I still can't believe how they used an "emergency" to bypass informed consent mandating an deadly "experiment". Not even sure the purpose of the FDA anymore.
Their actual purpose remains unchanged. Marketing. "Safe and Effective". Nothing more than a focus grouped marketing slogan. Their publicly advertised intended purpose, consumer protection, was never anything more than a deception to justify the enormous expenditure of taxpayer funds they absorb. Sad, I know, but there it is.
You have identified an important issue. I would like to make two points.
1. FDA jurisdiction over human subjects research applies to research concerning drugs and devices and similar medical interventions. The type of social science research done by Stanford‘s Internet observatory appears to be outside FDA jurisdiction. There may be an ethical argument for a requiring subject consent, but this is not an FDA matter.
2. There are serious questions regarding how the FDA may choose to interpret the statutory specification of minimal risk research as well as a serious issue of whether the enabling legislation authorizes FDA to delegate making this designation. The recent Supreme Court decision overturning the so-called Chevron deference doctrine under which courts were required to defer to reasonable agency. Interpretations of law may make it easier to challenge the FDA determination of what constitutes minimal risk research as well as whether delegation to IRB’s is permissible under relevant statutes. Also, even if congressional delegation to FDA of the power to define minimal risk research may pass muster under the so-called delegation doctrine, sub delegation to numerous IRB‘s may represent a bridge too far.
Not an issue in cases where subjects have no choice but to participate — pushing stuff into our water and food supplies or censoring people on the internet under the guise of “public health”.
Not really consent, then, right? Nor can informed consent be given in the absence of accurate information, which no one who got the shot had, because it was being withheld.
I jumped at the word, 'statins'. (minimal risk???) My husband turned down two doctor's advising him to be on statins. Why? Because he worked as a cardiac nurse for 22 years and SAW what they did to people. He knows what issues he has which statins would exacerbate. IT IS THE PERSON HIMSELF who needs to know what is acceptable in his body and what is not. NOT SOME BUREAUCRAT in thrall to the pharmaphia. If even 10-20% of people refused to accept unacceptable regulations, the regulations would be changed. PEOPLE UNITE! do SOMETHING.
Yep, I watched a dear friend, took 2 statin pills, couldn't walk. Sort of recovered over a year of effort. GP persuaded him to try a different statin. Took one pill. Hospitalised, never really recovered, became a frail old man overnight, heart attack killed him. He was never informed of the risks, trusted his GP even after the first event, never had the advisory liver function test before prescribing, was it the statins that killed him or the incompetent GP? 🙏
Sad story with predictable ending: the harms continue as the statins continue to be mindlessly prescribed. The telling discovery is that the medical journals take their drug info DIRECTLY from the big pharma companies bringing the drugs to market. Doctors seem to be unaware that 'what is published in the medical journal' is cherry picked big pharma advertising and hype, telling doctors, THIS DRUG IS SAFE! THIS DRUG IS EFFECTIVE! (At earning money, as in the opioid crisis.) Well, no other narrative is really permitted when it is big pharma advertising dollars providing the salaries of the medical journals. That is why every study questioning the covid jab was not allowed to be published in the medical journals for 3 years. Now that the body count is piling up, (it takes a minority of persistent voices) it is getting harder and harder to deny that modern drugs are NOT SAFETY TESTED to the standards human patients need. Money trumps hippocratic oath.
I can tell you, as a highly trained research scientist, myself, that, in my experience, the level of ethics among rank and file scientists and administrators at research institutions, is dubious. Scientists are just ordinary people, after all, trained in a specific profession. They’re no more ethical, as a group, than plumbers, journalists, cowboys or Wall Street bankers. In fact, one thing that attracts many students into science is the lure of potential power. The objective of learning is to find new ways to exert control over others, or nature in general. Curiosity and respect aren’t the cornerstones of science for many scientists. Deep down, under the layers of rationalization and self-deception, drive for power and control, are.
And the modern practice of science reinforces improper motives by creating structures to reward the most selfish, self-deceiving and ruthless. They are most likely to rise to positions of real power. And they absolutely despise fellow scientists who are thoughtful, empathetic and cautious about how to apply what is learned. Ethical researchers can stand in the way of achieving goals for the greater glory and reward of the research shills and their corporate and political masters.
This is one reason why I so abhor and rail against vivisection. Not only because of the unconscionable suffering of the animal victims, but also because of what the practice does to the morality and spiritual development of the scientists conducting the practice. I know; I went through it. It’s almost like a prolonged hazing ritual young researchers are put through to “toughen them up”, and it shoots academic air under the wings of those who are empathy deficient from the get go. They have no problem “gettin’ ‘er done’, so their upward career trajectory blooms quickly. Those who hesitate or object are soon noticed in a bad way, and likely to progressively lose interest and support from senior scientist who have no tolerance for “foolish sentimentality”.
Despite loud and constant braying about ethics and being all about helping people, the average researcher, backed by the average administrator and/or profit-driven corporation (with shareholders to please), really doesn’t, deep down, give a crap, except where “doing good” and getting the promotion, intersect. The average scientist is NOT a stellar example of deeper empathy or higher ethics. Nor is he or she, in general, a good listener
or communicator. In today’s world of science, being a driven political climber is pretty much the number one character trait one needs to survive. Obviously this isn’t true across the board, but if we’re talking about who wields the most influence, look for the guy or gal who has the least concern with creating new and horrifying things to do to what would otherwise be somebody’s beloved pet. Or to a non-human primate, or even a gentle white rat who would happily play with your kids and eat peanuts from their fingers. That’s the person who screams loudly that you must continually find them with hundreds of millions of tax dollars or we’ll all suddenly start suffering and dying of horrible diseases. That’s the person who considers things like informed consent and IRB’s (and, especially IACUCS for animal subjects), silly and wasteful impediments to the holy pursuit of “knowledge”.
We all know that what goes around also comes around, and what we first practice on non-human animals we eventually do to each other. So watch closely how we treat our non-human kin. That will predict our future. If we wish a different future, we must start by changing the way we treat animals.
I say, therefore, that we shut down vivisection labs as a first and ongoing step towards reversing the unholy trend in abusing and debasing human subjects in scientific research. I completely understand that in some studies, you must misrepresent what you’re doing in order to not alert the study subject so that their response isn’ biased. For example, you might tell a subject that you’re testing their reaction times to certain stimuli, when in reality you’re actually studying their willingness to accept certain types of propaganda. Or you might be observing an entire group of naive subjects and noting how each responds to a novel stimulus broadcast to the entire group. Or whatever. I get it. I remember these sorts of training activities from my college days. And drawing lines between what’s ethically pure and what’s not so wholesome can be mighty difficult. Part rests on the activity itself, and part on the intention of the researcher. And practically any new piece of knowledge can eventually be twisted to evil ends by somebody on down the line. But there IS a lot that’s CLEARLY either ethical or not, and bodies like IRB’s (and IACUCS)exist to adjudicate each case by supposedly knowledgeable and neutral parties, and put limits on what scientists can do
But the fish toys from the bead, and the least morally and ethically qualified are now almost fully running the show. And handing us the bill for their exploitation of us. We should never have believed them when they bleated “Your child or your dog!!!” to justify their heinous dealings for decades. Now they’ve had the time and financial support to start realizing their ultimate goal: turning us all into their dogs.
I’m not entire certain what to do about it in practical terms, other than actively resisting more pandemic madness, informing everyone you have access to, and refusing to donate to medical charities associated in any way with animal research or dodgy human studies (this can require digging, most institutions resist telling the public what their donations are ACTUALLY spent on. Look under the hoods of their glossy PR pamphlets to find out what they may be hiding from you) . Ultimately, eliminating the Fed and its rotten paper currency and the debt model of money, created by central banks everywhere, and returning to currency 100% backed by, and directly convertible to, gold and silver, is the only root and permanent answer. It’s the only thing that can stop the research funding gravy train that’s facilitated by the ability of the government to spend wherever, and in whatever quantities, it pleases. It’s the only thing that encourages savings, keeps control over government and corporate profits in the hands of the people, and allows the public to have more say than governments and corporations over what is done with our wealth. And that’s why hard money was taken away from us and we’re constantly told what an abject disaster it would be to have it back.
That won’t end all problems not change human nature, of course, but it WOILD pit natural curbs on the worst potential for evil, which is currently breaking out all over the place. It would also encourage re-adoption of basic ethics and personal responsibility, which have fallen so far by the wayside that proposals to essentially turn the entire human race into nothing but perpetual Guinea pigs for the amusement and profit of the elites, are now becoming reality. So, in addition to speaking out against proposals to do away with human subjects protections, convert some of your degenerate Federal Reserve notes in to precious metals to help starve the beast. And get together with others who will accept them in barter for goods and services. Creating the parallel economy is an indirect, long term play, but ultimately it’s the only thing that will seriously restrict and keep a lid on the current nonsense.
This is part of a larger agenda to expand technology into all aspects of our lives for commercial gain and political control. This isn't necessarily an evil project but is a natural trajectory of the desire to expand commercial interests.
The problem is that technology will increase exponentially in the coming years, and with that increase comes power for subtle surveillance and insertion into all aspects of life. This flies in the face of the idea of individual self-determination and ownership of one's own body and property, with the freedom to self-direct one's life.
The push for this expansion of technology is coming from what amounts to a cartel of the wealthiest financiers and industrialists on the planet, allied with governments in what's called the global public-private partnership (G3P.) This is also known as stakeholder capitalism with the lofty-sounding goal of making the world better for everyone, but we, the people, aren't true stakeholders and the real goal of this cartel is simply to direct and control as much as possible, with financial gain and power as payoffs.
We need to re-assert absolute individual sovereignty. Our government should be in the business of turning back assaults on our bodies and our property, not working in tandem with G3P to destroy these so that the cartel has power.
Lots of problems and lots of ideas for solutions, but the primary goal is to halt the unwarranted intrusion of technology and allow us all an "opt-out" with no penalty for refusing to participate in the G3P project, as we make our way with new monetary systems, new local farming, new local self-determination, and complete bodily autonomy, etc.
Technology will expand naturally but limits must be set or we're likely to find ourselves in a technological/financial control grid that will benefit the G3P cartel--as it essentially owns or controls everything-- but do grievous harm to individual sovereignty and the liberty that so many died defending.
That is an evil project. We could even compare it to something that has been considered evil since history began. That is possession. This techno-control over self-determination and bodily autonomy is at least as bad as slavery and possibly an existential threat to the existence of the human condition. Even an atheist could call this evil. (Meaning it's very much a spiritual assault but even on the human level, it's evil). We are witnessing a global takeover by the narcissists and psychopaths who have risen to the top of institutions. Two important things going for us is that there are more of us than them and due to their psychopathy, they are not fully cooperating with each other.
So how do we fight it? Seems to me that we need to awaken the masses and calling it all evil (while I agree it is) is a bridge too far for them. Thus, focus on the plain fact of a global controlling cartel. Anyone can see that, once it’s pointed out.
Requires a paradigm shift. Each person will eventually see how many lies they are being told and how many they believe. That is how we wake up. We question our beliefs. Inevitably, we discover that much of our world view is based in misperceptions and lies. That is true in all times. Perhaps the lies seem more severe right now because they are global but really how bad was it during the Spanish Inquisition? Just one example of many. We are living in a dark age but soon the light will outshine.
You should read more independent media reporting on the FDA. Your naivete is astonishing. I do not envy your journey into reality. Mine has not been pleasant. There is no going back.
GUTTED huh, . . . . Your choice of title? You know what needs to be GUTTED . . . .
Did you sign Freiman's Hope ACCORD? (What the Hells an Accord?, According to WHO?!) Yes or No?
You know what, you should grow a pair. I regret signing the GBD. I ain't messing around no more. This is war. PS I did not read past the title. I'm so sick of all this s..... What A waste of Time.
Thank you. I appreciate your kind words. It’s not easy to do the right thing in science or medicine these days, and hasn’t been for a long time. There are a lot of good people in science who have been persecuted for trying to speak out about the reality of Covid, for example, and the story of Ignacio Semmelweis,the Hungarian doctor who pioneered the concept of washing one’s hands to stop the spread of disease (specifically, in his case, the germs that spread purpureal fever in maternity wards) will leave a decent person red with rage. The good doctor was roundly ignored and locked by his colleagues in what may arguably be the worst case ever of medical arrogance suppressing scientific integrity. And nobody knows how many women and babies paid the ultimate price.
It’s very difficult to buck the heavily reinforced dogmas that have been laid to distort science by those within the scientific community itself, primarily for the benefit of those who are most focused on “getting theirs”. I suspect that most researchers never learned how to deal gracefully as children with being wrong, because so many (at least in my experience) would rather literally die on whatever hill they’ve climbed, than be willing to move on and explore another hill when their current hill has been shown to be full of sinkholes. They can say all the right things about science, but in actual
practice, when their data or point of view are challenged, they treat it as a block of “truths” and “certainties” when, in fact, science is really all about Uncertainty. Real scientists are always ready to constructively challenge new ideas and data, and equally ready to embrace them if the preponderance of evidence shows that they’re better than what came before.
One handy-dandy rule of thumb I use in judging whether to “trust the science” in biomedicine is how those espousing it treat animals. If they show little or no empathy, or are clearly lying to themselves (as well as to others), mouthing the right things while showing an affect of insincerity, I immediately become skeptical. Look at Fauci and the beagle experiments he funded. If a man (or woman) can do those things to what would otherwise be pet dogs, do you really believe they have a completely opposite, honest, saintly love for their fellow human beings? I don’t! So watch how biomedical scientists treat or feel about animals, and decide for yourself whether there’s a correlation between that and how, in broad terms, they deal with humanity as a whole.
It’s such a shame. Scientific thinking is very liberating, and can have a profoundly positive effect on individuals and our species collectively. But like most things, it’s been badly corrupted by those who think first and foremost only of themselves. And with the internet and exposure of the crimes committed in the name is “science”, I’m fearful that all trust in the concept will be lost like the baby being thrown out with the bath water. Religious tyrants will be quick to seize upon the gap in reasoning ability and shove their own brand of nonsense down humanity’s throat and we’ll be lost to a new intellectual and feudal dark age. I think the crimes against humanity for which the likes of Fauci, Gates, the IMF and everybody who aided and abetted the convid scam should be tried, must include the abuse of science and harms from pushing humanity away from science education and rational thinking. And of course, the horrifying abuse of animals and kids.
I felt bad being edged out of the research world for lack of suitable jobs and for the disadvantage of being female (yes, I was told at several points to my face that as a woman in science I was going nowhere), but in the end I’m lucky to be away from the dark, dystopian energy that pervades the places I worked. You build up some tolerance nd don’t notice it as much when you’re immersed in it for a long time, like a smoker doesn’t notice the odor of stale cigarette smoke in their environment, but looking back, I would never want to touch it again. I think the average human brain simply isn’t sufficiently developed to practice science the way it was to be practiced: with creativity, humility and non-attachment to results (ie, when new facts appear you debate them from all angles and if they hold up, you change the theory not the new facts, regardless of how many papers you’ve published to the contrary!!!) But, that’s just one individual’s minority view. There are a fair number of genuinely good scientists out there, and I wish they could take the led but I’m afraid their opinions and data will always have to fight the corrupt system for recognition and acceptance. I just hope it won’t end up being a losing battle because time to straighten ourselves out appears to be growing short.
It would appear that TPTB now believe that if well over half of the people cannot see the real-life Bond Movie non-parody of the WEF & Gates Foundation over the last decade, there is no need to promise to have any protections for the serf slaves.
Hmm, if the research pool is so large that it's not possible to meet all the subjects....who does the assessment for suitability, administration, the feedback, the follow up and the inevitable unblinding? Indeed why bother with fake placebos and trials anyway and go straight to market based on the AI computer model of 'safety'. Just do a repeat of the modMRNA sales using EUA, military tactics and fake legislation that allows 'them' to do whatever they want without comeback. Aka Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova's incredible work.
The only words to use are No, Nope, No way and the beautiful Scottish expression 'Get Tae F*ck' that sums up the appropriate reaction succinctly. 🙏
In what kind of alternate universe are we living when they are considering putting statins into the public water supply without peoples knowledge?Absolutely not!!!!!!! How is that legal???
I REALLY pray these bureaucratic jerks are gutted. Imagine the tax savings if every government entity like the FDA was decimated and defended. Or just trimmed down to a small enough group to hold them responsible both criminally and financially
Funny how recently when I try to restack certain articles I keep getting error messages. And those, quite coincidentally I'm sure, happen to be the articles that FB has been censoring when I post them there.
Are all government medical agencies populated by unethical whores?
Yes.
It really appears that way, or MAYBE they're just egotistical a holes that have God complexes and don't give a sh*t about us unwashed masses
I still can't believe how they used an "emergency" to bypass informed consent mandating an deadly "experiment". Not even sure the purpose of the FDA anymore.
Their actual purpose remains unchanged. Marketing. "Safe and Effective". Nothing more than a focus grouped marketing slogan. Their publicly advertised intended purpose, consumer protection, was never anything more than a deception to justify the enormous expenditure of taxpayer funds they absorb. Sad, I know, but there it is.
Hear, hear
You have identified an important issue. I would like to make two points.
1. FDA jurisdiction over human subjects research applies to research concerning drugs and devices and similar medical interventions. The type of social science research done by Stanford‘s Internet observatory appears to be outside FDA jurisdiction. There may be an ethical argument for a requiring subject consent, but this is not an FDA matter.
2. There are serious questions regarding how the FDA may choose to interpret the statutory specification of minimal risk research as well as a serious issue of whether the enabling legislation authorizes FDA to delegate making this designation. The recent Supreme Court decision overturning the so-called Chevron deference doctrine under which courts were required to defer to reasonable agency. Interpretations of law may make it easier to challenge the FDA determination of what constitutes minimal risk research as well as whether delegation to IRB’s is permissible under relevant statutes. Also, even if congressional delegation to FDA of the power to define minimal risk research may pass muster under the so-called delegation doctrine, sub delegation to numerous IRB‘s may represent a bridge too far.
Neil Steinmetz MD, JD
This is a GOOD comment
Agree.
Hmmmm, I smell a rat, a stinking corporate rat.
If IRBs are not going to protect study participants, why even have them?
Well now it would just be Optics. The appearance of protecting participants.
I wondered why anyone would volunteer? Maybe if absolutely desperate
Not an issue in cases where subjects have no choice but to participate — pushing stuff into our water and food supplies or censoring people on the internet under the guise of “public health”.
Like telling employees they will be fired if they don't consent to having an untried vaccine administered to them?
Not really consent, then, right? Nor can informed consent be given in the absence of accurate information, which no one who got the shot had, because it was being withheld.
I jumped at the word, 'statins'. (minimal risk???) My husband turned down two doctor's advising him to be on statins. Why? Because he worked as a cardiac nurse for 22 years and SAW what they did to people. He knows what issues he has which statins would exacerbate. IT IS THE PERSON HIMSELF who needs to know what is acceptable in his body and what is not. NOT SOME BUREAUCRAT in thrall to the pharmaphia. If even 10-20% of people refused to accept unacceptable regulations, the regulations would be changed. PEOPLE UNITE! do SOMETHING.
Yep, I watched a dear friend, took 2 statin pills, couldn't walk. Sort of recovered over a year of effort. GP persuaded him to try a different statin. Took one pill. Hospitalised, never really recovered, became a frail old man overnight, heart attack killed him. He was never informed of the risks, trusted his GP even after the first event, never had the advisory liver function test before prescribing, was it the statins that killed him or the incompetent GP? 🙏
Sad story with predictable ending: the harms continue as the statins continue to be mindlessly prescribed. The telling discovery is that the medical journals take their drug info DIRECTLY from the big pharma companies bringing the drugs to market. Doctors seem to be unaware that 'what is published in the medical journal' is cherry picked big pharma advertising and hype, telling doctors, THIS DRUG IS SAFE! THIS DRUG IS EFFECTIVE! (At earning money, as in the opioid crisis.) Well, no other narrative is really permitted when it is big pharma advertising dollars providing the salaries of the medical journals. That is why every study questioning the covid jab was not allowed to be published in the medical journals for 3 years. Now that the body count is piling up, (it takes a minority of persistent voices) it is getting harder and harder to deny that modern drugs are NOT SAFETY TESTED to the standards human patients need. Money trumps hippocratic oath.
I can tell you, as a highly trained research scientist, myself, that, in my experience, the level of ethics among rank and file scientists and administrators at research institutions, is dubious. Scientists are just ordinary people, after all, trained in a specific profession. They’re no more ethical, as a group, than plumbers, journalists, cowboys or Wall Street bankers. In fact, one thing that attracts many students into science is the lure of potential power. The objective of learning is to find new ways to exert control over others, or nature in general. Curiosity and respect aren’t the cornerstones of science for many scientists. Deep down, under the layers of rationalization and self-deception, drive for power and control, are.
And the modern practice of science reinforces improper motives by creating structures to reward the most selfish, self-deceiving and ruthless. They are most likely to rise to positions of real power. And they absolutely despise fellow scientists who are thoughtful, empathetic and cautious about how to apply what is learned. Ethical researchers can stand in the way of achieving goals for the greater glory and reward of the research shills and their corporate and political masters.
This is one reason why I so abhor and rail against vivisection. Not only because of the unconscionable suffering of the animal victims, but also because of what the practice does to the morality and spiritual development of the scientists conducting the practice. I know; I went through it. It’s almost like a prolonged hazing ritual young researchers are put through to “toughen them up”, and it shoots academic air under the wings of those who are empathy deficient from the get go. They have no problem “gettin’ ‘er done’, so their upward career trajectory blooms quickly. Those who hesitate or object are soon noticed in a bad way, and likely to progressively lose interest and support from senior scientist who have no tolerance for “foolish sentimentality”.
Despite loud and constant braying about ethics and being all about helping people, the average researcher, backed by the average administrator and/or profit-driven corporation (with shareholders to please), really doesn’t, deep down, give a crap, except where “doing good” and getting the promotion, intersect. The average scientist is NOT a stellar example of deeper empathy or higher ethics. Nor is he or she, in general, a good listener
or communicator. In today’s world of science, being a driven political climber is pretty much the number one character trait one needs to survive. Obviously this isn’t true across the board, but if we’re talking about who wields the most influence, look for the guy or gal who has the least concern with creating new and horrifying things to do to what would otherwise be somebody’s beloved pet. Or to a non-human primate, or even a gentle white rat who would happily play with your kids and eat peanuts from their fingers. That’s the person who screams loudly that you must continually find them with hundreds of millions of tax dollars or we’ll all suddenly start suffering and dying of horrible diseases. That’s the person who considers things like informed consent and IRB’s (and, especially IACUCS for animal subjects), silly and wasteful impediments to the holy pursuit of “knowledge”.
We all know that what goes around also comes around, and what we first practice on non-human animals we eventually do to each other. So watch closely how we treat our non-human kin. That will predict our future. If we wish a different future, we must start by changing the way we treat animals.
I say, therefore, that we shut down vivisection labs as a first and ongoing step towards reversing the unholy trend in abusing and debasing human subjects in scientific research. I completely understand that in some studies, you must misrepresent what you’re doing in order to not alert the study subject so that their response isn’ biased. For example, you might tell a subject that you’re testing their reaction times to certain stimuli, when in reality you’re actually studying their willingness to accept certain types of propaganda. Or you might be observing an entire group of naive subjects and noting how each responds to a novel stimulus broadcast to the entire group. Or whatever. I get it. I remember these sorts of training activities from my college days. And drawing lines between what’s ethically pure and what’s not so wholesome can be mighty difficult. Part rests on the activity itself, and part on the intention of the researcher. And practically any new piece of knowledge can eventually be twisted to evil ends by somebody on down the line. But there IS a lot that’s CLEARLY either ethical or not, and bodies like IRB’s (and IACUCS)exist to adjudicate each case by supposedly knowledgeable and neutral parties, and put limits on what scientists can do
But the fish toys from the bead, and the least morally and ethically qualified are now almost fully running the show. And handing us the bill for their exploitation of us. We should never have believed them when they bleated “Your child or your dog!!!” to justify their heinous dealings for decades. Now they’ve had the time and financial support to start realizing their ultimate goal: turning us all into their dogs.
I’m not entire certain what to do about it in practical terms, other than actively resisting more pandemic madness, informing everyone you have access to, and refusing to donate to medical charities associated in any way with animal research or dodgy human studies (this can require digging, most institutions resist telling the public what their donations are ACTUALLY spent on. Look under the hoods of their glossy PR pamphlets to find out what they may be hiding from you) . Ultimately, eliminating the Fed and its rotten paper currency and the debt model of money, created by central banks everywhere, and returning to currency 100% backed by, and directly convertible to, gold and silver, is the only root and permanent answer. It’s the only thing that can stop the research funding gravy train that’s facilitated by the ability of the government to spend wherever, and in whatever quantities, it pleases. It’s the only thing that encourages savings, keeps control over government and corporate profits in the hands of the people, and allows the public to have more say than governments and corporations over what is done with our wealth. And that’s why hard money was taken away from us and we’re constantly told what an abject disaster it would be to have it back.
That won’t end all problems not change human nature, of course, but it WOILD pit natural curbs on the worst potential for evil, which is currently breaking out all over the place. It would also encourage re-adoption of basic ethics and personal responsibility, which have fallen so far by the wayside that proposals to essentially turn the entire human race into nothing but perpetual Guinea pigs for the amusement and profit of the elites, are now becoming reality. So, in addition to speaking out against proposals to do away with human subjects protections, convert some of your degenerate Federal Reserve notes in to precious metals to help starve the beast. And get together with others who will accept them in barter for goods and services. Creating the parallel economy is an indirect, long term play, but ultimately it’s the only thing that will seriously restrict and keep a lid on the current nonsense.
This is part of a larger agenda to expand technology into all aspects of our lives for commercial gain and political control. This isn't necessarily an evil project but is a natural trajectory of the desire to expand commercial interests.
The problem is that technology will increase exponentially in the coming years, and with that increase comes power for subtle surveillance and insertion into all aspects of life. This flies in the face of the idea of individual self-determination and ownership of one's own body and property, with the freedom to self-direct one's life.
The push for this expansion of technology is coming from what amounts to a cartel of the wealthiest financiers and industrialists on the planet, allied with governments in what's called the global public-private partnership (G3P.) This is also known as stakeholder capitalism with the lofty-sounding goal of making the world better for everyone, but we, the people, aren't true stakeholders and the real goal of this cartel is simply to direct and control as much as possible, with financial gain and power as payoffs.
We need to re-assert absolute individual sovereignty. Our government should be in the business of turning back assaults on our bodies and our property, not working in tandem with G3P to destroy these so that the cartel has power.
Lots of problems and lots of ideas for solutions, but the primary goal is to halt the unwarranted intrusion of technology and allow us all an "opt-out" with no penalty for refusing to participate in the G3P project, as we make our way with new monetary systems, new local farming, new local self-determination, and complete bodily autonomy, etc.
Technology will expand naturally but limits must be set or we're likely to find ourselves in a technological/financial control grid that will benefit the G3P cartel--as it essentially owns or controls everything-- but do grievous harm to individual sovereignty and the liberty that so many died defending.
That is an evil project. We could even compare it to something that has been considered evil since history began. That is possession. This techno-control over self-determination and bodily autonomy is at least as bad as slavery and possibly an existential threat to the existence of the human condition. Even an atheist could call this evil. (Meaning it's very much a spiritual assault but even on the human level, it's evil). We are witnessing a global takeover by the narcissists and psychopaths who have risen to the top of institutions. Two important things going for us is that there are more of us than them and due to their psychopathy, they are not fully cooperating with each other.
So how do we fight it? Seems to me that we need to awaken the masses and calling it all evil (while I agree it is) is a bridge too far for them. Thus, focus on the plain fact of a global controlling cartel. Anyone can see that, once it’s pointed out.
How do we make people see? That is the question.
Requires a paradigm shift. Each person will eventually see how many lies they are being told and how many they believe. That is how we wake up. We question our beliefs. Inevitably, we discover that much of our world view is based in misperceptions and lies. That is true in all times. Perhaps the lies seem more severe right now because they are global but really how bad was it during the Spanish Inquisition? Just one example of many. We are living in a dark age but soon the light will outshine.
You should read more independent media reporting on the FDA. Your naivete is astonishing. I do not envy your journey into reality. Mine has not been pleasant. There is no going back.
I really like what you've said.
To ILLUSIONS;
GUTTED huh, . . . . Your choice of title? You know what needs to be GUTTED . . . .
Did you sign Freiman's Hope ACCORD? (What the Hells an Accord?, According to WHO?!) Yes or No?
You know what, you should grow a pair. I regret signing the GBD. I ain't messing around no more. This is war. PS I did not read past the title. I'm so sick of all this s..... What A waste of Time.
Wasn’t there talk of self-disseminating vaccines? If that’s something they’re working on this is probably applicable.
Thank you for bringing to light . I appreciate your honesty and integrity.
Thank you. I appreciate your kind words. It’s not easy to do the right thing in science or medicine these days, and hasn’t been for a long time. There are a lot of good people in science who have been persecuted for trying to speak out about the reality of Covid, for example, and the story of Ignacio Semmelweis,the Hungarian doctor who pioneered the concept of washing one’s hands to stop the spread of disease (specifically, in his case, the germs that spread purpureal fever in maternity wards) will leave a decent person red with rage. The good doctor was roundly ignored and locked by his colleagues in what may arguably be the worst case ever of medical arrogance suppressing scientific integrity. And nobody knows how many women and babies paid the ultimate price.
It’s very difficult to buck the heavily reinforced dogmas that have been laid to distort science by those within the scientific community itself, primarily for the benefit of those who are most focused on “getting theirs”. I suspect that most researchers never learned how to deal gracefully as children with being wrong, because so many (at least in my experience) would rather literally die on whatever hill they’ve climbed, than be willing to move on and explore another hill when their current hill has been shown to be full of sinkholes. They can say all the right things about science, but in actual
practice, when their data or point of view are challenged, they treat it as a block of “truths” and “certainties” when, in fact, science is really all about Uncertainty. Real scientists are always ready to constructively challenge new ideas and data, and equally ready to embrace them if the preponderance of evidence shows that they’re better than what came before.
One handy-dandy rule of thumb I use in judging whether to “trust the science” in biomedicine is how those espousing it treat animals. If they show little or no empathy, or are clearly lying to themselves (as well as to others), mouthing the right things while showing an affect of insincerity, I immediately become skeptical. Look at Fauci and the beagle experiments he funded. If a man (or woman) can do those things to what would otherwise be pet dogs, do you really believe they have a completely opposite, honest, saintly love for their fellow human beings? I don’t! So watch how biomedical scientists treat or feel about animals, and decide for yourself whether there’s a correlation between that and how, in broad terms, they deal with humanity as a whole.
It’s such a shame. Scientific thinking is very liberating, and can have a profoundly positive effect on individuals and our species collectively. But like most things, it’s been badly corrupted by those who think first and foremost only of themselves. And with the internet and exposure of the crimes committed in the name is “science”, I’m fearful that all trust in the concept will be lost like the baby being thrown out with the bath water. Religious tyrants will be quick to seize upon the gap in reasoning ability and shove their own brand of nonsense down humanity’s throat and we’ll be lost to a new intellectual and feudal dark age. I think the crimes against humanity for which the likes of Fauci, Gates, the IMF and everybody who aided and abetted the convid scam should be tried, must include the abuse of science and harms from pushing humanity away from science education and rational thinking. And of course, the horrifying abuse of animals and kids.
I felt bad being edged out of the research world for lack of suitable jobs and for the disadvantage of being female (yes, I was told at several points to my face that as a woman in science I was going nowhere), but in the end I’m lucky to be away from the dark, dystopian energy that pervades the places I worked. You build up some tolerance nd don’t notice it as much when you’re immersed in it for a long time, like a smoker doesn’t notice the odor of stale cigarette smoke in their environment, but looking back, I would never want to touch it again. I think the average human brain simply isn’t sufficiently developed to practice science the way it was to be practiced: with creativity, humility and non-attachment to results (ie, when new facts appear you debate them from all angles and if they hold up, you change the theory not the new facts, regardless of how many papers you’ve published to the contrary!!!) But, that’s just one individual’s minority view. There are a fair number of genuinely good scientists out there, and I wish they could take the led but I’m afraid their opinions and data will always have to fight the corrupt system for recognition and acceptance. I just hope it won’t end up being a losing battle because time to straighten ourselves out appears to be growing short.
It would appear that TPTB now believe that if well over half of the people cannot see the real-life Bond Movie non-parody of the WEF & Gates Foundation over the last decade, there is no need to promise to have any protections for the serf slaves.
Hmm, if the research pool is so large that it's not possible to meet all the subjects....who does the assessment for suitability, administration, the feedback, the follow up and the inevitable unblinding? Indeed why bother with fake placebos and trials anyway and go straight to market based on the AI computer model of 'safety'. Just do a repeat of the modMRNA sales using EUA, military tactics and fake legislation that allows 'them' to do whatever they want without comeback. Aka Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova's incredible work.
The only words to use are No, Nope, No way and the beautiful Scottish expression 'Get Tae F*ck' that sums up the appropriate reaction succinctly. 🙏
In what kind of alternate universe are we living when they are considering putting statins into the public water supply without peoples knowledge?Absolutely not!!!!!!! How is that legal???
Being a fan of Dr Malcolm Kendrick, his books on statins and his recent Court success, I wonder what his thoughts would be? Probably not polite! 😉
I REALLY pray these bureaucratic jerks are gutted. Imagine the tax savings if every government entity like the FDA was decimated and defended. Or just trimmed down to a small enough group to hold them responsible both criminally and financially
Funny how recently when I try to restack certain articles I keep getting error messages. And those, quite coincidentally I'm sure, happen to be the articles that FB has been censoring when I post them there.