Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Rebukes White House Position on Mandated Vaccines

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 16, 2021 | Sundance | 58 Comments

Yesterday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis rebuked the White House position that he was making the vaccination mandate issue “divisive”.   During a press conference, the Florida governor noted it is the federal mandate that creates the anxiety not the freedom of a worker to choose whether or not to get a vaccine.  WATCH:



First Published on BITCHUTE at 07:27 UTC on October 16th, 2021.

Be watchful this is coming to the US as well, or maybe its already is there?

Facebook Hearings Parody

Armstrong Economics Blog/Humor Re-Posted Oct 16, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

The usually left-leaning Saturday Night Live mocked the recent Facebook whistleblower testimony. Although it is still left-leaning, the writers must have realized that most US lawmakers are completely out of touch with reality and the very issues they make decisions on. They display false outrage but fail to act. “What Facebook has done is disgraceful, and you better believe Congress will be taking action right after we pass the infrastructure bill, raise the debt ceiling, prosecute those responsible for the January 6 insurrection, and stop Trump from using executive privilege, even though he’s no longer president. But after all that, you watch out, Facebook,” Senator Dianne Feinstein’s character commented.

It would be funny if it were not true, and I contemplate whether to categorize this as humor. In the skit, Senator John Neely Kennedy’s character was perplexed by the Facebook algorithm, and well, algorithms in general. “You’ve told us a lot of disturbing information about this so-called ‘algorithm.’ I just want to clear up a few points… Where is it? Do you have it with you now?” he questioned. I have faced similar interrogations over Socrates’ algorithm. The government wants what they cannot have and do not understand. These are the people we are expected to trust to dictate our future.

Victoria, Australia, Police Speak Out

Armstrong Economics Blog/Police State Re-Posted Oct 16, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Did Klaus Schwab and World Economic Forum Admit The COVID Vaccine Injects Traceable Markers? Their Promoted “COVIDPass” Blood Test Requires Them

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 16, 2021 | Sundance | 158 Comments

An article and video promoted by the World Economic Forum, intended to propose and outline a globally accepted “COVIDPass”, actually reveals stunning background admissions. [Article Here – VIDEO Below]

The basic premise of the proposal is for a global COVIDPass that will be universally accepted permitting vaccinated people to travel around the world and enter all venues and facilities that require proof of vaccine.   However, there is something in the proposal that tells a story all by itself.  First, WATCH the Video:

.Don’t get caught up in the esoteric weeds about the COVID passport angle of this; and don’t let yourself focus on the vaxxed vs non-vaxxed aspect.  Additionally, for now do not focus on the privacy aspects or the issues with tracing or tracking.  Instead, focus like a laser on something far more critical in the background of the proposal itself.

The entire premise of the World Economic Forum’s “COVIDPass” is predicated on a blood test being able to identify whether a person has been vaccinated or not.

Think about that carefully.

Think about that deeply.

Right now, all vaccination ID’s, all COVID passports, are dependent on a registration process that takes place at the time of vaccination within each nation’s unique healthcare system:

(1) You get vaccinated, you get registered in a system that shows you have been vaccinated; and that’s how you eventually get to a place where you establish a linked “QR” code to the vaccination registration -most commonly on your cell phone- that grants you permitted access at checkpoints or gateways.


(2) You get vaccinated, you get registered in a system that shows you have been vaccinated; and you are given a paper vaccination card to carry on your person that grants you permitted access at checkpoints or gateways.

Those are essentially the only two registration systems for COVID passports currently in place. Both of them are dependent on registration with the healthcare system or provider who then grants you the paper ID; or triggers the authorization process to connect your vaccination status to a system where you download the QR code.

Regardless of which process is followed, the registration is with the healthcare system.

What the World Economic Forum (WEF) is describing is NOT that…. and this is the critical point.

The WEF proposal is based on a blood sample, or a blood test, to prove you have been vaccinated.  The only way that is possible is if the vaccine itself carries some form of marker that permanently stays (at a cellular level) in your body which can then be detected in a blood test.

If the vaccine does not leave an identifiable marker or imprint in your blood, then a blood test for vaccinated status would not be possible.

If you understand that critical point, then keep reading.  If you don’t understand the significance of that point, then it’s best to just quit right here.

♦ If you were to go into a doctors office, blood lab or hospital right now and tell them you needed a blood test to prove you have been vaccinated, they would look at you like you’re a crazy person.  Their response would be for you to contact your healthcare provider -where the vaccine shot was given- to get the verification or duplicate authentication you would need to prove you have been vaccinated.

Yet somehow the World Economic Forum knows of a process for testing blood to see if the vaccine is present?

Think about that.

Let’s call whatever is in your blood system a “marker“, because generically we do not know what they would specifically be looking for to isolate blood as vaccinated -vs- non vaccinated.  They are looking for something, so let’s call that a marker.  That means the following points are evident:

  • Whatever that marker is, has to be present in all versions of the vaccine.
  • Whatever that marker is, has to be present permanently.
  • Whatever that marker is, was known by the World Economic Forum to exist prior to this proposal.

Without a way to identify vaccinated blood, the entire premise of the COVIDPass proposed by the WEF is moot.

So, the question becomes: what is that marker?

Without extrapolating into conspiracy theory or suspicious imaginings, the basic point to drive home from this WEF proposal is their awareness of a blood test that can guarantee you have been vaccinated.  [The next step, where your blood test is linked to your unique identification for authenticity in society, is another kettle of fish altogether.]

COMMON SENSE – Factually it would defeat the entire premise of the COVIDPass as outlined if your unique id was not being traced/tracked.

If, as an example, I were to use your cell phone QR code at the boarding gate of an international flight, there would have to be some cross referenced database that pulls up your unique identification in order to stop me from traveling under your vaccinated status.

Under the concept of a globally accepted, bloodline-authenticated vaccination ID, there has to be a central database from which your vaccination identification -your blood- was registered to your specific personage.  But that’s going further into the future.

For now, it is worth noting that in mid-2020, even before the various vaccine’s deployed in clinical trials, the World Economic Forum knew that a blood test for a COVID vaccination was the best scenario for vaccine passport identification.  [Article Here]


Unstable White House Occupant Erupts Into Angry Outbursts While Delivering Remarks in Connecticut

Posted originally on the conservative tree house October 15, 2021 | Sundance | 316 Comments

The White House occupant visited Storrs, Connecticut, today for the dedication of the Dodd Center for Human Rights at the University of Connecticut.

However, during the rebranding/rededication ceremony a familiar angry and intemperate disposition erupted. A very inappropriate disposition familiar to anyone who has been around a dementia patient.  WATCH:


Oklahoma Governor and Attorney General Fight Back Against Federal Vaccine Mandate

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 15, 2021 | Sundance | 188 Comments

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt released a video statement Thursday targeting the Biden administration’s worker vaccine requirements. In the video, Governor Stitt called the administration’s employer vaccine mandates an action of “federal overreach” and “unconstitutional.”

Supporting the governor, Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor released a statement Thursday calling for employers to disregard the Biden administration’s upcoming vaccine and testing requirement for their employees.

It will be interesting to see how the various state attorneys general establish their standing as the federal requirement targets “individuals“, not specifically state government.

OKLAHOMA CITY – Attorney General John O’Connor today released the following statement as employers are facing pressure from the Biden Administration to act on vaccine mandates.

“There are currently no rules that require employers to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for employees. I urge Oklahoma employers to disregard the Biden Administration’s wishes to the contrary. In the event federal emergency rules are issued that place such an unlawful demand upon employers, our office will be joined by other state Attorneys General across the country to quickly sue and seek an injunction against any implementation or enforcement.

Oklahomans should have the right to make their own personal health decisions for themselves and their families. Employers that are mandating vaccines are unfortunately doing so upon their own initiative. Religious, medical, and personal exemptions should be uniformly approved by those employers at the very least.”

– Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor (read more)

Forty Percent of TSA Employees Not Vaccine Compliant

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 15, 2021 | Sundance | 266 Comments

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees have until November 22nd to get vaccinated or get fired.  However, it appears there is a significant percentage of the workforce that have yet to comply with the federal mandate.  According to a report from The Hill following an interview with TSA Administrator David Pekoskeat, the current rate of vaccination compliance within the agency is 60 percent.

Given the amount of propaganda, lies and manipulation of data from the U.S. Federal Government and corporate media, I’m left to wonder if the vaccination rates in the entire nation are not ¹overblown.   The White House occupant said more than 60 million eligible workers are still not vaccinated.

WASHINGTON DC – […] With the deadline six weeks away, employees have already missed the point at which they can get vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine. The two-shot regimen is administered four weeks apart and an additional two weeks are needed after the shots for a patient to be considered fully vaccinated.

[…]  In a memo sent out earlier this month, the the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) said federal agencies could begin enforcing the vaccine mandate beginning on Nov. 9 for employees who are still not vaccinated.

“Employees who refuse to be vaccinated or provide proof of vaccination are subject to disciplinary measures, up to and including removal or termination from Federal service,” OPM Director Kiran Ahuja said. “The only exception is for individuals who receive a legally required exception pursuant to established agency processes.” (read more)

¹There are 205 million total eligible workers in the United States aged 15-74 {data}, and the labor participation rate is 61% {data}. Therefore there should be approximately 125 million people working in the United States.  However, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics puts the U.S. workforce number at 153 million {data}.  The difference is likely the ineligible workers that are actually working (ie. 25 to 30 million illegal aliens).

If we split the difference and take the mid-point at 140 million workers, then 60 million workers refusing the vaccine mandate represents about 40 percent of the entire population of eligible workers.   That is a massive percentage of the workforce.

The economic systems in the United States cannot function if 40% of the workforce just refuses the vaccine and gets fired.   Heck, it doesn’t take anywhere near that many to collapse the system.  If only ten percent of the eligible and currently employed workforce refuses the jab, things cannot function.

A Masterful Video Highlights The Arc of the COVID Vaccine Efficacy Narrative in 2021

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 15, 2021 | Sundance | 333 Comments

This is perhaps one of the best short video encapsulations of the COVID-19 efficacy narrative ever produced…

The video below {Direct Rumble Link Here} quickly walks through the past ten months of government and media claims surrounding vaccine efficacy.  It is an alarming point all by itself how quickly the arc of this vaccine narrative traveled from 100% effective to virtually zero effectiveness with multiple nations now stopping the vaccine program entirely.

This is a video against the interests of Big Pharma and the global governments that have been paid by Big Pharma to push the untested vaccine into their populations.  However, the effectiveness of this video is enhanced because the producer doesn’t use opinion to drive home the point. The central assertion of vaccines being ineffective is proven in their own words and media statements during the course of only ten months.  A masterful video.  WATCH:

Are Major Ivermectin Studies Designed for Failure?

doctrumpetOctober 14, 20216 Comments

Are Major Ivermectin Studies Designed for Failure?


Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Dear TrialSite News Readers,

Below are emails to one of the sites of the ACTIV-6 study and Dr. Carolyn Bramante, director of COVID-OUT.  There is nothing the enemies of ivermectin will not stoop to including calling ivermectin “horse dewormer,” making it unavailable at pharmacies, failing to report Uttar Pradesh, publishing bias, biased newspaper reporting, and “fake” randomized trials. The “fake” randomized trial has been weaponized by ivermectin’s opponents. There isn’t the slightest doubt that behind the scenes our government health care agencies, drug companies, and others have conspired to make ivermectin appear ineffective in Lopez-Medina, Together, ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT. 

How else is it that the Together, ACTIV-6, and COVID-OUT studies all use basically the same protocol, 3 days of ivermectin 0.4 mg/kg or less on an empty stomach? ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT are giving a slightly lower dose than in the Together study after the higher dose of ivermectin failed to show statistical benefit in Together. That only makes sense if they are trying to make ivermectin fail. There were lots of problems with Together which appear intentional. Lead investigator, Edward Mills basically works for Bill Gates. Analysis of Ivermectin in Together   

NIH and FDA stand to be humiliated if the NIH-sponsored ACTIV-6 or the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial show significant benefit of ivermectin. Why would the University of Minnesota, who should be independent, choose to treat patients with about the same dose that failed in Together? No one knowledgeable about ivermectin would in real life use it that way for the delta variant.  

The Lopez-Medina study, published 3/4/21 in JAMA, was sponsored by  pharma companies including Gilead, and Merck.  It appears JAMA was complicit, ignoring a host of problems including identical side effects in the treatment and placebo groups and in publishing deceptive conclusions, saying ivermectin was not effective in “adults” with mild COVID. They also failed to mention that the patients ages averaged 37 years old. The WHO said it was their most important article in recommending against ivermectin. The AMA just came out stating that ivermectin should only be used in trials. They are supposed to be a private organization that represents physicians, not the FDA.

Would you put it past Merck to provide underdosed pills of stromectol, Merck’s generic ivermectin which is being used in ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT?

I spoke with a physician on the ACTIV-6 committee at one of the sites for ACTIV-6. I was concerned about the dose of ivermectin. They were receptive to changing it and offered me to write to their committee. I was very impressed that they were fair and honorable. I was told they were giving it on an empty stomach at the advice of the FDA. They didn’t know where the dose came from. I thought they were also underdosing fluvoxamine at 50 mg twice a day when 100 mg twice a day was successful in Together, but it turns out 50 mg twice a day was used in the racetrack study and the EUA that was submitted was for 50 mg. twice a day. I emailed them my concerns about ivermectin, and fluvoxamine dosing then wrote that after further research, my concerns about fluvoxamine dosing were unfounded.

I have the idea that the people involved in running ACTIV-6 at the individual sites and those at the University of Minnesota are honest and want to be involved in good science. I hope they do not want to be offering patients a dose of ivermectin that is known to be ineffective or a placebo. I hope they do not want to be part of a trial that will falsely brand ivermectin as ineffective, helping to prevent it from reaching the billions around the world who need to have it available. 

I would suggest that readers reach out to all the ACTIV-6 trial sites and the COVID-OUT team, expressing your concerns about ivermectin dosing in ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT and asking that ivermectin be properly dosed. We need ivermectin experts to reach out to them with evidence that the correct treatment on the delta virus is ivermectin 0.4 mg/kg with food for at least a week. 

Board members of the AMA, American College of Physicians, the Infectious Disease Society of America, the American Thoracic Society, American Lung Association, and Society of Critical Care Medicine need to be contacted with your concerns about irrational ivermectin dosing involved with these trials. So far major medical organizations have lined up behind the government healthcare agencies or remained silent. What is happening is obvious and we need to know where they stand. Many medical leaders are fearful of retribution by drug companies and government healthcare agencies. Those who cannot stand up for honest research that could affect billions of human beings should stand down.

Few people on television who have discussed how ivermectin has been demonized. CNN has authored “hit pieces.” The only ones saying the truth are the personalities on FOX, i.e., Tucker Carlson, Maria Bartiroma, Laura Ingraham and others. The only politician doing anything is senator Ron Johnson. They need to know of the blatant misconduct in these studies regarding ivermectin treatment as well as what happened in Uttar Pradesh. 

I would also suggest reaching out to the NIH ACTIV-6 committee. I would imagine that many committee members have no idea what the correct ivermectin dosage is but unfortunately, the possibility exists that the committee has agreed to intentionally give ivermectin incorrectly as part of the NIH strategy of suppressing repurposed drugs. This is the same committee that last year recommended against a large, randomized trial of famotidine, an over-the-counter H2 blocker of mast cells.  This was cancelled despite the high probability that mast cells are involved in cytokine storm. Multiple published studies show the benefit of over-the-counter mast cell therapies, including one out of Harvard that showed individuals who regularly took famotidine did not get very sick from COVID-19. The Promise of Famotidine for COVID-19

Readers need to spring into action or more “fake” ivermectin data is coming. It might be enough to bury ivermectin for good. If we want things to change, we need to be activists and go to the people running these trials and those who will stand up for honesty in medicine. I hope that after being presented with the obvious evidence of deceit, they will act appropriately. All the anti-ivermectin forces involved with the “fake” studies read Trialsite News. They will do their best to prevent ivermectin from getting a fair shake. We must fight hard and dirty like them to prevail.

Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC

—–Original Message—–

Sent: Tue, Oct 12, 2021 9:47 pm
Subject: Fwd: Problems with dosing of Ivemectin in COVID-OUT

Dear ACTIV-6 team,

Below is an email I sent to Dr. Carolyn Bramante at University of Minnesota who is running the COVID-OUT trial. They are using a dose of ivermectin very similar to Together and slightly higher than in ACTIV-6. It seems quite a coincidence that all 3 studies are using about the same treatment strategy even though in Together ivermectin showed statistically insignificant benefit. 

It appears that investigators in Together deliberately tried to make ivermectin not succeed . Comments by lead investigator, Dr. Edward Mills, who ran the trial, were very unprofessional and prejudicial against ivermectin. Initially Dr. Mills was going to use a single dose of ivermectin until ivermectin advocates complained loudly and he reluctantly agreed to 3 doses. There were many problems with the trial which I hope will be investigated when the study is peer reviewed. 

Analysis of Ivermectin in Together

Why would NIH choose to give half the patients in ACTIV-6 less ivermectin than in Together? The FDA has shown blatant bias against ivermectin. Dr. Gentile told me it was the FDA who told you to give it on an empty stomach. Ivermectin experts always give it with a meal. Where did the arbitrary 3 days of treatment come from? It did not come from world experts who use ivermectin often. 

Ivermectin is not the only repurposed drug for which NIH’s actions are questionable. It is highly probable that mast cell activation is responsible for much if not most of the inflammation in COVID. The NIH ACTIV committee chose to do nothing with mast cell therapies which include famotidine(pepcid), certirizine(zyrtec), luteolin and quercetin, all over the counter. A randomized trial showing statistically significant benefit from famotidine 80 mg orally 3 times a day will be reported soon. 3 trials of famotidine plus celecoxib will be starting shortly. The promise of famotidine for COVID-19

There is something very wrong with this series of trials of ivermectin. A great amount of academic dishonesty is going on. I hope you will look into my allegations and try to find a way for ivermectin to get a fair shake. 

Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC 

Dr. Carolyn Bramante 

University of Minnesota

Director COVID-OUT Trial

Dear Dr. Bramante, 

I’m Dr. Michael Goodkin, retired cardiologist. I am concerned about the dosing of ivermectin in the COVID-OUT study. The vast majority of patients will be getting 0.39 mg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days. I have no idea how that dose was arrived at. In Together, patients got 0.4 mg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days and it showed statistically insignificant benefit. In ACTIV-6 patients will be getting 0.3-0.4 mg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days. It seems odd that all 3 studies are using basically the same dosing strategy, with ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT using the same dosing strategy even after it failed in Together. 

A coordinator of ACTIV-6 told me the FDA gave them the dose and advised them to give it on an empty stomach. There is clear data that the blood level is 2.6 times greater with a meal and no evidence of toxicity from giving it with meals.   Pharmacokinetics of Ivermectin in Healthy Volunteers

Much higher doses of ivermectin have been given safely. 

1    Guzzo CA, Furtek CI, Porras AG, et al. Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of escalating high doses of ivermectin in healthy adult subjects. J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;42(10):1122-1133

2.  Navarro M, Camprubí D, Requena-Méndez A, et al. Safety of high-dose ivermectin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2020;75(4):827-834.

3.  Krolewiecki A, Lifschitz A, Moragas M, et al. Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID- 19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;37. 

Most ivermectin experts believe it should be used for at least 7 days and that ivermectin should be given with food. Dr. Pierre Kory has an enormous worldwide experience and is as expert as anyone in the world. His meta analysis was published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.  Dr. Kory Ivermectin American Journal of Therapeutics   

I would like to see ivermectin put to a fair test. I don’t think Together was fair. Here is an analysis. 

Analysis of Ivermectin in Together   ACTIV-6  and COVID-OUT will be nearly identical, will likely show similar results and not satisfy the question of whether ivernectin can be effective to early COVID. 

Ivermectin worked extremely well in a very large population, possibly by preventing COVID transmission. as evidenced by Uttar Pradesh, India where in 230 million people ivermectin has almost eliminated COVID. Unfortunately the american press and US healthcare agencies have not reported it.

Ivermectin Miracle in Uttar Pradesh  

COVID nearly eliminated in Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh COVID Free

MSN Features Uttar Pradesh Turnaround

The FDA has been overly aggressive against ivermectin. They recommended against it when NIH was neutral. Their “horse dewormer” campaign shows their blatant bias. They have gotten pharmacists to stop ordering and selling it. They got the AMA to say it should only be used in trials. Ivermectin has no significant toxicity at even very high doses and many believe the evidence clearly shows that it works.The FDA cannot be trusted on dosing due to the obvious bias. Very positive results for ivermectin would be an enormous black eye for them but a tremendous boon for COVID patients all over he world where vaccines will not be used in many places any time soon. Cheap generic treatments are badly needed. I think you owe it to the COVID patients of the world to make sure you are giving an adequate dose of ivermectin. 

I hope you will rethink what your strategy.

Merck has a long track record of doing anything for money, ie. vioxx. Merck’s deadly vioxx playbook 

Their public statement 2/4/21,  Merck Ivermectin statement 2/4/21 was all lies. They had terrible conflict of interest as they had gotten $356 million from HHS and were working on a competitor for ivermectin which has turned out to be molnupiravir, a mutagen, on which they hope to make many billions. Ivermectin is in the way of their huge profits. 

Merck is capable of anything. I don’t know where your stromectol came from but I would have it analyzed. 

I hope to hear from you. 


Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC