Global COVID Summit Declaration IV


A Joint Statement, representing 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists to End the National Emergency, Restore Scientific Integrity, and Address Crimes Against Humanity

Robert W Malone MD, MS22 hr ago1,516104

The time is now. As most readers of this substack are now well aware, this is not just about COVID. The constitution hangs in the balance. Please help us to get these messages spread far and wide. The 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists in our organization, who are not financially conflicted and remain committed to the Hippocratic Oath, are doing our part. Now we ask that you help us to help you. We need your help.

https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/declaration-iv-restore-scientific-integrity

Alternative link


Global COVID Summit, Declaration IV

A Joint Statement, representing 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists 

To Restore Scientific Integrity

17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists Declare that the State of Medical Emergency must be lifted, Scientific integrity restored, and crimes against humanity addressed.


17,000 physicians and medical scientists declare that the state of medical emergency must be lifted, scientific integrity restored, and crimes against humanity addressed.

We, the physicians and medical scientists of the world, united through our loyalty to the Hippocratic Oath, recognize that the disastrous COVID-19 public health policies imposed on doctors and our patients are the culmination of a corrupt medical alliance of pharmaceutical, insurance, and healthcare institutions, along with the financial trusts which control them. They have infiltrated our medical system at every level, and are protected and supported by a parallel alliance of big tech, media, academics and government agencies who profited from this orchestrated catastrophe.

This corrupt alliance has compromised the integrity of our most prestigious medical societies to which we belong, generating an illusion of scientific consensus by substituting truth with propaganda. This alliance continues to advance unscientific claims by censoring data, and intimidating and firing doctors and scientists for simply publishing actual clinical results or treating their patients with proven, life-saving medicine. These catastrophic decisions came at the expense of the innocent, who are forced to suffer health damage and death caused by intentionally withholding critical and time-sensitive treatments, or as a result of coerced genetic therapy injections, which are neither safe nor effective.

The medical community has denied patients the fundamental human right to provide true informed consent for the experimental COVID-19 injections. Our patients are also blocked from obtaining the information necessary to understand risks and benefits of vaccines, and their alternatives, due to widespread censorship and propaganda spread by governments, public health officials and media. Patients continue to be subjected to forced lock-downs which harm their health, careers and children’s education, and damage social and family bonds critical to civil society. This is not a coincidence. In the book entitled “COVID-19: The Great Reset”, leadership of this alliance has clearly stated their intention is to leverage COVID-19 as an “opportunity” to reset our entire global society, culture, political structures, and economy.

Our 17,000 Global COVID Summit physicians and medical scientists represent a much larger, enlightened global medical community who refuse to be compromised, and are united and willing to risk the wrath of the corrupt medical alliance to defend the health of their patients.

The mission of the Global COVID Summit is to end this orchestrated crisis, which has been illegitimately imposed on the world, and to formally declare that the actions of this corrupt alliance constitute nothing less than crimes against humanity.

We must restore the people’s trust in medicine, which begins with free and open dialogue between physicians and medical scientists. We must restore medical rights and patient autonomy. This includes the foundational principle of the sacred doctor-patient relationship. The social need for this is decades overdue, and therefore, we the physicians of the world are compelled to take action.

After two years of scientific research, millions of patients treated, hundreds of clinical trials performed and scientific data shared, we have demonstrated and documented our success in understanding and combating COVID-19. In considering the risks versus benefits of major policy decisions, our Global COVID Summit of 17,000 physicians and medical scientists from all over the world have reached consensus on the following foundational principles:

  1. We declare and the data confirm that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end.
  2. We declare doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment.
  3. We declare the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic, should be immediately terminated.
  4. We declare medical privacy should never again be violated, and all travel and social restrictions must cease.
  5. We declare masks are not and have never been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting.
  6. We declare funding and research must be established for vaccination damage, death and suffering.
  7. We declare no opportunity should be denied, including education, career, military service or medical treatment, over unwillingness to take an injection.
  8. We declare that first amendment violations and medical censorship by government, technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights be upheld.
  9. We declare that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, and their enablers, withheld and willfully omitted safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians, and should be immediately indicted for fraud.
  10. We declare government and medical agencies must be held accountable.

Market from Volume to Targeted Boosts


TrialSite Staff by Staff at TrialSite | Quality Journalism May. 10, 2022, 9:00 a.m.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.

Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), AstraZeneca, and others understand that unless there are continued government mandates effectively priming the pump of demand, those individuals with a preference for COVID-19 immunization have already gone ahead with the procedure.

What’s left is a market for boosters and what could become some sort of annual shot available for targeted populations. Of course, in some markets, young children are still a target for COVID-19 vaccines.  Regardless, companies now operate in a quite different environment now, than they did in the period of late 2020 through 2021: a period driven by massive government spending, heavy industry influence on the regulatory process, risk-sharing, and the like to a more traditional competitive marketplace.

The Last Market: Young Children

While the children’s markets in places like America are still relevant, awaiting approval, what’s becoming apparent will be the emphasis on booster shots. In the world’s most lucrative drug market, America, Pfizer, and Moderna will more than likely persist as market leaders vying for the parental demands of children as public health agencies such as the CDC continue to emphasize that the risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine favor by a long-shot vaccination. The point of view is that there are no risk-free choices and that it’s better to be safe than sorry with the very youngest members of society. 

To date, the CDC recommends the Pfizer vaccine for both the 5-11 age and 12 to 17 cohort while not recommending Moderna. Under 4 is the last market segment the vaccine makers vie for, and if the FDA authorizes, then Pfizer would own that market. A potential battle emerges over this cohort (aged 4-11) as a growing movement concerned for the safety associated with the vaccines, especially the mRNA-based products, gains momentum to question the mass vaccination on this young population. Critics argue that the original premise for mandates and the like was to control community transmission.  Given substantial waning vaccine effectiveness combined with mutating variants, critics suggest the risks of serious infection and death are too low, and the safety issues are higher than the government is letting on. 

Demand for Vaccines Wane

But demand for vaccines is flat in much of the world. In America, there is little uptick in vaccination as the “fully vaccinated” defined as receiving the two jabs of either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or one jab from Janssen equals 66.8% of the population while about 30.7% of the population opted for a booster dose.

Meanwhile, TrialSite, on several occasions, has chronicled a global glut of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, especially in places like India, the world’s second-highest populated country. In places like Australia, where the death rate associated with COVID-19 has absolutely skyrocketed despite high immunization rates, the public health agencies and politicians continue to promote booster doses as the answer. TrialSite reported recently that Australian politicians in an election season essentially pretend that times are back to normal despite record numbers of cases, near-record hospitalizations, and double the deaths in the first months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 combined.

Some Possible Explanations

Reuters’ Michael Erman and Manas Mishra write that vaccine producers such as Novavax and CureVac, the German mRNA-vaccine maker in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, seek to target this booster market. Novavax still awaits FDA authorization despite the fact that much of the developed world, from Europe to Canada and Japan to the WHO, have authorized the use of the Novavax vaccine.

Meanwhile, the outlook for Janssen and AstraZeneca (Oxford) is that bright, report the Reuters journalists. According to Hartaj Singh, an analyst from Oppenheimer & Co., “It becomes a very competitive game with companies battling it out with pricing and for market share, even for vaccines that are considered to be the best, like Pfizer and Moderna.”

Interestingly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla went on the record in an interview recently that those adults that have opted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine are not likely to start accepting shots now in a recognition that the mega push for vaccine administration has come and gone.

Moderna has pegged the unfolding market as the annual shot market, targeting the following:

  • Adults 50 and above
  • People with comorbidities or other risks
  • High-risk occupations (e.g., healthcare, etc.)

According to the estimates of Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, this emerging annual shot market totals 1.7 billion, representing 21% of the global population. The mRNA-based vaccines are more expensive and cumbersome to distribute and store, hence a sizeable chunk of that estimated target may opt for other vaccines such as the two recently touted by vaccine insiders at WHO including a plant-based vaccine from Canada and one from China. 

More than likely Western Europe and America will represent central markets for sales for Pfizer and Moderna who will move toward more competitive, targeted responsive strategies as large government pre-purchases are probably going to be far less. Moreover, TrialSite suggests what were cozy relationships between industry and government agencies will become less so as the various governments’ responses to the pandemic will be a hot topic, especially in democracies in current election cycles.

Key Question: A flu shot model or something else?

The Reuters writers posed an important question in the recent piece: will the likes of Pfizer and Moderna starting this fall market a tailored, redesigned vaccine targeted relevant variants of concern (e.g., Omicron, BA.2, etc.)?

Both Moderna and Pfizer executives are on the record that they are developing Omicron-targeted vaccines.

This becomes an important topic as even the mainstream media starts to become slightly critical of the pandemic response, including mRNA-based vaccine makers that never modified the vaccine product once. The vaccine authorized and approved in the United States was developed based on the original Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2 which didn’t seem to make it in circulation to America nor most of the world.

Revenues Decline (but still unprecedented)

2023 sales numbers, while still staggering as compared to historical precedent in the pharmaceutical industry, are nonetheless, on the decline. Reuters reports $17 billion projected for Pfizer-BioNTech (down nearly half from $34 billion) and $10 billion for Moderna as compared to $23 billion in 2022. Sales will continue to drop because enormous fortunes were generated in the winner-take-all pandemic market.

TrialSite suggests the COVID-19 pandemic response must be seriously evaluated due to levels of bias, political interference, and potentially corruption at an unprecedented level. Should the political conditions change in the United States for example, leading to serious inquiries, the pandemic winners may incur unexpected costs.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response. TrialSite Staff by Staff at TrialSite | Quality Journalism

May. 10, 2022, 9:00 a.m.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.

Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), AstraZeneca, and others understand that unless there are continued government mandates effectively priming the pump of demand, those individuals with a preference for COVID-19 immunization have already gone ahead with the procedure.

What’s left is a market for boosters and what could become some sort of annual shot available for targeted populations. Of course, in some markets, young children are still a target for COVID-19 vaccines.  Regardless, companies now operate in a quite different environment now, than they did in the period of late 2020 through 2021: a period driven by massive government spending, heavy industry influence on the regulatory process, risk-sharing, and the like to a more traditional competitive marketplace.

The Last Market: Young Children

While the children’s markets in places like America are still relevant, awaiting approval, what’s becoming apparent will be the emphasis on booster shots. In the world’s most lucrative drug market, America, Pfizer, and Moderna will more than likely persist as market leaders vying for the parental demands of children as public health agencies such as the CDC continue to emphasize that the risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine favor by a long-shot vaccination. The point of view is that there are no risk-free choices and that it’s better to be safe than sorry with the very youngest members of society. 

To date, the CDC recommends the Pfizer vaccine for both the 5-11 age and 12 to 17 cohort while not recommending Moderna. Under 4 is the last market segment the vaccine makers vie for, and if the FDA authorizes, then Pfizer would own that market. A potential battle emerges over this cohort (aged 4-11) as a growing movement concerned for the safety associated with the vaccines, especially the mRNA-based products, gains momentum to question the mass vaccination on this young population. Critics argue that the original premise for mandates and the like was to control community transmission.  Given substantial waning vaccine effectiveness combined with mutating variants, critics suggest the risks of serious infection and death are too low, and the safety issues are higher than the government is letting on. 

Demand for Vaccines Wane

But demand for vaccines is flat in much of the world. In America, there is little uptick in vaccination as the “fully vaccinated” defined as receiving the two jabs of either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or one jab from Janssen equals 66.8% of the population while about 30.7% of the population opted for a booster dose.

Meanwhile, TrialSite, on several occasions, has chronicled a global glut of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, especially in places like India, the world’s second-highest populated country. In places like Australia, where the death rate associated with COVID-19 has absolutely skyrocketed despite high immunization rates, the public health agencies and politicians continue to promote booster doses as the answer. TrialSite reported recently that Australian politicians in an election season essentially pretend that times are back to normal despite record numbers of cases, near-record hospitalizations, and double the deaths in the first months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 combined.

Some Possible Explanations

Reuters’ Michael Erman and Manas Mishra write that vaccine producers such as Novavax and CureVac, the German mRNA-vaccine maker in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, seek to target this booster market. Novavax still awaits FDA authorization despite the fact that much of the developed world, from Europe to Canada and Japan to the WHO, have authorized the use of the Novavax vaccine.

Meanwhile, the outlook for Janssen and AstraZeneca (Oxford) is that bright, report the Reuters journalists. According to Hartaj Singh, an analyst from Oppenheimer & Co., “It becomes a very competitive game with companies battling it out with pricing and for market share, even for vaccines that are considered to be the best, like Pfizer and Moderna.”

Interestingly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla went on the record in an interview recently that those adults that have opted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine are not likely to start accepting shots now in a recognition that the mega push for vaccine administration has come and gone.

Moderna has pegged the unfolding market as the annual shot market, targeting the following:

  • Adults 50 and above
  • People with comorbidities or other risks
  • High-risk occupations (e.g., healthcare, etc.)

According to the estimates of Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, this emerging annual shot market totals 1.7 billion, representing 21% of the global population. The mRNA-based vaccines are more expensive and cumbersome to distribute and store, hence a sizeable chunk of that estimated target may opt for other vaccines such as the two recently touted by vaccine insiders at WHO including a plant-based vaccine from Canada and one from China. 

More than likely Western Europe and America will represent central markets for sales for Pfizer and Moderna who will move toward more competitive, targeted responsive strategies as large government pre-purchases are probably going to be far less. Moreover, TrialSite suggests what were cozy relationships between industry and government agencies will become less so as the various governments’ responses to the pandemic will be a hot topic, especially in democracies in current election cycles.

Key Question: A flu shot model or something else?

The Reuters writers posed an important question in the recent piece: will the likes of Pfizer and Moderna starting this fall market a tailored, redesigned vaccine targeted relevant variants of concern (e.g., Omicron, BA.2, etc.)?

Both Moderna and Pfizer executives are on the record that they are developing Omicron-targeted vaccines.

This becomes an important topic as even the mainstream media starts to become slightly critical of the pandemic response, including mRNA-based vaccine makers that never modified the vaccine product once. The vaccine authorized and approved in the United States was developed based on the original Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2 which didn’t seem to make it in circulation to America nor most of the world.

Revenues Decline (but still unprecedented)

2023 sales numbers, while still staggering as compared to historical precedent in the pharmaceutical industry, are nonetheless, on the decline. Reuters reports $17 billion projected for Pfizer-BioNTech (down nearly half from $34 billion) and $10 billion for Moderna as compared to $23 billion in 2022. Sales will continue to drop because enormous fortunes were generated in the winner-take-all pandemic market.

TrialSite suggests the COVID-19 pandemic response must be seriously evaluated due to levels of bias, political interference, and potentially corruption at an unprecedented level. Should the political conditions change in the United States for example, leading to serious inquiries, the pandemic winners may incur unexpected costs.

After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.

In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.

Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Recall


Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted May 9, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The FDA has finally admitted what we knew all along – the vaccine is not safe. The FDA said it is limiting the availability of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine as it does indeed cause blood clots. The agency also noted that the vaccine presents a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.

The health agencies are still pushing the vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer. How are they any different? The US government has a long history of punishing Johnson & Johnson for their illegal activities, from asbestos-laced baby powder to cancerogenic sunscreen. Yet, all pharmaceutical manufacturers are exempt from penalty for the COVID-19 vaccine, citing a national emergency.

FDA’s vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said that the risk of death is still better than not getting the jab and said Johnson & Johnson’s version may be used as a last resort. Johnson & Johnson was hoping to rake in $3.5 billion this year from the vaccine alone. All of this comes down to money and control. The government and businesses forced mandates with complete disregard for public health. The talking heads gaslit the world for years into believing anyone who questioned the vaccine was a conspiracy theory lunatic, unfit for society.

They have known the truth all along. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine came into question in April 2021. Here is Fauci maintaining that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was “safe and effective” despite knowing it could be deadly:

Mandatory Mask Theater Returns, CDC Announces Long Term Extension for Biden Transporation Mask Mandate, No Expiration Date, Planes, Trains and Busses


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 3, 2022 | Sundance 

Previously a federal judge overturned the federal mask mandate for transportation, thereby allowing travelers to make their own choices.  The DOJ has appealed that decision after the CDC said it wanted the mask mandate to remain in place.  The status of that litigation is unknown.

Today, the CDC has announced a semi-permanent extension of the federal transportation mask mandate with no expiration date noted. [Announcement Here] That means all travelers on airplanes, trains, busses and ridesharing will be required to wear facemasks again, including inside the terminals and operational hubs of those transportation nodes, pending the outcome of the DOJ appeal to the federal court.

CDC Announcement – “At this time, CDC recommends that everyone aged 2 and older – including passengers and workers – properly wear a well-fitting mask or respirator over the nose and mouth in indoor areas of public transportation (such as airplanes, trains, etc.) and transportation hubs (such as airports, stations, etc.).

[…] This public health recommendation is based on the currently available data, including an understanding of domestic and global epidemiology, circulating variants and their impact on disease severity and vaccine effectiveness, current trends in COVID-19 Community Levels within the United States, and projections of COVID-19 trends in the coming months.

[…]  “CDC continues to recommend that all people—passengers and workers, alike—properly wear a well-fitting mask or respirator in indoor public transportation conveyances and transportation hubs to provide protection for themselves and other travelers in these high volume, mixed population settings. […] Additionally, it is important for all of us to protect not only ourselves, but also to be considerate of others at increased risk for severe COVID-19 and those who are not yet able to be vaccinated. Wearing a mask in indoor public transportation settings will provide protection for the individual and the community.”  ~ Rochelle Walensky, CDC Director

If the Biden administration lose the court appeal to reinstitute the mask mandate, this announcement by the CDC would appear to be moot, they couldn’t enforce it.  However, if the Biden administration is successful in their appeal, the mandatory mask wearing returns.

Put another way….. If the Biden administration lose the appeal, the people wearing masks will be the COVID worshippers.  If the Biden administration win their appeal we all have to wear them.

The mandate created by Joe Biden did not have legal structure.  It was a dictatorial fiat that exceeded the capacity of the executive branch to create.  U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle found the CDC exceeded its statutory authority with the mask mandate and violated the rules that guide CDC regulations.   {LINK} After Joe Biden arbitrarily announced the federal transportation mandate, the CDC triggered enforcement of the mask mandate without any required time for public feedback on a new regulation.

Congress could easily write a law authorizing mechanisms for the CDC and TSA to use in enforcement of a federal Transportation mask mandate; but they won’t – because the public doesn’t support it.  However, the Biden administration doesn’t care about majority public opinion, they are fine-tuned to push virtue signaling as a political strategy.

The White House is very committed to all their mandates around COVID-19, the mask mandate is no different.  From the perspective of the professional political left, the theater of forced mask wearing represents the visible power and authority of government to rule the lives of the irrelevant proles.

Any pesky legal rulings, that seek to reduce or remove the power of government, are viewed by the left as arbitrary and insignificant efforts to block their almighty power of government.  They can choose to wear a mask if they want, but that’s not really the issue behind the mask mandate.  The true power of the left is in the ability to force everyone to comply to their whims regardless of individual freedom.

The Covidians who define themselves by their adherence to the dictates of the U.S. government, will be happy with this position from the CDC today. They worship at the altar of COVID science and use masks as an expression of their sanctimonious feeling of superiority.  However, in an election year where the overwhelming majority of the American people have had enough of this political science, this CDC position may fuel an even more angry response.

Antidepressant Prescription Sales Spike


Armstrong Economics Blog/medicine Re-Posted Apr 27, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

A SingleCare Team study revealed the majority of the US population takes some form of a prescription pill. The insurance agency found that the number of people reliant on prescriptions significantly rose after the pandemic. In fact, medications for mental health issues are on the rise. The company reported a 70% increase in prescriptions for the antidepressant Lexapro, a 31% increase in Zoloft, a 21% increase in Trazadone, a 20% increase in Prozac, and a 16% increase in Adderall. The agency noted that the American Psychological Association reported an uptick in individuals self-medicating illegally with opioids as well.

Currently, around 66% of adults in the US are reliant on Big Pharma. Canada is in a similar situation, albeit with lower prescription costs, with 65% of their adult population on prescription medicine. In contrast, only 26% of adults in the UK and 35% of adults in Australia are reliant on medications.

Why are people in the US and Canada more likely to take prescription medication? One could argue the US population is not as healthy as other nations due to obesity and limited walkable cities, but that does not account for the large disparity. One big reason is marketing – but that does not apply in Canada. Only in the US do you see commercials and billboards promising a pill to cure the woes of life. It is not common practice in other countries for people to ask their doctor for a specific medicine.

This all comes down to business and corporate profits. The average American takes FOUR different pills each day. So over 131 million Americans are reliant on at least one medication. Citizens in the US spend more than any nation on prescription drugs, with the average consumer spending $1,229. Canadians spend around $879.

In addition to the billions Big Pharma made on COVID-related drugs and vaccines, they have also profited from COVID restrictions deteriorating the public’s mental health. In mid-June 2020, when many restrictions began to ease, SingleCare reported a 50% increase in antidepressant medication. The same increase was reported during the third week of March when lockdowns began. “Between the concern over job loss, isolation, and general anxiety, this growing trend in antidepressants over the past few months may well be due to the pandemic’s impact on mental health,” Ramzi Yacoub, Pharm.D., the chief pharmacy officer at SingleCare stated. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies believe the need for prescription drugs will only continue. Thanks to COVID, antidepressants are now the most prescribed medication in the US and the second-most prescribed medication in Canada.

U.S. Media Reacting to Elon Musk Purchasing Twitter


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 26, 2022 

Many of the media responses to Elon Musk purchasing the Twitter social media platform are epic.  However, a couple from yesterday stand out insofar as they are incredibly revealing about the current state of the leftists in media.

Every intellectually honest American admits the Big Tech social media platforms were supporting Joe Biden in the 2020 election.  Uncontested empirical examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Facebook and Instagram owner Mark Zuckerberg spent $500 million to support ballot harvesting efforts; (2) Twitter and Facebook banned and blocked any discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop story; and (3) Google executives openly admitted using their search engine ranking system to promote the Biden campaign over Trump.  Those are just three uncontested references -amid a sea of many more- that showcase a small part of their 2020 bias.

With that in mind, consider this from MSNBC. {Direct Rumble Link}  WATCH:

.

CNN’s media pundit Brian Stelter also had a rather humorous take showcasing the bubble of isolation that must encompass his own life.

In this soundbite {Direct Rumble Link}, Brian Stelter admits he has never been invited to a party where ordinary people gather to enjoy each other in the spirit of fellowship without any rules, regulations and boundaries.  WATCH:

.

Musk v Gates


Armstrong Economics Blog/Humor Re-Posted Apr 26, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Elon Musk destroyed Bill Gates over the weekend after texts between the two were leaked to the press. This may be the first time someone has put Bill Gates in his place and publicly shamed him for his hypocrisy. Per usual, Gates had his hand out looking to “discuss philanthropy possibilities” with a fellow billionaire. “Cool.” Musk replied. “Do you still have a half billion dollar short position against Tesla?”

Gates said he simply forgot to close his position out, and then mentioned “philanthropy possibilities” again. Musk told him to kick rocks. “Sorry, but I cannot take your philanthropy on climate change seriously when you have a massive, short position against Tesla, the company doing the most to solve climate change.”

Doubling down on his anger toward Gates for a multitude of reasons, Musk began tweeting comedic representations of untouchable Bill. An unapologetic Musk compared an image of the Microsoft founder with the new Apple emoji of a pregnant man. The insult was a subtle nod to the insanity of woke culture that Gates is supporting through funding. From the vaccines to unexplainable meetings with Jeffrey Epstein followed by an immediate divorce, Bill Gates is rapidly losing his good-guy image.

Rhode Island Lawmakers Propose Doubling Taxes for Parents of Unvaccinated Children


Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized Re-Posted Apr 25, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

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 owe TWICE 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.

Fauci on Federal Mask Mandate – Laws and Courts Have No Right to Impede on CDC Science and Regulations


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}

Global Digital Identity of Persons and Objects


Armstrong Economics Blog/AI Computers Re-Posted Apr 21, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Economic Forum (WEF) recently published a report that encourages the use of a global digital identity program for persons and objects. The report centers on global trade but is the first step toward introducing global AI tracking. Under the guise of COVID, the two organizations claim that trade can be streamlined with their TradeTech technology.

Their recent report, “The Promise of TradeTech: Policy Approaches to Harness Trade Digitalization,” states their next goal:

“End-to-end trade digitalization requires a global approach to digital identities of natural and legal persons as well as of physical and digital objects sending or receiving electronic information to avoid creating digital identity silos.”

The only reason to trace persons as if they were objects is control. They first attempted to control the masses using the pretense of a pandemic to implement digital vaccine passports, but now they need stronger backing. Schwab’s Great Reset infiltrated governments globally, and they are indeed making decisions to smolder the world economy — Bring Back Better.

Now that the global economy is on the decline, these organizations promise to improve the living standard with the caveat of accepting their version of Utopia and agreeing to be tracked as an object