All articles from February 23, 2021


News

Opinion

Blogs

Episodes

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on February 23, 2021.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on February 23, 2021.

News

Microsoft heads Big Tech project to judge truthfulness of online information

Critics view the Big Tech coalition's 'content provenance specifications' as the makings of a dystopian future in which free thought is effectively banned.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 8:53 pm EST
Featured Image
Anna Jurkovska / Shutterstock.com
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Several of the world’s largest tech and media companies have joined forces in a new globalist effort to combat “disinformation, misinformation and online content fraud” in a move that has raised concerns about the complete governance of the internet.

A press release issued February 22 by Microsoft stated that the computer and software company would be joined by Adobe, Arm, BBC, Intel, Microsoft, and Truepic, who would together form the “Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA).” The C2PA would have as its aim the tackling of what Microsoft termed the “prevalence of disinformation, misinformation and online content fraud through developing technical standards for certifying the source and history or provenance of media content.”

In order to effect this, the C2PA announced its plan to “establish a standardized provenance solution with the goal of combating misleading content.” Under the “solution” mentioned, the C2PA seeks to enable vast numbers of internet users to take part in locating any piece of information deemed “misinformation.” The statement reads: “C2PA member organizations will work together to develop content provenance specifications for common asset types and formats to enable publishers, creators and consumers to trace the origin and evolution of a piece of media, including images, videos, audio and documents.”

C2PA’s announcement pointed to the nature of the internet necessitating such an organization to build “trust” and stressed the need for collaboration among companies, whose purview extended to nearly all corners of the digital world: “Collaboration with chipmakers, news organizations, and software and platform companies is critical to facilitate a comprehensive provenance standard and drive broad adoption across the content ecosystem.”

The C2PA is not a novel idea, as Microsoft acknowledges that it builds upon the similar, pre-existing Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) and Project Origin. The latter is a joint effort of Microsoft, the BBC, CBC/Radio Canada, and the New York Times. These four organizations referred to the “growing threat” of “misinformation” and wrote that Project Origin would “establish a foundation for trust in media.”

“With the foundation of the C2PA, technical standards will be unified while these two entities [CAI and Project Origin] continue to pursue adoption, prototyping and education within their respective communities,” Microsoft announced.

Microsoft’s chief scientific officer and Project Origin executive sponsor Eric Horvitz mentioned that there was a “critical need to address widespread deception in online content.” In a blog post about the C2PA, Horvitz revealed that the organization is a brain child of the 2019 Davos meeting, the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting to organize and promote globalist agendas and social engineering.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Horvitz wrote that a key part of the “fight against disinformation is to develop and field technologies for certifying the origin, authenticity and history of online media.” With the arrival of the C2PA, headed by the U.K. news group BBC and software company Microsoft, online media looks set to be subject to the certifying, and authentication of organisations which are part of the C2PA, or merely conform to its directives and standards.

Such news of the formation of C2PA met with backlash from some online, as people were quick to comment on the potential dangers of the new organization. “‘Combat disinformation’ = ‘information we deem fit to be released to the pleb’,” wrote one Twitter user.

Irish media outlet Gript noted that the plans to vet information on the internet raise “all sorts of potential issues surrounding the accuracy and trustworthiness of so-called “official” information.” Gript noted the example of the World Health Organization’s messages in early January 2020 claiming that there was no evidence of any person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 before having to change its “official” statements shortly after.

The formation of the C2PA comes shortly after an opinion piece in the New York Times, one of the four members of the C2PA’s parent group Project Origin, advocated for the appointing of a “reality czar,” who would “tackle disinformation and domestic extremism.” The author, Kevin Roose, called for U.S. president Joe Biden to appoint someone who would solve what Roose styled a “reality crisis,” particularly with regard to COVID-19 and the recent U.S. presidential election.

One of the “experts” Roose appealed to in making his self-confessed “dystopian” argument mentioned how a “centralized task force” would join with “tech platforms” and thus “push for structural changes that could help those companies tackle their own extremism and misinformation problems.”

Only days before, Fox News host Tucker Carlson had warned that a “profound change” was taking place due to moves by the Biden regime to eradicate “forbidden ideas” — namely, those held especially by conservatives. “Your mind belongs to you. It is yours and yours alone,” stated Carlson. “Once politicians attempt to control what you believe, they are no longer politicians. They are by definition, dictators. And if they succeed in controlling what you believe, you are no longer a citizen. You are not a free man. You are a slave.”

Big Tech is increasingly censoring conservative and pro-life voices, particularly since the November presidential election. LifeSiteNews itself was recently completely banned from YouTube, resulting in the deletion of all videos from the channel, which had over 300,000 followers.


  bbc, big brother, big tech bias, censorship, dystopia, microsoft

News

Illinois Planned Parenthood bypasses 911 to avoid public record of medical emergency

Dialing 911 is the quickest way to get help in an emergency. However, Planned Parenthood chose to delay emergency care to prevent a public record from being created.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 8:11 pm EST
Featured Image
Anna Jurkovska / Shutterstock.com
Cheryl Sullenger
By Cheryl Sullenger

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

FLOSSMOOR, Illinois, February 23, 2021 (Operation Rescue) — The Flossmoor Planned Parenthood, in the Chicago suburb or Flossmoor, Illinois, summoned a private ambulance company for a woman who had suffered a medical emergency at the facility on February 3, 2021.

Dialing 911 is the quickest way to get help in an emergency. However, Planned Parenthood chose instead to delay emergency care to prevent a public record from being created that could have revealed the severity of the woman’s condition and alerted the public to the dangers of abortion.

“When abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood bypass the 911 system, they are doing it to cover up the fact that they hurt someone during an abortion.  Any concern for the life or health of the woman involved is secondary,” said Newman. “Planned Parenthood wants the public to think that abortions are the safest thing in the world, but incidents like this completely expose that lie.”

Image

In 2020, Operation Rescue documented 67 medical emergencies at abortion facilities nationwide — 30 of which took place at Planned Parenthood facilities.

Since the Flossmoor Planned Parenthood opened in 2018, Operation Rescue has documented six medical emergencies that required ambulance transport.

The most recent previous incident took place on October 9, 2020, when a Planned Parenthood caller urgently sought an ambulance for a woman who was “bleeding out” during an abortion.

Other medical emergencies at the Flossmoor Planned Parenthood include the following:

  • May 8, 2020: A woman suffered possible uterine perforation during abortion.
  • May 7, 2020: Video taken by a pro-life activist showed a female as she was wheeled out of Planned Parenthood on a gurney and loaded into a private ambulance.  No 911 records were available.
  • November 12, 2019: Abortion patient hemorrhaged.
  • December 14, 2018: A 34-year-old woman hemorrhaged after an abortion.  Planned Parenthood’s efforts to stop the hemorrhaging failed.

To learn more about abortion dangers, visit Abortion911.com for an archive of Operation Rescue’s reports on medical emergencies and patient deaths.

To learn more about the Flossmoor Planned Parenthood, visit its profile page on AbortionDocs.org.

HT: Pro-Life Action League

Published with permission from Operation Rescue.


  abortion, illinois, operation rescue, planned parenthood

News

White House enlists social media giants to suppress vaccine ‘misinformation’

As concerns about vaccine safety grow, the Biden administration is enlisting Big Tech’s help in removing social media posts that deviate from 'officially distributed' COVID-19 information.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 7:41 pm EST
Featured Image
Megan Redshaw, J.D.
By Megan Redshaw J.D.

February 23, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) — The White House is asking Big Tech giants Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc.’s Google to “clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information,” according to the New York Post and other news reports.

Reuters reported that Biden, concerned that “fear about taking the vaccine has emerged as a major impediment” to his administration’s pandemic plan, wants help from the social media moguls to keep “misinformation” from going viral.

“Vaccine hesitancy is a huge obstacle to getting everyone vaccinated and there are no larger players in that than the social media platforms,” a White House source told Reuters late last week.

Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain had previously said information questioning the COVID vaccine has caused others to question the vaccine. But the news out of Washington last week was the first sign that officials are directly engaged with Silicon Valley in censoring social media users, according to Reuters.

“Social media tycoons are now openly serving as government surrogates in censoring factually accurate information that departs from government policies and pronouncements,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., co-founder and chair of Children’s Health Defense.

The Biden administration wants to make sure that unfavorable material does not start trending on social media or become an even broader movement, citing concerns over a recent anti-vaccine protest at Los Angeles Dodgers Stadium which was organized through a Facebook page.

“We are talking to [social media companies] … so they understand the importance of misinformation and disinformation and how they can get rid of it quickly,” a White House source explained.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) last week criticized social media companies in a tweet accusing Facebook and Twitter of moving too slowly in responding to targeted harassment of people getting vaccinated and what Blumenthal described as “dangerous conspiracy theories.”

A spokesperson for Facebook told Reuters the company has reached out to the White House to offer any assistance they can provide and recently announced a new policy to remove COVID information the company deems false, along with pages, groups and accounts that repeatedly spread such material.

Twitter stated the company is in “regular communication with the White House on a number of critical issues including COVID-19 misinformation.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Google did not comment on engagement with the White House but did point to a company blog on how it stops the spread of misinformation.

In August, 2020 Children’s Health Defense filed a lawsuit charging Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and several fact-checking organizations with censoring truthful public health posts and for fraudulently misrepresenting and defaming the children’s health organization.

The complaint alleges that Facebook has insidious conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies and raised detailed factual allegations regarding the CDC, CDC Foundation, and WHO’s extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg calling into question Facebook’s joint action in a censorship campaign with the government.

Earlier this month, Kennedy’s Instagram account was deplatformed without advance notice for what the media claimed were “false COVID claims” or “vaccine misinformation.” Some reports falsely characterized Kennedy as an “anti-vaxxer.”

Kennedy unequivocally rejects those characterizations. He wrote in response to Instagram’s censorship:

“Every statement I put on Instagram was sourced from a government database, from peer-reviewed publications and from carefully confirmed news stories. None of my posts were false. Facebook, the pharmaceutical industry and its captive regulators use the term ‘vaccine misinformation’ as a euphemism for any factual assertion that departs from official pronouncements about vaccine health and safety, whether true or not. This kind of censorship is counterproductive if our objective is a safe and effective vaccine supply.”

As Kennedy has stated numerous times, “for a democracy to function, civil debate of issues — including vaccine science — must be allowed. Censorship of that debate is anathema to democracy.”

Many reports have raised serious questions about the safety of COVID vaccines, including adverse reactions and other possible long-term complications that deserve debate, Kennedy said.

The Defender reported in January that a Florida doctor died three days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. An expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins said in an interview with The New York Times, “I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.”Earlier this month, the CDC announced it was investigating the death of a 36-year-old doctor in Tennessee who died from an extremely rare multisystem inflammatory syndrome one month after getting his second dose of a COVID vaccination.

Drene Keyes, whose death is under investigation, died hours after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. She experienced flash pulmonary edema likely caused by anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, which some have experienced after receiving the COVID vaccine.

According to new data released Friday, as of Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System since Dec. 14, 2020. One-third of reported deaths occurred within 48 hours of receiving the COVID vaccine.

“While social media companies are private entities with rights to censor information they don’t like, the involvement of the government in censorship efforts implicates the First Amendment,” Kennedy said.

© February 22, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page.  View it here.


  big brother, big tech, censorship, children's health defense, coronavirus, coronavirus vaccine, facebook, google chrome, social media, twitter

News

Waitress fired for turning down COVID-19 vaccination over fertility concerns

A Brooklyn restaurant terminated a valued employee because she hesitated to receive a 'mandatory' inoculation.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 7:25 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page.  View it here. 

BROOKLYN, New York, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A would-be mom was fired from her waitressing job after saying she needed to research COVID-19 vaccines before taking one. 

Bonnie Jacobson, 34, was fired from Brooklyn’s Red Hook Tavern last Monday after informing her bosses that she would not be getting vaccinated right away. Jacobson and her husband were trying for a baby, and she was concerned about the effect a COVID-19 vaccine might have on her fertility. 

Restaurant staff in New York City have been declared “essential workers” and are therefore eligible to receive COVID-19 vaccines. On February 8, Red Hook Tavern sent its employees information about vaccines. Because Jacobson had already put off having a baby and was concerned about the effects of COVID-19 vaccines on fertility, she told her bosses at a staff meeting that she would need time to research the new treatment before accepting it. On February 12, however, Red Hook sent another email saying that the vaccine was mandatory. 

“Please be advised that we will require that all employees receive the vaccination,” the email stated.

“This will be mandatory for all existing employees and any new hires. The exception to this policy will be if your own personal health or disability prohibits you from obtaining this vaccination,” it continued. 

“We encourage you to consult your healthcare professional to determine if getting a vaccine is right for you.”

Jacobson wrote back to her bosses the next day to explain why getting the vaccine was not, in fact, right for her. 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“I am choosing not to get the vaccine because there just isn’t enough data or research at this point on its effects on fertility,” she wrote.

“While I fully support the vaccine and understand its importance, I do believe this is a very personal choice. I really hope this choice would not affect my employment at Red Hook Tavern.”

According to the Daily Mail, Jacobson said that she took the coronavirus very seriously and had been making sure she didn’t have it. 

“I get tested every 1-2 weeks and have never tested positive for COVID,” she wrote. “I plan to continue these safety practices for as long as necessary.”

The waitress also said that she would “reconsider” her position once there was more research to show that the vaccine did not affect fertility.

In response, Red Hook Tavern wrote to Jacobson on Monday, February 22 to say that she was fired. 

“In order to continue employment with us, getting the vaccine is required,” her bosses wrote. 

“At this time, your employment will be terminated. We are sad to see you go. If you do change your mind, please do not hesitate to let us know.” 

Jacobson indicated that she was shocked by the swift and impersonal way in which she was let go. 

“I just wanted more time. They didn’t allow me that,” she said. 

“I didn’t even have time to consult a physician. It was a week from being ‘your choice,’ to it's not going to be mandatory, to it is mandatory, to ‘you’re fired,’” she continued.

“I had a very good working relationship there. I just had an employee review on February 6 and it was all positive, so it was truly shocking that it was so impersonal.”

Red Hook Tavern owner Billy Durney told The New York Times after Jacobson’s firing made headlines that he wished he had handled the issue in a different way. 

“Once New York state allowed restaurant workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, we thought this was the perfect opportunity to put a plan in place to keep our team and guests safe,” Durney said by email.

“No one has faced these challenges before and we made a decision that we thought would best protect everyone,” he continued.
"... (W)e now realize that we need to update our policy so it’s clear to our team how the process works and what we can do to support them. We’re making these changes immediately.”

However, Jacobson has said that she hasn’t been offered her job back and does not want to return. 

It is as yet unknown what effects the coronavirus vaccines might have on human fertility. 

In December 2020, the U.K. government published a guide to medical professionals about the Pfizer vaccine recommending that it not be taken by pregnant women and advised women of childbearing age not to get pregnant within two months of accepting their second dose. Women were also warned that the vaccine should not be used during breastfeeding, as its effect on babies was still unknown. Regarding fertility, the 10-page “Reg 174 Information for UK Healthcare Professionals” said only that it was “unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact.” 

Also in December, two doctors wrote to the European Medicine Agency, which is responsible for the safety of vaccines, in an attempt to stop human trials of all COVID-19 vaccines, especially the Pfizer vaccine. Among other concerns, Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former head of Pfizer’s respiratory research, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a health policy adviser, warned that some of the vaccines may prevent the safe development of placentas in pregnant women, resulting in “vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.” 

“Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2,” the doctors wrote.  

“Syncytin-1 (…) which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses,” they continued.  

“There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case, this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta, which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.”

The doctors suggested that because the Pfizer trial protocol says that “women of child-bearing potential” can take part only if they are not pregnant or breastfeeding and are using contraception, it could take “a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of post-vaccination infertility could be observed.”

In a British study of COVID-19 vaccine side effects, five miscarriages were reported after the use of the Pfizer vaccine and three after taking the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.


  brooklyn, covid-19 vaccine, fertility, mandatory vaccinations, new york, pregnancy

News

Health officials push pregnant women to get COVID shots, despite known risks

With no data showing COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant women, and despite reports of miscarriages among women who have received the experimental Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Fauci and other health officials advise pregnant women to get the vaccine.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 7:24 pm EST
Featured Image
Children's Health Defense.
Children’s Health Defense
By Children's Health Defense

February 23, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) — In December, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization to two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against COVID-19. Because the unapproved vaccines’ status is investigational, anyone who gets an injection (whether they realize it or not) is agreeing to participate in an ongoing experiment.

Recognizing that there are many unknowns, many Americans have refused the experimental jab, including members of the armed forces and healthcare workers, but with one notable exception: healthcare providers who are pregnant.

Even without data from Pfizer or Moderna sufficient “to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy,” expectant doctors, nurses and others appear eager for the shots, perhaps influenced by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which states that neither a conversation with a clinician nor even a pregnancy test are necessary prerequisites.

Do these individuals know that as of Feb. 12, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had already received 111 reports of adverse events experienced by women who were pregnant at the time of their Pfizer or Moderna injection?

The first such report was submitted Dec. 22, just 10 days after authorization of the Pfizer vaccine. Nearly a third (31%) of the women had miscarriages or preterm births, which occurred within as little as one day of injection — the majority after a single dose of vaccine.

Red flags

The descriptions of miscarriages and premature births accompanying the VAERS reports are tragic and hair-raising.

For example, a 37-year-old who received her first dose of the Moderna vaccine at 28 weeks of pregnancy, just after an ultrasound showed a healthy placenta, was discovered to have “significant placenta issues just one week later.” A repeat ultrasound showed that the placenta had “calcified and aged prematurely,” leading to recommended hospitalization for the duration of her pregnancy.

A 35-year-old, also vaccinated at around 29 weeks of pregnancy, “noticed decreased motion of the baby” two days after receiving the Pfizer injection. The following day, “the baby was found to not have a heartbeat.”

Two Pfizer vaccine recipients in earlier stages of pregnancy (first trimester) had miscarriages after experiencing “intolerable” abdominal pain and uterine bleeding extensive enough, in one case, to require “emergency surgery and a blood transfusion.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

At least some of the individuals submitting these reports — taking stock of the tight temporal relationship between vaccination and adverse event — clearly judged it premature to rule out vaccine causality, especially in cases where the women were otherwise healthy and taking no other drugs or vaccines.

Nonetheless, in unsupported statements parroted without question by the media, Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed on Jan. 21 and again on Feb. 3 that “no red flags” had surfaced for vaccinated pregnant women.

Bizarrely, Fauci’s January comments indicated that 20,000 pregnant women had received COVID vaccines, while in subsequent remarks, he halved his apparently off-the-cuff estimate to 10,000.

Fauci’s willingness to make light of potential COVID vaccine risks for pregnant women, only two months into the rollout of experimental vaccines, defies logic. Fauci is not only the Biden administration’s chief medical advisor but the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (which holds patents and will receive royalties for the Moderna vaccine).

Fauci surely knows that without substantive data — including birth registry data, medical records and complete information about all trimesters of pregnancy and birth outcomes for all of the vaccinated women and as-yet unborn babies receiving the unapproved vaccines — it is impossible to claim that risks are either known, or that they even have been evaluated.

Moderna’s fact sheet states that the company is enrolling vaccinated women into a “pregnancy exposure registry.” The University of Washington is doing the same for COVID vaccine recipients who are either “pregnant, postpartum, lactating and/or contemplating pregnancy.”

However, neither entity is anywhere close to being able to issue pronouncements about their findings.

Interestingly, the World Health Organization on Jan. 27 issued guidance advising against pregnant women getting Moderna’s COVID vaccine — only to reverse that guidance two days later, as The New York Times reported.

Hands off no more?

Historically, pregnant women have been cautious about getting vaccinated or participating in vaccine clinical trials. In turn, vaccine developers have excluded them from trials, acknowledging the difficulty of tallying risks versus benefits.

Documented risks of vaccination during pregnancy include miscarriage as well as neurodevelopmental problems arising from maternal immune activation (an inflammatory response in the mother that can harm fetal brain development).

However, as psychiatrist Peter Breggin has written (describing the seven-decade-old branch of public health science focused on fear appeals), behavioral scientists know that “fear is a powerful motivator and can drive humans to be more easily manipulated into doing things they would ordinarily resist doing.”

Understood in this context, it is easy to see how two decades of badgering from the pharmaceutical-industry-funded and Gates-funded media about exotic health threats — including H1N1 influenza in 2009, Zika in 2015-16 and now COVID-19 — might wear down the protective instincts of mothers-to-be, and especially those of younger women with less life experience.

In addition to capitalizing on the media attention created by sporadic epidemics, public health officials and vaccine manufacturers have also successfully used outbreaks of illnesses like influenza and pertussis as wedges to spur a “paradigm shift in vaccine research and development as well as … policy regarding immunization in pregnancy,” according to “Who’s the Target? Mother or Baby”?

In the mid-2000s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stirred up concern about flu and pertussis and aggressively stepped up its recommendations for routine vaccination of pregnant women.

As a result, roughly three out of five American women now receive either influenza or Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis) shots during pregnancy, while two out of five receive both.

Studies of influenza vaccination during pregnancy link the shots, some of which contain thimerosal, to vastly increased risks of miscarriage as well as autism.

And Tdap vaccines contain neurotoxic aluminum. While the developmental consequences of such widespread fetal exposure to aluminum can be suspected, they are difficult to pinpoint. That’s partly because most Tdap “safety” studies are short-term (and focus on pertussis disease rather than developmental outcomes) and also because babies immediately encounter an “absurdly high” load of aluminum in their early childhood vaccines.

However, placental tissues and miscarried fetuses display high concentrations of aluminum, and high blood aluminum in the mother is associated with a risk of birth defects.

The package insert for one of the leading brands of Tdap describes outcomes ranging from miscarriage to stillbirth, and major birth defects in women exposed to the vaccine before the third trimester.

Wider concerns

In 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act established a Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women. With the task force in place, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) now appears willing to ignore the ethical principles that historically have required researchers to put special research safeguards in place for pregnant women.

Instead, virtuously advocating for “greater inclusion” of pregnant women in COVID vaccine clinical trials, the NIH is making the convoluted case that it is better to “protect” pregnant women “through research rather than from research.”

No sooner said than done: Pfizer and partner BioNTech just announced (on Feb. 19) the launch of a trial that will formally test their COVID vaccine in 4,000 pregnant women.

There are multiple reasons why pregnant women might question the push for “inclusion” — not least are the concerns about possible infertility outlined in a petition filed with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on Dec. 1.

According to the petition’s authors — Dr. Michael Yeadon (one-time head of respiratory research at Pfizer) and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (former head of the German public health department) — there is plausible evidence to suggest that the spike proteins in the mRNA vaccines could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, a protein “responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans” that is “an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy.”

When a COVID vaccine recipient’s placenta has been verified through ultrasound as healthy and normal at the time of vaccination, but within a week shows up as “calcified” and prematurely aged, shouldn’t that raise a “red flag”?

The push to vaccinate all pregnant women also highlights another subtle and even more disturbing issue, one that is a central focus of a lawsuit filed in federal court in December. As the attorneys leading the lawsuit point out, “control groups are necessary to the scientific method” — and particularly essential when it comes to assessing both the short- and long-term risks of vaccination.

The attorneys represent The Control Group, which completed a pilot survey showing “1,248% better health for unvaccinated adults and 1,099% better health for unvaccinated children” compared with their vaccinated counterparts.

If regulators and an acquiescent public continue with the willy-nilly “experimental biological alteration of the human immune system” — not only vaccinating “cradle to grave” but also pre-cradle — there will soon be no healthy, unvaccinated group left to compare against those who have been vaccinated.

© February 23, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page.  View it here.


  abortion, children's health defense, coronavirus, coronavirus vaccines, miscarriage, modern medicine, moderna, pfizer

News

Spanish supreme court suspends excessive COVID restrictions on Masses

Until now, in parts of Spain only 25 faithful could assist at Mass even at huge cathedrals.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 5:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Burgos cathedral in Spain Shutterstock
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

MADRID, Spain, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Following a recourse by an association of Christian lawyers, the Supreme Tribunal of Spain suspended COVID restrictions on public Masses in the autonomous region of Castilla y León north of Madrid. The region includes the historic university town of Salamanca, as well as Segovia, Burgos, Valladolid and Avila — where saint Teresa founded her first reformed Carmel. It is a region of massive churches and monumental cathedrals, where according to local government rules, only 25 faithful could assist at Mass. Indeed, the same limit applied to outdoor Masses.

The Asociación Abogados Cristianos had asked the Supreme Tribunal for a “provisional measure” in order to protect the rights and liberties of church-goers. The Tribunal agreed that the sanitary measure limiting attendance to 25 people even in the largest churches — the nave of the cathedral of Burgos is 5,000 square meters — was “patently disproportionate” because it did not take into account the location or the characteristics and measurements of buildings involved, and did not even distinguish between celebrations taking place inside or outside.

Some of the churches in the region can house several thousand people. On the other hand, the rule was also disproportionate because it allowed 24 people to join for worship in a small chapel or room with the same maximum capacity. Abogados Cristianos highlighted this point during the hearing and also argued that there should be no maximum number of worshipers allowed: instead, security and hygiene measures and their feasibility in a given venue should be looked at.

The measures that had been put into place on January 15 by the “Junta” (autonomous government) of Castille and Leon were also suspended because their duration was indefinitely extended until the end of the sanitary “state of emergency” and because they were extended indiscriminately to all locations without taking their differences into account. It added that the “risk of contagion” is the “enabling element” for restrictions: in other words, it needs to be verifiable if limits are to be imposed.

The limit to public worship “is without doubt burdensome for the practice of collective demonstrations of the Catholic religion, it affects a fundamental right and its proportionality is patently inadequate,” decided the high court in acceding to the Christian Lawyers’ request.

Last Sunday, hundreds of Catholics joined a public demonstration organized by that association in front of the Saint Benedict church of Valladolid with the theme: “Respect my faith.”

The “Junta” of Castille and Leon appears to have been expecting the rejection of its anti-religious measures, having already been disavowed a few days earlier when the Supreme Tribunal decided that the 8 p.m. curfew set up in the region by the authorities was illegal, because the declaration of the state of emergency only allows regional curfews to start between 10 p.m. and midnight.

So last Friday, more than a month after having established “patently disproportionate” restrictions on public worship, the regional government took the precaution of modifying its 25-person rule, authorizing church attendance up to one third of churches’ capacity — of which it had acknowledged, during the hearing, that it often goes far beyond 25 people.

Despite this relaxation of rules which according to the “Junta” made the ruling of the Supreme Tribunal pointless, Abogados Cristianos decided not to step down and to continue judicial proceedings. President Polonia Castellanos explained last Friday that the aim was to “avoid this sort of thing happening again.” She added that the measure they had fought was “totally discriminatory” and that “no leader of an autonomous government has the competency to restrict a fundamental right such as religious freedom.”

Abogados Cristianos were probably right to be cautious even in the face of good news. Last Friday, when the announcement was made that the 25-person rule was being lifted, León Francisco Igea of the Ciudadanos party made clear that if he had had the choice, he would have closed all churches in Castille and Leon in January “because that was what the situation called for.”

“I don’t care who says it; it doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible or in the New Testament that you have to say Amen to everything a Cardinal says. I have a lot of respect for the Catholic hierarchy, but I have even more respect for the message; and the message of the Gospel leads me to protect the lives of my brethren and I do what I think I have to do as a politician and as a Chrisian,” said Igea. He suggested that the best of messages can end up “in the hands of a seedy messenger.”

A few days earlier, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares of Valencia had said he almost cried when he found his cathedral nearly empty for Mass, adding that restrictions to public worship in many autonomous regions had gone beyond what is reasonable. In his pastoral letter, he wrote: “I sincerely believe that in the present circumstances, at least some autonomous governments are overdoing it with regard to religious freedom by humiliatingly reducing the number of people allowed to participate in the celebration of Holy Mass in churches.”

In many regions, including Castilla y León, theaters and cinemas are allowed to operate with restrictions in most places as well as supermarkets, bars, and restaurants.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Most have a gage for churches of between 30 and 50 percent of capacity, with only 25 percent and singing prohibited in Aragón, and 75 percent in Navarra, while churches are required to shut by 9 p.m. in Madrid.

Abogados Cristianos also challenged restrictions on public worship in the region of Cantabria (northern Spain) where only 10 people can assist at Mass in four municipalities under lockdown.

As in France last May, the Spanish bishops complained more or less strongly against restrictions, but left it to lay groups to initiate legal proceedings.


  catholic, covid restrictions, spain

News

Florida commissioner defies DeSantis order to lower flags for Rush Limbaugh

The Democrat refuses to follow the Florida governor's directive, calling the deceased popular talk radio host a symbol of 'hate speech bigotry, and division.'
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 4:55 pm EST
Featured Image
RushLimbaugh.com
Calvin Freiburger
By Calvin Freiburger

February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – One Florida bureaucrat is refusing to comply with Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s order that flags be flown at half-staff in honor of Rush Limbaugh, smearing the recently-deceased conservative media icon and Florida native as a figure of “hate speech, bigotry, and division.”

Limbaugh died Wednesday morning at age 70 after a battle with Stage IV lung cancer. He had announced his diagnosis February 2020, vowing to “come here every day I can and to do this program as normally and as competently and as expertly as I do each and every day,” a promise he kept going into the last month of his life.

DeSantis issued the order to lower flags on Friday, but on Monday state Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, a Democrat, announced that government buildings under her purview would not comply.

“Lowering to half-staff the flag of the United States of America is a sacred honor that pays respect to fallen heroes and patriots. It is not a partisan political tool,” she said, before launching into a partisan political attack on Limbaugh. “Therefore, I will notify all state offices under my direction to disregard the Governor's forthcoming order to lower flags for Mr. Limbaugh – because we will not celebrate hate speech, bigotry, and division. Lowering the flag should always reflect unity, not division, and raising our standards, not lowering them. Our flags will remain flying high to celebrate the American values of diversity, inclusion, and respect for all.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The Agricultural Commissioner is elected independently of the governor in the Sunshine State, and as such DeSantis lacks the authority to force Fried’s compliance.

Despite Fried’s suggestion that DeSantis is using the flag-lowering power for partisanship, WCTV noted that last fall DeSantis also ordered that flags be lowered in recognition of the death of left-wing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with whom the conservative governor significantly disagreed.

DeSantis is popular among conservatives for tackling issues such as Common Core, illegal immigration, and online censorship, as well as for navigating the COVID-19 crisis without curtailing freedom – a record that has many on the Right hoping he will challenge President Joe Biden for the White House in 2024.


  democrats, florida, left-wing hate, nikki fried, ron desantis, rush limbaugh

News

LifeSite joins effort asking state attorneys general to investigate Big Tech for ‘deceptive trade practices’

'Google/YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook therefore all appear to be engaging in deceptive trade practices,' and thus 'they are open to investigation in your state under your state’s consumer protections laws.'
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 4:51 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
David McLoone David McLoone Follow
By

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – LifeSiteNews and dozens of conservative organizations are petitioning state attorneys general to begin investigating Big Tech for “deceptive trade practices.”

Today the Media Research Center (MRC) released a letter co-signed by LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen calling for probes into Google, Facebook, and Twitter for possible violations of the Consumer Protection Statute in each state.

Representatives of Students for Life of America, the American Principles Project, the Center for Family and Human Rights, the Babylon Bee, and other conservative organizations also signed the letter.

It asserts that Facebook, Twitter, and Google, which owns YouTube, “may have knowingly and intentionally violated their terms of service by publicly claiming their services were neutral platforms when in fact they are not.”

As evidence, the MRC included the sworn testimony of the CEOs of each of the companies in question, wherein the executives all claim that their products are “non-partisan platforms for communication.”

For example, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey told the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that “Twitter’s purpose is to serve the public conversation. People from around the world come together on Twitter in an open and free exchange of ideas.”

Twitter and Facebook ‘cancel’ conservatives, not liberals

The letter pointed out that this contrasts directly with the actions taken by Twitter following the January 6 riot at the US. Capitol, at which time the social media giant “made the unprecedented move to remove President Trump’s account – as well as his campaign account – altogether from its platform.”

MRC also noted that Twitter “censored President Donald Trump’s personal and campaign Twitter account 625 times, and never once censored anything Joe Biden said on Twitter.”

The CEO of Google and its subsidiary YouTube has claimed that the company is committed to “protecting the quality and integrity of information on our platforms, and supporting our democracy in a non-partisan way,” adding that “We approach our work without political bias, full stop.”

But the experiences of PragerU and The Federalist have been anything but unbiased, MRC stressed: “Google threatened to demonetize The Federalist and severely limit the reach of PragerU, an influential conservative organization which utilizes videos to spread conservatives [sic] ideals.” MRC also pointed out that free speech social media alternative Parler was removed from Google’s Play Store, leaving android smartphone users unable to download and access the platform.

As a confirmation of their biases, MRC showed that, while Facebook and Twitter have a clear record of “cancelling” conservative commentary on their platforms, “neither Facebook’s [Mark] Zuckerberg nor Twitter’s Dorsey could come up with a single example” of censoring a liberal-leaning account during a Senate hearing in October 2020.

MRC concluded from the foregoing that “Google/YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook therefore all appear to be engaging in deceptive trade practices,” and thus “they are open to investigation in your state under your state’s consumer protections laws.”

The letter also mentioned the undeniable “key role” of Big Tech in “swaying the election to make Joe Biden president of the United States.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

In addition to having our own channel completely removed from YouTube, just this morning LifeSiteNews took another blow from Google, which moved to de-platform us from its Google News and Google Discover interfaces following an alleged breach of their content policies.

The alleged breach was in relation to articles published on LifeSiteNews that contain accurate medical information regarded by Google as violating their “medical content” policy: “We do not allow content … from any site that contradicts or runs contrary to scientific or medical consensus and evidence-based best practices.”

The guidelines stipulate that “[s]imple deletion of violating content” is not sufficient to have Google lift the ban, but that a thorough “[r]eview and update” of our content “to comply” with their policies is necessary, if we wish to be restored on their Discover and News platforms.

LifeSite was informed that a normal Google search for our website and pages will not be affected by the ban.

You can contact your state attorney general here to send them a copy of MRCs professionally drafted letter.


  big tech, big tech bias, big tech censorship, free speech, media research center

News

Pastor said government has no business telling churches what to do. Then, he was jailed

‘Caesar has no jurisdiction here,’ said Canadian pastor James Coates, who kept his church open despite government lockdowns.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 4:29 pm EST
Featured Image
Pastor James Coates GraceLife Church of Edmonton / YouTube
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

CONTACT YOUR MP: Free Pastor Coates and protect people of faith! Contact your MP, here.

EDMONTON, Alberta, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Jailed Canadian Pastor James Coates took direct aim at government-imposed COVID-19 restrictions in Alberta in his last sermon before being locked up, saying he refuses to “give the government what isn’t theirs.” He said the government has “no jurisdiction” to tell churches what to do, adding it should repent.

“For the first time in my ministry, the government is reaching into the life of the church. That’s my domain, that’s the domain of the elders here at Grace Life Church, that’s the Lord Jesus Christ’s domain,” said Coates in a sermon titled, “Directing Government to its Duty.”

“Attempting to dictate to us the terms of worship is not the government’s jurisdiction, and I refused to give the government what isn’t theirs. Caesar has no jurisdiction here.”

The sermon was Coates’ last before being jailed last week, and was given on February 14.

On that Sunday, Coates held a church service in violation of a January 29 order by Alberta Health Services (AHS) demanding that the church doors remain shut. Coates’ church is located in Spruce Grove, Alberta, close to Alberta’s capital city of Edmonton.

Coates was later notified by the RCMP that they planned to arrest him for defying the COVID-19 shutdown order. The police also asked him to turn himself in. Coates complied and was jailed for ministering to his congregation

He remains in prison, awaiting trial, after refusing to agree to bail conditions that he promise not to hold more church services that violate government COVID-19 restrictions.

Coates said that government needs to be informed of its “God-ordained” purpose and that people have a “responsibility” to ensure leaders understand it is the church that is the pillar of truth.

In his sermon, Coates noted that the “reason we’re to be subject to the governing authorities” is because all “authority is from God.”

“That means all authority originates with God, which means all authority is delegated authority, and that means the governing authorities are accountable to who? To God,” said Coates. “In other words, the governing authorities have a stewardship from God for which they will be judged. They are not autonomous, they are not sovereign they are servants of God.”

Coates noted that the way to counter “unjust” government rules can take many forms, such as writing one’s local MLA or the Premier of the province.

He then noted more “confrontational” ways to protest, such as initiating a legal dispute, or ultimately, to do what his church has done and continues to do: to meet contrary to local COVID-19 edicts.

“You can also do what we’re doing. By meeting were testifying the government has no jurisdiction here, not with regard to our worship, by simply being open, and by garnering the attention we have which is not our choice but it is come,” said Coates.

“We’re showing the government they’ve overstepped their authority, regardless of whether their excuse is a so-called pandemic or not, and so by obeying Christ in this way the government is being forced to consider what their authority actually is.”

Coates noted that if a government realizes they are accountable to God but choose to restrict religious freedoms, they are “suppressing the truth.”

“How many governments actually know they’re accountable to God? Do you think our government knows it’s accountable to God? Not likely, and if it does, it is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness,” said Coates.

Coates then said that if “the church refuses to fulfill this role and function,” then it’s “walking in negligence.”

“I’m doing what I am doing in obedience to Christ,” noted Coates.

CONTACT YOUR MP: Free Pastor Coates and protect people of faith! Contact your MP, here.

In his sermon, Coates noted that complying with “unbiblical and unjust government laws is neither faithful nor loving.”

“Affirming the government has an authority it doesn’t actually have is neither faithful nor loving. It doesn’t demonstrate true love for those in authority, it doesn’t demonstrate true love for our neighbor, it doesn’t demonstrate true love for the church, it doesn’t demonstrate true love primarily for the Lord Jesus Christ,” said Coates.

Coates also mentioned that the “right to life,” the right to “work,” and the right to be with one’s family, especially when they are dying, are fundamental rights.

“We live in a fallen world. Viruses are inevitable in a fallen world and it isn’t the government’s responsibility to protect us from a virus. What’s their responsibility to protect our God-given rights,” said Coates.

Coates called for respect for law enforcement, but that they need “to do the right thing,” noting that he has received a lot of support from officers across the country.

Open your churches”

This past Saturday, Coates’ wife told a crowd gathered at the jail site where her husband is being held that the best way to protest his incarceration is to “open your churches.”

At the protest, Erin Coates also encouraged the crowd to listen to her jailed husband’s last sermon, given on February 14.

Under the current Alberta COVID rules, churches and other places of worship can operate at no more than 15 percent of the capacity allowed by the building fire code. Masks are mandatory, as are the sanitation of hands and keeping away from other people.

Grace Life said that the frequent inspections by AHS officials could be “a potential criminal offense, pursuant to section 176(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada,” which bans the interrupting or disturbing of a religious worship service.

Last week, the Premier Jason Kenney of Alberta released a statement regarding the jailing of Coates, saying his imprisonment is “unfortunate,” but that Coates had “flagrantly” violated COVID rules.  

Kenney went on to proclaim that he is protecting “fundamental freedoms of religion” in his province, despite the fact that Coates remains behind bars.

Kenney also took aim at Coates’ sermon. He said during a talk-show interview with radio host and former Alberta MLA Danielle Smith that Coates is irresponsible for delivering “libertarian sermons” during COVID-19, noting that he would not get involved in what he considers to be a “legal case.”

According to the legal team representing Coates and Grace Life, however, Coates was — despite claims from Kenney — “jailed” for holding a church service. 

“For the first time ever, Alberta has arrested and incarcerated a Christian minister for the ‘crime’ of holding a church service,” reads a portion of a letter addressed to Kenney regarding Coates from Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) President John Carpay.

When speaking of Kenney, Coates said that it’s “interesting our Premier just recently wanted to talk about the death rate and how the death rate is greater in South Dakota than it is in Alberta.”

“Jason Kenney’s responsibility isn’t to govern the death rate. He’s not responsible for the death rates; it’s not his responsibility,” said Coates. “God is responsible for the death rates, he’s responsible to protect our God-given, God-ordained inalienable rights.”

Over the weekend, an anti-lockdown protest was held in Medicine Hat outside the office of Alberta United Conservative Party (UCP) MLA Drew Barnes, with many present voicing their support for Coates.

Some protestors were seen holding signs demanding that Kenney release Coates. 

Barnes has been one of the few Alberta MLAs from Kenney’s government who has publicly voiced opposition to his government's COVID-19 lockdowns. 

At the protest, Barnes said that the he will always “fight for” Alberta families and their freedoms, saying that “we are taking this message, we’re passing it along to Premier Kenney, we’re passing it along to all of the UCP caucus.”  

“This is about Alberta’s future, this is about creating the type of future where it’s faith not fear, where it’s about families … self reliance.” 

CONTACT YOUR MP: Free Pastor Coates and protect people of faith! Contact your MP, here.

Contact information for respectful communications:

Premier of Alberta Jason Kenney

Office of the Premier
307 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta  T5K 2B6

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 780-427-2251

To contact your local MLA, visit the link below.:

https://www.assembly.ab.ca/members/members-of-the-legislative-assembly


  drew barnes, james coates, lockdowns

News

Pope Francis thanks ministers, teachers for ‘what you do’ at pro-LGBT LA Religious Ed Congress

The Pope praised the controversial Los Angeles Religious Education Congress for its 'long and fruitful journey.'
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 4:20 pm EST
Featured Image
Pope Francis addresses the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress via video address, Feb. 18, 2021. RECongress / Youtube screen grab
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

LOS ANGELES, California, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis praised the pro-LGBT Los Angeles Religious Education Congress last week for its “long and fruitful journey” over the past 65 years, thanking the various dissident “ministers and teachers” at the event “for what you do.”

“Dear brothers and sisters, a warm greeting to all the participants in the Congress on Religious Education sponsored by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which is celebrating its 65th anniversary,” the Pope said in a February 18 video address to the conference which is sponsored by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles headed by Archbishop José Gómez.

“Congratulations for these initiatives, which have already undertaken a long and fruitful journey, and which are currently taking place in virtual form,” he added (read full address here).

The congress, forced to go online this year due to COVID-19 restrictions, is billed as the largest annual gathering of Catholics in the U.S., sometimes drawing as many as 40,000 people for the three-day event. Celebrating its 65th anniversary this year, the conference has a history of providing a platform for dissident Catholic speakers, pushing for the normalization of homosexuality within the Catholic Church, and promoting liturgical novelties.

Last year, the congress displayed works by openly homosexual Jesuit priest William Hart McNichols whose portfolio includes “AIDS Crucifixion” which is an image of the crucified Christ in underwear with the sign “AIDS, homosexual, faggot, pervert, sodomite” pinned on top of the cross.

The theme for this year’s event was “Proclaim the promise.”

Speakers at the conference included pro-LGBT Jesuit priest Fr. James Martin; Jesuit priest Gregory Boyle, who openly dissents from Church teaching on homosexual “marriage,” women “priests,” and worthiness to receive Holy Communion; and San Diego’s pro-LGBT bishop Robert McElroy, who has challenged abortion being labeled as the “preeminent” issue by his brother bishops in the U.S. election. McElroy’s keynote address at this year’s event was titled “What is Truth?”

It does not come as a surprise that Pope Francis would speak at an event with a reputation for pro-LGBT activism. Last year, the Pope in the documentary “Francesco” called for the creation of a “civil union law” for homosexuals, which is contrary to Catholic teaching, so that “they are legally covered.” He also allowed Fr. James Martin to speak at the 2018 World Meeting of Families and met with him personally in an audience in 2019. Pope Francis began his pontificate with his now-infamous “who am I to judge” comment in 2013 when asked about homosexuality.

Terry Barber, founder of Saint Joseph Communications and Lighthouse Catholic Media, told LifeSiteNews that it “makes sense” that Pope Francis would be invited to speak at the congress and that the Pope would accept the invitation.

“Pope Francis is welcomed to a congress like this because he represents a lot of those people thinking that the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ is here in Francis, even though that ‘spirit of Vatican II’ has nothing to do with Vatican II.”

Barber, who currently runs The Terry and Jesse Show on Virgin Most Powerful Radio, said that he has been thrown out of the LA Religious Education Congress “many times” since he first started attending it in 1973 as a vendor in his attempt to bring some orthodoxy to the event. 

“There are so many dissenters who speak at this congress,” he said.

He pointed out that Francis is “not giving Catholics a good example of what his predecessors have taught.”

“Pope Francis does not teach the perennial teachings of the Church. As a successor of Peter, he is supposed to confirm us in the faith, and unfortunately, he is not confirming us in the faith in coming up with different teachings in morality, as in Amoris laetitia.”

Barber said that the Pope speaking at the congress will only lend credibility to the dissident positions it advocates for.

He said that Catholics need to pray for the Pope.

Pope Francis told young people participating in this year’s congress that they must become “the poets of a new human beauty, a new fraternal and friendly beauty.”

While the Pope did not explain what he meant by a “new human beauty,” he did quote extensively in his 553-word address from his latest encyclical Fratelli tutti where he writes about human brotherhood.

He also spoke about the COVID-19 outbreak as an occasion to “build tomorrow,” a theme that has been taken up by global elites who champion what they call the “great reset.”

“The pandemic has marked the life of the people and history of our community. Faced with this and other situations, it is necessary to build tomorrow, to look to the future and, to do so, it takes effort, strength and dedication on the part of everyone,” the Pope said.

“Crises confront us with the need to choose and to commit ourselves to a path,” he added later in his address.

Francis greeted young people “especially,” inviting them to “hope.”

“I greet young people especially. I invite you to hope, which ‘speaks to us of something deeply rooted in every human heart, independently of our circumstances and historical conditioning’ (Fratelli tutti, 55). You young people, be the poets of a new human beauty, a new fraternal and friendly beauty!”

Catholic U.K. commentator Deacon Nick Donnelly had hoped that Pope Francis would use the occasion of his address to help steer the conference back toward authentic Catholicism.

“The LA Congress has a history of promoting dissent from the doctrines of the Faith, especially by giving a platform to LGBT activists who publicly repudiate Church teaching on the immorality of homosexual sex,” he said in comments earlier this month.

“Pope Francis has a real opportunity in his online appearance to address and correct this scandal. It would give hope to faithful parents, teachers and clergy who have had to endure this annual assault against the Faith for decades. However tragically for the US Church, this pope has professed himself unable to judge on such matters.”

“Under his pontificate emboldened clergy, such as Fr. James Martin SJ and Bishop McElroy, have sunk to new depths of subversion against the dignity of human sexuality safeguarded by natural law and divine revelation,” Donnelly continued.

“I fear that instead of a chastened LA Congress we will witness it descending into even more extreme defiance of God and His Church. This will have very dangerous consequences for the children subjected to this corrupted vision of Catholic education,” he concluded.


  catholic, homosexuality, la rec, los angeles religious education congress, pope francis

News

Google bans LifeSite from AdSense, Discover, and News features

YouTube, which is part of Google, had already deleted LifeSite's YouTube account several weeks ago.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 3:17 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Internet giant Google has barred LifeSiteNews from its AdSense advertising program as well as its Discover and News surfaces, citing alleged “dangerous or derogatory content” the company declined to identify.

On February 20, LifeSite received an email notifying us that LifeSiteNews “is not currently in compliance with our AdSense Program policies and as a result, ad serving has been disabled on your site.”

Google claims LifeSite published “dangerous or derogatory content,” though did not produce examples to support that claim. 

Instead, it included a generic notice that the company forbids content that “incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization”; “harasses, intimidates, or bullies an individual or group of individuals”; “threatens or advocates for harm to oneself or others”; “relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative, scientific consensus”; or “exploits others through extortion.”

The email did not produce examples of LifeSite violating any of these conditions, either.

On Tuesday, Google also notified LifeSite that we “are no longer eligible to appear on Discover or News surfaces, which highlight and suggest content beyond simple search results. “These actions do not affect how your site or pages appear on Search outside of News and Discover surfaces, including Search web results,” the company claims.

This warning did come with one example: a February 4 LifeSite article detailing an interview former University of Virginia school of medicine profesor Dr. David Martin gave on mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and the distinction between vaccination and gene therapy.

Google did not identify any factual errors in the piece, but said simply that it forbids “content from any site that contradicts or runs contrary to scientific or medical consensus and evidence-based best practices” — a standard that, if universally adopted, would stagnate scientific consensus by crippling open debate.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

These developments follow Google-owned YouTube’s deletion this month of deletion this month of LifeSite’s entire channel and the entire library of videos published to it, effectively cutting off 300,000 followers’ access to this publication’s pro-life, pro-family content through that platform. The move was apparently in retaliation for a handful of recent videos about COVID-19 vaccines.

“Just like when we were barred from Twitter for calling a biological male a male, we will continue to speak the truth and will not give in to the threats of Big Tech and the censors who wish to  remove inconvenient  truths from the public square,” says LifeSiteNews co-founder and editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen.

Fortunately, LifeSite readers can still access LifeSite video content via our main channel on alternate video platform Rumble and on our LifeSiteNews Catholic Rumble channel, and can click here to sign up to be notified whenever LifeSiteNews publishes new videos. Please help us build Rumble and our other alternative platforms by donating through our secure link: https://give.lifesitenews.com/?utm_source=article_adsenseban 


  big tech, free speech, google, google ads, internet, lifesitenews

News

US Senate urged to reject Biden’s radically anti-life nominee to lead Health Department

'Becerra has spent his entire career promoting pro-abortion laws and vindictively targeting pro-lifers. He’s not just pro-abortion; he’s anti-life'
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 3:02 pm EST
Featured Image
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra Justin Sullivan / Staff / Getty
Patrick Delaney Patrick Delaney Follow
By

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR: Tell them to reject radical Xavier Becerra for HHS! Click to contact your Senator, now.

WASHINGTON, DC, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Pro-life and pro-freedom advocates are calling for the U.S. Senate to reject California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a radical advocate of abortion and euthanasia, as the new leader of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Confirmation hearings for Becerra are being held today in the U.S. Senate. 

“Becerra has spent his entire career promoting pro-abortion laws and vindictively targeting pro-lifers. He’s not just pro-abortion; he’s anti-life,” Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice said earlier today.

According to moral theologian and attorney Kenneth Craycraft, during Beccerra’s tenure as a U.S. Representative from 1993 to 2017, “no member of Congress exceeded his enthusiasm for abortion for any or no reason up to, and even during, the birth of a child.”

Pro-life Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) explained that in addition to being “one of the country's most ardent advocates for abortion,” Becerra “has no health care experience and has directly advocated for the violation of federal conscience protection laws, including supporting legislation that would force religious employers like Hobby Lobby to violate their conscience and cover the morning-after pill.”

Becerra exercised the same aggression against the Little Sister of the Poor. As Kristin Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, described, “the Sisters fought all the way to the Supreme Court twice to follow their consciences” in refusing to subsidize contraceptives and abortifacient chemicals in their health plans “with Becerra suing to end their religious exemption.” 

Roger Severino, who served as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS during the Trump administration, has said that Becerra’s confirmation would be “an astounding conflict of interest.”

“Becerra is dangerously unqualified to lead HHS during a national pandemic,” said Severino, who now runs the HHS Accountability Initiative at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “He has no public health experience and wants to impose California’s COVID-19 failures and abortion extremism on the rest of the nation. When I was head of Civil Rights at HHS, I twice held Becerra in violation of laws protecting conscience in health care resulting in a $200 million disallowance of HHS funds to California. For Becerra to head the very agency that investigated him and found he broke the law would be an astounding conflict of interest.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Due to these dangers and more, 75 legislators signed a letter to President Joe Biden requesting that he withdraw Becerra’s nomination. Citing the former congressman’s “ardent support for abortion until the moment of birth,” which was demonstrated by his opposition to “the 2003 partial-birth abortion ban,” and his cosponsoring of legislation that would force employers to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. The signatories also object to his “lack of experience” and his enthusiastic support for “eliminating the private health insurance market for 160 million Americans, only to replace it with a government takeover branded as Medicare-for-all.”

“As California’s Attorney General, Mr. Becerra targeted social conservatives and religious groups with legal challenges and prosecution,” the legislators wrote. “He unconstitutionally forced houses of worship into lockdown while Governor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed attended dinner parties at the French Laundry.”

And, they continued, Becerra “prosecuted pro-life activists who documented Planned Parenthood executives’ conversations about selling the body parts of aborted babies.”

As Hawkins explained in a USA Today opinion piece, “Becerra filed 15 felony charges” against pro-life journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt “who uncovered the fact that Planned Parenthood had a side business in selling aborted infant body parts. Even the Los Angeles Times called the heavy-handed prosecution ‘a disturbing overreach.’” 

For these reasons the signatories called on Biden to “put our country over radical partisan objectives by withdrawing Mr. Becerra’s nomination for HHS Secretary.”

During this morning’s hearing Senator Mitt Romney took Becerra to task over his radical position on abortion. Even with the general disagreement of Republicans and Democrats on the issue of abortion, Romney said “most people agree that partial-birth abortion is awful. You voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. Why?”

Following a dodge answer from Becerra appealing to a desire to find “some common ground,” Romney concluded, “I think we can reach common ground on many issues, but on partial-birth abortion, it sounds like we're not going to.”

In response to Becerra’s nomination, LifeSite has initiated a Voter Voice campaign where with a few clicks you can contact your U.S. Senators and ask that they oppose the nomination of Becerra as America’s next HHS Secretary.

The system also easily facilitates notifications on Twitter and provides for the option of calling your senator as well.

Please click here and take a few minutes to notify your senators of your opposition to this eminently unqualified nominee to head HHS.


  hhs, joe biden, u.s. senate, voter voice, xavier becerra

News

Dozens of Italian teachers call in sick after taking AstraZeneca vaccine

The abortion-tainted vaccine has temporarily incapacitated significant segments of the workforce also in other countries.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 2:42 pm EST
Featured Image
AstraZeneca vaccine Shutterstock
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

TREVISO, Italy, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Dozens of teachers in Northern Italy called in sick on Monday after receiving vaccinations for COVID-19 over the weekend.

According to yesterday’s Tribuna di Treviso newspaper, “dozens and dozens” of teachers and professors were too ill to teach on Monday morning, having received the AstraZeneca vaccine over the weekend.

“Several teachers were side-lined today, Monday, February 22, in the Marches, thanks to illnesses after taking the vaccine against COVID,” the Tribuna di Treviso wrote.

After getting doses of AstraZeneca’s abortion-tainted vaccine — which is the vaccine of choice for inoculating the Treviso teachers and their colleagues throughout Italy — on Saturday and Sunday, “dozens and dozens of teachers and professors” were unable to come to school.

Those who called in sick reported fevers and aching bones.

According to Breitbart, over 5,000 Treviso teachers were scheduled to receive the vaccine over the weekend. As a result, two middle schools in the area had to close early yesterday because of the staff shortage. In addition, 15 out of 130 teachers at the Duca di Abruzzi high school were absent due to illness. At the San Domenico Savio primary school, 2 out of 3 teachers called in sick.

However, a local health authority said that these side effects and absences were normal and even suggested that they showed the teachers’ immune systems were working.

According to the Tribuna di Treviso, Michele Mongillo, the director of prevention and public health for the Veneto Region stated, “We have begun the vaccination with AstraZeneca this week; there have been a few local reactions, especially fever. Over six thousand doses were given, and a few cases of local reactions were reported to our offices. It’s a temporary phenomenon, and on the bright side it shows that the immune system is reacting to the vaccine.”

Earlier this month, the U.K.’s Independent reported that the Italian teachers’ union objected to the plan to inoculate all teachers aged between 18 and 55 with AstraZeneca’s vaccine. The union believes that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, which are in smaller supply in Italy and are being given to the elderly, are more effective against COVID-19.

Meanwhile, France’s vaccination task force has recommended that medical workers from the same departments no longer be given the AstraZeneca vaccine at the same time because of the high incidence of side effects. It was so high, in fact, that French hospitals had personnel shortages in ICU and COVID-19 units. In one hospital, fully half of the physiotherapists were on sick leave at the same time after accepting the vaccine.

The vaccine was developed by Oxford University together with the British-Swedish pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca by cultivating the weakened SARS-CoV-2 virus in the HEK-293 cell line derived from the kidney of an aborted baby in the Netherlands. According to the Oxford Vaccine Centre, these weakened viruses “are purified several times to remove the cell culture material,” adding that “this makes it unlikely that any human material remains in the final vaccine.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

During LifeSite’s online conference last week — Unmasking COVID-19: Vaccines, Mandates, and Global Health — biologist Pamela Acker, who has a master’s degree in Biology from the Catholic University of America and who recently authored a book titled Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, related what the literature says about how babies were aborted to obtain cell lines used in a number of vaccines.

“A number of these abortions that were done in that way were termed ‘abdominal hysterectomies’ in the medical literature. So in some cases, the women were actually being sterilized in the process as well,” she said.

“They had to maintain a sterile environment because you don’t want any contamination of the tissue with any kind of foreign agents, any bacteria, or viruses, or anything like that. The babies were — and, in some cases, the uterus as well — removed from the woman and, without even puncturing the amniotic sac, placed directly into the refrigerator where it was kept for no more than 24 hours.”

“So these babies were literally placed into the fridge alive and then stored between one and 24 hours until they could be dismembered, basically. And this is right there in the scientific literature,” she said.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.


  astrazeneca, coronavirus vaccine, covid-19, vaccine side effects

News

British MP calls lockdowns ‘extended exercise in almost … deliberate cruelty’

‘We had summer holidays last year when we didn’t have a vaccine, now we’ve got vaccines coming out of our ears we’re told, ‘Don’t book a summer holiday.’’
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 1:34 pm EST
Featured Image
Sir Charles Walker Channel 4 News / YouTube
David McLoone David McLoone Follow
By

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

LONDON, England, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – U.K. Conservative MP Sir Charles Walker derided the government for its continued lockdown, calling it “an extended exercise in almost studied and deliberate cruelty.”

Walker, once the chairman of the anti-lockdown 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers, made his comments following government guidance not to book summer holidays. The government argued it cannot guarantee that restrictions will be lifted by the time summer comes.

“It is just not acceptable behavior,” Walker lamented on the BBC’s Radio 4 program. “People need to see their children, they need to see their parents, the people that they love, they need to have something to look forward to.”

“[We] are conducting a massive experiment in creating high levels of anxiety in a population and it’s just not acceptable.”

Walker, speaking on February 10, pointed out that the government planned to give an address to the nation about its strategy to ease restrictions on February 22, in what it calls its “roadmap out” of lockdown. He said that if the government were already planning to reveal its intentions, “why on earth are we getting interventions … from the secretary of state for transport about booking holidays” not two weeks before they make an announcement?

“We were told that when the vaccine came, release would happen. And it now seems that the government even knows something that it’s not willing to share with us about the vaccines or just really is facing in multiple directions and is determined to muddy the waters and sow confusion and high levels of upset and concern in what is already a very stressed out population.”

Presenter Sarah Montague asked Walker if he “seriously” thinks that “one reason [for advising not to book holidays] is that they’re trying to hide something about the vaccines?”

Walker responded, saying “for crying out loud, we were told, weren’t we, that vaccines were the route out of this.”

“We had summer holidays last year when we didn’t have a vaccine, now we’ve got vaccines coming out of our ears we’re told, ‘Don’t book a summer holiday.’”

“It does strike me as odd,” he added.

Montague pressed Walker to reveal if his consternation had arisen from having his own holiday plans quashed. Walker flatly denied that he was concerned for himself, but that, in truth, he was concerned about the psychological impact of prolonged lockdowns on the populace at large.

“It’s about stressed out people who need something to look forward to, yeah? Mental health is important. Loads of anxious people out there, loads of them writing to me. Loads of people who are thinking whether it’s even worth going on at the moment. It’s about time some bloody secretaries of state understood this!” he answered. “Existing isn’t living for many people.”

Concluding their discussion, Montague proposed that Walker would like to see “a very clear roadmap that ensures this lockdown ends and does not return.”

“That’s absolutely what I want,” he said, “and I want the prime minister … to get a grip of his cabinet ministers and just remind them that actually after a year of virtual lockdown, what people need is some hope, optimism, and something to look forward to. Families, hugging your children, is really, really important.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Prime Minister Boris Johnson revealed his four-stage “roadmap out” of lockdown yesterday. The stages cautiously relax restrictions from March 8, with the first stage allowing children back into schools and public parks being reopened, also permitting one-to-one meetings, but no more.

The second stage sees so-called “non-essential” shops reopening, like hairdressers and clothing stores, as well as public buildings reopening from April 12. Restrictions continue, for instance on staying six feet apart from other people and on how many people can meet at any given time until June 21, when all restrictions in England will have been eradicated, if the government stays the course.

All stages of the proposed easing of restrictions are caveated with the posted date of each stage considered the “earliest possible date” for lifting impositions. Doubts that the projected timetable will be honored can be attributed to the “four conditions of lockdown easing.”

The conditions are: The vaccine rollout goes “to plan;” evidence must emerge that demonstrates vaccines reduce deaths and lighten the burden on hospitals; infection rates do not overwhelm hospitals; and new variants must not alter current risk assessments.

Compounding fears of a slower path out of lockdown, Health Secretary Matthew Hancock told Sky News “We want to be able to hit those milestones, but we will be vigilant and watch what's happening to make sure it’s safe to make each move.”

“The prime minister set out the four tests we will apply before announcing each move can go ahead,” Hancock said. “Of course we want to make the moves at the dates that are set out. But it’s on all of us to make sure we can by continuing to follow the rules between now and then as the vaccine rollout continues.”


  boris johnson, charles walker, covid-19, lockdowns

News

Ireland announces plans to use COVID vaccine passports to regulate travel

'The key to restoring a lot of travel and international travel will be around people proving that they’ve had a vaccine, or that they’ve tested negative'
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 1:22 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

DUBLIN, Ireland, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Ireland’s former Prime Minister and current Tánaiste, has confirmed that Ireland will be employing COVID vaccine passports, in order to regulate travel, both nationally and internationally. 

Leo Varadkar, who served as Taoiseach, or Prime Minister, from June 2017 to 2020, now holds the position of Tánaiste, the deputy to the Taoiseach. Varadkar addressed the Irish Parliament, the Dáil, on February 18, revealing that the country was preparing to use COVID vaccination passports as a way to regulate freedom of travel. (5:35:38 relevant time stamp.)

“In relation to immunisation documents and passports, I do think when the time comes, and I don’t know when it’s going to come, the key to restoring a lot of travel and international travel will be around people proving that they’ve had a vaccine, or that they’ve tested negative,” Varadkar said.

However, he then revealed that the Irish government already has a document prepared for use. “I know that we that we have an immunisation document ready that people will get with a QR code on it to show that they have been immunised.”

Varadkar pointed to Israel as an example, since the country has recently introduced an app which would grant a “green pass” to those who had received their vaccinations, allowing them entry to entertainment and leisure facilities. As the country emerges from another lockdown, the app is now being used as a way to prevent entry to those people who have not received, or refused, the vaccine.

“And I know in other countries, like Israel for example, they’re using that to say that if you have it you don’t have to self-isolate and the same applies to travel, opening now between Cyprus and Greece, but we’re just not at that point yet in Europe, we’re just not. The science doesn’t yet say that being vaccinated is enough to say that you don’t get the virus and pass it on, but I do hope that we will get there.”

The news was hailed by some of the Irish media as a “major holiday boost,” as travel could then be permitted between so-called “green zones.” Varadkar has since announced on his Twitter page that “Summer should be better.”

It’s possible that the government’s plans for such documentation might be drawn from the recently developed Health Passport Europe, which was launched last August by Irish-based ROQU Group. ROQU’s passport states that it “combines secure mobile technologies with COVID-19 testing and vaccinations.” The app mentions that it would partner with technology, allowing users to receive tests results within 15 minutes, thus enabling them to enter whatever facilities they had previously been barred from.

Whilst it claims not to use any GPS tracking, the website reveals that the data on the app is linked to official records, as “an authorised medical administrator updates your Health Passport.”

The system also suggests that it will “soon be used in many countries Worldwide,” identifying Canada, the USA, the UK, Germany, Italy, France and Kenya as possible locations for an initial international rollout. 

The technology was trialled last October, when an entire village in Co. Roscommon took part in rapid testing for COVID-19, using the app to record the test results. Commenting on the event, ROQU’s president and CEO Robert Quirke, stated: “Positive case detection allowed for immediate measures to be taken to prevent further transmission, preserving life, and helping businesses and communities to continue functioning normally, with hope on the horizon. The Health Passport mobile technology performed flawlessly, with test results being updated in real-time directly to participants mobile devices.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

A resolution passed last month by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called on European governments to “ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated.” 

PACE also decreed that any vaccination passports should not be used as what would effectively be a freedom pass, limiting access to events or facilities to those with such documentation. Instead, the vaccine passport should be for the recording of vaccine efficacy and side-effects, PACE stated.

Whilst COVID vaccinations are not mandatory in Ireland, the chief executive of the country’s health service, Health Service Executive, (HSE) has indicated that health-care workers who refuse the vaccine, could be removed from their position. Speaking to the Irish Times, Paul Reid termed it “inexcusable” that a health-care worker should refuse the injection if they had contact with patients. 

Citing the Health and Safety Act, Reid stated that the act allowed for workers “to be removed if they were regarded as a threat to other people.” If a risk assessment found that a member of staff posed a risk to patients, he would be moved to “do something different.”

Two Irish doctors have recently made public their opposition to the vaccine. Dr. Gerard Waters, a GP at the Whitethorn Clinic in Co. Kildare, told Irish news service RTE that he was a “conscientious objector,” and described the COVID-19 vaccines as “experimental.” 

Waters stated that he would not refer anyone for the vaccine, and later added “It’s a messenger RNA vaccine and I don’t think that the illness overall warrants using an experimental vaccine. You can’t test a drug over a period of less than a year. This has been rushed into production.”

Waters is supported by another GP, Dr. Pat Morrisey from Co. Limerick, who has also refused to administer the experimental vaccine, calling them “untested, unlicensed, experimental,” and noting that he would wait until there was firm proof of freedom from long-term health effects, before handing it out.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page.  View it here. 


  coronavirus vaccine, leo varadkar, vaccine passports

News

Canada Senate passes euthanasia bill expanding categories of the killable

'The government is lying when they state that it is tightly crafted'
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 12:57 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

OTTAWA, Canada, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-7 last week with amendments to expand the categories of who is eligible to die under the country’s already permissive euthanasia practice called Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD).

Reported Joan Bryden with the Canadian Press about Bill C-7’s amendments passed by the Senate:

One amendment would allow people who fear losing mental capacity to make advance requests for an assisted death.

Another would impose an 18-month time limit on the bill’s proposed blanket ban on assisted dying for people suffering solely from mental illnesses.

Until that exclusion on mental illness is lifted, senators also approved another amendment to clarify that it would not apply to people suffering from neurocognitive disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease.

They further amended the bill to require the government to collect race-based data on who requests and receives assisted dying and to establish a joint parliamentary committee within 30 days of the bill receiving royal assent to review the assisted dying regime in Canada.

“The revised bill will now be sent back to the House of Commons for MPs to determine whether to accept or reject some or all of the amendments,”  reported Canadian Press

The bill was originally crafted to expand euthanasia in the following ways:

  • Remove the requirement currently in the law that a person’s “natural death be reasonably foreseeable.” This would allow people who are not terminally ill to choose to die by euthanasia.

  • Permit a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who, at the time, is incapable of consenting as long as that person was previously approved for assisted death.

  • Waive the ten-day waiting period if a person’s natural death is deemed reasonably foreseeable.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews that if the bill is passed in the House of Commons as currently amended, Canada will become the “most permissive nation concerning euthanasia.”

“Even the Netherlands and Belgium require people who are not terminally ill, but requesting euthanasia for psychological suffering, to attempt all effective medical treatments for their condition and the guidelines in the Netherlands and Belgium require a one year waiting period,” he said. 

“Canada will kill someone for psychological suffering and mental illness after 90 days without requiring that person to try all effective treatments,” he added. 

Schadenberg pointed out that when Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 with Bill C-14, the bill did not provide “effective definitions in the law.”

“Therefore, the practice of euthanasia was already quickly expanding,” he said. 

“For instance, the law never defined psychological suffering, in the same way that Bill C-7 does not define psychological suffering, and yet it permits euthanasia for psychological suffering. The law never defined the phrase ‘natural death is reasonably foreseeable.’ Therefore this phrase was defined by acts done by the euthanasia doctors.”

Schadenberg said Bill C-7 continues to use the undefined phrase “natural death is reasonably foreseeable” in its two-track system.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“If a person’s death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable then there is no waiting period, or in other words, it permits a same-day death. If the person’s natural death is not ‘reasonably foreseeable’ then there is a 90-day waiting period. But what does the term ‘natural death is reasonably foreseeable’ mean? Once again, if a term or phrase is not defined it will become defined by the practice of killing.”

He noted that the legislation is designed to expand over time.

“The government is lying when they state that it is tightly crafted,” he said. 

Schadenberg warned that the “expansion of euthanasia in Canada is not done yet.”

“For instance, the issue of the two-track law referred to in the previous paragraph will be struck down by a future court decision because it has created an undefined inequality within the law. If it is struck down, then there would be no waiting period for people who request euthanasia based on psychological suffering alone,” he said. 

“Further to that, the law prohibits euthanasia for ‘mature minors.’ Based on previous court decisions that will also be struck down in the future.”

“In other words, the government has intentionally designed the law to expand over time. What is worse is that Canadians have bought the government’s talking points. They have bought into the lie,” he said. 

Schadenberg said the disability community is “absolutely right” when it expresses concern about the focus of the legislation.

“This legislation directly encourages euthanasia of people who have disabilities or chronic conditions,” he said. 


  assisted suicide, bill c-7, canada, euthanasia, medical aid in dying, slippery slope

News

Wife of jailed Canadian pastor tells supporters: The best way to protest is to ‘open your churches’

'People keep asking us what can you do for us? Open your churches. Open your churches! Take a stand for the Lord Jesus Christ and take a stand for the people!'
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 11:56 am EST
Featured Image
shutterstock
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

EDMONTON, Alberta, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The wife of incarcerated Canadian Pastor James Coates said to a large crowd gathered at the jail where her husband is being held that the best way to protest her husband’s imprisonment is to “open your churches.” 

“People keep asking us what can you do for us? Open your churches. Open your churches! Take a stand for the Lord Jesus Christ and take a stand for the people! Love them, open the doors, that’s what we need to do right now,” said Erin Coates, during a protest demanding her husband be freed.

“People are hurting they need to hear about Christ’s Love, they need to hear about him who has paid the penalty for sin so that they can be reconciled through God.”

Erin told the crowd of hundreds of supportive protestors, gathered at Edmonton Remand Centre (where her husband is being held), that it was “overwhelming” to receive so much support.

Coates is the pastor of Grace Life Church (Grace Life) located in Spruce Grove, Alberta, which is close to Alberta’s capital city, Edmonton. 

On Sunday, February 14, Coates held a church service for his congregation, which was in violation of a January 29 order by Alberta Health Services (AHS), which had demanded that the church doors shut. 

Leading up to this date, AHS had claimed that Grace Life was not following attendance limit sizes in place, and not following masking or physical distancing rules. 

Coates was notified last week by the RCMP that they planned to arrest him for defying the COVID-19 shutdown order and asked him to turn himself in. Coates complied and was jailed for ministering to his congregation

He remains in prison, awaiting trial, after refusing to agree to bail conditions that he agree not to hold more church services that violate government restrictions justified by COVID-19.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Aylmer, Ontario, Church of God Pastor Henry Hildebrandt made the trip to Edmonton to be at the protest in support of Coates. He said on Twitter that he was “happy” to see “so many Christian freedom fighters come to the maximum security Remand Centre today,” to fight for religious freedom. 

Hildebrandt has been a vocal opponent to government-imposed COVID-19 lockdown measures, and has himself, along with others from his congregation, received fines for defying the local health orders. 

Hildebrandt shared the video of Coates’ wife Erin’s plea to the supporters gathered. During her impassioned speech, she told the protestors to be champions for Christ, saying to be kind to those who “oppose us.”  

“Be kind to those who oppose us because we’re doing this in love, and they’re not going to understand it, they didn’t understand Christ, they won’t understand us either,” said Erin. 

“But that’s OK because we love them anyway so go on my brothers and sisters with boldness proclaim the gospel use every opportunity to share what He has done in your life and who He is because there’s eternal souls at risk right now.” 

Last week, the Premier of Alberta Premier Jason Kenney released a statement regarding the jailing of Coates, saying his imprisonment is “unfortunate,” but that Coates had “flagrantly” violated COVID rules.  

Kenney went on to proclaim that he is protecting “fundamental freedoms of religion” in his province, despite the fact that Coates remains behind bars. 

According to the legal team representing Coates and Grace Life however, Coates was - despite claims from Kenney - “jailed” for holding a church service. 

“For the first time ever, Alberta has arrested and incarcerated a Christian minister for the ‘crime’ of holding a church service,” reads a portion of a letter addressed to Kenney regarding Coates from Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) President John Carpay.

Coates has been charged with contravening the orders put in place by Alberta’s chief medical officer of health (CMOH), Dr. Deena Hinshaw, and with “breaching an undertaking, even though he did not agree to the undertaking,” according to the JCCF. 

At the protest, Coates wife Erin also encouraged the crowd to listen to her jailed husband's last sermon, which was given on February 14 and is posted on Grace Life’s YouTube channel. 

“I really encourage you to go and listen to his last sermon in the role of government in the in the churches go and listen to that and circulate it, everybody needs to hear what is the role of government and what is the role of church in society,” said Erin.

Kenney took aim at Coates sermon. He said during a talk-show interview with radio host, and former Alberta MLA Danielle Smith, that Coates is irresponsible for delivering “libertarian sermons” during COVID-19, noting that he would not get involved in what he considers to be a “legal case.”

Grace Life can hold nearly 400 congregants, and this past Sunday, in direct contravention of its AHS orders to stay shut,  held a packed church service once again.

Under the current Alberta COVID rules, churches and other places of worship can operate at no more than 15 percent of the capacity allowed by the building fire code. Masks are mandatory, as are the sanitation of hands and keeping away from other people.

Grace Life has said that the frequent inspections by AHS officials could be “a potential criminal offense, pursuant to section 176(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada,” which bans the interrupting or disturbing of a religious worship service.

Support for Pastor Coates was also shown at other protests held in Alberta the same day. On Saturday, protesters gathered at the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton, at which support for Coates was voiced. 

Also on the same day, an anti-lockdown protest was held in Medicine Hat outside the office of Alberta United Conservative Party (UCP) MLA Drew Barnes in opposition of lockdowns. 

Many present voiced support for Coates, with some protestors on-site holding signs demanding that Kenney release Coates. 

Barnes has been one of the few Alberta MLAs from Kenney’s government who has publicly voiced opposition to his government's COVID-19 lockdowns. 

At the protest, Barnes said that the he will always “fight for” Alberta families and their freedoms, saying that “we are taking this message, we’re passing it along to Premier Kenney, we’re passing it along to all of the UCP caucus.”  

“This is about Alberta’s future, this is about creating the type of future where its faith not fear, where its about families….self reliance.” 

LifeSiteNews asks its readers to take the time to defend the religious liberty of Canadians by filing out our VoterVoice Alert to free Pastor Coates.

CONTACT YOUR MP: Free Pastor Coates and protect people of faith! Contact your MP, here.

Further contact information

Premier of Alberta Jason Kenney

Office of the Premier
307 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta  T5K 2B6

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 780-427-2251

To contact your local MLA, visit the link below.:

https://www.assembly.ab.ca/members/members-of-the-legislative-assembly

To contact Pastor Coates in jail

James Coates

Remand Center

18415-127th St NW

Edmonton, AB

T6V 1V1

All letters will be opened and read.


  james coates, jason kenney, lockdown orders

News

Amazon, Netflix, Twitter, school library resource EBSCO named on ‘dirty dozen’ list of companies aiding sexual exploitation

This year’s list features several entities that have profited from the COVID-19 crisis by taking advantage of worsening social and economic vulnerabilities and harnessing the dramatic increase in online activity.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 11:54 am EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews.com
By LSN

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

WASHINGTON, DC., February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) has revealed that Amazon, Chromebook, Discord, OnlyFans, and Wish are among its 2021 Dirty Dozen List of mainstream contributors to sexual exploitation. This year’s list features several entities that have profited from the COVID-19 crisis by taking advantage of worsening social and economic vulnerabilities and harnessing the dramatic increase in online activity. 

The Dirty Dozen List is an annual campaign highlighting 12 mainstream entities for facilitating, normalizing, and even profiting from sexual abuse and exploitation. Since 2013, the Dirty Dozen List has led to major victories in stemming sexual exploitation: catalyzing significant improvements at Google, Netflix, TikTok, Hilton Worldwide, Verizon, Walmart, the U.S. Department of Defense, and many more mainstream players.

“Our list highlights institutions that are facilitating and even profiting from sexual exploitation,” said Lina Nealon, director of corporate and strategic initiatives for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. “Most of the targets greatly benefited from the pandemic, like Google, that saw shipments of Chromebooks double in 2020, but refused to proactively turn on safeguards for the millions of devices going to schools – leaving kids at risk of exposure to pornography and even predators. Others, like OnlyFans, took advantage of the increased vulnerabilities caused by COVID-19. Another target, Wish, irresponsibly advertises on Pornhub, thereby keeping this known exploiter in business.”

“Corporations and popular brands shape our culture and influence the ways we communicate, what causes we support, and even how our children are learning in school. Unfortunately, many are also perpetuating harm and violence,” she continued. “These ‘Dirty Dozen’ are hereby put on notice. We encourage the public and governments to join us in holding these entities accountable, pressing on them to change exploitative policies and to prioritize human dignity over profit.”

“We are also highlighting entities on our Watchlist – Snapchat, TikTok, and Visa – as they have made some improvements within the last year, but still have steps to take to fully confront and end harmful business practices with the appropriate urgency these issues demand,” Nealon added. 

Image

The 2021 Dirty Dozen List includes: 

Amazon – Amazon, the world’s titan of e-commerce, logistics, data storage, and media, also peddles endless amounts of sexual exploitation. As a social platform, Amazon’s Twitch is rife with sexual harassment, predatory grooming, and child sexual abuse. As an online retailer, Amazon is in the business of selling incest-themed porn, sex dolls, photography books with eroticized child nudity, and more. As a media creator, Amazon Prime Video inserts unnecessary, gratuitous nudity and simulated sex scenes into many of its original programming, while providing faulty parental controls. As a web host, AWS is host to many hardcore violent pornography and prostitution websites. Learn more and take action: EndSexualExploitation.org/Amazon 

Chromebooks – Google’s refusal to turn on safety features for Chromebooks distributed to schools has resulted in countless students being left exposed to sexually explicit material and sexual predators on their school-assigned devices. More than 40 million students and teachers worldwide were using these popular devices prior to the pandemic. Millions more received Chromebooks for virtual schooling after COVID-19 hit. Instead of helping, this trillion-dollar tech giant chooses to place the burden on overwhelmed schools and parents while leaving children at risk. Demand digital safety in schools: EndSexualExploitation.org/Chromebooks 

Discord – The popular platform Discord allows users to connect and chat with each other in real time and it boasts over 100 million active monthly users. Discord has inadequate age verification procedures in place and relies on user reports to moderate much of its content. Hundreds of private and public channels are rife with sexually graphic, violent, and exploitative content, and children are at risk of exposure, grooming, and other predatory behavior. Discord must do more to protect kids: EndSexualExploitation.org/Discord  

EBSCO – EBSCO Information Services is the leading provider of online learning resources for schools and libraries. Though they market their products as “age and curriculum-appropriate," graphic sexual content and live links to prostitution and pornography websites are easily accessible to K-12 students. EBSCO recklessly hosts material harmful for kids under the guise of education. EBSCO must make its products safe for minors: EndSexualExploitation.org/EBSCO 

Netflix – Netflix is a staple of at-home entertainment for over 150 million subscribers who stream their content. Mixed in with the hours of entertainment, though, is sexually graphic and degrading content. Netflix has improved its parental control system and added content warnings, but many Netflix Originals still contain gratuitous amounts of nudity or graphic sexual violence which are triggering for survivors and which normalize sexploitation without addressing the very real harms. Encourage Netflix to stop producing voyeuristic content: EndSexualExploitation.org/Netflix    

Nevada – Legalized brothels in Nevada have proven to be a failed experiment. They also violate the U.S. Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment which bans involuntary servitude and slavery because of the trafficking associated with them. Evidence shows that a legalized sex trade increases demand from sex buyers and therefore increases sex trafficking as exploiters try to satisfy the market. Survivors are exposing the ugly truth about life behind brothel doors. By legalizing brothels, Nevada is profiting from sexual exploitation and abuse—just like any other pimp. Nevada is Not Safe for Women: EndSexualExploitation.org/Nevada

OnlyFans – OnlyFans makes money off of vulnerable people’s bodies – especially the bodies of women and minors. Exploiting financial insecurities deepened by the COVID-19 crisis, OnlyFans promises fast cash, empowerment, and even fame. While "Fans” may pay fees for nude images, videos, and livestreams, it is the “creators” who pay the high price of psychological, emotional, and physical harm that the sex industry imparts.  Expose OnlyFans for enabling sexual exploitation: EndSexualExploitation.org/OnlyFans

Reddit – Reddit, known as the “front page of the Internet,” has become a hub of exploitation where sex buyers and other sexual predators meet to exchange non-consensually shared intimate images, hardcore pornography, and to give advice to each other about how to use and abuse. Prostitution, sex trafficking, and child sexual abuse material is also easily found on the site because Reddit refuses to institute strong policies and, despite being worth $3 billion, refuses to spend money on moderators and technology solutions to reduce sexual abuse and exploitation material surfacing on their site. It’s time Reddit was made accountable. Take action at EndSexualExploitation.org/Reddit 

SeekingArrangement – SeekingArrangement is a “sugar dating” platform, “sugar dating” being just another term for prostitution. This company targets college students and people suffering from the economic uncertainty of COVID-19 in order to groom them to be sexually used by wealthier, older men. While the Apple App Store does not carry this prostitution app, Google Play does. #TimesUp for SeekingArrangement: EndSexualExploitation.org/SeekingArrangement

Twitter – Sexual exploitation is rampant on Twitter. Twitter allows countless posts and accounts that function as advertisements for the trading of child sexual abuse materials (i.e. “child pornography”), sex trafficking, prostitution, and pornography. Twitter also fails to adequately respond to child abuse and sex trafficking victims when they are being exploited on the platform. Twitter must be held legally accountable: EndSexualExploitation.org/Twitter 

Verisign – Seventy percent of all webpages identified as containing child sexual abuse images were found on .com and .net domains according to the 2019 report from The Internet Watch Foundation. Verisign, a publicly traded U.S. company with annual revenues exceeding $1.23 billion, has exclusive management over the .com and .net generic top-level domains. While some other registries and registrars are working to disrupt domains associated with child sexual abuse material, Verisign refuses to take meaningful action and instead inhibits attempts to protect children. Congress must act. Take action at: EndSexualExploitation.org/Verisign   

Wish – Wish, a top ten retail shopping website and app used by over 500 million people, is one of the few mainstream corporations still working with the world’s biggest sexual abusers—MindGeek and Pornhub—even though child sexual abuse material, depictions of actual rape and sex trafficking, and non-consensually shared intimate videos abound on the websites. Not only that, but Wish’s profits rest on the marketing of child-like sex dolls, spycams advertised as useful for filming women nude without permission, and misogynistic apparel. Wish is shopping made exploitative. Call on them to stop prioritizing profits over people! EndSexualExploitation.org/Wish 

The Watchlist includes: 

Snapchat – A third of U.S teens named Snapchat as their favorite social networking app. Unfortunately, this popular platform has been used by sex traffickers and predators to groom, abuse, and sell people, including kids.  Children as young as 13 have also been exposed to graphic sexual content through Snapchat’s Discover stories as sexual abuse, pornography, and prostitution accounts proliferate on the site. Snapchat’s made improvement recently, but it can still do much more to protect minors. Insist Snapchat make its space safer for teens. EndSexualExploitation.org/Snapchat 

TikTok – TikTok has close to a billion monthly users - and many of them are minors. This incredibly popular app was considered a predator’s playground, as the platform enabled easy access to children by strangers. We applaud several major changes TikTok made in 2020 which include enhanced safety features for teens and extensive Community Guidelines. It is encouraging progress, but it is still too early to tell how well these changes will be implemented and we remain concerned about the extent of harmful content accessible by young users. Tell TikTok to keep up the trend of protecting kids. EndSexualExploitation.org/TikTok 

Visa – Visa rightly cut ties with Pornhub in 2020 after public outcry regarding the rampant sex trafficking and abuse videos on the porn website. However, Visa intentionally re-initiated a relationship with MindGeek (owner of Pornhub) and other pornography websites so long as they only published studio-produced videos. This action legitimizes an inherently abusive and exploitive industry. Further, Visa processes payments for brothels and prostitution websites. Call on Visa to reject profits from sexual abuse: EndSexualExploitation.org/Visa  


  amazon, dirty dozen, ebsco, mindgeek, national center on sexual exploitation, netflix, pornhub, pornography, twitter

News

Leading GOP congressman refuses to accept claim that 2020 election ‘was not stolen’

‘There were a few states that did not follow their state laws,’ Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) said.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 11:14 am EST
Featured Image
Rep. Steve Scalise on This Week ABC News / YouTube
Raymond Wolfe Follow
By

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

WASHINGTON, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), the second-ranking House Republican, refused to affirm that the 2020 presidential election “was not stolen” in an interview broadcast last Sunday.

Scalise, who voted against certifying the election in January, pushed back against ABC News host John Karl’s claim that Democrats’ win last year was “legitimate,” pointing out that several states broke election laws.

“But clear this up for me. Joe Biden won the election,” Karl said. “The election was not stolen, correct?”

Although Scalise said that he accepted the congressionally-approved Biden inauguration, he declined to say that the election was not stolen, noting that “[t]here a few states that did not follow their state laws.”

“Either we’re going to address the problems that happened with the election that people are still — millions of people are still concerned about — the Constitution says state legislatures set the rules for elections.”

“That didn’t happen in a few states,” Scalise stressed.

Despite the left’s militant insistence that America had an unquestionably “free and fair” election in November, judges have found that Democrats’ wave of 2020 election rule changes repeatedly violated state statutes and the Constitution.

Democrats unlawfully undermined ballot safeguards in Virginia, upended Minnesota voting rules, and encouraged Wisconsin voters to skip photo ID requirements, courts have said. In Pennsylvania, a state judge ruled that disgraced now-former election chief Kathryn Boockvar “lacked statutory authority” with last-minute guidance that gave counties an extra week to verify voter ID.

Some key cases still remain active, like one that would decide whether Boockvar and her colleagues also broke the law when they unilaterally extended Pennsylvania’s ballot deadline. Multiple Supreme Court justices have affirmed that those and other changes were likely illegal, as Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a powerful dissent yesterday.

“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections,” Thomas wrote, referring to Article 1, Section 4, and Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution. “Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead.”

“If you read the founding documents of our country … each state has a process for selecting their electors and sending them to Washington,” Scalise said in his viral January 6 objection speech on the House floor.

“If you look at what the requirement says, nowhere in Article 2, Section 1, does it give the secretary of state of a state that ability, nowhere does it give the governor that ability, nowhere does it give a court that ability. It exclusively gives that ability to the legislatures,” he said.

Watchdog groups also have raised concerns about state and local officials’ acceptance of hundreds of millions of dollars in election funds from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, possibly flouting federal statutes, according to the Amistad Project.

As Scalise pointed out on Sunday, tens of millions of Trump voters continue to reject the premise that the 2020 election was conducted fairly, and they demand a return to the rule of law.

“I think that’s the biggest frustration many people have, is, those states that didn’t follow the law, are they going to keep doing that in the future, or are we going to finally get back to what the Constitution calls out for electing our leaders?” Scalise said during Sunday’s interview.

“[T]hat’s the issue at heart, that millions of people still are not happy with and don’t want to see happen again,” he said. “Are we going to finally get back to the way the rule of law works?”

State lawmakers in more than two dozen states have begun an apparent blitz of election reform, introducing more than 100 bills to boost voter integrity this session. The Republican State Leadership Committee also recently announced a new election reform commission “to restore the public’s confidence in our elections,” as one co-chair said.

You can contact your representatives about election integrity with LifeSite’s Voter Voice campaign here


  2020 election, election fraud, election integrity, steve scalise

News

‘I’m not going down without a fight,’ canceled ‘Star Wars’ actress Gina Carano says

Nobody within Disney informed Carano she was being let go before publicly announcing the news.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 10:10 am EST
Featured Image
StarWars.com
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Former Star Wars actress Gina Carano is opening up about her experience being fired by Disney-owned Lucasfilm for dissenting from left-wing orthodoxy, giving an in-depth interview to conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, whose Daily Wire is partnering with the actress on an all-new film.

Earlier this month, Lucasfilm terminated its association with Carano following online activists’ uproar over an Instagram post in which the former MMA fighter warned that “to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”

In response, Lucasfilm issued a statement saying Carano, who co-starred as heroic mercenary Cara Dune in the popular streaming series The Mandalorian, “is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future. Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”

The statement did not identify any post by Carano that “denigrat[es] people based on their cultural and religious identities.” The Hollywood Reporter quoted one source as saying Lucasfilm had “been looking for a reason to fire her for two months, and today was the final straw.” 

“I’ve never really been interested in politics,” Carano tells Shapiro in the hour-long interview. “As soon as I started seeing what was happening, I guess, in 2020, I started looking up like, well, maybe the adults don’t have it under control, and maybe I’m an adult now and maybe I have a responsibility to pay attention.”

One early contribution to her political awakening, she says, came last fall, when pro-LGBT activists attacked her for refusing to add “preferred gender pronouns” to her Twitter bio, an act of solidarity with transgenderism. “I ended up putting ‘beep bop boop’ in my Twitter bio, and it was 100% to go to the Twitter mob that was telling you what to do; and it had zero to do with trying to go after the transgender community,” she recalls.

Another major factor was the economic shutdowns mandated last year by various state governments in the name of containing COVID-19. “I was really upset about the shutdowns,” Carano says. “I know what it’s like to be working and then not to work … I know the depression that comes with not working because my job has been on and off its entire life. Not having a job and not having purpose, it’s devastating. You know, you go through a depression.”

Online activists continued to heckle Carano and Disney over the actress’s conservative commentary on social media, which also touched on vote fraud and COVID-19 mask mandates. Left-wing calls for her head were not acted upon, with rumors persisting that Mandalorian creator Jon Favreau intervened on her behalf, until February, when Lucasfilm executives reportedly went over Favreau’s head.

Carano tells Shapiro that nobody within the company informed her she was being let go before publicly announcing the news.

“You know how boxers head-hunt sometimes and forget to go for the body?” she asks. “I feel like Disney or Lucasfilm or whoever it is, just certain people at that company … I feel like I’ve been being head-hunted and you can feel it. Just a couple of weeks ago, Lucasfilm asked an artist that they employ to erase my character and put a different character in place, and he proudly announces this on Twitter, and erases my character, and puts another character in place.”

“All the fans of Cara Dune were just outraged,” she notes. “They were like ‘Why didn’t you add the character? Why did you have to take off the character? Is there something wrong? Is Gina getting fired?’”

“I saw someone from the company accidentally send me a conversation, that they were tracking the ‘Fire Gina Carano’ hashtag on content that had nothing to do with me,” Carano reveals. “It actually had zero to do with me, and all of a sudden, I get thrown into the mix … They accidentally sent me an email, which was very enlightening, so I knew. I knew they were paying attention.”

“I know there were some people who went to bat for me, but I know that they didn’t win out at the end,” Carano says.

“I was prepared at any point to be let go because I’ve seen this happen to so many people,” she continues. “I’ve seen the looks on their faces. I’ve seen the bullying that takes place, and so when this started, they point their guns at you, and you know it’s only a matter of time. I’ve seen it happen to so many people, and I just thought to myself … ‘you’re coming for me, I know you are.’ They’re making it very obvious through their employees who were coming for me, and so I was like ‘I’m going to go down swinging and I’m going to stay true to myself.’”

During the interview, Carano reveals that she is “not the only one that’s ever been bullied by this company,” but cannot relay stories shared with her in confidence. Suffice it to say, however, “everyone is afraid of losing their job.”

In the wake of her firing, conservatives quickly noted that her Mandalorian co-star Pedro Pascal, who plays bounty hunter and main protagonist Din Djarin, was not similarly disciplined for a 2018 tweet containing a far more inflammatory Holocaust analogy, comparin the Trump administration to Nazi Germany over the former’s policy of temporarily separating minors from illegal border crossers (while using a photo that was actually of Palestinian children in a food line):

Shapiro asked Carano about the apparent double-standard, which she acknowledged but stressed does not impact her friendship with Pascal.

“I adore him,” she says. “I know he’s said and done some hurtful things … but I know that, you know, he thinks a lot of the stuff that I post, y’know, like, but there’s so much love there still, you know? And we had an agreement after we realized we were a little bit politically different. We had an agreement that — first and foremost — you’re a human being. And you’re my friend first.”

“I love that we’re just both passionate, you know?” Carano said. “And we just, we think a little bit differently … through our different experiences. I know that we both have misstepped on our tweets. We’re not perfect. We’re human beings, but he’s not a bad human being. He’s a sweet person.”

Nevertheless, she says the hostility she’s received has taken its toll.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“I’ve been called so much,” she says. “I’ve been called ‘racist,’ I’ve been called ‘transphobe,’ I’ve been called ‘homophobe,’ I’ve been called now ‘anti-semitic,’ and I’m like, I don’t take those lightly. Like you’re calling me, my soul, the blood that runs through me, you’re calling me that … you say that once to me, like, you’re done. I don’t want to talk to you ever again.”

This is despite the fact, she says, that “my actions towards other human beings have spoken for themselves … I am the one that, on sets, people come and cry to. I’m the one that sticks up for someone … like, ‘Hey, this is enough, this person needs out of this, like, they can’t breathe.’ And I’ve always been like that. I’ve stuck up for, like, minorities everywhere. I’ve gotten in fistfights. I’ve been in actual fights growing up in Las Vegas because I cannot stand bullying.”

“My body still is shaking, you know? It’s still devastating,” Carano admits. “But the thought of this happening to anybody else, especially, like, somebody who could not handle this the way I can? No. They don’t get to do that. They don’t get to make people feel like that.”

That, she says, is what keeps her going: “If I buckle, then little girls and little boys, who are not getting … a good fair shake at growing up right now, if I buckle, it’s going to make it okay for these companies who have a history of lying to be lying, and to do this to other people. And they’ve done it to other people and — and I’m not going down without a fight.”

Following Carano’s firing, the Daily Wire announced it had partnered with the actress to have her produce and star in an all-new film, as part of the conservative media outlet’s foray into non-Hollywood entertainment.


  ben shapiro, cancel culture, disney, entertainment, gina carano, hollywood, hollywood conservatives, pop culture, star wars, the daily wire, the mandalorian

News

Frontline Doctor: FBI ‘broke down my door’ in swat team raid of 20 men

Dr. Simone Gold related the nature of her arrest, how the distribution of experimental vaccines violates the Nuremburg Code, and why COVID-19 censorship is a ‘crime against humanity.’
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 9:43 am EST
Featured Image
shutterstock
Patrick Delaney Patrick Delaney Follow
By

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

LOS ANGELES, California, February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In a recent interview with Michelle Malkin, Dr. Simone Gold, founder of American Frontline Doctors (AFLD) discussed the lack of authentic informed consent with regards to experimental vaccines, censorship as a “crime against humanity,” and how she was subjected to a massive swat team raid upon her home by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in order to arrest her for being present in the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6th.

In describing this incident, Gold said, “I was paid a visit by the FBI in a Roger Stone kind of take down moment, which is quite uncalled for. You know, if anybody wanted to get a hold of me, they could have picked up the phone and called. I’m very easy to find. But there were literally twenty guys with guns blazing, [and they] broke down my door,” Gold said. 

“It was dramatic and what I want to say is that I weep for our country. If you can pull in a person like me … [and] have the FBI break down your door with 20 guns, shackle you [in] handcuffs [and] drag you off, I mean it was really terrible … I'm telling you America, this can happen to you.”

Dr. Gold’s reference was to former President Donald Trump’s ally Roger Stone, who as an unarmed 66-year-old, without a passport, under investigation for lying to Congress, was arrested in a 2019 predawn swat team raid at his home, with a CNN photographer conveniently present to obtain footage.

One GOP congressman at the time, called this an obvious “disproportionate show of force” and a “political act” meant to “terrify” Trump allies. 

Similarly, in 2016 officials from the office of then California attorney general Kamala Harris raided the home of pro-life activist and journalist David Daleiden, who had captured undercover video evidence of Planned Parenthood’s harvesting and sale of aborted babies’ organs and tissue.

Daleiden’s attorney at the time, Matt Heffron, called this action “outrageously out of proportion for the type of crime alleged … a discredit to law enforcement, [and] an oppressive abuse of government power.”

Gold, appearing still dumbfounded by the magnitude of the incident, said “I'm very mainstream, I'm an American, I'm a mom, I'm a doctor and a lawyer for God's sake. I've spent my entire career helping people. I've worked in the inner city [with] impoverished people, really all of my career with black and brown people. I also don't say that too often because I'm not looking for any accolades, I'm just saying, that's literally who I am. And I got fired from my job because I was giving people medicine that they needed.” 

Gold, who has been on the forefront of challenging the government and media narrative regarding the actual dangers of COVID-19, its effective treatment, masks, lockdowns, and the current distribution of experimental vaccines, indicated—in what appears to be a modest understatement—that the excessive force inflicted upon her by the federal government’s principal law enforcement agency, “does feel a little bit like a persecution.”

‘Reclaim the language. These are experimental vaccines.’

In addressing many of these other critical topics in her interview, Gold began by emphasizing the importance of recognizing new COVID-19 vaccines as being experimental.

“First of all, it's so important that we reclaim the language. These are not vaccines. These are experimental vaccines,” she said. “This is exactly their status. They are investigational agents only” which will not be authorized as full vaccines until at least 2022. 

“This is critical because I don't understand how physicians in good conscience are rushing head long into recommending an experimental anything for anybody,” Gold said.

Those who do receive the vaccine enroll themselves in a medical trial, which, “almost nobody chooses to do” under normal circumstances when they are provided with this necessary information. And given the clear, official “experimental” status of these injections, such a substance “cannot be mandated,” nor “given willy-nilly to millions or tens of millions of people while it's still in an experimental trial,” she said.

Due to fertility risks, ‘It’s lunacy’ for young females to receive experimental vaccine

Furthermore, safety concerns with regards to these experimental agents remain significant.

Malkin asked Gold about a December petition advanced by Dr. Michael Yeadon, who previously held Pfizer’s most senior research position in the field of allergy and respiratory medicines prior to his departure in 2011, to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), demanding the immediate suspension of all COVID-19 vaccine studies in Europe, due to four serious health risks.

One of the risks listed in the petition are the real dangers to women’s fertility. As Yeadon explained, these experimental vaccines are expected to produce anti-bodies to attack “spike proteins” such as COVID-19. However, “spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans.” Therefore, Yeadon and his colleagues demand that “[it] must be absolutely ruled out” that a coronavirus vaccine would not trigger an immune reaction against this protein, “as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Government guidance in the U.K. itself urges various groups, including pregnant mothers, not to take the Pfizer experimental COVID vaccine, as well as stating that its impact on fertility is unknown. The World Health Organization issued a similar warning with regards to the Moderna experimental vaccine. 

Gold responded by relating the tragic story of a young female physician who, as a strong advocate for the experimental COVID vaccines, completed the injections while in the second trimester of pregnancy and lost her child to miscarriage a few days later. 

The AFLD founder explained how losing a pregnancy “in the second trimester is not very common,” and that the typical reason this happens is that “the placenta has some kind of failure.”

This can occur, she said, with pregnant mothers who become infected with COVID-19, as is documented in the AFLD’s white paper on the topic. 

“The concern with the experimental COVID vaccine is that it may mimic kind of a permanent COVID status,” she explained. “So, you're taking a situation that would be time limited,” only for the short duration one endures an infection with the virus, with even the sad possibility of having a miscarriage due to the virus. 

“But what would be much worse,” Gold said, would be a scenario where a woman “forever more cannot maintain a pregnancy” because of receiving an experimental COVID-19 vaccine. “So, instead of just the one-time episode of the illness,” Gold continued, a woman may find she instead has “a lifelong episode of infertility.”

Given that the survival rate for individuals under 50 years is 99.98% (without early treatment), Dr. Gold emphasized that “it's lunacy to get this experimental vaccine if you're a young female. It's that simple … I would flat out forbid any young female from getting this vaccine, and I think it's very unethical for any physician to offer this to a young female.”

Nuremburg Code of 1947: Informed Consent Lacking for experimental vaccine

Malkin also raised the question of the importance of informed consent in standard medical ethics as defined and universally adopted at Nuremburg in 1947. 

The Nuremburg Code came about as a result of the post-World War II trials, convictions and executions of Nazi doctors who had conducted deadly experiments, without the subjects’ consent, on prisoners of war.

The Code’s first and most extensive principle provides the strict conditions for establishing voluntary consent, including that the individual may not be exposed to “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” In addition, they must have “sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved.”

Referring back to the young pregnant physician who received the injections, and the importance of knowing they are experimental, Gold stated, “I don't even think she knows [the vaccine] was an experimental status only. I've had so many conversations with people that don't even realize it's investigational status, so how is that informed consent?” she asked. “They don't write it anywhere,” and one has to search diligently to find the paperwork confirming the investigational status. 

“So that's the beginning and end of the discussion. This is not informed consent. You don't even know it's investigational. And very important investigational meds can never be coerced by federal law,” she affirmed.

‘Shocking’ Censorship a ‘crime against humanity,’ ‘breathtaking in its scope’

In a AFLD white paper, the physicians write how the “(m)ost notable” disinformation regarding the pandemic, “was selling the lie to the American and European people that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an unsafe medication.”

As HCQ is “considered one of the safest medications in the world, safer than Motrin or Tylenol,” it has been broadly used outside the west with great success. For example, in response to the virus, India recommended HCQ for its population early last year, and “continues to enjoy a death rate a fraction (~10 percent) of the USA even in the most densely populated slums.”

Gold also pointed out elsewhere that in “Sub-Sahara Africa, the poorest places in the world, no social distancing, no mask, no ICU’s, they have a death rate of one percent the western nations. One percent!”

“Now I believe it is due to widely available HCQ. I don’t think you can explain it for any other reason,” she said.

With Malkin she affirmed that AFLD, a volunteer physicians’ organization, exists to “put out the truth that's been censored,” on these medical topics.

“I'm stunned at the degree of censorship and the rapidity of it” in these recent months, Gold said.  “It's shocking to me that we can fool people into thinking a drug that's the most commonly used drug in India (HCQ) for decades … is unsafe.”

“Honestly, I don't expect it, but this really needs to be almost [treated] like a NAZI war crime tribunal,” she said. The censorship “has been such a crime against humanity. It's breathtaking in its scope.”

Gold was also sure to encourage people to have HCQ on hand, as “it works if you take it earlier prophylactically” or as early treatment. And since “it can be very difficult to get from your own doctor,” AFLD has made it available at their website

How to identify propaganda: What was the data prior to the controversy?

Malkin followed-up asking how regular people can actually recognize what is true on these topics when they lack expertise.

Gold explained that she wrote a little book on that topic titled, I Do Not Consent: My Fight Against Medical Cancel Culture, in order to teach readers how to “recognize propaganda in real time.”

“There's ultimately only two sources of information,” she said, “if you actually know the content yourself, or you know somebody that you trust that you personally vetted.”

“Now a little trick that you can use … is [to ask] what did the science or the data say prior to the controversy? What did the data in scientific journals say about hydroxychloroquine prior to 2020? What did the data in the scientific journals say about masks prior to 2020?” Gold advised.

“One of the ways I recognized that we were living through a lie was not because I'm a physician,” she said. “It's because I said to my physician peers, ‘how could you say (HCQ) is not safe? It's been around for 65 years. It's been studied up the wazoo, it's been given billions of times in massive doses for years to old people and immune compromised people and to babies and to pregnant women. How can you say it's not safe?’”

Thus, when a person said to her that they had a safety concern, “I knew that that wasn't true because of all the evidence prior to the controversy,” she concluded.

Medical Journals involved in propaganda at the behest of Big Pharma

Gold said such propaganda can even come through highly credentialled medical journals, including the case of The Lancet which had to retract a published study whose stated findings proposed dangers to the use of HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19. 

She also related a similar story regarding a JAMA study which she personally examined and characterized as “complete garbage,” to the extent that it had “almost like shaken me to my core” that such a piece of work could be published in a credible medical journal.

Getting to the bottom of the cause of this, Gold observed “when you look into it more deeply it turns out,” that “really the only advertisers” for such medical journals, “are pharmaceutical companies.”

Thus, these journals must “bow” to the desires of these big pharma corporations. She made reference to a video of the former health minister of France, Philippe Douste-Blazy, who revealed on a French news program that he was present at a meeting where the heads of at least two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, “admitted that they have to do what the pharmaceutical companies say.”

Don’t throw out your own common sense in favor of an expert

Gold further advised, “you should not throw out your own common sense in favor of an expert. That's not to say the expert may not be right. They may be right, but you should not automatically assume the expert is correct. You must find a source that you trust and believe. You must look for their motives.”

In the case of AMFD, she said, “we're volunteers” who are not paid by the government, or by pharmaceuticals, “we’re really not paid at all,” and thus she implicitly suggested this is one reason to consider her organization credible. 

Call to action: Sign and spread the petition

In response to projected vaccine mandates, Dr. Gold announced, “we are working on an initiative now to push back on policymakers and decision makers that want to mandate these experimental vaccines.”

AFLD is not primarily concerned with the government, but with private businesses mandating these injections, particularly schools and airlines.

She encouraged everyone to “go to StopMedicalDiscrimination.org and please sign the petition,” as it will “empower us to go to policymakers—really on your behalf—and explain that the American people, or people worldwide, don't want” these experimental vaccine or mask mandates.

“I can guarantee you we will be negotiating or discussing with policy makers, businesses, and airlines.”

“So, everyone who is listening, you must sign this petition, and you must share it because the more people we can show don't want these [mandates], the better the business leaders will listen to us.”

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page.  View it here. 

RELATED:

Frontline Doctors: Experimental vaccines are ‘not safer’ than COVID-19 

YouTube bans Frontline Doctors speech criticizing ‘experimental agent’ COVID vaccine 

Physicians: ‘Masks don’t control viruses, they control you,’ ‘pandemic is over’

Former Pfizer VP: ‘No need for vaccines,’ ‘the pandemic is effectively over’

US ‘frontline’ doctors’ website exposes ‘criminal’ campaign by tech giants, govt agencies to block COVID med

Why are Google, Facebook, Twitter so bent on censoring doctors who promote cure for COVID?


  america's frontline doctors, coronavirus vaccine, hcq, hydroxychloroquine, michelle malkin, simone gold

Opinion

Why early 20th-century theology manuals are vital for Catholics today

There's confusion today because Catholics haven't been properly formed with authentic Church teaching.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 8:54 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock
Seán Wright
By

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In a time of rampant confusion about basic Catholic doctrine – to say nothing of more complicated problems of theology – it’s really important that we base our conclusions on sure principles and authorities

A key problem is that what apparently comes from the Church today often contradicts what was taught before, and as such Catholics are not allowed to accept these things. In the aftermath of the Council, both the laity and clergy could (and were obliged to) “stand fast: and hold the traditions, which [they had] learned.” (2 Thess 2.14). 

But later generations in the West have not received that sound formation, and are often having to learn for themselves what the Church teaches. This is an abnormal and fraught situation. The questions eventually arise: Where do we go to learn the Catholic Faith? How do we make sense of the modern ecclesial landscape, especially if those who claim to govern us are giving us things that contradict the Faith? What should we do once we are ‘put on notice’ that certain clerics are contradicting parts of revealed doctrine?

We find ourselves repeating the words of St Peter to our Lord, albeit in a different sense:

Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. (John 6.69-70)

One way or another, we have had the joy of learning to believe that Jesus Christ is God, and that he established the Roman Catholic Church. We thrilled as we were convinced by apologetics, which led us to make our Act of Faith. We attained our grasp of basic doctrine using sources such as the Baltimore or maybe even the Roman Catechism. And then we started to notice problems.

If those appointed to teach and govern us are not being faithful to that deposit, what do we do? Where do we go for a deeper and more mature understanding of Sacred Doctrine, or indeed of morality, especially in relation to the modern crisis? How do we establish what is a novelty, or contradicts the received doctrine of the Church? What sources should we use, and which should we avoid? And how do we explain this dire situation?

Sources of Doctrine

Some turn to modern writers like Michael Davies, or to those who wrote histories of comparable periods – such as John Henry Newman on the Arian Crisis. Some find great theologians that deal with relevant but very specific questions, and end up arguing about the opinions of Cajetan against Suarez against John of St Thomas against St Robert Bellarmine, and so on. Others go straight into pre-conciliar magisterial documents, and use them to try to make sense of things.

All of these approaches lack context. Leaping straight into such texts without a thorough grounding in philosophy and theology is not how the Church trained her priests. Why would we think that it’s a good thing for laymen to do? 

Instead, I want to suggest that we should look to the ‘theology manuals’ (and their equivalents in philosophy) from the early twentieth and late nineteenth century. Why this period? Because to form conclusions and to identify what is and isn’t a post-conciliar innovation, we need to know what was taught and how it was understood before the Council. This isn’t of itself a rejection of things that have come after Vatican II: it’s a fact-finding exercise.

Debates can and should refer to magisterial pronouncements: but they should also refer to how these pronouncements were understood by the Church, and not be treated as proof-texts existing in a vacuum. To be sure, the manuals also shouldn’t be crassly mined for proof-texts either – but the point is maintaining context.In addition, the ‘inter-conciliar’ manuals benefit from Vatican I’s clarity on topics like the extents and limits of infallibility, and yet precede the confusion that came with Vatican II.

What are the manuals, and why are they important?

The much-admired Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton, in 1963, defined authorized manuals as:

[The] books actually used in the instruction of candidates for the priesthood. They are written by men who actually teach in the Church’s own approved schools, under the direction of the Catholic hierarchy, and ultimately […] under the direction of the Sovereign Pontiff himself.[1] [My emphases.]

Elsewhere, Fenton notes that certain manuals were “adopted and utilized” by diocesan bishops, particularly for official seminary training – and to that extent, “they may be said to express the teaching of the bishops about the matters they teach. To this extent, the manuals… may be said to express in some way the ordinary magisterium of the Church.”[2]

Fenton concludes that “the common or morally unanimous teaching of the manuals in this field is definitely a part of Catholic doctrine.”[3] While the opinions of individual writers cannot simply be declared to be such, “the unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians has always been recognized as a norm of Catholic doctrine”.[4]

These are the sources from which we should be getting a deeper understanding of doctrine. Classics of spirituality, the biographies of cloistered saints, popular apologetics books, celebrity clergymen, ecclesiastical history, even podcasts: these sources may make one grow in Faith and in the love of God: and that’s very good if they do so. But they are not substitutes for the scientific, systematic and authoritative exposition of the Faith found in such manuals.

In a sense, manuals occupy a similar place for the clergy as do catechisms for the laity. Generations were taught from standard catechisms, and so too were the clergy taught from the common fund of the manuals’ teaching. Both catechisms and manuals stand as witnesses to the Faith of the Church, but at differing levels of depth. But the manuals are not beyond the laity: the very fact that many were translated into the vernacular shows that they were intended for us. And just as it would be audacious to dismiss or contradict the Baltimore Catechism, so too would it be to dismiss or contradict the manual tradition. 

In short, these authorized manuals are authoritative and safe witnesses to Catholic doctrine, “manifesting in some way the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church”, especially where they are morally unanimous.[5]

Praise for this tradition

Scott Hahn, in his foreword to Fenton’s book of apologetics and fundamental theology, expresses the value of that text and its tradition by comparing it with the present:

But in private – late into a long night’s conversation, after a glass of wine or maybe two – many Catholics of my generation and younger will confess to a secret envy. We strongly suspect that we didn’t get the same quality or quantity of intellectual and spiritual formation that Catholics generally received in the middle of the last century.[6]

Is citing Fenton and others in support of their tradition’s authority a circular argument? No – they are just enunciating the attitude of the Church, who is “a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life”.[7]And, as Fenton points out: 

If these books all contain common teaching opposed to or even distinct from genuine Catholic doctrine, then the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church has been very much at fault during the course of the twentieth century.[8]

Further, Pope Pius XII himself taught thisin his 1950 encyclical Humani generis:

To neglect, or to reject, [things] which in many instances have been conceived, expressed, and perfected after long labor, by men of no ordinary genius and sanctity, under the watchful eye of the holy magisterium, and not without the light and guidance of the Holy Spirit for the expression of the truths of faith ever more accurately, so that in their place conjectural notions may be substituted, as well as certain unstable and vague expressions of a new philosophy, which like a flower of the field exists today and will die tomorrow: not only is the highest imprudence, but also makes dogma itself as a reed shaken by the wind. (D 2312f., 34th edition).

 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Myths: Dry and Ultramontanist?

The manuals are portrayed as dry, reductive and narrow. They were written off by some in the 1960s because of “the anti-modernist emphasis which penetrated them”[9]– which should speak in their favour for us today.

And on the contrary, they are not dry or narrow. They are beautiful expressions of the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are clear, systematic expositions of every aspect of theology, from the natural proofs of God’s existence, through to the theology of the Church (ecclesiology), the Holy Trinity, Creation, Grace, the Incarnation, the Sacraments and the Four Last Things. They are serious, yes: but how could serious teaching on these topics be dry or narrow?

It’s not that we shouldn’t be reading St Thomas or St Augustine – but again, their texts do not exist in a vacuum. The Doctors of the Church are to teach us, not to provide us with half-understood proof-texts. There are varying contexts: one is their own period, but another is the state of the question ‘today’ (by which I mean, just before the Council and the ensuing doctrinal chaos). Questions that were open then, may no longer be. If we want to judge and act correctly today, we need to understand what was believed until yesterday. These texts are a part of a received tradition which must impose itself on our understanding. 

There is another popular idea that, around the time of the definition of papal infallibility, there was a terrible period of ‘ultramontanism’, or an exaggeration of papal prerogatives – and presumably that this coloured the theses of the manuals.

In parish life, there does indeed appear to have been an over-estimation of the virtue of obedience, which aided the rapid collapse of Catholic life in the West. But this is a grotesque caricature of the teachingof the Church at the time. The manuals from this period are far from such exaggerations. 

In fact, they are a gold standard for ecclesiology and related issues. Ecclesiology flourished, and they not only enjoyed the clarity of Vatican I whilst preceding the triumph of modernism, but also benefit from the naming of St Robert Bellarmine as a Doctor of the Church, and encyclicals like Mystici Corporis Christi and Mortalium animos. Contrary to popular misconceptions, they do not portray the Pope as if he were a god, or treat him like a divine oracle. They are not pope-centric, and their understanding of ecclesial infallibility is rooted in the Church, not the Pope. And even if such exaggerations did exist in parish life or in works of spirituality, that would only strengthen the witness of the sober Roman theology of the manuals.

A response to this might be: If the manuals are so good, then why did those formed by them carry out the demolition of Catholic life that we saw after the Council? Didn’t all the early Modernists and later ‘New Theologians’ study these texts, and yet reject them? Why didn’t more rank-and-file clergy rebel against the tyranny, citing the manuals as their authority?[10]

This is an understandable response, and is like asking: ‘If the Old Mass was so good, why did so many accept the New?’ But all these questions have about as much force as asking: ‘If the Catholic Faith is so good, why did the Arians/Orthodox/Protestants break away?’ In any case: we can speculate about all sorts of reasons for clerical actions after Vatican II, from fear of the tyrannical and extra-judicial enforcement by bishops, to infiltration by Communists and Freemasons, and who knows what else. There may even be some relationship between these texts and the collapse – but it will not do to use this to denigrate the manuals. The balance of causes is uncertain, but the nature of the manual tradition is not. Such an objection can only arise from an ignorance of their actual content, which just is the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Finally, it’s true that manuals are a more challenging exposition of the Faith than a standard catechism or a podcast. But the stark reality is this: if someone cannot make the effort, or does not have the ability to study the Church’s pre-conciliar doctrine in translations of standard seminary textbooks then be aware of what that says about their positions. Any reaction to the modern crisis should be supported by the principles of Catholic doctrine, which are found in these books. A position or theory that cannot demonstrate or be reconciled with such foundations (or even worse, that contradicts them) is, on the face of it, suspect.

So in general: Beware those that sneer at the manuals: beware them, because who knows what they want to put in their place.

With reference to the crisis in the Church

We cannot hope to make sense of this unprecedented sixty-year crisis without reference to this tradition. 

Rather than trying to deduce theories from the lives of saints, works of history, internet personalities, or the priest that we think is ‘quite’ orthodox, let’s turn to these books and learn what they seek to teach us. They address many issues that we face today: What does it mean for the Church to be visible? What are the extents of infallibility? Who is and isn’t a member of the Catholic Church? What does it mean for the Church to be united, to be one? What moral principles are safe to follow? 

Many of these questions have matured over centuries – and many enjoy settled, consensus answers. We cannot ignore this. While living at this painful time is a privilege, we must be faithful to what has been handed down to us. 

Rather than delving through Cajetan and others on a certain question, wouldn’t it be better to know if there was a consensus of Roman theologians on the matter? Familiarity with these manuals reveals how little relevance the opinions of even some great theologians have to our situation. And if we need to apply lessons from history, shouldn’t we learn the doctrine first – otherwise how will we judge the accuracy of an historical account? 

No theories – be they about ‘splitting the papacy’, membership of the Church, new situations dispensing with established ethical principles, or anything else at all – none of these should be accepted without references to this body of teaching, and certainly not against a moral unanimity of their authors. We do not love or serve the Church by ignoring her doctrine.

Anyone who wishes to have a developed opinion on the crisis needs to be familiar with at least the theses of these works, and cannot glibly dismiss them as dry or ultramontanist. 

So let us turn to the books with joyful docility: let us believe the theses they teach us, and apply them,and not our own ideas, to the facts. 

POST-SCRIPT

In general, manuals were published in Latin. Nonetheless, there are many editions that have been translated into (or were written in) the vernacular. Coming from a time when all priests had Latin, this is an indication that they were intended for an educated laity. Many are available for free online, and many are available as print-on-demand, reprints or second-hand.

Cardinal Mercier’s two-part Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophyis available online as print-on-demand.

Van Noort’s three-part Dogmatic Theology series (including his respected Christ’s Church) is available online and from Arouca Press, interviewed for LifeSiteNews by Stephen Kokx here.

Willem and Scannell’s Manual of Catholic Theology was recently made available as print-on-demand.

Hunter’s Outlines of Dogmatic Theology is available online in various print-on-demand editions.

Tanquerey’s two-volume synopsis Dogmatic Theology is available to view on archive.org, but difficult to get hold of for a reasonable price in print. But pray and you may be lucky!

The Summa Theologiae Sacrae series, praised by Fenton,has been translated by Fr Kenneth Baker.

The Church of Christ by Berry is a popular and respected manual of Ecclesiology and is available from Wipf and Stock.

Cluny Press have published a collection of essays by Mgr Fenton entitled The Church of Christ. His Concept of Sacred Theology is also available there under the title What is Sacred Theology.

Other ecclesiology books, such as by Finlay or McLaughlin, are readily available as print-on-demand.

McHugh and Callan’s Moral Theology is available online and as print-on-demand.

Somebody with the time and skill would do well to crowdfund and translate Cardinal Billot’s De Ecclesia and Dom Adrien Gréa’s L’Eglise et sa Divine Constitution into English.

 

[1]Joseph Clifford Fenton, ‘The Teaching of the Theological Manuals’, American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963, pp. 254-270.

[2]Joseph Clifford Fenton, What is Sacred Theology? Cluny Media, 2018. pp. 118-9.

[3]Fenton, 1963.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Fenton 2018, p 119.

[6]Hahn, Scott. ‘Foreword’, in Fenton, Joseph Clifford, Laying the Foundation: A Handbook of Catholic Apologetics and Fundamental Theology, Emmaus Road 2016, vii.

[7]G. Van Noort, ‘Christ’s Church’, Dogmatic Theology II, Newman Press, Maryland 1957. 118.

[8]Fenton, 1963.

[9]Fr Gregory Baum, quoted in Ibid.

[10]In fact many did, particularly after the imposition of the New Mass and what Benedict XVI confirmed was an illegal ‘banning’ of the Old Mass. They and the laity that gathered around them were the beginning of the ‘traditional movement’. 


  catechism, catholic, catholic teaching, doctrine, manuals, roman catechism, theology

Opinion

Killing the cure: The strange war against hydroxychloroquine

The following is a deep dive into what appears to have been a concerted attempt to ensure that hydroxychloroquine would not be viewed as an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 8:19 pm EST
Featured Image
David Shao / Shutterstock.com
Meryl Nass, M.D. and Belinda Brown
By Meryl Nass M.D.

February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) —

PART ONE

The UK has had the ignominious triumph of having one of the world’s highest death rates. Some see the solution in continuing lockdowns, more testing and ultimately the vaccine. We argue that the solution lies in medical treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin rather than in vaccination.  But hydroxychloroquine was ruled out as a potential treatment for covid19 quite early on. This is despite the fact that, when used correctly, it is a highly efficacious treatment. Had it been readily available as a prophylactic or early stage treatment we would need neither lockdowns nor vaccinations and dramatically fewer people would have died. However this didn’t happen. Here we intend to explore why.

Hydroxychloroquine had repeatedly been found to be an effective treatment for Covid19. Didier Raoult was one of the earliest to discover its usefulness. He treated over 1000 patients  with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine and almost 99% recovered. Other studies found its efficacy was increased when zinc was added into the protocol; there were fewer fatalities and patients were discharged home earlier. Harvey Risch, a Yale professor conducted a meta-analysis showing the key role it could play in an outpatient setting. This was recently confirmed by McCullough who showed how when started earlier it may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and is associated with reduced mortality. Most recently Zelenko has written on the dramatic improvements hydroxychloroquine can bring about in a nebulized form. A groups of scientists and phd researchers put together a ‘living review’, a database of all the papers on hydroxychloroquine which can be viewed here: https://c19study.com/ They suggest that had it been used over 1,344,703 lives could have been saved

Safety was also never an issue when used correctly. It had been used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses, prescribed without routine screening and given to adults, children, pregnant women and nursing mothers.  It is derived from the bark of the cinchona tree, which has been used for hundreds or thousands of years to treat malaria.

How did a cheap, safe, and highly effective drug, come to be seen as a potentially fatal medication, which you could lose your license for prescribing, your credibility for advocating and every time someone tried to talk about it, they would be banned, humiliated or described as ‘fake news’.

How did this happen? And more ominously, why?

The stage was set when the WHO Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at a media briefing (18th March last year) made it clear that the controlled trials which had produced the initial findings were going to be overridden by the WHO’s far more expensively produced results:

Multiple small trials with different methodologies may not give us the clear, strong evidence we need about which treatments help to save lives. WHO and its partners are therefore organizing a study in many countries in which some of these untested treatments are compared with each other. This large, international study is designed to generate the robust data we need, to show which treatments are the most effective. We have called this study the SOLIDARITY trial.

The idea that multiple small trials are not able to generate strong evidence is false. The Cochrane Library Consortium, the gold standard  in the research world, examined tens of thousands of comparisons between randomized trials and their non-randomized counterparts and found the two types of studies arrived at virtually identical conclusions.   

But WHO appeared determined to control the narrative and set up a $108 million dollar study with 12,000 patients at 500 hospital sites across 30 countries. They trialled hydroxychloroquine on 954 late stage patients. 64% of these were already on oxygen or ventilation. 

Using this study they were able to achieve very different results.

To understand how, you need to know covid 19 has three stages: viral replication which can develop into florid pneumonia and then multi-organ attack. Hydroxychloroquine tackles early-stage viral replication rather than late stage inflammation which requires a different approach. It is most valuable as an outpatient treatment preventing covid19 developing to a later stage.

By giving hydroxychloroquine to late-stage patients SOLIDARITY was setting up a trial which would be bound to have negative results.

However, more egregious was the dosage. While hydroxychloroquine is very safe when used correctly, like paracetamol it has a narrow toxic to therapeutic margin. In 1979 the WHO calculated that 1.5 -2 g of the “base” drug could be a potentially fatal dose. In the Solidarity trial patients were administered a dosage of 2.4 g (equivalent of 1.9 base) in the first 24 hours or 9.6 g in total over ten days

The only ‘safety’ information collected during the trial was whether patients required oxygen, required a ventilator, or died. This effectively masked the adverse effects of the drugs tested, obscuring whether mortality was due to drug toxicity as opposed to death due to Covid 19.

This toxic dosage was quickly identified by India’s official medical research agency, the Indian Council of Medical Research. They wrote to the WHO to alert them to the fact they were using doses 4 times higher than in India. Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO’s chief scientist and previous head of the Indian medical research agency should have been able to identify this herself. A previous trial in Brazil in March-April with a slightly higher dosage (12 g in ten days) had been stopped prematurely due to excess deaths and is currently being investigated. But the Solidarity trial's HCQ arm was only permanently stopped after one of the authors of this blog post, on finding out these doses, threatened them with a manslaughter charge. Was there a connection? You can decide.

A similar strategy in the fight against hydroxychloroquine was the Oxford based RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY) clinical trials run by two Professors from the University of Oxford Peter Horby and Martin Landray. This was a large British multi-centre clinical trial of the sort generally believed to yield the most reliable evidence.

It also used 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients, a potentially lethal dose

Horby and Landry presented a number of arguments to reassure that the dosages were not toxic, not all of which stood up to further investigation. For example, they suggest that as no extra deaths had occurred in the first couple of days when the dosage was highest this was evidence that the dose was not fatal (see line 284). They ignored the crucial fact that hydroxychloroquine has a particularly long half-life, and cumulative dosing was the more relevant measure.  

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

FranceSoir concluded from their extremely detailed investigation of RECOVERY that many patients died of toxic overdoses of hydroxychloroquine rather than covid 19.  You can read more about it here and here.

While the hydroxychloroquine arm has been shut down  doctors are strongly encouraged to enrol all COVID19 patients onto the RECOVERY trial. In fact they recently recruited over just over 10,000 patients in January alone. They are also maintaining  the same minimalist approach towards safety which we saw earlier on: “trials are being run as simply as they can to reduce the burden on the NHS”. 

As Chair of  the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) and a committee member of The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), Peter Horby is an extremely influential man.

 A third mysterious event in pushing hydroxychloroquine out of the picture was the publication in the Lancet of a large international observational study based on 96 000 Covid cases (15,000 of whom received a chloroquine drug) which appeared to show that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were of no benefit and caused considerable harm. This was reported on here. The flaws in the study were so blatant that one of us critiqued it on the day it was published. Within days 146 researchers wrote to the British Medical Journal with concerns about its methodology and data integrity. It took two weeks for the Lancet to retract the study but by then the damage was done.

PART TWO

In part one we showed how the trials designed to test hydroxychloroquine appear to have been manipulated in a direction which was bound to produce negative results. In part two we look at the influence of these studies.

Large studies have a significant impact on medical knowledge even where they are seriously misleading. They are more likely to be published and to shape meta-analyses. The fraudulent Lancet study mentioned in part one is still extensively cited.

 But in the case of hydroxychloroquine there has been a determination to influence the way that hydroxychloroquine was viewed and used throughout the world in fundamental ways. 

Firstly, the WHO put pressure on governments and professional bodies to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine. Belgium, France, Italy were just some of the countries which banned its use for treatment of Covid-19. The Jakarta Post/Reuters reported on May 27 that WHO had instructed Indonesia's health ministry to suspend the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of Covid-19.  Indonesia, the world's 4th most populous country, had been using the drug early for all cases, independent of severity, with good results. Fortunately, Indonesia refused to comply.

Similarly, Costa Rica, which had a particularly low fatality rate, and was said to be the only country in Central America using HCQ for early treatment, considered stopping hydroxychloroquine as a result of pronouncements by the WHO

The FDA at first issued an Emergency Use Authorization for chloroquine drugs, and then suspended  this. Each of these moves served to restrict use of the drug in different ways.

The clamp down in the use of hydroxychloroquine in Switzerland created a natural experiment. For about 2 weeks after hydroxychloroquine use was halted, death rates approximately tripled, for about 15 days. Then, after its use was allowed again, two weeks later death rates from Covid fell back to their baseline. But this did not receive the attention which it deserved. 

Large outpatient studies were also suspended in response to these studies. 

For example, COPCOV, a large global clinical trial which aimed to enrol 40,000 healthcare workers in an outpatient setting, appears to have been temporarily halted after recruiting 226 participants. Investigators involved in the study argue that HCQ had the potential to save tens of thousands of lives. They attributed this suspension to ‘the fraudulent data [in the Lancet-published, later retracted study], unjustified extrapolation and exaggerated safety concerns’.

Similarly, another trial described as ‘The largest and most systematic outpatient trial leveraged by the US National Institutes of Health’ which planned to include an estimated 2000 outpatients with early covid-19 was stopped for good after only 20 had been enrolled in a month.

This was particularly damaging to the potential use of hydroxychloroquine, as it is in an outpatient context that it has its most valuable role to play

And so the systematic exclusion of hydroxychloroquine from the COVID19 medical landscape progressed.

The most-consulted US medical encyclopedia, UptoDate, advised physicians to restrict hydroxychloroquine to only clinical trials, citing the FDA.

Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use with Covid, and cancelled its clinical trials  including one for outpatients, which should have been a key area of research.

Sanofi also began acting like a regulator, writing to health professionals in Australia to remind them that hydroxychloroquine was not approved for use outside a clinical trial. Sanofi also started collecting information on all off-label use of hydroxychloroquine in New Zealand and Australia, providing mechanisms for people to make anonymous reports.  

If anyone should wonder why Sanofi, a drug manufacturing company, should become a surveillance/ enforcement mechanism to frighten medical providers from using the drug for COVID19, it is worth noting that Sanofi, partnering with GSK, subsequently received a potential 2.1 billion dollars from the US government for 100 million doses of coronavirus vaccine. Perhaps that is where the answer lies.

And in what appeared to be a strange war against hydroxychloroquine, in Taiwan, a country which fared remarkably well in the battle against covid19, a factory essential to the production of hydroxychloroquine was burnt down

The barrage of negative publicity which the studies on hydroxychloroquine precipitated influenced what was published. When publishing empirical research, it is easier to publish positive findings. But when it came to hydroxychloroquine there was a bias towards publishing negative results. Studies from North America were almost four times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined.

Richard Smith, former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) helps us understand why: ‘Medical Journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies,’. He was backed up by Richard Horton: ‘Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry’.

Richard Horton was the editor in chief when the Lancet published the fraudulent research on hydroxychloroquine. He should know.

The treatment of hydroxychloroquine by social media companies provided a study on the operation of ‘fake news’.  YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said: ‘YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts the World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations’. While this sounds reasonable on the face of it, the fact remains that the WHO’s pronouncements were not reliable. When those with power control the narrative it is more difficult to decipher the truth.

An example of this censorship occurred when a group calling themselves "America's Frontline Doctors" gave a press conference and livestream talks about the Covid-19 pandemic and the need for physicians to be able to prescribe HCQ freely.  While the media sparsely attended the press conference, the livestream got millions of views. Within hours, their livestream was banned by Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. While they can be found again on YouTube, they have been subject to character assassinations, and accused of having a political agenda. It is hard to see what they gain from exposing themselves to criticism and public humiliation except the knowledge that they have done their best to save other people’s lives.

There was a pattern of targeting doctors who spoke out in favour of hydroxychloroquine. Professor Didier Raoult, an authoritative microbiologist and one of the world’s most published scientists, wrote the original paper which put hydroxychloroquine on the map. As a result, he was subject to a significant level of attack. For example, when the New York Times Magazine did a feature on him, what they ultimately produced was a detailed hit piece. In the US, Raoult is now considered an unreliable crank

Vinay Prasad MD explained how ‘Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labelled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship’. 

PART THREE

In part one we looked at how trials of hydroxychloroquine appeared to have been designed to achieve negative results. In part two we looked at how these trials influenced strategies in the treatment of COVID19. Today we consider why hydroxychloroquine was subject to such an unprecedented attack?

Initially there may have been political motivations.

As it was the year of the US elections there was no shortage of people ready to criticise Trump’s poor handling of the pandemic. Firstly, he was attacked for downplaying the severity of it and then for his over-enthusiastic embracing of a potential cure. This was seen to be a risky strategy which could (and did) lead some people to self-medicate. As a result, Trump’s approach elicited a strong negative reaction from some members of the medical profession.

However, it also seems possible that had Trump been able to successfully promote hydroxychloroquine this would have transformed him into a hero. And there were many forces which wanted the President out.

Even before the WHO got to work on Solidarity, President Trump had, on the basis of findings from smaller clinical trials, obtained free drug donations for the Strategic National Stockpile of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which were made available for distribution to state governments. By the end of May pharmaceutical companies had donated more than 150 million doses, enough to fully treat more than 15 million people as part of their efforts for the ‘prevention and treatment of the coronavirus outbreak’.  

However, Rick Bright, an Obama appointed official, personally opposed widespread distribution of the donated hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, by insisting that it be registered for Emergency Use Authorization only (EUA). This greatly restricted its usage to only hospitalised patients, while preventing distribution to the outpatients with early disease in whom it would be expected to do the most good. This was not necessary as it was a properly licensed drug. This usage particularly discriminated against elderly residents in nursing homes who would no longer be able to access it as a prophylactic treatment.

This was a charade to confuse doctors.  FDA participated in the charade, issuing advice that use of the drug required a level of monitoring that could only be accomplished in a hospital. So, even though doctors could legally prescribe it off-label, they became aware that if they did so, they would likely be sued for malpractice if something went wrong.

However clumsily some may feel that Trump articulated his plan, it would have been able to save thousands of lives.

But perhaps more pertinently the fingerprints of big pharma were all over the decisions made.

One of the earliest studies initiated in response to Trump’s plan found that patients receiving hydroxychloroquine were more likely to die than those receiving regular care. However it was soon acknowledged that this was due to the severe stage of illness, and the fact that those in the group who received the drug were much sicker than those who did not. As The study noted, ‘hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease…Thus, as expected, increased mortality was observed in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine both with and without azithromycin’. The study was not peer reviewed, nor did it include azithromycin and zinc although previous studies suggested this combination produced the best outcome. One could argue that the trial appeared to be designed to ensure that hydroxychloroquine would come out badly.

One of the co-authors had been involved with Gilead which was produced remdesivir, a competing covid19 drug.

Perhaps more telling are the various links with vaccine producers. In fact, it is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the byword for vaccines, who were the experts when determining the doses of hydroxychloroquine. It was they who had developed a model of chloroquine penetration into tissues for malaria. At the expert working group they explained that they would have a post-exposure prophylaxis clinical trial protocol for hydroxychloroquine in the coming week, but we have not been able to find this.

Either way the BMGF were influential.  At the first meeting where the WHO working group discussed the potential role of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of covid19 five out of 25 of the meeting’s participants were from BMGF. When it came to decisions about the dosage for the disastrous SOLIDARITY trials a representative from the foundation was one of only four participants involved

Similarly, BMGF heavily funded the Recovery trial

As advocates of vaccination conflicts of interest were inevitable.  But if the dosage decided on for the hydroxychloroquine trials was a mistake it has cost us very dearly and served BMGF very well.

Big Pharma are extremely heavily invested in the UK public health decision-making system from the top down.  In the light of what we already know it would appear that their financial interest in vaccine production takes priority over a desire to save individual lives.

For example, many might wonder why Neil Ferguson, with his poor record of disease modelling, might be allowed to be so influential. But as someone who consistently over-predicts the scale of danger and is Acting Director of the Vaccine Impact Modelling Group, (funded by BMGF and GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance) he could undoubtedly play a useful role.

The British Government is also the largest funder of GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance. The links between big pharma, the WHO and our health strategies have been documented in detail here and here. When a floundering UK government is so heavily invested in a vaccine industry the potential financial gain from a successful vaccine roll out, rather than health and wellbeing of the people, is shaping  everything which the government chooses to do.

When looking at public health decisions it becomes apparent that these have been shaped by big pharma in a way which will inevitably lead to vaccines. PCR testing has been used to artificially ramp up the rate of infections, lockdown has destroyed the economy, and potential cures such as hydroxychloroquine (and maybe more recently ivermectin) appear to have been strategically removed. As a result, we are pushed into a corner from which vaccines appear to be the only escape.

What can we learn from this sorry saga of hydroxychloroquine?

The WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials which appear to have been designed so hydroxychloroquine and its cousin chloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development. In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.  In so doing, they have deprived billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic.  This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths.

Big pharma does not work in our interests. Some of those involved in this scandal appear to be financially motivated and these motivations shape policy decisions in ways which, certainly in the case of COVID19, are ultimately destructive of human health. Furthermore, their own agenda, wittingly or not, shapes the decisions and outputs of those further downstream.

We need some form of deregulation where as individuals we have greater control over our own health decisions. The risks involved are unlikely to be greater than the risks involved in entrusting ourselves to those who are influenced by financial interests when they make decisions about public health. Their recent track record speaks for itself.

Arbiters of ‘fake news’, wittingly or not, act as advocates for those with the funding and clout to produce the reports, studies and trials which make their case. While there is a great deal of fiction on the internet, fact checkers themselves do not have the authority to determine the ‘truth’ and in fact were recently pulled up for their censorship of a post about hydroxychloroquine. In the case of hydroxychloroquine (and more recently ivermectin) anonymous fact checkers claim more authority for the results of large clinical trials which can produce seriously misleading information.

By preventing the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for early stage covid19 huge numbers of the elderly and those with co-morbidities, with men disproportionately represented among them, have died. This is genocide by default.

In this strange war against hydroxychloroquine it is not just hydroxychloroquine 'they' are attacking. This is a war against us. 

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page.  View it here.


  coronavirus, coronavirus vaccine, hydroxychloroquine, modern medicine, science, studies

Opinion

When an unborn baby is scheduled for execution, Red Rose Rescuers act to love him

When the parents of a preborn child schedule an abortion, in effect, their baby has become abandoned. The pro-life rescue may be the only act of love performed for that child in his life.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 8:01 pm EST
Featured Image
Anatta_Tan / Shutterstock.com
Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph. D.
By Monica Miller Ph. D.

February 23, 2021 (Crisis Magazine) — “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Rescue those being dragged to death, and from those tottering to execution withdraw not.”
“If we believe abortion is murder, we should act like it.”

Not so very long ago, tens of thousands of pro-lifers, inspired by the above statements, blocked the doors to abortion centers. Thousands were arrested, hundreds convicted in courts of law, and many served time in jail. I am of course referring to the heyday of the pro-life rescue movement — a movement that began in the mid-1970s and ended in the mid-1990s — a movement that involved priests, ministers, Protestants and Catholics, men and women, a whole host of young people, and even a few bishops such as Daniel Lynch and Austin Vaughn. The commitment of these pro-lifers was epitomized by Joan Andrews Bell who served two years of a five year sentence, eighteen months of which was spent in solitary confinement. Under the leadership of Randall Terry, Operation Rescue marked the high point of this activist effort in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

One may ask: Where did all the rescuers go? The answer to that question is complex, but certainly a large part of the answer lies in the passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) passed by Congress in 1994. FACE had the very effect the abortion industry hoped it would — it brought what had been the largest movement involving civil disobedience in American history to a halt. Prior to FACE, pro-lifers who blocked the doors to abortion centers received city citations or state misdemeanor charges for trespassing or disorderly conduct. Now anyone blocking ingress or egress to an abortion facility could be tried in federal court, risk a lengthy federal prison term and, with a second FACE conviction, become a felon. Add to this, several major rescue leaders, including myself, married and began to have children. Needless to say, it’s hard to mother children from a jail cell. And with the movement facing the hammer of FACE, no one stepped forward to assume leadership that involved such serious risk. In a word, few pro-lifers were willing to face the sacrifices such defense of the unborn required.  

However, a small band of pro-lifers, who had been active in the rescue movement, continued to be prodded by the words of Proverbs 24:11: “Rescue those being dragged to death, and from those tottering to execution withdraw not.” They gathered for a series of meetings in the Spring of 2017 to discuss whether it might be possible to begin doing rescues again. For literally decades I nurtured a strategy, perfecting in my head a new way to do rescues that did not involve, nor even necessitate, blocking abortion clinic doors. I envisioned that pro-lifers would enter abortion centers, sit down next to the mothers in the waiting room and make a last effort to persuade them not to abort their children, offering words of encouragement and practical help. But should women still opt to kill the unborn, the pro-lifers would remain in the abortion center in solidarity with the unwanted about to be executed — in other words, be a pro-life presence for as long as possible inside the very places where the killing actually occurs — offering a non-violent act of defense for them. 

The idea had its model in the valiant witness given by Canadian pro-lifer Mary Wagner, who for the last ten years has, by herself, entered abortion clinics in her native land to talk to the mothers. As a symbol of the sanctity of human life, and the sanctity of their own lives, Mary offers roses to each of the women. We decided to do the same. Thus, Red Rose Rescue was born. 

The foundation of Red Rose Rescue is built on a number of philosophical and spiritual principles. The unborn are a victim class. Indeed, the argument could be made that they are the most oppressed people-group in the world. The unborn scheduled for abortion are the outcasts of humanity. The Red Rose Rescue is based on a basic Christian principle — namely: “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.” Unborn children about to be murdered deserve someone to come to their aid and they deserve that someone should witness to the sacredness of their lives. Red Rose Rescuers place themselves in the shoes of the unwanted unborn — if our lives were threatened, certainly we would want someone to defend us against such threats — to at least stand in the way of the impending assault. So the rescuer does for the outcast unborn what they would want done for them.

Now, one may argue that defending the unborn and offering help to their mothers can be accomplished short of breaking the law and risking arrest. Sidewalk counseling, through which thousands of lives have been saved, is the best example of such an effort; and arguably this apostolate, coupled with the work of pregnancy help centers, forms the backbone of pro-life activism. This author is a seasoned sidewalk counselor who began standing outside of abortion centers to reach out to the mothers in the Spring of 1978.  

As any sidewalk counselor knows, tragically most women refuse the help offered to them and enter the clinic intent on going through with the scheduled abortion. Once the woman enters the abortion center, her unborn child is on the brink of doom. The question becomes: Should we simply leave these unborn children to the fate that awaits them? The rescuers enter the abortion center to make a final attempt to persuade the mothers to choose life. The killing is not happening on the sidewalk. The killing is taking place in a specific location — inside the abortion center. Saint Mother Teresa of Calcutta was inspired to begin the Missionaries of Charity when Christ said to her, “Come, be my light. Bring me into the dark holes of the poor.” Thus she brought Christ into the shacks and the hovels of Calcutta’s most needy souls. The Red Rose Rescuer seeks to also go “into the dark holes of the poor.” An abortion center is one of the darkest holes of death and despair. The entering of such a place is based on an incarnational principle — to “be with,” to “abide with” those who are needy, the mothers and those who are unwanted and outcast — the human beings scheduled for abortion.     

This aspect of a Red Rose Rescue is very important. Should the rescuers fail to persuade the women to choose life, the rescuers will not simply leave the clinic. We have found that, with few exceptions, the mere presence of pro-lifers in the abortion center has the practical effect of disrupting the abortion process. In other words, as long as the pro-lifers are there, the killing is halted. Yes, one can assume that soon after the rescuers are arrested the killing will resume. But the rescuers’ refusal to leave is based on the principle that they will “stay with,” remain in solidarity with the unwanted, continuing for as long as possible to plead for their lives, be a voice for them, be a visible witness to the sacredness of their lives. They cannot leave — they must be “taken away.”  

Red Rose Rescue is not a protest of abortion. The goal of a Red Rose Rescue is not to glut the waiting room. That is why a team of not more than six rescuers enter the facility — and as noted earlier, they seek to “blend in” for as long as they are able. The rescues have lasted from fifteen minutes to four hours — as did the latest Red Rose Rescue in Silver Spring, Maryland, January 30th of this year. The rescuers bring roses tucked under their jackets or concealed in purses. Attached to each rose is a card which states: “You were meant for love and to be loved. Your goodness is greater than the difficulties of your situation. Circumstances in life change. Give yourself a chance and let your baby live.” The reverse side contains phone numbers to local pregnancy help centers. At some point in the rescue, usually when clinic staff have detected that pro-lifers have entered the clinic, the rescuers will offer the roses to the women and even to clinic staff. The latter have occasionally even accepted them! When the police arrive, pro-lifers who made a decision to not risk arrest will leave when ordered by the police to do so. Yes, it is possible to participate in an RRR up to the point of arrest. But at least some of the rescuers must opt to stay with the unborn scheduled for abortion. 

The rescue, however, doesn’t end once the pro-lifers are placed under arrest. The rescuers continue to witness to the sanctity of life to the police officers, and when placed on trial their witness continues in court, to the judge, the jury, the bailiffs, the pro-abortion spectators and witnesses — and to any secular reporters covering the case. 

In court the rescuers, through their attorneys, in principle ask for a “defense of others.” This is a common law defense that states that a law may be broken to prevent a greater harm from occurring. Only rarely, however, has this defense been granted to pro-lifers. Due to the Roe v. Wade decision, the unborn are not recognized as legal persons and thus supposedly no harm is caused when abortions are performed to justify the breaking of the law to defend them — outrageous as this is! Indeed, it is a kind of insanity! Recently however, a Michigan judge granted the “defense of others” to a group of pro-lifers who participated in a rescue in which they actually blocked doors to the abortion center. It will be interesting to watch the outcome of this trial. 

The rescuers have faced penalties from absolutely no charges whatsoever to serving just more than a month in jail. This was my experience with Will Goodman and Matthew Connolly for our December 2017 RRR we conducted at a West Bloomfield, MI abortion center. We refused to accept probation imposed by Judge Mark Barron, who ordered that for a period of one year we remain 500 feet from every abortion clinic in the United States and her territories! Needless to say, we disobeyed the order. Barron figured we were not good candidates for probation after all and imposed a jail sentence instead, which we served in the Summer of 2018.  

Saint Thomas Aquinas taught: “Human law has the nature of law insofar as it partakes of right reason…but insofar as it deviates from right reason, it is called an unjust law, and has the nature, not of law, but of violence” (ST. I-II, 93,3). That he should characterize an unjust law as “violence” is most apt in the context of abortion, as the violence caused by legal abortion is written into the shattered bodies of the unborn. 

As a consequence of Red Rose Rescues, a few unborn children have been spared their scheduled execution or at least were given a reprieve. Indeed, during the RRR that took place just this January 30th a Hispanic woman told rescuer Lauren Handy that she had decided to keep her baby and exited the abortion clinic while the rescue was still in progress. A remarkable testimony to the effectiveness of Red Rose Rescue came during a court hearing before Judge Mark Barron. The abortion clinic had filed a motion seeking restitution for income lost to the clinic as a consequence of our December 2017 rescue. Taking the stand, clinic manager Pam DiMaggio told the court that eleven women never showed up for their abortion appointment and one woman had actually left the clinic. She stated that follow-up calls were made and none of them rescheduled their appointment. Nothing like this had occurred in the thirty years of the clinic’s operation. DiMaggio even submitted a chart illustrating in detail the lost appointments! Happily, Barron did not grant the restitution. Let me put this in context. Should twelve women not go through with their scheduled abortion due to pro-life sidewalk counselors, so many “turn-aways” on one day would be an enormous victory; each mother given the chance to reconsider the abortion.      

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

In 1986, I wrote a justification for the pro-life rescue that appeared in the newsletter of the Milwaukee chapter of the Christian Action Council. It bears repeating here:

Those who rescue perform a concrete witness to the mothers, the fathers, the abortionists and the community by demonstrating that preborn children slated for death are worthy of defense.

Many may ask, “What does a rescue accomplish?” “How many babies are actually saved?” “Isn’t it all just a waste of time?” First of all, some babies have been saved due to pro-life rescues. However, those who are only concerned about the net number of babies saved pose the wrong question. When the parents of a preborn child schedule an abortion, in effect, their baby has become abandoned. The pro-life rescue may be the only act of love performed for that child in his life. Even if killed by abortion, that child did not leave this world unloved. Someone performed an act of sacrifice for him. Therefore, don’t ask only how many babies have been saved; ask first how many babies have been loved.

For more information, contact Red Rose Rescue at www.redroserescue.com.

Published with permission from Crisis Magazine.


  abortion, crisis magazine, face act, monica migliorino miller, red rose rescue

Opinion

Air Force surgeon: It’s your ‘duty’ to get COVID vaccine

The transcript of a mandatory video briefing for airmen at a Texas Air Force base reveals false statements made by Lt. Gen. Dorothy A. Hogg about COVID vaccine safety, and shows a clear intent to coerce, not inform.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 6:45 pm EST
Featured Image
Children's Health Defense
Pam Long
By Pam Long

February 23, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) — The 59th Medical Wing in the U.S. Air Force posted on its website a transcript of the U.S. Air Force Surgeon General’s mandatory video briefing for airmen at the Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.

In the video, Lt. Gen. Dorothy A. Hogg narrates several unsubstantiated statements about the safety of the COVID vaccine — and then shockingly conveys to airmen that it is their “duty” rather than their choice to take an experimental mRNA injection.

The video training starts with the following unsupported statement:

“Research has shown more than 75% of Americans need to be vaccinated from COVID-19 in order for the U.S. to get back to normal.”

In fact, there are zero published research studies that support Hogg’s statement that 75% of Americans must be vaccinated for COVID. Historically, natural acquired immunity has indicated a needed 60% immunity of the median age groups of the bell curve to protect infants and elderly on the tails of an age distribution bell curve.

A vaccination goal of 75% should be articulated as a goal, and not a requirement, with a clarification that some people have naturally acquired immunity.

Hogg, as a nurse practitioner, violated the requirement under Emergency Use Authorization to inform patients of the known alternatives to the vaccine. Hogg states the following:

“It’s important to understand all you can about the facts to gain confidence and think about your own personal risk to ensure you are making an informed decision. In certain types of emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] can issue an emergency use authorization to provide more timely access to critical medical products like the approved vaccines, when there are no other adequate and approved alternatives available.”

Hogg fails to inform airmen that the authors of a 2005 article in Virology Journal concluded that “[c]hloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread” with both prophylactic and therapeutic properties.

Hogg also fails to inform on current COVID-19 research, including with 62 studies supporting ivermectin as an effective treatment. Both of these drugs have established safety records, and don’t carry the types of known and unknown risks associated with the new mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna.

Hogg provides a personal endorsement of the vaccine, instead of following the guidelines for informed consent which require listing the adverse reactions found in the vaccine clinical trial data:

“I was concerned about the lack of information and the expedited process at first, but with my friends and family being vaccinated and them saying they had little to no side effects my concerns went away.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The Moderna clinical trial lists local and systemic adverse effects ranging in severity from Grade 1 to Grade 3: pain, erythema, swelling, lymphadenopathy, fever, headache, fatigue, myalgiaarthralgia, nausea or vomiting, chills, Bell’s Palsy and death.

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine FDA fact sheet lists the following adverse reactions: pain at the injection site (84.1%), fatigue (62.9%), headache (55.1%), muscle pain (38.3%), chills (31.9%), joint pain (23.6%), fever (14.2%), injection site swelling (10.5%), injection site redness (9.5%), nausea (1.1%), malaise (0.5%), and lymphadenopathy (0.3%). Pfizer-BioNTech also reports anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell’s Palsy and death.

Hogg assures airmen that the unusual speed of the vaccine development is a mark of modern scientific progress and that all the usual steps were followed, while omitting that the FDA Emergency Use Authorization approval process skipped critical animal trials. This is by far Hogg’s most egregious omission, as a person of her seniority should know. These animal trials indicated over the previous 20 years that enhanced respiratory disease, or antibody dependent enhancement, poses a potentially deadly long-term risk for mRNA-vaccinated subjects when they are challenged by wild-strain viruses.

Hogg highlights that racial and ethnic minorities were included in the vaccine trials, and then she shares a shocking anecdotal testimonial that vaccinating in pregnancy is safe without any research on developmental and reproductive toxicity:

“I was hesitant to receive the vaccine, but after talking to my OBGYN, I realized vaccinating was the safest option for myself and my little boy. You might see claims that the COVID-19 vaccine can make someone infertile, harm a developing fetus in the womb, make the immune system attack the placenta or hurt a baby who is breastfeeding from a recently vaccinated mother. There is no scientific reason to think any of these are true.”

Hogg adds: “In fact, the virus can be more severe in pregnancy while getting the vaccine during pregnancy is low risk.”

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine FDA Fact Sheet does not demonstrate the vaccine is safe or low-risk in pregnancy. In fact, pregnant women were excluded from Pfizer’s vaccine trials. As the fact sheet states: “All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes;” “Available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy;” and “Data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”

Under the medical ethics of “Do No Harm,” the UK advises against the COVID vaccine for pregnant women. In the U.S., the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) contains 17 reports of miscarriages after the COVID-19 vaccine, as of February 5, 2021.

Moreover, the World Health Organization advises pregnant women to not get the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, citing insufficient data.

Hogg minimizes side effects with her personal experiences while ignoring the alarming data in the VAERS database:

“I got the vaccine even after I had COVID, because I would rather have my arm hurt and some fatigue for a day and experience the effect of COVID again. The CDC recommends vaccination even if you have already had COVID-19. Since you may be able to contract the virus more than once. Every one of my patients who got vaccinated all responded differently. For me, I just had a sore arm. I was a bit more tired than usual, after the vaccine. You cannot contract COVID-19 from the vaccines as they do not contain the live virus. You may, however, experience one or more side effects. Possible side effects include a sore arm, headache, fever and body aches, which will all resolve in a few days. These are all signs the vaccine is working to build immunity.”

As of February 5, 2021, VAERS data include 12,697 reports of COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions including: 653 deaths, 1382 hospitalizations, 2792 urgent care visits, 1654 office visits, 154 cases of anaphylaxis, and 145 cases of Bell’s Palsy.

Hogg is seemingly unaware that the VAERS is reporting a far greater rate of reactions to COVID vaccines than to the influenza vaccine, while she falsely claims the vaccine “has undergone the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history.”

But by far the most inexcusable part of Hogg’s presentation, which neither upholds the ethics of “Do No Harm” with pregnant women nor follows informed consent guidelines, is that a general officer is using her position with undue influence, patriotic coercion and emotional manipulation to persuade airmen that it is their duty to participate in a Phase 3 clinical trial of an experimental medical intervention:

“Those of us in uniforms have taken oath to protect the country against all enemies. But this virus isn’t just a threat to our country but to the world. It’s our duty to do everything possible to protect not just ourselves, but our fellow countrymen. I encourage you to make the best educated decision for yourself and for your family. A choice is yours if you choose to decline. But change your mind later, we’re standing by to vaccinate you when you are ready. Our goal is to simply give you the information to make an informed decision. This is our shot to save our loved ones, friends and family. The more people that get vaccinated, the safer we are. Choosing to vaccinate protects your community, your unit, your mission and, most importantly, your family. What choices will you make to help get back to normal?”

Air Force Maj. Gen. Taliaferro briefed Congress that two-thirds of service members have accepted the vaccine with varying rates among units.

Military leadership has forgotten the harm caused by forcing the experimental anthrax vaccine on thousands of soldiers, and is now actively campaigning for the experimental COVID-19 vaccine “acceptance” among the ranks.

Military leaders are using messages, videos, personal photos, deployments, squad leader meetings and officer sensing sessions to persuade service members to take the new vaccine.

This is conditioned hit-the-target behavior where 100% vaccination rates will soon be regarded as the goal for all units.

This acceptance approach should be replaced with neutral informed consent and uncoerced choice in accordance with medical ethics. Setting the goal of getting 100% of service members vaccinated will result in adverse reactions that cause non-deployable injuries in service members.

This bias in favor of the new COVID-19 vaccine is evident by Hogg’s infomercial for the COVID-19 vaccine. The chain of command’s loyalty should be with service members, not as salesmen for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

© February 22, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.


  air force, bioethics, children's health defense, coronavirus, coronavirus vaccine, dorothy a. hogg

Blogs

The Supremes take a knee

What to do, when -- one by one -- all your institutions of governance fail?
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 7:52 pm EST
Featured Image
Steven Mosher Steven Mosher Follow Steven
By Steven Mosher

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised when the Supreme Court announced on Monday that they would not review the Pennsylvania election fraud case. They – along with the most of the federal judiciary – have been largely ducking election-related cases for months now, bizarrely claiming that those filing the lawsuits lacked “standing.”

How can any citizen of the United States of America lack standing to file election-related cases? Are we not all — each and every one of us — directly harmed by a stolen Presidential election?     

The Pennsylvania case, however, could not be so easily dismissed. Indeed, it seemed like a slam dunk. The U.S. constitution explicitly requires state legislatures to set laws governing elections. But in Pennsylvania, as in several other states, existing voting integrity laws were rewritten by the state courts and state officials. An open-and-shut case, you would think.  

Yet only three of our nine Supreme Court justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas — voted to even hear the case. I confess to being very, very disappointed that Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, for whose confirmation we all fought so hard, did not. Instead, they joined the majority in saying that, because the election was over, the entire issue was now “moot.”  

That’s “moot” as in, hypothetical, even irrelevant. 

Of course, the question of who writes election laws would only be truly “moot” if we were never going to have another election in this country. As it is, whether future elections will be free and fair will now, in the minds of many, be an open question.

This is essentially the point that Justice Thomas makes in his brilliant dissent to the majority: "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable. … If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.”

Thomas concludes by asking precisely the question that preys on my mind: “One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Note that Justice Thomas is not talking here about overturning state-certified election results. Rather, he is pointing out that real constitutional questions have arisen that desperately need to be addressed as soon as possible – certainly before the 2022 midterms — to preserve the integrity of our elections.  

If the court were to find that the last-minute election law changes of last summer and fall were unconstitutional, it would not throw the country into chaos. Nor would such a finding be “legislating from the bench,” “judicial activism,” “a violation of state’s rights,” or any of the other excuses being used to justify the Court’s passive aggression.  But it would put the onus on state legislatures to devise remedies.

Instead, the Court chose to take a knee, using “mootness” as an excuse for inaction, just as it used “standing” before.  

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that yet another one of our institutions — the Supreme Court of the United States — has been compromised. The majority of the justices seem to be more interested in doing the bidding of the Oligarchy — the leaders of the Washington, Wall Street, Hollywood and Silicon Valley establishments — than they are in enforcing the Constitution.   

Remember, this is the same Supreme Court that, in Roe v. Wade, engaged in raw judicial activism. A majority literally invented a so-called “right to privacy” – a right nowhere found in the Constitution — and used it to overturn pro-life laws in dozens of states that were passed by democratically elected state legislatures.  

And now it won’t even address whether officials in a half-dozen states violated the clear English-language meaning of a constitutional statute?

About the only thing that those two decisions have in common is a willingness to bend to the prevailing political winds.

Do we still have the rule of law in the U.S.? Are we still all equal under the law? Or are we gradually evolving into Communist China, where the law is weaponized by the ruling oligarchy in order to protect its interests and punish its political enemies?

The Department of Justice, apparently undeterred by the FISA debacle and the fraudulent Mueller investigation, seems to have been reduced to the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party. The FBI, once America’s premier law enforcement agency, is now gearing up for a nationwide crackdown on “white supremacy.”  

Does anyone even know any “white supremacists?” I don’t. My friends all subscribe to the Christian view — which used to be the American view — that all men are created equal. It’s the other side of the political aisle that obsesses about race.

The Congress, instead of attending to the nation’s business, twice impeached President Trump on imaginary crimes. Now they are engaged in passing a grotesquely misnamed “COVID relief bill” that has almost nothing to do with COVID. As Kevin McCarthy noted, “Only 9 percent of 1.9 trillion will actually be spent on COVID relief.”  

Where will the bulk of the money go? To political allies in Blue states and to groups like Planned Parenthood, all in the expectation of political payback at election time. It’s one of the greatest attempts at mass bribery in human history.

So what do the 76 million voters who supported the MAGA Movement do?

As the Democrats assert control from the top down, the MAGA Movement has to work from the bottom up. This begins with capturing control of the Republican Party at the local level and state levels. Scotch talk of a third party. We need to forge the Republican Party into a populist party based on faith, family, and freedom, not start from ground zero with a new one.  

The Party must become a party that insists that its elected representatives defend life, defund Planned Parenthood, and put the most vulnerable among us — the unborn — first.  We must elect candidates who put the national interests of America and Americans first, and defeat those who sell out to China. If we do these things, working class Americans will leave the Democrat Party in droves and join with us to form a new majority.  

Our Founding Fathers set out to establish a novus ordo seclorum, a new order for the ages.  It has not only survived, but thrived, for over 200 years.

Whether it survives this present age is up to us.

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order.


  abortion, amy coney barrett, brett kavanaugh, clarence thomas, covid-19, election fraud, neil gorsuch, pennsylvania, planned parenthood, samuel alito, u.s. supreme court

Blogs

Amazon bans 2018 book critical of transgender ideology

If trans activists have their way, this will be just the start.
Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 11:06 am EST
Featured Image
Amazon logo Shutterstock
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — What happens when the exchange of information is not controlled by the government, but by private companies? And what happens when those private companies sign on to a censorious ideology devoted to silencing its opponents? We are likely about to find out. The Big Five of Big Tech — Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft — hold enormous power. They intend to use it for cultural ends.

I had a conversation on my podcast with Rod Dreher on his book Live Not By Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents about Big Tech and his view that a Chinese-style social credit system is coming to America some day soon. In the meantime, however, we’re getting a preview of the sort of speech that the information overlords would like to deep-six: anything critical of trans ideology.

The Wall Street Journal’s Abigail Shrier isn’t even opposed to sex change surgeries as such, but when she released a book titled Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, the rainbow mafia descended in force. Those who interviewed her were told she was an extremist and transphobe, and there was even a hilariously ineffective attempt to cancel Joe Rogan for talking to her. The ACLU wanted the book banned; Amazon banned advertising for it.

Amazon has now gone a step further. Ryan T. Anderson, formerly of the Heritage Foundation and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, was one of the first conservative scholars to publish an in-depth look at the claims of the transgender movement. His 2018 book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement is an essential primer on an exploding movement. I bought it on Amazon when it was published. It has now been banned from Amazon.

Anderson only discovered this fact when he was informed by would-be purchasers that they could not buy it despite it not being out of stock — Amazon had even removed the pages for the book.

“Three years after publication, in the very same week that the House of Representatives is going to ram through a radical transgender bill amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Amazon erases my book opposing gender ideology from their cyber shelves,” Anderson told The Christian Post. “Make no mistake, both Big Government and Big Tech can undermine human dignity and liberty, human flourishing and the common good.”

According to Anderson, his publisher has asked for an explanation but thus far has not received any response. Amazon has also declined questions from media outlets, but told The Christian Post to review the Amazon guidelines regarding the types of books it sells. Other books have been banned, as well, including several by Christians who formerly lived gay or lesbian lifestyles. This was done, predictably, due to demands by LGBT activists. This is now the modus operandi: Complain to progressive companies; make a fuss; and down the memory hole it goes.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

It is true that Amazon is a private company and basically has the right to do whatever it wants. But it is also true that, especially during this pandemic, Amazon has something approaching a monopoly. They are rapidly approaching 50% of the e-commerce market; one out of five books sold is on Amazon’s Kindle. Amazon can go a long way toward ensuring that critical information about gender ideology does not reach an enormous number of people — and they are not subject to the same constitutional restrictions the government ostensibly is.

Trans activists know this, and thus they’re gunning for the weak links. Successfully, too. And if they have their way, this will be just the start.


  amazon, censorship, gender ideology, ryan t. anderson, transgenderism, when harry became sally

Featured Image

Episodes Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 5:46 pm EST

A promising treatment for COVID you’ve likely never heard of

By John-Henry Westen   Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

Cancer researcher Dr. Carmen Wheatley joins John-Henry Westen to discuss a safe and novel treatment for COVID: vitamin B-12.

To help LifeSite continue sharing videos on important and vital topics, consider donating here: https://give.lifesitenews.com/?utm_source=JH0223

Sign-up for LifeSite's video newsletter here: https://bit.ly/LifeSiteVideoSub

Sign-up for LifeSite's email newsletter so you’ll never miss a beat: https://www.lifesitenews.com/ajax/subscribe?utm_source=JH0223 


Featured Image

Episodes Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 3:59 pm EST

Every Catholic who is able to should attend Mass in person

By LifeSiteNews.com
By LSN

In this episode of the Bishop Strickland Show, His Excellency talks about why attending Mass in person is important, and can never be substituted with a virtual livestream on the computer screen.

Bishop Joseph Strickland calls the Eucharistic liturgy "essential" for Catholic life, and he looks forward to the day when churches will reach maximum capacity for masses.


Featured Image

Episodes Tue Feb 23, 2021 - 3:56 pm EST

Each day this Lent work on building up one of the seven virtues

By Mother Miriam
By

Donate to help Mother Miriam find a new home in the Diocese of Salina: https://www.lifefunder.com/DOMMOIH

 

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate securely by clicking here.

 

In this episode, Mother Miriam reads selections from Archbishop Fulton Sheen's book Victory Over Vice, and how it can guide every Catholic this Lent.

 

You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.

 

Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live at: http://bit.ly/submml