My guess is that most of these people were bribed to keep quiet, either directly or through their families. When a CCP oligarch wanted to bribe, or appear to, Mitch McConnell, he didn't give the $15,000,000.00 to him, he gave it to his father-in-law, is a Chinese national. Money being fungible, the effect is the same. Others maintain silence because of their egos and pride, not being able to admit they were wrong, for whatever reason. Others are bullied into silence, not wanting to be seen as being in any way allied with Trump or anyone associated with him. Others are just stupid and don't know any better.
It's all academic because the tsunami of death and illness will continue for years. We who read you and the other brave souls who took on the Chinese and our Deep State know and can adjust. But none of us can give up the fight, because the bioweapon injection is the tool they use to implement totalitarianism and every policy they support springs from those injections.
There's an interview floating around of Sen. Kennedy with Maria Bartoromo on Fox Business - stating Ivermectin is now ok for Covid. Some friends disagreed saying it wasn't true. At this point, it's kind of moot - the damage has been done. I just read that Demar Hamlin is playing again. I sure hope he will be ok - the should be compensated by the NFL and allowed to retired - they forced that shot on all of their players - which is why I think he did come back - at least temorprarily - to save the NFL from massive claims from all the other players. It would destroy the NFL. Let's see if he continues to play or was just sent out there temporarily to save the owner's butts. Hopefully he will be financially compensated so he can live out his life with security for what they've done to him.
My take is that the FDA lawyers readily said that because they were trying to say that it was the state medical boards, not the FDA, that were interfering with the doctors' rights to prescribe Ivermectin, and thus, the court should dismiss the case.
The government was trying to say that
The doctors should have sued their state medical boards, not the FDA, because the state medical boards were the ones prohibiting the doctors from doing the prescribing.
Yes, there was a lot of pressuring influencing, bribing, and coercing. From what I gather, and I could be wrong, it was the Medical Boards that threatened to (and did) take doctors' licenses away. It was never that a doctor couldn't write a prescription for Ivermectin, give it to his patient, or call it into a pharmacy. Of course they could, and many did. However, IF they chose to write/prescribe an Ivermectin prescription, the Boards were going after them and their Licenses. That's where the real damage comes in. It seems to be pick legal-ease, but my impression is that the Court took the position (right or wrong) that the doctors had sued the wrong organization (FDA versus the Medical Boards.) This is somewhere similar to the position that the US Supreme Court took on the Requests filed for Writ of Certiorari (i.e., requests that they hear the Trump case(s).) The Supreme Court would not hear the case(s), purportedly because (they said) the wrong Plaintiffs were used to file the suit. Plaintiffs have to have what courts call "Standing," or the Court will not even hear the case. Instead, they usually just grant a Motion to Dismiss (the case.)
Great article. Thanks. Here's my take on it... FDA did what it did but alone it's true they couldn't actually stop docs from prescribing Ivermectin.
However, if a doc tried to prescribe Ivermectin, they'd have having their licenses to practice pulled by medical boards and if they did it anyway there was another block in place. Pharmacy boards ordered pharmacist's not to fill prescriptions of Ivermectin or Hydroxycloriquine when prescribed for COVID. If it was being prescribed for anything else allegedly you could get it... So to my mind this was a concerted effort to block life saving medication from getting to the public. Why? Don't tell me it was just money... It wasn't. It was the trigger for a larger Communist take over of now just the US but several other countries all aligned against a group of other countries that just happen to be forming their own alliance called BRICS.
IMHO the truth of the matter is, no one was forced to take anything. Period. Full stop. Cooerced? Absolutely! Against the Nuremberg code of ethics? Absolutely!
But forced.... No. The choice wasn't take the shot or not it was "comply", sacrificing your soul or keep your soul and lose the life style you've become acustomed to.
Take the shot so you can keep your job and feed your kids and keep a roof over their heads;refuse it and you loose your job and they go hungry and homeless ,is coercion.
Coercion does not mean only at gunpoint or knife point.
People presented themselves at Walmart's, pharmacies, clinics and all manor of intuition, rolled up their sleeves and TOOK the shot.
I'm prior military. My friend is prior military. We have a saying when shit hits the fan and your plan goes to shit. Adapt and Overcome.
My friend was a DOC department of correction employee. Easy good paying job with good benefits. He said no. They fired him. He bounced to doing tree work.
Now he's happy, healthy and making more money doing tree work.
My message to you and anyone else reading this has been and will always be:
Resist, Don't Comply, Adapt And Overcome!
Nobody ever complied their way out of tyranny!
Until people realize that they have the power to stop this tyranny it will continue.
After having read the Substack & various comments, totally concur with the basic question (why aren’t these people saying 2+2=4) & the underlying agendas at play. Although money is somehow/why at the root of it, I am inclined to believe the most correct answer is good old human nature. It takes courage & fortitude to stand alone & buck the crowd, as Dr. M. & many of his colleagues have found out. Playing a hero doesn’t make you one. My problem/complaint is that these individuals didn’t just make the choice for themselves, they went out of their way to participate in the charade and morally, if not legally, have an obligation to tell the truth. As one commenter pointed out with regards to the alphabet agencies, they are now trying to “legally” parse their actions. What a joke! They all need to be in jail. And in the category of ‘you kidding me, right?’ -- a family has sued Gilead (sp?) b/c the guy got their shot & it was contaminated with glass particles (not supposed to be there) leading to 2 stroke/amputation/bedridden forever & the drug lawyers are saying they are immune because of EUA. So they don’t even have to ensure the quality of the product. This is the greatest scam ever!
We have a friend that was extremely pro-vaccine, and would announce to friends every time she was getting her Covid vaccine, then the boosters. She is extremely ill now. Although she hasn't told her good friends that she believes the vaccines caused her to get so sick, she has told her chiropractor, a friend of mine, that she will never take a vaccine again. I think she may be embarrassed to admit to her friends that she was wrong, and gullibly followed the advice of the government and others, without doing her own due diligence.
Well, if something happens to this kid, it's going to be the death of them all - I hope he will be ok but the damage done to the heart makes it unlikely that anyone can predict he will be ok -
Same with the colleges that forced that crap on all of their students - I've urged my vaxed family members to do the detox McCullough is prescribing - but so far no one is taking me up on it. My husband, daughter and two sons-in-law took the first two shots because they are doctors. I urged them not to but they felt it was necessary since they work in hospitals too. I am very worried.
During the pandemic crisis, Mattias Desmet wrote and talked about mass formation/mass psychosis and the adherence to a single narrative, which Dr. Mallone brought to the attention of the general public on a Joe Rogan interview. I would sincerely like Mr. Desmet to comment on the above article because it is my opinion that this inability to admit you were wrong and speak out for the well being of others is a psychological “hold over” of “Mass formation”/Mass psychosis.
"Public Figures" are discussed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of N.Y. Times vs. Sullivan. A "Public Figure" is different from a "public figure." A Public Figure is a legal term that was defined and contrasted with private figure and the legal term, Private Figure, by the Supreme Court in its discussion of the Burden of Proof in Defamation (Libel and/or Slander) lawsuits. If a person is determined by a Court to be a Public Figure, and if they are suing someone for defamation, they not only must prove that the Defendant's words were public, harmful and false, IN ADDITION, they must prove that the Defendant had "MALICIOUS INTENT" when he/she said or published the words. For a Public Figure to have to prove a Defendant was not just Negligent or Reckless, but had Malice Aforethought, can be very challenging. How does one show what was in another's mind? But, a Public Figure, such as a high level political figure (P. Biden), or his wife, or a Tucker Carlson, or the famous actress, Cher, will be well aware that a person in his/her position should expect many salacious statements from various sources, and are seen as having ready access to resources in print and interviews that can publically set the matter straight. So, unless you will never worry about anyone defaming you, you do not want to be seen as a "Public Figure."
Also note, that there are Partial Public Figures. Those persons are well known by many in a particular realm of knowledge, or in a particular group (for example, the Medical Freedom group), but not by everyone in a country, as is President Biden. So, one of the most well-known leaders, say, for example, a national Medical Freedom group, would be a Partial Public Figure (PPF.) This means that if someone who knows of the PPF publically makes or writes harmful, untrue statements about the PPF that pertain to Medical Freedom, then the PPF would have to prove Malicious Intent to prevail in a defamation lawsuit. If someone made a harmful, false, public statement about the personal life of the PPF, however, the PPF would NOT need to prove the person had any malicious intent.
The moral of this story is that even if I thought I might be a Public Figure or Partial Public Figure (which, obviously, I'm not), I would not state that I was a "Public Figure" on my vita, resume, Twitter profile, or the like, because of the onerous Burden of Proof Public Figures have in Defamation lawsuits. Even if someone does not plan to ever sue anyone for Defamation, they might someday find themselves in the position of needing to Countersue as a Defense. They don't want to have to prove Malice. Life is difficult to predict. All those lawyers out there, you know. 😇So, I'd take it off my vita, resume, Twitter Profile, etc. That's just me.
Most people simply can't make the connection. A seemingly benign injection, then boom their body fails them. Co-worker's uncle, a super smart guy, had myocardial infarc 2 weeks after injection at Dr's physical exam, not a sign he understood why he was dying in the ICU. Other co-worker, another smart person, developed neurological foot droop after 1st dose gets second dose to protect their newborne. Sibling had myocardial infarc 2 months after 2nd injection and refused to continue to make connection even when I reminded them. It took me both doses to realize my afib+PVCs was greatly exacerbated by the injections. Famous people aren't any better at situational self-awareness.
I think it is fair to say or speculate, that there can be more future Losses by staying silent. I understand the fear and comfort of not wanting to incur future loss of income or fame, or being Cancelled, but a lot of that is truly a Psychological / Mental Extortion. Putting it that way, it is being in an Abusive System of coercion and self-regulation that is distinctly different from Liberty or Freedom of Speech and Open Society. Hmm, how can we help people see that if they have suffered specifically because they were Lied to, then they are the ones that really need to Speak Up! It is a nasty entanglement and it clearly shows how Honesty, Liberty, Good Intentions, Open Information are required versus silent, obedient, subversive, coercion's. It is actually a sad alternative if they Learn how to Heal from this damage and then still Stay Silent about how they arrived at this situation in Life.
For one, it can be a difficult thing to prove if someone is older, although the proof is mounting it seems. Example: a friend who was 66 suddenly collapsed and gone in seconds. He was suffering with A-fib and had an appt to see his cardiologist which he didn’t make it to. I know he had at least 2 Moderna shots. At his funeral I spoke to his close friend who believed the shots had something to do with or caused the A-fib. However, his brother said their father died of heart problems. Did he die prematurely is the question I suppose.
There were so many people in entertainment involved in advertising these experimental injections. It is against the ethics of medical experiments to advertise like this anyway in the UK. Then I found that Professionals working in Medicine were completely and angrily against discussing anything to do with the injections. I wondered if they were threatened in some way.
I wish some of them were honest enough to stand by their vows, such as "do no harm", and to speak the truth.
It is a bad world where people use their status to drive others to think it's ok to have something that has such a high likelihood of killing or maiming them.
My guess is that most of these people were bribed to keep quiet, either directly or through their families. When a CCP oligarch wanted to bribe, or appear to, Mitch McConnell, he didn't give the $15,000,000.00 to him, he gave it to his father-in-law, is a Chinese national. Money being fungible, the effect is the same. Others maintain silence because of their egos and pride, not being able to admit they were wrong, for whatever reason. Others are bullied into silence, not wanting to be seen as being in any way allied with Trump or anyone associated with him. Others are just stupid and don't know any better.
It's all academic because the tsunami of death and illness will continue for years. We who read you and the other brave souls who took on the Chinese and our Deep State know and can adjust. But none of us can give up the fight, because the bioweapon injection is the tool they use to implement totalitarianism and every policy they support springs from those injections.
Pray for the Republic.
Danny Huckabee
There's an interview floating around of Sen. Kennedy with Maria Bartoromo on Fox Business - stating Ivermectin is now ok for Covid. Some friends disagreed saying it wasn't true. At this point, it's kind of moot - the damage has been done. I just read that Demar Hamlin is playing again. I sure hope he will be ok - the should be compensated by the NFL and allowed to retired - they forced that shot on all of their players - which is why I think he did come back - at least temorprarily - to save the NFL from massive claims from all the other players. It would destroy the NFL. Let's see if he continues to play or was just sent out there temporarily to save the owner's butts. Hopefully he will be financially compensated so he can live out his life with security for what they've done to him.
In court, FDA lawyers were essentially forced to finally say that doctors CAN prescribe IVM.
The scene was superb comedy:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/doctors-can-prescribe-ivermectin-for-covid-19-fda-5456584
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/fda-drops-ivermectin-truth-that-we-knew-all-along-facts-matter-5460635
My take is that the FDA lawyers readily said that because they were trying to say that it was the state medical boards, not the FDA, that were interfering with the doctors' rights to prescribe Ivermectin, and thus, the court should dismiss the case.
The government was trying to say that
The doctors should have sued their state medical boards, not the FDA, because the state medical boards were the ones prohibiting the doctors from doing the prescribing.
It was the FDA that put out the 'horse paste' tweets, and the state boards took their cues from feds
Yes, there was a lot of pressuring influencing, bribing, and coercing. From what I gather, and I could be wrong, it was the Medical Boards that threatened to (and did) take doctors' licenses away. It was never that a doctor couldn't write a prescription for Ivermectin, give it to his patient, or call it into a pharmacy. Of course they could, and many did. However, IF they chose to write/prescribe an Ivermectin prescription, the Boards were going after them and their Licenses. That's where the real damage comes in. It seems to be pick legal-ease, but my impression is that the Court took the position (right or wrong) that the doctors had sued the wrong organization (FDA versus the Medical Boards.) This is somewhere similar to the position that the US Supreme Court took on the Requests filed for Writ of Certiorari (i.e., requests that they hear the Trump case(s).) The Supreme Court would not hear the case(s), purportedly because (they said) the wrong Plaintiffs were used to file the suit. Plaintiffs have to have what courts call "Standing," or the Court will not even hear the case. Instead, they usually just grant a Motion to Dismiss (the case.)
Great article. Thanks. Here's my take on it... FDA did what it did but alone it's true they couldn't actually stop docs from prescribing Ivermectin.
However, if a doc tried to prescribe Ivermectin, they'd have having their licenses to practice pulled by medical boards and if they did it anyway there was another block in place. Pharmacy boards ordered pharmacist's not to fill prescriptions of Ivermectin or Hydroxycloriquine when prescribed for COVID. If it was being prescribed for anything else allegedly you could get it... So to my mind this was a concerted effort to block life saving medication from getting to the public. Why? Don't tell me it was just money... It wasn't. It was the trigger for a larger Communist take over of now just the US but several other countries all aligned against a group of other countries that just happen to be forming their own alliance called BRICS.
The NFL needs all the "Shills" it can muster on the roster. Image is everything in sports.
IMHO the truth of the matter is, no one was forced to take anything. Period. Full stop. Cooerced? Absolutely! Against the Nuremberg code of ethics? Absolutely!
But forced.... No. The choice wasn't take the shot or not it was "comply", sacrificing your soul or keep your soul and lose the life style you've become acustomed to.
You can't rape the willing.
Take the shot so you can keep your job and feed your kids and keep a roof over their heads;refuse it and you loose your job and they go hungry and homeless ,is coercion.
Coercion does not mean only at gunpoint or knife point.
People presented themselves at Walmart's, pharmacies, clinics and all manor of intuition, rolled up their sleeves and TOOK the shot.
I'm prior military. My friend is prior military. We have a saying when shit hits the fan and your plan goes to shit. Adapt and Overcome.
My friend was a DOC department of correction employee. Easy good paying job with good benefits. He said no. They fired him. He bounced to doing tree work.
Now he's happy, healthy and making more money doing tree work.
My message to you and anyone else reading this has been and will always be:
Resist, Don't Comply, Adapt And Overcome!
Nobody ever complied their way out of tyranny!
Until people realize that they have the power to stop this tyranny it will continue.
After having read the Substack & various comments, totally concur with the basic question (why aren’t these people saying 2+2=4) & the underlying agendas at play. Although money is somehow/why at the root of it, I am inclined to believe the most correct answer is good old human nature. It takes courage & fortitude to stand alone & buck the crowd, as Dr. M. & many of his colleagues have found out. Playing a hero doesn’t make you one. My problem/complaint is that these individuals didn’t just make the choice for themselves, they went out of their way to participate in the charade and morally, if not legally, have an obligation to tell the truth. As one commenter pointed out with regards to the alphabet agencies, they are now trying to “legally” parse their actions. What a joke! They all need to be in jail. And in the category of ‘you kidding me, right?’ -- a family has sued Gilead (sp?) b/c the guy got their shot & it was contaminated with glass particles (not supposed to be there) leading to 2 stroke/amputation/bedridden forever & the drug lawyers are saying they are immune because of EUA. So they don’t even have to ensure the quality of the product. This is the greatest scam ever!
We have a friend that was extremely pro-vaccine, and would announce to friends every time she was getting her Covid vaccine, then the boosters. She is extremely ill now. Although she hasn't told her good friends that she believes the vaccines caused her to get so sick, she has told her chiropractor, a friend of mine, that she will never take a vaccine again. I think she may be embarrassed to admit to her friends that she was wrong, and gullibly followed the advice of the government and others, without doing her own due diligence.
Well, if something happens to this kid, it's going to be the death of them all - I hope he will be ok but the damage done to the heart makes it unlikely that anyone can predict he will be ok -
Same with the colleges that forced that crap on all of their students - I've urged my vaxed family members to do the detox McCullough is prescribing - but so far no one is taking me up on it. My husband, daughter and two sons-in-law took the first two shots because they are doctors. I urged them not to but they felt it was necessary since they work in hospitals too. I am very worried.
A Plandemic of deceit and cowardice.
Is this the new "Silence of the Lambs 2.0?"
During the pandemic crisis, Mattias Desmet wrote and talked about mass formation/mass psychosis and the adherence to a single narrative, which Dr. Mallone brought to the attention of the general public on a Joe Rogan interview. I would sincerely like Mr. Desmet to comment on the above article because it is my opinion that this inability to admit you were wrong and speak out for the well being of others is a psychological “hold over” of “Mass formation”/Mass psychosis.
Dr M is an absolute superstar and has positively impacted thousands of people with his erudite scholarship.
Dr. McCullough
"Public Figures" are discussed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of N.Y. Times vs. Sullivan. A "Public Figure" is different from a "public figure." A Public Figure is a legal term that was defined and contrasted with private figure and the legal term, Private Figure, by the Supreme Court in its discussion of the Burden of Proof in Defamation (Libel and/or Slander) lawsuits. If a person is determined by a Court to be a Public Figure, and if they are suing someone for defamation, they not only must prove that the Defendant's words were public, harmful and false, IN ADDITION, they must prove that the Defendant had "MALICIOUS INTENT" when he/she said or published the words. For a Public Figure to have to prove a Defendant was not just Negligent or Reckless, but had Malice Aforethought, can be very challenging. How does one show what was in another's mind? But, a Public Figure, such as a high level political figure (P. Biden), or his wife, or a Tucker Carlson, or the famous actress, Cher, will be well aware that a person in his/her position should expect many salacious statements from various sources, and are seen as having ready access to resources in print and interviews that can publically set the matter straight. So, unless you will never worry about anyone defaming you, you do not want to be seen as a "Public Figure."
Also note, that there are Partial Public Figures. Those persons are well known by many in a particular realm of knowledge, or in a particular group (for example, the Medical Freedom group), but not by everyone in a country, as is President Biden. So, one of the most well-known leaders, say, for example, a national Medical Freedom group, would be a Partial Public Figure (PPF.) This means that if someone who knows of the PPF publically makes or writes harmful, untrue statements about the PPF that pertain to Medical Freedom, then the PPF would have to prove Malicious Intent to prevail in a defamation lawsuit. If someone made a harmful, false, public statement about the personal life of the PPF, however, the PPF would NOT need to prove the person had any malicious intent.
The moral of this story is that even if I thought I might be a Public Figure or Partial Public Figure (which, obviously, I'm not), I would not state that I was a "Public Figure" on my vita, resume, Twitter profile, or the like, because of the onerous Burden of Proof Public Figures have in Defamation lawsuits. Even if someone does not plan to ever sue anyone for Defamation, they might someday find themselves in the position of needing to Countersue as a Defense. They don't want to have to prove Malice. Life is difficult to predict. All those lawyers out there, you know. 😇So, I'd take it off my vita, resume, Twitter Profile, etc. That's just me.
Most people simply can't make the connection. A seemingly benign injection, then boom their body fails them. Co-worker's uncle, a super smart guy, had myocardial infarc 2 weeks after injection at Dr's physical exam, not a sign he understood why he was dying in the ICU. Other co-worker, another smart person, developed neurological foot droop after 1st dose gets second dose to protect their newborne. Sibling had myocardial infarc 2 months after 2nd injection and refused to continue to make connection even when I reminded them. It took me both doses to realize my afib+PVCs was greatly exacerbated by the injections. Famous people aren't any better at situational self-awareness.
I think it is fair to say or speculate, that there can be more future Losses by staying silent. I understand the fear and comfort of not wanting to incur future loss of income or fame, or being Cancelled, but a lot of that is truly a Psychological / Mental Extortion. Putting it that way, it is being in an Abusive System of coercion and self-regulation that is distinctly different from Liberty or Freedom of Speech and Open Society. Hmm, how can we help people see that if they have suffered specifically because they were Lied to, then they are the ones that really need to Speak Up! It is a nasty entanglement and it clearly shows how Honesty, Liberty, Good Intentions, Open Information are required versus silent, obedient, subversive, coercion's. It is actually a sad alternative if they Learn how to Heal from this damage and then still Stay Silent about how they arrived at this situation in Life.
For one, it can be a difficult thing to prove if someone is older, although the proof is mounting it seems. Example: a friend who was 66 suddenly collapsed and gone in seconds. He was suffering with A-fib and had an appt to see his cardiologist which he didn’t make it to. I know he had at least 2 Moderna shots. At his funeral I spoke to his close friend who believed the shots had something to do with or caused the A-fib. However, his brother said their father died of heart problems. Did he die prematurely is the question I suppose.
They can`t speak up, they`re dying
They succumb easily and quickly to peer pressure.
Freethinkers they are not.
.
You Have To Ask Yourself ...
If These People Were Dumb Enough
To Allow This To Happen To Them,
Maybe Swapping Them For A Wave Of
Illegal Mexican Landscapers
Isn't That Bad Of A Development.
.
This simply a case of "When PRIDE and DENIAL" are the exact same thing!
Being so egotistically proud of my image and identity as to deceive everyone as to my grave error.
As a person involved in making a greater financial lifestyle basically by my keeping up appearances,
I might exhibit a mode of silence and hope this all goes away as well. One day regrets may flow.
There were so many people in entertainment involved in advertising these experimental injections. It is against the ethics of medical experiments to advertise like this anyway in the UK. Then I found that Professionals working in Medicine were completely and angrily against discussing anything to do with the injections. I wondered if they were threatened in some way.
I wish some of them were honest enough to stand by their vows, such as "do no harm", and to speak the truth.
It is a bad world where people use their status to drive others to think it's ok to have something that has such a high likelihood of killing or maiming them.