After Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, Johnson & Johnson became the third vaccine to be authorized for distribution in the United States. After its approval, controversy quickly arose as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and other dioceses from across the country released statements expressing “moral concerns” over the shot due to its use of lab-grown cells that descend from cells taken in the 1980s from the tissue of aborted fetuses. While fetal tissue may be a legitimate concern for many, it is fairly common in plenty of other vaccines. And Johnson & Johnson has given us far greater reasons to be skeptical of their products.
Johnson & Johnson knew for decades their baby powder was tainted with carcinogenic asbestos and they kept that information from regulators and the public. A government-funded study from the mid-1990s found that Johnson’s baby powder caused cancer in rats and other studies have found an increased risk of cancer in women who used their talc-based products. The potential risks have been known to the company for decades.
What’s more, in 2018, the pharma giant was ordered to pay $4.7 billion to thousands of victims who reportedly developed cancer from using Johnson & Johnson’s products. In that case, 22 women alleged the company’s talc-based products, including its baby powder, contained the known carcinogen, asbestos, which caused them to develop cancer. According to reports, there are over 9,000 similar talc lawsuits against the company.
Currently faced with several major lawsuits for fueling the opioid crisis in the United States, Johnson & Johnson also has a history of bribing doctors and government officials. Even more disturbing still, a Reuters investigation found that J&J knowingly sold a baby powder product that they knew had asbestos in it, which causes mesothelioma….
Last month marked the 56th anniversary of the assassination of Malcom X. Since that fateful day back in 1965, controversy has swarmed the case with conspiracy theories abounding. The official story happens to be one of the most flawed versions.
According to the official story, Malcolm X, born Malcolm Little in 1925, was assassinated by rival Black Muslims on February 21, 1965 while addressing his Organization of Afro-American Unity at the Audubon Ballroom in Washington Heights.
Three members of the Nation of Islam (NOI) — Talmadge Hayer or Thomas Hagan (a.k.a Mujahid Abdul Halim), Norman Butler (a.k.a Muhammad Abdul Aziz) and Thomas Johnson (a.k.a Khalil Islam) — were convicted of his murder in 1966 — despite glaring inconsistencies in the case.
Officials at the time of his murder claimed Malcolm’s assassination was the result of an ongoing dispute between him and the NOI. Though Malcolm had left the group in 1964 on bad terms, Butler (Aziz) and Johnson (Islam) have consistently professed their innocence, and scholars who have studied the case have raised doubts about the killing’s circumstances.
What’s more, there was no evidence linking Butler or Johnson to the crime. Butler even had an alibi for the time of the murder: He was at home resting after injuring his leg. This was backed up by a doctor who had treated him and who took the stand during the trial. Nonetheless, all three men were found guilty in 1966 and sentenced to life in prison. Case closed.
Following the release of a Netflix documentary series last year, that delved into these doubts, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance announced that his office was going to review the case. Little has come from this investigation and it looked like more lip service from officials.
Then, last week, a letter was released, reportedly written by Ray Wood who was an undercover police officer at the time. Wood’s attorney and family claim Wood wrote the letter on his deathbed confessing the NYPD and the FBI conspired to kill Malcolm X.
According to Wood’s cousin, Reggie Wood, who released the letter, Ray Wood wrote it after being diagnosed with stomach cancer back in 2011. His wishes were that the letter be released after his death. Because Ray Wood would go into remission, Reggie did not release the letter until now.
“For 10 years I’ve carried this confession secretly in fear of what could happen to my family and myself if the government found out what I knew,” Reggie Wood said….
Researchers at Karlstad University, Uppsala University and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York have found that exposure to bisphenol F (BPF) during early pregnancy can be linked to poorer cognitive function in children at seven years of age. BPF has replaced bisphenol A (BPA) in a wide range of products as the EU has banned BPA in products for children. This study is the first to show that prenatal exposure for the substitute chemical BPF is associated with impaired cognitive development in children….
Exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy to mixtures of suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in consumer products is related to lower IQ in children by age 7, according to a study by researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Karlstad University, Sweden, published in Environment International in October. This study is among the first to look at prenatal suspected endocrine-disrupting chemical mixtures in relation to neurodevelopment….
By Joe Hoft
Already by the end of January 2020, elements within the U.S. government and the U.S. scientific establishment were becoming increasingly concerned that the American people might learn the truth about the origin of the COVID-19.
That is, it was an artificial virus created in a laboratory in the People’s Republic of China with the assistance of U.S. scientists and funding from the U.S. government.
In addition to pressure coming directly from the Chinese Communist Party, there was, no doubt, similar coercion being brought to bear on susceptible and compliant people in Washington D.C. by international financial interests, whose investments in China would be placed in jeopardy if it was widely accepted that China manufactured the COVID-19 virus.
Similarly at stake were the careers of prominent members of the U.S. scientific establishment, who could be considered complicit or potentially culpable.
There was also the likely loss of trust by the American people in the integrity of science overall.
Like their partners in China, what U.S. government officials and members of the U.S. scientific establishment feared most was accountability.
That was the primary selfish motive for the cover-up they appeared to have initiated.
It began on February 3, 2020, when a meeting was held at U.S. National Academy of Science, led by Kelvin Droegemeier, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; D. Christian Hassell, Senior Science Advisor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.
The emails related to the February 3, 2020 meeting are below:
Attendees included other U.S. government staff members from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Institutes of Health and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Most of the participating scientists either had long histories of collaborative coronavirus research with China or were later associated with a robust support of China and the theory that COVID-19 originated as a naturally-occurring disease outbreak.
According to the Statement of Task and Work Plan, which were distributed before the meeting, it was already decided that the COVID-19 pandemic originated as a natural-occurring or “evolutionary” event and that arguments to the contrary needed to be countered.
That is, it was the responsibility of U.S. government officials and members of the U.S. scientific establishment to provide a continuous stream of evidence to support a preordained outcome, one that protected China, international financial interests and themselves from potential complicity or culpability.
As revealed in their own emails, the deliberations by the scientists involved in preparing a response to the February 3, 2020 meeting were primarily focused on suppressing any discussion that the COVID-19 virus might have originated in a laboratory.
Yet, the efforts to create a narrative that the COVID-19 pandemic was a naturally-occurring transmission from animals to humans for which no one is to blame went far beyond the response to the February 3, 2020 meeting.
Before the ink was dry on that response, Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, on February 6, 2020, separately contacted selected scientific participants from the February 3, 2020 meeting in order to launch a public relations campaign in scientific journals in support of China, the theory that the COVID-19 pandemic was a naturally-occurring event and to condemn a laboratory origin as a conspiracy theory. …
The statements made in these emails are stunning and can be construed as conspiratorial….
More surprisingly, however, Daszak included Lin-Fa Wang, who previously worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and was considered by some as a conduit to the Chinese Communist Party.
Daszak’s own words in that email exchange suggest that his public relations campaign was supported if not initiated by China and that Daszak’s and the others’ continued research collaboration with China was at risk:…………
Lawsuit challenges rule allowing people to install wireless transmitting antennas on their homes without notifying neighboring property owners. The new rule would preempt state and local zoning laws, homeowner association rules and deed restrictions.
On Feb. 26, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a new lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) challenging the adoption of a rule that would allow people to install wireless transmitting antennas on their homes without notifying neighboring properties. The suit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the DC Circuit.
At issue is an amendment to the “Over-the-Air Reception Devices” rule (“OTARD”) that would deprive people of the opportunity to object to the installation of wireless transmitting antennas on neighboring homes.
Four of nine Supreme Court Justices think it’s ok for illegal aliens to commit identity theft?!?
Any group of nine people in any field of employment would probably come up with a better score than five out of nine.
Excuse me, but why did this even have to go to the Supreme Court – and why did tney agree to hear the case? Aren’t there already laws against identity theft?
The Supreme Court recently took on a case involving undocumented workers and ruled that illegal aliens who steal Americans’ Social Security numbers can be charged with a crime.
The SCOTUS issued a major 5-4 decision that illegal immigrants who use someone else’s information when filling out tax forms for employment can face criminal charges…