Suite à l’extension de la fabrication d’enfants par PMA, le gouvernement veut réduire les délais d’attente d’un an aujourd’hui à six mois avec un nouvel investissement de 8 millions d’euros. L’entourage du ministre de la Santé, Olivier Véran, souligne :
“Il y a un afflux considérable de demandes dans les centres”. “On s’attendait à 1.000 demandes supplémentaire en 2021, on est déjà plutôt autour de 3.500”.
Le gouvernement annonce consentir un investissement de 8 millions d’euros, avec nos impôts, qui concerne les équipements et les moyens humains des centres jusqu’en 2023: 4 millions dès cette année, dont 2 millions pour l’équipement et 2 pour le personnel, lesquels seront renouvelés en 2022 et 2023.
Afin de suivre les délais et accompagner la montée en charge, un comité de pilotage sera mis en place dès l’automne. Cela va devenir industriel…
Face au risque de pénurie de sperme, une campagne de communication pour inciter au don devrait être lancée par le ministère de la Santé…
Une proposition de loi LREM interdisant les “thérapies de conversion”, pour que les personnes inverties puissent retrouver un comportement normal, sera débattue en octobre par les députés. Pilotée par le député LREM Laurence Vanceunebrock, la proposition de loi sera inscrite à l’ordre du jour de l’Assemblée nationale pour la semaine du 4 octobre.
La secte LGBT refuse que vous aidiez une personne ayant des tendances contre-nature à se maîtriser.
La proposition de loi prévoit la création d’un délit spécifique punissable de deux ans d’emprisonnement et de 30 000 euros d’amende, voire trois ans d’emprisonnement et à 45 000 euros d’amende lorsqu’il s’agit d’un mineur.
Dans le même temps, le ministre chargée de la Citoyenneté, Marlène Schiappa, a annoncé confier à la Miviludes une mission “sur la pratique indigne” de ces “thérapies de conversion”.
Parallèlement (mais il n’y a pas de complot LGBT), le Parlement européen a débattu et voté par 387 voix contre 161 et 123 abstentions une résolution qui « insiste sur la nécessité, pour l’Union, d’adopter une approche commune pour la reconnaissance des mariages et partenariats homosexuels » et
« rappelle que le droit de l’Union a primauté sur tout droit national, y compris sur les dispositions constitutionnelles, et que, dès lors, les États membres ne sauraient invoquer une interdiction constitutionnelle du mariage homosexuel ou une protection constitutionnelle de “la morale” ou des “politiques publiques” pour faire entrave au droit fondamental à la libre circulation des personnes au sein de l’Union et bafouer les droits des familles arc-en-ciel qui s’installent sur leur territoire »,
Cette nouvelle résolution est d’abord un acte de propagande LGBTIXYZ, et une nouvelle occasion de condamner la Hongrie et la Pologne
The Idiosyncratic Pope Francis Eduardo J. Echeverria Monday, November 25, 2019 Note: Professor Echeverria examines – and rejects – an attitude all too common in the Church today, even at the highest levels: that our mode of evangelization should be more accompanying people than proposing truth – which generally results in little effective evangelization at all. At The Catholic Thing we’re happy to go along with people so long as we can speak freely about the highest, deepest, and most important things. We’re within sight of our fundraising goal now. We need a final push to get us over the finish line and make it possible for us to tell as much of the truth as we possibly can in the year to come. Please help. Contribute to The Catholic Thing. – Robert Royal “In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15) This clearly means that one way in which we honor Christ as Lord is by persuasively defending the truth of the faith, by giving reasons supporting faith’s rationality and truthfulness. This defense is crucial because the response to the Gospel should be reasonable. Indeed, Vatican I’s Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius (1870), affirms that the assent of faith is reasonable, such that this “assent is not a blind movement of the intellect; nevertheless, no one can ‘assent to the preaching of the Gospel’, as he must to attain salvation, ‘without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all a sweetness in consenting to and believing in truth’.” What do we make, then, of Pope Francis’s constant insistence, recently repeated here, and in his meeting with the bishops of Japan this past Saturday, that in an evangelical encounter with those who do not know Christ we must witness to Christ but “not with convictions, not to convince [or persuade], [and] not to proselytize.” I have always found this claim idiosyncratic, not to say inconsistent with the Catholic tradition’s emphasis on the interdependency of faith and reason (from Leo XIII’s 1879 encyclical Aeterni Patris to John Paul II’s 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio). Inexplicably, Francis thinks that evangelical witness excludes not only the power of persuasion, reason, and arguments, but also claiming that one asserts, affirms, and holds certain beliefs to be true. How can we approach the unbeliever without convictions? Faith involves both the fides qua creditur (“the faith with which one believes”) and the fides quae creditur “the faith which one believes”). Therefore, in bearing witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we evangelize with the beliefs we hold to be true, and these beliefs are constitutive of the message of the Gospel. * The message is not content-free and empty. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14) “God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ – by grace you have been saved.” (Eph 2: 4-6) “Jesus Christ is Lord.” (Phil 2: 11) “Christ is risen from the dead.” (1 Cor 15:20) “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Cor 5: 20) Other examples of truths that are asserted and held to be true in the evangelical encounter may be taken from First Timothy: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1:15). “God our Savior. . .desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2:3-4). “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (2:5). Thus, a “personal encounter” with Christ involves a constitutive relation with beliefs, involving an assent of the mind to their truth, beliefs that we come to hold to be true. Thus, there is no personal encounter with Jesus Christ that does not include certain beliefs about Him. Of course, how truth is authenticated – i.e., lived out, practiced, carried out – our lives cannot be reduced to being merely believed, asserted, and claimed. Benedict XVI understood this point very well in his 2013 Encyclical Lumen Fidei (§45). Although Pope Francis signed on to this encyclical with his own contribution, clearly – unlike Benedict – his view sets up an opposition between the truth that is to be lived out, practiced, carried out, on the one hand, and the truth that is to be believed, asserted, and claimed on the other. Francis seems to think according to a scheme wherein faith begins with the personal encounter with Christ, and subsequently, as a secondary matter, ends with beliefs, convictions. Francis’ view is not that of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, where doctrinal beliefs are the actual content of the encounter: “Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed.” (§150) It is also not the view of John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor. Regarding the question of how truth is authenticated as existential truth, John Paul correctly notes, that it is not merely about propositional truth, but also how this truth is borne out in life. It is urgent to rediscover and to set forth once more the authentic reality of the Christian faith, which is not simply a set of propositions to be accepted with intellectual assent. Rather, faith is a lived knowledge of Christ, a living remembrance of his commandments, and a truth to be lived out. . . .Faith is a decision involving one’s whole existence. It is an encounter, a dialogue, a communion of love and of life between the believer and Jesus Christ, the Way, and the Truth, and the Life (cf. Jn 14:6). It entails an act of trusting abandonment to Christ, which enables us to live as he lived (cf. Gal 2:20), in profound love of God and of our brothers and sisters. Faith also possesses a moral content. It gives rise to and calls for a consistent life commitment; it entails and brings to perfection the acceptance and observance of God’s commandments. (§88) Lastly, absent in Francis’s view is the truth-oriented dynamic of evangelical encounter. As Vatican II put it, man is ordered by “his nature to seek the truth, especially religious truth.” He is also “bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order [his] whole life in accord with the demands of truth.” (Dignitatis Humanae §2) This absence of the epistemic justification and truth of Christian beliefs is particularly evident in Francis’s view of the “dialogue” of religions. His view not only creates confusion, but runs the risk of degenerating into outright religious indifferentism. *Image: Saints Peter and Paul by El Greco, 1605-08 [Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, Sweden]
(Natural News) If visionary writer George Orwell, author of “1984,” which gives a dystopian vision of the future, were alive today, he would be amazed at how utterly correct many of his predictions were about all-powerful central governments.
Such as the existence of a “Ministry of Truth,” whereby bureaucrats decide what the public can and cannot know in terms of ‘established facts’ — namely, no truths are permitted that run afoul of the central government’s narratives, even if they’re false.
According to reports, Google officials have admitted preventing Australians from seeing certain videos because the platform’s engineers have adjusted algorithms to prevent those videos from showing up in searches.
Google algorithms are automatically selecting videos from news channels to be censored from Australian viewers that it deems offensive, inaccurate or dangerous, a media diversity inquiry has heard.
But the tech giant has defended the move, saying its parameters were set by global “trust and safety teams” based on the best evolving advice from governments, health authorities and community standards.
The admission was made during testimony by the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee into diversity in media chaired by Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young of the Australian Greens Party regarding a one-week ban of Sky News by Google-owned YouTube as well as the platform’s removal of 23 videos last year related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In response to a question from Sen. Kim Carr, a Google representative admitted that the platform removed the videos after Google’s algorithms found the footage featuring Sky News commentators remarking about the virus to be in violation of policies against spreading misinformation — though Sky News is a legitimate news organization not prone to spreading lies or fake stories.
Google Australia and New Zealand public policy director Lucinda Longcroft told the legislative panel that fighting misinformation takes a whole-of-society approach, adding that her company takes its responsibilities in that realm seriously
“We are not an anything-goes platform,” Longcroft said.
But of course, unsaid in all of this is the fact that one person’s “misinformation” is another person’s ‘uncomfortable truth’ and when your government has become very dictatorial in the age of COVID, as Australia’s has, then any counterfactual information revealing your authoritarian policies to be misguided, inappropriate, unnecessary, and outright stupid must be blocked.
And apparently, Google is on board with doing the Aussie government’s bidding.
“The footage, the committee was told, was largely filmed prior to the availability of Covid-19 vaccinations and included medical experts and commentators questioning whether ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine could be a treatment for Covid-19,” NWO Report noted, adding that, “Longcroft said the videos were determined to be misinformation by artificial intelligence software and no personal complaint had been made to the platform.”
She went on to say that Google has 12,000 members on its trust and safety teams, but none of them are qualified medical experts — they just know what information the platform and its government clients want blocked.
The platform says that its guidelines were created after consulting with “experts in that area,” but many of the “experts” are politicized hacks like Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head immunologist in the U.S. who is all-in for vaccines and refuses to entertain any other treatments — despite the fact that the available vaccines are nowhere close to the efficacy of 85-95 percent they were made out to be and despite the fact that vaccinated people are now getting COVID.
One of the best defenses against the virus is the natural immunity built up after someone actually contracts the disease and then recovers from it. That’s been true of viruses since the advent of humans, but now, suddenly, Fauci and other “experts” aren’t pushing “herd immunity” for COVID — just vaccines.
As for YouTube, the platform has already taken down some 5,000 videos related to the pandemic with Australian IP addresses, which means that the platform has also taken them down from other countries’ addresses too.
Senior doctors in New Hanover County, North Carolina were caught on video scheming how to “inflate the real COVID numbers” so they can more easily scare the public into taking the COVID injection.
A Zoom video conference call recording between physicians and a marketing director at Novant Heath New Hanover Regional Medical Center revealed an internal discussion to manipulate the COVID case and death data to induce a public panic.
“That’s better still, and that’s something that I can take to someone else, but I think those are important numbers. The patients that are still in the hospital, that are off the COVID floor, but still are occupying the hospital for a variety of reasons,” said Rudyk before another doctor informed her that those patients are considered “recovered.”
Rudyk continued: “I think that that needs to be highlighted as well, because once you’re off isolation you drop from the COVID numbers, that’s exactly right.”
A male doctor agreed but hinted to Rudyk to be more discreet with her messaging: “Carolyn, we can talk offline about how we run that up to marketing.”
But Rudyk didn’t take the hint and continued to incriminate herself and the other physicians on the call.
“So I just want to say we have to be more blunt, we have to be more forceful, we have to see something coming out: ‘If you don’t get vaccinated, you know you’re going to die,’” Rudyk said, laughing. “I mean let’s just be really blunt with these people.”
After these shocking admissions went viral, Novant Health released a statement claimingthe Zoom call conversation to deceive the public was simply a “frank discussion” among health experts.
“The team members involved in this excerpt of an internal meeting are seeing the highest level of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths so far in this pandemic – despite having safe and effective vaccines widely available. This was a frank discussion among medical and communications professionals on how we can more accurately convey the severity and seriousness of what’s happening inside of our hospitals and throughout our communities. Specifically, the data we have been sharing does not include patients who remain hospitalized for COVID-19 complications even though they are no longer COVID-19 positive, so it does not provide a complete picture of the total impact of COVID-19 on our patients and on our hospitals. We continue to be concerned with the amount of misinformation in our communities and consistently strive for more ways to be transparent and tell the whole story. The continued rise of hospitalizations makes it evident that we have more work to do to reach our communities with these messages.”
« Dans les deux cas, il est décidé de procéder à des repérages téléphoniques, mais d’en geler les résultats, c’est-à-dire de ne pas les exploiter. »
Pour ceux qui auraient encore des doutes sur les vrais commanditaires de ces attentats… Quant aux failles, elles ressemblent étrangement à des ouvertures.
– La Rédaction d’E&R –
ENQUETE FRANCE TELEVISIONS – Ce sont 82 pages confidentielles, classifiées, rédigées par le Comité P (comité permanent de contrôle des services de police), la police des polices belges. Un rapport sur les attentats du 13-Novembre, jamais transmis à la justice française, qui l’a pourtant demandé. « L’Œil du 20 heures« a pu le consulter. Il révèle de nombreux dysfonctionnements dans la surveillance des frères Abdeslam, plusieurs mois avant les attentats de 2015.
Dès juillet 2014, dix-sept mois avant les attentats, un policier belge reçoit un signalement d’un informateur, qu’il dit avoir transmis à sa hiérarchie. Cela concerne les frères Abdeslam, et leur lien avec celui qui sera le coordinateur des attentats, Abdelhamid Abaaoud. « Les frères en question auraient déclaré vouloir commettre un ‘acte irréparable’ et se rendre en Syrie« , résume le rapport. Mais aucune suite n’est donnée. L’information n’est consignée nulle part, selon le Comité P.
En janvier 2015, dix mois avant les attentats, un autre signalement sur la radicalisation des deux frères conduit cette fois la police bruxelloise à rédiger deux procès-verbaux. Salah et Brahim Abdeslam sont entendus l’un après l’autre, mais ils nient toute radicalisation et velléité de départ en Syrie, alors même que Brahim en revient.
« Je travaille pour rien », déplore un policier
L’enquête ne va pas beaucoup plus loin. « Les dossiers des frères Abdeslam n’ont jamais été effectivement attribués à quelqu’un, de sorte qu’il n’y a pas eu de responsable d’enquête », s’étonne le rapport confidentiel. Un policier belge que nous avons contacté déplore lui-même l’inertie de l’enquête, alors qu’il aurait transmis des documents attestant de la radicalisation préoccupante de Salah Abdeslam : « Il y a plein de choses que j’ai dites, que j’ai mises en avant, j’ai tiré la sonnette d’alarme : c’est tombé aux oubliettes. Ça m’est arrivé plein de fois de me dire ‘mais putain je travaille pour rien, en fait !‘ »
« Des menaces d’attentat, de radicalisation sévère, des contacts avec des gars partis en Syrie, ce n’est quand même pas rien ! Ils auraient dû procéder à une arrestation beaucoup plus rapidement« , ajoute, amer, le policier.
Des investigations téléphoniques inexploitées
Aucun responsable d’enquête n’est désigné et les investigations sur les deux frères Abdeslam sont laissées en suspens, faute de moyens, selon les investigations du Comité P : « Dans les deux cas, il est décidé de procéder à des repérages téléphoniques, mais d’en geler les résultats, c’est-à-dire de ne pas les exploiter. » Même le matériel informatique de Brahim Abdeslam, saisi lors d’une perquisition, restera inexploité jusqu’aux attentats. En juin 2015, cinq mois avant les attentats, après une enquête inaboutie, un magistrat fédéral classe le dossier sans suite.
Les services belges continuent de recevoir des signalements de déplacements suspects, trois mois avant les attentats : le 5 août 2015, Salah Abdeslam est contrôlé à la frontière grecque où il embarque pour l’Italie. Puis le 9 septembre, en Autriche. Enfin, le 23 octobre, trois semaines avant les attentats, il arbore même un drapeau de l’organisation Etat islamique sur les réseaux sociaux.
Un responsable de la sûreté de l’Etat belge reconnaît « être passé à côté »
La police belge n’exploitera pas ces éléments, le dossier ayant été classé. Pour Gérard Chemla, avocat de 137 victimes, ce rapport, jamais déclassifié depuis 2016, est accablant. Il demande à ce qu’il soit rendu public, et cité au procès. “Quand on maintient quelque chose secret, c’est qu’on a des choses à cacher. C’est absolument invraisemblable que l’on ne s’incline pas devant tous ces morts en leur disant qu’on a fait des bêtises, qu’il y a des choses qui ont fonctionné et d’autres qui n’ont pas fonctionné, et de présenter ses excuses pour ses erreurs. C’est honteux.«
Contacté, un responsable de la sûreté de l’Etat belge à l’époque reconnaît être “passé à côté”. Quant au gouvernement belge, il invoque la sûreté nationale pour expliquer la non-diffusion de ce rapport.
Parmi nos sources : rapport final du Comité P. Liste non exhaustive.
Fauci Botched the AIDS Epidemic so Big Pharma Could Profit. He’s Doing It Again With COVID.
During the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, Dr. Anthony Fauci discouraged and prevented inexpensive treatments for AIDS and focused exclusively on AZT. He’s doing the same thing today with COVID, focusing on highly profitable vaccines and ignoring potentially safe and effective treatments. By Children’s Health Defense Team 34
Link copied
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.
In a new video on The Hill’s “Rising,” political commentator Kim Iversen analyzes Dr. Anthony Fauci’s support for azidothymidine (AZT) to treat HIV/AIDS and compares it to his current support for COVID mRNA vaccines.
Fauci, named head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in 1984, sparked panic among Americans in the 1980s when he wrote in a medical journal that AIDS could be transmitted not only through sexual contact and sharing needles, but also through “ordinary close contact” with the infected.
Iversen says Fauci’s remarks followed the discovery of an infant diagnosed with AIDS — a case we would later learn was caused when the child passed through the womb of an infected mother.
But the damage was already done, said Iversen:
“Public panic had intensified and people were fearing they could get aids from sharing a toilet seat or even from shaking hands. People living with AIDS were being alienated and ostracized from their jobs, homes, communities, and gay men, in particular, were heavily stigmatized.”ORDER TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s New Book — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’
Meanwhile, Fauci and his team of scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) went full speed ahead on developing a vaccine for AIDS. However, despite promises from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that it would roll out an AIDS/HIV vaccine, Iversen says that never happened.
Realizing the potential to earn big profits, Iversen says pharmaceutical companies soon began developing treatments for AIDS.
The British drug company, Burroughs Wellcome & Co., said its failed cancer drug AZT could be used to treat AIDS.
Few studies were done, said Iversen, and the long-term side effects were unknown. But in March 1987, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved AZT, claiming the benefits outweighed the risks.
Celia Farber, who in 1989 reported on the approval of AZT and its potential health risks, wrote at the time:
“The majority of those in the AIDS-afflicted and medical communities held the drug up as the first breakthrough on AIDS. For better or worse, AZT had been approved faster than any drug in FDA history, and activists considered it a victory. The price paid for the victory, however, was that almost all government drug trials, from then on, focused on AZT — while over 100 other promising drugs were left uninvestigated.”
Subscribe to The Defender – It’s Free!
Name*
Email*
The drug was “one of the most toxic, expensive and controversial drugs in the history of medicine,” Farber wrote.
In 1989, Iversen said Fauci started promoting the drug not only for critically ill AIDS patients, but for anyone who tested positive for HIV, including those who were asymptomatic and showed no sign of the disease.
“Those patients included hospital workers, pregnant women and even children,” said Iversen. “Doctors were stunned.”
Despite limited data, the NIH went all in on AZT, ignoring evidence that the drug was toxic, caused liver damage and destroyed white blood cells, Iversen said.
“The drug continued to be used for years,” she explained.
Iversen made the same observation: “As Fauci and the NIH focused on vaccines and AZT for the treatment of aids, hundreds of drugs went unstudied.”
Iversen said:
“Many doctors advocated that the best way to treat patients was to focus on mitigating the severity of the ailments that would ultimately kill them rather than trying to eradicate AIDS altogether, that the virus mutates too quickly to waste all resources and time on a vaccine or other preventatives that everything should be studied, all avenues explored and all options should remain on the table. But unfortunately, that’s not exactly how the AIDS epidemic was handled.
“Big pharma got their payday. Millions of dollars were allocated by Congress to vaccine research, which never produced anything effective. And meanwhile, along the way, hundreds of drugs and treatment options went unexplored. And we still don’t have a cure for HIV. The epidemic never went away like people hoped. We do, however, have effective treatments that help people live a good long life with the virus.
“There were a lot of mistakes made along the way. A lot of lessons that could have been learned, but after looking into the history of the AIDS epidemic, it’s curious if we’ve actually learned any. Here we are today, with a pandemic that is causing mass hysteria. Like the days of people demonizing gay men as the culprits behind the epidemic, we have the media demonizing the unvaccinated as the root cause for why this virus just won’t go away.”
Iversen said that while many hoped the vaccine would eliminate COVID, like AIDS, the virus appears to mutate too rapidly.
“The same way Fauci discouraged and prevented inexpensive treatments from being talked about, researched and prescribed” in the 1980s is the “same thing that’s happening today,” said Iversen.
Governments should be exploring every possible option to treat COVID, Iversen said, including inexpensive treatments, and treatments that aren’t so profitable for the pharmaceutical industry.
“Everything should be studied,” Iversen said, “but just like what happened during the AIDS epidemic that just doesn’t seem to be happening.”
Children’s Health Defense Responds to Biden’s ‘Declaration of War Against Unvaccinated’
In a “deeply disturbing” speech last week, President Biden exhorted medical coercion of an experimental gene therapy for a virus with a 99% survival rate for a large portion of the population, and for which no one bears financial liability in cases where injuries or deaths occur. By Mary Holland 137
Link copied
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.
President Biden’s speech last week was stunning. As the Associated Press aptly reported, the president pivoted from a war on the coronavirus to a war on the “unvaccinated.”
Coercing the “unvaccinated” was the president’s first and foremost point — the only way back to normal is through vaccination, testing and masks, he said.
But the president went much further — he vilified the unvaccinated. They are not “doing the right thing.” They are “keeping us from turning the corner.” They are “blocking public health.”
“The refusal [of the unvaccinated] has cost all of us,” Biden said.
Addressing the 80 million refusers, the president said, as if speaking to unruly children, “our patience is wearing thin.”
He went further still, empathizing with the anger and anxiety of those who’ve been vaccinated and thus presumably protected. He threatened, “We cannot let the unvaccinated undo this progress,” although he muddled the words in delivery.
Biden also took a potshot at dissenting doctors, suggesting they are “conspiracy theorists,” not “real doctors.” His comments echoed the calls of others, including the Federation of State Medical Boards, to take away the medical licenses of doctors who dare to raise questions about vaccine safety.
However, the FDA has not licensed the Moderna, Johnson & Johnson (marketed as Janssen) and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, and the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine is largely unavailable in the U.S.
The president’s speech announced the full weight of the federal government against those who lawfully reject an unwanted, experimental medical intervention. Worse still, he sought to enlist the vaccinated in this divisive and dangerous campaign.
No president should seek to demonize citizens exercising the fundamental human right to informed consent. No president should play doctor and demand 100% vaccination rates.
Medical decision-making must be individual and individualized, and occur in the context of the doctor-patient relationship. No medical intervention can be safe and effective for all, as the president suggested. Science does not support dividing people by vaccination status and discriminating on that basis, as the president purported — nor do law or ethics support damaging discrimination.
The president failed to respect the individual rights to informed consent. The Nuremberg Code, which the U.S. promulgated and has expanded over time, says it best: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
Suggesting the “large majority of Americans” may demonize and marginalize a minority for rejecting experimental medicine is abhorrent.
But what did President Biden really mean when he talked about the “unvaccinated?” Are people who refuse COVID shots actually unvaccinated?
No. The vast majority have had many vaccines during their lifetimes: polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, influenza and a battery of other ones. They simply have chosen not to take experimental COVID shots that have not yet finished phase 3 clinical trials (Moderna’s trials go to 2022, Pfizer’s until 2023) and that have blanket liability protection for manufacturers, healthcare providers and government officials.
They have decided it’s not right for them. Whether it’s because they object to all vaccination, or this one, whether it’s for scientific, religious or medical reasons, whether it’s because they’ve already been injured by a vaccine which puts them at increased risk, or whether they’ve acquired natural immunity because they’ve already had the virus, it’s their right.
Suggesting the government or the majority is entitled to marginalize the minority on COVID vaccination grounds is shocking.
Subscribe to The Defender – It’s Free!
Name*
Email*
Yet “unvaccinated” is likely to soon mean anyone who’s missing the latest booster dose. By late September, “unvaccinated” or “not fully vaccinated” likely will mean anyone who’s not had two or three doses of a COVID shot, depending on which brand the person took initially. Who knows how many more boosters are in store?
The president’s final blessing to those “on the front lines of this pandemic” and to “our troops” was particularly painful, because it is precisely these people with deep knowledge of the disease and the vaccines who are refusing the shots in large numbers, and who now are at risk of their livelihoods.
These people who put their lives on the line during the pandemic are being asked to lose everything if they exercise their right to refuse this medical treatment.
What can we do?
Understand that you are the unvaccinated, no matter how many vaccines you’ve had. The administration is looking for scapegoats because COVID is still here, and it’s likely to be here for awhile. The “unvaccinated” term is likely to be a moving target, perpetually ratcheting up what it means to be “fully vaccinated” and “unvaccinated.”
Get educated.Sign up for Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) The Defender. It’s free. Tell your friends.
Speak up! If you think mandatory medicine with experimental products is not a good idea, now is the time to speak out. Let your elected officials know, call the White House, go to your school board meetings. Remember Pastor Martin Niemöller’s poem, “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.”
Act on your conscience. Consider participating in Walk Out Week starting today, Sept. 13. Stay away from medically coercive schools and jobs.
Demonstrate. Show your support for health freedom at peaceful rallies across the country.
Don’t quit your job. If your workplace is mandating vaccination, explore lawful exemptions. If your exemption is denied, force your employer to go through the steps of terminating you. While unpleasant, termination is the only way you can preserve your rights. Lawyers across the country are already bringing lawsuits based on discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act, constitutional grounds and others. You may be able to receive back pay and reinstatement if lawsuits succeed. If you resign, you will not be able to vindicate any rights — your departure will be considered voluntary, even if it was not.
Vote your conscience. If you have the opportunity to vote in November, vote your conscience. If your elected officials are not honoring your most precious rights, vote them out!
Based on President Biden’s speech, the next few months may be challenging. Here’s what you can count on from CHD:
We will keep fighting in court against medical tyranny. We will continue lawsuits against the FDA’s faux licensure, against federal censorship and against mandates for vaccines, masks and testing. We will continue to fight for the right to religious and medical exemptions and the right to free and informed consent, unfettered by government diktats.
And foremost we will fight for our future, our children.
Please support our work in any way you can. Thank you.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
Mary Holland is President and General Counsel of Children’s Health Defense. She has been writing and advocating for better vaccine law and policy for many years, including while she served on the faculty at NYU School of Law from 2002-19. She is co-author of two books on vaccines, Vaccine Epidemic and The HPV Vaccine on Trial, as well as several law review articles.
La Commission Européenne n’a pas attendu le COVID pour promouvoir les ventes de vaccins fabriqués par Big Pharma. Il s’agit probablement d’un élément-clé, passé sous les radars, qui explique dans quelle condition la Commission est devenue la meilleure cliente des Pfizer, Moderna et AstraZeneca à l’occasion de l’épidémie de COVID. Dès septembre 2019, la Commission organisait le premier Global Vaccination Summit (le Sommet Mondial de la Vaccination), en partenariat avec l’OMS… et l’industrie du vaccin, dont la fondation Bill Gates est l’un des piliers. C’était trois mois avant le début d’une épidémie qui constitue un formidable accélérateur de profit pour toute une filière d’activité.
La Commission Européenne est-elle le meilleur véhicule publicitaire pour l’industrie du vaccin ? Cette question, taboue depuis l’éclatement de l’épidémie de COVID, mérite probablement d’être largement approfondie, tant les frontières semblent poreuses, depuis plusieurs années, entre les “politiques” européens et les intérêts industriels.
On relèvera que cette grand-messe (c’est le cas de le dire), comportait des tables rondes qui ne font pas mystère de la sacralisation religieuse du vaccin. La table ronde de 10h30, par exemple, intitulée “In Vaccines we trust”, illustre à merveille le remplacement de Dieu par la petite fiole supposée sauver le monde. Il est amusant de constater que l’un des intervenants de cette table était un salarié de Facebook.
La deuxième table ronde s’intitulait : “la magie de la science”. L’expression là aussi est révélatrice de la dimension surnaturelle dont l’industrie du vaccin entend revêtir ses produits pour mieux les vendre. La troisième table ronde, intitulée “les vaccins protègent tout le monde en tous lieux” n’hésite pas à évoquer une sorte d’omniprésence divine.
Nous retrouvons ici les deux phénomènes auxquels le COVID nous a accoutumés : d’une part, le vaccin est un culte religieux monothéiste, d’autre part, il est porté par une caste sous influence protestante blanche d’Amérique du Nord, praticienne quotidienne de l’altruisme efficace. Vendre des vaccins sauve l’humanité et enrichit les fabricants : c’est le monde idéal.
Un intense lobbying de Bill Gates
Il se trouve que cette ode universaliste au vaccin n’a pas été déclamée spontanément. On peut même dire qu’elle a fait l’objet d’un intense lobbying de la part de la galaxie Bill Gates depuis plus d’une décennie.
Ainsi, on trouve dans la presse britannique cet article évocateur dès 2011 : “Bill Gates confiant pour un sommet mondial de la vaccination”. Il est amusant de voir le professionnalisme, la constance, la détermination de Bill Gates et des fabricants de vaccin à mettre en oeuvre leurs projets. Ce sommet mondial de la vaccination tenu au plus haut niveau européen (et non américain) aura mis dix ans à éclore. Mais il aura éclos.
On ne pouvait donner meilleur exemple de l’efficacité de l’industrie pharmaceutique dans le domaine du lobbying. Rassembler la Commission européenne (y compris la représentante de l’Union Mogherini), l’OMS et de nombreuses personnalités politiques autour de la défense de leurs intérêts, en endossant tous leurs éléments de langage, chapeau !
Multilatéralisme et industrie du vaccin
L’organisation de ce sommet sous l’influence de l’industrie pharmaceutique nous éclaire sur un aspect mal compris du Great Reset : l’importance du multilatéralisme pour la défense des intérêts industriels, notamment dans le domaine pharmaceutique. Il est évidemment plus facile d’influencer une seule institution qui chapeaute un marché de 300 ou 400 millions de clients potentiels, plutôt que 27 gouvernements dont certains dirigent des territoires lilliputiens.
Rappelons que, progressivement, c’est l’Agence Européenne du Médicament (EMA) qui a centralisé les autorisations de mise sur le marché conditionnelles pour les Etats-membres en cas d’épidémie. Ce dispositif a notamment été appliqué pour l’épidémie de H5N1 en 2009. La Commission constitue donc une cible de choix pour les grandes entreprises mondialisées qui veulent bénéficier de protections réglementaires pour écouler leurs produits sans concurrence.
On remarquera qu’elle a fini par officialiser ses liens d’intérêts avec l’industrie pharmaceutique.
Le rôle du GAVI et de Bill Gates
Dans l’entrelacs des lobbies industriels au service du vaccin et de la vaccination tous azimuts, on trouve une structure discrète, mais particulièrement intéressante : le GAVI (Vaccine Alliance). Pour comprendre de quoi il s’agit, il suffit de consulter ce schéma publié sur le site de l’Alliance, et qui illustre la politique d’influence déployée par l’industrie vaccinale :
Les initiés du lobbying comprennent immédiatement le sens de ce schéma : il explique que le GAVI est une structure d’influence conduite par la fondation Bill Gates, entremêlant les intérêts publics et privés, notamment l’Unicef, l’OMS, la Banque Mondiale, les chercheurs et l’industrie vaccinale. On pourrait qualifier ce genre d’organismes de “cheval de Troie” chargé d’unifier les industriels du vaccin derrière des campagnes “ciblées” (sur les pouvoirs publics s’entend) de promotion de l’image du vaccin lui-même.
Une épidémie qui tombe à pic
On comprend que, après 10 ans d’efforts pour obtenir le soutien officiel de la Commission Européenne dans la promotion du vaccin comme religion universelle, les industriels aient jubilé lorsque l’épidémie de COVID a éclaté. Pour l’instant, nous ne savons pas encore tous les tenants et aboutissants sur l’extrême réactivité de certains laboratoires dès le début de l’épidémie. Mais un fait est certain : la stratégie du tout-vaccin déployée par la Commission européenne n’a pas été improvisée après l’apparition de l’épidémie. Elle était préparée depuis longtemps.
On peut féliciter les laboratoires et Bill Gates pour leur travail d’anticipation. Reste que… malgré les écrans de fumée d’une presse subventionnée aux ordres, il serait bon de démystifier le vaccin et de démonter les processus d’influence qui ont transformé les politiques publiques en santé en hyper-marché des grands laboratoires
The Democrats are simply insane. Every study on taxation has shown that the lower the tax rates, the greater the economic growth. The Reagan tax cuts resulted in people paying more in taxes because they earned more. The new tax hiked will push NYC to 61.5%. Anyone who lives there has got to be insane to stay. The Super-Rich set up trusts, foundations, and every sort of vehicle that skirts the high taxes. The Democrats always allow those because they themselves use the same tricks. Obama had little when he entered the office and now has a multimillion beach house when he was claiming the oceans were rising.
The one thing everybody better do is call your accountant. The Democrats CANNOT be this stupid. Raising taxes of this magnitude, going after businesses, and trying to end inheritance which is what they REALLY want to do – make it all now normal income, can set in motion the worse liquidation in modern history.
This is AOC wearing a dress to celebrate the occasion of trying to destroy society. She fails to understand that it takes money to start a business and to hire people. Under their plans from reliable sources, they really want to tear the country apart. They see nothing but hatred in capitalism for everything to them is just money. If you love what you do, you will be successful in life. If it’s just a job, then that is all it will ever be.
Twenty years ago if you bought a house you could just put your kid’s names on it as well – no big deal. Today, if you try that, they have to declare it as income and pay taxes on it which is not even cash. This is the new world order. You may have to sell assets this year and buy them back for selling next year of an accumulated profit may be devastating.
naufrage/sauvetage 
