We have heard for many years now that low dose aspirin can be helpful in reducing the risk of heart attack and stroke in both high risk individuals and in general. But now, all of a sudden, that is no longer the case? Aspirin hasn't changed, so what did?

Task Force Issues Draft Recommendation Statement on Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease

People 40 to 59 should decide with their clinician whether to start taking aspirin; people 60 or older should not start taking aspirin.

Based on new evidence since the 2016 Task Force recommendation, it is now recommended that once people turn 60 years old, they should not consider starting to take aspirin because the risk of bleeding cancels out the benefits of preventing heart disease. The latest information also shows a closer balance of benefits and harms than previously understood for people in their 50s and that starting aspirin use as young as 40 years old may have some benefit.

“Daily aspirin use may help prevent heart attacks and strokes in some people, but it can also cause potentially serious harms, such as internal bleeding,” says Task Force member John Wong, M.D. “It’s important that people who are 40 to 59 years old and don’t have a history of heart disease have a conversation with their clinician to decide together if starting to take aspirin is right for them.”

This recommendation only applies to people who are at higher risk for CVD, have no history of CVD, and are not already taking daily aspirin. When deciding whether patients should start taking aspirin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke, clinicians should consider age, heart disease risk, and bleeding risk. It is also important to consider a patient’s values and preferences. If someone is already taking aspirin and has any questions, they should talk to their clinician about their individual circumstances.

The guidance went from one low dose aspirin a day, to "promote a health lifestyle." It's not as if doctors were promoting an unhealthy lifestyle before. Doctors weren't recommending that people take aspirin daily and continue to eat poorly and just sit around and don't exercise. Something had to have changed.

Aspirin lowers risk of COVID: New findings support preliminary Israeli trial

Over-the-counter aspirin could protect the lungs of COVID-19 patients and minimize the need for mechanical ventilation, according to new research at the George Washington University.

The team investigated more than 400 COVID patients from hospitals across the United States who take aspirin unrelated to their COVID disease, and found that the treatment reduced the risk of several parameters by almost half: reaching mechanical ventilation by 44%, ICU admissions by 43%, and overall in-hospital mortality by 47%.

“As we learned about the connection between blood clots and COVID-19, we knew that aspirin – used to prevent stroke and heart attack – could be important for COVID-19 patients,” said Dr. Jonathan Chow of the study team. “Our research found an association between low-dose aspirin and decreased severity of COVID-19 and death.”

Low-dose aspirin is a common treatment for anyone suffering from blood clotting issues or in danger of stroke, including most people who had a heart attack or a myocardial infarction. Although affecting the respiratory system, the coronavirus has been associated with small blood vessel clotting, causing tiny blockages in the pulmonary blood system, leading to ARDS - acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Israeli researchers reached similar results in a preliminary trial at the Barzilai Medical Center in March. In addition to its effect on blood clots, they found that aspirin carried immunological benefits and that the group taking it was 29% less likely to become infected with the virus in the first place.

“Aspirin is low cost, easily accessible and millions are already using it to treat their health conditions,” said Chow. “Finding this association is a huge win for those looking to reduce risk from some of the most devastating effects of COVID-19.”

We know, and have known for 20+ years, that aspirin is beneficial to people with cardiovascular issues. And aspirin has been around commercially since 1899, when Bayer trademarked the name. It's not like aspirin hasn't been well studied. It's taken 122 years of study to determine that aspirin might cause intestinal bleeding? But the new vaccines are completely safe right? It's been one year, and the vaccines are proven safe, but it's taken "science" 122 years to determine that an aspirin regimen could be dangerous. Just think about that for a minute.

Doesn't it seem strange that guidance comes out with literature stating that doctors should stop prescribing low dose aspirin to those at lower risk of cardiovascular disease, right around the same time that they come out with studies showing that low dose aspirin can improve COVID outcomes?

Is this coincidence? I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Better stock up on aspirin, because that might be the next thing they are going to restrict!

What do you think?

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

Pay very close attention to exactly what she is saying. Remember that most people are not going to be able to hear this repeated on live TV. Which is why catching these sorts of things are important.

Those who are vaccinated, we now know, because of the CDC... They are now able... But with the Delta Variant, because they carry so much more virus. [The vaccinated] They could transmit it to their unvaccinated family members, and so, I for example, even though I’m fully vaccinated. My children are not, because they’re too young to be vaccinated. So, I need to be now careful for my children, because of all the unvaccinated people around us.

She is saying that the vaccinated carry a higher viral load than the unvaccinated, so they can more easily spread the virus. But, she is worried about the unvaccinated people that might spread it to her?

I’m afraid she just let the cat out of the bag. It’s the vaccinated who are spreading the Delta Variant. If the vaccines are working, why would those who are vaccinated have a higher viral load than the unvaccinated?

The unvaccinated often are already immune to the Delta Variant, because of their natural immunity from the first round of COVID. Those who are infected by the wild virus and build a natural immune response, have a response to more parts of the virus than just the spike protein. Because of this, the variants are much less likely to have a severe effect on those with natural immunity.

And now you know why the CDC changed the definition of "VACCINE."

To fully understand the importance of the change, it’s crucial to note that, before the COVID pandemic, the definition of a vaccine had been relatively stable for nearly a couple decades with minor word changes occurring every few years. All through that time the intent of a vaccine — to give you immunity by protecting you from a specific disease — had remained basically the same.

For example, according to an archived snapshot of the CDC’s website, the definition of a vaccine February 24, 2011, was:

“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.”

By July 2015, the wording had changed to:

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed in the nose.”

The wording was the same in June 20179 and likewise in June 201910 and June 2020.11 By August 26, 2021, however, the definition had changed slightly to add the words “to produce immunity”:

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

Then, less than a week later, just days after the FDA gave final approval to Pfizer’s mRNA jab, the definition changed again, September 1, 2021 — this time, significantly. The definition of a vaccine now reads:

“A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

As you’ll note, the second sentence remains the same. It is the first part of the definition that has dramatically changed. In the latest definition, a vaccine:

• Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation”
• No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system
• Does not produce immunity
• Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
• No longer protects a person from the disease

These dramatic changes were likely created to allow the CDC, FDA and other governmental agencies to call the genetic therapy experiment being administered worldwide a “vaccine” — while they knew full well the so-called “vaccine” was not created to either produce immunity or prevent transmission of disease. In fact, by any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, this jab is not a vaccine.

People like Dr. Leana Wen must have some kind of disconnect between their ability to speak and comprehend. If their goal is to get people to run out and take the vaccine, telling them that once they do, they are more likely to spread the virus --is not a good selling point.

Knowing what we know now, how is anyone to believe that the vaccine is going to help people? Now that we know that the vaccinated spread infection at a higher rate, what's the point? The whole goal from the start of this "pandemic" was to "stop the spread," "flatten the curve." But the vaccines won't do that, and the evidence proves that out. They might provide a level of protection against symptoms for a limited amount of time, where natural immunity is lifelong, we have to assume that because there is no data claiming that it doesn't. In fact all of the data available shows that natural immunity is lifelong.

If you follow the vaccine narrative to its conclusion. You will have vaccinated everyone, but those people are still going to be infected, and won't gain long term immunity. When their vaccine wears off, they'll have to get a booster, then they'll have to get another booster after that in perpetuity. Why would anyone agree to that, when the natural path to immunity is safe, and lifelong?

Then there's the fact that more than 99% of healthy people who contract COVID, will recover. Remember that the number of people with comorbidities had (3) on average. None of this adds up.

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

Democrats have a problem. They have done things that have angered the general public. Whether Democrat voters want to admit it or not. I guarantee that very few of them voted for any of the things that have happened recently on the National level. That is to say, I haven't seen anyone defend the Biden administration on their Afghanistan withdraw, or beg for more lockdowns.

The Senate Parliamentarian voted not to allow immigration law to be included in this budgetary bill.

Finally, it is important to note that an obvious corollary of a finding that this proposal is appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation would be that it could be repealed by simple majority vote in a subsequent reconciliation measure. Perhaps more critically, permitting this provision in reconciliation would set a precedent that could be used to argue that rescinding any immigration status from anyone - not just those who obtain LPR status by virtue of this provision -- would be permissible because the policy of stripping status from any immigrant does not vastly outweigh whatever budgetary impact there might be. That would be a stunning development but a logical outgrowth of permitting this proposed change in reconciliation and is further evidence that the policy changes of this proposal far outweigh the budgetary impact scored to it and it is not appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation.

In other words, if you can pass an immigration reform law as part of a budgetary measure, granting citizenship to hundreds of thousands of people, you could also strip that citizenship away using another budgetary law. Point being, you shouldn't mix immigration laws with budgetary laws, because they can be changed too easily, and huge swaths of people will be stuck in the middle.

But there's more to it than that I believe.

Congressional Republicans praised the parliamentarian's decision Sunday. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, tweeted that the parliamentarian "confirmed [the] obvious: mass amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants isn’t a budgetary issue appropriate for reconciliation." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) added, "Senate rules never contemplated a majority circumventing the filibuster by pretending that sweeping and transformational new policies were mere budgetary changes."

ecades of failing to enact their amnesty agenda, Democrats tried this latest unprecedented gambit," McConnell said. "It was inappropriate and I'm glad it failed.”

What does this mean? It means that they are not going to legalize the Dreamers with a budget reconciliation bill.

However, I believe that this is a setup. The Democrats have wanted to pass the legislation (H.R. 1 / S. 1) ever since the 2020 election. These/this is the legislation that basically makes every aspect needed to steal an election legal. Yes that's right, everyone would be able to vote, regardless of whether you are here legally or not. It's the "Democrats Stay In Office Forever Plan." But this is such a purely political move that it would be impossible to try and explain it away. Democrats haven't made much ground when it comes to convincing people that it's too hard to vote. Not because they are not good at marketing, it's because it's a lie, and everyone knows it. Voter ID laws don't exclude anyone, especially the poor. Anyone on government assistance has to be identified. If they can provide identification for welfare / government assistance, they can provide identification to vote. Everyone knows this.

I think that they Democrats want to remove the filibuster, but they haven't been able to find a "cause" to do it. If they were to remove the filibuster to pass "voter reform" it would be an obvious and open political move. The Democrats need something that they can argue is for helping people --like the Dreamers!

I believe that they are going to remove the filibuster rule so they can pass "immigration reform." The democrats want to save the Dreamers. That way they can pull on people's heart strings and appear to have someone else's interest in mind.

Now you know why the SCOTUS ruled that the Trump administration couldn't end the DACA program. I believe that this has been their plan all along. That's why they went so far with the 2020 election fraud. They have all of this planned out and they couldn't get it done with another year of Trump in office.

With the filibuster removed, they can pass (H.R. 1 / S.1) and stay in power for as long as they want.

What do you think?

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

Yes, this Grenada!

There's a serious outbreak of COVID-19 in Grenada, but the timing it what makes it so interesting. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Grenada has had an extremely low infection rate. But just over the past 30 or so days, Grenada has experienced a massive spike in cases.

Click on the image below to see full size.

These spikes have happened everywhere at some point or another. The timing is What makes the spike in Grenada interesting. Grenada's COVID-19 infection rate has been flat for nearly the entire year. Much flatter than most other countries.

Grenada has a relatively small population, so the data coming from there is more accurate than some of the larger countries.

Click on the image below to see full size.

Grenada imported the AstraZeneca vaccine in February 2021, and the cases remained flat. On August 19 Grenada imported the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. The government of Grenada started an aggressive program to get people vaccinated as soon as the Pfizer vaccine was imported, then a huge spike occurred. Is this a coincidence? You be the judge.

It's hard to explain how Grenada was pretty much COVID free for nearly the whole year, and then they start seeing a huge spike in cases -- right around the time they start administering the Pfizer vaccine. That's very suspicious to say the least.

Tell me what you think.

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

In case you haven't been paying attention; a new vaccine mandate has been issued by the federal government.

We now know that the vaccines are ineffective against the Delta Variant. So, why all the push now? Well, the answer might not be what you are expecting.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic, people have worked together for the most part. There was no real contention between those who were infected, vs. those where were not. People isolated at home, had food delivered to their front door, and things were working without much stress. Amazon was making tons of money.

In come the vaccines. As soon as it was announced that there was a vaccine that would provide immunity, people jumped on-board, because they were promised that the lockdowns and mask mandates would eventually be eliminated. Those restrictions would be lifted once we met some magic percentage of the population that were vaccinated. However, this didn't account for the number of people who had already been infected with COVID-19 and recovered from it. It also didn't account for the fact that as time went on, more data came out which showed that the vaccines didn't do nearly what was promised at the onset. This made people leery of taking the vaccine, especially those people who had already recovered.

Once it was found that the vaccines didn’t provide nearly the level of protection that was promised, did the government change their outlook on vaccinations? No, they doubled down on them. Government officials went on television and told the public that it’s the unvaccinated people who are really spreading the virus. “We need to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated?” Of course this makes no sense, because if you’re vaccinated, you shouldn’t have to worry about the virus. That was the entire point of the vaccine, or any vaccine for that matter. Then data comes out that shows that the vaccinated who are infected carry a greater viral load than those where are unvaccinated. Meaning that those who are vaccinated can spread the virus just as easily, if not easier, than those who are unvaccinated. Not only was the original premise false, but the reality was literally the other was around. Why would government officials go on television and say something that they know is false? I believe these polls will show you exactly why.

The entire vaccine push has been about division. And recent polling proves this. More Democrats are more worried about the unvaccinated than are worried about China, The Taliban, Russia, and Illegal Immigration. What this data tells us is that the population, at least a large part of the population, has bought into the vaccine propaganda.

Then you have polling showing that people are losing friends over the whole vaccinated vs. unvaccinated argument.

NEW YORK — The coronavirus vaccine has been an incredibly divisive topic, and now it’s even ending friendships. Vaccinated Americans have called it quits with friends who refuse to get the COVID-19 shot, according to a new poll.

A survey of 1,000 Americans – conducted by OnePoll on Sept. 2 – examined why people have ended friendships in the last year and a half. Results show 16 percent of respondents have axed three pals from their lives since the pandemic began in March 2020.

Of those who ended a friendship, 66 percent are vaccinated and 17 percent don’t ever plan to receive the shot. Fourteen percent of vaccinated respondents — about 1 in 7 — say they parted ways with friends who didn’t want to get the vaccine. Even “Friends” and “The Morning Show” star Jennifer Aniston claims she’s ended friendships over vaccination beliefs.

Once you see these numbers and realize what’s going on, you can understand why the government has spread misinformation about their own program. It's helping to divide people on a large scale. If division is your objective, then these numbers are very promising.

These recent moves have all been to divide people. And the numbers are showing, it’s working. Now they have enacted mandates, to make those people who don’t want the vaccine a second class citizens, even furthering the divide.

Now you have to ask yourself, who benefits from all of this? Who can get more done with the country divided? I'll give you the short answer, the enemies of The United States, that's who benefits from this. The Biden regime wants division. At the end of the day, there can be no other reason for pushing a vaccine that’s minimally effective.

They are trying to divide the people because divided we are easier to control. Think mandates, vaccine passports, how else are they going to get a majority of the population to go along with these measures. Why do you think that the UK just dropped the vaccine passport idea, at least for now? Because the people of the UK are not divided enough for these measures to work.

Sky News — “If you divide any society into two distinct classes of people you have abandoned liberty and democracy and replaced it with tyranny, fear and suspicion.”

What do you think?

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