Veteran Virologist Slams Mainstream Media’s “Misinformation” About An Effective COVID Treatment

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden

by Tyler DurdenTue, 08/04/2020 – 23:25TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint

Authored by Steven Hatfill via RealClearPolitics.com,

On Friday, July 31, in a column ostensibly dealing with health care “misinformation,” Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan opened by lambasting “fringe doctors spouting dangerous falsehoods about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 wonder cure.”

Actually, it was Sullivan who was spouting dangerous falsehoods about this drug, something the Washington Post and much of the rest of the media have been doing since for months. On May 15, the Post offered a stark warning to any Americans who may have taken hope in a possible therapy for COVID-19.Clearwater Beach lives up to its name

In the newspaper’s telling, there was nothing unambiguous about the science — or the politics — of hydroxychloroquine:

“Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus game-changer increasingly linked to deaths,” blared the headline.

Written by three Post staff writers, the story asserted that the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is scant and that the drug is inherently unsafe.

This claim is nonsense.

Biased against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 – and the Washington Post is hardly alone — the paper described an April 21, 2020, drug study on U.S. Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the illness. It found a high death rate in patients taking the drug hydroxychloroquine. But this was a flawed study with a small sample, the main flaw being that the drug was given to the sickest patients who were already dying because of their age and severe pre-existing conditions. This study was quickly debunked. It had been posted on a non-peer-reviewed medical archive that specifically warns that studies posted on its website should not be reported in the media as established information.

Yet, the Post and countless other news outlets did just the opposite, making repeated claims that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and caused serious cardiac problems. Nowhere was there any mention of the fact that COVID-19 damages the heart during infection, sometimes causing irregular and sometimes fatal heart rhythms in patients not taking the drug.

To a media unrelentingly hostile to Donald Trump, this meant that the president could be portrayed as recklessly promoting the use of a “dangerous” drug. Ignoring the refutation of the VA study in its May 15 article, the Washington Post cited a Brazil study published on April 24 in which a COVID trial using chloroquine (a related but different drug than hydroxychloroquine) was stopped because 11 patients treated with it died. The reporters never mentioned another problem with that study: The Brazilian doctors were giving their patients lethal cumulative doses of the drug.

On and on it has gone since then, in a circle of self-reinforcing commentary. Following the news that Trump was taking the drug himself, opinion hosts on cable news channels launched continual attacks on both hydroxychloroquine and the president. “This will kill you!” Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto exclaimed. “The president of the United States just acknowledge that he is taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug that [was] meant really to treat malaria and lupus.”

Washington Post reporters Ariana Cha and Laurie McGinley were back again on May 22, with a new article shouting out the new supposed news:

“Antimalarial drug touted by President Trump is linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says.”

The media uproar this time was based on a large study just published in the Lancet. There was just one problem. The Lancet paper was fraudulent and it was quickly retracted.

However, the damage from the biased media storm was done and it was long-lasting. Continuing patient enrollment needed for early-use clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine dried up within a week. Patients were afraid to take the drug, doctors became afraid to prescribe it, pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions, and in a rush of incompetent analysis and non-existent senior leadership, the FDA revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for the drug.

So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what we know:

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response.

Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.

Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the early phase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic. Patients still became sick, but for the most part they avoided hospitalization. In contrast – and in error – the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients. This was in spite of the fact that unlike the drug’s early use in ambulatory patients, there was no real data to support the drug’s use in more severe hospitalized patients.

By April, it was clear that roughly seven days from the time of the first onset of symptoms, a COVID-19 infection could sometimes progress into a more radical late phase of severe disease with inflammation of the blood vessels in the body and immune system over-reactions. Many patients developed blood clots in their lungs and needed mechanical ventilation. Some needed kidney dialysis. In light of this pathological carnage, no antiviral drug could be expected to show much of an effect during this severe second stage of COVID.

On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.

However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”

In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.

At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.  

Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.

By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.

In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate and an ever-increasing number of cases. COVID patients in the U.S. would continue to be quarantined at home and left untreated until they developed shortness of breath. Then they would be admitted to the hospital and given hydroxychloroquine outside the narrow window for the drug’s maximum effectiveness.

In further contrast, countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID mortality and hospital admissions.

Finally, several nations that had started using an aggressive early-use outpatient policy for hydroxychloroquine, including France and Switzerland, stopped this practice when the WHO temporarily withdrew its support for the drug. Five days after the publication of the fake Lancet study and the resulting media onslaught, Swiss politicians banned hydroxychloroquine use in the country from May  27 until June 11, when it was quickly reinstated.

The consequences of suddenly stopping hydroxychloroquine can be seen by examining a graph of the Case Fatality Ratio Index (nr CFR) for Switzerland. This is derived by dividing the number of daily new COVID fatalities by the new cases resolved over a period with a seven-day moving average. Looking at the evolution curve of the CFR it can be seen that during the weeks preceding the ban on hydroxychloroquine, the nrCFR index fluctuated between 3% and 5%.

Following a lag of 13 days after stopping outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, the country’s COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and the nrCFR index stayed elevated at the highest level it had been since early in the COVID pandemic, oscillating at over 10%-15%. Early outpatient hydroxychloroquine was restarted June 11 but the four-fold “wave of excess lethality” lasted until June 22, after which the nrCFR rapidly returned to its background value. 

Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We now know now that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.  

Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five days.

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections.

There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results – and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.

This is ground-shaking news. Why is it not being widely reported? Why is the American media trying to run the U.S. pandemic response with its own misinformation?

*  *  *

Steven Hatfill is a veteran virologist who helped establish the Rapid Hemorrhagic Fever Response Teams for the National Medical Disaster Unit in Kenya, Africa. He is an adjunct assistant professor in two departments at the George Washington University Medical Center where he teaches mass casualty medicine. He is principle author of the prophetic book “Three Seconds Until Midnight — Preparing for the Next Pandemic,” published by Amazon in 2019.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


What or Who Decides This Election?
COVID progress, riot fatigue, Durham indictments, Biden’s brain. By November, several factors may be trending in Trump’s favor — if he lets them.

We know where to watch in the next few weeks but have no real idea what we will be watching. Yet pundits, the media, and the Left seem giddy that their polls show a Trump slump, as if they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from 2016. But in truth, the news cycle over the next three months may well favor Trump — a scenario his opponents no doubt deem preposterous in these dog days of August.
1. The virus. The coronavirus is like an out-of-control grass fire. It dies down only to flare up without much predictability — making fools of yesterday’s experts, proving them yet again today’s geniuses, only to render them idiots tomorrow.
Trump’s polls climbed in May when it looked as if the vicious virus was waning. But after the public relaxed its guard, or protesters gathered for much of June in massive demonstrations that were politically correct mockeries of social distancing, masks, and disinfects, or the virus got its natural second wind, it caught fire again — and abroad as well.
If by October remedies have improved, vaccinations are in final trials, care has been honed to reduce the death rate, then the president will be rewarded for getting the nation through the disaster. If it spikes yet again or mutates into a more lethal strain, or if the lethality rate soars in October, then he will be blamed at the polls. In some sense, the virus’s course is beyond human control; the key, however, is how the president reacts to its metamorphoses. If well, Biden’s ankle-biting will seem shrill; if not so well, Biden’s generalities and his reverse copycatting the president’s directives and coronavirus policies will seem sober and judicious.
2. The lockdown/quarantine. Depending on how poll questions are framed, most Americans either want to take their chances and get back to work, or they care little about the data and simply are terrified of COVID-19.
If the schools stay shut down, millions of children will suffer untold harm, and millions of parents will be unable to return fully to work. The medical and financial fallout will have grave collective economic implications. If schools do open, and the virus is manageable, then the administration will be seen as prescient. If the contagion somehow spikes during the return to schools, or is presented as spiking by the media, Trump will be dubbed a reckless Typhoid Mary. Biden’s viral policies are simply to oppose whatever Trump does. So Biden’s risks are that when the virus wanes, he will have already ceded Trump responsibility — and thus credit — for its diminution.
3. The economy. It is hard to see how the economy ascends and returns on track to its pretrial boom before Election Day, at least until herd immunity increases or the virus either wanes naturally, becomes a treatable disease, or is eliminated by a vaccine — or all of the above. 
The election may hinge on whether any of those variables appears viable by November. If they are, people will spend and produce in confidence that the end is in sight; if the virus is still considered lethal and terrifying, then the economy will stay flat — at a time of a $4-trillion-plus annual deficit. Again, the Biden basement strategy of having Trump own the virus, lockdown, and economy may now seem wise, given the chaos of the summer and Biden’s own cognitive issues. But 90 days is a long time, and all three trends could reverse course and improve, which according to the logic of Biden himself, would then be Trump’s doing.
4. The riots. We at nearing peak Jacobinism, the point where the public is growing tired of Antifa/BLM and skeptical about the surreal Democratic denial in which the endless violence, vandalism, looting, killings, injuries, and statue-toppling are described as “intensified peaceful protests,” or the work of only a “small number of lawbreakers.” The continuance of anarchy and chaos is being politically leveraged to create a general sense of civil unrest purportedly caused by Trump’s controversial nature. The Democratic strategy is to have protests that are violent enough to frighten the public, but not quite violent enough to destroy daily life, so swing voters will go into a collective fetal position, hands over ears, and shout that if they just vote out Trump, “it will all go away.
But if Antifa/BLM intensify or just continue the violence — Bible-burning is the latest addition to their repertoire — more police are killed or injured, and the Democrats keep denying the obvious, it could be a disaster for the Left. Calling violence a “myth” is a myth that no sane person believes. Biden has no idea how many inner-city folk depend on a funded police force, how many in the heartland want to watch their sports without lectures, how many suburbanites liked the downed Columbus or Grant or Drake statue in their cities, and how many working Democrats don’t like having their commute freeway shut down by the obnoxious prolonged adolescents of Antifa. There are so many facets to the cultural revolution that the Democratic policy of accepting them all in toto can alienate lots of swing voters.
5. The Durham indictments. The Democrats are paranoid that Durham might indict enough FBI or DOJ employees — and flip one or two who will testify against their peers for immunity — to boomerang the Russia-collusion hoax before the election. Depending on whom Durham indicts, how many, and how much more incriminating information ensues, Trump will be able to remind the public of the unprecedented corruption in the Obama administration and the role of Joe Biden in aiding and abetting the constitutional abuse.
If Durham indicts no one before the election, the public will shrug that the Russian hoax was a hoax but more of a Keystone Kops caper rather than an existential threat aimed at the presidency of a constitutional republic. But if during the last 30 days of the election cycle, Durham’s indictments reveal serial lawlessness, then Biden — a member of the Obama/FBI/DOJ inner anti-Trump circle — will hemorrhage.
6. Joe Biden’s cognitive challenges. Joe Biden masterfully has been able to conduct a teleprompted Zoom/Skype, virtual campaign from his basement, and an occasional press conference with a few preselected questions to toadyish reporters.
He assumes there will be no convention, no stump speech, no hostile interviews — and prays for no debates. Biden may pull all that off, depending on the course of the virus over the next 90 days — and his own polls. If in such scripted appearances he appears just occasionally confused, as during the abbreviated primary season, or slurs his words, or at times goes off topic, his health will probably be a major issue, but not a deciding one.
However, if by October Biden is campaigning in traditional style, giving impromptu interviews and emulating Trump’s ubiquity, then there are real chances of deer-in the-headlights pivotal moments of utter confusion that could be determinative — given that their ubiquity could not be covered up by the pro-Biden media.
The key here is to watch Trump polls. If they linger at 42–43 positive in the RealClearPolitics averages, then Biden remains a virtual candidate. If Trump nears the 45–48 favorable range, Biden will be forced to emerge, and that could become catastrophic. Remember, Trump can be edgy, controversial, and unpopular, but selecting Biden as the nominee was the most reckless move the Democrats have pulled off in a generation. As Churchill said of the one figure in World War I who governed the fate of the omnipotent British fleet, Admiral Jellicoe: “Jellicoe was the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon.” So too Biden is the only candidate who could lose his party everything in an hour or so.
7. The vice-presidential selection. Biden is in a dilemma. Pick one of the more accomplished African-American women, such as Susan Rice and Kamala Harris, and both are likely already vetted and enjoy name recognition. Before the current cultural revolution, both were considered left-wing Democrats, but in the Hillary Clinton mode, rather than in the Bernie Sanders extremist school. So they would be the safer selections. But would they satisfy the Sanders wing? And in the past, have they been on good terms with Biden?
Or will Biden have to go the full BLM route with a less vetted Stacey Abrams or Karen Bass or some other hardcore leftist, with an even harder leftist past, that will cement his coalition, but turn off swing voters — especially if the violence both continues and is contextualized if not supported by his running mate? Republicans no doubt prefer the latter scenario. And the harder left-wing the selection, the more likely it is that Biden will seem at the mercy of the manipulative Antifa/BLM militant wing of the party — as an encouraged Angela Davis herself pointed out.
The current left-wing ad “Settling for Biden” is one of the most counterproductive in memory because it confirms the cynicism of the hard left and the lack of enthusiasm for the mediocre Biden. It clearly suggests that his election would be merely a door for the left-wing seizure of power later on. In other words, Biden’s VP pick could be a lose/lose choice. BLM is riding high now, but it and Antifa, with help from the media and professional sports, are turning off millions with their nonstop accusations and smears. And all that could crest in November.
8. Trumps mercurial tweeting. Trump is frustrated that he has been the target of a three-year slow-motion coup: the voting-machine lawsuit, the failed impeachment 1.0, the emoluments clause, Logan Act charade, the Mueller/collusion hoax, Ukraine and impeachment, followed by Trump’s being smeared as the plague-spreader, the lockdown meister, the economic wrecker.
In his angst, he tweets, he rails, he screams — and wrongly asks about a possible delayed election, due to the quite likely fraud that would follow an unprecedented ballot-by-mail election. Thereby, he then can alienate the ripe, low-hanging swing voter ready to be picked.
In contrast, when Trump talks empathetically of the need for police to protect the vulnerable or sticks to the details of the contagion in his press conference, he gradually regains popularity.
If he lets the natural news cycle do its work, then he will rediscover that it is trending in his direction. Indeed, the evidence of such a turnabout is already evident. But as time wanes, Trump has almost no margin of error and must maintain 24/7 discipline to allow all of the above to play out.
These turning points have been anti-Trump since mid June. But they are starting to change, ever so slowly and insidiously. And if they continue, and Trump lets them continue, then by November almost all of them will be in Trump’s favor.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Robert F. Kennedy speaks: 

Pharma has 80 COVID vaccines in development, but Gates & Fauci pushed Moderna’s “Frankenstein jab” to the front of the line. Scientists & ethicists are sounding alarms. The vaccine uses a new, untested, and very controversial experimental RNA technology that Gates has backed for over a decade. Instead of injecting an antigen & adjuvant as with traditional vaccines, Moderna plugs a small piece of coronavirus genetic code into human cells, altering DNA throughout the human body and reprograming our cells to produce antibodies to fight the virus. MRNA vaccines are a form of genetic engineering called “germ line gene editing”. Moderna’s genetic alterations are passed down to future generations. In January The Geneva Statement the world’s leading ethicists and scientists called for an end to this kind of experimentation. Moderna has never brought a product to market, proceeded through clinical trials, or had a vaccine approved by FDA. Despite Gates’ investments ,the company, was teetering on bankruptcy with $1.5 billion debt before COVID.

Fauci’s support won the company an astonishing $483 million in federal funds to accelerate development. Dr. Joseph Bolen, Moderna’s former R&D Chief, expressed shock at Fauci’s bet.” I don’t know what their thinking was”, he told CNN, “When I read that, I was pretty amazed”. Moderna and Fauci launched federally-funded human trials on March 3rd in Seattle. Dr Peter Hotez warns of potentially fatal consequences from skipping animal studies. “If there is immune enhancement in animals, that’s a show-stopper”. Dr Suhab Siddiqi, Moderna’s Ex-Director of Chemistry, told CNN, “I would not let the [vaccine] be injected in my body. I would demand: Where is the toxicity data?” Former NIH Scientist Dr. Judy Mikovits says its criminal to test MRNA vaccines on humans. “MRNA can cause cancers and other dire harms that don’t surface for years.” As precautions, Moderna ordered trial participants to avoid unprotected sex or sperm donations & Fauci directed that all COVID vaccines to be protected by blanket immunity. Gates hopes to sell his experimental gene-altering technology to all 7 billion humans & transform our species into GMOs.” 

Are you ready for this?” 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

In the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, President Obama authorized his administration’s investigative agencies to monitor his party’s opponent in the presidential election, on the pretext that Donald Trump was a clandestine agent of Russia. Realizing this was a gravely serious allegation for which there was laughably insufficient predication, administration officials kept Trump’s name off the investigative files. That way, they could deny that they were doing what they did. Then they did it . . . and denied it.

New Disclosures Confirm: Trump Himself Was the Target of Obama Administration’s Russia Probe
Assertions that the focus was ‘the Trump campaign’ are now known to be ludicrous
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHYAugust 1, 2020 
Long-sought documents finally pried from U.S. intelligence agencies prove that the Obama administration used the occasion of providing a standard intelligence briefing for major-party candidates as an opportunity to investigate Donald Trump on suspicion of being a Russian asset.
I say investigate Donald Trump advisedly.
As I contended in Ball of Collusion, my book on the Trump-Russia investigation, the target of the probe spearheaded by the FBI — but greenlighted by the Obama White House, and abetted by the Justice Department and U.S. intelligence agencies — was Donald Trump. Not the Trump campaign, not the Trump administration. Those were of interest only insofar as they were vehicles for Trump himself. The campaign, which the Bureau and its apologists risibly claim was the focus of the investigation, would have been of no interest to them were it not for Trump.
Or do you suppose they moved heaven and earth, surreptitiously plotted in the Oval Office, wrote CYA memos to cover their tracks, and laboriously sculpted FBI reports because they were hoping to nail . . . George Papadopoulos?
My book was published a year ago. It covered what was then known about the Obama-administration operation. In collusion with the Clinton campaign, and with the complicity of national-security officials who transitioned into the Trump administration, the Obama White House deployed the FBI to undermine the new president, dually using official investigative tactics (e.g. FISA surveillance, confidential informants, covert interrogations) and lawless classified leaks — the latter publicized by dependable journalists who were (and remain) politically invested in unseating Trump.
Now the paper trail is finally catching up with what some of us analysts long ago surmised based on the limited information previously available.
You don’t like Donald Trump? Fine. The investigation here was indeed about Donald Trump. But the scandal is about how abusive officials can exploit their awesome powers against any political opponent. And the people who authorized this political spying will be right back in business if, come November, Obama’s vice-president is elected president — notwithstanding that he’s yet to be asked serious questions about it.
How to Conceal a Politicized InvestigationIt seems mind-boggling that, for so long, the FBI and Justice Department were able to keep a lid on the documents now being released. President Trump could have directed their disclosure at any time over the last four years. But when you think about it, concealing the paper trail was the easy part. The real challenge was: How to continue the probe even after Trump had taken office and was, at least nominally, in a position to shut it down?
The Obama officials, including holdovers who transitioned into the Trump administration, pulled that off by intimidation: not-so-subtle suggestions that they could disclose damaging allegations at any time (e.g., the notorious “pee tape”), and that White House efforts to inquire into the scope of the investigation would be portrayed as criminal obstruction.
Prior to the 2016 election, the FBI intentionally concealed the existence of the Trump-Russia probe from the congressional “Gang of Eight” (the bipartisan leadership of both houses and their intelligence committees). Senior Republicans were thus kept in the dark regarding purported suspicions that the Republican presidential campaign was a Russian front, unable to pose tough questions about the probe’s gossamer predication.
Crucially, the Trump-Russia fabulists managed to sideline two Trump loyalists who would have been positioned to thwart the effort: national-security adviser Michael Flynn and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. That left in place Obama holdovers and Trump-appointed placeholders. They were indifferent to Trump himself and cowed by the prospect of being framed as complicit in a Trump–Russia conspiracy, or a cover-up.
The paper record is profoundly embarrassing, so it is only natural that the FBI and Justice Department resisted its disclosure. But documents about the investigation were demanded by congressional investigators starting years ago — particularly by the investigation led in the House by then–Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.).
Congress’s investigation was stonewalled. The more revelation we get, the more obvious it is that there was no bona fide national-security rationale for concealment. Documents were withheld to hide official and unofficial executive activity that was abusive, embarrassing, and, at least in some instances, illegal (e.g., tampering with a document that was critical to the FBI’s presentation of “facts” to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court).
Democrats wanted this information suppressed all along. So of course, once Democrats took control of the House in 2019, there was no possibility of pressing the question of why the Justice Department and FBI failed to comply with House information demands back in 2017–18, when Republicans led the relevant committees.
One wonders, though, why the GOP-controlled Senate had so little interest in finding out why this paper trail stayed hidden despite repeated inquiries. Ditto the House Republican leadership in the first two years of Trump’s term. It is hard to draw any conclusion other than that the GOP establishment bought the “Russian interference in our democracy” hysteria.
Moscow always meddles in U.S. elections. The 2016 interference was par for the course and, as always, utterly ineffective. This time, though, Democrats were perceived as the victims, rather than the beneficiaries. For once, they and their media megaphone demanded that the political class treat Russia as a serious threat. On cue, Washington Republicans genuflected, lest they be portrayed as covering up for Trump, or as soft on Putin. Meanwhile Democrats, the party of appeasement (very much including appeasement of Moscow through the Obama years), were transmogrified into Russia hawks. And Russia hawks they’ll remain . . . right up until the moment Joe Biden takes the oath of office.
Exploiting Politics to Surveil the OppositionAmong the most significant of the newly declassified documents is a memorandum written by FBI agent Joe Pientka III, the case agent on Trump-Russia. It was Pientka who, at the FBI’s New York City headquarters on August 17, 2016, purported to brief Trump and two top campaign surrogates — the aforementioned General Flynn and then–New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who was slated to run the transition if Trump won.
In reality, Pientka and the FBI regarded the occasion not as a briefing for the Republican presidential nominee but as an opportunity to interact with Donald Trump for investigative purposes. Clearly, the Bureau did that because Trump was the main subject of the investigation. The hope was that he’d blurt things out that would help the FBI prove he was an agent of Russia.
The Obama administration and the FBI knew that it was they who were meddling in a presidential campaign — using executive intelligence powers to monitor the president’s political opposition. This, they also knew, would rightly be regarded as a scandalous abuse of power if it ever became public. There was no rational or good-faith evidentiary basis to believe that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with the Kremlin or that he’d had any role in Russian intelligence’s suspected hacking of Democratic Party email accounts.
You didn’t have to believe Trump was a savory man to know that. His top advisers were Flynn, a decorated combat veteran; Christie, a former U.S. attorney who vigorously investigated national-security cases; Rudy Giuliani, a legendary former U.S. attorney and New York City mayor who’d rallied the country against anti-American terrorism; and Jeff Sessions, a longtime U.S. senator with a strong national-defense track record. To believe Trump was unfit for the presidency on temperamental or policy grounds was a perfectly reasonable position for Obama officials to take — though an irrelevant one, since it’s up to the voters to decide who is suitable. But to claim to suspect that Trump was in a cyberespionage conspiracy with the Kremlin was inane . . . except as a subterfuge to conduct political spying, which Obama officials well knew was an abuse of power.
So they concealed it. They structured the investigation on the fiction that there was a principled distinction between Trump himself and the Trump campaign. In truth, the animating assumption of the probe was that Trump himself was acting on Russia’s behalf, either willfully or under the duress of blackmail. By purporting to focus on the campaign, investigators had the fig leaf of deniability they needed to monitor the candidate.
Just two weeks before Pientka’s August 17 “briefing” of Trump, the FBI formally opened “Crossfire Hurricane,” the codename for the Trump-Russia investigation. The Bureau also opened four Trump-Russia subfiles, related to Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Flynn.
There was no case file called “Donald Trump” because Trump was  “Crossfire Hurricane.” The theory of Crossfire Hurricane was that Russia had blackmail information on Trump, which it could use to extort Trump into doing Putin’s bidding if Trump were elected. It was further alleged that Russia had been cultivating Trump for years and was helping Trump’s election bid in exchange for future considerations. Investigators surmised that Trump had recruited Paul Manafort (who had connections to Russian oligarchs and pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarchs) as his campaign manager, enabling Manafort to use such emissaries as Page to carry out furtive communications between Trump and the Kremlin. If elected, the theory went, Trump would steer American policy in Russia’s favor, just as the Bureau speculated that Trump was already corruptly steering the Republican party into a more pro-Moscow posture.
Get Them TalkingBesides obtaining FISA surveillance warrants against Page, the Bureau’s favored tactic — a common one in criminal investigations — was to create or exploit situations in which the suspects would be at ease. Either the settings would not seem investigative or, in Trump’s case, repeated assurances were provided that he was not under investigation. With no notice that the FBI was trying to catch them and even prompt them into making incriminating statements, Trump and his campaign advisers would be invited to talk about Russia. Agents parsed their statements and scrutinized their demeanor, searching for any indication of pro-Russia sentiment or uneasiness about the topic — anything that could be portrayed as incriminating. If the Bureau’s contacts with Trump officials were not covertly recorded (as they were, for example, when informants interacted with Papadopoulos), agents would generate written reports about them, the kind of reports the FBI routinely writes when building a criminal case.
This is exactly what Pientka did in connection with the August 17 “briefing,” under the supervision of Kevin Clinesmith, the rabidly anti-Trump FBI lawyer later found by the Justice Department’s inspector general to have tampered with a key email, and Peter Strzok, the rabidly anti-Trump counterintelligence agent who was later fired.
Pientka’s significantly redacted seven-page memo is worth reading. The point of it is not the national-security information provided to the candidate; that is just context for the Bureau’s documenting of statements made by Trump in response. For example, when the topic is differences in methodology between Russian and Chinese espionage, Pientka carefully notes that Trump asked, “Joe, are the Russians bad? Because they have more numbers [of FBI cases] are they worse than the Chinese?” After all, maybe we’ll find out he was reporting back to the Kremlin. When the topic turned to signals intelligence, Pientka notes that Trump interjected, “Yes I understand it’s a dark time. Nothing is safe on computers anymore,” and elaborated that his then-ten-year-old son had broken the code for access to a computer — you know, just the kind of badinage you’d expect from a co-conspirator in a Russian hacking scheme.
Pientka then recounts that when other intelligence-agency briefers took over to continue the briefing on other topics, Pientka did not leave; he stayed in the room “actively listen[ing] for topics or questions regarding the Russian Federation.” Here, in a classified report they figure no one will ever see, there is no pretense: FBI agents are monitoring Trump. Pientka notes that when one briefer said the U.S. was the world’s leader in counterterrorism, Trump interjected, “Russia too?” And when the discussion turned to cheating by Russia and China on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, “Trump asked, ‘Who’s worse?’” When the briefer replied, “They are both bad, but Russia is worse,” Pientka took pains to relate, “Trump and Christie turned toward each other and Christie commented, ‘Im shocked’” [sic].
You’re thinking, “So what?” Yeah, well, that’s the point. They had nothing, but the agents were exploiting the U.S. political process to try to turn nothing into a federal case. And would any public official voluntarily attend a security briefing, ostensibly meant to help him perform his public-safety mission, if he thought the FBI might be spying on him and writing reports with an eye toward portraying him as a hostile power’s mole?
Just as we’ve seen in the Flynn investigation, Pientka’s official FBI report is marked in bold capital letters: “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL.” Why deliberate over a draft when the purpose is to document a suspect’s statements? After all, he said whatever he said; there shouldn’t be a need to edit it. Drafts and deliberations are necessary only if a report is being massaged to fit the perceived needs of the investigation. Observe that, although the briefing was August 17, the memo is dated August 30. Nearly two weeks later, and it’s still in the form of a deliberative draft, meaning they’re not done yet.
This is not materially different from the Obama administration’s plan on January 6, 2017. That is when the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, “briefed” Trump in New York City. This briefing came just a day after Comey met with his Obama-administration superiors — the president, Vice President Biden, national-security adviser Susan Rice, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. They discussed withholding information about the Russia investigation from President-elect Trump and his incoming team.
Consistent with this White House strategy session, Comey did not actually brief Trump about the Russia investigation; he buzzed Trump with an allegation that the Putin regime might be in possession of blackmail material — the pee tape — that it could hold over Trump’s head in order to get him to do the Kremlin’s bidding.
The point was not to give information. It was to get information: to provoke Trump into making incriminating or false statements, or statements evincing consciousness of guilt. Outside Trump Tower was an FBI car equipped with a laptop so Comey could immediately write an investigative report. The director and his team treated this as an investigative event, not a briefing. Comey memorialized Trump’s statements, as well as his physical and emotional reaction to the suggestion that Moscow might have video of the soon-to-be president cavorting with prostitutes. If a case had ever been made on Trump, Comey could then have been a witness, with his investigative report available to refresh his recollection about Trump’s comments and comportment.
That is one of the main reasons such reports are done.The FBI did the same thing with Flynn: a sandbag interview, against Justice Department and White House protocols, conducted after extensive planning about how to put him at ease, how to make sure he doesn’t think he’s a suspect, how to refrain from advising him of his rights. Then, knock him back on his heels by portraying a legitimate conversation between the incoming national-security adviser and the Russian ambassador as if it were nefarious. Don’t play him the recording or show him the transcript; just grill him and hope he says something incriminating or redolent of guilty knowledge. And then, instead of following the FBI rules for promptly completing interview reports, generate another “deliberative draft” that can be kneaded for a few weeks . . . with the help of a former prosecutor (Lisa Page) who serves as counsel to the second-highest-ranking FBI official (then–deputy director Andrew McCabe).
There is still plenty of paper trail to uncover. I haven’t even referred here to the Steele dossier, which investigators knew was bogus but relied on to seek — and obtain — court-authorized eavesdropping. I haven’t mentioned the unmasking of Trump officials indirectly targeted in foreign-intelligence collection. We haven’t considered the collaboration of American and foreign intelligence agencies in the scrutiny of Trump, or the collaboration of Obama officials and congressional Democrats, as well as the media, to promote the narrative that Trump was a Russian operative. There is much still to learn and to weigh.
But this much we know: In the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, President Obama authorized his administration’s investigative agencies to monitor his party’s opponent in the presidential election, on the pretext that Donald Trump was a clandestine agent of Russia. Realizing this was a gravely serious allegation for which there was laughably insufficient predication, administration officials kept Trump’s name off the investigative files. That way, they could deny that they were doing what they did. Then they did it . . . and denied it.
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY is a senior fellow at National Review Institute
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


The New Old ObamaWhy is Barack Obama reemerging with greater frequency now? There are a few reasonable suppositions.
By Victor Davis Hanson August 2, 2020
In his latest incarnation as president emeritus and corporate multimillionaire community activist, we are reminded of the earlier Barack Obama of “get in their face,” “take a gun to a knife fight,” and “punish our enemies” vintage. From time to time, Obama ventures from his hilltop, seaside, $12 million “you didn’t build that” Martha’s Vineyard Estate or his tony Washington, D.C. $8 million “spread the wealth” mansion to lecture the nation on all of its racist sins, past and present.
In these outings, he seeks to advise lesser folk on how we can still find redemption (make Puerto Rico a state?), given that his own eight years as president apparently proved that the United States remains hopelessly captive to the spirit of Bull Connor and that a president such as himself—starting out with complete control of the Congress—had no power to change much.
His latest weaponization of the funeral of John Lewis revealed all the Obama signature characteristics.
Fantasy Obama knows that the Trump Administration’s use of federal marshals to protect a federal courthouse in Portland from nonstop street efforts to burn it down, along with its occupants, is not analogous to the Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace, an honored speaker at the 1972 McGovern-run Democratic convention: “[Wallace] may be gone, but we can witness our federal government sending agents to use tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators.”
He knows that such protesters in our major cities loot, burn, blind, maim, and occasionally kill people and are hardly “peaceful.”He knows that asking for an ID at the polls, in the fashion of cashing a check, buying a beer, or getting a prescription filled is not racist (unless he believes that minorities are currently deprived of prescriptions, alcohol sales, or cashing checks), and are not “restrictive,” much less do they attack “our voting rights with surgical precision, even undermining the Postal Service in the run-up to an election that’s gonna be dependent on mail-in ballots so people don’t get sick.”
He knows that if there are voting irregularities in November, they will come mostly from the Left and through the very mail-in balloting and vote harvesting they advocate. We in California’s 21st Congressional District can attest to that, after having witnessed winner and incumbent Republican David Valadao in 2018 see his sizable lead mysteriously erode over the next several weeks as batches of harvested and mail-in ballots steadily appeared until his challenger won by a few hundred votes.
Obama knows that making Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico states is simply a way of gaining four automatic left-wing senators to take back the Senate.
He knows that what he calls “partisan gerrymandering” is an ancient bipartisan enterprise, without which there would now not be a very sizable black caucus in the House.
He knows that what he suddenly now calls the “Jim Crow relic” Senate filibuster is a traditional and bipartisan lever. And so he knows that if Trump should be reelected, and should he retain a thin margin in the Republican Senate, and perhaps win back the House, and chose to end the now apparently racist filibuster to greenlight the Trump agenda, Obama would be the first to pivot and scream to high heaven about “partisanship” and “racism.”
Obama knows all this. Thus his politicizing riff is cynical and in some ways a cruel hijacking of a funeral.
Exemption Ex-presidents—think Ford, Reagan, or the two Bushes—usually do not attack sitting presidents, unless of course they are morally superior liberals such as Carter, Clinton, and Obama.
And funerals are usually not appropriate venues for politics. 
Politicizing a death, at least since Mark Antony’s weaponization of the funeral of Julius Caesar, has been frowned upon—except in the case of the late Paul Wellstone, John McCain, or John Lewis. 
The eulogist can be exempt from the rules of decorum to go after a president, such as George W. Bush or Donald Trump. Obama reached a new low in cramming into a funeral eulogy the accusation that we are back to the spirit of Bull Connor, while jamming an entire political laundry list of policy preferences, from D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood and ending the filibuster, to mail-in voting and ending voting ID requirements, into praise of the dead.
Irony Obama has always been blind and deaf to the irony of himself. He strikes a moral pose about election sanctity at precisely the time serial disclosures reveal that he knew of—or indeed ordered—the weaponization of the FBI, and perhaps the Justice Department and CIA, in order to go after an opposition presidential campaign that by design further led to the subversion of a presidential transition and indeed a presidency itself. 
When the truth is finally known, the nation will learn that the Obama Administration was one of the most corrupt in its history by politicizing the IRS and FBI, surveilling the media, unmasking and leaking the names of U.S. citizens swept up in likely illegal surveillance, destroying the sanctity of the FISA court, and spying on a political campaign with the intent of destroying it before a U.S. election.
He laments our “Bull Connor America.” But as president, with a veto-proof Democratic Congress in 2009, he expended no effort to extend statehood to Puerto Rico or Washington, D.C., or to demand an end to the filibuster, or to enact anything he now insists we must do.
Partly the reason is that Obama is a politician, first, who wished to get reelected, and considered any of the nostrums that he now pushes on others an anathema to his own 2012 ambitions. Obama is also mostly a creature of rhetoric, and he knows that talking about pushing an agenda is easy to do now, but in the past it was hard to do the political work to see it enacted.
He is also ignorant of history and so refutes his own premises. The advocacy of John Lewis and others like him convinced the timid Kennedy Administration to break with their kindred Democratic Southern brethren and in 1963 nationalize state troops to ensure calm in the streets and the civil rights of the oppressed. 
How odd that Obama both praises such past federal activism and yet currently defends states-rights mayors and governors who nullify local, state, and federal law to the point of forcing the federal government to save its own property and personnel from mayhem.
Hypocrisy About 7,000 African Americans are murdered each year in the streets of our cities, mostly by other young African American males. About nine unarmed African Americans died last year in police custody, fewer than unarmed whites who were killed by the police, and a smaller number percentage-wise of blacks who were arrested in general by the police for suspected crimes. 
If Obama is truly concerned about the deaths of young African Americans he could return to Chicago in its hour of need, as people of color are currently being gunned down in the streets—even at funerals far less secure and guarded than those at which Obama speaks.
He could revisit his Chicago home, use his moral bona fides to restart his community activist career, and seek to quell the violence and save the lives of the innocent and unprotected—all concerns far more vital to the nation than ending the filibuster. He would receive bipartisan and overwhelming public support for such hard work. He has already reached the point at which he once advised us that one has made enough money. He is perhaps becoming isolated in living in non-diverse suburbs and estates of the sort that his erstwhile housing czars in his administration once deplored, and tried to integrate by  executive orders.
Instead, he now and then pops up into a politically explosive scenario at a volatile time, adopts the cadence and patois of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his “spiritual mentor,” and begins his ministerial pontificating, as he seeks to wow the crowd with the old magic—soon only to disappear back to Martha’s Vineyard.
Why is Obama reemerging with greater frequency now? There are a few reasonable suppositions.
He has already made tens of millions of dollars in the last four years and now believes that he has the “security” of being a multimillionaire several times over, and so can once again dabble in politics.
His party has moved hard Left. And he rues now that he did not then lead the cultural revolution during his own tenure, given his community organizing Bill Ayers-youth, which as a badge of honor we should expect will now no longer be airbrushed away. His early revolutionary cred will likely resurface as the audacity of hope becomes the audacity of woke.
He resents those like “the squad” who usurped his hard-Left brand, which was tarnished during his past few years in his period of “not the time to profit” corporate profiteering.
He thinks Biden suddenly can now win. Yet better than any he knows that Biden is challenged and is a useful vessel. Thus, he envisions his sudden behind-the-scenes role as substantial. He can piggyback on the cultural revolution this summer and then claim that he helped “deliver” the progressive and identity politics vote—and thus becomes an active wise-man advisor to a challenged Biden.
Then again, there is always the chance that Biden’s unbreakable oath to appoint a woman as vice presidential nominee and his inference that she will be an African-American opens up all sort of wild card possibilities to Obama—given that he knows best the VP slot could well be a quasi-presidential nomination, given Biden’s cognitive issues, given that Biden is now ahead in the polls, and given that there is some chance that all the candidates whom Biden considers may have high negatives in his internal polling.
And thus Michelle Obama, the most popular woman in today’s polls, could “rescue” the Democrats, unite the party, and finish out an Obama 16-year term, with the last eight-year regnum revealing the inner and true Obama that was stymied the first go around.
These “are such stuff as dreams are made of.”
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


Print allIn new windowFW: Why Prevention Never Goes Anywhere. It’s bad for businessInboxxpbyrne@bex.netJul 23, 2020, 10:25 AM (11 days ago)to me  From: pbyrne@bex.net <pbyrne@bex.net
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 11:21 AM
To: ‘L. B. Rosenberg’ <lbr.cornerstone@gmail.com>; ‘Michelle Cotterman’ <cotterman21@gmail.com>; ‘Cathy Stein’ <kasia6901@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Why Prevention Never Goes Anywhere. It’s bad for business Dear Bishop, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia probably is the leading transplant center for children in the world. Mass General is the “largest transplant center in New England.” Langone is a leading transplant center in State of New York. 34 Billion dollars was billed for organ transplantation in 2017 (most recent) in USA. A root of the System of Death we are in is based on fake death called “brain death,” which means beating heart, circulation, respiration and organs suitable for transplantation. Paul A. Byrne, M.D.www.lifeguardianfoundation.org   From: L. B. Rosenberg <lbr.cornerstone@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 10:34 AM
To: Michelle Cotterman <cotterman21@gmail.com>; Cathy Stein <kasia6901@yahoo.com>; Paul Byrne <pbyrne@bex.net>
Subject: Fwd: Why Prevention Never Goes Anywhere. It’s bad for business  From: 
Date: July 23, 2020 at 10:13:52 AM EDT
Subject: Why Prevention Never Goes Anywhere.  It’s bad for business https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/Dispatches from the War: Three men who control corporate AmericaJul22Why did mega-corporations accept the Covid lockdowns?by Jon RappoportJuly 22, 2020(To join our email list, click here.)Airlines, hotel chains—you name it, they all folded when the lockdowns were imposed. They closed up shop, they took a knee, they opted for bailouts. Why?The CEOs of these corporations are supposed to be hard chargers and ruthless operators. Why didn’t they rebel?I could cite several reasons. Here I want to focus on a little-known and staggering story.It starts with an analogy. Imagine an employee of a company who is motivated to speak out against the lockdowns and go public. Then he thinks about the owner of the company. That owner happens to sit on the board of a large hospital.Uh oh. That owner is SOLIDLY WIRED into official medical reality. He isn’t going to appreciate a naysayer who says the lockdowns are a ridiculous and destructive overreach. Better to stay quiet. Better to fit in and go along.Okay? Well, it so happens that three of the most powerful corporate bosses in America DO have deep connections to major hospitals, and these three men run corporations that OWN CORPORATE AMERICA.What?The three men are Larry Fink, Joseph Hooley, and Mortimer Buckley.Buckley is the CEO of the Vanguard Group. Hooley is the CEO of State Street. Fink is the CEO of BlackRock.These three companies are investment funds. Financial services companies.Buckley is a board member of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. From 2011 to 2017, he was chairman of the hospital’s board of trustees. Hooley serves on the president’s council of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Fink is the co-chair of the NYU Langone Medical Center board of trustees.Let’s look at their companies: State Street, BlackRock, and Vanguard—known as The Big Three. The reference is an article at theconversation.com, “These three firms own corporate America,” 5/19/17, by Jan Fichtner, Eelke Heemskerk, and Javier Garcia-Bernardo.“Together, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have nearly US$11 trillion in assets under management.”“We found that the Big Three, taken together, have become the largest shareholder in 40% of all publicly listed firms in the United States.”“In 2015, these 1,600 American firms [the 40%] had combined revenues of about US$9.1 trillion, a market capitalisation of more than US$17 trillion, and employed more than 23.5 million people.”“In the S&P 500 – the benchmark index of America’s largest corporations – the situation is even more extreme. Together, the Big Three are the largest single shareholder in almost 90% of S&P 500 firms, including Apple, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, General Electric and Coca-Cola.”“What is undeniable is that the Big Three do exert the voting rights attached to these shares. Therefore, they have to be perceived as de facto owners by corporate executives.”“Whether or not they sought to, the Big Three have accumulated extraordinary shareholder power, and they continue to do so…In many respects, the index fund boom is turning BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street into something resembling low-cost public utilities with a quasi-monopolistic position.”If the CEO of a corporation whose main shareholder is The Big Three thinks about rebelling against the official medical consensus…And he knows that The Big Three bosses are heavily wired into the US medical complex…That CEO has one more reason, among others, to forget about being an old-time hard charger. He has one more reason to swallow his anger when he’s told to lock down and shut down. He has one more reason to knuckle under and play the game. He has one more reason to surrender to a story about a virus and Fauci and Bill Gates. He has one more reason to stand down and stand aside and watch economic devastation sweep over the land.SOURCES:https://theconversation.com/these-three-firms-own-corporate-america-77072https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/about-us/leadership/larry-finkhttps://www.bostonfed.org/people/bank/joseph-hooley.aspxhttps://www.fnlondon.com/articles/meet-the-new-ceo-of-vanguard-20170714
 — L.B. RosenbergBusiness Consultant Inline image 25014-16th Ave #359  |  Brooklyn NY 11204718.C.N.STONE (718- 267-8663)lbr.cornerstone@gmail.com  
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Share Our Stories! – Click Here
Dr. Judy Mikovits Says That It’s Likely That Most 
Who Take The Vaccine Will Die…50 Million
By Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
This may be one of the most important articles I’ve ever written. With all the fear mongering about the corona virus plague it has obviously been known this was intentional as its been advertised by Bill Gates it would come at this time  and it was funded.  No need to add all the volume of videos and emails you can google but here’s one for reference https://goldenageofgaia.com/ 2020/04/18/dr-rashid-buttar- exposes-bill-gates-dr-fauci- and-falsified-pandemic- numbers/ 

I’m concerned that every single person who tested the vaccine, 100%,  had reactions and now Dr. Judy Mikovits says in this video probably all who take the vaccine, especially if mandated,  50 million people, will die.  You may remember in developing this virus she was asked to make it more dangerous where it would kill faster and when she refused to  sign manipulated  data was thrown in jail.  When released she was told she would be returned if she told anyone.  Instead she wrote the book and set up an organization to educate physicians. They tried to silence her by trying to discredit her. She is a brave woman, a virologist, and simply came out stronger making a documentary, “Plandemic” and constantly being interviewed.   Here is the video about the vaccine.  

https ://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/ search?fr=yhs-iba-1&hsimp=yhs- 1&hspart=iba&p=dr.+judy+ mikovits#action=view&id=22& vid= 44450d01e0f4d62897d02313788212 6e 

Two days ago  I released a video from the front line physicians saying they had a cure for the corona virus and one physician said she was outraged by the censorship and they were curing all their patients and nobody died and no one was wearing a mask.   She was appalled she was threatened for giving the facts and letting people know there was a cure.  Meanwhile Big Pharma wants it off the market.  The video was going viral  and immediately was censored, even the one I had.  Today all the doctors who had the original press conference came back and said they would not put up with the censorship and told who censored and again said they had the cure for the corona virus.  They were infuriated because they are on the front line and curing the corona virus.  One doctor said you can’t shut up all the doctors, and even ask your own physician.   Here is the video today from all these physicians:   https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=cY0TH-DTYEI&feature=youtu.be     What is the cure?  HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE and zinc they mentioned. You may remember that Dr. Russell Blaylock listed the things you take and it included zinc because it stops mutation.  

Here is an interesting subject completely apart from the subject of the plague.  I have an anticancer cure I used and published in two of Dr. Leonard Coldwell’s books:  “The Only Answer to Cancer” and “The Only Answer to The Only Cancer  Patient Cure”.  It’s mainly herbs but it has one drug – Quinine.  You use to be able to get it in the drug store without a prescription.  People used it for things like leg cramps.  Once the FDA found out about the formula Quinine could only be gotten by prescription.  That was no problem as patients just asked their physician for an Rx.  Then a note came out that you could only prescribe it for malaria and other devastating diseases.  I wondered what was the big deal about Quinine.  

Of interest is that  Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial drug derived from quinine.  Herbalist Earl Rayburn had 800 letters from victims who were dying of cancer who were cured on my formula.   The FDA found out he supplied the herbs to make the formula so they sent the Forestry to kill his acreage of herbs.  It’s a small town and so many people know each other.  One of the men from the Forestry came to Earl and said:  “I have to apologize for what we did.  The FDA made us do it,  Big Pharma said they couldn’t have cancer cured.”  They were basically trying to kill black snake root that grows there and Earl tried to buy it on the Internet but it turned out to be Rhubarb.  Earl bought herbs trying to keep the formula going but the FDA fined him $75,000 and then made him sign a paper he wouldn’t tell anyone.  Then they expunged the record. 

Earl is dead today.  His wife didn’t know why he died but I told her I had promised him I would expose the FDA for what they did and published it so his children would know what a great man their father was trying to help all he met.  I named the formula for my mother, Eve Geller, who died of  breast cancer.  Simply, cancer cannot live in purified blood.  Big Pharma pushes chemotherapy even though studies show all it does is spread the disease.  It killed my mother. 

Hydroxychloroquine is also used for Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis,  This is where aspartame is a connection.  As Dr. James Bowen said: ” The ability of methyl alcohol/formaldehyde to create antigenicity, especially as combined in APM molecules is so great as to cause severe autoimmune reactions to the tissues deformed by formaldehyde polymerization, adduct formation. The immune system turns against the victim’s tissues: Lupus.” 

I also wrote a paper on aspartame and the corona virus:  https://rense.com/general96/ aspartame-inflames- coronavirus.php 

Today the aspartame pandemic is called Rumsfeld’s Plague.  The medical text on it is “Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic” by H. J. Roberts, M.D.,  Other texts are “While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills” by Dr. Woodrow Monte and “Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills by Dr. Russell Blaylock.  

I sincerely hope the above information will help the public.  You no longer can just accept what people say, you must do your own research.  Scientific fraud so many times results in death.  In reading about  the plague of 1918 an  article exclaimed it was the  cure that killed so many.   Dr.  Cameron Kyle- Sidell of New York is warning that critically ill coronavirus patients are being inadvertently harmed by the very same breathing machines being used to keep them alive. He said 50% died.  

In the case of the corona virus they have censoring of  information that may save your life and threatening of physicians.  You must do your own research.  Here is a report from “No Fake News” on the drug:  https://blog.nomorefakenews. com/2020/07/30/hcq-covid-fda- and-pharma-and-all-its-whores/ 

Stephen Fox, (Mission Possible New Mexico and Founder, United Nations Santa Fe)  has filed a brief with the International Court of Justice on aspartame.  https://www.opednews.com/ articles/Brief-Submission-for- Inter-by-Stephen-Fox-92- Aspartame-Poisoning-Symptoms- According-To-Fda_Arthur-Hull- Hayes-Fda-Commissioner- Approved-Aspart_Donald- Rumsfeld_Dr-Betty-Martini- Founder-Mission-Possible- 200729-410.html 

 The Aspartame Pandemic or Rumsfeld’s Plague is pure genocide, and is being used unlabeled.  People have been dropping dead, going blind and suffering with methanol poisoning for 40 years from aspartame.    The FDA is blaming it on a small amount of methanol  in hand sanitizers: https://www.dermatologytimes. com/view/fda-expands-toxic- hand-sanitizer-list 

Look for the facts.  If you see someone calling people names, trying to discredit them and making them out as a conspiracy theorist its usually the modus operandi of industry.  


Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder 
Mission Possible World Health Intl 
9270 River Club Parkway 
Duluth, Georgia 30097 
770 242-2599 
More information on www.wnho.net and www.holisticmed.com/aspartame    
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments


MODERATION IS MISSINGBy Hal MorrisJuly 30, 2020

It troubles me when I see hundreds of young college-aged students intermixing with BLM goons and ANTIFA radicals. Whether they be Black, White, Asian, or Hispanic, I’m still troubled and wonder how this could be.
By observation alone, one could conclude they represent educated young people of the middle and upper class. They have cellphones, headphones, and plenty of free time to protest, riot and burn buildings, and disrespect law and order. They are not moderate. They represent committed Marxists, attempting a revolution.
You watch burnings and listen to the anger, language, and venom spewed out without understanding why. I need to know the motivator that leads them to believe that this country, primarily a white male systemic racist society, needs to be overthrown. I lived in this country all my 85 years while traveling extensively abroad. I’ve worked in education and, after reviewing my career, have to conclude that my chosen profession is a significant contributor to the malaise we now experience. After extensive thinking and discussion, I now better understand the plan that unfolded.
Say hello to Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a bright young man born in Chicago, Illinois, shortly after the turn of the century and attended the University of Chicago in the 1920s. Alinsky enrolled at the University of Chicago and became influenced by a communist professor, Robert Park. He quickly internalized the concepts, converted to becoming a community organizer working with unions. 
As he aged, Alinsky deserves credit for playing a significant role in bringing the idea of an internal revolution to America. This revolution would not take the shape of an armed rebellion but would unfold slowly and patiently through the infiltration of people and ideas into government and social institutions’.
After the First World War ended in 1918, many intellectuals in the west became fascinated by Russian Communism and the Idealistic Utopian Concept promised by Marx and Engles. Even as Communism struggled in Russia, Alinsky involved himself in implementing their ideas in America. 
As the revolutionary ideas first became popular among the pseudo-intellectuals, teaching in universities and intellectual gatherings in coffee houses near universities. Slowly the plan took shape to promote the concept by infiltrating colleges, universities, and unions to spread the ideas and recruit converts to the movement.
Over the years until he died in 1977, Alinsky altered activism in America by reshaping community organizers’ vehicle, using organizing tactics similar to labor unions. In 1966 he published Reveille for Radicals that laid out the blueprint for effective organizing. His second offering, Rules for Radicals released shortly before his death in 1976, became the bible that radicals depend upon today. 
The salient part of the plan was to infiltrate the movement into higher education, public education, and governments. This approach takes time to be successful and suffered setbacks (Soviet-German Pact 1939, McCarthy hearings 50s), but patience is a virtue, and Marxists have patience and strong goal organization.
By correctly identifying education as an essential vehicle to spread the movement, the planners hit upon the viable strategy to use recruiting converts. Alinsky, young and fresh, bought into the idea that a successful internal revolution, not an armed revolt, was the solution in the long run and indicated in his writings the need for patience. Concentrating at the university level, the recruitment of College and University teachers was at the very top of priorities. They teach teachers.
Slowly colleges and universities were duped into hiring new subject assistant professors, clandestinely hiding their political affiliations. The process of altering the curriculum that reflects dissatisfaction with what exists was accelerated. Graduates, favorable to Marxist ideas, spread out from their established a foothold in higher education by the start of the Second World War. Next came the entertainment industry. The planners knew that the movie industry, especially with the emerging popularity of sound, was an essential vehicle for influencing the public as to the movement’s virtues. As later revealed in congressional investigations, screen and stage writers used their skills to change public opinion. 
After the War, the government offered all veterans a “GI Bill that financed a college education for literally millions of returning veterans, who otherwise could never have afforded a college education. Higher education enrollments soared during the 1950s, and so more students started to become exposed to the new doctrine of Communism and liberalism now defined as less threatening Socialism. Soon the “baby boomers” arrived, ready for public schools starting in the 60s and 70s. 
Public school enrolment grew beyond expectations, and liberalism increased. Many new schools were built and staffed by liberal graduates from our colleges, and the cycle continued. The plan was working. The liberal protests during the Vietnamese War and the Chicago democratic convention riots revealed to the country that a new wave of thinking and values was emerging. Student liberalism on college campuses gave students exposure to protests, draft card burning, notoriety, and free expression. Protesting against government and burning flags and draft cards became routine.
Step by step, over the years, the growing liberal movement has dramatically influenced permissive parenting. That way, today, affluent liberal college students feel entitled, expect to be pampered, want for nothing, are responsible for nothing, and act accordingly. Being schooled in the Alinsky method implies you are not moderate.
Today in cities and campuses across the college protests, have been seduced, for the first time, as vehicles for political advancement. What is worse, a radical group, ANTIFA, has used Alinsky indoctrinated students, many of whom have no jobs, little responsibilities, and unmarketable skills. They are now fronting a violent socialist revolutionary movement. An editorial in the Washington Examiner (June 23, 2020) states, “Given how much schools and colleges focus on racism in American history, it’s no surprise that the mob assumes any old statue it sees must be of somebody irredeemable.”
Their protest efforts to assist ANTIFA is in the name of free speech and right to assembly, values in the constitution they are trying to change. Students who don’t have jobs, live off student loans, receive parental support, or don’t go to class while getting paid by politicians to protest, riot and loot are having fun. 
These young, newly indoctrinated know-nothings establish “free zones” or political anarchy in cities like Portland, Milwaukee, or Seattle, where chaos reigns. They don’t march in Chicago for the families of Black killed by Blacks. Using the mobility of the internet, they step out for whoever pays them, whether it be Soros or hidden payments funneled through third parties. Slick Congressional Democrats stand silently by as the protesters carry out their desires, safe they think from being incriminated, protected by an absent press reporting the news accurately. 
The media makes them into heroes. As “peaceful protester’s,” they enjoy dressing up in combat boots, black sweaters, pants, masks, and hoods, carrying incendiary devices. When arrested, they cry and whimper. They’re not so brave when taken down as they are breaking into a local store or business. Unfortunately, after an arrest, many Democrat/Socialist elected local district attorneys bought off by radical funding from George Soros, (worth 8.3 billion)do not want to prosecute.
Democrat/Socialist Party has a blind eye to the unruly behaviors of ANTIFA and the Racists BLM hypocrites. They ardently believe it is to their advantage to keep race riots operating through the election. They want the country to suffer economically and lose more jobs and keep unemployment at record levels. AOC summarized, “whats the loss of a few jobs if we reach our goal of toppling Trump.” It matters less to the unemployed rioters; their motto is: “What Me Worry?”
The Black Lives Matter, protesters demand Whites apologize for their White privilege. What sickens me is that many White liberals get on their knees and apologize, schooled in White racist and White privilege nonsense. BLM beat the drums for abolishing or defunding police. BLM wants to defund and eliminate the very authority that protects black neighborhoods, victimized by murders of Black by Blacks, drugs, and robberies. How’s that for logic?
Black protesters break into and destroy businesses owned by struggling Black families, that provide services to predominately black neighborhoods. This madness that the traitorous Democrats/Socialists Politicians label as a myth or peaceful protest is rationalized as reasonable because they think it helps reach the goal of toppling President Trump. No longer can any Democrat/Socialists candidates for the presidency or congress attach moderate to their name. They support a revolution and are a far-left party. 
How any reasonable, informed voter can be supportive of disrespectful Congressmen Nadler or Schiff or Senator Schumer is beyond reason. The Democratic/Socialist Caucus is a disgrace. The Republican Party must stand up to the Bullies and go on the offensive. The Republican-controlled senate needs to flood the house with conservative legislation to force Democrat/Socialists to stand up and be counted. Expose the hypocrisy of their plan and platform. Show more of the TV clips that expose their duplicity and lies.
There were once two political parties, one conservative, (Republican) the other, liberal (Democrat). Each party contained moderate members and leaders who served in congress. For the good of the country, they would meet and reach compromises over differences to make good things happen. 
Since the election of Obama, a clandestine socialist, who stated to the Republicans, “elections have consequences,” the Democrat/Socialist opposition has done nothing but obstruct and severely damaged this country. Most importantly, their actions have severely damaged our creditability worldwide and reduced our allies’ confidence in trusting our decisions.
If you think you there are moderate Democrats today, you’re sadly wrong. There are no longer moderate Democrats. What we see today is either a far, far left Democrat or just a plain leftist Democrat. You’re not even a far-left Democrat because your party’s new label is the Democrat/Socialists Party. The death of moderates is not an accident. It takes years of patience and devotion to a cause of the revolution. To some degree, we let our apathy help it along. Indifference, to what is happening in our schools, contributes to the death of moderation, especially true in the Democrat/Socialist Party.
Please make no mistake what has and is happening to our educational systems is causing great harm to our country. This insidious invasion of students’ minds, from elementary to the university level, is fueling the riotous behavior and conversion of our youth to endorse Socialism and the disrespect for authority as norms. Teachers, as undergraduates, blinded by continual exposure to a thesis of the wrongs of our country, ignore the strengths we brought to the world. Instead, they instill in our young a distaste for free enterprise and believe we built our White Racist country upon the backs of slaves and poor oppressed working people. 
My most recent discussions with people in the field, reveal a willingness on the part of moderate parents, boards of education, and school administrators, to permit the ongoing prostitution of our curriculums. Elementary instruction no long emphasizes the need to view both sides of issues. Whether it is history or the environment, elementary school students hear only one view of the story. Secondary school instructors now feel free to slant current events, issues with climate, and environmental problems reinforcing a false narrative. 
Equality of positions and “two sides to every question,” at one time an essential responsibility of teaches, is no longer the norm. We accept, without question, a 1619 curriculum that emphasizes a fake one-sided story that America was the foundation of slavery. Sequential history is transforming propaganda into historical fact. Trained educators and Marxist historians, current educators, evidently agree with the new narrative. 
Stories abound of students, punished and disciplined for having conservative views, disagreeing with their teachers Ultra-liberal and their Marxist oriented views. Extreme liberal teachers shun traditional teachers with more conservative views. University departments refuse undergraduate and graduate student’s opportunities to listen to conservative speakers. What is happening to free discourse and independent thinking?
School administrators and college administrators comply with directives issued by student protesters such as ANTIFA and BLM thugs. Rather than being a source of enlightenment, with a few exceptions, our universities have become one-sided in the Marxist, far-left views. A legislative review is needed to question whether the government should use taxpayer monies to fund biased universities and colleges.
There is no excuse for funding programs that disrespect our history, slant narratives, discourage free expression, and disparage our form of government and economy. Saul Alinsky must be proud as a peacock as to the turn of events. Events he outlined in his plans for revolution. It is never too late to make right a wrong. We must use our conservative voices to end this malpractice. 
One can only imagine what Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy Tip Oneill would say if they were alive today. The moderate, liberal party they knew is no more. Where did they go? Perhaps Alinsky took it with him and buried it. Only by getting out the conservative and moderate Republican vote can we restore sanity to this great country.
Let’s do it!
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



Watch the video please.

“The Mantra  by all medical personel “ Vaccines are safe and effective” the science proves it?

Untill in open court the CDC ( which yearly sells 5 billion dollars in vaccines) concedes it has no science no studies to support their claims!

We should all read this and weep.

Generations of our children , grandchildren, and now great grandchildren,condemned, damaged, and for what, money!

Next time someone talks to me of the science behind vaccines I will vomit!

The Center for Disease Control admitted in a federal lawsuit that is has no scientific studies to support its claim that vaccines given to infants don’t cause autism.

The lawsuit, filed by the non-profit Informed Consent Action Network, sought for the CDC to present evidence to back up the claim on its official website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.”

From ICAN’s press release:

The CDC claims on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.” Despite this claim, studies have found between 40% and 70% of parents with an autistic child continue to blame vaccines for their child’s autism, typically pointing to vaccines given during the first six months of life.

In the summer of 2019, ICAN submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CDC for “All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that the DTaP vaccine does not cause autism.”

Despite months of demands, the CDC failed to produce a single study in response to these FOIA requests.

ICAN was therefore forced to sue the CDC in federal court, where the CDC finally conceded, in a stipulation signed by a Federal court judge, that it has no studies to support that any of these vaccines do not cause autism.


CDC Concedes in Federal Court It Does Not Have Studies to Support its Claim “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”

  AUSTIN, TX (March 5, 2020) — In a federal lawsuit filed by the non-profit Informed Consent  Action Network (ICAN), the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has conceded it has no scientific studies to back up its long-declared assertion that vaccines given to babies do not cause autism. The CDC claims on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.”

1 Despite this claim, studies have found between 40% and 70% of parents with an autistic child continue to blame vaccines for their child’s autism, typically pointing to vaccines given during the first six months of life.

2 Vaccines given during the first six months of life, according to the

CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule, include three doses each of DTaP, HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV, for a total of fifteen doses in these six months.

3 In the summer of 2019, ICAN submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CDC for “All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that the DTaP vaccine does not cause 


4 ICAN also submitted this same request for HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV, as well as requesting the CDC provide studies to support the cumulative exposure to these vaccines during the first six months of life do not cause autism.

5 Despite months of demands, the CDC failed to produce a single study in response to these FOIA requests.

6 ICAN was therefore forced to sue the CDC in federal court, where the CDC finally conceded, in a stipulation signed by a Federal court judge, that it has no studies to support that any of these vaccines do not cause autism.


1 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html







5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.



In the stipulation, the CDC was only able to identify 20 studies: > One relating to MMR (a vaccine ICAN did not challenge); > Thirteen relating to thimerosal (an ingredient not in any of the vaccines ICAN queried); > Five relating to both MMR and thimerosal; and > One relating to antigen (not a vaccine) exposure. On the CDC’list of studies was a recent review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), paid for by the CDC, which conducted a comprehensive review for studies relating to whether DTaP does or does not cause autism.

8 The result was that the IOM could not identify a single study to support that DTaP does not cause autism.

9 Instead, the only relevant study the IOM could identify found an association between DTaP and autism.

10 In other words, the CDC listed a review in response to the FOIA requests that proves that there are no studies to support that DTaP does not cause autism. “The CDC complains that those raising concerns about vaccine safety are unscientific and misinformed,” says Del Bigtree, the Emmy-winning producer of “Vaxxed” and host of the weekly online fact-based science and health news program

“The HighWire.” “But when we asked the CDC for studies to support its claim that ‘vaccines

 do not cause autism,’it is clear that their claim is not grounded in science. “When it comes to autism, vaccines are the one suspected culprit that the CDC claims to have exhaustively investigated,” 

 Bigtree explains, “yet the CDC could not provide a single study to support that any of the vaccines given during the first six months of life do not cause autism. “The most recent data from CDC shows that 1 in 36 children born this year in the USA will develop autism,” 

Bigtree says.

11“This is a true epidemic. If the CDC had spent the same resources studying vaccines and autism, as it did waging a media campaign against parents that claim vaccines caused their child’s autism, the world would be a better place for everyone.”his is another of ICAN’s numerous victories again federal health agencies regarding vaccine safety. Prior victories include: > HHS concedes it has not provided a single vaccine safety report to Congress as required by the Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. ICAN v. H, No. 18-cv-3215 (S.D.N.Y.)

8 https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/12?term=autism#545



10 Ibid.

11 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db291.htm 

  The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concedes that it does not have any clinical trials to support injecting the flu shot or Tdap vaccines into pregnant women.

ICAN v. FDA, No. 18-cv-11237 (S.D.N.Y.) > The National Institutes of Health (NIH) concedes that the Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines has not made a single recommendation for improving vaccine safety during the period at issue.

ICAN v. NIH, No. 18-cv-2000 (S.D.N.Y.) > The FDA, pursuant to a FOIA request from ICAN, eventually produced the clinical trials it relied upon to license the current MMR vaccine which revealed that these clinical trials had in total of less than 1,000 participants and far more adverse reactions than previously acknowledged. “The HighWire with Del Bigtree” broke this news today on its latest episode, which can be streamed on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and its website TheHighwire.com, among other platforms.

ICAN’s initial court complaint can be found here



The court stipulation and order can be found here:


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


U.S. GOVT LOSES LANDMARK VACCINE LAWSUIT–Huge legal Victory for Robert F Kennedy Jr and the People of America and the world

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

8:55 AM

SubjectU.S. GOVT LOSES LANDMARK VACCINE LAWSUIT–Huge legal Victory for Robert F Kennedy Jr and the People of America and the world
SentTuesday, January 14, 2020 8:39 AM

Robert F Kennedy Jr. was part of the legal team that rained havoc upon Monsanto/Bayer  in the Johnson case last year now in the USA alone over 18,000 cases have been filed against Monsanto/Bayer, as they should be and the exposure is now well over 1 trillion dollars.

So here we have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. now winning a landmark vaccine lawsuit against the US Government.It is now only a matter of time before legal challenges are brought worldwide against governments etc.

Wonder about the trustworthiness of mainline new networks in North America and the world? Well here is the story of the century, the story proven in a USA court that vaccines are neither safe nor effective, Robert Kennedy Jr in his lawsuit demanded all the relevant US government documents that proving that all federally approved vaccines had been tested for quality ( as required by law) over the past 32 year (since 1986)that prove that ALL federally approved vaccines had in fact been tested for quality  as required by US law and the result was –NO SUCH DOCUMENTS EXIST!


Nov 19

Posted by Editor, cairnsnews

Forced vaccinations now can be legally stopped-no quality control for 32 years

Wide ramifications for Australia

Go to:



Case 1:18-cv-03215-JMF Document 18 Filed 07/09/18

Vaccine injury lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,&  Del Bigtree, producer of the suppressed anti-vaccine documentary, Vaxxed and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) are credited with this victory. They demanded the relevant government documents proving that all federally approved vaccines had been tested for quality over the past 32 years — and there were none.

Here are the huge legal and practical implications in this legal victory for the American people:

A recent US court case revealed there has been no quality control over vaccines manufactured by big-pharma for at least 32 years. Autism rates are excepted to drop dramatically now that parents can stop the poison being injected into their kids

o This means that the US Department of Health and Human Services and all vaccine makers have been lying to the American people for over 30 years about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines; this may

ultimately mean that continuing the existence — at least in their current form — of five US “healthcare” agencies are now in doubt: the CDC, the FDA, the IOM, the NIH and the “Health” part of DHHS itself;

this may also threaten the existence of state medical boards and exclusive medical guilds like the AMA:

o This means that vaccine makers have been fraudulently exempt from what all other pharmaceutical drug makers have been forced to do concerning biannual recertification for quality and effectiveness — meaning that that their vaccines have never been tested for quality and have had no proven safety or effectiveness for over 30 years;

o This case can now be legally cited by all parents fraudulently mandated by any government/organizational regulation/requirements that they must vaccinate their children for school or any other activity to stop

the forced vaccination of their children;

o This case can now be legally cited by all employees being mandated by their employers to be vaccinated in order to retain their jobs;

o This case can now be legally cited by all those who seek compensation for vaccine injury, making it likely that the pharmacidical vaccine industry can in the near future be legally bankrupted out of existence, like Bayer-Monsanto after the landmark legal victory won by the dying landscaper in San Francisco several weeks ago, as well as their stock value plummeting precipitously;

o The future of allopathic medicine in its current form is now in doubt, as well as that of the global pharmacidical cartel, since almost all of the drugs allopathic practitioners prescribe come from pharmacidical corporations which have also committed vaccine fraud and injury;

o The existence of the deep-state corporate mainstream news media will now also be further endangered, since 70% of their income stream comes from the global pharmacidical cartel, which in America has been

responsible for 750,000-1 million human sacrifices per year for at least the past half century;

o Autism rates will now likely plummet, freeing the American people from another deep state-engineered debility, and providing further evidence of mass vaccination-caused autism;

o All government officials who have passed laws legalizing vaccine fraud at the state, national, or international level, or otherwise aided and abetted this vaccine fraud can now be charged with vaccine fraud, criminal malfeasance and in some cases, war crimes under the Nuremberg Code.


This letter from Dawn Bell, an American health professional, warns that vaccines are not safe and become ineffective after 10 years. She says her daughter was injured by vaccination:

In the recent mumps outbreak, 100% of the mumps cases were college students, who were ALL 100% vaccinated. 90% (9 out of 10) people who died from last years flu epidemic had received the flu shot.

Herd immunity can only be achieved when 85% of the population is immune to a disease. Vaccines are only good for about 10 years, at absolute max 20 years, so most people over the age of 20 are not immune any longer. So now you have created a situation of a “false” immunity.

Those who get the chicken pox are immune for life, those who get the vax are not. I do believe, maybe to your surprise that vaccines can and have saved lives, however, think about when MD’s we’re giving out antibiotics like popcorn at the movies, it started having a bad affect on our immune systems and gut. It’s propbable to think that the same thing might start happen with the overuse of vaccines.

For really deadly diseases, hey I’m all for it, but they started making so much money that you all of a sudden had to start getting vaccines for everything, even the everyday childhood diseases and for stuff like Hep B at 1 day old, really? The rise in autism and other sensory diseases has been mind boggling, as well as childhood autoimmune disorders.

32 people get sick from ecoli and FDA tells everyone to stop buying romaine lettuce, but thousands report issues with vaccines and it’s pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Then everyone is surprised when people get upset and start asking questions.

I’m an Occupational Therapist and was all in with the vax thing, until I watched my daughter lose Speech ability directly following a vaccine. I was one telling everyone it was a coincidence until I saw it happen with my own eyes to my own kid. They have NEVER done safety studies in these vaccines have NEVER been studied being given all at once as they do.

It’s common sence that all of these vaccines given to a child with a developing immune system and neuro system might have some issues. It’s the lying about it that really has everyone worried though. When they say safety studies have been done when no one can find them, then Kennedy offers $$ for anyone who show they have been done. Of course no one could produce them so hence this lawsuit and of course, they haven’t. My OBGYN told me the flu shot was studied and proven safe during pregnancy.

So I go to work, as a nurse friend for the flu vax insert and guess what? It clearly stated it had not been studied in children or pregnant woman and if given to pregnant woman you should call and add them to a registry. Furthermore, on the front of the box, it stated to NOT give to kids under 5! I could keep going, but I’ll end with, have you watched the CDC video aproving the Hep vax?

If not, you should because it’s extremely interesting! First, they give to 1 day old babies and it’s never been approved for those under 18. When asked if it was safe to give with other vaccines they said they didn’t know but we’re making the assumption it was generally safe like other vaccines. Then when asked about the “new” mutated gene thing they said the same thing, “we’re making the assumption that’s it’s safe like other vaccines.”

They were then asked about the heart and autoimmune markers seen in their internal study and they acknowledged that they saw the markers and were going to monitor it and make determination Dec 2020 whether not there was a problem, and in the mean time it’s being given to day old babies. So yes, there are concerns that need to be addressed about the safety of vaccines and I’m thrilled that it’s finally being addressed!!!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment