Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, thinks that China’s recent attempts to limit abortion for “non-medical reasons” demonstrate that an entity “can be anti-abortion and yet not be pro-life.”
Mohler expressed his views on the recent move by China’s communist government to restrict abortion access in an edition of his podcast “The Briefing” that was uploaded on Monday.
Comparing communist China’s system to Western culture, Mohler noted that there is a “distinction between the public and the private” as well as an acknowledgment of private individuals’ rights to participate in “mediating institutions.”
This means that places of worship are neither private nor public in the sense of belonging to a person or group, as per Mohler.
“But you’re not going to find any of that in China, where the totalitarian nature of the government comes down to the meaning of the word totalitarian. The government claims total power over everything, everyone, everywhere, all the time,” he remarked.
The Chinese policy restricting couples to having just one child per family was also discussed by Mohler, in which he argued that such policy only led to a spike in abortions, forced sterilizations, and even infanticide, as well as dismal future prospects for the country.
“The Chinese Communist Party wants more babies, it wants more control, it is going to exercise its totalitarian dominion as it claims, and it is going to crack down on abortion,” he said.
“But you’ll notice, it’s not out of concern for the sanctity and dignity of human life. That’s not a part of the Marxist communist worldview. It’s simply because they want more children to be little soldiers and little industrial workers,” he added.
Consequently, Mohler came to the conclusion that “this is not rooted in an argument for the sanctity of human life. And that just shows you that you can be anti-abortion and yet not be pro-life.”
CCP policies
The Christian Post reported that Chinese authorities announced in June that couples will be allowed to have up to three children instead of being limited to two because of the country’s aging population and declining birth rates.
Changes to China’s contentious birth policy were approved by the party’s ruling politburo, which is the country’s highest decision-making body. Chinese President Xi Jinping reportedly presided over the gathering.
When China implemented a two-child policy to replace its decades-old one-child policy in 2015, mothers were compelled to abort new babies after having two children.
In an effort to reduce population growth in the densely populated country, Communist China instituted a “one-child policy” in 1979 that led to millions of abortions performed against women’s will.
A societal preference for boys drove families to kill more female infants when they could only have one child, which fueled the practice of gender-specific abortion.
Following the amendment of the oppressive policy, some Chinese authorities are providing cash incentives to families who have more children, CNN reported.
“So far, their efforts have been met with a lukewarm response at best. Many women, who now enjoy greater educational and career opportunities than in the past, are reluctant to expand their families,” the report said.
“Up until I took the vaccine I was fine… Yes, the vaccine ended my season,” the former Atlanta Hawk said.
Former Atlanta Hawks point guard Brandon Goodwin came clean about his season-ending illness last year during a Twitch video game livestream earlier this month.
Chatting on Twitch while gaming, the NBA star described learning he had blood clots soon after taking an experimental Covid shot.
“I got sick and I never, like, recovered from it,” Goodwin said. “I would always have back pain, I was just super tired in the games. Like when we played Philly back-to-back, bro I was so tired. I felt like I couldn’t run up and down the court.”
“That’s when my back really started hurting bad,” he continued. “Then, I’m like, ‘Alright, I need to go to the doctor.’ That’s when I found out I had blood clots. That all happened in the span of a month.”
The basketball star confirmed the vaccination was the catalyst for his ailment, saying, “I was fine up until I took the vaccine, I was fine. So, people trying to tell you, ‘No. It’s not the vaccine.’ Like, how do you know? You don’t know.”
“Yes, the vaccine ended my season,” Goodwin later declared. “One thousand percent.”
The Atlanta Hawks told Goodwin his season was over after they heard back from team doctors.
“We don’t even know what it is,” Goodwin argued with his team.
However, he holds no hard feelings against the franchise, telling his Twitch viewers, “But it’s whatever. I’m not even going to get into all that, bruh. I still got love for the Hawks. Mad love for the Hawks.”
“It would have been way different,” Goodwin reflected.
The professional baller is unsure of his future in the NBA, saying, “I don’t know where I’m playing at this year. I’m not going to lie to y’all, I don’t know. They (The Hawks) just like, ‘Don’t say anything about it, don’t tell nobody. I’m like, ‘Bruh, what?’”
The league is likely pressuring the Atlanta Hawks to keep Goodwin silent about the adverse reaction.
The point guard explained that he couldn’t play in the playoffs because he was on blood thinners to help with his blood clots.
“I’ll be back on somebody’s team soon,” Goodwin said. “I don’t really know who yet, but this shit’s been crazy… Not Boston. I said no to Golden State earlier in the year.”
Brooklyn Nets superstar Kyrie Irving also spoke out about the league’s Covid vaccines recently, telling social media followers on Wednesday that he’s sticking to his choice to refuse a Covid vaccine.
“This is one body that I get here,” Irving said. “And no I’m not retiring and no I’m not leaving this game like this. There’s still so much more work to do and there’s still so many other youngins to inspire. Because I know they want to be better than me. And I can’t wait to play against all y’all on this stage.”
“This is one body that I get here” Kyrie Irving breaks silence on an Instagram live.
Maybe National File reporter Patrick Howley was right, “The unvaccinated players should all join the same team and win the championship against all the vaxxers.”
The unvaccinated players should all join the same team and win the championship against all the vaxxers.
Gas prices are on the rise and they have hit nearly $5 for regular and are now about $5.40 a gallon for supreme in Manhattan.
A Mobil station on 11th Ave. on the West Side had the eye-popping prices on Monday evening.
Gas prices have jumped across the nation as oil prices reach a 7-year high.
The average price of gas across the country is about $3.25 per gallon, according to GasBuddy, and $3.31, according to the Lundberg Survey.
Average prices are up more than $1 from a year ago, according to GasBuddy data compiled from more than 150,000 gas stations across the country.
Just eight states have average prices under $3 per gallon — Oklahoma, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Alabama, and Missouri, according to GasBuddy.
According to the Lundberg Survey, the highest average price for regular-grade gas in the country is in the San Francisco Bay Area, at $4.55 per gallon. The lowest average is in Houston, at $2.77 per gallon.
According to the survey, the average price of diesel jumped 11 cents to $3.45 a gallon.
The California Legislature passed 836 bills this year, of which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 770. That’s 92 percent. He vetoed only 66, or 8 percent. That’s about average for governors in recent years.
It’s also a reason the legislature ought to return to part-time status, as it was before the 1970s. Texas still maintains a part-time legislature meeting every other year. Its success is shown by how, with the 2020 U.S. Census, it gained two congressional seats as California lost one.
Although high taxes and regulations are the major reasons businesses and citizens are leaving California, another factor is dealing with the irrationality of the government. The state often just doesn’t make sense. It’s guaranteed to make even less sense in the future.
That has been a theme of the series of articles I’ve written on the bills this year, of which this will be the fourth and last. The theme of this article is Cultural Marxism.
One could write a dozen articles a week on the bills and only get part of the way through by the end of the year. Gov. Gavin Newsom was right, although in an ironic way he didn’t intend, when he said on Oct. 9 while signing his last batch of bills, “What we’re doing here in California is unprecedented in both nature and scale.”
My previous three articles are here, here, and here.
AB 338: Fr. Juniper Serra Statue Replacement
Assembly Bill 338 is by Assembly Member James C. Ramos, D-Highland. The bill concerns what to do after vandals tore down the statue of Fr. Juniper Serra on the grounds of the state Capitol on July 4, 2020. The bill replaces it with a statue of Native Americans, so that, in the bill’s language, “the devastating impact of the mission period, and Father Serra’s role in that devastation, [will] be recognized and acknowledged.”
Critics said the action is an affront to the state’s more than 10 million Catholics. Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento said that, although the Native Americans suffered during that period, Serra worked “to protect the dignity of native peoples. His holiness as a missionary should not be measured by his own failures to stop the exploitation or even his own personal faults.”
Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez and San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone added in a Wall Street Journal article, “[N]o serious historian has ever made such outrageous claims about Serra or the mission system, the network of 21 communities that Franciscans established along the California coast to evangelize native people.”
The legislature easily could have both restored the Serra statue and erected a new statue on the Capitol grounds to the Native Americans, adding to the 12 memorials already there. The Serra vandalism also comes after the statue of Christopher Columbus was removed from the Capitol Rotunda in June 2020.
All this is pure, unadulterated Cultural Marxism. It is shoving history down Orwell’s “Memory Hole” and erecting a false narrative to advance a socialist agenda.
AB 1084: Gender-Neutral Toy Sections
Assembly Bill 1084 is by Assembly Member Evan Low, D-Campbell. It requires stores selling toys with more than 500 employees to add “a gender-neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys.”
Low seems not to have noticed how children tend to wander around stores and find whatever toys they want to cajole their parents into buying.
The clueless legislator explained, “Part of it is to make sure if you’re a young girl that you can find a police car, fire truck, a periodic table or a dinosaur. And then similarly, if you’re a boy, if you’re more artistic and want to play with glitter, why not? Why should you feel the stigma of saying, ‘Oh, this should be shamed’ and going to a different location?”
Aside from the Cultural Marxist coercion element, the bill has other problems.
Notice the vagueness, which could lead to the prosecutions even of the most vigilant retailers: “gender neutral” … “section or area” … “discretion of the retailer” … “reasonable selection” … “regardless of whether.” This is going to be a field day for lawyers.
AB 1084 will also increase costs by an unknown amount for retailers, for lawyers to figure it out, and for employees to implement it by erecting new areas of the store with new labels. The bill will also scare off parents from such stores, sending even more business online, where such restrictions to not apply. Many jobs will be killed.
The bill has received national attention and is another reason the state is such a laughingstock.
AB 101: Cultural Marxist Ethnic Studies
Assembly Bill 101 is by Assembly-member Jose Medina (D-Riverside). It mandates “the completion of a one-semester course in ethnic studies … including for pupils enrolled in a charter school.”
In an explanation on his website oddly titled “I am Ethnic Studies!” Medina explained, “AB 101 is necessary to ensure all students develop a foundational and accurate understanding of United States history. We are poised to lead the nation in education equity for all students. And become the first state to require ethnic studies as a high school graduation requirement.”
Critics signing a joint letter opposing the bill included Parents Defending Education, the AMCHA Initiative (anti-Semitism watchdog), the California Association of Scholars, the National Association of Scholars, the San Diego Asian Americans for Equality, and the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation.
The letter (pdf) said the imposed curriculum would be “firmly rooted in the highly politicized and controversial version of the discipline known as Critical Ethnic Studies. The discipline is firmly rooted in neo-Marxist ideologies that divide society into oppressed and oppressor groups based primarily on race, and, as part of its disciplinary mission, uses the classroom to indoctrinate students into narrow political beliefs and political activism. Pursuing a narrow political framework in education is divisive, discriminatory and inflammatory.”
AB 101 also dilutes the value of charter schools, which were created specifically to avoid most of the mandates of the labyrinthine state Education Code. The code already runs to 4,058 pages, according to the March 2021 edition sold on Amazon. The 2022 edition will run many pages longer.
The bill tosses another problem to local school boards, which already are grappling with critical race theory (CRT), as The Epoch Times has been covering.
I’ve talked to several young couples with kids about this mandate and CRT. They say it’s yet another impetus to get their kids out of California to a more sensible state.
These days when Americans rail against the separate standard by which “the elite” are held accountable, we’re usually talking about the lavishly wealthy who bask in the spotlight of popular culture or sit in the upper echelons of the corporate globalist world.
Yet the old world’s elite class appears to still enjoy plenty of perks, especially when they’re implicated in high-profile sex trafficking scandals involving the rich and privileged from all walks of life.
Such is the case with the United Kingdom’s Prince Andrew, son to Queen Elizabeth II, who has certainly not evaded scrutiny over allegations that he partook in notorious billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring.
No, he appears to have, at least for now, totally avoided legal repercussions at the hands of Her Majesty’s law enforcement agencies.
Go figure.
London’s Metropolitan Police announced over the weekend that they have dropped their investigation into allegations that Andrew sexually assaulted high-profile Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, when she was just 17. The alleged assault took place at a mansion in London owned by accused Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, the Guardian reported.
The probe was launched in August, following a civil suit filed by Giuffre in the United States against Prince Andrew. The suit accused him of assault and intimidation.
The prince, who stepped away from his royal duties over the scandal in 2019 after Epstein was arrested and charged for sex trafficking, has categorically denied Giuffre’s accusations.
However, Prince Andrew has long been at the center of accusations against Epstein, and by the time the royal bowed out of the public light when the notorious sex offender was arrested once again, Giuffre’s claims against him had been floating around for years.
Dame Cressida Dick, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, explained in August that she had requested a second look into the case against Andrew because “no one is above the law.”
If this is indeed the case in the U.K., it’s certainly rather interesting that just two months later, the investigation has been promptly dropped.
Don’t you think?
The Met will now be taking “no further action” and its review is “complete,” according to the Guardian, but they will “liaise with other law enforcement agencies who lead the investigation into matters related to Jeffrey Epstein.”
Authorities confirmed that they did speak with Giuffre, who now lives in Australia, although it was unclear if she provided them with a formal statement on the matter.
Well, Prince Andrew may be slipping the hook in the land over which his mother reigns sovereign, but across the pond, he is still facing Giuffre’s lawsuit.
“I am holding Prince Andrew accountable for what he did to me,” Giuffre said when the suit was first filed, People reported. “The powerful and rich are not exempt from being held responsible for their actions.”
They are most certainly not — at least, we can hope.
Before Epstein’s highly suspicious death in his jail cell in 2019 and headline-grabbing arrest the month prior, he famously evaded accountability despite the sick accusations levied against him for years.
Although he held a prior conviction for soliciting child prostitution in 2008, the mysterious financier was subject to little more than a slap on the wrist.
Meanwhile, his vastly more famous friends include figures like former President Bill Clinton and tech mogul Bill Gates, both of whom, as members of American establishment royalty, have received little scrutiny for their alleged ties to the deceased sex offender — especially considering the gravity of the accusations. (Clinton, of course, has long evaded accountability for alleged heinous crimes himself.)
Currently, only the mysterious Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s one-time girlfriend and accused longtime madame for his sick and twisted sex trafficking scheme, is still facing charges for the alleged role she played in recruiting and abusing underage girls. Her trial is set to begin on Nov. 29.
She has also been separately charged with perjury for lying on a deposition for Giuffre’s civil suit.
We can certainly hope and pray that the victims of Epstein and his wealthy, elitist friends may soon see the justice they so sorely deserve. Unfortunately, however, at the rate things are going, I’m not holding my breath.
The head of the Chicago police officers’ union has called on its members not to comply with the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara warned that there could be half as many cops on the streets this weekend because of Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
In late August, Mayor Lightfoot announced that all employees of the city of Chicago would be required to get vaccinated against coronavirus.
“As cases of COVID-19 continue to rise, we must take every step necessary and at our disposal to keep everyone in our city safe and healthy,” Lightfoot said in a statement. “Getting vaccinated has been proven to be the best way to achieve that and make it possible to recover from this devastating pandemic. And so, we have decided to join other municipalities and government agencies across the nation, including the U.S. military, who are making this decision to protect the people who are keeping our cities and country moving. We have also been in close communication with our partners in the labor movement to create a vaccination policy that is workable, fair and effective.”
This week, Chicago officials included an option for city employees to submit to being tested twice a week at their own expense and on their time to bypass the vaccine mandate through the end of the year.
As of Oct. 15, any city employees who fail to get vaccinated or submit to semi-weekly testing or are not approved for a religious or medical exemption would be placed on no-pay status.
Lightfoot threatened, “There will be consequences if people are not complying with what the policy is by the Oct. 15th deadline.”
Catanzara – the president of Lodge 7 of the Fraternal Order of Police – challenged Lightfoot’s vaccine mandate and urged Chicago Police officers to defy the order. He said city officials have refused to “bargain in good faith over this subject.”
“It is the city’s clear attempt to force officers with a ‘chicken little, the sky is falling,’ into compliance – do not fall for it. Hold the line,” Catanzara said.
Catanzara said lawyers for the FOP have already drafted a class-action grievance to cover “everything under the sun” that police officers could lose if they refuse to get vaccinated.
Catanzara said he would go into no-pay status on Friday in solidarity with his unvaccinated officers.
“It’s safe to say that the city of Chicago will have a police force at 50% or less for this weekend coming up,” Catanzara said. “That is not because of the FOP. That is 100% because of the mayor’s unwillingness to budge from her hard line.”
“I can guarantee you that no-pay status will not last more than 30 days,” Catanzara added. “There’s no way they’re going to be able to sustain a police department workforce at 50% capacity or less for more than seven days without something budging.”
Lightfoot responded to the head of the police union, “John Cantazara says a lot of things, a lot of it offensive, and racist and foolish.”
The Democratic mayor of Chicago continued, “It’s unfortunate that the FOP leadership has chosen to put out a counternarrative, but the fact of the matter is that if you are not vaccinated, you are playing with your life, the life of your family, the life of your colleagues and the members of the public.”
“The only way we can make this work is we’ve got to hold people accountable, and we are absolutely prepared to do that,” Lightfoot said.
41st Ward Alderman Anthony Napolitano said, “I think the mayor has done her due diligence, as well, but we’re asking that there be a repeal of this mandate.”
In May, the Washington Post reported that at least 4,000 active officers outof 12,413 are vaccinated.
A congressional committee investigating Jan. 6 has set a vote to recommend criminal contempt charges against former White House aide Steve Bannon after he defied the panel’s subpoena.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said the panel will vote next Tuesday to recommend the charges. That would send the recommendation to the full House for a vote.
If the House votes to recommend the contempt charges against Bannon, the Justice Department will ultimately decide whether to prosecute. The committee had demanded documents and testimony from Bannon, who was in touch with President Donald Trump ahead of the violent attack.
“The Select Committee will not tolerate defiance of our subpoenas, so we must move forward with proceedings to refer Mr. Bannon for criminal contempt,” Thompson said in a statement.
Trump was quick to slam the committee’s actions in a statement he released on Thursday afternoon through his political action group, Save America:
It read: “The January 6th Unselect Committee composed of Radical Left Democrats and a few horrible RINO Republicans is looking to hold people in criminal contempt for things relative to the Protest, when in fact they should hold themselves in criminal contempt for cheating in the Election, making up the Fake Russia, Russia, Russia, and Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine Scams, the Afghanistan debacle, the Southern Border Crisis, the crashing economy, and record-setting inflation. They are using prosecutors and prosecutions to destroy more than half of this Country and the people are not going to stand for it!”
The committee had scheduled a Thursday deposition with Bannon, but his lawyer has said at Trump’s direction he would not appear. A second witness called for a deposition Thursday, former Defense Department official Kashyap Patel, also would not appear, according to two people familiar with the confidential negotiations who were granted anonymity to discuss them. But Patel is still engaging with the committee, the people said.
Two other aides who worked for Trump — former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and longtime Trump social media director Dan Scavino — are scheduled for depositions Friday. It is unclear whether they will appear. Like Patel, Meadows is speaking with the committee.
Bannon’s testimony is just one facet of an escalating congressional inquiry, with 19 subpoenas issued so far and thousands of pages of documents flowing in. But his defiance is a crucial moment for the committee, whose members are vowing to restore the binding force of congressional subpoenas after they were routinely flouted during Trump’s time in office.
“Mr. Bannon has declined to cooperate with the Select Committee and is instead hiding behind the former president’s insufficient, blanket and vague statements regarding privileges he has purported to invoke,” Thompson said in his statement. “We reject his position entirely.”
Two nonprofits funded by Mark Zuckerberg and his allies spent $419.5 million to boost turnout in the 2020 presidential election – and “likely” secured a victory for Joe Biden, according to a study of the national vote.
The NGOs called the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and The Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) claim they are working to make democracy stronger, more secure, and better at engaging civic participation in polling.
A new analysis of the 2020 election argues that the nonprofits are partisan vehicles to pump private money into the election system, a phenomenon previously unknown in the country’s politics. Their impact may have flipped the election for Joe Biden and potentially created fertile ground for manipulating election outcomes in favor of the Democratic Party.
“The massive influx of funds essentially created a high-powered, concierge-like get-out-the-vote effort for Biden that took place inside the election system, rather than attempting to influence it from the outside,” William Doyle, a researcher at the Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute in Irving, Texas, wrote regarding his team’s work.
We call this the injection of structural bias into the 2020 election, and our analysis shows it likely generated enough additional votes for Biden to secure an Electoral College victory in 2020.
According to an overview of the analysis, which was published by The Federalist this week, CTCL and CEIR pumped $419.5 million into local government election offices. The grants – which were funded by donors like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan – are comparable in volume to the $479.5 million that federal and state matching funds allocated for Covid-19-related election expenses during the 2020 campaign.
A large portion of the money went into various programs that directly boosted election turnout, by promoting mail-in voting or paying workers participating in outreach programs. Proponents of these investments argued that the millions of dollars were necessary to plug holes in election budgets left by the pandemic and a shortage of public funding from the federal government.
While both NGOs insisted they were acting in a non-partisan way, Doyle says the effect of their actions was staggeringly in favor of the Democratic candidate.
“Of the 26 grants CTCL provided to cities and counties in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia that were $1 million or larger, 25 went to areas Biden won in 2020,” he wrote. “The only county on this list won by Donald Trump (Brown County, Wisconsin) received about $1.1 million – less than 1.3 percent of the $85.5 million that CTCL provided to these top 26 recipients.”
The team is still in the process of crunching the numbers for all battleground states, but their preliminary analysis of Texas showed that the nonprofits’ per capita spending in the state overwhelmingly went to Biden-supporting counties. It wasn’t enough to swing the state blue, but researchers believe the NGOs may have flipped Georgia and Wisconsin for Biden, based on the preliminary analysis.
“We have good reason to anticipate that the results of our work will show that CTCL and CEIR involvement in the 2020 election gave rise to an election that, while free, was not fair. The 2020 election wasn’t stolen – it was likely bought with money poured through legal loopholes,” Doyle said.
He also noted that partisan private financing of the election system posed questions about its integrity. “Big CTCL and CEIR money” opened local election offices to “infiltration… by left-wing activists,” he said, citing as an example the hiring of workers from Happy Faces Personnel Group by Fulton County, Georgia. The firm was linked by some people to Georgia progressive politician Stacey Abrams, though claims that she partially owned it were reportedly false.
“CTCL drove the proliferation of unmonitored private dropboxes (which created major chain of custody issues) and opportunities for novel forms of ‘mail-in ballot electioneering,’ allowed for the submission of numerous questionable post-election-day ballots, and created opportunities for illegal ballot harvesting,” Doyle said.
Merck made headlines in early October when it announced the trial results of a newly developed antiviral pill that effectively reduced the risk of hospitalization and death by up to 50%. Phase three clinical trial data released on October 1 showed that the experimental drug called molnupiravir lowered the chances that patients with newly diagnosed COVID would be hospitalized by up to 50%.
According to CNBC, Merck’s molnupiravir comes in a tablet form and if approved would become the first pill to treat COVID. On Monday, the Big Pharma company asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to authorize the use of molnupiravir to treat mild to moderate COVID in adults.
“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented, urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Merck CEO Robert Davis said in a press release. If approved, the new anti-COVID drug will be available to Americans as soon as late this year.
Business Insider reported that “Industry analysts expect Merck to make billions off the not-yet-authorized drug,” with “some countries will be paying $12 per patient, while the US agreed to pay $712 per treatment course.” The report added that Merck is “walking a tightrope” with its new anti-COVID pill and is expected to “reap billions in revenue” with it.
Others are already arguing that molnupiravir has a number of similarities with ivermectin, another anti-parasite drug that is readily available, affordable, and has shown to be effective in helping treat COVID.
Marilyn Singleton, M.D. argued in a story for WND that ivermectin “has 20 possible mechanisms of action against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including interrupting viral entry into cells and anti-inflammatory action. Significantly, ivermectin is a protease inhibitor, that is, a substance that blocks proteins that allow viruses to reproduce themselves.”
Coincidentally, Pfizer’s new anti-COVID pill, currently called PF-07321332 and undergoing global phase two and three clinical trials, is also a protease inhibitor. It would be given to a patient early after the onset of COVID symptoms, just as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were recommended for COVID.
Singleton is blowing the whistle on how the U.S. government under the Biden administration is set to purchase up to $1.2 billion worth of the unapproved experimental drug. Ivermectin, which shows similarities to molnupiravir, costs about $100 per treatment. If these two drugs are highly similar and take about a similar amount of research, development, and resources to make, why is it priced at $700 per treatment?
These are the important questions Singleton believes should be asked, especially when the American pharmaceutical industry has spent $171,262,239 so far in 2021 in lobbying. Coincidentally, Pfizer and Merck were the top five clients. As per Insider, Merck now stands to make up to $22 billion in revenue from molnupiravir alone through 2030, making up for any lost revenue spent in lobbying if the drug gets approved by the FDA.
Yesterday Joe Rogan hosted Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s health expert and a medical doctor, on his podcast and at one point confronted Gupta over false claims CNN made about Rogan’s use of Ivermectin. Rogan recently made headlines when he became ill with COVID-19 and treated it with an alternative treatment regimen that included Ivermectin.
Initially, Gupa attempted to defend his network’s coverage of the drug. Rogan shot back, “It’s a lie on a news network, and it’s a lie, that is a willing, a lie that they’re conscious of. It’s not a mistake. They’re unfavorably framing it as veterinary medicine.”
Gupta then cited a tweet from the FDA under the Biden regime, and ostensibly its corresponding article, which mocked Ivermectin as “horse dewormer” paste. While this is one use of Ivermectin, the drug used by Rogan and billions of humans is generally given in pill form.
“Why would you say that when you’re talking about a drug that’s been given out to billions and billions of people, a drug that was responsible, one of the inventors of it receiving the Nobel Prize in 2015,” said Rogan, as Gupta attempted to interrupt him with agreements. Rogan continued, “A drug that has been shown to stop viral replication,” the podcast host, comedian, and UFC commentator charged. ”
“Why would they lie and say that’s horse dewormer? I can afford people medicine, motherfucker,” said Rogan. “This is ridiculous, it’s just a lie.”
Gupta laughed in response, but did not offer an answer. Rogan then asked Gupta if he thinks “a lie like that is dangerous on a news network” and held up a box of Ivermectin he says is identical to what he took. Gupta seemed surprised Rogan had the smeared pharmaceutical.
“Hang on,” begged Gupta. “We’re going so fast, I feel like, I feel like I’m missing,” said Gupta before being cut off by Rogan: “Do you think that’s a problem, that your news network lies?”
“Well, I don’t, I-I don’t,” Gupta stammered. Rogan interrupted again, “Dude.” Gupta then asked what his own network said about his use of the drug. “They lied and said I was taking horse dewormer,” said Rogan. “First of all, it was prescribed to me by a doctor along with a bunch of other medications.”
“They shouldn’t have said it,” admitted Gupta. “If you got a human pill, because there were people that were taking it, the veterinary medication, you’re not obviously, so it shouldn’t be called that.” He then admitted that Ivermectin can be a “very effective” drug, but suggested it was not effective for COVID. He then asked to move to another topic, but Rogan restated his question.
Rogan asked, definitively, “Does it bother you that the news network you work for out and out lied, just outright lied, about me taking horse dewormer?”
Gupta replied, “They shouldn’t have said that.” When Rogan asked why the network repeatedly claimed he was taking “horse dewormer,” Gupta said he did not know. He then admitted that as CNN’s medical expert, he “should have asked” about the decision to smear Rogan.
