The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined variable $unreadreports - Line: 32 - File: global.php(961) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/global.php(961) : eval()'d code 32 errorHandler->error_callback
/global.php 961 eval
/portal.php 39 require_once




Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 2
» Latest member: stanleypearce
» Forum threads: 2,609
» Forum posts: 11,820

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 93 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 92 Guest(s)
Bing

Latest Threads
RABBI SELLS BUTT PLUGS & ...
Forum: World View
Last Post: k.d.
03-22-2024, 02:10 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
Time for some music
Forum: Local Chatter
Last Post: k.d.
03-11-2024, 11:18 PM
» Replies: 17
» Views: 5,297
RIP Eric Carmen
Forum: Local Chatter
Last Post: k.d.
03-11-2024, 10:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
An Extreme Act of Protest
Forum: World View
Last Post: k.d.
02-26-2024, 05:43 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
Mark Dice 2014
Forum: The Nation
Last Post: k.d.
02-12-2024, 12:42 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
Do You Fly?
Forum: Local Chatter
Last Post: k.d.
01-18-2024, 10:15 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
The Grey Zone
Forum: World View
Last Post: k.d.
01-11-2024, 03:35 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
Jews
Forum: World View
Last Post: k.d.
11-08-2023, 10:49 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
God's Chosen People
Forum: World View
Last Post: k.d.
11-05-2023, 11:58 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
Gabor Mate
Forum: The Nation
Last Post: k.d.
11-01-2023, 05:26 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0

 
  Biden Commits to WWIII
Posted by: k.d. - 10-22-2021, 11:16 AM - Forum: World View - No Replies

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/m...-town-hall

Print this item

  Biden's Disappearing Elephant
Posted by: k.d. - 10-21-2021, 02:38 PM - Forum: Local Chatter - Replies (6)

The FBI is going to go after parents who speak to School Boards and declare them terrorists, yet even a year later we have the evidence from the Hunter laptop and nothing has been done.


Joe Biden and the Disappearing Elephant: How to Make a Full-Sized Scandal Vanish in Front of an Audience of Millions
This week marked the anniversary of one of the greatest political tricks in history: the disappearance of Hunter Biden scandal. New emails were released that added new details to what was a raw influence peddling operation that netted millions from foreign sources. A new tranche of emails connecting President Joe Biden to key accounts proves just how this political sleight of hand was worthy of Houdini. After all, Houdini only made an elephant disappear. The Bidens made the equivalent to an entire circus disappear in front of an audience of millions.

How Houdini made his 10,000 pound elephant Jennie disappear every night in New York’s Hippodrome remains a matter of some debate. There are no good pictures of his famous cabinet and Houdini later threatened to sue those featuring acts with “disappearing elephants.”  What is clear is that the sheer size and audacity of the act (like that of the Bidens) contributed to the trick. The fact is that Jennie never left the large cabinet, people just didn’t see it.

The Bidens achieved the same effect. They made a full-sized scandal disappear with the help of media and members who did not want the public to see it.  Twitter banned postings about the laptop until after Biden was elected. The media dismissed the story as a conspiracy theory with some mocking the “New York Post and everyone else who got suckered into the ridiculous Hunter Biden Laptop story. Take a bow.”

Committee Chairman Adam Schiff assured that public that “this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin.” Some 50 former intelligence officials, including Obama’s CIA directors John Brennan and Leon Panetta, also insisted the laptop story was likely the work of Russian intelligence.

The laptop is, of course, now recognized as genuine even by some of the early deniers. Hunter remains under criminal investigation for possible tax and money laundering violations. But the greatest “reveal” is the person referred to as “the Big Guy” and “Celtic” in these emails: President Biden.

Recently released emails reference payments to President Biden from his son’s accounts and indicate the possible commingling of funds.  Even more embarrassing, the shared account may have been used to pay a Russian prostitute named “Yanna.” In one text, a former secret service agent warns Hunter (who was holed up with a prostitute in an expensive hotel) “Come on H this is linked to Celtic’s account.”

The question is whether prosecutors will continue to act like they do not see the elephant. Consider these established facts:

First, it is widely believed that Hunter Biden and his uncle James Biden, received millions in influence peddling. For his part, Hunter only had influence and access to sell. He admits that he was a crack addict and alcoholic all the way up to the start of his father’s presidential campaign — in his words, “Drinking a quart of vodka a day by yourself in a room is absolutely, completely debilitating,” as well as “smoking crack around the clock.”

Second, Joe Biden has continued to deny knowledge or involvement in these foreign dealings and those denials are now directly contradicted by emails and witnesses. Hunter himself contradicted his father’s repeated denials. Likewise, a key business associate of Hunter Biden, Anthony Bobulinski, directly accused Joe Biden of lying about his involvement. Bobulinski has detailed a meeting with Joe Biden in a hotel to go over the dealings. Past emails included discussions of offering access to then-Vice President Biden. They also include alleged payments to Joe Biden. In one email, there is a discussion of a proposed equity split of “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” Bobulinski confirmed that “H” was used for Hunter Biden and that his father was routinely called “the big guy” in these discussions.

Third, while he was vice president, Joe Biden allowed Hunter to fly on Air Force 2 to countries like China where he was seeking millions. He also met with Hunter’s foreign business associates. In 2015, a State Department official flagged the possible conflicts from Hunter’s dealings during the Obama Administration.

Fourth, new emails suggest a commingling of funds between Hunter and his father. Emails from Eric Schwerin, his business partner at the Rosemont Seneca consultancy, refer to the payment of household bills for both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. He also notes that he was transferring money from Joe Biden. Rosemont Seneca is directly involved in the alleged influence peddling schemes and questionable money transfers from Chinese and Russian sources.

Finally, Hunter himself admitted that his missing computers files may have been stolen by foreign agents for blackmail purposes. Hunter’s emails claim one of his laptops may have been stolen by Russian agents after a drug and alcohol binge with prostitutes.

Given the ongoing criminal prosecution, that would seem an ample basis for the appointment of a special counsel. The President is mentioned repeatedly in emails and by witnesses in relation to influence peddling schemes and even receiving funds from shared accounts. He has also denied knowledge that key witnesses refute, including his son.

Influence peddling is common in Washington and can be done legally. Yet, it has also been the subject of intense criminal investigations. For example, the FBI raided the home of Trump counsel Rudolph Giuliani and others based on allegations of influence peddling in an ongoing criminal investigation. The Justice Department wants to know if Giuliani secured contracts in exchange for access or influence. The media gleefully recounted the raids and how Giuliani may have cashed in on his access.

Yet, an influence peddling scheme that directly impacts the President and his family continues to be officially unseen. Indeed, the value of involving the media in the original trick is that it invests reporters in the illusion. It is like calling audience members to the stage to assist in the performance. Reporters have to insist that there was nothing to see or they have to admit to being part of the deception.

This is why, in Washington, the illusion depends on the specific elephant.

Houdini once said that “It is still an open question . . . as to what extent exposure really injures a performer.” The same question can be asked about a politician. President Biden is in full display in these emails. The question is whether the public – or the prosecutors – want to see him.

Print this item

  Knowingly. Willfully. Brazenly.
Posted by: k.d. - 10-21-2021, 02:28 PM - Forum: The Nation - No Replies

The NIH received the relevant documents in 2018 and reviewed the documents in 2020 and again in 2021. 

The NIH--specifically, Collins, Fauci, and Tabak--lied to Congress, lied to the press, and lied to the public. Knowingly. Willfully. Brazenly.
5:21 PM · Oct 20, 2021


NIH corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director Collins and NIAID Director Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

NIH states that EcoHealth Alliance violated Terms and Conditions of NIH grant AI110964.

Print this item

  Yuge News
Posted by: k.d. - 10-21-2021, 11:21 AM - Forum: The Nation - No Replies

https://rumble.com/vo1ae7-my-father-is-l...a-app.html

Print this item

  Sick Children
Posted by: j.p. - 10-21-2021, 09:42 AM - Forum: Local Chatter - Replies (13)

Children sick with COVID and other bugs flooded hospitals in the fall. Doctors worry what winter will bring. (yahoo.com)


Quote:The 190-bed facility is about two-thirds full during a typical fall. This year, it has been jammed with young patients since July.

Dozens have come in coughing, wheezing and feverish with COVID-19, which is sickening more kids than it did in the pandemic’s early months. Many more young patients have arrived with severe infections from other respiratory viruses, which normally do not strike in full force until late autumn or early winter.

Print this item

  Future ?
Posted by: j.p. - 10-21-2021, 09:36 AM - Forum: The Nation - No Replies

https://ifunny.co/picture/near-future-ga...-K0wW0py09

Print this item

  FDA'a WAR on IVERMECTIN
Posted by: k.d. - 10-20-2021, 08:32 PM - Forum: World View - Replies (17)

The FDA’s War Against the Truth on Ivermectin
David R. HendersonDavid R. Henderson
Charles L. HooperCharles L. Hooper
– October 18, 2021Reading Time: 6 minutes
AIER >> Daily Economy >> Science >> Government >> Crisis >> Authoritarianism
Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrintFacebookTwitterLinkedInPinterestRedditFlipboardEmailShare

On July 28, the Wall Street Journal ran our article “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” In it, we outlined the potential value of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin for Covid-19, and we questioned the FDA’s vigorous attack on ivermectin. Many people praised us and many criticized us. We had clearly covered a sensitive subject. It didn’t help that one of the studies we referenced was retracted shortly before we submitted our article. Within hours of learning that fact, we sent a mea culpa to the Journal’s editors. They acted quickly, adding a note at the end of the electronic version and publishing our letter. It’s important to address two criticisms of our work. The first is that we exaggerated the FDA’s warning on ivermectin. The second is that Merck’s stance on ivermectin proved that even the company that developed ivermectin thought that it doesn’t work for Covid-19.

First, we didn’t exaggerate the FDA’s warning on ivermectin. Instead, the agency changed its website after our article was published, probably to reflect the points we made. Second, Merck had two incentives to downplay ivermectin’s usefulness against the novel coronavirus. We’ll explain both points more fully.

Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck & Co. while one of us (Hooper) worked there years ago. Dr. William C. Campbell and Professor Satoshi Omura were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. They earned it for discovering and developing avermectin. Later Campbell and some associates modified avermectin to create ivermectin. Merck & Co. has donated four billion doses of ivermectin to prevent river blindness and other diseases in areas of the world, such as Africa, where parasites are common. The ten doctors who are in the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance call ivermectin “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.” Ivermectin is on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines and ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children, and infants.

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic, but it has shown, in cell cultures in laboratories, the ability to destroy 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. Further, ivermectin has demonstrated its potential in clinical trials for the treatment of Covid-19 and in large-scale population studies for the prevention of Covid-19.

Contradicting these positive results, the FDA issued a special statement warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19.” The FDA’s warning, which included language such as, “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death,” and “highly toxic,” might suggest that the FDA was warning against pills laced with poison. In fact, the FDA had already approved the drug years ago as a safe and effective anti-parasitic. Why would it suddenly become dangerous if used to treat Covid-19? Further, the FDA claimed, with no scientific basis, that ivermectin is not an antiviral, notwithstanding its proven antiviral activity.

Interestingly, at the bottom of the FDA’s strong warning against ivermectin was this statement: “Meanwhile, effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to be to wear your mask, stay at least 6 feet from others who don’t live with you, wash hands frequently, and avoid crowds.” Was this based on the kinds of double-blind studies that the FDA requires for drug approvals? No.

After some critics claimed that we overstated or overreacted to the FDA’s special warning, we reviewed the FDA’s website and found that it had been changed, and there was no mention of the changes nor any reason given. Overall, the warnings were watered down and clarified. We noticed the following changes:

The false statement that “Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses)” was removed.
“Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too” was changed to the less alarming “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.” (Indications is the official term used in the industry to denote new uses for a drug, such as new diseases or conditions, and/or new patient populations.)
The statement, “If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed,” was changed to, “If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.” This more clearly acknowledges that reasonable physicians may prescribe ivermectin for non-FDA-approved uses, such as Covid-19.
The ending statement about masks, spacing, hand washing, and avoiding crowds was replaced with one that recommended getting vaccinated and following CDC guidelines.
The reasonable statement “Talk to your health care provider about available COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options. Your provider can help determine the best option for you, based on your health history” was added at the end.
The new warning from the FDA is more correct and less alarming than the previous one.

In a statement from February, Merck, the company that originated and still sells ivermectin, agreed with the FDA that ivermectin should not be used for Covid-19. “We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.”[2]

To some, this appeared to be a smoking gun. Merck wants to make money, they reason, and people are interested in using ivermectin for Covid-19, therefore, Merck would warn against such usage only if the scientific evidence were overwhelming. But that’s not how the pharmaceutical industry works.

Here’s how the FDA-regulated pharmaceutical industry really works.

The FDA judges all drugs as guilty until proven, to the FDA’s satisfaction, both safe and efficacious. By what process does this happen? The FDA waits for a deep-pocketed sponsor to present a comprehensive package that justifies the approval of a new drug or a new use of an existing drug. For a drug like ivermectin, long since generic, a sponsor may never show up. The reason is not that the drug is ineffective; rather, the reason is that any expenditures used to secure approval for that new use will help other generic manufacturers that haven’t invested a dime. Due to generic drug substitution rules at pharmacies, Merck could spend millions of dollars to get a Covid-19 indication for ivermectin and then effectively get zero return. What company would ever make that investment?

With no sponsor, there is no new FDA-approved indication and, therefore, no official recognition of ivermectin’s value. Was the FDA’s warning against ivermectin based on science? No. It was based on process. Like a typical bureaucrat, the FDA won’t recommend the use of ivermectin because, while it might help patients, such a recommendation would violate its processes. The FDA needs boxes checked off in the right order. If a sponsor never shows up and the boxes aren’t checked off, the FDA’s standard approach is to tell Americans to stay away from the drug because it might be dangerous or ineffective. Sometimes the FDA is too enthusiastic and these warnings are, frankly, alarming. Guilty until proven innocent.

There are two reasons that Merck would warn against ivermectin usage, essentially throwing its own drug under the bus.

Once they are marketed, doctors can prescribe drugs for uses not specifically approved by the FDA. Such usage is called off-label. Using ivermectin for Covid-19 is considered off-label because that use is not specifically listed on ivermectin’s FDA-approved label.

While off-label prescribing is widespread and completely legal, it is illegal for a pharmaceutical company to promote that use. Doctors can use drugs for off-label uses and drug companies can supply them with product. But heaven forbid that companies encourage, support, or promote off-label prescribing. The fines for doing so are outrageous. During a particularly vigorous two-year period, the Justice Department collected over $6 billion from drug companies for off-label promotion cases. Merck’s lawyers haven’t forgotten that lesson.

Another reason for Merck to discount ivermectin’s efficacy is a result of marketing strategy. Ivermectin is an old, cheap, off-patent drug. Merck will never make much money from ivermectin sales. Drug companies aren’t looking to spruce up last year’s winners; they want new winners with long patent lives. Not coincidentally, Merck recently released the clinical results for its new Covid-19 fighter, molnupiravir, which has shown a 50% reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death among high-risk, unvaccinated adults. Analysts are predicting multi-billion-dollar sales for molnupiravir.[3]

While we can all be happy that Merck has developed a new therapeutic that can keep us safe from the ravages of Covid-19, we should realize that the FDA’s rules give companies an incentive to focus on newer drugs while ignoring older ones. Ivermectin may or may not be a miracle drug for Covid-19. The FDA doesn’t want us to learn the truth.

The FDA spreads lies and alarms Americans while preventing drug companies from providing us with scientific explorations of existing, promising, generic drugs.

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrintFacebookTwitterLinkedInPinterestRedditFlipboardEmailShare
READ MORE
David R. Henderson
David R. Henderson
David R. Henderson is a Senior Fellow with the American Institute for Economic Research.

He is also a research fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and emeritus professor of economics with the Naval Postgraduate School, is editor of The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

David was previously the senior economist for health policy with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Get notified of new articles from David R. Henderson and AIER.
SUBSCRIBE
Charles L. Hooper
Charles L. Hooper
Charles L. Hooper is President and co-founder of Objective Insights, Inc. He is also the author of Would the FDA Reject Itself? (Chicago Park Press, 2021), currently available as an ebook on Apple Books and Amazon Kindle. A paper version is forthcoming.

Prior to forming Objective Insights in 1994, he worked at Merck & Co., Syntex Labs, and NASA.

He is a former visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

His experience is in decision analysis, economics, product pricing, forecasting, and modeling.

Print this item

  Will Parents Revolt
Posted by: k.d. - 10-20-2021, 06:41 PM - Forum: The Nation - No Replies

The Biden administration on Wednesday unveiled its plan to 'quickly' vaccinate roughly 28 million children age 5-11, pending authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/white...n-age-5-11

Print this item

  Vaccine 3% Effective
Posted by: k.d. - 10-20-2021, 03:30 PM - Forum: Local Chatter - Replies (3)

CNN is reporting that a new study involving over 600,000 veterans has found that Johnson & Johnson’s covid vaccine’s protection “fell from 88% in March to 3% in August.”

“A study published Thursday reported a steep decline in vaccine effectiveness against infection by August of this year, especially for people who received the J&J vaccine,” CNN reported over the weekend. “The researchers found that among more than 600,000 veterans, J&J’s vaccine’s protection fell from 88% in March to 3% in August.”

As there are no requirements (yet) that people be triple-jabbed — or double-jabbed in the case of J&J’s shot — this means millions of Americans are getting fired for not having taken a shot that’s now 3% effective.

On the flip side, we know from another Israeli study that “vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection compared to those with natural immunity from prior COVID disease,” as epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff noted.

That Israeli study, which was done between June 1 and August 14, involved only Pfizer recipients.

The new study of vets in America showed that Pfizer’s effectiveness declined to 50% in August from 91% and Moderna’s fell to 64% from 92%. That suggests natural immunity is now more than a hundred times more effective than J&J’s vaccine, yet the federal government and most companies do not even recognize natural immunity as a justification not to get vaxxed.

Print this item

  Pee pee tape real ?
Posted by: j.p. - 10-19-2021, 08:31 PM - Forum: World View - Replies (2)

Christopher Steele: Trump Pee Tape 'Probably Exists' (businessinsider.com)


Quote:Christopher Steele, the former British spy behind a heavily disputed dossier on Donald Trump, said he believed an infamous "pee tape" of Trump does indeed exist.

In an interview with ABC News, he speculated that Russia may have kept the tape hidden because Trump offered them "pretty good value" during his time in office.

Print this item