Source – theorganicprepper.com “…Grocery stores rely on just-in-time systems to get their food to their customers. On average, this means that a grocery store has roughly a week’s worth of food within its four walls at any given time. However, remember that this is a week’s worth of food in normal circumstances. As the 2020 […]
…Each booster, they say, represents a vaccine dose that could instead go to low- and middle-income countries, where most citizens have no protection at all, and where dangerous coronavirus variants could emerge as cases surge.” The organization maintains that the shots would be more useful if given to low- and lower-middle-income countries...
Dr. Josef Mengele is one of the true monsters of history. His profoundly evil medical experiments on Jews, the disabled, the mentally impaired, and other Third Reich deplorables are the stuff of pitch-black fever dreams. Combining disparate elements of pernicious ideologies including eugenics, antisemitism, racial purity, and the German ideal of lebensraum (“room for living”), what eventually became Nazism informed Hitler’s ethos as he rose to power. His malignant weltanschauung eventually coalesced into the Final Solution.
Hitler’s infernal vision metastasized quickly to infect the belief systems of top-tier Nazis. Among other atrocities, Mengele used injections to attempt to change the eye color of his “patients” to blue to render them more Aryan. When these experiments went sideways, the fiendish M.D. demonstrated a penchant for “tidying up.” One person testified to having witnessed the diabolical doctor kill fourteen sets of twins in one night with chloroform injections to the heart in order to make comparative post-mortem observations.
After the Allies won the war, the Nuremberg Trials were convened to assess the astonishing breadth of the human tragedy as authored by Hitler and his henchmen and mete out punishment for their actions. The cruelty and depravity of Mengele and others, including Adolf Eichmann, shocked the world, were almost beyond reckoning, and subsequently inspired the establishment of the Nuremberg Code — which was tacitly endorsed by nearly every nation on earth.
The ten points of the Nuremberg Code for human experimentation are as follows:
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the effects upon his health or person, which may come from his participation in the experiment.
- The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
- The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation.
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
- No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.
- The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
- Proper preparations should be made, and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
- The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
- During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
- During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
All COVID vaccines emergency authorized by the FDA have not yet been approved and are experimental, as they have undergone no long-term safety trials. Safety data are being partially collected in real time as adverse events are reported to VAERS. The tenets of the Nuremberg Code apply here as these vaccines are — by definition — a medical experiment being administered worldwide.
Given that, the explicit statement in #1 that subjects not be subject to coercion raises the question: does the threat of losing one’s job, not being able to attend college, or not being able to travel or attend a live event constitute coercion? Does the president of the United States urging Americans to “get the shot” and then threatening to send emissaries door to door to “encourage” it constitute coercion? Is it coercion to establish two Americas in which one half that chooses vaccination gets to eschew masks and move about freely, while the other half that doesn’t must stay masked and have their essential freedoms proscribed?
Later in #1, the text explicitly states that the subject must be made aware of “the effects upon his health or person.” This is known as informed consent: patients need to be made fully aware of the potential dangers of a medical procedure in keeping with the Hippocratic oath. There have been many reports of adverse events from the COVID vaccines, including Bell’s palsy, seizures, blood clotting, heart inflammation, and death. How many people reading this who got the vaccine had these potential side effects explained to them before getting jabbed? How many were afforded informed consent?
The second bullet point dictates the experiment (COVID vaccine) “should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation.” In an alarming break with decades of convention, the Pfizer and Moderna animal trials were run concurrently with human trials. The human trials were not a result of animal trials, giving the manufacturers a chance to make safety adjustments, which constitutes a violation of the Nuremberg Code.
The fifth bullet point states that no experiment (the experimental vaccine in this case) should be given if there’s reason to believe it could cause a disabling injury or death. With over 400,000 adverse events and 9,000 unconfirmed deaths from COVID vaccines reported to VAERS, is there reason to believe the COVID vaccines violate the Nuremberg Code in yet another way?
The eighth bullet point emphasizes the “highest degree of skill and care” by “scientifically qualified persons” when administering the vaccine. Do pharmacists fit that profile? Do school nurses? How about the folks jabbing people motoring through drive-thru clinics? Does the fact that they all enjoy total liability protection from vaccine injury and death give pause?
The last bullet point emphasizes that the administering agent should exercise caution in fulfillment of the Hippocratic oath by terminating treatment if there is reason to believe that further treatment could cause “injury, disability or death.” There are countless stories of people having an adverse reaction to the first of two shots — but being encouraged to continue with the second shot anyway. Many of these unfortunates suffered debilitating, lifelong injuries — or death — after the second vaccine. Meanwhile, instances of doctors or health care workers erring on the side of caution and advising against the second shot for these vulnerable patients are vanishingly rare.
It is increasingly clear that the powerful principles and precepts of the Nuremberg Code have been flouted, even decimated, by those seeking to push the COVID vaccines on every single person on Earth. Foremost among these is the caution against coercion. Those who resist the anti-American and anti-human idea of a one-size-fits-all medical treatment are freedom-fighters for the obvious and inherent right to choose for themselves. That this is no longer self-evident is deeply alarming.
It is a well-worn aphorism that those who forget their past are condemned to repeat it. Despite mounting evidence of serious adverse events and death, are we doing just that in our increasingly desperate attempts to use coercion to vaccinate absolutely everyone?
Are we nullifying the Nuremberg Code?
Pennel Bird is a writer, musician, educator, father, and husband. He likes piña coladas and getting caught in the rain.
Last week the hospital bill finally came. The cost of an uncomplicated vaginal birth? $37,617.69. The bulk of the charge was for three nights’ “room and board” in a semi-private room (containing two beds separated by a curtain) which was $10,350 a night. Our health insurance covers about $31,000 – leaving us with a balance…
Unjected describes itself as a “platform for like-minded humans that support medical autonomy.” The dating app has been pitched as a ‘safe space’ of sorts for unvaccinated Americans looking to date without the pressure of being or not being inoculated against Covid-19. Critics, however, have viewed the app as a growing social-media platform for anti-vaxxers and a hotspot of Covid misinformation.
After the app was removed from Apple on Saturday, the company blasted the move as “censorship.”
“Apparently, we’re considered ‘too much’ for sharing our medical autonomy and freedom of choice,” the company said in a Saturday statement posted to Instagram.
The app remains on the Google Play store, but they acknowledge that the move by Apple may mean a website may be Unjected’s best option moving forward so that they are not reliant on app stores.
Other dating apps such as Tinder and Bumble have introduced features to encourage vaccinations, making Unjected stand out even more after launching in May.
But the boiling point for the platforms was reached after Unjected added a social feature that allowed more general postings. It was flagged by Google after Unjected’s moderators were accused of not doing enough to police misinformation on Covid-19 and the vaccines available.
In response to Google’s concerns, the social feed was removed, though co-founder Shelby Thompson wants to soon reintroduce it and the flagged posts.
“We’ve had to walk a censorship tightrope,” she said, according to Bloomberg News, which first reported Apple removed Unjected on Saturday after being contacted by a reporter about the app.
The app also includes lists of businesses that disagree with vaccine mandates.
Apple has already had issues with Unjected, initially denying approval for the app during its initial review process. Changes had to be made for it to get approval to be in compliance with the company’s strict policy on Covid-19 “misinformation,” but a spokesperson for Apple said updates to the app, as well as statements made to its thousands of users, have brought it back out of compliance.
“The developer has made statements externally to its users as well as updates to the app that once again bring it out of compliance,” the spokesperson said.
Apple argued that, because some phrases and words were initially flagged by the company in the app’s social feature, Unjected users began using different placeholder words and phrases to essentially promote the same conspiracy theories about Covid-19 vaccines.
The new decision makes clear, the company said, that “if you attempt to cheat our system, your apps will be removed from the store.”
Thompson maintains, however, that Apple is merely looking for an excuse to censor Unjected, and even says the removal “violates our constitutional rights.”
The criminal complaint, filed by FBI special agent Jason Jankovitz, provides details on the FBI’s monitoring of Duong and a “Bible study” group that served as a front group.
At least one undercover agent was working the extremist groups that would show up at the Capitol on January 6th, new court documents reveal. The revelation was disclosed in an affidavit accompanyingcriminal chargesagainst Fi Duong.
“An accused U.S. Capitol protester spoke with an undercover Washington police officer on Jan. 6 who later connected the man to an undercover FBI worker,” the Epoch Timesreported.
“On the morning of January 6, 2021, Fi Duong and an associate of his (Associate 1) introduced themselves to a Metropolitan Police Department Undercover Employee (MPD UCE) in the vicinity of Freedom Plaza, Washington, D.C,” thecriminal complaintstates. “Duong asked the MPD UCE if he/she was a ‘patriot,’ to which the MPD UCE responded in the affirmative and asked Duong the same question. Duong responded by claiming to be an ‘operator’.”
“Later that afternoon, the MPD UCE observed Duong kneeling by a…
View original post 136 more words
Comment by tonytran2015: The most logical and easiest solution to the dilemma is for the governments to directly pay the landlords. Why hadn’t governments done that? Why should landlords alone bear the burden?
#AceDailyNews says as ‘The Eviction Moratorium’ Is Expiring. Yet the Vast Majority of Rental Aid Still Hasn’t Been Spent as more than 6-million American households are behind on rent payments.
Mother Jones: Published: July:2021:
The Biden administration will allow the nationwide eviction moratorium to expire on Saturday following a June Supreme Court decision that limited its ability to keep the ban in place. The moratorium is ending despite the fact that the vast majority of federal rental aid still hasn’t been spent.
Just yesterday, we discussed the censoring of a commentator by Twitter for merely expressing an opinion over the need for a “pause” on any federal mandates on Covid-19 as new research is studied. Now, a former New York Times science reporter, Alex Berenson, has been suspended for simply citing the results from a clinical trial by Pfizer and raising questions over any vaccine mandate. In the meantime, the White House accused both the Washington Post and New York Times of irresponsible reporting on Covid, but surprisingly Twitter has not suspended those accounts. It is the license of the censor. Twitter is unwilling to let people read or discuss viewpoints that it disagrees with as a corporation. Many on the left, however, have embraced the concept of corporate speech and censorship. It turns out that the problem with censorship for many was the failure to censor views that they opposed. With the “right” censors at work, the free speech concerns have been set aside.
I have little ability to judge the science on such questions. Moreover, I was eager to be vaccinated as was my entire family. I would get the vaccination today with equal enthusiasm. However, I welcome the debate for data. Yet, rather than answer such critics and refute their arguments, many people focus on silencing anyone with dissenting viewpoints like Berenson.
Berenson has been effectively confined to Substack by Big Tech due to his discussing dissenting views on the science surrounding Covid-19. His latest offense against Big Tech came when he posted the results published by Pfizer of its own clinical data. He claimed that the research showed little difference in mortality between those in the trial with a vaccine and those given a placebo.
Wakana addressed the same issue with a New York Times tweet stating “Breaking News: The Delta variant is as contagious as chickenpox and may be spread by vaccinated people as easily as the unvaccinated, an internal C.D.C. report said.” That sent Wakana into all caps: “VACCINATED PEOPLE DO NOT TRANSMIT THE VIRUS AT THE SAME RATE AS UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND IF YOU FAIL TO INCLUDE THAT CONTEXT YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.”
Now all three posters (Berenson, The Post, and The Times) were citing studies and accused of not putting them into context. However, only Berenson was suspended.
Obviously, none of these posters should be suspended and Twitter should not be enforcing one of the largest censorship programs in history. However, the silence of free speech supports, academics, and journalists to this hypocrisy is deafening.
The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion. That concern has been magnified by demands from Democratic leaders for increased censorship, including censoring political speech, and now word that the Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.
This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
Why not have “half-strength” initial dose for Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine ?
The “dose errors” in the phase 3 trial of Astrazeneca gives a result that
What were the results?
About 3,000 participants were given the half dose and then a full dose four
weeks later, and this regime appeared to provide the most protection or efficacy in the trial – around 90%.
In the larger group of nearly 9,000 volunteers, who were given two full doses also four weeks apart, efficacy was 62%.
If the vaccine were developed in the last century, experimenters then would follow their data and would conclude that vaccination would have the most efficacy with “an initial half-strength dose followed by a full-strength dose”.
A simple explanation for the phenomenon is that the “initial full-strength dose” caused damage to some parts of the immune system while “initial half-strength dose“ avoided that.
Such a hypothesis of damage to the immune system is further strengthened with the observation that “full-dose” followed “full-dose” within six weeks brings efficacy down from 76% down to 55%. The immune system would then be hypothetically in recovery and it would almost recover after 12 weeks.
A study published earlier this year in The Lancet found that a single dose of AstraZeneca is 76 per cent effective in the first 90 days.
Receiving a second dose 12 weeks or more after the first can kick this protection up to around 81 per cent.
But this efficacy dropped to around 55 per cent if the second jab was given
less than six weeks after the first, the study found.
The conclusion that the most efficacy is obtained with “an initial half-dose followed by a full-dose” is the most obvious one to arrive at. Why have medical experimenters avoided that conclusion?
Vaccination is a form of training for the immune system. Why should it now be different from accepted method of gradual intensity used in other forms of training (such as in sport training)?
If such a conclusion had not been avoided by experimenters, the recommended initial dose would have been half-strength and the incidents of blood clotting after initial doses would have been reduced and many lives could have been saved.
Medical professionals have to give satisfactory answers to the question posed here if they want to clear up the many confusions they have created themselves surrounding Covid-19 and its vaccines.
Although their own theory cannot be proved (Karl Popper), they should prove that this alternative theory of “the initial dose should be half-strength” is wrong for Covid-19.