Saturday, October 23, 2021

Who Are These COVID-19 Vaccine Skeptics and What Do They Believe?


Via Epoch Times

Colorado State University has told unvaccinated students they face being trespassed from its campus if they do not get innoculated, or claim an exemption. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

Vaccine skeptics, vaccine refusers, vaccine deniers—these anti-vaxxers are scourges whose ignorance and misinformation are responsible for countless COVID-19 deaths, our public health authorities attest. Stamping their message out is so important that those with the biggest megaphones are being outed, threatened, and fired from their academic and medical posts, and wherever else they might be found.

So, who are these health heretics whose dangerous rhetoric is questioning prestigious public bodies such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, blue-chip pharma companies such as Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, and the great majority of governments?

Dr. Peter McCullough, the author of more than 1,000 publications with over 500 citations in the National Library of Medicine, is one of the most outspoken critics of government COVID policies. He testified to the Texas Senate HHS Committee that his treatment protocol, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, led to an 85 percent reduction in mortality. He also has been critical of mass COVID-19 vaccination, in part given safety concerns about the vaccines.

“Today, we have 800 cases of young people developing myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart,” McCullough, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician, said in a webinar in June. “I’m going to opine that because there is no clinical benefit whatsoever in young people to get the vaccine that even one case is too many.”

McCullough’s past positions include membership on President Bill Clinton’s advisory panel to health care and chair of more than 24 data safety monitoring boards for the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Following his criticisms of COVID policies, McCullough lost his positions (pdf) as vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and chief of cardiovascular research at the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute. He has been removed from his editorship of Cardiorenal Medicine, and he expects to be stripped of all eight of his professional accreditations.

Dr. Byram W. Bridle, an award-winning associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph’s Department of Pathobiology, headed an advanced lab whose vaccine platform was funded by the Ontario government to develop a COVID-19 vaccine.

An expert in vaccinology, he states (pdf), “There is a plethora of scientific literature demonstrating that naturally acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is likely superior to that conferred by vaccination only.”

He adds that “research from three independent groups has now demonstrated that those with naturally acquired immunity experience more severe side-effects from COVID-19 vaccines than those who were immunologically naïve prior to vaccination. In other words, for those with natural immunity, vaccination is not only unnecessary, but it would put them at enhanced risk of harm. Knowing this, nobody should ever mandate COVID-19 vaccination.”

Bridle, who has natural immunity but is now banned from the university campus for not complying with the university’s vaccine mandate (pdf), believes that his workplace became “a poisoned environment where the bullying, harassment, and hatred against me have been incessant,” and states his life has been “destroyed.”

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines while at the Salk Institute in 1988, is also an inventor of DNA vaccines. He has some 100 peer-reviewed publications and published abstracts and 11,477 citations of his peer-reviewed publications. Malone believes that for “high-risk populations, the risk/benefit ratio for the USA vaccines seem to make sense,” but that it’s “demonstrably false” to claim that “these genetic vaccines are the only path available to herd immunity” or are “perfectly safe.”

Malone, who is now allegedly subject to death threats, has become one of the most vilified scientists on earth, his accomplishments denigrated in magazines such as The Atlantic and throughout the mainstream and social media.

Others who have been vilified in the mainstream and social media include Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, who stated that COVID-19 vaccination should be a matter of personal health and that “there’s no public health reason for a mandate“; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford, who stated that “it is really not logical to use vaccines to protect other people. … The bottom line is that these vaccines do not prevent transmission”; and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who stated that “thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people, and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.”

Many more eminent COVID-19 vaccine skeptics have remained silent, for fear of being punished. In the United States, the Federation of State Medical Boards warned that “physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license,” a warning repeated in Canada by provincial licensing bodies such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The ranks of the so-called vaccine skeptics include a Who’s Who of the world’s leading scientists. Few in the public know of them because they’ve been silenced, censored, and sidelined. Public health authorities may brand them as unscientific COVID kooks, but McCullough, Bridle, Malone, et al. haven’t been the ones acting as snake oil salesmen, offering instant cures to anyone in the crowd willing to chance their medicine.

The hard sell and sweeping claims have been coming from the public health officials, most of whom have far fewer scientific accomplishments, and are far less knowledgeable, than the vaccine skeptics they cavalierly dismiss.


Stanford's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya defends his contrarian views of pandemic


Peter Robinson interviews Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on "Uncommon Knowledge"
(Video screenshot)

In a wide-ranging interview, Stanford professor of medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya explained 19 months after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic "what happened," detailing his stance on issues such as how it started, how it spread, the efficacy of lockdowns, and the development and distribution of the experimental vaccines.

Bhattacharya, with epidemiologists Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, is a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, arguing for protecting the vulnerable while allowing those with little risk to go about their business.

He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stanford's Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.

Among the highlights of the one-hour interview on "Uncommon Knowledge" with Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution at Stanford:

  • Early in the pandemic, the World Health Organization was warning of an infection fatality rate of 3% or 4%, precipitating the lockdowns and other drastic measures. But Bhattacharya, in March 2020, postulated the rate was only about .01%, based on what happened in 2009 with the H1N1 virus. And he turned out to be right. [Dr. Anthony Fauci, in fact, said in a New England Journal of Medicine article published in March 2020 that the rate was probably less than 1% and could turn out to be around .01%.]
  • Bhattacharya said that "when we found [the virus] had spread, the strategy to stop the disease from spreading down to zero was not possible."
  • The premise behind the "focused protection" strategy in the Great Barrington Declaration is that there is a "huge gradient in the risk," with a 1,000- to 2,000-fold greater risk for an 85 year old compared to a 5 year old. The survival rate for those under 70, according to the CDC, is 99.5%. For those over 70, it's 5%. But the survival rate is much higher for those over 70 who have fewer than two comorbidities. About 80% of the reported COVID-19 deaths are people over 60.
  • The unintended consequences of the lockdowns are immense, including the estimated 100 million people thrown into poverty, the missing treatments for cancer and other serious diseases, and the 1 in 4 young adults who reported to the CDC that they have considered suicide during the pandemic.
  • The lockdowns favored the rich, the "laptop class," who had one-third the death rate of the poor. It was "almost a reversed focus protection; we exposed the vulnerable and protected the well-to-do young."
  • "They were utterly blind -- Dr. Fauci most of all on this -- utterly blind to the harms of the lockdown."
  • In public health there is a norm of "unanimity of messaging" on subjects such as smoking, where after decades of research and observation, it's clear that the practice has serious health consquences. But public health officials, particularly Fauci, applied that norm to COVID-19, in effect shutting down scientific debate before certain issues were established, such as how it spreads, the death rate and who is most vulnerable.
  • Many scientists, he said, have told him, "I'm with you, but don't tell anybody." More than 60,000 have signed the Great Barrington Declaration, and some have lost their jobs as a result.
  • The data show COVID-19 is not harmful to children, who have a 99.998% survival rate. But anyone who suggests that fact gets "jumped on." The New York Times, he noted, "spent all summer" on how dangerous COVID is for children. "I'm trying to think of a polite way to say it, but it was essentially a propaganda campaign -- to induce panic in the population," Bhattacharya said.
  • Robinson brought up a favorable New Yorker magazine review of a book on "deaths of despair" allegedly resulting from the free enterprise system. He noted it shows that economists do understand the correlation between unemployment and alcoholism, drug abuse and other addictions. But the correlation "goes down the memory hole" if it's used to raise questions about the lockdowns.
  • Bhattacharya compared the death rates in Florida, which limited lockdowns and lifted them as quickly as possible, to California, which continues to impose restrictions. Once you adjust for the fact that Florida has one of the oldest populations and California the youngest, the rates are nearly the same. "The disease had its way in both states, but California tormented its citizens in a way that Florida did not."
  • He said the vaccines are effective in protecting against severe disease, and he would recommend them for someone who is older. But they don't stop the spread, as CDC Director Rochelle Walensky has acknowledged. In highly vaccinated Israel and in Iceland, for example, there have been huge increases in cases. Coercing people to become vaccinated "is a poor tactic in public health. It breeds distrust and ultimately undermines itself in terms of effectiveness." Trust in public health "has been squandered," he said.
  • The public health establishment in the U.S. and the world should apologize for failing the public and acknowledge "the incredibly unequal harms of the lockdown."
  • It's a political decision whether or not to adopt a position taken by public health. "What happened during this pandemic is that many, many politicians outsourced their responsibility to the public to public health people." And that included Donald Trump, Bhattacharya affirmed. Politicians are accustomed to balancing competing interests. But they farmed out that responsibility to the public health officials.
  • Fauci is focused on a single thing: infection control. "The idea that our entire social life can be upended by a narrow set of scientists, a narrow set of public health people, we have to build protections against that," Bhattacharya said.

See the interview:

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact


The post Stanford's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya defends his contrarian views of pandemic appeared first on WND.


The Cancel Culture Takes A Big "L"

The Hollywood Reporter did say “at least one thousand” were planning on participating in a “virtual walkout,” whatever that is, but noted the story first came out in The Verge, which talked about a “company-wide” demonstration.


Sweden Suspends Moderna Shot Indefinitely After Vaxxed Patients Develop Crippling Heart Condition



New concerns are being raised about side effects from the Moderna vaccine against the coronavirus.


Biden Delays Release of Secret JFK Assassination Files



President Joe Biden ordered yet another delay in the release of secret files related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy yet to see the light of day more than 50 years after his death.


CDC Director: U.S. May Change Definition of “Fully Vaccinated” as Boosters Roll Out



Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Friday the U.S. "may need to update" its definition for what it means to have full vaccination against COVID.


Physicians and the Vaccine Tyranny


Guest Post by Dr. Blaise Edwards

I find myself in the position that I must use an alias for fear of reprisal.  Those days may be quickly coming to an end, as hospitals are denying requests for vaccine exemptions with impunity.  I will likely soon be out the door, with nothing to lose.  Even if I survive this round, if the “pandemic” continues, it won’t be long before I am shelved like a can of spam.

Doctors need to be called out.  From early in the pandemic, it was like a mass hypnosis or forgetfulness of everything we had learned in medical school.  Immune system knowledge was shelved and replaced by government dictates.  The thought of early outpatient treatment with “off label” drugs that could modulate the immune system was forbidden.

We essentially told patients that they had to go home and wait until they were sick enough to be hospitalized, then treatment would begin.  Imagine telling all diabetics that there is no metformin, Glucophage, or insulin.  Would we really wait until patients are in diabetic ketoacidosis, and then treat them only at the hospital?  It is medical malfeasance of a grand scale.

We physicians gave up our training and our reasonable medical thought process.  The reasons are multiple.  First, it was the easy way out.  Second, many of us are employed and fear reprisal.  Third, despite what the public thinks, we physicians are not bold leaders, we tend to be sheep, and are afraid of having an entire institution ostracize us or our colleagues to think us crazy.

As we got to the point of vaccine rollout, doctors were not using the scientific method, questioning and challenging prevailing hypotheses.  They kept their heads down, closed clinics, converted to telemedicine, and pushed only the jab.

I had conversations with doctors who are supposed experts in virology and immunology denying the lasting immunity of natural infection.  Conversations about natural immunity:

“I have antibodies.”

“But they will wane.”

“But I have memory cells.”


Dumbfounded look.

Really, are these the leaders we want?

Other conversations about the safety of vaccines:

“The vaccine is safe.”

“No, we would have shut down any trial in the past after even 100 deaths.”

“This is more serious.”

“But the survival rate is about 99.6%.”

“It’s killing people.”

“So is the vaccine”

“You can’t believe VAERS.”

“It was set up to help protect the public, and if anything, it is underreporting side effects.”

“You’re a conspiracy theorist.”

Or conversations about early treatment

“You must get the vaccine, it is the only “proven” treatment, there are no other treatments.”

“Really, ivermectin has eradicated COVID in India, parts of Mexico, Japan….”

“It is a horse dewormer.”

“It won a Nobel Prize in medicine, is a WHO essential drug, and has been around for decades with a great safety profile.”

“No, only the vaccine works.”

“But it is failing”

“You are a denier and a conspiracy theorist.”



Lately, it has been all about getting 100% of the population jabbed.  For what reason?  I am not sure, and some of the more detailed and investigated theories scare me.  I shudder to think.  But last year’s heroes are being labeled selfish and villainous for not getting the vaccine.  Hospital systems have abandoned their community’s health and ignored early successful outpatient treatment in favor of huge government subsidies for inpatient and ICU treatment.  The success of these treatments was not great, but that is another article.  Now we have the same hospital systems turning their backs on their own employees.  Basically, health providers have a choice, get shot, or get fired.  How does that help?  Both vaxxed and unvaxxed can spread the virus, so it doesn’t help anyone.  It only helps the hospital to get more government money by meeting quotas.

I, for one, will remember that when we faced a real crisis, the hospitals and many physicians chose money and profit over their own community’s best interest.  Perhaps it is time for groups of physicians to get back to running their own healthcare clinics and hospitals.  We used to have a code of ethics.  We used to put patients first.  Not anymore.

As for physicians, those who are blindly following the government edicts are culpable in a moral atrocity.  Bullying and deriding patients who chose to refrain from this still experimental therapy is an abomination.  (You will say it isn’t experimental anymore, to which I would say that just because the government broke its own rules regarding approval, doesn’t make it legal or right).  Patients have sincere beliefs for making their choice.  Respect their thoughts.  Do you yell as much at smokers, drinkers, fornicators, drug abusers, etc?  No, I think not. I think you chose to fit in because it gives you a sense of righteousness.

And going so far as to encourage vaccination in children and pregnant women is crazy.  There is blood on the hands of any physician who does this.  With children, there is no benefit to the vaccine, only harm.  They would serve themselves and society better with natural immunity.  The vaccine hasn’t been studied on women and their babies.  It is pregnancy category X (unknown) but being pushed wholesale on these poor women without proper studies.  Shame on you, doctors who are doing this.  I certainly have lots to answer for when I meet my maker, but this is on another level.

I beg physicians to get back to basics, remember all the epidemiology and immunology that bored us to tears in school.  Investigate the real literature and take a stand.  Society needs us to do this.  Even if you have been vaccinated, help those who are fighting for their lives.  Stand up against this forced vaccine tyranny.  Support those who have legitimate reasons for declining the jab. If you don’t stand up now, who will stand up for you when you are faced with your choice of yet another booster or your job.

Image: Yuya Tamai


Friday, October 22, 2021

The Impending Mass Firing of America’s Unvaccinated


By Pedro Gonzalez

Global Research, October 22, 2021Chronicles 18 October 2021

Zac Spolar found himself running around in a frenzy amid the COVID-19 surge in December, tending to three or four patients at once and laboring late into the night at a Los Angeles hospital. The hardest part of the job, he said, was having to constantly console people who couldn’t be with their loved ones in the intensive care unit, even if they were dying.

Now Spolar is among the many essential workers threatened with unemployment and diminished job prospects for refusing vaccination.

Police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, paramedics, airport security and prison guards across the country are facing termination this week if they don’t comply with their employers’ vaccine requirements. Many have already lost their jobs or have been disciplined. Other say they will defy the vaccine mandates on principle. As a result, essential workers may soon be in short supply in many parts of America.

Spolar said he isn’t opposed to vaccination in theory; his wife already got the shot. But he is young and fit with antibodies higher than they would be with a vaccine, thanks to getting COVID from a patient before Christmas. “The only reason I got sick is because I had a week where I worked six days in a row with crazy hours, I wasn’t getting any sleep, I was all run down.” Not getting the vaccine boils down to a matter of principle for him. Why force someone to take a drug that they don’t want or need?

Spolar is now reduced to part-time contract medical work with lower pay and no benefits, retirement, or upward mobility as no hospital will hire him unvaccinated. And with Los Angeles County’s vaccine passport mandate for restaurants, movie theaters, retail establishments, and other places, he cannot move freely in the city he serves.

He is not alone. Los Angeles city employees are required to be vaccinated by Tuesday, Oct. 19. Roughly a quarter of Los Angeles fire personnel have signed a notice of intent to sue the city if they are terminated for not being vaccinated. There are rebellions in other parts of the country. In Newark, New Jersey, firefighters and police officers are protesting the city’s vaccine mandates. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul announced she will deploy the National Guard to compensate for staff shortages due to the firing of unvaccinated nurses and hospital workers.

The U.S. federal government has set a deadline of Monday, Nov. 22 for all civilian federal workers to be vaccinated. The Transportation Security Administration has said four-in-10 of its employees are unvaccinated; any terminations of TSA staff due to not meeting the deadline would come right before one of America’s biggest travel periods, the Thanksgiving holiday. Meanwhile, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is in an uproar over Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening to terminate a significant portion of the unvaccinated workforce.

Similar protests and potential firings over the COVID vaccines are happening all over America in government workplaces at the federal, state, and local level as well as in many parts of the private sector.

Two days before I spoke with Spolar, an anesthesiologist named Christopher Rake was escorted out of UCLA Health in California for refusing to be vaccinated on grounds that it violated ethics and personal freedom. He had created a support group for like-minded medical workers, Citizens United for Freedom, made up of both vaccinated and unvaccinated members.

Rake talked to me about his final days on the job. “I wasn’t put on the schedule Friday [Oct. 1] but I went to work anyway, and it was a good thing that I did because they called me and said: ‘We need your help in operating room eight, somebody called in sick.’” Everything seemed fine until Rake received an email later informing him that he had been placed on administrative leave without pay. Still, he came into work on the next Monday. After a confusing discussion with management about whether he had been terminated or not, security guards led him off the campus.

Rake was just one of many casualties of the first vaccine mandates imposed in September and early October. A hospital in upstate New York made so many of its nurses resign mid-September over the vaccine that it had to suspend delivering babies. Three weeks later, Northwell Health, New York’s largest health care provider, fired 1,400 employees over the same issue. By Oct. 6, Kaiser Permanente had placed 2,200 employees nationwide on unpaid leave.

But it’s not just hospital workers who are getting cut or forced out.

“Me and my coworkers never took time off because of stress,” said Josh Sattley, a veteran Beverly Hills firefighter, explaining what it was like working through the pandemic. “When we got sick, we took COVID leave, and then came back to work right after—it wasn’t devastating for any of us.” Sattley contracted the virus on the job, and he isn’t necessarily opposed to vaccines. However, the aggressiveness of the mandates and skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry led him to request a religious exemption after he prayed about the issue.

Sattley said that the Beverly Hills city bureaucracy swatted down the initial slate of applications for religious exemptions. The city implemented its own process to judge applications, which included religious tests to determine if one is, in fact, a true believer. Sattley described it as an “interrogation” about his religious beliefs.

On the day that the firefighters were scheduled to receive word on their exemptions, Beverly Hills City Councilmember John Mirisch published an ominous memo in Beverly Hills Weekly. “Religious exemptions are meant for deeply held and sincere religious convictions,” he wrote, “they are not hall passes for those who don’t want to take the vaccine, however strong those feelings are or whatever conspiracy theories they may believe.”Amid Growing Calls for Vaccine Mandates, Employers and Employees Weigh Options

Sattley and his colleagues took Mirisch’s letter as a sign that they never had a fair shot. They were right. Out of 25 applications, the vast majority received only temporary exemptions, which will be re-evaluated at the end of an interval. Half a dozen applicants, including Sattley, were outright denied.

“I told the city ‘No,’” Sattley said upon learning of its decision and the ultimatum he faced to get the jab. “The next day, on Friday, they shot me a letter stating that I was going to be on leave without pay. I was relieved of duty.”

Termination could be next for Sattley. California firefighters have their own bill of rights, which, in theory, provides them with the most thorough privacy protection of any public employee in the state. Among other things, it entitles them to due process and protection from interrogation. All that has taken a backseat to the ongoing medical state of exception, he said.

Even when they get exemptions, unvaccinated firefighters are subject to a kind of soft discrimination. “The city has removed anybody with an exemption from the frontlines,” Sattley said. “They put them on a rig that doesn’t respond to any emergency calls; they only go to fire-related calls. They are ordered not to respond; they are not allowed to be involved with patient care although they are meeting the county mandate.”

The result of these “segregated rigs” is a delay in response times, with parts of the city going uncovered by paramedics providing advanced life support resources, Sattley said.  In other words, in the name of public safety, Beverly Hills officials are making the public less safe.

William Amalu, a San Francisco firefighter, told me that his city, fire department, and even the firefighter union are marching in lockstep against the unvaccinated. The result is a growing crisis within the stations.

“There’s been a lot of bullying in the firehouses,” Amalu said, “and a lot of bullying by the command staff.” A chief reportedly told one crew not to bother submitting religious exemptions because they wouldn’t be approved anyway. Amalu said that a higher up told him that the leadership of the San Francisco Fire Department said during a meeting he was present at that they had no intention of handling religious and medical exemptions in good faith. It seemed like paranoid hearsay—until the applications came back and all were rejected. As of Oct. 13, out of about 800 San Francisco city workers who have asked for medical or religions exemptions to avoid termination, not a single request has been approved, a human resources official told the Associated Press.

A call and an email to the San Francisco Fire Department’s information officer and human resources center requesting comment wasn’t immediately returned.

In Amalu’s rejection, the department acknowledged the sincerity of his religious convictions but declined him because “accommodation would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others and/or yourself,” according to an official form he allowed me to review. Further, the document states accommodation would prevent him from performing “essential functions” and “result in undue hardship for the city.”

But Amalu says the reasoning behind his rejection conflicts with the department’s public messaging. During a city meeting, the question was posed to the municipal departments: could you provide essential services with the number of employees you are slated to lose? A higher-up who was present told Will that every department gave a negative answer, especially the Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). The SFMTA oversees San Francisco’s massive public transit system, which is anticipating service disruptions for buses and trains due to impending firings of unvaccinated workers. At about 11 percent of the agency’s workforce, it has the most unvaccinated number of employees of any city department. MTA employees have complained about “threatening” letters from managers warning of discipline or terminations, the San Francisco Examiner reported.

San Francisco Fire Department Chief Jeanine Nicholson has downplayed the potential for disrupted essential services. According to her, the department has contingency plans to make up for potential firings and resignations, so there isn’t any reason to worry.

Nicholson mentioned “not-compliant” firefighters during a Sept. 22 meeting with city officials. “We have 122 people who are not compliant; out of that 122, 18 of them are on long-term leave, so really we have 104 people,” she said. “We’ll see what the final number is, but we’ll definitely be losing some people due to the vaccination.”

In an earlier internal meeting, long before the mandates were imposed, Nicholson asked Stephanie Phelps, the department’s nurse practitioner over Zoom: “Why are we not mandating the vaccine? Because I would love to mandate the vaccine.” Phelps explained that such measures are historically rare and, ironically, that “states are unlikely to enact mandatory COVID-19 vaccination mandates in the absence of long-term safety data.” Nicholson was nonplussed with that answer. “Despite what you said, I would still like to mandate the vaccine for our members, but I can’t.”

For his part, Amalu feels betrayed. “I, and every other member facing termination, have bled and wept for this department,” he said. “This is not just affecting me, but rather thousands of San Francisco employees who have families to feed and have placed their trust in this city to be there for them when times are tough.”

It’s unclear what the contingency plan for mass firings of essential works looks like. Firefighters and paramedics are not easily replaced anywhere in America. Even before the pandemic, localities across the country were battling shortages of medics and firefighters. The same goes for police departments. Indeed, amid the ongoing crime surge, dismissing cops over vaccine noncompliance is a bit like playing Russian roulette with public safety.

A new Guardian analysis found homicides across the 12 counties that make up the greater San Francisco region soared 25 percent in 2020, compared with the previous year. That is 114 homicides more than the year before. The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is currently short 400 officers and has a hard time attracting new recruits. Nevertheless, an officer with that department told me that about a hundred unvaccinated officers are on the chopping block.

Two months ago, there were 500 hundred unvaccinated members of the SFPD. However, pressure from the city, the department’s leadership, and an antagonistic police union caused many officers to grudgingly take the jab, said the officer, who asked to remain anonymous because of fear of retaliation for speaking out. SFPD members who stood their ground on principle had the rug yanked out from under them, the officer said.

“We were granted about 150 religious exemptions—they were approved, permanent exemptions,” the officer said. “But about a month later, leadership effectively rescinded them by saying they needed ‘additional questions’ answered.” Every application was subsequently and officially rejected, the officer said.

Many of the SFPD cops forced to vaccinate are reportedly in talks with other departments about transferring. For the underpaid and overworked, it’s not hard to imagine that being bullied into taking a drug, by their own union no less, against their religious or ethical reservations was the final straw.

Even if the SFPD could find more bodies to replace the outgoing uniforms, they wouldn’t hit the streets right away. In Frisco, someone is not considered a full-fledged, independent officer until a minimum probationary period of two years. “They’ve talked about closing stations,” the officer told me. “It’s going to get ugly.” Things already look that way. Another officer reported they had to wait two hours for an ambulance to arrive on the scene of a medical emergency.

The military may soon experience manpower problems, too. A Coast Guard officer told me about his experience and why he and many others feel up against the wall. The Coast Guard officer, who asked to remain anonymous because he fears that his pension and benefits could be in jeopardy if he speaks out, said he isn’t necessarily anti-vaccine. But he is leery of the pharmaceutical industry’s rush to sell its wares without any long-term data about side effects.

The Coast Guard officer’s stance has only hardened due to what he sees as an emerging double standard in the military. When the vaccinated catch COVID-19, as they can and often do, no one seems to mind much. However, when the unvaccinated fall ill, there’s hell to pay. “Senior leadership is hugging this line,” he said, “where they say, ‘we’re not punishing you for being unvaccinated, we’re just trying to be safe’—but it’s starting to feel more like it is punishment.’”

For the unvaccinated, there are default restrictions on travel and stricter quarantine protocols not only for those who are sick but those who are presumed “exposed”—a vague term. A vaccinated person exposed to COVID can resume work upon producing a negative test, but an unvaccinated person cannot—they are forced to isolate even if they can prove they’re not sick.

The two-tiered system is frustrating. “They’re being vague, they’re threatening us that we’re failing to obey lawful orders, and they’re having us sign documentation about being counseled to take the vaccine.” Those signatures will make it easier to discharge them in the end, but Coast Guard senior leadership hasn’t even made it clear what kind of discharge it will be if they pull the trigger.

How the military jettisons the unvaccinated will determine whether they receive full benefits, or benefits at all, from their time served. Without an honorable discharge, someone with a sterling service record could be sent off with the professional equivalent of a misdemeanor or a felony.

The question is, how many people is the military willing to lose? The Coast Guard assists in various domestic missions, from law enforcement activities to search and rescue operations. Replacing them isn’t easy and discharging them won’t make America safer. The Army is making a similar gambit: 485,900 active-duty soldiers have until Dec. 15 to be vaccinated. Another 336,500 National Guard and 189,800 reserve troops have until the end of June. With looming deadlines, hundreds of thousands more across all the other branches haven’t complied with vaccine mandates.

Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote that “the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” Something similar can be deduced by how we treat the unvaccinated. These essential workers kept at their jobs before vaccines were available. Yet they and their families are now suffering professionally and financially for their convictions. Their unions are against them, their superiors have turned on them, their cities have shunned them. They served America, but America is turning its back on them.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Pedro Gonzalez is the associate editor at Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. 

Featured image: Flickr-Globovision, CC BY-NC 2.0The original source of this article is ChroniclesCopyright © Pedro GonzalezChronicles, 2021


PhD Researcher’s Analysis of VAERS Data Reveals 5,427% Increase in Deaths Following COVID Shots Compared to All Vaccines the Past 10 Years


By Brian Shilhavy

Global Research, October 22, 2021Health Impact News 21 October 2021

Dr. Jessica Rose has given another presentation based on her analysis of the CDC and FDA VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) data.

Dr. Jessica Rose has a BSc in Applied Mathematics and completed her MSc in Immunology at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada. She completed her PhD in Computational Biology at Bar Ilan University and then did her first Post Doctorate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Molecular Biology.

To date, she has compiled some of the best analysis of the VAERS data that I have seen this year. We have published some of her previous presentations: STUDY: Government’s Own Data Reveals that at Least 150,000 Probably DEAD in U.S. Following COVID-19 VaccinesStudy: Analysis of VAERS Shows the COVID Shots are Likely Cause of Deaths, Spontaneous Abortions, Cardiovascular, Neurological, and Immunological Adverse Events

COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries and Deaths Cover-up! Nurse Whistleblowers Reveal How They Are Pressured to Not Report Deaths and Injuries to VAERS

She recently made a presentation to the World Council for Health, and her analysis of the data in VAERS revealed that in 2021 there has been a 5,427% increase in deaths following COVID-19 shots, and a 1,373% increase in adverse reactions following COVID-19 shots, as compared to all other vaccines given out for the past 10 years.

Another incredible statistic she found was that about one out of every 324 individuals receiving a COVID-19 shot has reported an adverse event.

In one of her previous analysis’ she determined that the data in VAERS is under-reported by a factor of X42. This would mean that about one out of every 8 individuals receiving a COVID-19 shot is reporting an adverse reaction.

This is the kind of analysis on the VAERS data that the CDC and FDA are supposed to be doing, and then removing experimental products that are killing and harming so many people.

But as we have exposed so many times over the past decade, these federal agencies are very corrupt, and the people running them go on to take lucrative positions with large pharmaceutical companies. See:

All 3 FDA-Authorized COVID-19 Vaccine Companies Employ Former FDA Commissioners

Public health is not their concern, but profits for Big Pharma.

Her presentation is on our Bitchute and Rumble channels.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is by Ali Raza from PxHere.The original source of this article is Health Impact NewsCopyright © Brian ShilhavyHealth Impact News, 2021


An Interesting Disparity, by Eric Peters


Kill one person with a defective airbag and the auto manufacturer recalls 500,000 cars. Kill tens of thousands with a vaccine and the government wants to give it to kids. From Eric Peters at Volvo has just announced it … Continue reading


Young People, Especially Young Women, Are Reporting Concerning Medical And Behavioral Changes Due To Social Media, And I Hope We’re Paying Attention

In one-part of this week's newsletter: Why people are already dismissing a Wall Street Journal article about teens developing severe tics after watching numerous TikToks from influencers diagnosed with Tourette syndrome.



‘This Is Politics, Not Science’: White House, CDC Prepare to Vaccinate 5- to 11-Year-Olds Prior to FDA Authorization


Via Children’s Health Defense

The White House today unveiled plans to roll out COVID vaccines for children ages 5 to 11.

The White House today unveiled plans to roll out COVID vaccines for children ages 5 to 11, even though vaccine safety experts — who advise U.S. drug regulators and review safety and efficacy data — have not met to discuss whether Pfizer’s COVID vaccine should be authorized for use in the pediatric age group.

The Biden administration said it will secure enough vaccine doses to vaccinate the 28 million children ages 5 to 11 who would become eligible if the vaccine is authorized for that age group, CNN reported.

The White House will also help equip more than 25,000 pediatric and primary care offices, hundreds of community health centers and rural health clinics as well as tens of thousands of pharmacies to administer the shot.

Jeff Zients, White House COVID-19 response director, said 15 million doses will be ready to ship within a week after the vaccine is authorized, with millions of additional shots coming each week thereafter.

“We know millions of parents have been waiting for [a] COVID-19 vaccine for kids in this age group,” Zients told reporters during a COVID briefing. “And should the FDA and (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) authorize the vaccine, we will be ready to get shots in arms.”

Zients said kids have different needs than adults and “our operational planning is geared to meet those specific needs, including by offering vaccinations in settings that parents and kids are familiar with and trust.”

The administration said it is launching a partnership with the Children’s Hospital Association “to work with over 100 children’s hospital systems across the country to set up vaccination sites in November and through the end of the calendar year.”

The administration plans to make vaccination available at school and other “community-based sites” with help from Federal Emergency Management Agency funding.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will also carry out a national public education campaign “to reach parents and guardians with accurate and culturally responsive information about the vaccine and the risks that COVID-19 poses to children.”

As has been the case for adult vaccinations, the administration believes trusted messengers — educators, doctors and community leaders — will be vital to encouraging vaccinations, according to U.S. News & World Report.

The White House began laying the groundwork with states earlier this month, asking governors to enroll pediatricians and other providers in vaccination programs so they could start administering shots as soon as they were ready.

“In the era of Delta, children get infected as readily as adults do, and they transmit the infection as readily as the adults do,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, White House chief medical advisor, told reporters Wednesday. “We may not appreciate that, because about 50% of the infections in children are asymptomatic.”

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, less than 2% of children known to be infected by the coronavirus are hospitalized, and less than 0.03% of those infected die.

As The Defender reported in June, experts testifying before the FDA, when it was considering authorizing Pfizer’s vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds, argued the risks did not outweigh the benefits, even for that older age group.

Vaccinating children for the benefit of adults is an “unproven hypothetical benefit,” Peter Doshi, Ph.D., associate professor University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor of The BMJ, told the FDA.

Doshi reminded FDA officials they cannot authorize or approve a medical product in a population unless the benefits outweigh the risks in that same population.

“If the FDA does not have a high bar for EUAs [Emergency Use Authorization] and licensing, the point of regulation is lost,” Doshi said.

Vaccine advisers to the FDA aren’t scheduled to meet until Oct. 26 to consider Pfizer’s request to authorize its vaccine for children ages 5 to 11. In the meeting, the advisers will review the companies’ data and FDA’s own assessment, then vote on whether the FDA should grant EUA.

The CDC will convene its committee of independent vaccine experts on Nov. 2 and 3 to set official recommendations for the vaccine’s use.

If authorized, this would be the first COVID vaccine for younger children. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is currently approved for people age 16 and older and has emergency authorization for children ages 12 to 15.

CDC issues guidance on administering Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to kids ahead of meeting

The White House isn’t alone in making plans to vaccinate 5- to 11-year-olds official in advance of the vaccine being authorized for that age group. The CDC last week issued guidance outlining key aspects of a COVID vaccination program for children younger than 12 years old “designed to inform jurisdictional planning under the assumption of FDA authorization and CDC recommendations of at least one COVID-19 vaccine product for children of this age.”

The CDC’s “Pediatric COVID-19 Vaccination Operational Planning Guide” includes details about the anticipated Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine — though it may be updated as other manufacturers submit applications for FDA review — and is based on “current facts and planning assumptions.”

In the document, the CDC lays out the differences between the pediatric vaccine and adult vaccine, gives detailed product configuration and provides a distribution strategy.

In addition, the CDC informed providers the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act and PREP Act Declaration issued by the HHS Secretary “authorize and provide liability protections to licensed providers and others identified in the declaration to administer COVID-19 vaccines authorized by FDA, including COVID-19 vaccines authorized for administration to children.”

Beginning Oct. 20, states and other jurisdictions will be able to preorder doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine formulated for children ages 5 to 11, according to the CDC’s federal planning document. The orders are in anticipation of a rollout that could begin as early as Nov. 3.

The CDC said jurisdictions should be ready to vaccinate children 5–11 years old shortly thereafter pending FDA authorization and CDC recommendation.

“By the White House already purchasing 65 million pediatric doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and the CDC putting out guidelines ahead of FDA authorization — let alone, a recommendation by its own Advisory Committee on Immunization and Practices — these actors are revealing the whole vaccine regulatory process to be a complete sham,” said Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense in an email to The Defender.

“There could be no better way to undermine public confidence than to make it clear that this is politics, not science.”


Proof that the CDC is lying to the world about COVID vaccine safety


Guest Post by Steve Kirsch

Proof that the CDC is lying to the world about COVID vaccine safety

The CDC and the FDA claim that we can safely ignore the huge spike in event rates reported to the VAERS system this year (this is the official adverse event reporting system relied on by the FDA and CDC to spot safety signals). In their view, there is “nothing to see” in the death chart below. They claim that the propensity to report (PTR) is much higher this year and that all the events (with the exception of a few) are all simply reporting background events that were not caused by the vaccines.

There’s just one tiny little problem with that explanation: there is a CDC paper that proves that they are lying. Big time.

I will show below that even if we believed everything they said, it can’t explain all the deaths and severe adverse events. The data simply doesn’t fit their hypothesis. At all.

The reality is the vaccines are extremely dangerous, they kill more than they save for every age range (it’s worse the younger you are), and they should be halted immediately, not green lighted like the FDA committee just did. All vaccine mandates should be rescinded.

The CDC paper

In a nutshell, there is a paper written by five CDC authors, The reporting sensitivity of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for anaphylaxis and for Guillain-Barré syndrome, that was published a year ago in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.


The paper claims that serious adverse events in the past have been under-reported by at most a factor of 8.3 (known as the under-reporting factor (URF)).

This means that in the best possible scenario, where there is full reporting (i.e., where the URF=1 and the PTR, defined as the avg URF/current URF, is 8.3), a reporting rate of serious adverse events that is 8.3X higher than the previous reporting rate for that symptom could be safely ignored as simply due to a higher propensity to report the naturally occurring rate of background events.

While theoretically you could have a URF of <1, this is unlikely since the HHS verifies all records before they are put in the database and eliminates duplicates. There are mistakes that happen but they are minor, e..g, we know of 2 gamed records out of the 1.6M VAERS reports. So the minimum URF would be 1 and it would be nearly impossible to achieve from a practical standpoint.

Here’s the problem. This year, with the COVID vaccines, there are a huge number of serious adverse events that are reported at a rate that is more than 8.3X higher than previous years. In fact, nearly every serious event I investigated was elevated from previous years by significantly more than this. I documented this in an important video on VAERS serious adverse event reports that I hope everyone will watch.

Unfortunately, none of the people at the FDA, CDC, or on their respective outside committees has ever watched that video. If they did, they would immediately realize the enormous mistakes that have been made and I’m sure take corrective action.

But cognitive dissonance prevents them from watching the video. I think the only way to force them to watch the video would be to physically strap them in a chair and put clamps on their eyes as was done in the movie “A Clockwork Orange.”

How do you explain the rates of pulmonary embolism?

The most stunning serious adverse event I found was pulmonary embolism (PE).

As I show in the video, the average annual number of reports of PE per year in VAERS for all vaccines was 1.4. So we’d expect to see at most 11.6 PE events this year according to the belief system of the FDA and CDC. Well, one tiny little problem: with the COVID vaccines, there were 1,131 reports, nearly a 100-fold increase over the “best case” scenario. Please watch the video on VAERS serious adverse event reports to see this for yourself.

Also, for those suffering from “cognitive dissonance syndrome” (this is a common affliction of people who think the vaccines are safe), the increase in reports isn’t due to increased rates of vaccination either as we explain in this paper which shows historical vaccination rates among various age groups.

In other words, even if you totally buy the bullshit argument of the FDA and CDC (which they never justified with analysis or data) that the URF=1 this year, it still means that 99% of the reports of pulmonary embolism (PE) are unexplainable. They must be caused by “something” and that something has to be very big and it has to be correlated with the administration of the vaccine because the PE reporting rate was correlated with the vaccine administration.

If these PE events weren’t caused by the vaccine, then what caused them?

Nobody can explain that. Nobody even attempts to explain it. Nobody even wants to talk about it.

But since the mainstream media and fact checkers are completely tone deaf to safety reports, they never ask the question. They never will. It would explode the whole false narrative.

We kill 15 people to maybe save 1. Are we nuts?

Furthermore, if we use the same methodology as used by the CDC in their paper to determine the actual underreporting factor for this year, but we use a much more accurate reference, we find that the best estimate for the minimum URF is 41. For less serious events you’d use a higher number since healthcare workers and consumers are far less likely to report less serious events. So using 41 is always “safe” in that it will not overestimate any event.

This means that we’ve killed well over 150,000 Americans so far, and all of those deaths had to be caused by the vaccine because there is simply no other explanation that fits all the facts. See this paper for the details. The paper also details 7 other ways that the number was validated and none of those methods used the VAERS data at all. This makes it impossible for anyone to credibly attack the analysis. Nobody wants to debate us on this.

And Pfizer’s own Phase 3 study showed that we save only 1 COVID death for every 22,000 people we vaccinate (you have to see Table S4 in the supplement to learn that 2 people died from COVID who were unvaccinated and 1 person died from COVID who got the vaccine, so a net savings of 1 life).

We have fully vaccinated almost 220M Americans which means we may save an estimated 10,000 lives from COVID per the Pfizer study which is the most definitive data we have (since “real scientists” ONLY trust the data in the double-blind randomized controlled trials).

Yet the VAERS data shows we killed over 150,000 Americans from the vaccine to achieve that goal.

In other words, we killed 15 people for every COVID life we might save.

But it’s worse than that because the Pfizer study was done pre-Delta. The Pfizer vaccine was developed for Alpha variant and is less effective against Delta. So our numbers are even more extreme.

This means of course that the FDA, CDC, and their outside committees are all incompetent in their ability to spot safety signals. They couldn’t even spot the death safety signal. It also means that the vaccine mandates are immoral and unethical.

Inconvenient truth: vaccine-induced myocarditis is neither rare or mild

When we apply the proper URF to the myocarditis data, we find that myocarditis goes from a “rare” event to a common event.

Using data from the CDC and applying the correct URF, for 16 year-old boys, the rate of myocarditis is 1 in 317 as we can see from this slide from our All you need to know deck. That’s not rare. That’s a train wreck.

Also, as far as the myocarditis being “mild” that’s bullshit too. According to the cardiologists I talked to such as Peter McCullough, there is no such thing as mild myocarditis. Anytime you have an event that puts a teenager in the hospital, that’s problematic. In fact, as we show in All you need to know, troponin levels can rise to extreme levels and stay elevated for months. Troponin is a marker of heart damage. Unlike a heart attack, the levels are much higher and they stay elevated for much longer. The damage that is done is usually permanent and it may lead to loss of life within 5 years. Of course nobody knows the death rate in 5 years. We’ll find out in 5 years. Our kids are enrolled in the clinical trial of this by getting vaccinated, but we don’t notify the parents of this. And the kids are clueless because the doctors tell them it is safe. They believe the doctors. The doctors believe the CDC. And the CDC was lying. And now the CDC simply doesn’t want to talk to us about it. I get that.

There are thousands of elevated events

It’s not just a few symptoms that are elevated. There are thousands of them. If they don’t kill you, you can be disabled for life, even after you use the right drugs to rid yourself of the damaging effects of the vaccines.

Here are the pills taken daily by a friend of mine (a former top nurse at one of the top medical schools in the US) who has been injured for life from the vaccine and cannot work (she’s a single mom).

Medication and supplements taken before vaccine injury: 0

Compensation received from the US government for her injuries: 0

Censorship has replaced scientific debate

This is embarrassing for everyone: the CDC, FDA, Congress, mainstream media, and the medical community. This is why nobody will debate me and my team of experts in an open debate. Because nobody wants to face the fact that they were wrong.

The public wants a debate. It’s overwhelming. I’ve never seen such a lopsided survey result in my life:


But nobody supporting the false narrative will debate us. These people are not accountable to public opinion. They are all driven by what Biden wants. And Biden wants to inject us. All of us.

TrialSiteNews made this public call for a debate; nobody responded. They even reached out to Pfizer and they refused to debate. We weren’t surprised.

Of course they won’t debate. They never will. Here’s why:

So censorship and ad hominem attacks are the preferred method for disputing what I wrote in this article and my other articles because nobody is able to attack the data or our methodology in a live debate with a neutral moderator.

It’s not just me of course. There are dozens of respected scientists, doctors, and statisticians who agree with me (see slide 82 TFNT #1: COVID vaccines have killed over 200,000 Americans for a partial list).


The FDA and CDC are caught between a rock and a hard place as I explain in my video on the VAERS statistics. They cannot reveal the true URF and PTR because that would put them in hot water; it would be an admission that they got it totally wrong on the myocarditis data and everything else.

So they have to lie and claim the current URF=1 so that the PTR is maximized at 8.3. But then they have a huge problem because adverse events like death and pulmonary embolism are impossible to explain.

So they are in a no win situation. To play out the game, they avoid being questioned and simply refuse to answer. They are like a magician using misdirection. We are told to focus on all the lives being saved and to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (i.e., all the deaths and disabilities).

For more information on vaccine safety, please check out my comprehensive vaccine safety slide deck, All you need to know. I am pleased to report that it has been used successfully to reverse vaccine mandates. At least some people are listening.

The good news is far more people are speaking out and moving to the anti-vaccine camp. The numbers keep growing every day.

It will be interesting to see how long the medical community can keep up the charade. The longer they resist, the worse it will be when this house of cards comes tumbling down.


Attorney General Garland and the 'Unobtrusive ' Federal Monitoring of School Board Meetings


In the 1946 movie, “Terror by Night,” Sherlock Holmes assures Lady Margaret that, while he and Dr. Watson would be hanging around, “we’ll be as unobtrusive as possible.” Lady Margaret correctly responds “That would be a novelty from a policeman.” That scene came to mind when Attorney General Merrick Garland testified in Congress to assure members that he does not believe that parents protesting at school board meetings are domestic terrorists. He insists that there was nothing to be worried about because the FBI would simply be monitoring what these parents say or do at school meetings. Promises of such “unobtrusive” investigations or operations ignore the obvious: any national enforcement or monitoring effort is by definition obtrusive, particularly when it comes to free speech.

Garland’s testimony came after the Justice Department announced that it would be creating a national effort to “address threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,” including “open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.” It came shortly after the National School Boards Association asked for such action, including the possible use of the Patriot Act against individuals deemed threatening to board members. While the Justice Department memo itself does not mention domestic terrorists or the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s press release pledged to include the National Security Division in the effort.

Garland repeatedly assured the members that he knows of no basis for alleging domestic terrorism in these school board meetings. He further pledged that he will not use such laws against parents objecting to critical race theory or other issues at these meetings. However, those answers only begged the question of why the Justice Department has pledged this broad effort to monitor and respond to threats at these meetings. If these are not matters of domestic terrorism, why is the Justice Department implementing this effort? The letter does not cite any pattern of criminal threats or their interstate or federal profile.

There is no question that any such threats need to be aggressively prosecuted. Moreover, some threats using interstate communications or interstate conduct can satisfy federal jurisdiction, but such local threats are rarely matters of federal enforcement. Indeed, I raised the same concerns when the Justice Department took over rioting cases in Wisconsin, Washington, and other states.

When asked about alleged sexual assaults in Loudon County, Virginia in school bathrooms involving a transgender student, Garland insisted that such violence sounds like a “local case” and the Justice Department would not be involved. Yet, the Justice Department just announced it would get involved with any such threats or violence in school board meetings. These meetings involve core political speech on issues that are deeply dividing the country. If the Justice Department is going to launch a national effort to address possible crimes in such meetings, it has a heightened duty to explain the basis for an effort based on federal criminal conduct.

State and local laws offer ample means to address criminal threats or violence. Only a handful of such cases have been cited, largely cases of unruly or disruptive conduct in the meetings. While General Garland pledges fealty to the First Amendment, there is a fair concern over the impact of his memo on such free speech activities. First Amendment cases are often more concerned with the “chilling effects” on free speech as opposed to direct government action. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down a California law requiring the reporting of charity donors. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court that “When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough.”

Telling parents that the Justice Department is monitoring school board meetings creates an obvious chilling effort on speech. It is like a police car following you on the highway for miles just to see if you violate any law. It has an impact on how you act. Indeed, the purpose of the National School board letter seemed designed to have that effect. The Justice Department then amplified that effect by quickly announcing it would carry out the national effort and released a press statement referring to various departments being brought into the fight, including the National Security Division. While Garland may pledge to be as “unobtrusive as possible,” it would be quite a “novelty” to succeed.

Reprinted with permission from


Unpacking Propaganda: What Is It? What Can You Do About It?


America is awash with harmful and dangerous propaganda, but few people understand what it is, how it works and what can be done to overcome it. This article examines the nature, structure and intent of propaganda so readers can increase awareness and discernment.

The post Unpacking Propaganda: What Is It? What Can You Do About It? first appeared on SAGACIOUS NEWS.


Pure Excrement



Let’s call a turd a turd.

Guest post by Robert Gore at Straight Line Logic

America’s largest corporations are run by unprincipled, gutless cowards. They are publicly embracing an ideology that holds that they and everything they do are evil and which would turn them into, at best, state functionaries whose work and existence are at the sufferance of arbitrary masters. After decades of compromise to creeping, now galloping collectivism, they have nothing left to compromise. They’ve become willing accomplices to mindless malice that will obliterate them and their businesses. Full partners in their own destruction, they’ll deserve it.

There are three ways to obtain goods and services: production, trade, or theft (including theft by fraud). The first two are the domain of capitalism, the last is the province of various ideologies asserting a collective’s right to the lives and everything else of the individual. Yes, political philosophy is that simple. It serves the interests of intellectual con artists to make it more complex, the diversion while they steal your money and your life. Humanity’s steps forward have been the fruits of production and trade; its steps backward the toxic weeds of its rulers’ theft and violence.

Businesses produce and trade. Consequently, it’s in the long-term interest of business people to defend the principles necessary for production and exchange: freedom and its economic expression—capitalism—and a political system that fully protects individual rights and strictly limits the power and scope of government. Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago in this country, the occasional protest from a business person drowned out by the chorus cheering the latest accretion of government power and diminution of liberty, hoping to profit or at least shelter from it.

We’ve reached the point where approval of government polices, no matter how insane, has become a condition for doing business. Any executive who publicly disapproves risks incurring the wrath of the government and could be dismissed by the board of directors as acting contrary to the best interests of the corporation.

That’s strictly in the short-term, though. What government compels is usually contrary to logic and opposed to sound and ethical business. It was clear before and it’s even clearer with the Covid response: business must challenge government if it’s to be anything but the subservient junior partner in a fascist, totalitarian regime.

No executive of a major corporation has challenged the assumption of emergency powers, the suspension of federal and state constitutions, and the president’s, bureaucrats’ and governors’ rule by decree. They have supported power grabs that make those constitutions—the only legal documents purporting to limit the power of governments—dead letters.

This week In-N-Out executive Arnie Wensinger denounced California measures that require his company’s employees to screen customers’ vaccination status. It’s too little, too late. If executives had spoken out when this tyrannical nonsense was getting started and put the resources of their corporations behind lawsuits, things might have been different.

Decrees forced employees and customers to wear face masks and neither the absence of scientific verification of their efficacy nor the legality of the decrees were questioned, much less challenged or litigated. Large retail establishments put Xs and Up and Down aisle arrows on their floors to visibly virtue signal their compliance with absurd social distance rules. Their executives hailed those measures and the lockdowns that crippled or destroyed their smaller competitors. As for the so-called science—none of this has stopped or slowed the Covid virus, yet much of it continues.

Now big businesses are offering their employees a “choice”: vaccinate or find another job. Longer-lasting and more effective immunity from prior Covid infection doesn’t count. The vaccines’ mega-profitable emergency use authorizations hinge on an absence of alternatives. The proven effectiveness of Ivermectin, Hydroxychloriquine, other inexpensive drugs, zinc, and vitamins C and D is dismissed, information about them suppressed, and their advocates censored.

The corporations are fully complicit in the conspiracy to force everyone to vaccinate, the next step to totalitarianism. The terrifying jab or job mandates aren’t even in response to a dubious decree, but merely an announcement by head of state Biden. (In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand called the man running the totalitarian government the head of state, not the president, out of respect for the presidency as an institution. The term is appropriate here.) No doubt business will fall in line and roll out vaccine passports for their employees and customers, indeed it’s already started. They’re giddy at the prospect of a social credit system tied into digitized central bank money. The new money may even have an expiration date, so it can’t be saved and must be spent!

If craven Covid cowardice has demonstrated executives’ moral abdication, then widespread adoption of “woke” ideology after the George Floyd riots lowers them to the level of pure excrement, what you’d wipe off your shoes if you stepped in it. Corporations have donated money to organizations who explicitly endorse the looting of their stores, the theft of their products, and the Final Solution for the political and economic system under which they’ve thrived! Here’s a lesson for the executives they might not have learned in MBA school: pay people for violence, take the knee before those who advocate or wage it, denounce your own existence, and you’ll get more violence and your eventual elimination, guaranteed.

Going woke, corporations have dived headlong into that ideology’s cesspool of contradictory nonsense. People of color and non-male genders are to be elevated above white males as supposed reparation for the sins of the latter’s ancestors. Merit and the content of character no longer matter; skin color, gender, and sexual orientation are the intersectional uber alles. Employees are being indoctrinated into critical race theory, the philosophical justification—such as it is—for the absurdity.

Yet, proponents partner with a government that has waged nonstop, pointless war since World War II, killing millions regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or creed. Those wars have been directed by the scourge—white men. Defense and intelligence contractor executives, mostly the scourge, take the taxpayers’ money and never mention the contradictions. Rather, they recycle loot back to their kept politicians, bureaucrats, universities, and think tanks and endorse woke ideology.

Legal scholars pose the question: if corporations have become arms of the government, does the Constitution’s restrictions on government apply to them as well? The question is irrelevant. If the Constitution still meant anything corporations wouldn’t be arms of the government—the defining characteristic of Mussolini and Hitler-style fascism. The scholars haven’t gotten the word: the Constitution has been terminated.

Fascism West, or Silicon Valley, has willingly become the government’s censor. Inquiry and negative commentary concerning Covid propaganda, woke ideology, climate change, Biden administration policies, and any other cause carrying the Davos-crowd endorsement are suppressed. Inquirers and commentators are search-banished, demonetized, and deplatformed.

A “brave” Facebook whistle-blower dared to testify on 60 Minutes and then before a congressional panel that Facebook wasn’t censoring enough. With the Constitution terminated, the only issue is whether Facebook and its ilk will censor sufficiently to satisfy the government, or will it have to institute its own program? You can guess the betting favorite.

It’s not enough to censor, the approved propaganda must be peddled and preached. Many corporate advertisements are mini-sermons populated by the appropriate inter-sectionals. So too with corporate television programs, movies, and videos. through which only the faithful or the forced can sit. No self-respecting entertainment industry awards show is complete without paeans to the new ideology and condemnations of privilege by millionaire entertainers. Millionaire athletes take a National Anthem knee before their contests and castigate us for our oppression afterwards.

Meanwhile, Fascism, Wall Street District, happily books profits from economic and financial policies of transcendent lunacy. Gone are saving, investing, production, and customer choice as the routes to prosperity, replaced by unlimited fiat debt creation and monetization, financial asset price appreciation, and the wealth effect—the newly richer spending some of their ill-gotten gains.

Executives have stepped up to the trough, borrowing money on their corporations’ credit to buy the corporations’ stocks—regardless of valuations—and not coincidentally to increase the value of their stock options. Why, if it works, wouldn’t shareholders approve? Who cares about deteriorating credit, stiffed creditors, and rainy-day reserves? Wall Street would have to Google “fiduciary duty” to even know what it is.

This is Part One, Part Two will be out Monday


COVID Authoritarians Are Wrecking America, Not The Unvaccinated


Writers are recognizing that the “blame game” points fingers away from the real perpetrators. Technocrats have triggered the base and dark instincts of would-be tyrants to completely disrupt the world’s economic system, thus playing into the so-called “Great Reset” to “Build Back Better”.

The post COVID Authoritarians Are Wrecking America, Not The Unvaccinated first appeared on SAGACIOUS NEWS.