josh published THIS piece back in sept 2021. it uses the CDC’s own published methodology to assess the VAERS data for covid vaccines. the results were unequivocal.
After that article was published, I urged CHD’s legal team to submit a FOIA request to the CDC about its VAERS monitoring activities.
Since CDC officials stated publicly that “COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history,” I had assumed that at the very least, CDC officials were monitoring VAERS using the methods they described in a briefing document posted on the CDC website in January 2021 (and updated in February 2022, with minor changes).
but, when asked about it under FOIA, this was their response: (red box mine)
not only did they not perform the safety monitoring they were supposed to. at all. but they go on to claim that doing so is outside their purview and suggest asking the FDA instead. (who does not do this work, it’s supposed to be the CDC.)
this is just stunning.
what a complete and total fail and abrogation of duty and diligence.
either “most robust in US history” was a complete and total fabrication or wow have we been running around totally unprotected for decades. which one fills you with confidence?
fake politicized health agencies providing fake political science and selective safety practice tailored to suit industry and policy are killing us. literally.
claiming to have missed this is like pretending not to have heard a bad bunny concert going on right behind you in a library.
quite literally any other vaccine in history would have been pulled off the market for 1/100th of this.
this is either egregious dereliction of duty or and outright lie in FOIA response.
they either did not do the analysis because they knew what they’d find if they did
they did do the analysis and are hiding it because of what it showed and the fact that they could never justify inaction in the face of it.
there is simply no plausible case that they “forgot” or “did not think it was important” or “saw no reason to use resources on it.”
Some really fine work below from “Marcus Veritas,” an anon Trad layman lawyer from Colorado. He and I have had previous exchanges on the BiP theory. His treatment here of a “Reader’s Digest” version of the Miller Dissertation is hugely helpful, because most people who should have keen interest on this subject haven’t bothered to read one page of this document, a document which is absolutely key to understanding the papacy, the office, and the ministry, down through the ages to the present day, and what other forms it could and might take, according to the greatest Nouvelle minds of the twentieth century. For those too lazy to read the book, Marcus hands it all to you on a platter in less than 15 minutes. Enjoy, and please share.
Miller’s Dissertation: The Key to Unlocking Benedict’s Incomplete Resignation
The reason most Catholics and the rest of the world incorrectly assume Pope Benedict XVI resigned the Papacy in February 2013 is because they do not view his attempted resignation through the prism of the Nouvelle théologie, which is necessary to understand what really was going on.
What’s becoming more and more clear to me every single day is that this debacle that Pope Benedict XVI caused in February 2013 when he erroneously attempted to resign only his “active” role in the Papacy, while remaining in a “passive” or “contemplative” role, is 100% a product of the Modernist theological errors and the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II).
One of the most important keys, almost a Rosetta Stone so to speak, to understanding both the mind and text of Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation in February 2013, and why he remains the current Pope to this day, can be found in Archbishop J. Michael Miller’s 1980 dissertation penned for the Gregorian University in Rome. He is now the Archbishop of Vancouver. If you want to read the dissertation in its entirety you need to buy a copy here.
Ann Barnhardt originally turned me on to this academic exercise in post-Vatican II ecumenism and piqued my interest enough to purchase a copy. After I read it, my mind was blown away. Because this is so important to understanding why Benedict and not Antipope Bergoglio (Francis) is Pope to this day, I will summarize the contents of the Miller dissertation for the reader but with sufficient detail so you understand the full context to what can best be described as a summary of Modernist thought concerning the Papacy.
I will do my best to objectively summarize the material and refrain from making personal comments throughout the summary. However, I will tie Miller’s conclusions back to Benedict’s actions in February 2013 after the summary so you can see why this is so relevant and important. Before I begin the summary, keep the following in mind:
When Pope Benedict attempted to resign a portion of the Papacy, he made an effort to distinguish between a Papal office (Munus) and ministry (Ministerium). While some commentators said this is not a big deal because of the multiple/ambiguous meanings associated with these Latin terms Benedict used, after you understand the Miller dissertation, it becomes obvious that Benedict was not just being lazy and sloppy with his terminology in his resignation speech. He actually chose his words very carefully.
When he could have just said “I hereby resign the Office of the Papacy in its entirety with all its rights and privileges effective immediately,” he chose not to do that. The Miller dissertation explains the WHAT and the WHY behind what Benedict was doing in February 2013, at least theologically.
SUMMARY OF THE MILLER DISSERTATION
Title: The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology
Author: J. Michael Miller
Date: November 21, 1980
PART I: Historical and Theological Background
In this Part, Miller summarizes the history of what he refers to as the “classical” presentation. The history he is referring to is the historical justification for the Papacy. And this justification was based on the notion of “divine right” or ius divinum. For the remainder of this summary, I will just refer to this concept as divine right.
In this first Part, Miller mentions Pope Leo the Great noting that Leo based his theory on Papal Primacy on evidence from Holy Scripture. Papal Primacy refers to the concept of primacy of jurisdiction, which means the possession of full and supreme teaching, legislative and sacerdotal powers in the Catholic Church. Other later Popes and general Councils agreed with Leo. With some minor differences, the history of the Church’s teaching reinforced the notion that the Papacy was instituted by Christ as found in Holy Scripture. The Papacy, according to this “classical” line of thought says Miller, did not originate from a Council, the Apostles or other types of synods.
Fast forward in time to the First Vatican Council (Vatican I). Here, Miller concedes that the Council in Pastor Aeternus condemned those who denied that Christ gave Peter alone a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. Vatican I also confirmed that Peter received authority immediately and directly from Christ and not through the Church. Vatican I accepted what had always been taught previously that Peter was the rock upon which Christ built His Church, the power of the keys was given to Peter alone, and Peter was directly vested with jurisdiction (authority). In other words, Peter was given his unique authority by divine right.
Vatican I also taught that there are perpetual successors to Peter’s primacy, also by divine right. Although Miller notes the that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter, that is not itself by divine right. Miller says, “Before Vatican II, nearly every twentieth century treatise on the papacy adopted the structure of Pastor Aeternus: Petrine primacy promised and conferred by Christ, the perpetuity of succession in the primacy, and the legitimacy of the Roman bishop’s claim to be successor of Peter.” Miller says that the Vatican I fathers “paid no attention to the difference between that which the historical Jesus instituted and that which originated from the Risen Christ.”
And because the Papacy was instituted by divine right, the classic view was that the papacy itself was unchangeable. This classic view began to be challenged after Vatican I, according to Miller. Some theologians began to suggest that if the structure of the papacy came to exist over the course of time due to historical circumstances, then the structure of the papacy was not by divine right, even if the Papacy itself was.
Miller explains that after Vatican I, there was a shift in how theologians perceived the concept of divine right. Rather than being directly instituted by Christ, the meaning began to expand to include more generally the notion of “God’s will.” This becomes important as we shall see.
PART II: Lutheran and Anglican Thought
Because the purpose of this dissertation is to promote ecumenical dialogue, presumably in the spirit of Vatican II, Miller summarizes the modern position of the Lutherans and Anglicans with respect to the Papacy. I will not dive into this too deeply in the summary, but just enough to allow the reader to see why changing the idea of the Papacy is needed for ecumenical dialogue in Miller’s mind.
The Lutherans, according to Miller, believe that if a concept has no salvific importance than it cannot be of divine right. However, if a concept is of divine right, then it is going to be found in Holy Scripture. Man-made law is going to be developed over time in history. Lutherans admit there is a need for a “Petrine function” that serves Christian unity. Lutherans have seen this “Petrine function” carried out in different ways such as councils, theology schools and even the Pope. They just don’t believe any particular structure is of divine right.
Therefore, Lutherans will agree that Christ established a “Petrine function” or “ministry” that can be fulfilled in different forms. The Papacy could be one of those options, but not necessarily the only one.
The Anglicans also agree that something like the Papacy would be beneficial to the universal Church to help unite all Christians. However, it is not absolutely necessary. They agree a Petrine “function” was established in the New Testament and that the development of this concept has been divinely guided since the time of Christ in history.
PART III: Modern Catholic Thought
Here, Miller looks at the opinion of modern Catholic theologians. This is important because these ideas form the basis for Miller’s conclusions. Many of the names are familiar ones because they played a very important role in Vatican II. They are part of the Nouvelle théologie. They focused on changing the meaning and/or just removing from ecumenical discussion the concept of “divine right” when it comes to the Papacy.
Gotthold Hasenhüttl and Hans Küng argued that if something was not instituted by Christ directly then it was not of divine right and anything else that developed afterwards over the course of time in history was man-made and therefore reversible. They deny that many institutions Catholics used to think were of divine right were actually instituted by Christ. Rather, they were man-made institutions developed over time, and therefore are changeable.
Other modern theologians take the position that an institution could still be of divine right, even if not instituted directly by Christ, because they developed over time under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Karl Rahner, for example, argued that “if historical circumstances call for it, as in the case for a pastoral synod, an institution of human right shares in the Church’s constitutional structure of divine right; as such it is not simply dispensable.”
According to these theologians, “the Church is constantly led to create new structures to which respond to its needs.” These developments have “as much right to be considered the work of the Spirit as those of the past…[w]hen new structures are needed to fulfill this [missionary] role, and if former ones no longer serve, the Spirit is there to provide the necessary organization.”
Miller says that Catholics are divided as to whether divine right means an institution within the Church needed to be established during the apostolic age or could have been developed over time. This matters because some theologians hold that only those of divine right are irreversible and not subject to change or being abolished.
Unless, of course, Christ intended those divine institutional structures to be only temporary. This was the argument of Cardinal Avery Dulles. Dulles argued that even if institutions were established by divine right that does not mean they could not be changed over time.
Another theologian who believed that what Christ instituted could be changed if historical circumstances called for it was Edward Schillebeeckx. He argued that even though it was divinely instituted, the Church must reorganize the Church’s tripartite apostolic ministry structure. According to Miller, Schillebeeckx argued “the present-day Church cannot limit itself to only the hierarchical form of ministerial structure, even those it is based on ius divinum.”
If the notion of divine right applies to institutions that have changed over the years, the meaning of Papal Primacy must also be reexamined. What matters, according to Küng, are not papal rights or the chain of succession, but how the Petrine ministry is carried out.
Theologians such as Küng use the distinction between Petrine ministry and the papacy in their explanations as to why the Papacy can be abolished or changed. The Petrine ministry is a permanent function of the Church given to it by Christ. “Someone, or some institution, must be entrusted with assuring the unity of the universal Church.” While admitting most theologians associate this Petrine ministry with the papacy as we know it today, referring to these theologians like Küng, Miller notes
“this small group does not insist on a necessary continuity between the primacy in its papal form and all future forms of the Petrine function. For them it is at least conceivable that the Petrine function be fulfilled in the episcopal college, a synod, or any other number of structures designed for that purpose.”
In a footnote to this discussion on the distinction between the Petrine ministry and the Papacy, Miller quotes from Rahner:
“In this case the Petrine function would exist iure divino, but it need not be exercised by a single individual.”
In the same footnote, Miller notes Cardinal Dulles makes the same point at Rahner:
“In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament—possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like.”
Miller, then, takes an interesting turn to discuss the notion of “Church as sacrament,” a teaching resulting from Vatican II. With respect to the Papacy, the idea is that the Papacy should be considered “quasi-sacramental.” The reason for doing this, according to the theologians that Miller refers to, is that it avoids juridical terminology—it is more ecclesiological than canonical. This, in turn, provides a “new context” for the discussion of the theological justification for papal primacy. This concept of “quasi-sacrament” attached to the Papacy actually aids in ecumenical dialogue with protestants because they accept the idea of an invisible grace from Christ made available to man through outward visible forms such as the Papacy. The Papacy could symbolically represent Christ’s unifying action in this sense.
PART IV: ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE
In this Part, Miller summarized various proposals that ecumenical commissions among Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans put together. The point of these commissions, and indeed the point of Miller’s dissertation, is to find ways that the Papacy can be considered that harmonizes the teaching of the Church with various protestant “communities”. I will avoid summarizing all these proposals and discussions in effort to move on to Miller’s final conclusions.
PART V: EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this final part, Miller puts all of these strains of thought together with the purpose of opening the door for further “dialogue” with protestants on the Papacy. Miller’s ultimate thesis seems to be that if you replace the use of the term “divine right” with regard to the institution of the Papacy, then this opens the door of dialogue with protestants (especially Lutherans and Anglicans).
Moving away from classical notions of divine right (of which the Papacy was traditionally considered at Vatican I), Miller sees an opening for ecumenical dialogue with protestants because modern Catholic theologians have broadened the notion of what divine right actually means. While the Petrine ministry or function was established by Christ, it’s form (structure) is really a product of the Holy Spirit working in conjunction with human factors over time, which means the structure of the Papacy is subject to change.
The key is the use of the term “Petrine function”, which refers to the “Petrine Ministry” given to Peter by Christ. When viewed in a broader way, this provides an opportunity to Catholics for “considering changes in the way the Pope fulfills the Petrine function.”
Miller proposed to stop using the term “divine right” when referring to the Petrine function and instead use divine institution (institutio divina) and divine design (ordinatio divina). Using these terms permits emphasizing the elements of human decision and historical factors in the development of the Papacy as we know it today. These terms affirm that the Petrine function is of divine origin (divine institution). But the structure of the papacy involves human decision making with the Holy Spirit (divine design). These terms avoid misunderstandings when Catholics use the term “divine right” because that term implies that the form (or structure) of the Papacy cannot be changed since Christ instituted it.
In conclusion, Miller recommends avoiding the term “divine right” because of its “association with past polemics” and that it should be replaced so that the Petrine function can be distinguished “from its realization in the historic papacy.”
Second, Miller argues the action of the Holy Spirit must always be taken into account when describing the emergence of the Papacy rather than focusing on the Christological origins that cause so much conflict in ecumenical dialogue. “New perspectives” are opened when considering the Spirit’s guidance in continuing the work of the Church.
Third, the use of the term “Petrine function” allows non-Catholics “to reconsider their present experience of a need for a ministry of unity directed to the universal Church, without limiting their reflections to the present form of papacy.” In turn, Catholics must ask themselves, says Miller “What really belongs to the Petrine function of the Pope?”
Finally, distinguish between the Petrine function as a divine institution and its realization in the historic papacy as divine design. “Contemporary discussion can benefit from making this distinction between the dominical institution of Petrine primacy and the divine design of its concrete realization in the papacy.”
[END OF SUMMARY]
Implication of Miller’s Dissertation
After reading this summary of Miller’s dissertation, I hope the reader is able to see why the distinction between the munus and ministerium is so important to understanding Benedict’s actions in February 2013.
Benedict, along with the Nouvelle théologie, do not look at the Papacy the same way most Catholics do. Most of us look at it the way Vatican I taught us to look at it—consistent with what the Church always taught. He doesn’t, which is why this is so confusing to others and Benedict is given a pass for his drawn-out resignation speech and needless use of confusing terminology. No one bothered to look at the ecclesiology behind what Benedict was doing. If you understand the Papacy like Benedict, it wasn’t needlessly confusing at all, it actually makes perfect sense if you happen to be well versed in Catholic “new” theology.
Viewing the Papacy as a broad quasi-sacramental Petrine ministry instituted by Christ subject to ongoing guidance from the Holy Spirit over the course of history, as opposed to a rigidly defined juridical office, opens the door for many changes. It makes possible the notion that Christ did entrust St. Peter with a special ministry but that the structure or form that this ministry takes remains changeable over time. For Miller, this was very important for purposes of ecumenical dialogue with protestants who rejected the idea that the Bible teaches Christ instituted an office to be held by one man, the successor of Peter with supreme juridical authority over the Church.
For Benedict in 2013, this is important because while he believed the Petrine ministry was “forever” in the nature of a sacrament (essentially precluding his ability to give up that ministry entirely)(this is the “munus“), the Petrine ministry is not so limited to preclude the possibility of dividing up the particular functions of the ministry among others (this is the “ministerii”). Benedict could still, therefore, resign the administrative duties or active component of this Petrine ministry, while still retaining a more passive role or function.
Now, this notion of an expanding Petrine ministry to allow for potentially two or more different participants serving different functions at the same time may all seem contrary to what the Vatican I fathers taught in Pastor Aeternus. And it is, which is why Benedict was in substantial error when he attempted to pull this off. But, you see, this is what Miller’s dissertation was all about.
Miller was trying to find a way to square the “classical” teaching of the Church concerning the Papacy (set forth in Vatican I) with the Modernist ecumenical ideas taught by the Nouvelle théologie. Almost like he was engaging in a hermeneutic of continuity!
Because Vatican I kept using this phrase “divine right,” which implied that Christ instituted a papal office with one man (the successor of Peter) holding supreme juridical authority that could never change, Miller saw an opening and honed in on the use of that term and concluded the best thing to do is to just stop using it.
You see, according to Miller and other Modernists, if you just stop using phrases like “divine right” that they used in Vatican I (and Council of Trent and what all Catholics used to use for that matter) then it makes it easier to split hairs and justify new concepts of the Papacy without doing violence to the teachings of Vatican I. Changing terminology and redefining accepted concepts is a key weapon for the Modernist. It’s just another sleight of hand.
Avoiding the use of “divine right” and replacing it with other terms that recognize a Petrine ministry (the munus) instituted by Christ while at the same time recognizing smaller changeable components (the ministerii) that make up the structure of that larger Petrine ministry opens the door to changing how the Papacy is exercised without really changing the Papacy.
When viewed in this way, it is possible to associate the “office” of the Papacy with the Modernist notion of the “Petrine Ministry” (the overarching, quasi-sacramental concept instituted by Christ) and then distinguish it from its component and changeable parts or structure. Such components while not strictly defined could, just for example, include an administrative function, spiritual function or suffering function not limited to one person. These components could properly be described as “ministries” within the Papal office or overarching Petrine ministry.
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry [here he is talking about the “munus” or enlarged Petrine ministry instituted by Christ.] I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature [he sees this as a spirtual office or quasi-sacramental duty, not just a juridical one], must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern [that’s a juridical term] the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, [he uses “ministerio” here to make it clear he is resigning the smaller administrative or “active” component of the larger “munus” he was talking about above. It’s interesting he connects the Bishop of Rome with this administrative function of the Papacy, which implies he does not believe the Bishop of Rome and Papacy are inseparable. This was touched on in the Miller dissertation] entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter [that is the administrative component], will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is. [It makes sense that a conclave would be needed because remember he is trying to expand the Petrine ministry/office. If he is appointing a delegate to handle administrative functions, it would not be an expansion of the Petrine ministry or change of structure.]
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry [he uses “ministerii” here because he is still talking about this smaller administrative/active component not the Petrine ministry/office] and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
“The “always” is also a “forever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.”
Miller’s dissertation was written for ecumenical purposes with the goal of rethinking the Papacy in such a way that protestants would find acceptable. In normal times, this would just fly under the radar as another post-Vatican II attempt to water down the Church’s perennial and unchanging dogmas–in this case the Papacy.
However, these are not normal times. This dissertation contains the theological keys for making sense of what Benedict attempted to do in February 2013. Of course, these ideas are all erroneous and contrary to the teachings of Vatican I. And as a result, Benedict was in substantial error according to Canon 188 when he attempted to resign only a portion of the Papal office, leaving an administrative/juridical function to be filled by someone else after a “conclave” was called.
All of this information is in the public sphere and available to those who actually care to look into it. I invite all those who insist Jorge Bergolgio is the Pope right now to do just do a little work and read the documents for themselves and use a basic level of logic to piece two and two together.
It turns out that on January 5th, the day DC Mayor Bowser wrote (see my post on Jan 9 which I paste below) to the acting US Attorney General and the Secretary of the Army, to specifically ask them NOT to send any troops/officers the following day, the FBI had warned of WAR at the Capitol that very same day. This would explain her claim at the end of her letter (again, pasted below) that she was expecting an armed insurrection such that the bad actors would be indistinguishable from heavily armed troops. The FBI intel, likely staged Antifa fake news, was broken by WaPo yesterday:
A day before rioters stormed Congress, an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and “war,” according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post that contradicts a senior official’s declaration the bureau had no intelligence indicating anyone at last week’s demonstrations in support of President Trump planned to do harm.
A situational information report approved for release the day before the U.S. Capitol riot painted a dire portrait of dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the complex’s tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be conspirators to meet in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington.
“As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to ‘unlawful lockdowns’ to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington, D.C.,” the document says. “An online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating ‘Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”
This “intel” and the “insurrection” were produced and executed by Antifa, one hundred percent.
Again, ask yourself, what were the motives of a mayor who blocks additional law enforcement, and orders her own forces to stand aside or even assist the “rioters,” when the FBI was telling her she’s going to have a WAR on her hands? What was her objective?
Motives, and more video: Inviting, aiding and abetting the staged faux breach of the Capitol
Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told federal law enforcement to stand down just one day before…
“To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway,” Bowser wrote in a letter to acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy.
According to Mayor Bowser, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department in coordination with the U.S. Park Police, Capitol Police, and Secret Service were well-equipped to handle whatever problems could come up during the Trump rallies planned for Wednesday.
“The District of Columbia Government has not requested personnel from any other federal law enforcement agencies,” she continued. “To avoid confusion, we ask that any request for additional assistance be coordinated using the same process and procedures.”
That last part is very interesting, when you consider that the police forces under the control of Mayor Bowser are the ones who opened the barricades and eventually OPENED THE DOORS and invited the protesters inside. Once inside, they were pretty much allowed to go anywhere they wanted for the next four hours, the only exception being Ashli Babbitt, whom they murdered. Those four hours were broadcast in pictures and video into every home in America, with every pearl-clutching Marxist journalisp seething with faux rage… in reality, they were loving it.
BTW, is it really criminal trespass or unlawful entry if you get invited in?
I will get back to Mayor Bowser in a moment, but first, let’s check out some more evidence. Always examine the evidence, folks. At the very beginning of this video, you can see police holding a line perhaps 50 meters from the door about to be opened. Which means that after allowing a select number of protesters to approach, they re-established some sort of perimeter. Once the doors are opened, you will see cops lining the entrance hall, like a receiving line. As they start to ascend the stairs, you see a lone man descending, and then a larger crowd in the rotunda, which means other doors had already been opened ahead of this one. One of the ubiquitous photographers of this staged event appears at the 0:50 mark:
Think about this. Use your reasoning skills.
Mayor Bowser implies in her letter that she was expecting protesters in full kit with AR-15s, such that they would be indistinguishable from Fed LEO, and she uses this intel to ask federal law enforcement to fully stand down to avoid “confusion” on the ground. Then she issues ROEs to officers under her control whereby said officers would allow or even assist the protesters in gaining access to the Capital.
Is this sinking in? Do you understand what it means?
First of all, it means that the whole thing was orchestrated and the desired outcomes were (mostly) achieved: Global spectacle of “chaos” inside the Capital with Trump to blame, “democracy on the brink” due to MAGA “insurrectionists,” and hard evidence of voter fraud and illegal election tampering completely suppressed, never to see the light of day, ever. Biden stolen victory certified, nearly uncontested. Trump out.
But wait, there’s more. Perhaps one of the objectives was not achieved. After all, the protesters ended up being unarmed and mostly peaceful, which was unexpected. What if the protesters really had shown up with long guns, as expected or desired… did Mayor Bowser and her handlers ultimately want to see a firefight/executions carried out inside the House and Senate chambers, so they made sure to provide the necessary aid to the enemy, in the form of standing down the three-letter agencies and issuing neutered ROEs to their own boots on the ground?
As the Covid-19 pandemic and resultant social restrictions have abated in much of the world, other viruses are rearing their heads in new and unusual ways.
Influenza, Respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus, tuberculosis and monkeypox are among a number of illnesses to have spiked and exhibited strange behaviors in recent months.
Health experts say Covid-19 restrictions could have reduced exposure and lowered immunity to infectious diseases, making society more vulnerable to new outbreaks.
Dowell | Moment | Getty Images
The Covid-19 pandemic has abated in much of the world and, with it, many of the social restrictions implemented to curb its spread, as people have been eager to return to pre-lockdown life.
But in its place have emerged a series of viruses behaving in new and peculiar ways.
Take seasonal influenza, more commonly known as the flu. The 2020 and 2021 U.S. winter flu seasons were some of the mildest on record both in terms of deaths and hospitalizations. Yet cases ticked up in February and climbed further into the spring and summer as Covid restrictions were stripped back.
“We’ve never seen a flu season in the U.S. extend into June,” Dr. Scott Roberts, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven Hospital, told CNBC Tuesday.
“Covid has clearly had a very big impact on that. Now that people have unmasked, places are opening up, we’re seeing viruses behave in very odd ways that they weren’t before,” he said.
And flu is just the beginning.
Respiratory syncytial virus, a cold-like virus common during winter months, exhibited an uptick last summer, with cases surging among children in Europe, the U.S and Japan. Then, in January this year, an outbreak of adenovirus 41, usually responsible for gastrointestinal illness, became the apparent cause of a mysterious and severe liver disease among young children.
And now, a recent outbreak of monkeypox, a rare viral infection typically found in Central and West Africa, is baffling health experts with over 1,000 confirmed and suspected cases emerging in 29 non-endemic countries.
The World Health Organization noted earlier last week that the virus, whose symptoms include fever and skin lesions, may have been going undetected in society for “months or possibly a couple of years.”
“The two strains probably indicate this has been going on longer than we first thought. We’re at a concerning time right now,” said Roberts. He noted that the coming weeks will be telling for the course of the virus, which has an incubation period of 5 to 21 days.
It is not yet clear whether the smallpox-like virus has mutated, though health experts have reported that it is behaving in new and atypical ways. Most notably, it appears to be spreading within the community — most commonly through sex — as opposed to via travel from places where it is typically found. Symptoms are also appearing in new ways.…
I recently posted a deeply referenced compilation of evidence detailing the historic humanitarian catastrophe that has slowly unfolded within most advanced health economies across the world. Caused by a global mass vaccination campaign led by the Pharma masters of BMGF/WHO/CDC that illogically (but profitably) targeted a rapidly mutating coronavirus. They did it with what turned out to be the most toxic protein used therapeutically in the history of medicine. In vials mixed with lipid nano-particles, polyethylene glycol and who knows what else.
As these events become more and more recognized by the average citizen (and occasional journalist), a new pathetic “Disinformation Campaign” was launched in response trying to blame all the young people dying as simply a need for increased awareness of the rare condition called Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS), rather than examples of the legions dying from the vaccines. The fact checkers also came out in support of this narrative, branding anyone who thinks the vaccines are the cause of SADS as a conspiracy theorist. Like this self-appointed social media watchdog. Mentions of SADS are popping up from many countries.. all in the last few weeks. Here, here, here, hereand.. oh whatever. This article even listed a dozen such publicized deaths in the past few weeks from all over the world..but blamed them all on SADS. You get it. What is nauseating is the tone of purported good intention within these articles, informing folks that if you are related to someone young who died suddenly you should go see a cardiologist to make sure you don’t have an abnormal EKG. After it turns out normal, they will assuredly tell you to get vaccinated, an absurdity atop a mountain of absurdities caused by our bio-medical-media industrial complex over the past 2+ years.
Ugh, lets move on. In this post, I will move away from numbers and data and studies to give a more qualitative view of how the vaccines’ impacts are manifesting in the “belly of the beast,” (i.e. on the inside of a major academic medical center).
The most profound reflection of this last week came from a patient who is a physician and therapist. She was hospitalized recently for non-COVID reasons and observed: “I think many of the physicians are exhibiting dissociation. It takes an enormous amount of energy to maintain their narrative and hold off the reality hitting them in the face every day.” I thought of this reading the recent piece you referenced from The Annals of Emergency Medicine.
Wikipedia:“The major characteristic of all dissociative phenomena involves a detachment from reality, rather than a loss of reality as in psychosis. Research has suggested that dissociation is inversely related to mindfulness, which is a potential treatment.“
TY PK for this dose of mindfulness.
I thought his comment was the perfect introduction to this post, where I will share disturbing “insider info,” compiled largely from recent correspondences with a senior ICU and ER Nurse, both via email and phone…
Today is the 45th anniversary of the Canonization of Saint John Neumann. He was the fourth Bishop of Philadelphia, from 1852 until his death in 1860. He is most known for the establishment of Catholic schools, at a time when Catholics were under attack, even including physical violence. History repeats.
Anyway, I searched the website of the Archdiocese, and couldn’t find one word about this anniversary, so I am doing some cut and paste. Enjoy.
Saint John Neumann, pray for us.
Following is from a Supplement to the Philadelphia Inquirer, July 25, 1976.
At the age of 48, Bishop John Nepomucene Neumann passed away on January 5, 1860 from a heart attack. In his short time as bishop of Philadelphia, Neumann built 89 churches, set up the modern Catholic school system, introduced the Forty Hours Devotion, and founded the Third Order of Saint Francis of Glen Riddle. It was not long after his death that calls were being made to open his cause for canonization. In May of 1886, the Diocese of Philadelphia and the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptorists) held its first session to examine the life of John Neumann for evidence of his virtue.
As the examination of Neumann’s life began, investigations into possible miracles were also underway. While one miracle for beatification and one for canonization are the current requirements, at the time of Neumann’s cause, two miracles were required for the beatification process. Although many cases of miracles were reported, two were selected and submitted to the Vatican in 1924 in hopes of beatification happening by the Holy Year in 1925. However, the process stalled because one of the miracles did not have sufficient evidence.
Pilgrims to Beatification, Aeronews 32823.
In 1957, 170 American bishops signed a letter to Pope Pius XIII requesting an Apostolic Benediction for Neumann. However, in a 1958 letter to Cardinal O’Hara c.s.c., Father Edward Heston, Procurator General of the Congregation of Holy Cross, wrote that a dispensation to move forward with only one miracle would not likely be granted. To get the second miracle, they would have to “prod the Servant of God [Neumann] into action, so as to get him to work a miracle.” Unbeknownst to Heston and O’Hara, the second miracle had already been performed and was actually referenced in the letter. Kent Lenahan Jr. of Villanova, PA was critically injured in a car crash in 1949; however, there was longstanding debate if his unexpected full recovery was due to Neumann’s intervention or Lenahan’s “youthful constitution.”
Exhuming of Bishop Neumann’s body, Halvey P383.043
As doctors and theologians examined Lenahan’s case, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Bishop Neumann Center continued with efforts to make more people aware of the cause of Neumann. In 1959, over 150 sermons were preached on his life at various parishes and nearly 6,000 people visited his tomb. In addition, numerous prayer cards and pamphlets were distributed so that people would pray for Neumann’s intervention. Three years later, Neumann’s two miracles would be approved, that of Lenahan and a 1923 healing of an eleven year old in Italy named Eva Benassi. The beatification was originally scheduled for June 23, 1963; however, in May it was delayed because of the ill health of Pope John XXIII. The pope would pass away on June 3 and after the election of Pope Paul VI, the date was set for October 13th.
Canonization of Neumann
With the path to sainthood more secured, Cardinal Krol called for the exhuming of Bishop Neumann’s body for the building of a shrine and obtaining relics. This was approved by the city in 1962 and involved doctors examining the remains and preservation work done on the body. Around this same time, Neumann’s third miracle required for canonization was being performed on Michael Flanigan. Michael was a fourteen year old boy who suffered from Ewing sarcoma, a bone cancer in his legs, jaw, and lungs. Michael was cured of his illness after prayer and wearing of a relic, despite doctors testifying that based on the spread of the disease that Michael had a zero percent chance of survival. After several years of investigating, Michael’s cure was found to be miraculous, giving Neumann the final miracle needed for sainthood. On December 20, 1976, Pope Paul VI approved the canonization of Neumann and on June 19, 1977 he was officially added to the legion of saints. Cardinal Krol led a pilgrimage to Rome for the week long celebration and canonization of America’s first male saint.
Find all the material we have on Saint John Neumann on our digital catalog and visit the archives to go through the records.
 P10.173: Solemn canonization of Blessed John Nepomucene Neumann bishop, performed by his Holiness Paul VI, June 19 1977 (Vatican City: Tipografia Poliglotto Vaticana, 1977), 11-12.
 AC 2010.061 Box 1 Philadelphinensis Beatificationis et Canonizationis Servi Dei Joannis Nepomuceni Neumann. Olim Episcopi Philadelphiensis et Alumni Congnis SSini Redemptoris, Session 1, May 1886.
 P010.319: Bishop Neumann, Pilgrim: Canonization Week Handbook, June 19 – June 27, 1977, (Chicago: G.I.A. Publications, 1977), 22-23.
 AC 1990.124: 107.48 Letter to Archbishop O’Hara from Francis Litz, c.s.s.r., May 12, 1958.
 AC 1990.124: 107.45 Letter to Pope Puis XIII from Bishops of the United States of America, November 13, 1957.
 AC 1990.124: 107.162 Letter to Archbishop O’Hara from Edward Heston, c.s.c, May 24, 1958.
 AC 1990.124: 107.162 Letter to Archbishop O’Hara from Edward Heston, c.s.c, May 24, 1958.
 AC 1990.124: 107.67 Letter to Cardinal O’Hara from Francis Litz, c.s.s.r., March 16, 1960.
 AC 1990.126: B1.0 Telegram to Archbishop Krol from Rome, May 13, 1963.
 AC 2010.061: Letter to Archbishop Krol from the Sacred Congregation of Rites, October 4, 1962; AC 2010.061: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Health Permit for Burial or Other Disposition, November 2, 1962, Box 6 Folder 1.
 AC 1990.283: Processus Apostolicus super asserta miracula divinitus patrate per intercessionem Beati Joannis Nepomuceni Neumann
 P10.173: Solemn canonization of Blessed John Nepomucene Neumann bishop, performed by his Holiness Paul VI, June 19 1977 (Vatican City: Tipografia Poliglotto Vaticana, 1977), 11-12.
This is my pelican. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Go get yourself a pelican, and have it blessed. You will quickly find it endearing.
Thank you to Miss B. for the following:
Christ is called “The Good Pelican” and the pelican is a symbol of Christ because pelicans will, if need be, peck at their own chests and feed their young on their own flesh and blood.
Below is the literal translation of St. Thomas Aquinas’ hymn which he wrote for this great feast, “Adoro Te Devote”, “I devoutly adore You”. I find the literal translation to be more moving than the poetic versions.
Pray for Pope Benedict, the Papacy, and Holy Mother Church.
I devoutly adore You, hidden Deity,
Who are truly hidden beneath these appearances.
My whole heart submits to You,
And in contemplating You, it surrenders itself completely.
Sight, touch, taste are all deceived in their judgment of You,
But hearing suffices firmly to believe.
I believe all that the Son of God has spoken;
There is nothing truer than this word of Truth.
On the Cross only the divinity was hidden,
But here the humanity is also hidden.
Yet believing and confessing both,
I ask for what the penitent thief asked.
I do not see wounds as Thomas did,
But I confess that You are my God.
Make me believe much more in You,
Hope in you, and love You.
O memorial of Our Lord’s death,
Living Bread that gives life to man,
Grant my soul to live on You,
And always to savor Your sweetness.
Lord Jesus, Good Pelican,
wash my filthiness and clean me with Your Blood,
One drop of which can free
the entire world of all its sins.
Jesus, whom now I see hidden,
I ask You to fulfill what I so desire:
That the sight of Your Face being unveiled
I may have the happiness of seeing Your glory. Amen.
The expert group HART (Health Advisory and Recovery Team) has delved into the Pfizer trial documents released following a U.S. court order and discovered that according to Pfizer’s own antibody data the vaccine efficacy in the trial was massively overstated and appears to be as low as zero.
While the official results found only eight PCR-positive ‘cases’ in the vaccine arm, Pfizer’s antibody testing shows that in fact 75 people in the vaccinated arm seroconverted (developed N-type antibodies), implying there were actually 75 ‘cases’ of Covid in the vaccinated, not just eight.
By itself that would cut efficacy in half. However, HART points out that it’s been shown with the Moderna mRNA vaccine that only around 40% of the vaccinated who go on to have a symptomatic PCR-positive Covid ‘breakthrough’ infection develop N-type antibodies, owing to immune imprinting (‘original antigenic sin’) by the vaccine to favour S-type antibodies (which target the spike protein). Assuming this also applies to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, this means the 75 seropositive individuals are only around 40% of the total number who had Covid, giving an estimated total of 188 Covid ‘cases’ in the vaccine arm – more than the 165 in the unvaccinated arm, implying zero vaccine efficacy or worse.
How did Pfizer get away with claiming there were only eight Covid cases in the vaccinated arm? Mainly by excluding PCR-positives in the jabbed until seven days after the second dose. The problem with this is that, since Covid waves tend to infect only 10-20% of a population, evidently not everyone is equally susceptible to the virus. This means if those most susceptible to the virus in the vaccine arm catch it in the weeks before they are ‘fully vaccinated’ and so don’t count towards the vaccine arm ‘cases’, those remaining in the vaccine arm of the trial will be primarily those who are less susceptible to the virus, and so the trial will suffer from survivor bias, exaggerating efficacy.
Pfizer set out in its protocol that efficacy would be measured based on PCR positive test results in symptomatic individuals and, as a secondary measure, N-antibody levels showing who had been infected.
Pfizer chose to ignore PCR positive results, even in symptomatic people, if they occurred in the month before “seven days after the second dose”. However, the antibody testing is a measure of who had Covid for the entire period of the trial. Concerns about higher incidence in the early period after dosing, or an illusion of efficacy from a drug that caused cases to occur earlier rather than preventing cases, would be addressed by measuring the numbers who developed antibodies.
The original trial claimed there were only eight symptomatic PCR positive ‘cases’ in the dosed arm compared to 162 in the placebo arm. The graph always looked odd – how could the treatment arm have such a dramatic flattening to the horizontal?
There were 165 people who started with negative antibodies but became positive during the trial in the placebo arm. That is a pretty close match to the 165 who were positive by PCR testing. However, there were 75 in the vaccine arm, far more than the eight claimed by PCR testing. That would mean that treatment only reduced the risk of infection by about half the 95% claimed.
Only 40% of people who had been given Moderna produced N-antibodies after symptomatic, PCR positive infection. Moderna and Pfizer have products that are very similar in terms of mechanism of action, so it is not unreasonable to assume that a similar issue would be seen with Pfizer.
If that is the case, then the 75 figure would only be a fraction of the people in the treatment arm who had been infected. Assuming the 40% figure holds, that would mean that there was no efficacy from Pfizer vaccination against risk of infection when measuring the entire period from first needle to end of the trial.