The Vatican Has Lost Its Moral Authority

JUST IN: The Vatican has invited Chelsea Clinton, Dr. Fauci, New Age figure Deepak Chopra, and the CEOs of Moderna and Pfizer to speak at a May conference focusing on "health" and the "soul"

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 16, 2021

500,000 Americans deaths? It's not the C-19 that has done this. It's Fauci's lockdown and manipulation of numbers.

Thanks to Robert Wenzel for the video. 

The first I saw of this was a 90-second segment on Twitter seen below.  Jordan really isn't prepared to grill Fauci down with any facts; instead, he puts the burden of fact provision on Fauci who has lied, stolen, murdered facts and specifics with adjectives like "low" and "high" levels ; that, or it's a case that he knows that the emergency orders might be withdrawn shortly, so he is trying to maneuver politically as the guy who lit a fire under Fauci.  "Now is not the time to pull back on masking and physical distancing avoiding congregate settings."  Congregate settings?  Does a family dinner at home constitute a congregate setting?  When is the time?  When do Americans get their freedom back?  This was an atrocious question to the highest-paid government official.  

When we get the level of infection in this country low enough that it is not a really high . . . 

Note how non-specific he is.  This achieves two things.  One, Fauci can repeat "low levels" as though it means anything while it points to nothing.  It creates a buffer of unaccountability while appearing to answer  Jordan's concerns and question and creates a meaningless exchange, proving that Fauci is not accountable to anyone and actually has contempt for the American people.  This is what his ambiguity serves. Two, the effect of his ambiguity riles Jordan whose time is limited, and then Fauci uses Jordan's frustration to accuse him of ranting.  Captured in this style, Jordan flails in his questioning and can't find alternate lines of questioning or phrases to pin Fauci down.  

Jordan interrupts, 

What is low enough?  Give me a number!  We had 15 days to slow the spread that turned into one year of lost liberty, what metrics, what measures has to happen before Americans get their freedoms back? 

Fauci replies, 

My message, uh, Congressman Jordan, is to get people vaccinated as quickly as we possibly can to get the level of infection in this country low so that it is no longer a threat.  That is when.  And I believe when that happens, you'll see . . . 

Jordan, 

What determines "when"? 

Fauci, I'm sorry.

What, Fauci suddenly doesn't know what when means yet he's used it in his replies?  This is such a low-level conversation that almost makes President Biden appear like a debate champion.  

Jordan, 

Are we just going to continue this forever . . . 

Fauci, 

No . . . 

Jordan, 

When do we get to the point, what measure, what standard, what objective outcome do we have to reach before Americans get their liberties and freedoms back?

Fauci, 

You know, you're indicating liberty and freedom.  I look at it as a public health measure to prevent people from dying and going to the hospital . . .

What about the 500,000 Americans he cites a little later?  Clearly, Fauci, your mitigation measures have not worked.  But since you're a liar, you'll never concede the truth.  One nurse I know shared with me that he was assigned to work a COVID floor with 23-bed.  He explained that they had 3 patients, all of whom were sent home.  Why is that Fauci never talks about the overwhelmingly high percentage of folks who recover from COVID?  Instead, Fauci's benchmark is to get everybody vaccinated, though he himself takes about 9,000IU of vitamin D.  

Jordan, 

You don't think Americans' liberties have been threatened the last year?  They've been assaulted. 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “Are we gonna be here two years from now wearing masks …?”

Dr. Fauci: “You’re ranting again.”

Rep. Jordan: “Here’s how it works, Dr. Fauci. I get to ask you the questions.” pic.twitter.com/7ufdQ65zG8

— The Recount (@therecount) April 15, 2021

Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects

My god, this is simply incredible. https://t.co/oI0fvFWyIu pic.twitter.com/KU1Ci52Bwv

— Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker) April 10, 2021

 Bob Wenzel highlights the key point from the conclusion:

From the conclusion:

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

"You don’t come near my kids with an experimental drug. You don’t come near me with an experimental drug."

You don’t blackmail me and tell me that if I don’t get this experimental drug injected into my children, injected into me, that then I can’t go back and see my family in Ireland.  That’s my baseline, and that’s my motive.

Brave Irish journalist
Aisling O'Loughlin speaks the truth that needs to be told pic.twitter.com/zO6CcBW3uP

— Zol Neveri (@ZNeveri) April 8, 2021

VAX PASSPORTS PROLONG LOCKDOWNS

Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician, and a professor at Harvard Medical School. and Jay Bhattacharya, a physician, economist, and a professor at Stanford Medical School, write in The Wall Street Journal:

As tens of millions are inoculated against Covid-19, officials in places as diverse as New York state, Israel, and China have introduced “vaccine passports,” and there’s talk of making them universal. The idea is simple: Once you’ve received your shots, you get a document or phone app, which you flash to gain entry to previously locked-down venues—restaurants, theaters, sports arenas, offices, schools.

It sounds like a way of easing coercive lockdown restrictions, but it’s the opposite. To see why, consider dining. Restaurants in most parts of the U.S. have already reopened, at limited capacity in some places. A vaccine passport would prohibit entry by potential customers who haven’t received their shots. It would restrict the freedom even of those who have: If you’re vaccinated but your spouse isn’t, forget about dining out as a couple.

Planes and trains, which have continued to operate throughout the pandemic, would suddenly be off-limits to the unvaccinated. The only places where restrictions would be relatively eased would be those still fully locked down, such as many live-event venues and schools. Yet even there, the passport idea depends on keeping the underlying restrictions in place—giving officials an incentive to do so for much longer as leverage to overcome vaccine resistance.

The vaccine passport should therefore be understood not as an easing of restrictions but as a coercive scheme to encourage vaccination. Such measures can be legitimate: Many schools require immunization against common childhood illnesses, and visitors to some African countries must be vaccinated against yellow fever. But Covid vaccine passports would harm, not benefit, public health.

The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. Covid vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who’ve been infected are already immune. The young are at low risk, and children—for whom no vaccine has been approved anyway—are at far less risk of death than from the flu.

Read the rest here.

Thanks to Robert Wenzel @ Target Liberty.