Release of the documentary film, VAXXED II: The People’s Truth. 


Margaret Mead once wrote, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

This week a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens, led by Polly Tommey, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Del Bigtree, Brian Burrowes, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Dr. Brian Hooker are trying to change the world with the release of their documentary film, VAXXED II: The People’s Truth.  The film, which simply features parents talking about the reactions of their children to vaccines, including autism, paralysis, and death, has so threatened Big Pharma that the theaters showing the film must remain secret until the day before a showing.

This is not just a fight against Big Pharma.  It also involves a fight against Big Tech, as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and his wife, Priscilla Chan, are attempting with all of their billions of dollars to censor vaccine safety information across all their platforms, just as they are doing with political content supportive of President Trump.  Big China is also part of this axis of evil as a major portion of the vaccines and pharmaceuticals are being produced in China.  Big Pharma, Big Tech, and Big China are part of an unholy alliance which is harming people all over the world, including Chinese citizens.

Big Pharma brings you your evening news, with estimates of anywhere from 40-60% of advertising revenues coming from Big Pharma.  Just watch an hour of your favorite news broadcast and count the number of Big Pharma commercials.  This includes the new outlets of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, as well as Fox News.  Nobody escapes my condemnation.  Not Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and certainly not Jason Chaffetz, who was EXTENSIVELY briefed on CDC whistle-blower, Dr. William Thompson, the subject of the first documentary, VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe.

President Trump also comes in for substantial criticism, as his statements prior to becoming our Commander-in-Chief, were supportive of getting to the bottom of these questions, and claimed he wanted Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to head a Vaccine Safety Commission, a promise which three years later remains unfulfilled.  Parents want answers, and they want unbiased scientists, not industry shills to do the research.  It truly is a “FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE,” and this small group of thoughtful, committed citizens deserve to have their film shown in the White House theater.  Anything less will probably result in a massive loss of support for a second term for our President.

A  guest post by an autism parent

Elijah Cummings, Corrupt Democrat Who Weaponized IRS to Target Catherine Engelbrecht, is DEAD…


Elijah Cummings is dead.  He was 68.

Cummings Corrupt Legacy Here

News reports indicate his death was due to a toxic infection, possibly a severe strain of Treponema pallidum that was dormant and reanimated following surgery.

Defeating Tomophobia: The Future of America Depends on It


Published on Jun 10, 2019

There are many ways Progressives might defeat Conservatism and destroy this country. But there’s one which you can personally prevent. Yes, you! Bill Whittle explains how defeating tomophobia among Conservatives is crucial to the pursuit of happiness. In fact, the future of America depends on it. Firewall is a production of the Members at https://BillWhittle.com We invite you to consider joining the ranks of these happy warriors. https://BillWhittle.com/register/

 

The Marijuana Tax – How Did it Become Illegal & Why?


 

Marijuana has been prejudiced over the years by people who have never understood the risks and because there was concern that marijuana might compete with the paper industry. There was a campaign waged against marijuana that was born out of an anti-immigration movement against Mexicans. The Mexican Revolution began in 1910 and ran into about 1920. Consequently, many Mexicans immigrated to the U.S. to escape the conflict. This Mexican population had its own uses for cannabis, and they referred to it as “marihuana.” Not only did they use it for medicinal purposes, but they smoked it recreationally -– a new concept for white Americans. U.S. politicians quickly jumped on the opportunity to label cannabis “marihuana” in order to give it a bad rep by making it sound more authentically Mexican at a time of extreme prejudice. Many Americans became worried that there was some danger this drug would bring, thanks to newspapers calling Mexican cannabis use a “marijuana menace.” 

During the 1920s, many anti-marijuana campaigns were conducted to raise awareness about the many harmful effects the drug caused. These campaigns included radical claims stating that marijuana turned users into killers and drug addicts. They were all obviously fake, and made up in an attempt to get rid of Mexican immigrants. We begin to see newspaper articles appearing during the 1920s that were demonizing marijuana. In February 1925, as states were beginning to ban marijuana, the Times reported that a 27-year-old Mexican named Escrado Valle, “crazed from smoking marihuana…ran amuck today in a local hospital and killed six persons before he could be subdued.” Later that year it announced that the Mexican government had banned marijuana “To Stamp Out Drug Plant Which Crazes Its Addicts.” In 1927, the Times picked up on the theme of marijuana-crazed Mexicans again, reporting that “a widow and her four children have been driven insane by eating the Marihuana plant.” The paper cited “doctors” who “say that there is no hope of saving the children’s lives and that the mother will be insane for the rest of her life.” Yet according to the story, the family accidentally ate fresh cannabis plants, which are not psychoactive.

“A widow and her four children have been driven insane by eating the Marihuana plant, according to doctors, who say that there is no hope of saving the children’s lives and that the mother will be insane for the rest of her life,” read a New York Times story from 1927.

There has been much speculation that the reason for the campaign against cannabis began as an effort to demonize the hemp industry because it was feared to be a low-cost substitute for paper pulp. The paper industry, and more specifically the newspaper industry, led the charge against cannabis with Anslinger. William Randolph Hearst was a major player in demonizing marijuana. The lawyers involved in crafting the marijuana tax commended Hearst for his relentless published articles and “for pioneering the national fight against dope.” Hearst was a major newspaper publisher but also had significant investments in the paper industry. It was Hearst who pushed hard for the regulation and tax on Marijuana beginning in 1932.

Andrew Mellon and the DuPont family also had major investments in the timber and newspaper industries and a rise of hemp would have seemingly undercut their profits. Curiously, years later, manufacturing paper with hemp as the raw material proved that hemp lacks the qualities needed to become a major competitor of the traditional paper industry, as it does not contain a high enough concentration of cellulose to be an effective substitute.

NEC Chairman Larry Kudlow Suffers Heart Attack….


According to a tweet from President Trump National Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow has suffered a heart attack and is being treated at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Thoughts and prayers for Mr. Kudlow and his family.   UPDATE Statement Regarding Larry Kudlow:

Earlier today National Economic Council Director and Assistant to the President Larry Kudlow, experienced what his doctors say, was a very mild heart attack. Larry is currently in good condition at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and his doctors expect he will make a full and speedy recovery. The President and his Administration send their thoughts and prayers to Larry and his family, Sarah Sanders, Press Secretary.  (link)

How Science Changes


COMMENT:

Hi Marty,

As a former research scientist I read your blog post “The Plight of Junk Science in All Fields” with great interest. You wrote: “You just didn’t really hear the “oops we were wrong” but instead you heard of another great danger – saturated fat! It became evident that cholesterol in food by itself was not the culprit after all — the real great evil was saturated fat. This is what had a much bigger effect on blood cholesterol when it was discovered that full-fat dairy products and fatty meats are loaded with saturated fat and that triggers the body to produce cholesterol.”

I hope you realize that demonizing saturated fat is also junk science. Without cholesterol you die immediately. Your body produces cholesterol to keep you alive. Many of your hormones are made from cholesterol. Your nerve axons are wrapped in cholesterol to protect them from outside damage.

Read “The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy That Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease,” by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD and “Ignore the Awkward!: How the Cholesterol Myths are Kept Alive,” by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD.

Here’s a quote from the latter book (p. 56): “Detailed records of the ability of people to learn, to reason, to concentrate and to organize their thoughts have also shown that, on average, the smartest people have the highest cholesterol.” May your cholesterol level always be high.

GC, PhD

REPLY: Yes. The latest now is that Statins can reduce cholesterol which reduces brain function. This is the whole problem. We try so hard to reduce everything to a single cause and effect. The field of medicine was in trouble from the outset because of a false assumption that ALL disease is introduced to the body externally like catching the flu.

We have only begun to realize that it boils down to genetics. They don’t want to tell you that. But when you go to the doctor he asks about your family history. We are only beginning to understand that smoking DOES NOT cause cancer if you do not have the cancer gene. Those with the gene, who do not smoke, have died from lung cancer.

Research requires an broader mind and the understanding that we cannot reduce this down to if you do this, then that else otherwise.

As I said, I believe the best example of what I am writing above is trying to explain LOVE. You cannot use this one-dimensional analysis to explain LOVE. Can you really reduce the feeling of “LOVE” to a single thing and definitively say I love this person because of just this one thing? How about the LOVE one has for family or children. Can you say you love your mother or children reducing it to a single thing?

If you smoke, have the lung cancer gene, then this combination will increase your chances of getting lung cancer sooner rather than later. But without smoking, you cannot guarantee you will still not end up with lung cancer. I had an uncle who smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day, cigars, and a bible, yet dies at 97 of old age. There are way too many stories like that to establish it really isn’t genetics.