Category Medical and Illnesses

Sep 19 2021

The End of Democracy?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Sep 18, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty, I know you reported on the Canadian bill to suspend elections during a pandemic, do you think that is in the cards going ahead?

HS

ANSWER: I found it shocking that they would actually introduce such legislation in the first place. But what we have to understand is that this is part of the Schwab 2030 Agenda. I do not see how they would pull that off on all levels. The model is what they created in the EU where neither the European Commission nor the President is subject to popular election. They allow people to vote for MPs but they have no power to overrule the legislation from the Commission. So is that a real democracy or even a republic in the EU? It is nothing different from China.

I also do not see how they would be able to eliminate local politicians. As long as their power is confined, then they would retain that to pretend it was still a democracy. History repeats because the passions of people have never changed. Rome overthrew its “king” in 509BC and thereafter nobody would ever have the title of king. That is also in the American Constitution. Article I. Section IX Clause VIII states clearly:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Now, when the Republic was overthrown and Imperial Rome began, the Emperors, not being kings in name, still created a monarchy that was inherited by their family the very same as a king. The titles on the coinage we can date BECAUSE they pretended to be elected. For example, COS XI meant he was elected consul for the 11th year in a row.

This is not my opinion nor is it some wild speculation. This is simply how history unfolds. Given such power, they will always gravitate to absolute power. For years I have shown the model that pointed to the start of a commodity boom in 2020 and that we were headed into an authoritarian period. As I have said before, growing up there were two families that were Jewish who fled to America from Germany because they saw where it was going. They told me that other Jews thought they were crazy and alarmists – today conspiracy theorists. It never returned to normal.

Also, for those who think that it was Hitler who invented forcing the Jews to wear a gold star marker, again that is history that simply repeats. Edward I (1272-1307) of England, the king of Brave Heart fame, also ordered the Jews to wear badges. He too eventually banned all Jews from England, confiscated all their wealth and lands, and anyone who had borrowed from the Jews had to repay that debt to the King.

So if you think this is all just my opinion, sorry to hear that. I suppose you will be one of the millions waiting for a return to normal like the Jews in Germany. There is no such return. Imposing COVID passports will be expanded and become PERMANENT. Just like imposing the Income Tax in 1913. Oh, we will only tax the rich and they will only have to pay 1%. By World War II, everyone was paying payroll taxes and the top tax rate hit 90% thanks to Marxism.

There will be no return to normal and history warns that the only way to restore human rights will be by violence. They will NEVER relinquish power peacefully. Sorry, all the protests will not deter them. They will lose because this system they are trying to impose is out of desperation for decades of fiscal mismanagement. But rather than reform for We the People, they have chosen the suppression of the people to retain power. NEVER in the history of the United States have we EVER seen armed fences to protect the politicians. These people will NOT simply hand back power. This in Chess is “check” which now compels the next move before it becomes checkmate unfortunately in so many countries with the USA being the least ready just yet. But this is the reality in many other countries now as we move into October.

Sep 18 2021

iPhone 13


Armstrong Economics Blog/Humor Re-Posted Sep 18, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Sep 18 2021

Bill Gates Lying


Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted Sep 18, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Let’s be very clear. Gates has a huge stake in all the big vaccine companies. Marginally, if he makes just $1 per shot, he stands to become not only the richest man but the richest man in all of history.

Sep 18 2021

Why Did The CDC Stop Recording Vaccine Breakthrough Cases in The U.S. on May 1st? – Today We Got The Obvious Answer, Vaccine Companies Want to Sell Booster Shots


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on September 17, 2021 | Sundance | 146 Comments

A “breakthrough case” is the term for a person infecting with COVID-19 after they have been vaccinated.  On May 1st the CDC changed the recording and record keeping of COVID-19 breakthrough cases, and stopped tracking them.  The change was announced July 30th {Data Link}.

[…] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently monitors hospitalizations and deaths, from any cause, among fully vaccinated individuals with COVID-19, but not breakthrough infections, which it stopped monitoring as of May 1. CDC presents this data in aggregate at the national level but not by state, and there is no single, public repository for data by state or data on breakthrough infections, since the CDC stopped monitoring them. (read more)

At the time the CDC stopped tracking the incidents of vaccinated persons contracting COVID-19 and being hospitalized, many people wondered why?  Obviously if you stop recording vaccinated persons who are hospitalized, it will look like only unvaccinated persons are being hospitalized by the variants in the CDC records.  That skews the data and gives the false impression that only unvaxxed persons are getting infected and/or sick….

…Which is exactly what happened.

The medical industry and media narrative around the COVID-19 Delta Variant was that unvaccinated people in the U.S. were the majority group at risk.  The data supported that narrative because the breakthrough cases were no longer being recorded.   This makes the vaccine approach look better.  The approach of not counting the breakthrough case hospitalizations also makes the pharmaceutical companies look better; their vaccine looks more appealing & more effective.

However, another angle surfaced today that highlights the strength of the motive to stop recording those breakthrough cases; it also explains why some of the top leadership in the FDA quit their jobs rather than participate.

When the FDA vaccine approval panel was originally instructed to use the efficacy data with the goal of evaluating the booster shot request for the Pfizer vaccination; they were instructed to only look at the data from the U.S.

Knowing the CDC no longer was tracking U.S. breakthrough cases, that meant the FDA vaccine approval panel was only evaluating the Pfizer efficacy and hospitalization issue around the non-vaccinated group.  If this approach had been maintained, they would be making a determination of vaccine efficacy/effectiveness in the U.S. with the key metric omitted: The Pfizer vaccine would look more effective than it actually was, because the vaccinated and hospitalized metric was removed.

That skewed data looks like an intentional decision – for that specific intentional reason.   The CDC was trying to make the vaccines look more effective at avoiding hospitalization.  THAT is a political manipulation by changing a key part of the record-keeping.  THAT looks like the reason for the FDA officials to quit, rather than participate in politically manipulated science.

This scenario turned up today in the FDA rejection of a Pfizer booster, when the FDA vaccine approval panel finally won the argument and was allowed to look at more than just the manipulated U.S. data-set.   Despite the CDC stopping to track the vaccinated and hospitalized data in the U.S., the panel was allowed to consider the vaccinated and hospitalized outcomes from the U.K. and Israel {Source Link}:

[Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA leading expert in vaccines,] – “added the meeting focused on almost real-time analyses compared to what is happening in the world, and the goal remains slowing the spread of COVID-19, which is killing almost 2,000 Americans daily.

The question the advisory panel was originally given to consider only used the U.S. data, a small dataset, despite the presentations including data from the U.K. and Israel.

Marks instructed the panel to consider all the data, noting, “This is not a legal proceeding, this is a science proceeding, so you can take all the data into account.” (link)

By looking at the vaccinated/hospitalized rates in the U.K and Israel, a data-set intentionally not recorded by U.S. health officials, the panel rejected the Pfizer request for a booster shot, noting the efficacy just wasn’t there.  However, if the panel had only looked at the data approved by the CDC, the Pfizer vaccine efficacy would have looked much better because the vaccinated/hospitalized data was intentionally not recorded.

This my friends is how the healthcare of the U.S. is being manipulated by politics and Big Pharma.

This political manipulation also explains why the White House was proceeding with a booster shot distribution plan, even before the FDA vaccine advisory panel gave their opinion. $$$$

Sep 18 2021

FDA Advisory Panel Rejects Pfizer Booster Shots


Posted originally on the conservative tree house September 17, 2021 | Sundance | 526 Comments

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory group who evaluate the efficacy and safety of vaccines have rejected the request for Pfizer booster shots.  However, the White House – desperately trying to push as many needle jabs as possible – was already on track to begin giving booster shots this month.  The implication here is that the White House was not following the recommendations of the FDA or the science.

WASHINGTON DC – A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel voted Friday against approval of Pfizer (PFE)/BioNTech’s (BNTX) third dose for the U.S.

The vote comes after a heated debate in recent weeks over the need for booster or additional shots, which both mRNA companies — Pfizer and Moderna (MRNA) — have advocated for.

Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA’s leading expert on vaccines, touched on the controversy in his introductory remarks. “We know that there may be differing opinions of the interpretation of the data regarding the potential need for additional doses, and we strongly encourage all the different viewpoints to be voiced and discussed regarding the data, which is complex, and evolving,” Marks said.

He added the meeting focused on almost real-time analyses compared to what is happening in the world, and the goal remains slowing the spread of COVID-19, which is killing almost 2,000 Americans daily.

The question the advisory panel was given to consider only used the U.S. data, a small dataset, despite the presentations including data from the U.K. and Israel.

Marks instructed the panel to consider all the data, noting, “This is not a legal proceeding, this is a science proceeding, so you can take all the data into account.”

The meeting precedes a September 20 start date for additional doses, announced last month by the White House COVID-19 Response Team, despite U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data showing some Americans are already receiving third doses. Last month, the CDC recommended additional doses for immunocompromised people.

A CDC advisory panel will meet next week to discuss recommendations for who should receive a booster dose. (read more)

This happens on the same day the CDC announces a study [Data Here] showing the Moderna vaccine remained stronger in protecting against hospitalization compared to Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ).

Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–August 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%).  (link)

However, Moderna has now highlighted their own diminished benefit study [DATA HERE] showing the vaccine effectiveness wanes after 8 months:

[…] “In the analysis, 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred in the more recently vaccinated group (49.0 cases per 1000 person-years) compared to 162 cases in the group vaccinated last year (77.1 cases per 1000 person-years). The reduction in incidence rates for participants vaccinated more recently compared to participants vaccinated last year was 36% (95% CI: 17-52%). A Cox proportional hazards model showed similar results after adjusting for age and risk factors for severe COVID-19. Fortunately, only 19 severe cases were observed. While not significant, there was a numerical trend towards a lower rate of severe cases in the group vaccinated more recently (3.3 per 1000 person-years) compared to the group vaccinated last year (6.2 per 1000 person-years).” (read more)

Once you get locked in the vaccine roller coaster, you ain’t getting off until the ride’s over…

Sep 16 2021

Boris Johnson Poster Child for Morally Corrupt Politicians?


Armstrong Economics Blog/BRITAIN Re-Posted Sep 16, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: You refused to advise Boris Johnson. Do you think that was a mistake?

WJ

ANSWER: No. You have to understand that there are meetings where people are seriously interested in talking about options. Then there are people where you are simply there as window-dressing so they can pretend that they listened to experts. All my sources told me to stay away from Boris. That was very disappointing to hear, for I deeply loved London. It was the only city I felt comfortable living in. I even took my children there and we lived on the West End.

Boris Johnson is horrible and a serious disgrace to the very idea of a free society.  He has singlehandedly seriously harmed the British economy and was arguing to allow him to call an election at any time rather than wait for 2024. Fixed dates were set in 2011 to stop the manipulation of the country by prime ministers calling elections when the polls are in their favor. He is now planning to impose lockdowns once again.

The last prime minister to actually be assassinated was in 1812, and the way this is going, I would not want to be prime minister in 2027 and be remembered in history books as a victim. Spencer Perceval is the only British prime minister to have been assassinated by a merchant who blamed the government for his debt. The Financial Panic of 1812 had several causes, including a dramatic decline in cotton prices, and a contraction of credit by the Bank of the United States designed to curb inflation. These COVID restrictions are causing people to lose everything. This alone is an incentive to respond violently.

From 1882 to 1990, six MPs were assassinated by militant Irish republicans. The murder of Jo Cox in 2016 was the last person to be assassinated who was a Labour MP. Then, of course, there was the Brighton hotel bombing by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), which was an assassination attempt against the top-tier of the British government, including Margaret Thatcher, on October 12, 1984.

Sep 16 2021

Slovenia Denies Fuel to Unvaccinated?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Eastern Europe Re-Posted Sep 15, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

We are getting reports claiming that Slovenia just today has issued series of new COVID measures, including that you can’t buy fuel at the gas station without covid-pass. We are trying to verify this other than emails from Slovenia. We will report if we can find any confirmation from official sources. If this proves true, then the rest of Europe may follow the direction of the EU. This may be a trial balloon.

There is obviously a large portion of humanity that is incapable of thinking any original thought and the politicians laugh behind the TV camera at how easy it is to fool these people all the time. Inconsistencies never matter. Logic has fled and common sense maybe never existed, to begin with. They have proven Milgram’s experiments on a grand scale.

Sep 16 2021

COVID Politics Takes a Dark Turn, Biden Administration Takes Control of Monoclonal Antibody Drugs in Order to Block Treatments in Red States and Ration Equitable Treatment


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on September 15, 2021 | Sundance | 724 Comments


When Joe Biden’s Health and Human Services made the announcement earlier this month (LINK) that they were taking full control over Monoclonal Antibody drugs (mAb) in order to begin rationing the highly effective treatment for COVID-19 infection, several people sounded alarm bells as there was the potential for rationing of COVID treatment based on political ideology.   Representative Chip Roy of Texas was one of the first to raise concerns (link).

The change in HHS approach followed republican governor Ron DeSantis of Florida promoting the use of mAb and opening up dozens of treatment centers throughout his state.   Other governors quickly took notice of the effective action plan of DeSantis in Florida and started to follow that path.

As soon as HHS noticed the red state governors were working on a effective treatment alternative to the vaccine approach, HHS appears to have moved in to block it – thereby restricting the treatment pathway in order to enhance the vaccine approach. [HHS Announcement]  Note the alarm word “equitable“:

It took a week for the new HHS restrictions to impact the pre-existing orders.  However, now Alabama is the first state to draw attention to the problem Joe Biden’s administration is creating by rationing mAb treatment and making determinations on which states should be allowed the “equitable use of the available supply“; a fancy term for “rationing” the life-saving treatment based on alignment with the political ideology of the government in control of it.

Newsweek – Albama doctors are concerned about the impact on health care systems after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decided to temporarily limit monoclonal antibody order. […] Dr. Scott Harris, Alabama’s state health officer, told Newsweek that the shots are key for protecting a person against hospitalization and death … “It can be a lifesaver if given in the first 10 days of symptoms,” Arora said about monoclonal antibodies. “We’re calling on the federal government to help us provide more of this treatment, not less, so we can save lives and keep COVID patients out of the hospital.”

[…] Monoclonal antibody treatments have been authorized for use only in high-risk patients who either tested positive for the coronavirus or were knowingly exposed. That’s still a broad swath of people, given that high risk includes anyone with a body mass index over 25, so surges in cases can quickly deplete supplies.

Since the treatments have shown promise in keeping people out of the hospital, Alabama had plans to increase the number of locations where people can receive monoclonal antibodies. Those were put on hold following the HHS announcement, and Alabama’s Department of Public Health urged physicians to ensure that only those who qualify for the treatment receive it and prioritize patients based on the likelihood a person will become seriously ill. (link)

The approach of the federal government moving in to control mAb treatment does not come in a vacuum.  When you consider the U.S. federal government approach to dismiss the effective use of Ivermectin as a COVID treatment; and then consider the “vaccine-only” approach is being applied with extreme pressure from within the U.S. healthcare industry – which includes threats against doctors who do not comply with that outlook; a very clear picture is emerging.  All treatment approaches are being blocked in order to force people to take the mRNA gene therapy.

It is one thing to demand people take the mRNA gene therapy (aka “vaccine”).  It is another thing entirely to block treatment options in order to force vaccination as the only method of survival from infection.

Against this backdrop, those fences being installed around Washington DC take on a different perspective.

The Joe Biden FDA is blocking Ivermectin. (link)

The Joe Biden regulatory agency A.M.A is threatening doctors with their licenses if they speak against vaccination. (link)

The Joe Biden administration is threatening the economic security of the U.S. workforce who are not comfortable taking the vaccine. (link)

The Joe Biden HHS is taking control of monoclonal antibody treatment supplies. (link)

The Biden administration is now determining the “equity” in medical treatment. (link)

The Biden administration is putting walls around the Capitol. (link)

Yes, there appears to be a very dark agenda unfolding before our eyes.  These are not conspiracy theory data-points, they are facts.

Sep 15 2021

California – Just Hopeless


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Sep 15, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

As expected, California has voted not to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom and ABC News has been reporting that 67% of electors in Tuesday’s special election are against recalling the Democratic governor. I do not think anyone was seriously expecting California to ever go against a democrat no matter what they do. Just look at Pelosi. While blaming Trump for dividing the country, there is no better person in DC who is dividing the country more than Pelosi. She even has some Democrats concerned based on reliable sources. Anyone who really thought California would EVER recall a democrat was still California Dreaming.

Then California sends Adam Bennett Schiff to Congress who is best known for pushing the fake Steele Dossier that was paid for by Hillary. California deserves to be the highest taxed state for it is reaping what it has inflicted upon the nation Pelosi & Schiff – two of the most toxic people of the Hill. Pelosi’s husband pulls off amazing trades scoring $10 million on Microsoft coincidently when it wins government contracts. Then Pelosi, pretending to be a mother of five and a Catholic, is pushing for government-paid abortions which is Gates’ agenda making it a TOP priority. Like Gates’ father, it will no doubt target the minority communities because Pelosi cares about women’s rights, or reducing the population? Texas law said once there is a heartbeat, no abortion for that then becomes murder. In Connecticut, if someone assaults a pregnant woman causing the death of a child before birth, they want to call that murder. Pelosi’s response:

“I say that as a mother of five children, and I respect everyone’s decision, their personal decisions. But that’s why we have to give them the ability to make those decisions. It’s really kind of sad,” Pelosi said. “But nonetheless, people know now what the challenge is, and many of the women who will be disadvantaged in this are women of color and poor women and the rest.”

There were many pushing for a California Separatist Movement if Trump was elected back in 2016 and again in 2020. Looking at the politicians they send, including Diane Finestein who called Snowden a traitor, there are many who look at California and say – Please go, and take your toxic politicians with you!

Sep 15 2021

Supreme Court Does Not Vote on Just Party Lines


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Sep 15, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty, Biden set up a commission to investigate stacking the Supreme Court. Roosevelt did the same thing to create socialism but he lost on that issue. Do you think Biden and these democrats like Pelosi and Schumer will fail in this effort?

WH

ANSWER: Actually, Roosevelt had contingency plans to stack the court, but the issue was over his Executive Order confiscating gold. The Supreme Court shocked everyone by upholding it. But the mix was opposite of even what Roosevelt believed would happen. Chief Justice Huges supported Roosevelt, and he was appointed by Hoover — a Republican. The Democrat appointed by President Woodrow Wilson, Justice McReynolds, dissented and was against Roosevelt. The decision was 5 to 4 that took the gold away from Americans.

This has been my point. Just because a justice is appointed by a Democrat or Republican does not guarantee they will vote like politicians along party lines. If Chief Justice Hughes voted against Roosevelt, then he probably would have stacked the court. Also, Chief Justice Roberts voted for Obamacare despite the fact he too was appointed by a Republican.