WOW!.Now we know where all the Adderall went. Joe Biden. You must have heard about the Adderall shortage. Well, a doctor in Beverly Hills explains it.
Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills forensic psychiatrist, suggested that Biden may have been on Adderall or another stimulant during his speech, as reported by The Washington Times. Lieberman said the volume and speed of Biden’s voice and his use of hand gestures were indicative of stimulant use.
When is the truth called a lie? When it’s Ivermectin. There was a recent study done on Ivermectin that actually showed that it worked. Here’s the numbers and you tell me.
People who received ivermectin were also less likely to be hospitalized or die, with 1.6 percent of ivermectin recipients being hospitalized or dying versus 4 percent of the comparison group, which received typical care, which in the UK is largely focused on managing symptoms. The time to self-reported recovery was a median of two days faster among the ivermectin recipients, according to the large UK study.
Ivermectin recipients also enjoyed a reduction of severe symptoms and sustained recovery, according to the study.The paper was published by the Journal of Infection on Feb. 29.
The study covered an open-label trial that involved 2,157 ivermectin recipients and 3,256 who received typical care from June 23, 2021, to July 1, 2022. Participants were randomized and reported symptoms and recovery
The folks who say that Hur doesn’t have the ability to make medical decisions, lack the medical creditionals also. Ever since the special prosecutor gave his report on Joe Biden, progressives and the MSM have attacked Hur.
The left is claiming that he’s not qualified to make the statements about Biden’s mental awareness because he’s not a medical expert. So I ask a simple question What’s their medical background and medical expertice?
You have reporters, Politicians, Political pundits, and Holloywood actors and actresses giving their medical opinions. Wait none of them are medical experts, Biden, Doctors, Nurses, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, etc.
So how did Hur come to his conclusion? Simple really. Two things. Speaking with Biden on two separate occasions, and using his two own eyes. What medical crdentials do the folks who attack the special prosecutor have?
I’ll be starting a new series on how Government is using its powers (Sometimes unconstitutionally and possibly illegally). Some of the articles will be in my own words (with sources) and some will be the reposting of articles from others.
I’ll be looking at local, state, and federal. Also, I’ll be looking at the educational system. Hopefully you will be shocked that this is going on. So, let’s see where this takes us.
If you have some ideas or have stories of weaponization, please feel free to comment or send me a link.
The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual confab in Davos, Switzerland is set to kick off next week, and the program is rife with all of the usual suspects. Our aspiring global rulers are set to have a grand time once more calling for our collective enslavement, which of course is necessary for the “greater good.”
The 2024 program is one for the ages. Attendees will watch Pfizer’s Albert Bourla and Open AI’s Sam Altman talk about Artificial Intelligence (AI). They’ll see depopulation advocate Bill “Bugman” Gates advancing the climate hoax. John Kerry will appear on four different stages to discuss the “energy transition.” We will also see Klaus Schwab sit down for a 1 on 1with the second highest ranking Chinese government official.
But one panel in particular sticks out: Preparing for Disease X. The topic is both incredibly vague and incredibly disturbing.
The description for the discussion reads: “With fresh warnings from the World Health Organization that an unknown ‘Disease X’ could result in 20 times more fatalities than the coronavirus pandemic, what novel efforts are needed to prepare healthcare systems for the multiple challenges ahead?”
The panel will feature a high-profile lineup that includes WHO director “Dr” Tedros and the chairman of AstraZeneca.
The concept of a Disease X was adopted by the World Health Organization in 2018. Tedros, Dr Anthony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar of the eugenicist Wellcome Trust, and many high profile individuals on the forefront of Covid hysteria policy have been involved in advancing the Disease X hypothesis over the years.
Now, it’s easy for normal people to dismiss this lunacy. But given the powerful, maniacal minds populating the Davos gathering, it’s worth maintaining a level of situational awareness surrounding these events, as they can often offer some insight into the unguarded mindset of these technocratic tyrants.
“No possibility of a vaccine being available in the first year”
On this topic, it’s worth recalling that another infamous predictive panel was announced at the 2019 WEF Davos conference. That panel concluded with the launch announcement of Event 201.
Event 201 was an amazingly predictive “war game” simulation in which a fictional coronavirus passed from an animal reservoir to humans.
Just weeks before the onset of COVID Mania, some of the most maniacal, power-hungry forces on the planet got together to war-game a “fictional” coronavirus with “no possibility of a vaccine being available in the first year,” warning of a “similar pandemic in the future.”
Event 201 became known for its impeccable timing. Just weeks after the simulation occurred, full-blown pandemic hysteria broke out.
The 15 participants in the Event 201 simulation included an interesting bunch:
George Gao, the director of the Chinese CDC
Hasti Taghi, a vice president for NBC
Avril Haines, the former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Chris Elias, a director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Timothy Grant Evans, a former World Health Organization and Rockefeller Foundation official
Lavan Thiru, the director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore
Adrian Thomas, VP at Johnson & Johnson
Brad Connett, the president of Henry Schein, Inc., a major distributor of health care products
Jane Halton, an executive with Australia’s second largest bank
Stephen Redd, a top CDC official
Sofia Borges, a top official at the UN Foundation
Eduardo Martinez, a senior executive at UPS
Matthew Harrington, the COO of Edelman, a marketing and PR firm
Martin Knuchel, a senior director at Lufthansa
Latoya D. Abbott, a senior employee for Marriott International
Of those 15 players, 13 worked in the upper echelons of private organizations or government agencies that would almost immediately witness an exponential monetary benefit or the tremendous absorption of political power.
Will the global ruling class attempt to foment another worldwide hysteria at Davos 2024?
Covid Vaccine Injury Suit May Fuel Federal Overhaul, Litigation. Bloomberg Law has a great article on how litigation on COVID Vaccine injuries are being handled.
We may never know how many thousands if not millions suffered and in many cases died from the vaccines worldwide. Hopefully this lawsuit will help and bring more claims forward.
Lawyers say the move could spur Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services to reform how they handle vaccine injuries, as well as push more of the individuals alleging injuries to not just sue the government, but the drugmakers that the program is meant to shield from litigation.
Headlines making the news. Today we have a very long list of what’s happened and is happening around the world. See if any of the topics peaks your interest, and feel free to comment.
North Carolina is suing HCA Healthcareopens in a new tab or window, alleging that it breached terms of the takeover agreement with Mission Health and has “degraded” care at the former nonprofit. (STAT)
Emergency contraception useopens in a new tab or window among American women more than doubled since the morning-after pill was approved to be sold without a prescription (from 10.8% in 2006-2010 to 26.6% in 2015-2019), according to CDC data.
We all know that the main side effects are hospitalization, and sometimes death. The true numbers may never be released, but hopefully people will contimue to tell their story.
For time reasons, I had to cut my actual address a bit short Thursday. This statement, which began with a nod to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, is what was entered into the congressional record:
November 30, 2023
Chairman Jordan, ranking member Plaskett, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Exactly one year ago today I had my first look at the documents that came to be known as the Twitter Files. One of the first things Michael, Bari Weiss and I found was this image, showing that Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya had been placed on a “trends blacklist”:
This was not because he was suspected of terrorism or incitement or of being a Russian spy or a bad citizen in any way. Dr. Bhattacharya’s crime was doing a peer-reviewed study that became the 55th-most read scientific paper of all time, which showed the WHO initially overstated Covid-19 infection fatality rates by a factor of 17. This was legitimate scientific opinion and should have been an important part of the public debate, but Bhattacharya and several of his colleagues instead became some of the most suppressed people in America in 2020 and 2021.
That’s because by then, even true speech that undermined confidence in government policies had begun to be considered a form of disinformation, precisely the situation the First Amendment was designed to avoid.
When Michael and I testified before the good people of this Committee in March we mentioned this classically Orwellian concept of “malinformation” — material that is somehow both true and wrong — as one of many reasons everyone should be concerned about these digital censorship programs.
But there’s a more subtle reason people across the spectrum should care about this issue.
Former Executive Director of the ACLU Ira Glasser once explained to a group of students why he didn’t support hate speech codes on campuses. The problem, he said, was “who gets to decide what’s hateful… who gets to decide what to ban,” because “most of the time, it ain’t you.”
The story that came out in the Twitter Files, and for which more evidence surfaced in both the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit and this Committee’s Facebook Files releases, speaks directly to Glasser’s concerns.
There’s been a dramatic shift in attitudes about speech, and many politicians now clearly believe the bulk of Americans can’t be trusted to digest information. This mindset imagines that if we see one clip from RT we’ll stop being patriots, that once exposed to hate speech we’ll become bigots ourselves, that if we read even one Donald Trump tweet we’ll become insurrectionists.
Having come to this conclusion, the kind of people who do “anti-disinformation” work have taken upon themselves the paternalistic responsibility to sort out for us what is and is not safe. While they see great danger in allowing anyone else to read controversial material, it’s taken for granted that they’ll be immune to the dangers of speech.
This leads to the one inescapable question about new “anti-disinformation” programs that is never discussed, but must be: who does this work? Stanford’s Election Integrity Project helpfully made a graphic showing the “external stakeholders” in their content review operation. It showed four columns: government, civil society, platforms, media:
One group is conspicuously absent from that list: people. Ordinary people! Whether America continues the informal sub rosa censorship system seen in the Twitter Files or formally adopts something like Europe’s draconian new Digital Services Act, it’s already clear who won’t be involved. There’ll be no dockworkers doing content flagging, no poor people from inner city neighborhoods, no single moms pulling multiple waitressing jobs, no immigrant store owners or Uber drivers, etc. These programs will always feature a tiny, rarefied sliver of affluent professional-class America censoring a huge and ever-expanding pool of everyone else.
Take away the high-fallutin’ talk about “countering hate” and “reducing harm” and “anti-disinformation” is just a bluntly elitist gatekeeping exercise. If you prefer to think in progressive terms, it’s class war. The math is simple. If one small demographic over here has broad control over the speech landscape, and a great big one over there does not, it follows that one group will end up with more political power than the other. Which one is the winner? To paraphrase Glasser, it probably ain’t you.
It isn’t just one side or the other that will lose if these programs are allowed to continue. It’s pretty much everyone, which is why these programs must be defunded before it’s too late.
WHO, CDC, FDA, and the NIH, You have no one to blame but yourself. Now as we enter what’s called the cold and flu season, the four organizations that have given us a renewal of the little chicken sky is falling.
Ever since 2020 these organizations have been all over the map with what to do or how to do things when it comes to COVID. Tony the Fauch was the ringleader in all of this.
Now we’re hearing about this new Chineese virus that again has the world in a panic Some say that the recent cases of this virus is what showed up in Ohio and Massachutes.
Of course China and the CDC are saying that it’s just a case of ‘white lung syndrome’. Now this virus is attacking mostly children. Anyone seeing another lockdown?