All articles from July 12, 2021


News

Opinion

Blogs

Episodes

  • Nothing is published in Episodes on July 12, 2021.

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on July 12, 2021.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on July 12, 2021.

News

Quebec threatens to mandate vaccine passports 

Unvaccinated Quebecers may be denied access to 'non-essential' services starting this fall.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 9:18 pm EST
Featured Image
Quebec health minister Christian Dubé Youtube/screenshot
Clare Marie Merkowsky
By

MONTREAL, Quebec, July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – If the COVID-19 situation worsens in the fall, Quebec’s Legault government plans to enforce COVID-19 vaccination passports to limit access to “non-essential” services.

Quebec’s Minister of Health and Social Services, Christian Dubé, made this announcement at a news conference on Thursday afternoon, according to CTV News. Dubé said that he will not implement so-called vaccine passports until all Quebecers have a chance to receive their second shot.  

The passports will be used to limit non-vaccinated persons from using non-essential services, in the event that there is a further outbreak of COVID-19. Dubé claims that this will mean that non-essential businesses will not have to be shut down altogether.  

“The vaccination passport is going to be used if, and only if, transmission or outbreaks justify us doing so in a certain sector of activity, or a given territory,” the health minister said.

To fight the outbreak, businesses considered “high” or “moderate” risk would only permit doubly vaccinated patrons to enter, requiring proof of vaccination. Areas on the list include bars, gyms, and contact sports. It is not clear if religious services are included on this list.  

There is already the technology in place for businesses to verify vaccination. The vaccinated population have received a QR code in their emails. If the vaccine passports are mandated, businesses will just need to be given a reader to scan the code.  

“All that the business owner has to do is to have a reader, that we'll be supplying, which is quite simply an app on a phone, and that person will be able to read that to see whether the person is adequately vaccinated,” Dubé said.  

He also appealed to adults between the ages of 18 and 30 to receive the vaccine, as they are reportedly the age group with the lowest vaccination rate (67%).  

“For many, there is no sense of urgency. I'll tell you that this is starting to be urgent to give you a first dose in July. If you want to be adequately vaccinated by September 1, things are started to hurry,” he said.  

He did not explain why young adults should receive the experimental vaccine when the recovery rate for COVID-19 is between 97% and 99.75%.  

— 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

Dubé also expressed concern regarding variants, saying, “The variants are really what worries us right now.”  

Mainstream media are continually reporting on the new Delta variant, claiming it is more deadly than COVID-19. However, scientific records show a 99.9+% recovery rate.  

Many media outlets report that the variant primarily affects the unvaccinated portion of the population. Conversely, evidence shows that vaccinated people are six times more likely to die from the Delta variant. Data published by Public Health England also revealed that hospitalizations are higher for the vaccinated. 

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


  christian dubé, coronavirus vaccines, coronavius, quebec, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports

News

White House: Opponents of door-to-door vaccine campaign ‘literally killing people’

Vaccine advocates in media and government are accusing Americans opposed to government intrusion and coercion of posing a threat to people’s lives.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 9:02 pm EST
Featured Image
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster Getty Images
Ashley Sadler Ashley Sadler Follow
By

CONTACT YOUR FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATORS: Tell them to reject door to door vaccinations! Click to contact your lawmakers now.

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — White House press secretary Jen Psaki has said that those opposed to government representatives going door-to-door urging Americans to take an experimental COVID-19 injection are “literally killing people.”  

Psaki made the comment to reporters in response to South Carolina Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, who publicly denounced the administration’s newly announced initiative.

Gov. McMaster was among several conservative leaders who vehemently pushed back against the door-to-door policy, calling it “coercing” and “a breach of privacy.”

In a letter addressed to the state department, McMaster said it is a “South Carolinian’s decision to get vaccinated ... not the government’s.”

“Enticing, coercing, intimidating, mandating, or pressuring anyone to take the vaccine is a bad policy which will deteriorate the public’s trust and confidence in the State’s vaccination efforts,” McMaster wrote.

During a media briefing Friday, Psaki implied that McMaster is “literally killing people” by pushing back against government’s overreach.

“The failure to provide accurate public health information, including the efficacy of vaccines and the accessibility of them to people across the country, including South Carolina, is literally killing people, so maybe they should consider that,” Psaki said.

Meanwhile Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) tweeted that he had directed his state’s health department “to let the federal government know that sending government employees or agents door-to-door to compel vaccination would NOT be an effective OR a welcome strategy in Missouri!”

 

 

Similarly, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich wrote a letter to President Joe Biden saying that he, along with many other Arizonans, had been “greatly alarmed by [the] White House indicating it might be in possession of medical records revealing the contact information of Americans who have not been vaccinated.”  

— 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 this is the case,” he wrote, “this is a severe breach of privacy, and I will not tolerate such intrusions within Arizona.”  

Brnovich added that Americans “do not trust government intrusion or the politicization of the health care process,” and that “[if] Americans are on the fence about taking the COVID-19 vaccine, it would be most inappropriate for bureaucrats to single them out, regardless of motives or intentions.”

Members of the media, as well as Democrats and nominally Republican politicians, have been quick to support the door-to-door strategy and deride its opponents.

Xavier Becerra, the radically pro-abortion Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, said “it’s absolutely the government’s business” to know who is vaccinated and who isn't.

Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger (a Republican who voted to impeach Donald Trump for supposedly inciting the Janaury 6 Capitol riot), mocked “‘tough guy’ politicians” who have opposed the door-to-door strategy, telling them to “get vaccinated.”  

 

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the president, told CNN’s Jake Tapper that remarks made at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) over the weekend celebrating the government’s failure to pressure the majority of Americans into taking the experimental shot were “horrifying.”

Former New York Times writer Alex Berenson, who has written extensively in opposition to the COVID-19 narrative, won rousing applause at CPAC in Texas over the weekend when he said “the government was hoping that they could sort of sucker 90 percent of the population into getting vaccinated, and it isn't happening.”

Fauci, who has been attempting to generate anxiety about the allegedly more dangerous “Delta variant” of the coronavirus and recently told Americans who decline to take an experimental drug to “get over it,” said he doesn’t understand why Americans would celebrate the government’s failure to push most Americans to get the jab.

“It's horrifying,” Fauci said. “I mean, they are cheering about someone saying that it's a good thing for people not to try and save their lives.”

As debate over the door-to-door strategy heats up, prominent Democrats are fighting for more control over information about the coronavirus and vaccines.  

According to Politico, “Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages.”

White House spokesman Kevin Munoz told Politico “[w]e are steadfastly committed to keeping politics out of the effort to get every American vaccinated.”  

“When we see deliberate efforts to spread misinformation, we view that as an impediment to the country’s public health and will not shy away from calling that out,” Munoz said.

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


  biden administration, coronavirus vaccine, henry mcmaster, jen psaki, mark brnovich, mike parsons

News

Cuba erupts with historic anti-communist protests, Trump and Biden respond

'This is the day. We can't take it anymore. There is no food, there is no medicine, there is no freedom. They do not let us live. We are already tired,' one protester said Sunday.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 7:45 pm EST
Featured Image
Protesters take to the streets in Cuba. YouTube
Raymond Wolfe Follow
By

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

HAVANA, July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Cuba erupted with rare anti-government protests yesterday, with tens of thousands of people taking to the streets throughout the island and calling for an end to the communist regime.  

Demonstrators, some waiving the American flag, could be heard shouting “Down with the dictatorship,” “We are not afraid,” and “Freedom” as they marched through Havana on Sunday, demanding dictator Miguel Díaz-Canel step down.  

Videos posted on Facebook and Twitter showed protesters marching to Havana’s Malecon promenade and in the city’s Centro Habana neighborhood, disrupting traffic and sometimes raiding state-owned stores. Some protesters overturned police cars and threw stones at officers, the Miami Herald reported.   

Security forces eventually cracked down in the afternoon, making hundreds of arrests and beating protesters in social media videos while military vehicles with mounted machine guns patrolled the capital after people dispersed. The Cuban regime reportedly cut internet service, according to the Miami Herald.  

Cuba’s grassroots, anti-government protests, the largest since at least 1994, began near Havana, the BBC said, but quickly spread throughout the island nation. Inventario, a group that tracks Cuban data, counted demonstrations in more than five dozen locations on July 11 and at least one on Monday.  

Protests have broken out in cities and small towns alike, including Santiago, Cienfuegoes, and Palma Soriano. “This is the day. We can't take it anymore. There is no food, there is no medicine, there is no freedom. They do not let us live. We are already tired,” a protester named Alejandro told the BBC. 

“President” Díaz-Canel, who took the helm of Cuba’s 60-year-old communist dictatorship three years ago, outlined a violent response to the historic demonstrations on Sunday, issuing a “combat order” and telling communists “to come out onto the streets.”  

“We’re calling on all of the revolutionaries in the country, all of the communists, to come out onto the streets and to go to the places where these provocations are going to take place,” he said. “The combat order is given: To the streets, revolutionaries.” Diaz-Canel has baselessly claimed that Western governments and the “Cuban-American mafia” have orchestrated the protests.  

The nationwide unrest comes amid widespread food shortages and skyrocketing inflation, brought on by decades of communist policies. Cuba’s economic problems recently have been exacerbated by COVID restrictions that have hindered tourism, the island’s top industry, in addition to sanctions imposed on the government by the Trump administration. 

‘The Cuban people deserve freedom and human rights’ 

Former President Donald Trump released a statement today highlighting his “very tough stance on Cuba” and calling on the Biden administration to “stand up to the Communist regime.”  

Don’t forget that Biden and the Democrats campaigned on reversing my very tough stance on Cuba. Remember when Obama attended baseball games with Castros while they imprisoned, beat, and killed the Cuban people. I stand with the Cuban people 100% in their fight for freedom. The Government must let them speak and be free! Joe Biden MUST stand up to the Communist regime or — history will remember. The Cuban people deserve freedom and human rights! THEY ARE NOT AFRAID! 

Liberal news outlets, like CBS News and the Associated Press, have falsely blamed Cuba’s turmoil on the Trump administration, echoing Cuban authorities, with little mention of the communist government.  

The Biden White House responded Monday as well – a full day after protests began. “We stand with the Cuban people as they bravely assert their fundamental and universal rights, and as they all call for freedom and relief from the tragic grip of the pandemic and from the decades of repression and economic suffering,” Joe Biden said on Twitter.  

His remarks made did not discuss either communism or socialism. “Imagine being afraid to condemn the two most harmful ideologies because you might anger your base, who clearly now embraces those ideologies,” Republican U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado said in reaction.  

The Biden administration initially claimed Sunday that Cuba’s protests were due to “rising COVID cases/deaths.” 

“Peaceful protests are growing in #Cuba as the Cuban people exercise their right to peaceful assembly to express concern about rising COVID cases/deaths & medicine shortages. We commend the numerous efforts of the Cuban people mobilizing donations to help neighbors in need,” senior state department official Julie Chung said

Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a son of Cuban migrants, slammed Chung’s comments as “ridiculous.” The protests “are not simply because of COVID,” he tweeted. 

Twitter also faced criticism on Monday for downplaying the anti-communist demonstrations, after describing a hashtag connected with the protest movement as “helping to spread awareness on the impact of COVID-19 in Cuba as cases hit an all-time high in the country.”  

Sen. Rubio called the description “surreal but not surprising.”  

Along with Rubio, several Cuban-American lawmakers have voiced support for the protests, including Republican Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Carlos Gimenez, and Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida, who published a joint statement Sunday afternoon.  

“Now more than ever, the United States and the international community must support the Cuban people in their struggle for freedom. The humanitarian crisis Cuba faces right now is yet another symptom of the incompetence and absolute cruelty of the Cuban tyranny,” they said, condemning the “communist regime” for using “savage violence against the people peacefully demonstrating in the streets.” 

Self-stylized “Democratic socialists” in Congress, such as U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-Vermont), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-New York), had not made public comments on the protests, however, as of Monday evening. Sen. Sanders nevertheless took the time on Monday to criticize “tremendous pain and suffering” in America.  

No members of the far-left so-called “Squad” or authors of a recent letter by congressional Democrats calling on the Biden administration to lift sanctions on Cuba have released statements on the developments in Cuba so far, the Washington Free Beacon reported.  

The Cuban protests have prompted celebrations in the United States, as in Miami, where around 5,000 mostly Cuban-Americans joined a caravan that shut down part of the city on Sunday.  


  biden administration, communism, covid-19 restrictions, cuba, donald trump, food shortages, inflation, marco rubio, miguel diaz-canel, protesters

News

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle receive award for only having two children

The couple's commitment to stop having children was hailed as an ‘enlightened decision.’
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 6:50 pm EST
Featured Image
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Shutterstock
Clare Marie Merkowsky
By

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

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) - Prince Harry and Meghan Markle received an award for limiting their family to two children shortly after the birth of their second child.  

According to Hello Magazine, pro-abortion Population Matters, an organization that aims to limit the world population, chose the couple for being “a role model for other families” by deciding to limit their family size.  

Markle gave birth to a daughter, Lilibet “Lili” Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, in California in June. They have a two-year-old son, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. 

Prince William and Duchess of Cambridge Kate have three children and are reportedly open to having another.  

Harry and Meghan, along with nine others, will receive a £500 donation to a charity of their choice. These awards were given to mark the U.N.’s World Population Day.  

A spokesman for the organization said, “In choosing and publicly declaring their intention to limit their family to two, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are helping to ensure a better future for their children and providing a role model for other families.” 

“Having a smaller family reduces our impact on the Earth, and provides a better chance for all our children, their children and future generations to flourish on a healthy plane,” he continued. 

“We commend the Duke and Duchess for taking this enlightened decision, and for affirming that a smaller family is also a happy family.” 

In 2019, Prince Harry told primatologist Jane Goodall that he and Markle only wanted a “maximum” of two children in the hopes of minimizing their effect on the planet. Prince Harry said he believed that the earth is “borrowed.” 

RELATED:   

Prince Harry: I want a ‘maximum’ of 2 kids because of climate change


  climate change, meghan markle, population control, population matters, prince harry, royal family, united nations, world population day

News

He tried to force beauticians to wax his genitals. Now, he’s suing a female beauty pageant

All of the contestants, including girls as young as six, change their clothing and undress in common areas, with no males, including contestants’ fathers, allowed in that space to protect the privacy and comfort of the contestants. 
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 5:32 pm EST
Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

Stop Jonathan Yaniv from entering women's beauty pageants by donating at LifeFunder.com

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has said it is defending Canada Galaxy Pageants, a beauty pageant for women and girls based in Toronto, for reasons of “safety and security” against serial complainant Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv.

Donate now to keep biological males like Yaniv out of women's changing rooms!

Yaniv, a man, applied to be a contestant in the pageant in May 2019.

He was “tentatively accepted” in the “28 Years and Older” division, but then told by Canada Galaxy Pageants that their policy is to only accept as contestants females and “fully transitioned” transgender individuals whose male genitals have been cut off. Yaniv has not yet completed “sex reassignment surgery.”

All of the contestants, including girls as young as six, change their clothing and undress in common areas, according to the Justice Centre, with no males, including contestants’ fathers, allowed in that space to protect the privacy and comfort of the contestants. 

In a case to be heard later this year, Yaniv is seeking $10,000 from Canada Galaxy Pageants for “injury to dignity and feelings,” alleging discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression, and sex under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

“Biological women and girls must continue to have the freedom to associate with other biological women and girls in activities that serve their unique interests and needs as females,” Allison Kindle Pejovic, staff lawyer with the Justice Centre, said. 

“For reasons of safety and security, it is imperative that biological women and girls, and fully transitioned transgender females, have spaces where they can associate free from the presence of individuals with male genitals. This is particularly so in situations where women and girls are exposed or vulnerable.”

Yaniv previously filed more than 16 human rights complaints against five British Columbia estheticians who refused to wax Yaniv’s genitals.

In October 2019, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed those complaints against the beauticians, who were also represented by the Justice Centre. 

The Tribunal specifically found that Yaniv’s predominant motive in filing these waxing complaints “is not to prevent or remedy alleged discrimination, but to target small businesses for personal financial gain.”

The Justice Centre has requested the complaint against Canada Galaxy Pageants also be dismissed, with a hearing expected soon.

Donate now to keep biological males like Yaniv out of women's changing rooms!


  jonathan yaniv, lifefunder, transgenderism

News

Warren Buffett: ‘There will be another pandemic’ worse than COVID-19

Buffett’s prediction echoes Bill Gates warning in early 2021 that a future pandemic will be 'ten times worse.'
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 5:24 pm EST
Featured Image
Warren Buffett Eric Francis / Stringer / Getty
Clare Marie Merkowsky
By

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

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Billionaire and pro-abortion philanthropist Warren Buffett has suggested a coming crisis worse than COVID-19, for which he believes society is unprepared.

According to the San Antonio Express News, on CNBC’s “Buffett & Munger: A Wealth of Wisdom” this week, Buffet warned, “We know that there is a nuclear, chemical, biological and now cyber threat. Each of them has dire possibilities.”

“It doesn't seem like it's something that society is fully prepared to deal with,” he said.

“I learned that people don't know as much as they think they do,” he continued. “But what is most learned is that the pandemic could be seen coming, and that this is not the worst that can be imagined.”

“Society has a hard time preparing for remote situations, which are possible and will happen sooner or later,” Buffett said. 

Recently, the American billionaire Buffett retired from his position as the trustee of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. According to Forbes 2021 list, he is the sixth richest person in the world. Bill Gates is fourth in the list. 

Similarly, in January 2021, Bill Gates predicted a future pandemic “10 times more serious” than COVID-19. Previously, he warned that pandemics could break out every 20 years. 

Buffett’s comments are the latest warning from a host of political and global leaders of impending crises. In October 2019, then presidential candidate Joe Biden warned, “We are not prepared for a pandemic.”

— 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

Also in October 2019 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation co-hosted “Event 201”, in which 15 global business, government, and public health leaders took part in a simulation exercise based on responding to an international “coronavirus” pandemic. The first report of COVID-19 subsequently occurred in November 2019.

In March 2021 global leaders called for a global pandemic treaty, purportedly in order to prevent future pandemics. Additionally, the 24 leaders predicted that there “will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies.”

Now, warnings about cyber-attacks are becoming more common. In July 2020 World Economic Forum (WEF) founder, Klaus Schwab, warned:

We all know, but still pay insufficient attention to, the frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber attack, which would bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole.

Schwab said that a COVID-19 crisis would be seen “as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyber-attack.” 

He hinted that COVID-19 should be used “as a timely opportunity to reflect on the lessons the cyber security can draw and improve our preparedness for a potential cyber pandemic.” 

Last week the WEF hosted the “Cyber Polygon” event where “senior officials from international organisations and leading corporations” engaged in a simulated “targeted supply-chain attack.” 

During the event Schwab said that “a lack of cybersecurity has become a clear and immediate danger to our society worldwide.”

“Citizens are feeling the repercussions of cyberattacks directly. Citizens are impacted by energy shortages, delayed medical treatment, and other effects this new breed of audacious cyberattacks causes,” he continued continued.

Again making the link between COVID-19 and potential future cyber attacks Schwab concluded his introductory speech for the event:

Finally, one of the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic is also the notion of resilience.

We have to protect ourselves not only against the virus, we also have to develop the ability to withstand a virus attack.

In other words, masks are not sufficient. We need vaccines to immunize ourselves.

The same is true for cyberattacks. Here, too, we have to move from simple protection to immunization.

We need to build IT infrastructures that have digital antibodies built-in inherently to protect themselves.


  bill gates, covid tyranny, cyber attacks, cyber polygon, klaus schwab, warren buffett

News

58% of Americans see media as ‘enemy of the people,’ Rasmussen finds

Even large numbers of Democrats and Independents indicated that 'fake news' is a real concern.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 5:21 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

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

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A remarkable 58 percent of the public agrees with former President Donald Trump’s infamous declaration that the mainstream media is the “enemy of the people,” according to a new poll from Rasmussen Reports.

On numerous occasions throughout his presidency, Trump referred to purveyors of “fake news” as “enemies of the American people.” According to Rasmussen’s July 7-8 poll, 58 percent of likely voters at least somewhat agreed with the statement that “The media are ‘truly the enemy of the people,’” with 34 percent “strongly” agreeing. Just 36 percent disagreed. Notably, 61 percent of independents and even 37 percent of Democrats agreed with the statement.

Even larger margins agreed that “fake news” is a serious problem: 83 percent overall, with 82 percent of independents and 74 percent of Democrats. This finding is more open to interpretation, however, as Left and Right intensely disagree on what constitutes “fake news.”

Regardless, the results are consistent with various surveys over the years finding the news media to be one of the least trusted institutions in the United States, as well as that Americans trust their media far less than citizens of dozens of other countries trust theirs.

— 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

LifeSiteNews has covered many incidents of the type that fueled this mistrust, such as widespread dismissal of the possibility that COVID-19 originated in a laboratory, which persisted for a year until being recently abandoned; the January 2019 smearing of pro-life teenagers based on misrepresentations of selective video clips; open partisanship on issues such as abortion and explicit contempt for pro-Trump Americans from ostensibly independent journalists; factually-misleading coverage on disfavored policies such as election-security measures; and suppression of stories harmful to their preferred candidates, such as the business dealings of presidential son Hunter Biden.

In March, D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman actually took a dissenting opinion in a defamation case as an opportunity to argue that the press’ near-unanimous support of one party over another presents a “threat to a viable democracy.”

“It would be one thing if this were a two-sided phenomenon, (but) the increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions,” he wrote. “Ideological homogeneity in the media — or in the channels of information distribution — risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.”


  fake news, liberal media bias, mainstream media, polls, public opinion, rasmussen

News

YouTube deletes Trump video about Big Tech lawsuit

YouTube claimed the video, in which Trump cites research favorable to hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment, contains 'medical misinformation.'
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 3:56 pm EST
Featured Image
President Donald Trump at Dallas CPAC conference Youtube/screenshot
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow
By

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – In a stroke of irony, Google-owned YouTube has deleted an American Conservative Union (ACU) video featuring former President Donald Trump’s announcement of his lawsuit against Big Tech for banning him from social media platforms.

YouTube claimed in an email to the ACU that the “America UnCanceled” episode, in which Trump cited a study on hydroxychloroquine as treatment for COVID-19, was removed because of “medical misinformation.” YouTube “did not specify” what statements “allegedly violated their policies,” according to ACU.

“The ACU, which hosts the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), received ‘a strike’ on their account from YouTube on July 9, preventing them from uploading new content for a week. This includes ACU's CPAC 2021 Part 2 in Dallas, Texas, and Trump's CPAC speech scheduled for Sunday,” the Ohio Star reported.

In the offending video, President Trump said, “doctors and medical groups have been barred from these platforms for posting about therapeutics such as hydroxychloroquine…now, most recent studies say [the drug is] effective in combating the virus,” the ACU shared.

“ACU believes YouTube was offended by sound medical research conducted by the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases & Urban Health and Saint Barnabas Medical Center,” the group said in a statement.  

“Clearly, Google’s political biases heavily influence YouTube’s definitions of “misinformation” and that the political beliefs of Google executives take priority over the free speech rights of Google users,” commented ACU.

— 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

Trump’s lawsuit against Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey argued that while Big Tech companies are technically private entities, that no longer accurately captures the full reality of the situation in light of “collusion” with and “coercion” from government to silence Democrats’ political enemies.

Last month, leaked emails revealed that President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign urged Facebook to remove a video from their then-opponent’s son, Donald Trump Jr.


  american conservative union, censorship, cpac, donald trump, google, hydroxychloroquine, youtube

News

Arizona governor bans local governments from forcing critical race theory on employees

The new law comes on the heels of a bill that Gov. Doug Ducey signed last week imposing fines on public schools teaching 'one race, ethnic group or sex is in any way superior to another.'
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 3:24 pm EST
Featured Image
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey http://azgovernor.gov/
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

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

PHOENIX, July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed a new law Friday forbidding local governments from making the most controversial tenets of critical race theory (CRT) part of the training of government employees.

HB 2906 “prohibits the state and any local governments from requiring their employees to engage in orientation, training or therapy that suggest an employee is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,” the governor’s office said in a press release.

“I am not going to waste public dollars on lessons that imply the superiority of any race and hinder free speech,” Ducey declared. “House Bill 2906 goes a long way towards protecting Arizonans against divisive and regressive lessons.”

The action follows his final approval the previous week for HB 2986, which imposes a $5,000 fine on any public school that teaches “that one race, ethnic group or sex is in any way superior to another, or that anyone should be discriminated against on the basis of these characteristics,” according to a summary from the governor’s office.

CRT asserts that “race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of color”; and that the “law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.”

The doctrine’s spread in public schools has been a topic of growing concern on the Right. Conservatives argue that it stokes racial divisions rather than healing them; former President Donald Trump worked to remove it from federal training programs and publicly advocated its removal from public education. By contrast, one of President Joe Biden’s first acts was to dismantle Trump’s 1776 Commission, which called for educational curricula focused on teaching students to understand and embrace the founding principles of the United States.

The battle has primarily been fought at the state level, however, with several states enacting bans on CRT in public schools (bans that have come under fire by a coalition of left-wing, libertarian, and establishment/anti-Trump Republican voices). 

By signing his own critical race theory bans, Ducey may be hoping to win back some goodwill among conservatives lost by his April veto of legislation that would have ensured students did not receive “sexuality, gender identity, or gender expression” instruction unless their parents specifically opted them into such lessons.


  arizona, critical race theory, doug ducey, local government, public employees, race, racism

News

Twitter’s strategic move against lawsuit by Project Veritas founder flops

O’Keefe sued the massive corporation a few months ago after his personal account, which was followed by just under a million people, was canceled over alleged 'fake' profiles.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 2:40 pm EST
Featured Image
Project Veritas founder, James O'Keefe. YouTube screenshot/Project Veritas.
Bob Unruh
By

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

This story was originally published by the WND News Center

July 12, 2021 (WND News Center) – Social media company Twitter has failed in its attempt to get a lawsuit by Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe ensconced in federal court in New York, from which it easily could be moved to a like federal court in its backyard in California.

O’Keefe sued the massive corporation a few months ago after his personal account, which was followed by just under a million people, was canceled over alleged “fake” profiles.

But a federal judge ordered that the case be returned to New York state courts, which do not, according to O’Keefe, have the same propensity for dismissing such cases as those courts in tech-reliant California.

The key factor, argued by the Twitter lawyer, was that rules required that such cases be in federal courts if the plaintiff is seeking more than $75,000 in damages.

O’Keefe’s lawyer stunned Twitter’s legal counsel, however, with the statement that the monetary damages were not significant.

“For me, and Project Veritas, this case is about one thing: About justice,” O’Keefe explains.

“They never saw this coming. In court, they were thrown for a loop,” he explained.

Now, he charged, the company “cannot rely on dismissal-prone judges.”

RedState explained it was Twitter lawyer Amer Ahmed who made the unfounded claim that O’Keefe would seek over $75,000 in damages to “punish” Twitter.

— 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

“Ahmed was convinced that this would guarantee the case transfer to a California federal court,” the report said. However, “The Twitter attorney quickly learned that O’Keefe does not prioritize monetary gain over the pursuit of justice, thereby undermining the basis to move the lawsuit to federal court.”

O’Keefe priority is conducting discovery on Twitter, taking depositions, and discovering the responsible parties within the company involved in the ‘decision to suspend his account and issue the defamatory reasoning for doing so,'” the report said.

RedState explained, “Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and other executives may be deposed in this case and forced to answer for the defamation perpetrated against O’Keefe. In other words, O’Keefe has his sites set a bit higher than money. He wants to drag Twitter executives into the light and make them answer for their actions in front of cameras.”

Reprinted with permission from the WND News Center


  big tech censorship, media bias, project veritas, twitter, twitter censorship, wnd

News

WHO official denies evidence for Ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID-19: ‘We need more evidence’

At the latest count, there are now 62 trials, with 32 randomized controlled trials, and over 60 peer-reviewed papers documenting the success of Ivermectin.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 2:25 pm EST
Featured Image
Dr. Marcos Espinal, the director of the Department of Communicable Diseases and Health Analysis at the Pan American Health Organization, in the Regional Office for the Americas of the WHO Ivory Hecker / Bitchute
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.

ANALYSIS

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A spokesman for the World Health Organization has repeated the organization’s opposition to Ivermectin as a treatment for the Wuhan coronavirus, saying that the over 60 peer-reviewed studies testifying to the drug’s efficacy are “not very promising.”

The comments came in an interview conducted by Ivory Hecker, a former reporter for a FOX affiliate who was recently fired from the station after announcing live on-air the pattern of censorship which the channel was enforcing. Hecker spoke with front line doctors about the effect of Ivermectin on COVID-19, seeming to highlight a blatant rejection of the peer-reviewed data on the part of the World Health Organization. 

Ivory Hecker released her independent report about Ivermectin on Bitchute, delving into the question of why COVID-19 death rates were comparatively much lower at Dr. Joseph Varon’s hospital than national or even international levels. Dr. Joseph Varon is the Chief of Critical Care and COVID-19 Unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, Texas. 

Since the emergence of COVID-19, Varon has been very much in the public eye, giving over 1,600 interviews. Yet Hecker noted that there was a subject which, when she had previously interviewed Varon, she had been banned by her former employer from discussing, adding that “almost every outlet” ignored the much lower death rate from COVID-19 in Varon’s hospital compared to others. 

That banned subject, and the reason behind his low death rate, was Ivermectin.

From March 2020 through May 2021, Dr. Varon had 1,293 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but only 86 died, giving a death rate of 6.7%. This rate is almost half of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s own death rate of 12.5% in its featured hospitals, and far lower than the national death rate of 20% which Hecker referenced. 

“We have implemented a series of treatment methods that have a very good success rate,” stated Varon. Those treatments were not recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). In fact, Hecker noted that Varon’s treatments were actively warned against by the WHO. 

Dr. Varon was among the small group who developed the MATH+ protocol for treating COVID-19, which was comprised of Methylprednisolone, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Thiamine (Vitamin B1), and the blood thinner Heparin. The “+” referred to other treatments, including Ivermectin, which the WHO and the FDA warned against using.  

Ivermectin, as explained by the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance,“is a well-known, FDA-approved anti-parasite drug that has been used successfully for more than four decades” to treat parasitic diseases. “It is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines … and has won the Nobel prize for its global and historic impacts in eradicating endemic parasitic infections in many parts of the world.”

Varon pointed to the “fantastic success” he enjoyed in treating patients with Ivermectin, and mentioned that Ivermectin’s use and effectiveness was supported by peer-reviewed research. At the latest count, there are now 62 trials, with 32 randomized controlled trials, and over 60 peer-reviewed papers documenting the success of Ivermectin. One such Australian study had earlier discovered that Ivermectin not only blocked the development of RNA viruses such as the Zika virus, influenza, West Nile virus, and Avian flu, but also lethally attacked the coronavirus, wiping out “essentially all viral material by 48 hours.”

In conjunction with his MATH+ protocol creating colleagues, Varon recently compiled a peer-reviewed study published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, which concluded: 

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.

That group of five became the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), whose treatment protocols won praise from medics around the world. One of the founding members, Dr. Pierre Kory, testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee in December 2020, referring to the “mountains of data” in support of their treatment protocols.

Nevertheless, the group has faced severe censorship. Varon stated that he was put in “Facebook jail” every time he mentioned the word Ivermectin, while Dr. Kory described the U.S. as being in “a media lockdown.”

Is the WHO refusing to listen to reason over Ivermectin?

Such confidence in Ivermectin, as supported by the large wealth of peer-reviewed studies referenced by Varon and Kory, is not echoed by the WHO. 

During her report on Ivermectin Hecker spoke via video link to Dr. Marcos Espinal, the director of the Department of Communicable Diseases and Health Analysis at the Pan American Health Organization, in the Regional Office for the Americas of the WHO, who objected to the reviews made by Drs. Kory and Varon, claiming that they were not up to standard. 

“Many of these articles are really having methodological flaws,” claimed Espinal. “Many of them are from preprints and also some journals that...you can raise questions [about].”

However, the WHO official’s accusation would appear to be ungrounded, as Kory revealed his paper had been peer reviewed by “two senior scientists at the FDA and a senior scientist at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.” Indeed, the latest count of the Ivermectin studies, numbers a total of 64 peer-reviewed studies.

But such evidence is seemingly insufficient for the WHO. “We need more evidence,” declared Espinal. 

The WHO official continued, first agreeing with Hecker’s suggestion that Kory and Varon’s study was at least “very promising,” but then almost immediately changed his tune, and declared it to be “not very promising.” After stumbling with his words for some moments, Espinal eventually commented: “I would say … that reviews help to give us light.”

As recently as March 31, 2021, the WHO issued a directive on the use of Ivermectin, advising that it only be used for COVID-19 patients within “clinical trials,” and that the current evidence is “inconclusive.”

In order to reach this conclusion, a “guideline development group” was put together which examined data from just 16 randomized controlled trials. This group stated that there is a “very low certainty” whether Ivermectin reduces mortality. The reason for this statement was reportedly due to the “small sizes and methodological limitations of available trial data.” Furthermore, the group did not look at whether Ivermectin could prevent COVID-19.

“It is so not subtle what they did,” condemned Dr. Kory. “They basically just dismissed immense amounts of data.”

Hecker put the challenge to Espinal over the alleged deliberate ignoring of data, to which he responded: “No I disagree. I categorically deny.”

But Kory is not the only one claiming that the WHO deliberately misled the public on the matter of Ivermectin. Philippines medical professional, Dr. Benigno Agbayani, stated in April of this year that the WHO were being dishonest in an earlier March 3 report on Ivermectin’s use for COVID-19. 

“They did not include prophylaxis, because I think they’re afraid to recommend it, that’s why they did not make a comment,” Agbayani stated. “If you look at the way they studied it, they did include so many other studies … there seems to be a bias in those recommendations and we feel that they do not want to look at certain studies preferentially, and this was observed even before this recent announcement.”

In fact, the non-profit Indian Bar Association has served a legal notice on Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, a Chief Scientist for the WHO, for the harm she allegedly caused on the Indian people, due to her campaigning against the use of Ivermectin. It accused Swaminathan of running a “disinformation campaign against Ivermectin by deliberate suppression of effectiveness of drug Ivermectin as prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19,” despite the “large amounts of clinical data” documenting the effectiveness of the drug. 

India has promoted the use of Ivermectin for treating COVID-19, and following a mass distribution of the drug in recent months, saw a dramatic decrease in deaths related to COVID-19. 

The government of the Indian state of Goa even decided to administer Ivermectin to all citizens over 18 years of age, whether or not they tested positive for COVID-19. Defending this decision, Goa’s Joint Secretary for health, Vikas Gaunekar, accused the WHO of promoting faulty data: “There are some reports which have found that the analysis by WHO on this medicine is flawed and that the mortality rate is actually much lower if the said medicine is used for early treatment as well as prophylaxis.”

Ivory Hecker asked Dr. Espinal what the WHO thought was working in India to bring down COVID-19 cases. However, Espinal evaded the question by answering: “Look we don’t usually get into the internal affairs of countries in detail like that.” 

— 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 financial affair?

Such reticence on the part of the WHO – and indeed agencies such as the Food and Drug Agency – to recommend Ivermectin, could perhaps be linked to financial considerations.

Dr. Varon declared that it was his opinion that money was completely behind the rejection of Ivermectin. “I truly believe that what we’re dealing with here is economical interest.” Ivermectin is a cheap drug, priced in single digits ($3-$10), whereas Varon noted that the anti-viral drug Remdesevir, also used for COVID-19, is priced between $2,000 to $6,000 dollars per dose.

He is not alone in proposing this idea. Dr. Agbayani suggested that it was financial gain which was behind the statement issued against Ivermectin by the drug company Merck, which first developed the drug some 30 year prior, but which now no longer owns the drug. 

“Merck is coming out with a new drug for the early treatment of COVID-19. How can Merck make money out of ivermectin, if the patents already expired in 1996?” he asked.

The same could be seen to apply to the COVID-19 experimental vaccines. Such treatments are only granted Emergency Use Authorization provided that “there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives” for the treatments being authorized. Vaccine companies have received billions in funding in order to produce the experimental drugs, something that would not have occurred had Ivermectin been publicly known and promoted as the effective treatment for combatting COVID-19. 

WHO promoting vaccines for financial gain?

Meanwhile, last December, the WHO changed its own definition of herd immunity to now be something which is only achievable when the “vast majority of a population are vaccinated.” 

Such a change in definition of terms and subsequent health policy, could be explained by examining the chief funders of the WHO. Data from 2018 showed that after the U.S., the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were the chief donors to the WHO. Furthermore, the international vaccine alliance GAVI founded by Gates, came in at fifth. 

Earlier this year former WHO insider, Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D, made startling revelations about the nature of the organization, claiming that the vaccine-promoting Bill Gates essentially controls the WHO. 

Such was Gates’ financial support of the WHO, that he allegedly asked to be part of the WHO’s executive board — like a member state. While Stuckelberger could not say if he had been granted this permission, she suspected that Gates created three-party contracts with member states and the WHO, essentially placing him on par with the WHO in terms of power wielded. 

Gates himself is making billions through his promotion of vaccines throughout the world, and declared in spring 2020 that life would not go back to normal until the population is “widely vaccinated.”

Meanwhile, according to Stuckelberger, the Gates founded organization GAVI “can do whatever they want” without repercussions. The police, for example, are barred from conducting an investigation and collecting evidence if GAVI were to be implicated in a criminal investigation.

With such prominent financial backing coming chiefly from vaccine promoters such as Gates and GAVI, the WHO could be accused of having a conflict of interest in its opposition to Ivermectin.


  big pharma, bill gates, coronavirus treatment, ivermectin, ivory hecker, joseph varon, pierre kory, world health organization

News

Mayor in Canadian Arctic wants to tax churches: ‘Very clear that the Catholic Church hasn’t done the community any good’

'Tax exemptions, as a whole, are supposed to be for groups that do the community good. It’s very clear that the Catholic Church hasn’t done the community any good,' said Iqaluit Mayor Kenny Bell.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 1:47 pm EST
Featured Image
Clare Marie Merkowsky
By

IQALUIT, Nunavut, July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The mayor of Iqaluit, the capital of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, recently proposed taxing local churches, and he plans to bring forward this motion at the upcoming city council meeting.

According to Nunatsiaq News, this announcement came after reports of the discovery of 751 bodies, some of which are believed to be former students, located in unmarked graves at the former Marieval Indian Residential school, which is about 160 kilometres east of Regina, Sask.

Mayor Kenny Bell threatened to remove the churches’ exemption from paying municipal property taxes, claiming they did not deserve it. “We’re not retaliating against them; they literally killed thousands of children,” he alleged in an interview with Nunatsiaq News. In 2020, Bell supported the removal of a Nunavut cabinet official from office after he made comments defending black unborn babies.

— 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

“Tax exemptions, as a whole, are supposed to be for groups that do the community good. It’s very clear that the Catholic Church hasn’t done the community any good,” Bell claimed, regardless of the fact that some Indigenous people say that they benefited from and are grateful for the residential schools they attended. 

He said this to persuade the Catholic Church to release documents about the history of residential schools. Bell also says that the Catholic Church needs to apologize, despite the fact that the Catholic Church in Canada – and in Rome – has long acknowledged some Catholics were at fault in the residential school system. It was the Canadian government, however, that mandated that First Nations children be taken from their parents and placed in residential schools, some of which were run by the Catholic Church.

“Other than [removing the tax exemption], there’s no [recourse] to deal with them,” Bell said, claiming he was not targeting Catholic Churches, but all local churches.

Father Daniel Perreault, a priest at the Iqaluit Roman Catholic Church, responded by saying that his parish “stands in solidarity with the Native peoples of Canada,” but “it is sad that the mayor of our community chooses to target the churches of Iqaluit by proposing to cancel the property tax exemption provisions.”

“Placing an additional financial burden on local parishes does not harm the Canadian or world-wide Catholic Church, which is not responsible for our financial viability,” Perreault said. “It rather limits our ability to help our fellow Iqalummiut.”

He pointed out that the diocese responsible for the Iqaluit Catholic Church was the first in Canada to apologize to residential school alumni in 1996, and again in 2014.

Although the residential school system was founded by the secular government in the 19th century, and then woefully underfunded by the state, and although different religious groups were asked to run the schools, the Catholic Church has borne the brunt of recent criticism.

Catholic author Michael O’Brien who attended residential schools and gave testimony to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, previously told LifeSiteNews that the chief underlying issue in the residential school saga was the institutional abuse of children by removing them from their families by the state authorities, and then taken to the schools, noting the “long-term psychological and social effects of this.”

Furthermore, residential schools were severely underfunded, meaning that children did not receive sufficient medical care. These children often suffered from excessively high rates of tuberculosis. From 1910 through 1920, child mortality rates were consistently high. Additionally, the Department of Indian Affairs often refused to ship home the bodies of children who died at the government-mandated schools, meaning they were frequently buried on site.

RELATED:

Trudeau’s former right-hand man joins Canadian PM in saying church burnings ‘may be understandable’

Discovery of child graves in Canadian residential school demands further questions as many hastily attack the Church

Canadian lawyer calls for churches to ‘burn,’ says she will help defend ‘anyone’ charged with arson

Rescued from the memory hole: Some First Nations people loved their residential schools

Canadian gov’t ignored inspector’s warning in 1907 of ‘prime conditions’ for ‘outbreak of epidemics’ at residential schools


  catholic, iqaluit, kenny bell, residential schools

News

The rainbow has been co-opted as a sign of ‘rebellion against God’s commandments’: Bishop Strickland

'The rainbow has been co-opted as a sign of sinful pride & rebellion against God’s commandments instead of a sign of hope.'
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 1:15 pm EST
Featured Image
An American flag obscured by two rainbow flags Shutterstock
Peter Levinson
By

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

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — TYLER, Texas, July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas took to Twitter on Friday to condemn the use of the rainbow symbol by LGBT activists which he qualified as “a sign of sinful pride and rebellion against God’s commandments” whilst reminding the faithful of the rainbow’s original meaning and Christian origin.  original meaning and Christian origin. 

Strickland is one of the few bishops who regularly uses Twitter to post on issues relating to the moral and social teachings of the Church on issues such as abortion, transgenderism and homosexuality. 

In September of 2020, Strickland posted a series of tweets urging Catholics and fellow bishops to “wake up” and to fight and condemn evils such as abortion and transgenderism which “cut at the very roots of civilisation.” 

Strickland’s tweet was posted shortly after the conclusion of “pride month,” with many western countries now giving over the month of June to celebrate LGBT “pride.”

— 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 tweet ends on a prayer for the Church and the world and an invocation to Saint Joseph, patron saint of the Church:

Let us pray for the world and the Church to reject the man-made idols of our time and to once again bow humbly before almighty God. St Joseph pray for us.

“Pride month” remains mostly unchallenged by the overwhelming majority of diocesan bishops and priests and even promoted by some, such as Fr. James Martin who says that it represents “a celebration of the human dignity” and an occasion which is “especially important to celebrate in churches.” 


  joseph strickland, lgbt agenda, pride month

News

Louisiana will recognize St. Joseph the Worker Day statewide annually

The state will ‘recognize and appreciate the dignity of all working men and women in Louisiana.’
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 11:48 am EST
Featured Image
Adam Jan Figel / Shutterstock.com
Matt Lamb
By

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

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Louisiana has passed legislation that ensures St. Joseph will be recognized annually on May 1 on St. Joseph the Worker Day. Pope Francis declared 2021 as the Year of St. Joseph in Patris Corde, which the state senate has also recognized.

Senate Resolution 116, introduced and signed this spring, declared “that the Senate of the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby recognize May first of each calendar year as a day to be observed to honor the working men and women in Louisiana, who get up every day and work hard to provide for and lift-up their families, their communities, the state of Louisiana, and the United States of America.”

The legislation “urge[s] and request[s] the executive branch of the state of Louisiana, to the extent practical, to cause an appropriate celebration on May first of each calendar year to bring recognition and appreciation to the dignity of all working men and women in Louisiana.”

“There is an authentic passion and zeal in spreading this St. Joseph devotion in Louisiana that I have personally witnessed,” state senator Fred Mills said about his resolution. “I was grateful to be a part of memorializing this effort at the state level for generations to come!”

— 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 effort to honor the foster father of Jesus came from the effort of local Catholics and won the praise of Father Donald Calloway.

“I didn't even know that it would be a possibility,” Fr. Calloway told the National Catholic Register. He thanked Jennifer Angelle, a local Catholic, for getting the resolution written and passed. Angelle “[is] a powerhouse of energy to get things done,” the priest said.

Angelle created a Facebook group that promotes Fr. Calloway’s book on consecration to St. Joseph.

“Total consecration to St. Joseph means you make a formal act of filial entrustment to your spiritual father so that he can take care of your spiritual well-being and lead you to God,” Fr. Calloway explains on his website


  donald calloway, louisiana, st. joseph

News

Big Tech could ruin US elections, huge majority believes

A poll found that 78% of voters 'believe tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google could swing the results of the election to benefit their preferred candidate.'
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 11:45 am EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Bob Unruh
By

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

This story was originally published by the WND News Center

July 12, 2021 (WND News Center) – President Trump, based on sworn statements from witnesses and other direct evidence, has charged that the 2020 presidential race results were influenced by outside factors – something other than the actual voters.

Big Tech immediately insisted that those claims were “false,” and they announced a permanent censorship of his comments on the subject.

Whether there was misbehavior in the election or not may never be accurately revealed, but it may not matter anymore.

That’s because a new poll by Scott Rasmussen has revealed that 78% of voters “believe tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google could swing the results of the election to benefit their preferred candidate.”

Only 10% found that unlikely.

Which means voters already believe the Big Tech behemoths could, in fact, ruin a national election if they so chose.

“The totals include 47% who say it’s Very Likely they could swing an election and just 3% who say it’s Not at All Likely,” the poll revealed. “Eighty-two percent (82%) of Republicans believe the tech companies could swing an election. So do 82% of Democrats.”

It also reported, “The survey also found that 62% believe technology companies have too much influence on our politics and political campaigns. Just 6% say they have too little influence. Nineteen percent (19%) believe the level of influence is about right.”

The evidence, of course, is there that it already happened. A post-election survey after the 2020 presidential race found more than one-third of voters who chose Joe Biden were not aware of the evidence linking the former vice president to corrupt financial dealings with China through his son Hunter. Had they known, according to the survey commissioned by the Media Research Center, President Trump would have won at least 289 Electoral College votes.

Those links between Hunter, Joe and China were suppressed by the Big Tech industry in the U.S.

The online survey of 1,000 Registered Voters was conducted by Scott Rasmussen on June 24-27, 2021. Field work for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc.”

PJMedia explained, “What’s really interesting is that there isn’t a partisan divide on this. Eighty-two percent of Republicans and eight-two percent of Democrats say big-tech companies could swing an election.”

— 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 report said, “When Republicans and Democrats barely agree on anything these days, it’s significant that the perception of Big Tech’s influence on politics transcends the partisan divide — and that’s what makes the issue so important. People are getting their news from social media, and big social media giants are all owned by liberals. They’re the ones writing the algorithms that determine the articles we see. They’re the ones censoring content deemed misinformation. Heck, they’re the ones deciding who gets banned if they become too influential.”

It continued, “Consider this. Last year, after Trump noted that hydroxychloroquine showed promise in treating COVID-19, the media trashed him, and social media did all it could to prevent you from talking about the drug’s potential as a therapeutic for COVID-19. It turned out Trump was right. Multiple studies have shown hydroxychloroquine can reduce the fatality rate for COVID-19 significantly. But if you shared an article suggesting the drug worked, you risked being banned on social media.”

And, “After the election, when reports of election irregularities surfaced, social media suppressed those stories. Facebook even banned the phrase ‘stop the steal’ from their platform.”

Reprinted with permission from WND News Center


  2020 election fraud, big tech, big tech censorship, donald trump, wnd

News

North Carolina nurse suspended for making videos joking about pulling plug on patients

The nurse made TikTok videos where she joked about taking patients off their ventilators to recharge her phone and overmedicating patients so she could rest.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 8:52 am EST
Featured Image
FameVsCloutTV / YouTube
Matt Lamb
By

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

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Kelly Morris made TikTok videos where she joked about abusing patients at a nursing facility, including cutting off power to a patient’s ventilator so she could charge her cell phone.

Those inappropriate videos have come back to bite her, as she has been suspended from work.

“The videos, which she posted under the username @bubblegumkelz to approximately 32,000 followers, included jokes about overmedicating patients, lying about vital signs, and unplugging a patient’s ventilator to charge her phone,” MedPage Today reported.

Morris said the videos are jokes, but she’s been suspended by her employer and she has created a GoFundMe page in order to raise money to cover her lost earnings, the medical news site said.

— 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

Hundreds of people complained to the nursing facility, The Citadel Winston Salem.

The facility is a short and long-term rehab facility in Winston Salem, North Carolina.

“It was just dark humor,” Morris told MedPage. “I was just recreating dark humor nursing memes.”

Some of the videos can be viewed here.

The coronavirus crisis has shed new light on a problem pro-life activists have warned the public about for years: hospitals and medical professionals abusing patients and disregarding their human dignity. 


  culture of death, euthanasia, tiktok

News

College students reject COVID vaccine mandates — by voting with their dollars

As more than 500 colleges and universities embrace COVID vaccine mandates, there is no reason students and families can’t shun coercive educational institutions and forge their own educational path.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 8:36 am EST
Featured Image
Children’s Health Defense
By Children's Health Defense

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

July 12, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) – The U.S. still has roughly 4,000 degree-granting postsecondary institutions, but the number has been shrinking for nearly a decade. Colleges acknowledge historically low birthrates — lower even than during the Great Depression — mean increasingly stiff competition for fewer students.

On the student side of the equation, academic advisors counsel their advisees to make their college decisions by figuring out “what’s important to them” and selecting schools that “align with those priorities.”

As it happens, COVID has confronted would-be college students who are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff with a new and pressing question: Does the college of their choice side with health freedom — or has it chosen to ignore the Nuremberg principle of informed consent by recklessly mandating experimental COVID shots?

Lawyers caution “universities should tread carefully and consult legal counsel … before making this critical policy decision,” arguing COVID vaccine mandates could invite a “wave of litigation.”

Ignoring this advice, more than 500 colleges and universities so far have decided to impose vaccine mandates for fall 2021.

Institutions of higher education in vaccine-coercive states like CaliforniaConnecticutMassachusetts and New York — states that in recent years eliminated or threatened to eliminate vaccine exemptions — are among the COVID vaccine mandate ringleaders.

But the list also includes some surprises, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Among Georgia’s 70 colleges and universities, for example, only eight are mandating COVID shots — five of those are HBCUs.

HBCUs’ willingness to mandate vaccines not yet licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) runs contrary to the wishes of many in the Black community. Proportionately fewer Black Americans (34%) have accepted COVID vaccines compared to White (47%), Hispanic (39%) or Asian Americans (62%) — with many citing the lengthy history of medical racism and experimentation as reasons for caution.

But COVID lockdowns wreaked havoc on HBCU finances, already precarious before the coronavirus. In October, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s strategic award of millions to HBCUs to “bridge medical distrust” perhaps represented an offer “too good to refuse.”

But even at tonier establishments such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania, administrators and professors seem at ease with coercion for students. A law and medical ethics professor at Penn, where endowment assets increased in 2020, callously told prospective students in late June if they are unwilling to get the unapproved injections, they “don’t have to go here.”

Unconvincing benefits

To tarnish clear-thinking young adults’ reputations, the mainstream media have been pejoratively associating 18- to 34-year-olds (Gen-Zers and Millennials) who refuse the COVID injections with 1960s-era draft dodgers, calling them “America’s biggest vaccine-dodgers.”

These attacks come despite mounting criticism from all quarters about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) COVID vaccine advice for Gen-Zers in the 12- to 17-year age group.

In late June, the mainstream medical news outlet MedPage Today (ordinarily a vaccine cheerleader) condemned the CDC’s shotgun recommendations for adolescents as being “all wrong” — particularly with regard to vaccine-related heart problems — stating that the agency’s “all-or-nothing, one-size-fits-all binary approach” relies on “outdated COVID-19 risk rates” and fails to maximize benefits and minimize risks.

If surveys tracking COVID vaccine uptake are any indication, many young adults have reached similar conclusions, weighing the shots’ unproven benefits for their age group against the growing toll of life-altering vaccine injuries.

As of June, one survey research organization reported 60% of adult respondents under age 35 were unvaccinated — including 43% who reported being either “unwilling” or “uncertain.” Young adults in the “unwilling” category have remained “resolute in that decision” over time, and even among uncertain under-35’s, “there is little to indicate recent incentive campaigns have moved the needle with this group.”

Money talks

It is not hard to understand why some students may feel the need to comply with coercion from their colleges, particularly if the colleges refuse to honor their religious or medical exemptions.

COVID-era research is describing record levels of anxiety and disillusionment among pandemic-era college students grappling — on an almost daily basis — with uncertainty and the perception that there is “no playbook to turn to.”

With COVID-related policies having destroyed one-third of America’s small businesses in many states and robots coming for many of the jobs that remain, young people are indeed in uncharted territory.

On the other hand, young people should remember their strength in numbers. Colleges and universities have a substantial economic impact on their neighborhoods and municipalities, including through capital investments and consumption of goods and services — but they need students to drive the economic engine.

As of fall 2020, U.S. college students numbered about 20 million — 85% enrolled as undergraduates, and 75% at public institutions. This constitutes a sizeable economic bloc with the power to push back and invent a new playbook.

This influence is already making itself felt. Some families, for example, have rejected colleges’ precipitous switch to often mediocre online learning (with no adjustment in tuition and fees) and have brought lawsuits, demanding refunds.

Others have deferred enrollment. By March 2021, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center was reporting a 5.9% drop in overall undergraduate enrollment (compared to spring 2020) and a 7.2% decline among the “traditional” college-age population of 18- to 20-year-olds who represent the largest tranche of undergraduates.

— 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

How students can fight back

There is no reason students and families cannot forge a new educational path while shunning coercive colleges. Students can consider one or more of the following options:

  • Attend a “freedom college” that has publicly pledged to remain mandate-free. At present, 13 states have indicated they will not require college students to be vaccinated against COVID. Arizona’s executive order not only forbids public colleges and universities from requiring students to receive (or prove receipt of) the shots to attend in-person classes, but also nixes other measures — nullifying a policy at one of the state’s leading universities that would have subjected unvaccinated, on-campus students to a daily health check, twice-weekly testing and mask-wearing both indoors and outdoors.
  • Pursue online options. Although some students discovered last year they have a “strong aversion to online learning,” others appreciate the advantages, including in some cases the lower cost. For male undergraduates, spring 2021 enrollment at primarily online institutions was up 3.5% compared to the previous year.
  • Develop an individually tailored learning plan. Drawing inspiration from the experiences of K-12 homeschooling families, some students relish the opportunity to devise their own “mix-and-match” educational plan, combining college courses (perhaps online or at a community college) with independent study, mentorship, internships and/or practical training. This approach allows students to hone important academic skills, such as writing, while developing practical skills useful for basic survival and flexibility in a “gig economy” where diplomas no longer guarantee jobs. These skills might range from website development, video editing and accounting to organic gardening, animal husbandry, cooking, carpentry and auto repair. One student who has adopted this approach said he appreciates not being “boxed in” to mind-numbing general ed requirements and welcomes the opportunity to pursue wider interests than most colleges accommodate.

Commenting on HBCU leaders’ endorsement of Black participation in COVID vaccine clinical trials, an assistant dean at North Carolina State University last year criticized HBCU presidents’ abuse of their soapbox, stating “there’s a power dynamic at play.”

This criticism could be broadened to the 500-plus academic institutions stepping outside of their educational missions to not only endorse, but to mandate, risky, unlicensed medical procedures for young people in the prime of life who, based on convincing scientific data, have everything to lose and nothing to gain from the shots.

According to a reanalysis of young adult deaths attributed to COVID last year, the risk of death for Americans in that age group (ages 25-44) was just 0.0125 percent.

The best thing current and prospective students who object to college coercion can do is to vote with their dollars, proving they can and will determine their own education and future in freedom.

© July 9, 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.


  college students, college vaccine mandates, mandatory vaccines, vaccine side effects

News

Tucker Carlson: ‘Vindictive’ and ‘scary’ forced vaccination promoted, despite ‘waning’ pandemic

‘In the name of “science” and “medicine,” medical privacy, physical autonomy, the right to control the medicines you take,’ these ‘pillars of medical ethics,’ are all under siege with new push for forced vaccination.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 7:43 am EST
Featured Image
Fox screenshot
Patrick Delaney Patrick Delaney Follow Patrick
By Patrick Delaney

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

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Despite a “waning” pandemic, and “zero scientific evidence” to support such a policy, U.S. government officials are now signaling forthcoming policies of forced “vaccination,” as reported by Tucker Carlson.

In his Thursday night opening monologue of the Tucker Carlson Tonight show, the host of the highest-rated program on cable news described that due in part to a soft intimidation campaign characterized by the phrase “get the vaccine or else,” the Biden administration has accomplished “something amazing” in that 67% of adults in the country have reportedly received experimental COVID-19 gene-therapy injections (including only 50% of working-age adults).

But, this means “there are still holdouts,” according to Carlson. “These are not people who haven’t heard of the vaccine or can’t afford it or can’t just find a dose. It’s free, it’s everywhere and the media never stop talking about it. Every news hour is a Pfizer commercial.”

“These are people who just don’t want to take it,” he said, and for some very good reasons as well. Such individuals may have “already recovered from COVID and have active antibodies” negating any need for a vaccine. Or they may have religious objections which Carlson adds, “used to be considered a valid reason, back when our leaders acknowledged God is more powerful than themselves.”

Others, he says, noticed that the novel gene-therapy injections were “developed very quickly” and still lack approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while still others recognize “the stunningly high death rate on the government’s vaccine harm database, or the reports of young people developing cardiac emergencies in response to the shot.”

Either way, “at this point, it doesn’t matter anyway,” according to Carlson, as “the Biden administration is no longer accepting excuses.”

Citing an interview on CNN with the radically pro-abortion secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, Carlson rests his case, that when it comes to receiving potentially deadly experimental COVID-19 gene-therapy injections, “the Biden administration is no longer pro-choice.”

In the interview, Becerra said, “We want to give people a sense they have the freedom to choose but we hope they choose to live” [emphasis added]. 

Becerra also stated that since the federal government has spent so much money to combat COVID-19, “it is absolutely the government’s business,” to know who has and has not been vaccinated.

Carlson summarized how the government no longer seems to even be arguing that we’re in a health emergency anymore, as the “pandemic is waning.” Instead, due to the enormous amounts of tax dollars spent, they propose “the Biden administration has a right, effectively, to go door-to-door to intimidate you into taking the [experimental] vaccine and keep track of you if you don’t.”

“It’s hard not to think that we have reached a major new precedent. Something new is happening,” he said. 

Given the vast amounts of funds the federal government spends fighting all sorts of diseases, Carlson asks “does the Biden Administration [now] have the right — based on the money they spend fighting these diseases — to your medical information? Do they have a right to know your HIV status? Why not? Can HHS force you to take antibiotics for your TB? How about Xanax for your anxiety? Thorazine for your mania?

“And while we’re at it, why are we letting irresponsible, defective people reproduce? Vagrants, mental patients, even QAnon people, all are allowed to have children? Why is that? Why aren’t we sterilizing them?” he quipped.

“Sound crazy? It’s happened before, on a huge scale,” he said.

“So, in response to the atrocities that have been committed in previous generations in the name of ‘science ‘and ‘medicine,’ medical privacy, physical autonomy, the right to control the medicines you take — these are the pillars of medical ethics, officially. Or [they] were. They no longer are. Tony Fauci has declared them merely a ‘political statement.’ “

In a recent MSNBC interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Biden’s chief medical advisor, said that those who are declining the injections should “Get over it. Get over this political statement. Just get over it.”

In summation, Carlson interpreted Fauci’s statement as “Get over it. You don’t have a right to disagree, you must take this medicine.”

— 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

America’s dark history of mandating vaccines, involuntary sterilizations

Carlson then went on to describe the “well-trod” and “scary” road the nation is on which brought about tragedy last century when a “Swedish-born pastor named Henning Jacobson … refused to take the government-mandated smallpox vaccine.”

Though he had already had the vaccine as a child, and it almost took his life, his challenge to the mandate went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where he lost the case.

Following form this new precedent where the government can force medical procedures, the Commonwealth of Virginia “passed a law authorizing the involuntary sterilization of people the state deemed to be ‘feeble-minded,’ or mentally ill, undesirable,” Carlson explained.

“By 1930, dozens of states were forcing women to undergo involuntary sterilization, and in the end, more than 60,000 American women were sterilized by the government against their will. 

“That happened. Famously. And we shouldn’t be surprised by it,” he said.

“Things like that tend to happen when a distracted submissive population allows the government to dictate what medical procedures they get, what drugs they take,” Carlson said.

Though this is such a “well-known and horrifying chapter in American history,” the Fox News television host went on to lament that instead of reporting on it and warning the public about such potential tragedy in the future, CNN media anchor John Berman, “begs this administration to make vaccines mandatory.” 

With members of the media “demanding forced vaccinations,” Carlson also grieves that “organized groups of sensible people,” such as veterans remain silent “as the Pentagon floats the idea of mandatory vaccinations for all soldiers. Now, there’s zero scientific evidence that this could be necessary for any health-related reason whatsoever, but they’re pushing forward [with it anyway].”

The Fox News host goes on to recall when the Pentagon required soldiers in Iraq to take an untested experimental anthrax vaccine over twenty years ago.

“What happened?” he asked. “Many of those soldiers are eligible for disability benefits through the VA, because that vaccine caused serious long-term complications. Those included infertility, lupus, paralysis, blindness, and neurological damage. 

“Those effects weren't obvious at first. They took years to surface,” Carlson reported.

Further, with astonishment, the television host showed a former Air Force veteran acting as a “military analyst” on CNN advising the Biden administration to “waive the informed consent requirement and go ahead and make [the injections] mandatory” in the military. “And then those who decide that they're not going to take it are literally in violation of a lawful order and then they can face consequences under the uniform code of military justice,” the analyst proposed.

“Uh huh. You can go to prison for not taking the vaccine,” Carlson mused. “Court Martials for anyone who refuses to take an experimental vaccine to stop a pandemic that has already ended.”

“What’s going on here? It’s so obviously unnecessary, that it’s vindictive and it makes you wonder, what this is really about? At the very moment that the risk for young people dying from the coronavirus has hit essentially zero, they're telling us that young people, soldiers, should be arrested and go to jail if they don't submit to the vaccine. They're telling you that you'll wind up in a government database if you don't comply, and that government agents will be showing up and knocking on your door. What is happening? What is this about?” Carlson concluded.

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

RELATED

Eminent doctor: COVID vaccine is ‘bioterrorism by injection’ and has likely caused at least 50K deaths in the US

Eminent doc: Media censored COVID-19 early treatment options that could have reduced fatalities by 85%

EXCLUSIVE - Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’

Medical journal calls for Ivermectin to be ‘globally & systematically deployed’

Doctor defends ‘80 clinical studies’ showing ivermectin ‘89% effective’ at preventing COVID

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


  coronavirus vaccine, covid tyranny, tucker carlson

Opinion

COVID jabs, prohibition of Ivermectin are part of ‘global collusion’ to ‘cause as much harm and death as conceivable’

The COVID vaccination campaign 'will go down in history as the biggest medical biological product safety catastrophe in human history, by far. There's nothing close … You can imagine how many heads are going to roll when this thing ultimately comes to its finality,' ~ Dr. Peter McCullough.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 2:50 pm EST
Featured Image
Dr. Peter McCullough speaking to Dr. Joseph Mercola Mercola/Screenshot
Dr. Joseph Mercola
By Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by reigning heath authorities to issue early treatment guidance. Instead, they’ve done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work, whether it be corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with zinc, ivermectin, vitamin D or NAC
  • According to Dr. Peter McCullough, 85% of COVID deaths could have been prevented had early treatment protocols been widely implemented rather than censored
  • It appears the intense censoring and suppression of early treatments was a strategy to promote as much fear, suffering, hospitalization and death as possible in order to prepare the population to accept a new genre of gene transfer technologies on a mass scale
  • The overwhelming drive to get a “needle in every arm” is such that health authorities are not even acknowledging the fact that those who have recovered from COVID-19 and many groups have no possibility of benefiting from the vaccine, including younger individuals, pregnant women, women of childbearing potential, and those with immunodeficiencies
  • Despite FDA warnings for myocarditis with Pfizer and Moderna and cavernous venous thrombosis with Johnson & Johnson, the vaccine cabal keeps propaganda on full blast

July 12, 2021 (Mercola) – In this interview, Dr. Peter McCullough discusses the importance of early treatment for COVID-19, and the potential motivations behind the suppression of safe and effective treatments.

McCullough has impeccable academic credentials. He’s an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. He also has a master’s degree in public health and is known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States and is the editor of two medical journals.

Early outpatient treatment is key for positive outcomes

McCullough has been an outspoken advocate for early treatment for COVID. In August 2020, McCullough's landmark paper “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection” (1) was published online in the American Journal of Medicine.

The follow-up paper is titled “Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19)” (2) and was published in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in December 2020.

Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by reigning heath authorities to issue early treatment guidance. Instead, they’ve done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work, whether it be corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), with zinc, ivermectinvitamin D or NAC.

Patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing. Once the infection had worsened to the point of near-death, patients were told to go to the hospital where most were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that was quickly discovered to be lethal. Many doctors also seemingly panicked and refused to see patients with COVID symptoms.

“I’m glad that I personally always treated all my patients,” he says. “I wasn’t going to have the virus slaughter one of my senior citizens. And it is, I think, terrible that none of our major academic institutions innovated with a single protocol. To my knowledge, not a single major academic medical center, as an institution, attempted even to treat patients with COVID-19.

But I did use my publication power, and my editorial authority, and my position in internal medicine and some specialty medicine to publish the breakthrough paper called ‘The Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19’ in the American Journal of Medicine.

It was an international effort, both community physicians and academic physicians. And to this day, that is the most frequently downloaded paper in the American Journal of Medicine.

Early treatment guidelines have saved millions of lives

In December 2020, McCullough published an updated protocol, co-written with 56 other authors who also had extensive experience with treating COVID-19 outpatients. The article, “Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection,” (3) was published in the journal Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, of which McCullough is the editor-in-chief.

“That paper, today … is the most frequently downloaded paper from BET Journal,” McCullough says. “It also is the basis for the American Association of Physician and Surgeons COVID early treatment guide.” (4)

We have evidence that the treatment guide has been downloaded and utilized millions of times. And it was part of the early huge kick that we had in ambulatory treatment at home towards the end of December into January, which basically crushed the U.S. curve.

We were on schedule to have 1.7 to 2.1 million fatalities in the United States, as estimated by the CDC and others. We cut it off at about 600,000. That still is a tragedy. I’ve testified that 85% of that 600,000 could have been saved if we would have had … the protocols in place from the start.

But suffice it to say, the early treatment heroes, and you're part of that team Dr. Mercola, has really made the biggest impact. We have saved millions of lives, spared millions and millions of hospitalizations, and in a sense, have brought the pandemic now to a winnowing close.

While the World Health Organization and national health agencies have all rejected treatments suggested by doctors for lack of large-scale randomized controlled studies, McCullough and other doctors working the frontlines took an empiric approach. They looked for signals of benefit in the literature.

— 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

“We didn’t demand large randomized trials because we knew they weren’t going to be available for years in the future,” McCullough says. “We didn’t wait for a guidelines body to tell us what to do or some medical society, because we know they work in slow motion. We knew we had to take care of patients now.”

A global collusion to harm patients

When you look at how comprehensive and intense the censoring and suppression of early treatments were, it’s hard to come to any other conclusion than this was a strategy aimed at securing emergency use authorization (EUA) for COVID gene therapies.

To get an EUA, there cannot be any safe and effective alternatives, and since the COVID shots are using a brand-new, never before used technology, making sure there were no effective treatments available was crucial for the success of the roll-out of these shots. Prestigious medical journals like The Lancet were even caught colluding with the drug industry, publishing a completely fabricated study on HCQ, showing it was dangerous. As noted by McCullough:

“What’s so interesting is how airtight the collusion was. It was extraordinary. Look at The Lancet paper [on HCQ]. You had a doctor from Harvard, a company called Surgisphere that had data, you had the reviewers at Lancet, the associate editor and the editor at Lancet. How could they all collude together to publish a falsified paper?

When that paper came out, we looked at it. I was checking the literature very carefully. [As editor-in-chief of two medical journals] I’ve reviewed more papers and analyzed more data, I think, than anybody in the game. And I can tell you, I looked at that paper and in two seconds, I knew it was fake. I mean, I do this every day.

I’m also the senior associate editor for the American Journal of Cardiology. That’s the most venerated journal in our entire field. And I can tell you that a paper like that would never get past my editorial desk because it was so obviously fake. It was a huge sample size that we knew was not possible at that time. And it was people in their 40s hospitalized with astronomical mortality rates.

It was just no way that was legit. And The Lancet let that hang up there for two weeks, scaring the entire world against hydroxychloroquine — which turns out to be one of the safest and most effective widely utilized in people with COVID-19. And when they took it down, it was unapologetic.

My interpretation of this is that was very intentional. What happened with ivermectin’s use in the ICU was also very intentional and a collusion ... Dr. J.J Rashtak had used it in hundreds and hundreds of patients in Florida and published in CHEST, one of the best pulmonary journals, that ivermectin reduced mortality.

Yet to this day, hospitals across the United States flat out refuse to use ivermectin. Desperate patients and families have to get court orders to order these doctors to use ivermectin. So, there’s a mass mentality of almost intentionally harming patients.

There’s absolutely no grounds for doctors and administrators … to deny patients ivermectin. There is a global collusion, specifically in U.S. hospitals, to cause as much harm and death as conceivable. It’s beyond belief … These cases where the families had to get court orders to force the doctors and administrators to administer a simple generic drug, these are going to be case studies in medical ethics for decades to come.”

The goal = mass vaccination

As for why patient harm was a desirable thing, McCullough believes the end goal was to secure the rollout of a mass vaccination campaign. All the propaganda we've been fed over this past year and a half points in that direction.

“Propaganda is the dissemination of false or misleading information by people of authority in a collusional manner. And that’s exactly what’s going on. We have a propagandized campaign for mass vaccination. There’s no doubt about it. It’s actually very overt … And believe me, there are hundreds of millions of people under the propagandized spell that the COVID-19 vaccine is going to deliver us from this crisis.”

What we do not know for sure is why the World Health Organization and governments around the world want a needle in every arm. Why are they so eager, so relentless in their push to inject everyone with this novel gene therapy that turns your body into a toxic spike protein factory?

The intent to vaccinate everyone is such that health authorities are not even acknowledging the fact that staggering numbers of injuries and deaths are occurring shortly after these injections. They’re even letting children die from these shots without any hint of slowing down the rate of injections. Why?

Our next task: Dispelling vaccine propaganda

While we’ve made great strides in circumventing censorship and getting the information out about early treatment, we still face a tremendous challenge, and that is dispelling the misinformation and confusion that surrounds the COVID shots.

Very clearly, there’s massive collusion to suppress the truth about these gene therapies as well. Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines, recently spoke out about his concerns, and not only did YouTube ban the interview, but Wikipedia also erased his name from the historical section of the mRNA vaccine.

They clearly want everyone to believe that these shots are similar to, and even superior to, conventional vaccines. They absolutely do not want you to think of them as gene therapy, which is what they are. Even Malone himself has made this distinction.

Malone is more than a little concerned about the coercion going on to get people to take these injections. He’s also pointed out that there’s no comprehensive system in place to prospectively capture side effects, despite the fact that the manufacturers bypassed at least 10 to 15 years’ worth of safety studies, including toxicological studies. This too appears entirely intentional. Again, the question is why?

“They had no system to catch the complications, but even worse, they had no plans for safety. They had none of the traditional mechanisms for risk mitigation … [such as] critical event committees, Data and Safety Monitoring Boards, IRBs or Human Ethics Committees.

The public should know these are the structures that we have in place in biomedical research. I’ve led two dozen Data Safety Monitoring Boards. The co-sponsors of the U.S. vaccine program are the FDA and the CDC.

It’s their obligation to have in place, from the very beginning, a Clinical Event Committee, Data Safety Monitoring Board, and a Human Ethics Committee [and provide] regular updates, because these committees are supposed to be identifying signals of harm, and then make recommendations to the sponsors about how to make the program safer.

This was the fiduciary responsibility of the FDA and the NIH. Again, this is going to go down in regulatory history as one of the most colossal blunders of all time. How can you do the largest clinical investigation in the history of medicine and have no safeguards? You have no mechanisms to protect Americans from what could happen with the vaccine program?”

Why were standardized safety protocols omitted?

As for the motivation or reason for ignoring virtually all standardized safety measures, McCullough says:

“There has been such a suppression of early treatment … and a complete propagandized campaign for social distancing, wearing masks, promoting fear, suffering, hospitalization and death. And to prepare the population for mass vaccination, the last thing they wanted to do is have anything that could potentially restrict the population that would be taking the vaccine.

And so, I don’t think they actually wanted any safety safeguards. I thought their goal, from the very beginning, was to try to railroad every single individual with two legs [into getting the shot]. The most important moniker was a needle in every arm.

When those billboards went up in every city in the United States, the stakeholders — which are the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, and then Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson outside the United States, and AstraZeneca — they meant business.

When they say needle in every arm, that’s not a joke. It’s not a needle in every arm for whom it’s appropriate, or a needle in every arm for medically indicated. No, it’s a needle in every arm of every human being. They mean it, and I think Americans should be frightened.”

A crime against humanity

What we’re experiencing is really a crime against humanity, and hopefully the responsible individuals will ultimately be held accountable and found guilty of such a charge. As noted by McCullough:

How could one possibly have a large clinical investigation, ask individuals to sign consent, and then provide no safety mechanisms, really provide nothing with respect to safety of individuals? Everything about the vaccine is about safety. The reports that have accrued are so voluminous that if the stakeholders wanted to make the case that the vaccines are safe, they should make it with data.

They don’t, they simply say the vaccines are safe. And the medical societies are just as complicit. If you go to the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, they say the same thing, ‘The vaccine is safe.’ Within those organizations also, there’s a large swathe of individuals who are going to have to answer [for their actions].

The spike protein is not a cure; It’s a disease agent

As of June 18, 2021, we have 387,087 adverse event reports filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), including 6,113 deaths, a large portion of which occurred within days of injection, and 6,435 life threatening reactions. (5)

We also have very good evidence to suggest this is a gross undercount, in part due to general underreporting, and in part due to VAERS refusing to accept reports — particularly those involving deaths — and scrubbing reports that have already been filed. So, these already alarming numbers likely only represent the tip of the iceberg.

“We have red hot problems, like children and young adults developing myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. I just saw such a patient yesterday,” McCullough says. “These are proven cases. This is not make believe. This is for real.”

So, you may ask the question, how in the world could this happen? Well, the first element of this happening is the vaccines as they exist today, either messenger RNA, or adenoviral DNA, the mechanism of action is not safe. The mechanism of action poses a biologic danger.

These vaccines all trick the body into making the spike protein of the virus. The spike protein itself is pathogenic. It’s actually what makes the virus dangerous. It was the object of gain-of-function research. So, it has a dangerous mechanism of action. Why? Because the spike protein is produced in an uncontrolled fashion. It’s not like a tetanus shot where there’s only a certain amount of protein that’s injected.

This is an uncontrolled quantity of spike protein. Probably each person is different, so may have [lower] production of it. They have very little symptoms after the vaccine, they're fine.

Hopefully that’s the majority of individuals, but there are unfortunate individuals that must have massive amount of spike protein, and that spike protein ravages the body wherever the spike protein is locally made, and we do know the messenger RNA and the adenoviral DNA gets distributed in all the organs.

So if messenger RNA is up in the brain and we start producing spike protein in the brain, we cause local brain injury. There are now well-described neurologic injury cases with the vaccine. Many of them. In the heart, it causes myocarditis and cardiac injury. In the liver, it causes liver injury, in the lung, lung injury, in the kidney, kidney injury.

And very importantly, the spike protein damages endothelial cells and causes blood clotting. So, blood clotting, the dreaded complication of the infection itself, is now caused by the vaccine. Everything we've found out about the vaccine since its release has been bad.’

What can we expect to happen in the future?

Beyond the acute injury phase, there’s the very real possibility of long term health hazards. If you make it past the first couple of months without significant problems, you’re still not out of the woods. My main concern is the possibility of paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), also known as pathogenic priming, or antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which essentially results in a cascade of immunological overreactions that wind up killing you.

“We’re so busy with the acute toxicity to the vaccine. We’re just absolutely overwhelmed, so, it’s hard to imagine in three to six months where we will be … There are hints right now that the messenger RNA doesn't break down in a few days, that the natural disposal systems that we have for the messenger RNA doesn't work [for the synthetic mRNA].

Now, we don't know about the adenoviral DNA. I have a more favorable view of the adenoviral DNA products in the sense that maybe the body … can fight that off and dispose of it. The Johnson & Johnson, per number of injections, has the fewest complications. And most Americans think just the opposite because of that misdirection activity.

I think the vaccine stakeholders intentionally picked on Johnson & Johnson in order to distract attention away from the terrible safety events we've seen with Pfizer and Moderna. The vast majority of all the devastation we've seen is with Pfizer and Moderna …

When you generate a really strong antibody response, it’s actually more pathogenic. The belief is it’s more pathogenic than the natural infection, because we’re seeing syndromes in vaccine victims that are way worse than getting COVID-19 itself. I mean, the syndromes are actually horrendous.

I have seen neurologic blindness, cervical myelitis, cerebellar syndrome. It’s absolutely awful. It depends where the messenger RNA goes … and everything I can put together biologically, and what I see clinically, is that vaccines aren't going to work but for a few months …

After the first shot of mRNA, one is actually more susceptible to COVID-19. This has been shown time and time again. My first rash of patients with post-vaccination COVID-19 in my practice was always after the first injection. The theory here is that the body has been hit with the messenger RNA, the spike protein is generated, it's damaging some endothelial cells, and there's an immature library of antibodies that are being formed.

And those antibodies, instead of protecting against the next exposure to COVID-19, they actually facilitate entry. That's called antibody-dependent enhancement, and I think there is evidence for that … As for what we can expect long-term, that's anyone’s guess.”

Long term risks are unknown

Before COVID came along, the FDA required vaccine makers to provide 24 months’ worth of data before they’d allow it. This was truncated down to two months for the COVID shots. So, anyone who says the shots are safe long term is lying because no such data exists to prove this.

“The consent form says, ‘We don't know if this is going to work, we don't know if it's going to last, and we don't know if it's going to be safe.’ They say that. So, anybody who takes the vaccine is going to have to think about this and understand that we don't know anything beyond two months.

Given all the short-term risks, if there are any long-term risks, it is absolutely compounding this unknown. What I know based on the literature right now is there could be a risk given the narrow spectrum of immunologic coverage ... There could be such a narrow immunity that more virulent strain could overwhelm it …

The most recent variant is the Delta variant. That's the weakest of all the variants and the most easily treatable. But if someone, let's say a nefarious entity created a more virulent virus, it could easily be designed to scoot past a very narrow immunity that hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, will be keyed to with narrow immunity.”

DNA changes, cancer and chronic illness are possible effects

McCullough also discusses the risk that these mRNA injections might become permanently incorporated into your DNA by way of reverse transcriptase.

“There now have been enough studies to suggest there is some reverse transcription — that in fact the RNA creates DNA and then DNA gets permanently put into the human genome,” he explains.

“We know this from the natural infection. The T-Detect test actually checks the T-cells when it tracks the DNA. This is a commercial test you can get if you had COVID-19, and it looks for minor chromosomal re-arrangements that code for cell surface receptors on T-cells.”

The question is, if the synthetic mRNA or adenoviral DNAs in fact create permanent changes to the genome, what effects will that have? Could it promote cancer, for example? McCullough cites a recent paper indicating the spike protein might in fact affect two important cancer suppressor genes.

“This is disturbing because we're using novel genetic material and it's possible that they're oncogenic. We know some other viruses are oncogenic, including Epstein-Barr virus. So, when that paper hit, we said, ‘Oh no, are we setting up people for cancer risk of solid organ cancers, like breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, et cetera.’

It is a sick feeling what we've learned there. We do understand now that there must be cell damage that's occurring with this spike protein inside cells. And that if it's not turned off, that that spike protein generation could end up with some type of chronic disease.

There are elements of the spike protein that are similar to prions that occur in neurologic disease, for instance. There may be intracellular changes as the body keeps cranking the spike protein which you're not supposed to crank, that causes other problems in cells …

Future development of heart failure comes to mind, gastrointestinal illnesses, pulmonary fibrosis, neurodegenerative diseases. We could be on to the start of a whole new genre of chronic disease in America due to this mass experimentation of genetic products in the human body.”

Impossible for vaccination program to improve disease curve

In a sane and rational world not laboring under some hidden agenda to kill off a portion of the population, these shots would have only been rolled out to the highest-risk individuals. The rest of the population would have been excluded from the experiment.

Remember the COVID injection trials conflated absolute and relative risk. Pfizer claimed its mRNA shot was 95% effective, but that was the relative risk reduction — the absolute risk reduction was actually less than 1%. (6) As noted by McCullough, healthy adults under 50, teens and children have a less than 1% chance of hospitalization and death from COVID-19, so they don't have a medical need for it.

“You can’t make less than 1% smaller and have it be clinically meaningful. That's the reason why the vaccine program will never have an impact on the epidemiologic curves. Dr. [Ronald] Brown from Canada has done the analysis. It's impossible.

Someone sent me an email the other day [saying], ‘Dr. McCullough, don't you think that the pandemic is being favorably impacted by the vaccination program?’ The answer is no. We look at the clinical trials. There's less than 1% absolute risk reduction. It means that, mathematically, it's impossible for mass vaccination to have a favorable impact on the population.”

COVID shot may raise your risk of COVID death

What’s worse, McCullough cites data showing that those who have gotten the shot and end up with COVID-19 anyway have far higher rates of hospitalization and death.

“The CDC was so overwhelmed [with adverse reports], they gave up. God knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans got vaccinated and got COVID-19 anyway. It looks just like regular COVID. In the data they had, it was a 9% risk of hospitalization and then a 3% risk of death.”

What this means is that, by taking the injection, you trade in a 0.26% (7) risk of death, should you contract COVID-19, for a 3% risk of death if you get infected. If you’re younger than 40, you’re trading a 0.01% (8) risk of death for a 3% risk.

The way forward demands we just say no

If you want to hear more of what McCullough has to say, you can find his podcast, The McCullough Report, on America Out Loud. Every week, he talks to medical experts from different countries to get a range of perspectives and innovative approaches. In closing, he notes:

“My personal view is that I think the vaccine program has been a disaster. We should have just treated COVID-19 as an illness. We should never have shut down the schools or anything else. None of this wearing masks. We should have just treated the acute problem, and we would have gotten ourselves out of the pandemic.”

As for how we move forward, first of all, we need to stop the acute injury, and that means we need to stop taking these COVID shots. Beyond that, we’ll need to experiment to determine the best ways to block the damage done by the spike protein, for however long that is produced and stays in circulation.

“If there’s any mother who’s concerned about their child developing myocarditis, the way to avoid it is just don't bring your child to a vaccination center,” McCullough says.

“Everyone is just going to have to learn to say no. We cannot be harmed by the vaccine if we just decline it. And the vaccine is completely elective. The CDC, the NIH, FDA, they've all said it's elective. You don't have to take it. Those agencies, by the way, they're not taking it.

So, nobody has to take it. And everyone who is in a school or a university, or a workplace where they're saying you have to take it, or say you have to take it for travel, the answer is no you don't. You do not have to take it for travel. And yes, you can show up to work without the vaccine. And yes, you can show up to school without the vaccine.

These are forms of intimidation and almost every one of these institutions actually hasn't written a policy. And if they don't have a policy that's been vetted with fair exemptions, that's just intimidation. That's like saying you can't show up to work with a blue tie. If I want to wear a blue tie, I'm going to show up to work in a blue tie.

I think Americans are going to have to have that type of backbone in order to break this wave of propaganda, [this] ill intent that's levered on the American people. I know so many people who are cowering … The fear is extraordinary …

If we had a Data Safety Monitoring Report in place, they would have been having emergency meetings at the end of January 2021, and said, ‘You know what? What we're seeing is not good.’ We can actually calculate what's called the competence interval.

When we exceed a competence interval for risks above a certain risk limit, we call it, and that [competence interval was exceeded] on January 22, 2021. Yet here we are, five months later. This will go down in history as the biggest medical biological product safety catastrophe in human history, by far. There’s nothing close … You can imagine how many heads are going to roll when this thing ultimately comes to its finality.”

Reprinted with permission from Mercola


  coronavirus vaccines, mandatory vaccines, mercola, peter mccullough, vaccine deaths, vaccine side effects

Opinion

Teacher served ‘harassment’ charge for opposing sexually explicit books in middle school classrooms

The teacher was supported by 18 colleagues, who warned about the 'known psychological and mental damage' to children which would come from the 'sexually explicit and pornographic materials.'
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 11:20 am EST
Featured Image
Baird Middle School librarian Jordan Funke (right) poses with one of the library books and the book's author at a school event Mass Resistance
Mass Resistance
By

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

July 12, 2021 (Mass Resistance) – Most people can’t imagine what efforts school officials and activist staff will make to protect the sexuality/LGBT agenda – and how they seek to impose a climate of fear within the school against everyone who disagrees. What happened in this middle school is representative of what is happening across the country.

A teacher raises an alarm

In Part 2 we described how Bonnie, a social studies teacher at Baird Middle School in Ludlow, MA, became alarmed that pornographic, homosexual, and transgender themed books were in the school library, and were being brought into classrooms for children to read. This was apparently arranged by the “transgender” librarian (a weird woman who dressed as a man).

Bonnie met with the Principal, who refused to deal with it. So on Nov. 18, 2019 (as we described in Part 3) Bonnie delivered a detailed letter to the Superintendent that was signed by 18 other Baird teachers who shared her concern. The letter strongly requested that those harmful books not be made available to the children. But the Superintendent was unconcerned. Instead, he told them they must go through a formal “process” if they wanted any books removed.

On January 20, 2020 (as we described in Part 4) Bonnie submitted the paperwork to go through the bureaucratic process for removal of one of the particularly egregious books. A biased committee appointed by the Superintendent subsequently ruled that the book was “age-appropriate for middle school students.”

But Bonnie was clearly upsetting the power structure in the Ludlow schools. Teachers aren’t supposed to go against that agenda. One week after Bonnie submitted the paperwork to remove the book, the retribution against her began.

Librarian files ‘harassment’ charge against Bonnie!

On January 27, 2020, the cross-dressing Baird Middle School librarian, Jordan Funke, filed a formal “harassment, bullying, discrimination, and hate crimes” complaint against Bonnie. In today’s political climate, this is considered a serious charge. Like most other school systems, Ludlow has a fairly comprehensive district policy covering these issues.

But Funke’s complaint against Bonnie is a bit vague:

Bonnie has been spreading lies about me and accusing me of sexually exploiting students. I believe this is libel, defamation, and harassment based in part on her perception of my sexual orientation and gender identity.

There were no dates, times, or specific incidents listed.

Funke also writes in the complaint: “Administration tried to direct [Bonnie’s] complaints [about the books] through official channels, which she has not done.” This, of course, is untrue. For one of the books, Bonnie had done exactly what the Superintendent had directed her to do regarding the “process.” (If done properly, the process was purposefully too cumbersome to do for all the books.)

Image
 From Funke’s “harassment” complaint against Bonnie.

Funke names four people as “witnesses” to Bonnie’s transgressions: The Superintendent and three people who were on the Superintendent’s “book” committee - the Baird Principal, and two left-wing Baird teachers.

Two weeks later, on February 13, 2020, Bonnie received a letter officially notifying her that there is a formal “Harassment, Bullying, Discrimination, and Hate Crimes” complaint against 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

Bonnie was instructed to come to the office of the Director of Curriculum and Instruction to discuss the complaint. She was told she could bring union representation and/or an attorney.

At the meeting: The ‘harassment’ charge completely falls apart!

The meeting took place on February 24, 2020. It included five people: (1) the Director of Curriculum and Instruction, (2) the legal counsel for the Ludlow Public Schools, (3) Bonnie, (4) a local attorney who came to Bonnie’s aid, and (5) a teachers’ union field representative there on Bonnie’s behalf. The accuser, Jordan Funke, was not at the meeting.

(The teacher’s union field representative was from a different district – because the one in Bonnie’s district supports Jordan Funke, Bonnie was told!)

In the meeting, they offered no written evidence or anything formal against Bonnie. They just made vague statements that she didn’t like the librarian.

Bonnie said to them, “You’re accusing me of ‘not liking’ the librarian. Well, I don’t like these books. I’m not hiding that. I wrote a letter detailing it.”

They tried to use the letter that Bonnie delivered to the Superintendent, also signed by 18 other teachers, as “evidence” against her. It turns out that Funke’s statement about Bonnie “accusing me of sexually exploiting students” came from that letter. The letter said:

We all share these concerns for the known psychological and mental damage that these sexually explicit and pornographic materials can cause students at the middle school developmental level, which ages range from eleven to thirteen.

We need to address the materials being provided, as it is an egregious negligence on the part of our librarian to encourage the very behaviors we are trying to discourage and guide away from… These students are minors and we are there to protect them from sexual exploitation.

Bonnie didn’t back down from that. She said that whatever the choice of words, what’s happening is wrong: The school shouldn’t be guiding their sexuality.

Bonnie’s lawyer asked about the “witnesses” listed in the harassment complaint, including the Superintendent, Principal, and teachers. “What did they actually witness?” he wanted to know. Nobody could answer that.

All in all, they couldn’t bring up anything significant against Bonnie.

An update – then nothing!

On March 9, 2020, Bonnie received the following email from the Director of Curriculum and Instruction:

I wanted to update you on the Informal Review process and proposed Resolution Agreement. Currently, we are still in process relative to a resolution. We hope to have more information by the end of this week or at the beginning of next week. We will continue to keep you informed.

Bonnie never heard anything again on this matter. Obviously, they realized that they had no case against her, and very quietly dropped it.

Final thoughts

Bonnie later commented:

I know what they were doing. This was about intimidation. They were trying to quiet me down because I was OPENLY talking against it – and with other teachers – and I put it in writing. So they labeled me “hateful.”

That’s what school officials are doing everywhere – because it usually works. But it didn’t work this time.

Parents in Ludlow are incredibly grateful to Bonnie for fearlessly standing up and not being intimidated. And this story is far from over. Our next report will describe how the American Library Association got involved – against the parents!

Part 5 of a series. See Parts 1-4.

Reprinted with permission from Mass Resistance


  lgbt ideology, lgbt tyranny, mass resistance, school sex education, sexual exploitation of children, sexually explicit

Opinion

Those dying post-vaccine: Where are the autopsies?

Where is the accountability of the government agencies charged with protecting us, or of the private entities coercing employees or students to take an experimental, potentially dangerous, or even lethal product?
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 10:00 am EST
Featured Image
Doctor completing a death certificate ESB Professional/Shutterstock
Jane M. Orient M.D.
By

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

This story was originally published by the WND News Center

July 12, 2021 (WND News Center) – In this age of supposed scientific medicine and a pandemic, we are relying on death certificates for statistics on the cause of death, even though they are known to be extremely unreliable.

Thousands of healthy people are dying unexpectedly, but our public health agencies are assuring us that their deaths were not caused by the COVID jab. The toll of post-vaccine deaths has reached nearly 7,000, according to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). It’s the best system we’ve got, even though it misses 90% or more of the actual events.

But I have seen a report of just one autopsy. This patient had had one dose of the Pfizer shot and died four weeks later. Although there were no characteristic features of COVID-19, almost all tissues tested positive on PCR for SARS-CoV-2.

45-year-old mother just died of heart issues and brain swelling, shortly after getting the COVID shot required before she could begin her job at Johns Hopkins University. There will be tears and flowers, but probably no autopsy – and no pause in the shots demanded for mothers and potential mothers if they want to work at JHU.

My internal medicine training was in the dark ages before CT and MRI, but we were still supposed to make an accurate diagnosis. A patient who died without a medical history was an “ME case.” We had to call the medical examiner, who would decide whether an autopsy was indicated. Anything potentially related to the death, such as pill bottles, was evidence. If an injection had been given, the vial would be recovered if possible. With vaccines, one is supposed to record the lot number, so it would be possible to check a sample for contaminants.

If the patient died in hospital, the medical resident was required to request permission for an autopsy. Survivors might be persuaded to OK one by the possibility that their loved one may have had a hereditary condition or an infection that might affect others. In any event, we assured them that their loved one would be treated with respect and that funeral arrangements would not be affected. A chaplain would volunteer to attend.

The most important reason was that the “altar of truth” was the ultimate “quality assurance” mechanism. Hospitals were required to perform autopsies on a certain proportion of decedents in order to maintain their accreditation. A classic study of 100 randomly selected autopsies from each of three years (1960, 1970 and 1980) revealed that major diagnoses had been missed in about 22% of cases in all three eras, despite the introduction of modern imaging methods.

Unfortunately, autopsy rates have fallen from 25% to less than 5% over the past four decades. It never was a revenue producer for anyone except malpractice attorneys.

I always attended the autopsy if I could. One of my most important teachers was a patient in whom we had missed a condition that was glaringly obvious when the skull was opened. We might not have been able to save him, but since we hadn’t even thought of the diagnosis, he didn’t have a chance.

Tens of thousands of patients died of COVID before a series of 12 autopsies done in Germany showed that most had blood clots and could not have been saved by forcing air into their lungs with a ventilator.

— 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 dies after a COVID jab, I would like to know whether there are spike proteins in the tissues and blood vessels, and whether there was an immunological reaction that was damaging those tissues. If a mother loses a baby, I would like to see a thorough examination of the placenta. Was the baby’s oxygen and nutrition cut off because of damaged blood vessels?

I find it shocking that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Joint Commission that accredits hospitals are not demanding autopsies or testing of vaccine samples. It is not possible to declare a product safe and effective without obtaining direct evidence from potential victims.

The manufacturers are protected against product liability, thanks to Congress. But where is the accountability of the government agencies charged with protecting us, or of the private entities coercing employees or students to take an experimental, potentially dangerous, or even lethal product?

If someone you love dies unexpectedly, call the medical examiner, and demand a forensic autopsy.

Note: Dr. Orient is executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, AAPS.

Reprinted with permission from the WND News Center


  autopsies, coronavirus vaccines, covid-19 deaths

Blogs

China’s demographic time bomb is ticking

Whatever policy the Party now adopts, it will be too little and too late.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 8:59 pm EST
Featured Image
'Please for the sake of your country, use birth control.' Wikimedia Commons
Steven Mosher Steven Mosher Follow Steven
By Steven Mosher

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – I was doing research in a Chinese commune in 1980, when the handful of old men who run China suddenly instituted a one-child policy. I became an eyewitness to the most horrific population control program the world has ever seen. Pregnant women were arrested and incarcerated for the crime of being pregnant, subjected to endless propaganda lectures about how – for the good of the country – they would have to abort their children, and finally – whether they agreed or not – they were forcibly aborted and sterilized.    

The one-child policy, mutatis mutandis, continued for decades. It led to hundreds of millions of forced abortions and sterilizations, and also caused a massive wave of female infanticide. In the beginning, desperate for sons, families kept buckets of water next to birthing beds so that if a girl was born she could be drowned immediately. Later, the advent of ultrasounds led to the selective abortion of unborn baby girls by the millions. I estimate that some 60 million baby girls, born and unborn, were killed this way. 

Needless to say, the policy crushed the birth rate in the world’s most populous country. By 2015, China’s National Bureau of Statistics was reporting that Chinese women were averaging only 1.05 children. This was the second lowest fertility rate in the world – tiny Singapore holds that distinction – and a recipe for demographic and economic suicide.

China began haltingly encouraging more births in 2016, when it moved to a two-child policy, but the years since have seen the number of births continue to fall. Only 12 million babies were born in 2020, down from 14.65 million the year before. This is the lowest number of births since China’s great famine of 1961 when, coincidentally, some 42.5 million people starved to death. 

A few weeks ago, the handful of old men who run China decided to allow Chinese couples to have three children. The surprise move, made by communist dictator Xi Jinping and his Politburo colleagues, marks a stunning reversal of the infamous one-child policy. The new three-child policy was necessary, China state media Xinhua brusquely explained, “to actively respond to the aging of the population.” No explanation was given as to how this aging had come about. Being the Vanguard of the Proletariat – as Communist parties style themselves – means never having to say you’re sorry.

Of course, saying that the Chinese population is aging understates the problem caused by 40 years of population control. China today is not just aging, it is literally dying, filling more coffins than cradles each year. Chinese Communist leaders are increasingly worried about having enough workers and soldiers for the factories and armies of the future.  

At the same time, it is doubtful that the three-child policy will succeed – at least as long as it remains voluntary. The problem is that the ranks of young women were decimated during the decades of the one-child policy. Baby girls were aborted, killed at birth, and abandoned to die by the tens of millions by Chinese parents who were desperate for a son. There are simply too few young women of childbearing age remaining to offset the coming population crash – unless every single one marries and has three children. I can’t imagine any combination of carrots that would induce China’s young, urban, working women to devote themselves to motherhood in this way. 

In fact, some young women in China responded to the new pro-natal proposal with mockery — or at least the closest thing to mockery that the communist censors will allow to be posted on social media. “Don’t make me laugh,” one commenter posted on Weibo about the new policy. “Married only children have four elderly parents to care for. If you add three children as well you won’t have a life.” 

Of course, if persuasion doesn’t work, I can easily imagine that China’s leaders might resort to compulsion. In fact, local party officials are already suggesting that people need to be strong-armed into the baby-making business. As professor Nie Shengzhe wrote in 2018, “Only the strong leadership of the Party can solve this problem . . . of a catastrophic population decline.”His proposals included only promoting those who have more children, punishing those who use contraceptives, and banning hospitals from performing abortions.

Would Xi Jinping balk at imposing such measures on the larger Chinese population? Not if he remembers the sayings of Chairman Mao Zedong in this regard. The late chairman — who is Xi’s model in all things — said in a famous 1957 speech that, “Reproduction needs to be planned. In my view, humankind is completely incapable of managing itself. It has plans for production in factories, for producing cloth, tables and chairs, and steel, but there is no plan for producing humans.” 

By announcing a three-child policy, Xi Jinping has made it clear that he wants to “produce more humans.” No one who has witnessed the brutal coercion of the one-child policy over the years – as I have – should doubt that he has the means to enforce his plan. I predict that, with a few years, we will be seeing what can only be described as “forced pregnancy” in China by a Communist Party desperate to raise the birth rate.   

But whatever policy the Party now adopts, it will be too little and too late. The children who were aborted 20, 30, and 40 years ago are the missing workers of today. Already by 2016, China was experiencing a labor shortage of 4 million workers. And the shortfall will only get worse in the years to come. The country will lose over 100 million workers in the next decades as elderly workers retire. And there will be no one to take their place.

The rise of the Chinese economy from 1995 to 2010 relied on a seemingly endless supply of workers emigrating from country to city to engage in low-skill, assembly-line manufacturing jobs. That raised into the ranks of middle-income countries, with a per capita income of around $12,000. But now the supply of workers is running out, and those same assembly-line jobs are moving to India, Vietnam, and Mexico. Add this to China’s inability to innovate because of rampant corruption and intellectual property theft, and China appears caught in what is called by economists the “middle-income trap.”

The path from middle-income to high-income, considered to be around $20,000 per capita, is much harder to climb.  You have to move from manufacturing low-value-added goods to producing high-value-added goods. This requires an innovation economy that is able to create and deploy sophisticated hi-tech manufacturing processes.  

China might have escaped this “middle-income trap” through sheer weight of numbers, but the tens of millions of low-wage producers (and consumers) that this would have required were killed by the “geniuses” who run the Chinese Communist Party.   

Xi Jinping can announce a “three-child policy” if he wants to. He can coerce every young Chinese woman into complying, whether they want to or not. But it will take a generation before the children of the “three-child policy” reach working age, far too late to make any difference in the demographic and economic crisis that now has China in its grip. 

China’s demographic time bomb, which has been ticking for some 40 years, has now gone off. The resulting implosion will take the Chinese Communist Party’s dream of world domination down with it, if not the Communist Party itself.

We can only hope.

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.


  china, china's one-child policy, communist china, one child policy, three child policy, two child policy

Blogs

Five reasons not to fear coronavirus variants

From Pfizer’s former VP calling them ‘irrelevant propaganda’ to evidence that natural immunity slaughters a host of COVID-19 variants, there’s good reason to ignore the media’s fear-mongering.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 4:12 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Celeste McGovern Follow Celeste
By Celeste McGovern

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

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – It was predictable that soon after the mass COVID-19 vaccine campaign rolled out, if the shots began failing, the media would turn into scapegoats people who didn’t rush into line-ups for the fast-tracked, experimental pharmaceutical injections.

The latest COVID narrative is well underway. Thousands of fully vaccinated people are testing positive for the disease – so many, the government has stopped counting cases of “breakthrough COVID,” a blatant attempt to hide the problem of vaccine failure.

Rather, governments have directed attention to a Greek alphabet of new “variants” – supposedly deadlier and even more “contagious” mutations of the original Wuhan virus that causes the disease.

The media are dutifully providing an endless barrage of doomsday reportage, warning people that they are “more at risk than ever before” and that a “dangerous fall” lies ahead amidst clouds of inescapable Delta, Lambda, or Epsilon virus mutations. They have already begun further dividing the population already riven by division between those who see injecting children with experimental drugs and smothering their respiratory passages with masks as criminal and the millions who do not want lockdown ever to end. Medical Apartheid media have begun dehumanizing children and half of America’s  “unvaccinated” adult population, calling them “variant factories” and “incubators” of disease.

Unvaccinated people, including children, according to the latest COVID chapter, are harbors of infection that give birth to mutations. It is these virus mutants – not public health officials and vaccine investors – who impose masking, threaten whole countries with devastating lockdowns and continuous quarantines, and prevent the “return to normal.” If only everyone would get vaccinated – and receive booster shots perhaps twice a year or as necessary – to combat new variants, then there would finally be no COVID anywhere. Ever. Here are the top 5 reasons this narrative is a lie.

1. Virus variants of no concern

Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory research for COVID vaccine maker Pfizer, spent more than three decades in the vaccine industry before he retired from “the most senior research position” in his field. Variants, he says, are “irrelevant and being used as propaganda.”

In comments sent to LifeSiteNews, Yeadon said that while it’s true that small mutations occur in viruses routinely, these are tiny and insignificant changes that the immune system is fabulously equipped to combat.

“It’s true that when this virus, SARS-CoV-2, replicates inside our cells, it occasionally makes a ‘molecular typo’ error. Instead of a letter A, for example, we might see a letter U. These letters are instructions for what the next infected cell is instructed to manufacture,” Yeadon said. ‘Quite commonly there are several errors made.”

“But it’s very important to realize that there are a LOT of letters making up the genetic code for this virus, almost 30,000 letters. In turn this translates into almost 10,000 amino acids, the building blocks of all proteins. If a particular altered code is found often enough, it might get noticed as “a variant of interest”.

“The question is, ‘Does it matter?’”

“So far, the answer is categorically NO.”

No variant is more than 0.3% changed from the original Wuhan sequence, said Yeadon. “That’s right, no variant is less than 99.7% identical to the original virus.”

To give an idea as to how much (or how little, really) a change of 0.3% is, Yeadon suggested considering that the area of one palm of your hand is about 1% of your body surface area – so a visual of about one-third of one palm is the difference to consider.

“That’s less than the visual change brought about by turning a baseball cap around, or changing the shape of the lenses in your sunglasses, and expecting not to be recognized by your partner,” Yeadon said. “They won’t be fooled.”

“Please allow me to demonstrate that a difference of this minute amount definitely won’t fool your immune system either, into thinking ‘this is a new virus, not sure how I’ll cope’.”

Back in 2003, there was a previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus, or SARS. This new coronavirus is called SARS-CoV2 (or SARS coronavirus 2). SARS was never as widely spread out as the current virus, but plenty of people were infected, Yeadon explained. Several of these were followed up and invited to volunteer for a test on the immune cells in their blood.

“The main findings were that all volunteers retained solid immunity to SARS, 17 years after being infected. That’s great & is what to expect with the present virus: robust & durable immunity,” Yeadon said.

“But the second finding was astonishing to those who are unfamiliar with immunology. Every survivor of infection by SARS all those years ago also had cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2. How could this possibly be? They’d never seen the new virus.”

“The answer is in the similarity of the two viruses: they’re around 78% identical, or 22% different. The way our immune systems recognize & remember respiratory viruses is to chop it into pieces & examine all the pieces.

“With a similarity as much as 78%, many of the pieces of the SARS virus which were recognized in 2003 are the same as the pieces recognized in SARS-CoV-2 now.

If our immune systems have absolutely no difficulty recognizing two viruses which are 22% different, it’s literally impossible & absurd to pretend to the British people that a mere 0.3% mutation is a problem. It’s not a problem.”

2. Immunity crushes variants

Anyone immune to the current virus, whether by natural infection or from vaccination, is also immune to all the variants, according to Yeadon. “It’s not just me saying so.” He cites a study in which clinical immunologists tested the blood T-cells from volunteers and showed them all the variants which they had available, and they easily recognized and responded to them all.

“These mutations in SARS-CoV-2 are very common but they produce a lot of hot air. None of these variants differ enough to represent the slightest threat to immunity already hard won. That’s the big idea, but you’re not falling for it. So you definitely do not need a booster or variant vaccine. Don’t let anyone come near you with a syringe of such a thing. They’re not honest & they’re not your friend.

But might a variant be more infectious?

“Sure, that’s possible – and expected. How have we ended up with around 40 different viruses able to infect human respiratory tract? We think they each had nastier origins but over time, they’ve become more infectious but LESS dangerous,” commented Yeadon.

“Don’t let them take away your liberty on a set of immunological lies.”

3. Vaccine failure

Variants are a convenient cover for the shortcomings of Pfizer and the other fast-tracked COVID vaccines. And an easy way to scapegoat the unvaccinated.

The reality is that the case fatality rate for Delta variants according to a July 9 report on variants of concern in the U.K. is just 0.2% – that’s about the same as influenza.  

Yet vaccine protection against this miniscule risk is not as great as it’s cracked up to be. The same British government variant report shows that 68% of the recent COVID deaths with the Delta “variant of concern” in the United Kingdom, for example, were among the vaccinated.  More than half are among the fully vaccinated. There were 10,834 cases of “breakthrough COVID” – that’s COVID infection in people who had already received two doses of COVID vaccine. 116 of them died. 

More than 26,000 people had received one dose of vaccine tested positive for COVID with the Delta variant.  

In America, the government stopped counting these “breakthrough COVID” cases when the numbers exceeded 10,000 and the deaths among the fully vaccinated from COVID-19 hit 535. How can public health say it is the unvaccinated spreading disease when it refuses to even count tens of thousands of fully and partially vaccinated people who are testing positive? Perhaps the tests are faulty? 

The fact that there are more deaths among the fully vaccinated than the unvaccinated – and ten times greater rate of death among the fully vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated – is hardly a sign of the unvaccinated being risky or the variant being more dangerous. In both groups the COVID mortality is exceedingly low (less than 1 %). But it is a sign of vaccine failure. 

Image

 

Perhaps it’s a sign of the vaccine itself being dangerous, too. More than 9,000 deaths following vaccination have been reported by the U.S. government Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as of Friday.

The higher death rate in the vaccinated may be because there are inherent dangers to vaccinating people who have already been infected with the coronavirus. Or it may be due to Antibody-Dependent Enhancement – a well-documented phenomenon of previous failed attempts at coronavirus vaccines in which vaccinated lab animals became sick and died when they encountered the virus in the wild, because their immune system hyper-reacted – just the sort of severe COVID-19 reaction people fear.

If a “dangerous fall” lies ahead, as the media are warning, it may be for vaccinated people, since the vaccines they took are still in clinical trials and no one knows how their immune systems will respond when they meet wild flu and coronaviruses.

Will the government and media tell us how many cases of the coronavirus in the fall are among the vaccinated? Of course not. They conveniently stopped counting COVID-19 cases in the vaccinated because if they pretend they don’t know there is a problem, they don’t have to tell us about it. And “variants” – invisible and elusive and ever-changing – make a nice cover for inherent vaccine dangers.   

4. More variants equals more money

No one seemed more delighted to announce the prospect of new virus variants than Pfizer Chief Financial Officer Frank D’Amelio speaking to the company’s investors this spring. During a virtual meeting hosted by Barclay’s multinational bank in March, D’Amelio told investors that the reports of emerging new virulent strains of the SARS coronavirus that had been reported across the globe this spring were a “significant opportunity” for the company.

“We've got the U.K. variant, the South Africa variant, the Brazilian variant. And so is there the possibility for more variants to emerge? I think the answer is clearly, there is,” he announced rather buoyantly.

A month earlier Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla told the 2021 Davos World Economic Forum that his company was already working on booster shots. Later he told shareholders that with variants he expected the company to “move from a pandemic into more of a normal type of vaccination business.”

More normal vaccination business is an endless revenue stream, not just a one (or two) and done deal. It’s the kind of business that creates billionaires and lets Bourla give himself a 17% raise and take home $21 million, in salary, bonuses, and stock in 2020.

Pfizer reported a “crazy good” first quarter this year, saying it expects to haul in $26 billion in sales for its COVID-19 vaccine this year, way above its earlier projection of just $15 billion. But why stop there?

Just as the media began buzzing about variants, Pfizer announced Friday that the time for its third booster shot has arrived. Immunity from its vaccine is already waning in the face of the variants it said (more on this later).

Of course it would be time for a new shot if you are a company whose real priority is profits as new COVID cases have stagnated and the number of people rolling up their sleeves has flat lined, too. Those who wanted both shots have had them. Time to offer your most trusting customers – and your income stream – a top-up.

5. Big Tech fearmongering

It is unnerving that Twitter bot campaigns are now pretending grassroots support for draconian government measures like lockdowns and masking. Automated campaigns drumming up fear about the variants – in the same way the media are doing – to promote severe COVID measures for meagre threats is clear sign the variant scare campaign is not to be trusted.

This article was updated on July 13, 2021 to include more recent data from the British government.


  coronavirus, coronavirus vaccine, coronavirus vaccine deaths, coronavirus vaccines, coronavirus variants, michael yeadon

Blogs

Trans activist: ‘As a non-binary person, my abortion experience led to a lot of gender dysphoria’

At first glance, the trans movement and the feminist movement don’t seem to have much in common. But when it comes to abortion, they do – blood.
Mon Jul 12, 2021 - 1:03 pm EST
Featured Image
"Pride" symbol Shutterstock
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

July 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – It is a progressive irony that the transgender movement’s success depends on undermining key premises of the feminist movement. For decades, a key argument made – or more generally, yelled – by pro-abortion activists was that abortion was a women’s issue and that men should have nothing to say unless they wished to be supportive. No uterus, no opinion, as the old slogan went.  

It’s not that old – I can’t count the number of times I’ve had it yelled at me during pro-life activism. But with the arrival of the trans movement, everything is changing. Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has faithfully changed her language to ensure that it accounts for men getting abortions, too. It isn’t just women who get abortions now, after all – especially as the number of genders multiplies.

Consider this July piece in Women’s Health Magazine. Titled “Transgender and Non-Binary People Like Me Get Pregnant And Have Abortions Too,” “Nick” Lloyd – a biological female attempting to pass as male – insists that “when we talk about abortion, using gender-neutral language matters.” She says she got pregnant four years ago at age 26, and had a first-trimester abortion. “Nick” had an abortion for all the typical reasons – she “wasn’t in a position financially or emotionally to be a parent” and was unemployed.

Lloyd wants the readers of Women’s Health Magazine to know that getting rid of her baby was easy –but getting misgendered was very, very hard. “I didn’t feel ashamed about having an abortion. It was an easy decision for me. But as a non-binary person, my abortion experience led to a lot of gender dysphoria. Every clinic had the word women’s in the name, all the pamphlets used gendered language and featured images of gender-conforming people, and clinicians were kind but didn’t understand trans and non-binary experiences. It felt dehumanizing. I had to emotionally disconnect from the experience entirely because of how gendered it was.”

If she thinks that is dehumanizing, wait until she hears about the fact that an entire class of human beings can be legally destroyed in the wombs because people deny that they are humans … oh, right. Never mind.

And she doesn’t mean to complain too much. “I feel so lucky that I had the means to have an abortion,” Nick said. “My life would be so different without it. Since then, I’ve … adopted a second cat, and have had the time and energy to pursue the activism, hobbies, and lifestyle I enjoy. I even started volunteering with an abortion fund to help drive people who need abortions to their appointments. I’m so happy with where I am in life, and I recognize that that’s because I was afforded bodily autonomy when I needed it.”

Lloyd is now both an abortion activist and a trans activist, attempting to debunk the old pro-abortion slogans about abortion being a women’s issue. Abortion activists who never accepted that pre-born children had fathers and that fathers have a stake in the future of their children are happily accepting the idea that men can get pregnant and thus also need to experience the joy of having a child killed.

Lloyd joined “We Testify,” and seeks to encourage “transgender” people in having abortions and speaking out about them. “I’m open about my abortion because I want the world to see that people like me exist. Trans and non-binary people get pregnant and have abortions – and that doesn’t invalidate their gender. And they’re deserving of care that affirms their gender. I felt like the only trans person on earth who was getting an abortion, and that’s just not true. We’re part of this movement.”

“The good news is that some abortion clinics are implementing training on the needs of transgender patients. I would love to see this become a widespread practice. Trans people get abortions, and their needs in this space matter.”

At first glance, the trans movement and the feminist movement don’t seem to have much in common. But when it comes to abortion, it becomes clear, once again, that they do – blood.


  “nick” lloyd, abortion, abortion rights coalition of canada, non-binary, transgender, women’s health magazine