“Newsom Has Failed California”: Police Officer Calls On City Council To Recall Gov. Gavin Newsom
February 8, 2021 | Daily Caller |
February 8, 2021 | Daily Caller |
“The world is on the precipice of cyber catastrophe, and everything is vulnerable, including our government, nuclear weapons, elections, power grid, hospitals, and cell phones. ‘New York Times’ cybersecurity reporter Nicole Perlroth explains how the U.S. went from having the world’s strongest cyber arsenal to becoming so vulnerable to cyber attack. “We have to stop leaving gaping holes in software that could be used by adversaries to pull off some of these attacks,” she says. Perlroth’s new book is “This Is How They Tell Me The World Ends.””
February 17, 2021 | Stand For Health Freedom | Free Online Event
“In March 2020, the CDC abruptly changed how death certificates were recorded. While this might seem like a mere formality, the CDC only made this change for one type of death — COVID-19 — and circumvented multiple federal laws to do so.
Join our panel of experts — researchers, doctors, lawyers, medical ethicists, educators and lawmakers — as they take an in-depth look at the CDC’s actions and the dire consequences they’ve had on all of American society. This includes unending lockdowns, school and business closures, an increase in suicides and mental health issues, economic hardship and despair, loved ones being forced to die all alone, and many more atrocities that have been inflicted on individuals in the name of “protecting public health.”
Tune in to Learn:
Data Disaster: A Call for an Investigation into the CDC’s Conduct During COVID-19
A Free Online Event
Wednesday, February 17, 2021 – 6 p.m. EST / 3 p.m. PST
Link To Source_StandForHealthFreedom
COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective
“Let’s dig deeper into PCR tests once again and have a look behind the curtain of this Covid-19 pandemic.”
1. COVID-19: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronav…
2. Claimed SARS-CoV-2 “Isolation”: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32080…
3. Proof of SARS-CoV-2 225,000 EUR prize pool: https://samueleckert.net/isolat-truth…
4. Corman, Drosten, et al – Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/cont…
5. Official recommendation of the Corman-Drosten protocol & manuscript by the WHO,published on January 13th 2020 as version 1.0 of the document: https://www.who.int/docs/default-sour…v1991527e5122341d99287a1b17c111902.pdf; archive: https://bit.ly/3m3jXVH
6. Corman-Drosten Review Report: https://cormandrostenreview.com/retra…
7. NZ Ministry of Health “COVID-19″ test results and their accuracy: https://web.archive.org/web/202101220…
8. NZ Ministry of Health link to analytical specificity: https://www.finddx.org/covid-19-old/s…
9. The MIQE Guidelines for PCR (Analytic specificity) :https://www.gene-quantification.de/mi…
10. ABC Broadcast 22 June 2020, Prof Bill Rawlinson – Director of Virology NSW Health, “…a virus is just a piece of RNA molecule.”: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/…
11. WHO COVID-19 Case definition update 16 December 2020: https://web.archive.org/web/202012231…
12. WHO SARS-CoV-2 PCR update 20 January 2021: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2…
13. RT – Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid…
14. The Infectious Myth Podcast, David Crowe – Stephen Bustin on Challenges with RT-PCR 14 April 2020: https://toppodcast.com/podcast_feeds/…
15. Off-Guardian 5 October 2020 – PCR Inventor: “It doesn’t tell you that you are sick”: https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/p…
New 3rd Edition of our book Virus Mania available now!: Book Depository – https://www.bookdepository.com/Virus-…
February 12, 2021 | BY Newsweek ||
“An effort to recall California Governor Gavin Newsom has reached the minimum number of signatures needed to trigger a recall election, organizers behind the recall campaign announced Friday.
Recall Gavin Newsom launched last year and amassed more than 900,000 signatures by the end of December. The recall campaign said it collected more than 1.4 million signatures by early February and gathered a total of 1,509,000 signatures by Friday.”
“The political class seems undeterred by the ongoing allegations of election irregularities.
They actually want to make it worse!
H.R. 1, introduced in the U.S. Congress, would allow for the permanent manipulation of elections by nationalizing them.
This bill has so many bad ideas in one package including:
>>Making it illegal to clean out voter rolls of deceased or non-residents;
>>Forcing states to allow early voting;
>>Forcing states to allow vote-by-mail, which is fraught with opportunities to commit fraud;
>>Forcing taxpayers to subsidize candidates they don’t align with politically; and
>>Policing online speech about elections with new broad and sweeping powers.
The so-called “For the People Act” empowers federal regulators to categorize and regulate speech, including online.
According to Grover Norquist:
New standards for “coordination” would be broad and confusing. All speech that simply mentions a candidate could be illegal four months out from an election if groups speak to the public. Worse, at any time, any funded communication that mentions an issue that might be associated with a politician could be illegal.
The government just has to say the speech “promotes,” “attacks,” “supports” or “opposes” a potential candidate.
That means Campaign for Liberty could be in legal jeopardy for running our critical candidate survey program so you will know where candidates stand on issues important to you. . .
Not only that, but merely telling you how your legislators voted on legislation could become a CRIME!
And the partisan FEC would be given new powers to enforce this clamp down on free speech. This is the same FEC that continues to ignore a complaint that Hillary Clinton laundered $84,000,000 in campaign dollars from excess contributions right back into her own campaign.
I won’t hold my breath for them to equally enforce these new laws.
We’d best just put a stop to H.R. 1 before it even sees the light of day.
We must take action NOW to stop it.
What’s more alarming than just the introduction of this bill, is the timing of it and the fact that it was assigned “1” as the bill number.
Historically, bills have been given that number because they are considered a top priority.
It’s also a bad sign that this bill has been introduced right after a very controversial election, in which there were a lot of unanswered questions about the possibility of fraudulent votes being counted.
And to make matters worse, this is happening at a time when another bill, H.R. 350, the “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act (DTPA),” was also just introduced in the House and would create a whole new “domestic” wing of the Department of Homeland Security.
It’s almost as if the statists want to be able to completely squash dissent, while allowing for election fraud to run rampant and vilify those who would dare question it.
They’ve even created a new buzzword to describe people with dissenting opinions, including libertarians – “DVE’s” or Domestic Violent Extremists.
The combination of H.R. 1 and H.R. 350, or even just elements of the two are incredibly dangerous to our future as a free society with the right to question the political class.
Our elections were never meant to be “nationalized” in this way. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that elections are to be held and electors for the presidential election chosen by the manner in which the state legislature prescribes.
H.R. 1 would completely turn this on its head and force states to adopt rules for their elections that many of them do not want or are in the process of remedying because of flaws they have discovered.
For example, states like Arizona currently have bills moving that would clean out voter rolls of the deceased or voters who have moved to other states.
It should really go without saying — dead people and non-residents should not be allowed to vote in elections!
H.R. 1 would thwart those efforts by states like Arizona and give the FEC the power to clamp down on anyone who questions an attempt by a candidate’s campaign to commit voter fraud.
Any dissenter could then be labeled a “DVE” and potentially jailed.
This is all going in the wrong direction, and fast.
There are still unanswered questions about election fraud in 2020 and ongoing attempts to audit equipment and ballots, which would almost all be rendered moot by H.R. 1.
What the statists are attempting with this bill would codify many of the avenues of fraudulent activity in an attempt to create a one-party rule . . . permanently.
I am urging all members of Congress to oppose this reckless bill and appreciate your support in doing so as well.”
February 3, 2021 | By Kelly Hill | RCR Wireless News | Source | Senator Contact Info Below |
“A bipartisan group of Senators has renewed an effort to pass a bill focused on coordinating federal efforts on telecom workforce development, including apprenticeships and emphasis on the needs of rural areas. A similar bill was introduced around this time last year, but the effort may get a different reception with the change in the balance of power in the Senate and the White House.
The Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act was introduced by Senators John Thune (R-S.D.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.).”
“The Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act, introduced by Senators Thune, Tester, Wicker, Peters, and Moran would create an interagency working group led by the FCC to develop recommendations to address the workforce needs of the telecommunications industry.” Source
John Thune (R-S.D.) Phone: (202) 224-2321
Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Phone: (202) 224-2644
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Phone: (202) 224-6253
Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Phone: (202) 224-6221
Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) Phone: 202-224-6521
February 9, 2021 | By Children’s Health Defense | Source |
“In new research published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, immunologist J. Bart Classen warns the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines could create “new potential mechanisms” of adverse events that may take years to come to light.”
“Back in 1999, leading U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official Dr. Peter Patriarca contended that modern advances in vaccine technology were rapidly “outpacing researchers’ ability to predict potential vaccine-related adverse events.” Patriarca mused that this could lead to “a situation of unforeseen and unpredictable vaccine outcomes.”
In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”
Classen’s study establishes the potential for the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna to activate human proteins to take on “pathologic configurations” — configurations associated with chronic degenerative neurological diseases. Although his specific interest is in prion diseases (conditions associated with misfolded versions of normal proteins), Classen also outlines a handful of other mechanisms whereby RNA-based vaccines could give rise to “multiple other potential fatal adverse events.”
Ensuring that patients clearly understand risks — including known risks as well as potential unknown risks — is an important component of the informed consent process. This is all the more true when the intervention is experimental and lacks long-term safety data, as is the case with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines against COVID-19. The FDA authorized the two vaccines for widespread emergency use based on just two months of clinical trial data.
Unfortunately, it is not unusual for researchers’ communication of risks to be perfunctory. In October, researchers at New York University and Tulane reported that the information communicated to participants in the coronavirus clinical trials about a worrisome problem known as pathogenic priming was “sufficiently obscured” as to make “adequate patient comprehension” of risks “unlikely.”
It would be interesting to know what those researchers would say about Classen’s blunt conclusion that “Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous.”
Those contemplating COVID injections may be ignoring potential risks at their own peril.”
“A team of researchers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Cornell University has found via modeling that injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere could have unintended negative consequences.”
“Mandatory masks continue to be the standard operating procedure for many counties, regions, districts, states and nations worldwide, as the COVID cult agenda progresses.
In many places, while COVID vaccines are not yet mandatory, authorities are rushing to prepare to make them so, by setting up schemes like immunity passports, vaccine certificates and mandatory tracking databases which log who has taken the shot and who has not.
Meanwhile, inherent sovereign human rights are being limited to those who acquiesce to tkae the shot. The insanity and absurdity of the COVID cult is all the more apparent when you realize that its mandatory or quasi-mandatory rules stand in contradiction to a very important set of principles decided upon in 1947.
I refer to the Nuremburg Code, the set of 10 points that arose from the infamous Nuremburg Trials conducted in the aftermath of World War II.
I am not passing judgement on how impartial those trials were, because I know they were mainly run by the US and the Allies (as the victors), who for obvious reasons did not press charges against American generals such as Eisenhower (who later became US President) for his POW camps inside of Germany and carpet-bombing of Dresden.
Nonetheless, the trials produced the Nuremburg Code which enshrined the principle of informed consent – a principle which, in the advent of the COVID scamdemic, is now highly relevant and is continually being put to the test.
This article will look briefly at each of the 10 points in the light of COVID restrictions and rules.
The 10 Points Of The Code
This website gives a brief history of how the 10 points of the Nuremburg Code came into existence. Interestingly, although the code is an international ethical landmark, it is apparently still not enshrined in American or German national law.
We must assume those governments via their secret agencies like the CIA wanted to keep the door open to conduct medical experimentation (such as bioweapon programs like weaponized ticks) upon their citizenry without technically breaking the law:
“On August 19, 1947, the judges of the American military tribunal in the case of the USA vs. Karl Brandt et. al. delivered their verdict. Before announcing the guilt or innocence of each defendant, they confronted the difficult question of medical experimentation on human beings.
Several German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from previous American or German ones.
Furthermore they showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation. This argument worried Drs. Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, American doctors who had worked with the prosecution during the trial.
On April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes which outlined six points defining legitimate research.
The verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments” and revised the original six points into ten.
Subsequently, the ten points became known as the “Nuremberg Code.” Although the code addressed the defense arguments in general, remarkably none of the specific findings against Brandt and his codefendants mentioned the code.
Thus the legal force of the document was not well established.
The uncertain use of the code continued in the half century following the trial when it informed numerous international ethics statements but failed to find a place in either the American or German national law codes.
Nevertheless, it remains a landmark document on medical ethics and one of the most lasting products of the “Doctors Trial.””
Nuremburg Code #1: Voluntary Consent Is Essential
The first point of the Code is:
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
This point has already been broken many times over just with the introduction of mandatory masks alone.
In the US, for example, masks are defined in several places as “medical devices” according to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).
The first piece of evidence is on the FDA’s website itself at this page that discusses masks and which is nested under the category Medical Devices as follows:
“Home / Medical Devices / Products and Medical Procedures / General Hospital Devices and Supplies / Personal Protective Equipment for Infection Control / N95 Respirators, Surgical Masks, and Face Masks”
The second piece of evidence is in the law: the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) which is US federal law enacted by Congress. It and other federal laws establish the legal framework within which FDA operates.
The FD&C Act can be found in the United States Code (USC), which contains all general and permanent US laws, beginning at 21 USC 301. You can read it here. Look under Chapter II Definitions (pg.3) and scroll down to Section 201(h):
“(h) The term “device” (except when used in paragraph (n) of this section and in sections 301(i), 403(f), 502(c), and 602(c)) means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is —
(1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them,
(2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or
(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.”
Under this section, a mask meets the criteria required for being designated as a medical device, since it meets point (2), being an apparatus which is intended to prevent disease.
Did any politician ask the people of the world whether they wanted to wear masks and volunteer themselves to wear medical devices? No. There has been no voluntary or informed consent.”