Friends, It’s Over: Pfizer Quietly Adds Language Warning That ‘Unfavorable Pre-Clinical, Clinical Or Safety Data’ May Impact Business

Two weeks ago, the FDA begged a Texas judge to delay production on the first monthly batch of 55,000 pages of Covid-19 vaccine data submitted to the agency by Pfizer. Originally, the agency was set to produce just 500 pages-per-month.

Now, Pfizer – which just forecast $54 billion in Covid-related sales in 2022, appears to be anticipating some bad news, as evidenced by several redline changes in their Q4 earnings releases.

As Rubicon Capital’s Kelly Brown notes on Twitter, the changes center around disclosures of unfavorable safety data.

For example, in Q4 they added: “or further information regarding the quality of pre-clinical, clinical or safety data, including by audit or inspection.”

More from Brown, who notes that Pfizer is now highlighting “concerns about clinical data integrity…”

The company also notes that Covid-19 may “diminish in severity or prevalence, or disappear entirely.” 

The Mass Formation Psychosis Must Stop

by Dr. Robert W. Malone

My wife Jill used to work at the San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Park for the research unit called CRES (The Center for Research on Endangered Species) in the late 1980s. She did primary behavior research on mother-infant dyads, both as an intern and later as an employee.

In particular, she was involved in behavioral studies involving Lion-tailed macaques, which are an endangered species of monkey from India. The purpose of the research was to find ways to increase the emotional well being of the animals, as some of these monkeys have significant issues breeding in captivity.

There was one mother named Polly and her infant daughter Dewa which were particularly interesting. Polly would let her infant girl nurse for a while and when she was tired of it, she would pull her off her nipple and literally hold Dewa’s head to the concrete floor for about 30 seconds.

Dewa would scream and chitter – with her little arms and legs flaying around. Then Polly would suddenly let her go and the infant would run screaming away from her. It was horrifying to watch.

Jill observed this pair through infancy. She continued to observe as Dewa grew up and had an infant son of her own. One day, when the little boy monkey was quite small, Dewa got tired of the baby nursing. She literally pulled him off and held him firmly to the ground as he squirmed and screamed – just as her mother had done to her.

The effects of abuse, neglect and harms done to children can and will pass through generations. Often, these long-term effects on the person are unknown until the person is grown up and has children of their own.

Our children are our future. They must be protected from heavy-handed, ineffective policies that marginally protect adults over the well-being of our more precious asset. Our children. Let me write it again for emphasis… our children are our future.

I have written and spoken out about vaccine mandates for children and why they are wrong. Children are rarely at risk of severe disease from COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 and almost all deaths of children have been those with co-morbidities.

The vaccines have a high adverse event profile in children that has not been fully analyzed. This is reason enough to not allow mandates, even State government or regional school board mandates. But I have not written as much about masks, school closures, and the selfishness of teachers’ unions, who are more interested in protecting themselves than children.

Children are at very little risk from COVID-19 severe disease. Most kids in the USA now have natural immunity, many have been vaccinated, and Omicron is nothing more than a cold for the vast majority of children and adults.

Even during Delta, children rarely develop severe COVID-19 disease. They have strong, healthy immune systems. This disease is stratified by age and co-morbidities. We all know this by now. Furthermore, neither masks nor vaccines prevent infection, replication or transmission of the Omicron strain of SARS-CoV-2.

There is no reason to mask children in schools. There is no reason to mask children in shops, restaurants, parks, after school program, etc. There is no reason for children to have plexiglass shields around them in the classroom. There is no reason why we need to deny children exercise programs, sports, after-school care and physical education.

It is time to end social distancing programs and let kids be kids. Children are social beings. Having normal social interactions with other people, with other children, is critical to growing up in a healthy environment. Social isolation of children is not ok. Sports, after-school programs, childcare, recreational activities and extracurricular activities need to return to normalcy.

One important way children learn is by mimicry. Facial expressions of friends, teachers, mentors, parents not only are important for speech development, they are important for children to learn emotional norms and behaviors. We do not know what damage we are doing by masking. At this point, long term effects are unknown.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 unvaccinated children must be treated no differently than any other child. It is not anyone’s business other than the parent’s whether a child is vaccinated for COVID-19 or not. Americans have a fundamental right to privacy and there is no exclusionary clause for people younger than a certain age.

Unvaccinated children or unmasked children should not be segregated, shamed or put in special rooms. They should not be excluded from the playground or sports activities. Society, our government, is doing an unprecedented and known amount of damage to the healthy development of our children. This has to stop.

COVID-19 testing of our school children needs to end. Not only is it a medical procedure that is being forced upon children, often without their permission, it is not needed. It is uncomfortable and more than that, it is a violation of their bodies. This is particularly true when schools and other social institutions are forcing this test upon children because of their vaccination status.

As the Biden administration doubles down on masks, testing and vaccines for children, people are waking up. The democrats are creating an army of new republicans and independent families, who are currently and will be voting in the future at the midterms.

The mass formation Psychosis must stop

That’s a 14-percentage point swing from a nine-point Democratic advantage to a five-point GOP edge, and among the largest advantages the GOP has ever held in Gallup polling.

As we travel around the country, speaking at conferences, churches, summits and rallies, we hear from parents over and over again phrases like this.

“I used to be a democrat, but now I don’t think I will ever be able to vote for a democrat again.”

“I don’t know what I am anymore.”

“I am questioning everything I used to believe about the democratic party.”

The science is very clear on our children. The data is clear. Children need to be allowed to have normal childhoods. Our parents who are paying attention know this.

Our children are our most precious assets.

If you doubt what I am saying, then Listen to their stories.

And then listen to what a pediatric cardiologist and a pediatric psychiatrist have to say about this.

What we are doing is wrong. It must stop. Now. The damage already done will last for decades.

Robert W Malone MD, MS is the Inventor of mRNA & DNA vaccines, RNA as a drug. Scientist, physician, writer, podcaster, commentator and advocate. Believer in our fundamental freedom of free speech. This article was originally published on Substack.

Comedian Collapses on Stage During Joke: “I’m vaxxed, double vaxxed, boosted, and Jesus loves me most”

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News


Pro-COVID-19 vaccine fanatics who criticize or mock in public those who refuse the COVID injections continue to experience the principle found in the Bible that states “you reap what you sow” or what others refer to as “karma” as they are struck down dead or injured, sometimes in full view of the public.

TMZ is reporting today that Comedian Heather McDonald, the former “Chelsea Lately” star, was headlining a sold-out show in Tempe, Arizona, when she collapsed on stage during her second joke.

Comedian Heather McDonald fell hard during a show in Tempe, Arizona, but it was no joke … it was a medical emergency. Eyewitnesses tell TMZ … the former “Chelsea Lately” star was headlining the sold-out show, when she delivered her second joke … “I’m vaxxed, double vaxxed, boosted … and flu shot and shingle shot and haven’t gotten COVID and Jesus loves me most.”
As soon as she delivered the joke, she just collapsed and hit her head on the floor. Everyone thought at first it was all part of the act, but it was not. She was conscious, but clearly, all was not well. An EMT and a nurse happened to be in the audience … they rushed up on stage to provide first aid.

The 911 call came in as a seizure, but no one really knows yet. An ambulance came and paramedics tended to Heather. (Full story.)

Rafael Silva is a television presenter for Jornal das 7/TV Alterosa in Brazil. The COVID Blog reports:

He is also the consummate vaxx and mask zealot, almost to the point of insanity. Mr. Silva received his first injection on July 30. It’s unclear which brand he received. However it is clear that it doesn’t matter what brand it is. The caption says everything you need to know about his loyalty to big pharma.
“I don’t really know how to explain what I felt. I cried, I cried a lot of joy for having the possibility of being vaccinated. At the same time a feeling of sadness for more than 550 thousand people who didn’t have that chance. Take care, keep wearing a mask. Long live the Vaccine.”

Mr. Silva, 36, received his second injection on August 28. He thanked God “for the opportunity.”


He received his booster shot on December 28. The caption translation is as follows:

“Long live the third dose. I’m sorry for the people who didn’t have that opportunity. Vaccines save lives.”

Mr. Silva was in mid-sentence during a live broadcast on January 3, when he suddenly lost consciousness and collapsed to the floor. The station cut the footage right before the very-loud thud when Mr. Silva struck the floor. It was reported that he was in stable condition later that day.
Brazilian online newspaper Metrópoles reported that Mr. Silva was taken to Humanitas Hospital. But he suffered five more cardiac arrests in the ambulance. Mr. Silva has since locked his Twitter account so only verified followers can see his Tweets. There are no further updates. (Full article.)

Read more

Why Biden Needs New Policy Advisors on Russia

Scott Ritter

is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

FILE PHOTO. © AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Joe Biden’s current crop of senior policy aides, led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, have helped create one of the most significant foreign policy crises in modern history. It’s time for a new slate of advisers.

Despite having served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for decades, US President Joe Biden is not an expert on Russia. His Senate experience, which includes providing critical support for NATO expansion, when combined with the leading role he played in managing Ukraine policy under the administration of President Barack Obama, have slanted Biden’s world view of Russia, married as it is to the very policies that Moscow is currently challenging. Biden shared a worldview with fellow Senate hawk John McCain, who once quipped that “Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country,” clearly not understanding just how important a gas station is to economies dependent upon fossil fuels for their very survival. Biden has called Putin a “killer,” showing little regard for either fact or diplomatic norms.

But perhaps the most egregious display of the lack of fundamental appreciation Biden has regarding Russia and its role in global geopolitics is comments made by the US president to the press following his June 17, 2021, meeting with Putin in Geneva. He was asked if he had taken away anything from his talks with the Russian president that indicated, as the reporter put it, “that Mr. Putin has decided to move away from his fundamental role as a disrupter, particularly a disrupter of NATO and the United States?” Biden responded with an answer that underscores just how little he understands of Russia, Russian policy, and the geopolitical realities of the present day.

“I think that the last thing he [Putin] wants now is a Cold War. Without quoting him – which I don’t think is appropriate – let me ask a rhetorical question: You got a multi-thousand-mile border with China. China is moving ahead, hellbent on election, as they say, seeking to be the most powerful economy in the world and the largest and the most powerful military in the world. You’re in a situation where your economy is struggling, you need to move it in a more aggressive way, in terms of growing it. And you – I don’t think he’s looking for a Cold War with the United States,” Biden said.

Less than eight months later, it is the United States that stands accused of pursuing a “Cold War” agenda, one that has brought Beijing and Moscow together in unprecedented fashion, united by the perceived threat posed by the US and its allies. In a comprehensive joint statement issued following the meeting between Putin and Xi Jinping in Beijing on Friday, Russia and China called on all states “to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order” as opposed to the “rules-based international order” being promulgated by the Biden administration. This is a shot across the bow of the US and its allies, informing them that their continued efforts to breathe relevance into archaic structures imposed on the world in the aftermath of the Second World War will not go unchallenged.

President Biden is facing a new policy debacle, one that has massive geopolitical consequences. The US cannot afford to emerge from the current situation having had its bluff called by both Russia and China; nor can it prevail by going all in, initiating a conflict where neither it nor its allies are positioned to prevail. As the principal architects of the “rules-based international order” posture that dominates US foreign policy today, neither Biden nor his two principal foreign policy advisers, Blinken and Sullivan, are either ideologically or intellectually capable of changing course, preferring to run the ship of state aground in defense of their so-called “principles.”

All three individuals have had their global vision vis-a-vis the US and Russia shaped by a collective of ersatz Russian experts, led by the likes of Michael McFaul, Anne Applebaum, Susan Glasser, Masha Gessen, Steven Hall, John Sipher, and their ilk – people whose ignorance of the reality of Russia is only surpassed by their singular focus on the person of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, as the personification of evil. Any influence such individuals – former diplomats, academics, intellectuals, and spies – have on current policy formulation and implementation, however, is indirect; none of them has a seat in the rarified air of policy formulation and implementation as directed from within the White House.

If the US is to have any hope of being able to emerge from its current policy journey with an outcome that differs from the fate enjoyed by the Titanic, it will need a cohort of genuine Russian experts who have the access necessary to advise the president at a time and place that makes such advice a part of the deliberations that occur before policy is acted on. Any such counsel, if previously offered, was disregarded in favor of the “rules-based international order” focus being marketed by Biden, Blinken, and Sullivan. At some point, however, Joe Biden as the chief executive must realize he is promulgating failed concepts. While it might be too much of an ask to have him cashier the architects of this policy debacle, the president would do well to raise the stature, so to speak, of the few voices of reason that are part of his inner circle.

For anyone hoping that the US military establishment would rise to the occasion, guess again. There was a time when US general officers were schooled in the art of combined arms warfare as practiced in Europe against a Soviet-style enemy; those days are gone. The current crop of generals, led by Mark Milley, have made a career out of fighting (and losing) low-intensity conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in the process, overseeing the transformation of the US military from a world-class fighting force to a bloated edifice unable to meaningfully project power into anything other than permissive counterinsurgency conflicts. Milley’s “feel” for large-scale conventional conflict is purely theoretical, as reflected in his recent briefing to Congress about his assessment of alleged Russian invasion plans regarding Ukraine.

There was a time when the US military produced the finest Russian Foreign Area Officers (FAOs) imaginable, experts on Russian language and culture who were able to provide sound advice to senior policy makers, military and civilian alike. These officers were well-grounded in the realities of what war with Russia (back then, the Soviet Union) could entail, having served several tours in combat and combat support units that were focused on just that task. The training was more than just academic – these officers went on to serve in utilization tours that put them on the frontline of the Cold War, either at the US Military Liaison Mission in Potsdam, East Germany, where they kept close tabs of the Soviet Group of Forces, Germany, or as military attaches in Moscow or other Warsaw Pact capital cities. The pinnacle of the FAO experience was to be assigned as the defense attache in Moscow. Here, one oversaw intelligence collection in support of national security objectives and provided direct advice to the US ambassador, the joint chiefs of staff, and the White House.

Today, the Russian-Eurasian Foreign Area Officer program is but a shadow of its former self, producing officers who are more political than military. Alexander Vindman, an Army Eurasian FAO who testified during the first impeachment hearings against then-President Donald Trump, is an example. So, too, is Brittany Stewart, the military attache to the US Embassy in Kiev who, during a tour of the Donbass region, was photographed wearing a patch bearing the “Ukraine or Death” skull insignia of a Ukrainian brigade. So shallow is the field of available expertise that the current defense attache to Moscow, Rear Admiral Philip Yu, is a China FAO with virtually no experience in US-Russian military affairs.

Admiral Yu, by contrast, reports to John Sullivan, a political appointee under Donald Trump with significant government experience, primarily as a lawyer, but no real expertise on Russia. In short, at one of the critical moments in US-Russian history, Washington has a politically appointed lawyer as ambassador, advised by a naval officer whose specialty is China. Recognizing the political role played by ambassadors, the State Department backstops them with career foreign service officers who serve as the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM). Jack Matlock’s DCM was James Collins, like Matlock a top-level Russian expert. Sullivan’s DCM is Bartle Gorman, whose background is diplomatic security.

With the US Embassy in Moscow unable to provide anything more substantive than a current events update, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, secretary of state, and national security adviser trapped in their own ideological prison, the burden of providing genuine expertise on matters pertaining to Russia falls on the shoulders of three individuals – Victoria Nuland, the undersecretary for political affairs; Eric Green, the special assistant to the president and senior director for Russia and Central Asia on the National Security Council; and William Burns, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

While Nuland’s credentials are not to be scoffed at – she has served as a diplomat for more than three decades, during which she acquired solid expertise in European, NATO, and Russian affairs – her role in the 2014 Maidan revolution has limited her utility as someone able to interface with her Russian counterparts effectively and, as such, diminishes her functionality as an adviser. Moreover, Nuland is cut from the same ideological cloth as Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan. Her utility in terms of being able to guide Joe Biden away from a potential conflict with Russia is, at best, indirect – because she so closely mimics the policy positions of Blinken and Sullivan, her advice is muted.

One source of potential policy dissent is Eric Green, a career foreign service officer possessing considerable experience in Russian affairs, including as the State Department’s director, Office of Russian Affairs, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, and the minister-counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Moscow. Green already has the ear of the president, having sat in on every phone call between Biden and Putin, as well as being present during the June 2021 Geneva Summit. Ostensibly Jake Sullivan’s subordinate, Green’s ability to provide advice about potential diplomatic off-ramps regarding the current crisis is real, as is the balance he can provide given the non-political nature of his service history.

The person with the greatest potential to alter the course of the Biden administration’s suicidal Russia policy is, titularly speaking, the least qualified: William Burns, the director of the CIA. However, Burns possesses a resume that is more conducive to back-channel diplomacy than covert operations. Indeed, the title of his 2019 memoir as a diplomat, ‘The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal’, is self-explanatory in this regard. Biden has already made use of Burns’ service, dispatching the CIA director to Moscow in November 2021 to help dampen down tension between the two nations.

Confronted with a looming policy disaster which threatens to undermine US relations with NATO, Europe, and the world at a time when his administration seeks to assert the perception, if not reality, of leadership, it is likely that President Biden will be turning more and more to William Burns to fix the problems created by the incompetence of his secretary of state and national security adviser. Burns may very well find that he is ably backstopped at the National Security Council by Eric Green, whose expertise should supplant the ideological approach taken to date by Jake Sullivan.

Whether Joe Biden will avail himself of the expertise of Burns and Green is yet to be seen. One thing is certain – the journey on which the US is being taken on the advice of Blinken and Sullivan can only lead to embarrassment and ruin. Hopefully President Biden is wise enough to recognize this and bring in those who can help find a diplomatic path towards peace.

“Democracy” as Mob Rule

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

Algora Editor’s Note: What the coronavirus hysteria revealed more than anything else is the existence of a divide between two fundamental types of humans: 

— on the one hand, the low IQ, the stupid, emotion-driven, cowardly, fearful for their life, Me-Me, dishonest and disingenuous, free riders, opportunistic, hypocritical and treacherous, for any small gain, etc. 

— on the other hand, the individualistic, independent, self-reliant, honor above gain, trail blazers, leaders, rational thinkers and cost analysts, doers, etc.

Ever since Marx defined society by the economic divide, the modern mind has attempted to address economic inequality. In the end, it appears that the elites figured out that the fundamental divide is not economic but a divide among two human species. They can enroll the stupid class any time for their own use and there is no end to such reservoir of “human” support . . . until the destruction brought upon the entire society by the low IQ is complete. 

The sad thing is that this divide, the true source of inequality, cannot be remedied, made to disappear, but can only be deal with by a social system that takes it into account.

***************************************************************************

Why is censorship the go-to tactic for leftists?

Well, if you ask them they won’t deny their love affair with the memory hole. In fact, most leftists will vehemently defend censorship as absolutely moral and for the “greater good.”

Their position is basically this: We live in a “society”, and some ideas, thoughts and words are “dangerous” and destructive to that society. Therefore, those ideas and words must be eliminated from open discussion so they can protect society from itself.

But who gets to decide which ideas are dangerous and destructive? It’s rather convenient that the political left has anointed themselves the pure and objective arbiters of our culture. Purity within leftist groups is measured by expressions of “empathy” (virtue signaling). They are the thought police because, somehow, they believe they are the most empathetic.

True empathy is of course impossible to measure in another human being. You could very well be dealing with a narcissist or psychopath that is very good at pretending they care and have a conscience. They might say all the right things and have all the right opinions in public, but in their private lives they are malicious and take pleasure in causing pain in others. Humans are utterly fallible, which is why all systems of freedom seek to decentralize power through checks and balances and avoid mass censorship. All systems that value freedom and peace seek to eliminate the existence of thought police.

Leftists (and globalists) have sought to circumvent checks and balances as well as free speech protections through a number of tactics. In much of the western world they pay lip service to free speech rights when it is convenient for them, but most European nations and countries like Australia have NO legitimate constitutional measures that restrict governments from easily initiating speech suppression laws whenever they want. The draconian restrictions put in place over covid have proven this beyond a doubt.

This is what makes the US so unique as a culture, and it is the reason why leftists have pursued other methods to silence dissent.

In America, the left has partnered with the corporate world and is attempting to use “business rights” as a means to attack and diminish conservative voices. That is to say, they think that if they can harass and pressure a business to deplatform their opposition then this is a technically legal tactic because a business has a right to associate or not associate with whoever they choose. If the power of government cannot be used to muzzle their opponents, then the power or corporations and Big Tech can be just as effective.

Of course, most Big Tech corporations are NOT private businesses. They rely heavily on government subsidies and tax incentives in order to survive. If Google had to pay for the massive amount of bandwidth that it has used in the past decade they would have gone out of business a while ago, but with federal government incentives Google is given an immense advantage over its competition. In terms of state subsidies companies like Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook rake in billions.

That’s your tax dollars going into the pockets of the same corporations that claim they have the right to censor you for your political views. If they want to censor the public, then we should take away all the subsidies and the tax dollars; it’s that simple. We can let those companies implode without our money to support them.

We have seen Big Tech and social media companies silence tens of thousands of conservative’s over the past few years. The whole time these companies and the media have denied that they specifically target people on the political right (which these days means anyone to the right of full bore communism and globalism). This gaslighting has been debunked over and over again. It is undeniable that conservatives are far more likely to be blocked or banned from social media than people who express leftist views.

Once confronted with the data that proves Big Tech is biased in favor of the left, they switch gears to the same old circular argument: “Well, conservatives are banned more from social media because they are the people always posting dangerous and destructive ideas…” And we’re right back to where we started.

So let’s just establish some basic facts here before moving forward in order to avoid any misunderstandings about the left…

FACT 1: Leftists are rabidly pro-censorship. This is not up for debate. As the leftist New York Times argued in 2019, “free speech is killing us,” specifically in reference to conservative speech. They will say conservatives do the same thing and this is simply not true. We are not living in the America of the 1960’s when religious suppression of language was prominent; we are living in the America of the 2020’s where leftists have insinuated their own bizarre cult of Puritanism into US life and are viciously seeking to silence anyone that disagrees with them.

FACT 2: Leftist censorship almost always aligns with the policies and desires of establishment elites. It is a mistake to assume that corporations are being “bullied” by the left. On the contrary, corporate elites and globalist foundations are the people influencing leftist activists and molding social justice movements to serve establishment interests. Look into the background of any SJW movement and your will find hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and so on.

Leftists take their marching orders from the corporate elites. Why are leftists so aggressively pro-vax mandate, for example? Because the establishment media told them they must be – When Trump was in office and the media was anti-vax, leftists were mostly anti-vax. When Biden entered the White House the media became militantly pro-vax and so did the vast majority of leftists. They have no individual autonomy and no original thoughts; they are a hive mind waiting around for the establishment to tell them what to think.

FACT 3: Leftists believe the ends justify the means no matter the consequence, and they view contrary facts and evidence with disdain. You will almost never see a leftist argue on the basis of merit, logic or results. They will ALWAYS argue based on emotional justification, righteous indignation and the projection that anyone that disagrees with them MUST be a terrible or evil person that has malicious intent.

This is why their go-to attacks are consistently personal; they use accusations of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. in order to avoid discussions on facts and evidence. Because if facts and evidence are being presented by a “literal Nazi” then all of those facts become null and void and the person can be ignored.

FACT 4: Leftists believe the mob is the law and all other laws and principles must be subservient to the dictates of the “majority.” Leftists are obsessed with majority rule and obsessed with manufacturing consent by manufacturing a false consensus. In other words, leftists believe that if they can trick or coerce 51% of the population to think the way they do, then they have won and all of their actions are sacrosanct by the virtue of the majority. They actually believe that the other 49% of the population must submit to their dictates because the majority is god.

In truth, the mob is almost always wrong and the “majority” has a tendency to be the lowest common denominator and the most ignorant within a society.

If they can’t obtain that precious 51% of the population, then they will try to pretend as if they are the majority anyway. They will use coordinated mob attacks on their opponents to make it appear as if millions of people are against them when the mob is actually only in the hundreds or thousands. Exposure of their true numbers is like Kryptonite to leftists and they would rather disband than admit being in a tiny minority. They will respond by claiming the group “never existed” and is a “figment of conservative paranoia.”

FACT #5: If leftists could rule at the barrel of a gun, they would. Leftists are absolutely in favor of imprisoning political opponents and anyone that speaks against them, and many of them openly applaud the idea of murdering conservatives because of their ideals. Just look at how they defended the Waukesha mass killing by a BLM activist as “karma” for the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. There is no such thing as a peaceful end game for the political left. The violent direction their ideology is traveling is obvious.

But what is all the subversion and chicanery meant to accomplish? Why not confront their opponents directly instead of using subterfuge? Because they are afraid. They are terrified of legitimate debate on fair ground based on reality instead of emotional fantasy. They will do anything to avoid direct confrontation because they know they will lose.

Their common tactics include subversion, bait and switch, ambushes, and always choosing the ground that a confrontation takes place so they can control the debate and shut down their opponents whenever they start losing. This does not mean that I think that every website and platform out there is supposed to exist with no rules and no restrictions; that’s impossible by the simple fact that trolls and saboteurs exist. But leftists don’t engage in case-by-case censorship, they rely on mass censorship and enormous corporate partners to strong arm people. They aren’t interested in an honest disagreement with a respectful platform user, they are interested in silencing everyone that disagree regardless.

I can’t help but once again use the example of the leftist Jihad against Joe Rogan to illustrate my point. The left hates Rogan because he allows both political sides to have a voice on his show, and his show is bigger than anything the leftists and the mainstream media can hope to achieve. Leftists believe that if they cannot control something, then they must destroy it. An open platform that treats conservatives and their views fairly cannot be allowed to exist, so Rogan becomes a top target of the political left.

Rogan is targeted over his position on the covid pandemic and the vaccine mandates, but these are merely vehicles that leftists think they can use to rationalize the mass censorship they wanted long before the pandemic was a thing. They believe that the argument that “millions of lives are at risk” supplants all other debate. That is to say, the more people that die from covid, the happier they are because those bodies can be used are fuel to push their ideological cult forward to greater power.

The interesting thing about covid, however, is that it turns out NOT to be a very effective vehicle for the leftists in terms of using bodies to buy control.

As we saw when Joe Rogan confronted CNNs top medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta on his show, the political left is easy to destroy when it comes to debate on the response to covid, and it is a prime example on why leftists usually avoid debate on fair ground. When Rogan contracted covid the leftists were practically dancing in the streets looking forward to his imminent death. These people are so stupid they don’t seem to realize that on average over 99.7% of ALL PEOPLE that contract covid will easily survive it.

I have now had the virus twice, about two years apart, and survived both times without any treatment and without vaccination. Rogan fared even better than I did, beating back covid in just a few days, most likely because he had access to Ivermectin. The leftists and the media went into a rage after Rogan’s easy recovery. Instead of admitting defeat and admitting that vaccines are not necessary when dealing with covid, they attacked Rogan’s method of treatment, accusing him of spreading medical misinformation and promoting “horse paste” (Ivermectin). To clarify, Rogan is living proof that easy treatment of covid is possible, and this made the left angry enough to spread lies about him and his treatments.

During his debate with Sanjay Gupta, Rogan annihilated CNN’s assertions on Ivermectin and treatment for covid in general. Remember, Gupta is CNN’s top medical correspondent, Rogan is not a doctor at all, yet, Rogan wiped the floor with Gupta because the leftists have no leg to stand on when it comes to covid. When the debate ground is fair and these people have to actually defend their claims based on facts and evidence, they lose every time. They can’t beat Rogan on the facts, so they seek to beat him through censorship.

Multiple studies have now been released which prove that Ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment for covid, greatly reducing the number of hospitalizations and deaths. But, because leftists and the establishment only want vaccinations (for some reason…), millions of lives have been lost that could have been saved. What this shows is that leftists do not actually care about saving lives, they only care that people submit to their agenda. The covid vaccines are ineffective and unnecessary, but they represent public fealty to leftist authority, and that is all that matters.

There is even less logical support for the vax mandates, which are designed to force people to accept vaccines through coercion. Leftists claim this is not force because they think force only entails holding a gun to someone’s head (which they would do if they thought they could get away with it). This is not reality. Force also includes taking away people’s rights and removing them from the economy. It includes making people’s lives miserable until they “choose” to comply.

The biggest leftist lie when it comes to covid and the primary justification for the authoritarianism and censorship is the claim that unvaxxed people are a threat to everyone else, and they have no right to put other people at risk. Again, you will never see a leftist try to defend this moronic claim in a fair debate forum because it cannot be supported. If the vaccines worked, then vaxxed people should have nothing to fear from the unvaxxed. If vaxxed people still have to worry about contracting covid and dying from covid, then the vaccines MUST NOT WORK.

And this is the reality leftists and the media do not want to talk about. Vaxxed people are just as likely to transmit the virus to others. Vaxxed people are just as likely to contract covid as the unvaxxed. Vaxxed people still end up in ICU and still die from covid, and some state numbers indicate that vaxxed people are more likley to die from covid. As a point of reference, in the state of Massachusetts alone there have been over 262,000 fully vaccinated people who still ended up infected with covid and 1054 deaths according to official numbers. That is an infection fatality rate of 0.4%, which is HIGHER than the national average IFR of 0.27%.

To summarize, the vaccines are pointless and vax mandates are criminal. Leftists cannot defend either one on scientific or moral grounds. Their only option is to silence anyone who has the guts to talk about the truth. They are weaklings with no reason in their heads, and these are the types of people that always turn to mass censorship as a tool to legitimize their ideology.

Canada Truckers vs. GloboCop – And Winning

Authored by CJ Hopkins (satirically) via The Consent Factory,

They rolled up on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill like one of the plagues in the Book of Revelations, honking their infernal air horns, the grills of their tractors grinning demonically, the sides of their dry vans painted with blasphemies like “FREEDOM TO CHOOSE,” “MANDATE FREEDOM,” “NO VACCINE MANDATES,” and “UNITED AGAINST TYRANNY.”

Yes, that’s right, New Normal Canada has been invaded and now is under siege by hordes of transphobic Putin-Nazi truckers, racist homophobes, anti-Semitic Islamaphobes, and other members of the working classes!

According to the corporate media, these racist, Russia-backed, working-class berserkers are running amok through the streets of Ottawa, waving giant “swastika flags,” defecating on war memorialssacking multi-million-dollar “soup kitchens,” and eating the food right out of homeless people’s mouths. Rumor has it, a kill-squad of truckers has been prowling the postnatal wards of hospitals, looking for Kuwaiti babies to yank out of their incubators.

I know, this is Canada, so that sounds a little dubious, but this has all been thoroughly fact-checked by the fact checkers at the New Normal Ministry of Truth … you know, the ones that fact-checked Russiagate, and the Attempted Putin-Nazi Insurrection of January 6 at the US Capitol, and the safety and effectiveness of the Covid “vaccines,” and the masks, and the inflated Covid statistics, and the rest of the official Covid narrative.

Or just take it from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau …

Now, this is the actual prime minister of Canada, not just some woke fanatic on Twitter. He was tweeting from his fortified Covid Bunker in an undisclosed location somewhere in the Yukon, or possibly the United States, where he fled as the transphobic Putin-Nazi truckers rolled up outside his office in Ottawa. Trudeau had vowed to stand and fight, but he had no choice but to flee the capital after he mysteriously tested positive for Covid (which also might have been the work of the Russians, possibly the same professional team of weed-smoking, hooker-banging Novichok assassins that got to the Skripals back in 2018).

Russian involvement has not yet been confirmed by the ex-CIA and NSA officials posing as “analysts” on CNN, but according to the CBC, “there’s concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as the protest grows, and perhaps even instigating it from the outset.”

And, in light of the exposure of Putin’s plot to produce a “very graphic” false-flag video “involving the deployment of corpses” as a pretext to invade the Ukraine and set off nuclear Armageddon, or at least a raft of economic sanctions and DEFCON 1-level bellicose verbiage, it’s possible that the entire “Covid pandemic” was an elaborate Putin-Nazi ruse designed to bring down the Trudeau government, and sabotage the implementation of the New Normal global-segregation system, and the compulsory mRNA “vaccination” of every man, woman, and child on earth, and “democracy,” and transgender rights … or whatever.

But, seriously, this is where we are at the moment. We are in that dangerous, absurdist end-stage of the collapse of a totalitarian system or movement where chaos reigns and anything can happen. The official Covid narrative is rapidly evaporating. More and more people are taking to the streets to demand an end to whole fascist charade … no, not “transphobic white supremacists” or “anti-vax extremists,” or “Russian-backed Nazis,” but working-class people of all colors and creeds, families, with children, all over the world.

The Covidian Cult has lost control. Even hardcore mask-wearing, social-distancing, triple-vaxxed-double-boosted members are defecting. Formerly fanatical New Normal fascists are mass-deleting their 2020 tweets and switching uniforms as fast as they can. No, it isn’t over yet, but the jig is up, and GloboCap knows it. And their functionaries in government know it.

And therein lies the current danger.

There is a narrow window — a month or two, maybe — for governments to declare “victory over the virus” and roll back their segregation systems, mask-wearing mandates, “vaccine” mandates, and the rest of the so-called “Covid restrictions.” Many governments are already doing so, England, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Ireland, etc. They have seen which way the wind is blowing, and they are rushing to dismantle the New Normal in their countries before … well, you know, before a convoy of angry truckers arrives at their doors.

If they let that happen, they will find themselves in the unenviable position that Trudeau is now in. The Canadian truckers appear to be serious about staying there until their demands are met, which means Trudeau only has two options: (1) give in to the truckers’ demands, or (2) attempt to remove them by force. There’s already talk about bringing in the military. Imagine what an unholy mess that would be. Odds are, the military would disobey his orders, and, if not, the world would be treated to the spectacle of full-blown New Normal Fascism in action.

Either way, Trudeau is history, as long as the truckers stand their ground. I pray they do not give an inch, and I hope the leaders of other New Normal countries, like Australia, Germany, Austria, Italy, and France, are paying close attention.

Some of my readers will probably remember a previous column in which I wrote:

“This isn’t an abstract argument over ‘the science.’ It is a fight … a political, ideological fight. On one side is democracy, on the other is totalitarianism. Pick a fucking side, and live with it.”

This is it. This is that fight. It is not a protest. It is a game of chicken. A high-stakes game of political chicken. In the end, politics comes down to power. The power to force your will on your adversary. GloboCap has been forcing the New Normal on people around the world for the past two years. What we are witnessing in Canada is the power of the people, the power the people have always had, and which we will always have, when we decide to use it … the power to shut down the whole GloboCap show, city after city if necessary.

So get out there and support the Canadian transphobic Putin-Nazi truckers … or your local transphobic Putin-Nazi truckers. Don’t worry if you don’t have a swastika flag. The agents provocateurs and the official propagandists in the corporate media will take care of that!

Official Data from Australia: 98 % of Covid Infections are Double Jabbed

via GGI
Vaccinated people account for the majority of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in an Australian state. People who had two vaccinations accounted for roughly three-quarters of ICU patients and COVID deaths.

The great majority of COVID-19 infections and deaths in Australia’s biggest state are caused by vaccinated individuals, fueling the highest spike in New South Wales ever since virus’s emergence.

According to the New South Wales Department of Health’s (NSW Health) most recent COVID monitoring report, a record surge in cases since the introduction of Omicron late last year has been mainly related to the vaccinated.

Between November 26, 2021 and January 8, 2022, almost 90% of people in the state that screened positive for coronavirus and had a known vaccination status received “two effective doses” of a COVID vaccine. Individuals with “two effective doses” have got a second jab “at least 14 days prior to known exposure to COVID-19 or arrival in Australia,” according to NSW Health.

When children under the age of 12 were excluded because they are ineligible for the immunizations, double-vaccinated adults accounted for an astounding 98 percent of cases with documented vaccination status. The unvaccinated, on the other hand, accounted for less than 1% of instances.

The unvaccinated are classified as having “no effective dose” by NSW Health, which even encompasses anybody who received the very first dosage of a two-dose vaccination regimen within 21 days after COVID contact or entry in Australia.

Pandemic of the vaccinated

Across the same time frame, the double-jabbed monopolised New South Wales’ rising COVID-19 hospitalizations and fatalities.

Amongst individuals hospitalised for the virus that had a vaccination history, 82 percent had gotten two doses – or 87 percent if children who were ineligible for immunisation were excluded.

People who had two vaccinations accounted for roughly three-quarters of ICU patients and COVID deaths.

As of late November, 91.5 percent of individuals aged 12 and over were “fully vaccinated” in New South Wales. Despite this, infections in Western Australia have soared to historic levels in over the last week, owing to a record amount of breakthrough infections.

According to NSW Health, COVID cases and hospitalizations have surpassed prior high from September 2021 and nearly doubled in the week ending January 8 compared to the previous week.

Before majority of Australians became “fully vaccinated,” the state observed a seven-day average of roughly 1,400 infections during the peak of the Delta wave in September. Daily instances reached at almost 90,000 in early January.

According to Our World in Data, the number of Coronavirus fatalities in New South Wales has also increased from January 8, with an average of 40 per day now, up from approximately one at the end of December.

Considering the overwhelming indications that the vaccines are faltering, New South Wales continues to demand health care personnel, teachers, airport workers, and senior care staff to be “fully vaccinated.”

COVID-19 is still curable and survivable for the vast majority of people who contract it, according to NSW Health data. Between November 26 and January 8, 99.4 percent of unvaccinated patients aged 12 and up who screened positive for COVID in New South Wales did not die. Unvaccinated youngsters under the age of 18 have a mortality rate of less than .1%.

“Since the start of the pandemic, 0.2% of cases (738 people) have died,” NSW Health noted. “This includes 122 residents of aged care facilities.”

The vaccinated pandemic in New South Wales matches comparable COVID patterns in Europe, wherein recent data from Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Iceland show increased infection rates amongst vaccinated individuals.

According to the U.K. Health Security Agency, unvaccinated people exhibit fewer infection numbers than double-vaccinated people throughout all age categories older than 18 in the U.K. as of late January. The vaccinated also outnumbered the unvaccinated by approximately five to one in British COVID fatalities previous month.

A War with Russia Would Be an American Wipe Out

by Scott Ritter

is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

A war with Russia would be unlike anything the US and NATO have ever experienced
Russian tanks T-72B3 take part in drills at the Kadamovskiy firing range in the Rostov region in southern Russia, Jan. 12, 2022. © AP Photo

In a recent press conference held on the occasion of a visit to Moscow by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about continued NATO expansion, and the potential consequences if Ukraine was to join the trans-Atlantic alliance.

“Their [NATO’s] main task is to contain the development of Russia,” Putin said. “Ukraine is simply a tool to achieve this goal. They could draw us into some kind of armed conflict and force their allies in Europe to impose the very tough sanctions that are being talked about in the United States today,” he noted. “Or they could draw Ukraine into NATO, set up strike weapons systems there and encourage some people to resolve the issue of Donbass or Crimea by force, and still draw us into an armed conflict.”

Putin continued, “Let us imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and is stuffed with weapons and there are state-of-the-art missile systems just like in Poland and Romania. Who will stop it from unleashing operations in Crimea, let alone Donbass? Let us imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and ventures such a combat operation. Do we have to fight with the NATO bloc? Has anyone thought anything about it? It seems not.”

But these words were dismissed by White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, who likened them to a fox “screaming from the top of the hen house that he’s scared of the chickens,” adding that any Russian expression of fear over Ukraine “should not be reported as a statement of fact.”

Psaki’s comments, however, are divorced from the reality of the situation. The principal goal of the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is what he terms the “de-occupation” of Crimea. While this goal has, in the past, been couched in terms of diplomacy – “[t]he synergy of our efforts must force Russia to negotiate the return of our peninsula,” Zelensky told the Crimea Platform, a Ukrainian forum focused on regaining control over Crimea – the reality is his strategy for return is a purely military one, in which Russia has been identified as a “military adversary”, and the accomplishment of which can only be achieved through NATO membership.

How Zelensky plans on accomplishing this goal using military means has not been spelled out. As an ostensibly defensive alliance, the odds are that NATO would not initiate any offensive military action to forcibly seize the Crimean Peninsula from Russia. Indeed, the terms of Ukraine’s membership, if granted, would need to include some language regarding the limits of NATO’s Article 5 – which relates to collective defense – when addressing the Crimea situation, or else a state of war would de facto exist upon Ukrainian accession.

The most likely scenario would involve Ukraine being rapidly brought under the ‘umbrella’ of NATO protection, with ‘battlegroups’ like those deployed into eastern Europe being formed on Ukrainian soil as a ‘trip-wire’ force, and modern air defenses combined with forward-deployed NATO aircraft put in place to secure Ukrainian airspace.

Once this umbrella has been established, Ukraine would feel emboldened to begin a hybrid conflict against what it terms the Russian occupation of Crimea, employing unconventional warfare capability it has acquired since 2015 at the hands of the CIA to initiate an insurgency designed specifically to “kill Russians.”

The idea that Russia would sit idly by while a guerilla war in Crimea was being implemented from Ukraine is ludicrous; if confronted with such a scenario, Russia would more than likely use its own unconventional capabilities in retaliation. Ukraine, of course, would cry foul, and NATO would be confronted with its mandatory obligation for collective defense under Article 5. In short, NATO would be at war with Russia.

This is not idle speculation. When explaining his recent decision to deploy some 3,000 US troops to Europe in response to the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, US President Joe Biden declared, “As long as he’s [Putin] acting aggressively, we are going to make sure we reassure our NATO allies in Eastern Europe that we’re there and Article 5 is a sacred obligation.”

Biden’s comments echo those made during his initial visit to NATO Headquarters, on June 15 last year. At that time, Biden sat down with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and emphasized America’s commitment to Article 5 of the NATO charter. “Article 5 we take as a sacred obligation,” Biden said. “I want NATO to know America is there.”

Biden’s view of NATO and Ukraine is drawn from his experience as vice president under Barack Obama. In 2015, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work told reporters, “As President Obama has said, Ukraine should … be able to choose its own future. And we reject any talk of a sphere of influence. And speaking in Estonia this past September, the president made it clear that our commitment to our NATO allies in the face of Russian aggression is unwavering. As he said it, in this alliance there are no old members and there are no new members. There are no junior partners and there are no senior partners. There are just allies, pure and simple. And we will defend the territorial integrity of every single ally.”

Just what would this defense entail? As someone who once trained to fight the Soviet Army, I can attest that a war with Russia would be unlike anything the US military has experienced – ever. The US military is neither organized, trained, nor equipped to fight its Russian counterparts. Nor does it possess doctrine capable of supporting large-scale combined arms conflict. If the US was to be drawn into a conventional ground war with Russia, it would find itself facing defeat on a scale unprecedented in American military history. In short, it would be a rout.

Don’t take my word for it. In 2016, then-Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, when speaking about the results of a study – the Russia New Generation Warfare – he had initiated in 2015 to examine lessons learned from the fighting in eastern Ukraine, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington that the Russians have superior artillery firepower, better combat vehicles, and have learned sophisticated use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for tactical effect. “Should US forces find themselves in a land war with Russia,” McMaster said, “they would be in for a rude, cold awakening.”

In short, they would get their asses kicked.

America’s 20-year Middle Eastern misadventure in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria produced a military that was no longer capable of defeating a peer-level opponent on the battlefield. This reality was highlighted in a studyconducted by the US Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade, the central American component of NATO’s Rapid Deployment Force, in 2017. The study found that US military forces in Europe were underequipped, undermanned, and inadequately organized to confront military aggression from Russia. The lack of viable air defense and electronic warfare capability, when combined with an over-reliance on satellite communications and GPS navigation systems, would result in the piecemeal destruction of the US Army in rapid order should they face off against a Russian military that was organized, trained, and equipped to specifically defeat a US/NATO threat.

The issue isn’t just qualitative, but also quantitative – even if the US military could stand toe-to-toe with a Russian adversary (which it can’t), it simply lacks the size to survive in any sustained battle or campaign. The low-intensity conflict that the US military waged in Iraq and Afghanistan has created an organizational ethos built around the idea that every American life is precious, and that all efforts will be made to evacuate the wounded so that they can receive life-saving medical attention in as short a timeframe as possible. This concept may have been viable where the US was in control of the environment in which fights were conducted. It is, however, pure fiction in large-scale combined arms warfare. There won’t be medical evacuation helicopters flying to the rescue – even if they launched, they would be shot down. There won’t be field ambulances – even if they arrived on the scene, they would be destroyed in short order. There won’t be field hospitals – even if they were established, they would be captured by Russian mobile forces.

What there will be is death and destruction, and lots of it. One of the events which triggered McMaster’s study of Russian warfare was the destruction of a Ukrainian combined arms brigade by Russian artillery in early 2015. This, of course, would be the fate of any similar US combat formation. The superiority Russia enjoys in artillery fires is overwhelming, both in terms of the numbers of artillery systems fielded and the lethality of the munitions employed.

While the US Air Force may be able to mount a fight in the airspace above any battlefield, there will be nothing like the total air supremacy enjoyed by the American military in its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The airspace will be contested by a very capable Russian air force, and Russian ground troops will be operating under an air defense umbrella the likes of which neither the US nor NATO has ever faced. There will be no close air support cavalry coming to the rescue of beleaguered American troops. The forces on the ground will be on their own.

This feeling of isolation will be furthered by the reality that, because of Russia’s overwhelming superiority in electronic warfare capability, the US forces on the ground will be deaf, dumb, and blind to what is happening around them, unable to communicate, receive intelligence, and even operate as radios, electronic systems, and weapons cease to function.

Any war with Russia would find American forces slaughtered in large numbers. Back in the 1980s, we routinely trained to accept losses of 30-40 percent and continue the fight, because that was the reality of modern combat against a Soviet threat. Back then, we were able to effectively match the Soviets in terms of force size, structure, and capability – in short, we could give as good, or better, than we got.

That wouldn’t be the case in any European war against Russia. The US will lose most of its forces before they are able to close with any Russian adversary, due to deep artillery fires. Even when they close with the enemy, the advantage the US enjoyed against Iraqi and Taliban insurgents and ISIS terrorists is a thing of the past. Our tactics are no longer up to par – when there is close combat, it will be extraordinarily violent, and the US will, more times than not, come out on the losing side.

But even if the US manages to win the odd tactical engagement against peer-level infantry, it simply has no counter to the overwhelming number of tanks and armored fighting vehicles Russia will bring to bear. Even if the anti-tank weapons in the possession of US ground troops were effective against modern Russian tanks (and experience suggests they are probably not), American troops will simply be overwhelmed by the mass of combat strength the Russians will confront them with.

In the 1980s, I had the opportunity to participate in a Soviet-style attack carried out by specially trained US Army troops – the ‘OPFOR’ – at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California, where two Soviet-style Mechanized Infantry Regiments squared off against a US Army Mechanized Brigade. The fight began at around two in the morning. By 5:30am it was over, with the US Brigade destroyed, and the Soviets having seized their objectives. There’s something about 170 armored vehicles bearing down on your position that makes defeat all but inevitable.

This is what a war with Russia would look like. It would not be limited to Ukraine, but extend to battlefields in the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, and elsewhere. It would involve Russian strikes against NATO airfields, depots, and ports throughout the depth of Europe.

This is what will happen if the US and NATO seek to attach the “sacred obligation” of Article 5 of the NATO Charter to Ukraine. It is, in short, a suicide pact.

Canada Province Vows to End Covid Restrictions ‘Very Soon’

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said it’s time to get ‘back to normal’

Canada province vows to end Covid restrictions ‘very soon’

Canada’s Saskatchewan province will soon lift all of its Covid-19 measures, the regional government said, arguing that residents are tired of intrusions into their lives and a perpetual state of panic triggered by the pandemic.

“Covid is not ending, but government restrictions on your rights and freedoms – those will be ending, and ending very soon,” Moe said in a video posted to Twitter on Wednesday night. “What’s necessary is your freedom. What’s necessary is getting your life back to normal, and it’s time.”

The public health order which created Saskatchewan’s Covid rules is set to expire later this month, but currently requires masking at indoor public spaces, proof of vaccination or a negative test result for government employees, as well as mandatory self-isolation for anyone who screens positive for the virus.

In addition to dropping the remaining restrictions, beginning February 7, the province will limit access to PCR testing to “priority populations,” including healthcare workers, international travelers and residents currently showing symptoms, according to interim Health Authority chief Derek Miller. Walk-in and drive-through test sites previously open to the general public will also be shuttered at that time, and the government will stop providing weekly updates on new Covid cases, deaths, testing and vaccinations.

The premier went on to state that the measures would be halted not because “Covid has ended” – saying it is impossible to eliminate the virus for good – but rather because “people understand it better.”

“They understand what they need to do. They understand the risk and they are prepared to live with that risk, more than they are prepared to live with the ongoing government intrusion into their lives,” he continued, adding that a “perpetual state of crisis” has had a “harmful impact on everyone” over the last two years.

Though Saskatchewan has seen a spike in coronavirus infections in recent months, said to be fueled by the Omicron variant, deaths in the province remain well below previous stages of the pandemic. It has tallied just over 1,000 fatalities since the global outbreak kicked off in late 2019.

Other Canadian provinces have also hinted at dropping some of their restrictions, with the country’s most populous region of Ontario unveiling plans to gradually scale back its measures late last month. Alberta’s chief health officer, Deena Hinshaw, also recently argued that such restrictions cannot be used “in the long-term,” suggesting it, too, could look to drop them soon. 

Covid-19 measures and associated mandates have become a hot topic of debate across Canada as of late. Major protests over vaccination requirements for long-haul truck drivers have erupted in its capital city of Ottawa and at multiple locations near the border with the United States, creating a blockade of trucks that effectively shut down a border crossing in Alberta.

12 Countries Roll Back COVID Restrictions, Israel Scraps ‘Green Pass’

Sweden and Switzerland joined Denmark, Norway, Finland, Ireland, The Netherlands, Italy, Lithuania, France and the UK in announcing they will lift COVID restrictions and open up their countries.

By Megan Redshaw via Children’s Health Defense

Europe is accelerating steps to roll back COVID restrictions as efforts to control the spread of the virus have failed and countries downgrade the threat posed by SARS-CoV-2.

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.

Europe is accelerating steps to roll back COVID restrictions as efforts to control the spread of the virus have failed and countries downgrade the threat posed by SARS-CoV-2.

Sweden and Switzerland joined Denmark, Norway, Finland, Ireland, The Netherlands, Italy, Lithuania, France and the UK in announcing they will lift COVID restrictions and open up their countries.

Top Israeli officials also announced this week they are abolishing the country’s “Green Pass” COVID vaccine passport for restaurants, hotels, gyms and theaters.

The policy update will take effect Feb. 6, Prime Minister Naftali Bennet’s government said, pending approval by a parliamentary committee. Israel’s proof-of-vaccination policy will remain in effect for events such as parties or weddings.

“To continue the green pass in the same way can create false assurances,” said Nadav Davidovitch, an epidemiologist and public health physician advising Prime Minister Naftali Bennet’s government. “It’s not reducing infections in closed spaces like theatres. It needs to be used mainly for high-risk places like hospitals, elderly care homes, or events when you are eating and singing and dancing.”

Sweden will lift all COVID restrictions by Feb. 9, the Swedish government said today.

According to Politico, the Swedish Public Health Agency said it reassessed COVID as “not being socially critical” due to a better understanding of the Omicron variant, which is milder and associated with fewer hospitalizations.

“It’s time to open up Sweden,” said Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson. “The pandemic isn’t over, but it is moving into a new phase.”

The decision to open Sweden came a day after Switzerland, citing high immunity levels and the milder Omicron variant, announced it will abolish mandatory work-from-home and the quarantine rules beginning today.

The government also will lift health measures at the borders and tourists will no longer need to receive Swiss COVID certificates.

The Swiss government said it planned to phase out other restrictions after consulting with 26 cantons, employers, trade unions and parliamentary committees.

In two weeks, the government will determine the next steps to relax pandemic measures depending on the health situation, according to an official statement.

Options include a staggered exit strategy or an abrupt end to all COVID measures on Feb. 17.

Denmarks to classify COVID as endemic disease

Just days before Sweden and Switzerland’s announcements, Denmark became the first country in the European Union to lift all COVID restrictions, reclassifying COVID as an endemic disease.

Danish Health Minister Magnus Heunicke on Feb. 1 wrote a letter to the parliament’s epidemiology committee stating COVID was no longer a “socially critical disease.”

Based on the recommendations of the committee, the government decided to scrap COVID restrictions.

The “rules will lapse when the illness will no longer be categorized as ‘socially critical’ on 1 February 2022,” Heunicke wrote.

The classification of a disease as “socially critical” gave the government authority to implement broad restrictive measures such as shutting businesses and making mask-wearing mandatory.

An endemic disease circulates freely but is recognized as posing less of a threat to societies.

“No one can know what will happen next December,” Heunicke told CNN on Monday. “But we promised the citizens of Denmark that we will only have restrictions if they are truly necessary and we’ll lift them as soon as we can. That’s what’s happening right now.”

When asked about vaccine mandates, Heunicke said:

“Luckily we don’t need that in Denmark … I’m really happy that we don’t need it because it’s a very troubling path to move that way.”

Søren Brostrøm, director-general of Denmark’s Health Authority agreed:

“I do not believe in imposed vaccine mandates. It’s a pharmaceutical intervention with possible side effects. You need as an authority, to recognize that. I think if you push too much, you will have a reaction — action generates reaction, especially with vaccines.”

Danish authorities will still recommend taking at-home tests when coming into contact with large groups of people and will make PCR tests available to the public. Travelers entering the country will still be tested upon entry.

Other European Companies drop COVID restrictions

Italy, France, Norway, Lithuania, England and Finland also relaxed restrictions, Bloomberg reported.

“We should discuss whether it’s time for us to take a different viewpoint and start unwinding restrictions even with a high number of infections,” Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin told reporters. “I hope that we can be rid of restrictions during February.”

At a meeting in Helsinki to discuss the pace of removing restrictions, the government decided to lift all limits on gatherings and ease restrictions on restaurants and bars on Feb.14. Night clubs will remain closed until March 1. Cultural venues, events and sports will be free from restrictions.

Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s administration met Wednesday to discuss how to curb restrictions. The government will initially focus on quarantine rules for children and plans to cut the 10-day isolation requirement down to five.

France on Wednesday ended mandatory work-from-home rules, eliminated requirements on face masks outdoors and lifted attendance restrictions at stadiums and theaters.

The Lithuanian government is dropping its requirement to present a vaccination certificate in public areas, such as restaurants and sporting events, and unvaccinated workers will no longer be required to undergo weekly testing.

France’s looser rules went into effect on Wednesday, ending mandatory work-from-home rules, eliminating requirements on face masks outdoors and lifting attendance limits in stadiums and theaters.

Norway followed suit and lifted restrictions on private gatherings, bars and restaurants and will not require border testing.

England last week announced it was lifting its COVID restrictions. Beginning Jan. 27, face coverings were no longer required by law anywhere in England and the legal requirement for COVID passes to enter large venues and clubs were scrapped.

The government also dropped guidance for face-covering in classrooms, advice for people working from home and restrictions for nursing home visitors.

On Jan. 26, the Netherlands reopened restaurants, bars, museums and theaters as part of a broader easing of restrictions.

Lockdowns had little-to-no benefit on public health, analysis shows

Few studies, if any, have been carried out to determine whether vaccine passports and COVID restrictions actually lowered COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

However, a recent analysis published by researchers at John Hopkins found COVID lockdown measures implemented in the U.S. and Europe had almost no effect on public health.

“We find little-to-no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding they reduced COVID mortality only by 2.9%.

Studies assessing only shelter-in-place orders found a mortality reduction of 5.1%, but when combined with other lockdown measures, shelter-in-place orders actually increased COVID mortality by 2.8%.

Researchers found limits on gatherings may have actually increased COVID mortality. They wrote:

“[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness. But often, lockdowns have limited people’s access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places.”

COVID lockdown measures also contributed to “reducing economic activity, rising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence and undermining liberal democracy,” the report said.