Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 24, 2022 | Sundance
Given the scale of the stakes for western government; and given the professed intentions of govt-aligned big tech to control the story; it is almost impossible to have an honest and open dialogue on the internet about what is happening in Ukraine. That said, for those who have been using independent resources to form their own opinion of the events in/around Ukraine, this interview highlights some important aspects.
First, notice how Prime Minister Shmyhal is not the least bit bashful about saying cash is important because American taxpayers, the working American people, have a duty to fund the pensions and retirement accounts of the Ukrainian people, including govt politicians. [03:37] Indeed, much of the financial assistance Joe Biden has been sending to Ukraine (beyond the weapons to support the proxy war) is going toward paying the wages and salaries of corrupt Ukranian leadership.
Let that first point settle in deeply, as we consider how working Americans are being financially destroyed by U.S. monetary/fiscal policy, yet the same U.S. officials wiping out your bank account are funding the bank accounts of people in Ukraine. Interview WATCH:
Second point. Notice [06:02] how Prime Minister Shmyhal hedges, pauses and thinks about the response to the question of ‘what is victory’, a stalemate or Russian exit? In the U.S. proxy war against Russia, Shmyhal is not the person who can answer that question, only the White House can.
This CBS interview is pure propaganda intended to keep the U.S. audience believing a false premise about the Russian war in Ukraine. The pearl clutching faux empathy from Margaret Brennan is enough to make an intellectually honest person very angry. This narrative engineering effort from the American corporate media is sickening, genuinely sickening.
The level of narrative control in combination with the extreme media promotion of government propaganda is totalitarian in scale. U.S. govt sponsored censorship and the collaboration with on-line Big Brother tech controls have reduced the internet discussion to a series of coded messages, and carefully scripted word assemblies in order to avoid the looming eye of Sauron.
It was only a few decades ago when the former Soviet Union was famous for their propaganda against their own citizens. Now, with the multinational corporations dictating policy to western government via the World Economic Forum, that entire dynamic has flipped.
In 2022 we have even worse media propaganda against the U.S. citizens than Pravda ever attempted over the former Soviet states. At least in the former Soviet Union the propaganda effort was laughed at by the citizens on the streets. If you point out the media dynamic today in America, you become a target for the totalitarian political state and their FBI state police units. It’s remarkable how the dynamic has flipped.
We, the free-thinking American people, are now intellectual dissidents in our own country.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 24, 2022 | Sundance
Dinesh D’Souza has released an expanded trailer for the upcoming release: “Here’s the official trailer for “2000 Mules.” It’s the movie we’ve all been waiting for. Please share! And go to 2000Mules.com to buy your ticket to see the movie in its premiere week.”
The movie documentary showing how the 2020 election was manipulated through the use of mail in ballots will be released in select theaters May 2nd and May 4th, virtual premier May 7th and released on-line May 8th. WATCH:
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 24, 2022 | Sundance
The biggest election with global significance is taking place today in France as Marine Le Pen (economic nationalist) challenges current President Emmanuel Macron (economic globalist). The world is watching this one, because if Le Pen can win it would be seismic in political consequence.
Current voter turnout is recorded as moderate (63% range) with rural areas running higher turnout than urban areas. Forecasters were predicting around 71% voter turnout. GBNews is on the ground with a report:
Marine Le Pen is a long shot. If she wins it would be massive.
We will not know the early results for a few more hours, around 4pm ET. Some other data below…..
France, presidential run-off election today:
Today’s turnout, as of 5 PM, is higher in rural departments than in urban departments.
It looks like Marine Le Pen has swept in the French West Indies… if this is the final vote, it’s a stunning upset in an area that Macron win big last time pic.twitter.com/ZfpiSyspfE
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 24, 2022 | Sundance
This interview is gag-worthy as two condescending leftists wax philosophically about how progressive U.S. foreign policy should dictate global society. However, it does show just how flawed the ideology of the interventionist political leftists has become, and why their expansionist ideology always culminates in conflict.
Example: Right now, China is threatening to put military bases in the Solomon Islands. Australia and the collective west are aghast and ready to draw “red lines.” At the same time the U.S/NATO put military forces ever closer to Russia and are shocked that Putin would eventually respond to the red lines he previously drew. The geopolitical hypocrisy is ridiculous.
That hypocritical example above highlights the ironic point made in an interview between Margaret Hoover and former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch as they discuss President Trump.
If Trump had won reelection, there was no reason for Putin to invade Ukraine because Donald Trump was not trying to expand pressure on Russia or any other foreign government. Yovanovitch admits directly that Trump foreign policy did not create conflict; yet, Yovanovitch pretends not to see the cause and effect in her leftist intervention advocacy. WATCH (prompted to 14:42):
Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” shares some of the best motivational moments and prescient warnings from Jordan Peterson’s previous appearances on this special “best of” episode. In addition to accurate warnings about Bill C-16 and vaccination regret, Jordan discusses his Cathy Newman interview with Ben Shapiro, what everyone’s first agenda should always be, how to not fall prey to envy, the psychological profiles of liberals versus conservatives, and much more!
Is the state of US news driving you crazy? Does the coverage of political news rarely seem “fair and balanced”? Serious discussions on US politics is vital to having a healthy democracy. No matter what political party you belong to, we need to be able to hear a variety of political perspectives. Whether you majored in political science or just want to have a deeper understanding of the issues you’ll want to check out this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEbhOtC9klbCr0iN2ANJbaV477B0eSpc6
Looking for smart and honest conversations about current events, political news and the culture war? Want to increase your critical thinking by listening to different perspectives on a variety of topics? If so, then you’re in the right place because on The Rubin Report Dave Rubin engages the ideas of some of society’s most interesting thought leaders, authors, politicians and comedians. The Rubin Report is the largest talk show about free speech and big ideas on YouTube. Dave allows his guests to speak their minds and his audience to think for themselves. New videos every week.
A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”
Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach
Knowledge and data ownership hamper progress in science due to the fact that the pharma industry tends to suppress negative trial outcomes, not report adverse events, and not share their raw data with the research community. To quote The BMJ, “Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.” And duty to shareholders’ “hierarchical power structures” prioritizes both product loyalty and public relations over integrity. Further, while our fancier universities face influence from their endowments, “they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society.” And facing reduced government funding, these schools have taken the, “neo-liberal market approach,” seeking out pharma funding, with strings attached.
Doctors as “Product Champions”
And thus, science departments at a broad swath of our universities can be seen as “instruments of industry.” When you combine firm-level control of the research agenda and the “ghosting writing of medical journal articles and continuing medical education,” scholars can transform into promotors of commercial products. Further, media reports of “industry-academe partnerships[s]” add to a general mistrust of our academic institutions that betrays the very vision of an open society. And what The BMJ calls the “corporate university” itself undermines the idea of academic leadership. Where once deans were folks with “distinguished contributions to their disciplines,” now they are more of fundraisers/academic managers who must show their “profitability” and ability to attract corporate sponsorship. And medical academia’s stars, who tend to be opinion leaders, advance their careers via industry opportunities. These folks are hired based largely on their influence on the “prescribing habits” of other doctors. The opinion leaders are also often well-paid by pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus in the context of presenting results of pharma industry trials. And instead of being “independent, disinterested scientists,” they can become “product champions,” in the parlance of marketing executives.
Reforms Called For
Proposals for reform can include, “liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymized individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results.” For readers seeking more information, the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.1.4 sets out that organization’s policies on conflicts of interest in industry-funded research.
A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”
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.
Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about Joe Biden’s approval ratings collapse, Bill Maher telling Joe Rogan what might make him vote Republican, Airlines CEOs pushing back against the airline mask mandate, and Jen Psaki’s mean comment about Peter Doocy. First, Dave discusses how inflation is fueling Biden’s low approval rating as it collapses to new lows. NBC News’ Chuck Todd reveals a very bad sign for the Democratic party as Biden’s ratings have fallen the most among Gen Z. Meanwhile, Biden advisors like Dr. Ashish Jha remains focused on ensuring that the pandemic will never end. Next, Bill Maher told Joe Rogan that what might tip him over to voting Republican is the amount of political corruption and political graft. He points to the corruption of COVID spending and wonders why Build Back Better would be any different. Is Bill finally turning Republican? Next, airline CEOs like Delta’s Ed Bastian are pushing back against Biden’s flight mask mandates. Following the ruling of a U.S. district court judge on Monday, the Biden administration announced that the Transportation Security Administration will no longer enforce the federal mandate requiring masks in all U.S. airports and on board aircraft. Delta was quick to tell its employees and customers that masks are now optional for everyone on Delta flights. Finally, press secretary Jen Psaki was asked for real thoughts on Fox News’ Peter Doocy to which she gave a surprisingly mean response.
The lockdown in Shanghai has caused immeasurable damage to the people and battered an already stunted global supply chain. The wealthy are now fleeing the city, as numerous agencies have reported a large uptick in immigration requests. The Financial Times reported a 7-fold increase in the search term “immigration” among residents.
The media has downplayed this story as they do not want the people to remember governments’ capabilities. As with the fall of many great cities, the wealthy are the first to leave. Shanghai may be one of the richest cities in China, but it is not immune to government tyranny.
Only 25 deaths in Shanghai were attributed to the coronavirus, but over 25 million people directly suffered from this lockdown. The lockdown was not about safety. Warehouses are beginning to open, but the world’s largest port ceased operations. Again, no world leaders commented heavily on these major issues.
Pets of the “infected” were eliminated by the government. There were reports of people jumping from high rises and others begging the police to take them to jail with the hope of having a meal. No world leaders have commented on these human rights abuses as they were done in the name of COVID.
Chief Architect Preston Dunlap resigned from his role at the Pentagon, citing the threat of technological warfare. “The System is generally set up to pull everyone and every idea down to the status quo,” he said. “Driving changes requires defying gravity,” Dunlap stated in his recent eight-page letter. His plan of action “to fight the beast of bureaucracy” are as follows: “1) shock the system, 2) Flip the Acquisition Script, 3) Just Delivery Already, and 4) Slay the Valley of Death and Scale.”
This now former top Pentagon employee believes that the US has already lost the technological war with China, and that the nation has been too preoccupied with competing against each other rather than overseas “adversaries.” Dunlap’s ominous letter focuses on more than just his Pentagon colleagues. China’s private tech sector has surpassed that of the United States’ military. “These are accessible to anyone with resources and academics and capabilities, and so our adversaries or potential adversaries are able to have access to that technology, not only inside their own economies, but because of the benefit of our free and open society, which is a great thing,” he stated.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has long been criticized for failing to advance technologically. In the DoD’s report Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China” from 2021, they admitted that China is aiming to become the leading “intelligentized” [sic] military in the world:
“The PRC has continued its aggressive, top-level push to master advanced technologies and become a global innovation superpower. The PRC seeks to dominate technologies associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution; this push directly supports the PLA’s ambitious modernization efforts and its goal of becoming a “world-class” military capable of “intelligentized” warfare.”
In terms of “technologies associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” this goes along with what has been indicated long ago – the next world war will not be fought with guns. China has a goal of achieving “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” by 2049, but our models indicate that may happen a few years earlier.
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 