Ed Dowd Testified Before Congress Regarding Excessive U.S. Deaths Since Introduction of COVID Vax

Ed Dowd, former analyst with BlackRock, testifies before Congress about his findings of excess deaths and disabilities since the introduction of the COVID vax. In addition to vaccine safety, he raises urgent questions about U.S. nonchalance in light or this data:

The solution had never undergone human trials prior to 2020, and it was approved under an EUA in late 2020 within record time for a vaccine and a noticeably short trial period. The government deemed these products safe and effective and told the nation they would prevent you from getting and transmitting COVID-19. These statements have since been proven false. It has become clear that the U.S. government, along with the health regulators, do not desire an honest accounting of these policies that were imposed mostly under federal mandates. I will predominantly focus on the human and economic costs since the beginning of 2021, which if they were favorable to the current regime, you would be hearing them scream these results from the rooftops.

When analyzing the excess death human costs, it's interesting to note that in 2020, there were approximately 458,000 excess deaths, of which 73% were age 65 and older, and 15 to 64 comprising just 27%. Note, we were told in 2020 that the COVID-19 risk of death was primarily in the older populations. However, in 2021, with the rollout of the, quote unquote, safe and effective vaccine, there were approximately another 500,000 excess deaths but a mixed shift had occurred from older to younger. In 2021, the 65 plus age category was 57%. Remember it was 73% in 2020 of the total, while the 15 to 64 cohort increased to 43%. The absolute excess death increased from 20 to 21 for the productive working age 15 to 64 was 73%. So in 2020, 124,000 people perished excessively. and then in 2021 it rose to 215,000, 73%. For a virus that kills old people, this makeshift is an epic failure for the so-called vaccine solution. The total excess deaths since the rollout of the vaccine in the US, including 21, 22, and 23, is approximately 1.1 million. ...

The blame of the vaccine could be put to rest if studies were conducted of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. Independently of whether it's the vaccine or not, as a nation we should all collectively want to know what is actually causing these tragic health results. However, the silence by the health authorities and the U.S. government strongly suggest they know the answer to that question.

See this additional article regarding Dowd's findings regarding worldwide excess deaths.

Continue ReadingEd Dowd Testified Before Congress Regarding Excessive U.S. Deaths Since Introduction of COVID Vax

Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson Discuss Ukraine and Propaganda

What follows is an excerpt from a Nov 20, 2024 discussion between Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson. This is a critically important discussion regarding recent developments in the Ukraine War and related U.S. Propaganda:

Glenn Greenwald [00:18:53] Tucker, there's nobody I'm certain of this in the United States, just an average, ordinary American voter who believes that their life is affected in any way by the question of who rules various provinces in the Donbass in eastern Ukraine. Nobody thinks about Ukraine, let alone the Donbass, let alone eastern Ukraine. It's an incredibly complex situation there in terms of the people's allegiances, which are far closer to Moscow than they are to Kiev. The question of what that territory should be, should it be somehow autonomous, should it be used as a buffer against the West? The whole framework, as you well know, and as other people have pointed out, when Russia agreed to the reunification of Germany, which was obviously an extraordinary thing for the Russians to agree to, given the Russian history in the 20th century with respect to Germany, when they opened, the Berlin Wall fell and they allowed the eastern and the western parts of Germany to reunite and to become part of the West and become part of the EU. The only concession they extracted in exchange for that was with reunification. NATO's now moving eastward, closer to our border in a country that has devastated our country twice in two world wars, invaded Russia twice, killed tens of millions of Russian citizens. The only thing we need as a security guarantee in exchange for allowing that is that NATO will never expand one inch eastward beyond what was East Germany and the United States agreed to that. And immediately in the 90s, an administration, the administration started talking about it and implementing NATO's expansion eastward toward Russia. Exactly what was promised to Gorbachev the United States would not do in exchange for them agreeing to reunification. And why? Why? Why did we need to expand eastward toward Russia. And now it's not just eastward in general. It's going directly up to the Russian border on the part of their border that has been invaded twice in Ukraine to destroy Russia. And both of those world wars, we also participated in the change of government. We removed the democratically elected leader of Ukraine before his constitutional term was expired in 2014 because we perceived him as being too friendly to Moscow, which is what the Ukrainians voted for and replaced him. [U.S. State Department's] Victoria Nuland constructed a government and they was replaced by a government that was more pro-U.S.. Imagine if the Russians engineered a coup in Mexico to take out the government because they were too friendly to us and put in a hard line, pro Russian, anti-American, anti-NATO president. Imagine how threatening we would regard that as. And that's exactly what we did in Ukraine. The question is, though, this has nothing to do with the national security of the American people. No American is threatened by who governs Ukraine. What they're threatened by is what the United States is doing in Ukraine, including this most recent act.

... This is not a lame duck decision and it's not like there was any emergency to it. It wasn't there was no emergency to it. They just wanted to escalate it because they thought Trump wouldn't. And so they did.

Tucker [00:27:52] It puts us in this remarkable moment where the only adult is Vladimir Putin. This person, we've been told, is Hitler and deranged, crazy, dying of nine different kinds of cancer can't be trusted like the only reason we're not. I mean, we're all relying on his restraint. That's just a fact right now. How weird is that?

Continue ReadingGlenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson Discuss Ukraine and Propaganda

Sticks and Stones, Redux

What words are "violence" and who gets to decide? This claim that words are violence is the flip side of the widespread embrace of censorship by those on the political left. They don't foresee that someday the political winds will change and this exaggerated empathy for those "hurt" by words will be turned against them by a ruthless right-wing authoritarian.

Continue ReadingSticks and Stones, Redux

Ex-Blackrock Analyist Ed Dowd Discusses the Fallout from the COVID Vax

Ed Dowd is bringing lots of bad news regarding the COVID vaccine. He's worth listening to because of his careful methodology, the fact that he is a former Blackrock financial analyst (who got red-pilled along the way, like many of us) and because the U.S. pharmacy-industrial complex is doing its damndest to keep up from learning about the adverse side-effects from the COVID vax. He discusses his findings with biologist Bret Weinstein on the Darkhorse podcast (link to full interview).

Ed is part of a team called Phinance Technologies. You can access their various projects at their website.

Continue ReadingEx-Blackrock Analyist Ed Dowd Discusses the Fallout from the COVID Vax

The Censorship Arm of the DNC and the Will to Power

The censorship three-step. A) We only want to censor hate speech. B) We get to decide what hate speech is. C) Hate speech is anything that makes us uncomfortable.

Excellent report by Michael Shellenberger:

More on the Mindset of the censor. These are extremely dysfunctional people. What drives them to control our right to express ourselves and hear the thoughts of others unfettered? Michael Shellenberger explains:

The reason that many in the media demand censorship is because they believe it is in their self-interest to do so. Many journalists want censorship for the same reason as their owners: to protect their market share.

These are likely to be journalists who believe that they cannot make a living as independent journalists and must instead work for a large media corporation whose revenue comes from large corporate advertisers. Pro-censorship journalists are thus likely to be more insecure, more envious of successful independent journalists, and more deferential to governmental and corporate authority.

And the pro-censorship journalists are likely to be the most dogmatically Woke activist journalists. TikTok banned ads by a new athletic clothing company, XX-XY Athletics, started by the former COO of Levi, Jennifer Sey, because her company recognizes the reality of biological sex. TikTok banned Riley Gaines, the collegiate swimmer trying to protect girls’ and women’s sports. And Meta has blocked pro-female sports posts and hashtags, including ones critical of the victory of a biological male in this summer’s Olympics.

Meanwhile, the platforms allow the promotion of the trans agenda. TikTok allows ads for minors to perform irreversible surgeries. As such, it is censoring the truth and demanding that the public believe the lie that physically different trans-identified boys and men can and should participate fairly and equally in girls’ and women’s sports.

Ultimately, what motivates governments, the news media, and societal elites to continue to demand more censorship? Some of it has to do with plain ignorance as to what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. Some of it is Woke dogma. Another part of it is the fear that societal elites have of losing control of the government, the economy, and society. As for the professional journalists and editors who demand censorship, their main motivation appears to be envy of free thinkers who have attracted an audience because they had something to say and the courage to say it.

The Democrats love censorship because, as Martin Gurri has written, they are the party of control. They think they are smarter than you and you need to fall in line. They are the exact opposite of what they were in the 60s and 70s, when Democrats didn't trust authoritarians. Now, Democrats are the authoritarians because they love controlling us and they have control over most of the sense-making institutions of the US. Martin Gurri:

There are only two vital forces in American politics today: those who wish to control everything, and those who wish not to be controlled. The antagonists are roughly equal in number but vastly disproportionate in strength. True to its nature, one side controls virtually all the institutions that hedge the life of the voters. Also true to its nature, the other side spends most of the time fighting with itself.

The forces of control own the White House, the Senate, the media, the universities, the mainstream churches, the federal and state bureaucracies, most corporations, most digital platforms, and the entirety of American culture. Homegrown control freaks can also rely on assistance from Control International, the cabal of like-minded elites that runs the United Nations, the European Union, and any number of nation-states from Britain to Brazil.

Why the itch to control? Nietzsche would explain it as pure will to power, and that’s a perfectly adequate account.

The Democratic Party is the party of control.

Continue ReadingThe Censorship Arm of the DNC and the Will to Power