Aggregatore di feed

During COVID-19, we witnessed something previously unimaginable. A national emergency hospitalized thousands of Americans, where they were cut off from their loved ones and inevitably died. It soon became clear that the hospital protocols did not work, but regardless of how futile conventional care was, patients in our hospitals could not get the alternative therapies they needed.

This led to a sobering realization throughout America—what many of us believed about our hospitals was utterly incorrect. Rather than help patients, hospitals effectively functioned like assembly lines that ran disastrous protocols (e.g., remdesivir), denied patients access to their loved ones and refused to use alternative therapies even when it was known the patients were otherwise expected to die.

This was best illustrated by a travel nurse who who was assigned to the New York hospital with the highest death tolls in the nation and realized something very wrong was happening throughout the hospital.

Note: the full interview (and the accompanying viral Twitter thread on it) provides conclusive proof many patients were killed due to grossly inappropriate hospital protocols.

Appallingly, the COVID-19 treatment protocols financially incentivized remdesivir (“run death is near”) and then ventilator care but penalized effective off-patent treatments. As such, hospital administrators required deadly “treatments” like Remdesivir and retaliated against the doctors who used unprofitable treatments that saved lives.

Note: the NIH continued to make remdesivir the treatment for COVID-19 and forbid alternative therapies even as a mountain of evidence piled up its protocols. This was due to Anthony Fauci appointing the NIH committee and selecting chairs that had direct financial ties to Remdesivir’s manufacturer—a recurring problem in American medicine (e.g., I showed how our grossly inaccurate cholesterol guidelines were authored by individuals taking money from statin manufacturers here).

Because of this murderous corruption, families began suing hospitals to allow the use of ivermectin for a relative who was expected to die (after being subjected to Fauci’s hospital COVID protocols). Remarkably, because there was so much money on the line, the hospitals chose to fight these lawsuits in court rather than just administer ivermectin.

Of the 80 lawsuits filed by lawyer Ralph Lorigo, in 40 the judge sided with the family, and in 40 with the hospital. Of those, in the 40 where patients received ivermectin, 38 survived, whereas of the 40 who did not, only 2 survived—in essence making suing a hospital arguably the most effective medical intervention in history. Yet rather than take this data into consideration, the profit-focused hospitals banded together to develop an effective apparatus to dismiss further lawsuits.

As I had expected something like this to happen, shortly before the pandemic, I put a home treatment plain into place (e.g., by procuring high-powered oxygen concentrators and non-invasive ventilation). Numerous people in my immediate circle were successfully treated at home, many of whom would have otherwise been immediately hospitalized and likely died.

Note: prior to COVID, we’d had other patients who merited hospitalization but simultaneously were likely to be put on the palliative care pipeline once admitted, so we’d already learned how to provide much of the care they needed at home.

Likewise, I also heard of more stories than I can count throughout the pandemic where a relative snuck an “unapproved” therapy to a patient in the hospital, saving the patient’s life.

Reductionist Realities

Every situation has two sides: the concrete factors and the intangible processes that lie between them. While modern science often focuses on optimizing the tangible, it tends to overlook the deeper essence of each phenomenon. However, those who nonetheless master these intangible aspects excel, as they solve a myriad of problems their peers cannot.

In medicine, this is clear in the contrast between algorithmic care—where doctors follow strict protocols—and the art of medicine, which involves critical thinking, individualized treatment plans, and nurturing the doctor-patient relationship, which is key to healing. Unfortunately, medical training has increasingly shifted from fostering independent judgment to prioritizing corporate-driven guidelines, leaving little room for the art of care.

In tandem with this shift, the costs of American healthcare have ballooned:

Note: healthcare spending at the beginning of the 20th century was 0.25% of GDP.4

Most remarkably, despite spending 2-4 times as much on healthcare as any other affluent nation, the United States has the worst healthcare outcomes amongst the affluent nations.
This I would argue, is a result of our healthcare spending prioritizing what corporate interests want, not what produces effective healthcare and pervasive corruption being established throughout the government.

Economic Enticements

One of the most reliable means the government has to change the behavior of the healthcare system is by financially incentivizing the behavior it wants (e.g., pushing remdesivir).

A key part of this is grading hospitals on the quality of care they give patients and hospital reimbursement rates being tied to their “quality.” Unfortunately, while some metrics are helpful (e.g., what percent of patients get infected at a hospital), many other metrics lobbyists put in are not (e.g., what percentage of patients get vaccinated). As such, hospital administrators frequently force healthcare workers to push policies that harm patients.

Note: JCAHO is the main organization that assesses the quality of care hospitals provide.  Hospital administrators in turn put great efforts into appeasing JCAHO.

After age 40, the amount of money spent on healthcare increases exponentially, with 22% of all medical expenses (and 26% of Medicare expenses) being spent in the last year of life. Since there’s always been a looming threat that Medicare (and Social Security) will go bankrupt, reducing those expenses has long been a focus for healthcare bureaucrats (as best as I can gather, this began in 1979 but really kicked into gear with Obamacare).

The high cost of hospital stays—$2,883 per day on average, or up to $4,181 in California—has thus made reducing their length a priority for healthcare administrators. For example, hospitals are reimbursed with a flat fee per admission, regardless of how long the patient stays (causing hospitals to eat the cost of extended stays), and critical access hospitals (which get paid more) must keep their average hospital stay under 96 hours to maintain JCAHO and Medicare accreditation.

Hospitals thus frequently pressure doctors to shorten stays through financial rewards or penalties for “excessive” stays, with committees aggressively scrutinizing and questioning any extended admissions.

Note: ER doctors’ decision-making on hospital admissions also varies significantly. Some are more cautious, admitting patients who may not be that ill to avoid liability, while others are selective, only accepting those with clear, severe conditions. These unnecessary admissions strain hospital resources and cause insurance companies to have unrealistic expectations for how quickly many conditions can recover and leave the hospital.

Time to Heal

Whenever a problem arises in medicine, the bureaucratic tendency is to find ways to micromanage the concrete variables at the expense of the intangible aspects of patient care. As such, almost all the protocols physicians are trained in (“to improve the quality of medical care”) tend to cast the intangibles to the side—to the point doctors are often penalized if they break from the protocols.

One area where this is particularly problematic is dosing, as different patients simply need different doses of the same therapy. For almost all therapies, a specific dose exists where most patients will begin to benefit from the therapy and another where they will begin to show toxicity.

In turn, doses are usually chosen by what’s in the middle of those two values (the therapeutic index). The problem with this is that since there’s so much variation in patient’s sensitivity to interventions, what can be a therapeutic dose for one patient is instead toxic for another. Since a standardized medical system can’t function without standardized doses, doses are used that frequently injure the more sensitive members of the population.

Note: the art of dosing and the methods we use to determine the correct dose for patients is discussed further here.

For instance, virtually every natural medicine system recognizes that “frail” patients typically cannot tolerate higher doses, and that treating them requires lower doses over an extended period of time. Unfortunately, since hospitals are “required” to get patients out quickly, higher doses are typically used, which causes those with more robust constitutions to recover rapidly, but instead overwhelms the frailer patients. Sadly, when this happens, their family members are often told, “Nothing can be done for the patient”  or “They wouldn’t want to live like this for the rest of their life,” to pressure them to put their relative on palliative care to die “comfortably” or send them to hospice.

We believe this inappropriate dosing is a primary cause of unnecessary hospital deaths and that many “terminal” cases could recover with a slower course of treatment.

For example, in patients with congestive heart failure, they typically receive an aggressive diuretic regimen to get the excessive fluid out of the body. In more robust patients, this works, and you can discharge them within 2-3 days, but in weaker patients, it can set off a variety of severe complications (e.g., low blood sodium or kidney failure). For them, good outcomes can only be achieved with a 4-5 day hospital stay and a gentle, well-paced diuretic protocol.

Note: a similar issue happened during COVID with prematurely pulling patients off ventilators.

Because of these economic incentives, hospitals have gotten very efficient at moving patients through the palliative care pipeline, and hospital care often turns into a Darwinian situation where if you haven’t recovered in 3-4 days, you are ‘selected’ to pass away.

In short, hospitals are incentivized to “treat” patients with a standardized protocol rather than get them better. As such, many things that need to be done to improve patient outcomes aren’t, and critical resources are inappropriately diverted.

For instance, hospitals routinely invest in social workers to expedite patients’ discharge (e.g., by pressuring them). In contrast, nurses are so understaffed at hospitals that they often only have the time to take vital signs and give out the pills a doctor ordered, rather than examine each patient every few hours let alone become aware of what’s actually going on with them (which is often crucial for patient recovery). Ideally, nurses should be evaluating patients every 2-3 hours, and if slightly more money was spent to have 1-2 more nurses on each floor, it would be a relatively low-cost way to dramatically improve patient outcomes.

Ultimately, we believe the push to rapidly discharge patients from hospitals (e.g., nursing homes) rather than saving money actually increases healthcare costs because premature discharges frequently lead to numerous readmissions—which is particularly tragic since multiple hospital admissions often pull patients into a fatal downhill spiral.

Note: in contrast, accelerated hospital stays are much less of an issue for post-surgical patients because surgeons are financially penalized if their patients die within 30 days of surgery and hence incentivized to keep patients in the hospital for a sufficient length of time, illustrating how many things in medicine result from economic incentives rather than what’s best for a patient.

Read the Whole Article

The post Why Aren’t Hospitals Incentivized To Save Lives? appeared first on LewRockwell.

From the Tom Woods Letter:

As Joe Biden has begun his fade into oblivion, to be loved in the future only by historians with their useless and laughable rankings of the presidents, he shared with us some farewell remarks.

George Washington, he is not.

Among many other things, he said:

President Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of the military industrial complex. He warned us then about “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power. End of quote.” Six decades later, I’m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well. Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation, enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling, editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit.

Where does one even start, dear reader?

(1) Is Biden also concerned about the military-industrial complex? Does Biden think the dangers of the military-industrial complex, as identified by Eisenhower, persist to this day? If so, what did he do as president to curtail them?

(2) Has the U.S. government itself been guilty of “misinformation” or “disinformation”? How does the misinformation or disinformation of the U.S. government and its compliant media compare with alleged misinformation or disinformation spread by private individuals?

(3) Is the “free press” crumbling, or is legacy media crumbling, and a less cowardly and more decentralized alternative taking its place?

(4) “Fact checking” sounds soothing and nice, but many bad things have nice-sounding names. Are there examples of “fact checking” that were in fact partisan attacks on true statements? In other words, might someone have a good reason (other than irrationally hating “facts”) for being wary of “fact checkers”?

(5) The entire U.S. regime rests on a mountain of lies that contribute to its power and enrich its key players. The history of U.S. wars and foreign policy is a pile of lies that would embarrass a second grader. The track records of various federal agencies are distorted and lied about in order to justify ever-higher budgets. As usual, the U.S. government accuses other entities and individuals of doing the very things that it does every day.

I could probably write an entire book refuting this single Biden paragraph. In fact, very often a single Biden sentence is so misleading that it would take paragraphs to refute.

I’ve sometimes wondered: why are leftists so much more likely than other people to cover their cars in bumper stickers?

Answer: because their entire worldview is a bumper sticker. They think enormously complicated questions can be boiled down to a single moralizing sentence.

The various utopian communities and reform movements of the 19th century were the same way. We would have the society we all longed for if only we could abolish some corrupting institution. Simple!

For the temperance movement it was alcoholic drink that was behind the vast majority of social ills. For the public school movement it was “ignorance.” For the utopian communities it was private property. For the Oneida community it was monogamous marriage. And for the 20th-century civil rights movement it was “racism.”

In each case, everything had a quick and simple answer, and the real world was reduced to a comic book, complete with supervillains (and of course heroes, namely themselves).

https://www.SupportingListeners.com

The post Biden’s Parting Warning appeared first on LewRockwell.

The passage of events seems to be whirling round at the speed and intensity of a tornado. The dynamic actuality or threat of war, revolution, natural disaster, genocide, economic collapse, pandemic, and dystopian world government confuse the mind into a kaleidoscope of mush. But these are not my metaphors of the moment. The big moment is the Trump inauguration and the ascendancy of his new administration. I think like most readers of LRC that there is reason for hope. Trump himself appears to really want peace on all fronts, but his idea of a great America is one that rules the world (including Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal). Furthermore, his economic and historical illiteracy are frightening. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would appear to be the best possible person to change the healthcare and food systems of the United States (and then the world), but with so many skeletons in his past will he be allowed to do the job properly. There are many other potential members of the new administration that are veterans of the battles against big government and its associated deep state. But there are also plenty of choices that appear to be the same old, same old Washington hacks that have misruled us for decade upon decade. And the taste of power always changes the person. The back and forth argument between Hans Hoppe and his erstwhile disciple Javier Milei, the president of Argentina, is a case on point. No matter what the members of the administration think before this critical moment, it will surely be another story in the months to come.

This is to say the metaphor of the moment for me, that best represents my thoughts and feelings, is the question: Is Trump and his administration the light at the end of the tunnel of darkness, or are they a train coming from the other direction that will destroy us?.

The post The Metaphor of the Moment appeared first on LewRockwell.

“EU Commission urged to act over Elon Musk’s ‘interference’ in elections,” reads a recent headline from the British Guardian.

“EU politicians warn against Elon Musk’s incursions into European politics,” says an ABC News report.

“Elon Musk’s interference in national debates angers Europe’s leaders” warns a headline on Euro News.

In the last couple of weeks, Europe’s governing elites have been vociferously bemoaning Elon Musk’s alleged meddling in Europe’s political process. Amid the maelstrom of hysteria and accusations, however, it may be instructive to look at what Musk’s “interference” actually consists of.

The complainers have been mainly pointing to two of Elon’s recent transgressions:

1. In the first week of this year, Musk posted some documents from the UK government describing the shocking level and scope of sexual abuse of British girls by Muslim grooming gangs that have taken place over the last two decades.
2. On January 9, Musk interviewed Alice Weidel, the co-chair of the German AfD. The AfD is the second most popular political party in Germany and is quickly rising in the polls even as we speak.

These actions have caused European government officials to go apoplectic, crying foul and claiming that Musk’s deeds pose a dire threat to democracy.

They are largely wrong about this: Elon Musk indeed poses a danger but not to democracy. Rather, he poses a danger to the governing elites.

This is because Musk’s popular platform X allows discussion in the public square of burning subjects that people want to talk about, but that the elites have kept under the lid. This they’ve managed by means of the extensive censorship regime they’ve erected throughout western “democracies.”

The assertion that Musk threatens British democracy by bringing attention to the systemic and pervasive sexual exploitation of young British girls by Muslim gangs is absurd on its face.

This is what we learn from Reuters about the situation in the British town of Rotherham:

“A report in 2014, made a conservative estimate that more than 1,400 girls were sexually exploited in the town of Rotherham between 1997 and 2013.”

The fact that there have been over 1,400 girls sexually abused in a single British town gives an idea of the magnitude of the problem. It goes without saying that in situations like this not all victims are identified. And this happened in only one place. There must have been many thousands of young girls exploited in this way across Britain.

The British establishment, however, has largely suppressed public discussion of this matter.

There has been a revealing statistic published recently. From 2011 until 2025 there have been 4,659 mentions of grooming gangs in the UK press. Black Lives Matter, on the other hand, have been referenced nearly sixty thousand times and George Floyd 38,824 times.

What is happening here? Thousands of young British girls were abused by Muslim grooming gangs, and yet the British press has given them only a fraction of coverage – nearly 8 times less – than it has given to one black man who died on another continent of an apparent heart failure brought on by a drug overdose. To make the differential even more glaring, the mentions of the abused girls cover the period of 11 years whereas the sad story of George Floyd extends over a period of four and a half years. To give it perspective, the thousands of sexually molested British girls received 480 mentions a year on average, while George Floyd, who had an extensive criminal record with multiple prison sentences, received well over 7,000 per year.

This mind-boggling imbalance has come about because the British establishment has made it largely taboo to publicly discuss the criminal side of the British Muslim community. And yet, large swathes of the British public feel unsettled and threatened by the plague of grooming gangs and want something to be done about it. Elon Musk has managed to bring this issue into Britain’s public square. By this he has furthered the cause of democracy and not imperiled it. It is, in fact, Musk’s accusers who have – by censorship and suppression – seriously damaged the democratic process.

As far as Musk’s interview with Alice Weidel went, this was another admirable act in service to democracy. Ms. Weidel – an intelligent, photogenic, highly-educated, and cultivated woman – leads a mildly conservative Eurosceptic party with libertarian leanings that enjoys a broad populist appeal in Germany. The top priorities of her party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), are immigration and energy.

The party is resurgent and is currently the second most popular in the country. Nevertheless, the establishment has been smearing Weidel and her AfD as “far right,” “extremist,” and successors to Hitler. They have gone so far as to use the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, to classify the AfD as a “suspected extremist” organization.

To supporters of Donald Trump this will sound all too familiar. They, too, have been labelled as “extremists” not only by the Democrats but also by agencies within the US government.

Needless to say, Alice Weidel cannot obtain a fair interview in Germany’s mainstream media. Whenever she tries to speak, she is aggressively interrupted and heckled by hostile interlocutors.

By interviewing her on X, Elon Musk gave Weidel the space to speak freely about her party’s program. It was an informative conversation which, among other things, plainly showed that the charges of extremism and fascism against the AfD are nothing but calumny and defamation. Even as Musk provided the public with an opportunity to see Alice Weidel as she is – undistorted and uncensored – Europe’s governing elites went into a frenzy, claiming that the interview posed a grave threat to the democratic process.

But how does giving voice to the leader of a populist party who has been speciously slandered, vilified, and censored constitute a threat to democracy?

The elites felt so threatened that they lost control of themselves and inadvertently revealed their criminal election scheming. A few days after the Musk–Weidel talk, Thierry Breton, a former EU commissioner for Internal Market and EU’s Censor-in-Chief, appeared on a TV program to complain about Musk and X (see clip here).

Breton openly admitted that EU officials were monitoring the impact of the interview on the German political situation and were considering what actions to take. When challenged by a censor-minded moderator why not more is done to prevent an undesirable outcome in the upcoming German election, Breton committed a bad slip of the mouth and revealed something that sent shockwaves around the world and should make everyone’s blood curl:

“We did it in Romania, and if necessary, we will have to do it in Germany as well.”

For those not familiar with what happened in Romania, last December the country’s Constitutional Court canceled the second round of a presidential election in which the populist candidate by the name Calin Georgescu, was nearly certain to win big. Georgescu, a former diplomat and a religious man, is a noted Euroskeptic who has called the United Nations “satanic.”

It should come as no surprise that Breton and his scheming cabal of globalists found a way to prevent a populist candidate who enjoyed broad support among the Romanian people from taking office. The EU leaders conspired to sabotage the democratic process in Romania, and they are clearly ready to do it – per the words of Thierry Breton – in Germany and elsewhere as well.

Who, then, is a threat to democracy? Elon Musk or Thierry Breton and his globalist comrades?

As an aside, if not for Musk’s X, Thierry Breton’s disastrous revelatory slip would have been buried and gone unnoticed.

This brings us back to Musk’s historic achievement in the realm of political discourse: Through his largely uncensored global social media platform X, which is used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide and has become the main source of news for people in many countries, he has managed to do an end run around the global censorship regime.

By bypassing the censorship regime and allowing free and open discussion on X, Elon Musk has caused the globalists to lose control of their narratives.

This is the real reason why these censorious, anti-democratic totalitarians hate Elon Musk so much.

If truth be told, it is Musk’s accusers who are the true successors of the fascists. Like their fascist brethren, they censor, cancel, take opposing candidates off the ballot, and conduct lawfare against political rivals. They also annul elections and instinctively oppose free speech with every fiber of their despotic souls.

The post Who Is Afraid of Elon Musk? appeared first on LewRockwell.

More Americans died due to COVID 19 injections than in WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War combined. This simple fact is astounding. There are approximately 38,000 reported deaths from COVID 19 injections in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system. Based on studies, the under reporting in VAERS can be anywhere from 1 of 30, to 1 of 100 cases reported. This could put the number of Americans murdered via COVID 19 injections at 3.8 million.

In World War I there were approximately 116,516 American military deaths. In World War II there were approximately 405,399 American military deaths. In the Vietnam War there were approximately 58,220 American military deaths. In total, the combined American military deaths from all three wars were 580,135. So even the low end death projections from the COVID 19 injections exceeded the total American military deaths from all three wars.

It should be pointed out that the death toll from the COVID 19 injections may be much higher. The VAERS statistics are only reports of acute cases early on. In other words, the people dying one, two, or three years later, for instance, from cancer, heart disease, and so on, are not being reported at all. As the years roll on, these deaths will not be reported. Someone dying from complication or disease or disorder, five, ten, or twenty years after being injected, will not likely be attributed to an injection they received years earlier even though that was primary the cause.

We can see this already with people we know. While some recognize that their cancer or other disease or disorder was caused by the injection, others are oblivious to this reality. Imagine the disconnect if the death occurs a decade after being injected.

The only possible way to adequately measure the full devastation of the bioweapon injections impact on humanity is to conduct a comprehensive study of the ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated’ and compare all cause mortality of each group as well as prevalence of diseases and disorders in each group. There is a limited window of time to do such a study. Over time the projection of deaths for each year will be adjusted to absorb the increase in deaths due to the shots. This means that even though deaths are increasing each year, there will no longer be excess deaths as the projections have changed. In other words, they will cheat on the projections to accommodate the excess deaths. Also, as time goes on more people will be injured by the shedding. This means that even the disparity between the two groups will dwindle to a degree without cheating on the projections. Since the damage appears does dependent it is likely that the injected will see greater fatalities and more diseases than the uninjected do from the shedding, even as more uninjected get sick and die.

Will there be monuments in the future to the fallen in this campaign of global extermination? Will the victims of this biowarfare campaign be recognized as casualties of war?

Time will tell.

As it stands now, the deafening silence and prohibition regarding talking about the bioweapon injection injuries and deaths is astounding. We just witnessed a presidential campaign where none of the primary or general election candidates were allowed to speak of the massive deaths and disabilities caused by the mRNA injections. With 70-75% of television advertising coming from the pharmaceutical industry, this media blackout on the truth about the biowarfare campaign against the human race, does not appear to be on the verge of changing anytime soon.

The mRNA nanoparticle injections are associated with a 112,000% increase in brain clots compared to the flu shots. This is based on data collected from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2023. Researchers concluded, “There is an alarming breach in the safety signal threshold concerning cerebral thrombosis AEs after COVID-19 vaccines compared to that of the influenza vaccines and even when compared to that of all other vaccines. An immediate global moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary with an absolute contraindication in women of reproductive age.”

There is a 1236% increase in cardiac arrest deaths, and One in 35 or 2.8% of those injected got heart damage. Approximately 270,227,181 people or 81% of the U.S. population have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 bioweapon injection. This means that almost 8 million Americans got heart damage due to the injections.

Basically, the mRNA nanoparticle injections are shown to cause harm, including death, and to have a negative effectiveness. This means that not only do the shots not work, but you are also more likely to get infected if injected.

Furthermore, the mRNA nanoparticle injections have been shown to injure people via shedding of the technology. A recent study showed that being in close proximity to the ‘vaccinated’ (bioweapon injected) was strongly associated with abnormalities with a woman’s menstrual cycle. I know multiple physicians that have told me about patients that were unvaccinated, but were dating or married to an injected person, and ended up having heart issues. I personally know of people as well where this occurred. This appears time sensitive from when the person was injected.

Read the Whole Article

The post More Americans Died Due to Covid 19 Injections Than in WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War Combined appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Germ Hypothesis has been one of the most successful DECEPTIONS ever pulled off throughout the world.

At it’s core is the Perversion of Science.

In this Part ONE of a two-part series by Drs Sam Bailey she presents in video form an essay requested by Vera Sharov concerning the perversion of science and provides an excellent overview of how the “pandemic” was staged.

(In many ways this presentation is a great summary of her and her husband, Dr Mark Bailey’s, latest book, The Final Pandemic which I also highly recommend.)

Vera Sharov, of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, is a Holocaust survivor and tireless champion of protecting the rights of human research subjects in clinical trials – and removing fear from the world.

She is preparing a companion book to her documentary, “Never Again is Now Global” which will have over 20 authors contributing chapters, of which this essay by the Bailey’s will be one.

Please watch Sam’s Part One video, HERE (19 minute).

To learn more about Vera Sharov, her mission and watch her excellent documentary, “Never Again is Now Global” , please go HERE.

Highly Recommended! 

The post Why Not Puncture the Essential Fear Weapon? Unmasking the Viral Deception – Part One appeared first on LewRockwell.

As we now know the Perversion of Science was recently used to create tyranny around the world.

However, there’s now a World Wide Movement with many contributing to Never Let This Happen Again!

A major force in this movement is Vera Sharov of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, who’s a Holocaust survivor and tireless champion of protecting the rights of human research subjects in clinical trials – and removing fear from the world.

Vera created the excellent documentary, “Never Again is Now Global” which I urge everyone to watch and share.

Vera is currently creating a companion book to her documentary and asked the Bailey’s to contribute a chapter.

This is Part Two by Dr Sam Bailey of that chapter in video form.

Part One can be viewed here. The full chapter by the Bailey’s can now be Downloaded for Free, HERE. 

How did this DECEPTION come to be and WHY has the Viral Model BELIEF SYSTEM been so persistent in our world?

To address that I’ll end with a quote from Vera Sharov:

Vera is one of a growing number of committed activists who are changing this worn out model of FEAR by educating people and removing the perversion of science so that we may never be deceived again.

The post Viruses Are Not A Scientific Concept But Rather A Belief System – Unmasking the Viral Deception – Part Two appeared first on LewRockwell.

To justify the State of Israel’s current indiscriminate killing of women and children in Gaza, the Israeli regime’s supporters generally put forward a one-line explanation: “Israel has a right to defend itself.” This simple-minded incantation is deployed as if it is the final word. It is meant to communicate this idea: “some people from Gaza killed some Israeli citizens in October 2023. Therefore, the Israeli state can morally and legally kill any person in Gaza indiscriminately.”

Women and children are being starved as a result of Israel’s bombing campaign? It doesn’t matter because “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Many of the people targeted had nothing to do with the October 2023 attack? It doesn’t matter because “Israel has a right to defend itself.”

In modern warfare, where modern weaponry means entire cities are leveled and whole populations can be wiped off the map, this sort of thinking is despicable. Tel Aviv is hardly alone in this sort of thinking, however. Those who fund the Israeli carpet bombing—the American state—has a long history of behaving this way. In Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, Americans routinely targeted noncombatants relying on lazy claims that amount to little more than saying that Japanese children deserved to be firebombed because they were born Japanese. Did those children have anything to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor? It doesn’t matter because “America has a right to defend itself.”

As the historian Ralph Raico points out in his lecture “The World at War,”Americans had not yet become so morally depraved before the Second World War. Referring to American glee over the firebombing of Tokyo, which Robert McNamara says may have killed 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night, Raico says:

I can’t imagine anyone in America in 1914 who would have greeted with joy the destruction of a Japanese city and the death of a hundred thousand people. You ask anybody in America. You ask Theodore Roosevelt himself! That old sissy probably would faint. You ask anybody, “Would you will the total annihilation of a Japanese city?” “What are you talking about? Are you crazy? What do you mean annihilation of a city? What are we, Tamerlane? What are we, Genghis Khan?”

In the twenty-first century, however, it doesn’t matter how many cities we obliterate because we have apparently moved beyond the idea of morality in war. There are no limits because “Israel/America has a right to defend itself.”

In the past, however, more civilized Europeans attempted in a variety of ways to restrain states during wars. Ideologically and philosophically, one of the more influential ideals for conduct in warfare has been so-called Just War Theory. One notable aspect of Just War Theory is that it limits which conflicts can be considered morally defensible while also limiting the behavior of states while fighting a “just war.” Many of the details behind Just War Theory vary over time, but International Relations scholar Vincent Ferrara summarizes it this way:

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see the next point). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

It is also notable that many advocates of Just War Theory state that all of these conditions must be met for a war to be just. That is, once “our side” violates even one of these conditions, “our side” has given up its moral legitimacy as a belligerent.

Does Anyone Actually Care about Just War Theory?

Looking over this rather extensive list, many will say to themselves: “wow that’s a long list. In fact, it’s much too long, and if we stuck to that list virtually no war would be considered a just war.”

That, of course, is the idea. Just War Theory strongly suggests that nearly modern wars are conducted in a way that is morally indefensible.

Does anyone actually care about Just War Theory, though? In an era when one’s morality is more dictated by nationalism and political ideology, rather than by one’s religious convictions, we find that not even Christians seem to take this seriously.

In spite of the fact that, historically speaking, Just War Theory was central to Christian political thinking, many modern Christians are likely to regard it as good “in theory” but not really worth the risk if it means “our side” is less likely to win.

On Radio Rothbard this week, Eric Sammons, the editor-in-chief of the longstanding Catholic magazine Crisis, joins me to discuss the state of foreign-policy thinking among Catholics. Sammons explains how, even though Just War Theory continues to be explicitly endorsed by the Catholic hierarchy, the Catholic rank and file either doesn’t know about it, or doesn’t care.

As Sammons explains, Catholics have become beholden to modern political ideologies that are quite in conflict with the historical and traditional political ideals of their own church.

Even the old Catholic Left, which had been so reliably antiwar during the mid-twentieth century, as largely disappeared as the American Left doubled down on supporting whatever new war Obama, Biden, and Clinton foisted upon the American people, and on Washington’s foreign victims.

As Sammons notes, however, there is reason for hope. Among conservative Catholics there is a rising skepticism of the regime’s prowar narratives and a decided lack of enthusiasm about the state’s ongoing calls for ever more support for American intervention across the globe. Many younger Christians appear to be less gullible that their parents and grandparents who simply deferred to supporting whatever the American state said was the next great military crusade.

Listen to the podcast:

The post Is There Such a Thing as a “Just War” in the Modern World? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes John F. Miller:

Dear Lew:

This news item provides a ringing endorsement of how private enterprise and community focused volunteerism offer alternative remedies to the ever failed government solutions that in many ways contributed to these unprecedented fires.

The post Cali Homes Saved By Private Fire Hydrants & Community Fire Brigades appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Infowars

The post Corporation=Corpse appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Greg Privette.

The Federalist

The post Just in case Canada’s euthanasia laws weren’t already bad enough appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

The Supreme Court has ruled Tik Tok operations can be banned in the US. Tik Tok posts uncensored videos exposing the bombing in Gaza and the genocide and starvation of the Palestinians. The ADL has been a big cheerleader of banning Tik Tok in the US. Tik Tok also posts uncensored videos by residents in California, North Carolina, Hawaii and Ohio who are victims of the wildfires, hurricanes and chemical spills who have been exposing the truth of these disasters and the incompetence, corruption and neglect by the state. Will the Trump administration enforce the ban?

See here.

The post Supreme Court Allows Tik Tok Ban; Will Trump Enforce It? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The American Conservative

The post Just Say No to Nuclear War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel.

John Leake

The post The World’s Largest Lithium Battery Fire appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel.

2nd Smartest Guy in the World

The post The Coup D’ Etat is Unfolding in Plain Sight appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Ben Bartee

The post On Ayn Rand’s Curious Letter to Her Niece and Ideological Totalitarianism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Middle East Eye

The post British Jews explain their turn away from Israel and Zionism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Andy Thomas.

American Reformer

The post The Secret Treachery of the Pro-Life Establishment appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Brian Dunaway:

Hanlon’s Razor states “never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.” Its usage is so ubiquitous it has almost become trite. Perhaps it is the times, but I find this “truth” to be less and less convincing.

Setting that aside, this testimony screams the truth of the superiority of private over public services:

Blue State Blues: California Is a Third World Failed State

The post appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Trump’s 2nd Admin, Cali Aid, Tik-Tok Ban, Journalist Assault – Friday Media Roundup appeared first on LewRockwell.