LIONESS OF JUDAH MINISTRY substack: David Dickson: 'Until Proven Otherwise, We Have Seen Nothing Less Than MASS MURDER on a Global Scale Since 2020 TIME IS UP.

And for those who swore an oath to to protect. DO YOUR JOB.' excellent substack by Dickson, very informative, adds to the vast body of evidence of the deadliness of the lockdowns and the mRNA deadly technology gene vaccine Exposing The Darkness David Dickson: Until Proven Otherwise, We Have Seen Nothing Less Than MASS MURDER on a Global Scale Since 2020 Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi… Read more 9 days ago · 113 likes · 40 comments · Lioness of Judah Ministry ' By David Dickson Alexander COVID News-Dr. Paul Elias Alexander's substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid Scotland Week 2 - All-Cause Mortality a review of the trends 2010-2024. How the government LIES with statistics to hide the bodies and cover up their ongoing crimes. https://dksdata.com/ExcessDeaths In Scotland alone, just by using the 'post-pandemic' years, the government has moved the baseline average for calculating Excess Deaths for the first two weeks of 2024 by; 398 deaths over the 10-year pre-pandemic average. 293 deaths over the 5-year pre-pandemic average. Even 140 deaths over the 5-year rolling average. This shift in the baseline artificially changes the expectation of how many deaths are acceptable to society. If 2020 was such a horrific 'outlier' 'pandemic' year with a huge number of unexpected deaths, then anything greater than that since should be just as unacceptable. However, it was accepted in 2021, 2022, 2023 and now has become a new baseline for 2024. In 2020 we shut down the world for fewer excess deaths than we are now so readily accepting as a 'New Normal'. How is it that the world has so easily accepted 'pandemic' level deaths as the status quo? As we have had NO correction to account for the avoidable deaths between 2020 and 2023, even the 10-year pre-pandemic average should be considered high. Therefore, 'unexpected deaths' really should be considered off the charts right now, not negative numbers as the current stats pretend. In Scotland alone, we have at least 32K in cumulative excess deaths since 2019 without the expected 'correction' for the ongoing rise in deaths (or the artificial lag hiding more bodies). Like the UK, when you look at Scotland over 10 years you see a sign wave pattern on cumulative deaths. 2020 should have been the start of the 5-year downward trend for excess deaths. Instead, deaths started to rise significantly right after the first lockdowns (not before). The COVID response killed people, plain and simple. In the chart below (using Scottish NRS data), you can even see the bad ILI (Influenza Like Illness) season in 2018 where not many people were sick, but there was an increase in excess deaths. This is typical as we have a couple of bad flu seasons for infections (but not as many deaths) then a year of lower infection rates for ILI's but more deaths. This is how respiratory diseases work. They are either highly infectious or deadly, not both. Check the thread below for England and Wales to see how this pattern matches as expected in the 10 years before the world lost its collective mind. Wash and repeat across the world where the COVID response has killed millions. And for those preparing for 'next time' - THIS IS NOT OVER. All the restrictions and insanity that started in March of 2020 worldwide are still in place for Care Homes and Hospitals. And everything used to EXECUTE the COVID response remains worldwide. Governments didn't need a WHO 'contract' to do what they did in 2020 and beyond. Why do you think they would need one moving forward? You were never "protecting Grandma". You were helping governments kill them. And this continues in ignorance under the lie that is "focused protection". dksdata.com/Care The damage from the COVID response is people dying at accelerated rates in all ages, especially children. There is no excuse to say you don't know anymore. There never really was. https://avoidabledeathawareness.com This only ends when you stand up and truly act for those with no voice. Those with no choice. TIME IS UP. And for those who swore an oath to protect. DO YOUR JOB. dksdata.com/podcasts TO ALL IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS Police, Prosecutors, Judges. If Impaired Driving Suddenly Increased by 1,000%+, how long would you ignore it? FOUR YEARS? Would you take Judicial Notice if the Government said "Nothing to see here"? OR WOULD YOU ACT? Human Rights were removed - YOU IGNORED IT Crimes were committed - YOU IGNORED IT Informed Consent was denied - YOU IGNORED IT Excess Deaths INCREASED - YOU IGNORED IT Adverse Events INCREASED - YOU IGNORED IT YOU CAN NOT IGNORE IT ANYMORE Time to drop the Judicial Notice hiding the lies. Time to pay attention to the facts. While governments lie, people die. avoidabledeathawareness.com AND IT ISN'T OVER. Now TEN OF THOUSANDS are NEEDLESSLY DYING EVERY SINGLE DAY who would not have died, had you ACTED AT THE START. The evidence is clear the world over. THERE WERE NO EXCESS DEATHS BEFORE LOCKDOWNS. ALL-CAUSE MORTALITY WAS FLAT OR TRENDING DOWN WORLDWIDE - UNTIL LOCKDOWN. EVERY GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO COVID CAUSED KNOWN HARM AT EVERY SINGLE STEP. IT STILL IS. GOVERNMENTS KNEW FROM THE START. https://dksdata.com/COVArticles?0 Even those who didn't 'know' initially cannot claim ignorance now. “There's a certain point at which ignorance becomes malice-at which there is simply no way to become that ignorant except deliberately and maliciously.” In 2020, the elderly died in Care Homes (NG163, Isolation, Ventilators and more...). https://dksdata.com/Care In 2021, the vaccinated groups died (including infants of vaccinated mothers). https://dksdata.com/ONSDATA In 2022, vaccinations were pushed through mandates and other coercion, and the deaths expanded to those newly targeted. https://dksdata.com/ExcessDeaths In 2023, death in every age group accelerates when they should be the lowest on record. In 2024, the trend of Excess Deaths and Adverse Events continues UNCHECKED. Life Expectancy is now down WORLDWIDE. https://dksdata.com/COVArticles?9 White Wash and Repeat - The World Over. TIME IS UP - THE EVIDENCE IS EVERYWHERE. http://avoidabledeathawareness.com Share '' Alexander COVID News-Dr. Paul Elias Alexander's substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid Alexander COVID News-Dr. Paul Elias Alexander's substack. © 2024 Paul 150 South 8th Street, Unit 170, Lewiston, NY 14092

War With Iran? I am perplexed with Irans actions.

They start off by taking hostages from our embassy for over a year, an act of war. We depose their biggest threat in the region by taking out Saddam. Obama sends them billions of dollars and flies it to them in cash. Biden does the same thing. An Iranian surrogate starts attacking ships in international waters, another act of war. Now they are killing our troops that are not even in their country. Another act of war. These are just a few thing out of many that have gone on over the years. I hear people say our troops should not be in the Mideast and I agree with that. They do not mention the Russians in Syria and the Iranian proxies scattered all over the Mideast. Perhaps everybody should stay within their own borders and the world would be a better place to live…and then I woke up. It was a wonderful dream. Bert’s Newsletter is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Bert’s Newsletter that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments. © 2024 Bert Powers 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter # 75 Harnessing Dissatisfaction and Frustration to Fuel Progress

Have you been feeling dissatisfied and frustrated by what’s been happening in the world? Good. Read on, and I’ll explain why that gives me hope. Human emotions are catalysts for change, and among them, dissatisfaction and frustration often serve as powerful drivers for progress. The cradle of democracy itself was rocked by these very sentiments, and throughout history, societal transformations have frequently been sparked by collective discontent. This issue of the Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter delves into why feeling dissatisfied and frustrated is key to human progress and the preservation of democracy. Dissatisfaction is the realization that the current state of affairs falls short of our expectations or desires. Perhaps you married your high school sweetheart. Five years later, they developed an addiction to prescription painkillers and started acting irrationally...eventually threatening your life. The growing dissatisfaction with your spouse that developed along the way...was acting on your behalf. To label the dissatisfaction as “bad,” and attempting to squash it...could prove fatal. Dissatisfaction is an acknowledgment that the world as it is...doesn't match our vision of what it could be. When individuals feel dissatisfied, they are acknowledging a gap between reality...and potential. In democratic societies, the mechanisms for expressing dissatisfaction...such as free speech, the press, and the right to assemble—are foundational pillars that empower citizens to seek change. Frustration goes hand in hand with dissatisfaction. It arises from the thwarting of progress or the lack of success in achieving one's goals. Frustrations can stem from social inequality, injustice, corruption, or inefficiency. Yet, while these emotions are often perceived negatively...they are crucial motivators. Without dissatisfaction and frustration...the incentive to improve, innovate, and refine would be diminished...leading to stagnation. Throughout history, dissatisfaction has led to profound advancements. The widespread frustration of the working classes during the Industrial Revolution...sparked labor reforms and technological innovation that improved productivity and work conditions. Women's suffrage movements across the globe were fueled by a deep dissatisfaction with gender inequalities, leading to monumental strides in women's rights. I don’t think I need to tell you what an intense level of dissatisfaction the attack on women’s rights and access to all needed healthcare has created for tens of millions of women in the United States...and...around the world. In my estimation, that will be the issue that thrusts the 2024 election to a big blue win. Frustration compels individuals to ask difficult questions and to challenge the status quo. It is a primal voice declaring that "this can be better!" When harnessed constructively, frustration can translate into activism, research, invention, and entrepreneurship. From the frustrations of seeing disease claim countless lives came medical breakthroughs. (However, in a future issue we’ll discuss how things went off the tracks, regarding the lives lost...and still being lost...from COVID-19) From the dissatisfaction with existing technologies emerge the startups and inventions that redefine our tomorrow. Share Jack Hopkins Now In the context of democracy, dissatisfaction and frustration are indicators of a healthy, engaged citizenry. Throughout history, they’ve fostered debate and facilitated the peaceful transition of power. (Again, in a future issue, perhaps...we can discuss what can happen here when an anomaly exists) Without the freedom to express discontent, democracy loses its most significant feature: reflexivity. Reflexivity in a democracy is the ability of a political system to adapt to the needs, desires, and aspirations of its constituents. The voices of dissatisfaction, therefore, are essential for democracy to be responsive and for it to thrive. However, again...it's vital that these emotions be directed towards constructive pathways; otherwise, they may lead to cynicism or destructive outcomes. Truly democratic institutions should strive to channel the public's dissatisfaction and frustration into reform and progress by providing avenues for peaceful protest, supporting a transparent media, and fostering inclusive governance. The dissatisfaction and frustration are more than mere emotions—they are the drivers of human determination and will. They push society to evolve, overcome complacencies, strive for betterment, and reimagine its ideals and practices continuously. Therefore, these emotions are not just key to progress; they are the safeguard of democratic principles. By embracing and understanding the transformative power of dissatisfaction and frustration, we protect the future progress of our societies and the essence of democratic life itself. That’s it for now. If you’re not yet getting my Jack Hopkins Power Minute videos (complete with transcripts) that I publish daily...365 Days a Year....I invite you to consider becoming a contributing. You’ll get them daily and have 24/7 access to the entire Jack Hopkins Now archive of past videos and articles. Upgrade to paid Remember...I appreciate YOU. Best, Jack Hopkins, Founder of the Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter and The Jack Hopkins Show podcast © 2024 Jack Hopkins P.O. Box 7612, Kansas City, MO 64101

Handicapping the Stuber Succession Sweepstakes My industry Grand Mentioner shares the list of contenders for the most powerful job in film

WHO’LL COMPLETE HER? Ted and decision-maker Bela with Kira Goldberg, VP, Netflix Original Studio Film, Steven Spielberg and Scott Stuber in December at a Maestro screening in LA. (Charley Gallay/Getty Images for Netflix) In lots of ways, handicapping who’s going to get a job is the lowest refuge of journalistic scoundrels, who generally frame their pieces in some reportedly insider omniscience that God on high doesn’t posses. In this case, the critical players, Ted and Bela themselves from what I hear don’t appear to have made up their mind. Bela is said to be talking to... more or less everybody. So the course of history is yet to be determined. All the same, a changeover in a job like this is something worth taking stock of. Looking purely by the numbers, being Netflix film head is the most powerful job in all of film with a budget at its command that exponentially dwarfs the legacy studios. The change happens when the Netflix film project is... maybe in transition? Say, looking at a more focused approach (although we’ve heard that before). The next appointment will tell us something about how the opaque service looks at its cinematic future. And for the contenders, it’s a moment to take stock of the landscape — look where the land lies for the major players out there. So knowing that trying to predict is a fool’s errand, let us rush in where wise men never go and discuss, name by name, the real-time contenders in play for the seat as relayed to me: ... The Ankler. © 2024 Ankler Media 11990 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 350, Los Angeles, CA 90049

Donald Trump is Partially Right About Taylor Swift

The clickbait, it burns. The hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World would like to apologize for writing this right up front. Something about Trump and Taylor Swift? Hands down, it’s the most pandering, clickbait-y thing I’ve ever drafted. Like everyone else, I knew there would be a tsunami of Taylor takes after the Kansas City Chiefs advanced to the Super Bowl in no small part due to her boyfriend Travis Kelce’s heroics. And my thoughts were very similar to The Ringer’s Ben Solak on this point: If shots of Swift are ruining your viewing experience, I am sorry about that. I would encourage you to retrieve the magic rectangle from your pocket that can show you whatever you want, at any time, on demand, and look at it instead of Swift. I also would enjoy the broadcast more if it didn’t show something I don’t really care about, but I won’t let it twist me up, and I’d encourage you not to let it, either. If Swift is the story of the NFL season for you, that’s also fine. If you’re tuning into a game you don’t care for just to see her every so often, that’s wild commitment, and I don’t understand it in the slightest, but I commend you for it. I think the story of this NFL season is this 49ers juggernaut and the indomitable Chiefs and the gut-wrenching Bills and the flopping Eagles and Jordan Love and C.J. Stroud and Bill Belichick and myriad other things. But to each their own. Drezner’s World is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. So that should have been that. Except that Rolling Stone’s Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley decided to f**k up my afternoon and write the most clickbait-y story ever with the most clickbait-y headline, “Trump Allies Pledge ‘Holy War’ Against Taylor Swift.” [Can’t you just… you know, not engage with the clickbait?—ed. The intersection of pop culture, politics, and the former Toddler in Chief? Nope, sorry. That’s like asking me not to comment on great power politics or the implosion of Ron DeSantis. Some posts are pre-ordained by the zeitgeist.] So, what is Suebsaeng and Rawnsley’s lede? Singer-songwriter Taylor Swift hasn’t even endorsed President Joe Biden for reelection yet. That hasn’t stopped members of MAGAland’s upper crust from plotting to declare — as one source close to Donald Trump calls it — a “holy war” on the pop mega-star, especially if she ends up publicly backing the Democrats in the 2024 election…. While Swift has not yet issued an endorsement in the 2024 race, The New York Times reported Monday that Swift is a key name on Biden aides’ “wish lists of potential surrogates.” A potential Swift appearance at Super Bowl LVIII alongside her boyfriend, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, has already prompted the MAGA right’s culture war pugilists into a conspiracy-fueled froth about how this NFL season has been rigged to boost Biden. Okay, fine. From what I can tell, the literature on celebrity endorsements suggest that they might matter in a primary but less so in a general election. I recall Swift endorsing Democrats in her home state of Tennessee during the 2018 midterms and it not mattering all that much. So is Trump freaked out about the possibility of a Swift endorsement? The most surprising part of this story is that Trump clearly suffers from a lot of egotistical delusions — but the effect of a Swift endorsement leaves hum unperturbed. Behind the scenes, Trump has reacted to the possibility of Biden and Swift teaming up against him this year not with alarm, but with an instant projection of ego. In recent weeks, the former president has told people in his orbit that no amount of A-list celebrity endorsements will save Biden. Trump has also privately claimed that he is “more popular” than Swift is and that he has more committed fans than she does, a person close to Trump and another source with knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone. So yeah, Trump’s insecurities are on full display in the above. Is he more popular than Swift? No, of course not. Taylor Swift shows have macroeconomic effects. I hereby triple-dog-dare Trump to make a film of one of his political rallies and see if he can match Swift’s box office. That said, he is probably correct about the Swift’s effect as a celebrity endorser. I bring this up because Trump’s supporters and sycophants, on the other hand, seem to be luxuriating in their insanity: On Monday, Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba shared a post on social media that includes the caption: “Who thinks this country needs a lot more women like Alina Habba, and a lot less like Taylor Swift?” (Habba has represented Trump in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, where he was ordered to pay $83 million.) Who talks like this? What kind of delusional person believes that Americans want more lawyers who are bad at lawyering and fewer singers who are good at performing? Habba, alas, is not alone in her MAGA delusions. Fox News host Jeanine Pirro — who’s acted as an informal political adviser to Trump, including during his presidency — warned Swift to stay out of 2024: “Don’t get involved. Don’t get involved in politics; we don’t want to see you there,” the Fox host said. “Joe Biden is in [a] hole with young people, he knows it. And if he thinks Taylor can get him out of that hole, he’s gonna go for it.” Former GOP presidential hopeful and current Trump hype man Vivek Ramaswamy took to Twitter following the latest Chiefs’ playoff win to claim that unnamed forces would rig the Super Bowl to give the as-yet nonexistent endorsement from the “artificially culturally propped-up couple” increased visibility. MAGA pundits have spent months fuming about Swift and her boyfriend — already a hated figure for his role as a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine spokesman. During a rant in November about the GOP’s losses across a string of state elections and abortion-related ballot initiatives, Turning Point USA founder and Trump ally Charlie Kirk warned that Swift was “going to come out in the presidential election” and “mobilize her fans,” adding that “all the Swifties want is swift abortion.” Fox News host and Trump buddy Jesse Watters declared Swift a potential “Pentagon psyop” and “a front for a covert political agenda” during a segment earlier this month. As Slate’s Heather Schwedel notes, “The right wing online has done something few groups have ever come close to achieving: In the past few days, MAGA influencers and hangers-on have officially out-crazied Swifties.” I am not sure these MAGA folks realize who they are trying to engage. If there is one thing Taylor Swift is familiar with, it’s dealing with a toxic media environment. I seriously doubt that there is anything the MAGA community can come up with that Swift cannot deflect with a flick of her wrist. Donald Trump might be an insecure narcissist, but at least he understands that Swift’s influence over the election does not matter much at all. His die-hard sycophants, on the other hand, seem determined to portray themselves as misogynistic and anti-social. Or, as my podcasting partner Ana Marie Cox put it, “They did it. They cracked the code on radicalizing white ladies.” I promise my next newsletter will be about international relations. For this one, I blame Noah Shachtman and his irresistible clickbait. Drezner’s World. © 2024 Daniel W. Drezner 160 Packard Ave. Medford, MA 02155

Can This Death Row Inmate Bring Down the Death Penalty Itself?

Soon, Richard Glossip will either be dead—or he will be the man who gets the death penalty overturned in Oklahoma. Death row inmate Richard Glossip at the state penitentiary in McAlester, Oklahoma, in 2014, one year before he was scheduled to die. The Supreme Court just ruled it will decide whether Glossip, now 60, deserves a new trial. (Photo by Janelle Stecklein via AP) Richard Glossip has been scheduled to die nine times. He’s had three last meals. He’s said farewell to his wife, Lea, five times. And every time, he’s been granted a stay or an appeal—another chance. Now, a quarter-century after being convicted of a murder almost everyone agrees he is not guilty of, his long, tortuous journey is nearing its climax. All of which is to say that, in the not-too-distant future, Glossip, 60, will be dead, or he will be the man who brings down the death penalty in one of the most pro–death penalty states in the country. Or possibly, even, both. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Glossip’s case and determine whether he deserves a new trial. “What’s important now is showing people that they made a huge mistake,” Glossip told me. “I am here because of what happened then, but I don’t have to live in the past—what happened then. It’s about fixing it now.” We spoke on the phone—me from the apartment in Oklahoma City, where his wife Lea lives; Glossip from the penitentiary in McAlester, Oklahoma, a little over two hours away. There are 27 states with capital punishment, but just a handful do most of the executing, with Texas in first place and Oklahoma at No. 2. (Oklahoma, with its much smaller population, actually has a higher execution rate than Texas does.) Glossip, who has spent the past two decades in solitary confinement, has long believed that he had little hope. For years, he had managed to delay his execution with appeals and stays, and he had even come to terms with his sentence. “You have to make peace with death so you can live,” Glossip said. He had expected that, when the deed was finally done, it would be relatively painless. Listen to Richard Glossip talk to The Free Press by clicking each of the audio segments below: LISTEN NOW · 1:00 But then, in April 2014, things got really scary. That was when Oklahoma executed Clayton Lockett, in the same prison Glossip was confined to, in the same execution chamber where Glossip expected to die. Prison officials used an untested mix of chemicals—including potassium acetate—rather than the state-prescribed potassium chloride, as well as the controversial sedative midazolam, on Lockett. And they botched it. Because the IV line was not properly placed, the drugs were absorbed into surrounding tissue instead of his vein. It took 43 minutes for Lockett to die. He woke up, he writhed, he even tried to get off the table. He suffered. When I asked Glossip about this, he seemed unsure of how to reply. “It made me nervous,” was all he said. The Lockett fiasco did not stop Oklahoma from moving forward with plans for Glossip’s execution. He was scheduled to die, for a fourth time, on September 30, 2015. He called that day “the most difficult day of my life.” The Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, Oklahoma, where Glossip sits on death row. (Photo by Rupa Subramanya for The Free Press) It was nearing 3 p.m., when his execution was supposed to happen, and from his cell he could hear lots of activity—people, hushed voices, doors opening and closing. Then nothing. No guards appeared at his cell ready to escort him to the execution chamber. He was just sitting there in his underwear. (You have to undress before they execute you.) “I was begging for some answers,” Glossip said. “Nobody was giving me any answers, and I’m in the cell freezing. I’ve probably never prayed harder in my life. The things that I prayed for was kind of crazy—like I had to live until the Cubs won the World Series.” Then, at 3 p.m., just as he was about to pass from this world, Glossip heard a low, haunting rumble echoing from the first floor of the building, engulfing the whole of death row. It was the other inmates kicking on their cell doors. “When somebody’s being executed, they kick the doors,” Glossip explained. Over the years, Glossip said, he’d kicked his own cell door many times. “It’s a send-off—letting them know that people are thinking of them.” Finally—he wasn’t sure how much time had elapsed—the warden came to Glossip’s cell and explained that they couldn’t find anyone to administer the lethal injection. Governor Mary Fallin had called off the execution because they didn’t have the right drugs. “A medical professional inside the chamber. . . stood up and said, ‘This is the wrong drug, and I’m not going to give it to him,’ ” said Glossip of the reason he escaped death once again. Oklahoma uses three drugs for its lethal injection procedure: the first to sedate, the second to paralyze, the third to stop the heart. Potassium chloride is the third drug given, per state rules. But on the date of Glossip’s execution, the state had purchased potassium acetate rather than potassium chloride, just as they had done with Lockett. Plus, there were concerns about the sedative midazolam, which Oklahoma had switched to because the makers of more reliable barbiturates did not want their drugs used to kill people. What’s more, there weren’t any backup guards trained in venipuncture, the puncture of a vein, because fewer and fewer of them wanted to be associated with capital punishment, a former corrections officer told The Free Press. Glossip called the last-minute stay “divine intervention.” It was also the beginning of Richard Glossip’s transformation into a cause célèbre—one that would bridge political parties and prompt a reassessment of the death penalty in a state that is so pro–capital punishment it has shielded it from court challenges by enshrining it in its state constitution. Glossip had already attracted the support of high-profile death penalty opponents such as the Innocence Project, Sister Helen Prejean, and progressives like Susan Sarandon, who played Prejean in the 1995 film Dead Man Walking. That wasn’t surprising. What was surprising was that longtime supporters of capital punishment in deep-red Oklahoma, including many Republican state legislators, were starting to question the Glossip case: his arrest, the investigation, the prosecution, everything. Nor was it just about Glossip anymore. It was about capital punishment. It was about the system. How many human beings were on death row for crimes they hadn’t committed? How many—and this was a terrifying question no one wanted to ask—who were innocent had already been put to death? “The Glossip case made me question capital punishment,” Kevin McDugle, a Republican in Oklahoma’s House of Representatives, told me. Other GOP members, he added, are rethinking their position on the death penalty as well. “It’s happened over a long period of time, with them seeing evidence of flaws in our system,” McDugle said. And yet, the system seems to have a life of its own. Even though a growing number of prominent Republicans, including the state attorney general and Oklahoma’s Republican governor, now believe that Glossip has been deeply wronged, they cannot—however unbelievable this may sound—simply stop his execution. In Oklahoma, the governor can commute a death sentence only if the state’s Pardon and Parole Board gives the okay. And the board has so far refused to do that. For now, Glossip will live until the Supreme Court decides whether or not he should be tried again. Some believe that if his death comes at the hands of the state, his end will also be the end of executions in Oklahoma. “If Richard Glossip is put to death,” McDugle said, “you’ll see members of the House of Representatives abolish the death penalty.” Protesters rally against Glossip’s execution outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. In the end, he was granted a reprieve by Oklahoma’s then-governor, who had “last-minute questions” about the state’s “execution protocol.” (Photo by Larry French via Getty Images) Long before he got tangled up in this mess, Glossip was born into a sprawling family, in a little town called Galesburg, Illinois, east of the Iowa state line. Eight boys, eight girls. Glossip’s dad, Heron Glossip, served in World War II and worked a slew of factory jobs. His mom worked at a nursing home and in the house—cooking, cleaning, folding laundry, and later, sewing and tending to her vegetable and flower gardens. Glossip dropped out of high school when he was 14. He wanted to leave his home, which he called “chaotic.” (When his mother, Sally Glossip, died in 2013, she had 58 grandchildren and 60 great-grandchildren.) He met his first wife when he was 16, and that resulted in two children. Then he met another woman, and that led to two more. Eventually, he wound up in Oklahoma City, where he had a grandmother. He was not a model citizen—it appears he walked away from his kids, and his life wasn’t really going anywhere—but he had no criminal record. In Oklahoma City, he was a manager at a Domino’s Pizza, which he says was “fun” and he “liked a lot.” Later, he became a general manager at the city’s Grand Continental Hotel. In 1995, he landed a role managing the Best Budget Inn, just off the highway, after a hotel coworker recommended him for the job. Glossip, who was then 33, and his girlfriend at the time lived in an apartment at the motel. So did Justin Sneed, 19, a maintenance man Glossip had hired, and Sneed’s girlfriend, a stripper at the Vegas Club next door named Stephanie Garcia. In the early morning of January 7, 1997, all four of them were at the motel when the owner, Barry Van Treese, showed up. The Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City, where Glossip worked as a manager. In 1997, Justin Sneed, a meth addict and maintenance man who worked at the motel, killed its owner, Barry Van Treese. Police said Glossip masterminded the crime. (Photo by Rupa Subramanya for The Free Press) Below is an account of what happened, according to an independent report commissioned in June 2022 by a bipartisan group of Oklahoma state legislators: Between 2 a.m. and 4:30 a.m.—the exact time was murky due to conflicting accounts—Sneed, a meth addict with a violent criminal history, used his master key to enter Room 102. That was where Barry Van Treese was sleeping. Van Treese had stopped by the motel to discuss a few business matters with employees. It also appears that he had planned to spend the night with Stephanie Garcia—who, in addition to being Sneed’s girlfriend, was said to have been sleeping with Van Treese. (Sneed called Van Treese his girlfriend’s “sugar daddy,” according to the report.) But Sneed was not motivated by jealousy. He apparently wanted money, and it was known that Van Treese always carried a lot of cash on him. Sneed was owed for past work, and he had a drug habit to feed. A fight ensued, a window was broken, and Sneed wound up clobbering Van Treese with a baseball bat, killing him. “Mr. Van Treese’s murder was most likely a robbery gone bad,” the independent report states. A little after 5 a.m., Sneed turned up at Glossip’s motel apartment. When Glossip opened the door, he noticed that Sneed had a black eye and scratches. Sneed said he’d hit his head in the shower and some drunks had busted a window in Room 102. But something was obviously up. “I knew something was wrong because I seen his face,” Glossip later said, according to the independent report. “And then he was rattled. He was real just—he couldn’t stand still. He couldn’t look me in the face or nothing.” Finally, according to Glossip, Sneed admitted he’d killed Van Treese. Despite this, in an odd move, “Glossip never called the police,” the independent report states. He went back to bed. He said he “was scared,” according to the report, and, in any event, he “did not believe Sneed at the time because, when he looked outside, he did not see Mr. Van Treese’s car in its usual parking spot.” (After killing Van Treese, Sneed went to Van Treese’s car, allegedly fished out $4,000, and then parked the car in a nearby parking lot at the Weokie Credit Union.) This was a fateful decision. To this day, Glossip has failed to offer a good explanation for his actions after Sneed’s confession. Three hours later, between 8 and 8:30 a.m., Sneed returned to Glossip’s motel apartment, asking to use Glossip’s car to fetch some plexiglass to patch up Room 102’s broken window. When Sneed came back with the plexiglass, Glossip held it in place while Sneed caulked it. That afternoon, after Van Treese’s wife—at home in Lawton, a little over an hour away—filed a missing person report, and after the cops descended on the motel—Sneed disappeared. Barry Van Treese with his family. (Photo courtesy of YouTube) Police questioned all the other motel staff, including Glossip, but they didn’t go room to room. “At no time did Glossip direct the police to room 102, nor did he suggest that the police or anyone else check room 102,” the independent report states. It wasn’t until 10 p.m. that night, after the police learned of the broken window in Room 102, that they bothered to check it out—and discovered the body of Barry Van Treese. From the start, lead detective Bob Bemo was put off by Glossip, whom he called, in an interview with documentary filmmakers, “very arrogant and very cocky.” After interrogating Glossip, Bemo was convinced the manager had something to do with the murder. Why hadn’t Glossip called the cops when Sneed confessed to him? Why hadn’t he peeked inside Room 102, where he would have found Van Treese’s body? It wasn’t until Glossip was interrogated a second time that he told detectives Sneed confessed to killing Van Treese. Why did he wait so long? True, there was no forensic evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, connecting Glossip to the crime scene, but it seemed as though Glossip was hiding something. Bemo said of Glossip, in the interview with the filmmakers: he was “such a liar he wouldn’t know the truth if it hit him right between the eyes.” Bemo added that Sneed “wasn’t in it by himself, because he wasn’t smart enough.” On January 14, 1997, the state formally charged Glossip with “accessory after the fact.” They knew Glossip had helped Sneed tidy up the crime scene, but they suspected he had masterminded the murder. They just couldn’t prove it yet. When detectives Bemo and John Cook questioned Sneed, they kept insinuating that Glossip was to blame. The detectives brought up Glossip’s name six times during the first twenty minutes of the interrogation. Bemo also told Sneed that police had arrested Glossip, and that Glossip was blaming Sneed for the murder. Soon enough, Sneed was telling the detectives what they wanted to hear: Glossip had planned Van Treese’s murder. Glossip did it, Sneed said, because Van Treese was on the verge of firing him for stealing money from the motel. According to the independent report, toward the end of the interrogation Sneed asked detectives: “So is this going to help me out any at all by telling you all this?” Justin Sneed. (Photo via Oklahoma Department of Corrections) Sneed clearly knew that implicating Glossip would help his case, the report states: “​​It is hard to imagine any reasonable person facing a first-degree murder charge not taking this lifeline signaled by police, even if it meant adopting an untruthful narrative.” One week later, Glossip was charged with Murder 1 or “murder for hire”—a capital offense. Meanwhile, Sneed was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison after reaching an agreement with the Oklahoma City District Attorney’s Office: he would testify against Glossip to avoid the death penalty. The narrative that all of them—the cops, the prosecutors, Sneed—agreed on was that Sneed committed the actual murder but only because Glossip told him to do it. Prosecutors later put it this way: “This case basically rests on the testimony of Mr. Sneed. The physical evidence basically all goes to Mr. Sneed. He’s the one who actually committed the murder. Our contention is that Mr. Glossip was the mastermind and that he enlisted Mr. Sneed to carry out the murder.” In July 1998, Glossip was convicted of Murder 1—on the sole basis of Sneed’s testimony. Glossip was sentenced to die. The Glossip case was automatically appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals—standard procedure in all death penalty cases in the U.S.—and in 2001, the court overturned Glossip’s conviction. The court noted that Glossip was not, in fact, directly involved in the murder, and it was sharply critical of Glossip’s attorney, Wayne Fournerat, who had no experience trying capital cases, according to the anti–death penalty group Witness to Innocence, founded by Sister Helen Prejean. The Court of Criminal Appeals said: “Counsel’s conduct was so ineffective that we have no confidence that a reliable adversarial proceeding took place.” Glossip was granted a retrial, and in light of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ ruling, he was cautiously optimistic that he would prevail. But amazingly, he was convicted again. There’s no doubt that this was partly due to the state having destroyed a box of evidence in 1999. It contained Van Treese’s handwritten deposit book and two receipt books that would likely have shown Glossip had not embezzled money from the Best Budget Inn, as prosecutors asserted. The independent report states: “The State, as memorialized by multiple documents from both the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office and the Oklahoma County Police Department, expressly intended to destroy this evidence.” Once again, on August 27, 2004, Glossip was sentenced to death. To Glossip, it felt unreal. “Sometimes I think about how easy this happened, and how easily it can happen to somebody else,” he said. For a long time, he didn’t see the sky or grass, other people, fences, birds, clouds. He was deep in death row—H Unit—and it felt a little like he was half-alive, half-dead. “I’ve watched people who lose it, because you’re so isolated from people,” he said. “I’m one of those people that looks at a situation and says, ‘Hey, if I allow myself, that’s what I’m going to become and lose my mind.’ ” To avoid losing his mind, he wrote letters or worked out. “Just to make me feel like I’m normal, like I’m in a normal life. That’s what you have to do in a situation like this, or it will take control of you, it will take you over.” LISTEN NOW · 0:44 Meanwhile, more doubts were shed on his conviction. In 2007, Sneed wrote a letter to his own defense lawyer confessing his regret over the Glossip case. “There are a lot of things right now that are eating at me,” he wrote. “Somethings [sic] I need to clean up. . . I think you know were [sic] I’m going it was a mistake reliving this.” Sneed’s attorney wrote back to him, saying she could tell “some things are bothering you.” But she didn’t pursue the conversation further and, in 2020, she died. (Kevin McDugle would later say Sneed’s comments “strongly suggested” that Sneed wanted to recant his testimony against Glossip.) Eight years after Sneed wrote his letter, in 2015, a juror who heard the Glossip case expressed distress over the entire trial. Then, in 2016, Glossip got a card from Lea Rodger. She was a paralegal and an anti–death penalty activist, and at Christmastime, she sent cards to prisoners in Florida, Texas, and California. Glossip wrote back, and they started to exchange letters. Eventually, the letters turned into phone calls, and then they met, and there was this automatic “connection,” Lea told me. For four years they talked almost every day, and they swapped more letters, and she sent him photographs too. They were separated in age by nearly three decades but bound together in a shared cause: Glossip’s freedom. In March 2022, they were married. He was 59 and she was 32. Glossip’s wife Lea in her apartment in Oklahoma City. “I did not want to be close to a death row inmate,” she told The Free Press. “I have witnessed inmates being executed. I was not looking to be close to him or anybody, so I put off talking to him for a while.” (Photo by Rupa Subramanya for The Free Press) His wedding day, Glossip said, was perfect—the correctional officers and prison bars notwithstanding. They exchanged vows. They held hands. “The most amazing thing for me,” Glossip said, “was my face hadn’t been touched in 25 years, and Lea reached up, and she put her hand on my face, and she pulled me down to her and kissed me.” Over the past few years, Glossip said, he’s decorated the wall above his bed with photographs of his wife. He calls it his “wall of Lea.” “We have lots of hopes and dreams for our future, all that we want together,” Lea told me as we sat in her apartment. She was seemingly buoyant and full of energy, despite the circumstances. “We say a prayer every night together over the phone that we’ll eventually get there.” When I asked her why she was with Glossip—why an attractive woman in her early thirties with a promising career ahead of her would marry a man nearing 60 without a high school diploma—she seemed confused by my confusion. “I did not want to be close to a death row inmate,” Lea said. “I kept him at arm’s length. I definitely kept him at a distance. I have witnessed inmates being executed. I was not looking to be close to him or anybody, so I put off talking to him for a while.” She added: “It took a lot for me to get to the point to consider going down this path with him.” Later, when I asked her to comment on the recent Supreme Court ruling, which means her husband could get another trial and even be exonerated, she texted me. “Today feels like another answered prayer,” Lea said. “We continue to lean on our faith.” It took a long time for all the facts of Richard Glossip’s life, his case, and his years in prison to seep out into the public. “What started the needle moving quickly was those two botched executions,” Brett Farley, the executive director of Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, told me. He was referring to Clayton Lockett and Charles Warner, who was executed in early 2015. As Warner was put to death, he reportedly said: “My body is on fire.” (Their experiences were not dissimilar to that of Kenneth Eugene Smith, who was put to death in Alabama last week with a new, untried method: nitrogen gas. Smith reportedly shook and writhed. It took 22 minutes for him to die.) Later, an autopsy of Warner’s body found that instead of using potassium chloride, as the state requires, he had been executed using potassium acetate—the same drug used on Clayton Lockett. Making matters worse, a prison official appeared to have tampered with Warner’s execution log—which falsely stated that the prison had used potassium chloride to execute him. After Warner’s autopsy, Mary Fallin, Oklahoma’s then-governor, called off Glossip’s 2015 execution due to “last-minute questions” about the state’s “execution protocol and the chemicals used for lethal injection.” She then declared a temporary moratorium on all executions as the state investigated its procedures. “Until we have complete confidence in the system, we will delay any further executions,” Fallin said. That was when Republicans started to wonder what was going on, said Brett Farley. Farley was once a spokesman for the state GOP. He is on the right wing of the right wing of the party, but he said he is disgusted by the system—the district attorneys, the state’s Pardon and Parole Board. He said he and others wanted to know: How was it that elected officials did not appear to have control over their own capital punishment apparatus? “That forced everyone to take a look at what’s happening, where prior to that it was just sort of, ‘Well, this is what we do, and bad guys get executed,’ ” Farley said. Then, in late October 2021, Oklahoma resumed executing prisoners, starting with John Grant—who vomited repeatedly after the sedative midazolam was administered. Grant was conscious for another 15 minutes before he died. In February 2022, a bipartisan group of state legislators commissioned the international law firm Reed Smith to conduct an investigation of the Glossip case. In June of that year, Stan Perry, the lead attorney on the investigation, submitted his report. “No reasonable jury, hearing the complete record and the uncovered facts detailed in this report, would have convicted Richard Glossip of capital murder,” Perry said. With the Supreme Court and his new wife giving him hope, Glossip told The Free Press of his sentence: “I am here because of what happened then, but I don’t have to live in the past—what happened then. It’s about fixing it now.” (Photo via Oklahoma Department of Corrections) J.J. Humphrey, a Republican state representative who supports capital punishment, told me all the DAs and other state politicos who built their careers being tough on crime are to blame for refusing to admit they got Glossip’s case wrong. “People can’t have faith in the system. That’s what tears down your country, and this is as corrupt as it gets—to take a person’s life to further your political career. That’s what’s been done in Richard’s case.” In July 2022, Oklahoma’s Republican, pro–death penalty attorney general, Gentner Drummond, filed a brief with the Supreme Court acknowledging that his office had done a shoddy job on the Glossip case, stating: “Justice would not be served by moving forward with a capital sentence that the State can no longer defend.” In October 2023, Republicans convened a panel to consider imposing a death penalty moratorium again—despite two-thirds of Oklahoma voters supporting capital punishment. And yet, it doesn’t matter that almost all the powerful people are now on Glossip’s side. That includes Oklahoma’s current Republican governor Kevin Stitt, who has granted Glossip two stays of execution. That’s because Oklahoma’s Pardon and Parole Board still refuses to recommend commuting Glossip’s sentence. In spring 2023, the board voted 2–2 against recommending that the governor commute Glossip’s sentence to life without parole. (Three votes are required for a recommendation. The fifth board member recused himself because his wife is a prosecutor who worked on the Glossip case.) “Their core belief is, ‘If we admit that we did wrong in the past on one case, then we have to admit that we did wrong on other cases—so, we need to act like there was never anything to see here,’ ” Kevin McDugle, the state representative, said of the parole board. Adam Luck, a former parole board member who stepped down in 2022, seems to agree the board is compromised. In July, in a speech before the Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Luck ... [Message clipped] View entire message

How I run The Hyphen on Substack

Pulling back the curtain even more & sharing some behind-the-scenes stuff including financial and editorial This Substack you’re reading now, The Hyphen, accidentally turned into a 6-figure business last year. I genuinely do mean ‘accidental’ because when I migrated my newsletter from Mailchimp to Substack back in early 2022, it was just a fun experiment. I had other income streams. I don’t believe in ‘forcing’ a creative project to earn you money — I think it makes the creative project shrivel up and die when too much pressure is put on it. If I’d gone ‘aha—starting a Substack will change my life!’ then it would have been full of truly awful choices and a bad bad vibe. Same with my books, I’ve never expected my books to make me rich. (That’s a whole other post.) I am obviously thrilled that Substack has turned into a job and steady new income stream for me — a way to centre my writing and be paid for it. I’m learning the whole time as my page and the platform evolves. Prior to Substack, I wrote a weekly newsletter for free, for years. Like many other working Online Writer Millennials/Gen X, I have lived through so many platforms. Wordpress. Tumblr. Vine. TinyLetter. Medium. I’ve tried them all like a curious chef. I have picked up my tools (and words and ideas) like Dick Whittington and found new Internet homes over and over again. I really want to down tools here for a while. I like it here and I like you! I also can’t help but feel immense gratitude. After writing and traditionally publishing six books — which were all pretty painful to birth for their own unique reasons — it’s a joy to be able to directly write for my readers and receive payment for my work and expertise. It feels freeing, wonderful and just right. Artists/writers have always tried to be paid fairly and own their work. Even Taylor Swift herself had to figure out a way to no longer be screwed over by people wanting to take her IP/money/art/brand. An artist owning their work — it feels revolutionary in a world that wants you to feel grateful for crumbs. Mostly I’ve been learning on the job, which has been so exciting to me. I closed down my podcast Ctrl Alt Delete in January 2022 even though it was still doing very well, I was bored with the format and needed a big change. Six years was a very good innings though, the longest job I’ve ever had! My job, as a writer/creative person, is to keep things interesting — and Substack has certainly allowed me a place to learn and play again. In August last year, I wrote the post “How I make 6 figures on Substack.” Since then, I’ve learned even more. Below, I’ve outlined some things I’ve learned over the past six months. Financial, editorial, how I maintain the business side of things etc. Hope you enjoy these pointers, I’ve tried to pull back the curtain as much as possible for you and will be in the comment section today responding directly to any and all queries. Ask me anything!... Subscribe to The Hyphen by Emma Gannon to read the rest. Become a paying subscriber of The Hyphen by Emma Gannon to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content. Upgrade to paid A subscription gets you: Subscriber-only posts (such as Sunday Scrolls, Tuesdays Threads + new articles) Join the comment section, enter giveaways and get the full archive © 2024 Emma Gannon The Hyphen HQ, London

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

Make no mistake. YOU are the carbon they want to reduce. “Don’t lie to yourself,” says Tucker Carlson.

I'm pinching myself. Is this idea now mainstream? Vigilant News Tucker Carlson Warns Against the True Motives Behind the Globalist Agenda Make no mistake. YOU are the carbon they want to reduce. “Don’t lie to yourself,” says Tucker Carlson. In an on-stage discussion with Jordan Peterson, Carlson raised an important point with respect to the overpopulation debate. Whenever there is an infestation, such as mice or roaches, the solution to the problem is to kill them. Following this logic, Ca… Read more 36 minutes ago · 67 likes · 7 comments · The Vigilant Fox Just a couple of minute video with Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson, from a longer program. Thanks to Vigilant Fox for posting! You're currently a free subscriber to Meryl’s COVID Newsletter. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. © 2024 Meryl Nass 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe

The Hidden World of Freemasonry: Unveiling the Secrets

Freemasonry, an enigmatic and debatable spiritual organization, has captivated the imagination of people for centuries. With a history veiled in secrecy, Freemasons have been associated with numerous scandalous rumors and intriguing practices. In this newsletter, we delve into the mysterious international of Freemasonry to discover a number of the maximum fascinating factors in their traditions and rituals...

Make them Election Issues: Ban the shots! No globalist sovereignty grabs! MERYL NASS JAN 30

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/2024-election-candidates-join-thousands-of-doctors-in-opposing-dangerous-covid-shots/ 2024 election candidates join thousands of doctors in opposing dangerous COVID shots Great campaign initiated by physicians Mary Talley Bowden, assisted by Kat Lindley and probably others I don’t know. Get candidates for office to pledge they will stop the dangerous COVID vaccines. Ask about the WHO’s power grab and banning the shots at campaign stops: then candidates will be forced to develop a public position on these crucial issues. It is crucial! U.S. citizens: Demand Congress investigate soaring excess death rates (LifeSiteNews) – More than 100 candidates for public office and nearly as many current officeholders across 35 states have publicly declared that they believe the COVID-19 vaccines should be “immediately discontinued” in the interest of public safety, according to a group of medical freedom advocates. Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, an otolaryngology and sleep medicine specialist who is also president of the group Americans for Health Freedom (AHF), announced Sunday that the tally of public figures who have signed their COVID declaration is up to “106 candidates, 103 elected officials and 1 Surgeon General [Dr. Joseph Ladapo of Florida] from 35 states.” “Many are also pledging not to take donations from Big Pharma,” she added. “Over 17,000 physicians stand behind them.” She shared the list of the newest signatories in her announcement post on X (Twitter). Most were state-level candidates, though three are currently running for Congress. The complete list of signatories can be found at AHF’s website, which also contains the declaration itself. “We declare, and the data confirms that COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end,” it reads. “All COVID-19 and other modified mRNA ‘vaccines’ must be immediately discontinued. We demand that Covid-19 vaccines be removed from the pediatric vaccine schedule […] We declare injury from COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ must be recognized. Compensation must be provided for those injured by these injections. Funding must be allocated to the study of these syndromes and the development of diagnostics and treatments should be pursued.” “We declare Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Astra Zeneca studies were severely flawed, and they withheld safety and efficacy information from patients and physicians. They should face legal consequences for their dereliction of scientific duty which resulted in countless unnecessary disability and deaths,” the declaration also says. “We declare governments, media, global regulatory bodies, and medical agencies, such as CDC, FDA, NIH, NIAID, MHRA, NHS, TGA, SAPRA etc., and unelected international bodies including but not limited to WHO, WEF, UN, GAVI, and EcoHealth Alliance must be held accountable for mandating policies and procedures, and directing funding for reckless gain of function research that resulted in massive harms.” The public health establishment has been overwhelmingly averse to investigating problems with the mRNA-based COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under former President (and likely 2024 Republican presidential nominee) Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative, yet concerns persist thanks to a large body of evidence affirming they carry significant health risks. The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 36,986 deaths, 213,536 hospitalizations, 21,335 heart attacks, and 28,052 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of December 29, among other ailments. An April 2022 study out of Israel indicates that COVID infection itself cannot fully account for the myocarditis numbers despite common insistence to the contrary. Jab defenders are quick to stress that reports submitted to VAERS are unconfirmed, as anyone can submit one, but U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting. A 2010 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS’s) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) warned that VAERS caught “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events.” On the problem of under-reporting, the VAERS website offers only that “more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones” (emphasis added). In 2021, Project Veritas shed light on some of the reasons for such under-reporting with undercover video from inside Phoenix Indian Medical Center, a facility run under HHS’s Indian Health Service program in which emergency room physician Dr. Maria Gonzales laments that myocarditis cases go unreported “because they want to shove it under the mat,” and nurse Deanna Paris attests to seeing “a lot” of people who “got sick from the side effects” of the COVID shots, but “nobody” is reporting them to VAERS “because it takes over a half hour to write the damn thing.” Further, VAERS is not the only data source containing red flags. Data from the Pentagon’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) shows that 2021 saw drastic spikes in a variety of diagnoses for serious medical issues over the previous five-year average, including hypertension (2,181%), neurological disorders (1,048%), multiple sclerosis (680%), Guillain-Barre syndrome (551%), breast cancer, (487%), female infertility (472%), pulmonary embolism (468%), migraines (452%), ovarian dysfunction (437%), testicular cancer (369%), and tachycardia (302%). Leading COVID shot manufacturer Pfizer donated more than $8.5 million to political candidates, leadership PACs, trade associations, and party committees representing both parties in 2022, fueling suspicion as to why only a handful of nationally prominent GOP officeholders, such as U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, are opposed to the company’s vaccine. U.S. citizens: Demand Congress investigate soaring excess death rates You're currently a free subscriber to Meryl’s COVID Newsletter. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. Upgrade to paid SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2024 Meryl Nass 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104