JOHN BEAUDOIN: they made an example out of [Meryl Nass] in Maine. They suspended her license. Why? Because the governor's sister, Dora Anne Mills heard Meryl Nass mentioned the word Ivermectin on the radio

Listen up. Only 3 mins

You won't have to read a chapter of my book if you listen to this.

Thanks Julie and Lisa for the platform. https://t.co/OIxwlusLVM

— John Beaudoin, Sr. aka, Coquin de Chien (@JohnBeaudoinSr) June 13, 2024

The CARES Act, again a central, centrally planned device.  It's a behavioral modification device, and it modifies the behavior of the hospital administrators.  The CARES Act funds through cms.gov.  If you type into duckduckgo search cms.gov and NCTAP program, that's the COVID payout program, you'll find a 20% adder for the use of Remdesivir, Barisythinib, and it's not expressly stated.  But I talked to an accountant within the system, and she said "Oh, ventilators too."  I'm like well it doesn't say that.  She said, "No, no, that's in the program too."  So it's not just getting $400 a dose for Remdesivir.  If you have a million dollar ICU stay over a month, then the entire hospital bill gets jacked 20%. That's an extra $200,000 to run Remdesivir through your veins just based on a positive test walking in the door. 

So they got 60% compliance through solicitation, right?  So they solicited administrator; that's an inchoate crime term. solicitation right like conspiracy the solicitation gathers in estimating let's say 60%.  You get 60% compliance.  Well, that's not enough.  You know, there's 40% that are going to speak out and they're going to crush the whole program.  Well, they get the next 30% through coercion.  You get the Federation of State Medical Boards, FSMB, American Board of Internal Medicine, ABIM, American Board of Family Medicine, ABFM, American Board of Pediatrics, ABP, and all the other boards to coerce.  And if you go on the web right now you can look up joint statements ABIM, ABFM, and ABP.  And what will come up is a joint statement from 2021 from the CEOs of those three certification boards.  These are NGOs.  These are not even the government.  They are not State Licensing boards but you can't operate in a hospital without having board certification from ABIM, the American Board of Internal Medicine.  So the joint statement says any doctor spreading vaccine misinformation will have his license suspended or revoked.

01:57.  Misinformation?

Yeah, and they don't define it.

02:00. Or just stuff that they don't like?

Stuff that they don't like.  Exactly.  That's exactly right yeah.  So they basically get a bunch to comply, another 30%.  So now they're up to like 90% compliance well over the 10% stragglers.  Then they go out and make examples of a couple of people who are pretty well known, like Meryl Nass, who wrote some books on anthrax.  And she's very well known, and they made an example out of her in Maine.  They suspended her license.  Why?  Because the governor's sister, Dora Anne Mills, heard Meryl Nass mention the word Ivermectin on the radio.  So they made an example out of her publicly.  They made an example out of Dr. John Littell [who was kicked out of a meeting where hld of the benefits of Ivermectin, treating patients with Hydroxy, and excess miscarriages] in Florida very publicly, and a number of other doctors.  So that gathers in another 5%.  So 60, 35 now you're up to 95%, 

02:45.  And can I say there was a tweet by another doctor who was being just decimated by the Texas Board of Medicine.  Her name is Mary Talley Bowden, and she tweeted,

If I had vaccinated the 6,000 patients I treated for COVID, I would have made $1,500,000.

Anthrax: A Practical Guide for Citizens : What You Should Know, What You Can Do, & How It Came to This https://t.co/qwpUQG395L via @amazon

— St. Michael, the Archangel (@aveng_angel) June 14, 2024

CALLEY MEANS: tens of thousands of scientists, as the cigarette industry declined in the 1980s, went to food companies

From the womb to the grave. pic.twitter.com/Uf2O4k2UMt

— Jessica Rojas 🇺🇸💪 (@catsscareme2021) June 13, 2024

The speaker is Calley Means, brother of Casey Means. 

ALEX JONES: But then you've got this huge building right beside Towers 1 and 2 that did catch on fire but nothing collapsed. The difference between that building and the new Building 7 is that Larry Silverstein doesn't own that building. Larry Silverstein doesn't own the Millennium Hilton

[RG911Team] With Infowars about to be shut down, the massive 20+ year archive of videos from @RealAlexJones could be lost.

We are gathering key 9/11 videos from that archive and posting them here so they can live on.

Here is the first one. What do you think of his analysis? pic.twitter.com/oHe5gpIvAG

— Richard Gage, AIA, Architect (@RichardGage_911) June 13, 2024

KATHERINE WATT: Naomi Klein, who [. . . supported] those pro-sovereignty/anti-globalist street-level fighters, collapsed under the Covid propaganda and lined up to call for starvation of vaxx refusers.

I just wanted to drop this here.

Latypova asked: “Can this be viewed as invasion, i.e. takeover of legislature of sovereign states by the DOD-Pharma cartel?  Are the buyers effectively signing away their rights to make laws in their own countries?”

I replied:

Yes. But also, there are many, many precedents for that signing away of sovereignty over the last few decades, especially through the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (1947) as updated and institutionalized in the World Trade Organization (1995) to override laws protecting domestic industrial production rights, labor and environmental standards and intellectual property rights held by formerly-sovereign nations and people.

It can and has been viewed as invasion, mostly by people like the 1999 Battle for Seattle, anti-WEF, anti-WTO organizers and demonstrators and those who still try to demonstrate at Davos every year. 

But the Soros team captured and marginalized most of those groups, especially by infiltrating and weakening the Occupy Wall Street movement just at the point OWS on the left was starting to make common cause with the Tea Party on the right through their shared critique of the corporate-state. 

And then most of the public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein, who were supporting those pro-sovereignty/anti-globalist street-level fighters, collapsed under the Covid propaganda and lined up to call for starvation of vaxx refusers. (Klein wrote a 2007 book about how the Shock Doctrine works in every country around the world, and then couldn’t see it when it happened to her in her own country in real time: she condemned the Canadian truckers for fighting for humans to be free from corporate-government oppression.)

Amazing how often we find the funding & research influence of the Department of Defense in almost every conventional medical treatment today

Thank you to Sasha Latypova for this thread.

Given the ongoing challenges that breast cancer poses in our society, what are the critical areas of research that the Department of Defense will be targeting with the $120 million in funding BCRP received in fiscal year 2014?  Answer: The Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, BCRP, has played a major role in the significant progress that has been made in the breast cancer field since 1992.  --Breast Cancer Research ProgramBreast Cancer Research Program.  

so mammograms cause cancer https://t.co/pELb6ABkbB

— Dr. Syed Haider (@DrSyedHaider) June 12, 2024

American women ended up with a higher risk of having breast cancer over their lifetime than before screening.
The same increase was observed in all countries that have used mammography screening.

— Daniel Corcos (@daniel_corcos) June 12, 2024

There were two ways to explain the increase: 1) Mammography detected cancers that would never have manifested (overdiagnosis). 

2) Mammography itself created cancers because of X-rays.

The second explanation seemed excluded. Why? Because a commission of experts supervised by the U.S. military had evaluated that the risk associated with the radiation dose used for a mammogram was harmless.  

There is no data to support this claim; on the contrary.

The claim was supported by absurd arguments, such as the fact that the dose received during a one-second mammogram was the same as that received from the natural surroundings over 7 weeks, in an unprecedented propaganda campaign.                  

Breast Cancer Mammogram: How Does a Mammogram Work?

In reality, the cancer risks associated with the medical use of X-rays had been identified as early as the late 1960s by John Gofman, who was in charge of studying the biological effects of radiation at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 

His assessment was not acceptable to the army (which oversaw the implementation of civilian nuclear power, as it was a project on DURC), so they cut his funding and pushed him out. Instead, the AEC selected compliant experts who largely minimized the risk of these radiations.

Later, in 1995, after gathering substantial evidence, Gofman published a book, Preventing Breast Cancer, 1996, on the risk of radiation and breast cancer, which achieved some success but was met with complete silence from medical and scientific journals, except for negative reviews.

Gofman's scientific articles on this subject, despite his having over 100 publications to his name, were censored. This was the first indication that publications on topics related to dual-use research of concern had to receive the imprimatur of the US Department of Defense.

Towards the late 1990s, information emerged that should have served as a warning: mammography screening had not reduced breast cancer mortality in Sweden.

These initial results were confirmed in all countries: although breast cancer mortality had been reduced thanks to therapeutic advances, screening played no role in this reduction.  "Impact of Screening Mammography on Breast Cancer Mortality," Archie Bleyer, Cornelia Baines, Anthony B. Miller, Int. Journal of Cancer, April 15, 2016.

It is amazing how often we find the influence of the Department of Defense in almost every conventional medical treatment.

In reality, the hypothesis of overdiagnosis was very convenient for the U.S. Department of Defense, which risked having 30 years of cover-up with incalculable consequences exposed. As a result, they started steering researchers in this direction. pic.twitter.com/Cb1Rl74tFs

— Daniel Corcos (@daniel_corcos) June 12, 2024

David Gorski, a surgeon conducting cell biology research on breast cancer, is best known for opposing medical "disinformation" and promoting pro-vaccine propaganda. Many have suspected him of being a stooge for Big Pharma.

However, if you look at his funding, this is not the case. Gorski is funded by the Department of Defense. Since the NIAID, formed in 1955, became an appendage of the DoD, vaccines and the overdiagnosis hypothesis of breast cancer have become major concerns for the DoD.

Thanks to Daniel Corcos.

Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of This Disease https://t.co/9oS8LgfotK via @amazon

— St. Michael, the Archangel (@aveng_angel) June 13, 2024