Covid Response Fallout


PREMO Member
A Minnesota jury found 5 of the 7 Somali defendants guilty of stealing millions of dollars in Covid funds intended to feed children.



Well-Known Member
70 of these thieving bass turds and they only got 5 of them. There should be 70 ass wipes on a slow boat back to Somalia.
  • Like
Reactions: BOP


PREMO Member
🪖 I have no transcript from yesterday’s talk at the NACL Conference, but I wrote this up from my notes.

Why was I asked to come here and talk about “covid”? Isn’t the pandemic over? Can’t we move on already? Unfortunately, the pandemic is not over. The pandemic is the explanation for every major problem. The pandemic knocked the world off its axis, and it is still spinning wonky.

Here’s the problem. Covid launched the three most important Biblically-based values historically constraining government into outer space: truth, transparency, and trust. In absentia, these fundamental core principles were all enslaved to a new master value: science.


From the first, when Christians originally invented science, it was never a value system. Christians already had a value system. Science was not a value system, it was a skeptical process for falsifying hypotheses.

Science was a thinking toolbox. It held a hammer of skepticism, a wrench of logic, and a screwdriver of reason. It was designed to help humans learn more about the natural laws governing our perceptible universe. You couldn’t touch science. You couldn’t see it. It’s not tangible. You can’t really put it in a toolbox, or a hot pocket, or anywhere else.

But like the Hulk, ’science’ evolved. It morphed, emerging after centuries from its intangible chrysalis of rational inquiry, revealed as something new, something tangible, something that had its own separate existence. It became Science with a capital ’S’. And Science was something to believe in, like Santa Clone or the Tooth Fauci.

Belief in capital-S Science required faith, not reason. And faith is something that brooks no questions.

Faith and belief are binaries. They are litmus tests. Either you believed in Science, or you didn’t—there was no middle ground. If you didn’t believe in Science, put your faith in Science, and trust in Science, you clearly were anti-Science.

You were, in fact, a Science denier.

The ‘Science denier’ label was, of course, always a blood libel. It was intended to evoke the sulphuric odors of antisemitic Holocaust denial. Ironically, shredding small-s science’s pragmatic roots, Science irrationally injected muddy belief and politics into the previously sterile corridors of rational philosophy.

It didn’t make sense. Calling people “anti-Science” always bore the same logical weight as calling atheists anti-God, or calling UFO skeptics anti-UFO.

(This irrational train would shortly pass through the rabbit hole tunnel and arrive at an Alice in Wonderland station where the gift shop sells books like Anti-Racist Baby. But that’s a different discussion.)

Science’s zealous and devoted high priests were the billionaires, bureaucrats, and bioengineers. Science’s sacrament was the high-tech vaccine that, like baptism, must be unquestioningly received by evangelistic believers in a public demonstration designed to prove their faith. Science’s original sin was disbelief.

Many career scientists with impeccable credentials who asked the wrong questions were branded anti-Scientific and ritualistically excommunicated from the ranks of true believers.

It’s easy to mistake the high priests of this new religion of Science as the architects and authors of the religion itself. Blaming the pandemic’s fervent administrators is natural, since they were the visible face of its worst excesses. But this comfortable conclusion overlooks the vast community of maniacal adherents.

Politics, they say, is downstream from culture.

Observe the global nature of the pandemic response. The new religion of Science took the world in its iron grip, and over a few days, every single world government signed a legal loyalty oath requiring them all to respond in exactly the same way.

But universal agreement is not human. Humans never easily agree on anything. They never all agree, even when people are all aligned and same-minded. Anyone who’s ever volunteered on the homeowner’s association board knows exactly what I mean.

How then did the entire world fall into line in a few days (apart from short-lived exceptions that more fully prove the rule)? How did they achieve universal agreement to supplant the long-standing, inarguable goods of truth, transparency, and trust with a brand new lodestar, a new universal faith offering redemption to the human race — Science?

It’s equisitely tempting, comforting even, to blame the high priests of the pandemic — the billionaires, bureaucrats, and bioengineers — global agreement has never before been achieved, regardless of money or military power.

We must look for a non-human cause.

In early 2021, I published my most widely read post, which immediately went viral, got me canceled, and got C&C purged from every single publishing platform on the same day. It was a letter to the Church, addressed to pastors. I advised spiritual shepherds to stop falsely telling their flocks that the vaccines stopped transmission, and most of all, to stop preaching that taking the jabs was a moral imperative.

I explained the World had been possessed by a demonic Spirit of Fear, manifested in a substitute religion of Science with its own rituals, sacraments, and high priests. (Biblical rabbit hole: compare Zechariah 1:7-11 and 6 with Revelation 5:6 and 6:1-7, and discuss.) This diabolical Spirit of Science displaced everything in its satanic swath of destruction, casting churches into the non-essential abyss, instantly rendering them useless artifacts of the old order.

It was not coincidental that in the United States, the only lawful protection from the legalistic sacrament of mandates was a religious exemption.

The good news today is that, after recovering its footing after the shock of the initial onslaught, the rational world fought back. Now we are at war. Because it involves Spirits and not reason, it is a spiritual war.

And a spiritual war requires a spiritual defense.

Every inexplicable post-pandemic development in the world, like all the wars — both real military wars and insane cultural wars — plus the rumors of wars, and downstream global effects like worldwide inflation, are merely by-products of this spiritual war.

If that is true, how then should Christian legislators respond? The legislative response is to restore to government the essential Biblical principles of truth, transparency, and trust. The legislative branch must overthrow the false Religion of Science, along with all its unholy sacraments and performative legalism. Don’t fall into the slough of despond. Focus on those three positive values.

It’s unnecessary to grapple with Science’s made-up sins of misinformation, conspiracy theory, or its pseudo-scientific forced orthodoxy.

Government should always be truthful and should never lie. Government should always be transparent — sunlight being the best disinfectant — and should never act in secret. And government should always act in ways that cause citizens to trust it more, and never act in ways that destroy the essential trust required by democratic systems based on the notion that citizens govern themselves.

These arguments are uncontroversial and inarguable. Cling to them. Truth, transparency, and trust are universally recognized values. They aren’t the exclusive jurisdiction of Christians. They are fundamental, inarguable principles preserving freedom, individual rights, and human flourishing.

It is time to restore truth, transparency, and trust to government. It is time to reject the false premise that Science can somehow redeem humanity’s sins. It is time to focus legislative efforts on restoring real values, to force government to live up to its own standards, and to expose the false promises of pseudo-scientific deception, however painful or embarrassing that might ultimately be.



Well-Known Member

Government Reports Now Acknowledge The Lack Of Evidence Behind COVID Mandates

Scottish Report Details Predictable, Infuriating Failures Of Governments To Accurately Examine Evidence​

The Scottish government, one of the worst offenders of COVID extremism during the pandemic, commissioned a report from an independent “public health physician and medical epidemiologist,” Dr. Ashley Croft.

Before examining the evidence base of COVID interventions, Dr. Croft addressed some of the measures used to “prevent” COVID-19 by the UK and other governments. Those included vaccination, masks, and lockdowns. He also pointed out an extremely obvious reality with regards to the severity of COVID; more specifically the lack there of.

Even in 2020, according to Croft, the “case-fatality rate,” meaning the rate of mortality among detected cases, was “effectively "zero” among healthy children under the age of 18.

For those aged 18-49 it was an infinitesimal 0.006%. Also effectively zero.

And remember, this is the “case” fatality rate, not the “infection” fatality rate. That number would be significantly lower, if even possible.

That’s the “risk” from COVID, in 2020, posed to young people. The “risk” that led governments to impose universal mask mandates, school closures, lockdowns and other absurdist policies.

Remember curfews and 25% capacity limits? All to protect the vast majority of the population from a nonexistent risk?

Croft also pointed out that by late 2021 the mRNA vaccinations proved to be almost entirely ineffective at preventing infection or transmission, an obvious truth that governments, including Scotland’s, ignored when mandating vaccine passports for any number of every day activities.

Even more concerning, he explained that there were nearly 2,400 “spontaneous reports suggesting a fatal outcome” after COVID-19 vaccination in the UK.

As he has stated, that does not prove causality, but the high number is concerning when compared to the short term protection that rapidly wanes to near zero. Especially considering the already almost-nonexistent risk for those under 50.
Government will be coming up with the Bird Flu next. Stay tuned. The next government scare should be just in time for the election.


PREMO Member


PREMO Member
🔬🔬 Someday soon they’ll regret activating all these professionals who used to mind their own business. Dr. Peter McCullough and friends published a new study about the origins of bird flu this week in the open journal Cureus, titled “Proximal Origin of Epidemic Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Clade and Spread by Migratory Waterfowl.

image 8.png

McCullough is looking into bird flu, and not liking what he’s seeing. A couple days ago, he described his study’s conclusion on Twitter/X:

Our new study presents strong evidence that the current HPAI H5N1 "Bird Flu" Clade outbreak is a result of laboratory leaks from the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) in Athens, Georgia and the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.​

Before the pandemic, highly credentialed Dr. McCullough was a busy clinical cardiologist, researcher, and prolific study author. But the pandemic transformed him into one of the most prominent and influential vaccine critics and heterodox thinkers.

image 24.png

Now, he’s disassembling their silly bird flu narrative in an explosive study that properly cited virologist Geert Vanden Bossche.

McCullough’s study persuasively argued that two research labs, one in Athens, Georiga, and one in the Netherlands, caused the current bird flu ‘pandemic.’ Both labs have long been engaged in gain of function research on bird flu. So McCullough and his team mapped the spread of the current epidemic, and found geographic evidence of spread from the two labs.

image 9.png

They pulled the wool over our eyes with covid by hiding it’s lab origins until it was too late. This time, Dr. McCullough isn’t letting them get away with it. If they want to fire up a bird flu pandemic this year, the discussion will include the virus’s origins from day one.

And they might not want to talk about bird flu’s lab origins, which could cause them to back down. We’ll have to wait and see, but this study may have single-handedly torn off the new pandemic’s fake beak and saved us all from another exhausting ordeal.

Even brushing aside Biden’s nuclear warmongering, these virus scientists and their gain of function experiments “to predict the next pandemic” might pose the single greatest imminent threat to mankind. At some point, we need to start acting like they are an existential threat.



Well-Known Member
Gain of function could be called messing around in God's business I suppose. Like trying to turn men into women, artificial insemination, growing meat in a laboratory.

There are thing that occur naturally that should not be messed with. Sure you can chemically grow tits on a man, but should you?


PREMO Member
🔥🔥 Last Sunday, the New York Times juxtaposed two remarkable op-eds on the same page, not accidentally, which were so astonishing it’s worth showing the actual pages from the print edition. The opinion pieces were respectively headlined, “Why Covid Probably Started in a Lab,” and “An Object Lesson on How to Destroy Public Trust.” Indeed.

image 3.png

That wasn’t all! The two op-eds featured their own full-length cover page:

image 4.png

Here’s that centered, supremely ironic headline, but a little bigger so you can read it clearly:

image 5.png

At first, I thought they must be joking. Can we finally have an honest conversation about covid? First of all, who has been stopping that honest conversation from happening? The New York Times, among others! And second, the headline clearly implies the previous conversations weren’t honest.

Who has been lying? I’ll let you answer that one.

The first author attempted to answer those questions. Dr. Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at M.I.T. and Harvard, and co-author of “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19,” blamed all the confusion on reflexive partisan politics:

image 6.png

Next, the Times’ mind-controlled readers finally read what we’ve been trying desperately to tell them for almost four years—science created this historic catastrophe:

image 7.png

Folks, it’s slow, but we are making progress. I could quibble about the specifics, and the narrative framing, but it was all there in the op-ed. Though Dr. Chan was careful to point the finger of blame back at the Chinese, Dr. Ralph Baric, the North Carolina researcher squatting at the middle of the controversy, was named five times. He was not blamed so much as used as undisclosed evidence of lab origin:

image 8.png

Though China took center stage, the piece didn’t quite let the U.S. completely off the hook either. Dr. Chan clearly connected U.S. funding and research priorities to the pandemic, and even (gently) called out the NIAID’s top human cockroach and beagle torturer, Fauci:

image 9.png

Remarkably, there was more in Dr. Chan’s piece that I agreed with than disagreed with (though she could have gone much further).

The connected companion op-ed about lost trust in science was authored by Princeton professor and regular Times opinion columnist Zeynep Tufekci. It was equally honest — at least, as honest as we’ve yet seen in corporate media to date. Tufecki first blamed government officials as the ones who created the covid confusion, and she didn’t accept it was any accident:

image 10.png

Times readers may have ignored last week’s Congressional hearings, but now they’re reading about the low-lights. Things are heating up. Professor Tufekci outright rejected the pathetic official excuse that we didn’t know what we didn’t know, but did the best we could at the time. She called government officials (i.e., Fauci) arrogant and obstinate cowards:

image 11.png

Tufecki is no conspiracy-minded conservative. The Professor is an ardent pro-masker, a voluntary quarantiner, and a vaccine aficionado, admitting she “gleefully rolled up” her sleeve to get the shots. Gleefully.

So it was all the more remarkable that she echoed Coffee & Covid, decrying the pandemic’s “paternalistic, infantilizing government messaging” and calling, in her own way, for truth, transparency, and trust:

image 12.png

The 1,600 comments to Dr. Tufecki’s op-ed give great insight into the average Times reader’s stubborn mentality. Most commenters completely missed the point, making the elitist argument that, notwithstanding bad public messaging, they themselves always knew what was really going on, thanks to “serious” media like the Times.

Insert massive eye roll.

Here’s a typical example, a short exchange in the comments between an outraged commenter and the feisty Professor, who shot right back, comparing Atutu to an anti-vaxxer:

image 13.png

Professor Tupekci’s op-ed caused many commenters to bristle with barely concealed rage. They doggedly insisted that calling out the pandemic’s mistakes was unfair armchair quarterbacking, and was downright harmful to the narrative. Here’s one commenter, Elizabeth:

image 14.png

I included this taste of the comments because they highlighted the real problem, which is the zany zeitgeist or demonic spirit of the age. The fundamental trouble comes from the big group of folks who still believe, ipso facto, that government cannot ever err.

It is tempting to blame partisan politics, as Dr. Chan did. After all, it’s mostly leftists who’ve defensively circled the wagons around lying government officials. But politics is downstream from culture. What about personal health decisions could possibly be political?

In fact, before the pandemic, it was the left-leaning, crunchy granola folks who were always most likely to favor alternative medicines and employee rights. But the pandemic’s wrecking ball knocked normal politics askew, and now it’s all backwards and upside down.

If politics is downstream from culture, then to fix politics, we must first fix the culture. Even if fixing culture is vexingly difficult, the phenomenon is well known. In 1841, in his seminal book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” Charles Mackay famously noted, “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”

If covid isn’t an extraordinary popular delusion, then I am a spicy pepperoni Hot Pocket. For whatever reason, good or bad, limited hangout or genuine contrition, the New York Times seems to be slowly recovering its senses. And I’m counting that as progress.



PREMO Member

The Contrarians Were Right About Covid Hysteria

They see the world through the prism of safety, often ignoring— among many other factors—personal freedoms, economic consequences, and social disruptions. Safetyism can lead to some of the worst infringements of individual rights. That is why we don’t live in a public-health dictatorship.

Or rather, why we didn’t until Covid.

The thing is, though, most of the time our writers weren’t wrong. It is now indisputable that shutdowns inflicted deep harm on children and destabilized the economy. It is also highly unlikely that, after it was clear Covid variants would continue to spread, keeping businesses closed for months saved lives.

And “social distancing” rules were definitely bunk. Fauci admitted as much in a January interview with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. “It sort of just appeared, that six feet is going to be the distance,” he explained.

“It sort of just appeared” doesn’t sound like the vigorous inquiry we were promised by the self-ordained pontiff of “science.” Yet anyone who dared to tread within, say, five feet of another person was accused of being in a “death cult” and often censored on social media.

One of the problems was that Fauci could never admit to being unsure of anything. Remember when he told Americans, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” and then, months later, he wanted us wearing two of them at the same time. Yet governments almost always enacted his every suggestion.

Fauci also admitted to lying about the threshold for herd immunity because “polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine.” Worse, when three scientists — Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford — released the “Great Barrington Declaration,” questioning the efficacy of lockdowns and warning, among other things, about the damaging “physical and mental health impacts” of closing schools, Fauci colluded with others to suppress the document, plotting a “quick and devastating published takedown.”

Read the declaration. They were right. He was wrong.



PREMO Member
🔥 StatNews ran the latest bad news for the government’s pandemic response last week, headlined “100,000 models show that not much was learned about stopping the Covid-19 pandemic.” In the biggest, broadest study yet, they still can’t prove the lockdowns improved anything. Science!


The StatNews story was written by an author of a new study published in the Journal Science Advances, titled “Epidemic outcomes following government responses to COVID-19: Insights from nearly 100,000 models.

The authors conducted a “multiverse analysis” of nearly a hundred thousand different computer models. The models compared government mandates like lockdowns, school shutdowns, and mask mandates, against local covid outcomes in cases, deaths, and excess mortality. They crunched data from 181 countries.

The result: 42% of the comparative models suggested stricter government responses improved covid outcomes, while 58% suggested that outcomes got worse after mandates. In other words, they would have gotten better results by flipping a coin.

The authors, both in the study and in the StatNews article, were careful not to condemn anybody, or even label anything a ‘mistake.’ But the article’s conclusion sounded remarkably like the talk I recently gave to the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, where I called for government to embrace “truth, transparency, and trust:”

image 13.png

It’s fine and dandy to call for truth, transparency, and trust, but is anybody listening?



PREMO Member
🔥 Yesterday, Platformer ran a terrific but widely-ignored story headlined, “The Stanford Internet Observatory is being dismantled.” And good riddance! They won’t stop trying, of course, but at least one six-legged, insectile group of crypto-fascists has been squashed.

image 7.png

During the 2020 election cycle, Stanford set up the bizarrely named “Observatory” as a public-private partnership, to root out social media misinformers and snitch on them to the government. In turn, the FBI would report any “election interferers” and “science deniers” to the platforms, for “voluntary” censorship or worse.

Academic snitches get legal stitches. After the Twitter files exposed the SIO’s role in censoring Americans, at least three groups of plaintiffs have sued Stanford, alleging its researchers illegally colluded with the federal government to censor speech. And the House Committee on Weaponization of the Federal Government is currently investigating the Orwellian research group.

But there is less and less to investigate. Apparently, too much transparency has been forced onto the high-minded enterprise. Internal sources told reporters the ‘lab’ will not be researching the 2024 election, or any future election, for that matter.

In other words, if we insist on watching them while they work, then fine, they just won’t do it.

The Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) is apparently “winding down.” Founding director Alex Stamos left his post in November. Last week, research director Renee DiResta left after her contract was not renewed. Another key staff member's contract expired this month, and other staff have been advised to apply for employment elsewhere.

Apparently also tracking a culture of secrecy and obfuscation, plus lying, Stanford hotly disputes that the SIO is being dismantled. "The important work of SIO continues under new leadership, including its critical work on child safety and other online harms, its publication of the Journal of Online Trust and Safety, the Trust and Safety Research Conference, and the Trust and Safety Teaching Consortium," a spokesperson wrote.

The university complained, “Stanford remains deeply concerned about efforts, including lawsuits and congressional investigations, that chill freedom of inquiry and undermine legitimate and much needed academic research – both at Stanford and across academia."

We also remain deeply concerned, about Stanford. And we wish they would stop helping create a police state and get back to teaching kids productive business skills. Is that too much to ask?



the poor dad
Wow - Covid gain of function started at Chapel Hill NC. Whooda thunk. Great video on the history of coronavirus and its use as a bioweapon.