Florida Surgeon General calls for halt to COVID-19 vaccine usage after FDA said he spread misinformation

Florida State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo is calling on healthcare providers to halt the use of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, citing purported health risks labeled "misinformation" by federal officials. 

In a bulletin issued Wednesday, Ladapo claimed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not shown evidence that coronavirus vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna have been assessed for "nucleic acid contaminants" that could cause cancer. Disputing claims by the FDA that such risk is "implausible," Ladapo called for an immediate stoppage to the use of the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

"I am calling for a halt to the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines," the Florida surgeon general said in a statement. 

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have always played it fast and loose with COVID-19 vaccine safety, but their failure to test for DNA integration with the human genome — as their own guidelines dictate — when the vaccines are known to be contaminated with foreign DNA is intolerable," he asserted. 

A top FDA official last month pushed back against Ladapo and what the FDA called "the proliferation of misinformation" on vaccine safety.

Ladapo raised concerns about the agency's approval of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a Dec. 6 letter to FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Califf and CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen. His letter cited a pre-print study that, according to the surgeon general, showed there are "billions of DNA fragments per dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines." 

Pointing to FDA guidance on vaccines that "use novel methods of delivery regarding DNA integration," Ladapo questioned whether the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines had been assessed to meet FDA's standards, noting a potential risk of cancer.

In a written response, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote that it is "implausible" that residual small DNA fragments could find their way into the nucleus of human cells and then alter DNA to cause cancer. 

"We would like to make clear that based on a thorough assessment of the entire manufacturing process, FDA is confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines," Marks wrote in a Dec. 14 letter. "Additionally, with over a billion doses of the mRNA vaccines administered, no safety concerns related to residual DNA have been identified." 

Marks went on to say that the chief challenge regulators face "is the ongoing proliferation of misinformation and disinformation about these vaccines which results in vaccine hesitancy that lowers vaccine uptake."  

However, Ladapo contends FDA did not answer his questions. 

"The FDA’s response does not provide data or evidence that the DNA integration assessments they recommended themselves have been performed," the surgeon general said in a statement. "Instead, they pointed to genotoxicity studies — which are inadequate assessments for DNA integration risk. In addition, they obfuscated the difference between the SV40 promoter/enhancer and SV40 proteins, two elements that are distinct." 

"DNA integration poses a unique and elevated risk to human health and to the integrity of the human genome, including the risk that DNA integrated into sperm or egg gametes could be passed onto offspring of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine recipients," Ladapo continued. "If the risks of DNA integration have not been assessed for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, these vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings." 

The FDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

In a statement, Pfizer reiterated that regulatory agencies across the globe have authorized the use of its mRNA vaccine and found it safe and effective. 

"These authorizations are based on robust and independent evaluation of the scientific data on quality, safety and efficacy, including our landmark phase 3 clinical trial. Data from real world studies complement the clinical trial data and provide additional evidence that the vaccine provides effective protection against severe disease," Pfizer told Fox News Digital. 

"Over the course of this deadly pandemic, mRNA vaccines have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, tens of billions of dollars in health care costs, and enabled people worldwide to go about their lives more freely. We have delivered more than 4 billion vaccines to 181 countries and territories in every region of the world."

Moderna did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Ladapo has previously clashed with the FDA and CDC. In March, the health agencies accused him of misleading the public on COVID-19 vaccine side effects by highlighting rare adverse events and downplaying the benefits of vaccination.  

Florida Surgeon General calls for halt to COVID-19 vaccine usage after FDA said he spread misinformation (msn.com)

It's Not a Conspiracy Theory; You're Being Brainwashed

posted by Brandon Morse at RedStateVIP 

The thing about brainwashing someone is that you don't necessarily need to put them into an isolating environment and prey on their ignorance like university professors do their students. All you really need to do is to get a pattern of exposure in front of the subject. 

Everyone has been subjected to and been infected with a little bit of brainwashing in some way or form. It happens very subtly sometimes, and in ways you may not notice at first. The more wise and world-weary catch on fast while the ignorant are usually caught hook, line, and sinker without even knowing they've been pulled into the boat. 

This is usually because they don't recognize the brainwashing pattern when they see it. It's why so many of the youth seem to be caught up in various leftist narratives. 

The BBC is steadily brainwashing people, or at least attempting to. As The Telegraph reported, a group that monitors the BBC output called the Campaign for Common Sense has revealed that the BBC is steadily feeding viewers a steady diet of hard-left dogma through its news and entertainment programs, and is doing so against its own established criteria for non-bias: 

But a review of BBC output by the Campaign for Common Sense suggests the corporation is failing to uphold those standards when it comes to its drama and news output.

The research exposed a preoccupation by BBC News about Britain’s links to the transatlantic slave trade, with articles about the subject appearing online at a rate of more than one a week in 2023.

As of September, the BBC News website had featured 55 separate stories about slavery – ranging from “How a flood led family to discover slavery link” to “Jamaicans call for Gladstone slavery reparations”.

In January, long-running soap opera Waterloo Road featured a plot involving students in open revolt over their school’s links to the transatlantic slave trade.

“This research reveals that, rather than upholding those high standards of impartiality, parts of the BBC continue to peddle a steady diet of woke bias both through the plotlines of popular dramas but also in some of its news coverage," a spokesman for the Campaign for Common Sense told the Telegraph.

“The Impartiality Plan, unveiled in the wake of a BBC scandal over trust, was supposed to mark a turning point for the corporation. Instead, this research reveals the same old woke worldview is still very much in operation. Two years ago, the BBC set itself very high standards to help restore viewers’ trust. It has singularly failed to meet those standards,” he added.

In the recent past, the BBC has promoted everything from the transgender agenda, homosexuality, critical race theory, and structural racism, often using popular shows to do it.

It's pretty clear that the people running the BBC have every intention of pushing the concepts on people to the point where they become recognizable topics. Even people who disagree with the concepts will be infused with the verbiage and talking points to the point where they will discuss the given subject on the left's terms. 

This is an old trick. Once you normalize the language you want people to use about any given subject, you can have more control over the conversation. 

This relates to a previous study I reported on last September that showed most of the political opinions and information people receive come from non-political sources. Entertainment outlets are known for pushing political views but oftentimes it's pushed by celebrity gossip pages and shopping sites unintentionally. As the language is defined by corporate media, it's picked up by other outlets and used without too much thought about the purpose behind the language or what these words and concepts truly mean. 

The way it happens is subtle and the person absorbing the information doesn't know it's happening as I describe it in the article: 

Let's say you're a woman in her early 20s. You log onto the web in order to check out the latest fashion article or celebrity interview. According to this, the article will likely venture into current event territory where the author's bias will leak through whether intentionally or not. Mainstream narratives are reinforced and without knowing it, this young woman has developed a political position. 

Certain words such as "transphobic" or "climate change denial" find their way into articles all the time. "Women's rights" are often used in tandem with news about abortion from mainstream sources. This language, as well as all the politically correct language used by mainstream sources, gets soaked into the mind of the woman. This becomes a perspective on a given issue and a belief in a narrative is formed. 

The young woman who would never think to visit a site like Mother Jones or Vox nevertheless has the beliefs that these sites express. If asked about it, they might sound no different from an MSNBC talking head without even knowing it.

Brainwashing people on a mass scale isn't a conspiracy theory. It's happening in both direct and indirect ways. While it's highly unlikely that corporate media will stop anytime soon, people can guard against it by knowing and recognizing the patterns when they see them. 

X22, And we Know, and more- January 3rd

 

Will our military fight for Joe Biden?

posted by Mike McDaniel at American Thinker 

It’s late 2024, and Democrats/socialists/communists (D/s/cs) are getting desperate. Maybe it’s clear Trump is going to win beyond any imaginable margin of election fraud. Maybe they realize when 140% of registered voters cast ballots nationwide, Americans are going to make the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror look like a Girl Scout picnic. Maybe all those dead voters are ready to turn state’s evidence. Either way, they’re certain they’re going to jail—or worse--and not on trumped-up political charges. It’s time for martial law!

The question is, will our military fight for Joe Biden, or whichever D/s/c wants them to imprison, torture and kill Normal Americans? 

Higher Ranking Officers: D/s/cs, since the Age of Obama, have been doing their best to replace warfighters with social justice warriors. Few get that first star without enthusiastically toeing the DEI line. Many, but not all, of these beribboned REMFs will gladly go full totalitarian.

Mid-Ranking Officers (Majors and Lt. Colonels): Many of these are also DEI adherents, but probably fewer than those above them. Many joined thinking they’d be warriors and haven’t had time to be completely converted, or to decide to bail out with their sanity.

Lower Ranking Officers (Lieutenants and Captains): They’re even less likely to go over to the dark side, except those that joined as true believers.

Here’s where things get interesting:

Senior NCOs: These are the people who really run the military. They often bark “don’t call me ‘sir!”  I work for a living!” And they do. Nothing happens without them. Those in longest, nearing retirement, have either been converted, or are sticking out their 20, silently resisting the lunacy. The proportions will vary from base to base.

Lower-Ranking NCOs: They too make the military work. Shorter on time than their higher-ranking fellows, a lesser portion of these will be willing to oppress fellow Americans. They’re far more likely to gum up the works. “Gosh Captain, those tanks just won’t run, and the helos are shot. Somehow a lot of parts got misplaced, and we’re missing essential tools. We might be able to get a couple Hummers running by, say, Tuesday. What is running? The General’s staff car is pretty good, and so are the carts at the golf course. Sorry about that, Sir!”

Enlisted: This is going to be a big problem for Biden. Who voluntarily enlists in the military?  Largely people from the South and Midwest, particularly sons and daughters of families with military traditions. Even with recruiting crashing, most of those enlisting are patriots, willing to brave the DEI lunacy to serve. How many purple-haired, nose and nipple-pierced vegans are enlisting, and how many of those are going to be combat effective? Sure, some of the queer are enlisting for free trans surgery, but they’re all going to be non-deployable, and little more than stationary targets on the battlefield if they’re somehow forced into the field.

The National Guard: Forget it. They’re going to kill their families, neighbors, pastors and friends? The people they’ve grown up with and live with? What they are going to do is walk away with as many weapons, as much ammo and other gear as they can carry and haul in the trucks they’re going to take with them. A few higher-ranking, idiot true-believers might try to stop them, might even try to use deadly force.  Heh.

To be sure, there will be some social justice warriors that will turn traitor out of a misplaced sense of duty, or just because they want to be on what they think will be the winning side. But even now, most people in our military love America and Americans.  They’re the people buying the guns, living the American military ethic of duty, honor and country. They like Red Dawn and The Patriot. They’re not going to kill fellow Americans.  They know who America’s enemies are.

Who are the few that will? They’re the people who shrink from killing our actual enemies,  people who haven’t won a war in decades, people who can’t bring themselves to kill the demons that would gladly murder every American. They surely get excited, however, about strafing Des Moines, or nuking South Dakota. Suzie Soccer Mom and traditional Catholics are so much easier to beat than actual armies.

Most of our military—probably enough—will either just walk away, or will fight for liberty, taking as much materiel with them, and sabotaging the rest, as they can. Many will try to go neutral, but won’t be able to maintain that for long. 

SHOCKER: Xiden Regime Fast-Tracking Chinese Illegal Immigrants

Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

As if the oozing sore that is our southern border wasn't bad enough already, now we learn that the Biden Administration, in its usual display of fecklessness, has greatly watered down the vetting process for Chinese nationals entering the United States - illegally - across that southern border. 

This scaling back of the interview process fast-tracked the releasing of Chinese illegal immigrants into the U.S. while making it more difficult for CBP agents to identify national security threats, J.J. Carrell, a retired CBP deputy patrol agent in charge, told the DCNF after reviewing the email.

“This policy change has accelerated the time it takes to process Chinese illegal immigrants — this doesn’t make America safer,” Carrell said. “The final result is that dangerous Chinese illegal immigrants will still be released into the U.S.”

“This is just the government covering their ass, so they can say they vetted,” said Carrell. “I believe the government recognizes the threat of Chinese soldiers and spies that are pouring into America, and they want to try and identify these individuals. However, the same government does not want to stop the flow of illegal aliens or Chinese nationals — just the ‘bad ones,’ which is impossible.”

You can see screenshots of the relevant documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation here and here.

I would remind the readers that this is a country that is flying spy balloons over the United States, including overflights over strategic installations from Alaska to the East Coast - about which the Biden Administration has done, well, nothing.

Fresh Spy Balloon News Reveals Cover-Up Attempt, Biden Doing China's Bidding

BUSTED: Biden Regime Lied About the Spy Balloon Not Transmitting Data

---

This is a country that is manifestly unfriendly to the United States. Under Chairman Xi, who has seized more direct power than anyone in the Middle Kingdom since Mao, China has become increasingly belligerent, and while they still lack the ability to project power much beyond their own shores, they still wield some economic clout.

Consider, for a moment, what it means that China still lacks the technical and military capacity to strike directly at the United States. Consider that the balloon flyover can be seen as nothing other than gathering strategic intelligence, including overhead images of some of our most critical military installations. 

Xi may well not stop at his regional ambitions, which he has already plainly told anyone who cares to listen.

What could Xi's China do to the United States? It doesn't take Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz to see how China could cause the United States a lot of trouble. They already have strategic recon in the form of their balloon overflights and, no doubt, satellite intelligence. There are now Chinese nationals, mostly young men, crossing our southern border in growing numbers. And, like so many of these illegal aliens, we have little idea who they are, where they are going, or what they intend to do when they get there.

Now the Biden Administration is fast-tracking their entry. It's hard to imagine an administration that was actually trying to encourage a serious threat to our national security handling this matter any differently.

The one thing we might have going for us is China itself. They are facing a demographic crisis, and their economy and industry are one giant house of cards. Whatever they are planning, there's always the chance they might just screw it up - but then we should be careful not to judge China's capabilities by the standards of our own political "leadership." 

In the Left’s Latest Attack Against Trump and Democracy, the Supreme Court Must Quash the Insurrection Argument Once and For All

The ultimate authority in a democratic society formed by the consent of the governed is the will of the people.

by Paul Ingrassia for American Greatness

The Left’s latest attack on democracy, the truth, the Constitution, and the rule of law continues in the form of a series of lawsuits, such as the ones found in Colorado and now Maine, that are being fueled by Democrat-aligned, Soros-funded groups, that have attempted to remove President Donald Trump from the ballot in those states via rogue political actors on alleged Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The Colorado decision witnessed the state’s all-Democrat-appointed Supreme Court split 4-3 on the central issue, remarkably close given how polarized the country is today, especially on matters related to President Trump. Presenting a question that will undoubtedly be taken up by the United States Supreme Court (whose present composition consists of six Republican-appointed justices, including three nominated by President Trump himself, versus only three Democrat ones), the nation’s High Court is bound to return a more even-handed decision. That said, however, it may be argued that the damage has already been done. Shortly after news of the Colorado Supreme Court decision broke, several commentators noted that even if overturned by the Supreme Court (a probable scenario), the Colorado case already set a dangerous precedent to license other bad-faith, rogue actors to take the law unilaterally into their own hands by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and thereby deny their constituents their fundamental right to vote for whomever they choose. 

Lo and behold, days after the Colorado decision was handed down, in Maine, a state that President Trump’s campaign believes can be won in next year’s general election, its Marxist-sympathizing secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, who does not even have a law degree, unilaterally made the determination that the Fourteenth Amendment required her to block President Trump’s name from the ballot. Bellows’ tyrannical decision to remove Trump from the ballot without even consulting her voters may be the most egregious power grab yet committed by the Far Left. And that is saying a lot, for a year that has observed the near wholesale weaponization of the justice system by the Biden regime to persecute its chief political opponent, plunging our once unrivaled system of justice into a banana republic and proving once more that the people who regularly screech about “our democracy” really are democracy’s greatest enemies. 

These decisions will require the Supreme Court to involve itself in what the Left and mainstream media will quickly brand a “political decision.” However, critically, it is not the Supreme Court that has forced itself into presidential politics, but a radical Left and its accomplices in the DOJ and various intelligence agencies that have baited the Court into rendering a judgment on a matter that should never have gone before any court in the first place, because removing anyone from the ballot, let alone a duly elected president and frontrunner for the next election, amounts to the most grievous of constitutional violations. For this reason, it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to not only resolve the legal issue at hand but to permanently quash this nonsense Fourteenth Amendment claim for good. Otherwise, it will risk opening its dockets to the floodgates of leftwing lawfare, of the kind seen in Maine, Colorado, and many other cases, which is well financed and mobilized to continue bringing these lawsuits so long as President Trump remains a viable contender and they meet little opposition.

Thus, the High Court is primed to be the battlefield of last resort. The political stakes are dramatically high in this contest because how the Court inevitably decides on the Fourteenth Amendment issue—whether, for example, it rules decisively on the merits in favor of President Trump, thus defanging the Left’s arsenal, or whether it hedges and rules on procedural grounds only—might well determine the country’s fate, and that is without exaggeration. 

There are two ways the Court might put the insurrection issue to rest for good. The Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, three years after the Civil War ended, states, in Section 3, that “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office… under the United States… shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Importantly, the amendment excludes the office of President or Vice President and thus only applies to members of Congress and various other elected officials. Because nowhere else in the entire Constitution does the term “insurrection” arise in the context of holding elected office other than Sections 3 and 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is readily conceivable that the so-called crime of “insurrection,” to the extent it even has a statutory analogue, patently does not apply to Presidents, Vice Presidents, or even former Presidents. The logic for this is intuitive: as head of state, it is inconceivable how a president might logically foment insurrection, whatever that term even means outside of the Civil War context, against his own government. The closest analogy in history might have been when King Charles II dissolved Parliament in 1681 to prevent it from declaring itself in charge of the royal succession, a historical analogy that is naturally riven with problems, not the least of which concerns any attempt at drawing parallels between the President of the United States and the King of England. 

Certainly, however, no such example, even closely resembling the sort the Left is trying to sell in its ridiculous legal theory of a president fomenting insurrection against his own government, exists in our nation’s history. The closest, of course, would be Aaron Burr’s attempt to overthrow the government after having served as Vice President in the Jefferson administration. But, critically, the Burr case occurred decades before the Fourteenth Amendment was even ratified, so the analogy does not hold. Even still, however, the Supreme Court, presided over by John Marshall, arguably our greatest and most influential Chief Justice in history, acquitted Burr of all charges of seditious conspiracy. Despite Burr having led an actual rebellion against the United States government and even conspiring with foreign actors, such as the Empire of Spain, to help carry out his plot. The clemency Marshall afforded Burr, arguably an actual insurrectionist, and indeed his plot, which bears much more resemblance to the original meaning of the term under the Fourteenth Amendment, should really be the guidebook for how courts handle the Trump case. If someone like Burr, who had both the intent and even took meaningful steps towards armed rebellion and conspiracy against his own government, could be acquitted of all those charges, so too should Donald Trump, who absolutely did none of that, on related grounds.

Therefore, the easiest result, as a matter of law, would be for the Supreme Court to take the insurrection issue off the table entirely as applied to presidents. However, to the extent the Court falls short of that, it should narrowly circumscribe the meaning of the term insurrection to exactly that which its constitutional framers envisioned, namely, armed rebellion. Short of that standard, no presidential candidate (and especially not the frontrunner, one who even occupied that same office) should be denied ballot access for the alleged crime. The Supreme Court might look to the early debates surrounding the Impeachment Clause, Article II, Section 4. While not identical with treason, the constitutional term “insurrection” is related to the former term, which does appear in the relevant clause as follows: “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The broader context that led to the inclusion of this phrase is noteworthy, particularly given the heated division among the Founding Fathers over the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Alexander Hamilton, for his part, believed the impeachment power should be limited to treason and bribery only, both of which had very specific, definite meanings. An originalist construction of the relevant clause would thus bear in mind the extremely high standard the Founding Fathers established for all such crimes. Moreover, consideration of the fact that the impeachment and removal remedy was not once, but twice, already invoked—for which Trump was acquitted of all alleged wrongdoing—should lend further support to the correct holding that neither President Trump—nor anyone—engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021. Thus, to the extent that the Supreme Court does not theoretically take the question of insurrection off the table for Presidents of the United States, it should at the bare minimum rule that the alleged charge does not apply to any of the presidential contenders this cycle, and certainly not Donald Trump. In addition, it must narrowly define “insurrection” to its constitutionally intended (and historical) meaning, namely, cases of armed rebellion against the government only, a definition that is consistent with both the letter and spirit of the law.

The third option the Court might pursue is to prevent illegitimate actors, such as Maine and California’s Secretaries of State or even Colorado’s Supreme Court, from deciding the relevant constitutional question. Instead, the Court can hold that insurrection-related legal issues are either federal questions to be litigated in federal courts only (thus denying state officials the ability to render legal judgments on the issue) or that insurrection is a political question, something that is to be decided by the legislative branch and not the judiciary. By denying judicial actors the ability to render legal judgments on the matter, it would instead place the decision in the hands, not of unelected judges or secretaries of state, but of the American people, where such weighty questions should invariably be decided. 

The ultimate authority in a democratic society formed by the consent of the governed is the will of the people. The people’s judgment should be the final arbiter for a question that can truly make or break our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court must bear that in mind when rendering its judgment, understanding that anything short of a categorical ruling, one that permanently knocks the wind out of the sails of the Left, so blatantly involved in political persecution, might well put to ruin what vestiges of these once united states remain.

True the Vote Wins Northern Georgia District Court Case on Voter Integrity -vs- Stacy Abrams, Marc Elias and the DOJ

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

Catherine Englebrecht and True the Vote (TTV) announces a major court victory in Georgia for their efforts to ensure voting integrity.

HOUSTON, TX, January 2, 2024 – True the Vote (TTV) declares a decisive triumph in their legal battle against Stacy Abrams’ Fair Fight, legal teams led by Marc Elias, and the Biden Department of Justice. A federal court in the Northern District of Georgia today affirmed that citizens have the right to lawfully petition their government in support of election integrity without fear of persecution or prosecution.

In a resounding vindication, TTV successfully defended its actions of December 2020, aiding Georgia citizens in filing elector challenges based on data showing over 364,000 voters appeared to be ineligible to vote due to change in residency.

This victory is a testament to every American’s constitutional right to free speech and the importance of actively participating in the electoral process. 

True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht affirmed, “Today’s ruling sends a clear message to those who would attempt to control the course of our nation through lawfare and intimidation. American citizens will not be silenced.”

True the Vote lead attorney Jake Evans stated, “After almost three years of litigation and a two-week federal trial with plaintiff calling 12 witnesses, Judge Steven Jones awarded a complete defense verdict for all defendants. This decision is monumental. It vindicates True the Vote in totality and establishes that eligibility challenges under Section 230 are a proper method to ensure voter rolls are accurate. I am grateful to help achieve this great victory.”

Engelbrecht added, “This is an answer to the prayers of faithful patriots across America.”

True the Vote remains steadfast in its mission to support trustworthy elections and looks forward to assisting citizens in future such lawful efforts. (read more)