Let’s Protect Our Kids

6 ‘Noncompliance’ Strategies for Protecting Kids and Teens in 2023

Since 2020, parents have had to contend with increasingly brazen efforts by governments, schools, foundations, Big Tech, Big Pharma and others to hijack, injure or destroy children’s minds and bodies. Here are some strategies for parents to help kids resist the pressure to comply.

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

Since 2020, parents have had to contend with increasingly brazen efforts by governmentsschoolsfoundationsBig TechBig Pharma and others to hijack, injure or destroy children’s minds and bodies.

Far from being piecemeal or merely opportunistic responses to a convenient “pandemic,” these assaults on children — and adults, too — reflect a well-financed, long-term control agenda aimed at implementation of digital identities, social scoring and “full monitoring and tracking of every human being through … mechanisms already in place.”

At the “Defeat the Mandates” rally in January 2022, Children’s Health Defense Chairman and Chief Litigation Counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., asserted, “Nobody in the history of the planet has ever complied their way out of totalitarian control” and reminded the public, “Every time you comply, you get weaker.”

Kennedy also warned, “they’re coming for our children.”

As if in confirmation, infantskindergartners and college students were badgered throughout the year to get — and then suffered atrocious damage from — COVID-19 shots, despite overwhelming evidence that the jabs urgently needed to be withdrawn from the market.

Clued in to these and other dangers crowding around their children, a growing number of parents recognized the need for noncompliance.

Keeping noncompliance as the watchword for 2023, here are some actions that could make a real difference in the coming year.

Choose home schooling

In a nine-part series written earlier this year, journalist Corey Lynn of Corey’s Digs described comprehensive social engineering efforts — “obedience training” — rolling out in coordinated fashion in 110 countries, in part via school-based “Social and Emotional Learning” programs.

Implemented by educators, counselors and other professionals in “public schools, charter schools, after-school programs, summer camps, virtual schools and remote schooling,” the goal is, according to Lynn, “shaping minds, regulating emotions, controlling behaviors, instilling twisted beliefs, and building an obedient workforce.”

As Anna L. Noble put it in an April 2022 article in The Defender, “Schools provide a useful testing ground to experiment with ways to hold the attention of children, develop nudges, and elicit desirable behavioral responses.”

Scathing education whistleblower Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, a now-deceased former senior policy advisor for the U.S. Department of Education, decried the “deliberate dumbing down of America” and traced the education system’s shift “from academics to behavioral modification” back to at least 1965.

Iserbyt observed that the Department of Education did not exist prior to its 1979 creation under the Carter Administration, stating, “There is nowhere in the constitution that calls for a Department of Education.”

Even private schools, under the thumb of the agenda-driven National Association of Independent Schools, appear to have lost any vestiges of “independence,” with enrollment contracts reportedly prohibiting parents “from ‘[voicing] strong disagreement’ with school policy or curricula, under threat of expulsion.”

Instead of continuing to expect something different from an “abusive” educational system, Lynn suggests that home schooling can be a powerful form of noncompliance.

Many parents apparently agree — responding to schools’ disastrous imposition of measures like remote learning and masking in 2020, a record number of households turned to home schooling.

Prior to COVID-19, roughly 3.4% of school-age children were home-schoolers, but by the start of the 2020-2021 school year, the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate had risen to 11.1%.

Home schooling is now the fastest-growing form of education in the U.S.

Stop the poisoning

Earlier this month, more than a third of parents surveyed (35%) — up from less than one-fourth (23%) in 2019 — questioned school vaccine mandates,

And this was only the latest in a string of reports addressing rising parental ambivalence about “routine” childhood vaccines.

These trends suggest that a critical mass of parents is coming to see vaccines as a “con man trick,” understanding that promises of vaccine safety were false and conflict-of-interest-riddled well before COVID-19 shots came along — and in fact, since the very inception of childhood vaccination programs.

The world’s vaccine experts conceded this point in a roundabout manner at a World Health Organization Global Vaccine Safety Summit in late 2019, as did Danish researcher and long-time vaccine insider Christine Stabell Benn at around the same time.

Benn commented, “Vaccination opponents are justified in being concerned [about safety],” adding:

“No vaccines have been studied for their non-specific effects on overall health, and before we have examined these, we cannot actually determine that the vaccines are safe.”

Benn’s colleague Peter Aaby admitted, also in 2019, “Most of you think that we know what all our vaccines are doing; we don’t.”

In mid-2021, Benn and Aaby cautiously argued against COVID-19 shots for children in the high-status BMJ scientific journal.

Given the shocking odds of vaccine injury that already prevailed prior to COVID-19 — conservatively estimated in a 2010 government-commissioned report at one in every 39 vaccines administered — it is not surprising that the carnage from COVID-19 jabs would now be swelling the ranks of questioners and “ex-vaxxers.”

However, vaccination — even with its payload of known and undisclosed toxic ingredients and apparent batch-to-batch variability — is far from the only vehicle for poisoning our most vulnerable.

Parents willing to do their own research and forge their family’s own nutritional and healthcare path will find that it may be within their reach to lessen, if not entirely eliminate, their children’s exposure to other common poisons such as food additivesglyphosateorganochlorine and organophosphate pesticides and over-the-counter drugs like acetaminophen, all of which come with vastly underreported dangers.

Reduce screen time

In 2006, author Richard Louv coined the term “nature-deficit disorder” in the subtitle to his book “Last Child in the Woods,” suggesting that today’s “wired generation,” with parents’ conscious or unconscious permission, has unwisely prioritized screens over time in nature.

With the worsening of children’s screen habits over the past several years, the nature deficit has become a “hot topic.”

Worried researchers also describe how screens are displacing “developmentally beneficial activities” as basic as sleep, physical activity, family interactions and book reading.

The related problem of screen or social media addiction — linked not just to sleeplessness but to eating disorders and outcomes like suicide — has become the focus of lawsuits alleging that social media companies “aggressively” deploy algorithms designed to addict children and adolescents.

Discovering the major role that “social influencers” seem to play in the exploding phenomenon of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” among girls, author Abigail Shrier’s top recommendation in her book, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” is to not give one’s daughter a smartphone.

As “Financial Rebellion” and the Solari Report’s Catherine Austin Fitts explains, “Children are targets of some of the most powerful people and dangerous technology on the planet,” and it is parents’ job to “understand this and protect them.”

Teach kids to use cash, not plastic

In late 2020, Bank for International Settlements General Manager Augustín Carstens shared central bankers’ unfriendly vision of a monetary system enabling complete control of all transactions through central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) which, ominously, would also allow central banks to turn people’s money on and off at will.

Unfortunately, the younger generations are marching heedlessly toward this dystopian vision, with millennials, according to 2021 research by Capital One, “increasingly moving away from cash spending” in favor of digital payment systems.

Pushing a “convenience” narrative, some banks — seemingly unaware that CBDCs threaten their own future — are promoting the cashless agenda by offering high school debit cards that double as school ID cards, telling parents they’ll no longer have to “worry about lost lunch money.”

Fitts is a strong proponent of revitalizing the use of cash.

Parents can help by not only being cash role models themselves but by having their children “start handling cash when they are young.”

In 2015, Editor-at-Large Janet Bodnar of Kiplinger’s Personal Finance opined that “using cash is the best way to get young minds thinking wisely about money,” including older teens who can benefit from “the discipline of managing a stash of real cash.”

Bodnar dismissed as flawed the parental argument that plastic can teach kids “financial responsibility.”

A British math expert told The Guardian in 2021, “Being able to handle money and buy something yourself is very special: it builds up your confidence with money.”

Don’t fall for mental health traps 

Over the years, many parents have learned to be wary of recommendations coming from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an agency so accustomed to conflicts of interest and fake science that it is not embarrassed to use the same PR firm as Big Pharma.

Thus, calls for more mental health screening and greater access to “care” — from birth through young adulthood — by CDC and CDC/pharma front groups like the American

Academy of Pediatrics deserve careful scrutiny.

As recently outlined in The Defender, cradle-to-grave psychiatric surveillance is a stealth tool for social control, and also risks stigmatizing and potentially life-threatening consequences like overdiagnosis, overmedicalization and overmedication.

Schools increasingly serve as the delivery mechanism for mental health screening and services, but as the Los-Angeles-based Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) — a mental health watchdog group — warned in a fact sheet, the “subjective and unscientific” mental health screening tools that schools are using are “developed by psychiatrists predominantly with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.”

According to CCHR:

“Mental health screening asks young students embarrassing, personal and potentially upsetting questions that psychiatrists have worded in such a way that no student could escape being labeled mentally ill at some point during their education.”

CCHR adds, “These questionnaires can result in psychological or psychiatric intervention in the lives of a child and his or her family — often against their will or under threat.”

For households that are not home schooling, the watchdog group recommends that parents become aware of what is happening, sign exemption forms prior to mental health screening or counseling and “unite to get psychiatric screening expelled from schools.”

Stop financing the enemy

Author and researcher Dr. Naomi Wolf recently braved the cold in front of her alma mater Yale University to make the case that the university’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates turn students into “medical hostages” and constitute human trafficking.

In her Substack account of the Yale visit, Wolf described conversations with parents, who said “their children had begged them not to speak out, not to call the Dean, not to advocate for them to protect them from these injections, in any way,” due to the fear of reprisal and expulsion.

However, parents have a duty to make sure their young people understand what they are trading off for prestige — including, potentially, their health, their future fertility or their life.

Moreover, even if, as Wolf alleges, universities are now more beholden to government contracts than to those who pay tuition, college students and their parents still represent a powerful economic bloc capable of voting with their feet.

One tool at parents’ disposal, suggests Wolf, is to escrow potential donations to show universities the funds they are missing out on.

But parents who give their current or soon-to-be college students the permission and courage to shun any higher education institution that shows itself willing to poison them and deprive them of their constitutional freedoms can offer their children an even more powerful life lesson.

A high school student who recognized that “mandates will not end as long as we participate” developed a letter for college admissions offices (available as a template for others) that says:

“At this time, I’m only considering schools, colleges or universities that do not require a Covid-19 vaccine and that would mean the initial series, any boosters and including upcoming requirements to be considered ‘up to date.’ Medical freedom and body autonomy are my highest priority.”

Say no to the control grid

Although this article has focused on measures to protect young people, the control grid — in the form of interventions like digital IDsvaccine passports and CBDCs — is also coming after adults.

As Kennedy wrote in the afterword to his bestseller, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” “We can bow down and comply … Or we can say no. We have a choice, and it is not too late.”

CHD.TV’s “Financial Rebellion” offers weekly suggestions on how to not comply.

In Kennedy’s words:

“We can say no to compliance with jabs for work, no to sending children to school with forced testing and masking, no to censored social media platforms, no to buying products from the companies bankrupting and seeking to control us. These actions are not easy, but living with the consequence of inaction would be far harder. By calling on our moral courage, we can stop this march towards a global police state.”

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/protecting-kids-teens-noncompliance/

What Did Fauci Do?

Fauci’s Calendar: What Was He Doing in the Months Before the Pandemic?

After filing an expensive lawsuit, OpenTheBooks.com finally got the National Institutes of Health to release Dr. Anthony Fauci’s work calendar — here’s what it shows.

On Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020, at 9 a.m., Dr. Anthony Fauci joined staff at the National Security Council (NSC) — the President’s national security and foreign policy advisory shop — for a meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building about the novel coronavirus.

Fauci would continue to have meetings in classified settings throughout the month.

Fauci’s calendar entries included NSC meetings, White House Situation Room meetings and meetings in other classified settings, as COVID-19 was breaking in China. (To our knowledge, the existence of these meetings before Jan. 28, 2020, was not previously disclosed.)

On Friday, Jan. 24, four days after China admitted human-to-human transmission of the virus, Fauci started attending a small group COVID-19 discussion that first took place in “Anthony’s Office” in a building next to the White House. Anthony, in this case, appears to be an NSC employee and an expert in biodefense and China.

Flashing back to December 2019, when patients in Wuhan were showing up at hospitals with unidentified pneumonia cases, Fauci attended the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — National Institutes of Health (NIH) dinner and workshops on Dec. 19 and 20 — the sixth annual event for NIH staff and Gates Foundation executives.

On the morning of Dec. 19, billionaire Bill Gates tweeted out his own hopes for the coming year and his now prescient prediction: “one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Today, we only know about these meetings, because our organization at OpenTheBooks.com, in partnership with the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch, sued the NIH in federal court. NIH had refused to even acknowledge our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

So, for the first time, here is our exclusive release of Fauci’s official calendar.

For a government bureaucrat, this sure was one tightly held calendar.

The refusal by NIH to follow open records law was a strategy to delay transparency: NIH forced us into expensive taxpayer-paid litigation to slow-walk 156 pages of semi-redacted calendar production.

Fauci’s calendar has 933 events during this five-month period — including 224 media interviews and 84 redacted events (only significant redactions that prevented analysis and understanding were counted, for example, phone number redactions were not included).

It’s a document that NIH and Fauci didn’t want you to see …

Why? What did Fauci know? And when did he know it?

Following Fauci’s timeline — highlights

Nov. 6, 2019: Fauci’s calendar lists “GPMB Discussion Note.” This likely deals with the World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Fauci is a past member of the GPMB board which was formed to “ensure[s] preparedness for global health crises.”

On Jan. 27, 2020, the GPMB convened regarding the COVID-19 outbreak and Fauci signed off on the group’s Jan. 30, 2020, statement commending the WHO and the “transparency of China.”

Judicial Watch’s FOIAs uncovered that this statement was organized and circulated by Wellcome Trust scientist and GPMB member Jeremy Farrar (who also organized a secret conference call with Fauci and others on Feb. 1, 2020).

Nov. 12, 2019: Fauci flies to the Netherlands. His multi-day itinerary is not listed. The Netherlands is home to the father of “gain-of-function,” high-risk researcher Dr. Ron Fouchier.

Fauci’s NIH institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), paused (2014) then restarted (Jan. 2019) funding to the controversial researcher who (using NIH funds) created an H5N1 bird flu in his lab with pandemic potential. He did so by passaging the virus through ferrets multiple times, until it gained a new function by going airborne and infecting a ferret in a different cage.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci joins Ambassador Deborah Birx, the Global AIDS Coordinator at a World AIDS Day evening event hosted by the Business Council for International Understanding. On Feb. 27, 2020, Birx is appointed to join Fauci on Trump’s COVID-19 Task Force.

Earlier that day, Fauci has a “Pre-Brief for US Japan Biodefense Meeting.” In 2004, as I previously reported at Forbes, Fauci received a permanent pay adjustment for his “biodefense” work. Fauci is the top-paid federal employee, specifically because he was paid to prevent the next pandemic.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci has a call with his future biographer, Janet Tobias, who later produces the “FAUCI” documentary.

Dec. 3, 2019: Fauci has a call with Victor Dzau, who is the president of the National Academy of Medicine, a Duke University professor and a man whose Chinese family fled to Hong Kong to escape China’s civil war.

Dec. 19, 2019: Fauci attends an “NIH Gates Fdn dinner” at “The Cloisters,” likely the one in Lutherville, Maryland, an hour from NIH.

Earlier that morning, Bill Gates tweeted out what has become a much-discussed prediction, “What’s next for our foundation? I’m particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Fauci and top officials, such as NIH director Francis Collins and Health and Human Services (HHS) assistant secretary for health Brett Giroir, joined Gates Foundation executives during the dinner and on panels the next day, according to a press report from the time.

 

Jan. 17, 2020: Fauci has a call to discuss “CDC Gao Writing Request.” This is presumably related to George Gao, Director-General of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Jan. 23, 2020: Fauci had an 8 a.m., in-person meeting with Dr. James LeDuc. LeDuc ran one of the few BSL-4 (biosafety level-4) biocontainment labs in the country (think: moon-suit stuff), at the University of Texas Medical Branch, where he has long-trained Chinese scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) lab in BSL-4 biosafety procedures.

Emails acquired by FOIA from the U.S. Right To Know (USRTK) organization revealed that LeDuc was sending backchannel emails with his Wuhan colleagues to get information on the novel coronavirus outbreak, and even soliciting edits and corrections from Wuhan’s so-called “bat lady” Shi Zhengli for his April 2020 Congressional testimony.

LeDuc’s emails show he was communicating with his virologist colleague Yuan Zhiming, who was in charge of the WIV BSL-4 lab. LeDuc wrote an op-ed published on January 24 about his U.S.-China working relationship.

It’s possible this drop-by visit by LeDuc was to let Fauci know what he was hearing from Wuhan, and perhaps, not put that news in email.

By 4:30 that afternoon, LeDuc and former Ft. Detrick BSL-4 biolab director Dave Franz joined HHS Robert Kadlec for a conference call, a call revealed in USRTK’s document production from the University of Texas (page 3,409).

Franz emailed a brief note that same day “to facilitate [the] call.” The email described his and LeDuc’s work since 2007 as establishing a relationship with Chinese scientists (pg 115).

In other words, LeDuc was in town to talk about China and the Wuhan lab with top HHS and former military biolab officials.

Thus, while the public discussion was and would remain that the virus had a natural origin, behind the scenes, people were being briefed on the U.S.-Chinese scientists’ interactions and the Wuhan lab itself.

Top-secret meetings

Unreported until now, throughout late January and February 2020, Fauci was in meetings with the NSC and in top-secret settings — including in the White House Situation Room. Fauci was also in small, “restricted” meetings with the NSC.

Were all these top-secret meetings known to the president, and do they give the impression people-in-the-know thought the virus had a natural origin?

Jan. 14 and 16, 2020: Fauci has a 9 a.m. “Novel Corona Virus PCC/Synch Meeting” with Phil Ferro, NSC and Executive Office of the President, on the 14th and a “Novel Corona Virus Touch Base” with Ferro on the 16th.

Jan. 20: China announced to the world that the virus has human-to-human transmission, an admission that they had a possible pandemic virus on their hands.

Jan. 21: Fauci’s NSC meeting gets a new name (“nCoV-PCC”) and the meeting now includes secure video teleconference.

Jan. 21: Fauci is interviewed by The Wall Street Journal reporter Betsy McKay on the listed topic “Coronavirus & HIV Papers.”

Is she asking Fauci about an upcoming scientific paper (published Jan. 31 by Indian scientists, but quickly withdrawn by the authors, amid intense criticism) that noted an “uncanny similarity” between the HIV virus and the spike protein in the COVID-19 virus?

Because bats don’t contract HIV, such a similarity would point to a lab creation for the novel virus.

An hour earlier, Fauci had a call with Peter Hotez about an “Anti-SARS vaccine candidate.” Hotez is an NIH-funded, Texas-based scientist and vaccine researcher, who had a $6 million NIH grant since 2012 studying a “SARS vaccine for biodefense.”

Hotez developed a non-mRNA vaccine model, that won recent approval for distribution in some foreign countries, such as India.

Jan. 22: The COVID-19 meetings with Fauci rise to a new level as Fauci’s calendar shows him in the White House Situation Room (“WHSR”), from ~1:30-3 this day for “nCoV PCC.”

Jan. 24: From ~1:30-2:30 p.m. Fauci has a “nCoV Small Group Discussion” at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB), next to the White House, in “Anthony’s Office” Room 381. (nCoV stands for novel coronavirus and was the reference given to COVID-19 before it was officially named SARS-CoV-2.)

This is one of the few times no last name is listed on Fauci’s calendar. The meeting entry in our FOIA production is cut off but includes “***Please”; the entry also includes an attachment, which NIH currently has not released to OpenTheBooks.com.

“Anthony’s Office” Clue from Feb. 5: From 2:30-3:30 p.m. on Feb. 5, Fauci’s calendar shows an EEOB “Restricted Small Group” meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, who is listed as with the Executive Office of the President/NSC.

Anthony Ruggiero, according to his public LinkedIn page, was NSC “Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for Counterproliferation and Biodefense” at the time of the meeting. Thus, it’s likely the Jan. 24 EEOB meeting in “Anthony’s Office” was with the same man as the Feb. 5 meeting: Anthony Ruggiero.

Jan. 27: From 2:30-3:30 p.m., Fauci has an “NSC Deputy Call” in the NIH SCIF. (SCIF stands for “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility” and is usually a room reserved for sensitive or classified briefings.) Trump’s NSC deputy at the time was Matthew Pottinger. The subject of the call is not noted on the calendar.

(Also on Jan. 27, Fauci met with the CEO of Moderna, Stephane Bancel.)

Jan. 28: A Fauci/NSC COVID-19 meeting was previously disclosed Sharri Markson, who reported in her book “What Really Happened in Wuhan” that Pottinger called the Jan. 28 meeting with Fauci, HHS Secretary Azar and CDC Director Redfield just after Pottinger heard from Chinese dissident and human rights activist Wei Jingsheng about the virus breaking in China.

From Jan. 16 through Jan. 29, with few exceptions, Fauci’s weekday calendar shows a COVID-19 meeting, either in person or by phone via secure video teleconference with Phil Farro, who is with the Office of the President and the NSC.

Jan. 22: Fauci has an hour and a half blocked off for the COVID-19 meeting in the White House Situation Room.

Jan. 27: If he didn’t know before, emails released to the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee reveal that on this date, Fauci got definitive word from his staff that NIAID, his institute, funded a bat coronavirus grant to EcoHealth Alliance who collaborated with the WIV and Ralph Baric. If the virus was from the WIV, Fauci now knew he had funded the Chinese lab.

Jan. 31: Fauci is in the Oval Office, meeting, presumably, with the president.

Feb. 4: By this date, according to released emails, Fauci and the federally funded scientists he consults with, have decided that COVID-19 came from nature via a bat, through some intermediate species. Behind the scenes, they are drafting papers arguing that any position besides a natural origin is a conspiracy theory.

Yet, Fauci keeps meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, NSC’s biodefense and China expert (1/25 and 2/5). Are they thinking COVID-19 may have come from a lab leak?

Feb. 11: Fauci has a meeting with Ralph Baric, the University of North Carolina coronavirus scientist, arguably the nation’s foremost expert on bat coronaviruses. The meeting includes Emily Erbelding, the director of the NIAID Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Baric had a long working relationship with the Wuhan lab, and, it would later be revealed, applied (unsuccessfully) for a $14 million DARPA grant with the WIV and EcoHealth Alliance to insert a furin cleavage site into a chimeric bat virus and passage it through “humanized” mice to see if it had pandemic potential.

Some virologists have called that leaked document a recipe for the COVID-19 virus.

The Fauci/Baric meeting backs up against the NSC meeting with Phil Ferro. It’s not clear where Baric is during the meeting, if in-person or by phone. Was Baric on the NSC call or listening in?

(Previously at Forbes, I wrote about how Fauci continued to fund scientists like Baric and Fouchier by giving exemptions and narrowly defining scrutinized research — circumventing funding bans by Presidents Obama and Trump.)

Feb. 17: “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” a paper that Fauci apparently helped edit and was organized by NIH-funded Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, stated that the COVID-19 virus was from nature and called any suggestion otherwise a conspiracy.

Largely based on this paper, scientific discussion and social media posts suggesting a lab leak were censored as misinformation.

Other items of interest

Between Nov. 25, 2019, and Feb. 26, 2020, Fauci does three events with the American Society of Microbiology (ASM): a “Biothreats” discussion (11/25/2019); the ASM biothreats conference (1/29/2020); and meets with the ASM board (2/26/2020).

Jan. 7 and 9, 2020: Fauci did his first interviews on corona: 1. With CTV (Canadian TV) on the “pneumonia outbreak in China”; and 2. With Voice of America (VOA) on the “Wuhan pneumonia.” We couldn’t find the interviews published anywhere on the internet.

While the NIH keeps a public record of interviews Fauci conducted since Jan. 27, 2020, we identified 34 other interviews with him discussing the coronavirus from Jan. 7 to Jan. 26.

Between Jan. 27 and Feb. 24, Fauci meets or has calls with Stephane Bancel, the CEO of Moderna (1/27); Jeremy Farrar of Wellcome Trust (British health non-profit focused on vaccines) (2/1); BioNTech executive and former NIH staffer Gary Nabel (2/6) and Johnson & Johnson chief scientist Paul Stoffels (2/24).

Feb. 7: Fauci receives training on personal protective equipment (PPE). Given his varying recommendations on PPE early in the pandemic, it would be interesting to know what training he received.

March 18: Fauci logged a meeting entitled “code red” with a follow-up meeting on March 20. No further details were listed.

March 26: Fauci did four YouTube hits of 15 minutes each. Fauci’s calendar titled these events: “FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] Califf Request” — likely referencing Robert Califf. At the time, Califf was leading healthcare strategy at Alphabet (Google and YouTube parent company).

Robert Califf is the current Commissioner of Food and Drugs of the FDA and the former commissioner under Obama.

Summary

The official work calendar is an historic hour-by-hour documentation of Fauci in the months leading up to and during the publicly announced COVID-19 pandemic.

Even with this topline calendar transparency, NIH admits to holding an additional 60,000 pages of backup documentation. The federal court is allowing us to ask for specific items.

Therefore, if there is a specific document of oversight interest, please send our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com a message via the “Contact Us” portion of our website.

The historic release of Fauci’s work calendar leaves all of us with more questions than answers.

It’s incumbent upon Congress to exert its right to oversight.

Note: We reached out for comment to Fauci, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other top scientists mentioned on Fauci’s calendar. None gave us comments by our deadline.

Originally published on Adam Andrzejewski’s OpenTheBooks Substack page.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/anthony-fauci-calendar-before-pandemic/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=84cfc378-168f-4950-b1ba-671f4546a6b0

Pay No Attention to he Facts

facebook

Facebook Labeling 100% Facts About Vaccine Company Corruption as ‘Misinformation’

The censors at Facebook’s ministry of truth have sunk to a new low. Yesterday at 1:35 p.m. EST, TFTP journalist Don Via Jr received a 24-hour ban on the platform for posting a completely factually accurate meme acknowledging big pharma’s history of rampant corruption.

Unlike other instances of individuals being censored on the platform however, in which the social media company attempts to thinly veil their censorship behind openly biased fact-checkers. This time there was none. No “fact check” for “false information”. Simply a notification of the post being removed from Mr. Via’s Break The Matrix Facebook page, and a notice that all of his accounts were restricted for 24 hours.

Below is the meme in question.

What makes this act of censorship particularly egregious is the blatant nature with which Facebook is now suppressing 100% verifiable facts.

After disputing the decision, Facebook replied with an automated message stating “We don’t allow false information that could cause physical harm. In some cases this includes information that recognized health organizations say could mislead people about how to cure or prevent a disease or that could discourage people from seeking medical treatment.”

In this case though, none of the information stated was false.

For instance, the first tier of the graphic claims that since inception in 1848, Pfizer has racked up nearly 5 billion dollars in criminal charges. While the exact total may vary a bit, the facts regarding their history of rampant corruption and medical malfeasance is.

In 1991, the FDA charged Pfizer subsidiary Shiley with withholding information from safety regulators and deliberately falsifying manufacturing records with regards to faulty heart valves. Nearly 300 people died from Pfizer’s faulty products and ultimately the company spent 205 million dollars settling the tens of thousands of lawsuits filed against them.

Despite this, Pfizer resisted to comply with FDA orders to notify patients and ultimately paid an additional $10 million when the Department of Justice charged them with lying to regulators.

In 2009, among other allegations of human rights abuses, Pfizer agreed to settle a lawsuit for $75 million after a lengthy court dispute in which it was charged with using Nigerian children as human guinea pigs.

In 2012 the company was forced to pay 60 million dollars after it was exposed for bribing foreign doctors to sell their products.

These are only a select few examples of the company’s history rife with criminal activity. More can be seen under Pfizer’s corporate rap sheet via the Corporate Research Project.

The second tier of the meme asserts that Moderna has not successfully completed the production of a viable vaccine in the company’s history. This can be confirmed via a simple internet search. In May of 2020, it was reported by The Daily Mail and CNN that Moderna has a track record of never bringing a successful vaccine to market since the company’s founding in 2010.

Furthermore, despite the company’s dubious past it was reported that Moderna was first tapped to lead U.S. vaccine development in what equated to a gamble. Simply because the company’s slick talking CEO was able to get the attention of former President Trump with bold promises during a meeting with biotech executives.

The third tier of the meme acknowledges the well-documented history of heinous crimes committed by Johnson & Johnson. Of which TFTP has also extensively covered in recent years.

As we reported in 2016, the company was forced to pay out billions of dollars in several lawsuits for continuing the sale of products they knew were causing cancer.

J&J has also been found guilty of irresponsible marketing practices and penalized nearly 600 million dollars for their role in fueling the opiate epidemic. As well as having been caught hiding crucial laboratory data from safety inspectors — resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people.

But these only scratch the surface of the company’s flagrant human rights abuses. Among them, being one of the main financiers alongside, Dow Chemical and the United States Army, funding 20 years of unethical human experiments by Dr. Albert Kligman in Pennsylvania’s Holmesburg prison. Experiments which entailed prisoners being financially coerced to “volunteer” as research subjects to study mind-altering drugs, painful medical procedures, radiation, and chemical weapons such as Agent Orange.

As a matter of fact, in addition to Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson — It is thoroughly documented by the Corporate Research Project that nearly every major company involved in the development of Covid-19 vaccines has an abhorrent history of medical malfeasance, and criminal charges.

Finally, the last section of the meme asserts that AstraZeneca’s covid-19 vaccine has itself already been suspended in 24 countries due to health concerns. Yet again, a simple query in your preferred search engine can corroborate this as a fact.

As a March 16th report from Al Jazeera explains; the countries of Sweden, Latvia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Portugal, Slovenia, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Ireland, Bulgaria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Thailand, Romania, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Austria have all suspended the Oxford / AstraZeneca jab in some capacity.

Since that report the Philippines and Australia have also suspended the shot for individuals under 60 years of age. Venezuela has also refused to authorize it.

What Facebook is doing by deleting this content, which by all accounts is completely accurate, is suppressing vital information that the people have a right to know. Informed consent matters, and it’s not something that can be so freely thrown to the wayside — certainly not as adverse events reported to the CDC are at an all-time high.

Facebook, as we have reported ad nauseam, works alongside government entities to facilitate their censorship. And more recently was even implicated in a lawsuit filed by Robert F Kennedy Jr as directly taking orders from the government to stifle concerns for vaccine safety on its platform.

The company is now essentially working as a cover-up crew to protect those with which they have a vested financial or political interest. While their counterparts in the mainstream media ingloriously propagate the notion that those concerned with vaccine safety are domestic terrorists.

Bodily autonomy is paramount, and individuals have an inherent right to be given all the facts so that they are adequately informed to make proper decisions with regard to their health.

Just because the truth is unpleasant, does not make it misinformation. As a matter of fact, censoring unpleasant truths in favor of biased one-sided narratives is the greatest danger of all.

from:   https://thefreethoughtproject.com/facebook-labeling-100-facts-about-vaccine-company-corruption-as-misinformation/

Nutrition & Sanitation Not Pills & Vaccinations

Rejecting Rockefeller Germ Theory once and for all

by Jon Rappoport    March 25, 2021

Note: In a number of articles, I’ve offered compelling evidence that the deaths attributed to COVID-19 can be explained without reference to a virus. Furthermore, whatever merits “alternative treatments” may have, I see no convincing evidence their action has anything to do with “neutralizing a virus.”

The entire tragic, criminal, murderous, stupid, farcical COVID fraud is based on a hundred years of Rockefeller medicine—a pharmaceutical tyranny in which the enduring headline is:

ONE DISEASE, ONE GERM.

That’s the motto engraved on the gate of the medical cartel.

—Thousands of so-called separate diseases, each caused by an individual germ.

“Kill each germ with a toxic drug, prevent each germ with a toxic vaccine.”

In the absence of those hundred years of false science and propaganda, COVID-19 promotion would have gone over like a bad joke. A few sour laughs, and then nothing, except people going on with their lives.

The overall health of an individual human being has to do with factors entirely unrelated to “one disease, one germ.”

As I quoted, for example, at the end of a recent article—

“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

And Robert F Kennedy, Jr.: “After extensively studying a century of recorded data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Johns Hopkins researchers concluded: ‘Thus vaccinations does not account for the impressive declines in mortality from infectious diseases seen in the first half of the twentieth century’.”

“Similarly, in 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published their seminal work in the Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly on the role that vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive 74% decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century: ‘The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century’.”

“In this article, which was formerly required reading in U.S. medical schools, the McKinlays pointed out that 92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950, before most vaccines existed, and that all medical measures, including antibiotics and surgeries, ‘appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900 — having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances’.”

How the immune system (if it is a system) actually operates is beyond current medical hypotheses.

“T-cells, B-cells, neutrophils, monocytes, natural killer cells, proteins,” are welded into a breathless story about a military machine that attacks germ invaders. Push-pull. Search and destroy.

The notion that THIS is what creates health is fatuous.

Positive vitality is what keeps us healthy.

A few factors of positive vitality are on the tyrannical COVID list of what-should-be-squashed: financial survival; open mingling of friends and family; people looking (unmasked) at people; open communication without fear of censorship.

Nutrition and basic sanitation are key vitality factors, of course.

And then we have Purpose in Life: where are people pouring their creative energies?

Obviously, freedom from harmful medical treatment is necessary for vitality to flourish.

Suppression of LIFE, in order to stop a purported germ, is institutionalized death.

Modern medicine is sensationally exposed in a review I’ve mentioned dozens of time over the past 10 years: Authored by the late famous public health doctor at Johns Hopkins, Barbara Starfield, it is titled, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” It was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

It found that, every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people.

Per decade, the death toll would come to 2.25 million people.

You won’t find that in CDC reports.

In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. I asked her whether the federal government had undertaken a major effort to remedy medically caused death in America, and whether she had been sought to consult with the government in such an effort.

She answered no to both questions.

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/03/25/rejecting-rockefeller-germ-theory-once-and-for-all/

Only Monkeys Are Susceptible to SARSCoV-2- What Are You?

Dr. Tom Cowan explores the COVID virus invented out of sheer nonsense

—Cowan analyzes yet another key document posted by the CDC, in their journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases: “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States”—

The hits keep coming. The CDC used an arbitrary computer “tinker-toy” process to invent a description of the virus. The virus that no one has proven exists. This is the basic conclusion of Dr. Tom Cowan.

The CDC article was discovered by Sally Fallon Morrell. Her co-author, Dr. Cowan, fleshes out the fraud. Cowan’s article is titled, “Only Poisoned Monkey Cells ‘Grew’ the ‘Virus’.”

Dr. Cowan: “[The CDC journal article] was published in June 2020 [original publication, March 2020]. The purpose of the article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.”

“First, in the section titled ‘Whole Genome Sequencing,’ we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.”

In other words, the sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was done by assumption and arbitrary inference. If this is science, a penguin is a spaceship.

Cowan: “To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”

“The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by ‘consensus,’ sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary ‘unicorn,’ so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.”

As I’ve been stating, the “discovery” of the “new virus” was actually the foisting of a PRE-DETERMINED STORY ABOUT A VIRUS. Nothing real or believable about it.

But once the official pattern is laid down, others follow it dutifully.

Dr. Cowan uncovers more insanity in the CDC journal article. Using the ASSUMED new virus, in an UN-ISOLATED STATE, the researchers try to prove it is harmful by injecting it on to several different types of cells in the lab:

Cowan: “The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that I had to read it many times before I could believe what I was reading. Let me quote the passage intact:”

“’Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells [monkey cells]. … Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero [monkey] cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells [human cells] were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection’.”

“What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible ‘hosts’ or models on which they can test…”

“The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they most rely on — is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.”

“The shocking thing about the above [CDC journal] quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this ‘new coronavirus’ is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.”

“My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings. That is the only possible conclusion, but, unfortunately, this result is not even mentioned in their conclusion. They simply say they can provide virus stocks cultured only on monkey Vero cells, thanks for coming.”

So first…use a process of genetic sequencing that involves concocting, out of an arbitrary computer program…

The existence and structure of the “new virus”…

And then, taking a soup that the researchers claim contains the virus, in an un-isolated state, inject the soup into several types of cells in the lab…

And discover the prime target—human cells—are not infected by the imaginary virus.

And after this good day’s work, walk away and pretend nothing odd or self-incriminating happened.

And oh yes, lock down the planet based on this “science.”

Naturally, we MUST take a toxic vaccine that prevents non-infection by the non-virus.

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/19/dr-tom-cowan-explores-the-covid-virus-invented-out-of-sheer-nonsense/

Where is That Elusive Virus? Don’t Know? Maybe it Isn’t…

The Smoking Gun: Where is the coronavirus? The CDC says it isn’t available.

by Jon Rappoport

October 8, 2020

The CDC document is titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” It is dated July 13, 2020.

Buried deep in the document, on page 39, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”

The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available…”

Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase means: the CDC has no measurable amount of the virus, because it is unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.

A further tip-off is the use of the word ‘isolates.” This means NO ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE.

Another way to put it: NO ONE HAS AN ISOLATED SPECIMEN OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS.

NO ONE HAS ISOLATED THE COVID-19 VIRUS.

THEREFORE, NO ONE HAS PROVED THAT IT EXISTS.

As if this were not enough of a revelation to shock the world, the CDC goes on to say they are presenting a diagnostic PCR test to detect the virus-that-hasn’t-been-isolated…and the test is looking for RNA which is PRESUMED to come from the virus that hasn’t been proved to exist.

And using this test, the CDC and every other public health agency in the world are counting COVID cases and deaths…and governments have instituted lockdowns and economic devastation using those case and death numbers as justification.

If people believe “you have the virus but it is not available,” and you have the virus except it is buried within other material and hasn’t been extracted and purified and isolated, these people believe the moon is made of green cheese.

This is like saying. “We have the 20 trillion dollars, they are contained somewhere in our myriad accounts, we just don’t know where.” If you don’t know where, you don’t know you have the money.

“The car keys are somewhere in the house. We just don’t where.” Really? If you don’t know where, you don’t know the keys are in the house.

“The missing cruise missile is somewhere in the arsenal, we just don’t where.” No. If you don’t know where, you don’t know the missile is in the arsenal.

“The COVID-19 virus is somewhere in the material we have—we just haven’t removed it from that material. But we know what it is and we’ve identified it and we know its structure.” NO YOU DON’T. YOU ASSUME THAT.

Science is not assumptions.

“But…but…there is a study which says a few researchers in a lab isolated the virus…”

They say they did. But in July, the CDC is saying no virus is available. I guess that means trucks were not available to bring the virus from that lab to the CDC. The trucks were out of gas. It was raining. The bridge was washed out. The trucks were in the shop. Joe, the driver, couldn’t find his mask, and he didn’t want to leave home without it…

Science is not assumptions.

The pandemic is a fraud, down to the root of the poisonous tree.

from:   https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/08/the-smoking-gun-where-is-the-coronavirus-the-cdc-says-it-isnt-available/

Time To Look at the REAL Numbers! or we Have Been Schnookered AGAIN

CDC: 6% Of US COVID-19 Deaths List COVID-19 As Only Cause Of Death

CDC

Subscribe

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) this week released a report that shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

In the latest update, the CDC pointed out that only 6% of deaths related to COVID-19 listed COVID-19 as the only cause of death. The vast majority of patients that were listed as COVID-19 related deaths also suffered from serious comorbidities.

CDC

The CDC is reporting 167,558 COVID-19 related deaths in the United State as of August 28, 2020.  Out of the 167,558 COVID-19 related deaths, only 10,053 (6%) mentioned COVID-19 as the only cause according to the CDC’s new numbers. The other 94% of the COVID-19 related deaths had comorbidities associated with those deaths.

For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups here.

Some of the comorbidities found in the database include :

Respiratory diseases, Circulatory diseases, Sepsis, Malignant neoplasms, Diabetes, Obesity, Alzheimer disease, Vascular and unspecified dementia, Renal failure, Intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning and other adverse events,  Influenza, and pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, Adult respiratory distress syndrome, Respiratory failure, Respiratory arrest, Other diseases of the respiratory system, Hypertensive diseases, Ischemic heart disease, Cardiac arrest, Cardiac arrhythmia, Heart failure, Cerebrovascular diseases, and Other diseases of the circulatory system

CDC

CDC Source Links

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?#Comorbidities
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Conditions-contributing-to-deaths-involving-corona/hk9y-quqm/data

Source: CDC

from:    https://firststateupdate.com/2020/08/cdc-6-of-us-covid-19-deaths-list-covid-19-as-only-cause-of-death/

With VS Of — The Difference a Preposition Makes

conspiracy

NOW WAIT A MINUTE… THE CDC’S NEW NUMBERS

August 31, 2020 By Joseph P. Farrell

I’ve been getting tons of emails on this one, and, granted, it’s about that story we’re all sick of hearing about, it is nonetheless intriguing. So thanks to you all who passed it along and shared it. I had so many people sending it to  me that it vaulted to the top of the finals box. The CDC appears to have released an interesting set of numbers which, if true, raise lots (and lots[and lots]) of questions:

Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

Now, here’s the clincher, the whopper doozie squating in the middle of all of this:

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

Wait a minute, of all the deaths being reported, only 6% are due to the virus itself without other factors (co-morbidities)? (Emphasis added)

Now, if you’ve been following this whole story carefully, very early on many in alternative media were raising serious questions about the numbers of reported deaths, and many were claiming that people who were dying with covid were being reported as having died of covid, and here we appear to have a back-handed admission that this was so.

A further ramification of these new numbers is that if the percentage of deaths from the virus alone as a percentage of deaths with complicating factors is so small, the percentage of deaths relative to the whole population is even smaller.

And if that’s the case, then there seems to me to be a further implication, especially for those calling for mandatory vaccines against the virus: why is a vaccine needed for a virus that now appears, by these latest numbers, not to be nearly the dreaded pandemic we were led to believe? Or is there some other agenda behind that? Or conversely, why is there a call for a expensive vaccine research and mandates, when the dreaded (and inexpensive) hydroxychloriquine seems to have, by some sources’ lights, an effective therapeutic and in some cases curative effect?

At the minimum, these new numbers raise some disturbing questions, and appear to corroborate at least to some degree those early skeptics’ views of the basis of the numbers being reported. Time will tell, of course, what other new numbers from the CDC might indicate, or, as the case may be, backpedal, on these latest statistics.

In the meantime, Kamaula Harris is calling for nationwide mask mandates, while others push the meme that it will “never go away,” raising the prospects that “they” want to keep everyone masked… forever. The question is why. Why – with previous planscamdemics (think SARS from a few years ago) – were no such draconian measures instituted? And why institute them now?

Bottom line: the CDC’s numbers raise disturbing questions and implications.  This is a case of “you tell me”…

See you on the flip side.

from:    https://gizadeathstar.com/2020/08/now-wait-a-minute-the-cdcs-new-numbers/