Rembrandt van Rijn The standard bearer 1636 (Rothschild sold it to Netherlands for €175 million Dec 8)
Pandemic of the unvaxxed
Fauci pure evil
Fauci: "I would prefer, and we all would prefer that people would be voluntarily getting vaccinated, but if they're not gonna do that, sometimes you've got to do things that are unpopular, but that clearly supersede individual choices…" pic.twitter.com/yxbOw9cwKw
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) December 8, 2021
The 14-day lockdown in Austria even worked in neighboring countries without a lockdown.
“Basic means of protecting individuals is stopping the mixing of unvaccinated and vaccinated,” Dr. Kieran Moore Ontario’s Medical Officer Health, Dec. 7, 2021 pic.twitter.com/YsDOgWrmep
— Joe Warmington (@joe_warmington) December 7, 2021
A big problem with trying to inform people about the reality of Covid is that the MSM keep producing things like this. Why should we listen to Pfizer when it comes to their own vaccines? Get a neutral voice in.
BUT: the giveaway here is that Bourla says a 4th dose was already expected. How many people are aware of that?
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said Wednesday that people might need a fourth Covid-19 shot sooner than expected after preliminary research shows the new omicron variant can undermine protective antibodies generated by the vaccine the company developed with BioNTech. Pfizer and BioNTech released results from an initial lab study Wednesday morning that showed a third shot is effective at fighting the omicron variant, while the initial two-dose vaccination series dropped significantly in its ability to protect against the new strain. However, the two-dose series likely still offers protection against getting severely sick from omicron, the companies said.
Bourla noted that a preliminary study by the company was based on a synthetic, lab-created copy of the variant and more data is needed from tests against the real virus. Those real-world results will be more accurate and are expected in the next two weeks, the Pfizer CEO said. “When we see real-world data, will determine if the omicron is well covered by the third dose and for how long. And the second point, I think we will need a fourth dose,” Bourla told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” Bourla previously projected that a fourth shot would be needed 12 months after the third dose. “With omicron we need to wait and see because we have very little information. We may need it faster,” he said.
The Pfizer CEO said what’s most important right now is to roll out third doses for the winter. Public health officials are worried about a spike in Covid infections as people gather more indoors to escape the cold. “A third dose will give very good protection I believe,” Bourla said. He also said that treatments such as Pfizer’s oral antiviral pill, Paxlovid, will help prevent hospitalizations and control Covid during the winter. Pfizer submitted its application to the Food and Drug Administration last month for emergency authorization of the pill. Bourla told CNBC on Wednesday that Pfizer will have the full results from clinical trials in days, and he expects the pill to demonstrate an 89% reduction in hospitalization and death as it did in interim data last month.
Bourla. In other news: Pfizer Covid-19 Booster ‘Neutralizes’ Omicron Variant, Company Says
"I think we will need a fourth dose. I have said that multiple times," says @pfizer CEO @AlbertBourla on Israel's roll out of a fourth Covid vaccine dose. "If there is a need for something different, better, we will be able to have it in months." pic.twitter.com/FFA28uXgs7
— Squawk Box (@SquawkCNBC) December 8, 2021
Did you say 4 shots? Ha ha!
I’m not 100% sure the BioNTech guy means 3 extra shots, or 3 shots in total. But it certainly sounds like he means 6 in total.
The CEO of BioNtech, which produces what most refer to as the “Pfizer shot,” (Pfizer is BioNtech’s Western partner and is primarily responsible for the logistics, delivery, and marketing related to the mRNA shots) stated Wednesday that the company intends on selling a three-dose regimen for the Omicron variant of the coronavirus. Citing “the data coming from the Omicron variant, BioNtech CEO Ugur Sahin stated:
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) December 8, 2021
“It is very clear our vaccine for the Omicron variant should be a three dose vaccine.” What data is the CEO of BioNTech observing to make this claim? That remains unclear. However, these companies are making an absolute killing with these shots and they don’t want the gravy train to stop any time soon. The company has set a target date of March for the initial roll out of the shots, with an Omicron booster seemingly to follow 6 months later. Moderna, the Pfizer-BioNtech competitor, also plans on making an Omicron-specific shot. For recent mRNA compliant individuals, this could mean some 6 mRNA shots over the course of a year’s time. The demand for more mRNA shots is being echoed by powerful governments and credentialed international “health” organizations.
These institutions appear thrilled with the results of their sweeping power grab. Before COVID-19, neither Moderna nor BioNtech — the two authorized mRNA shot producers in the United States — had ever produced a commercially available product. However, there is a big elephant in the room and people are taking notice, given the unprecedented COVID outbreaks in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere These pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and “public health experts” won’t address the reality that their shots do not appear to be working for current COVID outbreaks. In the United States, for example, the current outbreak, despite a heavily mRNA compliant population, has nothing to do with the much-hyped “Omicron variant.”
Anyone more than 6?
[..] “the Ronacoaster is a ride that will never end.”
If you have purchased your ticket to ride the Ronacoaster, Dr. Anthony Fauci now delivers the statement all ticket-holders were waiting for. Ronacoaster 2.0 is under construction. Notice how Fauci uses the word “we”, and even quantifies the term “we” by saying himself “and the pharmaceutical companies”, are prepared to start delivering variant specific vaccines as soon as the political scientists call for them. This is the big tell, perhaps the biggest and most anticipated ‘tell’, that many were waiting to see. This means each time some opaque entity within the system of world health identifies a “variant” of COVID-19, the business end of the process will trigger a vaccine response to keep the Ronacoaster wheels greased with taxpayer funds. WATCH, and listen carefully to Fauci’s definition of who the decision-makers are. This is a remarkable amount of sunlight on the motive:
Keep asking: …”WHO IS THIS ‘WE‘ YOU SPEAK OF?” This directly ties to the recent statement of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden, saying the Ronacoaster is a ride that will never end.
Comment from Robert Malone on this study:
“In peer reviewed prospective observational study of 1,072,313 patients, UK group unable to tell the difference between vaccine effects and COVID-19.” “What do the vaccines and COVID have in common? Spike protein. ”
“The big difference is that the vaccines cause the body and immune system to deal with a large quantity of Spike over a short period of time. Very different from the natural infection.”
Identifying and testing individuals likely to have SARS-CoV-2 is critical for infection control, including post-vaccination. Vaccination is a major public health strategy to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection globally. Some individuals experience systemic symptoms post-vaccination, which overlap with COVID-19 symptoms. This study compared early post-vaccination symptoms in individuals who subsequently tested positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2, using data from the COVID Symptom Study (CSS) app.
We conducted a prospective observational study in 1,072,313 UK CSS participants who were asymptomatic when vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) or Oxford-AstraZeneca adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) between 8 December 2020 and 17 May 2021, who subsequently reported symptoms within seven days (N=362,770) (other than local symptoms at injection site) and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (N=14,842), aiming to differentiate vaccination side-effects per se from superimposed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The post-vaccination symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 test results were contemporaneously logged by participants. Demographic and clinical information (including comorbidities) were recorded. Symptom profiles in individuals testing positive were compared with a 1:1 matched population testing negative, including using machine learning and multiple models considering UK testing criteria.
Differentiating post-vaccination side-effects alone from early COVID-19 was challenging, with a sensitivity in identification of individuals testing positive of 0.6 at best. Most of these individuals did not have fever, persistent cough, or anosmia/dysosmia, requisite symptoms for accessing UK testing; and many only had systemic symptoms commonly seen post-vaccination in individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 (headache, myalgia, and fatigue).
Post-vaccination symptoms per se cannot be differentiated from COVID-19 with clinical robustness, either using symptom profiles or machine-derived models. Individuals presenting with systemic symptoms post-vaccination should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 or quarantining, to prevent community spread.
More badly needed Disentangling.
Hard data on childhood polio versus covid-19 disease severity, and direct juxtaposition of the polio and covid-19 vaccine trials, reveals a very different reality than portrayed by these medical savants. Indeed, their recklessly inaccurate comparisons expose the fulminations of Drs. Fauci and Jha as unhinged, Lysenkoist tomato hurling at those leery of mass, indiscriminate childhood covid-19 vaccination campaigns, both their dissenting medical peers, and the lay public. Vought and Greenberg’s 1957 JAMA publication analyzed polio mortality between 1915 and 1954 in U.S. children aged up to 14 years old, prior to mass polio vaccination efforts. Despite a steady decline over these four decades, due to the expanding development of natural immunity, the average polio death rate among these children, including the major outbreaks, was an alarming 5.7%.
These data stand in stark contrast to the near zero childhood covid-19 mortality, overall, and perhaps literally zero, among children free of chronic comorbidity. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics, concedes, based upon its recording system, “In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death.” An elegant study from a national database in Germany reported concordant findings, noting, “The lowest risk was observed in children aged 5-11 without comorbidities. In this group, the ICU admission rate was 0.2 per 10,000 (2 per 100,000) and case fatality could not be calculated, due to an absence of cases” Dr. Vinay Prasad’s pellucid Brownstone commentary on the German analysis, referenced these additional salient data:
–For healthy kids, the risk of death is 3 per 1,000,000 with no deaths reported in kids older than 5.
–Kids 5 to 11 have a risk of going to the ICU of 2 in 100,000; 0 died.
–Among kids who died of COVID-19, 38% were already on palliative/ hospice care.
Juxtaposing the polio and covid-19 pediatric vaccine trials highlights consistent, equally glaring discordances.
“While being jabbed after recovery is claimed to produce “superior” results (“hybrid immunity”) the data says that’s flat-out bull****.”
If you were infected and recovered your risk of a severe outcome, if you got infected, was 0.18% under 39, 1.1% if 40-59 and 7.8% if you were over 60. This doesn’t sound very good for the old people, does it? Ah, but if you were vaccinated and boosted (best case, right?) what were the odds if you got infected? 0.1% if under 39 (too few events for good statistical power; there was only one), 0.6% if 40-59 (looks pretty good) but 6.2% if over 60. In other words even if boosted the infection rate that went sour on you if you’re old means the jabs are basically worthless compared against prior infection. And if just vaccinated but not boosted? Comparatively you’re ****ed, right? Or are you? Uh, for 16-39 your risk there was 0.05% (!!!), for 40-59 it was 0.6% (!!) and for 60+ it was 8.1%.
In other words among infections that matter being boosted had negative or no efficiency when it comes to severe outcomes for everyone under 60! What if you got jabbed after being infected? This is data I’ve been looking for, and while the data points are thin and thus I’m not happy with the lack of statistical power, well, read it for yourself. Under 40 the risk of severe reinfection was 0.2%, from 40-59 it was 2.4% and for 60+ it was a stunning 10%. IN OTHER WORDS BEING JABBED AFTER RECOVERING INCREASES YOUR RISK OF A SEVERE OUTCOME. For the other way around, where you got jabbed and then got infected, there were too few events except in one cohort, 60+, to draw good conclusions as there were lots of zeros — but small infection counts. However, the news there isn’t good either in that in the 60+ cohort the severe risk if you got infected was 12.5% (!!!)
Ok, ok you say, but being vaccinated drops the infection risk. Indeed. But it drops it less, except in the 0-2 months since jabbed, than being recovered does. Indeed the loss of immunity from vaccination is nearly linear while for those infected the loss appears to taper significantly after the first six months and residual protection may be of very long duration or even permanent. Indeed, someone who has been infected (but not jabbed) has a lower person-day risk of reinfection by more than half at one year post-event than someone who has been vaccinated has at four to six months. The bad news does not end here. While being jabbed after recovery is claimed to produce “superior” results (“hybrid immunity”) the data says that’s flat-out bull****.
At 4-6 and 6-8 months the error bands for vaccination after recovery and pure recovery without it cross; there is no statistical evidence that being jabbed after recovery helps and evidence it HARMS BY AS MUCH AS A DOUBLE in terms of the risk of severe outcome. The other way around is even worse; the evidence is that if you get infected after being jabbed you do not get the same protection as natural infection in that your immunity wanes faster; at 6-8 months you have a LOWER risk of infection if you were not vaccinated before the infection as opposed to being vaccinated and then infected.
“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has his blind spots, but his dissection of Big Health’s war, not on COVID, but on those who are actually warring with COVID, is this century’s must-read book.”
Although I will put my COVID-skeptic credentials up against anyone’s – I tried to organize a public protest on day one of the lockdown – I confess to having seen Big Health’s actions as merely misguided. I was wrong. The “crackpots” were right. The Big Health involvement did not progress along the Eric Hoffer spectrum from a good cause to a movement with benefits to a racket. It started as a racket, a massive racket that may go down as a Mao-worthy crime against humanity. As the princeling of America’s reigning Democratic dynasty, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has his blind spots, but his dissection of Big Health’s war, not on COVID, but on those who are actually warring with COVID, is this century’s must-read book.
Rather than summarize Kennedy’s “The Real Anthony Fauci,” allow me to excerpt one particular conversation that speaks to the enormity of the debacle. The conversation, recorded on Zoom, involves two scientists. One is Dr. Tess Lawrie, a world-renowned data researcher from the U.K. with an international reputation for integrity. The other is World Health Organization researcher Dr. Andrew Hill, a senior visiting research fellow at Liverpool University. Lawrie and 20 of the world’s leading experts had recently performed a meta-analysis of the research done on ivermectin (IVM), and the data overwhelmingly supported its value in treating COVID-19. Like Lawrie, Hill had been a major IVM proponent before making a very suspicious about-face. As a WHO gatekeeper and adviser to both Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation, Hill’s opinion mattered. His hasty counter-thesis blocked a worldwide ivermectin rollout.
“How can you do this?” Lawrie asks him. “You are causing irreparable harm.” Hill explained that he was in a “tricky position” because his sponsors were pressuring him, the most important of which was Unitaid. Chairing the executive committee of Unitaid, an international quasi-governmental consortium, was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation representative. Apparently, a $150 million donation buys the best seat at the table. Lawrie was unmoved by the “sensitivity” of Hill’s position. “Lots of people are in sensitive positions,” Lawrie challenges Hill. “They’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.” “There are a lot of different opinions about this,” Hill waffles. “As I say, some people simply …”
Lawrie cuts him off. “You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today if we can get the government to buy ivermectin.” When Hill reverts to his “some people” shtick, Lawrie counters, “We are looking at the data. It doesn’t matter what some people say.” Lawrie explains Hill’s “tricky position” to him. “I appreciate you are in a sensitive position if you are being paid for something and you’re being told to support a certain position.” She then lays out the only acceptable moral response: “So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence.”
“..I had to stand by and watch idly as these patients died. It broke my heart and I was broken, so I really had no option. It was either to quit or [file] an injunction against the hospital.”
Marik said he was pushed to use Remdesivir, a drug which he said “increases your risk of renal failure and liver failure.” Marik said he “was being forced to use that toxic medication” rather than “the medications I knew that were safe, effective, and cheap,” adding that the week after the memorandum took effect he dealt with seven COVID patients suffering from “COVID pneumonia” and was not permitted to use the drugs he would otherwise have prescribed. “All seven patients died,” he said. “It was an absolute outrage, including a 32 year old woman and a 40 year old man, and I had to stand by and watch idly as these patients died. It broke my heart and I was broken, so I really had no option. It was either to quit or [file] an injunction against the hospital.”
Marik decided not to quit his position, instead filing suit against the hospital system November 9, arguing that the drugs he was using to treat patients were “safe FDA approved drugs.” On the same day he filed suit against Sentara, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) retracted an article that Marik had co-authored on his MATH+ Protocol, citing “concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 hospital mortality data reported in the article pertaining to Sentara.” The move to retract the article came after Sentara reached out to the JICM having “conducted a careful review of our data for patients with COVID-19 from March 22, 2020 to July 20, 2020” and arriving at the conclusion that the article co-authored by Marik calculated an incorrect mortality rate which it used to back up its claim of risk reduction resulting from the MATH+ protocol.
However, attorney Fred Taylor, a partner at Virginia law firm Bush & Taylor and Marik’s legal representation in the lawsuit, told MedPage Today that the lawsuit is “not about a journal article.” “This case is about whether a hospital administration can legally prohibit critically ill COVID patients from receiving information—and treatment, if they so decide it is medically appropriate for them—about safe, FDA-approved, and potentially life-saving medicines as determined by their attending physician,” Taylor said. While Sentara Health System has stated it did not ask JICM to retract Marik’s article, the hospital system moved to strip Marik of his hospital privileges, a decision the physician described as “retaliation.”
“They basically violated the basic patient physician relationship,” he said. “It’s the doctor who decides on the best treatment for his patient. We’re not telling doctors what to do. It’s the doctor we want. Let doctors be doctors, let doctors at the bedside decide on the best treatment for their patients, whatever that may be. And unfortunately, the hospital and the federal government is now interfering with physicians’ ability to treat their patients.”
Marik starts at 21:58
Just the idea that this has to be stated, tells you how far we’ve wandered off.
As a doctor, last weekend was confusing for me. I woke up to headlines telling the world that doctors were ‘angry at treating unvaccinated patients in ICU’. Never mind the veracity of the figures – let’s concentrate on where this statement sits in the ethical framework that every doctor and nurse is trained to use. Being ‘angry’ at the lifestyle choices of a patient that caused them to seek healthcare is certainly an anathema to the lessons of our medical training – as it should be. As doctors, we must treat all patients with equity, enabling equal access to healthcare without judgement. So I am confused. What has happened to the doctors who choose to berate unvaccinated patients? Did they not attend medical school?
Many, including healthcare workers, choose not to have a flu vaccine every year. Do the same colleagues simmer with anger at these people if they end up in ICU? How can you do your best and treat as you must if bubbling inside is resentment towards the very person you are trying to save? Don’t misunderstand me: I have seen colleagues face trauma in ICU every day during the pandemic. They have been party to the most distressing scenes – ones most people will thankfully never have to witness. I have cried in the resus room many a time. But that shouldn’t allow a complete disregard of the ethics that drew us to this job – if it does, it may be time to withdraw, regroup and refresh.
Because where does this new judgement of patients end? Hundreds of thousands of people end up in hospital every year from diseases that can be linked back to lifestyle choices, which in 2016, were estimated to cost the NHS £11 billion a year. The King’s Fund has broken this down: smoking costs £5.2 billion, obesity costs £4.2 billion, alcohol costs £3.5 billion and physical inactivity accounts for £1.1 billion. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. You can add so many others to this list: STIs from unprotected sex, the boy racer who crashes his car, the skier who gets brain damage, the heart disease from a poor diet – the list is almost endless. Is our judgement, too? If the response to a critically ill person in need of a hospital bed and care – no matter why they need it – is anger from the professionals who are there to help, then we are one short step away from denying a vast proportion of patients the care they need, simply because they have ‘brought it on themselves’.
This makes too much sense to ever pass in the House.
In a major rebuke to President Joe Biden, the Senate voted 52-48 to repeal the administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate requiring private businesses with more than 100 employees to be vaccinated, undergo testing, or be fired. The final vote of the evening on Wednesday, the bill was unanimously supported by Republicans, and Democrat Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Joe Manchin (W.V.), the latter of whom was the bill’s only Democrat cosponsor. The bill was spearheaded by Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), according to his office. When he announced the legislation in November, he wrote in a press release, “We are one step closer to protecting the liberties of millions of Americans in the private sector workforce.”
The vaccine mandate, issued by executive order, affects more than 80 million Americans, and would impose a $14,000 fine on those who do not comply. In an op-ed published Wednesday, Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.V.) and Sen. Braun wrote, “The coronavirus vaccines developed under the Trump administration’s ‘Operation Warp Speed’ are medical miracles, but the decision to get vaccinated should be a personal health choice. It shouldn’t be up to President Joe Biden.” “A year ago this week, Biden said of the COVID-19 vaccines, ‘I don’t think they should be mandatory. I wouldn’t demand it to be mandatory.’ Then he went back on his word, mandating vaccines for private sector employees,” they continued.
After the bill passed, Sen. Braun tweeted, “No one should be forced to choose between getting a vaccine and losing their job.” The legislation comes as President Biden’s mandates have been blocked in courts. A judge on Tuesday blocked Biden’s requirement for federal contractors to be vaccinated. Last week, a judge issued a preliminary injunction to halt the administration’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. The legislation will head to the Democratic-controlled House, where it is expected to face a difficult battle to pass.
But the mandates are dead regardless. The courts trump the House.
A U.S. district court in Georgia became the fourth court to enjoin a Biden Administration vaccine mandate this week. As with the other trial and appellate courts, District Judge R. Stan Baker found that President Biden has exceeded his authority in mandating the vaccine for all federal contractors. In the meantime, outgoing New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio has ordered all private workers to be vaccinated. All of these mandates are on course for a showdown in the Supreme Court where three justices have already expressed skepticism over the mandates. Biden issued an executive order on Sept. 9 that required contractors to ensure that their workers are vaccinated against Covid and enforcing mask and social distancing policies. Contractors were given until Dec. 8 to comply but that was later extended to Jan. 4.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the Associated Builders and Contractors, a national trade group that represents the construction industry. To do so, the court had to find that the challengers were likely to prevail on the merits in arguing that President Biden does not have this authority under the Procurement Act. Judge Baker wrote “In its practical application, it operates as a regulation of public health. It will also have a major impact on the economy at large, as it limits contractors’ and members of the workforce’s ability to perform work on federal contracts. Accordingly, it appears to have vast economic and political significance.” White House press secretary Jen Psaki insisted that the Biden Administration is “confident in our ability legally to make these happen across the country.”
While the Administration could certainly prevail on appeal, the confidence remains an exercise of hope over experience in such litigation. Other courts have enjoined mandates under OSHA and medicare. In the OSHA case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled based on its own “serious constitutional concerns.” Chief of Staff Ron Klain went to Twitter to herald the use of OSHA as a “work around” of the constitutional limitations placed on President Biden. I asked how a court would respond to such an admission. We have to wonder no more. Late Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cited Klain’s comment in its decision enjoining the mandate.
How on earth is it possible that Victoria Nuland is working in any other job than as a burgerflipper?
The US State Department, along with America’s allies in Europe, is considering the possibility of completely isolating Russia from the global financial system if it attempts to invade Ukraine, it revealed on Tuesday. Speaking to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland explored possible ways that Washington could punish Moscow for any military incursion. “What we are talking about would amount to essentially isolating Russia completely from the global financial system, with all the fallout that would entail for Russian businesses, for the Russian people, for their ability to work and travel and trade,” Nuland said. She noted that she had presented other diplomatic options that she did not want to mention in a public setting, at a private meeting the day before.
Nuland’s threat comes just one day after a report was published by US news agency Bloomberg, which suggested that Washington could target major Russian banks and could even disconnect Moscow from the SWIFT banking network. The undersecretary’s comments were made shortly after talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Joe Biden. The conversation lasted more than two hours, and saw Biden warning the Russian leader that “the US and [its] Allies would respond with strong economic and other measures” in the case of a military escalation. The virtual summit came as tensions remained high on the border between Ukraine and Russia. The US-led NATO bloc has warned Moscow that any military aggression against Ukraine will be met with severe financial measures, while Russia has denied all accusations that it is planning such a maneuver, stating that any troop movements are an internal matter and of no concern to any other country.
To get approval, raise your price
‘If you want to stay indoors, eternally, and hide away from everybody because you're so afraid of getting ill, then I support your right to do that… but I don't think that's the right way to live’@ZubyMusic gives his view on Covid finger-pointers and health entitlement. pic.twitter.com/Sr0rCFJvq3
— GB News (@GBNEWS) December 7, 2021
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime; donate with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.