Here's what I posted a few days ago...

You can click on the images to view them full-size.

And here's what I see when I try to comment on another story, this one about vaccine mandates in France.

Now I've had the pleasure of being banned from ABC News for telling the truth. Funny how that works isn't it. I didn't mention anything that wasn't true. I'm even going to fact check myself. I know that sounds absurd, but that's pretty much what they did to me. Let's see if I spread misinformation.

First masks. Here's what the Mayo Clinic says.

Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus.

Proper use, storage and cleaning of masks also affects how well they protect you. Follow these steps for putting on and taking off your mask:

Wash or sanitize your hands before and after putting on your mask.

Place your mask over your mouth and nose and chin.

Tie it behind your head or use ear loops. Make sure it's snug.

Don't touch your mask while wearing it.

If you accidentally touch your mask, wash or sanitize your hands.

If your mask becomes wet or dirty, switch to a clean one. Put the used mask in a sealable bag until you can get rid of it or wash it.

Remove the mask by untying it or lifting off the ear loops without touching the front of the mask or your face.

Wash your hands immediately after removing your mask.

Regularly wash cloth masks in the washing machine or by hand. (They can be washed along with other laundry.)

Don't put masks on anyone who has trouble breathing or is unconscious or otherwise unable to remove the mask without help.

Don't put masks on children under 2 years of age.

Do you still need to wear a facemask after you’re fully vaccinated?

After you're fully vaccinated, the CDC recommends that it's ok not to wear a mask except where required by a rule or law. You're considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after you get a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or 2 weeks after you get a single dose of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

Even if you were to assume that masks really stop viruses --has anyone actually followed all of these steps? Unless you are on your way into or out of a cleanroom, you aren't going to be able to remove your mask without touching it, or wash/sanitize your hands every time you remove the mask. It's unrealistic.

As soon as you touch anything anywhere, you've already broken the rules. Break the rules once and the mask is ineffective. In fact it might increase your chance of infection. Ask yourself, do you have your hands on or around your face nearly as often when you're not wearing a mask?

Next Dr.Fauci, Fauci is definitely lying because he's on video in my last post explaining GOF (Gain of Function) research and how the NIH funded it through a proxy. Then in an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, Fauci admits to funding the research at the Wuhan lab.

In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, Fauci was challenged on a Washington Post article that read, “What everyone can now see clearly is that NIH was collaborating on risky research with a Chinese lab that has zero transparency and zero accountability during a crisis — and no one in a position of power addressed that risk. Fauci is arguing the system worked. It didn’t.”

The Biden health official [Fauci] responded by defending NIH’s funding and repeatedly defending the integrity of the Chinese scientists.

“You know, it’s more complicated than that … If you look at the research that was done, it was research that was highly recommended by peer review, our United States peer reviews. It got a very high score in the peer review system,” Fauci said. “And the purpose of the research was very, very clear. It was to try to determine what was out there in the bat population that might be ultimately risky for us. It was done in the context of trying to find out what the precise environmental bat source was of SARS-CoV-1 so that we could prevent SARS-CoV-2.”

Fauci added: “So, it was research that was done by qualified people. Right now, when there’s all of this thing about China, that’s a different situation now back then when you’re dealing with qualified, highly respected Chinese scientists. So it isn’t what was made out to be about dealing with really, really bad people. Because those scientists were very well-respected in the scientific community internationally.”

NIH’s RePORTER website said the agency provided $15.2 million to Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance over the years, with $3.74 million toward understanding bat coronavirus emergence. Daszak maintained a long working relationship with Shi Zhengli, sending her lab at least $600,000 in NIH funding. Daszak was also part of the WHO-China team that dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as “extremely unlikely” earlier this year.

FAUCI AND RAND PAUL CALL EACH OTHER LIARS IN DEBATE OVER WUHAN LAB

In May, Fauci denied the NIH-funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Paul pointed to NIH grants going to EcoHealth that provided funding to the Wuhan lab, which a Trump State Department fact sheet contended carried out secretive gain-of-function experiments and worked with China’s military.

At the time, Fauci told Paul, “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Paul brought the issue up again during a Senate hearing on Tuesday, noting it was a crime to lie to Congress, stating, “Gain-of-function research was done entirely at the Wuhan institute by Dr. Shi and was funded by the NIH.”

Paul brought up a November 2017 scientific paper co-authored by Shi and other Chinese scientists, contending that “she took two bat coronavirus genes — spike genes — and combined them with a SARS-related backbone to create new viruses that are not found in nature.”

The paper by Shi noted it received funding from the NIH and was “jointly funded” by China’s government.

Fauci said that the NIH didn't fund research in Wuhan. Then he admits that they did, but it was all above board and there was no GOF research, but there was, Peter Daszak discussed GOF research in the Wuhan lab openly on numerous occasions.

Then there's the fudged CDC VAERS numbers. The CDC did mess up the numbers on the VAERS website.

A sudden jump in the post-COVID-19 vaccination death reports is not correct and was the result of an “error,” according to a U.S. health agency.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Friday said a passive reporting system it runs with the Food and Drug Administration had received 12,313 reports of death among those who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

That was a sharp increase from the previous number of reports, 6,079.

The jump would have effectively doubled the percentage of post-vaccination death reports, from 0.0018 percent to 0.0036 percent.

But a CDC spokeswoman told The Epoch Times the number the agency has displayed on its website is not correct.

“It is double what it was yesterday and so it definitely is incorrect,” the spokeswoman said. “We checked our stats internally and it’s only 6,000. So someone doing an update misrepresented that or made a mistake, in other words.”

“We caught it this morning ourselves and noticed that it had doubled suddenly,” she added.

The spokeswoman was unable to say when the error would be fixed. “It’s being worked out,” she said.

My experience with COVID was truthful, I have no reason to lie about that.

Finally It doesn't make sense to attack a dire situation from one vector. That's common sense. Also, now that Trump is not in office. News outlets have started reporting on the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine

A new study shows that the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine touted by former President Donald Trump increased the survival rate of severely ill coronavirus patients.

The observational study, published by medRxiv, found that antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, along with zinc, could increase the coronavirus survival rate by as much as nearly 200% if distributed at higher doses to ventilated patients with a severe version of the illness.

“We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients,” the study’s conclusion states.

Ivermectin is also being used in trials with good results.

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. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

Why did ABC News ban me? You can draw your own conclusion, but I will tell you that I don't believe it's based on "facts."

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

Rand Paul should have played this video at the Senate hearing yesterday. Even though the DOJ would never move on his suggestion, they would have a hard time explaining it away. Get this video were out there.

Here's Fauci in his own words, describing Gain of Function Research that was funded by the NIAID.

As for Fauci being credible. Fauci is the position where he must lie. Nothing Fauci says now, or did say is credible, because he must lie, or implicate himself in all of this. He was directly involved in the Wuhan lab Gain of Function research funding.

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

I wrote about this extensively on February, 2011. People forget things very quickly, also the Legacy American Media rarely reports on such things. I'll just call them the LAM (Legacy American Media) and then there's The Silence of The LAMs. That's right, I'm coining the phrase, you saw it here first... France was pushing for a global currency even back in 2011.

France, as current head of the Group of 20 countries, will help the transition to a global financial system based on 'several international currencies', French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde said today.

Lagarde, speaking ahead of a G20 finance ministers meeting in Paris on Friday and Saturday, said the world had to move on from the 'non-monetary system' it now has to one 'based on several international currencies'.

Accordingly, France wants to see less need for countries, especially the emerging economies, to accumulate huge foreign reserves, she said.

At the same time, international capital flows should be better regulated and the role of the Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund should be reinforced by the inclusion of China's yuan in the system.

China, whose booming economy now ranks second only to the US in size after overtaking Japan, has accumulated massive forex reserves of more than $2.5 trillion on the back of its sustained trade surpluses and foreign fund inflows.

The U.S. Dollar should no longer be the world's reserve currency, and these SDR (Special Drawing Rights) should become the new standard. They are, of course, backed by currencies from a number of countries, China in particular. Now the Biden administration is taking the same approach. The Biden administration is making moves that will weaken the U.S. Dollar on the world stage.

A controversial plan to boost global liquidity means the days of the U.S. dollar being the undisputed king of the international monetary system may be coming to a close, experts told The Epoch Times.

Losing that status could contribute to a serious crisis for the United States involving a dramatic loss of economic purchasing power, a geopolitical realignment and everything associated with those shocks.

The Biden administration-backed International Monetary Fund (IMF) proposal to issue an unprecedented $650 billion U.S. dollars’ worth of new “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs) this year alone will also help re-shape the international financial system.

That is more than twice the total amount of SDRs created by the IMF throughout its entire history.

The SDR is a sort of proto-global currency, based on a basket of leading currencies, dubbed an “international reserve asset” by the IMF. Each government receives an amount of SDRs proportional to its stake in the international organization.

The unprecedented new issuance, which has the support of both Beijing and Washington, will contribute to sidelining the U.S. dollar’s role as the global reserve currency, analysts warned. The Chinese Communist Party is expected to be a leading beneficiary.

It gets even better. You will see here that The Great Reset is not a hoax, it's not something that was dreamed up. These "world leaders" have been openly talking about this for decades. Again, the Legacy American Media has never covered this with any specificity.

Those calls are growing amid the push for a “Great Reset.” The “reset” plan, which would transform everything from business to governance, is being promoted by the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the IMF, the British monarchy and other power centers as a way to improve the world.

Ostensibly aimed at making the world more “green” and “sustainable,” the shift would require a much larger role for the public sector at the national and international level while moving the world away from what remains of the free-market system. Widespread proliferation of new technologies associated with the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” are a critical component of the effort, too.

A restructuring of the international monetary system led by the IMF on the way to the globalization of currency—with the looming SDR issuance as a major step—is likely to play a key role in the global reset as well.

Just as significantly, the developments taking place at the IMF will empower global organizations to channel ever-larger sums of wealth from people in the United States and other major economies into projects selected by those organizations and their member governments.

Powerful global interests, for instance, are pushing to use the new SDR “allocation,” as the issuing of new SDRs is called, to finance everything from mass international COVID vaccinations to policy transformations around the world.

The IMF wants to fund the world by basically pooling money from all over the world, and redistributing wealth. All of this, while simultaneously weakening the U.S. Not just on the world stage, but economically as well. There is nothing good about this plan, so far as the U.S. is concerned. This "Great Reset" is centralizing global power through the IMF, by marginalizing the U.S. Ask yourself, was Biden elected to do this? Did Biden voters really hate Trump so much that they wanted to bring down the country to get him out of office? I think not.

Right now, governments, central banks and businesses around the world keep large amounts of dollars on reserve to settle international transactions. This creates a constant global demand for the dollar.

However, if the dollar were to lose its status to the SDR, the demand for dollars around the world would plummet. The resulting collapse in purchasing power would create an enormous crisis as Americans’ ability to purchase goods and services from abroad was decimated.

The leftists in control of the U.S. government are running us off a cliff. They are doing this while Legacy American Media are ignoring it --on purpose. No American would want this. This is the equivalent of working your whole life to make things better for your children, then, at the last minute, throwing all of your savings away. Nobody would do this willingly, that's why these sorts of stories are not covered by the LAMs. I guarantee that if you asked any Biden voter about SDRs they would not the slightest idea what you were talking about.

It's because of people's blissful ignorance and sense of removed responsibility that we've ended up in this mess. People are too willing to believe that other people actually want to look out for their best interest. While sometimes that's the case, perhaps with people that you know personally, it's rarely the case with people you've never met. It's even more rare when the people you're trusting to protect you have antipathy towards you.

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

There are many things missing from the public debate. With BLM, Antifa, Critical Race Theory, and any "intersectional social justice movement" there's one very important aspect that is often overlooked. That one particular question that's missing, to me one of the most important questions to ask. How are these "movements" supposed to help, or fix what they claim is a problem in society?

Take BLM for example, they used to have their version of a mission statement on their website. Take a look at what they propose.

It reads, "We this and we that." Notice there's never any mention of how these beliefs are to manifest themselves? BLM says, "Here's a big list of what we believe, but we never get into what we're going to do." BLM says, "We believe 'stuff,' so get in the streets to let people know what you believe!"

It's like a cleaning company that raises awareness of dust. There's lots of dust out there, we should do something about it! Of course, they never talk about step (1). "There's dust" that's it. That's the depth of their argument in total.

Police and oppressors are the problem. We need to get rid of them. Then what? You know, if you ask that question you might be labeled as a racist. Logic and reason are weapons of the oppressor. Kind of like racist math with all of it's absolutes.

Is Seattle really teaching that "math is racist"? Why did parents start to see ideas for math lessons that go far beyond numbers and into questions of identity?

In math, lessons are more theoretical. Seattle's recently released proposal includes questions like, "Where does Power and Oppression show up in our math experiences?" and "How is math manipulated to allow inequality and oppression to persist?"

It's not that the formulas and equations taught in current math classes are racist, Castro-Gill said it's about how they're used in daily life.

"Nowhere in this document says that math is inherently racist," she said. "It's how math is used as a tool for oppression."

One example teachers might mention in an ethnic studies math class, she said, is how black voters in the South were given literacy and numeracy tests before they could cast their ballot. Another might be a lesson on ratios that discusses gaps in incarceration rates and how the weight of a type of drug determines the length of a sentence.

"The numbers are objective," she said, "but how we use it is not objective."

This is the same logic that gun control activists use. Guns are bad because people do bad things with them. Math is bad because people do bad things with it. What's the difference? Both arguments ignore the fact that the object(s) in question are inanimate!

There is no logic in either argument. To believe that math is racist, or used as an oppressive tool, is nonsense. These paradoxical beliefs require you to willfully ignore reality.

There is one author that pretty much sums up the issue quite nicely, British author Douglas Murray.

According to Murray, who is gay, one of the “central conundrums” of our time is expressed by people with marginalized identities: You must understand me. You will never understand me.

Murray dubbed these moral strictures as “paradoxical, impossible demands.”

“The inherent willingness to rush towards contradiction” is “not enough to stop this new religion of social justice,” Murray wrote. One reason “why contradiction is not enough is because nothing about the intersectional, social justice movement suggests that it is really interested in solving any of the problems that it claims to be interested in.”

That left Murray with only one possible conclusion: “Their desire is not to heal but to divide, not to placate but to inflame, not to dampen but to burn.”

Douglas Murray nailed it! He pointed out the exact same thing that I've been looking at. Where does any of this lead? It leads nowhere is the best answer. It leads to societal collapse. All of the "intersectional social justice movements" are designed to remove existing power structures, but that's it, that's as far as they go. It's a tool of "revolutionaries" to destabilize a civilization, so that they can take control. That's it. It's no more complicated than that.

What people MUST understand is that there is no reasoning with people who have fallen prey to these belief systems. There is absolutely no point in arguing with people involved with intersectional social justice movements. Those who actually believe that these movements will result in a better society has proven, through their belief, that they lack the ability reason.

That's not to say that violence is the answer. But these types of ideologies CAN NOT be allowed to fester in a society. Intersectional social justice movements are all Marxist in origin and designed to destroy whatever society their followers inhabit.

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

The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028: A Futuristic Scenario to Facilitate Medical Countermeasure Communication, is a document wargaming the possible scenarios that could occur during a pandemic. The paper was written in 2017 and published by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Here is the opening paragraph on the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security webpage, where you can download a copy for yourself.

Updated: the original link to UCF no longer resolves, I searched and it’s gone. This link is through The Internet Archive. There's also a condensed version available here at the University of Central Florida website.

The Center’s SPARS Pandemic exercise narrative comprises a futuristic scenario that illustrates communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures (MCMs) that could plausibly emerge in the not-so-distant future. Its purpose is to prompt users, both individually and in discussion with others, to imagine the dynamic and oftentimes conflicted circumstances in which communication around emergency MCM development, distribution, and uptake takes place. While engaged with a rigorous simulated health emergency, scenario readers have the opportunity to mentally “rehearse” responses while also weighing the implications of their actions. At the same time, readers have a chance to consider what potential measures implemented in today’s environment might avert comparable communication dilemmas or classes of dilemmas in the future.

While this document doesn't seem too odd at first, there are quite a few aspects of this document that are strangely similar to the way that things have unfolded during the current SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. Take a look at the table of contents:

It only gets more interesting after that.

So now you have this medication Kalocivir, which sounds eerily similar to Remdesivir.

They even fake Twitter posts echoing negative sentiments about the Kalocivir treatments.

This part here is the most interesting to me. Once they find out that the virus is much less deadly than originally though, and, "public interest in SPARS had begun to wane". "...the new, lower case fatality rate estimate led the public to grow increasingly hostile toward continued SPARS messaging."

Why would the government then start a public messaging campaign to make people more afraid of something that's not very deadly? What is the point of that? That, I think, is the most important question to ask about this whole scenario. Wouldn't it make more sense to just treat the outlying cases and let herd immunity take care of the rest? That's how it's worked with any other virus outbreak.

As part of this fear campaign, they begin targeting the population with an adds designed to quell doubts about the "approved" forms of treatment. They are also using the help of celebrity endorsements to push the vaccines and or treatments.

They even cover a mock interview in which a former President shows hesitation when asked about her grandson taking the treatment!

Once vaccinations start, there is confusion in the public because the prioritization of those who will first receive the vaccine.

This has to be the strangest part. There is a huge power outage that occurs. Kind of like the one that happened in Texas! But that's most likely coincidental, still odd though.

It goes on to say how Muslims didn't want to participate in the vaccine program because pigs were used in the manufacturing process.

Next it get to where we are right now.

The paper concludes with the following.

After reading this, you have to ask yourself. How much of what's happened in the last year or so was not planned? Maybe not all of it, but some of it definitely seems like it's been well thought out, the outbreak, how it would be handled, how the government needs to have messaging that thwarts opposition to whatever they (government bureaucrats) deem relevant. And what I consider the be the most important aspect. The need to scare people into believing that something which is not that deadly -- is that deadly.

UPDATE: 08-31-21

Now there are people in the FDA who are "stepping down" AKA "retiring" because they have taken issue with what's gone on thus far.

Two of the FDA’s most senior vaccine leaders are exiting from their positions, raising fresh questions about the Biden administration and the way that it’s sidelined the FDA.

Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research & Review and 32-year veteran of the agency, will leave at the end of October, and OVRR deputy director Phil Krause, who’s been at FDA for more than a decade, will leave in November. The news, first reported by BioCentury, is a massive blow to confidence in the agency’s ability to regulate vaccines.

The bombshell announcement comes at a particularly crucial moment, as boosters and children’s shots are being weighed by the regulator. The departures also come as the administration has recently jumped ahead of the FDA’s reviews of booster shots, announcing that they might be available by the week of Sept. 20.

A former senior FDA leader told Endpoints that they’re departing because they’re frustrated that CDC and their ACIP committee are involved in decisions that they think should be up to the FDA. The former FDAer also said he’s heard they’re upset with CBER director Peter Marks for not insisting that those decisions should be kept inside FDA. What finally did it for them was the White House getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.

FDA’s former acting chief scientist Luciana Borio added on Twitter, “FDA is losing two giants who helped bring us many safe and effective vaccines over decades of public service.”

“These two are the leaders for Biologic (vaccine) review in the US. They have a great team, but these two are the true leaders of CBER. A huge global loss if they both leave,” Former BARDA director Rick Bright wrote, weighing in on the news. “Dr. Gruber is much more than the Director. She is a global leader. Visionary mastermind behind global clinical regulatory science for flu, Ebola, Mers, Zika, Sars-cov-2, many others.”

So there are people stepping down from the FDA because they disagree with approving the shots for children. This was also in the SPARS Pandemic Scenario paper. It goes on to say, "As the investigations grew in intensity, several high-ranking officials at the CDC and FDA were forced to step down and withdraw from government in order to "spend more time with their families." Exhausted employees of these agencies, many of whom worked long hours six or seven days a week throughout the pandemic, simply wanted to put the whole response behind them."

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"

The QR code below links to WindUpRubberFinger.com for easy sharing.