Donald Trump has appointed Jay Bhattacharya, a prominent lockdown sceptic and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, to lead the National Institutes of Health. The Telegraph has more.
Dr. Bhattacharya, who argued that blanket lockdown restrictions during the Covid pandemic caused “unnecessary suffering and death”, will take charge of the federal research agency, if confirmed by the Senate.
In a statement, Mr. Trump noted the Stanford University professor’s opposition to lockdowns and said he would work alongside his new Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to “improve health and save lives”.
“Together, Jay and RFK Jr. will restore the NIH to a gold standard of medical research as they examine the underlying causes of, and solutions to, America’s biggest health challenges, including our crisis of chronic illness and disease,” he said late on Tuesday.
If confirmed by senators, Dr. Bhattacharya will take charge of an institute with a $48 billion budget where he has previously claimed civil servants wield too much power over policy.
His nomination marks a wider shake-up of the health establishment, along with appointments of several vaccine sceptics including Mr. Kennedy, Marty Makary who will lead the Food and Drug Administration and Dave Weldon as head of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Dr. Bhattacharya is one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020, in which he argued for the end of lockdowns while devoting “overwhelming resources” to protect the vulnerable through measures such as home delivery services.
“Lockdowns delay the time until herd immunity occurs and will incur unnecessary suffering and death to vulnerable and non-vulnerable alike,” he wrote in the Telegraph in October 2020.
“A focused protection approach will save lives in both the short and long term.”
Also in the Telegraph, he argued last month that universities had manufactured an “illusion” of consensus on lockdown policies, suppressing scientific debate by “Stalinesque” means.
“Public health officials sacrificed the understandable desire for an open exchange of ideas on an altar of infection control; it was supposedly too dangerous to let the public see that there were qualified experts who disagreed on the wisdom of lockdowns,” he said.
Responding to the nomination, Dr. Bhattacharya said:
I am honoured and humbled by President Donald Trump’s nomination of me to be the next NIH Director. We will reform American scientific institutions so that they are worthy of trust again and will deploy the fruits of excellent science to make America healthy again.
Recently, Dr. Bhattacharya gave an excellent lecture laying out his positions on the pandemic and concerns for the loss of free speech in science which is worth a watch.
It seems, however, that Dr. Bhattacharya still remains unpersoned by Google. In searching for “Jay Bhattacharya” I didn’t get the usual suggestions accompanied by a little picture of the prominent figure in question.
Using his full name, Jayanta, we do get some suggestions for specific people – five in fact. But none of them are him. Google wonders if we might be interested in Jayanta Bhattacharya the “best astrologer in Kolkata”, or in the “Professor of Mining Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur”, or the “Director of the India laboratory at THSTI”. But it’s sure we won’t be interested in the Stanford Professor of Medicine who’s just been picked by the U.S. President-elect to lead the NIH.
To be fair to Google, if you actually hit enter on the search you do get a search page about Jay himself. But it’s no thanks to the suggestions in the search bar. Is Google reluctant to accept that the Faucian establishment is crumbling and there’s a new regime in town?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Fantastic choice, and a good man. It’s rather ironic that he’s one of the “fringe epidemiologists” Francis Collins tried to demonise when he was NIH director.,
No.
Hello pigeons meet the cat.
DuckDuckGo top of list, multiple entries about him, pictures, YouTube.
Don’t use Google of it offends, then complain. There are alternatives.
I came here to post your first sentence. I’ll satisfy myself with an alternative: “Henhouse, meet Mr Fox. No need for all that clucking, he’s perfectly harmless I assure you.”
“Lockdown” is one of those sneaky words, “austerity” is another one. The problem with so-called lockdown is that no country did it, there was always substantial contact with other people via shopping and other essential services.
Lockdown in England probably changed the mean time to catch COVID from around 1 month to around 2 months. Was it worth trashing the economy just to get an extra month without COVID?
I think I understand your point but that’s not a ‘problem’ that should or could be solved by a more stringent implementation of lockdown.
By my reckoning all three lockdowns had almost no effect on the progression of the epidemic in England and Wales. Deaths followed almost perfect epidemic curves each time with barely a wiggle after lockdown.
The chart shows cumulative deaths in England and Wales (Green) overlaid with the calculated values from 2 overlapping Gompertz curves (red). You can barely see the green. (ignore the blue for now or I’ll miss the edit window).
It certainly wasn’t. As the Common Cold Unit pointed out as far back as 1992, the best treatment for a common cold coronavirus is rest to allow the immune system to deal with it.
The average age of death from covid is almost exactly the same as life expectancy in Britain. That is because it was simply another influenza like illness similar to those circulating in Britain every winter.
And Professor John Nicholls, a globally acknowledged coronavirus expert pointed out to the world on 06 Feb 2020 that covid was quite simply a severe cold.
Long since time now for the world to be woken up to this inconvenient ‘revelation’, most particularly Lady Hallett.
Yet another Indian Subcontinental chosen for high office in the United States, which has no connection at all to the Indian Subcontinent. Apparently an Ethnic European could not be found to take charge of the nation’s health.
Battacharya is a Hindu BRAHMIN CASTE, who think they are “god-like” as the highest caste just below the Greatest God Brahma, and they look down with scorn upon every other caste and human as beneath them.
“His parents had grown up in poverty, Bhattacharya writes, his mother in a Kolkata slum…” [Sorry, but no, Brahmin Caste members do not live in slums, nor do they ever marry slum-dwellers, but hey, who’s going to check?]
“In the 1970s, his [poverty-stricken??] father, an electrical engineer and ROCKET SCIENTIST by training, migrated to the USA and became a successful engineer. His mother [the Brahmin Slum-Dweller???] ran a family daycare business. When 19, he became an American citizen, internalizing the values of the country.”
He wrote, “”The American civic religion has the right to free speech as the core of its liturgy.”
[That’s what he means when he says he is a “practicing Christian”— he means his idea of “The American Civic Religion”]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/103616951.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
“Bhattacharya, Bhattacharyya, and Bhattacharjee are three common spellings of a Benglai Brahmin and Assamese Brahmin surname.”
“These Brahmins were designated as Kulina (“superior”) in order to differentiate them from the more established local Brahmins. The surnames commonly used by the Kulin Brahmins are Mukherjee, Banerjee, Chatterjee, Ganguly, Bhattacharjee.”
The right man for the job under Trump, then, I suppose.
Call me thick, but I don’t quite understand what you mean by that.
Bhattacharya is a practising Christian, not a cultural one, which rather makes his Brahmin ancestry irrelevant, don’t you think?
Although this chap does make all the right noises in most areas there is one fundamental area in which he is way off base. He is another professional person toeing the party line that there was a pandemic, and all the data we have show evidence to contradict this. Jonathan Engler went so far as removing his name from the GBD, based on the extensive evidence which does not support this fallacy. If people are still maintaining there was a pandemic what’s the betting they’ll be the very same people warning us of ”the next pandemic”. These people are to be distrusted totally, as far as I’m concerned, because this puts their credibility in doubt like nothing else.
In this ‘stack Jonathan goes through the GBD and adds his notes to explain why he disagrees with it. I recommend following the link to his other article explaining why he removed his name also;
”Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. [Possibly the only thing in the whole document I don’t take issue with.] The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates [nobody intellectually honest can scratch the surface of that topic and not conclude there is something very, very wrong with vaccination policy in general], worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. [Testing and isolation of anybody – based on a PCR test or not – was WRONG]
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available [tacit acceptance that there’s something to vaccinate against] will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. [“The virus” – really? The “vulnerability to death” was illusory. The vulnerable were simply killed or allowed to die through active or passive “measures”, or died because…..well, elderly and sick people do die….many of their deaths put down to “covid” because of the magic test.]
Are we really pretending “covid deaths” are a real thing – given what we know about attribution policy and testing fidelity. Next they’ll be saying the flu really disappeared through “viral competition”, or some such fantasy.]”
https://sanityunleashed.substack.com/p/i-have-re-read-the-great-barrington
Engler references The Viral Delusion who revere the work of charlatans like Lanka, Kaufman, Cowan and Bailey. Therefore Engler is siding with the “virus deniers” and his opinion is devalued.
Using the term ‘virus deniers’ to justify devaluing opinion is disingenuous and a fallacy. One has to produce evidence that refutes theres.
No one denies viruses/virus-like particles exist, rather, that said particles are pathogenic, contagious and proven to be the cause of specific diseases. It’s analogous to the similar smear tactic of ‘climate deniers’… climate change exists but zero evidence supports it’ll end the world.
There’s a very well-documented way of proving something exists, causes disease and is contagious. To date, not one viral disease has used this method, only flawed methodology, proxy cell cultures and faulty PCR tests.
If you have evidence to the contrary please share.
The facts showing that viruses exist ……
Viruses are a quirk of nature and there is scientific debate on whether they are living organisms or not. It has always been known by science that it is impossible to “isolate” a virus in the dictionary sense. (A similar concept to the quirk of nature in Quantum Mechanics whereby light can be a particle or a waveform).
Viruses have been proved to exist by modern virology through experiments with a living isolated single human cell infected with a virus and shown to infect a different living healthy human cell without the virus. (Modern Virologists have always known that viruses cannot be “isolated” or “purified” in the dictionary sense of the word as viruses are only evident when attached to a living cell). Mock controls are done in almost every case using the same known liquid suspension or substrate. The experiment is written up in a scientific paper for peer review. Just search the internet for “virus cell culture paper” for thousands of these papers. No paper has had to be retracted.
Viruses have been proved to exist via modern electron microscopy and photographed showing the virus which is similar but different to an exosome. Just search the internet for “virus cell culture paper”, Images. Again, no paper has been retracted.
Viruses have been proved to exist via modern whole gene sequencing (which is the preferred method of virus identification) of all of the base pairs. SARS-CoV-2 and its variants have 29,903 base pairs which have been laboriously whole gene sequenced (it takes 4 to 5 days and NOT computer generated) and uploaded to the GISAID Initiative over 20 million times. Again, no paper has been retracted.
Viruses have been proved to exist via PCR tests which are highly specific and accurate in detecting a unique long gene sequence fragment of the virus you want to detect (if done properly). It is not so good at diagnosing infection as the virus detected maybe dead fragments and not viable which can only be done by cell culture in a wet lab. However, the CT rate if low is an indication of infectability. (Although PCR tests are incredibly accurate it all depends on the Quality Control measures in the labs. The Lighthouse labs for mass testing in the UK had poor Quality Control and produced many “false positives”). Again, no paper has been retracted.
Viruses have been proved to exist in the German courts in the infamous Lanka v Bardens case where all the judges and experts agreed that the measles virus was real. (Lanka weaseled himself out of paying the 100,000euro bet by persuading the court that it was proved by “six” scientific papers and not “one” that he had asked for).
There has been no scientific paper, even a pre-print or one not peer reviewed, that has ever suggested that viruses do not exist.
Unlike thousands of sceptical climate scientists questioning man made global warming there has been no retired virologist or otherwise with nothing to lose in coming forward with any doubts about “viruses existing”. There have been no death bed confessions from modern virologists. There have been no scientific papers suggesting viruses do not exist. This indicates that viruses are real and do exist as has been proved by the methods already stated.
The US has over 200 bioweapons labs around the world, there are many others. They are all working on viruses. If there is a biological accident or attack your semi-religious belief that “viruses do not exist” will not save you from sickness and/or death.
Some Charlatans with a failed scientific/medical background with books to sell, websites to fund and pills, lotions and potions to sell to the gullible have seen the profit potential of abandoning mainstream medicine in favour of the 19th century Terrain Theory and “viruses do not exist” quackery. People like Stefan Lanka, Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan, Sam Bailey etc.
These people have seduced others in the alternative media without a medical or scientific background but who also have books to sell and websites to fund to support their spurious 19th century claims and that “viruses do not exist”. People like David Icke, Jon Rappaport, Mike Adams, Catte Black etc.
They keep appearing on each other’s platforms, including Alex Jones Infowars, and keep quoting each other and operate in an echo chamber of lies and deceit to illicit money from the gullible. ALL their claims about “viruses not existing” have been debunked.
Facts are facts and viruses have been proved to exist.
These people may be right when they say Covid, lockdowns, masks, vaccines, global warming, controlling the masses and many other subjects are a scam but on “viruses not existing” they are totally wrong, out of date and have been proved to be wrong.
VIRUSES EXIST.
Virology lost a lot of its credibility precisely with the advent of the so-called pandemic. Kary Mullis always stated that the PCR technique cannot be used to diagnose illness. What happened? PCR was used to diagnose Covid-19 – massively, around the world, and this although PCR experts were saying the defining procedure (in the paper co-authored by Christian Drosten and published two months before WHO’s declaration of a pandemic) made no sense and was impossible to program.
Furthermore, European mortality data clearly show substantial rises in deaths in, for example, France and Italy directly after the WHO declaration of a pandemic, whereby German and Austrian data show no such rise whatsoever. It can therefore not be claimed that a deadly virus was infesting the world if it stopped at the German and Austrian borders. On the contrary, the increases in deaths must presumably be assigned to the WHO/local government mandated medical treatments of those supposedly infected with the supposed virus.
The terrain theory protagonists (many of whom are medical professionals) simply say that we inhale and live in an environment filled with myriads of microbes and that the assignment of a particular disease to a single ‘virus’, or whatever you want to call it, can hardly be true.
Personally, whenever I have a ‘bug’, my wife never falls ill and vice versa. I am sure we have all experienced being in close contact with someone who had a cold but not catching a cold ourselves.
According to the book Virus Mania, Pasteur and Koch, who were the primary sources of the idea that one germ or virus causes one disease, simply cheated and falsified the results of their experiments.
I personally enjoy fundamental basics being challenged in any science, so I am happy that terrain theorists are causing a bit of an uproar. But virologists have nothing to fear if their science is so sound.
You’re preaching to the converted.
Of course there was no pandemic.
However, there was a new virus, probably made in a US lab and released in China as an economic weapon against the Chinese with unintended worldwide blowback.
It was no worse than a bad cold but was used to control and manipulate the masses for nefarious means.
Each individual has some form of immunity to many viruses. A healthy lifestyle helps.
Alternative media celebrities who see the financial potential of selling lotions, potions and wacky ideas to the masses to sell books and website revenues are an unnecessary distraction.
The idea that viruses do not exist is laughable.
They should put their money where their mouth is and take up Steve Kirsch million dollar challenge to prove that viruses do not exist.
They should put up or shut up.
Jonathan Engler is not a ”virus denier”, as he states below, though I’m not sure if Mike Yeadon now falls into this category;
”A number of people in the Freedom Movement are “straw manning” the hypothesis that people like myself,
Michael Yeadon Jessica Hockett Martin Neil and others hold.They are mis-characterising our position as being one that claims viruses don’t exist.
None of the people I have named have said that (though I am aware others in the “movement” who have).
My personal view – not actually relevant to this issue – is that we know a tiny fraction of what we need to know to be able to properly understand the role of viruses in disease, how they spread, why they are there, why some people get ill and others don’t, and how they interact with bacteria and other pathogens
What we are saying (and it’s frustrating to have to repeat what has been said so many times before):
We will not be suppressed because people do not want to face up to some hard truths which include understanding the harms which bureacratically-encouraged maltreatment by healthcare systems3 may have caused.
Nor will we be suppressed just because people might misrepresent (whether wilfully or not) our position as one we don’t hold.
https://sanityunleashed.substack.com/p/beware-the-straw-manning-attempts
Mike Yeadon now denies respiratory viruses exist and has flip flopped all over the place.
The article you linked to from Engler is 6 months old.
He and Yeadon now reference The Viral Delusion who revere the work of charlatans like Lanka, Kaufman, Cowan and Bailey. Therefore, Engler is siding with the “virus deniers” and his opinion is worthless.
The Daily Sceptic has refused to debate with Engler et al because of their extreme views.
They have fallen down the rabbit hole so far that they are now blind from the darkness as the “no viruses exist” clowns try to outdo each other with their wild claims.
They have become a laughingstock to those with a modicum of modern virology knowledge trying to fight the tyranny of the Covid plandemic and the dangers of so-called vaccines.
Spouting the nonsense that “viruses do not exist” harms their reputations and the sceptics fight against the global elite control over the masses.
They should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves.
I really don’t think that is fair:
‘It was April 2020, the era of Covid lockdowns when tests were limited and difficult to access, a positive test meant isolation–in some places, in community health centres–and the full horrors of the pandemic were yet to be seen. It was also when hospitals in countries including the United States and Italy were struggling to treat severe patients, and much before a vaccine was available.
Lockdowns around the world were designed to buy time in order to create and bolster capacity to treat and isolate patients with varying degrees of severity. India’s own lockdown was in phase 1, with the first easing of restrictions about a week away.A preprint serological study of 3,300 people in California’s Santa Clara was making waves: It said the estimated case fatality rates from Covid were much lower, given that everyone who contracted an infection was not tested–there was no reason to, since many were asymptomatic. Specifically, the study estimated that the prevalence of Covid was 50 to 85 times more than the number of confirmed cases. Therefore, fatality rates would be much lower.
Jay Bhattacharya is one of 15 authors of the study, which was published a year later in the International Journal of Epidemiology. A professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine, Bhattacharya argued that a global economic depression caused by continued lockdowns will kill large numbers of people, and called for widespread seroprevalence tests that will help understand the severity of the disease.’
‘I want to correct the record slightly—I actually believe that the epidemic is more widespread than we believe, not less widespread. That is my hypothesis. I would like to see that hypothesis tested, basically, everywhere. And the reason I believe this is that there are many people—we are seeing this from studies around the world—who have been infected with the virus, cleared it (sometimes with no symptoms, sometimes with mild symptoms) and never got tested.’
If a professional, especially someone with his credentials, is still acknowledging there was a pandemic and hasn’t bothered to amend and update the GBD despite the Mount Everest-sized proportion of research that’s been done and data collated during the subsequent years, then that’s his integrity right down the Swanny, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know if it’s ego or what but to be so rigid on something and not entertain evidence which contradicts your original viewpoint, whilst claiming to be a scientist is just disingenuous and on that basis I wouldn’t trust him. He may be Mr Anti-lockdown but he’ll be right there with his ”public health measures” once another scamdemic is announced.
I also don’t know why more people don’t just look at how Sweden performed ( and that’s taking into consideration their ”dry tinder effect” in 2020 due to a light flu season the previous year ) and think ”Pandemic? What pandemic?” and admit that the data do not support the narrative, but it would seem Sweden will forever be the elephant in the room, like it had some sort of special force-field around it or something. I’m eternally disappointed in any academics or scientists who still harp on about a ”pandemic”, because they’re emboldening the enemy. It’ll happen again because enough people, including influential people, were hoodwinked. People I would’ve expected much better from. We know where any excess deaths were coming from and it sure as hell wasn’t any novel, super-deadly-to-all, viral pandemic. Governments and doctors, that’s what people need to fear and be wary of.
He references Sweden often as an example of good practice.
He does not acknowledge that it was a ‘pandemic’. He refers to it as an epidemic.
He was, from early on, one of ‘we happy few’.
He will do the NIH an enormous amount of good.
Well he’s certainly referring to a ”pandemic” here in September of this year. See for yourself. It would appear he doesn’t take kindly to being challenged as he went ahead and blocked Jessica, which is a tad immature and unprofessional if you ask me;
”Consistent with the view he has espoused for four years, Jay Bhattacharya is asserting
a) there was pandemic in 2020,
b) a pathogen called SARS-CoV-2 caused that pandemic,
c) there will be another pandemic,
d) this future pandemic will be/can be caused by a pathogen with characteristics similar to SARS-CoV-2.
Since I’m blocked by Dr. Bhattacharya, I responded by posting a screenshot with my reaction: “There was no pandemic. Pandemics are biologically & epidemiologically impossible. Until the last ‘pandemic’ is exposed as the fraudulent & staged event that it was, the More-Powerful will wield ‘Next Pandemic’ against the Less-Powerful.”
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/jay-bhattacharya-and-the-resistance
See my post- Trumps funders exposed…
Have you met him?
Have you followed ‘Collateral Global’?
He is a person of integrity and stuck his neck out when most kept quiet.
He did this under tremendous pressure from his colleagues at Stanford.
His appointment as director of the NIH really gives me hope that common sense and proper scientific debate returns to medicine.
”Have you met him?” What kind of stupid question is that? Oh, I’m sorry. So we’re supposed to actually MEET somebody before we criticize them or put forth an unpopular opinion are we?
“In the next pandemic caused by a pathogen with the epidemiological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, governments everywhere will impose a lockdown policy until mandatory vaccination. Until repudiated by the public, it is the new normal.”
That is what he tweeted and it’s from Jessica Hockett’s substack. I don’t oppose his being given this role. He’s a damnedsite better than the last one, but ( to labour my point further ) I cannot trust anyone who still thinks there was a pandemic, that there will be another one and that ”public health measures” must be taken, i.e PCR tests, isolation of individuals etc. I agree with Jessica on many points she raises;
”It should surprise no one that I oppose the nomination of Jay Bhattacharya as NIH Director. My opposition has nothing to do with Dr Bhattacharya’s credentials, integrity, intellect, or personality — and everything to do with his ongoing stances & choices about the COVID Event.
I cannot support the nomination of someone who – despite championing the importance of open scientific debate – has
After Bhattacharya reiterated his belief a pathogen called SARS-CoV-2 triggered a pandemic and mis-handled challenges from other credentialed dissidents, I wrote about what happened as a good example of how admiration for prominent voices has suppressed robust dialogue about whether a pandemic occurred.
Prominent researchers Denis Rancourt and Norman Fenton never signed the declaration – Rancourt because he “saw it as a baseless call to harm and isolate the elderly, for no valid reason.”
After what the world experienced over the past five years, it’s neither selfish nor a ‘purity test’ to say I would like at least one higher-ranking official who will confront the Human Rights Heist of 2020 and Pandemic Lore of Yore in all of its ugliness – and fight tooth and nail for the truth. For all of his fine characteristics, I don’t see Jay Bhattacharya being that person.”
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/i-oppose-jay-bhattacharyas-nomination
On that note we can agree to disagree. Time will tell whether he will be able to implement uncensored scientific debate.
“In the next pandemic caused by a pathogen with the epidemiological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, governments everywhere will impose a lockdown policy until mandatory vaccination. Until repudiated by the public, it is the new normal.”
In context: this was said as a warning. Unless we fight this and expose this, there is nothing stopping governments from implementing this again. He has been vehement opposed to lockdowns from very early on- see Collateral Global.
Err – use something other than Google for searching?
i know duck duck used to be much better but at least theres still a big difference from gates and fauci controlled google,
This entry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrHCKUTFJwoCongrats Jay Bhattacharya, new head of NIH…. By Ivor Cummins is about 25 minutes. An interview of him by Ivor C.
Some sceptical public comments on there, very few among the mostly laudatory ones:
— “He took the jab ! … with no long term data ! … and how he’s head of the NIH ? … his lack of critical thinking is concerning”
— “It’s what he doesn’t say that concerns me.”
— “If Jay is so smart why did he get the mRNA vaccine? I am not a doctor but I really questioned this type of treatment from the start and I never did get the vaccine.”
— “Jay has been playing both sides the whole time, saying people 65 and older should get the shot. A professor in a captured university like the rest. A new boss same as the old boss.”
— “It means he can’t be trusted.”
— “But if they agreed that vaccines were bad for young people and lockdowns were bad, but the vaccines in general are good, I’m not sure that’s a good conclusion for the public.”
— “Don’t the elderly usually cease each year in nursing homes during a season? He is still blind to accepting that the whole thing was a scam.”
— “A sane society doesn’t sacrifice the young for the old, or disrespect the elders for the mad scientists! The crime against the elderly makes my blood boil as does the crime against the children.”
— “What about vaccine injuries? No mention of that.”
— “I get frustrated hearing over and over again that ‘mistakes were made’. I admit to being cynical and believing everything was calculated, insidious, and deliberate.”
— “My mom is a nurse and she told me to always pay attention to what the doctors do, just as if you were at a mechanic shop.”
Sorry to disapoint, but Trumps in the pockets of you know who..
Not at all surprising is it… I mean.. Who isnt???
Trumps Isreal funders exposed…
https://youtu.be/sfa97WkvoQA?si=UfLNH7F-h_iT0_sI
Funny but if someone asked me immediately post 11/09/2001 the following three questions I suspect my answers would’ve been quite different than now.
1) Who cares more passionately about civil liberties?
A) A maverick businessman.
B) A Democrat senator.
2) Who’s more likely to defend freedom of speech?
A) An autistic plutocrat
B) The liberal press.
3) Who do you think directs global health policy?
A) A doctor or similarly qualified medical professional.
B) A communist backed by the industrial pharmaceutical complex.
I certainly would never have considered the words “Trump is civilisation’s best hope. Thank goodness he won” would ever have passed my lips.
Wonderful!
More screaming sessions for the “liberals”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/28/watch-distraught-liberals-hold-group-scream-on-beach/
A smart dude and a thorough gentleman. I just hope there is an iron fist under that velvet glove
I signed the Great Barrington Declaration and then watched the distortions and corruptions that governments actually enacted.
Same here; the whole affair undermined my confidence in several organisations, not least the main political parties.