I've been telling people this for a long time. The 2022 election cycle will result in a landslide win for Republicans nationwide -- if current laws stay in place. The Democrats know this and are bound and determined to make sure it doesn't happen. (H.R. 1 / S. 1) will die hard, if the Republicans are not completely sold out. At this point, Republicans not being sold out, well, I'm not holding by breath.

Bad policies have been the cause of so much strife in the country, and it's becoming increasingly hard for Democrats, and the LAM (Legacy American Media) to hide it.

The reason I say "bad" policies is that they were never expected to be beneficial for the American people. Democrats sold people on the idea that their policies would benefit them (the American People) -- but they didn't mean it. Honestly, did anyone really believe that defunding the police would result in a reduction of crime?

The Democrats know their certain defeat is coming.

The party is under pressure, from both outside groups and lawmakers, to pass federal election legislation as GOP-run state legislatures debate new voting rules and as the start of the 2022 midterm election is fast-approaching.

After watching Senate Republicans block election and voting bills via the filibuster, which requires 60 votes for most legislation to advance, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is vowing to bring the fight to a head in January.

"The Senate will consider voting rights legislation, as early as the first week back. ... If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster and prevent the body from considering this bill, the Senate will then consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation," Schumer wrote in a letter to the caucus.

If Democrats thought they could win, or would win because of their policies, they wouldn't be trying to change voting laws. They wouldn't need to, because their popularity would carry them through.

Democrats haven't settled on a plan, but instead are discussing a range of options aimed at winning over the 50 votes needed to invoke the "nuclear option" and change the Senate's rules with a simple majority.

Though the Senate is evenly split, Democrats would be able to change the rules on their own because Vice President Harris can break a tie.

It's obvious that Democrat policies are NOT popular, and the Democrats are aware of it.

Failing to change the Senate's rules and pass voting rights legislation would be a significant blow to both the White House - which has signaled its a top priority - and outside civil rights and progressive groups, which see passing legislation as fundamental to protecting democracy.

Schumer, during an interview with the "Joe Madison Show," urged advocates to keep up the pressure heading toward the Senate action-including on his own members.

"Keep up the drumbeat," Schumer said. "We need all the anger and the protests, etc., that have occurred here."

"So now we're in the final stages," he added, "and we're asking people to keep up the pressure."

Anger and protests? Is that how things are done in America? "Outside civil rights and progressive groups?" Why would you need "outside, and progressive groups" to get things done. Wouldn't voting be enough? After all, if the Democrats believe that they really won the 2020 presidential election -- why would they be worried about 2022? Biden broke all the records right? 81 million votes.

Here's what (H.R. 1 / S. 1) would do to voting laws, should it become law.

Winners don't think or act this way.

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The COVID-19 vaccine legal definitions are a Schrödinger's Cat-style menagerie of nonsense -- by design.

There hasn't been much discussion on the topic of the "FDA approved" Pfizer vaccine. There were quite a few articles that tried to explain why the Comirnaty trademarked vaccine was "chemically" the same as the vaccines used under the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). But something didn't sit right with me.

Now the issue over Comirnaty has gone to court. The judge seems to question the validity of this claim as well. Look at the Pfizer explanation.

“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”

It's a difference without a distinction. The EUA vaccine and Comirnaty are different enough for legal separation, and identification, but somehow interchangeable? This is something that can have a lasting effect on someone's wellbeing, it's not New Coca-Cola, the "New Coke" we're talking about!

There are key differences between fully licensed vaccines and those authorized under EUA. EUA products are considered experimental under U.S. law. This means they cannot be mandated, and everyone has the right to refuse such vaccines without consequences.

There is another aspect to this. The judge pointed out the most important aspect of this as it relates to pharma and regulations. The location of manufacture. The facility that produced the EUA vaccines was not validated to produce FDA approved vaccines. While this might not seem important to some people, it is a huge deal in the pharma world.

It's not just the product's approval that is required. Information throughout the manufacturing process must be stored for a number of years through a validated system. Data on manufacturing will include, the raw materials used (their lot numbers and identifying information) the equipment used, all the way down to the conditions in the facility. Even how frequently the equipment requires calibration, and records of that as well. Pretty much every aspect of the manufacturing process is tracked.

This data is not tracked in a R&D (Research and Development) environment. And the facility that produced the EUA vaccines couldn't have been properly validated, because the product wasn't approved yet. Meaning that the specific information needed to track the production of the EUA vaccines was not in place. Pfizer can't provide all of the supporting documentation required for any FDA approved product. Therefore, there is no way to validate that the two products are the same.

As recognized by the judge, “[u]nder the EUA statute, recipients of EUA drugs must be ‘informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

The judge further noted that with regard to the administration of an EUA product to members of the armed forces, such a right of refusal may be waived only by the president.

As noted, “[t]he DOD acknowledges that the president has not executed a [waiver], so as things now stand, the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA.”

Judge Winsor also pointed out that “DOD’s guidance documents explicitly say only FDA-licensed COVID-19 vaccines are mandated.”

While this would be applicable to the Comirnaty vaccine, the judge noted “the plaintiffs have shown that the DOD is requiring injections from vials not labeled ‘Comirnaty.’ Indeed, defense counsel could not even say whether vaccines labeled ‘Comirnaty’ exist at all.”

The judge also noted that the DOD “later clarified that it was mandating vaccines from EUA-labeled vials,” adding that “[i]n the DOD’s view, this is fine because the contents of EUA-labeled vials are chemically identical to the contents of vials labeled ‘Comirnaty’ (if there are any such vials).”

The judge found this argument “unconvincing,” stating that “FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before BLA approval.”

He further noted that EUA provisions suggest “drugs mandated for military personnel be actually BLA-approved, not merely chemically similar to a BLA-approved drug,” not just in terms of labeling, but also in terms of being produced at BLA-compliant facilities.

As the judge stated, “there is no indication that all EUA-labeled vials are from BLA-approved facilities,” adding that “the DOD cannot rely on the FDA to find that the two drugs are legally identical.”

The FDA is not following their own guidelines as it pertains to the Pfizer vaccines. The approval for these vaccines would equate to an R&D biologic being sold to the public because it had not yet expired --even though it was not produced in an FDA regulated environment. That's what they are tying to do here. That's why the judge said, “FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before BLA approval.”

It's plainly spelled out in the specification.

The Biologics License Application (BLA) is a request for permission to introduce, or deliver for introduction, a biologic product into interstate commerce (21 CFR 601.2). The BLA is regulated under 21 CFR 600 – 680. A BLA is submitted by any legal person or entity who is engaged in manufacture or an applicant for a license who takes responsibility for compliance with product and establishment standards. Form 356h specifies the requirements for a BLA. This includes:

* Applicant information
* Product/Manufacturing information
* Pre-clinical studies
* Clinical studies
* Labeling

The lawyers for the government do not have proof that the vaccines are the same, why not? That is the entire basis of their claim to mandate them. Wouldn't their defense be so much easier if they could prove in court that the two vaccines are indeed the same? But then, they didn't do that. And they won't be able to either. The FDA says that Comirnaty and the EUA vaccines are "legally different."

UPDATE 06/03/22

Brook Jackson filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against Pfizer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. The following was revealed during the court case against Pfizer.

Pfizer has asked a U.S. court to throw out a whistleblower’s lawsuit on the basis that the company can’t be guilty of fraud, abuse, and protocol violations in its COVID Vaccine clinical trials because its contract with the U.S. government allowed them to skirt regulations and federal laws that typically apply to government contracts.

In other words, Pfizer was allegedly able to make false statements to the government, and lie about the safety and efficacy of its product, “because the government was in on it with them!” according to Robert Barnes, the lead lawyer in the case.

007 has a license to kill — Pfizer has a license to kill and lie.

What do you think?

Note: Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

We've been told since the beginning to "follow the science" as it refers to the COVID response. But have any of the "officials" followed the science?

Fauci was interviewed in March of last year where he warned of, "warned of 'unintended consequences' of masks, saying 'people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.' 'There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.'"

Then he changed his tune and claimed that wearing a mask was essential. Then he upped that to wearing two masks, because two is better than one. However, none of that goes with "the science." There are too many studies to list here that claim that wearing a mask is NOT beneficial.

When it came to the vaccines, the initial push was to "stop the spread."

Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Fauci explained to host John Dickerson that fully vaccinated people can go without masks even if they have an asymptomatic case of COVID-19 because the level of virus is much lower in their nasopharynx, the top part of their throat that lies behind the nose, than it is in someone who is unvaccinated.

"So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they're going to transmit it," Fauci said.

Fauci added that vaccinated people essentially become "dead ends" for the virus to spread within their communities.

But that quickly turned around once the number of vaccinated individuals started becoming infected.

"They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn't just the elderly," Fauci said. "It's waning to the point that you're seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital."

As a result of these findings, Fauci warned that vaccinated people should get their booster shot, as it might actually be more important than health officials first realized. "If one looks back at this, one can say, do you know, it isn't as if a booster is a bonus, but a booster might actually be an essential part of the primary regimen that people should have," he said on The Daily.

Fauci went on to say, "I think … that the boosting is gonna be an absolutely essential component of our response, not a bonus, not a luxury, but an absolute essential part of the program."

Then the CDC was called out about their claims as well.

The Centers for Disease Control are walking back claims made by its director that people who are vaccinated against COVID-19 do not spread the virus, clarifying that they do not yet definitively know if that's the case.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky had said Tuesday that "vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that is not just in the clinical trials but it's also in real world data." Her statement was based on a large study the federal health agency released Monday that had tracked newly vaccinated people in the U.S. over 13 weeks to monitor the efficacy of the vaccines in daily life. The CDC followed nearly 4,000 heath care workers, police, firefighters and other essential workers who received one of the two mRNA vaccines between Dec. 14 and March 13 and tested them weekly for COVID-19.

Because the majority of the vaccinated people did not test positive for COVID-19 during the 13 weeks, Walensky concluded that they did not carry the virus.

But after scientists criticized Walensky's comments this week, the CDC walked back her statement.

"Dr. Walensky spoke broadly during this interview," an agency spokesman told The New York Times on Thursday. "It's possible that some people who are fully vaccinated could get COVID-19. The evidence isn't clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence."

Then the CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky came out and admitted that the vaccines are not stopping infections, or the spread.

Fully vaccinated people who get a Covid-19 breakthrough infection can transmit the virus, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Thursday.

"Our vaccines are working exceptionally well," Walensky told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "They continue to work well for Delta, with regard to severe illness and death -- they prevent it. But what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission."

That's why the CDC changed its guidance last week and is now recommending even vaccinated people wear masks indoors again, Walensky said.

Here's the link from the CDC website.

Today, some of those data were published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), demonstrating that Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus. This finding is concerning and was a pivotal discovery leading to CDC’s updated mask recommendation. The masking recommendation was updated to ensure the vaccinated public would not unknowingly transmit virus to others, including their unvaccinated or immunocompromised loved ones.

We can see that science is not the basis for the decisions they are making. There's a constant "walking back" of claims because as more data becomes available, it disproves what was claimed prior. Why are we to believe that any of the safety data are correct, when the efficacy data were totally flawed.

After all, they believed that the vaccine was 90% effective, and that those who were vaccinated couldn't spread the disease. The claim can be made that things changed as time went on and more data were gathered, and that's fair enough, but little data is available on the side effects?

For all of the information that they didn't know about protection and transmission --they also couldn't have known about long-term the side effects! Not enough time has passed to claim that the vaccines are safe, yet they are out there claiming it on a daily basis. WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?

Telling people that everything's just fine --until it's not, isn't science it is called propaganda.
 
 
 

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I decided to write a letter to the the NIH to see what information they could provide me about isolation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Note: I wrote this to sound like someone who believes the COVID-19 narrative.

I sent out the following email:

From: bob dobalina someone@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 11:33 AM
To: FOIA-7 FOIA71@mail.nih.gov
Subject: I wish to prove that SARS-Cov-2 exists

To Whom It May Concern,

I have a relative that doesn't believe that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated. They are convinced that it's really just the Flu.

I'm worried because they refuse to get vaccinated, and everyone needs to be vaccinated. Having something that proves the existence of the isolated virus would make them think twice.

Is this something that you can help me with?

- Concerned Citizen

Bob

Here was the response.

From: NIAID Ocpostoffice (NIH/NIAID) ocpostoffice@niaid.nih.gov
To: someone@yahoo.com someone@yahoo.com
Cc: NIAID Ocpostoffice (NIH/NIAID) ocpostoffice@niaid.nih.gov
Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021, 04:02:42 PM EDT
Subject: RE: I wish to prove that SARS-Cov-2 exists CAS-28832

This is in response to your email dated August 5, 2021, to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Thank you for your inquiry. You may wish to review the World Health Organization (WHO) Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) SITUATION REPORT - 1 regarding the isolation of SARS CoV-2 at https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200121-sitrep-1-2019-ncov.pdf?sfvrsn=20a99c10_4. WHO is the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations’ system. Further questions regarding this report may be directed to WHO at https://www.who.int/about/contact-us.

Additional information on the isolation of the virus and its genetic sequence is available in the published medical literature which you may search on PubMed at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. PubMed is a service of the NIH National Library of Medicine that includes bibliographic citations from biomedical literature, life sciences journals, and online books. A medical librarian may be able to assist you in refining your search or obtaining copies of journal articles. Please visit https://nnlm.gov to identify your nearest medical library.

In addition, you may wish to review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on growing the virus in cell culture at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html.

Information on how to talk about COVID-19 vaccines with friends and family is also available from CDC at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/talk-about-vaccines.html. CDC is the federal agency that plays a vital role in ensuring our Nation’s vaccine safety, collecting data related to COVID-19 vaccines and providing health information to the public. Further questions may be directed to CDC at the contact information listed below:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30329
USA
Telephone: 1-800-232-4636
Web-based email: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/DCS/ContactUs/Form
Web address: https://www.cdc.gov

Thank you for contacting NIAID.

Sincerely,

Kara M. Harris, MPH

Section Chief for Controlled Correspondence and Public Inquiries
Legislative Affairs and Correspondence Management Branch
Office of Communications and Government Relations
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
National Institutes of Health

DISCLAIMER: NIAID does not endorse or recommend any commercial products, processes, or services. The views and opinions of authors expressed on the NIAID website do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. government and may not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Any non-government resources are provided for your convenience. NIAID is not responsible for the availability, content, or privacy policies of non-federal organizations’ materials or websites, nor does NIAID endorse, warrant, or guarantee the products, services, or information described or offered by such organizations. Non-federal public websites do not necessarily operate under the same laws, regulations, and policies as federal websites. It is not the intention of NIAID to provide specific medical advice, but rather to provide users with information to better understand their health and their diagnosed disorders. Specific medical advice will not be provided, and NIAID urges you to consult with a qualified physician for diagnosis and for answers to your personal questions.

I found this part odd, "WHO is the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations’ system." I would have imagined that the CDC would be the coordinating authority for the United States. Apparently not.

I also found it odd that the push is for mRNA vaccines, instead of conjugate vaccines. If the virus has indeed been isolated, and cultured, why not just make a traditional "conjugate" vaccine?

Cuba is working on their own conjugate vaccine, and with great success!

Cuba’s vaccine candidate has cleared the third stage of the trial; Soberana is the world’s first vaccine candidate for Covid-19, a conjugate vaccine. Cuba is presently at the finalization of two vaccines, Soberana, the conjugate vaccine, and another vaccine, Abdala. The efficacy of both is more than 90%, which is very impressive, not reach by even Pfizer or Moderna in the first dose.

Considering the amount of money thrown around by Big Pharma in the United States, why is Cuba leading the world in the production of conjugate vaccines? It's known that the vaccines based solely on the spike protein mRNA, and Viral Vector, are the first to become useless at the first minor mutation of the virus.

The entire vaccine push in The United States has been bizarre from the beginning. It's widely known that coronaviruses mutate frequently. Why push for vaccines that are at best minimally effective once a mutation occurs? Wouldn't it make more sense to do what Cuba is doing?

You tell me.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Trump might have set himself up as the vaccine Colt Seavers. Consider this scenario:

Trump has still not come out against the vaccines. This is a big mistake on his part, because I think his political opponents have planned on his ego working against him.

Trump pushed Operation Warp Speed, and touted the "major success" of the program. He paraded it around for quite some time. This is going to be his downfall I believe.

Bill Gates has now come out and said that the vaccines essentially aren't working.

Bill Gates from the Twitter video referenced:

...economic damage, uhh... oh... you know, the deaths, it's been completely horrific. And, I would expect that will lead the R&D budgets to be focused on things we didn’t have today, we didn’t have vaccines that blocked transmission. We got vaccines that help you with your health but they only slightly reduce the transmissions. We need a new… a new way of doing the vaccines.

Why would Gates do that, when he's Mr. Vaccine? "A new way of doing the vaccines" doesn't sound like the current ones are doing much, if anything.

The answer is simple. Gates will claim that if they had more time to perfect the vaccines, they would have worked better. When this happens, the media will start releasing all of the vaccine injury data --that they are currently hiding. None of the vaccine injury data has been reported in the mainstream media. The mainstream media are not allowed to talk about vaccine injuries, just like they are not allowed to talk about election fraud, or George Soros. Ask Newt Gingrich. Mention it on Twitter and see how quickly you are banned.

Might the media pin the vaccine injuries on Trump, and Operation Warp Speed? The media and "experts" will claim that because the vaccines were rushed, all of the newly reported injuries are a result. Why else would Twitter and YouTube not ban the video of Bill Gates admitting to the failures of the vaccines?

Also, consider Fauci. He was in with Trump from the beginning, also pushing for vaccines. Fauci has been proven to be a liar. Rand Paul has made this public record. The Disney Fauci movie was a flop and received horrible ratings. Fauci is not well received. Fauci is expendable, they might just throw him in there too, try and tie him to Trump. It wouldn't be hard for the media to pull that off.

Update: 03/10/24

Trump bragged about the vaccines during the 2024 State of The Union Show.

This is not good for anyone who was looking for Trump to “fix” things, but consider this.

In some sense Trump is now the first truly "post-political" symbol in modern America.

Does anyone believe that it was not on purpose?

The way that those on the left have targeted Trump is so over-the-top, that this was always going to be the outcome. They went FULL banana republic on Trump.

Then consider; Twitter/X is still censoring, but they are going to “allow” Tucker to interview Trump — unencumbered, then Putin! Why?

None of this makes any sense. Unless the Deep State/Permanent Government, by playing both sides of the board — will get what they want no matter who is elected.

That’s not to say that Trump is compromised, but it’s not say that he isn’t either.

At this point things appear all over the place, but what if that is the point?

Could it be that Trump is being installed this time?

What do you think?

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"