Senator Rand Paul Quits YouTube Over "Despicable" Censorship, Moves Permanently To Rumble

Turmoil engulfs MAGAworld after notorious Capitol rioter gets accused of being a federal agent - Raw Story - Celebrating 17 Years of Independent Journalism

Quote:Gionet went on far-right media to defend himself, but "the defensive appearance on The Stew Peters Show quickly became an offensive move, with the pair espousing homophobic insults aimed at Hoft. 'I mean, obviously, he’s interested in young boys,' Peters said, referring to the right-wing conspiracist being married to a younger man. 'He’s married to a very young boy.'"

According to the report, tensions escalated after a lawyer representing Hoft reportedly threatened to sue Peters over the remarks, saying in a letter that Peters quoted in a press release, “You falsely accused Jim of being a pedophile, and you did so with actual malice. In other words, you’re cooked. Retract and apologize, or we’re going to sue you for damages. This is your final good faith warning.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/dr-...ee-1-3-22/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/SFCtoKEyKfFa/

This is all fake and a conspiracy theory.

Aaron Rodgers made the claim that behind-the-scenes the NFL teams, as well as certain members of Congress, are using the Rogan treatment for Covid.

Dr. Robert Malone’s assertions about “mass formation psychosis” in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic are underscored by the fact that authorities in the UK admitted to using “totalitarian” methods of “mind control” to instill fear in the population.
In Canada, the military also admitted launching a psychological operations campaign against their own people in order to manipulate them into compliance with COVID-19 restrictions and mandates.

During his viral podcast with Joe Rogan after he was banned by Twitter, Malone explained how the global population was being manipulated into remaining in a constant state of hysterical anxiety via mass formation psychosis.

“What the heck happened to Germany in the 20s and 30s? Very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad. And how did that happen?” asked Malone.

“The answer is mass formation psychosis.”

Quote:Meanwhile, following early efforts to bury the term altogether, Google is now desperately rigging its search results to return only negative articles about “mass formation psychosis” and Dr. Malone.


Google’s current top search result link for “mass formation psychosis” is a Forbes hit piece that recycles dubious claims Dr. Malone already debunked during his Rogan appearance.

Inside the Feds’ Hunt for Hundreds of Capitol Riot Fugitives (thedailybeast.com)

YER A QUACK


The Collins And Fauci Attack On Traditional Public Health
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JAN 03, 2022 - 09:00 PM
Authored by Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff via The Epoch Times,

On Oct. 4, 2020, with Prof. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, we wrote the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). Our purpose was to express our grave concerns over the inadequate protection of the vulnerable and the devastating harms of the lockdown pandemic policy adopted by much of the world; We proposed an alternative strategy of focused protection.



The key scientific fact on which the GBD was based—a more than thousand-fold higher risk of death for the old compared to the young—meant that better protection of the old would minimize COVID deaths. At the same time, opening schools and lifting lockdowns would reduce the collateral harm to the rest of the population.

The Declaration received enormous support, ultimately attracting signatures from over 50,000 scientists and medical professionals and over 800,000 members of the public. Our hope in writing was two-fold.

First, we wanted to help the public understand that—contrary to the prevailing narrative—there was no scientific consensus in favor of lockdown. In this, we succeeded.

Second, we wanted to spur a discussion among public health scientists about how to better protect the vulnerable, both those living in nursing homes (where ~40 percent of all COVID deaths have occurred) and those living in the community. We provided specific proposals for focused protection in the GBD and supporting documents to spur the discussion. Though some in public health did engage civilly in productive discussions with us, in this aim we had limited success.

Unbeknownst to us, our call for a more focused pandemic strategy posed a political problem for Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci. The former is a geneticist who, until last week, was the director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH); the latter is an immunologist who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). They are the biggest funders of medical and infectious disease research worldwide.

Collins and Fauci played critical roles in designing and advocating for the pandemic lockdown strategy adopted by the United States and many other countries. In emails written four days after the Great Barrington Declaration and disclosed recently after a FOIA request, it was revealed that the two conspired to undermine the Declaration. Rather than engaging in scientific discourse, they authorized “a quick and devastating published takedown” of this proposal, which they characterized as by “three fringe epidemiologists” from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford.

Across the pond, they were joined by their close colleague, Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the head of the Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s biggest non-governmental funders of medical research. He worked with Dominic Cummings, the political strategist of UK prime minister Boris Johnson. Together, they orchestrated “an aggressive press campaign against those behind the Great Barrington Declaration and others opposed to blanket COVID-19 restrictions.”

Ignoring the call for focused protection of the vulnerable, Collins and Fauci purposely mischaracterized the GBDl as a “let-it-rip” “herd immunity strategy,” even though focused protection is the very opposite of a let-it-rip strategy. It is more appropriate to call the lockdown strategy that has been followed a “let-it-rip” strategy. Without focused protection, every age group will eventually be exposed in equal proportion, albeit at a prolonged “let-it-drip” pace compared to a do-nothing strategy.

When journalists started asking us why we wanted to “let the virus rip,” we were puzzled. Those words are not in the GBD, and they are contrary to the central idea of focused protection. It is unclear whether Collins and Fauci ever read the GBD, whether they deliberately mischaracterized it, or whether their understanding of epidemiology and public health is more limited than we had thought. In any case, it was a lie.

We were also puzzled by the mischaracterization of the GBD as a “herd immunity strategy.” Herd immunity is a scientifically proven phenomenon, as fundamental in infectious disease epidemiology as gravity is in physics. Every COVID strategy leads to herd immunity, and the pandemic ends when a sufficient number of people have immunity through either COVID-recovery or a vaccine. It makes as much sense to claim that an epidemiologist is advocating for a “herd immunity strategy” as it does to claim that a pilot is advocating a “gravity strategy” when landing an airplane. The issue is how to land the plane safely, and whatever strategy the pilot uses, gravity ensures that the plane will eventually return to earth.

The fundamental goal of the GBD is to get through this terrible pandemic with the least harm to the public’s health. Health, of course, is broader than just COVID. Any reasonable evaluation of lockdowns should consider their collateral damage to patients with cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, other infectious diseases, as well as mental health, and much else. Based on long-standing principles of public health, the GBD and focused protection of the high-risk population is a middle ground between devastating lockdowns and a do-nothing let-it rip strategy.

Collins and Fauci surprisingly claimed that focused protection of the old is impossible without a vaccine. Scientists have their own specialties, but not every scientist has deep expertise in public health. The natural approach would have been to engage with epidemiologists and public health scientists for whom this is their bread and butter. Had they done so, Collins and Fauci would have learned that public health is fundamentally about focused protection.

It is impossible to shut down society completely. Lockdowns protected young low-risk affluent work-from-home professionals, such as administrators, scientists, professors, journalists, and lawyers, while older high-risk members of the working class were exposed and died in necessarily high numbers. This failure to understand that lockdowns could not protect the vulnerable led to the tragically high death counts from COVID.

We do not know why Collins and Fauci decided to do a “take down” rather than use their esteemed positions to build and promote vigorous scientific discussions on these critical issues, engaging scientists with different expertise and perspectives. Part of the answer may lie in another puzzle—their blindness to the devastating effects of lockdowns on other public health outcomes.

Lockdown harms have affected everyone, with an extra heavy burden on the chronically ill; on children, for whom schools were closed; on the working class, especially those in the densely populated inner cities; and on the global poor, with tens of millions suffering from malnutrition and starvation. For example, Fauci was a major advocate for school closures. These are now widely recognized as an enormous mistake that harmed children without affecting disease spread. In the coming years, we must work hard to reverse the damage caused by our misguided pandemic strategy.

While tens of thousands of scientists and medical professionals signed the Great Barrington Declaration, why didn’t more speak up in the media? Some did, some tried but failed, while others were very cautious about doing so. When we wrote the Declaration, we knew that we were putting our professional careers at risk, as well as our ability to provide for our families. That was a conscious decision on our part, and we fully sympathize with people who instead decided to focus on maintaining their important research laboratories and activities.

Scientists will naturally hesitate before putting themselves in a situation where the NIH Director, with an annual scientific research budget of $42.9 billion, wants to take them down. It may also be unwise to upset the director of NIAID, with an annual budget of $6.1 billion for infectious disease research, or the director of the Wellcome Trust, with an annual budget of $1.5 billion. Sitting atop powerful funding agencies, Collins, Fauci, and Farrar channel research dollars to nearly every infectious disease epidemiologist, immunologist, and virologist of note in the United States and UK.

Collins, Fauci, and Farrar got the pandemic strategy they advocated for, and they own the results together with other lockdown proponents. The GBD was and is inconvenient for them because it stands as clear evidence that a better, less deadly alternative was available.

We now have over 800,000 COVID deaths in the United States, plus the collateral damage. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries—less focused on lockdowns and more focused on protecting the old—have had fewer COVID deaths per population than the United States, the UK, and most other European countries. Florida, which avoided much of the collateral lockdown harms, currently ranks 22nd best in the United States in age-adjusted COVID mortality.

In academic medicine, landing an NIH grant makes or breaks careers, so scientists have a strong incentive to stay on the right side of NIH and NIAID priorities. If we want scientists to speak freely in the future, we should avoid having the same people in charge of public health policy and medical research funding.

Dr. McCollough Says Outpatient Treatments For COVID-19 Have Been Suppressed
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JAN 03, 2022 - 10:20 PM
Authored by Jan Jekielek and Masooma Haq via The Epoch Times,

Dr. Peter McCullough told The Epoch Times that the public should question why the governments and public health officials around the world have put little to no emphasis on outpatient treatments in their efforts to fight the COVID-19 virus, instead promoting a massive effort on vaccines.

“Lots of messaging on the vaccine, but zero mentioning on treatment, none. And it’s been from the very beginning. There is a theme here, I hope everyone’s starting to get the theme. There is zero effort, interest, promotion, or care about early treatment, people who are sick with COVID-19,” said McCollough.

“But there is a complete and total focus on people who don’t have COVID-19 and giving them a vaccine.”

McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and lead author of the first paper on early COVID-19 outpatient treatment involving a multi-drug regimen. In a recent interview with EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program, he discussed a wide range of evidence on COVID-19 preventative treatments that are being used around the world.



He said that drug treatments must be prioritized in the effort to stamp out the threat of COVID-19. “So early treatment markedly changes spreads. So, we reduce new cases, we reduce the intensity and severity and duration of symptoms. And by that mechanism, we reduce hospitalization and death.”

The doctor cited some recent treatments that have been effective in killing the virus at the early stage of infection: Dr. Iqbal Mahmud Chowdhury conducted a protocol in Bangladesh that used a povidone-iodine rinse in the nose and eyes to kill the virus. Another treatment effort by a French doctor, Didier Raoult, who treated people using hydroxychloroquine, met with great success.

“Chowdhury is the first author recognizing the fact that the virus is in the air, people breathe it in, it settles in the nose, and it begins to replicate. And it has to get to a certain threshold and overcome the other organisms in the nose and overcome our own immune system to become a clinical infection. So, there’s about a three-to-five-day window to actually zap the virus directly.”

Masks and hand sanitizer are illogical and the data does not show them to be effective means to prevent COVID-19 infections because the virus is spread through the air, not hands, and is too small to be blocked by most masks said, McCollough.

McCollough said COVID creates “terrible inflammation” and hydroxychloroquine has been shown to be effective to reduce that, but instead of seeing an increase in using and studying the effectiveness of that drug, it has instead been restricted and in some countries, doctors can be jailed for using it to treat their patients.



A map of where hydroxychloroquine is currently being used around the world for COVID-19 on March 1. (Courtesy of c19study.org)

In the United States, hydroxychloroquine can only be used in hospitals.

McCollough detailed the events that led to these restrictions, saying that for one, “there was a falsified paper published in Lancet … which claimed to have tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19, hospitalized at multiple centers around the world, in their 40s, hospitalized with COVID-19.” He said the supposed study was not verified and claimed the drug had negative health effects.

This “false” study led to medical professionals losing confidence in the drug and after which, “hospital messaging started to say, listen, don’t use hydroxychloroquine.

“The NIH pulled the program on a fully-funded trial in the midst of our initial wave of COVID-19. And then, shortly after that, the FDA put out a statement: hydroxychloroquine should not be used across the board, period.

“The next drug up on the block was Ivermectin.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the NIH to ask what they thought of Dr. McCullough’s criticism of the NIH’s COVID-19 treatment guidelines. The NIH spokesperson declined to comment. She said that the NIH relied on a panel of many experts to develop the COVID-19 treatment guidelines.

The FDA told The Epoch Times they are committed “to speed patient access to medicines to prevent or treat COVID-19 provided they meet the agency’s rigorous standards,” but that they believe the vaccines are the best way to prevent the disease and hospitalization.

McCollough says along with anti-hydroxychloroquine messaging, the drug Ivermectin was also maligned after that the American Medical Association gave an opinion against it.

“So, Americans saw the most confusing picture of hospitalized care of COVID-19 and a very confusing picture of outpatient treatment of COVID-19. My contributions, at least I tried to organize the outpatient treatment into concepts, where we would use drugs … in the middle phase treat inflammation, and in the late phase treat blood clotting; and we stuck with those principles all the way through,” said McCollough.

McCollough said it’s highly unusual for hospitals to not conduct trials on treatments for a disease, but with COVID-19 no major trials have been done to improve treatments and there have been no outcomes publicized by hospitals.

McCollough said improving treatments for those who are sick with COVID-19 has never been a priority for those in charge of public health because vaccines have been pushed from day one. He remembers how CVS pharmacies were advertising the vaccines even before they were fully authorized.

CVS confirmed to The Epoch Times that they were advertising the vaccines in October 2020.



A sign at a drug store advertises the COVID-19 vaccine in New York City on Nov. 19, 2021. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

He said the U.S. media has almost completely blocked out what is going on around the world with treatments for COVID. “Anywhere where there has been an early oral drug approach there has been success in terms of COVID-19. And now more recently, it was very fascinating, is anywhere where there’s any attention to decontamination in the nose and the mouth with direct by virucidal therapy. There have been stunning results.”

He questions why the United States has not reviewed the work being done around the world to treat the disease.

“We haven’t seen panels of collaborating doctors. We’ve never seen a symposium on local therapy, what works best for the nose. No mention by public health officials.”

McCollough says those leading U.S. public health agencies are incompetent.

McCollough suggests that there be a monthly review of new therapies used to treat COVID both at a national and global level, for doctors to review and learn from peers. “The idea that there’s no review, you’d think there would be the World Health Organization would actually assign a task force. This is the biggest public health problem, a monthly review of promising therapies.”

“So the treatment, inpatient and outpatient, of the biggest illness of our time, after two years, is an enigma.”

Did banned mRNA vax inventor Robert W. Malone M.D. just break the Google algorithm?
By Monica Showalter
Did the Twitter punks who banned mRNA vaccine inventor and bona fide vaccine expert Robert W. Malone, M.D. just set off the Mother of all Backfires?

Kind of looks like it, now that they've drawn so much public interest to the man that they've apparently broken the Google algorithm for censoring stories about him.

It started like this:

Shortly after Malone was banned on Twitter, he did an long interview with bigfoot podcaster, Joe Rogan, arguing that the disinformation and repressed information on COVID vaccines was something resembling mass psychosis.

That term, and related ones, created widely divergent results between Google and its biggest rival, the more objective DuckDuckGo search engine.

Here's a video showing how the algorithms got broken:



Which ought to be kind of embarrassing to Twitter and the rest of the tech barons trying to stomp him out from any Internet media presence based on his inconvenient ideas about the risks of the mRNA vaccines. Although Malone is a giant in his field and hard to discredit the way they can do with assorted pipsqueaks out there, somehow they think they need to silence the man. On Google, they've tried to paint him as a nut, a conspiracy theorist, a vaccine skeptic, a Nazi, based on the search results they tried to throw up.

But the truth got out anyway, and their manipulated algorithms have been exposed, discrediting them, and in any case, not working. All they managed to do was promote him bigger than ever, generating so much public interest in his ideas and warnings that they busted the Google algorithms. Twitter's Katzenjammer Kids who started this ought to go into public relations. One wonders what the conversations must be like right about now between Twitter and Google barons.





What's more, the idiots created huge numbers of Malone-related terms on Twitter itself, with people passing around thousands of shares of Malone speaking on with hashtags under Malone, JoeRogan, masspsychosis, and related words. The podcast itself is at a link here, but valuable little clips are easily spotted through these hashtags on Twitter. They're pretty good at own-goals, too, over at Twitter.

It's significant because Malone has Big Tech's, Big Politics', and Big Pharma's numbers and they've got a target painted on his back in response. Malone's pointed out that many of the more insane and counterproductive public health measures going around have been brought on by conflicts of interest and a revolving door between medical researchers, Big Pharma, and public health officials. Profit motives are quite operative. Malone on the Rogan podcast, for instance, pointed out that Reuters does a lot of fact-checking for Twitter -- and it has a top executive sitting on the Pfizer board. Conflict, anyone? Malone's revelations are a threat to a lot of rice bowls right there. But he hasn't stopped

As the writer of an otherwise ugly Atlantic hit piece written about Malone has correctly noted:

I’ve listened to hours of Malone’s interviews and read through the many pages of documents he’s posted. He is a knowledgeable scientist with a knack for lucid explanation.

Precisely. That explains some of his popularity. His penchant for truth explains the rest.

The Atlantic, owned and reportedly directed editorially by Apple fortune heiress Laurene Powell Jobs, launched the first hit on Malone back in August.

The article tried to claim that Malone was an insignificant, unimportant guy who exaggerated his accomplishments and didn't play well with others. It was badly sourced, and supported only by the statements of jealous rivals whose conflicts of interest went unmentioned in the piece. There was a little warning that he'd screwed up his Nobel prize for medicine for his work in the piece, which contradicted the other claims in the piece about him being unimportant and inclined to inflate his resume. Nobel committees don't normally bother with such characters, except in the literature and peace categories. Malone noted on Rogan's show that the reporter, kept asking him again and again and again who was paying him, whose interests he was acting on behalf of. That sounds like a command from his betters at The Atlantic actually -- I've experienced that kind of call to target from news executives myself in my long journalism career (no, it wasn't IBD), so I know it happens. Someone was directing the reporter to bring back the answer to that question in a broader bid to discredit Malone.

The Atlantic's claim that Malone didn't get along with others was ridiculous, too -- Malone is sharp and certain in his views because he knows so much about his topic. The Atlantic's charge is ridiculous because it's so weak and subjective in content -- the topic is the inventor of the mRNA vaccine and all they can come up with is that he does not play well with others -- seriously, is that the best they could come up with? Sharp certainty is pretty characteristic of great scientists and scholars, actually -- has this dupe ever talked to Milton Friedman? Everyone (except Joe Biden) knows that Friedman, a giant in economics, was right in his ideas. Friedman's persona was an icily certain one because that's the way such scholars actually are -- it's the NTJ reading on the Myers-Briggs personality scale, which is precisely where major scientific researchers are typically found. It's actually no biggie. The ignorance that was revealed with that particular claim about him not being nice enough to other researchers so nobody should pay attention to his scientific discoveries stuck out as particularly stupid. Apparently the writer, a poor little feller named Tom Bartlett, believed that Malone needed to be more like him -- going along to get along. Doesn't work that way if you want to break new ground on something, doofus.

Malone's expansive interview with Rogan is chock full of information about the origins of COVID, the manipulations and maneuvers of public health decisions, the story of how India broke the COVID death cycle, and whole lot of other things that discredit entirely the COVID industrial complex. It can be viewed and heard here. It's heartening to see this kind of information draw so much public interest now that the COVID edifice is crumbling. Better still, Malone has dealt Google a blow, one that overwhelmed it at long last, and perhaps the first of many to come.


Here's what one insurance company has found [I'm sure they wear tin hats]

People are dying, but not the ones you think for the reasons you think
By Andrea Widburg
While the mainstream media, at least in 2020, tracked deaths with the fanaticism of an insurance company, they've always lacked accuracy.  That's why it matters when a major American insurance company, which is in the business of accurate data about deaths, announces that Americans in the 18–64 age bracket are dying in unprecedented numbers.  The same data suggest that these aren't COVID deaths, which makes them much more sinister.

OneAmerica is a major insurance company located in Indianapolis with annual revenue of around $2 billion and total assets of around $74 billion.  This is not a fly-by-night internet "insurance" company.  OneAmerica is the real deal, selling both individual and group life insurance, and it has data and actuarial tables that go back 145 years.  It's also a progressive company that boasts about "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" right on its home page.  In other words, it's not some "scary" right-wing reactionary firm.

During a news conference last week, OneAmerica's CEO, Scott Davison, had a startling announcement — working-age Americans are dying in unprecedented numbers:

"We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business — not just at OneAmerica," the company's CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. "The data is consistent across every player in that business."

[snip]

Davison said the increase in deaths represents "huge, huge numbers," and that's it's not elderly people who are dying, but "primarily working-age people 18 to 64" who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

"And what we saw just in third quarter, we're seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic," he said.

"Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic," he said. "So 40% is just unheard of."

More remarkably still, these are not COVID deaths.  Instead, they are totally different death count from the COVID count the media insisted we know during Trump's last year and jettisoned during Biden's first year.


Image: Young widow at the grave.  Freepik license.

At the same conference, Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, spoke about the tremendous caseload in hospitals, not from COVID, but from all sorts of other things.  He added, "Unfortunately, the average Hoosiers' health has declined during the pandemic."  Indeed:

In a follow-up call, he said he did not have a breakdown showing why so many people in the state are being hospitalized — for what conditions or ailments. But he said the extraordinarily high death rate quoted by Davison matched what hospitals in the state are seeing.

And here are the death data you've all expected to see:

The number of hospitalizations in the state is now higher than before the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced a year ago, and in fact is higher than it's been in the past five years, Dr. Lindsay Weaver, Indiana's chief medical officer, said at a news conference with Gov. Eric Holcomb on Wednesday.

In other words, more Americans are dying since the vaccine than ever before.  That last paragraph may be the beginning of a huge upcoming bolus of evidence showing that the anti-jabbers were right all along: the injection that rejoices under the misnomer of a "vaccination" is, instead, a life-taker, not a life-saver.

The two years of COVID mismanagement may also mean that myriad other health conditions are causing these deaths.  Those people whose chronic or fatal conditions (e.g., heart disease, cancer) went untreated with lockdowns may finally have succumbed.  We may also be seeing the terrible assault on immune systems, not from jabs, but from depression, economic stress, substance abuse, lack of exercise, lack of sunlight, and lack of human contact.

The one thing that's clear is that the bean-counters whose businesses depend on getting the numbers right are telling us that Americans' health under Dr. Fauci in Year One and the Biden administration (and Fauci) in Year Two has been disastrous.  We can expect Year Three to be equally bad because the same management is in place.  The only thing that will change this trajectory is to throw the bums out, first in the November 2022 election and again in the November 2024 election.  Their mismanagement is killing us.