The “antisemitism” smear diverts attentionfrom the grim reality – the hate actually emanates fromCabalist Jews and their Freemason agents in the form of a simultaneous attack on our gender, racial, religious and national identity. This hate now finds expression in the pandemic psy op and killer vaccines. Jew or not, if you are not an “antisemite” in the sense of opposing this diabolicalagenda, you are a dupe who willpay dearly for your conformity & ignorance. Ted Pike, 74, has performed a heroic service to humanity through a 30-year mission career. In 1988, he sent 15,000 copies of this book to Christian evangelists, thanks to the generosity of an anonymous donor. He was instrumental in preventing hate laws to be passed in the 1990’s with 750 radio broadcasts. His video Zionism & Christianity-Unholy Alliance is key to understanding our world. An artist and sculptor, he is currently engaged in a project to demonstrate the hand of God in nature, specifically birds and animals. He regards Donald Trump as a fraud. This book can be purchased by sending $24.95 to Ted Pike PO Box 828 Clackamas OR 97015 from Jan 13, 2019by Henry Makow PhD I urge you to read Ted Pike’s Israel: Our Duty…Our Dilemma (1984) to fully understand the danger in which humanity finds itself today. The essential teaching of Judaism’s most holy book, the Cabala, is that non-Jews form an impediment to progress and must be subjugated or exterminated. This ideology probably explains much of mankind’s tragic history and impending doom.
(Left, Ted, no relation to Albert Pike) Only “religious” Jews are aware of this agenda but they are very much in control of the West through their control of the banking system and Freemasonry. The fact that Trump is surrounded by these Jews, and constantly makes Masonic hand signs, suggests that his opposition to globalism is a distraction from his real mission, unleashing Armageddon on the goyim. Of course, we all hope this is not so. Few people take the time to read the Cabala. Ted Pike did and outlined his findings in Chapter 12, The Conspiracy of the Kabbalah.” (110-123) The Cabala is “an attempt by the Pharisees and their descendants to wrest control of this world from God and give it to themselves.” This is the definition of Satanism – supplanting God. Judaism at its Cabalist heart is Satanism. That’s why you don’t have to believe in God to follow Judaism. GOYIM HATRED According to the Cabala, Gentiles by their very existence are an impediment to Jewish rule and Heaven on Earth. “The Kabbalists saw the extermination of the Gentile as a necessary process towards restoring order in the universe. The Gentile is a form of demon…Satan himself.” Pike quotes Cabala, “When God reveals himself, they will be wiped off the face of the earth.” (I Ber. 25b) Until that blessed day, Jews will continue to languish and feel oppressed by the goyim. “Man” in the OldTestament refers only to Jews. How will man conquer the world?
“By deceit and trickery wherever possible. They must be fought against without ceasing until proper order is restored. Ths it is with satisfaction that I say we should free ourselves from them and rule over them.” (I, 160a, Pranaitus Trans. p.74) This is scary considering who controls the weapons of mass deception. When Jewish world domination has occurred, the Messiah “will display His force and exterminate them from the world.” (III, Schemoth, 7 and 9b, de Pauly.) “When these shall be exterminated, it will be as if God had made heaven and earth on that day…”(I, Ber. 25b) “A the moment when the Holy One …will exterminate all the goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written, the ord alone will appear great on that day.” Vayschlah, follo 177b de Pauly, Webster p.373. The Cabala recommends the extermination of the Gentiles as the highest religious duty. Only then will Jews be able to flourish. Most Jews are unaware of this diabolical agenda and certainly do not share these goals. However, this subjugation of the goyim is the essence of “globalism” and the New World Order. The “chosen people” is the ultimate scam. I don’t like to sound alarmist but this is the best explanation of world events past and present. We’ve lost the ability to recognize evil and call it by its name. This is not about a difference of opinion. This is about good and evil. Let me tell you about evil. Evil is out to destroy everything good including you and everything you hold dear. And remember, many Cabalists are Freemasons. These are gentiles want a seat at the table and sold their souls to the devil. They were/are indispensable. We’re talking about a widespread Satanist conspiracy. Let’s focus on Satanists rather than Jewish dupes.
Left: We went back to sleep. Now we will pay.Nothing was solved in 2008, only postponed, and now we face a Reckoning that can only be compared to the Fall of Rome, or even better: the Bronze Age Collapse.
by Anthony Migchels(henrymakow.com) The World Crisis started September 2019, with the restart of Quantitative Easing by the Fed. It signalled the return of the 2008 Credit Crunch. Nothing was solved in 2008, only postponed, and now we face a Reckoning that can only be compared to the Fall of Rome, or even better: the Bronze Age Collapse. Babylon is Usury. The Financial System. The (Central) Banks. They rule, not ‘politicians’. The World Financial Crisis, the coming Gold Standard, and the destruction of America and the West are the final stepping stone to their World Conquest. In September 2008, during the Lehman Collapse, Hank Paulson, left, went to Congress and in a closed door meeting said: “you must give us $700 Billion, or the financial system will melt down, no more money will come out of ATMs, people won’t be able to pay their bills, and we will face an armed revolt in a week.” He got the money. The package was known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). He later admitted he and his staff had had no idea how much money they were going to need. They just thought up a number that sounded really big. To imprint the gravity of the situation on Congress, and to make sure they were not going to be short. The popular resentment in the US and the West was immense. Filthy rich banker scum, who had been enriching themselves to the max during the ‘boom’, were receiving hundreds of billions for their bets going south, while they were evicting people with their houses under water by the millions…. How do we know nothing was solved? It’s really very simple: we’ve had (close to) 0% interest rates for 12 years between 2008 and 2021. Under Capitalism there is no ‘economic growth’ with 0% interest rates. There is only massive monetary stimulus avoiding an immediate rout. When there is economic growth, interest rates sit at 6, 8, 10%. THE RETURN OF THE CREDIT CRUNCH The return of the Crunch was caused by the Fed when they started tapering in 2017, and raising rates ever so slightly to 2%. It immediately led to a deflationary shock, which was the reason they restarted QE in September 2019. Fast forward to 2019 In September 2019, the Banks ‘suddenly’ (rest assured that the Fed and the Government knew quite well it was coming) stopped lending to each other. They were all bankrupt, and didn’t trust each others’ busted collateral anymore. The Fed started providing them with day-to-day loans, to avoid them all going into receivership. They also started buying up Treasuries, both to keep real interest rates low, and because nobody else wanted Treasuries at 0% rates. Because they knew that this was not going to go down well, they started a big circus simultaneously: the ‘Impeachment’. While they were printing trillions, robbing the People and enriching the wealthy, they gave us poor old Donald and how unfairly he was being treated to fret about. Then, on the first working day of 2020, the Fed had to report on what they had been up to on the repo market. By that stage, they had already supplied $6 Trillion worth of day-to-day loans to the Banks and other institutions. And such a thing might have led to questions. So they executed Soleimani. Making sure that everybody was in shock, and busy fearing a war with Iran. Loans on the repo market were ‘only’ $75 billion per day when they started, but things kept deteriorating, and by March 2020, they were already doling out a Trillion per DAY! Please read that again: The Fed had to lend them $1 TRILLION per DAY, to keep them liquid and solvent. Something structural had to be done. And so they decided they were going to allow the ‘financial institutions’ to clean up their balance sheets, by buying their busted junk at nominal value in a Fed asset purchasing program. $4 Trillion worth. That’s six times Hank Paulson’s $700 billion TARP program. The program that led to Occupy. And it was clear that it was going to infuriate the People. So they decided to pre-empt social unrest and resistance, by locking everybody up, while scaring them to death with a spooky ‘invisible enemy’. The Lockdown destroyed the First Amendment (Freedom of Assembly), and Americans were forbidden to come together en masse for a year, and still are in California and some other States. Europe still forbids most gatherings. For good measure, they revamped the ‘racism’ distraction that had worked so well to do away with Occupy. Hence the BLM riots And it worked. There has been zero resistance or public out cry against the bailouts. Most people think they were ‘necessary’ to ‘manage the economic effects of the Lockdown’. Their success has been total. Even now, only a handful of people realize what’s happening. How do we know that the Lockdown was aimed against social unrest? Harry Vox predicted it splendidly in 2014 (!), after analyzing the Rockefeller Lockstep scenario. My apologies to my readers, I don’t like repeating stuff too much, but this is vital. Harry Vox read Lockstep, and next witnessed: “If there is ever going to be social unrest in the United States, there will be an Ebola Outbreak.” That’s what he concluded and said. The Lockstep scenario never had anything to do with any ‘virus’ or any ‘pandemic’, both of which never existed, other than in the Media fed popular imagination. It has always been about locking people up and acquiring a tool for an insane Tyranny against any popular uprising.
This truly is the NWO Endgame. For always the People have been blind to the Omnipotence of the Bank. It’s uncanny, how all this can happen without people even realizing it. But it’s the Bank that is behind the coming World Government.
The New Gold Standard will create the Greatest Depression, and to forestall resistance, we will have Plandemics and Medical Tyranny. And much more.
Because things will be crazy. They’ll keep us very busy. Politicians and the Media will be talking about a million things, but not about the immediate need for interest-free credit to alleviate the terrible suffering the deleveraging is going to bring.
Ultimately, the demise of the West, and ‘the need’ to ‘solve’ ‘global problems with global solutions’ will lead to World Government.
The difference with the coming electronic currencies and now is simple: no cash. So FULL control of everybody by the state. A great many people these days survive with cash paid, black, untaxed, unregistered transactions, and the Bank loathes this beyond measure. It allows for real independence. That’s coming to an end.
And when there is total dependence on the Payment System, then it’s Mark of the Beast time.
“16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
The ‘vaccine’ basically is a first trial run of the ‘mark’. Those not taking the vax now and in the years ahead will be the ones refusing the Mark when the time comes. Already you can see from Gates’ patents that they’re working on a crypto/electronic currency combined with vax and vax registrations.
And they know quite well we are the enemy, the ‘anti vaxxers’ and ‘vaccine hesitant’. Of course they hate and loath everybody, but we are dangerous for them.
In the coming years they’re first going to make their IMF World Reserve Currency work, and then, when the World Government comes, likely after the Greatest War, they will have a World Electronic Currency that everybody will pay with.
A few weeks ago, I was watching Elisabeth Elliot teach a group of people on some topic that I don’t remember. I think it was about being a godly woman. In the class, I noticed there were men and women. When her talk was done, she said her next teaching will be to men on how to be real men. It reminded me of her speaking to men and women in our chapel service at Westmont College many years ago.
This had me wondering about this, so I researched what she thought about women preaching in a church. Here’s what she said in an interview when asked about it:
JBMW: “What precautionary measures do you take in your itinerant ministry to protect yourself from violating the commands of 1 Timothy 2?”
EE: “When I’m invited to speak in a church service on Sunday morning, I decline. If I am invited to speak in a mixed Sunday school class, for example, or a Sunday evening service, I will do so with one very clear understanding – that meeting (must) be under a man who is a leader and who then turns over to me for this limited period of time the podium. There’s nothing in the Bible that says that’s okay. The Bible doesn’t talk about Sunday school classes and evening church services; it talks about men, in general, being the leaders of the church and the women are to be subject.
“I just want it to be known that I’m not, in any way, trying to usurp authority; I’m simply testifying. So it is clearly understood that I am under the authority of this man who has just introduced me, and under the authority of this church. And it is for this limited time I am speaking.”
I listened to another video of hers in a large church filled with men and women, and her talk was over an hour. No, she wasn’t just giving her testimony. She was “testifying” or teaching as she admits.
“What does Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth believe about women teaching when men are present?
“She believes that the words found in 1 Timothy 2:12 still apply to women today, and that women should not be the spiritual leaders of men, as pastors or even as the primary leaders of mixed-gender Sunday school classes.
“At the same time, Nancy does not believe that occasional teaching by women in mixed audiences is inappropriate, as long as two things are clear. First, that it is taking place under the headship of male spiritual authority. (The word translated have authority means ‘to exercise authority on one’s own account; to domineer over—one who acts on his own authority; to have dominion.’) And, second, as long as the woman involved is not put in a position of ongoing responsibility for the spiritual direction of men. (The word translated to teach in 1 Timothy 2:12 is in a tense that indicates ongoing instruction.)”
I don’t agree with either of these women’s positions since they seem to have conveniently left out these verses: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
Undoubtedly, women will ask about me, “You’re teaching men! What about that?” For one thing, I have never stood behind a pulpit in a church service and taught anyone. I am quiet in the church gatherings, even in the Sunday School where men are present. Yes, men learn from me biblical womanhood. They comment on my blog and social media sites, BUT they know that I am not teaching them due to the subject matter that I teach. I have never told a man how to live his life or God’s role for him. This is not my ministry. God is specific with my ministry, so I try very hard to stick with what He has commanded that I teach to women.
Did Elisabeth Elliot pave the way for female preachers? I believe she did. I actually love listening to her teach and I love what she teaches, but I also believe that her teaching in churches and classes where men were present and teaching specifically to men at times was wrong. If she can teach a Bible study class or in a chapel full of men and women, why can’t Beth Moore and Joyce Meyer do the same? And they have, and both are clearly false teachers.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 1 Timothy 2:11
The censorship of information is at an all time high, but do people really recognize the extent to which it has been and is being carried out? A recent articlepublished in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others.
YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”
Being an independent media outlet, Collective Evolution has experienced this censorship first hand. We’ve also been in touch with and witnessed many doctors and world renowned scientists be subjected to the same type of treatment from these social media organizations.
I did the same with Dr. Carl Heneghan, a professor of evidence based medicine from Oxford and an emergency GP who wrote an article regarding the efficacy of facemasks in stopping the spread of COVID.
His article was not removed, but a label was added to it by Facebook saying it was ‘fake information.’ There are many more examples.
Clarke’s article says, with regards to posts that have been removed and labelled, that,
“while a portion of that content is likely to be wilfully wrongheaded or vindictively misleading, the pandemic is littered with examples of scientific opinion that have been caught in the dragnet.”
This is true, take for example the ‘lab origins of COVID debate.’ Early on in the pandemic you were not even allowed to mention that COVID may have originated in a lab, and if you did, you were punished for doing so.
Independent media platforms were demonetized and subjected to changes in algorithms. Now, all of a sudden, the mainstream media is discussing it as a legitimate possibility.
It makes no sense.
This underscores the difficulty of defining scientific truth, prompting the bigger question of whether social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube should be tasked with this at all…”
I think it’s quite dangerous for scientific content to be labelled as misinformation, just because of the way people might perceive that,” says Sander van der Linden, professor of social psychology in society at Cambridge University, UK.
“Even though it might fit under a definition (of misinformation) in a very technical sense, I’m not sure if that’s the right way to describe it more generally because it could lead to greater politicisation of science, which is undesirable.” – Clarke
This type of “politicization of science” is exactly what’s happened during this pandemic.
Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency — a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. – Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. (source)
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden offered his thoughts on the censorship we’ve been seeing during this pandemic in November of last year stating the following,
In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic.
These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways… They’re trying to make you change your behaviour.
If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?
I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication.
That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.
What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.
It makes you wonder, is this “fact-checking” actually about fact checking? Or is something else going on here?
Below is a breakdown from Clarke’s article illustrating how fact checking works and what the problem is with following the science.
Since we have reported this many times over the last 5 years, we decided to let our readers hear it from someone else for a change as it’s truly quite vindicating to see more investigators coming to these conclusions.
How Fact Checking Works
The past decade has seen an arms race between users who peddle disinformation (intentionally designed to mislead) or unwittingly share misinformation (which users don’t realise is false) and the social media platforms that find themselves charged with policing it, whether they want to or not.1
When The BMJ questioned Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (which is owned by Google) they all highlighted their efforts to remove potentially harmful content and to direct users towards authoritative sources of information on covid-19 and vaccines, including the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Although their moderation policies differ slightly, the platforms generally remove or reduce the circulation of content that disputes information given by health authorities such as WHO and the CDC or spreads false health claims that are considered harmful, including incorrect information about the dangers of vaccines.
But the pandemic has seen a shifting patchwork of criteria employed by these companies to define the boundaries of misinformation.
This has led to some striking U turns: at the beginning of the pandemic, posts saying that masks helped to prevent the spread of covid-19 were labelled “false”; now it’s the opposite, reflecting the changing nature of the academic debate and official recommendations.
Twitter manages its fact checking internally. But Facebook and YouTube rely on partnerships with third party fact checkers, convened under the umbrella of the International Fact-Checking Network — a non-partisan body that certifies other fact checkers, run by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism school in St Petersburg, Florida.
Poynter’s top donors include the Charles Koch Institute (a public policy research organisation), the National Endowment for Democracy (a US government agency), and the Omidyar Network (a “philanthropic investment firm”), as well as Google and Facebook.
Poynter also owns the Tampa Bay Times newspaper and the high profile fact checker PolitiFact. The Poynter Institute declined The BMJ’s invitation to comment for this article.
For scientific and medical content the International Fact-Checking Network involves little known outfits such as SciCheck, Metafact, and Science Feedback.
Health Feedback, a subsidiary of Science Feedback, handpicks scientists to deliver its verdict.
Using this method, it labelled as “misleading” a Wall Street Journal opinion article2 predicting that the US would have herd immunity by April 2021, written by Marty Makary, professor of health policy and management at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.
This prompted the newspaper to issue a rebuttal headlined “Fact checking Facebook’s fact checkers,” arguing that the rating was “counter-opinion masquerading as fact checking.”3
Makary hadn’t presented his argument as a factual claim, the article said, but had made a projection based on his analysis of the evidence.
A spokesperson for Science Feedback tells The BMJ that, to verify claims, it selects scientists on the basis of “their expertise in the field of the claim/article.”
They explain, “Science Feedback editors usually start by searching the relevant academic literature and identifying scientists who have authored articles on related topics or have the necessary expertise to assess the content.”
The organisation then either asks the selected scientists to weigh in directly or collects claims that they’ve made in the media or on social media to reach a verdict.
In the case of Makary’s article it identified 20 relevant scientists and received feedback from three.
“Follow The Science”
The contentious nature of these decisions is partly down to how social media platforms define the slippery concepts of misinformation versus disinformation.
This decision relies on the idea of a scientific consensus. But some scientists say that this smothers heterogeneous opinions, problematically reinforcing a misconception that science is a monolith.
This is encapsulated by what’s become a pandemic slogan:
“Follow the science.” David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, calls this “absolutely awful,” saying that behind closed doors scientists spend the whole time arguing and deeply disagreeing on some fairly fundamental things.
“Science is not out in front telling you what to do; it shouldn’t be. I view it much more as walking along beside you muttering to itself, making comments about what it’s seeing and making some tentative suggestions about what might happen if you take a particular path, but it’s not in charge.”
The term “misinformation” could itself contribute to a flattening of the scientific debate. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, has been criticised for his views on lockdown, which tack closely to his native Sweden’s more relaxed strategy.4
He says that scientists who voice unorthodox opinions during the pandemic are worried about facing “various forms of slander or censoring … they say certain things but not other things, because they feel that will be censored by Twitter or YouTube or Facebook.”
This worry is compounded by the fear that it may affect grant funding and the ability to publish scientific papers, he tells The BMJ.
The binary idea that scientific assertions are either correct or incorrect has fed into the divisiveness that has characterised the pandemic. Samantha Vanderslott, a health sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, told Nature, “Calling out fake stories can raise your profile.”
In the same article Giovanni Zagni, director of the Italian fact checking website Facta, noted that “you can build a career” on the basis of becoming “a well respected voice that fights against bad information.”5
But this has fed a perverse incentive for scientists to label each other’s positions misinformation or disinformation.6 Van der Linden likens this to how the term “fake news” was weaponised by Donald Trump to silence his critics.
He says, “I think you see a bit of the same with the term ‘misinformation,’ when there’s science that you don’t agree with and you label it as misinformation.”
Health Feedback’s website says that it won’t select scientists to verify claims if they’ve undermined their credibility by “propagating misinformation, whether intentionally or not.”
In practice, this could create a Kafkaesque situation where scientists are precluded from offering their opinion as part of the fact checking process if they expressed an opinion that Facebook labelled misinformation.
Strengthening the echo chamber effect is the fact that Health Feedback sometimes verifies claims by looking at what scientists have said on Twitter or in the media.
Van der Linden says that it’s important for people to understand that in the scientific domain “there’s uncertainty, there’s debate, and it’s about the accumulation of insights over time and revising our opinions as we go along.”
Healthy debate helps to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jevin West, associate professor in the Information School at the University of Washington in Seattle, says that social media platforms should therefore be “extra careful when it comes to debates involving science.”
“The institution of science has developed these norms and behaviour to be self-corrective. So, for [social media platforms] to step into that conversation, I think it’s problematic.”
Experts who spoke to The BMJ emphasised the near impossibility of distinguishing between a minority scientific opinion and an opinion that’s objectively incorrect (misinformation).
Spiegelhalter says that this would constitute a difficult “legalistic judgment about what a reasonable scientific opinion would be … I’ve got my own criteria that I use to decide whether I think something is misleading, but I find it very difficult to codify.”
Other scientists worry that, if this approach to scientific misinformation outlives the pandemic, the scientific debate could become worryingly subject to commercial imperatives.
Vinay Prasad, associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, argued on the MedPage Today website:
“The risk is that the myriad players in biomedicine, from large to small biopharmaceutical and [medical] device firms, will take their concerns to social media and journal companies. On a topic like cancer drugs, a tiny handful of folks critical of a new drug approval may be outnumbered 10:1 by key opinion leaders who work with the company.”7
Thus the majority who speak loudest, most visibly, and with the largest number online, may be judged “correct” by the public—and, as the saying goes, history is written by the victors.
Social media companies are still experimenting with the new raft of measures introduced since last year and may adapt their approach.
Van der Linden says that the talks he’s had with Facebook have focused on how the platform could help foster an appreciation of how science works, “to actually direct people to content that educates them about the scientific process, rather than labelling something as true or false.”
This debate is playing out against a wider ideological struggle, where the ideal of “truth” is increasingly placed above “healthy debate.”
“To remove things in general, I think is a bad idea. Because even if something is wrong, if you remove it there’s no opportunity to discuss it.” For instance, although he favours vaccination in general, people with fears or doubts about the vaccines used should not be silenced in online spaces, he says.
“If we don’t have an open debate within science, then that will have enormous consequences for science and society.”
There are concerns that this approach could ultimately undermine trust in public health. In the US, says West, trust in the government and media is falling.
He explains, “Science is still one of the more trusted institutions, but if you start tagging and shutting down conversation within science, to me that’s even worse than the actual posting of these individual articles.”
19-year-old Northwestern University freshman Simone Scott passed away from pneumonia complications Friday following a heart transplant she received as a result of myocarditis-induced heart failure last month.
Scott’s parents, left without an official explanation from doctors how this happened, believe the Moderna vaccine played a role in their daughter’s death, according to investigative reporter Alex Berenson.
“My fear is that we’ll never know what happened to Simone,” her father, Kevin Scott, reportedly said Sunday night. “[The vaccine] is a coincidence that is too big to ignore.”https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1404410621941239808&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhumansarefree.com%2F2021%2F06%2Fcollege-student-dies-after-second-moderna-shot.html&theme=light&widgetsVersion=e1ffbdb%3A1614796141937&width=550px
“I do suspect it was the vaccine,” said Scott’s mother, Valerie Kraimer. “If it wasn’t direct, it played a role.”
Scott “took it upon herself to get vaccinated” as soon as the shots became available in April, her father said, and suffered adverse side effects soon after taking the first dose of Moderna’s vaccine.
After taking the second dose a month later, Scott went into heart failure.
“They said her heart was not functioning and they needed to insert a balloon pump to get it working,” Kraimer said. “They did at that point suspect that it was myocarditis. They were thinking it was a virus that had attacked her heart.”
A week later, doctors told Scott’s parents she needed a heart transplant, which was initially successful, but soon complications from the transplant led to a fatal lung infection.
Scott’s parents wish medical experts would have raised more awareness about the possible vaccine side effects, especially in young people.
“I lost my only daughter,” Kraimer said. “I never thought I’d have to give up my daughter for the greater good of society.”