Hear from Senator Johnson, champion of the vaccine injured, Mark Meuser who is running for US Senate, and Joel Wallskog, an orthopedic surgeon who is unable to work anymore due to his COVID vax injury
See this link to view the video of Comments and the many Californians in opposition at around 1 hour mark during the Judiciary Committee CA State Assembly meeting who ended up still voting for on SB 866 to go forward to the Assembly floor:
Steve -- You've been offering the other side a "debate" for quite a while without success. But maybe the resources of the VSRF can help in getting COVID-19 pseudo-vax proponents to answer some of your questions.
Instead of a "debate," characterize the interaction as a workshop or working group meeting.
I used to practice aerospace structural dynamics engineering for a living. Back then, one of the big debates was whether component-level vibration testing was sufficient to ensure that the spacecraft would not break during launch, or if testing of the entire spacecraft all at once was needed. There were differing views within the technical community of NASA (JPL vs. GSFC), The Aerospace Corp. (representing USAF), spacecraft and launch vehicle manufacturers, test facilities, and specialized consultants. A key community interaction was the annual Spacecraft & Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, where interested parties would present and discuss their findings. After more than a decade, consensus was eventually reached and industry guidance documents were released (such as MIL-STD-1540 and NASA-HDBK-7005).
In these and other technical meetings that I've attended or run during my career, a formal set of minutes would be approved at the end by all parties to document the subjects discussed, key agreements and disagreements, and action items for any future meetings.
In the case of such a meeting with Professor Marty Makary, Dr. Damania, et al., I suggest that you propose a workshop to answer perhaps 5 or 6 basic questions agreed to in advance by all parties. Each side would present their findings on each question, with the presentations to be sent beforehand. Day One of the workshop would be for each presentation followed by detailed Q&A in the morning. Leave the afternoon open for people to gather data/analysis in order to answer questions that came up in the morning session. Day Two morning to review any new data and continue Q&A. Afternoon would be for capturing/agreeing on meeting minutes. I assume there would still be some disagreements, but at least those would be documented and out in the open.
Key questions might something like:
* What are the documented statistics on those who were previously infected (both vaccinated and unvaccinated) with COVID-19 becoming re-infected?
* What are the documented statistics on those who were previously infected (both vaccinated and unvaccinated) with COVID-19 transmitting the disease to someone else if they've become reinfected?
* What is the documented Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent a single COVID-19 fatality in each major age group (e.g. kids aged from 5 to 11)?
* What is the VAERS Under-Reporing Factor for 2020, 2021 and 2022, and what is the consequent calculation of VAERS Excess Deaths for each year?
* What is the calculated Risk:Benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccination as stratified by age?
* Why are vaccines showing negative efficacy after several months?
* Etc.
The workshop could be held virtually, like the VSRF meetings, to make it easy for people to attend. That also would eliminate one excuse by the other side to not attend.
Steve - you should do what Jeff Childers does. He does a weekly multiplier. He encourages his followers to donate to a worthy candidate or non-profit. He instructs his followers to end whatever amount in a 2 so they can be counted. It is utterly amazing how much he raises for candidates and non-profits. I've donated to 3 or 4 of them. Pick a number (to end the donated amount in) and ask your followers weekly to donate to candidates.
Turns out Pfizer was correct about their vaccine being safe and effective... as an abortifacient. And only compared to coat hangers.
Is Senator Johnson anti-choice when it comes to abortion? I think a compromise needs to be made here. An amendment that unconditionally defends bodily autonomy. No vaccine mandates, no body-violating restrictions on abortion.
I can’t express enough thanks to your crusade and being a truth soldier in this war against medical freedom against the medical apartheid and fight for the human race and against trans humanism and track and trace society 💕🙏🏻💕
SB 866 passed the CA Senate this morning. They are wanting to sign into law that 12 year olds to make their own decisions to get a vaccine, etc. They are ok with sidestepping parents rights?
The video in this article showing the conflicts of interest is fantastic: https://rumble.com/vp54nt-what-is-trusted-news-initiative.html. The picture of the students in tents to avoid Covid is enlightening. You could save more lives putting people in tents before their McDonalds or Crispy Creme order arrived than anything related to Covid and tents(1). Covid mania. Thanks Covidians!
(1) This statement does not have a double-blinded, randomized control trial with a 95% confidence interval that has been peer-reviewed and further had the underlying data open-sourced for the scientific community at large to further analyze, but instead merely represents the fact checking (er... opinion) of the author.
Great lineup of speakers! I have been hearing about Mark Meuser and am in his California district so am going to vote for him. The Republicans in California need all the support they can get; as you say the Democrats have gone from progressive to authoritarian. I used to be one of them but no longer.
Part 2 of my “deep thoughts” on Covid Covid “narratives." Part 1 tried to show that "conventional wisdom" that is often false or dubious is used to justify policies that control the lives of virtually every world inhabitant. "Those who control the narratives control the world."
How does one really change/correct even one bogus and harmful narrative? Is this even possible?
Hope hasn’t been extinguished yet. It’s possible. However, when the entire system is staffed with people who have massive incentives to to protect fraudulent narratives, this is probably not likely.
The best strategy might be to try to harpoon one bogus narrative. The thought here being that if the masses belatedly realized that their “trusted” authorities had told a giant whopper about A, the same people might realize that these infallible experts might have also told a whopper about B, C, D … and Z. (This example also tells us how important it is to the Bad Guys to not be exposed for any lie).
There’s nothing the world can do about all the “lockdown” lies since the lockdowns are already largely over (although exposing this fraud would, one assumes, go a long way to preventing future “insane” lockdowns).
However, if the mantra that the vaccines are “safe and effective” was somehow exposed as a lie, one of the most formidable narratives in our lifetimes would instantly crumble.
In a just world, proving this would be easy. But when the Powers that Be control the key narratives, debunking bogus narratives is almost impossible. For starters, the narrative wouldn’t have become the narrative if 200 million Americans didn’t already believe it.
Key question: Can the effects of 20 months of incessant brain-washing or propaganda evaporate in, say, a few days?
Is the co-worker, acquaintance or even family member who shamed me as an “anti-vaxxer,” a selfish individual who was putting the lives of her grandmother or children at risk, really going to say, “Ah, my bad. I apologize for that, Bill.”
It’s also not difficult to identify other details that would flow from such a narrative-destroying epiphany.
Public health officials now viewed as saviors and saints might instantly be viewed as mass-murderers who perpetrated “crimes against humanity.” This would be quite the change in one’s point of view.
And we’re not just talking about the Anthony Fauci’s of the world; we’re talking about all the public officials who spent two years spouting the same lines as the man who (in a just world) might soon be on trial at Nuremberg 2.0 Trials.
This would include an icon of many Republicans, Donald Trump, who considers his “warp speed” vaccination roll-out one of the signature events of his administration … as well as the man who defeated Trump, Joe Biden.
This would include almost every governor and mayor in the country, plus the superintendents of education and college presidents many citizens admire and respect.
Name a CEO of a major company and you have just named someone who accepted Covid falsehoods as truths, and who probably compelled their employees to get a shot that was not effective and could kill or seriously harm said employees (and has probably already killed tens of thousands of Americans).
if they were decent and big enough, every leader of every size-able organization in the world would apologize for getting such a huge issue … terribly wrong.
As one can see from these examples, the exposure of one giant “bogus narrative” entails a level of mea culpas that has never happened in world history.
This said, just because some event lacks precedent doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. Still, I believe this thought exercise shows that it is highly unlikely a “true accounting” of Covid issues will occur … at least in our lifetimes.
The time to challenge false or dubious narratives is when they are first being promulgated, before they are established as infallible truths. After this, too many people and organizations are too invested to admit they may have bought into a giant lie.
Looking forward as always to hearing from Senator Johnson. We badly need a politician with his bravery here in captured Canada!
Curious - has anyone read the Lancet study from April 16 about worldwide all cause mortality? I read “death from Covid” but can’t help but wonder, without autopsies, how can causation be separated from correlation. We know of course that many have died as a resilient of mRNA injections, suicide, drug overdose etc, all of which may have been caused tangentially by Covid-19.
Then I read the funding source of the study. The BMGF.
In the first two paragraphs of this dispatch, Steve summarizes the main results of the last two years. As he points out, most of the “changes” in our world have been “horrible.” Writes Steve:
“The pandemic has brought on many changes, most of them horrible. Progressives stopped being progressive and became authoritarian.
“Then came the insane policies that necessitated the mass censorship of science precisely because these policies can’t bear the scrutiny of scientific discourse.”
To expound on these crucial take-aways:
Yes, “MANY changes” have occurred and, yes, "most" of these changes have been “horrible” for world inhabitants (I would argue "all" of these changes have been horrible). They were indeed “insane.”
Among these horrible developments is the fact that “progressives” … “became authoritarian.” I would edit this statement to say that many non-progressives also embraced “authoritarian policies.”
The “insane policies” also “necessitated “mass censorship of science.” I’d add these “policies” were really “mandates,” imposed not by changing laws, but imposed as “emergency orders” issued by mayors, governors, presidents and bureaucrats acting on the bogus or dubious advice of alleged “experts” and “authorities.”
As the world’s remaining critical thinkers have tried to point out, few if any of these “policies” (mandates) could “bear the scrutiny of scientific discourse.” Because this is the case, “mass censorship of (real) science” HAD to occur.
I would add that members of the Fourth Estate have also eschewed any real “search for the truth” …. so both real science and real journalism have been discarded.
In a world where alleged “scientists” and alleged “watchdog journalists” refuse to search for the truth, untruths are bound to proliferate. When these falsehoods remain (largely) unchallenged, they become “the (authorized) narrative.”
As ensuing policies that affect every life on the planet are not based on underlying truths, they invariably produce “horrible” results, results that are often the exact opposite of what their proponents assured the public would happen. Thus we get “safe and effective” vaccines that are ineffective and unsafe. Even the “vaccines” are not really real “vaccines.”
Lockdowns designed to “slow or stop” the “spread” of a respiratory virus - thus allegedly preventing large numbers of deaths - did NOT stop the spread of this virus at all. Indeed, these policies produced untold number of deaths and adverse events (health-wise and economic) that otherwise would not have occurred.
The people who tried to make these points have been vilified and/or censored while the “leaders” who pushed the bogus or dubious narratives have been celebrated and given even more power.
The bottom line from these “changes” is that millions of people who should never have experienced economic or health harms have experienced harms to some degree (“harms” ranging from mild and hard-to-quantify up to an including death).
The official narrative says that millions of lives have been “saved” and things would have been far worse if all the draconian “policies” (mandates) had not been implemented.
The real question is WHO should the masses believe is/was right? Today, most world citizens still side with the public health officials, scientists from prestigious institutions, politicians, executives with Big Pharma and the editors and journalists at the mainstream press organizations.
Which begs this question: Why would so many people accept as infallible the pronouncements of these particular people and organizations?
WHY this is so should be clear by now: Because world citizens have been subjected to 26 month of non-stop, largely unchallenged “reporting” that says the “narrative” is/was right.
Things might “change” only when more people realize the “authorized” narratives were bogus all along …. which would mean all our “leaders” who acted on these false narratives were also WRONG. Basically, the world has been listening to the wrong leaders.
If enough people ever reach this conclusion, real change probably WILL occur. But this might also represent the proverbial truth many people simply cannot handle.
Really what would have to happen is for many of my friends who have thought differently than myself for the past two years to ask this question: “Are you guys really saying that ALL of our “trusted” public officials and institutions were wrong about such important topics?”
To which I would have to reply with one word: Yes.
See this link to view the video of Comments and the many Californians in opposition at around 1 hour mark during the Judiciary Committee CA State Assembly meeting who ended up still voting for on SB 866 to go forward to the Assembly floor:
https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media/assembly-judiciary-committee-20220601/video
Steve -- You've been offering the other side a "debate" for quite a while without success. But maybe the resources of the VSRF can help in getting COVID-19 pseudo-vax proponents to answer some of your questions.
Instead of a "debate," characterize the interaction as a workshop or working group meeting.
I used to practice aerospace structural dynamics engineering for a living. Back then, one of the big debates was whether component-level vibration testing was sufficient to ensure that the spacecraft would not break during launch, or if testing of the entire spacecraft all at once was needed. There were differing views within the technical community of NASA (JPL vs. GSFC), The Aerospace Corp. (representing USAF), spacecraft and launch vehicle manufacturers, test facilities, and specialized consultants. A key community interaction was the annual Spacecraft & Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, where interested parties would present and discuss their findings. After more than a decade, consensus was eventually reached and industry guidance documents were released (such as MIL-STD-1540 and NASA-HDBK-7005).
In these and other technical meetings that I've attended or run during my career, a formal set of minutes would be approved at the end by all parties to document the subjects discussed, key agreements and disagreements, and action items for any future meetings.
In the case of such a meeting with Professor Marty Makary, Dr. Damania, et al., I suggest that you propose a workshop to answer perhaps 5 or 6 basic questions agreed to in advance by all parties. Each side would present their findings on each question, with the presentations to be sent beforehand. Day One of the workshop would be for each presentation followed by detailed Q&A in the morning. Leave the afternoon open for people to gather data/analysis in order to answer questions that came up in the morning session. Day Two morning to review any new data and continue Q&A. Afternoon would be for capturing/agreeing on meeting minutes. I assume there would still be some disagreements, but at least those would be documented and out in the open.
Key questions might something like:
* What are the documented statistics on those who were previously infected (both vaccinated and unvaccinated) with COVID-19 becoming re-infected?
* What are the documented statistics on those who were previously infected (both vaccinated and unvaccinated) with COVID-19 transmitting the disease to someone else if they've become reinfected?
* What is the documented Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent a single COVID-19 fatality in each major age group (e.g. kids aged from 5 to 11)?
* What is the VAERS Under-Reporing Factor for 2020, 2021 and 2022, and what is the consequent calculation of VAERS Excess Deaths for each year?
* What is the calculated Risk:Benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccination as stratified by age?
* Why are vaccines showing negative efficacy after several months?
* Etc.
The workshop could be held virtually, like the VSRF meetings, to make it easy for people to attend. That also would eliminate one excuse by the other side to not attend.
There is a deadline approaching. Read the public comment I provided for our nation's participation in WHO here: https://leemuller.substack.com/p/provide-your-input-by-7am-pst-friday
Steve mentioned the liability exemptions for Pharma in the VSRF today. Here is some background on why they really want the shots for kids: https://tomkom2.substack.com/p/the-real-reason-they-want-to-vax?r=qrie2&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Steve - you should do what Jeff Childers does. He does a weekly multiplier. He encourages his followers to donate to a worthy candidate or non-profit. He instructs his followers to end whatever amount in a 2 so they can be counted. It is utterly amazing how much he raises for candidates and non-profits. I've donated to 3 or 4 of them. Pick a number (to end the donated amount in) and ask your followers weekly to donate to candidates.
Turns out Pfizer was correct about their vaccine being safe and effective... as an abortifacient. And only compared to coat hangers.
Is Senator Johnson anti-choice when it comes to abortion? I think a compromise needs to be made here. An amendment that unconditionally defends bodily autonomy. No vaccine mandates, no body-violating restrictions on abortion.
How about a second Kennedy-Johnson ticket for the 2024 election? Only this time, the Kennedy wouldn't be saddled with that scumbag Lyndon.
I can’t express enough thanks to your crusade and being a truth soldier in this war against medical freedom against the medical apartheid and fight for the human race and against trans humanism and track and trace society 💕🙏🏻💕
SB 866 passed the CA Senate this morning. They are wanting to sign into law that 12 year olds to make their own decisions to get a vaccine, etc. They are ok with sidestepping parents rights?
The video in this article showing the conflicts of interest is fantastic: https://rumble.com/vp54nt-what-is-trusted-news-initiative.html. The picture of the students in tents to avoid Covid is enlightening. You could save more lives putting people in tents before their McDonalds or Crispy Creme order arrived than anything related to Covid and tents(1). Covid mania. Thanks Covidians!
(1) This statement does not have a double-blinded, randomized control trial with a 95% confidence interval that has been peer-reviewed and further had the underlying data open-sourced for the scientific community at large to further analyze, but instead merely represents the fact checking (er... opinion) of the author.
Great lineup of speakers! I have been hearing about Mark Meuser and am in his California district so am going to vote for him. The Republicans in California need all the support they can get; as you say the Democrats have gone from progressive to authoritarian. I used to be one of them but no longer.
The Constitution, stupid.
Say it over and over and over.
It resonates with actual Americans, it's like throwing holy water on a vampire to the deep state / WEF creatures.
Part 2 of my “deep thoughts” on Covid Covid “narratives." Part 1 tried to show that "conventional wisdom" that is often false or dubious is used to justify policies that control the lives of virtually every world inhabitant. "Those who control the narratives control the world."
How does one really change/correct even one bogus and harmful narrative? Is this even possible?
Hope hasn’t been extinguished yet. It’s possible. However, when the entire system is staffed with people who have massive incentives to to protect fraudulent narratives, this is probably not likely.
The best strategy might be to try to harpoon one bogus narrative. The thought here being that if the masses belatedly realized that their “trusted” authorities had told a giant whopper about A, the same people might realize that these infallible experts might have also told a whopper about B, C, D … and Z. (This example also tells us how important it is to the Bad Guys to not be exposed for any lie).
There’s nothing the world can do about all the “lockdown” lies since the lockdowns are already largely over (although exposing this fraud would, one assumes, go a long way to preventing future “insane” lockdowns).
However, if the mantra that the vaccines are “safe and effective” was somehow exposed as a lie, one of the most formidable narratives in our lifetimes would instantly crumble.
In a just world, proving this would be easy. But when the Powers that Be control the key narratives, debunking bogus narratives is almost impossible. For starters, the narrative wouldn’t have become the narrative if 200 million Americans didn’t already believe it.
Key question: Can the effects of 20 months of incessant brain-washing or propaganda evaporate in, say, a few days?
Is the co-worker, acquaintance or even family member who shamed me as an “anti-vaxxer,” a selfish individual who was putting the lives of her grandmother or children at risk, really going to say, “Ah, my bad. I apologize for that, Bill.”
It’s also not difficult to identify other details that would flow from such a narrative-destroying epiphany.
Public health officials now viewed as saviors and saints might instantly be viewed as mass-murderers who perpetrated “crimes against humanity.” This would be quite the change in one’s point of view.
And we’re not just talking about the Anthony Fauci’s of the world; we’re talking about all the public officials who spent two years spouting the same lines as the man who (in a just world) might soon be on trial at Nuremberg 2.0 Trials.
This would include an icon of many Republicans, Donald Trump, who considers his “warp speed” vaccination roll-out one of the signature events of his administration … as well as the man who defeated Trump, Joe Biden.
This would include almost every governor and mayor in the country, plus the superintendents of education and college presidents many citizens admire and respect.
Name a CEO of a major company and you have just named someone who accepted Covid falsehoods as truths, and who probably compelled their employees to get a shot that was not effective and could kill or seriously harm said employees (and has probably already killed tens of thousands of Americans).
if they were decent and big enough, every leader of every size-able organization in the world would apologize for getting such a huge issue … terribly wrong.
As one can see from these examples, the exposure of one giant “bogus narrative” entails a level of mea culpas that has never happened in world history.
This said, just because some event lacks precedent doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. Still, I believe this thought exercise shows that it is highly unlikely a “true accounting” of Covid issues will occur … at least in our lifetimes.
The time to challenge false or dubious narratives is when they are first being promulgated, before they are established as infallible truths. After this, too many people and organizations are too invested to admit they may have bought into a giant lie.
Looking forward as always to hearing from Senator Johnson. We badly need a politician with his bravery here in captured Canada!
Curious - has anyone read the Lancet study from April 16 about worldwide all cause mortality? I read “death from Covid” but can’t help but wonder, without autopsies, how can causation be separated from correlation. We know of course that many have died as a resilient of mRNA injections, suicide, drug overdose etc, all of which may have been caused tangentially by Covid-19.
Then I read the funding source of the study. The BMGF.
Move along, nothing to see here.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/campaigns/stop-the-who/2022/05/24-hours-left-comment-at-the-stakeholder-listening-session-for-75th-world-health-assembly/74090/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hhs-ihr-comments
In the first two paragraphs of this dispatch, Steve summarizes the main results of the last two years. As he points out, most of the “changes” in our world have been “horrible.” Writes Steve:
“The pandemic has brought on many changes, most of them horrible. Progressives stopped being progressive and became authoritarian.
“Then came the insane policies that necessitated the mass censorship of science precisely because these policies can’t bear the scrutiny of scientific discourse.”
To expound on these crucial take-aways:
Yes, “MANY changes” have occurred and, yes, "most" of these changes have been “horrible” for world inhabitants (I would argue "all" of these changes have been horrible). They were indeed “insane.”
Among these horrible developments is the fact that “progressives” … “became authoritarian.” I would edit this statement to say that many non-progressives also embraced “authoritarian policies.”
The “insane policies” also “necessitated “mass censorship of science.” I’d add these “policies” were really “mandates,” imposed not by changing laws, but imposed as “emergency orders” issued by mayors, governors, presidents and bureaucrats acting on the bogus or dubious advice of alleged “experts” and “authorities.”
As the world’s remaining critical thinkers have tried to point out, few if any of these “policies” (mandates) could “bear the scrutiny of scientific discourse.” Because this is the case, “mass censorship of (real) science” HAD to occur.
I would add that members of the Fourth Estate have also eschewed any real “search for the truth” …. so both real science and real journalism have been discarded.
In a world where alleged “scientists” and alleged “watchdog journalists” refuse to search for the truth, untruths are bound to proliferate. When these falsehoods remain (largely) unchallenged, they become “the (authorized) narrative.”
As ensuing policies that affect every life on the planet are not based on underlying truths, they invariably produce “horrible” results, results that are often the exact opposite of what their proponents assured the public would happen. Thus we get “safe and effective” vaccines that are ineffective and unsafe. Even the “vaccines” are not really real “vaccines.”
Lockdowns designed to “slow or stop” the “spread” of a respiratory virus - thus allegedly preventing large numbers of deaths - did NOT stop the spread of this virus at all. Indeed, these policies produced untold number of deaths and adverse events (health-wise and economic) that otherwise would not have occurred.
The people who tried to make these points have been vilified and/or censored while the “leaders” who pushed the bogus or dubious narratives have been celebrated and given even more power.
The bottom line from these “changes” is that millions of people who should never have experienced economic or health harms have experienced harms to some degree (“harms” ranging from mild and hard-to-quantify up to an including death).
The official narrative says that millions of lives have been “saved” and things would have been far worse if all the draconian “policies” (mandates) had not been implemented.
The real question is WHO should the masses believe is/was right? Today, most world citizens still side with the public health officials, scientists from prestigious institutions, politicians, executives with Big Pharma and the editors and journalists at the mainstream press organizations.
Which begs this question: Why would so many people accept as infallible the pronouncements of these particular people and organizations?
WHY this is so should be clear by now: Because world citizens have been subjected to 26 month of non-stop, largely unchallenged “reporting” that says the “narrative” is/was right.
Things might “change” only when more people realize the “authorized” narratives were bogus all along …. which would mean all our “leaders” who acted on these false narratives were also WRONG. Basically, the world has been listening to the wrong leaders.
If enough people ever reach this conclusion, real change probably WILL occur. But this might also represent the proverbial truth many people simply cannot handle.
Really what would have to happen is for many of my friends who have thought differently than myself for the past two years to ask this question: “Are you guys really saying that ALL of our “trusted” public officials and institutions were wrong about such important topics?”
To which I would have to reply with one word: Yes.