Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 1, 2022 | sundance
Joe Biden has asked congress for two supplemental spending packages, $33 billion for the Ukraine/NATO money laundering operation (supported by both wings of the DC UniParty), and an additional $22 billion to deal with COVID, ie the money DC will use to send to states for another round of mail-in ballots for the November mid-terms.
Hillary Clinton’s former Vice-Presidential running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, appeared on CBS Face the Nation to discuss. As noted by Senator Kaine, the Senate will happily authorize the $33 billion for Ukraine; however, the COVID spending bill will more likely run into resistance from the Republicans in the Senate who want to extract some of their own Wall Street priorities.
The forward-looking solution, as it appears from the Kaine perspective, is for Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer to work out a deal where both spending packages are bundled. This approach gives cover to the DeceptiCon wing of the republicans to support the COVID mail-in ballot funding scheme, in order to keep their UniParty proxy war in Ukraine fully funded. WATCH:
Belgium researchers embarked on a study that hopefully can shape future vaccination programs targeting COVID-19. In a recently published study, these scientists assessed the risk factors associated with developing COVID-19 after vaccination. The results of which were presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Lisbon, Portugal, (23-26 April). It turns out the mRNA-based vaccines afford more protection than those immunized with the AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine.
So, what are breakthrough infections? They are characterized when the pathogen evades vaccine-induced bodies, thereby infecting the inoculated person. In this study, Dr. Veerle Stouten and colleagues at Sciensano, the National Public Health Institute of Belgium, investigated the incidence of breakthrough infections associated with four different COVID-19 vaccine brands. These brands included Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S).
The Study
More than 80% of adults in Belgium were fully vaccinated (received two doses) by August 11, 2021.
The study included all people in Belgium aged 18-plus who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 between February 1 and December 5, 2021. The 8,062,000 participants were followed up for an average of 150 days, from 14 days after their second dose.
4.6% of the participants (373,070) were reported to have a breakthrough infection. This figure does not, however, take into account how long each participant was followed-up after the study. When this is factored in, the incidence rate is 11.2 per 100 person-years. This means that if participants were followed up for one year, 11.2 would be expected to develop a breakthrough infection.
Results
Researchers share that “breakthrough infections were more common in those who had received viral vector vaccines than mRNA vaccines. Those who had previously had Covid had a lower risk of breakthrough infections.”
Overall, those vaccinated with a viral vector vaccine (Oxford/AstraZeneca or Janssen) had a higher risk of a breakthrough infection than those vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna).
In addition, “There was a higher incidence of breakthrough infections in younger age groups (18-64 year olds) than in older age groups (65-84 or 85-plus year olds), which might be due to differences in social behavior.”
Natural immunity also comes into play here. Researchers observed from the analysis that “those with a prior COVID-19 infection before vaccination were 77% less likely to have a breakthrough infection than those who hadn’t had Covid previously.”
Significant Implications
Such information regarding breakthrough infections can be helpful when designing vaccination programs, including decisions about who would benefit most from a booster dose and the timing and type of vaccine to be used.
Dr. Stouten adds: “We identified risk factors associated with breakthrough infections, such as vaccination with adenoviral-vector vaccines, which could help inform future decisions on booster vaccination strategies internationally.
Lead Research/Investigator
Dr. Veerle Stouten, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium
Belgium researchers embarked on a study that hopefully can shape future vaccination programs targeting COVID-19. In a recently published study, these scientists assessed the risk factors associated with developing COVID-19 after vaccination. The results of which were presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Lisbon, Portugal, (23-26 April). It turns out the mRNA-based vaccines afford more protection than those immunized with the AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine.
So, what are breakthrough infections? They are characterized when the pathogen evades vaccine-induced bodies, thereby infecting the inoculated person. In this study, Dr. Veerle Stouten and colleagues at Sciensano, the National Public Health Institute of Belgium, investigated the incidence of breakthrough infections associated with four different COVID-19 vaccine brands. These brands included Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S).
Democrats in Rhode Island have prepared legislation that could double taxes for parents of unvaccinated children. Senator Sam Bell, who is championing the bill, claims that there is a need for a universal mandate. Under the proposed law, unvaccinated residents would face a $50 monthly fine for noncompliance. Employers would also be required to mandate vaccines for all employees or face a $5,000 fine per violation. The biggest burden – “Any person who violates this chapter shall be required to pay a monthly civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) and shall oweTWICE THE AMOUNT OF PERSONAL INCOME TAXES.”
To receive an exemption for a minor, three separate doctors must confirm that the child is “not fit for immunization.” Then the state would need to investigate each claim and determine whether or not the parents should be financially ruined. So even if three different doctors say that a child should not be vaccinated, the state may override them.
Biden lost his bid to implement a federal vaccine for employers last year, but the battle is not over. State lawmakers still have the capabilities to force compliance through any means possible. Bell wants to make the state of Rhode Island unlivable for the unvaccinated. While this is unlikely to pass, the fact that they are still attempting to force vaccinations in April 2022 shows that the war on medical freedom has not ceased.
TrialSite recently shared that a handful of states have proposed bills to ensure ivermectin is available to treat COVID-19 via a legitimate physician’s prescription. Those states include Indiana, Kansas, and New Hampshire. Recently, a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin, Dr. Paul Marik, one of the co-founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), discussed the pending New Hampshire ivermectin legislation with conservative news platform, America’s Voice Network.
Marik, board certified in Internal Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, Neurocritical Care, and Nutrition Science, is a key opinion leader who has worked in numerous hospitals and health systems from South Africa, UK, and of course, the United States where he is most recently affiliated with Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) as well as other medical institutions. Not a stranger to controversy, or for that matter, pushing the comfort boundaries of the medical establishment, Marik isn’t a lightweight, with over 400 peer-reviewed journal articles, 50 book chapters, and author credits for four critical care books.
Recently, he filed a lawsuit against his hospital over the institution’s ban on various therapies including ivermectin, which happens to be a core therapy in his and his colleagues MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19. He and colleagues such as Dr. Pierre Kory experienced what they declare is censorship, as key journals had reviewed and accepted manuscripts, such as with the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, only to see the approvals retracted. Physicians such as those affiliated with the FLCCC represent prominent figures at this weekend’s medical freedom march.
The alternative media reporter, Heather Mullins, shared that New Hampshire’s bill is now “sponsored” and must still “go through some hurdles to get passed,” but if done so will “essentially make ivermectin available over the counter.” According to the TrialSite report, the proposed bill would authorize access at the pharmacy via a “standing order” which generally indicates authorization for nurses, pharmacists, and other appropriately credentialed health care professionals that if directed by state law, empowers the direct care and admonition of a vaccine or therapy (in this case ivermectin) based on an approved medical doctor-based approved protocol.
TrialSite didn’t report that Paul Marik testified for the proposed bill in New Hampshire. Mullins reports that Marik and other front-line physicians have been on the record that if ivermectin had been allowed for use as an early at-home prophylactic treatment targeting COVID-19, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.
The Interview
Prior to the testimony in New Hampshire, Dr. Marik shared that 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been administered around the world, “changing the face of parasitic diseases on this planet.” Marik declared that ivermectin “is probably the second most important drug ever invented” [the drug’s inventors did win a Nobel Prize and the drug is on the World Health Organization Essential Drug List].
Declaring that the drug is cheap, safe, and “highly effective against SARS-CoV-2, and if used more widely this drug could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”
Referring to its use in many other countries, the critical care physician went on the record that it’s a “lifesaving drug.”
Why the pushback against ivermectin? Marik, now somewhat liberated given he isn’t dependent on his employer Sentara, let loose declaring, “There are multiple reasons, and this is probably generated by Big Pharma, government, and big corporations who don’t like cheap repurposed drugs.” He continued, “So this is a war on cheap, repurposed drugs.” Emphasizing the goals of ivermectin’s adversaries, Marik stated, “They want you to use expensive designer drugs which in fact don’t work.”
In clarifying his understanding of the New Hampshire bill, Marik declared it is proposing to make ivermectin available over the counter [again via standing order] and according to the critical care doctor, it makes sense given the drug’s safety profile— “the drug is safer than Tylenol,” stated Marik. Repeating again the drug’s safety profile makes it safer than Tylenol, he went on the record “People should be given access to this drug in order to prevent and treat COVID.”
Marik espoused the critical FLCCC view that early treatment for COVID-19 absolutely represents a critical care strategy: simply waiting at home for a symptomatic phase, prompting a trip to the hospital raises significant danger for severe disease and worse.
The Controversy
According to Heather Mullins’ report, there has been a coordinated effort to censor the robust data pointing to at least some ivermectin-based efficacy around the world. Ivermectin study watchers often point to the website which tracks all ivermectin studies in a clean, orderly series of tables and graphs. While the majority of the 75 completed studies point to positive data points, the mainstream media and medical establishments in North America, Europe, and Australia have limited the number of studies within the research portfolio that they even acknowledge to just a handful. The others? These studies are dismissed because of bad quality.
A couple of prominent studies showed no benefit, yet, at least one of them became surrounded with controversy and allegations among some industry watchers of conflict of interest. TrialSite notes this hasn’t been proven, and one study in Egypt that was part of a couple of meta-analysis studies turned out to have manipulated data. Yet even with the questionable Egyptian study, TrialSite’s Sonia Elijah’s investigation raised some disturbing questions in “How Ivermectin became a Target for the Fraud Detectives.”
TrialSite has chronicled ivermectin studies all over the world, including the ICON study done in Broward County early on during the pandemic. Of course, this study wasn’t a randomized controlled trial, thus limiting its impact. Interviews with the head of the largest hospital in the Dominican Republic as well as a well-respected investigator in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and interactions with doctors in Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and India found positive data points. TrialSite even sponsored an objective documentary in Peru, one of the first nations to accept the use of the drug for the novel coronavirus.
After numerous interviews, study write-ups, and real-world observations, the case for ivermectin should be taken seriously. The U.S. National Institute of Health is financing an ivermectin-based study called ACTIV-6, while the University of Minnesota led one of the largest ongoing ivermectin studies called COVID-OUT.
The drug does have a proven safety profile at doses currently approved for parasitic indications. However, claims that higher dosages are just as safe as Tylenol might be a stretch—rather that claim would be associated with currently approved indications. Yet, it’s not a stretch to declare the drug is generally safe if taken off-label under the guidance of a licensed, competent physician.
The FDA’s behavior during this pandemic in association with ivermectin has been questionable, to say the least. Issuing warnings to the public not to use the animal variety of the drug, they emphasized that for the human version, it should be used only in clinical trials. TrialSite’s Sonia Elijah’s piece on obtaining FDA emails suggested the possibility of some form of disinformation campaign emanating from the world’s most respected food and drug regulatory body—an activity, if true, is beneath this organization.
FDA letters to medical and pharmacy boards and medical societies have led to considerable pressure on doctors employed by health systems and pharmacies not to allow ivermectin prescriptions off-label for COVID-19. In addition to a survey substantiating this trend, TrialSite chronicles plenty of instances evidencing efforts to block access. The TrialSite survey evidenced the effectiveness of an ongoing purge.
While there has been much controversy following the drug, Marik, Kory, and others actually visited the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to discuss the evidence of efficacy against SARS-Cov-2 in early 2021.
from use only in clinical trials to the following recommendation:
There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
Yet if the drug is generally safe and a licensed physician along with an appropriately consenting patient agree to an off-label regimen, why would this vary from other standard off-label use cases that no one makes a fuss about? What is it about COVID? TrialSite has observed based on the severity and intensity of the pandemic, more federal involvement, and intervention in healthcare. Concerns of ivermectin took off when government, industry, and regulators discovered that prescriptions skyrocketed from 3,000 per week pre-pandemic to nearly 90,000 per week during the second year of the pandemic.
TrialSite recently reported on a study led by a University of Michigan doctor showing that at least $130 million in insurance claims for the drug treating COVID-19 in 2021—that figure is probably more than double when counting all the cash-based prescriptions.
Call to Action: What are your thoughts? Is the federal government simply trying to protect people by blocking access to ivermectin or is this part of some regulatory capture movement? Does this mean industry’s interest supersedes patients? Perhaps, the truth is more nuanced. While this TrialSite fact check on the fact checkers (Ivermectin) could be updated, its core arguments are sound.
TrialSite recently shared that a handful of states have proposed bills to ensure ivermectin is available to treat COVID-19 via a legitimate physician’s prescription. Those states include Indiana, Kansas, and New Hampshire. Recently, a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin, Dr. Paul Marik, one of the co-founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), discussed the pending New Hampshire ivermectin legislation with conservative news platform, America’s Voice Network.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 21, 2022 | Sundance
Someone might want to knock Anthony Fauci down a few pegs from his high-horse position. In this brief video, Fauci was asked for his opinion on the recent federal court ruling that the CDC exceeded its authority with a federal transportation mask mandate.
According to Fauci, the CDC bureaucratic science should supersede any constitutional, legal or limiting positions by the legislative or judicial branches of government. In essence he’s saying the CDC is above the law. WATCH:
The CDC is a subservient regulatory agency just like every other agency within government and is just as subject to the laws and legal limitations of the constitution as any other agency would be. However, in the worldview of Fauci and the Branch Covidians, the power of science puts them above the law.
In semi-related news…. “Philadelphia will end its COVID-19 indoor mask mandate less than a week after reinstating it, city health officials said Thursday night.” {LINK}
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 20, 2022 | Sundance
Ideological leftism is contingent upon appeasing the most insane elements of the extreme left.
As a consequence, the Biden political CDC has announced they need the Biden political DOJ to try and get the federal mask mandate put back into place.
CDC Announcement: “To protect CDC’s public health authority beyond the ongoing assessment announced last week, CDC has asked DOJ to proceed with an appeal in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., et al., v. Biden, et al. It is CDC’s continuing assessment that at this time an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health.” (LINK)
According to NBC News, “the Justice Department said that it has filed a notice of appeal “in light of today’s assessment by the CDC” in a statement late Wednesday afternoon.” (LINK)
The Covidians who define themselves by their adherence to the dictates of the U.S. government, are happy. However, in an election year where the overwhelming majority of the American people have had enough of this political science, this decision fuels an angry rebuke.
Recently scientists from Denmark led an important study suggesting that mRNA-based vaccines such as the ones made by Pfizer or Moderna may not be as safe as adenovirus-based vaccines such as Johnson and Johnson, AstraZeneca/Oxford or the one produced by China’s CanSino Biologics. Led by Peter Aaby, a trained physician and anthropologist that runs a health and demographic surveillance system site in West Africa as part of the Bandim Health Project and Dr. Mihai Netea a well-known award winning Romanian/Dutch scientists and Danish colleagues from Odense Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN) at University of Southern Denmark, the group scrutinized possible “non-specific effects” (NSEs) of the COVID-19 vaccines probing into overall mortality such as not only COVID-19 deaths but also accidental deaths, cardiovascular deaths and other non-COVID-19 deaths. The team discovered that out of 74,193 participants in mRNA clinical trials and 61 deaths, that based on relative risk there was no real difference between the vaccine and placebo group. While in the adenovirus-based studies with 122,164 participants and 46 deaths the vaccine had nearly half the level of deaths as compared to the controls group.
The study team decided to take a step back and look at the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data from a different point of view. They did this because “there is now ample evidence that vaccines can have broad heterologous effects on the immune system.” Such effects can either A) greater protection or B) increased susceptibility to unrelated infections or even other non-infectious autoimmune diseases. The authors report that emerging study data reveals that “vaccines may have completely unexpected effects on overall mortality, different from what could be anticipated based on the protection against the vaccine-targeted disease.”
The study results await peer review thus the data shouldn’t be considered evidence. But the novel approach and consequent findings represent an important potential contribution to our scientific knowledge of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Overall Mortality wasn’t Studied
Taking a different perspective, Dr. Aaby and team share that the current batch of COVID-19 vaccines were not tested to evaluate their effects on overall mortality. That would have been difficult given the short follow-up in the studies as subjects participating in the control groups received the vaccine after 3-6 months based on the emergency use authorization situation.
Surprisingly, although all would assume that the COVID-19 vaccines would reduce overall mortality in the pandemic this assumption hasn’t been formally vetted in studies.
The authors utilized the final study reports available from the COVID-19 vaccine trials investigating the impact of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines on overall mortality, including the previously mentioned other categories such as cardiovascular-related deaths.
The Findings
The table below highlights these study findings:
Participants
Deaths
Relative Risk
mRNA
74,193
61 (mRNA 31; placebo; 30)
1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71)
Adenovirus
122,164
46 (vaccine: 16; controls:30)
0.37 (0.19-0.70)
Aaby and team report that the adenovirus-vector vaccines were associated with protection against COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.11 (0.02-0.87)) and non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.38 (0.17-0.88)).
Of note, mRNA-based vaccines differ markedly from adenovirus vaccines regarding impact on overall mortality (p=0.030) as well as non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (p=0.046). The placebo-controlled RCTs of COVID-19 vaccines were halted rapidly due to clear effects on COVID-19 infections. Importantly the data derived from this study suggest an important need for randomized controlled trials of mRNA and adeno-vectored vaccines head-to-head comparing long-term effects on overall mortality.
Brief Discussion
Of course, many experts may summarily dismiss such findings as not relevant. After all the COVID-19 studies were designed to determine if the vaccines were effective in protecting against death from SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Yet the authors point out that “non-specific effects, and their immunological basis, have been established for several other vaccines.” For example, the authors point to randomized controlled trials showing that BCG vaccine against tuberculosis (TB) lessens neonatal mortality, yet this was because the vaccine protects against deaths from sepsis and respiratory infections.
They point out that “immunological studies have shown that such effects are indeed biologically plausible; BCG positively affects the innate immune system leading to enhanced resistance towards a broad range of pathogens. Furthermore, the BCG vaccine has been associated with decreased systemic inflammation.”
Conclusion
The authors conclude that if their findings are in fact validated by randomized controlled studies then the adenovirus-based vaccines may prove beneficial to their “protective heterologous effects…on non-COVID-19 mortality” as well as their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Could these vaccines represent an advantage in vulnerable populations susceptible to cardiovascular mortality. Key is a better understanding of the heterologous effects between the different vaccine types.
Study Funding
Dr. Allen Schapira funded the work on non-specific effects of vaccines while some of the previous work was funded by the Danish Council for Development Research, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark; Novo Nordisk Foundation and European Union.
Lead Research/Investigator
Peter Aaby, DMSc, Bandim Health Project, INDEPTH Network; Bandim Health Institute – OPEN, Institute of Clinical Research
Christine Stabell Benn, University of Southern Denmark – Odense Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN); Bandim Health Project, INDEPTH Network
Sebastian Nielsen, University of Southern Denmark – Odense Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN)
Mihai G. Netea, Radboud University Nijmegen – Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI); Radboud University Nijmegen – Department of Internal Medicine
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 9, 2022 | Sundance
Neil Oliver takes a look at the economics of COVID and how government intervention and spending has crushed the working class. However, it is not the financial aspects that carry the worst debt in the aftermath, there is a human cost that can never be repaid or recreated. WATCH:
{TRANSCRIPT} – “There are debts that can be repaid and debts that can’t. During the time of Covid, vast piles of money were conjured into being by the government, borrowed as if by magic from the distant future. Unimaginable quantities of that funny money were wasted – spent on PPE that didn’t work or that wasn’t needed and is now yet more plastic heaped into landfills or otherwise littering the landscape and seascape. Millions went on the Nightingale hospitals that were never used. Around 37 billion pounds – ten percent of a total of 370 billion pounds set aside for Bounce Back Loans and the Eat Out to Help Out scheme – were lost to fraudsters. £37 billion pounds.”
“Lost to fraud and gone for good. Whatever the final figure for the theft, that money has simply been written off as irrecoverable. Taxpayers will foot the bill for it all eventually of course – along with paying back the rest of the trillions sprayed around with abandon by a government of headless chickens.
Furlough schemes paid billions more to employers so they could pay and thereby retain staff sent home to months of lockdowns during which the economy ground to a halt. All that debt has to be repaid too, by taxpayers. Hundreds of thousands of people, at least – many of them self-employed, did not qualify for any help at all while simultaneously being barred from going to work to try and earn livings for themselves and their families. To add insult to injury, those who received nothing, many who thereby lost everything – who had their noses pressed up against the outside of a window showing a financial feast to which they were not even invited – still have to put their hands in empty pockets to pay for help enjoyed by others but denied to them.
Those debts – including sums squandered, sums exploited by friends of those in power – will eventually have to be repaid, you might reasonably assume, one way or another, even if the sums concerned are so eye-wateringly huge those accounts will be glowing red for decades. It’s only money, you might say. You might say that if you’ve never gone without.
But then there are the other debts. Other debts that can’t be repaid and will never be repaid. Many and determined were the voices that warned and kept warning month after month that society was being undone by lockdown and the masking of faces.
The isolation and, perhaps worst of all, the incessant fear deliberately whipped up by government nudge units and pushed day after day until too many souls didn’t know which way was up, and still don’t. All of it was deliberately inflicted upon millions of people, some of them the most vulnerable – the poor, the elderly, children.
There were warnings of inevitable damage to mental health, to physical health – and so it has come to pass. The NHS has acknowledged what it has described as a “second pandemic” of depression, anxiety, psychosis and eating disorders.
So overwhelmed are specialists they are “bouncing back” many of those in need of help to the GPs who referred them – even those most at risk from suicide, self-harm and starvation. Doctors have warned people will simply die of conditions that must only be left untreated.
And then there are the children, and yet more debts that cannot be repaid. An Ofsted report says face masks and lockdowns have left a generation of our youngest children struggling to crawl, walk, talk, dress themselves, make friends – even to go to the toilet unaided.
Children that are two years old now spent their whole lives in a locked down, masked up world. Many of those of the poorest families spent weeks and months in homes with no outside spaces, stuck in rooms watching screens of one sort or another. The same report revealed children were mimicking the voices of cartoon characters after long hours spent watching and listening to nothing else.
The authors noted, in the simplest terms, that youngsters had missed out on: “stories, singing and having conversations.”
Babies born and raised in masked worlds are: “struggling to respond to facial expressions … particularly anxious and not used to seeing different faces.”
Stories, singing, playing, talking, seeing faces, after being fed and held in loving arms, these are among the most fundamental necessities of childhood. Tens of thousands of years ago our ancestors knew it mattered to tell their children stories, to sing them songs, so that all that had been learned by the ancestors would not be forgotten and the tribe would remain closely bound by the sharing of it all.
That some stories and songs have come down to us from a time beyond the reach of memory is testament to how much they were deemed to matter. Behaviour that was possible and essential around campfires in worlds separated from our own by ice ages, was thrown away by ours. What is lost or denied at the beginning of a life, is not necessarily obtained or regained later.
That an Ofsted report should find such basic life experience knowingly denied to millions of our youngest is appalling, unforgivable and shaming. This is nothing less than neglect – wholesale neglect by society of the most precious and vulnerable resource we have. All of it was avoidable and should have been avoided.
The decision to lock down and to enforce mask wearing was, I say, utterly wrong. And yet, this week, when questioned by this channel, prime minister Boris Johnson said he would not rule out applying lockdowns again in the future.
Obviously, to vow never to lock down again would be a tacit admission by him that they were the wrong move all along – and no modern, self-preserving PM would ever be so honest – but there we are … the lockdowns that did so much needless damage, caused so much unforgivable harm, remain on the table.
There will inevitably be those that say children are resilient – and so they are, thank goodness. But just because children are resilient doesn’t mean we should stress test them to destruction. And make no mistake – some of the ground lost already will never be recovered by many. Our debt to them will remain always unpaid.
Children now are growing up in a world very different to the one most of us remember. To take but one example: online, on social media, are images, videos and posts all pushing the same message – that changing your gender is the cure for all manner of problems.
Crowdfunders raise money to help children bypass the NHS and obtain puberty blocking drugs from private sources, and to pay for private operations to remove breasts, or to construct them, or to reshape genitals, or to remove internal anatomy including the womb. No one can honestly claim to know the long-term consequences of taking such steps.
This is another epidemic.
Between 2014 and 2015 there were around 700 referrals each year to the Gender Identity Service at London’s Tavistock clinic. That number rose to around 2,600 each year between 2019 and 2020.
That more and more children are unhappy, at the existential level, and reporting feeling uncomfortable with the sexual identity they were born with, is undeniable and poses all manner of questions in urgent need of answers. It is almost as though Gender Dysphoria had mutated to become as airborne as Covid ever was.
There is also, anyway, a growing preoccupation with the sexuality of children – all children. In Scotland and Wales, government surveys ask children as young as 13 about their “sex lives”, enquiring about what age they were when they first had sex, how long it has been since they last had sex.
Those are not even the most intrusive or intimate of the questions in those surveys. If I had been asked questions like those, by relative strangers, when I was 13, my explicit instructions from my parents were to run for home.
The incessant, relentless push to spend more and more time talking to children about sex and gender means I personally find it hard not to conclude that we are, as a society, being increasingly familiarised with the thought of sexually active children. Why would that be? To what end? For whose benefit? Certainly not necessarily the benefit of children who are, anyway, below the legal age of consent.
Life is short. Childhood is shorter still and, judging by what schools and other manifestations of officialdom want to talk to them about, have them think about, getting shorter every day.
Psychologists have known for years that children must be socialised by the age of four. If they have not become by then children able to take up their place in society – through mixing and playing with their peers and being supervised by responsible adults, whose faces they can see, whose mouths they can watch forming words, and all the rest of it – then at the most fundamental level they never will.
More and more it feels like the needs of children are being set aside and overlooked – sacrificed to ensure the wellbeing, comfort or objectives of their elders. Childhood itself is under attack, sullied by earlier and earlier confrontation with, and initiation into, the ways of adults.
During the time of Covid, the needs of children were put last. Education compromised or abandoned altogether. Play reduced to an afterthought, contact with family and friends forbidden. We could argue all day about the threat posed to children by the vaccines. Undeniable harm however has been done by two years of the mass psychosis of their elders.
More has been taken from children than might ever be measured. That debt will never be repaid.” (LINK)
COMMENT: Hi, I live in Finland/Helsinki. The Soviet Union attacked Finland in 1939, Stalin was one who arranged a false flag in Manila. A lot of Finnish soldiers and civilians died. But we survived. We Finnish people know Russians extremely well. It is a historical fact that Russians always arrange false flags and try to slave other nations and people. And that is happening just now in Ukraine. Putin attacked Ukraine and he is trying to slave Ukraine. Best Regards from Finland
JT
REPLY: It is important to not judge a country by its leaders. There are always left and right in every country and no country enjoys 100% approval of its people. Just look at the United States. There are ONLY three presidents who won with 60% or more, FDR 1st term, Johnson following Kennedy’s assassination, and Richard Nixon who promised to end Vietnam. All others won with just a few points over 50%. In the 2008 Election of Obama v McCain score his victory with just 52.9%. Even Lenin warned not to put Stalin in charge.
It is wrong to judge Russia by Stalin and today the powers that be just hate the Russian people and attribute everything to Putin. It is essential to also understand that there is a left and a right in Russia that still prevails today and Putin is a moderate that if ignored by the West, will drive Russia into the hands of the extreme right.
We MUST understand history for there has always been a question of where Russia begins and ends and who constitutes the Russian people. These questions have been debated by Russian thinkers themselves for centuries post-Russian Revolution which ended more than 300 years of tsarist rule. Believe it or not, Putin is NOT trying to resurrect the Soviet Union for that was not even the vision of Lenin – but Stalin.
At first, Lenin was revered as the architect of the new Russia. He was the elder statesman of the Bolshevik revolution. Stalin, on the other hand, was what we would call a Neocon. He was the ambitious party leader with visions of absolute authoritarian control. The two clashed not only over their political vision for Russia but also on a very personal level hurling insults steeped in grudges. It was this battle that actually proved to be too much for Lenin resulting in his premature death.
The conflict between these two Russian leaders reached a climax in the last days of December 1922. This is when 2,000 delegates from all over the former Russian empire gathered together in Moscow to create a new state which would become the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The vision of this new state was starkly different between the two men. There were republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and Transcaucasia, which were formally independent of Russia. When Georgy Chicherin, the Soviet Russian commissar for foreign relations, signed the treaty with Germany where each surrendered their claims against the other for war reparations in July 1918, there was a problem of unity. Ukraine and Belarus were independent before 1919 but were then overrun by the Bolsheviks in 1919. They had objected to forgiving Germany.
Ukraine and Belarus took the position that the Russian authorities had no right to speak on behalf of Ukrainian and Belarus. In Georgia, there too they objected insisting that their rights as the members of an independent republic were violated. This is was ultimately set in motion the birth of the final version of the Soviet Union.
It was in August of 1922 when Joseph Stalin created a special commission to recommend a new political model of relations between the communist Party’s Central Committee, Russia and the republics. Stalin’s proposal was called the “autonomization of the republics” whereby the formally independent republics would be incorporated into the Russian Soviet Federation with rights of autonomy. However, the Russian Federation would become the central authority subordinating the formally independent republics. This resulted in a rebellion with the Georgians led the revolt against Stalin’s model. They were joined by the Ukrainians and Belarusians.
This conflict between Lenin’s vision of a union more akin to the United States model and Lenin’s vision of absolute central power resulted in the heated conversation with Feliks Dzerzhinsky, who was the head of the secret police and a supporter of Stalin. Stalin and many of his supporters, such as Ordzhonikidze and Dzerzhinsky, were actually non-Russians. Stalin was Georgian and Dzerzhinsky was actiually Polish. Interestingly, Felix Dzerzhinsky was remembered in St Petersburg on a Commemorative plaque dedicated him.
But the stroke prevented him from taking any decisive steps against them. Two days later, a commission of party officials, led by Stalin, placed strict limitations on Lenin’s activities, effectively isolating him. They said the restrictions were designed to prevent the worsening of Lenin’s health. But they also served a political purpose.
Lenin could not attend the congress and he certainly did not trust Stalin. Consequently, the paralyzed Lenin dictated his famous thoughts on the nationality question in a document he sent to the party leadership. It was a letter titled “On the Question of Nationalities or ‘Autonomization.’” On December 31st, 1922, he attacked Stalin’s policies criticizing the rights provided to the republics by the Union treaty, deeming them inadequate to stop the rise of Great Russian nationalism. Lenin called this threat as “great-power chauvinism.” To Lenin saw these people as non-Russians who he did not trust and feared for the future of the Russian people.
In Lenin believed that Stalin, who was not Russia, posed a major threat to Russia. He viewed Stalin’s dream of the USSR as a threat to the unity of state which he was correct. Lenin’s idea of a union of independent states would be sustained by local autonomy taking into account their local customes. Lenin was prepared to replace the Union he had originally proposed with a looser association of states with the centralized powers to be confined to matters of defense and international relations exclusively. Lenin also maintained that the republics should retain the right of secession to prevent Stalin’s central dominance of authority.
I highly recommend watching the movie Mr. Jones. While this will NOT show the battle between Lenin and Stalin, it will show the ruthlessness of Stalin that Lenin feared. But Stalin was NOT a Russian, but he has tarnish the reputation of all Russians ever since. It is ironic that Stalin was a Georgian, which is in the Caucuses bordering Turkey where they hate Russians for the very oppression of Stalin.
So, as you can see, this is a very complex subject. Putin is not a follower of Stalin wheras other behind him are. So we should be very care what we wish for when it comes to Regime Change. Just maybe they know this as well and want Regime Change to ensure war. Very interesting indeed. We should NOT judge Putin by Stalin or all Russians for that matter. That is the propaganda of the Neocons who are still fighting against Stalin.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 