Fuck PayPal. [PayPal’s true function is as a politically biased extremist-activist platform run by elite whites]

From [HERE] PayPal’s true function is as a politically biased extremist-activist platform

• Natural health organizations, antiwar journalists, Christian organizations, anti-child-grooming organizations, nonprofits fighting vaccine mandates, organizations promoting early COVID treatments, alternative media and free speech unions are among those who have had their PayPal accounts canceled without warning

• PayPal is also seizing any money you might have in your account on the day of deplatforming. Funds may or may not be returned to you after a six-month review

• October 7, 2022, PayPal issued a new user agreement that included fining users $2,500 for “misinformation” or material “unfit for publication.” The determination of what could be deemed “misinformation” was to be at the sole discretion of PayPal, and the fine was to be “debited directly from your PayPal account”

• Amid a storm of backlash, PayPal backtracked the next day, saying the user agreement had been issued in error. It’s now been revealed the $2,500 fine has been in its user agreement for over a year. The primary change was the addition of “misinformation” as a fineable offense. PayPal will continue to seize funds, so get out of PayPal as soon as possible

While PayPal has acted as “moral police” for over a decade,1 in the last couple of years, its true purpose has crystallized. You probably thought PayPal was nothing more than an online payment service, but its true function is as a politically biased extremist-activist platform. PayPal’s chief executive Dan Schulman himself has publicly stated he was “born with social activism in my DNA.”2

Natural health organizations, antiwar journalists,3,4 Christian organizations,5 anti-child-grooming organizations,6 nonprofits fighting vaccine mandates, organizations promoting early COVID treatments, alternative media7 and free speech unions8 are just a sampling of the individuals and groups that have had their PayPal accounts cancelled without warning.

PayPal Is Stealing Funds

Adding insult to injury, PayPal is also seizing any money you might have in your account on the day of deplatforming. As reported by independent journalist Matt Taibbi in May 2022:9

“In the last week or so, the online payment platform PayPal without explanation suspended the accounts of a series of individual journalists and media outlets, including the well-known alt sites Consortium News and MintPress ...

Consortium editor Joe Lauria succeeded in reaching a human being at the company in search of details about the frozen or ‘held’ funds referenced in the note. The PayPal rep told him that if the company decided ‘there was a violation’ after a half-year review period, then ‘it is possible’ PayPal would keep the $9,348.14 remaining in Consortium’s account, as ‘damages.’

‘A secretive process in which they could award themselves damages, not by a judge or a jury,’ Lauria says. ‘Totally in secret’ ... This episode ups the ante again on the content moderation movement ... where having the wrong opinions can result in your money being frozen or seized. Going after cash is a big jump from simply deleting speech, with a much bigger chilling effect.”

PayPal’s Terms of Service: $2,500 Fine for Misinformation

On top of its deplatforming of political opponents and freezing their funds, PayPal recently threatened to fine users who express opinions that the company doesn’t agree with.10,11,12 In other words, they’ve devised yet another way of stealing your funds, even if they don’t seize your entire account and close it down. As reported by the DailyWire November 7, 2022:13

“A new policy update from PayPal will permit the firm to sanction users who advance purported ‘misinformation’ or present risks to user ‘wellbeing’ with fines of up to $2,500 per offense.

The financial services company, which has repeatedly deplatformed organizations and individual commentators for their political views, will expand its ‘existing list of prohibited activities’ on November 3.

Among the changes are prohibitions on ‘the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials’ that ‘promote misinformation’ or ‘present a risk to user safety or wellbeing.’ Users are also barred from ‘the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory.’”

According to the notice, the determination of what could be deemed “misinformation” was to be at the sole discretion of PayPal, and the fine was to be “debited directly from your PayPal account.”

It’s worth noting that undefined “misinformation” wasn’t the only thing that could incur a fine; item (i) of the policy also included materials “otherwise unfit for publication.”14 Unfit? What could that be? Your guess is as good as mine.

Based on whom they’ve deplatformed and seized funds from so far, people who would see thousands of dollars swiped from their PayPal accounts as fines for wrongthink would include anyone who doesn’t care for global tyranny, censorship, government overreach, forced medical interventions, nuclear war, The Great Reset or pedophile grooming of children, just to name a few.

PayPal Temporarily Backtracked Amid Backlash

The updated terms of service resulted in thousands of users swiftly closing their accounts and taking their outrage to social media. PayPal’s former president, David Marcus, referred to the new terms as “Insanity,”15 and company stocks tanked nearly 12%.16

The backlash was so great, PayPal backtracked the very next day and apologized for causing “confusion,” claiming the new terms of service had been sent out “in error.” According to a PayPal spokesperson:17

“An [Accepted Use Policy] notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy. We’re sorry for the confusion this has caused.”

Anyone who believes PayPal would send out new terms of service by mistake is truly gullible. A company like PayPal would have to go through multiple steps and levels of organization, including legal, in order to update its terms of service. No doubt it was approved and authorized at the highest levels.

It was not a mistake, and its sudden U-turn was merely for show (more on that in a moment). They realized they moved a bit too far, too fast, by tying the fine directly to “misinformation.” So, they backtracked.

The $2,500 fine has been part of PayPal’s terms of service since September 20, 2021, at the latest — and it still remains.

Surprise! Fines Have Been on the Books for a Year Already

Unbeknownst to many, the $2,500 fine has actually been part of PayPal’s terms of service since September 20, 2021, at the latest — and it still remains. What!? Yes.

Here’s the deal: PayPal is not removing the possibility of robbing you of $2,500. The supposed “mistake” in language was the addition of “misinformation” as a fineable offense to an already existing policy that says they can issue fines of up to $2,500 for noncompliance with its use policy. In other words, they merely delayed the implementation of fines for misinformation specifically. Tech Dirt explains:18

“... PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy already includes a claim that if you violate its policy they can take $2,500 from your account. While PayPal walked back some of these newly announced changes (we’ll get to that in a second), the policy about the $2,500 has existed for at least a year.

Here’s the policy I just grabbed from their website, showing it was last updated on September 20, 2021, with the $2,500 ‘liquidated damages’ clause in there: [MORE]

Fakebook Hired Ex-CIA, FBI Agents to Censor Content that Deviates From the Official Narrative; Thereby Concealing Info on the Dangers of COVID Shots to Induce Consent or Destroy Informed Consent

From [HERE] Story at a glance:

• Many of the people in charge of moderating content at Facebook have been recruited from the government, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), FBI and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).

• So many ex-government workers are now employed by Facebook that it’s difficult to view Meta as a private company instead of a government partner, intent on silencing anyone who speaks out against the official narrative.

• In January 1977, Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein’s 25,000-word article was published in Rolling Stone, detailing the close relationship between the CIA and the press.

• The program was known as Operation Mockingbird and involved the CIA paying hundreds of journalists to write fake stories and spread propaganda instead of real news.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has stated that Facebook’s values are based on the American tradition of free expression. Yet, censorship on social media has gone mainstream as part of the campaign to control what you see online, and therefore what you think and how you perceive reality.

In an official Facebook video, a Meta employee identified as “Aaron” states that he’s the manager of “the team that writes the rules for Facebook,” deciding “what is acceptable and what is not.” These gatekeepers effectively dictate what the platform’s 2.9 billion active users see when they’re scrolling their feeds.

In all, 40,000 individuals are part of Facebook’s content moderation staff, yielding incredible power over public information. Writing for MintPress News, journalist Alan Macleod explains:

“It is here where decisions about what content is allowed, what will be promoted and who or what will be suppressed are made. These decisions affect what news and information billions of people across the world see every day.

“Therefore, those in charge of the algorithms hold far more power and influence over the public sphere than even editors at the largest news outlets.”

But according to Macleod’s MintPress investigation, many of the people in charge of moderating content at Facebook have been recruited from the government, including the Central Intelligence Agency, FBI and DOD, to the extent that, he says, “some might feel it becomes difficult to see where the U.S. national security state ends and Facebook begins.”

‘Aaron is CIA’

Facebook employee Aaron, featured in their marketing video, formerly worked for the CIA, up until July 2019, though this isn’t disclosed by Facebook. According to Macleod:

“In his 15-year career, Aaron Berman rose to become a highly influential part of the CIA.

“For years, he prepared and edited the president of the United States’ daily brief, ‘wr[iting] and overs[eeing] intelligence analysis to enable the President and senior U.S. officials to make decisions on the most critical national security issues,’ especially on ‘the impact of influence operations on social movements, security, and democracy,’ his LinkedIn profile reads.

“None of this is mentioned in the Facebook video.”

Meta is teeming with ex-government agents

Berman is not the only ex-CIA agent working at Facebook — far from it. So many ex-government workers are now employed by Facebook that it’s difficult to view Meta as a private company instead of a government partner, intent on silencing anyone who speaks out against the official narrative.

Macleod’s investigation, for instance, uncovered the following ex-CIA agents at Facebook:

• Deborah Berman, a trust and safety project manager for Meta, was an intelligence analyst at the CIA for 10 years.

• Bryan Weisbard, now a director of trust and safety, security and data privacy for Meta, worked as a CIA intelligence officer from 2006 to 2010 before becoming a diplomat.

While at the CIA, his job involved leading “global teams to conduct counter-terrorism and digital cyber investigations” and “Identif[ying] online social media misinformation propaganda and covert influence campaigns.”

• Cameron Harris, a trust and safety project manager at Meta, was a CIA analyst until 2019.

Former members of other government agencies are also common at Meta. Macleod revealed:

• Emily Vacher, who Facebook/Meta recruited to be a director of trust and safety, worked at the FBI from 2001 to 2011, becoming a supervisory special agent.

• Mike Bradow, employed as a misinformation policy manager at Meta since 2020, worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from 2010 to 2020.

“USAID is a U.S. government-funded influence organization which has bankrolled or stage managed multiple regime change operations abroad, including in Venezuela in 2002, Cuba in 2021, and ongoing attempts in Nicaragua,” Macleod noted.

• Neil Potts, Facebook’s vice president of trust and safety, is a former intelligence officer with the U.S. Marine Corps.

• Sherif Kamal, trust and safety program manager at Meta, worked as a program manager at the Pentagon until 2020.

• Joey Chan, trust and safety program manager at Meta, worked as a commanding officer for the U.S. Army until 2021, where he oversaw more than 100 troops in the Asia Pacific region.

Ex-intelligence officers in control of what you see

Meta is appearing increasingly like another branch of government put in place to mold the views of society, as with a workforce composed of ex-intelligence agents, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to remain impartial.

Macleod wrote:

“Hiring so many ex-U.S. state officials to run Facebook’s most politically sensitive operations raises troubling questions about the company’s impartiality and its proximity to government power.

“Meta is so full of national security state agents that at some point, it almost becomes more difficult to find individuals in trust and safety who were not formerly agents of the state.

“Despite its efforts to brand itself as a progressive, ‘woke’ organization, the Central Intelligence Agency remains deeply controversial.

“It has been charged with overthrowing or attempting to overthrow numerous foreign governments (some of them democratically elected), helping prominent Nazis escape punishment after World War Two, funnelling large quantities of drugs and weapons around the world, penetrating domestic media outlets, routinely spreading false information and operating a global network of ‘black sites’ where prisoners are repeatedly tortured.

“Therefore, critics argue that putting operatives from this organization in control of our news feeds is deeply inappropriate.”

CIA history of control and corruption

For instance, U.S. intelligence agencies kept watch on Ukrainian nationalist organizations as a source of counterintelligence against the Soviet Union. Declassified CIA documents show close ties between U.S. intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.

After WWII, Stepan Bandera, the leader of the most radical section of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which was founded in 1929 and had the ultimate goal of creating an ethnically pure, independent Ukraine, and other Ukrainian Nazi leaders fled to Europe, and the CIA helped protect them.

The CIA later informed the Immigration and Naturalization Service that it had concealed Bandera and other Ukrainians from the Soviets.

While the Nuremberg trials brought justice to the leaders of fascist Germany, “the Ukrainian Nazis were spared the same fate, and some were even granted indulgences by the CIA.”

According to the film “Ukraine on Fire,” “By 1951, the Agency [CIA] excused the illegal activities of OUN’s security branch in the name of Cold War necessity.”

In another disturbing example, one of the first scientists assigned to Fort Detrick’s secret biological warfare laboratory during WWII was bioweapons expert Frank Olson. In 1953, Olson died after plummeting to the ground from a high-rise hotel room window in Manhattan.

Days earlier, he had been secretly drugged by the CIA, which claimed Olson’s death was a suicide. Decades later, however, it was revealed that Olson didn’t jump from the window — he was deliberately murdered after the CIA became concerned that he might reveal disturbing top-secret operations.

This includes the CIA’s top-secret MK-Ultra project, which engaged in mind control experiments, human torture and other medical studies, including how much LSD it would take to “shatter the mind and blast away consciousness.” [MORE]

Suit Filed in NY Ct Alleges Ecohealth Alliance and Others Created COVID as a Bioweapon and Intentionally Released It On the Public. Asserts Wrongful Death, Gross Negligence and Assault/Battery Claims

A case filed on 5th October, 2022 in NY state court claims COVID-19 was created in a lab as a bioweapon to harm people and then intentionally released onto the public. The cause of action is negligence, gross negligence, assault and battery, wrongful death , strict liability and breach of warranty among others. The complaint [PDF] states:

1 This is a toxic tort personal injury action brought by the above-identified Plaintiffs, alleging inter alia, negligence, strict liability, breach of implied or expressed warranty, physical and emotional pain and suffering, wrongful death, and economic loss.

2. The Covid-19 pandemic could have been avoided.

3. Despite a moratorium on dangerous Gain of Function research – whereby, for example, a virus is genetically altered to become more transmissible in humans – Defendants engaged in such research, which ultimately exposed the entire world to a manipulated, highly transmissible and deadly lab-made virus and global pandemic, directly and proximately causing Plaintiffs’ injuries.

4. On March 13, 2020, Proclamation 9994 stated: “In December 2019, a novel (new) coronavirus known as SARS–CoV–2 (‘the virus’) was first detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province, People’s Republic of China, causing outbreaks of the coronavirus disease COVID–19 that has now spread globally.” 85 Fed. Reg. 15337 (March 18, 2020).1

5. In April 2020, President Trump proclaimed that SARS-CoV-2, also known as the Covid-19 virus, was released from a Level-4 Bio Safety laboratory (“BSL-4”) in Wuhan, China.

6. The aforementioned laboratory – the Wuhan Institute of Virology (“Wuhan Lab”) – was well-known to U.S. public health officials for its failed safety and lax security, as well as ties to the Chinese military.2 Exhibit “1” Photos of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

7. Since then, both an investigation and cover-up have continued with respect to the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, impeding effective countermeasures and strategies to control the release, mutation and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that has directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries prior to filing this action in this Supreme Court.

8. Plaintiffs allege the SARS-CoV-2 virus was designed and created at the Wuhan Lab in China, made possible through the research, development, and funding support provided by Defendants ECOHEALTH ALIANCE, PETER DASZAK, JANET D. 4. On March 13, 2020, Proclamation 9994 stated: “In December 2019, a novel (new) coronavirus known as SARS–CoV–2 (‘the virus’) was first detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province, People’s Republic of China, causing outbreaks of the coronavirus disease COVID–19 that has now spread globally.” 85 Fed. Reg. 15337 (March 18, 2020).1

9. Defendants named herein and those to be identified through discovery are liable to Plaintiffs under strict liability tort law, which is applicable to the release of any ultra- hazardous substance into the environment, including organic substances, i.e., a genetically manipulated, lab-made virus.

10. Each Plaintiff named herein was exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the abnormally dangerous genetically manipulated coronavirus that was created, financed, designed, and released into the environment by the Defendants through their intentional and/or reckless acts, that have directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ and Decedents’ injuries, and/or death as set forth in this Verified Complaint.

11. Upon information and belief, Defendants concealed from Congress their knowledge of the origins of SARS-COV-2, to conceal the grant funding they had received from the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) was being directed toward “Gain of Function” research, and to conceal their violation(s) of the terms of a 2014 “exemption” obtained by EcoHealth, (waiving restrictions of a federal moratorium placed on Gain of Function research by President Barack Obama in 2014), said exemption enabled Defendants to continue funding the Wuhan Lab’s creation of the SARS- COV-2, directly and proximately causing Plaintiffs’ injuries.3 Exhibit “2” National Institute of Health letter dated October 21, 2014.

12. The Gain of Function moratorium applied to NEW rather than existing funding. Research funded in part by The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through EcoHealth which we have termed “The SARS-CoV-2 Creation Project” was already underway at the time the moratorium was declared. Ralph Baric, who was conducting Gain of Function research conducted at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and in partnership with researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology petitioned the NIH biosecurity board for an exemption from the pause. It was subsequently granted.

Elite Psychopaths at Ontario College of Physicians Recommend Drugs and Psychotherapy to Combat “Vaccine Hesitancy” for Persons Unwilling to Get Injected w/Experimental, Deadly COVID Shot

From [HERE] Vaccine hesitancy was steadily increasing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and with the emergence of the new mRNA shots and vaccine mandates, it increased even more. 

The causes of this hesitancy is commonly attributed to “misinformation” and “fake news” according to government affiliated health agencies and legacy media. The science and evidence that has raised legitimate safety concerns with mRNA vaccines, for example, is unfortunately never appropriately addressed or acknowledged. 

Yet these factors are key in hesitancy because they speak for themselves.

A recent notice from the Ontario College of Physicians (CPSO) reads as followswith regards to vaccine hesitancy,

“It is also important that physicians work with their patients to manage anxieties related to the vaccine and not enable avoidance behaviour. For example, for extreme fear of needles (trypanophobia) or other cases of serious concern, responsible use of prescription medications and/or referral to psychotherapy may be available options. Overall, physicians have a responsibility to allow their patients to be properly informed about vaccines and not have those anxieties empowered by an exemption.”

This statement was updated from the original statement which looked like this.

The original statement on the CPSO website did not include the specific example of a patient with a “fear of needles,” but instead simply read that in “cases of serious concern, responsible use of prescription medications and/or referral to psychotherapy are available options.” [MORE]

Liberal NY Puppeticians Seek to Revive Forced Deadly COVID Shots for School Children. Proposed Law Destroys Rights to Refuse Medical Treatment and Refuse Emergency Use Vaccines and Informed Consent

COVID Shots Don't Prevent Infection or Transmission. As such, they are Treatments Not Vaccines; and People Have a Right to Refuse Medical Treatment. Mandates Violate Rights/Equal Protection.

At any rate COVID injections are not actually vaccines because they do not create immunity. The injections are treatments. As such, individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment.

Prosecute Now explains, The uncontroverted medical consensus is that existing Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission of the coronavirus; i.e., they do not create immunity in the recipients. This is admitted openly today, including by U.S. Health Agencies, which is why the CDC Director stated on CNN, "What the vaccines can't do anymore is prevent transmission.'

The CDC has acknowledged that the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread the virus.

The Injections do not confer immunity but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2. They are, therefore, treatments and not vaccines as that term has always been defined in the law. [MORE]

From [HERE] New York lawmakers who introduced a bill last year to require the COVID-19 vaccine for school children weren't successful in advancing that proposal. But they're not giving up.

State Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz sponsors legislation to require school students in New York be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. It died in the Health Committee this session. 

“Our job is to try to keep people healthy, safe and certainly to prevent them from dying," said Dinowitz, a Democrat from the Bronx. "And that, particularly, is important with respect to kids. ...I believe that parents should be able to make these kinds of decision for their kids if those decisions don't have an impact on other people, but because [this does] impact other people, that's when it changes."

The shot would only be mandated after full approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and recommendation by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention advisory committees.

Reqiuring New York students to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is up to the state Legislature, meaning if a measure moves forward, its future hinges on who wins the race for governor in less than two weeks. 

The assemblyman plans to hold discussions with the state Health Department about the legislation in the coming months.

Dinowitz is hopeful Gov. Hochul would support a measure adding the COVID-19 vaccine to the list of other required inoculations, but it's unclear where she’d stand on signing such a measure into law. 

Mandating the COVID-19 vaccine in schools is a topic on the ballot this election cycle, and New Yorkers have two distinct choices. 

During a debate this week, Republican candidate Lee Zeldin, a congressman from Long Island, committed to being against requiring the COVID-19 vaccine for anyone, including for school children.

"Let me be clear to all the parents who are out there: I will not mandate COVID vaccines for your kids, ever," Zeldin said Tuesday. "I don't believe there should be COVID vaccine mandates right now for our kids at SUNY, CUNY, community colleges right now and elsewhere."

That night, Gov. Hochul said mandating the coronavirus vaccine in schools rests with the Legislature.

She has no plans to mandate the shot for school and university students without a bill coming across her desk. That couldn't happen for a year at the earliest. [MORE]

Michigan had the Worst COVID Lockdowns, Yet More Deaths than Other States

From [HERE] Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer claimed the extraordinary measures she took in shutting down businesses and schools and forcing people to stay home were worth it because of the lives saved. But an analysis of the data two and a half years after the COVID-19 pandemic hit Michigan calls that claim into question.

Compared to the rest of the country and its neighboring states, Michigan endured the most restrictions on private activity while also experiencing far more COVID deaths, worse job losses, a weaker recovery, and substantial learning losses for kids.

Deaths

Michigan has significantly more COVID deaths per capita than any other state in the Midwest.

The latest numbers from the CDC show that Michigan has 39,092 deaths as of Oct. 19, 2022, which is 9th-highest in the United Statesafter controlling for population differences.

Michigan’s rate of COVID deaths per 100,000 people (391) is higher than that of Indiana (369), Ohio (342) and Illinois (314). The difference between the Wolverine State and its neighbor across the lake is the starkest: People in Michigan died of COVID-19 at a 48% higher rate than people in Wisconsin (264).

Lockdowns

Using unilateral control afforded governors for extraordinary emergencies, Whitmer imposed the broadest shutdowns on businesses in the country.

Some 32% of Michigan businesses, a higher portion than those in any other state, were subject to a government-mandated closure, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The national average was 19%. Far more businesses were closed in Michigan than in neighboring states of Indiana (15%), Wisconsin (17%) and Ohio (19.5%).

If shuttering businesses saved lives, one would expect Michigan to have a lower COVID-19 death rate than most states. It didn’t.

Jobs

Michigan is still down 94,500 jobs since COVID-19 hit, a net loss of 2.1%. That’s the 7th-worst percentage among the state, and 23 states have fully recovered the jobs they lost during the pandemic.

Schools

Whitmer did not recommend that schools return to in-person instruction until March 2021. When she made that announcement, 23% of Michigan schools were fully in person, compared with 47% in Ohio, 54% in Wisconsin, and 76% in Indiana.

Some of the largest school districts in the state offered only virtual instruction for almost an entire academic year. According to the data service Burbio, which tracked school openings throughout the pandemic, Michigan was 33rd nationally when it came to offering in-person instruction for the 2020-2021 school year.

School closures during the pandemic are generally associated with more learning loss for students. Along with most of the rest of the nation, the state and national test scores of Michigan students dropped enormously during the pandemic. Catholic schools, which were almost entirely open throughout the pandemic, saw no change in math or reading scores compared to where they were pre-pandemic. 

As for Michigan’s state standardized tests, the M-STEP, every racial group at every grade in every age group tested saw a drop in achievement compared to where students were before the pandemic.

The public school districts in Flint and Detroit were among those closed for in-person instruction the longest. Minority students saw the largest drops in test scores, with the percentage of Black third-graders meeting or exceeding math proficiency standards falling by more than one-third.

On the national test known as the NAEP, the scores of Michigan students also dropped in every category. Fourth-grade reading fell to a 30-year low. And in Detroit, students in the public school district have long scored the worst in the nation in reading and math for 4th and 8th grade students. Their test scores still dropped sharply during COVID.

Michigan’s governor used extraordinary measures to control many aspects of people’s lives during the pandemic. She shutdown nearly one-third of Michigan businesses, prevented people from traveling or seeing friends and allowed schools to stay closed to in-person learning for more than a year.

Despite all these interventions, there is little real-world evidence these actions saved lives. Indeed, Michigan has one of the highest COVID-19 deaths rates in the country, and significantly more than was seen in surrounding states.

US Government Secretly Monitored Citizens Movements and Assigned them COVID “Decree Violation” Scores During Irrational and Deadly US Lockdowns

From [HERE] Voter analytics firm PredictWise harvested location data from tens of millions of US cellphones during the initial Covid lockdown months and used this data to assign a “Covid-19 decree violation” score to the people associated with the phones.

These Covid-19 decree violation scores were calculated by analyzing nearly two billion global positioning system (GPS) pings to get “real-time, ultra-granular locations patterns.” People who were “on the go more often than their neighbors” were given a high Covid-19 decree violation score while those who mostly or always stayed at home were given a low Covid-19 decree violation score.

Not only did PredictWise use this highly sensitive location data to monitor millions of Americans’ compliance with Covid lockdown decrees but it also combined this data with follow-up surveys to assign “Covid concern” scores to the people who were being surveilled. PredictWise then used this data to help Democrats in several swing states to target more than 350,000 “Covid concerned” Republicans with Covid-related campaign ads.

In its white paper, PredictWise claims that Democrats were able to “deploy this real-time location model to open up just over 40,000 persuasion targets that normally would have fallen off” for Mark Kelly who was running for Senate at the time and has now been elected.

“PredictWise understood that there were potential pockets of voters to target with Covid-19 messaging and turned high-dimensional data covering over 100 million Americans into measures of adherence to Covid-19 restrictions during deep lockdown,” the company states in the white paper.

PredictWise doesn’t provide the exact dates when this location data was collected but its white paper does note that the data was collected during Covid lockdowns and used during Senator Kelly’s 2020 election campaign. State-level US lockdowns began on March 15, 2020 and Kelly was elected on November 4, 2020 so the data appears to have been collected during the first few months of this 11 month period. [MORE]

‘COVID Injections Don’t Prevent COVID or Stop Transmission of COVID:’ Judge Rules Vax Mandate Has No Rational Basis. Orders NYC to Give Back Pay and Reinstate Fired Unvaccinated Workers

From [HERE] On Monday, the Honorable Ralph J. Porzio – a judge appointed to the Supreme Court of the State of New York – ordered that the Petitioners’ equal rights had been violated.

He further ordered that:

• “…the terminated Petitioners are hereby reinstated to their full employment status, effective October 25, 2022, at 6 a.m.”

• “…the Petitioners are entitled to back pay in salary from the date of termination.”

This might not seem like a big deal. It certainly reads like a wrongful termination suit. But the Petitioners were former Department of Sanitation of New York employees who were fired from their work.

Did they do something wrong? Did they commit a crime? Did they fail to perform their duties? 

No. None of the above.

The state of New York terminated those employees in February of 2022 for their “failure to comply with vaccine requirements.” The issue involved the COVID-19 “vaccines” and the subsequent vaccine mandates that were imposed upon public health workers and their families. 

Sadly, this wasn’t just a New York “thing.” It happened in many other places across the country.

As we look back in the rearview mirror, these wrongful terminations were meaningless and violations of our equal rights. And that’s exactly what the judge concluded. He stated accurately that:

Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting COVID-19. As of the day of this decision, CDC guidelines regarding quarantine and isolation are the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The Petitioners should not have been terminated for choosing not to protect themselves.

Amen.

Given what’s now proven, the act of taking a COVID-19 “vaccine” doesn’t protect others - which is why any form of COVID-19 “vaccine” mandate is nonsensical. These shots are nothing more than experimental drugs with known side effects and are now proven to have limited efficacy.

Some will argue that the government and organizations didn’t know back then that the shots didn’t stop infection or transmission when they terminated employees because of their personal health decisions. That’s complete nonsense.

Many in the medical community knew about this and some were brave enough to publicly speak and write about what these drugs did and didn’t do – even if it meant losing their medical license. I have nothing but respect for them. Sadly, most in the medical community didn’t say a word.

I even wrote about these topics in The Bleeding Edge more than two years ago, explaining that the mRNA shots would simply coax our bodies into producing an antibody that would provide some level of protection against the virus if we were exposed – not durable immunity to COVID-19. 

It’s nothing like a real vaccine that exposes our bodies to an attenuated or inactive virus, which helps our bodies build sterilizing immunity to a virus or disease.

I knew these things because it was a basic scientific fact concerning how mRNA technology works. I wasn’t a genius. I just read a few scientific papers on mRNA technology and figured it out… which means a remarkable number of others in the scientific community knew it as well.

The reason why this ruling comes as such a surprise is because New York is one of the last remaining bastions of the Covidians. It’s still a place where many continue to insist on wearing masks, despite what we all now know.

In my humble opinion, all COVID-19 “vaccine” mandates should be removed.

Any corporation, non-profit, or government entity that wrongfully terminated employment because someone made a personal health choice not to take an experimental drug without any safety data to review should be offered their job back immediately, with full back pay from the date of termination. Period. 

Emails Reveal CDC Pressured FDA to Authorize COVID Boosters Without Clinical Trials

From [CHD] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pressured U.S. regulators to clear COVID-19 boosters without clinical trial data, according to newly released emails.

CDC officials relayed to counterparts at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in early August 2021 that they wanted authorization for Moderna and Pfizer boosters as data began showing that the vaccines weren’t working as well as initially promoted.

The conversation took place on a call that was described by Dr. Phil Krause, a top FDA official, to several other FDA workers.

“Take a deep breath before reading this next paragraph. On that call, the CDC evidently stated that they will assemble all the data they are aware of on third dosing in this setting and send it to us in the hope that we will (very soon) authorize the third dose for immunocompromised as part of the EUA,” Krause wrote in the Aug. 5, 2021, email.

EUA stands for emergency use authorization.

All of the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized under emergency conditions at that time.

No boosters had been authorized and no clinical data were available for the boosters.

The emails show that “the CDC wanted the booster approved without a trial,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote on Twitter.

The CDC didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Krause was responding to Doran Fink, who also works for the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, charged with evaluating vaccines.

Fink sent along a post that had been made to an infectious diseases forum regarding whether doctors should be giving additional vaccine doses to patients with compromised immune systems despite the lack of authorization.

Dr. Richard Nathan of Idaho had written that other countries, including Israel, had cleared boosters.

Nathan wrote:

“Pfizer recommends it and I trust their guidance over the turmoil at our federal agencies. With millions of doses of vaccine set to expire, you should do what you think is best for your patients.

“I can’t believe you would get pushback from anyone. Keep in mind, nearly everyone in this group is six to seven months out from the second dose of the vaccine and many have significant daily exposure to the virus.”

Fink said the post “accurately reflects more widespread thinking that I am hearing in other forums as well,” including among doctors who advise the CDC on vaccines.

“Providers are losing confidence in FDA/CDC to do the right thing for their patients,” Fink said.

Less than two weeks later, the FDA authorized boosters for certain people, including immunocompromised persons.

The agency said that “a thorough review of the available data” concluded the group “may benefit” from a third dose.

The only data cited on efficacy were from two studies, one conducted by French researchers and another by Canadian researchers. Pfizer and Moderna hadn’t completed trials.

“As we’ve previously stated, other individuals who are fully vaccinated are adequately protected and do not need an additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine at this time,” Dr. Janet Woodcock, the FDA’s top official said.

But just weeks later, Woodcock and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s top official, signed onto a joint statement saying that vaccine protection was waning and that boosters “will be needed to maximize vaccine-induced protection and prolong its durability.”

In September 2021, the FDA and CDC authorized Pfizer boosters for many other Americans. The authorization was expanded to Moderna and Johnson & Johnson shots, and virtually all other Americans, later in the year.

Krause and Dr. Marion Gruber resigned from their positions because of opposition to the booster strategy.

Judicial Watch obtained the newly published emails as part of ongoing litigation against the Biden administration for not properly responding to a Freedom of Information Act request.

An earlier tranche of emails showed that Gruber was “very concerned” in late August 2021 about pressure from companies such as Pfizer over vaccine authorization.

“We need to be given time to consider their data and cannot be pushed by these companies and, for that matter the Administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense,” Gruber wrote to Dr. Peter Marks, a top FDA official.

“These FDA records further document top officials’ concerns about the controversial COVID-19 booster shots,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.

“That it has taken months and a federal lawsuit to uncover this critical material is a scandal.”

Study from Japan Finds COVID Injections Increase the Risk of Myocarditis - Disease that Can Cause Heart Failure, Heart Attack, Stroke and Sudden Cardiac Death

From [HERE] and [MORE] Yet another study, this time in Japan, raises concerns about mRNA COVID-19 vaccine safety signals. Recently posted in the preprint server medRxiv, co-author Rokuro Hama, director of the Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance, a Japanese post-approval monitoring agency, reports evidence of growing concern. A sophisticated operation, this Japanese group diligently pursued its mission. They report that myocarditis mortality ratios (MMRRs) and their confidence intervals (95%) after receiving the COVID-19 vaccines compared with the general reference population over the past three years were significantly higher not only among the young adult population (highest in the 30s with MMRR of 6.69) but also in the elderly. A bombshell finding, the authors in Japan report that myocarditis risk among COVID-19 vaccinated may be four times higher than the apparent MMRRs considering healthy vaccinee effect. They declare, “Underreported post-vaccination deaths should also be considered as suggested by the extremely high myocarditis mortality odds ratio (205.60; 133.52 to 311.94 ).”

The Study

This real-world investigation compares the myocarditis mortality rate in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated with that in the general population in Japan. The study was based on the materials and the vital statistics disclosed by the Japanese government

This Japanese study is still in preprint involving 99,834,543 individuals aged 12 and up who had received a COVID-19 vaccine once or twice by February 2022. The authors report the reference population as those aged 10 and above from 2017 to 2019.

Findings

The authors report in medXriv that the number of myocarditis deaths meeting inclusion criteria were 38 cases. MMRR (95% 16 confidence interval) was 4.03 (0.77 to 13.60) in 20s, 6.69 (2.24 to 16.71) in 30s, 3.89 (1.48 to 8.64) 17 in 40s, respectively. SMR of myocarditis was 2.01 (1.44 to 2.80) for the overall vaccinated population, and 1.65 (1.07 to 2.55) for those 60 years or older. Estimated adMMRRs and adSMR were about 4 times higher than the MMRRs and SMR. Pooled MOR for myocarditis was 205.60 (133.52 to 311.94).

Discussion

The results of this study raise bombshell implications. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was associated with a higher risk of myocarditis death, not only in young adults but also in all age groups including the elderly. Considering the healthy vaccinee effect, the authors suggest that the risk of this serious adverse event could be four times or higher than the apparent risk of myocarditis death. Importantly they emphasize that any underreporting must also be considered. Based on this study, the risk of myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 24 vaccination may be more serious than that reported previously. This study dovetails with other evidence that the safety of vaccines must be reconsidered. 

Swiss Study Reports that mRNA COVID Shots Cause Heart Injury. According to the Study Every Single Participant was Injured

From [HERE] A Swiss study reports that heart injuries occurred in all mRNA COVID shot recipients included in the study. Not only that, 2.8% or 1 in 27 also had myocarditis.

While some would like to blame previous virus infection for these conditions, a “control group” in Australia supported evidence that the shots were the cause. It also found “16 excess deaths per 100,000 booster doses” and “the age groups most likely to use boosters show large rises in excess mortality after boosters are rolled out.”

A study in Japan found the same thing, as did another study in Israel. Other disturbing findings included:

1. mRNA vaccines don’t stay at the injection site but instead travel throughout the body and accumulate in various organs;

2. mRNA-based Covid vaccines induce long-lasting expression of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in many organs;

3. Vaccine-induced expression of the spike protein induces autoimmune-like inflammation;

4. Vaccine-induced inflammation can cause grave organ damage, especially in vessels, sometimes with deadly outcome.

2 Black Girls Hospitalized after Pharmacist at HEB Injected Them w/an Overdose of Dangerous COVID Boosters. White HEB Pharmacist, Store Mangers and Attorneys Blowing Off Parents Questions and Concerns

According to FUNKTIONARY:

biocide – the attempted annihilation of all life, which is the intent of Doggy and CrimethInc. (See: Doggy & CrimethInc.)

vaccination – mandatory infection—typically administered by agents of Corporate State in their public schools of indoctrination camps. How can unvaccinated children endanger other children who are immunized?

Scientists at Boston University Created a Version of COVID that Has 80% Lethality in Mice. But Claim Its Not a Bioweapon Designed to Infect and Harm People

From [HERE] Story at a glance:

• Less than two months ago, scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) announced they’d resurrected the Spanish flu virus through reverse genetics.

• Now, scientists at Boston University report they’ve engineered an Omicron strain of SARS-CoV-2 with an 80% lethality in mice. The new hybrid was created by extracting spike protein from the Omicron BA.1 variant of SARS-CoV-2 and attaching it to the original Wuhan Alpha strain.

• The research was funded by four grants from the NIH/NIAID, but because those funds were supposedly “earmarked” primarily for equipment, they did not clear the viral engineering portion of the experiment with the NIH. The NIH is reviewing the case to determine whether the University violated rules for enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research.

• Boston University denies the research qualifies as “gain of function” research as the Alpha strain’s lethality was reduced from 100% to 80%. However, the Alpha strain did gain function, namely immune escape, which it didn’t have before. The immune-evading properties came from the Omicron spike.

• The likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 assembling itself into a Wuhan Alpha strain with Omicron spike protein “in the wild” is just about nil, as the Wuhan strain has mutated out of existence already. Were it not for these madmen, we would never have had to worry about this kind of recombination.

Less than two months ago, we reported scientists funded by the NIH and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID have resurrected the Spanish flu virus through reverse genetics.

Disturbingly, the scientists appeared frustrated by the fact that the recreated virus failed to kill the macaque species selected for the experiment, even at the highest doses tested.

They argued a more dangerous version of the Spanish flu virus must be created in order to develop better vaccines against it. This despite the fact that, until they resurrected this virus, it no longer existed in nature and posed zero threat to mankind.

It kind of reminds me of a Mary Shelley quote, the author of “Frankenstein,” who in 1818 stated:

“Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavor to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.”

Massively lethal Omicron hybrid has now been engineered

Now, we come to learn that mad scientists at Boston University’s biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory have engineered an Alpha/Omicron hybrid strain of SARS-CoV-2 with an 80% lethality in mice.

In the video above, John Campbell reviews this paper. He, like many others, are calling on the U.S. government to immediately close down this kind of research, and to destroy all the Frankenstein viruses already created. If they don’t exist in a lab somewhere, then they cannot escape.

Considering SARS-CoV-2 was most likely concocted in a lab, just like this hybrid, the fact that they continue tinkering with it to make it more lethal is indeed mind-bogglingly reckless.

What’s to prevent this souped-up hybrid from escaping and wiping out mankind? Sure, BSL4 labs have the tightest safety precautions, but that is no guarantee the virus won’t get out (especially if someone intentionally wants it out).

There have been plenty of lab leaks in the past, and as discussed by The Lancet COVID-19 Commission chairman Jeffrey Sachs in the video at the end of this article, evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a U.S.-backed research program in China.

Granted, effects on mice are not directly translatable to humans, but since SARS-CoV-2 appears particularly adapted to infecting humans, these results are certainly cause for concern.

And again, the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 somehow reassembling itself into a Wuhan strain with Omicron spike protein “in the wild” is just about nil. Why? Because the original Wuhan strain has vanished from the environment.

It has mutated out of existence already and been replaced by a series of new variants. So, the chance of the first, original strain getting mixed with one of the last — in nature, by itself — is beyond remote. Were it not for these madmen, we would never have had to worry about this kind of recombination.

Yet here we are, facing the possibility of an unimaginably deadly coronavirus — thanks to scientists who continue to act without moral compass. Just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. As noted by Steve Kirsch:

“Presumably there is some benefit to creating a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 that has a case fatality rate (CFR) of 80% (up from the average 0.2% CFR for the current variants) and is highly contagious. I’m baffled as to what it is. …

“Here’s an idea how fast it could spread. Look at the slope of the purple curve … that’s Omicron. This is from a CDC paper. So expect the virus to spread everywhere in about a month. How fast will it wipe out the entire US population if released? It depends on how quickly the virus kills humans.” [MORE]

Mortality.com Data Suggests COVID Injections Have Caused a Huge Spike in Deaths in Germany

Contrary to Constant Media Lies Another Study Confirms that the Risk of Death from COVID is Almost 0% [zero percent] for the Majority of People and It Never Was Deadly to the Majority Around the World

From [HERE] A study confirmed that the risk of dying from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is almost zero percent for the vast majority of people around the world.

According to the pre-print paper by Stanford University medical scientist Dr. John Ioannidis, COVID-19 mortality rates only range between zero percent and 0.57 percent among individuals younger than 70 years old worldwide. He looked at 36 studies plus an additional seven preliminary national estimates for his paper.

The Greek-born researcher broke down the mortality rates due to COVID-19 infection by age group:

• Zero to 19 years old – 0.0003 percent

• 20 to 29 years old – 0.003 percent

• 30 to 39 years old – 0.011 percent

• 40 to 49 years old – 0.035 percent

• 50 to 59 years old – 0.129 percent

• 60 to 69 years old – 0.501 percent

For more than two years, Ioannidis has asserted that the risk of the virus is very minimal – if not zero – and that public health protocols such as massive lockdowns, shutting down of businesses and schools, masking and vaccine mandates are really not needed. Together with the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, he has argued that the risk factor for most people is exponentially smaller than for the vulnerable, typically the elderly who already are afflicted with multiple serious illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease

“Ioannidis insisted these people could be cared for in nursing, assisted living and private homes with early treatments while the healthy are allowed to go about their business,” independent news company WND reported.

Dr. Paul Alexander, a former adviser to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), agreed with Ioannidis in a piece on his Substack. He wrote: “Ioannidis shows us what we have been arguing for two years, to strongly protect the elderly and leave the rest of non-elderly society alone, free. No lockdowns or school closures, no mandates [and] no vaccine.” Moreover, the erstwhile HHS advisor also compiled more than 400 studiesreflecting how lockdowns, shelter-in-place policies, school closures, masks and mask mandates failed to minimize virus transmission and lessen death rates.

In a separate piece for the Brownstone Institute, Alexander stated that “restrictive policies were ineffective and devastating failures, causing immense harm, especially to the poor and vulnerable within societies.”

“We’ve known this for a very long time now, but governments continue to double down, causing misery upon people with ramifications that will likely take decades or more to repair.”

Experts proven correct: COVID-19 was never deadly to majority

Alexander pointed out that cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough and other experts have been right all along that the infection fatality rate (IFR) for the vast majority is really low, as per the studies they looked into. Ioannidis wrote in his study’s abstract that the “IFR of the virus among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection is important to estimate accurately, since 94 percent of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86 percent is younger than 60 years.”

The Stanford researcher echoed the Texas cardiologist’s point, suggesting early interventions for certain vulnerable age groups.

McCullough has always made it clear that both Big Pharma and Big Government should be denounced for allowing gain-of-function research and the COVID-19 vaccines, with the latter causing “the biggest medical-biological catastrophe of all time.” (Related: Prather Point: COVID-19 vaccine is the biggest medical-biological catastrophe of all time, says Dr. Peter McCullough – Brighteon.TV.)

“We had lost 250,000 Americans directly due to the virus. And since the vaccines, 750,000 people have died. The vaccines have actually prolonged the pandemic, didn’t stop the virus transmission and didn’t reduce hospitalization and death. It was all a series of false claims for an unsafe set of products,” he told Brighteon.TV host Jeffrey Prather during the Sept. 23, 2022 episode of the latter’s program “Prather Point.”

McCullough added that the widespread corruption in academic medicine, peer-reviewed literature and medical societies has suppressed introduction to early intervention methods and promoted fear in order to push the clot shots worldwide.

Another Analysis Suggests Fauci and Ralph Baric Created COVID as a Bio-Weapon pursuant to NIH Funded “gain of function” Research done to Increase the Ability of Pathogens to Infect and Harm People

From [CHD] Critics have long questioned why the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would fund experiments by University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill (UNC) professor Ralph Baric to develop a technique for hiding evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created super viruses.

Aided by some $220.5 million in National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funding, Baric developed a so-called “Seamless Ligation” technique, which he boasted could perfectly conceal all evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created viruses. Baric nicknamed his invention the “no-see’m” method.

Now a new study, “Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2,” published on the preprint server bioRxiv, shows that — apparently unbeknownst to Baric — the “seamless ligation” concealment gimmick leaves its own minute but legible signature.

Most momentously, these same researchers have discovered that damning signature in the genome of the virus that causes COVID-19.

Baric’s technique has long been controversial. “It’s the artist that doesn’t sign his name to the painting; the virologist that doesn’t put his signature into the virus to let us know whether or not it is emerging naturally or whether it is produced in a laboratory,” said Jeffrey Sachs, chair of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, a task force that investigated the origins of COVID-19.

“All of it says, my God, there was really a big, very risky research agenda underway.”

This month, Sachs published the results of his 22-month investigation in The Lancet, including the damaging conclusion that COVID-19 was probably laboratory-generated and that the technology probably came from NIH-funded science.

Referring to Baric’s seamless ligation methodology, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein observed:

“It’s the exact opposite of what you would do if your interest was public health. Public health scientists would be marking their enhancements with red flags — not devising ways to hide them. The only reason you would want a concealer is to advance a sinister purpose — such as illegal bioweapons development — some mischief that the scientist didn’t want traceable back to his lab.”

Baric taught his “no-see’m” method to the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s (WIV) “Bat Lady” Shi Zhengli in 2016. In return, Baric received Chinese coronaviruses collected by Shi from bats in Yunnan province. (Scientists have linked the COVID-19 genome’s pedigree to closely related bats.)

Shi and her colleagues at the Wuhan Institute subsequently demonstrated their mastery of Baric’s high-risk technique in a series of published — and highly controversial — gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab. It has been even more puzzling to his critics that Baric, again with NIAID funding, chose to share this dangerous technique for weaponizing pathogens with Chinese scientists who have clear links to the Chinese military.

Experts say that the implications of this new study could be far-reaching. By pointing the finger at Baric, the study raises the possibility of potentially devastating liability for the NIAID and the University of North Carolina and other parties.

Scientists, including those close to Dr. Anthony Fauci, have repeatedly pointed out that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has genomic sequences that appear inconsistent with natural evolution: The COVID-19 virus is no longer infectious in bats, and its spiked protein feature — which is unknown in this family of coronavirus — includes numerous mutations that make it ideally infectious in humans.

The closest known coronavirus relative — a coronavirus from the Wuhan lab — is 96.2% identicalto SARS-CoV-2. The peculiar spike accounts almost completely for the entire 3.8% difference. Oddly, there are multiple novel mutations in the spike and almost none in the rest of the genome.

Natural evolution would be expected to leave mutations distributed evenly across the genome. The fact that virtually all the mutations occur on the spike led these scientists to suspect that that particular Wuhan lab coronavirus collected by Shi Zhengli is the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 and that its new spike was implanted through engineering.

However, the unmistakable fingerprints of lab engineering were absent — leaving many experts wondering whether Baric’s technique was used to assemble a novel coronavirus with the engineered spike while removing the evidence of lab generation.

This new study connects the biological breadcrumbs that link federally funded research to a global pandemic. That trail leads directly to UNC and NIAID.

The authors of the study — a team of researchers from Duke University, University Clinics of Würzburg and an industry group — identified a characteristic signature in the amino acid code. That indelible artifact could only have emerged from Baric’s “no-see’m” methodology.

In an interview last spring, Baric himself confessed, that at the time the pandemic began, only two or three labs in the world were using his protocol — including his UNC lab and the WIV.

The study’s authors’ conclusions rest on the presence of unique sites in the COVID-19 virus. These sites allow special enzymes called “restriction enzymes” to cut the DNA into building blocks of unique size that then can be “stitched together in the correct order of the viral genome,” according to the study’s authors.

Essentially, Baric’s technique leaves behind unique spellings in the “genetic vocabulary.” The new words include “odd spelling choices” subtly distinguishing them from typical viral vocabulary.

The magic of Baric’s “no-see’m” technique is to invisibly weave these telltale “spelling” changes into the viral sequence between relevant genes without altering the viral protein. This is like changing the “spelling” of the word without changing its meaning; the casual listener will never notice the difference.

The research team used forensic tools to drill down on minute “spelling differences” in the SARS-CoV2 genome that betray laboratory tampering using the “no-see’m” technique.

Consider how a Brit would spell “colour,” “manoeuvre” or “paediatric.” The choice to spell a word in a certain way can reveal your nation of origin. Similarly, these nearly imperceptible changes in the viral sequence give away the laboratory origins of this virus.

In sharing his seamless ligation technique with Shi Zhengli, Baric assured that the WIV possessed all the required elements of the assembly process. EcoHealth Alliance’s infamous DEFUSE proposal describes the same techniques in detail. (submitted to The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, in 2018).

The world now has proof positive that SARS-CoV2 is an engineered laboratory creation generated with technology developed by Ralph Baric with U.S. government funding.

Prosecutors and private attorneys representing clients injured by the COVID-19 pandemic now have a smoking gun. The gun points at humanity. Forensic scientists have now successfully lifted faint but precise fingerprints from the lethal pistol’s grip and trigger. Those fingerprints belong to the NIAID and the University of North Carolina. [MORE]

Judge Orders Fauci, Other Authorities to Testify in Case where Government is Accused of Colluding with Social Media Companies to Censor Information About the Dangers of COVID Injections, "Free Speech"

From [HERE] A federal court ordered on Oct. 21 that Dr. Anthony Fauci and other top officials testify under oath at depositions in a case that has uncovered evidence of alleged federal government collusion with Big Tech companies to censor users.

The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri and other plaintiffs allege that Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, and other defendants colluded and coerced social media companies to “suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content” regarding COVID-19.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty went a step further than a previous ruling that forced written testimonies and ordered Fauci and other defendants to testify under oath at depositions.

“After finding documentation of a collusive relationship between the Biden Administration and social media companies to censor free speech, we immediately filed a motion to get these officials under oath,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said in a statement.

“It is high time we shine a light on this censorship enterprise and force these officials to come clean to the American people, and this ruling will allow us to do just that. We’ll keep pressing for the truth.”

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, or NCLA, joined the lawsuit in August, representing renowned epidemiologists Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, as well as Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines.

NCLA attorney Jenin Younes said she looks forward to learning just how far the accused government officials went to push their COVID-19 “perspective.”

“For the first time, Dr. Fauci and seven other federal officials responsible for running an unlawful censorship enterprise will have to answer questions under oath about the nature and extent of their communications with tech companies,” Younes said in a statement to The Epoch Times.

Doughty also ordered the depositions of former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy,  Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan.

Fauci’s ‘self-serving blanket denials’

In his ruling, Doughty said he agreed with plaintiffs that Fauci’s previous “self-serving blanket denials” about his role in censoring views on social media couldn’t be taken at face value.

“Plaintiffs argue that even if Dr. Fauci can prove he never communicated with social media platforms about censorship, there are compelling reasons that suggest Dr. Fauci has acted through intermediaries, and acted on behalf of others, in procuring the social-media censorship of credible scientific opinions,” Doughty said in his ruling.

“Plaintiffs argue that even if Dr. Fauci acted indirectly or as an intermediary on behalf of others, it is still relevant to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. The Court agrees.

“Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Fauci’s credibility has been in question on matters related to supposed COVID-19 ‘misinformation’ since 2020. Specifically, Plaintiffs state that Dr. Fauci has made public statements on the efficacy of masks, the percentage of the population needed for herd immunity, NIAID’s funding of ‘gain-of-function’ virus research in Wuhan, the lab-leak theory and more.

“Plaintiffs urge that his comments on these important issues are relevant to the matter at hand and are further reasons why Dr. Fauci should be deposed. Plaintiffs assert that they should not be required to simply accept Dr. Fauci’s ‘self-serving blanket denials’ that were issued from someone other than himself at face value. The Court agrees.”

Censoring lab leak theory

The plaintiffs argued that Fauci allegedly insisted on the censorship of “speech backed by great scientific credibility and with enormous potential nationwide impact” that contradicted his views.

For example, he communicated in a long-shielded phone call with some scientists to discredit any theory that COVID-19 was the result of a “lab leak” in Wuhan, China. The scientists went on to write a paper severely reprimanding others who were open to the theory.

If the lab leak theory were true, in turn, it would mean that Fauci could be potentially implicated in funding the research on viruses that caused the COVID-19 pandemic that killed millions of people worldwide, the plaintiffs argued.

This is because he funded risky “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through intermediaries such as EcoHealth Alliance.

In late January 2020 and early February 2020, Fauci was also in touch with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in oral communications about the government’s COVID-19 response. Facebook then allegedly went on censor the lab leak theory, according to the plaintiffs.

‘Overwhelming’ need to depose officials

The court also found that Flaherty, Psaki, Andy Slavitt and other officials also have personal knowledge about the alleged censorship issues and ordered them to be deposed.

Doughty said there’s an “overwhelming” need for Flaherty to be deposed to determine whether fundamental rights to free speech were “abridged” as a result of alleged collusion between senior Biden administration officials and Big Tech.

The plaintiffs argued that Flaherty had “extensive” oral meetings with Twitter, Meta and YouTube on vaccine hesitancy and combatting misinformation related to COVID-19.

The judge said there’s a “substantive need” for the deposition of Slavitt, who served as the White House’s senior COVID-19 adviser. Doughty noted that Slavitt’s remarks on a podcast “showed he has specific knowledge as it relates” to the issues in the lawsuit.

The court order cited a series of public comments made by Psaki when she served as White House press secretary, including calling on social media platforms for consistency in banning disfavored speakers.

“Psaki has made a number of statements that are relevant to the Government’s involvement in a number of social-media platforms’ efforts to censor its users across the board for sharing information related to COVID-19,” Doughty said in his ruling.

In the 1960s when the Flu Vax was found to be ineffective Whistleblowers were Censored, Fired or Filtered Out by the Vested Interests