Coronavirus

[Dachsie]

Many People Are Already Immune to COVID-19. Here's Why.




...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNdrjNP1w1I...

14:30 video runtime

Suggest start watching at 3:30 for clearer understanding of "COVID-19".

At the end of this video Pamela Popper mentioned that her next video will tell us what signs that this "COVID-19" event will be over completely very soon.

[Dachsie]

Dachsie identifies original source website of this article at TheConversation.com (below) a "The Conversation, a news site focusing on content “sourced from the academic and research community” and supported by universities from around the world. " is a splendid example of a
[B]BadScience[/B] website.


Rackedemia and Plandemia morph into Orwellian Phase

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us...choactive-pill

US professor: ‘Psychoactive pill’ should be covertly administered to ensure lockdown compliance
Chemical 'moral enhancement' substances could help people 'reason about what the right thing to do is,' argued Professor Parker Crutchfield.
Thu Aug 13, 2020 - 3:59 pm EST



By Paul Smeaton
Follow Paul

Share on Facebook
12.5k
Share on Twitter
53
Share via Email
Print this Page

PETITION: No to government and corporate penalties for refusing COVID-19 vaccine! Sign the petition here.

MICHIGAN, August 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In an article so shocking it at first reads like satire, an ethics professor at Western Michigan University advocated for the promotion of psychoactive “morality pills” in order to alter the behavior of those skeptical of lockdown regulations, suggesting that such drugs could be made compulsory or administered secretly via the water supply.

The article was published earlier this week in The Conversation, a news site focusing on content “sourced from the academic and research community” and supported by universities from around the world. The Conversation lists a number of U.K. universities as its “founding partners.” In the article, Parker Crutchfield argues that “[w]hen someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good” and that such “defectors” require chemical “moral enhancement” substances to help them “reason about what the right thing to do is.”

“To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?” Crutchfield writes.

“It’s a far-out proposal that’s bound to be controversial,” he concedes, but nevertheless is one Crutchfield believes “is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control.”

Crutchfield says that one challenge in implementing such a system is that “the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it.”
SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite's daily headlines
U.S. Canada World Catholic

“As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values,” he writes.

The chemicals mentioned by Crutchfield are oxytocin and psilocybin, the active component of “magic mushrooms,” which he says “may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruistic, more giving and generous.”

Crutchfield says that his research in bioethics “focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good.“

Twitter users appalled by Crutchfield’s article did their own research on his academic history, and posted a 2019 paper of his entitled “Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert.”

In at least one instance Twitter subsequently placed the link behind a warning sign, saying “The following media includes potentially sensitive content.”
Image

The abstract for that paper reads:

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

A number of Crutchfield’s articles can be found on the U.S. government’s PubMed.gov site.

One is titled “It is better to be ignorant of our moral enhancement: A reply to Zambrano.” The abstract for that paper reads:

In a recent issue of Bioethics, I argued that compulsory moral bioenhancement should be administered covertly. Alexander Zambrano has criticized this argument on two fronts. First, contrary to my claim, Zambrano claims that the prevention of ultimate harm by covert moral bioenhancement fails to meet conditions for permissible liberty-restricting public health interventions. Second, contrary to my claim, Zambrano claims that covert moral bioenhancement undermines autonomy to a greater degree than does overt moral bioenhancement. In this paper, I rebut both of these arguments, then finish by noting important avenues of research that Zambrano's arguments motivate.

LifeSiteNews has written to Crutchfield to ask him whether he believes that the covert administration of psychoactive “morally enhancing” chemicals is in keeping with the U.S. Constitution. We have not received a response as of press time.

In Melbourne, Australia, the political authorities have adopted simpler methods for ensuring the public complies with government lockdown regulations, with the police given the power to enter private homes without a warrant or permission to carry out “spot checks.” The Victoria police chief commissioner unapologetically explained that officers have in some instances been smashing car windows due to people inside the cars not cooperating with them or following the newly imposed health guidelines.

bioethics, coronavirus, morality pill, parker crutchfield, psychoactive drug, university of western michigan
Keep this news available to you and millions more
Your gift will spread truth, defeat lies, and save lives
Share this article

Share on Facebook
12.5k
Share on Twitter
Print this Article
Share via Email



______________

Here is the ORIGINAL source of this article...

https://theconversation.com/morality...thicist-142601


‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist
August 10, 2020 8.07am EDT


COVID-19 is a collective risk. It threatens everyone, and we all must cooperate to lower the chance that the coronavirus harms any one individual. Among other things, that means keeping safe social distances and wearing masks. But many people choose not to do these things, making spread of infection more likely.

When someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good. It’s the moral equivalent of the tragedy of the commons: If everyone shares the same pasture for their individual flocks, some people are going to graze their animals longer, or let them eat more than their fair share, ruining the commons in the process. Selfish and self-defeating behavior undermines the pursuit of something from which everyone can benefit.

Democratically enacted enforceable rules – mandating things like mask wearing and social distancing – might work, if defectors could be coerced into adhering to them. But not all states have opted to pass them or to enforce the rules that are in place.

My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?

It’s a far-out proposal that’s bound to be controversial, but one I believe is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control.
Public goods games show scale of the problem

Evidence from experimental economics shows that defections are common to situations in which people face collective risks. Economists use public goods games to measure how people behave in various scenarios to lower collective risks such as from climate change or a pandemic and to prevent the loss of public and private goods.

The evidence from these experiments is no cause for optimism. Usually everyone loses because people won’t cooperate. This research suggests it’s not surprising people aren’t wearing masks or social distancing – lots of people defect from groups when facing a collective risk. By the same token, I’d expect that, as a group, we will fail at addressing the collective risk of COVID-19, because groups usually fail. For more than 150,000 Americans so far, this has meant losing everything there is to lose.

But don’t abandon all hope. In some of these experiments, the groups win and successfully prevent the losses associated with the collective risk. What makes winning more likely? Things like keeping a running tally of what others are contributing, observing others’ behaviors, communication and coordination before and during play, and democratic implementation of an enforceable rule requiring contributions.

For those of us in the United States, these conditions are out of reach when it comes to COVID-19. You can’t know what others are contributing to the fight against the coronavirus, especially if you socially distance yourself. It’s impossible to keep a running tally of what the other 328 million people in the U.S. are doing. And communication and coordination are not feasible outside of your own small group.

Even if these factors were achievable, they still require the very cooperative behavior that’s in short supply. The scale of the pandemic is simply too great for any of this to be possible.
Promoting cooperation with moral enhancement

It seems that the U.S. is not currently equipped to cooperatively lower the risk confronting us. Many are instead pinning their hopes on the rapid development and distribution of an enhancement to the immune system – a vaccine.

But I believe society may be better off, both in the short term as well as the long, by boosting not the body’s ability to fight off disease but the brain’s ability to cooperate with others. What if researchers developed and delivered a moral enhancer rather than an immunity enhancer?

Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.

[You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help. Read The Conversation’s newsletter.]
For example, oxytocin, the chemical that, among other things, can induce labor or increase the bond between mother and child, may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruistic, more giving and generous. The same goes for psilocybin, the active component of “magic mushrooms.” These substances have been shown to lower aggressive behavior in those with antisocial personality disorder and to improve the ability of sociopaths to recognize emotion in others.

These substances interact directly with the psychological underpinnings of moral behavior; others that make you more rational could also help. Then, perhaps, the people who choose to go maskless or flout social distancing guidelines would better understand that everyone, including them, is better off when they contribute, and rationalize that the best thing to do is cooperate.

Moral enhancement as an alternative to vaccines

There are of course pitfalls to moral enhancement.

One is that the science isn’t developed enough. For example, while oxytocin may cause some people to be more pro-social, it also appears to encourage ethnocentrism, and so is probably a bad candidate for a widely distributed moral enhancement. But this doesn’t mean that a morality pill is impossible. The solution to the underdeveloped science isn’t to quit on it, but to direct resources to related research in neuroscience, psychology or one of the behavioral sciences.

Another challenge is that the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it. As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?

The scenario in which the government forces an immunity booster upon everyone is plausible. And the military has been forcing enhancements like vaccines or “uppers” upon soldiers for a long time. The scenario in which the government forces a morality booster upon everyone is far-fetched. But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.

[monty]

Dachsie identifies original source website of this article at TheConversation.com (below) a "The Conversation, a news site focusing on content “sourced from the academic and research community” and supported by universities from around the world. " is a splendid example of a
[B]BadScience[/B] website.


Rackedemia and Plandemia morph into Orwellian Phase

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us...choactive-pill

US professor: ‘Psychoactive pill’ should be covertly administered to ensure lockdown compliance
Chemical 'moral enhancement' substances could help people 'reason about what the right thing to do is,' argued Professor Parker Crutchfield.
Thu Aug 13, 2020 - 3:59 pm EST



By Paul Smeaton
Follow Paul

Share on Facebook
12.5k
Share on Twitter
53
Share via Email
Print this Page

PETITION: No to government and corporate penalties for refusing COVID-19 vaccine! Sign the petition here.

MICHIGAN, August 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In an article so shocking it at first reads like satire, an ethics professor at Western Michigan University advocated for the promotion of psychoactive “morality pills” in order to alter the behavior of those skeptical of lockdown regulations, suggesting that such drugs could be made compulsory or administered secretly via the water supply.

The article was published earlier this week in The Conversation, a news site focusing on content “sourced from the academic and research community” and supported by universities from around the world. The Conversation lists a number of U.K. universities as its “founding partners.” In the article, Parker Crutchfield argues that “[w]hen someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good” and that such “defectors” require chemical “moral enhancement” substances to help them “reason about what the right thing to do is.”

“To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?” Crutchfield writes.

“It’s a far-out proposal that’s bound to be controversial,” he concedes, but nevertheless is one Crutchfield believes “is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control.”

Crutchfield says that one challenge in implementing such a system is that “the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it.”
SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite's daily headlines
U.S. Canada World Catholic

“As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values,” he writes.

The chemicals mentioned by Crutchfield are oxytocin and psilocybin, the active component of “magic mushrooms,” which he says “may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruistic, more giving and generous.”

Crutchfield says that his research in bioethics “focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good.“

Twitter users appalled by Crutchfield’s article did their own research on his academic history, and posted a 2019 paper of his entitled “Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert.”

In at least one instance Twitter subsequently placed the link behind a warning sign, saying “The following media includes potentially sensitive content.”
Image

The abstract for that paper reads:

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

A number of Crutchfield’s articles can be found on the U.S. government’s PubMed.gov site.

One is titled “It is better to be ignorant of our moral enhancement: A reply to Zambrano.” The abstract for that paper reads:

In a recent issue of Bioethics, I argued that compulsory moral bioenhancement should be administered covertly. Alexander Zambrano has criticized this argument on two fronts. First, contrary to my claim, Zambrano claims that the prevention of ultimate harm by covert moral bioenhancement fails to meet conditions for permissible liberty-restricting public health interventions. Second, contrary to my claim, Zambrano claims that covert moral bioenhancement undermines autonomy to a greater degree than does overt moral bioenhancement. In this paper, I rebut both of these arguments, then finish by noting important avenues of research that Zambrano's arguments motivate.

LifeSiteNews has written to Crutchfield to ask him whether he believes that the covert administration of psychoactive “morally enhancing” chemicals is in keeping with the U.S. Constitution. We have not received a response as of press time.

In Melbourne, Australia, the political authorities have adopted simpler methods for ensuring the public complies with government lockdown regulations, with the police given the power to enter private homes without a warrant or permission to carry out “spot checks.” The Victoria police chief commissioner unapologetically explained that officers have in some instances been smashing car windows due to people inside the cars not cooperating with them or following the newly imposed health guidelines.

bioethics, coronavirus, morality pill, parker crutchfield, psychoactive drug, university of western michigan
Keep this news available to you and millions more
Your gift will spread truth, defeat lies, and save lives
Share this article

Share on Facebook
12.5k
Share on Twitter
Print this Article
Share via Email



______________

Here is the ORIGINAL source of this article...

https://theconversation.com/morality...thicist-142601


‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist
August 10, 2020 8.07am EDT


COVID-19 is a collective risk. It threatens everyone, and we all must cooperate to lower the chance that the coronavirus harms any one individual. Among other things, that means keeping safe social distances and wearing masks. But many people choose not to do these things, making spread of infection more likely.

When someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good. It’s the moral equivalent of the tragedy of the commons: If everyone shares the same pasture for their individual flocks, some people are going to graze their animals longer, or let them eat more than their fair share, ruining the commons in the process. Selfish and self-defeating behavior undermines the pursuit of something from which everyone can benefit.

Democratically enacted enforceable rules – mandating things like mask wearing and social distancing – might work, if defectors could be coerced into adhering to them. But not all states have opted to pass them or to enforce the rules that are in place.

My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?

It’s a far-out proposal that’s bound to be controversial, but one I believe is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control.
Public goods games show scale of the problem

Evidence from experimental economics shows that defections are common to situations in which people face collective risks. Economists use public goods games to measure how people behave in various scenarios to lower collective risks such as from climate change or a pandemic and to prevent the loss of public and private goods.

The evidence from these experiments is no cause for optimism. Usually everyone loses because people won’t cooperate. This research suggests it’s not surprising people aren’t wearing masks or social distancing – lots of people defect from groups when facing a collective risk. By the same token, I’d expect that, as a group, we will fail at addressing the collective risk of COVID-19, because groups usually fail. For more than 150,000 Americans so far, this has meant losing everything there is to lose.

But don’t abandon all hope. In some of these experiments, the groups win and successfully prevent the losses associated with the collective risk. What makes winning more likely? Things like keeping a running tally of what others are contributing, observing others’ behaviors, communication and coordination before and during play, and democratic implementation of an enforceable rule requiring contributions.

For those of us in the United States, these conditions are out of reach when it comes to COVID-19. You can’t know what others are contributing to the fight against the coronavirus, especially if you socially distance yourself. It’s impossible to keep a running tally of what the other 328 million people in the U.S. are doing. And communication and coordination are not feasible outside of your own small group.

Even if these factors were achievable, they still require the very cooperative behavior that’s in short supply. The scale of the pandemic is simply too great for any of this to be possible.
Promoting cooperation with moral enhancement

It seems that the U.S. is not currently equipped to cooperatively lower the risk confronting us. Many are instead pinning their hopes on the rapid development and distribution of an enhancement to the immune system – a vaccine.

But I believe society may be better off, both in the short term as well as the long, by boosting not the body’s ability to fight off disease but the brain’s ability to cooperate with others. What if researchers developed and delivered a moral enhancer rather than an immunity enhancer?

Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.

[You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help. Read The Conversation’s newsletter.]
For example, oxytocin, the chemical that, among other things, can induce labor or increase the bond between mother and child, may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruistic, more giving and generous. The same goes for psilocybin, the active component of “magic mushrooms.” These substances have been shown to lower aggressive behavior in those with antisocial personality disorder and to improve the ability of sociopaths to recognize emotion in others.

These substances interact directly with the psychological underpinnings of moral behavior; others that make you more rational could also help. Then, perhaps, the people who choose to go maskless or flout social distancing guidelines would better understand that everyone, including them, is better off when they contribute, and rationalize that the best thing to do is cooperate.

Moral enhancement as an alternative to vaccines

There are of course pitfalls to moral enhancement.

One is that the science isn’t developed enough. For example, while oxytocin may cause some people to be more pro-social, it also appears to encourage ethnocentrism, and so is probably a bad candidate for a widely distributed moral enhancement. But this doesn’t mean that a morality pill is impossible. The solution to the underdeveloped science isn’t to quit on it, but to direct resources to related research in neuroscience, psychology or one of the behavioral sciences.

Another challenge is that the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it. As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?

The scenario in which the government forces an immunity booster upon everyone is plausible. And the military has been forcing enhancements like vaccines or “uppers” upon soldiers for a long time. The scenario in which the government forces a morality booster upon everyone is far-fetched. But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.

In my opinion, the people are faced dilemma because they would rather let the government take care of them instead of governing themselves. Welfare, unemployment compensation and other government handouts makes for a compliant population.

[Dachsie]

The basic problem is two-fold as I see it.

1. The people who did this orchestrated Plandemic are the same people who are arranging a "reset" of our entire system and the end of the USA and who desire nothing other than a One World Death and Slavery System for all. They are evil satanic people who are simply liars, cheats and theives of the first order.

2. People are able to become lazy and wanting a lot of handouts because they are being conditioned to that by the people mentioned in number 1 and the people, all human beings are fallen creatures and have a strong tendency all of our lives to be lazy and want free stuff. Bible says He who will not work will not eat.

[monty]

I can’t disagree with that.

[mamboni]

Excellent discussion of how COVID19 testing is the scientific fraud of the century: https://www.bitchute.com/video/MEzC8eu1W3fj/ {{{Thanks to Amanda for the Link!}}}


1. One of the 18 base pair primer sequences used in the PCR test for COVID is IDENTICAL to a sequence found normally on chromosome 18 in humans. Other primers are so similar to normal human sequences that the PCR test is virtually guaranteed to generate [false] positives in both sick and well in large numbers. The inventor of PCR has stated that this technology was never intended for or should be used as a diagnostic test because of it's inherent nonspecificity.
2. No corona virus now called COVID-19 was ever isolated, cloned or purified and no agent was ever demonstrated to infect humans and cause a stereotypical disease state. In short Koch's postulates were never satisfied. In short, an infectious agent has never been isolated or proved. Without an isolated pure agent it is impossible to validate the test.
3. The RNA sequence of purported COVID-19 was assigned to the corona virus family because it shared 80% sequence homology with the latter. To put this number in context. humans have 96% homology with chimpanzees, 90% with house cats, 85% with the mouse, and 80% with cows.
4. There are no controlled scientific studies demonstrating transmission of supposed COVID-19 from person to person: none.
5. In March the MSM reported a spike in mortalities attributed to COVID-19. These mortalities abated by mid April whereupon the MSM conflated mortality with "test-positives" and have been reporting the latter as "cases" of COVID-19.
6. The criteria for the diagnosis of COVID-19 are so loose as to be virtually fraudulant. Cases of death by trauma, suicide, cancer and other terminal diseases have been attributed to COVID-19 on the basis of a positive test result (see items 1-3 above) or suspicion of COVID19 based on non-specific symptoms such as fever and sweating.

[PatColo]

Company Set To Manufacture COVID-19 Vaccine For US Intentionally Sold Faulty Biodefense Products

Posted on August 20, 2020
Author Whitney Webb
Comment(1)

Evidence of the corruption of the company Emergent BioSolutions has emerged yet again as the firm, set to play a key role in the manufacture of four leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, has been caught selling the US government a biodefense product it knew was non-functional.

Internal documents and e-mails from the “life sciences” company Emergent BioSolutions reveal that the company was aware that its biodefense product for the treatment of nerve gas exposure, sold under the brand name Trobigard, was both non-functional and untested for safety or efficacy while it was actively marketing the product to the U.S. government.

moar https://www.thelastamericanvagabond....ense-products/

[Dachsie]

Relating to vaccines with alumninum adjuvants, which is virtually all of the childhood vaccines, and who knows what other vaccinations that are in the pipeline for we the people.

The NIH and all of its related subsidiary groups could not produce even one single study related to the safety of alumninum adjuvants. This includes fraudsters Fauchi of the Allergy and Infectious Disease subgroup.

In short, we do not know what they are injecting into us or our children and THEY will only tell us that they are are unable to tell us.

Regard the NIH as a subversive terrorist entity or a criminally negligent entity. You decide.

https://www.icandecide.org/ican_gove...num-adjuvants/

https://www.icandecide.org/wp-conten...084-Appeal.pdf





We have no reason to trust the scientific medical braintrust of the United States on any substance they wish to put into our bodies.
There is increasing evidence that we have no reason to allow any testing on our bodies without our full knowledge and consent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebKVKDR99nA



2:32 video runtime

National Institutes of Health Make “Incredible” Admission
11,352 views
•Aug 28, 2020
1.7K
22
Share
Save
Headlines with a Voice
112K subscribers
National Institutes of Health Make “Incredible” Admission

[PatColo]

Lockdown = "...MISTAKE" -- mmm hmm, plandemic limited hangout

38m vid inside:

---

Govt. Scientist Admits Lockdown a 'Monumental Mistake on a Global Scale'

8,608 views
Aug 25, 2020

Jon Rappoport guest hosts The Alex Jones Show to breakdown how a scientific advisor to the UK government says the coronavirus lockdown was a “panic measure” and a “monumental mistake on a global scale.”

[Dachsie]

"Lockdown = "...MISTAKE" -- mmm hmm, plandemic limited hangout"


That is correct.

I am mildly curious to hear what Rappaport and the guest had to say but I have seen this kind of thing so many times in all the false events I have read most about, that I really do not want to analyze what is really going on in their conversation.

Both sides, no doubt, will maintain their ostensibly independent positions, but their respective errors will be very obvious in the guest and more sophisticated but equally "lacking in candor" on the part of Rappaport.

I have bias against Rappaport because of my years of studying "conspiracies."

The fact that Rappaport is guest host on the Alex Jones show should tell one something.