It’s time to start shunning the ‘vaccine hesitant.’ They’re blocking COVID herd immunity.

Michael J. Stern May 2, 2021

Has-been rock star Ted Nugent told the world last week that he has COVID-19.  Nugent’s announcement was an oddity because he previously called the viral pandemic a “leftist scam to destroy” Donald Trump. As I watched Nugent’s Facebook Live post, in which he repeatedly hocked up wads of phlegm and spit them to the ground, I got emotional when he described being so sick he thought he “was dying.” But when he trashed the COVID-19 vaccine and warned people against taking it, I realized that the emotion I was feeling was not empathy, it was anger.

For the better part of a year, as the coronavirus racked up hundreds of thousands of American deaths, the flickering light at the end of the tunnel was herd immunity — the antibody force shield that comes when enough people have survived the illness or have been vaccinated against it. “Go get vaccinated, America,” President Joe Biden said in his speech to a joint session of Congress, referring to the shot as “a dose of hope.” 

…Herd immunity is slipping away because a quarter of Americans are refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. “There is no eradication at this point, it’s off the table,” Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group, recently said. “We as a society have rejected” herd immunity. 

Hmm, no! “We” have not rejected anything. A quarter of the country is ruining it for all of us.

It’s not just wacky former rockers who have put herd immunity out of reach. It is white evangelicals (45% say they won’t get vaccinated). And it is Republicans (almost 50% are refusing the vaccine). In Texas, 61% of white Republicans say they are reluctant to get the vaccine or would refuse it. You can slap the euphemism “vaccine hesitancy” on the problem, but in the end the G.O.P., and the children of G.O.D., are perpetuating a virus that is sickening and killing people in droves.

A big part of the problem stems from the cultish relationship many evangelicals and Republicans have with the former president. They absorbed his endless efforts to downplay the danger of the virus and turn public health precautions into a political freedom movement. But the time for analyzing why these human petri dishes have chosen to ignore the medical science that could save them, and us, is over. We need a different strategy. I propose shunning. 

Biden’s wildly successful vaccine rollout means that soon everyone who wants a vaccine will have one. When that happens, restaurants, movie theaters, gyms, barbers, airlines and Ubers should require proof of vaccination before providing their services.

And it shouldn’t stop there. Businesses should make vaccination a requirement for employment…Things should get personal, too: People should require friends to be vaccinated to attend the barbecues and birthday parties they host. Friends don’t let friends spread the coronavirus...

As a country, America has become too tolerant of half-witted individual autonomy that ignores the existential needs of the vast majority of its citizens. 

Michael J. Stern, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, was a federal prosecutor for 25 years in Detroit and Los Angeles. Follow him on Twitter:  @MichaelJStern1 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/04/30/require-covid-vaccine-resume-normal-life-herd-immunity-column/4886673001/

https://twitter.com/vegsource/status/1393358858811187200

Original source, with 643 comments (I don’t have tiktok):

https://m.tiktok.com/v/6962258102565489925.html?

You won’t read about this in the MSM. Ivermectin… BOOM.

UPDATED: Gates Foundation puppet WHO now fighting Indian Ivermectin initiative along with Merck Pharmaceutical

Update: Here’s the data in from Goa, India. They started passing Ivermectin out on Monday. That’s the peak. The free-fall down is Tues-Wednesday-Thurs. A 10% reduction in four days. So, obviously, the New World Order Covid political religion and Antichurch will declare total war on Ivermectin. Because this JUST. WON’T. DO.

Largest crime against humanity ever perpetrated, by a long, long shot. And still happening openly, in front of God and everyone.

I’m telling you folks, between the desperation to keep the whole “vaxxines are THE ONLY POSSIBLE TREATMENT” bee-ess lying fearporn narrative going, plus the desperate need for BigPharma to defend the $50 billion per year cold and flu symptom remedy market, they’re going to attack Ivermectin like mad dogs.

The Gates Foundation/WHO and Merck are on full offensive media blitz against the Indian Ivermectin initiatives – the most populous state in India just endorsed Ivermectin in addition to the Goa free universal prophylactic distribution program.

Remember, Merck was the original developer of Ivermectin forty+ years ago, and Merck has donated most of the 3.7 billion human doses of Ivermectin that have been dispensed in the third world to date. Remember this when Merck starts in with the “it’s not safe” bee-ess. They’ve given away literally billions of doses of it, with no real side effects. The mendacity….

But the Indians know very, very well what the Gates’ are about, having ejected the Gates Foundation from India after they permanently paralyzed over 400,000 children with a “polio vaccine”. Oopsie!

Let’s hope and pray that the Indians stand firm and don’t fold to corruption.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on May 14, ARSH 2021 by Ann Barnhardt.

“Ideologically-motivated violent extremists fueled by perceived grievances, false narratives, and conspiracy theories continue to share information online with the intent to incite violence. Online narratives across sites known to be frequented by individuals who hold violent extremist ideologies have called for violence against elected officials, political representatives, government facilities, law enforcement, religious or commercial facilities, and perceived ideologically-opposed individuals

Additional Details

• Violent extremists may seek to exploit the easing of COVID-19-related restrictions across the United States to conduct attacks against a broader range of targets after previous public capacity limits reduced opportunities for lethal attacks.
• Historically, mass-casualty Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE) attacks linked to racially- or ethnically-motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) have targeted houses of worship and crowded commercial facilities or gatherings. Some RMVEs advocate via social media and online platforms for a race war and have stated that civil disorder provides opportunities to engage in violence in furtherance of ideological objectives.
• Through 2020 and into 2021, government facilities and personnel have been common targets of DVEs, and opportunistic violent criminals are likely to exploit Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech activity linked to racial justice grievances and police use of force concerns, potentially targeting protestors perceived to be ideological opponents.
• Ideologically-motivated violent extremists fueled by perceived grievances, false narratives, and conspiracy theories continue to share information online with the intent to incite violence. Online narratives across sites known to be frequented by individuals who hold violent extremist ideologies have called for violence against elected officials, political representatives, government facilities, law enforcement, religious or commercial facilities, and perceived ideologically-opposed individuals.
• The use of encrypted messaging by lone offenders and small violent extremist cells may obscure operational indicators that provide specific warning of a pending act of violence.
• Messaging from foreign terrorist organizations, including al-Qa‘ida and ISIS, intended to inspire U.S.-based homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) continues to amplify narratives related to exploiting protests. HVEs, who have typically conducted attacks against soft targets, mass gatherings, and law enforcement, remain a threat to the Homeland.
• Nation-state adversaries have increased efforts to sow discord. For example, Russian, Chinese and Iranian government-linked media outlets have repeatedly amplified conspiracy theories concerning the origins of COVID-19 and effectiveness of vaccines; in some cases, amplifying calls for violence targeting persons of Asian descent.
• DHS encourages law enforcement and homeland security partners to be alert to these developments and prepared for any effects to public safety. Consistent with applicable law, state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) law enforcement organizations should maintain situational awareness of online and physical activities that may be related to an evolving threat of violence.

How We Are Responding

• DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) continue to provide guidance to SLTT partners about the current threat environment. Specifically, DHS has issued numerous intelligence assessments to SLTT officials on the evolving threat.
• DHS is collaborating with industry partners to identify and respond to those individuals encouraging violence and attempting to radicalize others through spreading disinformation, conspiracy theories, and false narratives on social media and other online platforms. 
• DHS has prioritized combatting DVE threats within its FEMA grants as a National Priority Area.
• DHS remains committed to identifying and preventing domestic terrorism.

How You Can Help

• DHS asks the public to report suspicious activity and threats of violence, including online threats, to local law enforcement, FBI Field Offices, or a local Fusion Center.
• If you know someone who is struggling with mental health issues, or may be a danger to themself or others, support is available.

Be Prepared and Stay Informed

• Be prepared for any emergency situations and remain aware of circumstances that may place your personal safety at risk.
• Maintain digital media literacy to recognize and build resilience to false and harmful narratives.
• Make note of your surroundings and the nearest security personnel.
• Business owners should consider the safety and security of customers, employees, facilities, infrastructure, and cyber networks.
• Government agencies will provide details about emerging threats as information is identified. The public is encouraged to listen to local authorities and public safety officials.

https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-may-14-2021

Introduction

Awareness of ivermectin’s efficacy and its adoption by physicians worldwide to successfully treat COVID-19 have grown exponentially over the past several months. Oddly, however, even as the clinical trials data and successful ivermectin treatment experiences continue to mount, so too have the criticisms and outright recommendations against the use of ivermectin by the vast majority, though not all, of public health agencies (PHA), concentrated largely in North America and Europe.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and other ivermectin researchers have repeatedly offered expert analyses to respectfully correct and rebut the PHA recommendations, based on our deep study and rapidly accumulated expertise “in the field” on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. These rebuttals were publicized and provided to international media for the education of providers and patients across the world. Our most recent response to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and others recommendation against use can be found on the FLCCC website here.

In February 2021, the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD), an international meeting of physicians, researchers, specialists, and patients, followed a guideline development process consistent with the WHO standard. It reached a consensus recommendation that ivermectin, a verifiably safe and widely available oral medicine, be immediately deployed early and globally. The BIRD group’s recommendation rested in part on numerous, well-documented studies reporting that ivermectin use reduces the risk of contracting COVID-19 by over 90% and mortality by 68% to 91%.

A similar conclusion has also been reached by an increasing number of expert groups from the United Kingdom (UK), Italy, Spain, United States (US), and a group from Japan headed by the Nobel Prize-winning discoverer of Ivermectin, Professor Satoshi Omura. Focused rebuttals that are backed by voluminous research and data have been shared with PHAs over the past months. These include the WHO and many individual members of its guideline development group (GDG), the FDA, and the NIH. However, these PHAs continue to ignore or disingenuously manipulate the data to reach unsupportable recommendations against ivermectin treatment. We are forced to publicly expose what we believe can only be described as a “disinformation” campaign astonishingly waged with full cooperation of those authorities whose mission is to maintain the integrity of scientific research and protect public health.

The following accounting and analysis of the WHO ivermectin panel’s highly irregular and inexplicable analysis of the ivermectin evidence supports but one rational explanation: the GDG Panel had a predetermined, nonscientific objective, which is to recommend against ivermectin. This is despite the overwhelming evidence by respected experts calling for its immediate use to stem the pandemic. Additionally, there appears to be a wider effort to employ what are commonly described as “disinformation tactics” in an attempt to counter or suppress any criticism of the irregular activity of the WHO panel.

The WHO Ivermectin Guideline Conflicts with the NIH Recommendation

The FLCCC Alliance is a nonprofit, humanitarian organization made up of renowned, highly published, world-expert clinician-researchers whose sole mission over the past year has been to develop and disseminate the most effective treatment protocols for COVID-19. In the past six months, much of this effort has been centered on disseminating knowledge of our identification of significant randomized, observational, and epidemiologic studies consistently demonstrating the powerful efficacy of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Our manuscript detailing the depth and breadth of this evidence passed a rigorous peer review by senior scientists at the U.S Food and Drug Administration and Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Recently published, our study concludes that, based on the totality of the evidence of efficacy and safety, ivermectin should be immediately deployed to prevent and treat COVID-19 worldwide.

The first “red flag” is the conflict between the March 31, 2021, WHO Ivermectin Panel’s “against” recommendation and the NIH’s earlier recommendation from February 12th of a more supportive neutral recommendation based on a lower amount of supportive evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy at that time.

Two flawed lines of analysis by the WHO appear to account for this inconsistent result: 

1. The WHO arbitrarily and severely limited the extent and diversity of study designs considered (e.g., retrospective observational controlled trials (OCT), prospective OCTs, epidemiological, quasi-randomized, randomized, placebo-controlled, etc.). 
2. The WHO mischaracterized the overall quality of the trial data to undermine the included studies.

The Severely Limited Extent and Diversity of Ivermectin Data Considered by the WHO’s Ivermectin Panel 

The WHO Ivermectin Panel arbitrarily included only a narrow selection of the available medical studies that their research team had been instructed to collect when formulating their recommendation, with virtually no explanation why they excluded such a voluminous amount of supportive medical evidence. This was made obvious at the outset due to the following: 

1. No pre-established protocol for data exclusion was published, which is a clear departure from standard practice in guideline development. 
2. The exclusions departed from the WHO’s own original search protocol it required of Unitaid’s ivermectin research, which collected a much wider array of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

Key Ivermectin Trial Data Excluded from Analysis 

1. The WHO excluded all “quasi-randomized” RCTs from consideration (two excluded trials with over 200 patients that reported reductions in mortality). 
2. The WHO excluded all RCTs where ivermectin was compared to or given with other medications. Two such trials with over 750 patients reported reductions in mortality.
3. The WHO excluded from consideration 7 of the 23 available ivermectin RCT results.  Such irregularities skewed the proper assessment of important outcomes in at least the following ways: 

1. Mortality Assessment 
   1. WHO Review: Excluded multiple RCTs such that only 31 total trials deaths occurred; despite this artificially meager sample, a 91% reduction in the risk of death was found.[1]
   2. Compared to the BIRD Review: Included 13 RCTs with 107 deaths observed and found a 2.5% mortality with ivermectin vs. 8.9% in controls; estimated reduction in risk of death=68%; highly statistically significant, (p=.007).
2. Assessment of Impacts on Viral Clearance
   1. WHO Review: 6 RCTs, 625 patients. The Panel avoided mention of the important finding of a strong dose-response in regard to this outcome. 
   2. This action in (i) is indefensible given that their Unitaid research team found that among 13 RCTs, 10 of the 13 reported statistically significant reductions in time to viral clearance, with larger reductions with multiday dosing than single-day, consistent with a profound dose-response relationship.[2]
3. Adverse Effects
   1. WHO: Only included 3 RCTs studying this outcome. Although no statistical significance was found, the slight imbalance in this limited sample allowed the panel to repeatedly document concerns for “harm” with ivermectin treatment.
   2. Compare (a) to the WHO’s prior safety analysis in their 2018 Application for Inclusion of Ivermectin onto Essential Medicines List for Indication of Scabies: 
      1. “Over one billion doses have been given in large-scale prevention programs.”
      2. “Adverse events associated with ivermectin treatment. are primarily minor and transient.”[3]
4. The WHO excluded all RCTs studying the prevention of COVID-19 with ivermectin, without supporting rationale. Three RCTs including almost 800 patients found an over 90% reduction in the risk of infection when ivermectin is taken preventively.[4]
5. The WHO excluded observational controlled trials (OCT), with 14 studies of ivermectin. These included thousands of patients, including those employing propensity matching, a technique shown to lead to similar accuracy as RCTs. 
   1. One large, propensity-matched OCT from the US found that ivermectin treatment was associated with a large decrease in mortality.
   2. A summary analysis of the combined data from the 14 available ivermectin OCTs found a large and statistically significant decrease in mortality.
6. The WHO excluded numerous published and posted epidemiologic studies, despite requesting and receiving a presentation of the results from one leading epidemiologic research team. These studies found:
   1. In numerous cities and regions with population-wide ivermectin distribution campaigns, large decreases in both excess deaths and COVID-19 case fatality rates were measured immediately following the campaigns.
   2. Countries with pre-existing ivermectin prophylaxis campaigns against parasites demonstrate significantly lower COVID-19 case counts and deaths compared to neighboring countries without such campaigns.

Assessment of the Quality of the Evidence Base by WHO Guideline Group 

The numerous above actions minimizing the extent of the evidence base were then compounded by the below efforts to minimize the quality of the evidence base:

The WHO mischaracterized the overall quality of the included trials as “low” to “very low,” conflicting with numerous independent expert research group findings:

1. An international expert guideline group independently reviewed the BIRD proceeding and instead found the overall quality of trials to be “moderate.” 
2. The WHO’s own Unitaid systematic review team currently grade the overall quality as “moderate.”
3. The WHO graded the largest trial it included to support a negative assessment of ivermectin’s mortality impacts as “low risk of bias.” A large number of expert reviewers have graded that same trial as “high risk of bias,” detailed in an open letter  signed by over 100 independent physicians.

We must emphasize this critical fact: If the WHO had more accurately assessed the quality of evidence as “moderate certainty,” consistent with the multiple independent research teams above, ivermectin would instead become the standard of care worldwide, similar to what occurred after the dexamethasone evidence finding decreased mortality was graded as moderate quality, which then led to its immediate global adoption in the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 in July of 2020.[5]

Read the rest: https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/

But also, this:

Science!

The Ascension is the Second Glorious Mystery of the Most Holy Rosary. Fruit of the Mystery: Hope.

Hope is an Infused Virtue. The only way to lose it is by intentionally committing the mortal sin of despair. The only way you can “lose hope” is to literally throw hope away, in a deliberate act of the will. If you have done that, and have handed yourself over to fear, anxiety, panic attacks, benzos… you need to get to Confession and snap out of it. The book has been written, and you know how it ends. What exactly are you despairing?

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mystical Rose, Patroness of the Americas,
make intercession for the Holy Church,
protect the Sovereign Pontiff,
help all those who invoke thee in their necessities,
and since thou art the Ever Virgin Mary and Mother of the True God,
obtain for us from thy Most Holy Son the grace of keeping our faith,
sweet hope in the midst of the bitterness of life,
burning charity and the precious gift of final perseverance.

Amen.

I penned the following last year for this feast, during peak lockdown. And here we stand.

---

Happy feast!

“He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.”

Forty days after Easter, Our Lord ascended into Heaven, straight up into a cloud. The Ascension is mysterious for several reasons. For one thing, you would think such a startling sight would be described in great detail in the Gospels, but this isn’t the case. Matthew and John don’t even mention it. Luke speaks of it briefly at the end of his Gospel, and in more detail in Acts. Mark’s account is the Gospel reading at Mass today (1962), “He upbraided them…” It appears in the second half of the 16th and final chapter of Mark’s gospel, which is itself a mystery: Many ancient manuscripts are missing these last seven verses.

Another mystery are the events leading up to the Ascension. Namely, the events of the 40 days Our Lord remained, appearing several times in various ways, even eating and drinking with the apostles. The most complete rendering is in John; the Synoptic Gospels are all but silent. It strikes me akin to the very few words attributed directly to our Blessed Mother, and the total silence of her most chaste spouse. Deepening this mystery is that John ends his Gospel by telling us there were countless other things that Jesus did that are not written down, and if they were, the whole world could not contain the books that would be written. Have you ever meditated on that?

Another mystery is the need for the upbraiding. These men saw more miracles than could fill books that could fill the world, yet they were still a wretched bunch of unbelievers, who needed one last ass-kicking before Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father? On the surface, not a very encouraging commentary on the state of man. This seems to tempt us to despair.

On the contrary!

In the Mysteries of the Rosary, the Ascension is the Second Glorious. The Fruit of the Mystery is HOPE, which is also the second Theological Virtue. Have you meditated on Hope? It’s not some sweet soothing Kathy, just wish all your troubles away, hush hush don’t cry, things will get better, sweetie. No.

Hope is rooted in the knowledge that God is not a jerk, that God keeps his promises, and that we can and should trust in Him. It is standing firm in your faith, grounded by right reason, knowing that God is in control. Hope goes beyond simply desiring some future good; hope is the desire for a future good accompanied by the expectation of attaining it. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07465b.htm

We are living through an unprecedented time in history. Don’t let your normalcy bias cloud current events. An antipope has usurped the Petrine See, and seemingly the whole Church doesn’t mind. We’ve seen the anti-church emerge and strut like a peacock… we are talking about open idol worship inside St. Peter’s, lead by the antipope… and it is allowed to pass. And now the entire world has been turned upside down in a matter of weeks. Entire empires are intentionally self-destructing over a mild virus, cheered on by their own citizenry, to the delight of the all the worst actor agitators, undergirded with communism and satanism.

All of this is converging with you in the middle of it. God chose you to be born into this age. What an absolute honor that is. We are called to action, through both spiritual warfare and concrete action in the natural realm. Act, and God will act. Act, grounded in faith, spurred by hope, intentioned with charity. We know how this ends: God wins, and He wants you on the winning team. Assume the bearing that victory is yours, and expect to attain it.

Blessed feast to all.

Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that we who firmly believe that Thine only-begotten Son, our Redeemer, to have ascended this day into heaven, may also ourselves dwell in mind on heavenly things. – Collect, Feast of the Ascension

https://player.vimeo.com/video/513325468

“This video contains factual information, sourced and verifiable, about the FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug Ivermectin and its use for COVID-19 treatment.”

https://player.vimeo.com/video/513325894

If videos won’t play, go here:

https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/frontline-news/watch-the-ivermectin-story

VICTORIA, Seychelles, May 12, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The government of Seychelles has re-imposed lockdown measures following the largest per capita surge in detection of infection with COVID-19 in the world, despite ranking as the top country for coverage with a COVID vaccine.

Though previously boasting that some 60 percent of its population had been “fully vaccinated” against the coronavirus, the country recorded 336 positive tests per 100,000 population in the first week of May, more than double the amount of second place Maldives at 153 per 100,000, according to the New York Times’ global coronavirus tracker.

Seychelles’ supposed outbreak vastly outstrips that of India, which has seen around 28 positive tests of the virus in the per 100,000 population in the same time period. Even total deaths per 100,000 show Seychelles to have almost double the rate of India’s overall COVID-related death toll.

The country’s health ministry announced that more than a third of those who tested positive for the virus, around 37%, had already been “fully vaccinated”…

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/worlds-most-vaccinated-country-reports-highest-global-covid-19-case-count-re-imposes-lockdown-measures?

17 months later, there are zero approved tests for the Corona. Oh yes, there are unapproved, experimental tests that received Emergency Use Authorization. But in 17 months, none of them have received FDA approval. Isn’t that fascinating? How did we come up with “vaccines” so quickly and enter them into human trials on March 16, 2020 (Moderna) and April 29, 2020 (Pfizer), yet as of May 11, 2021 there are no approved tests to detect this disease? How could that be?

I got tested yesterday. Here is the fact sheet I received: