Wednesday 3 July 2024

Republicans Move to Bring Back Trump-Era Rule Expanding Healthcare Options


House Republicans are introducing new legislation to bring back a rule set under President Donald Trump’s administration that expanded affordable healthcare options for self-employed people and small businesses.

The Trump rule made it easier for small businesses to group together under Association Health Plans (AHP).

AHP applicants do not have to follow all of the same requirements as Obamacare plans.

The lower requirements make AHPs a cheaper alternative.

However, Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration repealed Trump’s Department of Labor Rule in April.

The Biden admin called it an end-run around the Affordable Care Act and its “critical consumer protections.”

A federal judge reached a similar conclusion when striking down Trump’s rule in 2019.

On Tuesday, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) is introducing legislation to undo Biden’s action.

In a statement about the move, Walberg said:

“Biden has sought to undo a Trump-era rule, which both lowers health care costs and expands health care options for working Americans and small businesses.

“This is yet another example of Biden saying one thing but doing the other at the expense of the American people.”

Supporters of Trump’s initiative say it expanded choice for consumers without access to subsidized health coverage.

AHPs allow small businesses to group together and offer bulk rates as large companies do.

“The Trump-era AHP rule levels the playing field for small businesses who are allowed to band together to get similar bulk rates that large corporations enjoy,” Walberg said.

“Sadly, the Biden administration continues their illogical commitment to undoing Trump’s successful policies.”

Democrats have explicitly attacked AHPs because they offer freedom of choice.

They say AHPs incentivize healthier, low-risk individuals to leave the ACA risk pool, driving up premiums for sicker individuals.

House Education and the Workforce Committee Ranking Member Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) hailed the Biden admin’s move to roll back AHPs in April.

“AHPs may provide lower costs to some enrollees, but they do so by skimping on benefits and increasing costs for everybody else,” he said.

“If healthy, low-risk individuals can leave the Affordable Care Act Marketplace risk pool, join a separate association, and pay lower rates, those who did not get into these plans will—on average—be forced to pay higher premiums.”

As always, Democrats want everyone on the government plantation.

Why not let people choose what healthcare is best for them?


Elon Musk Slams Kamala Harris for 'Lying' about Trump



X boss Elon Musk blasted Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris after he caught her “lying” in a social media post.

Musk responded to a post from Harris that included false claims about President Donald Trump and his position regarding abortion.

In a post on X, which is owned by Musk, Harris declared:

“Donald Trump would ban abortion nationwide.”

“President @JoeBiden and I will do everything in our power to stop him and restore women’s reproductive freedom,” she added.

The post was hit with a notice from Community Notes, the platform’s way for readers to counter messages viewed as false or lacking context.

To refute Harris’s claim, users posted information from CNN, BBC, The Associated Press, The New York Times, and Trump’s own Truth Social account.

Trump has said abortion limits should be left to the states, and he recently posted a video on Truth Social clearly detailing his position.

“My view is – now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both,” Trump said.

“And whatever they decide must be the law of the land — in this case, the law of the state.”

The AP report used to fact-check Harris was bluntly headlined:

“Trump declines to endorse a national abortion ban. He says limits should be left to the states.”

Musk scolded Harris for “lying” about the issue on his social media platform.

As many were quick to point out, Harris clearly knows where Trump stands on the issue so her post could only have sought to mislead voters.

“When will politicians, or at least the intern who runs their account, learn that lying on this platform doesn’t work anymore?” Musk asked.

During CNN’s Presidential Debate last week, Trump was asked about his stance on abortion.

He was also asked whether he would block abortion medication for women.

“First of all, the Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill and I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it,” Trump said, referring to mifepristone.

Trump applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022 and return the decision on abortion access to the states.

The landmark Dobbs decision did not make abortion illegal nationally but rather found that abortion was not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

“I put three great Supreme Court justices on the court and they happened to vote in favor of killing Roe v. Wade and moving it back to the states,” Trump said.

“This is something that everybody wanted.

“Now the states are working it out.”

Trump came in for criticism for claiming the decision was something “everyone wanted.”

Polls have consistently shown a majority of Americans want abortion to be legal in some aspect while differing as to how far into pregnancy it should be.

A Gallup survey last year found 61 percent of Americans think overturning Roe was a “bad thing.”

However, much of the corporate media reporting on the issue has sought to mislead the public about why the ruling was overturned and how it impacted abortions.

Trump said every state is “making their own decisions right now.”

“They’re all making their own decisions right now and right now the states control it,” Trump said.

“That’s the vote of the people.”

But Trump maintained that, like former President Ronald Reagan, he believes in “exceptions.”

“I believe in the exceptions,” Trump said.

“I am a person that believes, and frankly, I think it is important to believe in the exceptions

“Some people, you have to follow your heart, some people don’t believe in that.

“But I believe in the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

“I think it’s very important.”

In defending his pro-abortion position during the debate, Democrat President Joe Biden argued that “a lot of young women are being raped” by “their sisters.”


Trump Demands Immediate Release of Jan 6 Defendants after Supreme Court Ruling: 'Free the Hostages Now'


President Donald Trump has called for the immediate release of individuals arrested over the January 6 protests at the U.S. Capitol in 2021.

This follows a pivotal Supreme Court decision that may alter the legal landscape for many involved.

In a significant legal and political development, a Supreme Court ruling might change the basis of charges against numerous January 6 defendants, Politico reported.

During a rally in Virginia on Friday, Trump voiced strong support for those arrested over Jan. 6.

He made these remarks following a Supreme Court decision issued the same day.

The high court questioned the grounds of federal obstruction charges against about 350 protesters.

The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified that such charges should be upheld only if it can be demonstrated that the defendants intended to obstruct the physical counting of electoral votes.

This decision has potentially significant implications for those charged.

Reacting to the court’s decision, Trump said:

“Free the [Jan. 6] hostages now.

“They should free them now for what they’ve gone through.”

Trump was emphasizing the lengthy wait and the perceived injustice faced by the defendants.

His comments came just hours after the Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 ruling.

“They’ve been waiting for this decision for a long time,” Trump added during the rally.

“They’ve been waiting for a long time.

“That was a great answer, that was a great thing for people who’ve been so horribly treated.

His remarks underscored his view that the ruling was a significant relief for those involved.

Last month, Trump promised to pardon “a large portion” of those involved in the protests should he win a second term in the Oval Office.

This pledge aligns with his latest calls for their release, highlighting his ongoing commitment to these individuals.

Furthermore, during the debate with Democrat President Joe Biden, Trump condemned political violence but steered clear of committing to the acceptance of the 2024 election results.

He also raised the issue of election fraud in the 2020 election.

The legal ramifications of the Supreme Court’s ruling are substantial.

By setting a higher bar for federal obstruction charges, the decision might lead to the reassessment of the charges or strategies in numerous cases related to the January 6 events.

This development could influence not only the legal strategy employed by defense attorneys but also the broader narrative surrounding the events of that day and their prosecution.

The call by Trump for the release of the January 6 defendants has sparked a wide range of reactions from different political and public sectors.Supporters see it as a correction of an overreach in the justice system, while critics argue it could undermine the rule of law and the seriousness of the offenses committed during the Capitol protests.

As these legal and political narratives continue to evolve, the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision and Trump’s advocacy for the defendants will likely resonate through the upcoming electoral cycle, influencing both public opinion and judicial proceedings.

In conclusion, Trump’s urgent call for the release of the January 6 defendants following a Supreme Court ruling that may change the basis of their charges marks a critical point in the ongoing debate over the events of that day.

His remarks during a Virginia rally emphasize his continued commitment to these individuals, coupled with a promise of pardons in a potential second term.

This situation remains a pivotal element of the broader narrative involving political violence, election integrity, and legal accountability in the United States.



And,

Jonathan Turley: Supreme Court 'Downgraded' Jan 6 to 'Trespassing'



Legal scholar Jonathan Turley has revealed that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Jan. 6 defendants has now “downgraded” the charges related to the Capitol protests to merely “trespassing.”

Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, was responding to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down the use of a 2001 statute to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction of a legal proceeding.

In a new op-ed in The Hill, Turley said the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fischer V. U.S. downgraded the breach of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, from the “insurrection” the Democrats and media have trumpeted to mere “trespassing.”

Hundreds of January 6 defendants will now see the obstruction charges against them dropped.

One of those defendants is President Donald Trump.

The high court said the obstruction statute, created after the Enron scandal to apply to the destruction of official documents and records, was used incorrectly by Democrat President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ).

The DOJ used the charge to make the events of that day seem more serious and justify the use of the term “insurrection” against Trump and his supporters.

The “novel interpretation would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison,” the majority opinion in the case read.

Along with Turley, many now feel vindicated in calling Jan. 6 the Capitol “breach” instead of a “riot” or “insurrection.”

While some involved in the protests at the Capitol may have broken the law, a trespassing or unlawful entry charge is more appropriate to their actions.

The very idea that Trump supporters had launched an “insurrection” was ludicrous from the beginning.

Other protesters who enter public buildings are not charged with obstruction.

Additionally, the official action of that day to certify the electoral votes was not stopped, only delayed by the protesters’ actions.

It’s clear that the “insurrection” narrative was only pushed to give Democrats an electoral advantage or to try to keep Trump off the ballot.

Nevertheless, the public is seeing through the effort.

Washington Post poll released last week shows that more voters see President Joe Biden as a threat to democracy than Trump.

This comes despite the constant and contradicting drumbeat of Democrats and their corporate media allies that democracy will be over if Trump gets re-elected.

In the poll, 44% said Trump would do a better job of protecting democracy than Biden.

Only 33% thought Biden would do better at protecting democracy.

Obviously, voters distrust the corporate media, as they should.

Trump would have little support otherwise, and his election in 2024 will count on voters’ skepticism.

For the defendants who have already been convicted on obstruction charges and served time, the ruling and the skepticism of the media’s “insurrection” narrative may be “a bit late,” Turley said.

In fact, they may be looking for a remedy.


Google Launches New Censorship Effort to Crack Down on 'Toxicity'



Big Tech giant Google is expanding its online censorship as the critical 2024 elections draw near.

The new crackdown is being led by Google’s Jigsaw censorship division.

Jigsaw, originally called Google Ideas, was launched under former CEO Eric Schmidt in 2010.

Schmidt’s idea sought to tackle “issues at the intersection of technology and geopolitics.”

However, the program was later deemed too “open and honest” and was reworked into Jigsaw by Google’s parent company Alphabet.

Google now describes Jigsaw as being a tool for tackling intentionally vague, made-up ideas such as “misinformation,” “hate speech,” and “toxicity.”

The corporation insists that it only weaponizes the information flow to create “a safer internet.”

Jigsaw’s latest weapon in the war on free speech is a new initiative to “identify and mitigate toxicity that frequently reduces participation in online debates.”

The company says it is launching this effort to “protect online spaces from hate and toxicity.”

To meet new censorship standards, Google promises more investment in “moderation” tools.

In a post on Medium, those behind Jigsaw try to suggest their censorship efforts will advance free speech.

They claim that censoring free speech, by excluding those branded as propagators of “toxicity” and “hate,” won’t reduce participation in online “conversation”

Instead, they insist shutting down wrongthink will “enable more voices to participate.”

Back to the vague terms, however, Google doesn’t elaborate on who or what it means by “more voices.”

Presumably, those “voices” are the ones that make approved statements while those expressing wrongthink will be silenced.

Either way, the post says this is what Jigsaw (via its Perspective API, powered by machine learning) has been doing since 2017.

It’s been adopted by as many as 10,000 entities, publishers, and social platforms and is available in 18 languages.

While explaining the features of its censorship software., Jigsaw boasts:

“Moderators can use Perspective to quickly prioritize and review comments that have been reported and give feedback to commenters who post toxic comments.”

The post continues by revealing that Perspective has expanded in scope “to add bridging attributes, a new suite of tools to recognize qualities like reasoning, curiosity, and personal stories that correlate with more constructive contributions and help keep conversations going among disparate groups.”

And it’s only a first step in what Jigsaw calls a shift that will use “deliberative technology” as a foundation to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI).

The end goal is to provide a kind of “puppeteer input” and subsequent influence.

The post explains:

“Jigsaw will explore how the latest AI technology might enhance and scale these technologies, supporting both conversation participants and community leaders to make sense of and act on the opinions shared.”

The plan is to develop the initiative using three paths.

Google will launch a research agenda aimed at developing the tech in question.

Jigsaw will also team up with Google DeepMind on large-scale conversations by exploring “how sense can be made” of them, according to the post.

Additionally, as far as Google is concerned, democracy in Europe needs to find some “resilience.”

To achieve it, Jigsaw will support “an open call for proposals with Google.org to help scale social impact initiatives promoting democratic resilience in Europe.”

As we’ve seen repeatedly in the past, these vague terms will undoubtedly used to target unwelcome conservative voices by branding them as “toxic.”

Those “toxic” opinions will almost certainly be scrubbed from Google’s search results in the run-up to the November elections.

And if they keep President Joe Biden in the race, the Democrats will need all the help they can get.



And,

Secret Jeffrey Epstein Documents Unsealed Exposing Deep Ties to Bill Clinton



A batch of secret documents has just been unsealed by a Florida judge that includes transcripts of a 2006 grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

The judge unexpectedly released the documents on Monday afternoon after they had been sealed for 16 years.

The transcripts delve into allegations of sex trafficking and rape against the late financier, stemming from incidents that initially surfaced in Palm Beach County.

The documents also expose the deep ties between Epstein and former President Bill Clinton, revealing their relationship was much closer than previously claimed.

“It is our hope that the release of these records gives peace of mind to our community and gives Jeffrey Epstein’s victims the closure they deserve,” said Joseph Abruzzo, the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida, in a press release.


 “The details in the record will be outrageous to decent people,” Circuit Judge Luis Delgado wrote in his ruling.

“The testimony taken by the Grand Jury concerns activity ranging from grossly unacceptable to rape — all of the conduct at issue is sexually deviant, disgusting, and criminal.”

“For almost 20 years, the story of how Jeffrey Epstein victimized some of Palm Beach County’s most vulnerable has been the subject of much anger and has at times diminished the public’s perception of the criminal justice system,” the judge continued.

“Epstein is indeed notorious and infamous and is widely reported to have flaunted his wealth while cavorting with politicians, billionaires, and even British Royalty.

“It is understandable that given those reports the public has a great curiosity about what was widely reported by news (agencies) as ‘special treatment’ regarding his prosecution.”

The release of the documents was earlier than expected because the judge had a hearing scheduled for next week discussing when and how they would be disbursed, according to The Associated Press.

In February, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that allowed the documents to be released.

The Epstein documents are a trove of released legal and court documents related to his criminal cases and civil suits brought by his alleged victims.

These documents include depositions, police reports, and correspondences.

They shed light on Epstein’s activities and the network of contacts that were scrutinized during the investigations.

In one of the transcripts, a witness confirms that Epstein and Clinton spoke to each other on the phone.

The newly released grand jury transcripts discussed the 2006 investigation after the initial 2005 report, according to Palm Beach Police Detective Joe Recarey’s testimony.

In March 2005, a woman reported that her stepdaughter who was in high school had received $300 in exchange for “sexual activity with a man in Palm Beach,” Recarey testified.

Another teenager, whose name was redacted, told police she was just 17 when she was approached by a friend who said she could make $200 if she gave a massage “to a wealthy man in Palm Beach,” the transcript read.

She went to his house and was led to a room by Epstein’s assistant.

He entered soon after and demanded she remove her clothes which she did and then began the massage, according to the docs.

However, when Epstein tried touching her, she said she was uncomfortable.

Recarey testified that Epstein told the girl he would pay her if she brought “girls” to his home.

She agreed to his request, according to the October 2005 interview with detectives, Recarey recalled.

“And he told her, ‘The younger, the better,'” Recarey said.

The girl eventually brought over a 23-year-old friend, but Epstein told her she was too old.

Over an undetermined amount of time, the girl brought six friends from her high school to Epstein’s home, including a 14-year-old girl.

However, according to the transcript, she lied and said the girl was 18.

The teen also affirmed each girl was aware of what would happen at his home.

Each time she brought a girl over, using a rental car paid for by Epstein, she would receive $200.

“The more you did, the more money you made,” Recarey said the teen told him.

“She explained that there was going to be a massage or some possible touching, and you would have to provide the massage either topless or naked.”

On Monday afternoon, Circuit Judge Luis Delgado released the 2006 grand jury investigation transcript regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking and rape allegations.

Judge Luis Delgado spoke about his findings and conclusion on the records in the transcript release:

“The Court finds that the request involves a matter of public interest.

“The criminal prosecutions of the most infamous pedophile in American history began in Palm Beach County – with much controversy.

“For almost 20 years, the story of how Jeffrey Epstein victimized some of Palm Beach County’s most vulnerable has been the subject of much anger and has at times diminished the public’s perception of the criminal justice system.

“Adding to the public interest, Epstein is indeed notorious and infamous and is widely reported to have flaunted his wealth while cavorting with politicians, billionaires, and even British Royalty.

“It is understandable that given those reports the public has a great curiosity about what was widely reported by news agencies as ‘special treatment’ regarding his prosecution.

“This matter is clearly the subject of public interest.

“The Court finds that this request is made by the news media, specifically The Palm Beach Post.

“The Palm Beach Post is a daily newspaper that was founded in 1916 as a local publication in West Palm Beach.

“For decades, the Palm Beach Post was printed and published daily in Palm Beach County.

“The Court finds that despite its many changes, The Palm Beach Post has a long and rich history documenting our local community.

“Many local residents still rely on The Palm Beach Post to obtain information on national, state, and local events. The Palm Beach Post remains a newspaper of record in our county.

“The Court finds Epstein is also widely reported to have been deceased since August 10, 2019, under controversial and ‘newsworthy’ circumstances, while under ‘supervision’ at Metropolitan Correctional Center in the state of New York.

“This adds to the public interest.

“Having reviewed the testimony, the Court also finds the testimony relates to sexual activity between Epstein and child victims of sex trafficking.

“Again, it is widely accepted that Epstein is a notorious and serial pedophile.

“The testimony taken by the Grand Jury concerns activity ranging from grossly unacceptable to rape – all of the conduct at issue is sexually deviant, disgusting, and criminal.

“The details in the record will be outrageous to decent people.

“It is also important to note that some of the testimony in the records of Epstein’s pedophilia involved other people, but there is nothing in this record that was outside the knowledge of law enforcement or Prosecutors – there is no new information.

“Tragically, the record reveals that Epstein used children to find more victims.

“The record also shows that some of the children knew the type of people they could be exposed to and the infamous nature of such ‘notable‘ people.

“The Court also notes the testimony was previously disclosed to law enforcement agencies.

“Furthermore, the State Attorney was properly noticed and long ago withdrew any objections to release the records and early on even did his best to disclose the information in his office’s possession without delay via an internet portal.

“As a result, he was eventually dropped as a named party in this action after much inconvenience and expense.”

Following the grand jury investigation in 2006, Epstein took a plea deal with South Florida federal prosecutors in 2008.

The deal, which has been criticized for being too lenient, allowed him to get away with several federal charges of abuse against underage girls if he pleaded guilty to Florida state charges.

Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution.

He was able to avoid a potential life sentence and instead spent 13 months in jail in a work-release program.

The millionaire was also required to pay the victims and register as a sex offender.

Epstein, 66, was found dead in August 2019 while being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center.

His previous partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, 62, was found guilty of child sex trafficking and other crimes relating to her time with Epstein in 2021.



And,

Top Journal Removes Peer-Reviewed Study Linking Covid Shots to Cancer after Facebook 'Fact Check'



An explosive peer-reviewed study was recently published in a prestigious medical journal which identifies a direct link between Covid mRNA shots and cancer.

As Slay News reported, the study, published in the Cureus journal, found that the risk of dying from cancer dramatically increased each time a patient received an mRNA injection.

The paper for the study is titled: “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan.”

The study was conducted by world-renowned Japanese experts specializing in cardiovascular medicine and cancer research.

However, Cureus has now retracted the study after it sent shockwaves through the scientific community.

In a notice on its website, the journal said:

“Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article.”

This invalidated the results, prompting the retraction, the journal claims.

However, the journal only decided to retract the study after it was attacked by one of Facebook’s so-called “fact-checkers.”

Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., all-cause mortality researcher and former physics professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada, blasted the journal over the move.

Rancourt, who also has published in Cureus, slammed the retraction as “baseless” in a post on X.

“Showing data in support of vaccine-induced cancer is not allowed: burn it,” he wrote.

Other scientists also expressed frustration with the retraction.

“Unfortunately, one more scientific study that challenges the established narrative gets retracted,” Panagis Polykretis, Ph.D., a researcher at Italy’s Institute of Applied Physics at the National Research Council said in a statement.

“One more outrageous and unjustified example of censorship takes place!”

The study, published in April, analyzed official Japanese government statistics.

The researchers compared age-adjusted cancer mortality rates during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) with pre-pandemic rates.

The researchers found a 2.1% mortality increase in 2021 and a 9.6% increase in 2022.

They determined that age-adjusted death rates for leukemia, breast, pancreatic, and lip/oral/pharyngeal cancers increased significantly in 2022.

The study notes that cancer rates surged after a large portion of the Japanese population had received the third dose of a Covid mRNA shot.

Overall, they found no significant cancer-related excess mortality in 2020.

However, there a 1.1% increase in 2021 after the rollout of the first and second vaccine doses.

This continued to rise to a 2.1% increase in 2022.

Mortality for some cancers increased by as much as 9.7%, according to the study.

The paper also discussed possible mechanisms by which multiple mRNA vaccines could influence cancer rates and called for further research into the issue.

According to John Campbell, Ph.D., who discussed the study on his YouTube show, the findings suggested the vaccines may be accelerating cancer deaths in patients with preexisting tumors.

The paper went through a “rigorous peer review process” before Cureus accepted the paper on April 8, according to Polykretis, who detailed the retraction saga on his Substack.

Less than a month after the paper’s publication, a “fact check” was conducted on the study by one of Facebook’s “fact-checkers.”

However, while the study was flagged as being false, the so-called “fact check” actually targeted a social media post that cited the paper.

The post that was “fact-checked” was a link to a fake news story that cited the study but added false claims to sensationalize it.

Instead of simply reporting on the bombshell findings in the study, the article made false claims that Japan had “declared a national emergency over the explosion of cancer cases across the country caused by the mRNA vaccines.”

This was completely false, however.

The Japanese government took no action in response to the study.

The article also made the false claim that the study linked “increases in aggressive forms of turbo cancers in the country” to Covid shots.

However, the study made no mention of “turbo cancers.”

The Facebook “fact check,” conducted by Reuters used these false claims to assert that the study itself was “false.”

The “fact check” called the analysis “flawed” and stated the paper offered no proof of “turbo cancers” — a claim the study authors don’t make.

It continued by stating the study “assumes without evidence that vaccines are the cause of the cancer death rates they observe.”

It’s important to note that the “fact check” was not written by a doctor or a scientist, despite their attempts to overrule the top Japanese researchers.

So-called “fact-checkers” are almost always failed journalists who are not able to pursue a career in journalism so, instead, resort to attacking others.

Despite the unreliability of the discredited “fact check,” Cureus responded by pulling the study.

On June 12, Graham Parker-Finger, director of publishing for the Cureus Journal of Medical Science, notified the authors about concerns with their paper.

According to Polykretis, Parker-Finger cited the Facebook “fact check.”

An “expression of concern” was posted that same day and about a month later the journal retracted the article.

The article has been viewed over 287,000 times.

Polykretis asked, since when does a scientific journal’s editorial board judge scientific studies “on the basis of a poorly written, not backed by scientific data and not peer-reviewed fact-checking” article?

M. Nathaniel Mead is co-author of the first peer-reviewed paper to provide an extensive analysis of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trial data and post-injection injuries.

Mead, whose article also was printed and then retracted by Cureus, described this latest retraction as “unfortunate but also quite revealing.”

In a statement, Mead said:

“The Gibo et al. retraction makes it official: Even though Cureus has now published many counter-establishment narrative papers related to adverse events, it is clearly ‘unsafe’ for any authors presenting papers that expose the likely mortality risk of these gene-based prodrugs.

“As you will recall, our comprehensive ‘Lessons Learned’ review and analysis also was heavily focused on the mortality aspect. So that’s where Springer-Nature seems to be drawing the line — after they accept the paper.

“Scientists seeking to publish on mortality-related aspects of the Covid mod mRNA injections obviously need to be extra cautious when considering their publishing options. These weaponized, predatory retractions will likely continue for as long as these products remain on the market.”

Following a backlash over the retraction and allegations of censorship, Parker-Finger responded by issuing a statement that said:

“Concerns were raised following publication, so we undertook a post-publication review, in line with good publishing practice, which led us to conclude that retraction was warranted for the reasons outlined in the retraction note.”


Follow the Link for the Article... Top Journal Removes Peer-Reviewed Study Linking Covid Shots to Cancer after Facebook 'Fact Check'