Newsmax Editor explains the current “Psychological [Political] War”: Trump vs. the Media & those who Control them
“This was written at 4 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 [on election night]. The president appears almost certain to emerge with the majority of electoral votes; he has substantial leads compared to the number of votes outstanding, in Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Alaska, and the single district in Maine; Nevada is uncertain, but he is the favorite in all of the other states just mentioned.”
“His statement in the White House a few minutes ago effectively accusing his enemies of causing a delay of vote-counting in all of the states enumerated, with fraudulent intent, is an example of the Trumpian practice, in Irish football terms, of “getting his retaliation in first.” But it is also probably a fair summary of what is being attempted in some cases.”
The brilliant political and economic analyst Tom Luongo who is a Senior Financial Editor with Newsmax explains what happened on election day to President Donald Trump and to America. And how we are in a “psychological war” in which Trump threw the media and those who control them a curve ball by “actually winning the election by margins in swing states that couldn’t be overcome without overt and blatant fraud.”
For the president and America to win this “psychological [political] war” he and we have “to show it by fighting tooth and claw” because there “are multiple paths to not only victory for him… [including] exposing the deep corruption of the election process and the people who control it”:
Underneath the headlines the forces arrayed against Trump were building the infrastructure to ensure that however the people voted on November 3rd, the outcome was pre-determined in their favor against him…
… But one thing happened they didn’t count on, Trump actually winning the election by margins in swing states that couldn’t be overcome without overt and blatant fraud…
… And that feeds the plot points for the next eight weeks until Congress convenes to certify (or not) the Electoral College.
President Trump refuses to concede the election, and rightly so. There are multiple paths to not only victory for him but also exposing the deep corruption of the election process and the people who control it…
… So, if Trump wants to lead the nation he has to show it by fighting tooth and claw, just like Lukashenko did. And that means organizing support for him across the country. This is why he is incredibly smart to organize rallies. According to Axios:
President Trump plans to brandish obituaries of people who supposedly voted but are dead — plus hold campaign-style rallies — in an effort to prolong his fight against apparent insurmountable election results, four Trump advisers told me during a conference call this afternoon.
“Insurmountable election results??” Really? A few thousand votes separates Trump from outright sweeping all the battleground states whose vote totals are very sketchy and this is ‘insurmountable?’
This is what I mean by the pressure campaign having gone plaid. There is no responsible journalism left within the major media outlets…
… The media will never concede they were wrong, will never report on anything fairly. They are in on the grift. Looking for them to admit anything is a waste of energy and time. Simply turn them off and become #Ungovernable.
This is a psychological war now, designed to rob you of your reason and sap your willingness to fight. by creating an overwhelming picture of Trump as the bad guy…
…Trump is trying to marshal a counter-revolution on the ground and in the courts. The evidence will be presented. Apparatchiks will ignore their orders. Protests will miraculously spring up in all the right places.
The media will misrepresent everything.
It will be up to us to decide which way the State Legislatures decide whose electors go to Washington D.C. next month by putting real pressure on them to act on their conscience and the evidence. That’s the law. [https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/22704303/686256882463112620]
Pray an Our Father now for President Donald Trump and justice in the United States of America.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Note: A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said “exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved”:
Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature. By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will. I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit. I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications. I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protection of the Blood of Jesus Christ which He shed for us. Amen Please put your family, the United States of America, President Donald Trump and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano as the intentions in the Prayer of Command.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on President Trump refuses to concede the election, and rightly so. There are multiple paths to not only victory for him but also exposing the deep corruption of the election process and the people who control it…
1994 New York Time: “Federal Judge today took the Rare Step of Invalidating the Vote… [Philadelphia] Democratic Campaign Workers Forged Absentee Ballots”
New York Times: “Vote-Fraud Ruling Shifts Pennsylvania Senate” (February 19, 1994, Section 1,Page 1)
In 1994 [like in 2020], massive vote fraud happened in Philadelphia in which “a Federal judge today took the rare step of invalidating the vote” according to the New York Times… Democratic campaign workers forged absentee ballots. On many of the ballots, they used the names of people who were living in Puerto Rico or serving time in prison, and in one case, the voter had been dead for some time”:
Saying Philadelphia’s election system had collapsed under “a massive scheme” by Democrats to steal a State Senate election in November, a Federal judge today took the rare step of invalidating the vote and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.
In making such a sweeping move, the judge, Clarence C. Newcomer of Federal District Court here, did for the Republicans what the election had not: enable them to regain control of the State Senate, which they lost two years ago.
Judge Newcomer ruled that the Democratic campaign of William G. Stinson had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia’s Second Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason — like a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city — to do so.
In many instances, according to Republicans who testified during a four-day civil trial last week, Democratic campaign workers forged absentee ballots. On many of the ballots, they used the names of people who were living in Puerto Rico or serving time in prison, and in one case, the voter had been dead for some time.
“Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery,” Judge Newcomer wrote in a decision made public today. [https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vote-fraud-ruling-shifts-pennsylvania-senate.html?smid=tw-share]
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on YOUR PRAYERS ARE HELPING
12:44 PM The “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick caseFour generations of clerical sexual predators. McCarrick is Third Generation. When is enough, enough? By Randy EngelJune 29, 2018 [Resending November 31, 2020] Introduction
It’s been an “open secret,” for almost 100 years, that the American hierarchy has been plagued by homosexual/pederast predators within its ranks.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is that the current debacle over the revelations of homosexual tricks turned over by Cardinal “call-me-Uncle Teddy” McCarrick has provided an albeit totally unexpected but welcome opportunity for the handful of decent prelates who still have their religious and moral miters on straight to demonstrate to the long-suffering Catholic laity that they are both willing and able to take the lead in lancing and draining the infectious carbuncles of perversity and immorality that threatens the entire Body and Soul of the Catholic Church, not only in our nation, but around the world.
I think that the Catholic faithful sense that there is much more to the McCarrick case than has yet been revealed by either the Catholic or secular press. And they are correct .
What is the McCarrick Case About?
Clearly, this is not just a story of one isolated prelate’s fall from grace.
It’s the story of an institutionalized and systemic crisis which the Holy See has permitted to fester in the very bosom of Holy Mother Church since the early part of the 20th century.
The McCarrick case is about four generations of homosexual/pederast Catholic bishops and cardinals in AmChurch – McCarrick being part of the third generation, and the homosexual bishops he has consecrated, the fourth generation.
Historically speaking, McCarrick got in on the near ground floor of one of largest and most influential homosexual networks in the Church in modern times – the Cardinal Francis Spellman Network.
There’s an old saying that “the Devil is in the details. This certainly true of the McCarrick case, both literally and figuratively.
Let’s review a short but not so sweet summary of McCarrick’s meteoritic rise up the clerical ladder which the Catholic and secular news services have, thus far, failed to report.
I have attached a postscript to this article for readers who wish additional information on the Cardinal McCarrick’s background.
The McCarrick Case in Four Sound Bites· Father McCarrick was ordained by the “Kingmaker,” Cardinal Francis Spellman, Archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967. “Franny” Spellman, a predatory homosexual prelate, ordained and/or consecrated many young priests who joined the sodomite ranks including McCarrick, George Guilfoyle, Christopher Weldon, Francis Reh and Terence Cooke.· Monsignor McCarrick served as personal secretary from 1971 to 1977 to homosexual Cardinal Terence Cooke. It was Cooke who consecrated McCarrick an auxiliary bishop. Among the other homosexual bishops consecrated by “Cookie” were Bishop Emerson John Moore, a homosexual drug addict who died alone and destitute of AIDS in September 1995. For the record, Cooke oversaw the suffragan Diocese of Brooklyn where homosexual Bishop Francis Mugavero permitted the St. Matthew Community – a religious community made up of homosexual priests for homosexual priests and their partners – to operate out of his diocese in 1978.· Cardinal McCarrick, from his earliest days in the priesthood (1958); to his appointment as an auxiliary bishop (1977); to his installation as Bishop of Metuchen (1981); to his appointment as Archbishop of Newark (1986); to his appointment as Archbishop of Washington. D.C. (2000); and his elevation to the cardinalate (2001), was an active homosexual/pederast preying especially on young seminarians and newly-ordained priests.· Cardinal McCarrick has continued the inter-generational production of sodomites in the American hierarchy by the consecration of at least three priests – one of whom is deceased and two who are currently bishops in good standing. The Overworld that Protects the Clerical Underworld
As one reads the many press accounts and internet commentaries on the McCarrick case, it seems rather strange that there is any mystery whatsoever surrounding the cardinal’s very real Teflon coating that has protected him from exposure and incarceration for decades.
Why is this?
Perhaps it is necessary to remind oneself that the homosexual underworld, be it clerical or secular, is a world of vice. A world that includes drugs, prostitution, domestic violence, murder, suicide, blackmail, and criminality of all kinds.
As an active homosexual prelate, Cardinal McCarrick has been open to blackmail in various forms by the enemies of the Church for half-a-century.
But blackmail is a two-edged sword and in McCarrick’s case it has worked largely in his favor since the 88-year-old cardinal knows all the details of just about every active homosexual American bishop in the United States (and many at the Vatican) dating back to the Spellman era.
That’s an awful lot of skeletons hiding in the proverbial clerical “gay” closet.
There is no question that there exists today a vast overworld in the Catholic Church, starting at the Vatican, with arms that reach into every diocese in the world. The main function of this overworld is to coverup the scandal-ridden underworld of the homosexual/pederast networks in the Church. The great tragedy is that both the overworld and the underworld are fueled by the long-suffering Catholic laity with the money they toss into the collection basket every week.
You wanted to know how it is possible for McCarrick to have escaped exposure and censure for so long? That’s your answer, like it or not.
Who’s Giving McCarrick Legal Advice? Whose Picking Up the Tab?
One of the little recognized practices of American diocesan lawyers, and lawyers from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops when faced with the prospect of a public “outing” of a homosexual/pederast bishop or cardinal, has been to promise the prelate the best defense that money can buy and continued financial support in exchange for his silence on his fellow homosexual/pederast bishops, cardinals, and clerics at home and abroad.
How else can one explain McCarrick’s totally asinine statement that he “has no recollection,” concerning the sexual abuse of the young altar boy at St. Patrick’s Cathedral that has made recent headlines?
No recollection? Nonsense!
Sexual perverts, especially pederasts, have amazing memories especially as they relate to their early conquests. They relive those experiences over and over in their minds, day in and day out.
It’s their way of getting kicks. Pederasts especially savor the look on the face of their victim when the young boy realizes what is being done to him. Now the victim is one of THEM!
Who devised this brilliant strategy for McCarrick?
My guess is that the New York Archdiocese clued McCarrick in the first moment that the now middle-aged victim fingered McCarrick as his abuser, and the cardinal’s attorneys plotted accordingly. Since the victim’s story turned out to be “credible,” McCarrick’s legal counsel no doubt decided that his best bet was not to deny the abuse outright, but claim he had “no recollection” of the alleged crime.
After all, the statute of limitations has run out in New York State, so he’s not going to jail any time soon.
And the chances of the “gay friendly” occupant of the Chair of Peter giving McCarrick a choice between defrocking and a life of permanent penance at a traditional monastery constantly surrounded by two monks, one on either side, to monitor the cardinal’s every move lest he attempt to seduce other clerics, is very slim indeed.
Probably, given the short and faulty memory of American Catholics when it comes to the horrific pain and anguish of victims (and their families) of pederasty and homosexual abuse, chances are McCarrick will disappear for a few months from the public limelight and then retired quietly in high style knowing he’ll be protected and kept financially solvent by Church officials in return for his keeping silent to the grave.
Unfortunately for McCarrick, however, there is a Life and Judgement beyond the grave, although his actions demonstrate that he believes in neither. Perhaps one, just one, of his fellow clerics including all those who have feigned “shock” at the recent revelations, will love Cardinal McCarrick enough to remind him of this reality before it is too late.
I pray they do.
But in the meantime, my rosaries and prayers are for the victims of clerical sexual abuse – past, present and future. And future victims there will be along with corresponding devastated families until faithful Catholics get justice and accountability from the hierarchy and the Holy See or God intervenes directly – whichever comes first.
– The End –
Postscript:
When I started my research on the homosexual network in AmChurch in 1989 for The Rite of Sodomy – Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, I began with a short list of homosexual prelates I needed to investigate – Cardinal William O’Connell of Boston, Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York, Cardinal John Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Bishop Donald Wuerl of Pittsburgh, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, Archbishop Rembert Weakand, O.S.B. of Milwaukee, and Archbishop Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Newark.
By the time The Rite of Sodomy was published in 2006, that list had grown to more than 40 American homosexual prelates and superiors of male religious orders.
Below are a few excerpts on Cardinal McCarrick taken from taken from the updated five- volume set of The Rite of Sodomy. Footnotes are provided in the original text:
American Hierarchy Denies Existence of
A Clerical Homosexual Network
On April 23-24, 2002, Pope John Paul II called an Extraordinary Meeting of American Cardinals in Rome to discuss the clerical sexual abuse problem in the United States. Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the USCCB, was also in attendance.
A press conference at the Vatican Press Office was held on the evening of the close of the two-day session with the Holy Father. In attendance were Cardinals Theodore McCarrick and James Francis Stafford, Bishop Gregory representing the USCCB, and Vatican lay press officer, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls.
During the news conference, Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, D.C. was asked by Christopher Ferrara, who along with John Vennari was covering the story for Catholic Family News, the following question pertaining to the problem of pederasty and homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood:
Nearly every single case has involved an adolescent and does not constitute a true case of pedophilia. So, we’re dealing with the acts of homosexual males who could not control their predilection. To avoid what would be a perpetual bumper crop of this type of scandal, is the hierarchy in North America going to enforce the Vatican’s [1961] Instruction that homosexual males simply should not be ordained?
Cardinal McCarrick responded:
I think certainly every seminary in the country has a program that says, “anyone who is an active homosexual should never be admitted.” I don’t know of any bishop in the country who would allow someone who had been actively involved in homosexuality to enter a seminary. I don’t think any bishop would allow anyone who was actively engaged in heterosexual activity right before they went in to enter the seminary. We believe in celibacy. It’s not the easiest road in today’s crazy world, but we believe in celibacy. We believe that if you practice celibacy with all your heart, with all your love, you can be free to serve God’s people, to serve God in a beautiful way. If someone gets into a seminary, and that question is not asked, that’s a terrible thing. But any seminary that I know, you say, “have you been acting celibately up until now?”
[Note: The 1961 Instruction, Religiosorum institutio on the “Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders” was the work of the Sacred Congregation for Religious in the Holy Office. It provided that “Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.” This was the paragraph of the 1961 Instruction that Mr. Ferrara was referring to in his questioning of Cardinal McCarrick at the April 2002 Rome press conference.]
A Reality Check for Cardinal McCarrick
Finally, let us return to Cardinal McCarrick and his performance at the April 2002 Vatican press conference.
Young Ted, an only child, lost his father at the age of three. He was raised by his doting mother, who worked as an artist model and later in an auto-parts factory.
In his junior year, he was expelled from Xavier High School in Manhattan, ostensibly for truancy, but, thanks to family connections, he was taken in by Fordham Prep, another Jesuit high school in the Bronx.
Cardinal Spellman ordained Father McCarrick on May 31, 1951. He served as secretary to Cardinal Cooke from 1971 to 1977, when Cooke made him an Auxiliary Bishop of New York.
New York insiders glibly refer to McCarrick by his feminine name “Blanche” and Vatican officials have long been aware of his penchant for young handsome seminarians. McCarrick has ordained at least three homosexual bishops.
Yet, here is a man who the Holy See permitted to play the fool before an international audience of reporters on the question of the ordination of homosexual candidates to the priesthood and the existence of a homosexual network within the Church.
How far has the rot gone? All the way to the top.
Epilogue
Eighteen months have gone by since the manuscript of The Rite of Sodomy passed from my hands to the printers, and many important changes have occurred in the life of the Church, not the least of which is the election of a new pope. Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005. The former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has ascended the throne of Saint Peter as Pope Benedict XVI.
There have also been other important events connected with many personages featured in this book. …
On January 10, 2006, attorney John A. Aretakis filed an amended civil suit on behalf of Father Robert Hoatson in the United States District Court of New York. Fr. Hoatson, a priest of the Newark Archdiocese is suing Archbishop John Myers of Newark, Cardinal Edward Egan of New York, Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, the Christian Brothers and others for aiding and abetting known criminal clerical pederasts. Hoatson, an alleged victim of sexual abuse by the Christian Brothers, identified Myers, Egan and Hubbard as “active homosexuals.” Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, although not a defendant in the suit, is also identified as an “active homosexual.” In addition, Hoatson claims that Bishop Charles J. McDonnell, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Newark, and Bishop Paul Bootkowski of Metuchen, N.J. had an “inappropriate relationship” with sexual abuser Father Alfonso de Condorpusa of the Newark Archdiocese. Both McDonnell and Bootkowski were consecrated by Cardinal McCarrick. A jury trial is demanded.
ADVERTISEMENT – STORY CONTINUES BELOWhttps://lockerdome.com/lad/12771773423003750?pubid=ld-3845-3412&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Famericasfreedomfighters.com&rid=&width=698
Investigations have revealed over 10,000 dead people voted in Michigan during the presidential election. Michigan is just one of several battleground states coming under scrutiny for voter fraud. The state’s 16 electoral votes may still be up for grabs.ADVERTISEMENT – STORY CONTINUES BELOWUrologist Reveals: Do This Immediately if You Have Enlarged Prostate (Watch)NewhealthylifeSponsored by RevcontentFind Out More >
Dead voters in Michigan
Richard Baris, the director of Big Data Poll, conducted a study of Michigan voter rolls and found about 9,500 were names of dead people. “About 9,500 voters confirmed dead through the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) are marked in the state’s mail voting database as having returned ballots.take our poll – story continues below
Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?
Another nearly 2,000 are 100 years old or more and aren’t listed as known living centenarians.”ADVERTISEMENT – STORY CONTINUES BELOWhttps://lockerdome.com/lad/11472643929100390?pubid=ld-7106-5271&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Famericasfreedomfighters.com&rid=&width=698
The data indicates that somebody was trying to vote on behalf of these people. Baris says that some of these people might not even be real at all.
“It’s also entirely possible that some of them aren’t even real people,” Baris told reporters from The Epoch Times. “If someone is 110 or some ridiculous age, we should have their death record but do not.”
Election officials in Michigan are calling this a baseless conspiracy theory. Tracy Wimmer, spokeswoman for the Michigan secretary of state, told reporters “Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day.” Richard Baris is skeptical about her claim. “While I’m open to the idea some of these have been rejected, I’m not open to any outright dismissal they all were rejected.”https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1326158760826560515&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Famericasfreedomfighters.com%2F10000-dead-people-voted%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550pxADVERTISEMENT – STORY CONTINUES BELOWhttps://lockerdome.com/lad/13397709272883814?pubid=ld-8148-4508&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Famericasfreedomfighters.com&rid=&width=698
Trump demands a recount
The Trump campaign has filed a lawsuit to stop vote counting in Michigan until Republican poll watchers are allowed adequate access. There have been widespread reports of voter fraud and irregularities in the state. Joe Biden currently leads Trump by 150,000 votes.
In one late night update Joe Biden received a surge of 130,000 votes, with none going to Trump or any third party candidates. What’s going on here? Are the Democrats trying to steal this election? President Trump is confident he will expose the fraud and be fairly reelected for a second term. Time will tell.
In his keynote address yesterday evening at the Federalist Society’s (virtual) national lawyers convention, Justice Alito warned that religious liberty and freedom of speech are in danger of being demoted to “second class” rights. As if to prove his point, the usual suspects on the Left, such as Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, raced to condemn Alito’s speech as “bitter[ly] partisan” and as “[f]louting his ethical obligations.”
In contending that Alito has improperly “waded into fierce political debates,” Stern obscures from his readers that Alito’s speech, on all the matters that Stern finds controversial, broadly reiterates what Alito has already spelled out in his written opinions. It’s one thing for a justice to speak publicly about an open issue on which the justice hasn’t yet ruled (as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did with respect to same-sex marriage and President Trump’s tax returns). It’s a very different—and much less remarkable—thing for a justice to restate positions that he has already formally adopted.
The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance. But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities. Claiming virtually unbounded power to restrict constitutional rights during the COVID–19 pandemic, he has issued a directive that severely limits attendance at religious services. A church, synagogue, or mosque, regardless of its size, may not admit more than 50 persons, but casinos and certain other favored facilities may admit 50% of their maximum occupancy—and in the case of gigantic Las Vegas casinos, this means that thousands of patrons are allowed.
That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing. We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility.
We now send these cases back to the lower courts…. This will prolong the legal battle in which the Little Sisters have now been engaged for seven years—even though during all this time no employee of the Little Sisters has come forward with an objection to the Little Sisters’ conduct….
The inescapable bottom line is that the accommodation demanded that parties like the Little Sisters engage in conduct that was a necessary cause of the ultimate conduct to which they had strong religious objections. Their situation was the same as that of the conscientious objector in Thomas [v. Review Board], who refused to participate in the manufacture of tanks but did not object to assisting in the production of steel used to make the tanks. Where to draw the line in a chain of causation that leads to objectionable conduct is a difficult moral question, and our cases have made it clear that courts cannot override the sincere religious beliefs of an objecting party on that question….
[Under Justice Ginsburg’s dissent,] [n]othing short of capitulation on the part of the Little Sisters would suffice….
I would hold not only that it was appropriate for the Departments to consider RFRA, but also that the Departments were required by RFRA to create the religious exemption (or something very close to it). I would bring the Little Sisters’ legal odyssey to an end.
At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to dispensing certain prescription medications. There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose. And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this Court does not deem the case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.
The Stormans family owns Ralph’s Thriftway, a local grocery store and pharmacy in Olympia, Washington. Devout Christians, the Stormans seek to run their business in accordance with their religious beliefs. Among those beliefs is a conviction that life begins at conception and that preventing the uterine implantation of a fertilized egg is tantamount to abortion. Consequently, in order to avoid complicity in what they believe to be the taking of a life, Ralph’s pharmacy does not stock emergency contraceptives, such as Plan B, that can “inhibit implantation” of a fertilized egg, 1 Supp. Excerpts of Record in Nos. 12–35221, 12–35223 (CA9), p. 1245 (SER). When customers come into the pharmacy with prescriptions for such drugs, Ralph’s employees inform them that the pharmacy does not carry those products, and they refer the customers to another nearby pharmacy that does. The drugs are stocked by more than 30 other pharmacies within five miles of Ralph’s. These pharmacies include an Albertson’s located 1.9 miles from Ralph’s and a Rite-Aid located 2.3 miles away.
As the Court explains, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to act neutrally toward Jack Phillips’s religious faith. Maybe most notably, the Commission allowed three other bakers to refuse a customer’s request that would have required them to violate their secular commitments. Yet it denied the same accommodation to Mr. Phillips when he refused a customer’s request that would have required him to violate his religious beliefs. As the Court also explains, the only reason the Commission seemed to supply for its discrimination was that it found Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs “offensive.” That kind of judgmental dismissal of a sincerely held religious belief is, of course, antithetical to the First Amendment and cannot begin to satisfy strict scrutiny. The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all….
Many may agree with the Commission and consider Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs irrational or offensive. Some may believe he misinterprets the teachings of his faith. And, to be sure, this Court has held same-sex marriage a matter of constitutional right and various States have enacted laws that preclude discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But it is also true that no bureaucratic judgment condemning a sincerely held religious belief as “irrational” or “offensive” will ever survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. In this country, the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the “proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence” that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive. Popular religious views are easy enough to defend. It is in protecting unpopular religious beliefs that we prove this country’s commitment to serving as a refuge for religious freedom.
While COVID–19 has provided the ground for restrictions on First Amendment rights, the District Court saw the pandemic as a ground for expanding the abortion right recognized in Roe v. Wade (1973). At issue is a requirement adopted by the FDA for the purpose of protecting the health of women who wish to obtain an abortion by ingesting certain medications, specifically, mifepristone and misoprostol. Under that requirement, a woman must receive a mifepristone tablet in person at a hospital, clinic, or medical office. The FDA first adopted the requirement in 2000, and then included it in a package of safety requirements under express statutory authority in 2007. Over the course of four presidential administrations, the FDA has enforced this requirement and has not found it appropriate to remove it. During the COVID–19 pandemic, the FDA suspended in-person dispensing requirements for some drugs, but it evidently decided that the mifepristone requirement should remain in force.
Nevertheless, a District Court Judge in Maryland took it upon himself to overrule the FDA on a question of drug safety. Disregarding the Chief Justice’s admonition against judicial second-guessing of officials with public health responsibilities, the judge concluded that requiring women seeking a medication abortion to pick up mifepristone in person during the COVID–19 pandemic constitutes an “undue burden” on the abortion right, and he therefore issued a nationwide injunction against enforcement of the FDA’s requirement. The judge apparently was not troubled by the fact that those responsible for public health in Maryland thought it safe for women (and men) to leave the house and engage in numerous activities that present at least as much risk as visiting a clinic—such as indoor restaurant dining, visiting hair salons and barber shops, all sorts of retail establishments, gyms and other indoor exercise facilities, nail salons, youth sports events, and, of course, the State’s casinos. And the judge made the injunction applicable throughout the country, including in locales with very low infection rates and limited COVID–19 restrictions.
6. Alito on the threat that the invented constitutional right to same-sex marriage poses to freedom of speech (Obergefell v. Hodges):
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.
Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
Five United States Senators, four of whom are members of the bar of this Court, filed a brief insisting that the case be dismissed. If the Court did not do so, they intimated, the public would realize that the Court is “motivated mainly by politics, rather than by adherence to the law,” and the Court would face the possibility of legislative reprisal.
Regrettably, the Court now [mistakenly] dismisses the case as moot.
It’s worth noting that Justice Ginsburg also publicly opposed the Left’s Court-packing plan on the same grounds as Alito did, as this excerpt from an NPR article shows:
Roosevelt’s proposal would have given him six additional Supreme Court appointments, expanding the court to 15 members. And Ginsburg sees any similar plan as very damaging to the court and the country.
“If anything would make the court look partisan,” she said, “it would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”
That impairs the idea of an independent judiciary, she said.
(Throughout this post, I have omitted or simplified some citations.)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on In contending that Justice Alito has improperly “waded into fierce political debates,” SLATE’S Stern obscures from his readers that Alito’s speech, on all the matters that Stern finds controversial, broadly reiterates what Alito has already spelled out in his written opinions. It’s one thing for a justice to speak publicly about an open issue on which the justice hasn’t yet ruled (as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did with respect to same-sex marriage and President Trump’s tax returns). It’s a very different—and not objectionable—thing for a justice to restate positions that he has already formally adopted.
It’s been an “open secret,” for almost 100 years, that the American hierarchy has been plagued by homosexual/pederast predators within its ranks.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is that the current debacle over the revelations of homosexual tricks turned over by Cardinal “call-me-Uncle Teddy” McCarrick has provided an albeit totally unexpected but welcome opportunity for the handful of decent prelates who still have their religious and moral miters on straight to demonstrate to the long-suffering Catholic laity that they are both willing and able to take the lead in lancing and draining the infectious carbuncles of perversity and immorality that threatens the entire Body and Soul of the Catholic Church, not only in our nation, but around the world.
I think that the Catholic faithful sense that there is much more to the McCarrick case than has yet been revealed by either the Catholic or secular press. And they are correct .
What is the McCarrick Case About?
Clearly, this is not just a story of one isolated prelate’s fall from grace.
It’s the story of an institutionalized and systemic crisis which the Holy See has permitted to fester in the very bosom of Holy Mother Church since the early part of the 20th century.
The McCarrick case is about four generations of homosexual/pederast Catholic bishops and cardinals in AmChurch – McCarrick being part of the third generation, and the homosexual bishops he has consecrated, the fourth generation.
Historically speaking, McCarrick got in on the near ground floor of one of largest and most influential homosexual networks in the Church in modern times – the Cardinal Francis Spellman Network.
There’s an old saying that “the Devil is in the detail. This certainly true of the McCarrick case, both literally and figuratively.
Let’s review a short but not so sweet summary of McCarrick’s meteoritic rise up the clerical ladder which the Catholic and secular news services have, thus far, failed to report.
I have attached a postscript to this article for readers who wish additional information on the Cardinal McCarrick’s background.
The McCarrick Case in Four Sound Bites
The Overworld that Protects the Clerical Underworld
As one reads the many press accounts and internet commentaries on the McCarrick case, it seems rather strange that there is any mystery whatsoever surrounding the cardinal’s very real Teflon coating that has protected him from exposure and incarceration for decades.
Why is this?
Perhaps it is necessary to remind oneself that the homosexual underworld, be it clerical or secular, is a world of vice. A world that includes drugs, prostitution, domestic violence, murder, suicide, blackmail, and criminality of all kinds.
As an active homosexual prelate, Cardinal McCarrick has been open to blackmail in various forms by the enemies of the Church for half-a-century.
But blackmail is a two-edged sword and in McCarrick’s case it has worked largely in his favor since the 88-year-old cardinal knows all the details of just about every active homosexual American bishop in the United States (and many at the Vatican) dating back to the Spellman era.
That’s an awful lot of skeletons hiding in the proverbial clerical “gay” closet.
There is no question that there exists today a vast overworld in the Catholic Church, starting at the Vatican, with arms that reach into every diocese in the world. The main function of this overworld is to coverup the scandal-ridden underworld of the homosexual/pederast networks in the Church. The great tragedy is that both the overworld and the underworld are fueled by the long-suffering Catholic laity with the money they toss into the collection basket every week.
You wanted to know how it is possible for McCarrick to have escaped exposure and censure for so long? That’s your answer, like it or not.
Who’s Giving McCarrick Legal Advice? Whose Picking Up the Tab?
One of the little recognized practices of American diocesan lawyers, and lawyers from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops when faced with the prospect of a public “outing” of a homosexual/pederast bishop or cardinal, has been to promise the prelate the best defense that money can buy and continued financial support in exchange for his silence on his fellow homosexual/pederast bishops, cardinals, and clerics at home and abroad.
How else can one explain McCarrick’s totally asinine statement that he “has no recollection,” concerning the sexual abuse of the young altar boy at St. Patrick’s Cathedral that has made recent headlines?
No recollection? Nonsense!
Sexual perverts, especially pederasts, have amazing memories especially as they relate to their early conquests. They relive those experiences over and over in their minds, day in and day out.
It’s their way of getting kicks. Pederasts especially savor the look on the face of their victim when the young boy realizes what is being done to him. Now the victim is one of THEM!
Who devised this brilliant strategy for McCarrick?
My guess is that the New York Archdiocese clued McCarrick in the first moment that the now middle-aged victim fingered McCarrick as his abuser, and the cardinal’s attorneys plotted accordingly. Since the victim’s story turned out to be “credible,” McCarrick’s legal counsel no doubt decided that his best bet was not to deny the abuse outright, but claim he had “no recollection” of the alleged crime.
After all, the statute of limitations has run out in New York State, so he’s not going to jail any time soon.
And the chances of the “gay friendly” occupant of the Chair of Peter giving McCarrick a choice between defrocking and a life of permanent penance at a traditional monastery constantly surrounded by two monks, one on either side, to monitor the cardinal’s every move lest he attempt to seduce other clerics, is very slim indeed.
Probably, given the short and faulty memory of American Catholics when it comes to the horrific pain and anguish of victims (and their families) of pederasty and homosexual abuse, chances are McCarrick will disappear for a few months from the public limelight and then retired quietly in high style knowing he’ll be protected and kept financially solvent by Church officials in return for his keeping silent to the grave.
Unfortunately for McCarrick, however, there is a Life and Judgement beyond the grave, although his actions demonstrate that he believes in neither. Perhaps one, just one, of his fellow clerics including all those who have feigned “shock” at the recent revelations, will love Cardinal McCarrick enough to remind him of this reality before it is too late.
I pray they do.
But in the meantime, my rosaries and prayers are for the victims of clerical sexual abuse – past, present and future. And future victims there will be along with corresponding devastated families until faithful Catholics get justice and accountability from the hierarchy and the Holy See or God intervenes directly – whichever comes first.
– The End –
Postscript:
When I started my research on the homosexual network in AmChurch in 1989 for The Rite of Sodomy – Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, I began with a short list of homosexual prelates I needed to investigate – Cardinal William O’Connell of Boston, Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York, Cardinal John Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Bishop Donald Wuerl of Pittsburgh, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, Archbishop Rembert Weakand, O.S.B. of Milwaukee, and Archbishop Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Newark.
By the time The Rite of Sodomy was published in 2006, that list had grown to more than 40 American homosexual prelates and superiors of male religious orders.
Below are a few excerpts on Cardinal McCarrick taken from taken from the updated five- volume set of The Rite of Sodomy. Footnotes are provided in the original text:
American Hierarchy Denies Existence of
A Clerical Homosexual Network
On April 23-24, 2002, Pope John Paul II called an Extraordinary Meeting of American Cardinals in Rome to discuss the clerical sexual abuse problem in the United States. Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the USCCB, was also in attendance.
A press conference at the Vatican Press Office was held on the evening of the close of the two-day session with the Holy Father. In attendance were Cardinals Theodore McCarrick and James Francis Stafford, Bishop Gregory representing the USCCB, and Vatican lay press officer, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls.
During the news conference, Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, D.C. was asked by Christopher Ferrara, who along with John Vennari was covering the story for Catholic Family News, the following question pertaining to the problem of pederasty and homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood:
Nearly every single case has involved an adolescent and does not constitute a true case of pedophilia. So, we’re dealing with the acts of homosexual males who could not control their predilection. To avoid what would be a perpetual bumper crop of this type of scandal, is the hierarchy in North America going to enforce the Vatican’s [1961] Instruction that homosexual males simply should not be ordained?
Cardinal McCarrick responded:
I think certainly every seminary in the country has a program that says, “anyone who is an active homosexual should never be admitted.” I don’t know of any bishop in the country who would allow someone who had been actively involved in homosexuality to enter a seminary. I don’t think any bishop would allow anyone who was actively engaged in heterosexual activity right before they went in to enter the seminary. We believe in celibacy. It’s not the easiest road in today’s crazy world, but we believe in celibacy. We believe that if you practice celibacy with all your heart, with all your love, you can be free to serve God’s people, to serve God in a beautiful way. If someone gets into a seminary, and that question is not asked, that’s a terrible thing. But any seminary that I know, you say, “have you been acting celibately up until now?”
[Note: The 1961 Instruction, Religiosorum institutio on the “Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders” was the work of the Sacred Congregation for Religious in the Holy Office. It provided that “Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.” This was the paragraph of the 1961 Instruction that Mr. Ferrara was referring to in his questioning of Cardinal McCarrick at the April 2002 Rome press conference.]
A Reality Check for Cardinal McCarrick
Finally, let us return to Cardinal McCarrick and his performance at the April 2002 Vatican press conference.
Young Ted, an only child, lost his father at the age of three. He was raised by his doting mother, who worked as an artist model and later in an auto-parts factory.
In his junior year, he was expelled from Xavier High School in Manhattan, ostensibly for truancy, but, thanks to family connections, he was taken in by Fordham Prep, another Jesuit high school in the Bronx.
Cardinal Spellman ordained Father McCarrick on May 31, 1951. He served as secretary to Cardinal Cooke from 1971 to 1977, when Cooke made him an Auxiliary Bishop of New York.
New York insiders glibly refer to McCarrick by his feminine name “Blanche” and Vatican officials have long been aware of his penchant for young handsome seminarians. McCarrick has ordained at least three homosexual bishops.
Yet, here is a man who the Holy See permitted to play the fool before an international audience of reporters on the question of the ordination of homosexual candidates to the priesthood and the existence of a homosexual network within the Church.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE VATICAN’S RELEASE OF THE MCCARRICK CASE SUMMARY IS A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT: IT DOES NOT GO TO THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM OF MCCARRICK, THE COMPLICITY OF THE VATICAN IN HIS CASE THROUGH NEGLECT OF DUTY
“We recognize that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., has received enough votes to be elected the 46th president of the United States. We congratulate Mr. Biden and acknowledge that he joins the late President John F. Kennedy as the second United States president to profess the Catholic faith. We also congratulate Sen. Kamala D. Harris of California, who becomes the first woman ever elected as vice president.”
We were dumbfounded because it is not clear that the Biden/Harris team has actually won. And frankly, pro-abort politicians like these two should be reprimanded by the USCCB, not congratulated! The USCCB’s rush to curry favor with pro-aborts has not only saddened us, but has left us disturbed.
And it is not just us. Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, tweeted: “A dark cloud has descended on this nation when the USCCB and Planned Parenthood speak in unison in support of a Biden-Harris administration that supports the slaughter of innocents by abortion for all 9 months of pregnancy.”https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=amerlifeleague&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1326039232830468097&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fall.org%2Fbishops-for-biden%2F&siteScreenName=amerlifeleague&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=500px
Yet, in the midst of this darkness, we find much light and hope in a statement Pope Benedict XVI made about episcopal conferences like the USCCB: “Bishops’ conferences . . . came into being as a practical application of the collegial affection of bishops in hierarchical communion with the successor of Peter.”READ >> Catholics and the Heretical Agenda
He further pointed out something that is relevant to every conference of bishops, not merely the Brazilian bishops to whom he was writing: “The Bishops’ Conference therefore coordinates the Bishops’ efforts and intentions, becoming an instrument that enables each to share his burdens; but it must not become a parallel or substitute of the ministry of each one of the bishops. In other words it must neither change its relationship with the respective particular Church or with the Episcopal College nor make itself an intermediary between the bishop and the See of Peter.”
Now-retired Bishop Joseph Martino understood that all too well. In 2008, he told an audience:
No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. . . . The USCCB doesn’t speak for me. . . . The only relevant document . . . is my letter. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.
Bishop Martino and Judie Brown
Then, as now, every Catholic bishop is a shepherd to the people of his diocese, and no organization—including the USCCB bureaucracy—can take that teaching authority away from him. While it is evident that the USCCB loves to pretend that it can do that, such is not the case.
So, for the record, let us never forget the actions of heroic priests and bishops who, unlike the USCCB, have defended the Eucharist and made it clear that pro-abortion Catholics-in-name-only—like Biden—should not receive the Eucharist.
It is apparent that the USCCB does not represent each individual bishop when it applauds a pro-abortion Catholic politician; it has never done so, and it never will.
not a Catholic in good standing and he should not approach to receive Holy Communion.
This is not a political statement, I don’t intend to get involved in recommending any candidate for office, but simply to state that a Catholic may not support abortion in any shape or form because it is one of the most grievous sins against human life, and has always been considered to be intrinsically evil and therefore to in any way support the act is a mortal sin.
That statement puts a fine point on the subject. Like many of his fellow bishops and priests, Burke defends Christ no matter what the cost. And frankly, so should each and every one of us.
The USCCB has erred. There is no such thing as Bishops for Biden, only bureaucrats for confusion.4
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on ARCHBISHOP JOSE GOMEZ EXCEEDED HIS ROLE AND POWER IN CONGRATULATING Joe Biden ON HIS “ELECTION” AS PRESIDENT OF THE United States CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS
The Founders Outsmarted the Presidential Election Fraudsters By Gary GindlerAmerican ThinkerNovember 13, 2020 Who chooses the President of the United States? This question is by no means rhetorical. For example, the mass disinformation media has chosen Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. Many people liked this news, but I must disappoint them – the television broadcasters have, according to the U.S. Constitution, nothing to do with who will live in the White House for the next four years. Maybe the Supreme Court chooses the President? No, the Constitution does not provide for this. Could it be that the citizens of America choose their President? Following the U.S. Constitution, no. So, who then chooses the President? Before answering this question, let us note that, contrary to popular misconception, the President of the United States is not a representative of the American people. State legislators and governors are representatives of the people, and at the federal level so are the members of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. (Currently, senators are also representatives of the people, but before the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913, they were appointed by state legislators). So, who does the President of America represent? The President of the United States of America, according to the Constitution, represents state legislators’ interests and no one else. In general, the federal government’s structure in America reflects the numerous attempts of the Founding Fathers of the United States to introduce a system of effective state control over the federal government. The fact is that the main difference between our country and all other countries, without exception, is that it was organized “from the bottom up,” that is, individual colonies voluntarily united against a common enemy – the British Empire. All other “republics” on the planet were created “from the top down,” when the already existing provinces were graciously granted some independence by the already existing central government. In building the American state, the fundamental principle was state control over the newly created federal power structure. Therefore, from the Founding Fathers’ point of view, the federal government in Washington should consist of both representatives of the people (congressmen) and representatives of the state leadership – the federal President and senators. This is how the institution of the Electoral College was invented and implemented. The electors are appointed by the state legislatures, and they are the ones who elect the President of the country. So why do American citizens need to participate in the presidential elections? Well, strictly speaking, it is not necessary. It is just that there is a long tradition in America – state legislators appoint electors in such a way that these appointments correspond to the mood of the people (in some states, this is even enshrined by law). This is a tradition, but according to the U.S. Constitution, the participation of the people in presidential elections, generally speaking, is not required. According to the Constitution, the people participate in the direct elections of their legislators, which is quite enough. There is nothing reprehensible in this – after all, the President of America is not the representative of the American people. He is the representative of state legislators. From the point of view of the states, the President (and pre-1913, two senators from each state) are the “overseers” of the federal government. In other words, the President, from the point of view of state legislators, is “our man in Havana” (that is, in Washington), who is responsible for the observance of state rights by the federal government. Thus, under the Constitution, state legislators have the right to generally ignore the results of the voting of citizens of their state and appoint those who they deem necessary to the Electoral College. Why did the Founding Fathers of the United States give state legislators such unprecedented power? Because most of the Founding Fathers were geniuses with impressive foresight. They did not know precisely when this would happen, but they knew it would eventually happen: the election’s published results would have nothing to do with how the citizens voted. This is exactly what happened in 2020. Of course, there have been falsifications in the counting of votes in America before. However, in 2020, the Democrats went all-in with a scam, and for the first time in American history, they were close to success. Actually, they simply had no other choice. They knew very well that another Trump term would be enough to crush the American left to its core. (However, even if Trump does not manage to stay in the White House, his departure from politics will be such that the left will not be envied.) Now, more than a week after the elections, it is already clear what the Trump team is doing. They are working in two directions. First, they sue in states where there was a clear violation of the electoral law. Violations include the counting of votes that came after polling stations closed, turnout of more than 100%, the use of computer systems that were systematically “wrong,” always in favor of Biden, the thousands of Pennsylvania voters born on January 1, 1900 (or even on January 1, 1800), and much more. For example, election results in some Democrat-controlled states violate fundamental laws of both mathematics and physics. The votes cast for Biden do not comply with the statistical law of distribution of digits (Benford’s Law), while the ballots cast for Trump do adhere to this law. Thousands of mailed ballots were received even before they were officially sent. Thus, the 2020 election showed compelling evidence of the possibility of time travel. Secondly, the Trump team calls on state legislators to use their constitutional powers to rectify the local executive authority’s criminal actions to the point of completely ignoring the falsified voting results. These are the expected steps. Any presidential candidate would and should take such measures. Al Gore did the same in 2000, but then the case concerned only the state of Florida. In 2000, the country did not know the name of the winner for 35 days, and in 2020 we should not expect a faster resolution of the issue because now we are talking about at least six “problem” states. Only now is the reason for the frenzy with which the Democrats attacked the three Trump-nominated Supreme Court justices is becoming clear. The fact is that the Trump-nominated current U.S. Supreme Court justices – Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Barrett – were on Bush’s legal team that secured the Supreme Court case in favor of Bush in 2000. But the main difference between the 2020 elections and the 2000 elections is the involvement of the federal government’s apparatus in investigating violations. The investigation is carried out by both prosecutors of the Department of Justice and FBI agents. According to the Constitution, all courts and all other voting problems must be resolved by the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December, which falls on December 14 this year. If on December 14, the Electoral College fails to elect a president, then the Constitution also provides for this scenario. Per the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, in this case, the President and Vice President will be elected by the House of Representatives (however, if for some reason the Vice President cannot be elected by the House of Representatives, then the right of his choice is transferred to the Senate.) In the House of Representatives, state delegations will be voting, not the individual congressmen themselves. Now in the House of Representatives, the majority of delegations – 26 – belong to Republicans. In the Senate, the Republicans also have an advantage. So, the only reason Trump can lose the election now, a week after the election, is his own admission of defeat. But such a strange decision by Trump is unlikely – this guy is from Queens, and if he gets involved in a fight, he will see it through to the end. It is also unlikely that Trump does not understand that if the chronic vote-rigging by Democrats is not stopped now, America will end. The Trump team is well aware that such an opportunity to end the creeping socialist revolution may no longer be presented. As a result, Democrats will likely not recover from this fraud. The disinformation media (which Fox News joined on the election night) will not recover from deliberately covering up this fraud, this attempted coup. If the Democrats went for broke, then Trump could, most likely, also go for broke. Trump may have already destroyed the Democratic National Committee, but they just do not know it yet. In military terms, Trump’s team conducted careful reconnaissance and intelligence on the enemy for a week. They collected numerous affidavits about the electoral fraud of Democrats, witnesses who confirm their testimony under oath. But on the evening of November 10, the reconnaissance was completed, and massive artillery bombardment began in the form of lawsuits in several key states and the initiation of criminal investigations into violations by the Department of Justice. If this does not help, Trump will bring into the battle the strategic reserves available only to the President of the American state apparatus – for example, in the form of a complete declassification of Obamagate. In any case, our country is by no means at the end; we are at the very beginning of this process. From a legal perspective, Biden is an impostor, a false president, at least until December 14 of this year. If Biden can declare himself President-elect without any legal basis, then any other American citizen can also declare himself President-elect. Therefore, I am forced to repeat my advice once again – to survive in this leftist madhouse, turn off the TV and start thinking for yourself. If you have read the article so far, you will definitely succeed. And remember – if the laws in our country are still observed, then the chances of the Harris-Biden administration (in this order) are practically zero. If the laws in America are not followed, then the great American political experiment will unfortunately end.
Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles and the founder of a new science: Politiphysics.
The Real Election ‘Trump Card’:Refuse to CertifyBy Jay ValentineAmerican ThinkerNovember 12, 2020 This week started off with almost every Big Media entity congratulating “President-Elect Joe Biden.” There is now an Office of the President Elect, some fabrication that I recall was created by Obama to suck the oxygen out of the room even before he took office. Republicans are being pilloried for not being able to show “proof” of election fraud. Trump’s team has provided the List of the Dead, an Egyptian-like roll of voters who voted from the grave. Tucker Carlson ran lists on his show — dead people who rose from the grave to vote. As Republicans seek those gnarly voter rolls, get their hands on the most egregious ballots, they are stymied at every step. For every Republican court case, there are Democrats opposing them or sitting on the judicial bench thwarting them. Running out the clock. Well, what should one do? This is where the fun really begins, and our pals the Democrats have brought us this little party. Let’s go there. As the “anecdotal fraud” stories grew, they further inflamed people. Funny thing about anecdotes: They may not add up to lots of fraud votes, but every one is a memorable story. A story is far more important right now than being able to snag the names of more dead from the roles. Tucker pretty much topped that off. Anecdotes are stories, and stories are the oldest form of human communication. The Bible came to us from stories, later written down and passed through the ages. Homer’s Iliad and later Beowulf are stories that remain today the most intimate view into the life and times of early Bronze Age Greeks and the early Middle Ages. Stories move — statistics not so much. Anecdotes are driving 71 million Americans mad. Americans are particularly sensitive to fairness. A young child recognizes someone cutting in line. Fairness is innate; we all have it. For some, it is baked out by ideology when they adopt “the end justifies the means” kind of thinking. But those are not the Trump voters. This election was not fair. Everyone, or about everyone, sees it, and, clearly, about 71 million people who voted for Trump cannot get past it. To make it more unfair, those who committed the fraud will not let Trump’s team see the scorecards. No vote-counting unless they are bludgeoned into it. Lower courts, often with Democratic judges, are equally opaque. Nothing to see here. Sometimes you have to thank your opponent for being really stupid. Napoleon said never needlessly interfere with your enemy when he is destroying himself. We might create a corollary here: when your opponent drives you to high ground, take it. And say thanks. Let’s do that. Let’s call it the American Thinker corollary. Give it a name like the Overton Window or Occam’s razor, and into Wikipedia it goes. Fun times. We cannot win the mind-numbing, detailed, line-by-line, opposed at every step swamp war with those who just stole an election. At least we cannot do it in 30 days, which is about all we have. More importantly, we cannot deliver every day the statistics to reverse the media drum beat to just move along and go with Joe. We can, or Trump himself can, take the stories to the people, all 71 million of them. It appears he is starting down that path. This week, the speaker of the Pennsylvania House, a now key player in this drama, said “no certification without audits.” Here’s what that means. Screw the stats. Trump is the number-one communicator in this quadrant of the galaxy. Trump has scores of anecdotes like that loose string on the sock where, when you pull it a bit, the sock comes apart. The Trump rallies hit every swing state and educate their legislatures about the power of anecdotes. Anecdotes drive voters. Everyone remembers a story. Voters remember. This election must be certified by two chambers of every swing-state Legislature. The speaker in Pennsylvania just showed us the high ground. The Republican legislatures follow his lead and say no certification without the following:- a full audit, by hand of every vote,- any court or election official mandate not approved by the Legislature does not count — take out those votes,- voting machines: cough up the source code, the audit logs for our forensic teams. You get the picture. If the Democrats challenge this, the clock works against them. Thirty days. Tick, tick. Trump plays the Trump card. Seventy-one million people demanding a recount — fair, honest, transparent. No recount, no certification. No voting machine code review, no certification. No certification, and the House of Representatives makes the call, and Trump gets off the golf course and back to work. This is the high ground. The Democrats have given it to us; let us gather together and say “thanks.” Footnote from Rip:Remember, Article 12 of the Constitution provides that if the election goes to the House, each state gets only ONE vote, and there is a solid majority of Republican states.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS
According to a study that examined how informed consent is given to COVID-19 vaccine trial participants, disclosure forms fail to inform volunteers that the vaccine might make them susceptible to more severe disease if they’re exposed to the virus.
The study,1 “Informed Consent Disclosure to Vaccine Trial Subjects of Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Worsening Clinical Disease,” published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, October 28, 2020, points out that “COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.”
“Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE),” the paper states.
“This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”
What Is Antibody-Dependent Enhancement?
As noted by the authors of that International Journal of Clinical Practice paper, previous coronavirus vaccine efforts — for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — have revealed a serious concern: The vaccines have a tendency to trigger antibody-dependent enhancement.
What exactly does that mean? In a nutshell, it means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.2
This is the exact opposite of what a vaccine is supposed to do, and a significant problem that has been pointed out from the very beginning of this push for a COVID-19 vaccine. The 2003 review paper “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease” explains it this way:3
“In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection.
The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors.
This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance. These viruses share some common features such as preferential replication in macrophages, ability to establish persistence, and antigenic diversity. For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination.”
Previous Coronavirus Vaccine Efforts Have All Failed
In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development, and had about 30 promising candidates.
Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video below, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next. While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they all became severely ill and died.
The same thing happened when they tried to develop an RSV vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses. At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials.
“They tested it on I think about 35 children, and the same thing happened,” Kennedy said.“The children developed a champion antibody response — robust, durable. It looked perfect [but when] the children were exposed to the wild virus, they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine. It was a big embarrassment to FDA and NIH.”
Coronaviruses produce not just one but two different types of antibodies:
Neutralizing antibodies,4 also referred to as immoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, that fight the infection
Binding antibodies5 (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that cannot prevent viral infection
Instead of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies trigger an abnormal immune response known as “paradoxical immune enhancement.” Another way to look at this is your immune system is actually backfiring and not functioning to protect you but actually making you worse.
Many of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in the running are using mRNA to instruct your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S protein). The spike protein, which is what attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell, is the first stage of the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into cells.
The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will commence production of antibodies, without making you sick in the process. The key question is, which of the two types of antibodies are being produced through this process?
Without Neutralizing Antibodies, Expect More Severe Illness
In an April 2020 Twitter thread,6 The Immunologist noted: “While developing vaccines … and considering immunity passports, we must first understand the complex role of antibodies in SARS, MERS and COVID-19.” He goes on to list several coronavirus vaccine studies that have raised concerns about ADE.
The first is a 2017 study7 in PLOS Pathogens, ”Enhanced Inflammation in New Zealand White Rabbits When MERS-CoV Reinfection Occurs in the Absence of Neutralizing Antibody,” which investigated whether getting infected with MERS would protect the subject against reinfection, as is typically the case with many viral illnesses. (Meaning, once you recover from a viral infection, say measles, you’re immune and won’t contract the illness again.)
To determine how MERS affects the immune system, the researchers infected white rabbits with the virus. The rabbits got sick and developed antibodies, but those antibodies were not the neutralizing kind, meaning the kind of antibodies that block infection. As a result, they were not protected from reinfection, and when exposed to MERS for a second time, they became ill again, and more severely so.
“In fact, reinfection resulted in enhanced pulmonary inflammation, without an associated increase in viral RNA titers,” the authors noted. Interestingly, neutralizing antibodies were elicited during this second infection, preventing the animals from being infected a third time. According to the authors:
“Our data from the rabbit model suggests that people exposed to MERS-CoV who fail to develop a neutralizing antibody response, or persons whose neutralizing antibody titers have waned, may be at risk for severe lung disease on re-exposure to MERS-CoV.”
In other words, if the vaccine does not result in a robust response in neutralizing antibodies, you might be at risk for more severe lung disease if you’re infected with the virus.
And here’s an important point: COVID-19 vaccines are NOT designed to prevent infection. As detailed in “How COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Rigged,” a “successful” vaccine merely needs to reduce the severity of the symptoms. They’re not even looking at reducing infection, hospitalization or death rates.
ADE in Dengue Infections
The Dengue virus is also known to cause ADE. As explained in a Swiss Medical Weekly paper published in April 2020:8
“The pathogenesis of COVID-19 is currently believed to proceed via both directly cytotoxic and immune-mediated mechanisms. An additional mechanism facilitating viral cell entry and subsequent damage may involve the so-called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).
ADE is a very well-known cascade of events whereby viruses may infect susceptible cells via interaction between virions complexed with antibodies or complement components and, respectively, Fc or complement receptors, leading to the amplification of their replication.
This phenomenon is of enormous relevance not only for the understanding of viral pathogenesis, but also for developing antiviral strategies, notably vaccines …
There are four serotypes of Dengue virus, all eliciting protective immunity. However, although homotypic protection is long-lasting, cross-neutralizing antibodies against different serotypes are short-lived and may last only up to 2 years.
In Dengue fever, reinfection with a different serotype runs a more severe course when the protective antibody titer wanes. Here, non-neutralizing antibodies take over neutralizing ones, bind to Dengue virions, and these complexes mediate the infection of phagocytic cells via interaction with the Fc receptor, in a typical ADE.
In other words, heterotypic antibodies at subneutralizing titres account for ADE in persons infected with a serotype of Dengue virus that is different from the first infection.
Cross-reactive neutralizing antibodies are associated with decreased odds of symptomatic secondary infection, and the higher the titer of such antibodies following the primary infection, the longer the delay to symptomatic secondary infection …”
The paper goes on to detail results from follow-up investigations into the Dengue vaccine, which revealed the hospitalization rate for Dengue among vaccinated children under the age of 9 was greater than the rate among controls. The explanation for this appears to be that the vaccine mimicked a primary infection, and as that immunity waned, the children became susceptible to ADE when they encountered the virus a second time. The author explains:
“A post hoc analysis of efficacy trials, using an anti-nonstructural protein 1 immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to distinguish antibodies elicited by wild-type infection from those following vaccination, showed that the vaccine was able to protect against severe Dengue [in] those who had been exposed to the natural infection before vaccination, and that the risk of severe clinical outcome was increased among seronegative persons.
Based on this, a Strategic Advisor Group of Experts convened by World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that only Dengue seropositive persons should be vaccinated whenever Dengue control programs are planned that include vaccination.”
ADE in Coronavirus Infections
This could end up being important for the COVID-19 vaccine. Hypothetically speaking, if SARS-CoV-2 works like Dengue, which is also caused by an RNA virus, then anyone who has not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 might actually be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 after vaccination, and only those who have already recovered from a bout of COVID-19 would be protected against severe illness by the vaccine.
To be clear, we do not know whether that is the case or not, but these are important areas of inquiry and the current vaccine trials will simply not be able to answer this important question.
The Swiss Medical Weekly paper9 also reviews the evidence of ADE in coronavirus infections, citing research showing inoculating cats against the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) — a feline coronavirus — increases the severity of the disease when challenged with the same FIPV serotype as that in the vaccine.
Experiments have shown immunization with a variety of SARS vaccines resulted in pulmonary immunophathology once challenged with the SARS virus.
The paper also cites research showing “Antibodies elicited by a SARS-CoV vaccine enhanced infection of B cell lines in spite of protective responses in the hamster model.” Another paper,10“Antibody-Dependent SARS Coronavirus Infection Is Mediated by Antibodies Against Spike Proteins,” published in 2014, found that:
“… higher concentrations of anti-sera against SARS-CoV neutralized SARS-CoV infection, while highly diluted anti-sera significantly increased SARS-CoV infection and induced higher levels of apoptosis.
Results from infectivity assays indicate that SARS-CoV ADE is primarily mediated by diluted antibodies against envelope spike proteins rather than nucleocapsid proteins. We also generated monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV spike proteins and observed that most of them promoted SARS-CoV infection.
Combined, our results suggest that antibodies against SARS-CoV spike proteins may trigger ADE effects. The data raise new questions regarding a potential SARS-CoV vaccine …”
A study11 that ties into this was published in the journal JCI Insight in 2019. Here, macaques vaccinated with a modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) virus encoding full-length SARS-CoV spike protein ended up with more severe lung pathology when the animals were exposed to the SARS virus. And, when they transferred anti-spike IgG antibodies into unvaccinated macaques, they developed acute diffuse alveolar damage, likely by “skewing the inflammation-resolving response.”
SARS Vaccine Worsens Infection After Challenge With SARS-CoV
An interesting 2012 paper12 with the telling title, “Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus,” demonstrates what many researchers now fear, namely that COVID-19 vaccines may end up making people more prone to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The paper reviews experiments showing immunization with a variety of SARS vaccines resulted in pulmonary immunophathology once challenged with the SARS virus. As noted by the authors:13
“Inactivated whole virus vaccines whether inactivated with formalin or beta propiolactone and whether given with our without alum adjuvant exhibited a Th2-type immunopathologic in lungs after challenge.
As indicated, two reports attributed the immunopathology to presence of the N protein in the vaccine; however, we found the same immunopathologic reaction in animals given S protein vaccine only, although it appeared to be of lesser intensity.
Thus, a Th2-type immunopathologic reaction on challenge of vaccinated animals has occurred in three of four animal models (not in hamsters) including two different inbred mouse strains with four different types of SARS-CoV vaccines with and without alum adjuvant. An inactivated vaccine preparation that does not induce this result in mice, ferrets and nonhuman primates has not been reported.
This combined experience provides concern for trials with SARS-CoV vaccines in humans. Clinical trials with SARS coronavirus vaccines have been conducted and reported to induce antibody responses and to be ‘safe.’ However, the evidence for safety is for a short period of observation.
The concern arising from the present report is for an immunopathologic reaction occurring among vaccinated individuals on exposure to infectious SARS-CoV, the basis for developing a vaccine for SARS. Additional safety concerns relate to effectiveness and safety against antigenic variants of SARS-CoV and for safety of vaccinated persons exposed to other coronaviruses, particularly those of the type 2 group.”
The Elderly Are Most Vulnerable to ADE
On top of all of these concerns, there’s evidence showing the elderly — who are most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 — are also the most vulnerable to ADE. Preliminary research findings14 posted on the preprint server medRxiv at the end of March 2020 reported that middle-aged and elderly COVID-19 patients have far higher levels of anti-spike antibodies — which, again, increase infectivity — than younger patients.
Immune Enhancement Is a Serious Concern
Another paper worth mentioning is the May 2020 mini review15 “Impact of Immune Enhancement on COVID-19 Polyclonal Hyperimmune Globulin Therapy and Vaccine Development.” As in many other papers, the authors point out that:16
“While development of both hyperimmune globulin therapy and vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 are promising, they both pose a common theoretical safety concern. Experimental studies have suggested the possibility of immune-enhanced disease of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections, which may thus similarly occur with SARS-CoV-2 infection …
Immune enhancement of disease can theoretically occur in two ways. Firstly, non-neutralizing or sub-neutralizing levels of antibodies can enhance SARS-CoV-2 infection into target cells.
Secondly, antibodies could enhance inflammation and hence severity of pulmonary disease. An overview of these antibody dependent infection and immunopathology enhancement effects are summarized in Fig. 1 …
Currently, there are multiple SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV vaccine candidates in pre-clinical or early phase clinical trials. Animal studies on these CoVs have shown that the spike (S) protein-based vaccines (specifically the receptor binding domain, RBD) are highly immunogenic and protective against wild-type CoV challenge.
Vaccines that target other parts of the virus, such as the nucleocapsid, without the S protein, have shown no protection against CoV infection and increased lung pathology. However, immunization with some S protein based CoV vaccines have also displayed signs of enhanced lung pathology following challenge.
Hence, besides the choice of antigen target, vaccine efficacy and risk of immunopathology may be dependent on other ancillary factors, including adjuvant formulation, age at vaccination … and route of immunization.”
Figure 1: Mechanism of ADE and antibody mediated immunopathology. Left panel: For ADE, immune complex internalization is mediated by the engagement of activating Fc receptors on the cell surface. Co-ligation of inhibitory receptors then results in the inhibition of antiviral responses which leads to increased viral replication. Right panel: Antibodies can cause immunopathology by activating the complement pathway or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC). For both pathways, excessive immune activation results in the release of cytokines and chemokines, leading to enhanced disease pathology.
Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind
In all likelihood, regardless of how effective (or ineffective) the COVID-19 vaccines end up being, they’ll be released to the public in relatively short order. Most predict one or more vaccines will be ready sometime in 2021.
Ironically, the data17,18,19 we now have no longer support a mass vaccination mandate, considering the lethality of COVID-19 is lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.20 If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible and vitamin D replete.
So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? As mentioned, the vaccines aren’t even designed to prevent infection, only reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you’re exposed to the virus. That seems like a lot of risk for a truly questionable benefit.
To circle back to where we started, participants in current COVID-19 vaccine trials are not being told of this risk — that by getting the vaccine they may end up with more severe COVID-19 once they’re infected with the virus.
Lethal Th2 Immunopathology Is Another Potential Risk
In closing, consider what this PNAS news feature states about the risk of vaccine-induced immune enhancement and dysfunction, particularly for the elderly, the very people who would need the protection a vaccine might offer the most:21
“Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown a paradoxical phenomenon:
Some animals or people who received the vaccine and were later exposed to the virus developed more severe disease than those who had not been vaccinated. The vaccine-primed immune system, in certain cases, seemed to launch a shoddy response to the natural infection …
This immune backfiring, or so-called immune enhancement, may manifest in different ways such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a process in which a virus leverages antibodies to aid infection; or cell-based enhancement, a category that includes allergic inflammation caused by Th2 immunopathology. In some cases, the enhancement processes might overlap …
Some researchers argue that although ADE has received the most attention to date, it is less likely than the other immune enhancement pathways to cause a dysregulated response to COVID-19, given what is known about the epidemiology of the virus and its behavior in the human body.
‘There is the potential for ADE, but the bigger problem is probably Th2 immunopathology,’ says Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist and expert in coronaviruses … at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In previous studies of SARS, aged mice were found to have particularly high risks of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology … in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation, and poorly functional antibodies that form immune complexes, activating the complement system and potentially damaging the airways.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on DO YOU REALLY WANT TO RECEIVE THE COVID-19 VACCINE. READ THIS AND YOU WILL PROBABLY CHANGE YOUR MIND
ReplyForward
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.