Blessed Feast of Saint Andrew, big brother of Saint Peter.
Speaking of big brother… sound turned up!
Covid vaccine effectiveness countdown 🤣🤡
🔊 Sound Onpic.twitter.com/q773EKxikl
— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) November 30, 2022
Their planning was meticulous.
Originally posted April 19, 2021
Read the entire 89-page PDF here:
BTW, I will never, ever, commit suicide.
All of the panic, messaging, social media control, downplaying side effects… all of it was in the playbook.
Here are some tasty screenshots:
Hundreds of thousands of open, empty, unused vaxx slots all over the county at this very moment.
Care to write the next chapter?
As a director of the U.K. Medical Freedom Alliance, the U.K.’s most recognised and respected organisation advocating every individual’s right to informed consent, bodily autonomy and medical choice, I was shocked and appalled to read the article “Understanding and neutralising COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation“, published in the BMJ on November 22nd 2022. The article contains insinuations and unsubstantiated and unreferenced allegations concerning the UKMFA (and other organisations including HART, UsForThem and Children’s Health Defense) and which appeared to seek to undermine the contribution of our organisations to a critical debate of national importance.
My shock at the tone and text of the article, and its inclusion in a highly respected medical journal like the BMJ, has been echoed by notable scientists and doctors around the world including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who posted this strongly worded tweet calling out the “authoritarian nonsense” proposed by the authors of the article, which violates “key civil rights” and is “inconsistent with long standing free speech norms in democratic countries”.
My fellow directors and I were disappointed not to have been offered the customary ‘right to reply’ by the BMJ before the article was published, and we have, therefore, been compelled to write an open letter of complaint to Dr. Karam Abbasi, the Editor in Chief of the BMJ, to be published as our rebuttal to the article (reprinted in full below). In it we comment that it is regrettable that the approach of the authors borders on the defamatory, is manifestly unscientific, and falls short of the editorial standards that the BMJ professes to uphold. In our letter we request an immediate retraction of this article and a published apology…
On the First Sunday of Advent, in the TLM, our Lord instructs us to look for signs in the sky…
CHICAGO — United Airlines has begun shipping the first batches of the COVID-19 vaccine on charter flights, a source told ABC News.
The source is familiar with the operation, according to ABC.
The Federal Aviation Administration had already given the OK for the first mass air shipment of a COVID-19 vaccine.
The FAA said it established a transport team in October to “ensure safe, expeditious and efficient transportation of vaccines.”
The agency said it is also ensuring around-the-clock air traffic services in an effort to prioritize flights carrying vaccines and personnel.
DHL will also be involved in the transportation and storage of the vaccine in various locations, a spokesman said Saturday. The delivery service would not disclose exactly where the COVID-19 vaccine would be stored.
Is an Antipope Predicted? Is the Ukraine-Russia War Mentioned? Why was the Secret Suppressed? Why is it still Suppressed? Who is the “Bishop dressed in white?” When will it be released? In what will the Triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart consist? How can I save my family and friends?
(at the very least, give a listen to this quick preview. -nvp):
Join DR. ED MAZZA each Sunday of Advent @6pm Pacific starting Nov. 27th
Attend classes live or watch the videos anytime. Enroll by Nov 27th and the Mini-course is only $99
Men of the Council
November 14, 2022
This past October 22nd,, the retired Archbishop of Philadelphia, the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap., spoke to Catholics attending a Eucharistic Symposium at the cathedral in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, and answered questions pertinent to Catholic life today. Present in the audience were Catholic laity and clergy, including Philadelphia native and local Ordinary, Bishop Michael Burbidge, who recently crushed diocesan Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) celebrations in his jurisdiction.
The archbishop noted that he has dealt with TLM Catholics who, if scratched, would ooze anti-Vatican-II blood. He never bothered to ask why this might be. He and his like-minded fellows never ask such questions. They are not with traditional Catholics in their concerns.
Why will these ecclesiastics not be wholly with us? (Play on words intended.). After all, we TLM-ers are simply striving to be faithful to our Holy Catholic Church as were our forebears of happy and sainted memory. Shouldn’t these men bearing the name “Catholic” be solidly with us?
Archbishop Chaput, who in the past opened the doors to the celebration of the TLM since his early days as a bishop in Rapid City, South Dakota, seems to find it all too easy today in retirement to dismiss many TLM Catholics as some kind of schism-leaning, noisome whiners too odd for his tastes. His episcopal motto, “As Christ loved the Church,” is a noble ideal, but he seems to fall short of its realization, given his Arlington comments. Are the lowest and most despised members of the Mystical Body of Christ to be scorned? Let not the head say to the feet: “Go away; either get on the Vatican II bandwagon or get lost!”
I would agree that many traditional TLM-loving Catholics, myself included, are odd, but only because we are part of a small but increasing minority of baptized Catholics who hold to the integral Catholic Faith and its perennial practice, and who, therefore, question what has happened to the Church since the opening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962. I would suggest that fidelity to Holy Mother Church requires us to at least examine Vatican II with a critical eye.
Prelates in our present day, such as Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, both well-known figures in traditional Catholic circles, have been critical of Vatican II, although they differ as to what the Church will have to do with it when the Faith returns to the City of Rome and the spotless Bride of Christ returns from her present exile. These men are not alone in their critical views of the Council. They were in fact preceded by others as early as the opening of the conciliar proceedings in October of 1962.
The former Archbishop of Philadelphia apparently believes that the touchstone of fidelity in the Catholic Church is at a minimum the full-throated and unquestioning acceptance of every jot and tittle of the sixteen Vatican II documents officially promulgated by Paul VI. This very same Paul VI declared in his closing address to the Council that the finished work of Vatican II stands as a testimony to the (unbelieving) world that “we too have the cult of man,” to the denigration of Jesus Christ and the mission of the true Church. Should this not raise eyebrows? Yet Chaput, without shame or hesitation, spoke for himself and nearly all post-conciliar bishops when he declared: “I am a man of the Council.” This conciliar revolution is the idol to which they swear fealty.
Therein lies the answer for our inquisitive minds. Why is Chaput so dismissive of traditional Catholics in his replies to Arlington Catholics? Easy. He is a man of the Council. He cannot abide criticism of Vatican Ii, else his house of cards, called the “Conciliar Church” (and, more recently, the “Synodal Church”) be exposed for the fraudulent Antichurch that it is. He would never ask dangerous questions that might point to an unpleasant reality. He dare not honestly address our concerns, lest he become like us and see the true evils afflicting the Church today. No, it is much easier to ridicule and dismiss what cannot be faced.
If he holds Vatican-II-skeptical, traditional Catholics, who are faithful to the entire patrimony of the Church, its dogma and doctrine, its moral teaching, its timeless liturgy and rich devotional life, as near-schismatics if not worse, then it is he who has distanced himself from the Church. As he echoes Bergoglio, he by his own words condemns himself, not us. He and his fellow travelers have declared that the old Faith is dead, and that Vatican II ushered in an entirely new ecclesial reality that must not be questioned, much less repudiated. They tell us with unaccustomed gravity that we must embrace their novel enterprise with enthusiasm or lose our Catholic credentials.
For all their efforts, these churchmen cannot sweep truth under the rug. By the very ambiguity of its texts alone—let’s leave aside elements of error and heresy—Vatican II and the evil it has spawned cannot be a work of the Roman Catholic Church.
You see, the post-conciliar churchmen, having ditched their true Spouse, have gone a-whoring with the post-conciliar religion. Not only will they not be with us on the side of the unchanging and immutable religion given to us by Christ and His Church; they cannot be with us, or it will be their undoing.
Are we not allowed to question Vatican II, their “super dogma,” their “new Advent” and “new Pentecost” ushered into the body ecclesial by “the Spirit?” What spirit, I ask? Why is the entire Vatican II enterprise alone immune from criticism and condemnation while these “men of the Council” dismiss the Church as it was up to the eve of Vatican II?
Allow me now to tread too close to home. Let’s move beyond Chaput & Co. to the traditional Catholic milieu. While we, no more nor less than Catholics at large, have our faults both individually and collectively, and I myself am at the head of the line here, it strikes me as strange that so few voices are willing to rise above the crowd and to declare to the powers ensconced in the ecclesial structures that “the emperor has no clothes.” Why such pathetic if not treacherous silence on the part of so many?
For the past two to three years many traditional Catholics have at best shrugged their shoulders in the face of attacks aimed against them. How about lockdowns of churches and sacramental life in the name of a virus? Or jab evangelization by clerics? Or Traditionis Custodes? Hello? Anyone? In the midst of these evils, too many Catholics in traditional circles have bent over backwards to try to please these “men of the Council” failing in their duties as spiritual shepherds. Much more tragic still are the painful and embarrassing efforts too many of them have made to convince their conciliar overlords that they, too, embrace the Council and that they, too, are faithful and loyal to the very “men of the Council” who would destroy them.
Where among the lay faithful and the lower clergy are the voices of truth to challenge these “men of the Council?” Why are we effectively begging these men wedded to a new religion for permission to believe and to act as Catholics? How sad to see so many Catholics effectively saying to their clerical superiors: “Please mock us, beat us down, spiritually abuse us . . . so we may have your permission for a TLM and the practice of our Faith.” Co-dependency, anyone? Stockholm Syndrome? Fear unbecoming a follower of Christ and His Church?
May the Lord rouse us from our slumber, prod us in our laziness, and banish all fear from our pusillanimous hearts. We will soon hear in the sacred liturgy the words of St. Paul to the Romans (and we ourselves, heirs to their Faith, are Romans, too!) that “it is now the hour for us to rise from sleep. For now our salvation is nearer than when we believed. The night is passed, and the day is at hand..”
May these “men of the Council” be struck with fear and awe when they witness in faithful Catholics what they least expect. May they live to see those whom they presently ridicule and “scratch” with condescending pablum newly arisen from slumber, ready and happy to bleed. Yes, to bleed. To bleed with deep red faith, hope and charity, for the love of Jesus Christ and His one, true Church.
It’s sort of ironic, isn’t it, how what they call “misinformation” could cause such a fuss. I mean, if it’s really misinformation, then they dismiss it, right? It would only cause stress if they knew the information was true. Even in their lying agitprop, they can’t seem to get it straight. -nvp
In the era of Covid 19 and mass vaccination programs, the anti-vaccination movement across the world is currently at an all-time high. Much of this anti-vaccination sentiment could be attributed to the alleged side effects that are perpetuated across social media from anti-vaccination groups.
Fear mongering and misinformation being peddled by people with no scientific training to terrorise people into staying unvaccinated is not just causing people to remain susceptible to viral outbreaks, but could also be causing more side effects seen in the vaccination process. This brief review will offer data that may demonstrate that misinformation perpetuated by the anti-vaccination movement may be causing more deaths and side effects from any vaccine.
A mini review of published literature has been conducted and found that mental stress clearly causes vasoconstriction and arterial constriction of the blood vessels. Therefore, if subjects are panicked, concerned, stressed or scared of the vaccination, their arteries will constrict and become smaller in and around the time of receiving the vaccine. This biological mechanism (the constriction of veins, arteries and vessels under mental stress) is the most likely cause for where there has been blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, dizziness, fainting, blurred vision, loss of smell and taste that may have been experienced shortly after vaccine administration. The extreme mental stress of the patient could most likely be attributed to the fear mongering and scare tactics used by various anti-vaccination groups…
We were right about ivermectin, we were right about the “vaccines,” and we were right about the mouse boost. We know we have the truth, and that they are the misinformation. And it’s not just us tin-hatters… even the general public is mostly red pilled at this point. No one wants the mouse juice.
Dr. Jha: "The real leaders of American medicine are out there telling you that you need to go get a vaccine. You can decide to trust America's physicians or you can trust some random dude on Twitter." pic.twitter.com/VOC8otAG4x
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 22, 2022
They have zero science on their side, they know it, and they are not happy about it. I’ll take “random dude on twitter” any day over these quacks.
But wait there’s more… go get your flu shot at the same time, dammit. “That’s why God gave you two arms.”
Dr. Jha: "We can prevent every covid death in America" if everyone gets their updated booster. pic.twitter.com/5yRP2w8y4L
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 22, 2022
Read and learn. Understand where this is going. “They” have decided that ideas and words are violence, which deserves to be met with actual violence. -nvp
You remember the basics of chaos theory, I’m sure. Like how a drunken women getting a butterfly-flapping-its-wings tattoo in Ibiza sets off an unpredictable chain of connected causal events that eventually leads to Uncle Joe Biden giving another $50 billion or so to Ukraine—through certain intermediaries, of course.
The key with chaos is extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. Alter just one thing in the tiniest degree at the beginning—say the woman opts for Margaritas instead of Watermelon Stoli—and the money instead goes to a pharmaceutical instead.
The thing is this: if you were a Pfizer rep boozing it up with that broad, you wouldn’t know which drinks to fetch. The string of events leading to the payoff is too huge and unknowable. Prediction is out of the question.
Unless you renamed that unpredictable causal chain stochastic terrorism.
This concept is a new bit of The Science from the Regime. The idea is that anything violent— which may or may not mean literal violence, and may be metaphorical violence—that happens to a woke can be traced back to its beginnings to an instance of “hate” from a Realist.
It’s just like the money-going-to-Ukraine example in the sense that the chain of causation from the “violence” to the “hate” can be long, tangled, and impossible to see without a woke The Science filter. Whereas in chaos the ascription of causation of some end event is impossible in scenarios like ours, in “systemic terrorism” all “violence” is pre-judged to have been caused or facilitated by Realists.
Here’s the funniest example, from City Journal.
Chris Rufo was on Tucker Carlson’s show discussing the plague of men in women’s dresses at libraries who are being given free access to the kiddies. The same night the episode aired, Paul Pelosi and his hammer buddy had their little get together.
Which we statisticians wouldn’t even call a coincidence, given that billions of other events also happened around the same time of Carlson’s episode. But it was called “stochastic terrorism” by one man.
Bryn Nelson said so, in what is still and amazingly called Scientific American.
Nelson said Rufo engaged in “ideologically driven hate speech”. And, he intimated, that hate speech led to the hammer blows.
It is clear in his writing that Nelson has no love for Rufo, or those that support him. He has unkind things to say about Carlson and “former President” Trump. He is dripping with disgust over them, and vilifies those that like(d) Trump. Because their “hate”, like the Ibiza lady’s tattoo, causes “stochastic terrorism” of the kind that happened to Pelosi.
Stochastic terrorism means terrorism that’s statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In simpler language, it means that when Trump or his allies encourage violence — when the say the kind of stuff they say all the time now — it is not just possible that someone at some point will do something about it, it’s damn near inevitable.
I guess Nelson’s crystal ball model is shinier than Press Watch’s, because he was able to tie Pelosi’s attack to Rufo. But never mind.
The claim is simple. Hate, disgust, vilification, and heated rhetoric all cause stochastic terrorism. “When Fox personality Jesse Watters says ‘They’ve declared war on us and now it’s game on,’ it’s not just talk. It’s stochastic terrorism,” they say.
As is obvious to any Realist, the constant hate, vilification, disgust, and heated rhetoric spewed by the woke doesn’t cause “stochastic terrorism.” Thus Nelson spinning in a circle and calling his enemies bad people has no terroristic effect, and cannot produce violence.
Even when it does. Such as when Shannon Brandt ran over and murdered the kid because he thought the kid was a “Republican extremist”. Or when Darrell Brooks blasted into the Christmas parade and murdered and maimed his racial enemies. Or when Steve Scalise and others were blasted by an enflamed woke out for Realist blood. Or when—-but is there any reason to continue?
You would think this Jovian level of blatant throbbing flashing bright neon hypocrisy would at least cause mild discomfort in the minds of those promulgating “systemic terrorism.” But it doesn’t.
Read the rest: www.wmbriggs.com/post/43509/