Trump Releases New Statement Saying 2020 Election Will Go Down as ‘Crime of the Century’
More than six months after Election Day, former President Donald Trump revisited the subject of the 2020 presidential contest on Saturday with a blazing trio of statements.
“As our Country is being destroyed, both inside and out, the Presidential Election of 2020 will go down as THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY!” Trump posted on his website.
Trump also cited a Wall Street Journal story headlined “Trump-Biden Was Worst Presidential Polling Miss in 40 Years” that said polling overstated support for Democrats, including President Joe Biden.
The story said that an expert panel found the polls were off at a level not even since the 1980 election in which Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter.
“In the aggregate, the panel said, polls overstated support for Democratic nominee Joe Biden by 3.9 percentage points in the national popular vote in the final two weeks of the campaign. That was a larger error than the 1.3-point overstatement in 2016 surveys for Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College,” the Journal wrote.
The insanity of marketing mass vaccination to those already recovered from COVID
Aside from the government treating children as if they are at risk from this virus, the most consequentially unscientific policy from our government is the treatment of convalescent COVID patients as if they are not immune to the virus. Government has refused to lift any restrictions on those already infected and treats them as less immune than those who are vaccinated, still encouraging them to get the vaccine. In fact, the science says just the opposite.
Last week, even Jordan Peterson, a public figure admired by many people suspicious of the government-corporate monopoly, tweeted out that he is getting vaccinated because he believes his antibody levels from prior infection are too low to protect him.
This speaks to just how much the government and media have censored the information about T cells and how even a mild infection conveys long-term robust immunity against reinfection. One study found the immunity to last even 17 years later from SARS-1-infected patients who never even had COVID-19. Let’s put aside the fact that the vaccines themselves have not been proven effective beyond a few months so far and thus would suffer the same perceived flaw of waning immunity as previous infection. The reality is that it’s already proven that natural immunity is broader, more robust, and enduring than anything from a vaccine.
Government Scientific Advisors Admit They Used ‘Totalitarian’ Fear Tactics To Control People During Pandemic
Scientists in the UK working as advisors for the government have expressed regret for using what they now admit to be “unethical” and “totalitarian” methods of instilling fear in the population in order to control behaviour during the pandemic, according to a report.
The London Telegraph reports the comments made by Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B), a sub-committee of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) the government’s chief scientific advisory group.
How can anyone be expected to take an injection when the doctors pushing it wont even take it themselves?
The report quotes a briefing from March 2020, as the first lockdown was decreed, that stated the government should drastically increase “the perceived level of personal threat” that the virus poses because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”.
One scientist with the SPI-B admits that “In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear.”
The unnamed scientist adds that “The way we have used fear is dystopian.”
The scientist further confessed that “The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”
Parler is Back on Apple App Store, But With Some Content Sliced Off
The social media company, which presents itself as a free-speech alternative to Facebook or Twitter, announced its return in February after being suspended by Amazon.
Parler social media company returned to Apple’s App Store on Monday, the platform said in a statement.
“The entire Parler team has worked hard to address Apple’s concerns without compromising our core mission,” Parler interim CEO Mark Meckler said in an email to The Verge.
Do People Really Become More Religious in Times of Crisis?
Organized religion has been on the decline for decades in the United States. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers found that online searches for the word “prayer” soared to their highest level ever in over 90 countries. And a 2020 Pew Research study showed that 24% of U.S. adults stated their faith had become stronger during the pandemic.
I am a theologian who studies trauma and this shift makes sense to me. I often teach that traumatic events are, at their heart, crises of meaning that cause people to question assumptions about their lives, including their spiritual beliefs. The years 2020 and 2021 certainly fit that bill: The global COVID-19 pandemic has indeed led to traumatic experiences for many people, due to the isolation, illness, fear and death that it created.
Questioning Beliefs
People who experience traumas tend to question some of the assumptions they might have had about their faith – what pastoral theologian Carrie Doehring calls “embedded beliefs.” These beliefs may include ideas about who God is, the purpose of life or why evil events happen to good people.
So, for instance, many Christians may inherit an embedded belief from the tradition that God is all good and that evil emerges when God “rightly” punishes people for their sins. In other words, an all-good God would not punish someone without a reason.
Christians raised with that assumption might ask what made them incur God’s wrath if they contracted COVID-19. In such an event, the embedded belief in a punishing God may become something called a negative coping strategy – a coping strategy that has negative effects on a person’s life.
Why Does the FDA Get Nearly Half Its Funding From the Companies It Regulates?
Thanks to user fees drug companies pay the FDA, the number and speed of drug approvals have been increasing over time — so have the number of drugs that end up having serious safety issues.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has moved from an entirely taxpayer-funded entity to one increasingly funded by user fees paid by manufacturers that are being regulated. Today, close to 45% of its budget comes from these user fees that companies pay when they apply for approval of a medical device or drug.
As a pharmacist and medication and dietary supplement safety researcher, I understand the vital role that the FDA plays in ensuring the safety of medications and medical devices.
But I, along with many others, now wonder: Was this move a clever win-win for the manufacturers and the public, or did it place patient safety second to corporate profitability?
It is critical that the U.S. public understand the positive and negative ramifications so the nation can strike the right balance.
The FDA blocks Thalidomide
Americans in the early 20th century were outraged when they found out that manufacturers used poor-quality methods for producing food and medication, and used unsafe, ineffective and undisclosed addictive ingredients in medications. The resulting Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 gave the taxpayer-funded FDA new authority to protect the U.S. consumer.
One of the FDA’s most shining successes occurred in the late 1950s when the agency refused to approve thalidomide. By 1960, 46 countries allowed pregnant women to use thalidomide to treat morning sickness, but the FDA refused on the grounds that the studies were insufficient to demonstrate safety. Debilitating birth defects resulting from thalidomide arose in Europe and elsewhere in 1961. President John F. Kennedy heralded the FDA in 1962 for its stance. An FDA driven by the data — and not corporate pressure — prevented a major tragedy.
