Department of Defence AI programme finds Antibody-Dependent Enhancement is accelerating in the Fully Vaccinated

ORIGINAL LINK

An AI-powered Department of Defense programme named “Project Salus,” run in cooperation with the JAIC (Joint Artificial Intelligence Center), has analysed data on 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older and […]

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Supreme Court rejects NYC teachers' request to stop vaccine mandate

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to block New York City’s vaccine mandate for public schools following a petition brought by a group of teachers.

ORIGINAL LINK

AUDIO: Psychiatrist Bullies Patient Over Vaccination Status, Admits He Got COVID-19 Despite Getting Vaxxed

ORIGINAL LINK

California psychiatrist Dr. Stephen V. Sobel M.D. was captured on audio haranguing condemning his patient for not being vaccinated, all while admitting that he still got coronavirus despite being vaccinated, according to audio obtained by radio host Stew Peters.

According to audio obtained by Peters, Dr. Stephen V. Sobel, a California-based psychiatrist, bullied and condemned one of his patients for not receiving one of the controversial COVID-19 vaccines.

“It’s your personal choice to pay taxes. It’s also a personal choice to stop at red lights. It’s also a personal choice to wear a bike helmet. Lots of personal choices you could do,” said Sobel. “So I will continue to work with you, but you need to understand that I have zero respect for anybody – including you – who chooses not to be vaccinated, because I have, also, patients desperately want to be vaccinated but can’t because they have illnesses and can’t go out of the house because of it. Because of people like you choosing to be selfish.”

The woman responded, “I don’t understand. If you’re vaccinated, then why is it a problem if I -” only to be interrupted by Dr. Sobel, who told her that “you’re spreading the disease,” and asked, “are you really this uninformed?” (READ MORE: Justice Brett Kavanaugh Tests Positive For COVID-19 Despite Being ‘Fully Vaccinated’)

Sobel’s patient replied, “I mean, I’m perfectly healthy,” and questioned, “How am I spreading the disease?” The doctor was not amused. “Well, I’m sorry,” said Sobel. “I thought you were more intelligent than you are apparently.”

 

 

 

 

The patient said, “if you’re vaccinated, it seems like you would then be safe you know, from someone.” The doctor then revealed that his own vaccine use was unable to protect him, as he was ultimately infected with coronavirus “despite being vaccinated,” adding himself to the growing list of vaccinated Americans suffering what are being called breakthrough infections.

However, rather than blame the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the coronavirus vaccines, which the CDC Director recently admitted are “waning,” Dr. Sobel told his patient that he was infected by coronavirus despite his vaccination “because I was near someone like you, who chose not to be vaccinated and they gave it to me.” (READ MORE: STUDY: Fully Vaccinated Carry 251 Times The Normal Viral Load Of COVID-19, May Be Super Spreaders)

“I have now lost respect for you,” Sobel told his patient. “You decide what you want to do in terms of treatment. I will continue to treat you, but you have to understand that I have no respect for you.”

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Merck touts expensive new COVID drug while dismissing cheap ivermectin

ORIGINAL LINK

(Image courtesy Pixabay)

The announcement Friday by Merck that it plans to apply for emergency approval of a new experimental oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19 is of particular interest to many physicians who have been hindered or completely blocked from treating their COVID patients off-label with an FDA-approved drug that already is produced by the pharmaceutical giant.

Merck is the producer of ivermectin, which has been shown to be effective in an least 65 controlled studies and 32 randomized controlled trials to fight COVID-19 as a preventative and early- and late-stage treatment. Studies have demonstrated its ability to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 as well as its strong anti-inflammatory properties.

Yet, as Rep. Louie Gohmert pointed out in a commentary this week, the "government alphabet agencies, the medical industrial complex, and their willing accomplices in the media" have made ivermectin "the latest naughty word which will get you censored on social media and mocked and belittled by late-night 'comedians.'"

Gohmert noted Merck itself has discouraged using ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The Texas lawmaker spotlighted the fact that the cheap and effective ivermectin would directly compete with the new drug it is developing, called molnupiravir. Unlike ivermectin, molnupirvar would be patented, the congressman pointed out, creating the potential "to rake in billions of dollars."

The federal government already has a $1.2 billion contract with Merck to buy molnupiravir at $700 per 10-pill course, reported economic policy analyst Phil Kerpen, the president of the non-profit American Commitment. Displaying a copy of the contract on Twitter, he added that the government holds options for up to $3.7 billion.

The U.S. already has a $1.2 billion contract with Merck at $700 per 10-pill course. That's 1.7 million courses.

U.S. holds options up to $3.7 billion. pic.twitter.com/iQRXY58Zm8

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) October 1, 2021

Dr. Pierre Kory, who has testified of ivermectin's effectiveness against COVID-19 in Senate testimony, said Friday that while Merck says molnupiravir reduces hospitalization and death by 47%, studies show ivermectin's rate is 88%.

#pharmageddon on IVM occurred to protect profits. Merck's news today is great since patients will have early Rx but also sad given the high cost and lives lost compared to IVM. Molnupiravir=47% reduction in hospitalization/death while IVM=88% reduction. https://t.co/wPwPk9IOuo

— Pierre Kory, MD MPA (@PierreKory) October 1, 2021

On Friday, Merk said molnupiravir showed "compelling results" in clinical trials, cutting the risk of hospitalization or death in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 by about 50% in a late-stage trial.

If approvied by the FDA, it would become the first oral antiviral for COVID-19.

"More tools and treatments are urgently needed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, which has become a leading cause of death and continues to profoundly affect patients, families, and societies and strain health care systems all around the world,” Merck's CEO Robert Davis said in a statement.

White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci said early data from the studies on the Merck pill were "impressive."

Fauci told CNBC "we always hesitate to make any timelines," but the FDA will move "as quickly as they possibly can" to examine the data.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said on CNBC it's "a phenomenal result."

"I mean this is a profound game-changer to have an oral pill that had this kind of effect," he said.

Merck's antiviral pill could provide an effective way to treat Covid-19, health officials said on Friday, but they added that vaccines remained the best tool to prevent infections. https://t.co/B07p2TTYfD pic.twitter.com/FLw2aPMXAb

— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 1, 2021

Gohmert wrote that while ivermectin "has been used by certain brave doctors around the world to treat COVID-19 for over a year now," it recently became the target of a "deadly dystopian disinformation campaign," dismissing it as a "horse dewormer."

But nearly 4 billion doses of ivermectin have been prescribed for humans over the past 40 years, and the CDC recommends that most refugees coming to the U.S. from the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean receive invermectin, Gohmert wrote. The drug's inventors won a Nobel Prize for its success in treating parasitic diseases in emerging nations, and it's considered by the World Health Organization to be an "essential medicine." The Department of Homeland Security's "quick reference" tool on COVID-19 states the drug has reduced viral shedding in a clinical trial.

Ivermectin also has a better safety record than several vitamins, with an average of only 160 adverse events reported every year.

And Gohmert argued that from 10% to 20% of all prescriptions are prescribed "off label," according to the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, as ivermectin is for COVID-19.

"In short, there is no humane, logical reason why it should not be widely used to fight against the China Virus should a patient and doctor decide it is appropriate to try in that patient’s case," Gohmert said.

The congressman said "the evil, deadly, coordinated globalist attacks we are currently witnessing on ivermectin will go down in history as a vicious crime against humanity; a grievous public health policy error that can only be explained by following the money."

"Many top doctors," he concluded, "agree that hundreds of thousands of American lives could have been saved had early treatment protocols such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine not been so maliciously vilified by authority figures, some pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare providers who just so happen to have financial incentives to suppress the truth about these cheap, effective drugs."

In September, more than 8,600 scientists and physicians from around the world signed a declaration condemning public policy makers of "crimes against humanity" for restricting life-saving treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine while quashing debate and scientific inquiry.

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 licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!

The post Merck touts expensive new COVID drug while dismissing cheap ivermectin appeared first on WND.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Cancel Culture and the Gulag Archipelago: Why Do So Few Want to Fight the New Totalitarianism?

ORIGINAL LINK

Via Gen Z Conservative

As you may have noticed from my articles, I’ve been thinking a lot about totalitarianism recently. It’s unsettling, for as I do so, I notice the seeds sprouting in everyday life. These are the same seedlings which, in the past, grew into horrible, magnified obscenities in totalitarian societies.

In particular, I’ve been considering two haunting observations made by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn at the outset of The Gulag Archipelago. The first is the question of why people did not resist more when they were taken away in the night. Why did they not scream, tear up the earth, scratch the eyes of the men who had come to take them?

Ultimately forced to leave their home ― why didn’t they make sure that the people who had come into their home bore the scars of having done so for the rest of their days? Why did the captured even tip-toe down the stairs, as they were asked to do by their captors, in order not to disturb their neighbors?

The answer to this lies in a question. As Solzhenitsyn puts it: “At what exact point, then, should one resist? When one’s belt is taken away? When one is ordered to face into a corner?”

In part, the reason nobody resists is the same one we learned from Communism’s evil twin: if people have no conception of what is about to happen to them, then they will do whatever they think is needed to keep themselves safe and alive to the next stage.

When people were rounded up, they still hoped that this was the beginning of a process that would be resolved or righted at some point, that the “misunderstanding” would cleared up, or that the indignities could not get any worse. Until the whole world knew about what could happen, almost nobody imagined the end they would endure.

Solzhenitsyn relates the tale of one woman in the 1920s, early in the reign of communism in Russia, who was supposed to be seized on a Moscow street. But she started screaming and fighting, and such was the commotion in the middle of a crowd, that the men assigned to take her away abandoned their task.

But even her imagination of what was possible turned out to be limited, for she returned home that evening — which allowed the men to take her away privately, in the middle of the night, and send her to Lubyanka, a prison in Moscow that detainees rarely ever left alive.

Solzhenitsyn’s second question-observation is even more haunting: Why did people not intervene more to stop their friends, family, or simply fellow citizens from being taken away? In some ways, this is the more disturbing observation. We may grant that people have the best perspective on their own fate and will know best what might save them. But when people see women being plucked off the pavement by agents of the state, why do they continue walking?

Solzhenitsyn approaches this question through a bitter contradiction of fact.

“How we burned in the camps later,” he wrote, thinking how different things might have been if the security operative who went out in the night to make arrests could be made to fear he would never return to his family again. What if he hadn’t known whether he would return alive? What if, during the mass arrests in Leningrad, when one quarter of the city was taken away, people had lain in wait and attacked the people who had come to arrest them and their neighbors? What if they had waited on the staircase with “axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand”?

You might say that not everybody is given to physical violence or physical courage.  Why, then ― and in some ways this is the worse question ― weren’t the tires of all those Black Maria sitting with a solitary driver (―waiting for the human cargo to be brought out of the building, into the vehicle and from there away ― spiked? How is it that a whole public with such a cause, their relatives and friends being taken away in front of their eyes, couldn’t do what hoodlums easily manage with no motivation whatsoever?

It was, says Solzhenitsyn,  because the people “didn’t love freedom enough. And even more — we had no awareness of the real situation.”

It may seem strange, and even slightly obscene, to make a leap from the worst days of the 20th century to the seemingly incomparable situation in the U.S. today, but it is no great leap at all. The behavior of people under totalitarianism is, I think, recognizable today in the normal behavior of normal people in our supposedly normal times.

In a culture that is often described as a “cancel culture” — one in which people are liable to be rendered unemployable, an outcast, at any given moment — these behaviors manifest themselves still. Anyone who doubts this should read the autobiographical story of Mike Tunison. He was a writer and editor for The Washington Post and a published author. He was on top of his profession.

Yet as Tunison writes, he was one of the men whose name was — wholly wrongly — put on a list published online in October 2017 allegedly listing about 70 mainstream writers and editors the anonymous author called “Shitty Media Men.” The document was an unvetted list of largely bogus claims about these men as having a history of using manipulation and violence against women.

The list did the feverish rounds of the internet in the early days of the movement that became known as #MeToo. The media was high on the octane of exposés. Having been silent about cases of real abuse ― Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein ― nobody had time or interest in questioning documents like the list that Tunison was on.

So, with no apparent justification, other than the misfortune of his having crossed the path of someone with a grudge, Tunison’s life was turned upside down. He was made unemployable in the career to which he had chosen to dedicate his life, in which he had been very successful.

Employers to which he did apply could see the claims made against him online and stepped silently away. Finally, last year, he landed a job as a janitor at Dave & Buster’s in Alexandria, Virginia. He remains there today, with no options whatsoever to return to doing what he loves.

Is no one interested in this or the injustice it screams?

A similar scenario emerged in the U.K., with the sudden firing of ITV sportscaster Alastair Stewart after decades of work for the network. On the basis of a quotation he used from Shakespeare, which one person online claimed was clear, cloaked racism, a career of decades is over.

Consider the implications of the phrase written above. A case of “clear, cloaked racism.” Is that not an oxymoron? So clear as to deserve the end of somebody’s career, yet done “with the cover” of a quotation. Meaning that the crime, which is so clear, so blazing and so self-evident is also only in the eye of the one offended beholder, only discernible to a particular eye. In other words, not remotely clear.

Some of Stewart’s friends fought for him. But others looked away, like the neighbors of The Taken of whom Solzhenitsyn wrote. They were sufficiently worried about the implications of even being “adjacent” to someone accused of racism they chose silence over truth

Is no one truly interested in the means by which this was done?

The people who suffer these injustices tend not to come out fighting, screaming and scratching their way back to safety. They tend — like Tunison ― to submit to the madness which has washed over them, partly in the hope that they will someday claw their way back. It’s hard to grasp, at the time, that this is it and that they need to fight for everything now.

In the same way, when a nationally famous figure is accused of the great crime of the age, they rarely believe that the people for whom they have worked for decades — the people for whom they gave up their weekends for, their spare evenings, the times they could have been with their family — would drop them in a matter of hours for a crime which cannot be explained nor proven and whose nature is wholly subjective.

The current atmosphere would mean everyone in the world would be able to take out anyone else, if they had sufficient desire to do so. Surely that world would be unworkable.

Well it would be, and it is. But it is possible not only because the victims do not quell and shake and scream enough but because we ― the public ― allow them to disappear one by one. We do not slash the virtual tires of those who take them away. We do not pick up whatever cudgels we have at hand to beat back their accusers. We just sit, as the anonymous lists and the unprovable complaints pile up and up, simply hoping all the time that the dishonest players and anonymous accusers will never come for us.

Besides, who could ever believe that a life could be destroyed, every personal relationship shaken or ended, because of an anonymous list published online?

Yet we have seen this first-hand in the U.S. and Europe, the first phase. The next phase is already beginning.

We see the nurses in New York being fired for refusing a vaccine they see no need to take. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong about the necessity, our Constitution guarantees them the right to make that choice. Yet those rights matter not to the State of New York. Soon, federal employees, perhaps even members of the military, will face the same fate for making the same unvaccinated choice.

Up to now, it has been the mid-level elites who have been “taken,” if not physically then certainly emotionally, mentally and spiritually. Tunison is silenced, never to write again. But it is spreading into the lower ranks of the proletariat. Even average Americans who dare to speak against the accepted storyline of this corrupt, anti-American administration and its millions of brainwashed minions who are being coached to report dissent, will soon find themselves silenced on social media.

Mask and vaccine mandates are just the beginning. If people want to understand why totalitarianism works, the sprouts are all around us for those with open eyes to see. We must eradicate these weeks with loud, raucous dissent ― before the operatives come to take us.

Mike Nichols is a conservative, a patriot, U.S. Army veteran, licensed professional counselor, political enthusiast, sports fan and writer living with his beautiful wife Liz in the Heartland. He has a regular blog at America’s Conservative Voice on Substack and a Facebook presence at Americas Conservative Voice-Facebook.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Study proves vaccine status segregation goes against the science

ORIGINAL LINK

(FREEDOM FIRST NETWORK) – Vaccine mandates are not driven by science. They are driven by politics, false narratives, and the desires of the architects of The Great Reset to get as many humans vaccinated as possible. This conclusion can be drawn from a recent study by a team at UC Davis which showed spread of the disease has nothing to do with vaccine status.

The study concluded that there should be no difference in policies to mitigate spread of Covid-19 that are based on whether someone is vaccinated or not. Decisions about masking, testing, social distancing, and lockdowns should apply to all within an affected jurisdiction because vaccinated and unvaccinated people pose nearly identical risks of spreading Covid-19.

According to Chris Pandolfo from The Blaze: "A new study finds that there is no significant difference in COVID-19 viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals who test positive for infection, regardless of whether they have symptoms or not."

Read the full story ›

The post Study proves vaccine status segregation goes against the science appeared first on WND.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

California will mandate vaccines for grades 7-12, pending federal approval

ORIGINAL LINK

Following Newsom’s announcement, California became the first state to outline a vaccine requirement for school children.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Vaccine Mandates are coercive, illegal, immoral and unethical. Informed consent requires a decision by the patient not an authoritarian edict.

ORIGINAL LINK

Mandates ordering people to get an experimental covid vaccine with known side effects and questionable efficacy is the height of authoritarianism.

A fundamental principle of medical ethics and democracy is that people have a right to control their own bodies. Examples of this are common knowledge but seem to have been forgotten and are being ignored.

• No one can kidnap a person or lay hands on a person without consent.

• Minors cannot give anyone the right to perform medical procedures on them.

• Individuals lacking capacity cannot give consent without authorization from a court or a guardian of that person. For example people with dementia cannot consent.

• Consent cannot be coerced. For example, in general, prisoners can’t give consent to medical experimentation.

I encourage people to read this Informed Consent paper.

This journal article lays out the principles of informed consent in a clear and concise way.

Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient's understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent "in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record."

The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion:

(1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4.

It is the obligation of the provider to make it clear that the patient is participating in the decision-making process and avoid making the patient feel forced to agree to with the provider. The provider must make a recommendation and provide their reasoning for said recommendation.

Emphasis added.

People are welcome to get vaccinated. That is their choice. Getiing 2 shots, a booster, getting vaccinated twice a year, whatever the person and their doctor agree to is fine. It’s a personal choice and as long as it’s informed, consensual and medically necessary it is completely none of my business or anyone else’s.

Forcing people to get vaccines on the other hand cannot be tolerated. Coercing people to get vaccines is unacceptable and also cannot be tolerated. Preying on minors who are not able to give consent for medical procedures cannot be tolerated.

This has to stop.

Now before someone makes the specious claim that this is about public health and the government has the authority to mandate vaccines I want to be quite clear that this is categorically not true.

• First, there is no state of continuing emergency that would allow this authority to be used. Whether or not there ever was a true state of emergency that should have allowed the circumvention of constitutional principles, legal precedent, laws and normal medical and ethical standards is mute at this point. What is a fact is that the COVID 19 state of emergency that was declared by governors has expired in all states and democratic norms now apply. Vaccine mandates do not conform with these norms.

• Second, Covid 19 vaccines are not at all like commonly accepted childhood vaccines for serious diseases like polio, small pox measles, etc… that are required to enter school. A few reasons for this distinction: C19 is an illness not a disease, the C19 vaccine is new and still in clinical trials, C19 vaccine does not prevent infection with covid, C19 vaccine does not prevent the transmission of covid, C19 has a 99%+ survival rate for most people.

• Third, the smallpox Supreme Court case that the vaccine-only mandate advocates rely on is inapplicable for federal mandates. It is a case about a serious disease that kills around 40% of unvaccinated people. But most importantly it is a city order about preventing people on an international ship from entering the city during an actual emergency without providing proof of vaccination. That fact pattern isn’t even close to a federal mandate for a C19 vaccine or you lose your rights and lose your job.

• Fourth, reasonable alternatives are not being offered. Anti-virals, treatment, preventative measures are not being offered as an alternative to C19 vaccines. Examples of alternatives would also include: encouraging people to stop smoking, encouraging obese people to lose weight, preventing and treating underlying medical conditions that are co-morbidities for C19, encouraging exercise, rest, multivitamins, taking special care with vulnerable populations, etc…

Here are a few examples of cases where autonomy and bodily integrity are incontrovertible:

• A woman has a right to choose what happens with her body.

• A child should not be psychologically or physically harmed

• Police officers should not assault citizens

• Prison guards should not physically assault prisoners

It makes no sense for anyone who believes these examples are valid to advocate for forced C19 vaccinations. Perhaps people have not thought it through, and I encourage them to do so in a rational manner. Forced C19 vaccinations should not be normalized because they are not consensual or ethical. For those who continue to cling to and support forced vaccinations the only explanations for endorsing such a tyrannical intrusion on people’s rights is in my opinion either complete brainwashing, callousness, or mass psychosis (watch this video)

This madness must stop. Mandates must not be used and people vaccinated or unvaccinated must stand up and defend the right of people to control their own bodies and make their own decisions about their health in a private way in consultation with their personal physician.

submitted by /u/Berningforchange
[link] [comments]

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Dianne Feinstein Introduces Bill To Require COVID Vaccination In Order To Fly Domestically

ORIGINAL LINK

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation that would see Americans forced to be vaccinated or to provide a negative COVID test in order to travel within their own country.

Feinstein’s  “US Air Travel Public Safety Act” would “require the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Aviation Administration to develop standards for airlines to verify that a person has either been vaccinated, tested negative for COVID-19 or has fully recovered from a coronavirus infection to be able to fly,” The Hill reports.

Feinstein’s office released a statement that claims “Ensuring that air travelers protect themselves and their destination communities from this disease is critical to prevent the next surge, particularly if we confront new, more virulent variants of COVID-19.”

The statement adds that “It only makes sense that we also ensure the millions of airline passengers that crisscross our country aren’t contributing to further transmission, especially as young children remain ineligible to be vaccinated.”

Given that the Biden administration is intent on mandating vaccines and punishing people who wish to stick with the option of tests, and given that DHHS head Xavier Becerra has labeled those who choose natural immunity over vaccines as “flat earthers,” it seems likely that those options would be removed from any legislative action.

If this ‘show your papers’ legislation did pass, would Feinstein herself follow her own rules, or would she continue to demonstrate that authoritarian subjugation is purely for the American public?

Video: Feinstein, Who Demanded Mask Mandate, Doesn’t Bother Wearing Mask Inside Capitol

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

New Evidence of FBI Involvement in the 1/6 Protest -- With Darren Beattie, Who Broke the Story

Original Rumble video: https://rumble.com/vn50ax-new-evidence-of-fbi-involvement-in-the-16-protest-with-darren-beattie-who-b.html When former Trump speechwriter Darren Beattie reported in June that there was evidence suggesting FBI foreknowledge of the January 6 protest at the Capitol, if not activ

ORIGINAL LINK