Wars and Rumors of Wars

Earlier this month an offensive started against Israel, requiring reprisal. In just days there had been hundreds of bombs launched at Israel. They have the Iron Dome, a defense system designed to take out missiles in the air, but there have been more than air attacks.

In the town of Lob, the mayor has asked for an emergency declaration and calls this a Kristallnacht-type event. Rioting has broken out. Synagogues have been burned, their Torahs taken from their arks and burned. Homes have had Molotov cocktails thrown through the windows. Hundreds of cars have been set on fire. Some Jews are removing mezuzahs from their doors to avoid being targeted.

Images of attacks in Jerusalem (top right) and Lob
screenshots from the Mark Levin Show

Mark Levin talked about the situation in Israel in a recent show. He gave it this perspective:

Now, think about that. These Israeli Arabs get to vote; they have due process rights; they have property rights. They have all the rights of Israelis. What do they do? They turn on the Israelis. They turn on the Jews. As if they’re Nazis, in this particular neighborhood and community. Burning down synagogues. Trying to hunt down the Jews in their homes. It’s almost instinctive. And these are mostly young Arab gangs that have coalesced and that are marauding through the streets of this town. And it’s become a problem, not only in this town, but in other towns, we’re told.

What would we do if we had attacks from over the border on our country? We would put a stop to it with force.

What if we had riots from among our citizens, looting and setting cars and businesses and homes on fire? Well, I would have thought we would send in troops to quell the emergency as Israel is doing. But the experience of the last year shows that, in some cities, they just call it the “summer of love” and tell the people not to complain and the media not to report on it. But in a sane world, we can see why New Jersey-sized Israel, surrounded by Arab countries, some of whom are aligned with Iran, would take action to defend themselves.

Levin started his show with this:

The Israeli government I have no doubt told them [the US], “Butt out; we’re going to handle this.” Because they know that Biden doesn’t have their back. And they know that the enemy, the Palestinian terrorists, Hamas, which is on our list as a terrorist organization—it works with Islamic Jihad. It works with Hezbollah. It works with Iran. All of our enemies.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this in a speech this week (translated):

We are in the midst of a major campaign—Operation Guardian of the Walls. Yesterday and today the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] attacked hundreds of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist targets in the Gaza Strip. We have eliminated dozens of terrorists, including senior commanders. We have bombed Hamas command centers and toppled buildings that serve the terrorist organizations. We will continue to attack with full force. We have just finished a consultation and assessment of the situation with heads of the security establishment, and we made decisions. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have paid and—I tell you here—will pay a heavy price for their aggression. I say here this evening—their blood is on their heads.

Do we know what this suddenly upscaled civil war is about?

The immediate reason is probably because Israel's enemies can, because the weak US administration is not likely to fully support Israel—unlike the last administration, which brought multiple Middle-Eastern countries to sign peace deals with Israel.

Levin said this:

The Biden administration helped provoke this, as I said earlier, by giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority without strings attached. President Trump had cut it off, because he said they’re not willing to give up terrorism, among other things; they’re not willing to negotiate with the State of Israel over anything.

The Trump position was, Look, let’s make peace in the Middle East without the Palestinians, then. And that’s what happened. He said the Palestinians can’t be the trigger on whether or not there’s peace, because, if that’s the case, they’re always going to be able to blackmail; they’re always going to be able to resist; they’re always going to be able to slow down the process and make demands and so forth—when in fact there are Arab countries, Muslim countries, and Israel that can make peace. And want to make peace. And many of them did. And, but for Biden being president of the United States, it was felt that Israel was going to have a peace treaty with Saudi Arabia—because they have a common enemy in Iran.

Things are very different under a Biden administration than under a Trump administration. Popping up as if they have a right to are these faces of evil:

Known as "the squad" in Congress, Rashida Tlaib (left),
Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Getty image, as screenshot on the Mark Levin Show

Levin says,

Have you listened to Rashid Tlaib? Have you listened to Omar? Have you listened to AOC and the things that they’re saying? They are a disgusting disgrace: Israel is an apartheid country, that they’re trying to kill and evict the Palestinians, and so forth and so on.

The Democrat Party has this cancer, this poison, within it. And rather than confront it, and rather than extinguish it, like with a fire extinguisher. What does it do? It pampers it, or pretends it doesn’t exist. It also exists within the Biden administration, which is really quite appalling. Not just Jen Psaki, the spokesperson for Joe Biden, but the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of State, the spokespeople at the Department of State, others who are leaking to the media—and the media’s doing it’s usual reprehensible job in turning Israel into the perpetrator and the terrorists into the victims. The terrorists know how to play our media. And the media want to be played.

One of them, probably Tlaib, complained that we are helping to arm Israel with the Iron Dome, but Hamas doesn’t have an Iron Dome, so to be fair we should provide them one. Hmm. How unfair is that? We don’t arm the aggressors of our allies? That's so evil of us it's no wonder the squad hates this country they claim to represent while speaking treason against us.

There was a tall building Israel knocked down in Gaza, in response. It housed the Associated Press office. It also just happened to house Hamas—and had for, oh, 15 years or so. The Associated Press was “Shocked! Shocked!” to learn Hamas was in the building—even though they acknowledged in 2014 that they knew it, and seemed to have no problem with that either before or after. So, maybe you’re not going to get honest reporting from AP.

The AP noted that lives could have been lost; they had many employees in the building, but were able to evacuate them in time. They don’t say how they accomplished that rescue.

Ahead of the return attack on Hamas, Israel sent out a message, repeated for half an hour, telling people to evacuate, because they were going to bomb the building. Israel, unlike practically any other fighting force in world history, goes out of its way to prevent loss of civilian life—hard to do since Hamas places itself in hospitals, elementary schools, and densely populated areas for the purpose of causing loss of life among their own people so that they can blame Israel.

When Hamas and Islamic Jihad choose a target, they don’t aim at military or strategic targets; they aim at high population centers.

The IDF put out this map. Note that Tel Aviv is the highest population center.

IDF shows where missiles are aimed at Israel.
Image found as screenshot on the Mark Levin Show.

Levin spent some time describing the Iron Dome defense system, including a video clip about that, where the narrator said:

It took just 3 years and about $200 million to develop this defense system. It relies on a radar that instantly detects when a missile has been fired. Algorithms quickly try to determine what type of projectile is in the air, and whether it’s heading for a populated or strategic area. If so, Iron Dome launches a missile of its own. It’s said that Iron Dome has taken down more than 1,000 missiles since it turned on in 2011.

I heard a report last week that the count of missiles launched at Israel since this siege began just days before was over 600. That was several days ago. In a week the Iron Dome has been up against an attack amounting to the sum total of its use during the past ten years. Israel fought off a fairly large attack in 2014, but this dwarfs that one. Later in that video they mention that it successfully wards off 90% of incoming missiles. That means somewhere beyond 60 missiles probably landed in Israel this week.

Levin interrupted the video here and pointed out that the Iron Dome technology was a legacy of Ronald Reagan:

President Ronald Reagan, Mark Levin
screenshot from the Mark Levin Show

Some of you who are my age, or even younger—this was the brainchild of Ronald Reagan. It’s called the Strategic Defense Initiative. And it was brought to the President at the time. People in his own party were skeptical. People at the Pentagon were skeptical. The media hated the idea, and we had article after article about how it was technologically impossible for a missile to hit another missile. And the Democrat Party tried to block it.

But Reagan was—if anything, he was steadfast. And he pushed the project. It wasn’t fully funded, but he pushed it throughout his eight years as president. It was pushed somewhat after that. And we now have this defense system. They called it Star Wars to mock him. “Oh, sure, sure, we can do this.” And I remember reading in the New York Times and other publications how you simply didn’t have the technology; it was impossible.

And, of course, as you’re developing technology, you have to try it out. They tried it out, and there were several failures. Again, the were mocked for the amount of money that was being spent. I want you to think about this. This is a defensive system that could knock a nuclear missile out of the sky that’s aimed for one of our cities. Democrats never supported it. The media never supported it. That’s insanity.

Now it exists.

Iron Dome mobile missile launcher
screenshot from Bloomberg video shown on the Mark Levin Show

Levin added:

A good chunk of the funding Israel gets it uses to advance their technology. Not for bullets. Some. But, to advance their technology, which they then turn around and give to the United States. So it’s really a two-way street. The Israelis can develop this stuff faster, because their bureaucracy and their people understand this is life and death. There’s an immediacy to it. Whereas, in our own country we have obstacle after obstacle after obstacle to getting these things done—including in the bureaucracy, but also the Democrat Party and the media.

So, US weakness has contributed to the current upheaval. But the longer-term excuse goes back to Israel’s birth and beyond.

If you need a review of Israel’s basic history—because you probably weren’t taught this in school—I wrote a 6-part series (each part relatively short) back in 2011:

·       Israel, Part I: Ancient History 

·       Israel, Part II: Zionism and Migration 

·       Israel, Part III: Conflict and Violence 

·       Israel, Part IV: Holocaust and Statehood 

·       Israel, Part V: Refugees and 1967 War 

·       Israel, Part VI: Continued Unrest 

Since that series, I’ve written occasionally on Israel, based on what was happening at the time. Here are a few:

·       Obama Bent on Stopping Israel, but Not Iran, March 12, 2012 

·       Civilization vs. Savagery in Israel, July 24, 2014 

·       Historic Day in Israel, May 17, 2018 

Besides Mark Levin’s show,  which is “Chaos in the Holy Land,” Ep. 814, on The Blaze, you might also want to see these:

·       “Israeli Airstrikes in Syria as Rockets Target U.S. Troops in Iraq AGAIN” Erick Stakelbeck, Watchman Newscast, May 5, 2021 

·       “Hamas is PUSHING Israel Into A Ground Invasion; Iran Using Onslaught as Dry Run?” Erick Stakelbeck, Watchman Newscast, May 13, 2021 

·       “The War on Israel Ramps Up; Celebrities and the Left Melt Down” Stu Burguirre (on Facebook), The Blaze, May 17, 2021. 

I don’t know how exactly how this latest onslaught from Israel’s enemies will go. Either Israel will be able to quell the uprising, or it’s time to start watching for two prophets, who will hold off Israel’s enemies for three and a half years, just before things get really exciting (see Revelation 11). 

Something Is Up—and It’s Worldwide

After my last blog, I heard a fair amount more from Dr. Peter McCullough, whom I referenced in that post. And Tucker Carlson, whom I also referenced. Dr. McCullough was a guest on Carlson’s Fox Nation show Tucker Carlson Today, which unfortunately requires a paid membership (which I obtained in order to hear it).

Carlson had someone send him the testimony of Dr. McCullough in front of the Texas Legislature a few weeks ago. I listened to that too. Dr. McCullough is very reputable—Tucker suggests you Google him so you know for yourself. He’s not a conspiracy theorist. But repeatedly he said, “Something is up. And it’s worldwide.” So I’d like to go over what is up.

Dr. Peter McCullough testifies to the Texas Senate HHS Committee March 11, 2021.
screenshot from here

 

WHY DON’T WE HEAR ABOUT TREATMENTS?

The original question that interested Carlson is, Why, if there are treatments, are we not hearing about them?

We went over some of the available treatments in the last post. But the question of why the knowledge of those treatments is suppressed is the puzzlement. Dr. McCullough doesn’t speculate on what is going on, beyond maybe group fear.

There’s a timeline issue he illustrates with this from Australia:

PM: And Tucker, it’s worldwide. Something is up. Listen to this. Queensland, Australia—you’ve probably been there. April [2020]—they put on the books as a law—as a law!—if a doctor attempts to help a patient with COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, that doctor will be put in jail for six months.

TC: What?

PM: Yes. In April they put it on the books.

TC: Why?

PM: Something is up. If you look at the TGA. Let’s not fry the US agencies. So let’s look at the TGA, the FDA equivalent in Australia. And Australia is interesting. They’ve been kind of spared of COVID-19. They’ve been in these draconian lockdowns. They have this huge, susceptible population. They’re all distributed. They’ve been in fear for 14 months. The TGA has some guidelines for COVID-19. It must have two dozen recommendations:

·         Don’t use hydroxychloroquine.

·         Don’t use Ivermectin.

·         Don’t use steroids.

·         Don’t use anticoagulants.

·         Don’t use—

They list everything you should not do. It’s like, what should you do? Net answer: nothing.

TC: But, OK, so COVID-19 became known to the West in January of 2020. So that was one year and four months ago. OK, so how could—with such a short period of time—the health regulators of Australia know, to the point where they codified it in a regulation, that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective therapy against COVID-19? Like, how could that be known? It couldn’t be known. Correct?

PM: It couldn’t be known.

Dr. Peter McCullough (left) is interviewed by Tucker Carlson May 7, 2021.
screenshot from here (may require paid membership)

 

MORE TIMELINE ODDITIES

Let me add a couple of things to that puzzlement. Much of the world, still, believes a fake Lancet study, which was withdrawn almost directly afterward—well, here’s what Dr. McCullough said about that study:

Lancet published a fake paper that came from a fake database that implied that hydroxychloroquine hurt people in the hospital. And we looked at it. In two seconds I knew it was a fake paper. They had 70,000 patients in a database that had detailed drug information back in December and going forward; we didn’t have that back then. Mean age was 50— 49; we don’t hospitalize people at age 49. This went through peer review. It was agreed upon by all the editors. It hung up in Lancet for two weeks and scared the bejabbers out of the world by using hydroxychloroquine…. And this is the most frequently used, widely relied upon drug in the world… for treating COVID-19. But something’s going on.

When asked about the fake data in the Lancet study, Dr. McCullough adds this:

PM: Well, it came from a company called Surgisphere, which rapidly dissolved. The Lancet published a retraction that said, “You know, we just couldn’t verify the data, and so we’re retracting it.” No apologies. No explanation of how this could have influenced world events. It greatly influenced the FDA staffers, who wrote an FDA warning. It said, “Well, listen, we think hydroxychloroquine causes harm. Doctors shouldn’t use this.” It was based upon a fake paper. This went to the American Medical Association, then the Board of Pharmacies.

TC: Is this a real story?

PM: This is a real story. And doctors were writing prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine, and all of a sudden their medical licenses are being threatened. There have been cases all over the country of doctors trying to help patients. And hydroxychloroquine is one of four to six drugs we use for COVID-19. It is extraordinary.

The Lancet study is still used. I was aware it was fake back a year ago. But people are still citing it. I heard the very sensible Niall Ferguson on a recent Uncommon Knowledge interview surrounding the release of his book Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe. Here’s a segment from the interview: 

Peter Robinson: Here’s another quotation. The press, from Doom: "If a population is to make good choices, good information is vital." Vital! "The fact that President Trump retweeted a video of a hydroxychloroquine claim, a clip that was viewed more than 13 million times in social media, neatly encapsulated the nature of the dual plague the world confronted in 2020." Close quote. First of all, just remind us about that hydroxychloroquine, if I'm pronouncing it correctly. Could you just remind us about that incident? What was that all about?

Niall Ferguson: Hydroxychloroquine was supposed to have some effect, prophylactic or possibly also as a remedy against COVID-19. President Trump heard about this. The story did the rounds. There were some very shaky, I believe French studies suggesting that there might be some benefit. And he began, along with a great many people on social media and elsewhere, to recommend it as a prophylactic or as a treatment.

Donald Trump (video): I happen to be taking it. I happen to be taking it.

Reporter (video): Hydroxychloroquine?

Donald Trump (video): I'm taking it, hydroxychloroquine.

Niall Ferguson: As soon as any rigorous studies were done, it turned out that there was not only no benefit, but in fact, potential harm from taking hydroxychloroquine. And that was just one of a great many fake stories that did the round.

So, a smart person, who has done research on the topic, in fact written a book on it, still thinks the Lancet study, which was fake, was a “rigorous study.” There was one other study—in which they waited to give hydroxychloroquine to the seriously ill hospitalized COVID patients, and then they gave them several times the recommended dosage—without the other drugs in combination that were found to be working together—and killed those patients, then announced to the world that hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. I was aware of the flaws in these studies at the time. Both bogus. But Niall Ferguson—even after a year of additional successful use by doctors like Peter McCullough and thousands of others—still believes those fake stories. That’s weird.

Ferguson mentioned some very shaky French study. That was odd too. I’m guessing it was a Dr. Raoult, who up until the moment he recommended hydroxychloroquine had been highly renowned; suddenly he was scorned. Only for recommending HCQ, as far as I can tell. I heard about his recommending HCQ—the day before President Trump mentioned it among other possible remedies that he believed showed promise. The press for some reason focused in on HCQ—told the story about a woman who used fish tank cleaner on herself and her husband (killed him) because a version of HCQ was an ingredient—among several other toxic chemicals; the press claimed this was proof Trump’s recommendation was dangerous. Remember that?

Then, when you’re looking at oddities in the timeline, there was the change in HCQ from a safe over-the-counter medication in France to being suddenly prescription only and possibly unsafe—just ahead of the pandemic. I wrote about this here. 

Dr. McCullough talks some more about timeline oddities:

And in fact there are pieces of the timeline that are suggesting that something is very wrong going on in the world. And whatever’s going on, it is worldwide. It is not just US. Things are worse in Canada. There are anguishing doctors and nurses in norther EU, and in Scandinavia about euthanasia and having the seniors literally just be euthanized. There’s some horrible things going on.

For a profession that say, "First, do no harm," this is both puzzling and disturbing.

I think one of the strangest parts of the timeline is the planning conference right ahead of the actual pandemic, and some other planning prior to that. I wrote this in July 2020: 

In September 2019 [Bill] Gates participated in a “pandemic exercise,” called Event201, which was specific about response to a coronavirus outbreak—one month before it appears to have begun in Wuhan.

In 2018 a video called “A Simulation for a Global Flu Pandemic,” was made by The Institute for Disease Modeling, posted courtesy of the Gates Foundation, showing a flu virus originating in China and spreading across the globe, killing millions—eerily similar to what has actually happened. 

In 2017, just as the Trump administration was beginning, Dr. Anthony Fauci spoke at a conference, predicting that sometime during this administration’s term there was a high likelihood of an infectious disease outbreak. He was pushing for funding in preparation. 

 

WHY ARE DOCTORS NOT ACTING LIKE DOCTORS?

AAPS COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
available here

What seems strangest of all, perhaps, to Dr. McCullough is the refusal of doctors to treat sick patients. He helped develop a protocol last spring. He shared it, and it was the most widely downloaded piece in the American Journal of Medicine on COVID—still is. That was published in August of 2020. In November of 2020 Dr. McCullough testified before the US Senate. I believe by that time or shortly afterward, he helped publish the AAPS guidelines for treating COVID. Still, most Americans are unaware that COVID-19 is treatable for outpatients. And most patients still get told to wait at home a couple of weeks until they’re sick enough for hospitalization.

When asked why the hesitancy to treat, Dr. McCullough says,

PM: The innocent explanation is, it’s driven out of fear. And the fear is, you know, “We don’t know how to deal with this. We don’t have large clinical trials. We don’t have the intellectual support to support our group think.” And then, “Because of this, we are going to err on the side of doing nothing,” almost as if we’re dealing with some type of contagion that you’d read in a Michael Crichton book.

It could have been all fear driven. But I have to tell you, as a doctor, that’s not in my moral DNA to let people die without treatment. Of course I’m going to try some steroids or some Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. I’m going to add Lovenox and some other drugs. Of course I am. And sure enough, myself and others found out over time, we can get people through the illness.

I wonder what the “not innocent explanation” might be.

There seems to have been a “group think” among doctors and public health officials worldwide. Normally they collaborate, they try drugs they think might work, based on past similar illnesses. They share their results. They learn and get better. What they do not do—ever—is sit back and wait for permission to treat until some public health organization “rules” on what’s allowable. Except this time. Something is up.

He found that there are groups in the US—the Frontline Doctors and others; there’s the Bird group in England, Panda in South Africa, Treatment Domicilari in Italy, COVID Medical Network in Australia. But we don't have the CDC, NIH, or WHO doing anything but obstructing. He says,

We’ve got like-minded people that say, “Listen, treat this early at home.” But we don’t have a single bit of regulatory support. We don’t have a single bit of your conventional medical society support.

 

ABOUT THE VACCINES, THE NUREMBERG CODE, AND COERCION

Refusal to treat is not the only oddity; there’s also the oddity about how the vaccines have been handled. Dr. McCullough is pro-vaccine. But it depends on the patient. One thing he’s clear on is that there should be no coercion or lack of consent. This comes out of the Nuremberg Code, which came out of WWIII, where atrocities in testing on captive humans was done. He says,

We live by it every day. It says the person—the individual—gets to decide what happens to their body. They can take advice, but what happens to their body—without pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal. This is really important.

A friend sent me an article just this past week referring to violations of the Nuremberg Code. It shows what the code is, and then describes a suit against entities in violation. Here’s the introductory summary of the claims:

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
screenshot from video embedded in this article

A team of over 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich have begun legal proceedings against the CDC, WHO & the Davos Group for crimes against humanity. Fuellmich and his team present the faulty PCR test and the order for doctors to label any comorbidity death as a Covid death as fraud. The PCR test was never designed to detect pathogens and is 100% faulty at 35 cycles. All the PCR tests overseen by the CDC are set at 37 to 45 cycles. The CDC admits that any tests over 28 cycles are not admissible for a positive reliable result. This alone invalidates over 90% of the alleged covid cases/”infections” tracked by the use of this faulty test.

In addition to the flawed tests and fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in violation of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.

The “experimental” vaccine is in violation of all 10 of the Nuremberg Codes which carry the death penalty for those who seek to violate these International Laws.

The “vaccine” fails to meet the following five requirements to be considered a vaccine and is by definition a medical “experiment” and trial:

The list, with some detail, includes these points:

·         Provides immunity to the virus.

·         Protects recipients from getting the virus.

·         Reduces deaths from the virus infection.

·         Reduces circulation of the virus.

·         Reduces transmission of the virus.

And then the ten violated codes are listed, followed by a video

I don’t know whether Dr. McCullough knows anything about this case, only that he mentioned the Nuremberg Code, and his main point was that consent was being violated. He and Carlson talk about this in relation to coercive pressure today:

PM: And as we move forward in research, we wanted to learn from this Nazi research, which was awful— We had a terrible situation in the United States—the Tuskegee experiments, where, for research, people ought to have informed consent. And they can freely participate or not. And we follow that in clinical medicine. This is really important. If a Jehovah’s Witness says, “Listen, I’m not taking a blood transfusion,” we can’t force it into their body. If we have a patient who says, “Doctor, I’m not taking a vaccine,” we cannot—"without pressure, coercion, or reprisal.” We can’t have somebody say, “Listen, I’m going to lose my job.” That’s pretty strong coercion, don’t you think?

TC: Yeah. You can’t make a living. You can’t eat. Yeah, that’s about the strongest possible—I mean, short of physical harm. That’s the strongest.

PM: How about, “I can’t go to school”? “I can’t get my college degree?”

TC: “Your children can’t be educated if you don’t obey”? So that’s— I think that’s the point that all decent people have considered at some point in the last week or two, as we’re learning that coercion is real, and that you will be punished unless you obey. My question to you, though, as a physician, is, that is in direct contradiction of the Nuremberg Code. Is that something that all physicians are familiar with?

PM: Yes.

I’m trying to get perspective here. The vaccines are approved on an EUA basis—emergency use authorization, which means no guarantee of either safety or efficacy. Excluded from the trials are COVID-recovered people, pregnant women, women of childbearing age who can’t verify contraception, children under 18, people with compromised immune systems, or people who have had a previous vaccine reaction.

And yet there is a push for EVERYBODY to get the vaccine. College students are often being required to get the vaccine in order to return to classes in the fall. Similar requirements are happening in some public schools, even though children are apparently resistant both to getting the disease and spreading it. And the policies aren’t even written yet—so these school officials haven’t even thought through giving exemptions to people who are in categories excluded from the trials.

Dr. McCullough calls out a hospital here in Houston—and I verify we’ve heard about it here. At first they were offering employees $500 to encourage them to take the vaccine—a coercion in itself that would not be allowed in a clinical trial situation. Not enough healthcare workers took them up on the offer to satisfy them. If the carrot doesn’t work, you try the stick. So they threatened firing. Some of the employees got together and pointed out that some of them didn’t want it, didn’t need it, and some couldn’t take it. The hospital administrators said, “You’re fired.”

There’s this point Dr. McCullough makes about why we take vaccines:

Think about this: We always vaccinate for the purpose of protecting the individual—because the individual takes on the risk. We never vaccinate an individual to protect somebody else—never. Because that’s asking the individual to take the risk for someone else’s benefit.

I’m feeling this coercion personally, because I’m threatened with not being able to travel, not being able to enter stores, not being able to attend a large gathering like a concert or ball game, maybe not being allowed to attend someone’s wedding. Some doctors even refuse to treat patients who come into the waiting room unless they've already had their vaccinations. This prejudice against me is not because I have spread or will spread the disease—but because I am in a category that cannot and should not get the vaccine. I’m supposed to ignore that and risk myself—for what? For the sake of keeping society safe—when I’ve managed to spread exactly zero COVID germs whatsoever during this very bad year? I’m dangerous and should be punished? Should I wear a yellow star to brand myself as subhuman, like we’ve seen before in coercive tyrannies?

And why is there pressure to get everyone to take the vaccine? Especially why for those who have long-term natural immunity already?

Dr. McCullough is very clear that COVID-recovered have the best immunity. The COVID-recovered can’t get the virus again, and they can’t spread it. They have immunity to all the strains. The vaccine is designed only for the “wild” virus, originally from China, but that one has pretty much disappeared from the US at this point. That’s why the vaccine will only be partially effective. He recommends getting a T-cell test, or an antibody test, or both, to show proof of immunity. That ought to be accepted. “They should get a gold passport,” if you absolutely have to show proof somewhere.

Dr. McCullough doesn’t, through all of this, get more conspiratorial than saying, “Something is up. And it’s worldwide.” I can’t solve that puzzle either. But there are far too many things that have made this pandemic plague us in ways it didn’t have to. There’s the control of society. There’s the refusal to allow treatments. There’s the coercive pressure to vaccinate. There’s the timeline, making it appear that this was all planned.

If that is so, who did the planning? And why would so many people blithely go along with their plans when people are unnecessarily dying and society is unnecessarily suffering economic and social disaster? How did they get all the media to buy in?

And how do we heal from this?

For another day, I’d like to know, is it related to other things we can’t explain?

·       Election fraud—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.

·       Biden family corruption (and others in high places)—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.

·       Bad stuff happening because of policy changes regarding the border, Israel and the Middle East, China, energy independence, massive spending and debt—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.

·       The LGBT agenda takeover of our educational system, social institutions, and even the marketplace—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.

·       The tribalism caused by labeling everyone and everything racist, even the country that spread the concept of equality before the law to the rest of the world—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.

And more. I can’t say for certain there is a conspiracy. But something is up. And it’s worldwide.

Hesitancy Might Be a Good Thing This Time

Asking the Questions

Tucker Carlson recently reported on his Fox News program that, according VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System, managed by the CDC and the FDA, from late December of 2020 and April 23 of this year 3362 deaths had been reported following taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

Tucker Carlson asks questions about the vaccine.
screenshot from here

Tucker was pretty clear to say that the VAERS reporting system does not necessarily mean these deaths were caused by the vaccine; they could be deaths that coincidentally happened after the person received the vaccine. The purpose for VAERS is to alert officials to possible problems, so that when apparent problems arise, they can be investigated.

The problem is, you can’t even state the government data without being taken down from YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or any other platform that abides by the censorship policy against their position.

I checked. Tucker Carlson’s video has been removed from YouTube, with this notice:

Checked by PolitiFact • 3 days ago

Tucker Carlson's misleading claim about deaths after COVID-19 vaccine

Claim: “Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States … The...

Rating: False

It will send you to a rebuttal story here. You might also see a short video here. 

Both of these claim Carlson’s story is false, because VAERS reporting does not verify that those deaths were caused by the vaccine, only that they were reported as happening after the person took the vaccine. Which is what Carlson said. The difference, they seem to claim, is that, unless the investigation has already taken place and proven causality, then you shouldn’t question the efficacy or safety of the vaccine.

But when the numbers of “coincidental” deaths is as high as it is, why hasn’t there been an investigation? Why hasn’t an independent safety board been impaneled to do such an investigation so that, if the deaths are 100% not caused by the vaccine, we can be reassured? That is the question Carlson asks. And that is the question being censored.

Incidentally, according to the VAERS website, they estimate that only 1% of vaccine reaction incidents are reported. When you multiply the 3362 deaths by 100, you have 336,200. These are deaths that just happened to occur shortly after a vaccine was given; nothing to see here. And, by the way, as of yesterday the number was 3837.

Typically a treatment, such as a vaccine or a medication, gets a “black box” warning with 5 deaths or serious reactions, and at 50 the use is discontinued. So Carlson’s question seems appropriate with such a high number of deaths. Note that it’s still a small percentage, because so many have taken the vaccine. But can’t we even see the numbers to gauge whether the risk of taking the vaccine is higher than the risk of getting the virus?

 

Approaches to the Health Crisis

Dr. Peter McCullough
screenshot from here

Another video not available on YouTube is an interview with Dr. Peter McCullough, a medical doctor with a master’s in public health, who treats COVID-19 patients, and who has dedicated the last year to finding treatments that would avoid the bad end results of hospitalization and death. He put together a team of doctors, who worked out a protocol by April or May or 2020, which he has published and testified about multiple times. He has a treatment guide you can download here. And he suggests that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons website is the most up-to-date resource for treatment, and can help you inform your doctor or connect with telemedicine for treatment.

Dr. McCullough explains that there are four pillars of dealing with a public health event, such as a virus:

The Covid Patient Treatment Guide, p. 12

The first pillar, to prevent spread, is things like mask wearing, social distancing, and quarantining the ill. Early on I think these could include contact tracing. But by the time we had it in this country, we were probably already beyond the efficacy of that.

The second pillar is the neglected one, which Dr. McCullough has been dealing with. Early on, when successful treatments were just being found, he estimated about 50% of deaths were preventable. But with more time and development of protocols for early treatment, that has risen to 85%. All but maybe 15% of the 3.3 million deaths worldwide, or the 582,420 US deaths could have been prevented. And there would have been hundreds of thousands, maybe millions fewer hospitalizations and sufferers of long-term effects. This could have made the biggest difference.

The third is for late-stage in-hospital treatment. If you get to that point, you have a rather high likelihood of death, or at least a long recovery, which could have been avoided if effective treatment had been done early.

The fourth somehow became the agreed-upon approach. So this is where energy and resources were placed, with the masking and shutting down of the economy meant to keep people on hold until this  solution appeared.

We talked here a few weeks ago about why the push for a vaccine had to include a lack of treatment; you can’t get emergency use approval for a vaccine that is for a virus that is treatable. So those who wanted to push vaccines by all means had to lie to say there were no treatments.

Dr. McCullough mentioned that, additionally, on November 10, 2020, there was a Trusted News Initiative, which would not allow anything negative to be said about the vaccines, because that might cause vaccine hesitancy. This included the BBC, Reuters, Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter. BBC Director Tim Davie says it this way: “The project would not prevent ‘legitimate concerns’ about vaccines being aired, but would attempt to stop ‘harmful disinformation myths.’” Except, note Tucker Carlson’s story above, for example.

Maybe there should be some vaccine hesitancy.

 

Reasons for Vaccine Hesitancy

On March 8 there was a report from the CDC stating that 1600 cases of death possibly caused by or affected by taking a COVID-19 vaccine were reviewed by FDA doctors, who found that absolutely none of the deaths, zero, were related to the vaccine. Oddly, the doctors are left anonymous, and, according to Dr. McCullough, normally such an investigation would take months, to go over medical records, death certificates, and relevant data surrounding each case. So, we are to believe that a EUA (emergency use authorization) vaccine, which means the government makes no guarantee of either safety or efficacy, has zero incidents of death out of the 1600 suspected—following a propaganda initiative designed to prevent any negative information from being published about the vaccines.

Maybe Tucker Carlson is right; maybe there ought to be an independent safety board impaneled to look into the possibility that the vaccine is doing harm—a board whose membership we can know, whose credentials we can see and review, and whose membership actually treats COVID-19 patients.

Dr. McCullough points out that preliminary vaccine trials specifically excluded the COVID-19-recovered, pregnant women, and women of childbearing potential. That means there is no testing to show whether the vaccines could harm such individuals. If the vaccines were to become FDA-approved, they would have to notify that the vaccines have not been tested for those groups, and the vaccine is therefore not recommended.

What we know now—or at least some doctors know—is that COVID-19-recovered likely have full immunity lasting at least 17 years, based on estimates from experience with earlier SARS. There is absolutely no reason for someone who had the disease to receive the vaccine. There is only risk of adverse reaction for them, no benefit. And they seem to be reacting at 2-3 times the rates of other people receiving the vaccines.

Concerning pregnant women, I remember early on (December?) hearing it was not recommended for pregnant women. A woman had reported a miscarriage following receiving the vaccine, and the response was, “She should have known better. They said it wasn’t recommended for pregnant women.” Then there’s a long silence on that. The next I heard was in a talk by Dr. Ryan Cole, in which he reported serious risk for pregnant women. He knew a woman who, just the day before, had miscarried right after getting the vaccine. He was warning about the vaccine for pregnant women, but the CDC was no longer doing that. They had quietly slipped into encouraging pregnant women to get vaccinated, despite the total lack of testing. Maybe warning pregnant women qualifies as causing vaccine hesitancy, and that is not allowed.

Last week a young woman I know lost her baby. Shortly, though not immediately, after being vaccinated. She was one of the most frightened-of-COVID people I know; she wore a mask in our home, and around family. She was thrilled there was finally a vaccine. She was far enough along that they had had a gender reveal ultrasound and were getting the baby’s room ready in a new home. The pregnancy seemed healthy. Is it possible this miscarriage was unrelated to the vaccine? Of course. But the coincidence of timing means that it probably should be reported to VAERS. I suggested to her sister that she do that. But I’m not close enough to say any more, or make her feel like she should have known better than to get the vaccine—when the government and media were lying to her.

If wading through the VAERS website is daunting for you, and you just want some basic info about COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. McCullough suggests OpenVAERS.com. You can click on the sections of information and get more details, such as particular vaccines and the breakdown of incidents with them. That site lists only 213 miscarriages following the vaccines. But if it did not occur to my friend to report, there are likely others who didn’t report. Again, VAERS suggests only 1% report. That would mean an estimated 21,300 miscarriages following taking the vaccine. All merely coincidental? With a vaccine that has been propagandized in ways no previous vaccine set has?

data from the OpenVAERS.com website on May 10, 2021

The Challenge of Getting Accurate Information

This past week Mikhaila Peterson (Jordan Peterson’s daughter) did one of her podcasts  where she has two guests with opposing views and gets their answers to similar questions. It’s not easy to get guests to come on her podcast under such circumstances. She got Dr. Joseph Mercola and Dr. Jeremy Kamil. They did not see each other; she interviewed them separately and then made the podcast with them one after the other.

Dr. Mercola speaks very fast, trying to get out more information than can fit in the time frame. But he expressed a suspicion that the virus—and the lockdown, and the refusal to allow treatment options, and the push for vaccines—is an actual conspiracy with those forces who want what you might call “The Great Reset,” which means a shutdown of the current economy and the replacement with a socialized, controlled oligarchy worldwide.

I’ve heard stranger things. In fact, I think he’s as likely on track as anything to explain what we’ve been experiencing—quarantining the healthy and least susceptible, fearmongering, refusal to allow information about treatments, pushing a vaccine that is not guaranteed either safe or effective, pushing a vaccine on the recovered who have natural immunity, refusing to allow negative vaccine information to be published, continuing controls over people even after vaccination, and using pressure such as “vaccine passports” to force people to comply.

Peterson was fairly well matched with Dr. Mercola, because she willingly lives a rather drastically healthy lifestyle just to survive her autoimmune illness, and he is all about careful eating and getting the right nutrients to avoid medicine when possible. But she didn’t seem to know the questions to ask Dr. Kamil—like what about recent studies that show that mask wearing is actually ineffective. She was busy taking care of family last year (much of it spent in Serbia) while I was here learning all I could about this disease that was only marginally more dangerous than the flu but was keeping us all trapped at home, and I wanted to know why. I had multiple questions to ask Dr. Kamil, based on my reading and the contradictions I’ve come across.

So, I suggest you hear him as well. But then ask those questions. And ponder why a doctor who doesn’t treat patients has such different views from a doctor who does treat patients.

It has been especially difficult to get accurate information about COVID-19—because of the now-known propaganda campaign to favor vaccines, to empower governments to impose tyranny on citizens, and to quash information about treatments.

One meme tells you not to take advice from your Facebook friend who still builds dollhouses and sells them online. I don’t actually do that (although I admit it sounds interesting), but they mean people like me. The thing is, I’m never putting myself out there as an expert; I’m suggesting that I’m a regular thinking person on the hunt for truth. I say what I think I’ve found, and here’s why I think this—which links to experts, most often doctors actually treating patients with success. Sometimes I link to articles and videos, and you can decide for yourself—assuming you can get to them before they’re taken down. The people sharing this meme don’t explain why you should ignore people like me but you should pay attention to people like them sharing memes.

There was another post reminding you not to listen to wacko doctors and other “experts” online. They had a list. There was not a single one I had referred to, and I’ve had a pretty long list. I’m guessing they were just building another straw man.

I continue to keep daily records—based on what the county public health site provides. They provide daily numbers, but I have to make the comparisons to the day before and do the 7-day rolling averages. It has been a couple of months, so here are the charts for where I live.

The daily average of COVID-19 deaths in Texas is hovering around 41, in a population of nearly 29.5 million.

 

The daily average of COVID-19 deaths in Harris County is currently at 19. It has been at or under 20 since September. The county judge still claims we are in the red zone. For a while our proportion of deaths compared to the state of Texas was too low to be believable; I wondered (and never found out) where all those Texas deaths were happening. Now, without much change in the county death numbers, we’re at just under half of the state’s COVID deaths, which is a bit out of proportion in the other direction. We’re about 14% of the state’s population.

The only place I keep case data is in my zip code. I’m looking at new cases per day compared to change in active cases per day. New cases average 2 a day. Average active cases is at -3; that means more people are recovering per day than are getting the disease. Active cases are 0.15% of the population, or 1.5 cases per thousand people. Assuming the active cases are not wandering around the grocery store, your chances of running into someone who’s spreading the virus are pretty slim—unless you’re caring for someone who has the illness.

 

There have been a total of 24 deaths in my zip code, which is sad. I haven’t known any of them. I’ve wondered how many days between new deaths. So I did the math. It’s about 15 days, on average, over the time that I kept records (since last June, at which point we already had 2 deaths).

What Matters Most

I spent a chunk of time this week listening to testimony in the Texas legislature. It’s all streamed live online, and archived later. We’re in the final week for bills to be heard in committee hearings and still have any chance at all of getting through the remaining bill stages.

Wednesday I was listening to testimony on a couple of abortion bills. One was a heartbeat bill, similar to those already passed in other states. It would make abortion illegal after a heartbeat is detected—around 8 weeks gestation. It doesn’t, however, acknowledge that the baby growing in the womb was human life before that heartbeat-detecting moment. I also learned recently that it is fairly easy for an abortion technician—getting paid to be part of the abortion-performing act—to either find a heartbeat or fail to find a heartbeat at will. So, while the supporters of this bill are well-meaning, I don’t think it goes far enough.

Another bill in the hearing conferred personhood on the unborn, which I think is the appropriate way to go. There were plenty of opponents, of course. One of them struck me, this week coming up on Mother’s Day, as dystopian.

The woman told her story. Several years ago, she was running for her seat (I think in the Texas Senate, but it might be in the House), and hadn’t announced yet that she was pregnant. But she was ghastly sick with “morning sickness,” which wasn’t confined to morning; it was all day every day. She had a condition called “hyperemesis gravidarum,” which is severe nausea and could be life-threatening because of loss of fluids. As she tells it, people used to die from that condition. I’ve actually known a couple of people who went through this. Both were hospitalized for significant portions of their pregnancies. Fluids may need to be given intravenously. Antiemetics may help, but not enough.

I don’t know what this woman had to do to survive throwing up twelve times a day. But she not only survived; she was able to successfully run for office.

She claims that, knowing she had options—and she means the option to kill her baby, whom she now claims to love and be grateful for—was what got her through. Just knowing that, if it got too rough, she could kill the baby. Now, the bill in question has an exception when the life of the mother is at stake; if the attempt to save both lives is not possible, the doctor prioritizes saving the life of the mother. The subtext of what she’s saying then is, if it’s harder than she bargained for, she wanted to have the “right” to kill the other human being experiencing that pregnancy.

She told of another woman who had a similar condition and already had a toddler running around. She made the choice to abort, because she wasn’t physically able to care for her existing child otherwise. I wonder if, in later years, she will lovingly say, “I killed your baby brother, because you were too hard to care for.”

I know I sound unsympathetic. But I’ve been through some pretty challenging pregnancies—none of which I could have survived while running for office.

I’ve lost a child born premature. I’ve spent months bedridden (three months with my oldest, six with each of the other two). I’ve done it with a toddler running around, and I couldn’t get up to manage him. My husband was gone all day to work. I managed part of days, with a little one bringing me diapers so I could change them from the couch where I lay. I was a huge burden on friends and church congregations—who amazingly seemed to love me more because I needed their help.

That's me, mothering from the couch, for most of 1987

When you can't get up to feed your 2-year-old,
he will somehow find a way.

It wasn’t convenient. It wasn’t easy. The last one, I came to a point I thought I couldn’t endure, when I’d gone several months unable to sleep more than 3-4 hours before waking for the next miserable 24-36 hours before I needed to try to sleep again. You get close to hallucination when that sleep deprived. At the point I thought I couldn’t go on, about nine weeks early, I was asking when we might need to induce so I would survive. But I had a spiritual blessing at that time that eased my burden from that day onward, and I endured. She was born on her due date, a beautiful, healthy 9 lb. 14 oz., 22 ½-inch baby. And I learned that God is there for me, to carry me through when I’m not strong enough on my own.

For me, abortion was never an option, because I always knew I was dealing with a beautiful, innocent, human life.

Last week Andrew Klavan spent much of his podcast talking about dystopian stories. He went through parts of 1984, Brave New World, The Giver, The Stepford Wives, and a story called “Those Who Walk Away from Omelas.” And he drew some conclusions. First, this short observation about The Stepford Wives:

What’s really interesting is the children in Stepford become happy when the women are dedicated to them. One of the points of it is—it’s not a totally feminist book. It’s sort of saying, “Yes, homemaking is a sacrificial act.” Being a homemaker is, in some sense, a sacrificial act. You’re pouring yourself into other people. That is what—that’s to me what makes it so beautiful.  

In this story, of course, if women don’t want to do it, they turn them into robots. So, about dystopian societies in general, he says,

The dystopian novel, the dystopian story, in order to be a story, depends on you having those values. It depends on your having the moral understanding that, in order to achieve this perfect world, something terrible has been done.

He illustrates with The Giver, the scene where The Giver, the older man mentoring the boy, Jonas, who is the main character, shows the boy his father euthanizing an infant. Here’s the dialogue from the clip:

Jonas: That’s death.

The Giver: He doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Jonas: Doesn’t know what he’s doing? He killed him.

The Giver: But he doesn’t know what it means….

Jonas: How can he not see the baby isn’t moving? Doesn’t that tell him something is wrong?

The Giver: The young and the old are killed. Your friend Fiona—she will soon be trained to release as well.

Jonas: That’s a lie. She’d never do that. If Fiona understood—

The Giver: We are the only ones who understand it.

Jonas: Then it’s our fault—you and me, and all the receivers back and back and back and back and back. There has to be a way to show them, to give them the memory so they can understand. Because, if you can’t feel, what’s the point?

Scene from The Giver
screenshot from Andrew Klavan's podcast

Klavan’s response to this is,

It’s only a dystopia to the people who understand what they are doing. The people who “know not what they do,” like the people who kill Christ, think they’re doing the right thing. They think they’re living in utopia. It’s only a dystopia because of our moral impulses. Right?

It’s just like abortion. Abortion works. Abortion frees women of the responsibilities of the—and the consequences of having sex. Abortion does make their life easier. Abortion does make it so that they don’t, you know, get raped or make a stupid decision and wind up with a baby for life. It works. The only reason it doesn’t work is if you have the moral sense to know that it’s killing. If they can talk us out of our morality, dystopia becomes utopia. You can slaughter your way to perfection.

Someone has been doing the lying, telling people not to value that human life. Not to value motherhood, or parenting, or nurturing, or self-sacrificing at all.

We ought to be telling young people—young women in particular—the truth, that there is nothing she can do that will be more meaningful than giving life and nurturing that child. (If she knew how important it was, she wouldn’t be risking it for sex with a man who isn’t committed to her in marriage. But we’ll save that for another day.)

Jordan Peterson had a conversation with Patrick Bet-David on his Valuetainment podcast. Bet-David showed a clip from a conversation they had together in July of 2019, and then asked him about it. This is Jordan Peterson from that clip:

Little children pay you back immensely, if you have a good relationship with them, you know, if you’re on their side and encourage them, because they’re an unconditional source of joy and love. [long standing ovation]

You know, the other thing I noticed that you should all know is that, as you get older, your family—the family you’ve produced—becomes more and more important.

We teach young women in particular that the fundamental goal of their life is going to be their career. And, you know, first of all, most people don’t have careers; they have jobs. And those are very different things. But you’re not a very happy camper, so to speak, if you’re 45 and you have no one, and it doesn’t go upwards after that.

Patrick Bet-David, left, and Jordan Peterson
screenshot from here

Later in the podcast Peterson refers back to this clip, and shares some more about what makes him happy. He talks about the joy he’s had from touring and talking with people. And then this:

You know, what makes me most happy right now is when my family gets together. So that’s my immediate family: my wife, my kids, and their spouses. And there’s no— There’s nothing buried underneath the rugs. And everyone’s joking and laughing and playing. And that’s— And it’s peaceful. It’s truly peaceful. And that does happen.

He talks about spending time with his son’s family—who live just up the street, and with whom they have a deep and rich relationship, and they have a peace-filled home. And there’s a grandson there.

Their little boy is laughing. He’s playing with laughing. We had some people over for Easter dinner, my son and his wife and a couple of friends of theirs. And they had a little baby named Florence, and she was also the same age, and she was playing with laughing. So she would go “Ha ha ha!” And then this little—my grandson Elliot, would go “Ha ha ha!” And then all the adults would laugh, because these two infants were actually having a conversation with each other—a proto-conversation with laughter. That lasted for about 10 minutes, and everyone was laughing about it. And, well, there isn’t anything better than that.

C. S. Lewis quote image found on Pinterest

Why don’t we tell young people? There isn’t anything better than that. There’s a lot to life, to using our interests and talents and abilities, and making a living. But that making a living, it has a purpose beyond itself. As C. S. Lewis put it,

Homemaking is surely in reality the most important work in the world. What do ships, railways, mines, cars, government, etc. exist for except that people may be fed, warmed, and safe in their own homes?... The homemaker’s job is one for which all others exist.

This is not to say you can’t be happy if you can’t have children. But to think that children are a burden, instead of the very thing that nurtures you into adulthood and gives you reason for living beyond yourself—you simply don’t understand what life is for. All creatures take joy in “filling the measure of their creation” and take joy in their offspring. But only humans have the capacity to understand what that means. When we forget that, we are less human.

It’s not easy. And while I’ve seen some friends who appear to me to be perfect at it, no one actually is. But with God’s help, what you do as a mother can be enough.

One of my favorite speakers, who speaks so many words of encouragement, is Jeffrey R. Holland. He was President of Brigham Young University when I was working on campus many years ago, and I used to pass him and wave hello on my way to my office as he was walking to his. Anyway, he said this:

If I’ve passed on any message to my children, I hope it is that they know I love them and think they were worth any sacrifice I could manage. And, even though I was imperfect at it, I trust that God filled in the differences. He does that in our lives, because He is the ultimate loving parent.

Happy Mother’s Day to all those who know what that means.