How Much Risk Will Governments Take?

Prudence and assessments of risk-benefit are no longer part of calculus. Last night at dinner, Dr. McCullough told me of British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s “unequivocal” declaration in Parliament yesterday that the “COVID-19 vaccines are safe.” This morning I woke up to the news (reported in the Telegraph) that US to station nuclear weapons in UK to counter threat from Russia. How much risk (to their citizenries) are politicians willing to take in order to advance their agendas that in no way benefit their citizenries? Judging by the way Lindsay Graham talks, I sense he would gladly risk nuclear war in pursuit of his forever war agenda. John Quincy Adams famously remarked that America ‘Goes Not Abroad in Search of Monsters to Destroy.’ Nowadays it’s just the opposite. Instead of tending to the security and prosperity of the American homeland for the benefit of the American people, the U.S. government is on a constant search abroad for monsters—real, perceived, exaggerated, and fabricated—to destroy. It was hotheads from South Carolina who fired the first shots of the American Civil War. Pretty much everyone in the country (except William Sherman) underestimated the catastrophe that would likely ensue if cooler heads didn’t prevail to avert war. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if our political class winds up getting us all killed. Upgrade to paid Share Invite your friends and earn rewards If you enjoy Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe. © 2024 Peter McCullough MD MPH 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

SARS2 Fingerprint Found In 2018 Proposal Synthetic assembly method posited in 2022 paper found in DEFUSE draft.

There’s a great scene in the 1986 film Manhunter in which the protagonist—an FBI behavioral sciences profiler named Will Graham—correctly postulates that the fingerprints of a remarkably twisted serial killer will be found on the corneas of his female victim. The Bureau and the guys in the latent print lab are skeptical and think that Will is himself being a weirdo, and are then astonished to discover that he is right. To put Will Graham’s character in Jungian terms: he is an excellent detective because he possesses a keen understanding of the Shadow—that is, the archaic, aggressive, lustful, power-hungry side of human nature that lurks in all of us. All humans are capable of evil, above all those who walk around with the smug, unexamined belief that they never would be. I was reminded of this scene today as I read an extraordinary report by “Right to Know” investigative reporter, Emily Kopp, who obtained early drafts of the DEFUSE grant proposal, authored by EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak et al., and submitted to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2018. I highly recommend reading Kopp’s report, titled US scientists proposed to make viruses with unique features of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan. The following passage goes to the heart of the matter: The documents reveal for the first time that a virologist working with the Wuhan lab planned to engineer new spike proteins – in contrast with the collaboration’s public work to insert whole spike proteins into viral backbones. Language in the proposal indicates this work may have involved unpublished viruses, generating unpublished engineered spike proteins. This American virologist, University of North Carolina Prof. Ralph Baric, was set to engineer twenty or more “chimeric” SARS-related viral spike proteins per year of the proposal, and two to five full-length engineered SARS-related viruses. Documents previously reported by U.S. Right to Know show that some of the experimentation could secretly occur in Wuhan at a lower biosafety level than specified in the grant, apparently to save costs. The proposal for Professor Baric to perform Dr. Frankenstein work on SARS-related viruses will come as no surprise to those who are familiar with his seminal papers on creating chimeric SARS-related viruses using gain-of-function procedures. The real fireworks revelation in an early draft of the DEFUSE proposal is the following passage: The passage highlighted in blue is PRECISELY the assembly procedure posited by Valentin Bruttel, Alex Washburne, and Antonius VanDongen in their 2022 paper titled Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2. Daszak et al. even propose purchasing the same restriction enzyme that Valentin et al. hypothesized was used in the lab synthesis of SARS-CoV-2. (Valentin’s Twitter commentary on the draft proposal fascinating and entertaining). At the time Bruttel et al. published their paper, it was met with ridicule by prominent virologists Edward Holmes and Kristian Anderson, who called it “confected nonsense” and “kindergarten molecular biology.” Holmes and Anderson would say this, wouldn’t they? With stunning criminal energy, they have been key players in concealing the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 since February 2020. At the risk of tooting my own horn, I was not all surprised to read about this development. As a true crime author, I’ve spent the last twenty-five years studying criminal behavior, conspiracies, and criminal investigations. For years, Peter Daszak and his virologist compadres have obviously been in the business of modifying and enhancing bat coronaviruses in order to make them infectious and pathogenic to humans. I suspect the the creation of SARS-CoV-2 and its accidental or deliberate release from a lab will eventually be regarded as the greatest true crime story in history. It’s going to take a while for our dummy politicians and knucklehead mainstream media journalists to recognize it, “but at the length, truth will out.” Upgrade to paid Share You're currently a free subscriber to Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. Upgrade to paid SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2024 Peter McCullough MD MPH 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Manifestations of Long-COVID with Empiric Acyclovir

Oral Antiviral Associated with Clinical Improvement and Reductions in Antibody Titers PETER MCCULLOUGH, MD JAN 27 By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH The US HHS Biden Administration Long-COVID research program has spent $1B tax payer dollars and yielded zero new drugs, protocols, or ideas of how the clinical community can manage the plethora of patients with post acute sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection. This report from German et al caught my attention. Four cases were seen in a psychiatry office all with well documented neuropsychiatric manifestations of long-COVID syndrome including delirium, seizures, dissociative and encephalopathic symptoms. Each case was treated with oral acyclovir, presumptively for either persistent SARS-CoV-2 replication or systemic reactivation of an endogenous virus. Acyclovir is active against Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), HSV-2, Varicella zoster virus (VZV), Herpesvirus simiae (B-virus), and to a lesser degree Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). The rationale is given by the authors: Acyclovir acts by competitively inhibiting DNA polymerase through phosphorylation of the drug compound [14,15]. Acyclovir is now also being proposed to act by preventing the binding of IL-12 to the IL-12 receptor. This is promising for the treatment of COVID-19 by treating the high levels of serum cytokines, inhibiting the cytokine storm inflammatory response [16]. The use of acyclovir is FDA-indicated for the treatment of herpes zoster infections, genital herpes, varicella, and herpes simplex virus encephalitis [17,18]. Acyclovir has been used to treat COVID-19, with proven efficacy, safety, and low cost in small-scale studies [15]. In each case after several months of therapy, there was clinical and serologic evidence of viral clearing. Large prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are required to make therapeutic claims and strong treatment recommendations. However, the next time I see a patient who falls into this syndromic category, I am going to consider this safe and widely available generic medication for an empiric trial of acyclovir 400 mg three times daily. German ER, Jairath MK, Caston J. Treatment of Long-Haul COVID Patients With Off-Label Acyclovir. Cureus. 2023 Apr 21;15(4):e37926. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37926. PMID: 37228547; PMCID: PMC10205150. Share Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid Please subscribe to Courageous Discourse as a paying or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth. Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH President, McCullough Foundation www.mcculloughfnd.org German ER, Jairath MK, Caston J. Treatment of Long-Haul COVID Patients With Off-Label Acyclovir. Cureus. 2023 Apr 21;15(4):e37926. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37926. PMID: 37228547; PMCID: PMC10205150. Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake. © 2024 Peter McCullough MD MPH 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

"Blowup" Postscript Reader feedback to my question: Where are the illegal immigrants?

Last night I wrote a post in which I posed the question: Where are these 6-8 million illegal immigrants who have apparently entered the country over the last few years and are now living amongst us? Judging by the reader commentary this morning, my question produced very little reader satisfaction, and a great deal of consternation. One reader mentioned the desperate pleas of New York City Mayor Adams. Reading the literature about the situation in New York, I see that an estimated 67,000 illegal immigrants are now being housed in the city of 8 million with public resources. 67,000 strikes me as a staggering number of people to house and feed in New York City, which has a tight housing market. I can imagine this causes a huge burden on public resources. Another reader in Chicago mentioned that he sees increasing numbers of illegals in the Windy City. Another reader near the border region of Texas assured me she sees loads of illegals heading northward. A journalist friend in San Diego recently told me they are being housed all over the city. A reader in Florida replied that he sees them everywhere in the Sunshine State. Another reader told me that the majority of these recent immigrants are living with family members who’d already established themselves and acquired housing in the United States. I appreciate all of the above testimonials, and I thank you for your feedback. When I wrote my post, I was thinking primarily about the issue of housing. I have lived in the Bay Area and in Honolulu, and the experience taught me that just a few thousand people living on streets, parks, and beaches can create an enormous public burden. 100 homeless men sleeping in pavilions on Waikiki Beach completely changes the entire complexion of the popular vacation destination. Judging by my reader feedback, it seems that the majority of these 6-8 million people are NOT living on streets, sidewalks, parks, and beaches, but are being housed in cities and towns all over the country. I didn’t realize we had that much surplus housing capacity—that is, approximately the housing equivalent of New York City. Share Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake © 2024 Peter McCullough MD MPH 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

What Caused Mike Dickson's Death?

What Caused Mike Dickson's Death? Sudden and unexpected death has been normalized. JOHN LEAKE JAN 22 On January 17, 2024, the British sports reporter, Mick Dickson, suddenly collapsed and died at the Australian Open. By numerous accounts, he was a talented reporter, vivid writer, and delightful man. Among the many notable people in the sports world who expressed their condolences was tennis champion, Novak Djokovic: Ever the class act, Djokovic set aside the fact that Dickson had written several rude and condescending columns about the champion’s refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit covered this story from the perspective of a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic and critic: An Australian reporter shot back with a report headlined: “Anti-vaxxers hijack tragic Aus Open death” Missing from all of the reporting I could find was any attempt to address the question: Why did an apparently fit 59-year-old Englishman die suddenly and unexpectedly? Life expectancy for a British male is 80.5 years old. What killed Mike Dickson over twenty years before reaching this statistically significant age? No so long ago, such a death would have prompted questions about possible foul play. If Agatha Christie were still alive, Dickson’s death at the Australian Open might have inspired her to write a detective novel, though she would have probably set it at Wimbledon instead of Melbourne. Nowadays the sudden and unexpected death of a relatively young man or woman — apparently of cardiac arrest—seems to prompt zero curiosity in the mainstream media about the cause of death. Such deaths have been normalized. Upgrade to paid Share Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake. © 2024 Peter McCullough MD MPH 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

Will COVID-19 Shots Drive an Epidemic of Autism?

Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake cross-posted a post from COVID Chronicles Peter McCullough, MD Jan 20 · Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake Colleagues Before the pandemic, the autism tidal wave was hitting young families. In the 1960's the rate of autism was 1:10,000, today its 1:36. This Stack indicates that vaccinated mothers and babies have NOT yet reached the age of clinical diagnosis. Could this tidal wave become a tsunami? Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH Alarming Data I just finished reading a peer-reviewed scientific article that has been electronically published ahead of the print version. The findings have caused me considerable concern. The paper is entitled “Prenatal Exposure to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 Induces Autism-Like Behaviors in Male Neonatal Rats: Insights into WNT and BDNF Signaling Perturbations“. It can be found at this link. Here is the full citation: Erdogan MA, Gurbuz O, Bozkurt MF, Erbas O. Prenatal Exposure to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 Induces Autism-Like Behaviors in Male Neonatal Rats: Insights into WNT and BDNF Signaling Perturbations. Neurochemical Research. 2024 Jan 10. doi: 10.1007/s11064-023-04089-2. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38198049. Key take-home messages are in plain sight in the abstract… “Our findings reveal that the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine significantly alters WNT gene expression and BDNF levels in both male and female rats, suggesting a profound impact on key neurodevelopmental pathways.” Both the “WNT” signaling pathway and the molecule “BDNF” play important roles in the development of the nervous system in fetuses. “Notably, male rats exhibited pronounced autism-like behaviors, characterized by a marked reduction in social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior. Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility.” Male rats were the ones in which biochemical changes translated into an obvious manifestation of autism-like behaviours. Note that this was “pronounced”. Interestingly, this correlates with the human condition, in which boys are diagnosed with autism more often than girls. Of particular concern is the loss of neurons in the brain. Depending on the location of the brain, there were 24-38% fewer neurons in males born from dams (mothers) that had received the COVID-19 shot. “A comprehensive understanding of the risks and rewards of COVID-19 vaccination, especially during pregnancy, remains essential.” And from the discussion section of the paper… “Given the public health significance of understanding the effects of COVID-19 vaccination, especially during pregnancy, comprehensive studies are vital. These should weigh the benefits and potential risks of vaccination, focusing on ensuring optimal neurodevelopmental outcomes.” Sadly, we should have had this comprehensive understanding and then conducted a fully informed risk-benefit analysis before hundreds of thousands of pregnant women were inoculated. But, maybe that is just my crazy way of thinking. Some Considerations This research was conducted in rats. Pre-clinical studies like these are used to predict what might happen in humans. Sometimes the predictions are close. Sometimes the phenomena do not translate into people at all. And sometimes things are worse in people. The only way to be sure was noted by the authors… “More extensive studies are needed to confirm these observations in humans and to explore the exact mechanisms.” The authors assume that much of the toxicity to the rats is mediated by the spike protein that the modRNA shots get cells in the body to manufacture. However, what they fail to acknowledge is that rats express the low-affinity receptor for the spike protein, unlike humans that express the high-affinity receptor. This means that the spike can only bind weakly to rat cells, but strongly to human cells. As such, I suspect that most of the harm observed in the rats might have been due to inflammation mediated by the lipid nanoparticles and/or immune responses against the spike proteins. If the spike proteins could contribute to the toxicity, then matters could be much worse in hosts with cells expressing high-affinity receptors, which would include people. Pregnant rats received the same dose as what is given to pregnant women. Some will try to argue that this represents, on a per body weight basis, a higher effective dose. It might, but we don’t have proof of this. How drugs work can vary across species. There are examples where tiny rodents like mice could tolerate doses of drugs that were toxic in people. So, this is not a solid argument without evidence. And, if it were true, this might be offset by the issue identified in point #2 above, which is that rats are a poor model for assessing the toxicity of COVID-19 shots because they underestimate harms by virtue of expressing the low affinity receptor for the spike protein. Further, the rats in this study were given a single dose, whereas pregnant women can receive up to two doses. The only way to know for sure is, unfortunately, to wait and see how the global human experiment pans out. Haven’t COVID-19 Shots Been Proven to be ‘Safe and Effective’ for Pregnant Women? The short answer is no. The published studies looking at this have largely been flawed and biased. Ever-emerging evidence proves that the harms of the shots have been substantially underestimated in all people. The only question is by how much? Worse, the studies done during pregnancy have focused most heavily on the women, and less so on the babies. In many cases, babies were followed for only a hand-full of weeks following their birth. This is much too short. And evaluations of these babies have been overly superficial. A classic trick when it comes to the research and development of novel medical interventions is this: one can make a product appear quite safe if one does not look very hard for harms. I have two boys, so I became very familiar with babies a bunch of years ago. Let’s face it, the bulk of a baby’s early life consists of crying, drinking/eating, pooping/peeing, and sleeping. There is simply not a lot to evaluate when it comes to harms to babies that would manifest as behavioural issues. It is not unusual for babies to seem unhappy and uncomfortable on a regular basis. In other words, one cannot be confident in declaring an absence of a disorder in newborns and even toddlers. For example, I have heard that failing to make eye contact can be a potential sign of autism in young children. Obviously, such an observation cannot be made in a baby; they don’t start making consistent and intentional eye contact for quite some time. So, be very careful when you hear people declaring that there is no evidence of harm to children born to mothers that received the COVID-19 shots. There simply has not been enough time to properly evaluate this. Is it True That Any Harms Due to Vaccines Will Be Identified Within the First Six Weeks? I have lost count of the number of my colleagues that have erroneously guaranteed the public that any harms due to vaccines will be identified within the first six weeks post-inoculation. Beyond that time, they say there is no possibility of safety signals arising. In short, the claim is that if someone makes it past the magical six-week window with no obvious harms, then they are home-free. This is a load of bunk. The paper being discussed here highlights why nobody should be misinforming the public in this way. If COVID-19 shots administered to pregnant women can cause neurological harms in their developing babies, including alterations that lead to things like autism, it is almost certain that these could not be identified within the first six weeks. Humans need to gain certain abilities to interact with the world around them before health care professionals can properly assess for evidence of complex disorders. My goodness, some harms aren’t noticed until adolescence if hormonal changes are required to unveil them. This means there is the potential for harms to babies born to mothers that were coerced into getting the COVID-19 shots that we are still unaware of. An Oncoming Epidemic of Pediatric Neurological Disorders? Autism is a well-studied phenomenon. Here is a non-controversial but very important reality about the diagnosis of autism… “Although evidence suggests that some children can be definitively diagnosed by 2 years of age, many are not diagnosed until 4 to 5 years of age.” Brian JA, Zwaigenbaum L, Ip A. Standards of diagnostic assessment for autism spectrum disorder. Paediatrics and Child Health. 2019 Nov;24(7):444-460. doi: 10.1093/pch/pxz117. Epub 2019 Oct 24. PMID: 31660042; PMCID: PMC6812299. Importantly, many diagnoses of autism do not occur until up to five years of age. Many researchers agree that the average time to diagnoses is in the ballpark of three years old. Here is the problem: Children born to mothers that were coerced into taking COVID-19 shots have not yet reached the age of three. We must now wait another 1.5 years, at least, and likely two or more years to accrue data from enough children to determine whether harms have been caused. Despite being brutally and endlessly harassed and defamed, and criminally impersonated by many colleagues, I have stood my ground since May 2021 to promote the truths about COVID-19 science. I initially focused on my concerns for the most innocent among us; our children. It is going to break my heart should we discover that hordes of medical and scientific professionals, public and government officials, and media outlets have facilitated harms to babies; harms that may not become detectable for another couple of years. I sincerely hope that the study discussed here represents something unique to rats or the experimental design and that there will be no relevance of the profound biological harms to human babies. It would be a great travesty if innocent babies have been and continue to be harmed due to the neglectful conduct of health practitioners and public health ‘experts’. Way back in 2020 I tried forewarning people that the real ‘speed of science’ is slow, plodding, and methodical. It typically takes many years to get a novel medical intervention into routine use due to the amount of experimental work that needs to be done to ensure safety and efficacy. So, it is extremely upsetting to see a pre-clinical study like this being conducted and published three years after a public rollout. This should have been done years before the rollout. Yes, many years! Why? First, a study like this would have triggered many more safety studies. Second, if a rationale could still be built to attempt usage during pregnancy, there would need to be several years-worth of active follow-up in a limited clinical trial to assess the potential risk of inducing something like autism. This is why the average time to get novel vaccines through the full experimental pipeline is more than ten years. Corners should never be cut in the development of vaccines. Many were cut with the COVID-19 shots. To those that pushed the modified RNA COVID-19 shots on pregnant women, including all the pediatric societies, you better step up and practice due diligence now. You need to carefully and thoroughly screen children born to mothers that you inoculated. And you need to begin this early in the babies lives to facilitate prompt diagnoses of any issues, such as autism, that have the potential to arise. Why? Because early intervention can maximize the mental and cognitive potential of children that need to compensate for neurological harms suffered during early development. For moms that took the COVID-19 shots while pregnant: If the future reveals that these should never have been recommended to you, the fault should be placed on the medical and public health professionals who should have known far better. I highly recommend that you keep a very close eye on your developing child. If you notice anything out of the ordinary, see a physician who does not remain entranced by the COVID-19 narrative. Early intervention strategies help all children reach their maximum potential. Were the COVID-19 Shots Used in the Public Rollout Experimental? Based on what was discussed here, we have a preclinical study that provides evidence affirming speculations that many of us made years ago due to our understanding of the mechanisms of action of the modRNA technology. This study arose due to ‘preliminary concerns’ that developed since the public rollout began. Other problems have been similarly identified post-rollout. Now, the first babies from which we can obtain clinically relevant data to rule in/out these concerns are those that have already been born to mothers who were assured the shots were completely ‘safe and effective’. So, you tell me if reference to the shots being experimental during the public rollout was legitimate? In my expert opinion, the past three years have been an example of how one destroys the scientific process, and faith in it, by inverting its sequence. Let’s hope we don’t get data in the future that make the power brokers that drove the COVID-19 narrative say “Whoops! I guess we should have run proper clinical trials in pregnant women before we propagandized them with the ‘safe and effective’ narrative”! Yet Another Call for a Moratorium on modRNA Shots I have made this declaration many times, but will do so again. Here we are faced with yet another legitimate scientific question. Could the modRNA shots potentially cause neurological harm to developing babies, eventually manifesting itself as autism or other disorders? Until this and the massive number of other outstanding questions are answered, let’s place a moratorium on this technology (like Florida did)! Or, are we going to continue to inject pregnant women while we wait to see if this problem plays out in a few years?!? Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?!? At times like this, I feel so exasperated. It seems akin to farting in the wind. Wake up and smell the stink, people. Our medical and scientific enterprises are rotten to the core. Originally posted on C COVID Chronicles Dr. Byram W. Bridle Subscribe Science-backed information to dispel the rampant disinformation being propagated about SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, early treatments, and the current inoculations. © 2024 Peter McCullough MD MPH 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe

I was able to sneak in a Grape Jelly Sandwich

Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake cross-posted a post from The Dossier Peter McCullough, MD Jan 20 · Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake Colleagues I never paid attention to the World Economic Forum years ago. I always thought it was about economics. Myself and the world is watching every move now, since we understand they are at the heart of the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex with aspirations for making the world miserable as they achieve a New World Order. This is a good summary. Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH 19.01.2024 20:45: Hello NoahBawdy, sex is all I need! Onyx68 at 12:14: Hey, maybe you're not online that often?! I messaged you but you didn't answer me :( Another Gathering of the Ghouls is behind us, as the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) 2024 Davos confab has come to an end. Here’s what we learned about the plans our technocratic tyrant overlords have for us, along with a series of highlights (the good, the bad, and the notable) from the annual Swiss mountain retreat. The Dossier is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid “Rebuilding Trust” was the theme of the conference, but nobody admitted to any wrongdoing The 2024 program was one for the ages. Attendees watched Pfizer’s Albert Bourla talk about his company’s embrace of Artificial Intelligence (AI). They saw depopulation advocate Bill “Bugman” Gates advancing the climate hoax. John Kerry appeared on four different stages to discuss the “energy transition.” We also saw Klaus Schwab sit down for a 1 on 1 with the second highest ranking Chinese government official. The Art Wall that greets Davos attendees In none of these panels did anyone show any bit of regret for their decisions. Unsurprisingly, none of the catastrophic “errors” made during the Covid hysteria era never came up. Some devised even more authoritarian solutions for the “problems” that humanity faces. Gates, for his part, said he was working on vaccine patches so that uptake for shoddy pharmaceuticals will be even higher next time around. To the WEF crowd, “Rebuilding Trust” often meant doing a better job to silence people by filtering out what they deemed “misinformation” and “disinformation.” In short, the problem isn’t them, it’s the people who are in the way. In order to rebuild trust, they want independent platforms like this one to be out of the way, through invasive surveillance and censorship measures. There was no real debate In order to get access to Club Davos, prospective participants are ideologically vetted for adherence to the big narratives advanced by Schwab and the gang. Davos isn’t a forum for robust debate, but a chance for the global ruling class to rally together behind the same agenda items. The Slava Slush Fund remains intact Surprise surprise: the annual meeting began with a Volodomyr Zelensky appeal for more money. His speech received a standing ovation in Davos. Lots of powerful leaders dedicated their address to the Ukrainian effort, demanding a continuing flow to the seemingly never-ending Ukraine money spigot. China takes center stage Despite hating Putin with a fury, the WEF crowd LOVES its more powerful Chinese ally. From Klaus Schwab to the corporate media and multinational company CEOs in attendance, the Chinese premier was met with much fanfare. Davos has become deeply unpopular in the United States As evidenced by the razor thin U.S. congressional delegation (only 7 members this year, most of whom are Davos regulars) and a lack of Biden Admin heavyweights (John Kerry led the delegation) that made the trip to Switzerland, there is very little public support for the agenda items advanced by Klaus Schwab and his benefactors. Coupled with the fact that legislators wanted to be back home to pass government funding bills, 2024 marked a historic low for American government representatives in Davos. Rebel News held the bad guys accountable from the outside. Rebel’s Ezra Levant and Avi Yemeni were a two man wrecking crew. Although they were unsurprisingly not granted credentials to cover the closed-door, invite only conference, they did a brilliant job conducting street interviews that held the malthusian anti-humans accountable. Javier Milei shined bright Newly elected Argentinian President Javier Milei went into the belly of the beast armed with a Freedom MOAB. His entire address was a masterclass of an in-person rebuke of the Davos agenda, and it immediately inspired voices for freedom around the world. After wining the November election Milei declared that he didn’t intend to “guide lambs,” but instead to “awaken lions.” And that’s exactly what he did from his podium in Davos this week. The Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Roberts made Americans proud Roberts set the record straight on the supposed morality of the Davos agenda, pushing back on the idea that the WEF and its partners are pursuing anything but a nefarious agenda. Davos 2024 was ultimately more of the same Far from “rebuilding trust,” the WEF gang dedicated its 54th annual meeting in Davos to the same major agenda items of the past. The advancement of the climate hoax took front and center. So too did the ideological notion of Stakeholder Capitalism, which is a means to deliver corporate ideological subserviency to the state, similar to how enterprise is structured in China. The World Economic Forum (WEF), through its annual Davos conference, acts as the go-to policy and ideas shop for the ruling class. Like the previous Davos confabs, the 2024 event served to hammer home their authoritarian anti-human agenda items. Upgrade to paid Share SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK Originally posted on The Dossier The Dossier Jordan Schachtel Subscribe Cutting-edge reporting and analysis of the world's most pressing issues © 2024 Peter McCullough MD MPH 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Chelsea1976 (46) < 100 mi. PayPal 19 Discounts and coupon codes 5 Property Management Software Options By Staff Writer | Last Updated January 7, 2019 Property management software helps property and real estate managers to run their properties smoothly and with ease. They enable the manager to stay organized by keeping track of rent payments, maintenance cycles, balance their books, advertising vacancies and rental properties, and gaining new tenants.