Gallery: Today, Oct. 18, 2021

Today, Oct. 18, 2021

October 18, 2021 by 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

My thanks to Len, D, and Brian for their research, the fruits of which appear here.

Remember: “War” is for the purpose of declaring martial law. Declaring martial law is for the purpose of announcing the fall of the cabal and the return of the Republic. 

No need to worry. This is what we’ve been waiting for.

Nurses care for COVID patient

More Than Half a Million Health Care Workers Quit Their Jobs in August

Khaleda Rahman, Newsweek, 10/13/21


More than half a million health care workers quit their jobs in August, according to a new report from the Labor Department.

The report, known as the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS, showed that about 4.3 million Americans quit their jobs in August—the highest on record since December 2000.

About 534,000 health care workers quit their jobs in August, up from about 404,000 during the same month in 2020.

The numbers suggest health care workers handed in their resignations in droves—fueling ongoing concerns of staffing shortages—as the highly contagious Delta variant caused COVID-19 hospitalizations to soar across the U.S. over the summer.

Record-high numbers of Americans working in other public-facing roles also quit their jobs as coronavirus cases surged.

About 892,000 people quit their jobs in hotels, bars and restaurants, up about 21 percent from July and almost twice as many as in August 2020. Meanwhile, about 721,000 Americans quit retail jobs.

But in other industries such as manufacturing, construction, and transportation and warehousing, quits only slightly increased.

The number of Americans who quit their jobs was highest in the South and Midwest, the government said in a report on Friday. Those regions suffered the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in August.

A heart with wings is drawn on the window as nurses care for a Covid-19 patient inside the ICU (intensive care unit) at Adventist Health in Sonora, California on August 27, 2021. More than half a million health care workers quit their jobs in August.

Tuesday’s report showed that hiring slowed in August, while the number of jobs available fell to 10.4 million, from a record high of 11.1 million in July. The largest decreases in job openings were in health care and social assistance (-224,000); accommodation and food services (-178,000); and state and local government education (-124,000).

The date on quits is likely too early to show the impact of vaccine mandates. It wasn’t until mid-September that President Joe Biden on Thursday announced sweeping new federal vaccine requirements for as many as 100 million Americans— private-sector employees as well as health care workers and federal contractors.

Friday’s report from the Labor Department also showed that the unemployment rate fell from 5.2 percent to 4.8 percent in September.

Nebraska AG Issues Opinion on Doctors Prescribing HCQ and Ivermectin for COVID Treatment Will Not Face Punishment

Jim Hoft, Gatdeway Pundit, October 16, 2021


The Office of the Attorney General in Nebraska issued an opinion Friday in response to the request of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services that states there’s no “clear and convincing evidence that a physician who first obtains informed consent and then utilizes Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 violates the UCA (Nebraska’s Uniform Credential Act).”

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson together with his Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General issued their opinion in response to a request by Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services CEO, Dannette Smith. She wanted the AG’s office to examine carefully whether doctors could face legal action or be subject to discipline if they prescribed the meds for COVID treatment.

“Allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital, and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system,” AG Doug Peterson wrote.

The Office of AG pointed to multiple medical journal articles, research, and case studies. They mentioned the study from Lancet that was later on retracted because of its flawed statistics regarding the use of HCQ.

After receiving your question and conducting our investigation, we have found significant controversy and suspect information about potential COVID-19 treatments. A striking example features one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals–the Lancet. In the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Lancet published a paper denouncing hydroxychloroquine as dangerous. Yet the reported statistics were so flawed that journalists and outside researchers immediately began raising concerns.

Then after one of the authors refused to provide the analyzed data, the paper was retracted, but not before many countries stopped using hydroxychloroquine and trials were cancelled or interrupted. The Lancet’s own editor in chief admitted that the paper was a “fabrication, “a monumental fraud,” and “a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.”

Because of conflicting data on the treatments by the principal authors, “We find that the available data does not justify filing disciplinary actions against physicians simply because they prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19,” the opinion said.

Office of AG also used the study from the Mahmud and Niaee research team and many more about Ivermectin’s role as prophylaxis.

Moving beyond ivermectin’s role as a prophylaxis, other studies have demonstrated its potential as a COVID-19 treatment. The Mahmud study–a CT that explored ivermectin as an early treatment for 363 individuals–concluded that “patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative on day 14.

And Niaee’s research team found that ivermectin can help even hospitalized patients. That group conducted a “randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial” with 180 hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. They concluded that ivermectin “reduces the rate of mortality and duration of hospitalization in adult COVID-19 patients,” and the improvement of other clinical parameters showed that the ivermectin, with a wide margin of safety, had a high therapeutic effect on COVID-19.”

The office of AG even attacked the company, Merck, on their agenda.

Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe? There are at least two plausible reasons. First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to “conduct clinical trials” on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance.

Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. “[The U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.”

That treatment, known a “molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease.” On October 1, 2021, Merck announced that preliminary studies indicate that molnupiravir “reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half,” and that same day its stock price “jumped as much as 12.3%.” Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than–or even the same as-molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars.

The COVID-19 Moderna Vaccination prepared at Lesonnac Free Clinic in Orange, Calif., on March 9, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

Employers Beware: You May Be Liable for Vaccine Mandates

James Taylor, Epoch Times, October 12, 2021



Pilots are protesting Southwest Airlines’ requirement that all employees must get COVID-19 vaccinations, and news reports speculated that mass cancelations of Southwest flights that began over the weekend were the result of pilots staging a “sickout.” But employee protests, sickouts, walk-outs, and terminations may not be the biggest threats employers face if they impose vaccine mandates.

Employers that are considering forcing their employees to get COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of employment should be aware they could face legal liability—and potentially for big money—if and when an employee or potential hire suffers death or other adverse health effects from the vaccine.

The federal government has given clear and blanket legal protection to itself and vaccine manufacturers. However, the federal government has not given such clear and blanket protection to employers that force employees to take the vaccine.

Some legal experts and vaccine proponents argue worker compensation laws and their limited liability provisions may apply to an employee vaccination claim. The argument is that vaccine side effects are essentially the same as a workplace injury. Workers’ compensation insurance pays the actual costs of medical treatment and lost wages due to a workplace injury, but does not allow a worker to sue for pain and suffering, impacts on life functions, and other damages.

While courts of law could rule that workers’ compensation applies, or could rule that employers are immune from liability due to government pressure imposed on employers to require vaccination, that has yet to be established in the courts. Until and unless the courts grant universal legal protection for requiring vaccination, the federal government is requiring employers to take a legal risk that it’s not willing to take itself.

So long as there is any legal uncertainty regarding the topic, trial lawyers will look for opportunities to file lawsuits that could bankrupt an employer in legal fees, even if the employer prevails on the underlying claim. And if a worker prevails on an underlying claim, verdicts on damages for death or debilitating injuries could reach millions of dollars.

The case for employer legal protection becomes even more precarious when considering the mounting evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are causing more widespread and serious side-effects than initially hoped for and reported. In a recent exposé by Project Veritas, federal Health and Human Services medical staff admit there are far more people possibly dying and suffering debilitating side effects from the vaccine than the government is acknowledging. Even if vaccine proponents assert the deaths and debilitating health impacts shortly after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine are merely coincidental rather than caused by the vaccine, a jury determining liability and damages could determine otherwise.

Also, many employees can prove they have already developed COVID-19 antibodies via natural immunity or are in high-risk groups for vaccine side-effects. If a company’s vaccine policy does not allow exceptions for these cases, that may enhance liability when people in either group suffer harm as a result of an employer-mandated vaccination. Will the courts still apply blanket legal liability even in these cases? Some people may think they know the answer, but there is no clear and binding law or legal ruling yet on the subject.

Despite these legal risks and the lack of clear legal immunity, the Biden administration is counting on a proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule to force businesses with 100 or more employees to require COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment.

Employers should beware, however, that the rule has yet to be enacted. Moreover, the proposed rule will certainly face credible legal challenges, including attorneys general in at least 24 states signaling they will legally challenge the OSHA rule. Reliance on a controversial proposed rule that has yet to be implemented and will likely face intense and credible legal scrutiny is a risky proposition in itself.

Mandating COVID-19 vaccinations is not as simple as it seems. Employers would be wise to consult with a practicing attorney before deciding whether or not to require employees take a COVID-19 vaccine.

The Rehearsal is Over

Charles Eisenstein, Oct 9, 2021


A friend wrote me about her dilemma. She owns a company employing hundreds of people and is a staunch critic of that-which-shall-not-be-named. She said she has been trying to fly under the radar until sanity is restored, but with looming mandates for large employers, the radar will soon turn on her. What will she do?

I will share with you the inner monologue that her note provoked in me.

* * *

A return to sanity? Sanity will not be restored for us by others. We are the ones that must restore it. We cannot wait for others to be brave on our behalf. We are here in this initiatory moment to choose who we are. The choice of whether to capitulate or to act is a declaration: Who am I to be? What is the world to be? Am I serious enough about my vision for the world to risk my security for it? That is not a challenge meant to goad myself into action. It is simply true. Through my choice, I will know myself as I am. I will become as I choose. The rehearsal is over.

* * *

Many people trust the authorities and willingly comply with their rules. They face no dilemma, no initiatory moment, no self-defining world-creating choice point, not yet.

But as the authorities’ narratives devolve into absurdity and their rules devolve into oppression, more and more of us face this choice:

To live your truth out loud, or
To live by a lie, consoling yourself with secret protest.
To do what you know is right, or
To cave in to the pressure, consoling yourself with words you don’t believe. “I had no choice.”

Yes, for many of us it has come to such a choice. The rehearsal is over.

* * *

Maybe, I think, maybe now is not the time to be brave. Maybe now is not the time to speak out. I’ll wait until it is a little safer.

But it will never be safe to be brave. Never.

If not now, when? If not I, who?

Shall I wait for others to do what I dare not do? We are ready. We’ve been preparing and being prepared for a long time. The rehearsal is over.

* * *

The message is not “Act now.” Do not accept pressure, coercion, bribes or threats. Don’t let me or anyone else tell you what to do or when to do it. We are fighting for the end of the time of dictating each other’s choices, thinking I know better than you what you should be doing.

I trust you to know the right choice. Being trusted is an invitation to be trustworthy. Trusting you to be brave, you become brave, just as I become brave when people see me as brave. Bravery is not a personal achievement; it is a community function. It is a contagion. It is a mutual awakening.

Bravery means acting when you know it is time to act. It isn’t the convenient time. It is simply the time. It is the moment of, “Enough!” It is the moment of, “It is time to do something about it.” It is the moment of truth over consequences.

In that moment you act not because it is brave, but because it is necessary. You recognize that the moment has come. Why now? Because it is time. No other reason is needed.

Bravery means doing what is yours to do, when it is time to do it. Denying that knowing locks your heart in a box. Life becomes a chore. Despair descends like a fog, turning everything gray. Hope withers, leaving behind the dry empty husk called wishful thinking. And you face the dread of living the rest of life knowing, “I did not do what I was here to do, when the moment came and it counted.”

The rehearsal is over.

* * *

If I am not brave, what reason have I to hope others will be? Courage and cowardice both are contagious. My choice establishes a principle of human nature. It declares not only who I am, but what a human being is. and what the world shall be. Each choice is therefore a prayer. Our choices scaffold divine creation.

That is why synchronicity so often congeals around bravery. Synchronicity is the snapping of the laws of probability as reality shifts to align with brave choices.

Seeing that creative power, one knows the despair was based on false premises. The ego’s cautious logic is reversed. The ego says, “Give me a guarantee that it will work and I’ll be OK, then I’ll do it.” The ego says, “Promise me that enough other people will resist, and then I’ll resist too. Prove to me it won’t be in vain. Guarantee that others will join in.” God says, “Show me that you want a more beautiful world enough to actually risk something with no guarantee. Then you will see results beyond all reckoning.”

Is your time for choosing here? You will recognize when it is. No one can escape that feeling of recognition when the moment comes. If you have read this far, that time is close. You know exactly what I’m talking about.

The rehearsal is over.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.