Not yet, we must replace drama queen first.
With two Canadian provinces dropping vaccine passports and members of Justin Trudeau’s own party starting to turn on him over Covid restrictions, we ask, has the Freedom Convoy won?
Not yet, we must replace drama queen first.
With two Canadian provinces dropping vaccine passports and members of Justin Trudeau’s own party starting to turn on him over Covid restrictions, we ask, has the Freedom Convoy won?
“CBC has destroyed my life.”
Consider this before you vote:
Your minister of finance engaged in insider trading. Also forgot about his villa in France.
You blew the Asia Pacific deal.
You blew the helicopter deal with the Philippines.
You blew the deal with China.
You blew the deal with Europe.
You invited “irregular” immigration and the taxpayer foots the enormous bill for it.
You alienated the United States – our largest trading partner.
At the G7 you pledged $400 million to Education around the world along with another $180 million to the Global Partnership for Education in Europe. None of it is going to fix our messed-up school systems here at home. Meanwhile, education costs are skyrocketing for our youth making university a mountain too high for many to climb.
You pledged $241 million to Family Planning around the world including a $20 million donation to the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation (because they have integrity!). This all happened while you told vets that they were asking too much.
You pledged $2.65 billion to climate change at the Commonwealth Leaders Summit and now you’re trying to bully the provinces into new taxes to pay for this pledge.
You pledged $300 million to the Rohingya Refugee crisis while we have a refugee crisis of our own flooding into Quebec that you won’t address.
You pledged $125 million to Caribbean Reconstruction while our own infrastructure in cities is falling apart.
You pledged $650 million to Sexual and Reproductive health in Haiti and around the globe wanting safer abortions for women while many women in our own country are left without a family doctor.
You pledged $840 million to Syria for Humanitarian Assistance when half the native reserves in our country don’t have clean drinking water.
You gave $10.5 million to a convicted…CONVICTED terrorist in a backroom deal. You intentionally paid it out in a way that prevented the widow of the killed soldier from pursuing it.
You spent $4.5 billion on a 65-year-old pipeline, and now the courts have ruled it shut down. Now it’s back on (at a delay cost of $250 million) – a good investment for Canada you said? (And KM uses that money to build a pipeline in Texas)
You pressured Jody Wilson Raybould repeatedly & INAPPROPRIATELY with several different high-ranking officials to offer SNC Lavalin a DPA instead of prosecution for repeated & sustained corruption AFTER the former AG had determined they were ineligible for such a deal. You lied about the above having ever taken place. Then you obstructed the investigation into this obstruction of justice.
You replaced Canada’s old F-18s with Australia’s old F-18s.
Your bizarre love of all things Castro.
You imposed tough regulations and taxes on oil from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland but not oil from Saudi Arabia. Every new project has to undergo strict environmental assessments…except cement plants in Quebec.
You said that a proposed pipeline must consider “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors” (what does that even mean???)
You chase foreign companies (and their investment capital) out of the country like they have the plague.
You chased our WW1 soldiers out of our national anthem… lest we forget.
You called small business owners “tax cheats”.
People voice concern over money spent on illegal immigration and you call them intolerant racists.
We have an equalization program, but you give half of it to one province.
You spent $8 million on a skating rink (vanity project) when Canada’s largest skating rink is 500 meters away.
You added tens of billions to the national debt while lying to Canada’s face about it. Balance the budget in 2019? Now we’re looking at 2040.
You groped a woman and when caught and said she experienced it differently.
You elbowed a female MP while dragging another MP by the arm in a petulant fit.
Peoplekind? (international embarrassment)
You got India to invest $250 million in Canada but we have to invest $750 million in India first.
You said returning terrorists will be an extraordinarily powerful voice for Canada.
You fought to let terrorists keep their Canadian citizenship.
You spent $212,234 on artwork for the cover of the 2017 budget report.
You spent upwards of $348,000 on food and alcohol in five flights on our government’s plane. On your G20 trip to Argentina, you spent $103,000 on food and alcohol alone. How is that even possible?
You gave Canadian taxpayers’ money to Hamas.
You voice outrage over fake racist attacks and say nothing about real terrorist attacks.
You took 10 vacations in a single year. Who does this?
You spent a little over $1.5 million on the trip to India that did nothing but worsen ties. Plus paid over $17,000 to bring an Indian chef to India to cook Indian cuisine. And to top it off, invited a convicted attempted murderer to dinner and posed for pics with him.
And you’re the only PM convicted of ethics violations. (multiple times in fact)
You destroyed the career of one of Canada’s honest military leaders to cover up possible massive corruption in shipbuilding contracts.
You invited Joshua Boyle, an alleged perpetrator of sexual assault and unlawful confinement of his wife for a photoshoot in the Office of The Prime Minister.
You threaten to sue the leader of the opposition then chicken out when you realized that your alleged crimes will be exposed in court.
You offer over $600 million dollars in subsidies to failing mainstream media outlets if they can prove to be trustworthy. You put a union that vows to destroy your opposition in charge of selecting these new “trusted” sources to receive funding. You could school the Russians in election interference.
You pay off your friends to engage in election ads for you and get Elections Canada to pay for it.
$13 million to Loblaws for new refrigerators.
You made public statements of deep admiration for Chinese communism.
You wore preposterous, inappropriate costumes during a state visit to India, paid for by Canadians.
Almost $13 billion in promises right before calling the election.
Blackface. 3 times. Wow.
What moral, functioning Canadian human could possibly justify voting for you?
And this one:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/truckers-gofundme-cia-connecting-dots/5769737
Global Research, February 08, 2022
Jon Rappoport’s Blog 7 February 2022
***
As of this writing, GoFundMe has cut off (stolen) $9 million from the Canadian Trucker Convoy.
The money was donated by thousands of individuals to support the truckers, who are demanding the Canadian government cancel vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, and brutal COVID restrictions.
After a major backlash from the enraged public, GoFundMe has stated it will automatically refund all $9 million to individual donors.
Regardless, GoFundMe will not forward the money to the group it was intended for: the truckers.
All right: here come the dots—
A venture capital firm, Accel, and Technology Crossover Ventures own the majority stake in GoFundMe.
The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel, in 2004.
Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same. (Breyer—billionaire, CFR, World Economic Forum, major fund investor in China.)
Earlier in 2004, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.
In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”
That’s not the only connection between Facebook funder and Accel’s Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for the CIA’s In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.
With these CIA/DARPA connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who can fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?
Accel co-owns the majority stake in GoFundMe. Accel has a history of rubbing shoulders with the CIA. Accel helped launch Facebook, the largest profiling and data-mining company in the world.
Given all this, it might be more surprising if GoFundMe DIDN’T cut off the Canadian truckers’ $9 million.
It’s also worth mentioning that Accel has invested in Spotify, the platform whose number-one star is Joe Rogan. Spotify is now under pressure to cancel Rogan because his views and guests don’t align 100% with the official COVID narrative. In step one of a new censorship program, Spotify has stated it will post warning messages on all content that veers from official COVID positions and offer links to approved government and public health sources (for outrageous lies).
GoFundMe, Accel, Facebook, CIA, In-Q-Tel, Jim Breyer, CFR, World Economic Forum, major investments in China.
Basically, The Club.
The member’s statement of belief: “More money for me, less freedom for the peons, global control.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Featured image is from The Daily Signal
The original source of this article is Jon Rappoport’s Blog
Copyright © Jon Rappoport, Jon Rappoport’s Blog, 2022
Global Research, February 09, 2022
***
Fact-checking is one part of the campaign to control what you see online, and therefore what you think and how you perceive reality
Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson explains how virtually everything you see and hear online has been co-opted, or taken over to serve a greater agenda
Instead of real journalists and reporters, the media is infiltrated with propagandists who dictate what’s “fake news” and what’s not
The public is being manipulated to want their information censored by third-party “fact”-checkers, which were introduced as a tool to confuse and control the public further
“Conspiracy theory”, “debunked”, “quackery” and “antivaccine” are examples of terms that are being used as propaganda tools; if you hear them, it should make you dig deeper for the truth
Those who rely solely on the internet for their information are at serious risk of being controlled; you can fight back by doing your own research, trusting your cognitive dissonance and using your common sense
*
Prior to 2015 or 2016, you could still read what you wanted online without much interference. This has since changed, as propagandists have infiltrated the media and, along with other major players, like Big Tech and government, set out to control information. Fact-checking — a once-obscure term that’s since gone mainstream — is one part of the campaign to control what you see online, and therefore what you think and how you perceive reality — but it’s all a ruse.
Speaking with Jan Jekielek, The Epoch Times senior editor and host of the show “American Thought Leaders,” investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson explains how virtually everything you see and hear online has been co-opted, or taken over to serve a greater agenda:1
“One has to understand that nearly every mode of information has been co-opted, if it can be co-opted by some group. Fact checks are no different either, they’ve been coopted in many instances or created for the purpose of distributing narratives and propaganda.
And your common sense is accurate when it tells you that the way they chose this fact check and how they decided to word it so they could say this thing is not true when at its heart it really is true, but the message they’re trying to send is that you shouldn’t believe it, your common sense is right.
That’s been created as part of a propaganda effort by somebody, somewhere, as part of a narrative to distribute to the public so virtually every piece of information that can be co-opted has been.”
The Information Landscape Is Being Controlled
Attkisson calls out several common online sources that are heavily manipulated — Wikipedia, Snopes and most “fact” checkers to name a few, along with HealthFeedback.org, which is a fake science group used by Facebook and other Big Tech companies to debunk science that is actually true.
Fact-checkers are often referred to as scientists, but this, too, is “part of a very well-funded, well-organized landscape that dictates and slants the information they want us to have.” While there have always been efforts to shape the information being given out by the media, it used to be that news reporters would push back against organizations to ensure the public had the other side of the story.
Beginning in the early 2000s, Attkisson noted a shift from efforts to simply shape information to those that attempt to keep certain information from being reported at all. This was particularly true among the pharmaceutical companies she was covering at that time. Attkisson described “efforts by these large global PR firms that have been hired by the pharmaceutical industry, by government partners that work with the pharmaceutical industry, to keep the story from being reported at all.”2
Now, suppressing and censoring information that those in charge don’t want to be heard is really common. Attkisson believes the practice really took off in 2015 to 2016, “with Donald Trump proving to be a unique danger perceived by both Democrats and Republicans, and by that I mean by the interests that support and pay for them to be in office and make certain decisions.”3
With a wild card in office, a campaign was organized that exploited a media that was already conflicted and less apt to report what was actually going on. “This all dovetailed together to create this crazy information landscape we have today,” she said. Instead of journalists seeking to uncover the truth, we have “writers seeking to spread whatever establishment scientists or politicians want them to say, uncritically and at the expense, oftentimes, of accuracy.”
Now, instead of real journalists and reporters, the media is infiltrated with propagandists who dictate what’s “fake news” and what’s not. Many believe that fake news is a product of Trump, but Big Tech was brought into the campaign early on. A lobby campaign by behind-the-scenes propagandists met with Facebook and said you’ve got to start censoring and “fact” checking information, Attkisson said.
The term “fake news” was popularized after Trump was elected, but it actually got its start before that — it was an invention of political activist website First Draft News, which is partially funded by Google.4
Inviting Propagandists Into the Newsroom
We’re in the midst of an information war where it’s difficult to tell truth from fiction or lies. Journalists are no longer the watchdogs; instead, they take information from obviously conflicted sources and then try to convince the public to believe that particular viewpoint. Other information that’s in conflict is censored or “debunked.”
It’s an unusual time in history where efforts are even underway to manipulate the public to want their information censored and appreciate third-party “fact”-checkers, which were introduced as a tool to confuse and manipulate the public further.5
Yet, when you only hear one side of the story, and you can’t access other information to the contrary, it’s nearly impossible to uncover the truth — and that’s precisely the point. Is this all just a matter of reporters not knowing how to think critically and ask the right questions, or believing that they’re doing the right thing?
Attkisson states that it goes much deeper. A lot of propagandists have become part of the media, and while there used to be a firewall between reporters and the people they reported on, “that’s long gone.” She says:6
“We’ve not just invited them to influence what we report, but we’ve hired them, not just as pundits and analysts but they are reporters. They are editorial presences within our newsrooms. Now we are one and the same.
It’s hard to say that there’s a distinctive difference in many instances between the people trying to get out a message and the messengers in the media who should be doing a more independent job of reporting accurately.”
The COVID Misinformation Campaign
In early 2020, as the pandemic first started brewing, Attkisson talked to everyone she could, including scientists with the government and outside the government. “Pretty quickly, I could see that certain things that were being said publicly were bearing out as not true, and certain things that other scientists were telling me privately rang true, and in hindsight have actually been proven to be true.”7
Early on, quite a few scientists she talked to were questioning the advice being given by government scientists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and lead spokesperson for the president’s COVID response. She asked them if they should say something and speak out about their concerns, but they all came back with the same response:8
“They said they dared not speak out for fear of being controversialized and for fear of being called coronavirus deniers, because that phrase was starting to be used in the media. And secondly, they feared contradicting Dr. Fauci, who they said had been kind of lionized or canonized in the press for reasons that they couldn’t understand, because they really didn’t think that his guidance that he was giving publicly was the right guidance.”
Certainly, those scientists’ opinions deserved to be heard, but the fear of speaking out silenced them. They feared losing their grants, as most grants for research are funded by the government. If the government doesn’t like what you say or do, you can get fired or never get a grant again, ending your career and threatening your very livelihood.
“That started to strike me as, this is a really dangerous environment, when esteemed scientists who have valuable information and opinions are afraid to give them, and instead we’re hearing a party line that many of them disagree with but won’t say so,” Attkisson said.9
She mentioned the controversial U.S. government funding of gain-of-function research in China, and the notion that SARS-CoV-2 could have come from a Chinese laboratory — both were glaring issues that no one would talk about.
“These are the kinds of things early on that were sort of a red flag to me that says somebody’s trying to shape the information,” she continued. “They’re using reporters to do it. Public health figures are involved in some instances and that makes me want to know what’s really behind it.”10
‘Conspiracy Theory’ Was Devised by the CIA
The term “conspiracy theory” is now used to dismiss narratives that go against the grain. According to Attkisson, this is intentional, as the term itself was devised by the CIA as a response to theories about the assassination of JFK.
“It was shown in documents that there was a suggestion that agents go out and talk to reporters about these things as conspiracy theories — and again, common sense should tell you, as it does me, I’m married to a former law enforcement official who has said to me many times, you know the conspiracy theory phrase in its use doesn’t make sense. Nearly everything is a conspiracy.”11
Anything that involves two or more people is technically a conspiracy, but now when people hear the term, they’re conditioned to think it’s false. “That’s designed to pluck this little part of your brain that says, ‘well that thing’s not true.’” When Attkisson hears the term, however, she thinks that information may well be true. “If somebody’s trying to debunk it, it usually means a powerful interest is behind it and it makes me want to go search for more information on that thing.”
The term “conspiracy theory” has lost meaning now because it’s used so much. “Debunked”, “quackery” and “antivaccine” are all terms that are similarly being used as propaganda tools. “There’s a whole cast of propaganda phrases that I’ve outlined that are cues. When you hear them, they should make you think, ‘I need to find out more about it,’” Attkisson says.
Fact Checkers Pounce on Accurate BMJ Investigation
In another example of the lengths that fact-checkers will go to discredit a story — even if it’s true — take an article published in the BMJ, titled, “COVID-19: Researchers blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial.”12 Written by investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker, it details a series of problems with laboratory management and quality control checks by Pfizer subcontractor Ventavia Research Group, which was testing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
According to a regional director formerly employed by Ventavia, she witnessed falsified data, unblinded patients, inadequately trained vaccinators and lack of proper follow-up on adverse events that were reported. After notifying Ventavia about her concerns, repeatedly, she made a complaint to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — and was fired the same day.13
Soon after Thacker’s investigative piece was published in BMJ, it was “fact checked” by a group called Lead Stories, which referred to the investigation as a “hoax alert” in the related URL. Along with “correcting” statements that Thacker did not make, Lead Stories disparaged the investigation for “missing context,” but as investigative reporter Matt Taibbi explained, “‘Missing context’ has become a term to disparage reporting that is true but inconvenient.”14
Lead Stories took further issue with the BMJ investigation because it was shared by people such as Dr. Robert Malone and Robert F. Kennedy, who themselves have been targeted by fake fact checkers. Taibbi added:15
“The real issue with Thacker’s piece is that it went viral and was retweeted by the wrong people. As Lead Stories noted with marked disapproval, some of those sharers included the likes of Dr. Robert Malone and Robert F. Kennedy. To them, this clearly showed that the article was bad somehow, but the problem was, there was nothing to say the story was untrue.”
Thacker also called the “fact check” against his BMJ investigation “insane,” telling Taibbi:16
“Here’s what they do. They’re not fact checking facts. What they’re doing is checking narratives. They can’t say that your facts are wrong, so it’s like, ‘Aha, there’s no context.’ Or, ‘It’s misleading.’ But that’s not a fact check. You just don’t like the story.”
Reality Is Being Altered in Real Time
As it stands, information is being changed in real time to meet the common agenda. This includes definitions in dictionaries and on official government websites. Examples of definitions that have been changed recently include those for pandemic, herd immunity, vaccines and anti-vaxxer. Attkisson reiterates:17
“Virtually every form of information and sourcing that can be co-opted has been. That includes the dictionary definitions; that includes everything because these are important ways to influence thought. Language is very powerful. People don’t want to be affiliated with certain names and labels.
It reminds me of ‘1984,’ the George Orwell story about the futuristic society, under which history was being rewritten in real time to jive with the version that the government wanted or the party wanted it to be. Definitions now are being rewritten and changed in real time to fit with the vision that the establishment wants people to think.”
For now, you can still use the Internet Archive, commonly known as Archive.org and IA, as a historical archive. In addition to digitally hosting more than 1.4 million books and other documents, Archive.org acts as a historical vault for the Internet, preserving cached versions of websites that are no longer accessible to the public.18
Archive.org’s Wayback machine preserves digital information that has been removed or deleted, whether intentionally or for other reasons, but it, too, could one day disappear. Attkisson says:19
“It’s been a fascinating way to prove the effort to change our perception of how things are and the reality and what we thought we remembered from the other day, because all we really have now is the electronic record, by and large, and if that can be manipulated, there could be a time when — if they get rid of the Wayback machine, for example — that we can’t ever prove that anything was any different.”
Attkisson is maintaining a running list of things the media or public policy got wrong during the pandemic, which can still be verified using the Wayback machine, but which were not acknowledged for being wrong or corrected by the press. They include:20
You Can Be Controlled if You Live Inside the Box
Attkisson references a whole generation of people who live inside the box, meaning the internet. Those who rely solely on the internet for their information are at serious risk of being controlled. She explains:22
“They didn’t know a time when information was to be gathered elsewhere by looking around and seeing what you hear, and seeing what you saw, and talking to people around you and looking at books and research and so on.
And the people that want to control the information understand that if they can only control really a few basic sources — we’re talking about Google, Twitter, Facebook and Wikipedia — they’ve got a lock on information, because we’ve all been funneled to those few sources, and that’s been the goal.
So if you think of it that way, there’s a whole lot of people that get pretty much everything they know through the internet. And the goal of the people trying to make the narrative is to make people live online and to think that’s reality.”
The danger of this is that the internet paints a picture that’s different from reality. You may read something that doesn’t sound quite right, or that you don’t agree with, but the internet makes you feel like you’re in the minority — even if you’re really not.
“Understand that you may actually be in the majority,” Attkisson says, “… but the goal of what they do online is to make you think you’re an outlier when you’re not, to make you afraid to talk about your viewpoint or what you think, because you may actually be the majority opinion but they want to control that and make you think you’re the one who’s crazy.” The solution? Live outside the box:23
“You can be made to believe that — if you live in the box. So, I’m constantly telling people live outside the box. Yes, you can get information there and do what you do online, but certainly trust your cognitive dissonance, talk to the people around you. If you travel, talk to the people in the places you go. You’ll get a whole different picture, as I do, of what’s really happening out here than if you look online.”
The Truth Finds a Way To Be Told
While there are powerful forces at play to control information, all is not lost. Attkisson is aware of three entities that are actively working on a solution, which include:
Outlets like Substack newsletters and the video platforms Rumble, Bitchute and Odysee, which don’t censor videos for ideological reasons, are actively getting around the censorship of Big Tech, and Attkisson believes that these efforts will accelerate in the next couple of years.
Further, she says, “The propagandists may have overplayed their hand by being so heavy-handed and obvious about the control of information and the censorship. It’s no longer deniable. Even people who want their information curated, they can’t always be happy with the notion that they’re not going to be able to get the full story, or that they’re only getting one side of something.”24
Ultimately, she adds, “I think the truth finds a way to be told … it may take some time and there may be a lot of people that don’t want the truth out, but we inherently as humans seek it.”25 On a personal level, you can go a long way toward finding the truth by following your own common sense and reason, and Attkisson agrees.
“I always say, do your own research, make up your own mind, think for yourself. Trust your cognitive dissonance, use your common sense. You’re going to be right more often than you think, but open up your mind, read a lot, think a lot and don’t buy into the prevailing narrative at face value.”26
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
1 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 2:43
2 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 5:44
3 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 6:23
5 The Epoch Times January 23, 2022
6 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 15:28
7 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 17:00
8 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 17:46
9 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 18:50
10 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 20:00
11 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 22:26
12, 13 BMJ 2021;375:n2635
14, 15, 16 Substack, TK News by Matt Taibbi February 1, 2022
17, 19 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 25:31
20 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 30:00
21 N Engl J Med 2020; 382:1268-1269
22, 23 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 39:30
24 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 53:50
25 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 51:10
26 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 58:30
Featured image is from The Corbett Report
The original source of this article is Mercola
Copyright © Dr. Joseph Mercola, Mercola, 2022
Trudeau ripped for labeling protesters as ‘Nazis’ and ‘fringe minority’
e gifford As an American, a retired police officer and as a Marine I am ashamed with the compliance of police and the silence of good people. I am impressed that YOUR citizens rise first. Semper Fi my friends.
Nathan B It’s appalling that these truckers have been continually misrepresented. But it will backfire horribly on Trudeau because people are finally starting to see through him.
1 7 It takes a lot to upset Canadians. They are among the most peaceful, kind, and courteous ppl! When anyone resorts to name-calling – in this case, the Prime Minister calling the very people he is supposed to represent racist, he’s lost all credibility and any argument. Time to go Brandeau!
Jon Miltimore
February 9th, 2022
The Foundation for Economic Education
This article was originally published by Jon Miltimore at the Foundation for Economic Education.
The first Spanish study on how the Omicron variant of COVID-19 infects, incubates, and transmits was recently concluded by the Public Health Observatory of Cantabria.
The findings, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, show that the highly infectious variant accounted for nearly half of the infections recorded during the whole pandemic. One reason Omicron has proven so transmissible, researchers discovered, is that the window for transmission is earlier than previous variants.
“Half of the infections occurred before the onset of symptoms,” researchers said.
The early-stage transmission, scientists noted, complicates some mitigation efforts.
“This would imply that the effectiveness of measures such as screening, rapid testing or isolation would decrease significantly in the absence of preventive measures such as distance, limiting mass gatherings or social gatherings,” researchers said.
Perhaps the most consequential finding in the research, however, is that vaccines did not appear to reduce the spread of the virus.
“Vaccinated cases seem to have the same transmission capacity as unvaccinated people,” researchers concluded, according to EITB Radio Televisión Pública Vasca (the Basque Autonomous Community’s public broadcast service).
This is a departure from the Delta variant, researchers said, where transmission differences were found in vaccinated households and workplaces.
The study was based on 622 Omicron cases (and their 1,420 contacts) detected in Cantabria, a region on Spain’s north coast, in December 2021.
The findings out of Spain are just the latest example of why COVID-19 continues to spread despite human ingenuity and the widespread efforts of central planners to tame the virus.
Unlike previous pandemics, governments around the world took sweeping actions to restrict basic freedoms out of fear of the deadly pathogen. Businesses were closed, speech restricted, free assembly denied, and bodily autonomy was violated.
Despite these efforts, the virus, now in its third year, continues to rage, and in many parts of the world, governments have been slow to rescind harmful policies despite their ineffectiveness.
To its credit, parts of Spain have proven much more responsive than other parts of the world.
Last week, public health officials in Catalonia, an autonomous province in northeast Spain, and several other provinces announced they were scrapping vaccine passports in light of this new evidence.
A committee of scientists told Catalonia’s regional government that because of the nature of Omicron, “a large part of the population is once again susceptible to getting infected whether or not they are vaccinated or have already had the illness.”
“The effectiveness of the compulsory use of the Covid certificate is reduced as an extra level of security,” scientists added.
The requirement to show a COVID passport had been in place since November in Catalonia, the second-most-populous community in Spain, with some 7.7 million people. Smaller regions in Spain, such as Cantabria and Asturias, also have reportedly announced they will no longer require COVID passports for people to enter bars, restaurants, and other public spaces.
European media point out that Spain has suffered from widespread Omicron outbreaks even though the country boasts one of the higher vaccination rates in the world.
“Despite high levels of vaccination in Spain where 90.7 percent of people over the age of 12 are fully immunized,” The Local reports, “coronavirus cases exploded in Spain over the Christmas holidays, giving it one of Europe’s highest incidence rates.
The decision to scrap the vaccine passport follows widespread protests in Spain against vaccine passports and mask mandates.
While the effectiveness of vaccines in slowing the spread is questionable, there is still an abundance of evidence suggesting that vaccines can significantly reduce the likelihood of falling seriously ill from COVID-19.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine who studies epidemiology at Stanford University, credits his own speedy recovery from COVID to the vaccines and has praised them as “a wonderful achievement.”
But Bhattacharya has said vaccines are primarily a matter of personal health, not public health, since the benefits of vaccination lay primarily with the individual, and has argued that efforts to mandate vaccination erode confidence in public health.
“Opposition to discriminatory vaccine mandates is not the same as opposition to vaccines,” Bhattacharya said last year. “On the contrary, support for vaccine mandates is an anti-vax position because it breeds distrust and resentment toward public health.”
The new research out of Spain, combined with recent data from the CDC that show natural immunity confers more protection from some COVID variants than vaccines, reveals the folly of these coercive policies.
Vaccine passports are inherently unjust because free people require free movement, but they become both unjust and ridiculous when they fail to reduce the transmission of the virus or account for natural immunity.
Provinces in Spain that are rescinding their vaccine passport policies in light of this new evidence deserve some credit because this does not come naturally to state planners.
In his work Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, the economist Ludwig von Mises noted how difficult it is for bureaucrats to relinquish control over their own plans.
“What those calling themselves planners advocate is not the substitution of planned action for letting things go. It is the substitution of the planner’s own plan for the plans of his fellow men,” Mises wrote. “The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan.”
For those wondering why many countries continue to use coercive policies even in light of this new evidence, the words of Mises offer a beam of understanding.
Fortunately, many countries around the world—including the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the Czech Republic—are beginning to see the error and injustice of these coercive measures.
by: Arsenio Toledo
Wednesday, February 09, 2022
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
A new study from Johns Hopkins University (JHU) has found that 99 percent of people who have recovered from a previous Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) infection developed natural immunity to the virus that still remain more than a year later.
The JHU research team was led by Dr. Marty Makary, a professor of public health policy, an expert surgeon and a regular medical commentator for Fox News.
“My Johns Hopkins research team is leading a long-term study of natural immunity because the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] are not doing it,” announced Makary back in October. “They have $50 billion and 30,000 employees and yet can’t seem to conduct one of the most important studies we need done to inform the public.”
The study involved 1,580 individuals who the JHU team had invited to undergo serologic testing, which is being used to evaluate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a person’s system.
Only around half of those who were invited went in for testing during the study’s testing period between Sept. 24 and Nov. 5, 2021. Among the participants, 295 reported having a previous COVID-19 infection. When their blood was tested, 293 of them – or over 99 percent – tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies.
An additional 275 individuals were COVID-unconfirmed patients. Of those, 152 – or 55 percent – tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies. The remaining 246 participants supposedly had never had COVID-19. Of this group, 11 percent tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies. (Related: STUDY: Natural immunity provides significantly better protection against COVID than vaccine immunity.)
What this data indisputably proves is that natural immunity is far more durable than vaccinated immunity. The protection those with a previous COVID-19 infection had against a recurrence of the virus lasted so long that it was still around more than a year later with no noticeable decline.
During an interview with Fox News journalist and TV anchor Shannon Bream, Makary said he and the other doctors in the research team felt that they needed to do this study on their own because neither the CDC nor the NIH were releasing their data on reinfections and natural immunity.
Makary also pointed out that it is very easy for people who have recovered from COVID-19 to get tested to find out if they have sufficient antibodies in their systems to prevent reinfection, thus proving their status as having natural immunities. Unfortunately, this knowledge isn’t widespread and it does not receive a lot of attention in mainstream media outlets.
According to Makary, the antibodies people receive from the COVID-19 vaccines diminish within months after getting the injections. But “with natural immunity, that protection was better. It’s more durable, and that’s consistent with what the CDC found,” Makary noted.
He added that he wants society to be more precise in its language by not dividing people based on whether they are vaccinated or unvaccinated, but rather in terms of “the immune and the non-immune.”
CDC finally admits natural immunity is SUPERIOR to vaccines.
South African studies reveal high levels of natural immunity is the best defense against omicron.
STUDY: Surviving covid produces lasting natural immunity (unlike fake “vaccine” immunity).
30-plus studies prove that natural immunity is the best defense against covid.
Listen to this episode of the “Health Ranger Report” as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, talks about how people with vaccine-acquired “immunity” are losing all of their immune functions.
https://www.brighteon.com/embed/d77aa6dd-2fee-4df9-8dc3-1467d30ebaea
This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.
by: Cassie B.
Wednesday, February 09, 2022
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
Alarming data that was recently published by the Office for National Statistics in the UK shows a shocking difference in the death rates among children who have received COVID-19 vaccines and those who remain unvaccinated. According to an analysis of the data, fully vaccinated children’s risk of death from any cause is more than 5,100 percent higher than those who have not received the jab.
This is according to a data set that was published by the Office for National Statistics on “deaths by vaccination status in England” from January 1 to October 31, 2021. The data, which was originally released in December, was initially difficult to interpret because it listed “monthly age-standardised mortality rates by age-group in vaccination status for deaths per 100,000 person-years” but only listed data for people aged 18 and over, which meant comparisons were difficult to make. However, additional information released by the ONS provides enough data on the deaths seen in children and teenagers by vaccination status to make this calculation.
For children aged 15 to 19, the risk of death of all causes rises by 82 percent after receiving the first shot and by 226 percent after getting the second shot. For those aged 10 to 14, however, the situation is even worse, with the risk of dying rising by 885 percent following the first jab and 5105 percent after the second dose. In other words, children aged 10 to 14 who have received at least one shot of a COVID-19 vaccine were 10 times more likely to die during the period studied, while those who had received two doses were 52 times more likely to die.
Given the relatively low risk of young people experiencing severe COVID-19, this data suggests that the risks for many children of getting the vaccine outweigh the benefits provided. In fact, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the UK government on its immunization programs, found that the individual health benefits from the vaccine were small in children aged 12 to 15 while acknowledging “considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms.”
As a result, the JCVI said that the benefits were simply too small to support a universal vaccination program among 12- to 15-year-olds who are otherwise healthy.
This sentiment is echoed by Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former vice president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory for Pfizer. He warned last year that children were 50 times more likely to be killed by the vaccine than by the virus that it aims to protect against. According to Yeadon, the mRNA gene technology that is used in vaccines like Pfizer’s to trigger the body to create spike proteins is a “fundamental problem” that has been plaguing scientists for years and can lead to health problems such as blood clots.
Moreover, given the fact that young people generally do not experience the worst outcomes of the virus, he said that “it’s a crazy thing to vaccinate them with something that is actually 50 times more likely to kill them than the virus itself.”
Of course, that calculation now appears to be an underestimate, if the ONS statistics are anything to go by. And while it’s certainly possible that some of these results are due to the fact that the vaccination campaign in the UK among youth began with those who had the highest mortality risk – and were therefore more at risk of dying anyway – one leading expert is now insisting that the UK is past the point where vaccinating young people will make a difference.
University of East Anglia Professor of Medicine Paul Hunter said most children there have already had the disease and most did not become seriously ill. Speaking to BBC Radio 4, he said that infection rates are now falling very quickly among children, adding: “We haven’t seen that vaccines have actually done a huge amount to stop these [school] interruptions, so I think the benefits are marginal, and it’s probably too late because most kids have already had Omicron.”
Sources for this article include:
Kristen Nagle, a Canadian nurse who was fired from her job for protesting against mandatory COVID jabs, confronted a CBC television crew on the streets of Ottawa on her way to visit the Truckers for Freedom Convoy. Nagel blasted the stunned news crew for spreading lies and misinformation on the safety of truckers’ children and asked them if they even understood the damage they were causing with their lies?
“You have destroyed my life CBC. You write a lot of hit pieces on me. My family has been doxed. I have a lot of death threats. I have a 6-yr-old son and a 3-yr-old son, and you’ve literally destroyed my life because I ask a lot of questions. And do you actually believe the work you do, or do you just do it for a good paycheck?
“I’m Kris Nagle. I’m a nurse, and because of the hit pieces, you guys have totally ruined my career. And I’ve been fired because of it. People have doxed my address. People have given me death threats because of the lies you’ve told.”
She got very emotional when she called them out for lying about the danger kids attending the Truckers for Freedom protest.
Watch:
Another powerful video! 😭❤️🇨🇦
Kristen Nagle is the nurse who organized an anti-lockdown rally in January 2022 and was fired for it. She approaches a CBC news crew and asks why they’re not reporting what’s really going on. I hope her message got through to at least one of them! pic.twitter.com/ZcO4zhkR7U— Darin Yanisiew 🇨🇦 (@wildwheelz) February 9, 2022
A London, Ont. nurse who has been speaking out against face masks, lockdown measures, and other COVID-19 directions has been fired, according to London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC).
LHSC confirmed to CBC News in a statement that Kristen Nagle, who worked in neonatal intensive care, had been “terminated with cause.”
“After initially learning of actions involving an NICU nurse at London Health Sciences Centre that were not aligned with LHSC’s values back in November, immediate action was taken to place her on an unpaid leave pending the results of an internal investigation,” the statement said.
Nagle and two other women were charged with organizing an anti-lockdown rally at Victoria Park on Nov. 22, 2020.
Save up to 66% on MyPillow products. Use promo code FEDUP at checkout and save up to 66%.
Nagle and Choujounian were also investigated by the Ontario nursing regulator for making a trip to Washington with a group of peers during last January’s non-essential travel ban, for allegedly promoting theories that the pandemic is a hoax and hospitals had a role to play in misrepresenting it.
Continue:
So what does our BC Gov do? It goes after the dispensary that has been helping people suffering from pain and addictions for years. Shame on this archaic thinking government. Stop pretending you care about people. It’s always about money and control. Scum.