Alex Stovall is running as an America First conservative for Congress in Arizona. In reality, he’s a political grifter and Project Veritas has the proof in this new video dropping tonight. His twitter account went private right after the video was released
SHOCKER: Politico: Don’t look now, but Dems “souring” on vaccine mandates. “Gee, I wonder why Democrats might want some daylight between Joe Biden and themselves these days — especially on unconstitutional exercises of executive power? With Biden’s vaccine mandates getting shot down in federal courts, the political risks of angering vast swaths of the electorate for no good purpose have become apparent to Biden’s allies. For now, Politico reports, but it’s true inside and outside of the Beltway.”
It’s important that they experience this as a defeat, for educational purposes.
BLM criminals are not happy I had forgotten about this case. She was offered 6 days of community service and one year suspended license and she turned it down. Now she will go to trial.
A Chinese virologist living in hiding in the US has claimed Chinese agents tried poison her after she exposed the truth about the origins of Covid. In an exclusive interview with The Sun, Dr Li-Meng Yan told how she fled to the US after she was warned about a plot to have her […]
The last few years have seen a proliferation of “open letters” by academics in politics and the humanities in favor of progressive causes. The hard sciences are different, and when mathematicians, physicists and engineers speak up to defend the integrity of their fields, Americans should pay attention.
The latest example is a new public statement from hundreds of the country’s top quantitative scientists warning about the assault on math in schools. “We write to express our alarm over recent trends in K-12 mathematics education in the United States,” the statement begins. The social-justice wave of 2020 accelerated efforts to eliminate standardized testing and lower standards in math to give the appearance that achievement gaps don’t exist.
The scientists delicately describe the politicized erosion of standards as “well-intentioned approaches to reform mathematics education.” They zero in on the California Department of Education’s proposed new math framework, which encourages math teachers to take a “justice-oriented perspective.” The signatories say the course roadmap will reduce the “availability of advanced mathematical courses to middle schoolers and beginning high schoolers” and discourage students from taking calculus.
This is supposed to advance “equity.” But in addition to damaging America’s global competitiveness, the letter says, the decline of rigorous math in public schools “may lead to a de facto privatization” of top-tier instruction and “harm students with fewer resources.”
Woke policies always hurt poor people and minorities. They’re practically designed to.
THE CLINTON MONEY MACHINE: Ethics Experts Alarmed By 93% Decrease In Clinton Foundation Donations Since $250 Million Peak In 2009. “Money was pouring in when Hillary Clinton was a senior official and a candidate for president. The fact that foundation donors received special access to the Secretary of State isn’t surprising, nor is the fall in foundation funding after her 2016 election loss. Many people thought people were supporting the former president, but it really looks like they were cozying up to who they thought was going to be the future president — a situation that can’t be repeated.”
During the local election campaign Ferial Haffajee wrote about the sad state of her part (and every part) of Johannesburg: litter everywhere, potholes, street lights and traffic lights that don’t work, irregular water, irregular power, uncollected rubbish and all the rest of it. When she recited this lament to the ANC she was angrily accused of “nostalgia for the white city”.
In today’s South Africa it is, of course, politically inadmissible to say that the whites got anything right so instead Ferial recorded sadly how in the years before 1994 there had been lots of bold talk by the UDF about how much better in every respect things would be in the new, liberated South Africa. The developmental state. People’s education. Reconstruction and development. The comrades gave such inspiring speeches about these matters.
Ferial is a nice woman but her perspectives are so encased in a sort of terminal political correctness that she can’t call a spade a spade. But imagine the angry black voters of Soweto or Ekurhuleni who booed Ramaphosa, or the Indian voters of Chatsworth, or the Coloured voters of the Cape Flats: if you accused them of “nostalgia for the white city” you’d be told “Absolutely. You bet. So’s everybody.”
It is indeed a no-brainer. Cheap, plentiful and reliable electricity. Sewage and water systems that work properly. Street lights and traffic lights ditto. Decent roads, litter that gets collected, law and order: what’s not to like?
The point is this. Whenever anyone tries to hold the ANC responsible for anything its first instinct is to find a way of blaming apartheid. But in the local election campaign this was impossible. They’ve been in power for 27 years so if people don’t like the mess they’ve made of their towns and, indeed, of their country, there’s no one else to blame. So the best the ANC can do is try to invalidate their complaint by the accusation of “nostalgia for the white city”. Quite obviously it didn’t work and won’t work.
Moreover, it carries the suggestion that the broken state of the towns and cities is what you ought to expect in an African-run country, that things not working is somehow more authentic. This is a very dangerous notion: “Vote for us! We expect to fail, and we will! We stand for backwardness, for candles not electricity.” This leads nowhere.
What did socialists use before candles? Electricity!
Plus:
It was not surprising that the effect of colonial conquest and the easy superiority of whites in white-ruled South Africa should have left many Africans with a diminished self-confidence and a low sense of their own worth. But the hope was that with all legal barriers removed and access to good education, a new sense of egalitarian self-confidence would be born, particularly in the younger generation.
This has not happened for no one has paid a higher price for the failure of ANC governance than young black South Africans. Far from improving, as one would have hoped, the state education on offer to them has declined in standard. If they get through Matric they often then find themselves way out of their depth on overcrowded university campuses, where standards have fallen too. The failure rates are horrendous, encouraging the sense that black students are inferior, always clustered at the bottom of the class.
Finally, young blacks face a horrendous labour market and the probability of long-term unemployment. Many of them get caught in pointless symbolic politics – arguing about statues, for heaven’s sake, or accepting that the only way ahead lies through racial populism. These are really dead-ends.
The ANC has taught young black South Africans that African government doesn’t work, that their politicians are crooks and that it’s not worth voting. The exact opposite of Mandela’s dream.
Moreover, the party was handed on a plate the richest country in Africa with the best infrastructure, the richest mining industry and the most productive agriculture. Within a generation it was an almost bankrupt country in which very little worked. What to say after that?
It’s not black rule. Botswana next door is well-run. It’s rule by leftists, which always makes everything suck. And they always use race as an excuse for their failures. You can see that in the deep-Blue parts of the United States.
The hungry children and the families dying of AIDS here are gut-wrenching, but somehow what I find even more depressing is this: Many, many ordinary black Zimbabweans wish that they could get back the white racist government that oppressed them in the 1970’s.
“If we had the chance to go back to white rule, we’d do it,” said Solomon Dube, a peasant whose child was crying with hunger when I arrived in his village. “Life was easier then, and at least you could get food and a job.”
Mr. Dube acknowledged that the white regime of Ian Smith was awful. But now he worries that his 3-year-old son will die of starvation, and he would rather put up with any indignity than witness that.
An elderly peasant in another village, Makupila Muzamba, said that hunger today is worse than ever before in his seven decades or so, and said: “I want the white man’s government to come back. Even if whites were oppressing us, we could get jobs and things were cheap compared to today.”
His wife, Mugombo Mudenda, remembered that as a younger woman she used to eat meat, drink tea, use sugar and buy soap. But now she cannot even afford corn gruel. “I miss the days of white rule,” she said.
Nearly every peasant I’ve spoken to in Zimbabwe echoed those thoughts.
You’d think that Zimbabwe would have been a cautionary example for South Africa, but it seems to have been more of a how-to guide. And hey, the political insiders got rich.
I sent the email below to various people I know at the FDA and CDC. But my contacts there are limited. If you know anyone at the CDC and FDA who may have a change of heart, please forward them a link to this article.
The short story is I’m willing to pay whatever it takes to compensate whistleblowers financially for they harm they will suffer for speaking out. They can email me at:
with “Whistleblower Opportunity” as the subject line of the email.
This morning, I got a text message from a very experienced nurse friend of mine. It was the first time in her career she's ever heard of a 7-year-old with a stroke, hemorrhaging in her brain. It happened just days after the FIRST jab.
This is not an isolated incident of course. 2 of the 14 kids that the CDC looked at who died (ages 12-17) died from intracranial hemorrhage. It’s normally extremely rare (no recorded reports in the VAERS system in history for that age group), but it is a common, well-known side effect of the COVID vaccines for anyone who has been paying attention.
There was no comment at all from the CDC that this was a highly unusual cause of death. They basically said "nothing to see here folks, move on."
Yet all the causes of death were suspicious and 100% were consistent with the symptoms elevated by the COVID vaccines.
And the sheer number of reports was suspicious as well. We’d have expected just 2 reports maximum. There were 14 at the time. I wrote a long post on this nearly a month ago trying to warn people.
All of these deaths were clearly NOT due to "over reporting." We can prove that (as I explain below).
In addition, I will never forget this video of a grieving mother in Trinidad trying to tell people her son just got the jab and now “he’s bleeding… he’s bleeding in his brain!” Her son was killed the same day as the jab.
Too many Black Swans, don’t you think?
This has to end. Now.
The CDC and FDA know about all these safety signals, but they are deliberately ignoring all of them. VAERS has been screaming out alarm bells since January. There are over 4,000 elevated symptoms in VAERS due to these vaccines compared to past years. And over 5,000 symptoms were so rare that there wasn’t a single incident of any of them in the past 5 years. See the attached spreadsheet. You can verify all this data yourself.
EVERY physician I know has been seeing MORE adverse events after these jabs than for any jab in history. In one case, the rate of adverse events she is seeing is over 10,000 times higher (0 in 11 years; 2000 patients this year).
So if the vaccines are so safe, then how do you explain that? You can’t. Nobody wants to answer that question. Just the sounds of silence.
So why don’t those doctors who are seeing these rates come forward? Because they would lose their license and they like being doctors. They’ve seen what happened to Charles Hoffe and others.
I have a friend, Tyson Gabriel, who didn't get jabbed. I asked him "How did you know? I had no clue!”
He said he had a friend at the CDC who viewed safety data that called him in January and told him not to take the jab. He said the staff members were all told to keep quiet or they would lose their job.
Clearly, people at the CDC have known this for almost a year now, and nobody is speaking out.
Got evidence of corruption inside the CDC and FDA? Name your price.
I realize nobody wants to lose their job for whistleblowing, but I'm willing to compensate you for your lost income. Name your price.
Let’s put a stop to this now.
Create a protonmail account and email from there with "whistleblower opportunity" in the subject line if you'd like to talk. This keeps your identity a secret from everyone.
GOOD: ‘Mild cognitive impairment’ fades for some older people, study says. “In fact, nearly half of seniors tracked in the study — all of who had been diagnosed with issues in memory and thinking and received an MCI diagnosis — no longer had the condition a few years later.”
IT WAS NEVER ABOUT SCIENCE: Covid’s Three Blind Mice. Scott Atlas’s memoir of his time at the White House offers appalling revelations about the bureaucrats who hijacked the nation’s governance during the pandemic. The troika of Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx and Robert Redfield had scant interest in scientific research or debate — and zero concern for the calamitous effects of their edicts.
I’m probably like most people: My trust waxes and wanes depending on what the institution does. Trust has to be earned.
That’s why I think the CDC’s missteps during the pandemic have outsized importance. I’ll highlight two highly visible and much-criticized moments: The CDC’s early-pandemic statements questioning the efficacy of masks and Dr. Fauci’s admission to the New York Times that he adjusted his statements about what level of resistance was necessary for herd immunity based partly on what he thought the public was “ready to hear”.
I think I understand the logic behind these decisions. Early in the pandemic, the CDC was worried about people buying up already-scarce N95 masks that were needed for medical workers; there was also a concern that “reduces the likelihood of transmission” would be interpreted as “makes you completely safe”. Regarding herd immunity, Dr. Fauci was worried that if he said we needed to get to 90 percent, it would trigger what I’ll call a “well then fuck everything” response that would make people less likely to get vaccinated. I get that these decisions were made with several factors in mind, and I think they were made with good intentions.
But I also think they were extremely wrong. The effects of these decisions went far beyond whatever short-term confusion they might have caused; the main effect was to degrade the CDC’s credibility. . . .
There’s a similar problem regarding the mainstream media (which I’ll define as the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, CNN and a few others). There’s a debate right now — mostly pointedly between Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan V. Last — about how much the mainstream media can be trusted. Sullivan argues that their credibility is basically gone; Last thinks that they’re about the same level of imperfect that they’ve always been. I’m basically in between the two; I think the Times and Post are the worst they’ve been in my lifetime, but they’re not complete bird cage liner just yet. Still, the change is significant; the difference between a Times I trust 90 percent and a Times I trust 75 percent is the difference between me using them as my go-to source for information and me seeking other sources for that role.
In the past year or two, we saw a major push for institutions to reflect a particular ideology; many people argued that institutions preaching neutrality should instead “take on a social justice role”. It happened in some corners of the media, several organizations, and many universities. Scientific touchstones like the American Medical Association and Science-Based Medicine had weird moments. The ACLU’s purpose seems to have dramatically changed. The result has been a degrading of institutions’ credibility, both individually and collectively. To the extent than institutions have accepted this change in purpose, people no longer trust them to provide the truth. That’s rational, because an institution that declares that its purpose is to pursue “social justice” as defined by a narrow set of activists has disavowed the pursuit of truth and declared loyalty to a predetermined set of beliefs.
I feel that institutions chronically undervalue their credibility.
Indeed. Plus, from the comments:
Impressive results lead to credibility. You have no choice but to respect an institution capable of the Manhattan project or Apollo missions. Even if you disagree with every aspect of it. A lot of people alive today probably can’t think of a single impressive thing they’ve seen a modern institution do.
The other credibility killer is that the public now recognizes these institutions as made up of distinct and flawed humans. The NYT is now just a bunch of people on twitter posting dumb shit about their lives. If they really wanted to restore credibility the first step would be to ban all reporters from having public social media accounts. The correct places for those opinions is the opinion pages. Of course that will never happen.
5 Dec Update: Norman Fenton was interviewed about this work on the Maajid Nawaz show on LBC on 4 Dec:
Our research team have
now analysed the ONS England November mortality data. We conclude that, despite
seeming evidence to support vaccine effectiveness, this conclusion is doubtful
because of a range of serious inconsistencies and anomalies. Our detailed report is here.
The data appear to show
lower non-Covid mortality for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. Odd.
Also unvaccinated mortality rates peak at the same time as the vaccine rollout
peaks for the age group, then falls and closes in on the vaccinated. This is
not natural
Consider what we are
witnessing here. We have a vaccine whose recipients are suffering fewer
non-covid deaths and hence are benefitting from improved mortality. And the
mortality rates look to differ significantly from historical norms, as
evidenced in mortality lifetables.
Correlating
unvaccinated mortality with vaccine roll out we see curious patterns (dotted
line the proportion of people getting first and second doses). Why are the
unvaccinated dying after NOT getting the 1st dose? Why are the single dosed
dying after NOT getting the 2nd dose?
Plenty of evidence that
the vaccinated who die within 14 days of vaccination may be categorized as
unvaccinated. Then someone who dies within 14 days of first dose is
miscategorised as unvaccinated and a similar thing could occur post second
dose.
Miscategorization
might explain odd phenomena in ONS mortality (as previously explained with this hypothetical example). To correct the error we can take
the difference between the expected mortality for the unvaccinated and the
data, and re-allocate this unexpected excess mortality to the vaccinated to get
new ADJUSTED estimates.
The early spikes in
mortality that appear to occur soon after vaccination may be caused by the
infirm, moribund, and severely ill receiving vaccination in priority order and
thus simply appearing to hasten deaths that might otherwise have occurred later
in the year.
Turning to Covid mortality, at face value, there appears to be clear
evidence of vaccine effectiveness.
But……..After vaccination people endure weakened immune response for a period of
up to 28 days and may be in danger of infection from Covid or other infectious
agent at any time in that period. It therefore makes sense to examine infection
date rather than date of death registration.
We adjust for this using a
temporal offset and see a large spike in mortality for all age groups
during the early weeks, when covid prevalence was high, and when the first dose
vaccination rollout peaked.
After our offset adjustment we observe no significant benefit of the
vaccines in the short term. They appear to expose people to an increased
mortality, in line with what we know about immune exposure or pre-infection
risks,
Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear that the ONS
data is both unreliable and misleading.
Absent any better explanation Occam’s razor would support our conclusions.
The ONS data provide no reliable evidence that the vaccines reduce all-cause
mortality.
Full reference:
Martin Neil, Norman
Fenton, Joel Smalley, Clare Craig, Joshua Guetzkow, Scott McLachlan, Jonathan
Engler and Jessica Rose, “Latest statistics on England mortality data suggest
systematic miscategorisation of vaccine status and uncertain effectiveness of
Covid-19 vaccination”, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14176.20483
The paper has also benefited from the input of senior clinicians and other researchers who remain anonymous to protect their careers.
NEW BINARY STAR DISCOVERED: Imagine one huge star with a much smaller companion star nearby. Scientists have long theorized such a duo must exist, but only recently was an actual example of the phenomenon observed, according to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. This is exciting stuff, people!
The chairman and former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Reuters news agency – James C. Smith – is a top investor and board member for pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer. He was elected to the board in 2014, as well as joining Pfizer’s Corporate Governance and Science and Technology Committees. The news raises serious conflict of interest concerns as corporate media outlets such as Reuters continue to promote Pfizer products, defend pharmaceuticals companies from criticism, and move to silence skeptics. Smith is currently the Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the London-based charity known for providing news and information to billions
In the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, proceedings were disrupted by what Judge Bruce Schroeder considered a major breach of security after NBC was found to be following the van of jurors. Given the threats in the case and the concern over jury intimidation, Schroeder was irate. In response, NBC released a statement that some of us found vague and misleading. Now a police video at the scene with NBC freelancer James Morrison confirms that the statement was intentionally misleading on the critical question of whether Morrison was ordered to follow jurors.
In the hearing, Schroeder announced that Morrison was pulled over after he sped through a red light to continue to follow the van. He said that Morrison confirmed that a NBC producer (later identified as Irene Byon) told him to follow the jurors. The incident led to MSNBC being banned from the entire courthouse for the duration of the case.
After the incident, NBC released the following statement:
“Last night, a freelancer received a traffic citation. While the traffic violation took place near the jury van, the freelancer never contacted or intended to contact the jurors during deliberations, and never photographed or intended to photograph them. We regret the incident and will fully cooperate with the authorities on any investigation.”
At the time, I wrote the statement was notably ambiguous and possibly misleading:
NBC’s statement is confusing in one respect in starting with “while the traffic violation took place near the jury van.” That suggests that it was a coincidence that the traffic accident occurred near the jury van. The question is whether the freelancer was instructed by NBC to follow the jury bus. That should be easy to deny if it is untrue.
Finally, the fact that he is a freelancer is immaterial. News organizations commonly use freelancers for a host of different positions. When they are working for a network, they are agents of that network. Again, NBC is ambiguous. It goes out of its way to note that this person is a freelancer but not whether he was working freelance for NBC at the time.
Now, the video seems to confirm that NBC was intentionally misleading on the key fact of whether it ordered Morrison to follow the jurors.
In the video from the night of Nov. 17, police ask Morrison why he was following the vehicle.
The officer asks Morrison “so were you following a vehicle?” and Morrison responded “I was trying to see – I was being called by New York going, maybe these are the people you need to follow, but I don’t know, I was trying to –”
The officer then interrupts and asks directly “You were trying to what?”
“Just do what they told me to do,” Morrison said.
“New York told you to follow a vehicle?” the officer asked.
“Yes,” Morrison responded.
The officer continued to ask how they knew about this van as the one carrying the jurors and Morrison just said that he did what “New York” told him to do. He said he was “just trying to find a location, that’s all.”
Morrison then called Byon and put her on the phone with the police officer. The officer asked Byon about why NBC ordered the following of certain “vehicles.” It was Byon who inadvertently admitted that they wanted to specifically follow jurors. She said that they were not trying to actually speak to “any of the jury members.”
Byon could be heard saying
“Hi officer, my name is Irene. I’m a booking producer with NBC News. We were just trying to respectfully – just trying to see if it’s possible to find any leads about the case. And so we were just keeping our distance, just to see where people involved in the trial are positioned. By no means were we trying to get in contact with any of the jury members or whoever is in the car. We just were trying to see where key players in the trial may be at.”
The officer then asked “You advised him to follow any vehicle? Did you know which vehicle he was following?”
Byon responded that “We just had our people positioned in different areas of the courthouse to see if anyone would be able to –”
The important take away is that there was never any question that NBC ordered Morrison to follow the jurors. That was the critical question for the officer and for the Court. Yet, it is the one thing that NBC left out of its statement. As a news organization, NBC would shred a subject of a story who happened to leave out such a material fact. Instead, NBC issued a statement that could be read to suggest that this was just a total and unfortunate coincidence. It was merely a “traffic violation took place near the jury van.”
There is unlikely to be any media demands for NBC to address the misleading statement, but the tape shows that Judge Schroeder was right to ban MSNBC, which not only followed jurors but then failed to be open about its own conduct in the controversy.
In the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, proceedings were disrupted by what Judge Bruce Schroeder considered a major breach of security after NBC was found to be following the van of jurors. Given the threats in the case and the concern over jury intimidation, Schroeder was irate. In response, NBC released a statement that some of us found vague and misleading. Now a police video at the scene with NBC freelancer James Morrison confirms that the statement was intentionally misleading on the critical question of whether Morrison was ordered to follow jurors.