“…as a young Latina in politics, I had gotten used to feeling like an outsider in rooms dominated by white men. But I had never experienced anything so blatantly inappropriate and unnerving before. Biden was the second-most powerful man in the country and, arguably, one of the most powerful men in the world. He was there to promote me as the right person for the lieutenant governor job. Instead, he made me feel uneasy, gross, and confused. The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it.
Our strange interaction happened during a pivotal moment in my political career. I’d spent months raising money, talking to voters, and securing endorsements. Biden came to Nevada to speak to my leadership and my potential to be second-in-command — an important role he knew firsthand. But he stopped treating me like a peer the moment he touched me. Even if his behavior wasn’t violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful. I wasn’t attending the rally as his mentee or even his friend; I was there as the most qualified person for the job.
Imagine you’re at work and a male colleague who you have no personal relationship with approaches you from behind, smells your hair, and kisses you on the head. Now imagine it’s the CEO of the company. If Biden and I worked together in a traditional office, I would have complained to the HR department, but on the campaign trail, there’s no clear path for what to do when a powerful man crosses the line. In politics, you shrug it off, smile for the cameras, and get back to the task of trying to win your race.
After the event, I told a few of my staff what happened. We all talked about the inexplicable weirdness of what he did, but I didn’t plan on telling anyone else. I didn’t have the language or the outlet to talk about what happened. Who do you tell? What do you say? Is it enough of a transgression if a man touches and kisses you without consent, but doesn’t rise to the level of what most people consider sexual assault? I did what most women do, and moved on with my life and my work.
Time passed and pictures started to surface of Vice-President Biden getting uncomfortably close with women and young girls. Biden nuzzling the neck of the Defense secretary’s wife; Biden kissing a senator’s wife on the lips; Biden whispering in women’s ears; Biden snuggling female constituents. I saw obvious discomfort in the women’s faces, and Biden, I’m sure, never thought twice about how it made them feel. I knew I couldn’t say anything publicly about what those pictures surfaced for me; my anger and my resentment grew.
Had I never seen those pictures, I may have been able to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Had there not been multiple articles written over the years about the exact same thing — calling his creepy behavior an “open secret” — perhaps it would feel less offensive. And yet despite the steady stream of pictures and the occasional article, Biden retained his title of America’s Favorite Uncle. On occasion that title was downgraded to America’s Creepy Uncle but that in and of itself implied a certain level of acceptance. After all, how many families just tolerate or keep their young children away from the creepy uncle without ever acknowledging that there should be zero tolerance for a man who persistently invades others’ personal space and makes people feel uneasy and gross? In this case, it shows a lack of empathy for the women and young girls whose space he is invading, and ignores the power imbalance that exists between Biden and the women he chooses to get cozy with…
You don’t have to go far to see the problem with American’s federal regulatory health agencies. It’s a huge problem. I am reminded of more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC who put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the Spider Papers.
We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health. (source)
There are literally so many examples it’s ridiculous that agencies like the CDC and FDA are even allowed to operate the way they are currently operating. They control the entire medical industry, and everything in health, including medical education, is made and designed by these rogue interests….
For over two decades, American families have faced an unscrupulous foe that threatens the public health and welfare. It is a rogue, unmanageable institution within our federal government, now seemingly beholden solely to private interests. Citizens have been horribly mistaken in believing that the nation’s leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), honors its mandate to protect the public from “dangerous health threats,” both domestic and foreign. We are expected to assume the CDC relies upon the most advanced and cutting-edge medical science and data to make its policy decisions. However, the agency’s history of corruption and fraud contradict its own pledge, as outlined on its website. Instead of protecting the “health security of our nation,” the CDC uses bromides and meaningless pageantry to hide its true nature (source) .…
During the past year, especially in recent months, the fear-mongering spewing forth from the CDC has become virulent. It is a classic Orwellian script. The recent measles outbreak – although nowhere near as alarming as the flare-ups of bygone eras – has been seized upon as an opportunity to brainwash the public and reshape it into obedient livestock in order to increase vaccination compliance. Worse, this disinformation campaign ignores everything we know about measles infection and the failures of the MMR vaccine.
Unfortunately, we are no longer permitted to debate the pros and cons of the measles vaccine. The CDC consistently shuts down debate when its decisions are challenged. Physicians, medical researchers, immunologists and former vaccine advocates who challenge the loose claims for vaccine safety and efficacy are frustrated and eager to publicly debate the best vaccine advocates the CDC and vaccine industry have to offer, but none will take up the challenge because the science is so clearly not on their side.
The agency consistently fails to conduct and apply the gold standard in its own medical research and ignores the best independent peer-reviewed science. In short, this agency is a mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical-industrial complex and operates for its own financial advantage, rather than for the benefit of society. Its revolving doors are kept spinning with a constant influx of pharmaceutical industry and vaccine insiders. In fact the lines separating corporate influence and public health are grossly blurred and distorted. It is no surprise that documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests paint the CDC as rotten in its core and one of the greatest health threats to the nation. The agency, in Robert Kennedy Jr’s words, is a “cesspool of corruption.”
What you will never hear in the mainstream media is that there is another medical institution that is supposed to have been granted the responsibility to assure the CDC receives quality and reliable scientific research to use as the basis for its healthcare decisions. The Institutes of Medicine (IOM) does not possess the CDC’s legislative clout; however, it represents a far superior body of scientists and researchers in their medical fields.
Founded in 1970, the Institute of Medicine falls under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences started by President Abraham Lincoln and Congress in 1863. The Academy was founded for the purpose of bringing together the nation’s best scientific minds to advise the government on scientific matters. The IOM was founded later to provide expert advice and reliable medical research to the White House and Congressional legislators to guide their decisions, keeping them informed about the social, economic and political impacts of healthcare. According to its principles, and unlike the CDC, IOM members deliberating on vaccine research and policies are expected to be independent and not represent private interests.
During a press conference this month at Yale University, Children’s Health Defense founder Robert Kennedy Jr presented data (watch video below) from his investigations into the CDC’s culture of medical negligence and efforts to cover up of the compelling evidence for vaccine-induced injuries, including autism. Over the course of twenty years, the IOM has monitored and reviewed the medical literature to determine the most- and least- likely injuries associated with specific vaccines and provided recommendations to the CDC. In 1991, 22 illnesses were identified, 6 were confirmed as vaccine-related and 12 remained uncertain due to insufficiently reliable studies.
Those cases with confirmed causation included learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, and childhood diabetes. This data was collected subsequent to President Ronald Reagan signing the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, a point when autism rates started to climb exponentially. Three years later, the IOM identified 54 medical conditions, the medical literature supported 10 diseases as vaccine-induced and 38 were uncertain. Among the confirmed illnesses were seizures, demyelinating disease, sterility, transverse myelitis and, for the first time, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Again in 2011, the IOM reported a whopping 155 adverse conditions with 16 vaccine-induced injuries supported by the science, including a correlation between the DTaP vaccine and autism.
Unfortunately, the IOM holds no official authority over our federal agencies; consequently, its recommendations to the CDC to further investigate vaccines’ adverse effects went unheeded. Today, nothing has changed at the CDC. Instead, the agency has dug itself into a deeper hole of secrecy and corruption. With a budget of $11.5 billion, Kennedy notes that only a pathetic $20 million is designated for vaccine safety. The CDC is crying out for a thorough public audit.
These early IOM reports are extremely valuable. They identify many of the same childhood diseases that have grown to epidemic proportions in the intervening years, and they indict vaccines as a causal factor. Yet regrettably, the IOM has recently showed signs of becoming as compromised as other health agencies. It, too, may have become another pawn of the Medical Deep State that is infiltrating every state legislative body to pass draconian immunization laws with the end goal of vaccinating Americans by lies and even threats and force if necessary….
CDC=Criminal Drug Cartel
“Persons who have lost body parts must grieve their loss. The first stage of grief is denial of the loss. Fitzgerald and Parkes state that `Anything that seriously impairs sensory or cognitive function is bound to have profound psychological effects’ […] Circumcision causes the loss of a body part and all of its functions including a drastic loss of erogenous sensory function, so denial of loss is not uncommon in circumcised males. […] This frequently results in circumcised fathers adamantly insisting that a son be circumcised. […] Goldman states that some circumcised male medical doctors misuse the medical literature to support, rationalize, and justify their own loss; and to defend the practice of circumcision. Denniston reports that doctors `who have been cut themselves may be unable to stop cutting others.'”  …