Peter McCullough: The Current Corruption and Dysfunction of the “House of Medicine.”

Dr. Peter McCullough's summary of the current corruption and dysfunction of the "House of Medicine." Shocking and horrifying account of what really ails us.

In the first half of this talk, McCullough tells the sordid tale of power and corruption. How we got into this mess. Then he addresses some of the damage:

The vaccines didn't work. They didn't stop anybody from getting COVID. They didn't stop transmission. Our CDC director came out and said that early. And they didn't reduce the severity of disease. They're not going to prevent a recurrence right now. There's a fear media campaign right now saying everyone should take more shots because more COVID is coming.

They failed on all four counts. They failed on all four counts and I think America would have accepted an apology. America would have been very forgiving. The world would have been okay with that if they were safe, but it turns out the vaccines, as many of you know, aren't safe.

As we sit here today, we have 3,400 peer-reviewed papers describing fatal and non-fatal vaccine injury symptoms in the National Library of Medicine. It is not controversial It's not a theory. It is real. These vaccines cause very real side effects and they're in four major categories. One is cardiovascular and cardio--heart inflammation myocarditis, cardiac arrest. Number two is neurologic, all forms of stroke, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, neuropathy. Number three: blood clotting like we've never seen in medicine before. Blood clots that don't respond to typical blood thinners that are just a disaster. And number four: immune system abnormalities.

In the final segment, McCullough discusses the link between excess vaccinations (he has had 67 over his life), autism and transgender ideology.

Continue ReadingPeter McCullough: The Current Corruption and Dysfunction of the “House of Medicine.”

About Sasha Stone’s Podcast

This week, a friend introduced me to one of his favorite podcasts: "Sasha Stone's Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning."

I jumped right into Sasha' most current podcast, "The Mugshot Heard Round the World: Did the Democrats finally make a Trump voter?"" Sasha is intensely and creatively thoughtful and her non-partisan ideas will emotionally move for those of us who are not completely enraptured with one political tribe. Hence, the "Free Thinking" part of the title to her podcast.

Despite the paltry and insulting offerings to American voters year after year, the challenge is still to vote for the lesser of two evils, right? What is the lesser of two evils in 2024, at the point where the Democrats have repeatedly shat upon the rule of law, desperately embraced censorship and become louder cheerleaders for endless war than even the Republicans?

And will this be the year when black voters thoroughly reject the political party that has repeatedly taken them for granted, often in insulting ways? I'm speaking of the Democrats. I'm basing this question on several conversations I've recently had over the past month, but Sasha also sees a wider trend based on her own research.  And I don't think that most loyal democrats have the faintest inkling that these tectonic plates are dramatically shifting.

In this single episode, Sasha repeatedly challenged me, forcing me to reframe some of my long-held ideas. I immediately became a subscriber. I invite you to listen if you are looking to be challenged.

Continue ReadingAbout Sasha Stone’s Podcast

What Passes for Hate Speech

At Public, Alex Gutentag tears apart White House "evidence" that anti-semitic hate speech is on the rise. The evidence is a joke. The claim is yet another government ruse for asserting authoritarian power. Here's an excerpt from this article:

Hate and antisemitism are sharply increasing, say the Biden administration, journalists, NGOs, and the FBI. Groups like the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a British nonprofit, claim that censorship is the only way to combat this crisis.

In July, Biden announced a new agenda to fight rising antisemitism, which includes enforcing more censorship of hate speech. The White House is now “[calling] on Congress to hold social media platforms accountable for spreading hate-fueled violence.”

CCDH has successfully pressured advertisers into boycotting Twitter (now called X) in an effort to force the company into restoring the “content moderation” policies it had in place before Elon Musk purchased it. In a reportpublished on June 1, CCDH found that “Twitter fails to act on 99% of hate posted by Twitter Blue subscribers.” Since CCDH started its pro-censorship campaign, Twitter/X has lost 60-70% of its total advertising revenue.

 “The Twitter blue tick used to be a sign of authority and authenticity, but it is now inextricably linked to the promotion of hate and conspiracism,” said CCDH’s CEO Imran Ahmed, who says he started his group after online radicalization led a man named Thomas Mair to kill former British MP Jo Cox. “Our society has benefited from decades of progress on tolerance, but Elon Musk is undoing those norms at an ever-accelerating rate by allowing hate to prosper on the spaces he administers.”

But there is not adequate data to support these claims. Though media outlets promoted the CCDH “report” about hate speech on Twitter/X, it was comprised entirely of a blog post less than 900 words long, based on a review of a scant 100 Tweets. By comparison, 500 million Tweets are sent every day.

The CCDH “report” showcases ten examples of racist and antisemitic posts, but it does not make the other 91 Tweets it supposedly analyzed available. Of these ten examples, seven of them had fewer than 50 “likes,” and two had only about 50 views. Three of the accounts featured in the report have since been suspended, but CCDH has not updated its findings.

Continue ReadingWhat Passes for Hate Speech

Florida and California Both Receive a Failing Grade in First Amendment

If you detest Florida's Stop Woke Act, you should also detest the way that California is trying to turn college professors into its ideological puppets. These are both blatant violations of the First Amendment.

Instead of compelling speech at colleges and allowing professors to be disciplined for doing their jobs, what should college administrators be doing? Greg Lukianoff of FIRE offers this advice:

First, stop breaking the law. When a public university restricts freedom of speech, it violates the First Amendment. Although private universities do not share the same legal obligations, many of them make promises to preserve and promote the free speech rights of students and faculty, and they must honor those commitments.

Speaking of commitments, Greg’s second piece of advice is to enshrine free speech protections in official campus policy. One such policy, the “Chicago Statement,” has been adopted by more than 100 colleges and institutions and is viewed by FIRE as the gold standard for free speech commitments.

But you can’t stop there. It’s easy enough to congratulate yourself for putting a commitment in writing, but the real test is when a campus controversy arises over speech protected by the Constitution or by your school’s commitment to free speech. What do you do then? Do you try and wait it out? Hope that everything will blow over?

Well, FIRE hopes not, because your silence will have a chilling effect on free speech. As the university president, you must “defend the free speech rights of your students and faculty loudly, clearly, and early,” says Greg.

One of the most difficult things you will have to do as president will be to defend unpopular speech, even speech that you disagree with, but that is your obligation. Ultimately, the responsibility falls on college leadership, especially presidents, to publicly and unapologetically show their support for free expression. According to FIRE’s 2022 College Free Speech Rankings, students at the top-ranked schools reported that their administration’s stance on free speech is clear and that their administration would likely defend a speaker’s rights during a controversy on campus, a sentiment that is far less common at schools lower in the rankings.

What else can you do? Well, after you have planned for all of that, you should prepare to teach free speech from day one through campus activities and events. In doing so, you’ll clearly convey to students and faculty that the university places a high value on freedom of speech and civil discourse. FIRE even has free speech orientation materials on our website for interested schools.

Finally, as the leaders of scholarly institutions, you must treat commitments to freedom of speech as yet another scholarly endeavor. Universities should survey students, professors, and administrators to “understand their attitudes toward free expression, and to gather opinions of the campus climate for debate, discussion, and dissent.”

Continue ReadingFlorida and California Both Receive a Failing Grade in First Amendment