The FDA launched a war against ivermectin, but more importantly, it launched a war against the doctor-patient relationship. I spoke to @jimmy_dore about our big win. https://t.co/pCK3woBrzg
The FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers to stop taking a medicine. That's what the Federal Circuit Judge Don Willett, appointed under Trump, said.
The agency has chosen to resolve this lawsuit rather than to continue to litigate over statements that are between 2 and 4 years old.
The FDA has not admitted any violation of law or any wrongdoing-- they're just going to settle though. And they disagree with the plaintiff's allegation that the agency exceeded its authority in issuing the statements challenged in the lawsuit and stands by its authority to communicate with the public . . . but you're just going to cave, anyway.
Propaganda does not have to be false, but it does tend to be a little simplistic.
He was going to be the subject of an expedited review at the request of his department colleagues and he attached their letter to him.
None of them had talked to him directly. This is about 25 of his Department colleagues. He hadn't heard from any of them. They sent this letter to the Dean accusing him not only of telling his students not to wear masks in violation of university policy, and they said that a New York State law and there was no such law . . .
and I am not intimidated by students who were wearing masks in class, but we were online so nobody was wearing a mask. But they then jumped into the wild blue yonder by accusing him of explicit hate speech, attacks on students and others in their [school] community; advocating for an unsafe learning environment; assailing his students with non-evidence-based theories, which means conspiracy theories; and microaggressions and aggressions. So, this was like the censorship Trifecta.
I was a Covid heretic because I questioned masking.
I had sinned against Woke etiquette, right, and hate speech, and I can explain what they meant by that. And I was guilty of conspiracy theory. I mean this was really an amazing document.
The Dean went ahead and ordered the review, saying that he had no choice because the university's lawyers had told him he must, which is, I think, probably significant. Let's put that aside.
Meanwhile, I wrote back to my colleagues. I rebutted their letter point by point. I asked for a retraction and an apology. They ignored me. I sent a follow-up letter. I asked the same thing. I said by November 20, please retract this and apologize; there's not a word of truth to it. They ignored me, so I sued them for libel. And the libel suit is ongoing. And one of the reasons I wanted to talk to you is I wanted to discuss the status of that suit.
What is the status?
Well, they got themselves a lawyer, and they filed a motion to dismiss. Ordinarily, judges rule on motions to dismiss right away, but the judge in this case waited a whole year. And when he finally ruled, he ruled that we had not proved actual malice, which kind of blew my lawyer's mind because it was abundantly obvious that there was malice here. So we had to appeal. We appealed. We appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court. They got back to us a few months later. They agreed that there was actual malice, but, and this is what was really surprising, but really dangerous. They ruled that what my colleagues wrote about was pure opinion and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment.
So what you're saying isn't protected by the 1st Amendment, but when they falsely accuse you of doing something, that's protected by the 1st Amendment even though the things that you were saying have the science on your side and you were correct.
All I was doing was recommending that people read the science What's dangerous about this suit is that the decision has set a precedent, whereby anyone in the United States who is accused of libel, and point to this decision and say, "This is just my opinion." So you can say, I know for a fact that Jimmy Dore has sex with goats and he has child pornography on his computer. This is a fact. I know this," and then you sue me for libel, as you have every right to do, and I'll point to this case and I'll say, "Well, this is my opinion." And the court will say, well, yeah, there's a precedent for this, and so it is. So it means that the have-not, those who are weaker in the system, are now at a real serious disadvantage because if this decision stands it will be possible to dismiss any libelous suit on those spurious grounds. Now, we have appealed again. We have appealed to the Court of Appeals in Albany, which is the highest court in New York State, and we don't know yet if they're going to take it. If they don't take it, it's over. I will have lost. That decision will stand as a precedent, and my colleagues will have got away scot-free, although what they wrote about me meets the classic definition of defamation. They made claims that they claim were factual claims, but now they'll be able to say that this is just our opinion, our point of view.
Wow. That's quite a story. I've heard other stories like this from Dr. Jay Bhattachara and Dr. Khierarty. They were shocked to see their own colleagues turn their back on the value of protecting ideas through vigorous debate and freedom of speech, and they all turned their back on it and tried to cancel you, they canceled them. And they tried to get some people fired. Well, you're not allowed to teach that course anymore.
Well, that's right. I'm not allowed to teach the course on propaganda. I have friends and acquaintances throughout the hemisphere who've been fired for various, you know, for Covidian sins, sins against so-called social justice. This is a very, very . . . we're at a frightening place right now it seems to me. Free speech and academic freedom have never been more at risk. And all those Democratic essentials that concern free speech and open debate are now treated as crimes. I'm sure you've noticed that the media coverage of Robert F. Kennedy's campaign. My mind is blown by the shrillness and unanimity of the media, of our free press, the liberal media, and every single outlet out there, every single newspaper, every single magazine, every TV network, they're all saying the same things, which is a clear indication of propaganda. And it's all hysterically negative about Bobby Kennedy's inclination to question or complicate official narratives, whether it's on vaccination generally or the Covid vaccine or Ukraine, or school shootings, you name it because he departs from the permitted narrative, he is a thought criminal. He is a domestic terrorist. He certainly should not be allowed to debate with Joe Biden. You know, Peter Hotez, the fraud who is telling us all to get vaxx'd and boosted for 3 years, the guy, everything he's said has turned out to be dead wrong, he tweets a Vice article attacking Bobby and Joe Rogan. They invited him on to debate, and, of course, he weasels out, but the media is treating him as courageous, saying he should not debate him. He's a victim of harassment, no doubt, by white supremacists.
. . . and Russia.
But I can't believe, I'm in my early 70s, I've seen a lot of things. I never thought I would see the Western press across the board treat debate in a political campaign as a no-no. This is really reminiscent of the press under Dr. Goebbels. Now, having said that I can be accused of trivializing the Holocaust, I guess.
They did that to Bobby Kennedy. He said that about Anne Frank.
Right, right. He said that if Hitler had had the kind of sophisticated surveillance capabilities that they have now, she and her family would not have been able to hide out in the secret annex, right? He was immediately accused of trivializing the Holocaust, even of Holocaust denial. And he apologized, which I thought he shouldn't. I did a Substack post about it. It's not for me to say what he should do but the fact is that he did nothing wrong, said nothing wrong. God knows, he said nothing hateful or even incorrect. But we've come to the point where you really have to watch what you say and that is reminiscent of life under totalitarianism.
— Erin Elizabeth Health Nut News 🙌 (@unhealthytruth) May 18, 2023
KRYSTAL, 1:47: I don't want to get into a debate with you over this because you've spent your life . . .
DORE, 1:53: Because he would embarrass you because you don't know anything that you're talking about. And that's why you don't want to get into a debate. And you are sure you don't want to get into a debate because if you got into a debate, everybody would even more than we know now [reveal] that you know nothing. People would know that you know nothing about what you're talking about. You haven't read any of the studies, and he would clean your clock, which is why you're doing such a dishonest and amateurish . . . well, it's not, it's a hack. This isn't an amateurish interview job. This is a hack job, and that's what she's doing.
METZGER, 2:22: The people she thinks are maybe qualified they're never going to do it. They're never going to talk to him. So it's just left to someone like her to say, like, "Well, I trust this group for whatever reason . . . ."
DORE, 2:36: And she just talks over him. She just talks over him.
KRYSTAL, 2:40: Pulling out this study, I will tell you, let me just tell you . . . I've listened to
DORE, 2:47: She won't let him talk. She's been talking non-stop now for about 3 minutes straight, and
METZGER, 2:53: Listen to ehat she says, the sentence she says . . .
KRYSTAL, 2:54: Hours of interview with you . . .
METZGER, 2:57: No you didn't! Ha ha ha . . . no she hasn't.
DORE, 3:00: Did she say she listened to hours of interviews? But you know what she didn't do? She didn't read his book, the New York Tunes bestseller, Amazon bestseller for weeks if not months, bestseller. Ah, she didn't read that book because if she did, she wouldn't be saying this stupid shit.
Jimmy Dore says that Putin isn't the bad guy and that he's acting rationally, that the invasion was provoked by NATO and the West, Russia wants peace but Ukraine and NATO don't, and that Ukraine has killed 15,000 people in the Donbas because they identified more with Russia. pic.twitter.com/6RqPLpNQOX
Operation Underworld. The US government teamed up with Office of Naval Intelligence, ONI, and Office of Strategic Services, OSS, the precursor to the CIA.
Jimmy asks "What was the service that organized crime that the U.S. government couldn't do for themselves?"
The mob and the unions wanted intelligence from the dock workers. The dock workers union was controlled by the mob. This to me is the most devastating crime against the American worker. Unions collect dues, enforce values, will tell you how to and who to vote for. Teachers' unions are some of the worst. They'll spy on individual members if another member complains about you. Unions are places where you find the worst characters rise to the top, where women become absolute thugs and are prepared to crack heads at a moment's notice. They may not do it physically or do it themselves but they'll have connections you couldn't imagine. Women will act like gentle, vulnerable creatures until they make you a target.
Jimmy: So their getting intel on the unions is their way of pushing back on the commies, right?
Whitney: This was back in WWII, so this was about the German saboteurs, this was about the Nazis. But then you see over time the same sorts of behavior in all sorts of things including working with organized crime and drug cartels. Decades later, like in the 80s, the collusion and collaboration is all justified in the name of anti-communism.
JFK was sexually blackmailed between being president-elect, November 1960, and his inauguration. Sexual blackmail network was British intelligence and British organized crime who'd recently taken down the government in the UK in the Profumo Affair, 1963. The 1989 movie, Scandal, starring John Hurt and Joanne Whalley, portrayed this event. One of the same women who was used in that network was used against JFK. She was taken over to New York and slept with Kennedy. Then somehow the CIA allegedly helped her escape back to the UK, and the FBI arrested her and her apparent handler. Had her client list--sound familiar--bur instead of keeping her client list they destroyed it. The operation didn't work well against Kennedy because of a sloppy cover-up, where Mariella Novotny. She was allowed to leave the country with the apparent help of U.S. intelligence. Cozy relationship between U.S. and British intelligence. There still is: look ar the west's woke culture and how the MI6 is running geopolitics from the Potomac. Sexual blackmail pops up over and over again in big events and scandals in U.S. history. Epstein was no anomaly, that his behavior. It's the type of operation perfected by the mob. This organized crime/intelligence team up.
J. Edgar Hoover, who was America's top law enforcer for decades and decades, he was sexually blackmailed by the mob in the 1930s. And he never went after organized crime because of that. That's a matter of record. Same operation blackmailed Roy Cohn, one of Donald Trump's mentors. Hoover and Cohn along with mob businessman, Lewis Rosenstiel, were running sexual blackmail operations themselves. Hoover and Cohn joined these operations only after they themselves had been entrapped. And this involved minors. J. Edgar Hoover was initially blackmailed by a photo taken of him giving oral sex to his long-time Deputy, Clyde Tolson. And that was taken by affiliates of Meyer Lansky of the Jewish mob, and later those fell into the hands of James Jesus Angleton, the first counter-intelligence chief of the CIA. So that's another example of how the mob and the CIA like to share intelligence. And how the CIA can justify anything, right, in the name of "gathering intelligence." In the UK, they passed a law recently where intelligence agents or assets can even commit murder or any sort of crime as long as they justify it as "intelligence-gathering activities." This gets brushed under the rug because there's no accountability for U.S. intelligence at all. In addition to that, you have the Page Boy Scandal in 1982 that was brushed under the rug, where congressmen were caught engaging in sex with Congressional pages who were under age. And then you have the Franklin Scandal. [The book I am familiar with is the Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska, John W. De Camp, 2011.] The expert on that is Nick Bryant if you want to learn more. Bryant's book is titled, The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse and Betrayal, Nick Bryant, 2009. It was about was a lobbyist in Washington DC who that was running it, named Craig Spence, nominally a lobbyist, who claimed to have CIA connections and whose partner was a guy named Larry King. A base in Nebraska would get kids from Nebraska, fly them out to DC and they would basically be raped and assaulted by powerful people. It's a crazy story. I'm not the expert on that, but I do include it in the book, of course. . . .
18:00 We covered the Jerry Sandusky, the guy from Penn State who was found to be abusing students. Jimmy learned that there are networks of these pedophiles, and they have conventions almost, right? And he would take these boys there to be trafficked there, right?
18:30, Whitney. Wasn't Louis Freeh, the former FBI Director, involved in some aspect of covering up Sandusky's activities, because he was also later hired by associates of Jeffrey Epstein to intimidate his victims. He was Clinton's FBI Director. [and of course, Clinton's on the Jeffrey Epstein flight logs 27 times.] Epstein helped Clinton set up the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative. after more than a decade of Epstein being involved in controversial fundraisers in Clinton Presidential history.
blackmailed and that was how they were recruited to start blackmailing opponents. Trump didn't release the JFK files on his way out the door because they didn't want him to do it. So if the CIA allows Tucker Carlson to air an admission by a "closely-connected" source to confirm that Oswald was CIA intel, then it means that the remaining JFK files indict the CIA even further with particular information about how the CIA has sexually blackmailed other noted politicians in sexual blackmail operations for decades. And probably shows how the CIA has become the mob.
