sexta-feira, 21 de outubro de 2022

CDC adds Covid shots to childhood immunization schedule, creating total liability protection for Pfizer & Moderna

 

  The doctors* responsible for adding the C19 poison shots to the Childhood Vaccination Schedule (named at the bottom of the article)
 

Lance D Johnson
October 19th, 2022

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is moving quickly to add the covid-19 jabs to the ever-expanding, childhood vaccine schedule. The committee will be taking a vote on October 19, 2022, with public comments accepted by the 20th.

Anyone who has ever dealt with ACIP knows that their vote and their discussion is all for show. They ignore any data that disproves the efficacy and safety of a vaccine in question. Therefore, their vote on recommending the covid-19 vaccines for children is nothing more than a formality, — a façade — because the committee has a long history of pushing out needless, experimental and dangerous vaccines on helpless, non-consenting childhood populations.

ACIP has a history of ignoring public comment and dismissing vaccine injuries. The normalization of myocarditis in children is now a sad reality, as vaccine manufacturers ram their poisons into children and use doctors as pawns in a sick and predatory, for-profit system.

The latest ACIP meeting will also include biased discussions on the use of new vaccines in the childhood and adults’ vaccine schedules, including respiratory syncytial virus vaccines, dengue vaccines and chikungunya vaccines. The meeting will also discuss expanding influenza vaccines, pneumococcal vaccines and meningococcal vaccines.

CDC moves quickly to secure permanent liability protections for disastrous covid-19 vaccines

The sadism of the situation is further compounded by the blood that these agencies and vaccine manufacturers already have on their hands. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) must act quickly to secure permanent liability protections for these failed experiments. Once the jabs are placed on the childhood vaccine schedule, they will be protected by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). This act eliminates all financial liability of the vaccine manufacturers — facilitating vaccine injury claims through a kangaroo, taxpayer-funded system run by a Court of Federal Claims and special masters.

For over thirty years, the NCVIA has ensured a stable supply of harmful vaccines that are never tested for safety and efficacy — vaccines that are never improved upon — vaccines that are immune from ever being removed from the market. The NCVIA has been a curse, a stranglehold on the American population for over thirty years, and it will be the route that the vaccine industry uses to make their liability protections permanent for covid-19 vaccines.

For Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, this process must happen quickly, for the “pandemic emergency” and its liability protections will have to end soon. The American people are demanding an end to the pandemic emergency declaration. With the emergency powers ending, the vaccine manufacturers and hospitals will need to have a new way to evade financial and legal liability for their compounding medical errors and vaccine injuries.

Make no mistake: the CDC is looking again to grant blanket immunity to vaccine manufacturers at the expense of children’s health.

Vaccine manufacturers seeking mandated revenues for covid-19 vaccines, forcing them onto children

The vaccine manufacturers must get these covid-19 jabs on the childhood schedule because it will also ensure continuous revenue going forward. The CDC’s vaccine schedule is used as an authoritarian science to coerce state legislators to draft laws that violate parental rights and force children to submit to an ever-expanding list of needless pharmaceutical products. These school vaccine mandates ensure steady revenue for the vaccine manufacturers, forcing parents to submit to needless vaccines or else they must beg for religious exemptions and medical exemptions after their child has been harmed. To make matters worse, these religious, philosophical, and medical exemptions are threatened every year at the state level, and many important exemptions have already been written out of the statutes across the United States, as vaccine manufacturers force their poison on the population, without any recourse, without any remorse at all.

So far, the public comments on the CDC’s website are 100 percent against the covid-19 vaccine being put on the childhood vaccine schedule. More Americans are beginning to question the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule as a whole, as historic malfeasance, fraud and vaccine injuries shed a light on the arrogant, mafia-style operations at the ACIP and CDC.

                                                            ***

*The CDC panel that approved Covid vaccines for children:

• Dr. Sarah Long 215-427-5201 • Dr. Grace Lee 650-497-0618 • Lynn Bahta (an RN) 651-201-5505 • Dr. Beth Bell  404-432-3059 • Dr. Oliver Brooks 323-564-4331 • Dr. Wilbur Chen 410-706-5328 • Dr. Sybil Cineas 401-444-4741 • Dr. Helen Keipp Talbot 615-322-2035 • Dr. Matthew Daley 303-393-6604 • Dr. Camille Nelson Kotton 617-726-3812 • Dr. Jamie Loehr 607-697-0360 • Veronica V. McNally (an attorney) 517-432-6969 • Dr. Katherine A. Poehling 336-716-9661 extension: 62540 • Dr. Pablo J. Sánchez 614-722-4559 • Dr. Nirav D. Shah 312-952-6092 

 (via Redvoice Media)

Gov. Ron DeSantis Says Florida Will Not Mandate COVID Jabs: 


 

Source: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-10-19-cdc-to-add-covid-19-vaccines-childhood-vaccine-schedule.html

quinta-feira, 20 de outubro de 2022

Turkey introduces jail terms for ‘fake news’

 

Turkey’s parliament on Thursday (13 October) approved a tough pre-election law that could see reporters and social media users jailed for up to three years for spreading “fake news”.

The new rules cement the government’s already-firm grip on the media eight months before a general election that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan enters trailing in the polls.

The Council of Europe said the measure’s vague definition of “disinformation” and accompanying threat of jail could have a “chilling effect and increased self-censorship, not least in view of the upcoming elections in June 2023”.

The legislation — comprised of 40 amendments that each required a separate vote — was proposed by Erdoğan’s Islamic-rooted AKP party and furiously opposed by Turkey’s main opposition groups.

One lawmaker from the secular CHP party smashed his mobile phone with a hammer in parliament to demonstrate how freedom of expression was being destroyed — particularly for the young.

“I would like to address my brothers who are 15, 16, 17 years old and who will be deciding the fate of Turkey in 2023,” CHP lawmaker Burak Erbay said before taking out his hammer.

“You have only one freedom left — the phone in your pocket. There’s Instagram, YouTube, Facebook. You communicate there,” he said ahead of the vote.

“If the law here passes in parliament, you can break your phone like this,” he said.

‘War on the truth’

Most Turkish newspapers and television channels fell under the control of government officials and their business allies during a sweeping crackdown that followed a failed coup in 2016.

But social networks and internet-based media remained largely free of oversight — much to the growing annoyance of Erdoğan.

This began to change when Turkey used the threat of heavy penalties to force giants such as Facebook and Twitter to appoint local representatives who can quickly comply with local court orders to take down contentious posts.

Erdoğan began to argue at around the same time that Turkey’s highly-polarised society was particularly vulnerable to fake and misleading news.

Social media have “turned into one of the main threats to today’s democracy”, Erdoğan said last December.

The new legislation imposes a criminal penalty for those found guilty of spreading false or misleading information.

It requires social networks and internet sites to hand over personal details of users suspected of “propagating misleading information”.

It also allows the courts to sentence accredited reporters and regular social media users who “openly spread misleading information” to between one and three years in jail.

The government has also started publishing a weekly “disinformation bulletin” aimed at debunking what it deems as false news with “accurate and truthful information”.

Lawmakers rejected repeated opposition attempts to dilute the legislation before the vote.

“This law declares war on the truth,” pro-Kurdish opposition HDP party lawmaker Meral Danis Bektas said.

‘Legal harassment’

Turkey was ranked 149th out of 180 countries in the annual media freedom index published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) earlier this year.

“Authoritarianism is gaining ground in Turkey, challenging media pluralism,” RSF said. “All possible means are used to undermine critics.”

Award-winning media rights campaigner Veysel Ok said everyone in Turkey was now exposed to potential prosecution for their views.

“The members of the opposition, NGOs, bar associations, professional associations, journalists and ordinary citizens… Now, all will be subjected to legal harassment,” Ok tweeted.

 

Source: https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/turkey-introduces-jail-terms-for-fake-news

Related:  Spain issues decree to FINE anyone distributing "misinformation"  

               California Makes it Illegal for Doctors to Disagree with Politicians

               

Why Nobody “Had, Caught or Got” COVID-19




Dr. Mark Bailey
16th October 2022 

Recently I spoke to an international consortium of doctors and researchers about the COVID-19 situation and the issue of virus existence. I was asked whether I thought COVID-19 cases were fictional in nature, which is an interesting question. It goes beyond the matter of whether pathogenic viruses exist and are the cause of disease. It also allows us to address the frequent claim people make that whatever COVID-19 is supposed to be, they “got it,” based on their experience or one of the so-called tests they took. Let’s examine why there is no “it” even though there are lots of “cases”…    

When most people hear the word “case” in a medical context there is a natural tendency to think that the individual being counted has an actual disease. It may come as a surprise that this is not a requirement at all because in the field of epidemiology it can be defined as simply, “the standard criteria for categorizing an individual as a case.” ‘Standard criteria’ can be anything and this opens the door to all sorts of misuse and misinterpretation. In fact, it has been used to propagate outright fraud, as Dr John Bevan-Smith and I documented last year in “The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity.”

 

In 2020, Sam published a video “What is a COVID-19 case?,” which succinctly outlined the problems of the World Health Organisation’s COVID-19 ‘case’ definition. It was evident that cases are “confirmed” by in vitro (outside the body) molecular detection assays – in 2020 that was mostly PCR kits and today we also have the widely-deployed Rapid Antigen Tests, which I have discussed in another article. Whatever tests are being used, they have been completely disconnected from the concept of disease. By mid-2020, it was more than apparent that COVID-19 was not a clinically defined condition. A Cochrane review published in July that year concluded that, “based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease.” In other words, COVID-19 cases can be solely determined by molecular “tests” such as the above-mentioned ones.

It is astounding that the vast majority of the medical community went along with this nonsense, including many of those who have been opposed to the “pandemic” responses. What does it mean to diagnose or treat a “case” of COVID-19? Even some PCR critics have been gaslit by debates about the “accuracy” of the PCR and appropriate cycle threshold limits in determining ‘cases’. However, this falls back into the same trap, being the belief that these particular tests are capable of telling them something useful about the condition of a person. They think the PCR just needs to be tweaked in a certain way so it can be used as a diagnostic tool. For clarity, I am not talking about clinically-validated molecular assays with known diagnostic specificity and sensitivity such as urine pregnancy tests. Sam has covered the pertinent differences in her video “COVID-19: Behind The PCR Curtain.” 

 

Beyond the medical community, the public have been deceived by linguistic legerdemain where the PCR or Rapid Antigen Test results are then called, “cases of the virus,” or, “cases of infection,” by public institutions and the corporate media. This is a game of deception because the WHO’s own definition of a case has been completely misrepresented. If they were honest they would say, “cases of a detected chemical reaction in an assay.” However, this would have failed in the marketing department and nobody would have bought into the pandemic narrative in 2020.

In summary, there are indeed “cases” of COVID-19 but the case definition has been disconnected from the concept of disease. There is no disease and there is nothing to “get,” except for a label as a ‘case’. The Johns Hopkins “COVID-19 Dashboard” displays these hundreds of millions of meaningless figures, which look impressive to the uninitiated viewer. However, knowledge of how these numbers have been produced brings an understanding that we have just witnessed a pseudo-pandemic, or what Virus Mania’s Dr Claus Köhnlein christened a “PCR Pandemic” in 2020.

The COVID-19 fraud and the concept of “cases” is illustrative of a wider problem concerning medical training and practice within the allopathic paradigm. It is one that I am acutely aware of, having been in the conventional medical system for two decades until my exit in 2016. The paradigm is based on claimed disease entities, many of which are allegedly caused by one “pathogen” and are supposedly treated with one “magic bullet.” Medicine was subverted in this way last century after the stifling implementation of the Rockefeller-backed Flexner Report (1910) and has never recovered. Dr Montague Leverson pointed out an example of this misguided thinking about disease around the same time:

“You here assume smallpox to be a thing, an entity. This blunder is committed by nearly all the followers of the self-styled "regular school", and it will probably be a new idea to you to be told that neither smallpox nor any other disease is an entity, but is a condition.”

One of the worst things that can happen when visiting an allopathic doctor is being labelled with a disease entity. Medical practice has deteriorated into protocol-driven paradigms in which the practitioners blindly follow pathways and tick boxes. Hapless patients are given a tag and then subjected to prescribed “treatments” rather than being advised on how to help cure their body’s real problems. One silver lining to the COVID fiasco is that it blatantly exposed the nature of the medical system to many people and they could see that it cannot help them with achieving true health.  

New Zealand’s Dr Ulric Williams (1890-1971) was another who understood the follies of attempting to classify disease “cases” through not only investigations but also through criteria involving symptoms and signs. Rather, he identified these patterns as healing crises and the body’s attempts to restore itself to health. On that note, we are pleased to announce that we will soon be publishing a book that will once again make Dr Williams’ wisdom and curative methods available to the world.

We are frequently asked about what really makes people ill if it is not “viruses” or other disease entities. It is a matter of changing our way of thinking from the misleading model of getting or suffering from “it” to a new understanding of what our body is trying to do to get well again. As well as addressing this in our free content, we explore these concepts further in our monthly Q&A sessions. Access to this bonus content is available through Dr Sam’s Community Membership. Please sign up for this membership if you would like to support our work and have even more of your questions answered. You can also sign up for Dr Sam’s free newsletter so you don’t miss out on any of the latest developments.  


Source: https://drsambailey.com/why-nobody-had-caught-or-got-covid-19/

Related: Health is not a state of war

              Dr. Barre Lando's perspective on "disease" and healing

              I got sick, therefore "IT" exists! 

quarta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2022

Celia Farber in RFK's "The Real Anthony Fauci"

 

 

Celia Faber

October 19th, 2022

Skippy says: "The REAL Anthony Fauci" is not simply RFKjr's indictment of Fauci. It includes commentary from reporters, doctors, researchers and many other experts who were exposed to Fauci's career in ginning up pandemic panic. One excerpt, citing Celia Farber is particularly interesting:


Asked to offer thoughts on Fauci, veteran AIDS “war” reporter Celia Farber pulls back and takes a broad view.

She said: People understand the Arendt concept of the “banality of evil.”You have set yourself the formidable task of deconstructing him. Why is he “evil”? (Which he is.)

It’s not because he is so “banal,” so bureaucratic, so boring. That's the drag costume.

In fact, he is a revolutionary—a very dangerous one, who slipped behind the gates when nobody understood what he was bringing in.

What was he bringing in? He was bringing in—as a trained Jesuit and committed Globalist—a new potion that would achieve any and all aims for Pharma and the powers he served, The potion was then known as Political Correctness—now called “woke.” Fauci switched the entire linguistic system of American science, from classical “speak,” to woke “speak.” He brought in Cancel Culture, essentially, before anybody could imagine what it was. It was too perverse for genuine scientists to conceive of such a thing mixing with science, they could not believe it, or grasp it. Like a rape. It was incredibly confusing. That's what | documented, on the ground, that horror and confusion among real scientists, as American science changes so radically before their eyes, to accommodate HIV.

Farber went on: Let me elaborate a bit. Fauci’s reign begins in 1984, a year of total change. Everything changes, all of a sudden. Gallo is deployed with Margaret Heckler to make the declaration by US Government fiat that the “probable cause of AIDS” had been “found” and that it was some kind of trans-Atlantic fusion that looked “virus like” on the big screen, but was really neither a cogent virus nor a pathogen. The reason it “flew” to use [Nature Bio/Technology founding editor] Harvey Bialy’s word, was because everything had already changed. It was understood, without overt commands, that the “gay cancer” that had everybody in such a panic could not be assessed as complex toxic illness with a complex cause. The entire US media understood what to say and not say, and not only because of the allegiance to the shadow government, but because the era of classical science had ended. It ended that day. It would henceforth be a crime against decency to, for example, address anything that could be making gay men sick other than “the virus.”

That's not “bad science.” That's perfectly executed political correctness. And they are diametrically at odds, in the Biblical sense of good and evil.

What Fauci did was he made political correctness the new currency, of his funding empire. Peter Duesberg was not “wrong” about HIV and AIDS, he was politically incorrect about it and that was how Fauci banished him—sentenced him to funding and reputation death, as though he had done something really bad by dissenting against HIV theory. Stop and think how insane this is.

An elite cancer virologist brought over from Germany's Max Planck Institute whose credentials are so outstanding, who was well on his way to solving cancer’s genetics . . . felled suddenly by a fatwah, issued by this ... Mufti? Who was he to issue a fatwah against America’s top cancer virologist? Well, he did. He blocked every federal research dollar to Duesberg after 1987, because Duesberg repudiated the woke ideology Fauci’s HIV empire, in a few paragraphs of a scientific paper that was about something else. He sustained the economic and reputational attack/vendetta for the next 3 decades. Without blinking. It’s really an unbelievable story. It would make Americans’ blood boil if they knew about it—because almost all have lost somebody in their family to cancer.

Fauci had, by 1987, when Duesberg wrote the Cancer Research paper that sealed his scientific fate, an apparatus that included mass media, psychological operations, public health—this octopus that just straight-up throttled the entire scientific tradition of Western civilization. Evidence based science and the discourse culture that goes with it— gone. That's what he did. It’s no small feat. He destroyed American science by snuffing out its spirit, the spirit of open inquiry, proof and standards.

‘The reason so many outstanding scientists lent their names to opposing Fauci’s vendetta on Duesberg was not that they cared, necessarily, about the cause of AIDS; This was, for them, a battle over the very soul of science. Kary Mullis [PCR inventor] broke down crying in an interview | did with him in 1994, talking about it—talking about what Fauci did to Peter Duesberg and what it meant.

The real scientists were horrified. Suddenly a guillotine was present. A new and strange terror. People were “guilty,” of thought-crimes like “HIV denialism.” Fauci had made political correctness the new revolutionary language, see? And that meant if you were “bad,” if you didn’t push agenda driven science, everything was taken away from you. And the media cheered, And anybody who didn’t was destroyed, vilified, harassed, fired, in a word, canceled.

 

Source: https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/my-most-important-statement-in-robert?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=257742&post_id=79305192&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

terça-feira, 18 de outubro de 2022

The Alex Jones verdict is a declaration of war on independent media



Kit Knightly
October 14th

A Connecticut court has handed down a 1 billion dollar fine on radio host and independent journalist Alex Jones, for “spreading misinformation” about the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.

This is a travesty, and that any could call such an absurd penalty “justice” is sickening. Especially when it is so obviously designed as a warning to everyone in the independent media.

Indeed, outside of the specifics of this case, the potential fallout for everyone in the alt-media sphere is terrifying, because already the Jones precedent is being used as an argument for “regulation” of the internet.

Forget about Sandy Hook. Maybe it happened or maybe it didn’t, experience teaches us that virtually nothing happens exactly as the media reports, but even if it did – even if every single word Alex Jones ever said about Sandy Hook was a deliberate lie – you cannot “regulate” that, you cannot make it a crime, and you cannot silence people’s future for words they have said in the past.

That is censorship.

People have the right to free speech. And that includes – MUST include – the right to lie and the right to simply be wrong.

If you take away those rights, you put the power to regulate speech in the hands of those with enough influence to create official “truth” or hold the “right” opinions. And that has nothing to do with objective truth, or real facts.

The media, and the establishment it serves, do not care about truth or facts.

To take a recent example, a Pfizer executive recently reported the pharmaceutical giant never did any research to ascertain if their Covid “vaccine” halted transmission of the “disease” commonly called Covid.

There was never any trial data showing the “vaccines” prevented transmission of “covid”, and that means every outlet, channel or pundit who claimed the vaccine “stopped the spread” was actively “spreading misinformation”.

What’s more this misinformation has likely led to literally thousands of deaths. That is far more harmful than anything anyone could say about a ten-year-old school shooting, real or not.

Will CNN or The Guardian or the NYT face a billion-dollar fine?

Of course they won’t. Because this is not about “misinformation”, this is about uncontrolled information. It is about regulating – even criminalising – the free flow of ideas and opinions.

Even if this kind of rule were equally applied to all media on every topic, it would be still awful…and we all know it won’t be.

Instead, it will be applied to the independent media, to alternative and anti-establishment voices, and to the internet.

If you doubt that, check the media reaction.

One argument against the need for any new regulation of free speech is that we already have legal systems in place to protect people from “harmful speech” – threats, libel and defamation.

Indeed, Jones’ fate here could be held up as a prime example of “the system working”.

But that is not enough, according to this article on NPR which bemoans the “limits” of de-platforming and defamation suits.

That opinion is shared by this article on NBC, which headlines “Alex Jones’ lawsuit losses are not enough”, and concludes:

Defamation lawsuits are an important tool in the quest to reduce harm from harassment and abuse. But they are not a solution to the lie machines built by incredibly savvy, incredibly cynical pundits like Alex Jones. This week’s verdict, coupled with whatever else happens next, will certainly make conspiracy theorists think twice before they inflict pain on private individuals in the future. But it will not solve the bigger problem, which is our world’s dangerous, pervasive flood of misinformation.

That line about “making conspiracy theorists think twice” is the most honest sentence in the article, and confirms one of the major aims of the Jones trial narrative is to set an example.

But while the point of the article could not be clearer, the author never actually uses the words “regulation”, “legislation” or “censorship”. He chooses to play a more subtle game than that.

The same cannot be said for Simon Jenkins in yesterday’s Guardian, who eschews subtlety completely:

Only proper online regulation can stop poisonous conspiracists like Alex Jones

“Proper online regulation”. We all know what that means, it means censorship. He’s not even hiding it in coy language, but openly arguing for a global censorship programme.

He begins by pining for the days when nobody could get a scrap of the public’s attention without going through approved channels:

There have always been Alex Joneses spreading poison from the world’s soap boxes and pavements. As a boy I used to listen to them at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park […] Their lies never made it into newspapers or on to the airwaves. Free speech went only as far as the human voice could carry. Beyond that, “news” was mediated behind a wall of editors, censors and regulators, to keep it from gullible and dangerous ears.

Imagine the kind of mind that is nostalgic for an age when “News” – he is right to use quotes – had to pass through a “wall of editors, censors and regulators”. Imagine being able to simply dismiss the multitude of the public as “gullible and dangerous”.

From there he moves on to praise the verdict against Jones, and the state-backed censorship exhibited by the major social media platforms, but laments it does not go far enough, even hinting that people should have their own private websites confiscated:

The main social media outlets have accepted a modicum of responsibility to monitor content […] attempts are made to keep up with a deluge of often biased and mendacious material, but […] by the time it is taken down it re-emerges elsewhere. Jones has been banned by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, but he can still reach audiences on his own website […] Justice is meaningless without enforcement or prevention.

Next, he tells us who exactly will be in the crosshairs of this suggested global censor. It’s a predictable list:

victims may have the rule of law on their side, but that does not curb the climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, trolls and QAnon followers or the appalling and anonymous abuse that now greets the expression online of any liberal – I might say reasonable – point of view.

Alongside a “no true Scotsman” fallacy altering the definition of free speech:

No one seriously believes free speech is an absolute right.

Like all censors before them, modern censors such as Jenkins seek to codify their desire for control in the language of concern. Proselytizing about the need to “protect people” and “the greater good”. They would, they claim, only censor harmful lies.

Such is the call of the censor through the ages. We’re only censoring heresy, we’re only censoring blasphemy, we’re only censoring treason.

Jenkins is aware of this, even as he uses special pleading to argue his version of censorship would be different:

Historians of the news media can chart a progress from early censorship by the church and crown to state licensing and legal regulation. This control was initially employed to enforce conformity, but over the past century it has also sought to sustain diversity and suppress blatant falsity.

The hypocrisy is rank. “Maybe they used to enforce conformity, but of course we would never do that…we just want to silence people who disagree, for society’s sake.”

Of course, none of those who seek to control the speech of their fellow humans ever claim to want to censor the truth. They call it “sedition” or “propaganda”, and claim to be safeguarding “the truth” even as they pull out tongues or break their victims on the rack.

Now they call it “Misinformation”. It’s all the same in the end.

One more time, for the people at the back.

  • Free speech is NOT reserved for people who are “right”.
  • Free speech is NOT only for people who tell “the truth”.
  • Free speech is NOT to be moderated by “a wall of editors and regulators”.

Free speech is not a privilege in the gift of the state, a commodity to be regulated by the government or a child’s toy to be punitively confiscated by grown-ups who know better.

It is a right. For everyone. Everywhere. Always.

And if it is removed from one of us, it is removed from all of us.

                                                         ***

Two Bombshell News Stories

 

Source: https://off-guardian.org/2022/10/14/the-alex-jones-verdict-is-a-declaration-of-war-on-independent-media/

California Makes it Illegal for Doctors to Disagree with Politicians


 

Dr. Joel Zinberg
October 10, 2022

Conformity of thought is now required whether it is online, on college campuses, or, if you are in California, in a physician-patient relationship.

PayPal recently introduced a $2,500 fine for anyone involved in “the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” that — in “PayPal’s sole discretion” — “promote misinformation.”

After a firestorm of criticism, PayPal withdrew the policy, claiming the whole thing was a misunderstanding and was not official policy — hardly a convincing explanation from a site with a history of banning those it considers politically incorrect.

But California physicians have had no such relief.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed California Assembly Bill 2098, making it the first state to attempt to censor what physicians can say about COVID-19 to their patients. This is a dangerous, and likely unconstitutional, effort that other states must resist.

The statute instructs that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

California law requires the Medical Board of California to take action — up to and including license revocation — against any licensed physician charged with unprofessional conduct. But under the First Amendment, content-based speech regulation by government entities is presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that it is narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.

A 2018 Supreme Court case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, held that professional speech — speech by licensed practitioners based on their expert knowledge and judgment — is protected by the First Amendment.

The court, though, did suggest that regulations of professional conduct that incidentally burden speech might be allowed. Speech that is part of the practice of medicine has historically been subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by states.

It is not clear whether providing information to a patient — such as whether mask-wearing works and is necessary or discussing the safety of in-person learning — is closely enough tied to medical practice and procedures to pass constitutional muster. This will undoubtedly be decided in future litigation.

But the statute clearly has constitutional problems in defining COVID “misinformation.”

The law’s definition is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” This is ridiculously and likely unconstitutionally vague.

As the Supreme Court noted, “Professionals might have a host of good-faith disagreements, both with each other and with the government, on many topics in their respective fields.”

Physicians who inform their young, healthy patients that the virus poses a minuscule risk of serious illness and death to them is providing truthful information, even though other practitioners or the government might claim that doing so is contrary to the standard of care.

Similarly, telling a parent as part of an informed-consent discussion that vaccines currently have minimal effectiveness in limiting COVID transmission and small benefits for healthy children, but that they also have incompletely characterized side effects, is not false information, even though the standard recommendation is that everyone should be vaccinated.

The statute does not specify who is the arbiter of “contemporary scientific consensus” on COVID.

The CDC, which has routinely changed its guidance over the course of the pandemic?

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who repeatedly flip-flopped on the effectiveness of masks?

It is unfair, and likely violates due process, to ask practitioners to risk their licenses without telling them who or what will judge their speech.

Ultimately, California’s law will harm patients, depriving them of information and undermining trust in their physicians, who will be scared to speak their minds.

California’s new statute is the latest iteration of efforts to enforce conformity of thought and mirrors efforts by government bureaucrats throughout the pandemic to pressure social media companies to censor those who didn’t follow the official line.

 



Source: New York Post

segunda-feira, 17 de outubro de 2022

Genetic Structures Paired with Human Consciousness

 

 

The Exposé's comment:

I was asked this morning: Do you think political change will solve our pandemic problems? My answer: What we need is knowledge. They do say that you learn from success, but if you make any mistakes make sure you learn from them. 

We have had so many warning signals and we should have learned so many lessons during the pandemic about what life is, how it works, and what is important. Our task is to assimilate and apply the most profound implications of what we have experienced. To seek the truth. That is a way ahead. A road out of the pandemic maze.


Dr. Guy Hatchard
September 26th 

Immunity is learned by our DNA

Since its discovery 70 years ago, DNA has been largely and crudely conceived as a static repository of information. Rather like a fixed manual that our physiology refers to for instructions. The discovery of epigenetic phenomena and the increasing understanding of RNA and its expression in biomolecular activity should have changed that understanding. 

Moreover, DNA self-regulates and expresses different aspects of its structure. Genes can become upregulated or downregulated during different periods of life. In more understandable language, our DNA can learn from experience how to function so to speak—as we ourselves also learn from experience. DNA certainly has capabilities that remain unknown and unused.

Our physiology is daily challenged by billions of toxins, pathogens, bacteria, viruses, fungi, and microorganisms. Some of these are our long-term partners where containment is routine. Some are inevitably newcomers requiring a learning curve on the part of the immune system. The overall complexity of immune responses goes far beyond the possibility of complete intellectual understanding, man-made control, or successful safe modification.

The DNA, individual identity, and field phenomena

The implications of how DNA is in every one of billions of cells but somehow expresses itself as a whole single person have never been adequately tackled scientifically and theoretically. We could say this is the enigma of individual identity, genetics, and memory.

DNA is at the heart of a WHOLE genetic system and the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Our genetic system has its silent non-changing nature and its changing expression, but this is not a mechanical system. It acts more like a unified field. 

Physical fields like gravity are everywhere and they appear to have static rules, but they exhibit characteristics of both waves and particles and their quantum nature ensures that the apparently static rules can be bypassed. Quantum mechanics also ensures that the entire history of events remains connected with the present as it creates the future. 

Go deeper and physical fields have more amazing properties. DNA is obviously an expression of more fundamental and more unified physical laws. To describe these, you need non-abelian mathematics – the unified field level thinks for itself as it creates time and space. A unified field structure cannot depend on anything outside of itself in order to express itself and its expressions are part of itself. It is self-referral. Self-referral is a suitable descriptive analogy for DNA.

Self-referral is the hallmark of our consciousness (we create from within ourselves) and the hallmark of DNA. Both have a silent phase and an active expressed phase, inseparable companions through the journey of life. Everything that goes on in our physiology has been an expression of the DNA in our very first cell. As such, physiology is a connected WHOLE. The mechanism for this WHOLENESS is not yet understood.

Human genetic modification is inherently unpredictable

Even changing a part of the whole genetic and physiological structure can have drastic consequences. It is known that transplant recipients can change in character. Heart recipients especially can acquire the memories and behaviours of their donors. A vegetarian concert pianist may suddenly become interested in eating hamburgers and rushing about on motorcycles if these interests coincide with those of their heart donor. 

Use biotechnology to modify DNA and you are challenging the whole structure of life. Seek to modify its immediate fundamental expressions through messenger RNA, and you risk severing the connection of the physiology with some functions of the DNA. In parallel, you risk modifying the connection between consciousness and DNA, mind and body. You could be modifying your self-expression.

Messenger RNA carries information between the DNA and the physiology. Command RNA to perform differently and you are as if ordering a lead actor in a play to speak lines that are not part of the script and yet thinking that the play will still be understandable. In other words, gene therapy can change the script of life and thereby endanger health. Ultimately health is wholeness, physiology has a script, seek to edit it at your peril.

The generally accepted medical biotechnology paradigm or outlook involves the objectification of human physiology. Physiology, including its genetic roots, is largely treated as a machine. One simple analogy might be a heat pump with a remote controller. We can press a button to make the temperature go up or down. Physiology is not a machine in this sense, it is a whole self-referral conscious system. Gene therapy involves allowing someone else to reprogram or redesign your own buttons based on very limited knowledge and crude understanding. The outcomes are known to be at best uncertain and in some cases catastrophic.

Mind and body: two sides of the coin of life

Given the risks associated with the current course of medical biotechnology, will we have to step out from under the biotech umbrella to escape? Yes. What will this involve? Organic agriculture, avoiding ultra-processed foods, rediscovery of traditional natural remedies, detox, consciousness-based education, and spiritual renewal—some or all of these? It will be life-changing.

In my opinion, our hope for the future resides with the natural world of plants and herbs, and with human consciousness. Technologies of consciousness do not require a biotechnologist, we are in sole charge of our own consciousness. Cultural and spiritual history records that the heights of human consciousness – compassion, vision, leadership in its most enlightened sense – have been attained by some. 

True, we have to avoid the pitfalls of mood-making and an overly fertile imagination. The pandemic has reinforced the fact that those imagining themselves to be all-knowing very often aren’t. There was an article in the Guardian on 23 September ‘Secret life of Gerald: the New Zealand MP who spent a lifetime crafting a vast imaginary world’. I jokingly thought that such could be said of all politicians and then realised it could be true of all of us. “What if” and “if only” inhabit our waking hours and thoughts, but that doesn’t invalidate the authenticity of the evolutionary journey we are all making.

Ultimately our personal consciousness is travelling on a road to a worthwhile destination. The evolutionary road or substrate on which consciousness travels is structured out of our human genetics and nourished by the food we eat. If we randomly alter human genetics or debase our traditional food sources, we may be blocked or diverted, and unable to progress.

Technologies of mind and body have a place in medicine and beyond

Undoubtedly there are technologies of consciousness – steps to take and guidance that can be given to maximise clarity of consciousness and the resultant benefits for health. There are proven benefits also in organic fresh foods. Do meditation and fresh food deserve a place in medicine? Yes. Consciousness cannot be incompatible with the science of genetics – our DNA is permanently paired with our own consciousness.

My book ‘Your DNA Diet’ contains over 800 supporting references in the scientific literature. It presents the thesis, based on a growing body of research, that the DNA of the food we eat provides essential support for health. When we eat fresh food, we are consuming order, or we could even say “intelligence,” which is essential to health. If we don’t eat, we rapidly lose health. Meditation has also been found to have profound benefits for health.

Just consider that when we report that we are healthy, it primarily means we “feel” well. Every medical condition is paired with the psychology of the patient. Mind and body are intimately connected. In most cases, our “state of mind” and adequacy of diet are the paramount contributors to health. Most illness has a psychosomatic component – it is caused or complicated by mental stress or dysfunction. It goes without saying that improving our mental disposition and eating healthy food are beneficial.

Are there objective benchmarks of consciousness?

I helped support a school in Merseyside in the UK which includes the practice of meditation. The academic and creative success of the school in GCSE exams as well as art, poetry, and writing competitions eventually ensured it gained full government financial support which shows that meditation can be objectively integrated into curricula.

Meditation is subjective, but it can be taught as a systematic technique. As with any objective technology, it can have repeatable results. It does have signposts of attainment. There are studies showing that brain functioning improves paired with higher academic achievement and psychological characteristics such as field independence – the capacity to see the big picture while focusing on details.

We are familiar with waking, dreaming, and sleeping states of consciousness each of these are paired with a different style of physiological functioning. Transcendence is recorded as an authentic experience in historical and contemporary accounts. It appears during those moments when we slip into the timeless oceanic feeling that lies behind the changing surface of life. It is often referred to as the fourth state of consciousness. An all-encompassing state of inner awakening that Walt Whitman attempted to express in his book ‘Democratic Vistas’: 

“There is, in sanest hours, a consciousness, a thought that rises, independent, lifted out from all else, calm, like the stars, shining eternal … In such devout hours, in the midst of the significant wonders of heaven and earth, … creeds, conventions, fall away and become of no account …”

This hints at profound capabilities of the human mind, supported by physiology and DNA, that we can aspire to, that await development. If we are seeking the highest Truth in its broadest sense, we must remember that Truth is a unified state of Being. Others might refer to it as a state of Grace in the presence of the Will of God. Or as Einstein said: 

“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead.” 

Whatever we call TRUTH or however we describe the experience (and words always fall short), it is a timeless experience of Wholeness. An experience much needed in modern times. A firm anchor to ensure we are not swept off our feet by the ups and downs of circumstances and the machinations of unthinking politicians, unethical predators, and incautious experimenters. Truth can light a way ahead.

About the Author

New Zealand’s Guy Hatchard, PhD, is an international advocate of food safety and natural medicine. He was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification laboratory. He has lectured and advised governments in countries around the world on health and education initiatives.  You can find more articles by Hatchard on his website The Hatchard Report HERE.

 

Source: https://expose-news.com/2022/09/26/genetic-structures-and-human-consciousness/#respond

Haitian Singer Collapses on Stage and Dies Suddenly of Suspected Cardiac Arrest During Concert in Paris

 

 

Jim Hoft
October 16th

An internationally renowned Haitian singer has died suddenly of cardiac arrest while performing in Paris, France on Saturday.

Michael “Mikaben” Benjamin, a 41-year-old Haitian musician, died after collapsing on stage due to suspected cardiac arrest immediately after a performance with the popular Haitian band Carimi on Oct. 15 in Paris.

The official cause of death has not been determined, although it is suspected that the RnB singer died of cardiac arrest.

The performer can be seen stepping out on stage, and he suddenly collapsed in the now-viral video. A group of people rushed in to help him out.

Watch the video below:

The Haitian singer was already feeling under the weather before taking the stage.

Haitian Times reported:

Benjamin’s musical career spanned more than 20 years, after he rose to fame in Haiti and abroad in the early 2000s with major hits like “Ou Pati” and popular collaborations with fellow Haitian Music Industry (HMI) stars like Carimi, Alan Cave and DJ Michael Brun. His range of skills came in full display after Konpa Kreyol, a popular band, split into two groups — Kreyol La and Krezi Mizik — and the latter recruited Benjamin to be its lead singer.

Benjamin’s vocal range made Krezi a tour de force in the Haitian Music Industry. He sang melodies and could captivate a carnival audience, moving throngs of revelers from right to left as they waved their bandanas in near delirium.

Benjamin is the son of Lionel Benjamin, affectionately known as the “Haitian Santa Claus” for his popular Christmas song, Abdenwèl. The elder Benjamin told The Haitian Times last year that Michael relished music from a young age and enjoyed watching him rehearse.

Benjamin and Fanfan married in November 2020 and had a daughter one year later. According to his Instagram posts, the pair was expecting their second child in December 2022.

In his last tweet, in French, Benjamin wished his ‘older brothers’ Carimi good luck at the Paris concert and thanked the band for opening doors for musicians like him who came after the trio.

The Haitian communities worldwide paid tribute to the singer.

 

Source: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/haitian-singer-dies-suddenly-suspected-cardiac-arrest-collapsing-onstage-concert-paris-video/