How Much Money Is In Your Kid’s Vaccine?

Posted on May 23, 2023 by marcia

Is This Why Pediatricians Push Vaccines?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

May 23, 2023

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Primary care providers across the U.S. were bribed with incentive programs to coerce patients into getting the toxic COVID shot. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield paid doctors $50 for each Medicaid patient aged 6 months and older, who got the experimental jab
Doctors have been financially incentivized to vaccinate children for a long time. In 2016, Blue Cross Blue Shield paid pediatricians a $400 bonus for each patient that completed 10 vaccinations before their second birthday, provided 63% of their patients were fully vaccinated
“Client and family incentives” also exist. In 2015, the Community Preventive Services Task Force recommended boosting vaccination rates by giving small, inexpensive incentive rewards to patients
Bribery is also par for the course when it comes to vaccine mandates. Pfizer paid undisclosed sums to front groups that advocated for COVID jab mandates, thereby hiding their conflict of interest
While the COVID-19 pandemic furthered many globalist goals, it inadvertently tanked childhood vaccination rates. To get childhood vaccination rates back on track, a global alliance has launched “The Big Catch-Up” initiative. It’s touted as the largest childhood immunization effort ever

In April 2023, I reported how primary care providers across the U.S. were bribed with incentive programs to coerce patients into getting the toxic COVID shot. Since there was no medical malpractice liability, doctors profited while patients risked their lives as participants in an unprecedented medical experiment, all while being lied to about the safety and effectiveness of these injections.

Even more egregiously, once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the COVID shot for children, similar vaccination incentives were extended to pediatricians as well. As detailed in an Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid provider bulletin¹ dated July 2022, doctors received $50 for each Medicaid patient aged 6 months and older, who got the experimental jab.

Pediatricians Are Financially Incentivized to Vaccinate

As it turns out, doctors have been financially incentivized to vaccinate children for a long time. According to a 1999 JAMA Pediatrics article,² the average patient load of American pediatricians is 1,546, although the number of patients was “significantly higher in less populated areas and solo practices.”

Of these, 8.3% were younger than 1 year, 9.5% were 1 year old and 8.6% were 2 years old.³ That means approximately 26.4% of the average pediatrician’s patients were 2 years old and younger. More recent data,⁴ published in 2021, show 75% of pediatricians have between 1,000 and 1,800 patients and 21% have around 1,200 patients; most practices, 65%, are in the 1,000 to 1,500 range.

As shown in the 2016 provider incentive program document from Blue Cross Blue Shield below,^5,6 pediatricians were getting $400 for each pediatric patient that completed all the 10 vaccinations listed — 25 doses in all⁷ — before their second birthday. (Keep in mind that incentives can vary by state. The example provided is part of Michigan’s Blue Cross Blue Shield Performance Recognition Program.)⁸

How Much Money Is at Stake?

The math from there is pretty straight-forward (although keep in mind that we’re dealing with presumed averages and aged statistics here). Just multiply the number of patients under age 2 times $400. Using the average statistics from 1999, if a pediatrician has 1,000 patients, 264 can be expected to be 2 years old or younger. If all are fully vaccinated, the pediatrician would be eligible for a $105,600 year-end bonus.

While $400 per fully vaccinated child might seem incentivizing enough, there’s an added pressure here, because Blue Cross Blue Shield also has (or at least had, in 2016) a “target” level of 63%.

This means that if the pediatrician fails to vaccinate 63% of his eligible patients, he or she gets nothing. So, the pediatrician has a VERY high incentive to get as many toddlers fully vaccinated as possible, so as not to miss that target. It’s not just $400 that is at stake when parents decline one or more shots. Tens of thousands of dollars could be on the line. As noted by Dr. Bob Sears:⁹

“Such incentives … end up forcing a doctor to consider the financial implications of accepting patients who even just want to opt out of one vaccine … Maybe a few such families wouldn’t make them fail the chart reviews, but if they have too many, there goes their year-end bonus.”

Why Pediatricians Become Adversaries

Anytime financial incentives are part of the equation, one can reasonably assume that the lure of self-enrichment will win. With tens of thousands of dollars at stake, pediatricians can easily be lulled into complacency when it comes to digging deeper into the science.

After all, who wants to see evidence that what they’re doing is causing more harm than good? These kinds of incentives also encourage pediatricians to simply toss questioning parents out of their practice, to make room for more compliant patients that don’t put their income at risk. As reported by Children’s Health Defense back in 2018:¹⁰

“… the 11 well-child visits recommended by the AAP over a child’s first 30 months (with annual visits thereafter through age 21) ensure a steady stream of repeat customers and revenue for pediatricians.

In accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine schedule, pediatric practices are expected to administer vaccines (often as many as six at a time) at about half of well-child visits through the adolescent years, making vaccination a foundational bread-and-butter component of pediatricians’ job description …

It is quite common for pediatricians (and family doctors) to encounter parents who refuse one or more infant vaccines, most often due to safety concerns. These concerns also mean that pediatricians frequently get requests to modify or delay the vaccine schedule — nearly three-fifths (58%) of pediatricians reported such requests in a 2014 AAP survey …

Rather than recognize the validity of parents’ safety concerns or admit to their own ambivalence about some of the newer vaccines, many pediatricians — nearly two in five according to some estimates — choose to boot uncooperative families out of their practice …

Ultimately … subtle and not-so-subtle financial incentives and social pressures are likely to maintain widespread adherence by pediatricians to the vaccine schedule — even in instances where contraindications are present.

Although pediatricians have a legal duty to fully inform patients about vaccine risks and side effects, the lure of monetary perks and the desire to fit in may lessen their motivation to do so.”

Patients Are Bribed Too

In addition to the financial incentives given to physicians, “client and family incentives” also exist. A nongovernmental panel of public health and prevention experts called the “Community Preventive Services Task Force”¹¹ in 2015 published a guide¹² on how to boost vaccination rates using incentive rewards for patients.

The task force was established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1996 “to develop guidance on which community-based health promotion and disease prevention intervention approaches work and which do not work, based on available scientific evidence.”¹³ As explained by this task force:¹⁴

“The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends client or family incentive rewards, used alone or in combination with additional interventions, to increase vaccination rates in children and adults.

Client or family incentive rewards are used to motivate people to obtain recommended vaccinations. Rewards may be monetary or non-monetary, and they may be given to clients or families in exchange for keeping an appointment, receiving a vaccination, returning for a vaccination series, or producing documentation of vaccination status. Rewards are typically small (e.g., food vouchers, gift cards, lottery prizes, baby products).”

The scientific evidence supporting bribery of patients with food vouchers, gift cards and other products of limited value was said to be 4 out of 4, meaning very strong. In other words, incentives, even near-worthless ones, work.

Indeed, we saw this during COVID-19 as well. People were lining up for experimental COVID shots in return for a doughnut, hamburger and fries or even a free lap dance at the local strip club. The pattern is the same. Throw the patient a bone and they’ll agree to things that bring others big profits.

As patients, we need to get savvier about these kinds of tricks and interpret them for what they are. These kinds of “gifts” are not given out of kindness or concern for your well-being. It’s a compliance bribe, and your compliance is making someone rich. Meanwhile, any risks involved are on you.

Bribery and Vaccine Mandates

Bribery is also par for the course when it comes to vaccine mandates. As detailed in a previous article, Pfizer paid undisclosed sums to front groups that advocated for COVID jab mandates, thereby hiding their conflict of interest. In part due to the fake “grassroots” work of these groups, Pfizer was able to rake in a record-breaking $100 billion in sales in 2022.¹⁵

Of course, the U.S. government also paid news media a staggering $1 billion to promote and build public confidence in the jab, and Pfizer itself spent $2.8 billion on ads in 2022 alone.

But the pressure from consumer groups, civil rights groups, patient groups and doctors’ groups — all of which had been paid off — was probably why COVID jab mandates could even be officially considered by the government. They created a false consensus that people desperately wanted vaccine mandates to keep everyone “safe.”

Special interest groups paid by Pfizer¹⁶ to push for COVID jab mandates and coercive vaccine policies included the Chicago Urban league (which argued that the jab mandate would benefit the Black community), the National Consumers League, the Immunization Partnership, the Advertising Council and a long list of universities and cancer, liver diseases, cardiology, rheumatology and medical science organizations.

Each of these organizations received anywhere from several thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars from Pfizer in 2021 alone. Is it any wonder, then, that more than 50 major health care organizations called for vaccine mandates that year, including for their own workers?¹⁷

Childhood Vaccination Rates Tanked During COVID

While the COVID-19 pandemic furthered many globalist goals, it inadvertently tanked childhood vaccination rates, as many parents ended up missing routine well-child visits due to clinic closures, lockdowns and fear of taking their children outside. As reported by the American Medical Association (AMA) in November 2021:¹⁸

“… recently published research sheds new light on how the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted some of those routine vaccinations, as parents and their children didn’t just stay home — they stayed away from the doctor.

The JAMA Pediatrics study¹⁹ … found that vaccine-administration rates were significantly lower across all pediatric age groups as the pandemic first surged in the U.S. … For example, only 74% of infants turning 7 months old in September 2020 were up to date on their vaccinations, a drop from 81% in September 2019.

And just 57% of infants who hit the 18-month mark in September 2020 were up to date, down from 61% the year before. The proportion of children up to date for routine vaccinations was lowest among Black children, with inequities more pronounced in the 18-month-old group.”

The Big Catch-Up Initiative

Video Link

To get childhood vaccination rates back on track, Chelsea Clinton is now making the rounds promoting a new vaccine initiative called “The Big Catch-Up.” In a recent interview with Fortune Magazine,²⁰ Clinton promised it would be “the largest childhood immunization effort ever.” Over the next 18 months, this initiative will attempt to “catch as many kids up as possible,” she said.

Partners in this effort include the World Health Organization, UNICEF, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Immunization Agenda 2030, and several other “global and national health partners.” As reported by the WHO, April 24, 2023:²¹

“The pandemic saw essential immunization levels decrease in over 100 countries, leading to rising outbreaks of measles, diphtheria, polio and yellow fever. ‘The Big Catch-up’ is an extended effort to lift vaccination levels among children to at least pre-pandemic levels and endeavors to exceed those …

While calling on people and governments in every country to play their part in helping to catch up by reaching the children who missed out, The Big Catch-up will have a particular focus on the 20 countries where three quarters of the children who missed vaccinations in 2021 live …

The 20 countries where three quarters of the children who missed vaccinations in 2021 live are: Afghanistan, Angola, Brazil, Cameroon, Chad, DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo], Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar, Tanzania, Viet Nam.”

Vaccine Program Is Run ‘Soft Mafia’ Style

When you look at all these areas of bribery and financial incentives, doesn’t it seem as though the entire vaccine program runs on financial coercion? A sort of “soft mafia” kind of operation, where the threats and promises all revolve around money and public/professional shaming versus accolades.

What would happen if all financial incentives were removed? All the performance bonuses paid to doctors, the freebies given to patients, the “charitable donations” to industry-friendly organizations and payments to front groups?

What would happen if parents were simply given unbiased evidence and no one was financially driven to pressure them either way? I don’t have the answer. It’s a thought experiment. But I suspect that vaccination rates would drop dramatically.

from: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/05/23/why-pediatricians-push-vaccines.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20230523&cid=DM1404352&bid=1808248248JAMA

Pediac

What’s In Your Beauty Product?

Posted on May 23, 2023 by marcia

The 10 Most Hazardous Cosmetic Products

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

An analysis of personal care and cleaning products found the top 10 most hazardous products include a children’s shampoo, JLo Glow perfume, Kaboom with OxiClean, Axe body spray and Organix Shampoo
Over-the-counter products are not inherently safe as there are nearly 13,000 chemicals used in cosmetics and only 10% have been tested for safety. This loophole was created by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, which does not force companies to disclose trade secrets
The Environmental Working Group found perfumes typically contain a dozen or more potentially hazardous chemicals, some of which are derived from petroleum. This chemical cocktail may be responsible for the rising number of adverse events reported after exposure to personal care products
Look for products without dangerous chemicals, including parabens, “fragrance,” triclosan and toluene, or consider making your own products at home from safe and natural ingredients

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 24, 2018.

Unfortunately, just because it’s sold over-the-counter does not mean a product is safe for you. In fact, of the nearly 13,000 chemicals used in cosmetics, only 10% have been tested for safety. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to regulate ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products, they often do not exercise it.¹

Adding insult to injury, the FDA tasks companies manufacturing and marketing cosmetics with ensuring their safety. Not only is this an obvious conflict of interest, but “neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific test to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients.”²

So, while cosmetic companies are responsible for substantiating safety, there are no required tests and the companies do not have to share safety data. In fact, the FDA isn’t even authorized to order recalls of hazardous chemicals from the market.

Cosmetic³ companies may also fall back on a loophole in the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act,⁴ which allows companies to withhold information relating to “trade secrets,” under which fragrances and flavor ingredients fall.⁵

Participating with Environmental Defense and other U.S. groups, the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) tested personal care products and cleaning products sold at major Canadian retailers in order to identify undisclosed fragrance ingredients.⁶ A lack of federal regulation in Canada and the U.S. results in an increased risk of exposure to consumers.

Your Right to Know

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a project of the BCPP, is a broad-based national coalition of nonprofit organizations whose mission it is to protect the health of consumers by securing reforms necessary to eliminate dangerous chemicals linked to adverse health effects.⁷

The research project was triggered by scientific literature and prior product testing indicating chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, endocrine disruption and other adverse effects were used heavily in beauty, personal care and cleaning products.

However, despite research evidence, there continues to be a lack of legislatively mandated labeling requirements, leaving consumers uninformed of the dangers in products they bring into their homes every day. For this test, BCPP and their partners purchased 140 different beauty, personal care and cleaning products for testing.

Of particular concern were products marketed to children, women of color and products marketed by celebrities as “good for the environment” or “green.” One of the more concerning results was that many of the personal care products tested contained more hazardous chemicals than the cleaning products.⁸

Millions of dollars and countless hours of lobbying have been poured into the industry’s fight against legislatively mandated ingredient disclosure. Fragrance is a big business as they are used in personal care products and cleaning products.

The value of the North American flavor and fragrance market is nearly $6 billion and forecast to reach $7.42 billion by 2020.⁹

Top 10 Most Hazardous Products Tested

The fragrance industry has nearly 4,000 fragrance chemicals at its disposal, which companies are not mandated to disclose. BCPP hired two independent third-party testing laboratories. The first assessed volatile organic compounds and the other performed two-dimensional gas chromatography on a subset of 32 products, including shampoo, deodorant, multipurpose cleaners and lotions.

There was an average of 136 chemicals in the cleaning products and an average of 146 in personal care products. The team then compared the product name against the type of chemicals triggering hormone disruption, asthma, developmental toxins and cancer.

From this data they ranked the top 10 products with the most hazardous chemicals in terms of the highest number linked to these health effects.¹⁰ The products making the top 10 dangerous products directly from the BCPP report were:¹¹

Just for Me Shampoo — A children’s shampoo, from a hair-relaxing kit marketed to kids of color by Strength of Nature.

JLo Glow Perfume — A fine fragrance made by Coty and endorsed by music, television and film icon Jennifer Lopez.

Kaboom with OxiClean Shower Tub & Tile Cleaner — Marketed as a “great cleaner that is safe and friendly to use,” made by Church & Dwight Co.

Olay Luminous Tone Body Lotion — Made by Procter & Gamble and marketed for its antiaging qualities.

Axe Phoenix Body Spray — A body spray made by Unilever and marketed to young men using an overtly sexual ad campaign.

Marc Jacobs Daisy Perfume — Another Coty fragrance carrying the famous designer’s name and using beatific, radiant young girls in its marketing campaigns.

Taylor Swift Wonderstruck Perfume — A Revlon fine fragrance endorsed by the beloved pop country singer Taylor Swift.

Organix (OGX) Shampoo — A Johnson & Johnson product marketed as part of a “green/sustainable” line of products to young women.

Formulation 64-RP — An industrial cleaner and disinfectant used by custodians firefighters and others.

White Linen Perfume — Created by Estée Lauder in 1978, marketed as “a beautiful perfume” for women young and old.

While these were the top 10 products, it is important to remember the team conducted tests on 140 personal care and cleaning products, the lowest of which, yellow soap, had 46 chemicals. Other cleaning products such as Kaboom with OxiClean Shower, Tub and Tile Cleaner had 229. Of the 25 personal care products tested, only three had less than 100 and none had less than 75.

Perfumes Tied to Chronic Disease

Are perfumes really the scent of danger? The Environmental Working Group (EWG) found the most popular perfumes, colognes and body sprays may contain trace amounts of natural essence, but they typically contain dozen or more potentially hazardous chemicals. Some of the synthetic chemicals are derived from petroleum.

In an independent laboratory test, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics¹² found 38 secret chemicals in 17 leading fragrances including top offenders from American Eagle, Coco Chanel, Britney Spears and Giorgio Armani. Following an analysis of the data, EWG commented:¹³

“The average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals not listed on the label. Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products.”

Makers of these popular perfumes often use marketing terms such as “floral,” “exotic” or “musky” without disclosing the complex cocktail of synthetic chemicals used to create the scent.

The average fragrance product tested by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics contains 14 chemicals not listed on the label, among those associated with hormone disruption, allergic reactions and substances without safety testing.

Undisclosed ingredients also include chemicals that accumulate in the human tissue, such as diethyl phthalates, found in nearly 97% of Americans and linked to sperm damage.

Their report¹⁴ also found the FDA was similarly uninformed, as a review of government records revealed a vast majority of the chemicals used in fragrances were not assessed for safety when used in spray-on personal care products.

Phthalates Continue To Be Used in Personal Care Products

However, it isn’t only the undisclosed chemicals under the generic label “fragrance” that are cause for concern. Some chemicals listed included ultraviolet protector chemicals associated with hormone disruption and nearly 24 chemical sensitizers responsible for triggering allergic reactions.

Some manufacturing companies are moving toward restricting or eliminating certain chemicals from fragrances, such as phthalates.¹⁵ Although phthalates are only one chemical of concern in fragrances, this is a step in the right direction.

Findings from a multicenter study made a strong correlation between a mother’s exposure to phthalates during pregnancy and changes to the development in a baby boy’s genitals.

Another study at an infertility clinic demonstrated exposure was correlated to DNA damage in sperm and a third study in children aged 4 to 9 linked behavioral problems to higher maternal exposure to low molecular-weight phthalates.¹⁶

Adverse Event Reports on the Rise

While FDA regulation is weak at best, it is completely ineffective when adverse effects are not reported. The FDA has an adverse event reporting system containing information on product complaints submitted to the FDA. The database is designed to support safety surveillance programs and includes symptoms, product information and patient outcome.¹⁷

The FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) adverse event reporting system was made publicly available in 2016.¹⁸ An analysis of events dated between 2004 and 2016, including voluntary submissions by consumers and health care professionals, showed over 5,000 events reported, at an average of 396 events per year.

However, the average number hides a growing trend. For instance, in 2015 there were 706 events reported and in 2016 there were over 1,500. The three most commonly reported products were hair care, skin care and tattoos. The authors of the report suggest more surveillance is needed, saying:¹⁹

“Unlike devices, pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements, cosmetic manufacturers have no legal obligation to forward adverse events to the FDA; CFSAN reflects only a small portion of all events. The data suggests that consumers attribute a significant portion of serious health outcomes to cosmetics.”

The spike in adverse effects reported to the FDA in 2016 occurred only after the agency appealed to consumers and physicians to report events related to products manufactured by Chaz Dean Cleansing Conditioners under the brand name Wen.²⁰

When adverse event complaints are made to a manufacturer they are not legally obligated to pass the reports to the FDA. Following an investigation, the FDA uncovered another 21,000 complaints made to Chaz Dean.²¹ It is highly likely adverse effects are commonly reported to the manufacturer and not to the FDA, indicating the total numbers in the CFSAN system are underreported.

Avoid These Toxic Chemicals in Your Personal Care Products

Despite over 21,000 consumer complaints to the contrary, Guthy-Renker, WEN’s marketing company, told NPR:²²

“We welcome legislative and regulatory efforts to further enhance consumer safety across the cosmetic products industry. However, there is no credible evidence to support the false and misleading claim that WEN products cause hair loss.”

Until control improves over chemicals used in personal care products, safety testing and regulation protecting the consumer, it’s important you read the label on every personal care and cosmetic product you purchase. Here’s a list of some of the more hazardous chemicals found in many personal care products:^23,²⁴

Parabens — This chemical, found in deodorants, lotion, hair products and cosmetics, is a hormone disruptor mimicking the action of the female hormone estrogen, which can drive the growth of human breast tumors. A study published in 2012 found parabens from antiperspirants and other cosmetics appear to increase your risk of breast cancer.²⁵

BHA and BHT — These chemicals are used as preservatives in makeup and moisturizers and are suspected endocrine disruptors.²⁶

Synthetic colors — FD&C or D&C are the labels used to represent artificial colors. The letters are preceded by a color and number, such as D&C Red 27. The colors are derived from coal tar or petroleum sources and are suspected carcinogens. They are also linked to ADHD in children.

Fragrance — This is a large category of chemicals protected as proprietary information, and manufacturers do not have to release the chemical cocktails used to produce the scents in fabric sheets, perfumes, shampoos, body washes — anything having an ingredient called “fragrance.”

Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives — While adding formaldehyde is banned as it is a known carcinogen, manufacturers have found other chemicals act as preservatives and release formaldehyde. Chemicals such as quaternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, methenamine and hydantoin are used in a variety of cosmetics and slowly release formaldehyde as they age.

Sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate — These are surfactants found in more than 90% of cleaning products and personal care products to make the product foam. They are known to irritate your eyes, skin and lungs and may interact with other chemicals to form nitrosamines, a known carcinogen.

Toluene — Toluene is made from petroleum or coal tar, and found in most synthetic fragrances and nail polish. Chronic exposure is linked to anemia, lowered blood cell count, liver or kidney damage, and may affect a developing fetus.

Triclosan — This antibacterial ingredient found in soaps and other products has been linked to allergies, endocrine disruption, weight gain and inflammatory responses, and may aggravate the growth of liver and kidney tumors.

Propylene glycol — This small organic alcohol is used as a skin conditioning agent and found in moisturizers, sunscreen, conditioners, shampoo and hairspray. It has also been added to medications to help your body absorb the chemicals more quickly and to electronic cigarettes. It is a skin irritant, is toxic to your liver and kidneys, and may produce neurological symptoms.^27,^28,²⁹

Prevent Exposure by Making Your Own

Your skin is an excellent drug delivery system, so what goes on your body is as important as what goes in your mouth. Chemicals you ingest may be filtered through a health gut microbiome, a protection you don’t get when they are absorbed through your skin.

Consider preventing exposure by making many of your own personal care products at home and consulting the EWG Skin Deep searchable database³⁰ to help you find personal care products free of potentially dangerous chemicals. Products bearing the “USDA 100% Organic” seal are among your safest bets if you want to avoid potentially toxic ingredients.

Seek out recipes to make your own homemade bath and handwashing products that don’t contain additional by-products and preservatives. For instance, coconut oil is a healthy skin moisturizer with natural antibacterial properties. Coconut oil may also be used as a leave in conditioner on your hair — be sure to start with very little.

Consider a 25% dilution of apple cider vinegar and water to wash your hair. Spritz your hair with the solution and leave it in for five minutes before thoroughly rinsing. You may have to tweak the dilution for your hair type as apple cider vinegar is a conditioning agent.

from: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/05/23/top-10-most-hazardous-products.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art3ReadMore&cid=20230523&cid=DM1404352&bid=1808248248

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Tyranny

Posted on May 23, 2023 by marcia

Gorsuch: Covid Lockdown Mania Stripped Civil Liberties

Wikimedia Commons, Franz Jantzen

POSTED BY: VIA BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE MAY 22, 2023

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch declares, “Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.” It’s about time, but it’s to late since the damage is already done. TN decried the wanton destruction of civil liberties from day one of the globalist-led pandemic.⁃ TN Editor

In a statement made today on a case concerning Title 42, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch breaks the painful silence on the topic of lockdowns and mandates, and presents the truth with startling clarity. Importantly, this statement from the Supreme Court comes as so many other agencies, intellectuals, and journalists are in flat-out denial of what happened to the country.

[T]he history of this case illustrates the disruption we have experienced over the last three years in how our laws are made and our freedoms observed.

Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes.

They shuttered businesses and schools public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too.

They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.

Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide.They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans.

They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.

While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking-by-litigation.

Doubtless, many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat.

A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force. We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes.

We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.

But maybe we have learned another lesson too. The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process.

Decisions produced by those who indulge no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate. Decisions announced on the fly are rarely as wise as those that come after careful deliberation. Decisions made by a few often yield unintended consequences that may be avoided when more are consulted. Autocracies have always suffered these defects. Maybe, hopefully, we have relearned these lessons too.

In the 1970s, Congress studied the use of emergency decrees. It observed that they can allow executive authorities to tap into extraordinary powers. Congress also observed that emergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them; some federal emergency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed.

At the same time, Congress recognized that quick unilateral executive action is sometimes necessary and permitted in our constitutional order. In an effort to balance these considerations and ensure a more normal operation of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, Congress adopted a number of new guardrails in the National Emergencies Act.

Despite that law, the number of declared emergencies has only grown in the ensuing years. And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half-century and in light of our Nation’s recent experience, another look is warranted. It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level.

At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another. Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Arizona v. Mayorkas marks the culmination of his three-year effort to oppose the Covid regime’s eradication of civil liberties, unequal application of law, and political favoritism. From the outset, Gorsuch remained vigilant as public officials used the pretext of Covid to augment their power and strip the citizenry of its rights in defiance of long standing constitutional principles.

While other justices (even some purported constitutionalists) absconded their responsibility to uphold the Bill of Rights, Gorsuch diligently defended the Constitution. This became most apparent in the Supreme Court’s cases involving religious liberty in the Covid era.

Beginning in May 2020, the Supreme Court heard cases challenging Covid restrictions on religious attendance across the country. The Court was divided along familiar political lines: the liberal bloc of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voted to uphold deprivations of liberty as a valid exercise of states’ police power; Justice Gorsuch led conservatives Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas in challenging the irrationality of the edicts; Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal bloc, justifying his decision by deferring to public health experts.

“Unelected judiciary lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people,” Roberts wrote in South Bay v. Newsom, the first Covid case to reach the Court.

And so the Court repeatedly upheld executive orders attacking religious liberty. In South Bay, the Court denied a California church’s request to block state restrictions on church attendance in a five to four decision. Roberts sided with the liberal bloc, urging deference to the public health apparatus as constitutional freedoms disappeared from American life.

In July 2020, the Court again split 5-4 and denied a church’s emergency motion for injunctive relief against Nevada’s Covid restrictions. Governor Steve Sisolak capped religious gatherings at 50 people, regardless of the precautions taken or the size of the establishment. The same order allowed for other groups, including casinos, to hold up to 500 people. The Court, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the liberal justices again, denied the motion in an unsigned motion without explanation.

Justice Gorsuch issued a one paragraph dissent that exposed the hypocrisy and irrationality of the Covid regime. “Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen ‘multiplex’ may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there,” he wrote. But the Governor’s lockdown order imposed a 50-worshiper limit for religious gatherings, no matter the buildings’ capacities.

“The First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion,” Gorsuch wrote. “But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”

Gorsuch understood the threat to Americans’ liberties, but he was powerless with Chief Justice Roberts cowing to the interests of the public health bureaucracy. That changed when Justice Ginsburg died in September 2020.

The following month, Justice Barrett joined the Court and reversed the Court’s 5-4 split on religious freedom in the Covid era. The following month, the Court granted an emergency injunction to block Governor Cuomo’s executive order that limited attendance at religious services to 10 to 25 people.

Gorsuch was now in the majority, protecting Americans from the tyranny of unconstitutional edicts. In a concurring opinion in the New York case, he again compared restrictions on secular activities and religious gatherings; “according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians… Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”

In February 2021, California religious organizations appealed for an emergency injunction against Governor Newsom’s Covid restriction. At the time, Newsom prohibited indoor worship in certain areas and banned singing. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Kavanaugh and Barrett, upheld the ban on singing but overturned the capacity limits.

Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion, joined by Thomas and Alito, that continued his critique of the authoritarian and irrational deprivations of America’s liberty as Covid entered its second year. He wrote, “Government actors have been moving the goalposts on pandemic-related sacrifices for months, adopting new benchmarks that always seem to put restoration of liberty just around the corner.”

Like his opinions in New York and Nevada, he focused on the disparate treatment and political favoritism behind the edicts; “if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.”

Thursday’s opinion allowed Gorsuch to review the devastating loss of liberty Americans suffered over the 1,141 days it took to flatten the curve.”

Read full story here…

from: https://www.technocracy.news/gorsuch-covid-lockdown-mania-stripped-civil-liberties/

Something On Gender Affirming

Posted on May 21, 2023 by marcia

Gender Transition Surgery: Dreams Turned to Nightmares

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Children are increasingly lured into “gender-affirming” hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries, are never given appropriate informed consent, and they have no idea what they’re getting themselves into. Many adults even underestimate how difficult and painful it will be
All it takes for a young girl to start the gender transition process to become a boy is a letter of support from a therapist. Typically, the therapist will write a letter of support after just one or two visits. Next, she’ll be sent to an endocrinologist who, after a single visit, will prescribe her testosterone
Some gender transition centers don’t even require any kind of mental health assessment, and several Planned Parenthood clinics are apparently handing out hormone replacement therapy (HRT) prescriptions on the first visit
While some pro-trans advocates insist HRT is harmless and reversible once you quit taking the hormones, this simply isn’t true. The effects of testosterone on a girl can be both profound and permanent, and can be seen within a matter of months
The transgender movement is a stepping stone in the transhumanist agenda. Ultimately, the goal is to get rid of flesh and blood bodies altogether and have our existence either within a synthetic body or as disembodied avatar in cyberspace, or both. Turning humanity into misgendered people incapable of natural reproduction is merely a first step in that direction

In the video above, WhatsHerFace Entertainment dives into the “unspoken reality of transgender sexual reassignment surgery and all of the pain, regret and horrors it entails.”

Most clear-headed adults would realize that surgically and chemically altering your anatomy from male to female, or female to male, is a complex and painful process. The problem is that it’s typically not level-headed adults making the decision to undergo gender reassignment. It’s primarily children who are being pushed into it, and they have no idea what they’re getting themselves into. Many adults don’t even realize how difficult and painful it will be.

As reported by WhatsHerFace, all it takes for a young girl to start the gender transition process to become a boy is a letter of support from a therapist. Typically, the therapist will write a letter of support after just one or two visits. Next, she’ll be sent to an endocrinologist who, after a single visit, will prescribe her testosterone.

While that’s alarmingly lax enough, some gender transition centers have cut through even that tiny bit of red tape. Some don’t require any kind of mental health assessment, and a number of Planned Parenthood clinics are apparently handing out hormone replacement therapy (HRT) prescriptions on the first visit.

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Is Not Harmless

While some pro-trans advocates insist that HRT is harmless and completely reversible once you quit taking the hormones, this simply isn’t true.¹ As reported by WhatsHerFace, the effects of testosterone on a girl can be both profound and permanent and can be seen within a matter of months. Effects of high-dose testosterone treatment include:

Voice deepening	Facial hair growth
Hair loss, receding hairline, balding	Increased libido
Sexual dysfunction	Increased aggression and unpredictable moods
Sterility	Enlargement of clitoris
Vaginal atrophy

As noted by Cleveland Clinic,² many of these changes persist even if you completely stop taking testosterone. Can a child or teenager fully comprehend what sterility might mean to them later in life? I don’t think so. I also don’t think they can comprehend how other physical and emotional changes might affect them, such as going bald.

Other types of hormone therapy include puberty blockers, which are given to children who have not yet entered puberty. These drugs delay the onset of sex characteristics associated with the gender you were at birth.

What’s particularly shocking is that the adults steering them toward gender reassignment don’t make it a point to thoroughly inform them about the difficulties they might face. Overall, I don’t think children and teens are capable of making the decision to transition, and encouraging or facilitating it really ought to be illegal.

Double-Mastectomies Performed at 15

While you’re considered too immature to get a full, unrestricted driver’s license until you’re 18, and can’t drink alcohol until you’re 21, “gender-affirming” sex hormone therapy can begin as early as 14,³ girls who think they’re boys can get a double-mastectomy at the age of 15, and full sex reassignment surgery is available at age 17 or 18, depending on the procedure, although the World Professional Association for Transgender Health is advocating for surgeries as early as 15.⁴

The Boston Children’s Hospital requires you to be 17 to undergo vaginoplasty, where a boy’s penis, testicles and scrotum are removed and a vagina is created, and 18 to undergo phalloplasty, the surgical construction of a penis, or metoidioplasty, where testosterone is used to enlarge the clitoris, from which a small penis is then constructed. Prosthetic testicles are also added in both of those cases.

Understanding Female-to-Male Reassignment Surgery

When a biological woman decides to surgically become a man, she’ll undergo phalloplasty, which involves taking large sections of skin from her forearms and/or thigh to fashion a penis. As you can see from the images included in WhatsHerFace’s video, this will leave a very large unsightly scar on one or both forearms, and while the donation site heals, there’s always a risk of infection.

Since the donation site needs to be hairless, electrolysis must first be performed. If electrolysis fails and hair grows back in the donated skin, the trans male may struggle with painful hair growth inside his urethra for the rest of his life.

Trans men who are on testosterone also face gynecological challenges, especially vaginal dryness, and vaginal atrophy, which can be very painful. Pelvic pain and bacterial vaginosis are other commonly reported issues.^5,6

Understanding Male-to-Female Reassignment Surgery

During vaginoplasty, which is where a biological male surgically transitions to female, the surgeon will use skin from the patient’s scrotum to create a vaginal canal. If additional skin grafts are needed, they’ll use skin from the sides of their abdomen.

Before the skin grafts are taken, he must undergo electrolysis on the chosen donor sites. However, electrolysis does not always permanently eliminate hair growth, especially not male hair growth, which tends to be more profuse, and if the hair grows back, the trans male can end up with hair growing in his vaginal canal.

Vaginoplasties aren’t always successful, and if they must be redone, a part of the patient’s colon will typically be used instead. A downside of this procedure, called colovaginoplasty, is an offensive discharge odor.

After vaginoplasty, the patient must then dilate the vagina on a daily basis. This basically entails stretching (dilating) the vagina using a lubricated dildo to prevent it from sealing shut. Your body basically views this new opening as a wound and will do what it can to heal it. Trans women must do this several times a day for the rest of their lives.

Dreams That Nightmares Are Made Of

Dilation is one of the challenges of male-to-female sex reassignment surgery (SRS) that most people underestimate. Here’s one testimony included in WhatsHerFace’s video.

“Three months ago, I started this ‘dream’ (nightmarish hell) that is SRS … Dilating is Hell, everything is sensitive or sore, my … leg movements are, while better than before, still pretty limited. I feel constant stinging and burning sensations pretty much around the clock in my crotch area.

This is probably the most suicidal I’ve ever been since before I actually transitioned. This ‘vaginal canal’ (which is actually a f***ing open wound) has given me nothing but grievances and Jesus f*** am I tired of it.

I’ve actually been considering asking my surgeon whether or not it’s possible to just close this pseudo-vaginal canal or just get rid of it all together. I wish somebody had told me even just a third of what a hellride this was going to be. But nobody did. And now I’m stuck with this nightmare.

I’m pretty much considering just stopping dilation. ‘The canal will shrink,’ so what? Maintaining it is pretty much keeping my whole … life prisoner of this thing. While I didn’t like what I had before, at all, it still allowed me freedom … For comparison, this shit is like going from parole straight into solitary confinement.”

Sure, you might think, but that’s just recovery. Eventually, all will be well. Maybe, maybe not. Here are the words of a trans female who is still struggling three years after her vaginoplasty.

“Suicidal thoughts. Three years post-op SRS and still having discharge and pain … I had SRS in 2016, August … and I’m experiencing discharge and pain again from my neovagina after it had gone away for two years. Orgasming is very difficult these days and when I do I feel less than half of what I used to feel down there.

I am normally a very strong person who doesn’t easily give up but over the last couple of weeks I find myself crying myself asleep almost every night. Wondering why I had to get this surgery.

Since the surgery I haven’t dated anyone and everyone I have been on a date with turned me down diplomatically when I came out and discussed that I have a neovagina. I’m not saying no one should get this surgery and I’m sure there are people who have amazing results but far too often I hear that people experience complications from SRS.

I find life very draining these days. I have to clean my vagina with isobetadine to keep smell away and to keep the discharge at bay. I have to dilate once a day still. I should have thought things more carefully through. I thought SRS was a wonderful end point to a difficult journey. It opened up a whole other can of worms.

I could have just had anal sex and left my genitals alone and maybe have the testicles removed. Doing something so taxing as having the tissues inverted turned out to be such a bad idea. I wish I could just have the vagina closed up at this point. I don’t see myself ever having sex again either way. I know I should be grateful for having had a surgery of 22,000 CAD paid for by the government. But I feel lied to. I feel so stupid.”

Parents Are Removed From the Equation

Consider those words, and then consider that pro-trans ideology is now being openly taught in kindergarten through high school across the U.S. Children are being brainwashed into thinking they can choose their own gender and that it’s as easy to switch genders as it is to switch clothes. It’s not.

Yet, the horrors of SRS are being so well hidden that neither parents nor their trans children understand what’s in store, both in the short and long term. While there are cases where everything goes right and the boy or girl finally feels “complete” after SRS,⁷ there seem to be far more cases where they end up even more miserable.

What’s worse, some states, like Washington, are considering laws that severely infringe on parent’s rights to be involved in their child’s decision to transition. For example, as reported by ZeroHedge:⁸

“April 12 [2023], House lawmakers debated Senate Bill 5599,⁹ which creates an exemption for the state that grants it the right to not be required to notify parents of minors who have left their homes because their parents wouldn’t let them pursue gender transition medical procedures …

Republican state Rep. Chris Corry said the bill ‘erodes parental rights in the state of Washington.’ ‘Essentially what the bill would do would be if a child left a parents’ home for certain medical care and went to a shelter or host family, that shelter or host family would not be required to notify the parents of their child’s whereabouts,’ Corry said.

‘This is obviously a fundamental violation of parental rights and something that’s deeply concerning for parents across Washington state.’ State Rep. Peter Abbarno, a Republican, said the crux of the debate over the bill was whether the state be permitted to ‘essentially hide where the child is.’

Most parents, Corry said, would ‘go to the ends of the earth to find their child’ if they disappeared after an argument. ‘And the fact that we have a bill that may become law that would say, ‘we’re not going to tell you,’ was really just a bridge too far for us,’ Corry said.

Corry told The Epoch Times that, under the bill, a disagreement between a child and parents over the child’s desire for a medical transition constitutes ‘abuse and neglect,’ only because the parent hasn’t ‘properly affirmed what the child wants.’

Corry said there are already laws that protect children from abuse and neglect in the state that require ‘solid and compelling reasons’ why children would need to be removed from their homes. ‘What’s frustrating is even in those cases, the parents still have a right to know where their kids are after they’ve been removed,’ Corry said. ‘In this case, parents would have no idea.’”

Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria: A Social Contagion

According to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, data from Western countries suggest gender dysphoria is now at 8% among children,¹⁰ compared to just a fraction of a percent among older adults.¹¹

Kids who question their gender but aren’t good candidates for permanent transitioning may be as high as 1 in 5!¹² In the U.S., research suggests 5% of 18- to 29-year-olds identify as trans, compared to 1.6% of 30- to 49-year-olds and only 0.3% of those 50 and older.¹³

How is this even possible? How is it that so many young people are suddenly gender confused? Social pressure appears to have a lot to do with it, and that includes pressure from adults, such as school teachers. But widespread trauma may also play a role.

According to a 2018 transgender identity study¹⁴ described in Psychology Today,¹⁵ “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD) “appears to be a novel condition that emerges from cohort and contagion effects and novel social pressures.”

As such, its etiology and epidemiology is distinct from conventional gender dysphoria described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Remarkably, 80% of the teens identifying as transgender were girls identifying as boys.

Not surprisingly for those of us who understand how the internet is being used to manipulate impressionable minds, 63.5% of parents reported that shortly before their child announced they were trans, they’d noticed a marked increase in social media consumption. In particular, parents had noticed their child was following popular YouTubers who discussed their transition.

Signs of Indoctrination

Among the many surprises discovered in that study, the investigator, Dr. Lisa Littman, a behavioral scientist at Brown University, found that one of the many beliefs espoused by these trans teens was that anyone who isn’t specifically transgendered is “evil,” including gays and lesbians. As reported by Psychology Today:¹⁶

“Parents further reported being derogatorily called ‘breeders’ by their children, or being routinely harassed by children who played ‘pronoun-police.’ The observation that they no longer recognized their child’s voice came up time and again in parental reports.

In turn, the eerie similarity between the youth’s discourse and trans-positive online content was repeatedly emphasized. Youth were described as ‘sounding scripted,’ ‘reading from a script,’ ‘wooden,’ ‘like a form letter,’ ‘verbatim,’ ‘word for word,’ or ‘practically copy and paste.’”

To me, the fact that trans teens sound like carbon-copies of each other is a sign of indoctrination. A script has been unleashed, and trans activists are repeating that script with the aim of indoctrinating its audience. We saw the same thing happen during COVID. Mainstream media repeated the script of the official COVID narrative, word for word, day in and day out. Repetition — that’s how you indoctrinate people.

Now, we also have the added pressures of corporations that view the trans agenda as a cash cow (although most who have gone that route are finding out the hard way that trans is still a tiny minority of their customer base, and the rest are not willing to encourage the fomentation of a mental health problem).

Even if corporate CEOs aren’t gung-ho about the trans agenda, many are lured in that direction because they want to optimize their corporate equality index (CEI).

Is Transgenderism a Maladapted Collective Stress Response?

That said, Littman hypothesized that ROGD may be a maladaptive coping mechanism for other underlying mental health issues or trauma. In essence, it may be a form of maladapted collective stress response. Psychology Today wrote:¹⁷

“It is clear from Littman’s study that the rise of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which seems to predominantly involve natal females, points to a complex web of social pressures, changing cultural norms, and new modes of distress and coping that warrant further investigation. For parents, educators, and clinicians alike, caution is warranted in dealing with this growing phenomenon.”

Cui Bono?

So, who benefits from this maladaptive groupthink? Primarily, that would be hospitals, doctors and surgeons conducting gender reassignment surgeries, and, of course, Big Pharma. The cost for a complete sex change costs, on average, $132,000, but can run as high as $200,000 to $300,000 by the time everything is said and done.

Dr. Robert Malone¹⁸ recently calculated it would cost $102 billion to transition the current cohort of young adults (a total of 2.58 million kids, teens, and young adults between the ages of 10 and 24) who believe they’re trans. Right now, that’s an untapped market, and it’s quite clear the health care industry is chomping at the bit to get it going.

At present, insurance companies do not have to cover the cost of sex reassignment surgery, but that could soon change, as the Affordable Care Act website is actively encouraging trans people to sue for unlawful sex discrimination.¹⁹

What’s Behind the Trans Agenda?

In closing, it’s worth noting that many of the same people who attacked circumcision and fought against body shaming are now promoting transgenderism, which seems to be dehumanizing to the point of self-mutilation.

In the video above, self-proclaimed feminist and investigative journalist Jennifer Bilek discusses the forces behind the trans movement and “gender-affirming medical care” for children.

In short, it’s a stepping stone in the transhumanist agenda. Ultimately, the goal is to get rid of flesh and blood bodies altogether and have our existence either within a synthetic body or as disembodied avatar in cyberspace, or both.

Turning humanity into misgendered people incapable of natural reproduction is merely a first step in that direction. Next comes the melding of man with machine and artificial intelligence. Over time, the flesh and blood part of humans will be reduced while the synthetic parts will increase.

As explained by Bilek, the trans ideology promotes the idea that you can choose your gender, even though that is a biological impossibility, because that’s a steppingstone to the grander ideology that you can exist without a body altogether, in cyberspace, where you can be whomever you want.

They want the younger generations to get comfortable with the idea that gender is fluid and based on how you feel, rather than what you are, as well as the idea that you shouldn’t want to reproduce, because human reproduction will be outsourced to the tech industry.

Over the past decade, Bilek notes, the trans argument has gone from “some people are born in the wrong body,” to simply advocating for the right to augment yourself in whatever way you see fit, to add or strip yourself of whatever appendages you don’t want. According to Bilek, it’s a fetish-based cult, and seemingly rational people are buying into it, not understanding what it’s all about.

I believe the transgender movement poses a severe threat to mental, emotional and physical health, and must be counteracted by level-headed discourse. How can anyone say they’re concerned about children’s health and welfare while simultaneously promoting irreversible surgeries that will pose lifelong risks to their health and render many of them sterile?

It’s one thing to change a child’s pronouns. It’s another to cut off their breasts and penises just because they say they feel at odds with their — for now — elected gender. The very idea that a child should be allowed to decide with such lifelong implications as mutilating their sex organs is incomprehensibly negligent.

And when you consider the hidden motive behind this movement, it reinforces the anti-human, anti-humane nature of it, because children, who are our future, are being physically and psychologically sacrificed to further an ideology that seeks to destroy the human species and turn it into something it’s not.

What to Know About Protecting Your Choice in the Hospital

Posted on May 21, 2023 by marcia

How to Save Your Life and Those You Love When Hospitalized

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORy AT-A-GLANCE

Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford have founded an organization to address the forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well
The Caregivers and Consent document they created is an “advance decision” document. So, the moment you enter the hospital, the hospital staff know what they can and cannot do to you; they are legally required to respect your current care decisions. And unlike an Advance Directive (which only kicks in when you are incapacitated) the Caregivers and Consent document goes into effect immediately
It’s important to complete and notarize your Caregivers and Consent document BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital
Make sure you send the completed, signed and notarized document to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested. The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent document entered into your electronic medical record
Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized document and keep one copy on your person, in case you ever have an accident or acute illness requiring hospitalization. Also provide copies to the attending physician and nurse once hospitalized
Also, should you become hospitalized (and therefore unable to personally send the document to the CEO), designate a family member or friend to send your Caregivers and Consent document on your behalf. Additional recommendations to ensure your safety are included

In this interview, Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford detail how you can protect yourself from one of the top contributors to premature death, namely conventional hospital care. The key here is to understand what the dangers are and take proactive measures to guard yourself and your family from them.

Nearly 10 years ago, I interviewed Dr. Andrew Saul, author of “Hospitals and Health: Your Orthomolecular Guide to a Shorter, Safer Hospital Stay,” in which he details how to minimize your risk of being a victim of a medical error.

First and foremost, Saul recommended making sure you have a patient advocate, someone who can speak on your behalf if you’re incapacitated and make sure you’re receiving the correct medication and treatment. During COVID, however, family or friends were not allowed into the hospital, and patients were routinely bullied into treatments they did not want or consent to.

The good news is, Bartlett and Crawford have developed a legal document that, when served to the hospital in the proper way, can ensure that your medical wishes are honored. By eliminating any confusion about your consent (or denial of consent), this document can literally save your life.

Why ProtocolKills.com Was Created

Bartlett and Crawford have founded an organization to address the lethal and, in many cases, forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well. Crawford explains:

“I created a website called ProtocolKills.com. This came after I was in the hospital with COVID. In the process of going to the hospital, I was denied informed consent and was completely unaware of some of the things they were doing to me. I was given five rounds of remdesivir, which nearly took my life, and I did not even know that I was being poisoned at the time …

During that time in the hospital, I went from thinking I was going to go home after I got oxygen to actually feeling like that I was going to die. I was almost certain I was going to die after being given just the first dose of remdesivir …

[And then there was] the constant push for the vaccine in the hospital, the harassment for not getting vaxxed, and the fact that I was given medication without my knowledge at all, which led me to start the website to not only inform people about what was going on, but [as] a platform to allow other victims who were not as fortunate as me.

Many of them, the majority of them, did not make it out alive. So, it’s a platform for them to share their story. We have over 250 stories on there about what they faced in the hospital. We really wanted to get this information out there to the public, but we also wanted to give a solution, not just to scare people. And that’s where I ended up meeting Laura.”

National Hospital Hostage Hotline to the Rescue

Bartlett continues:

“Before I met Greta at the beginning of COVID, in early 2020, I started helping my brother, Dr. Richard Bartlett, who had a protocol utilizing inhaled budesonide steroid as part of his protocol to treat COVID early. We also found it very effective once people were in the hospital to help reverse [the infectious process] and also the scarring and the inflammation of the lungs.

There are instances where it even helped people who were on ventilators as long as 30 days come off the ventilator and go home. So, I was helping him get that message out in early 2020. I’m not a doctor. I’m not a nurse. I’m just somebody who could help get that known around the world. My background is in media PR …

In the process, people who knew my brother, knew me, started reaching out to both of us with stories that they were in the hospital and they were having a hard time getting the doctor to respect their right to informed consent. It was an overwhelming number of instances where people just felt like they were being bullied or coerced, that their right to try budesonide, for instance, was just dismissed.

And it was almost as if informed consent didn’t exist. But in fact, it never went away. Even during the COVID shielding for hospitals, informed consent between the doctor and the patient never went away. You always had the right to informed consent.

So that’s where my work started. In the process, since there were so many people reaching out for help, I thought, ‘Well, why doesn’t somebody come up with a way for people to quickly access some information of what their rights are and their patient rights?’

So, I started a nationwide hotline, called the Hospital Hostage Hotline [call or text 888-c19-emergency, or 888-219-3637]. It’s still in effect. I still get calls from all over the country. And I’ve been able to help people who went in even for non-COVID reasons like a urinary tract infection that was [also] diagnosed as COVID, and they were being pushed towards a protocol and told they couldn’t leave the hospital.

They needed to know they could, that they always had the right to leave AMA — Against Medical Advice — if that’s what they chose. They also have the right to either consent or not consent to things and it should be respected. I realized that one of the biggest tools for getting that informed consent notice to the doctor was not to just verbally say it, but to have it in writing. These aren’t my original ideas.

I actually had a hospital insider reach out … somebody who had been in the system and knew how to navigate the system at a high level in administration, give me some tips and tools on how to navigate the hospital system to make sure that informed consent was not only documented and delivered effectively to get into the electronic medical record, but also, what their basic patient rights were and how to advocate for them.”

You Have the Right to Leave

One drawback of signing an AMA is that insurance won’t pay for your treatment. That threat will often keep patients in the hospital because they’ll have to pay out of pocket. So, it can be used against you.

“Profit has been a big factor in a lot of suffering,” Bartlett says. “Patients were afraid to leave because they were told, like in the instance of a gentleman that I was helping in New Jersey who went in for a urinary tract infection.

He was an elderly man. This was early 2020. They quickly tested him for COVID and started him on that road towards a ventilator. And they told him flat out, ‘If you leave, none of this will be covered by insurance.’ So that was a big factor.”

Hospitals may also misinform you about your AMA rights, as we’ve seen repeatedly during COVID. More often than not, the hospital’s reluctance to release a patient has to do with protecting its revenues. Bartlett offers the following story to illustrate:

“Somebody that I was helping advocate for said the doctor actually said to them, ‘You cannot leave.’ This person was 15 or 16 days into their COVID diagnosis and they were feeling better. They were likely not COVID positive …

That’s where the name of the hotline came from. They actually felt like hostages. That’s what they were reporting to me. ‘I feel like I’m held prisoner.’ But in fact, they always had the right to leave a hospital whenever they chose to. It’s not up to the doctor when they can leave. They have to make that medical choice for themselves, whether or not they feel like they can leave.”

A Novel Consent Document That Can Save Your Life

Video Link

Patients clearly need a way to put themselves back in the driver’s seat, and the novel medical consent document Bartlett and Crawford created, available on OurPatientRights.com, is the most powerful way I’ve seen so far to do that. As explained by Bartlett:

“What we learned from this whole ordeal over the last couple of years is that there was a need for a novel document that did not exist, to our knowledge, that covers your written consent. A document that documents your current consent, not an advance directive that kicks in after you’re incapacitated.

Before you go into the hospital, write down your consent wishes so that everybody involved in your care within the hospital will have eyes on it because it’s put into your electronic medical record. It’s notarized. It’s signed before you go in. That’s the key. So do it while you have full capacity.

It’s a novel strategy. I’m so grateful to the hospital insider who saw the problem and helped us navigate the system, so that we have an insider’s perspective on how to do this to keep people safe.”

As noted by Crawford, while COVID-19 may seem like a distant memory, people are still being hospitalized and diagnosed with COVID, and are being held hostage by a hostile medical system seemingly intent on milking them for all their worth, until death, if need be.

This is where filing a written medical consent form can help save your life. No doctor can override your written decision (consent) declining certain medications or treatments. Verbal communication is not enough. It must be in writing, notarized and delivered in a manner that formally serves the hospital and puts their physicians on notice.

General Consent Vs. Specific Consent

As explained by Bartlett, when you enter a hospital, you must sign a general consent authorization form. This is basically a contract between you and the hospital. Since you have bodily autonomy, they need your consent before they can do anything to you.

Typically, the general consent form authorizes hospital staff to test, treat and care for you in whatever way they see fit — and when a patient signs the general consent authorization, physicians feel justified that they can implement a hospital protocol without further explaining the risks, benefits or alternatives of that protocol to the patient.

Now, if you’re well enough to read the entire document, and see something in there that you don’t agree with, you can strike the sentence or paragraph and initial it, to indicate that you do not consent to that specific detail. However, that still doesn’t offer you much protection.

What you need is a much more specific document where you detail the types of treatments you consent to and the ones you don’t. You need to carve out a niche from the general consent form that specifies exactly what you do (and do not) consent to. And you need to be clear. Fortunately, the Caregivers and Consent document carves out that niche to communicate clearly to all physicians your exact consent wishes.

“You need a written consent document that, in addition to just the general consent, is a contract between you and the doctor, so he knows, he’s put on notice, what it is that you absolutely do not consent to. For instance, a COVID injection, if that’s your wishes,” Bartlett explains.

“They have a code of ethics, the American Medical Association guidance to physicians, per the ethics opinion 2.1.1, that when the patient surrogate has provided specific written consent, the consent form should be included in the record. This is key. Write it down. You don’t need an attorney. You don’t need any fancy training. You don’t need to be a doctor, don’t need to be a nurse.

You can write it down, and then, when you deliver it in our specific way — and it’s very important how you deliver it — it gets put into the electronic medical record for everybody to see. Now you’ve got receipts, that if you do something against consent, it’s intentional. OK?

So, here’s the website you can find a template for that. It’s called OurPatientRights.com. What you’ll see there are two PDF documents. [On one of the PDFs there are two pages.] One is the actual template, the other one is instructions on how to deliver it. And you can edit the document by the way. You can write your own. It’s just a template. But there’s also very specific instructions on how you are going to deliver this so it’s not disregarded.

Here’s what you’re going to see in the document. ‘I [your name] advise all physicians, nurses, and other caregivers that this Caregivers and Consent document reflects my current wishes for my care and are carefully planned and intentional wishes.’ That’s very important because it’s current. It’s not going to kick in when I’m incapacitated.”

Your Written Consent Must Be Respected

Advance medical directives don’t kick in until or unless you’re incapacitated, so that’s another completely different kind of document reflecting current consent wishes. What Bartlett and Crawford have created is an “advance decision” document. So, the moment you enter the hospital, they know what they can and cannot do to you. And, they are legally required to respect your written directives. The following section of the document reads:

“Receipt of this Caregivers and Consent document by the hospital serves as notice that I will report to the Medical Board any physician who violates my carefully planned and intentional wishes that are based upon my deeply held religious and spiritual beliefs and are delineated within this Caregivers and Consent document.”

This puts the doctor on notice. This isn’t a threat. It’s merely a factual statement that if anyone goes against your wishes, they’re intentionally disregarding your consent. Once it’s in your electronic medical record, they can’t say they didn’t know that you did not consent to a specific test, drug, vaccine or procedure. So, ignoring your written consent is then actually a criminal offense akin to assault and battery. It’s also medical malpractice.

“Let me tell you, there are good physicians and they are clamoring for something like this,” Bartlett says. “They are thankful there is something they can use to push back against administration and say, ‘I’m not going to violate this person’s written consent. I’m not going to do this to this person …’

With these documents, if you are blatantly refusing to honor a patient’s wishes and religious beliefs, and you’re doing it against these documented legal forms, then you risk losing your license altogether as a physician and never working in medicine again …

But you need it in writing … and it needs to be served in a very specific way. You need to do this before you ever go to the hospital. Have it handy in case you get yourself into a predicament, like a multi-car pileup on the highway and an ambulance transports you to the hospital. The time to have this done is before there’s a problem.”

The document also specifies that “All items in this Caregivers and Consent document shall remain in effect unless I choose to revoke in writing; no one else may alter or amend this Caregivers and Consent document.” So there can be no misunderstanding. Your doctor or nurse cannot claim you gave implied consent because you mumbled something incoherent in your sleep. In other words, if you didn’t change your consent wishes in writing, you didn’t change your consent wishes. Period.

What’s in the Caregivers and Consent Document Template

As mentioned, you can customize your Caregivers and Consent document any way you like. But to give people a starting point, the template, available on OurPatientRights.com, includes things like:

“I do not consent to the use of medications without my being informed of each medication’s risks, benefits and alternatives before they are ordered. Only after that information is communicated shall I choose to either grant consent or to not grant consent for each and every medication that is ordered.”
“I do not consent to receiving any vaccine or booster for COVID-19 or COVID-19 variant.”
“I do not consent to receiving the seasonal flu vaccine.”
“I request and consent to the use of 1 mg of budesonide via nebulizer every 4 to 6 hours for COVID-19 or COVID-19 variant diagnosis with respiratory issues.”

If you want to, you could change the verbiage to state that you do not consent to ANY vaccine. If you have allergies, add that to the list. Personally, I would recommend adding the following dietary notice:

“I do not consent to receiving ANY processed food, such as high-fructose corn syrup or seed oils. The only acceptable oil for me is butter, ghee, beef tallow or coconut oil. Acceptable forms of protein would be eggs, lamb, bison, beef or non-farmed seafood; but they must not be prepared with seed oils. If the hospital is unable to provide this food for me, my family or friends will bring it for me.
Additionally, I do not consent to not being able to take my normal supplements while in the hospital.”

I would strongly recommend that you integrate this additional clause because it’s a stealth form of abuse. These kinds of foods can only impair your effort to get well, no matter what your problem is. You may also want to add a notice saying you do not consent to receive blood donations from COVID-19 vaccinated donors, and that all blood donations must be from donors confirmed to have not received any COVID-19 vaccines.

Important: Follow Proper Procedure!

As mentioned multiple times in this interview, it’s crucial to follow the proper procedure. Here’s a summary of the necessary steps:

1.Complete your customized and personalized Caregivers and Consent form BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital.

2.Get the form notarized. Make sure you sign the form in front of the notary.

3.Send the completed, signed, notarized form to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested.

The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent forms entered into your electronic medical record.

4.Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized form and keep one copy on your person or in your wallet or purse, and another in the glove compartment of your car, in case you ever have an accident. Also provide copies to family or friends. If you happen to be hospitalized before you’ve had the chance to send the documents, have one of them follow the delivery procedure outlined on the General Instructions form.

5.Once you’re hospitalized, you or one of your contacts will give one copy to your attending physician and another to your nurse, and inform them that this document is already in your electronic medical record, or that the hospital will be served the documents shortly. Distribute additional copies to other care providers as needed.

6.Also, upon hospitalization, request to see your electronic medical record to make sure your Caregivers and Consent form has been entered. It is your right to see your electronic medical record, and it’s available through an online portal, so don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Also routinely check your medical record (or have your patient advocate do it for you) to make sure your wishes are being followed and that you’re not being given something you’ve denied consent for.

Crawford notes:

“What we’ve experienced using these documents is a complete change in the attending physician, from being aggressive and maybe trying to push you, to being very helpful and efficient. Once they receive these documents, they just do a 180. As a matter of fact, one patient’s brother told me he’s getting treated better than he’s ever been treated at a hospital before.”

Again, having this document in your medical record virtually guarantees that they cannot harm you by doing something you don’t agree with. Of course, some psychopath might ignore your directives, but they’ll have to pay a hefty price, as they’re guaranteed to lose a malpractice suit and be stripped of their medical license. The legal consequences are so severe that the person doing it would have to be beyond irrational.

Keep in mind that while you can request and consent to certain treatments, such as ivermectin, for example, this document CANNOT force your doctor or hospital to use that treatment. They can still refuse to administer something you’ve consented to.

They cannot, however, administer something that you’ve declined consent for. The ace up your sleeve at that point is that you can still sign out AMA (against medical advice), get out alive, and seek desired treatment elsewhere. Getting out alive is the key goal.

More Information

Again, here are the three resources created by Bartlett and Crawford:

ProtocolKills.com — Here you can find a hospital protocol for COVID, information about remdesivir, patient rights information, alternative health care options and patient testimonies
OurPatientRights.com — Here you can download the template for the Caregivers and Consent document and general instructions
Hospital Hostage Hotline — Call or text 888-c19-emergency, or 888-219-3637

In closing, please share this information with everyone you know. Bring it to your church, synagogue and local community groups. Everyone needs to know they can secure their patient right to informed consent and how to do it so that their wishes cannot be ignored. This is the most effective way to empower yourself when it comes to your medical care. So please, help spread the word.

from: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/05/21/bartlett-and-crawford-consent-form.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2ReadMore&cid=20230521_HL2&cid=DM1403018&bid=1806109132

Oh, Good, Kamala is in Charge of Taking Care of AI

Posted on May 19, 2023 by marcia

White House To Crack Down On AI, Appoints VP Kamala Harris To Lead Task Force

POSTED BY: MEHUL REUBEN DAS VIA FIRSTPOST MAY 8, 2023

Please Share This Story!

AI needs to be regulated. The vacuous White House has stepped in to save the day by appointing the even more vacuous VP Kamala Harris to head the task force. What’s wrong with this picture? What could possibly go wrong? The least intelligent will try to understand the most intelligent and rein it in from destroying humanity. ⁃ TN Editor

The White House has revealed that they are ready with a plan to regulate AI. The effort will be led by VP Kamala Harris. The idea is to get companies like Google, Microsoft, and ChatGPT’s founder OpenAI, to participate in a public review.

The White House has outlined its strategy to tighten down on the AI race, amid mounting fears that technology may disrupt society as we know it. The Biden Administration described the technology as ‘one of the most powerful’ of our time, but said, “But in order to exploit the benefits it brings, we must first limit its hazards.”

The goal is to establish 25 research institutions around the United States in order to obtain assurances from four businesses, including Google, Microsoft, and ChatGPT’s founder OpenAI, that they will ‘participate in a public review.’

Many of the world’s brightest minds have warned about the dangers of AI, specifically that it could destroy humanity if a risk assessment is not conducted immediately. Elon Musk and other tech titans are concerned that AI may soon outperform human intellect and think for itself.

This implies it would no longer require or listen to humans, giving it the ability to steal nuclear codes, cause pandemics, and trigger world conflicts.

Vice President Kamala Harris, who has the lowest popularity rating of any VP, will oversee the containment effort as ‘AI czar’ with a $140 million budget. In comparison, the Space Force has a $30 billion budget.

Harris met with officials from Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI on Thursday to explore ways to mitigate such possible hazards.

The White House said in a statement, “As we shared today with CEOs of companies at the forefront of American AI innovation, the private sector has an ethical, moral, and legal responsibility to ensure the safety and security of their products.”

“And, in order to safeguard the American people, every firm must follow current laws. I’m looking forward to the follow-through and follow-up in the coming weeks.” Each company’s AI will be evaluated this summer at a hacker event in Las Vegas to check if it adheres to the administration’s ‘AI Bill of Rights.’

The November release of the ChatGPT chatbot sparked a renewed discussion over AI and the government’s role in monitoring the technology. There are ethical and cultural problems since AI may create human-like text and phoney visuals.

These include distributing harmful content, violating data privacy, amplifying existing bias, and – Elon Musk’s favourite – destroying humanity.

“President Biden has been clear that when it comes to AI, we must place people and communities at the centre by supporting responsible innovation that serves the public good while protecting our society, security, and economy,” reads the White House announcement.

“Importantly, this means that businesses have a basic obligation to ensure the safety of their goods before they are deployed or made public.” According to the White House, the public review will be carried out by thousands of community partners and AI specialists.

Professionals in the industry will test the models to evaluate how they correspond with the principles and practises defined in the AI Bill of Rights and the AI Risk Management Framework.

Biden’s AI Bill of Rights, which was released in October 2022, lays forth a framework for how the government, technology corporations, and individuals may collaborate to create more accountable AI.

The measure has five principles: safe and effective systems, protections against algorithmic discrimination, data privacy, notice and explanation, and human alternatives, considerations, and backup.

The White House stated in October, “This framework applies to automated systems that have the potential to meaningfully impact the American public’s rights, opportunities, or access to critical resources or services.”

The White House’s plan of action comes after Musk and 1,000 other technological executives, including Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, signed an open letter in March.

Musk is concerned that technology will evolve to the point where it will no longer require – or listen to – human intervention. It is a widely held fear that has even been acknowledged by the CEO of AI, the company that created ChatGPT, who stated earlier this month that the technology could be developed and used to commit ‘widespread’ cyberattacks.

Read full story here…

from: https://www.technocracy.news/white-house-to-crack-down-on-ai-appoints-vp-kamala-harris-to-lead-task-force/

AN mRNA Jab for Everything

Posted on April 26, 2023 by marcia

Coming Soon — mRNA Cancer and Flu ‘Vaccines’

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Even though the mRNA COVID jabs are the most dangerous medical products ever to hit the market, vaccine makers and U.S. health agencies are steamrolling right ahead with a long list of mRNA-based shots, including combination shots to cover multiple viral infections
If the COVID shots are the most dangerous injections we’ve ever seen, what makes them think mRNA shots for cancer, heart disease, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), HIV or any other condition will be any safer?
Moderna is planning to offer a personalized cancer shot by the end of 2028. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already designated it as a “breakthrough therapy,” which means the regulatory review will be expedited. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is also fast-tracking it under the European “priority medicines” (PRIME) scheme
mRNA-based influenza shots are also in the works. Pfizer and Moderna both launched mRNA flu jab trials in the fall of 2022
Moderna is also developing mRNA shots for shingles and genital herpes based on the same platform used for its COVID jab — a technology that doesn’t stop infection and can depress your immune function such that you become more prone to infections and chronic diseases of all kinds

Even though the mRNA COVID jabs are the most dangerous medical products ever to hit the market, vaccine makers and U.S. health agencies are steamrolling ahead with a long list of mRNA-based shots, including combination shots to cover multiple viral infections at the same time.

If the COVID shots are the most dangerous injections we’ve ever seen, what makes them think mRNA shots for cancer, heart disease, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), HIV or any other condition will be any safer?

It’s a science experiment gone completely off the rails. No one is safeguarding public health anymore. You could say our health agencies have sold out the public to the drug industry, allowing them to conduct wild population-wide genetic experimentation aimed at furthering the transhumanist agenda at breakneck speed.

Personalized Cancer Shot Is Being Fast-Tracked

As reported by The Guardian in early April 2023,¹ Moderna, for example, is planning to offer a personalized cancer shot by the end of 2028. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already designated it as a “breakthrough therapy,” which means the regulatory review will be expedited.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is also fast-tracking it under the European “priority medicines” (PRIME) scheme.² Here’s how Moderna’s personalized cancer gene therapy is said to work:³

A biopsy of your cancerous tumor is collected
Mutations in the genetic sequence of the tumor are identified
A machine learning algorithm determines which of the identified mutations might be driving the cancer’s growth. Abnormal proteins produced by those mutations are also identified
A synthetic mRNA molecule is created, containing instructions for your cells to make an antigen that your immune system will respond to
Once injected, the mRNA is translated into proteins that are, supposedly, “identical” to those found in your tumor. When immune cells encounter cancer cells that carry these proteins, they destroy them

It sounds good in theory, but as we’ve seen with the COVID shots, any number of things can go wrong once your cells are turned into toxic protein factories. Contrary to transhumanist belief, your body is not a “hardware platform” and your immune system is not like a piece of software that can simply be “updated” with a new set of genetic instructions.

Not even close. It’s more like a spider’s web of interconnected systems and pathways. Pull on one string and the whole network responds with cascades of activity, much of which we still do not understand. It’s beyond foolish to think you can just insert a new genetic instruction on one of the strings and not disturb or impact the rest of the web.

mRNA Flu Jabs Coming Soon

mRNA-based influenza shots are also in the works. Pfizer and Moderna both launched mRNA flu jab trials in the fall of 2022.⁴ We now know the COVID shot doesn’t protect you against SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission, so will the flu shot be any different? Are they tweaking it somehow to block infection? Or will it be a repeat of COVID — all risk and no benefit?

In my view, there’s cause for additional concern when it comes to mRNA flu shots, because they’ve already admitted that the viral strains targeted can and will be updated on the fly in the middle of the flu season, should it turn out that the flu strains selected in February are a mismatch to the circulating strains that following winter.⁵

The industry wants you to believe that changing the antigen has no bearing on the potential side effects, but they have no evidence to support that assertion. Whenever you change the antigen, you run the risk of new side effects, because not all antigens affect your immune system the same way.

For example, the reason why no coronavirus vaccine was ever brought to market despite 20 years of research and experimentation was because they kept causing worse infection. Many vaccines against other viruses don’t have this effect.

And, even though the mRNA platform is completely different from conventional vaccine manufacturing that uses live or attenuated coronaviruses, the effect on the immune system is still clearly an adverse one. So, changing the method didn’t eliminate the problem.

Since the mRNA platform allows for endless customization without additional safety testing to make sure the antigen chosen won’t cause unsuspected problems, it poses a unique threat to public health. Millions will likely be injected before a problem is identified.

Gene Therapies Don’t Work Like Vaccines Do

It’s important to remember that mRNA-based “vaccines” aren’t vaccines. They’re gene therapies. The only reason drug companies and health agencies now insist on calling them vaccines is because they changed the definition of the word so that a vaccine no longer has to protect you from the infection in question. All it must do is stimulate your body’s immune response against the disease.

But if a vaccine doesn’t prevent you from infection, what is the point of it? Natural infection also stimulates your immune response, but you develop immunity. So, all the shot is doing is stimulating — and possibly overstimulating and contributing to autoimmune diseases — your immune system without providing immunity.

mRNA Dosing Conundrum Has yet To Be Solved

Originally, modified mRNA was thought to hold the key to a new source of embryonic stem cells that researchers planned to use to treat anything from Parkinson’s disease to spinal cord injuries. Using modified synthetic mRNA, they hoped to sidestep the controversy of using stem cells from aborted fetuses.

The promise hinged on safe dosing, but in animal studies scientists ran into a now-familiar problem with the mRNA doses. The therapy triggered dangerous immune reactions, yet the lower doses were too weak to show benefit.

There’s no compelling evidence that this dosing problem was ever solved. In fact, it appears sloppy COVID jab manufacturing has resulted in varying strengths of the shots, with some batches being associated with vastly higher rates of injury and death, as detailed on HowBadIsMyBatch.com.⁶

Also, let’s not forget that the COVID shots appear to be massively accelerating cancer development, as “turbo-charged cancers” are now becoming more common. So, what can we expect from an improperly dosed mRNA cancer jab?

Will mRNA Shots for Herpes and Shingles Prevent Infection?

Moderna is also developing mRNA shots for shingles and genital herpes⁷ based on the same platform used for its COVID jab — a technology that doesn’t stop infection and can depress your immune function such that you become more prone to infections and chronic diseases of all kinds.

The mRNA COVID shots are also suspected of causing autoimmune conditions by way of molecular mimicry.⁸ This occurs when similarities between different antigens confuse your immune system.

So, will mRNA shots against herpes and shingles prevent infection? Or will they increase your risk, just like the COVID shots have done? We’ll have to wait and see, but I wouldn’t recommend lining up to test them.

mRNA Integrity Is Another Technical Difficulty

Another technical difficulty that is unlikely to have been solved is the mRNA integrity. As detailed in “Data Leaks Reveal Disturbing Facts About mRNA Instability,” hacked Pfizer COVID jab data show European regulators had significant concerns over the lack of intact mRNA in the commercial batches sampled.

Compared to the clinical batches, i.e., the shots used in the clinical trial, 55% to 78% of the commercial shots had “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species.”

This is important because intact mRNA is essential for efficacy. According to Daan Crommelin, a professor of biopharmaceutics, “Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.”

For an effective product, mRNA integrity needs to be 100%. Considering how ineffective the jabs are, it seems fair to question whether lack of mRNA integrity might be to blame. We also do not know whether fragmented mRNA might be harmful, and to what degree.

While public health agencies claim fragmented RNA poses no health risk, just how do they know that? The leaked documents revealed they did not have an answer to that question. There’s also no evidence that manufacturing processes have been perfected to prevent the fragmentation of mRNA. Like so many other things, the ins and outs of the manufacturing process of mRNA injections are not disclosed or discussed.

The Transhumanist Race Toward Human 2.0

It’s hard to assess the recklessness with which drug companies and health agencies approach mRNA therapy as anything other than an attempt to fulfill a transhumanist dream in the quickest way possible. To perfect the genetic manipulation of human beings would under normal circumstances take many decades, perhaps close to a century, or more.

It would seem the globalist cabal driving the transhumanist agenda decided instead to launch population-wide experimentation to speed up the process. Large-scale studies are always required when you want to prove safety and effectiveness, and the global population has basically been turned into guinea pigs. They don’t care how many are injured or killed in the process. They’ve proven this much by ignoring the mounting death toll.

To the cabal, it’s probably a numbers game. Inject billions of people with gene therapies of various kinds in varying dosages, see what happens and tweak from there. Ultimately, the general population are not the intended beneficiaries of this large-scale experimentation. The globalists are. The guinea pigs are expendable.

The transhumanists cannot fulfill the dream of Humanity 2.0 without casualties, and what better victims than people whose future Social Security funds have already been looted and squandered?

Think Globally, Act Locally

National vaccine policy recommendations in the U.S. are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being seriously threatened.

Not only are lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws, but global political operatives lobbying the United Nations and World Health Organization are determined to take away the human right to autonomy and protection of bodily integrity.

We must take action to defend our constitutional republic and civil liberties, including the right to autonomy, in America. That includes reforming oppressive mandatory vaccination laws and stopping the digital health ID that will make vaccine passports a reality for us, our children and grandchildren if we don’t take action today.

Signing up to use the free online Advocacy Portal sponsored by the National Vaccine Information Center at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state and federal legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard.

NVIC will keep you up to date on the latest bills threatening to eliminate — or expand — your legal right to make vaccine choices and give you guidance about what you can do to support or oppose those bills. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Share Your Story With Your Legislators and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up.

If you want to protect your legal right to say “no” to vaccines you do not believe are safe or effective, make an appointment to personally talk with someone you have elected to office at the local, state and federal level or write a letter in your own words stating your concerns.

Attend school board and city council and town hall meetings in your community that will impact your right to know and freedom to make decisions about how you or your children will live and stay healthy. If you have a different perspective on a story about vaccination that appears in your local newspaper, write a letter to the editor.

I must be frank with you: You have to be brave because there is a lot of censorship of conversations that challenge “official” narratives about vaccination. You likely will be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story and for defending your informed consent rights. Be prepared for it and have the courage to stand your ground.

Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

While our rights are being threatened, the vaccine injured are being swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than statistically acceptable “collateral damage” of one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination laws. Way too many people are being put at risk for injury and death and there is nothing scientific or moral about that. We should not be treating human beings like guinea pigs.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the four websites of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org, a nonprofit charity that has been educating the public about the need to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths since 1982. The information you get on their websites is fully referenced and will help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your community:

NVIC.org — This website was established in 1995 and is the oldest and largest consumer operated website publishing information on diseases and vaccines on the internet. Learn about vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths and the history and current status of vaccine science, policy, law and ethics in the U.S. on more than 2,000 web pages.
NVICAdvocacy.org — This communications and advocacy network, established in 2010, is your gateway to taking action to protect your right to make vaccine choices where you live.
TheVaccineReaction.org — This weekly journal newspaper published by NVIC since 2015 is dedicated to encouraging an “enlightened conversation about vaccination, health and autonomy.”
MedAlerts.org — This is a user-friendly search engine for the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and sponsored by NVIC since 2006. Search for descriptions of vaccine injuries and deaths reported to VAERS on this popular website.

Find a Doctor Who Will Listen and Care

If your doctor or pediatrician refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, coercion and refusal to provide medical care to someone declining one or more doses of government recommended vaccines is a violation of the informed consent ethic.

Unfortunately, it is becoming routine among members of the medical establishment to be reluctant to share vaccine decision-making power with patients and parents of minor children, especially during the aggressive push for all Americans to get COVID shots.

There are doctors out there who respect the precautionary and informed consent principles, so take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and is willing to listen and respect the health care choices you make for yourself or your child.

from: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/04/26/coming-soon-personalized-mrna-vaccines.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20230426&cid=DM1388866&bid=1783513418

Concerned About “Climate Change”? Give Us Your Land

Posted on April 21, 2023 by marcia

JP Morgan CEO Recommends Taking Private Land From Americans To Accelerate Green Energy Policies

By Patty McMurray Apr. 8, 2023 7:15 pm

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, one of the largest banks in the U.S., is advocating for the forceable seizure of American land. In an annual shareholder’s letter, he advised that seizing private property might help the U.S. cope with the climate crises.

100 Percent Fed Up reports – The CEO began his letter by admitting to shareholders that the pandemic and the Ukraine war have taken a toll on the bank, “Across the globe, 2022 was another year of significant challenges: from a terrible war in Ukraine and growing geopolitical tensions — particularly with China — to a politically divided America, almost all nations felt the effects of global economic uncertainty, including higher energy and food prices, mounting inflation rates and volatile markets, and, of course, COVID-19’s lingering impacts.”

Dimon Continued, “While all these experiences and associated turmoil have serious ramifications on our company, colleagues, clients, and the countries in which we do business, their consequences on the world at large — with the extreme suffering of the Ukrainian people and the potential restructuring of the global order — are far more important.”

But then Dimon surprised shareholders when he brought an “Update on Specific Issues Facing Our Company” under the “Climate Complexity and Planning” subsection and spoke on Eminent Domain.

Eminent Domain is the legal theory enabling governments to seize private property for public use. The property owner’s reimbursement for their possessions is generally less than the value of the property that was taken.

Following previous climate fearmongers like Al Gore, Dimon warned shareholders that time is running out, “The window for action to avert the costliest impacts of global climate change is closing,” He added, “to expedite progress, governments, businesses, and non-governmental organizations need to align across a series of practical policy changes that comprehensively address fundamental issues that are holding us back. Massive global investment in clean energy technologies must be done and must continue to grow year-over-year,” Dimon noted.

He described the need to employ “practical policy changes.” And said that could include utilizing eminent Domain to take private property in order to fight climate control, “At the same time, permitting reforms are desperately needed to allow investment to be done in any kind of timely way. We may even need to evoke Eminent Domain.”

West Virginia State Treasurer Riley Moore pointed out the devastation that could be caused by the U.S. government simply seizing personal property. He tweeted, “JP Morgan’s CEO wants to use Eminent Domain to build more wind and solar farms. If you think food and energy prices are bad now, just wait until the government starts seizing farmland to build solar panels. This kind of thinking poses an existential threat to the middle class.

JP Morgan’s CEO wants to use eminent domain to build more wind and solar farms.

If you think food and energy prices are bad now, just wait until the government starts seizing farmland to build solar panels.

This kind of thinking poses an existential threat to the middle class.

— Riley Moore (@RileyMooreWV) April 5, 2023

Dimon, who has yet to offer his own private property to the government for less than its value, tried to make his suggestion sound less tyrannical and extreme by saying “green energies” are not advancing quickly enough,

“We simply are not getting the adequate investments fast enough for grid, solar, wind, and pipeline initiatives.”

Dimon’s comments are reminiscent of World Economic Forums Founder Klaus Schwab’s eery promise, “You will own nothing and be happy.”

One Twitter user responded that JPMorgan and Chase Bank customers should pull their accounts ASAP to make Dimon shut his mouth while also pointing out that the communist desire to strip Americans of their hard-earned assets is alive and well.

from: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/jp-morgan-ceo-recommends-taking-private-land-from-americans-to-accelerate-green-energy-policies/

Hmm, Maybe the Population Bomb Fizzled

Posted on April 21, 2023 by marcia

The ‘Population Explosion’ Myth Blows Up

BY ROBERT SPENCER 4:20 PM ON MARCH 27, 2023

People in the United States and Europe have long taken for granted the idea that the world is in the midst of a “population explosion” that threatens to cause the starvation of millions and render the earth uninhabitable The world, we were told, would simply run out of food, and could not possibly sustain the population it would soon have. This was how generations of people were sold on the idea that it was the “responsible” thing to do to have small families, and it even led to the weakening of the idea of the family itself as contributing to the looming problem that looked as if it would kill us all. There was just one problem with the whole scenario: there was no population explosion at all, as a new study has now confirmed.

The UK’s far-Left Guardian admitted Monday that “the long-feared ‘population bomb’ may not go off, according to the authors of a new report that estimates that human numbers will peak lower and sooner than previously forecast.” The Club of Rome study, which was “carried out by the Earth4All collective of leading environmental science and economic institutions, including the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Stockholm Resilience Centre and the BI Norwegian Business School,” predicts that “on current trends the world population will reach a high of 8.8 billion before the middle of the century, then decline rapidly.” This being the Guardian, it added: “The peak could come earlier still if governments take progressive steps to raise average incomes and education levels.”

It’s jarring to read this. Population explosion hysteria has been a staple of education for decades, and there are no doubt millions of people who still take the idea that soon there will be many more people on earth than can possibly be fed as axiomatic fact. Americans have so internalized this belief that people with large families are guilt-tripped on a routine basis. I myself can remember being inundated with this propaganda in public school at all levels, although of course, no one recognized it as propaganda in those palmy days, as far back as the early 1970s. The population explosion myth became the basis for many of the Left’s other favored agendas, including the “climate crisis,” the bug-eating plan, and even the sexual revolution, which was in large part made possible by the contraception and abortion that we were told had to be readily available in order to try to bring the world’s population under control.

All this is largely the work of one man, Paul Ehrlich, who despite being an obvious fraud (or perhaps because he’s an obvious fraud) is enjoying a new vogue among Leftists today. The Wall Street Journal noted in Jan. 2023 that the establishment media treats the 90-year-old Ehrlich “with an obsequious deference,” as evidenced in a “recent cringe-worthy segment on CBS’s ‘60 Minutes’” that retailed the population explosion myth yet again.

Ehrlich started the hysteria rolling in 1968 with his bestselling book The Population Bomb. It began, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.” In April 1970, he amplified the warning, saying: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” Ehrlich even predicted that England would cease to exist by the year 2000.

England still exists as of this writing (although some may think it is in such bad shape that it would have been better off shuffling off this mortal coil 23 years ago), and 100-200 million people have not been starving to death every year. And now we learn that the whole thing was false.

But Leftist hysteria doesn’t die that easily. The authors of the new study that definitively debunks the idea of the population explosion still “caution that falling birthrates alone will not solve the planet’s environmental problems, which are already serious at the 8 billion level and are primarily caused by the excess consumption of a wealthy minority.” See? We need global socialism, with the forced confiscation and redistribution of wealth. That’ll fix everything!

Ben Callegari, one of the authors of the new study, emphasized this: “This gives us evidence to believe the population bomb won’t go off, but we still face significant challenges from an environmental perspective. We need a lot of effort to address the current development paradigm of overconsumption and overproduction, which are bigger problems than population.” What is coming? Socialism is coming, and the resulting famines and starvation will take care of overconsumption once and for all.

from: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2023/03/27/now-they-tell-us-new-study-shows-that-the-population-explosion-was-a-myth-n1681928

All Quiet on The French front????

Posted on April 21, 2023 by marcia

2 minute readApril 20, 20236:18 AM MSTLast Updated a day ago

Protesters storm Paris Euronext building in anger over pension law

PARIS, April 20 (Reuters) – A group of protesters briefly invaded offices of stockmarket operator Euronext in Paris’ La Defense business district on Thursday, saying big companies must pay up to finance pensions, as part of wider protests against a rise in the retirement age.

“We are told that there is no money to finance pensions,” said Sud-Rail unionist Fabien Villedieu. But there is “no need to get the money from the pockets of workers, there is some in the pockets of billionaires.”

Waving union flags, the group of a few hundred protesters occupied Euronext’s lobby, engulfed in red smoke from flares, and chanted words popular with pension protesters: “We are here, we are here, even if Macron does not want it we are here.”

They also shouted: “Macron resign!”

Earlier this month, similar scenes occurred at Blackrock’s Paris offices.

At the weekend, Macron signed into law the rise in the retirement age which means citizens must work two years longer, to 64, before receiving their state pension.

French railway workers hold a day of strike and protests within France

[1/7] French SNCF railway workers on strike, wearing vests of French CGT and Sud Rail labour unions, enter the headquarters of stock market operator Euronext at La Defense business and financial district as part of a “day of expression of railway anger” following months of strikes and a failed attempt to halt pension reforms, in Courbevoie near Paris, France, April 20, 2023. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier

That was after three months of protests that brought huge crowds onto the streets and at times turned violent. Opinion polls show a vast majority of voters oppose the pension reform.

Macron and his government say they want to move on and work on other measures to do with working conditions, law and order, education and health issues.

But the protesters in La Defense on Thursday, as well as those who heckled Macron during a visit to France’s eastern Alsace region on Wednesday, made clear many were not ready to move on.

“We’ll continue until the (pension law’s) withdrawal,” protesters shouted in La Defense’s central square, standing by a banner that read: “No to the pension reform”.

Macron himself faced protests on Thursday during his second public outing since signing the bill into law.

While he was visiting a school in the southern French town of Ganges, smiling and taking selfies with pupils, protesters held a few hundred meters away by police also chanted against the pension reform.

“There is a bit of everything,” Macron said in the schoolyard, shrugging off the protests. “There are people who are happy, and people who are not happy.”

Reporting by Noemie Olive, writing by Tassilo Hummel, editing by Ingrid Melander

from: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-protesters-invade-euronext-building-anger-over-pension-law-2023-04-20/