WAUCK: "The Uniparty—&, to be fair, Trump—are trying to ignore the biggest issue in US politics: The Covid Regime of forced injections, forced restriction on movement and freedom of association, forced restrictions on freedom of speech. It was all done by various subterfuges, but...Nevertheless, the truth about the enormity of what was foisted on us continues to come out.

Roundup: Covid Regime, War

MARK WAUCK SEP 2

The Uniparty—and, to be fair, Trump—are trying to ignore the biggest issue in US politics: The Covid Regime of forced injections, forced restriction on movement and freedom of association, forced restrictions on freedom of speech. It was all done by various subterfuges, but that’s what it amounted to—massive coercion, backed up with surveillance powers beyond anything imagined since Orwell wrote 1984. Actually, although the midget presidential candidates and all but a small handful of federal elected officials are trying to ignore the Covid Regime issue and its massively deleterious effects on the life of the country, the Ruling Class is testing the waters with the idea of reinstituting a new version of the Covid Regime in time to prevent a free and fair election in 2024 ('Election Variant' Prompts NYC Mask Advisory). Nevertheless, the truth about the enormity of what was foisted on us continues to come out.

In the news today probably the most important development is the 5th Circuit overturning a lower court dismissal of a lawsuit by prominent physicians who had claimed that the FDA had overstepped its authority in attempting to prevent the use of ivermectin to treat Covid. Red State has an account of this development, with links to additional sources. Here’s the short version of what happened today:

The lawsuit was dismissed in December by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown, who ruled that the complaints didn’t overcome the FDA’s “sovereign immunity,” a concept that protects government entities from many civil lawsuits regarding their responsibilities. The appellate panel said the FDA’s alleged overstepping of its authority opened the door for the lawsuit.

Brown is a Trump judge who has ruled on Covid cases in the past, getting things right:

In January 2022, Brown enjoined enforcement of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees that President Biden's administration had implemented. Noting his belief that people should get vaccinated against COVID-19, Brown explained that the case turned on the question of "whether the President can, with the stroke of a pen and without the input of Congress, require millions of federal employees to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment." In April 2022, two judges on a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated Judge Brown's ruling, but in June a majority of active Fifth Circuit judges voted to rehear the cause en banc, thereby vacating the April panel opinion. In March 2023, the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed Judge Brown's nationwide injunction; Judge Andrew Oldham wrote the opinion for a ten-member majority.

Red State quotes the AP on the outcome of the current case:

The doctors can proceed with their lawsuit contending that the FDA’s campaign [to effectively ban the use of ivermectin in treating Covid] exceeded the agency’s authority under federal law, the ruling said.

“FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise,” Judge Don Willett wrote for a panel that also included Jennifer Walker Elrod and Edith Brown Clement. “The Doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s Posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to.”

This means that the doctors can proceed with discovery, which could prove extremely interesting when it comes to unmasking (!) the Covid Regime and those who empowered it—who wanted the FDA to take what actions with regard to invermectin. This comes at a time when the SCOTUS is also on a campaign to rein in our runaway Administrative State. Further, it will certainly open up issues of fact and of science at a time when more and more revelations about the side effects of the experimental mRNA gene therapy injections are coming to light. The more matters of fact and science federal courts take under consideration regarding the Covid Regime the better. This is very good news.

And speaking of revelations, here are two items. The first is a link to Karl Denninger, who cites a study that confirms that in many people the spike protein continues to circulate for months—or indefinitely:

Double-Plus Ungood

In many people, roughly half, the material does not degrade for a very long time.  It is found in the circulation for six months, at least, and quite-possibly longer (I don't think we have an outside edge yet) and given that Salk has pointed out that the spike protein alone, absent the rest of the virus, in fact results in pathology including damage to the endothelium which lines every blood vessel, you now have receipts for how this is screwing people at least on a circulatory (e.g. cardiac, strokes, etc.) basis and quite possibly beyond that in myriad other ways, including cancer.

This study proves that it is not infection that brought that result as the jab material was constructed using pseudouridine which is a man-made substance that "acts" sort of like the natural nucleoside uridine but it isn't and, since it is not naturally occurring, it can't have come from being infected with the virus.  It can only happen as a result of vaccination.

The debate over whether you "rapidly process and clear" the materials in the jabs is over folks; the odds are very high that you don't clear it and since we know the spike protein without the rest of the virus is directly harmful here is your smoking gun.  The last thing you want is the spike protein circulating in your body for months; if that occurs the odds are extremely high it will produce serious or even fatal consequences over the intermediate and longer term.  Its logical (but not proved) that the pseudo-uridine is responsible for this as the entire reason they used it is that without it the mRNA is broken down too quickly in the body to be effective.

This is the kind of stuff that will be showing up in amicus briefs in court. For those interested in more of an overview of what’s going on with mRNA based treatments generally—because the US is investing large amounts of money into this largely untested gene therapy technology—here’s another article:

Conflicting Evidence Of mRNA Technology Raises Serious Concerns About Rush For Use In New Vaccine Development