says:

We support the WHO mRNA Vaccine Technology Transfer hub as well as all as the spokes in all regions of the world with the objective of sharing technology and technical know-how on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. We welcome joint research and joint production of vaccines, including enhanced cooperation among developing countries. We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, under the framework of the IHR (2005), to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations. We support continued international dialogue and collaboration on the establishment of trusted global digital health networks as part of the efforts to strengthen prevention and response to future pandemics, that should capitalize and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates.

Chilling, isn’t it?

Paragraph 24 addresses online safety and disinformation:

We acknowledge that affordable and high-quality digital connectivity is essential for digital inclusion and digital transformation, while a resilient, safe and secure online environment is necessary to enhance confidence and trust in the digital economy. We recognize the importance of policies to create an enabling, inclusive, open, fair and non-discriminatory digital economy that fosters the application of new technologies, allows businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive, and protects and empowers consumers, while addressing the challenges, related to digital divides, privacy, data protection, intellectual property rights, and online safety. We acknowledge the importance to counter disinformation campaigns, cyber threats, online abuse, and ensuring security in connectivity infrastructure.

Vaccine passports, digital inclusion, digital economy and censorship on steroids.

Tyranny reigns now.

The media is lost with all hands.

Not so much as a peep.

November 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

WE MUST NEVER FORGET

We Got A Problem

Never forget what these people did. We must never forget.

My Links https://linktr.ee/wegotaproblem

Outro Audio taken from Youtube Audio Library
1812 Overture ( Tchaikovsky )

November 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Swissmedic and Vaccinating Doctors Criminally Sued for Authorizing and Administering Covid-19 mRNA Jabs

Do not underestimate the Swiss diligence

By Andreas Oehler | Live To Fight Another Day | November 14, 2022

The detail-oriented Swiss are taking their medical establishment to task in a big way for authorizing and administering the Covid-19 mRNA jabs, in a formal criminal complaint.

That is what the criminal complaint against Swissmedic is about” (SRF, 2022.11.14):

That’s what it’s all about: On July 14, 2022, a lawyer submitted a 300-page criminal complaint to the responsible cantonal public prosecutor’s office on behalf of six people allegedly injured by mRNA vaccinations. It is directed against three representatives of the Swiss licensing and supervisory authority for medicinal products and medical devices (Swissmedic) and five vaccinating doctors from the Inselspital in Bern. A criminal investigation is to be opened against them. The lawyer has now gone public with a media conference.

These are the plaintiffs: The lawyer for those affected, Philipp Kruse, is a declared opponent of vaccination and Covid measures. He represented people who refused to wear masks or parents who didn’t want their children to take part in pool tests. Doctors who were noticed as corona skeptics also appeared at the media conference.

This is what the indictment says: The defendants are accused of violating basic drug law due diligence by allowing and administering the Covid 19 vaccination. There are a number of other charges listed, including intentional or possibly negligent bodily harm, endangering life, killing and abortion.

These are the alleged damages: According to lawyer Kruse, the damages range from circular hair loss, derailment of the menstrual cycle to polyarthritis, muscle weakness and chronic exhaustion to the death of a 20-year-old person. Some of the six victims listed are still unable to work. The connection to the Covid 19 vaccination was confirmed by experts in five cases. In the case of the deceased, the causal connection must be proven on the basis of pathological examinations. However, these investigations are not yet complete.

What Swissmedic says: Nothing. Swissmedic does not want to comment on the ongoing court proceedings. The Federal Office of Public Health and the Federal Vaccination Commission also do not want to comment.

What may fly under the radar in other countries, in terms of the lack of accountability and responsibility for Covid-19 jabbing injuries, is unlikely to pass muster in Switzerland. The Swiss pride themselves on being OBJECTIVE, diligent, thorough and just. Because of these very high public expectations, it is impossible to sweep under the carpet, gaslight, or outright ignore the laws on the books over there, let’s hope:

It is about these articles of the Medicines Act

Art. 3 Duty of care 1 Anyone who handles medicinal products must take all the necessary measures based on the current state of science and technology to ensure that the health of humans and animals is not endangered.

Chapter 8: Penal Provisions Art. 86233 Crimes and misdemeanors 1 Anyone who willfully: a. manufactures, places on the market, uses, prescribes medicinal products without the necessary authorization or authorization, contrary to the terms and conditions associated with an authorization or authorization or contrary to the due diligence obligations stipulated in Articles 3, 7, 21, 22, 26, 29 and 42, imports, exports or trades abroad; (…).

Link to the Medicines Act .

Also of note here is that Swissmedic is the key conduit of the global vaccination programmes in partnership with Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation and WHO, and also FDA.

Good luck in court!

November 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Why is Nature Praising the Use of Propaganda During the Pandemic and Calling for More?

BY DR GARY SIDLEY | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 15, 2022

Throughout the Covid era, those expressing views at odds with the dominant narrative were often subjected to unprecedented levels of censorship and psychological manipulation. Academic journals played a significant role in this silencing of alternative voices by, for example, ignoring the work of established scholars, perpetuating biasrejecting research papers that reached conclusions inconsistent with mainstream views, and demonstrating a financial motivation to only publish studies favourable to the pharmaceutical industry. As a consequence of this partiality, the perceived scientific integrity of academic periodicals has suffered considerable damage. Alas, a recent article in the once highly respected Nature journal will have done nothing to improve the credibility of the academic press.

The article, titled “Mastering the art of persuasion during a pandemic“, is a supplementary ‘outlook’ piece written by Elizabeth Svoboda, a Californian science journalist. Drawing on the perspectives of a cluster of social science experts, Svoboda lauds the importance of health policymakers deploying “effective communication strategies” so as to ensure that the populace do the right things when faced with the next global pandemic. She asserts that a range of behavioural science strategies, or “nudges”, will be of central importance in enhancing compliance with public health restrictions when the next novel respiratory virus emerges over the horizon. The article, however, is riddled with highly questionable assumptions and ideological biases.

The Covid science is not settled

Arguably the most blatant distortion, illustrated many times by both the author and the experts cited, is that the Covid science is settled and their version is the definitive truth. The article opens with the ludicrous suggestion that the official advice in early 2020 – that masking healthy people would achieve no benefit – was a “fateful moment”, a missed opportunity “to stop the virus bringing the world to a halt”. In support of this assertion, Rob Willer, a sociologist at Stanford University, describes this initial guidance as “a big credibility mistake”, and goes on to suggest that it was an example of public health experts trying to protect the supply of masks to healthcare. According to Willer, this noble white lie led to many people feeling “resentful” at having been misinformed and it fuelled their reluctance to adhere to subsequent mask requirements. Totally ignored is that most of the more robust, real-world evidence concludes that masking healthy people achieves no meaningful reduction in viral transmission, and the U-turn in mid-2020 towards mask mandates was not the result of new research findings but was – more likely – politically motivated.

Similarly, the raft of unprecedented Covid restrictions (lockdowns, shutting businesses, school closures) inflicted on Western citizens by the public health establishment are all assumed to achieve important benefits so that the only challenge for the pandemic experts is how to persuade the pesky people to comply with them. Consequently, the article cites the ideas of a number of social scientists regarding how to effectively lever compliance with future public health diktats. Varun Gauri, a senior economist, highlights the importance of making it easier for people to ‘do the right things’. Matthew Goldberg, a research psychiatrist, wants the psychological persuasion techniques of behavioural science to be used pre-emptively “so that when the time arises, people can act quickly”, a view echoed by infection-control researcher Armand Balboni. Katy Milkman, a behavioural scientist, promotes her strategies to enhance the take-up of Covid vaccines, including a “regret lottery” where people are informed that their names have been entered into a draw to win a lot of money, but that the “winner” will lose the prize if not vaccinated.

Despite the wealth of accumulated evidence that lockdowns are ineffectual in reducing Covid-related hospitalisations and cause huge collateral damage, alongside the emerging realisation that Covid vaccines may achieve no overall net benefits and can do considerable harm, nowhere in the article is there even a hint of recognition that the restrict-and-jab doctrine of mainstream public health failed to achieve many of its stated aims.

One important negative consequence of the flawed ‘science is settled’ assumption, as displayed by the author and her expert contributors, is that it justifies the censoring and vilification of anyone challenging the dominant narrative. For example, Varun Gauri says, “During the COVID-19 pandemic, disinformation played a major part in sowing division and undermining the authority of health officials” and that this “paved the way for fast viral spread and low vaccination rates”. His solution is for authorities to “take a bigger, legislative approach to the problem” – a euphemism for censorship. Similarly, Katy Milkman warns against allowing “conspiracy theories to slither in”.

The controversy surrounding the acceptability of state-imposed ‘nudging’

It seems that all those involved in the Nature article are blissfully unaware of the controversy surrounding the state’s use of covert psychological strategies (or ‘nudges’) to promote compliance with Government restrictions. Blinded by their fixed belief that the Covid science is settled, and focused only on the goal of persuading the populace to ‘do the right things’, the social scientists cited in the commentary blithely propose a range of behavioural science interventions without any questioning around the appropriateness and ethical acceptability of these clandestine methods.

Nudges are psychological strategies of persuasion that largely impact upon their targets below the level of conscious awareness – that is, people do not know they are being influenced. Such techniques have been heavily deployed throughout the Covid era, and have evoked a range of ethical concerns relating to the acceptability of the state strategically (and non-consensually) increasing the emotional discomfort of its citizens as a means of promoting compliance with unprecedented and largely non-evidenced public health restrictions. Also, as the strategies operate subconsciously, they could often be categorised as manipulative.

The expert contributors referenced in the Nature article repeatedly commend greater deployment of these ethically dubious techniques in future pandemics. For instance, Balboni urges political leaders to ensure human behaviour specialists play a much bigger part in health policy, bemoaning that, during the Covid era, “social scientists, anthropologists and psychologists were not used nearly enough”. Later in the article, the purported benefits of the “pre-emptive deployment of behavioural science” is highlighted.

More specifically, the value of equating virtue with compliance with the restrictions is lauded. This particular strategy – an ‘ego’ nudge in behavioural science parlance – was used repeatedly throughout the Covid event, effectively evoking shame in anyone who deviated from the demands of public health diktats and the vaccination doctrine. Many will recall the repeated ‘I wear a face covering to protect my mates’ adverts, the ‘don’t kill your gran’ quips by ministers, and the close-up images of acutely unwell hospital patients with the voiceover, “Can you look them in the eyes and tell them you’re doing all you can to stop the spread of coronavirus?” Of the same ilk was the NHS document (later redacted) advising front-line staff to tell young people that, “Normality can only return, for you and others, with your vaccination” (my emphasis).

The Nature article endorses the same tactic of differentiating the goodies from the baddies. It is stated that, “Encouraging feelings of empathy in people could make them more likely to choose to protect others during a pandemic”. There are also references to the desirability of “invoking of empathy” and emphasising “the vaccines’ collective benefits, such as protecting others”. In the words of Balboni, it is really important to get people to recognise that “through their behaviour, they can actually protect other people”. Clearly, the considerable evidence demonstrating that Covid vaccinations do not prevent viral transmission has yet to reach these nudge enthusiasts.

In a Western supposedly liberal democracy, is it ethical for the state to strategically inflict shame on its citizens? Does the informed consent of the people, as to whether to accept a medical or psychological intervention, no longer matter? Is it acceptable to covertly influence the general population to follow contentious and largely non-evidenced Covid restrictions? Shamefully – pun intended – these key ethical considerations are totally disregarded in this Nature journal commentary.

The role of political ideology and conflict of interests

What might account for the publication of such a partisan article in an academic journal?

Many critics of Covid orthodoxy have raised the spectre of an underlying globalist agenda, removed from any democratic process, shaping Western responses to pandemic management. With the central involvement of the World Economic Forum (WEF), it has been argued that the crisis following the emergence of a novel respiratory virus has been opportunistically exploited in pursuit of wider, pre-existing goals pertaining to tackling climate change and the imposition of Covid Passes and Digital ID, Social Credit Systems, Central Bank Digital Currency and Universal Basic Income (as detailed in Agenda 2030). The authoritarian control over the world’s population (essential to realise such an agenda) is typically legitimised under the banners of ‘the greater good’ and ‘social responsibility’, two themes that run through the Nature article. Is it possible that the author and contributors adhere to this globalist ideology?

Exploration of the ongoing interests of those involved in the compilation of the article is revealing:

  • Elizabeth Svoboda is a regular contributor to Greater Good online magazine.
  • Varun Gauri is a member of the WEF and an economist at the Development Research Group of the World Bank.
  • Rob Fuller is “Director of Polarisation and Social Change Lab” at Stanford University; he recently co-wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times titled, “How to convince Republicans to get vaccinated”.
  • Matthew Goldberg is a research scientist at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
  • Katherine Milkman is Deputy Director at the “Behaviour Change for Good Initiative“, an enterprise that claims it uses behavioural science to “transform people’s lives for the better”.

Would it be too speculative to suggest that those involved in the Nature article harbour a penchant for a new world order, and that these globalist proclivities may have compromised their objectivity?

Finally, my eye was drawn to a footnote to the article that read: “This article is part of Nature Outlook: Pandemic preparedness, an editorially independent supplement produced with the financial support of third parties.” And who funds this supplement? Astra Zeneca and Moderna.

I rest my case.

Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign. He blogs at Coronababble.

November 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

As Democrats destroy democracy, the US becomes a one-party state

By Daniel Miller | TCW Defending Freedom | November 16, 2022

The disappointing results in the US mid-term elections from the point of view of popular opposition shouldn’t have been surprising to anyone. The United States is now effectively a one-party state, and seeking redress through elections is no longer a plausible path.

The critical point was already established in the stolen 2020 US Presidential election as the cardinal distinction between ballots and votes.

Whereas votes are linked to specific individuals, and cannot be cast by people who are no longer alive or no longer live in the area, ballots are harvested, potentially months in advance, by party workers mailing out returns to high population density housing projects and retirement homes, and picking them up again.

Because it lacks any practically enforceable safeguards, the ballot system is fundamentally vulnerable to organised fraud. This is why it was adopted and will remain the system going forward.

We are already beyond any question of rigging elections because the electoral system itself is now fundamentally rigged – that is, fundamentally organised to engineer Democratic Party majorities, which is to say rote acclamations of corruption and oligarchy, because the Democrats control high-population urban voting districts.

Where necessary, voter suppression techniques are applied on election day in the form of a shortage of ballots or malfunctioning voting machines, as happened this year in Arizona and elsewhere.

None of this is especially sophisticated – ultimately it represents a 21st century version of 19th century Democrat urban machine politics associated with the infamous Tammany Hall.  

It should also be recognised that US democracy was never without fraud. Elections were also sporadically fixed in the 20th century, most notably in Illinois in the 1960 Presidential election, when Richard Daley got out the vote in the graveyards of Chicago to deliver a victory for Kennedy.

Nonetheless, the extent to which the new ballot system represents an electoral new normal is an innovation, and one which it is hard to see being reversed. Additionally the new system is fortified by an increasingly vicious security state, which labels everyone asking the most obvious questions as insurrectionists and election deniers.

American democracy is now caught in the vice of a Catch-22. There is no possibility of achieving political change through elections so long as this system remains in place, and therefore no possibility of changing the electoral system. States that retain local control over the legislature, notably Texas and Florida, may be able to hold the line for the moment, but as things stand national democracy is finished in the United States, and it isn’t coming back.

Just as the triumph of the Nazi Party in Germany would not have been possible had the Weimar Republic been healthy, the fact that the Democrats were able to install this new system in the first place is the result of longer-term trends.

In the short term, one can point to the complicity of the Republican Party especially, but also the failure of Trump, whose fateful decisions in the first weeks of the so-called pandemic set the stage for what history will eventually come to understand, unambiguously, as a coup.

The role of the Republican Party in the US political system will also eventually be clearly perceived. In truth, the GOP represents the inverse of a political party, which instead of aiming to reward its supporters by winning political power, robs them to maintain the personal privileges of its leadership. In the UK, the Conservative Party plays a similar role.

The systematic misallocation of funding made this year by the national Republican leadership reveals the party’s priorities with crystalline clarity. Mitch McConnell, one of the richest men in the Senate, withdrew money from tight races in Arizona, Nevada and Georgia to entrench establishment candidates in Alaska and elsewhere more in tune with his essentially larcenous motives. As the Babylon Bee website noted, the Republican Party staved off a red wave.

Seen from the point of view in which one of them is actually imagined to achieve national office, the current discussions about the relative merits of Trump versus DeSantis in 2024 are either completely delusional, or deliberate distractions.

It is inconceivable that the US administrative state which blocked his victory in 2020, and has spent the last two years viciously persecuting his supporters, would allow Trump to return to the White House in 2024. It’s also true that Trump failed in his first term to prevent the Democrats from seizing the power they have, and unclear what he now could do differently.

Given the position of dominance that the Democrats and their allies in the American Securitate occupy, it also seems highly unlikely DeSantis would be allowed to make meaningful changes. The heart of the matter is that US elections no longer mean anything.

November 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment