Ninety miles from the South Eastern tip of the United States, Liberty has no stead. In order for Liberty to exist and thrive, Tyranny must be identified, recognized, confronted and extinguished.
U.S. and coalition forces thwarted two separate suicide drone attacks targeting bases housing Americans on Tuesday. One of the thwarted attacks was reportedly caught on video.
BBC correspondent Nafiseh Kohnavard first shared video allegedly from U.S. defensive systems showing a C-RAM shooting down two suicide drones at Al Asad Air Base.
Department of Defense spokesman John Kirby confirmed that U.S. and allied forces shot down two suicide drones attempting to attack Al Asad Air Base in Iraq on Tuesday. Forces also conducted “strikes” on targets near Green Village in Syria responsible for...
A New York Magazine writer took to Twitter on Tuesday to mock a conservative group trying to help drivers stranded on snow-covered I-95 in Virginia.
After a snowstorm and subsequent accidents trapped hundreds of motorists in their vehicles for nearly 24 hours, The Reagan Battalion, a conservative media group, offered to connect people in need of food, water, and other help to rescuers armed with supplies.
New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait, however, used The Reagan Battalion’s neighborly offer to take political shots at the conservative group’s namesake, former President Ronald Reagan.
“The Reaganites used to believe in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps,” Chait tweeted.
Chait’s insensitivity to the ongoing crisis was quickly reprimanded by several Twitter users including The Reagan Battalion which encouraged the writer to assist the people in need.
“Now if you can use your account to help people in dire need of assistance and put your politics aside for a few hours that would be great,” the group tweeted.
As of Tuesday morning, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam still had not called in the National Guard. Instead, he claimed that the Virginia Department of Transportation had all of the resources it needed to rescue people.
“We have the manpower and people have been working through the night, the National Guard is on standby,” Northam said, before switching his attention to the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
“That doesn’t happen at the snap of a finger. I don’t know if anybody remembers the Insurrection. But that happened in the afternoon, we had the National Guard on the ground the following morning. These are civilians that have jobs and need to muster and then be deployed. So again, those are all options that are on the table,” Northam said in a press conference.
Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine was among many of the drivers who slept in his car Monday night while temperatures outside stayed below...
Prior to anyone getting involved with the new Pfizer COVID drug Paxlovid, there are quite a few things that you should consider instead of buying into the mainstream media narrative.
The pro-drug industry mainstream media are gushing about Pfizer’s new antiviral COVID medication pills, which were recently authorized by the US FDA.
Paxlovid, a drug approved by the FDA for use in patients aged 12 and upwards who’ve already tested positive with COVID-19 and are at high risk, has acquired an emergency use authorization.
Now would be the opportunity to discuss about Paxlovid in a reasonable and concise way. First and foremost, everyone should be aware that, like with COVID vaccinations, there was very little testing of this product’s short- and long-term security. Testing a new medication thoroughly should take several months, if not years.
The only actually positive news regarding this new drug is that it is in fact an actual combination of drugs.
Here are a few quick summaries of this new product:
It was authorized by the FDA without any outside consultations, thorough assessments of test data, or public input. Almost all of the regulatory activity was carried out behind closed doors.
For Pfizer this would be fantastic news. But it’s not good for the public. Earlier, Pfizer was also accused of manipulating COVID vaccine trial protocols to obtain emergency FDA authorisation for children.
It’s worth noting that just 21% of patients in the studies had a comorbidity, when in fact, 94 percent of COVID deaths have at least one comorbidity, with an average of four underlying medical disorders.
Protease enzymes are required for the virus to properly infect by completing the cycle before taking over the cell, according to antiviral science.
Paxlovid, or any other medicine categorized as a ‘Protease Inhibitor,’ inhibits or reduces the protease enzyme, causing the virus to be inhibited. Paxlovid prevents the 3CLPro protease from fragmenting the lengthy protein.
The virus is unable to determine which bits should be cut out and assembled. It is unable to duplicate itself. The COVID infection is readily eradicated.
Ivermectin is the most efficient and confirmed protease inhibitor in use globally, irrespective what the government claims. Ivermectin, like Paxlovid, inhibits the protease enzyme, but… Ivermectin has advantages in COVID treatment that Paxlovid does not have.
Ivermectin also has anti-coagulant and anti-inflammatory properties, which are both seen in COVID infections. And IVM has already been used reliably for decades, with numerous medical research and clinical outcomes demonstrating its antiviral and anti-inflammatory efficacy.
Paxlovid must be used in conjunction with Ritonavir, an HIV/AIDS medicine that prevents Paxlovid from being broken down so that it can inhibit or decrease the enzyme, disrupting the viral life cycle.
Ritonavir helps Paxlovid stay active in the body by acting as a booster. Ritonavir has its own black box warning, and adverse effects comprise liver, pancreatic, and heart problems that can be fatal. Is it true that the general public wants to take an HIV/AIDS drug?
A five-day treatment regimen consists of 20 Paxlovid pills and 10 Ritonavir pills. Taking 6 medicines daily can cause issues for many of the older folks specifically.
Paxlovid lowers hospitalization/death by 89 percent for persons with established COVID infection, according to a press release from Pfizer, when administered within three days of symptom start. So, in the therapy group, 5 of 697 hospitalizations resulted in no deaths, compared to 44/682 hospitalizations resulting in 9 deaths.
Consider the statement that this medicine combination should be taken within three days after symptom start. Here are some of the major issues that ordinary people face: how can you distinguish COVID symptoms from flu or cold symptoms; how can you get a quick test; how can you contact your doctor within a day or two and determine whether you really have COVID (no drug interactions) and, if so, get a prescription; how can you get the prescription filled quickly? None of these issues are simple to deal with and resolve. For nearly everyone, this new combination treatment is unrealistic and unworkable.
A 10-fold reduction in viral load at day 5 compared to placebo was also reported, demonstrating significant action against SARS-CoV-2 and (allegedly) the highest viral load reduction recorded to date for a COVID-19 oral antiviral drug.
It would have been fascinating to compare the Pfizer medicine to an ivermectin treatment.
How does the Pfizer medicine stack up against the Dr. George Fareed and Dr. Brian Tyson protocol, for example? Fareed and Tyson, on the other hand, had a lot more patients (about 7,000) on the drug combination, but they had fewer hospitalizations (4) as well as the same amount of fatalities (0).
As a result, the Fareed and Tyson protocol is far superior. And, after billions of usage around the world, IVM’s safety protocol is significantly more validated than Pfizer’s.
See this article for a detailed comparison of IVM and Paxlovid. Ivermectin’s capacity to block 3CL protease has been scientifically shown.
Dysgeusia (taste disturbance), diarrhoea, and vomiting were the most prevalent side effects reported during treatments and up to 34 days following the final dosage of Paxlovid. What, on the other hand, are the chances of more serious side effects appearing months or years later?
Paxlovid should not be combined with certain other medications, either because of its action, which can cause dangerous rises in patients’ blood levels, or because some medicines can...
The creator of The 1619 Project exposes herself on national television and Twitter.
If political leaders across the country are looking for more evidence that they are justified in banning The 1619 Project curriculum in schools they can refer to comments made by the Project’s own creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, on December 26, during the Sunday show line-up, on NBC’s Meet the Press.
In her comments to Chuck Todd, she revealed herself to be a dissembler regarding her role in promoting 1619 Project classroom lessons. Then in tweets that insisted that all critics henceforth engage only with her new book The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story, a 600-page expansion, she admitted that the original project, upon which the lessons are based, is flawed.
Shortly after the program aired, at 10:21 a.m., Hannah-Jones tweeted, “It is revealing when critics of the 1619 Project, 2 yrs later, refuse to critique the book & instead keep rehashing arguments abt the magazine. That’s because we responded to good-faith critique, we revised in response, we included 1,000 endnotes, historians wrote half the essays.” Phil Magness, Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, who has been among the earliest and most frequent critics of the economic claims promoted by The 1619 Project, and who had reached out to Hannah-Jones, commented, “I witnessed this process directly as one of those critics over the last 2 years. And there’s not a word of truth to what she is claiming.” Hannah-Jones, who refuses to engage in debate, in typical fashion, attacked the economic historian’s credentials.
Sixteen minutes later, at 10:37 a.m. she went after Victoria Bynum, one of the historians who early on requested corrections to the Project. In December 2019, Bynum had signed Princeton historian Sean Wilentz’s letter to the editor, which was also signed by historians James McPherson, Gordon Wood, and James Oakes. At 6:28 a.m. Bynum had commented on Oakes’s recent article in Catalyst magazine responding to New York Times Magazine editor Jake Silverstein’s November 12 defense of the Project—a promotional lead-up to the November 16 publication of the hardcover book, which is copyrighted by the Times. Bynum summarized it as a critique of the political agenda, specifically Black Nationalism, motivating the project. Hannah-Jones tweeted, with no reference to these points, “Is it common ‘very serious’ practice, 2.5 years later, to critique the unrevised work and to not engage the updated version? Asking for a friend.” Bynum politely replied that neither she nor Oakes was commenting on the new book. As revealed by her defensive response, Hannah-Jones was admitting that the original 1619 Project, the August 18, 2019, issue of the New York Times Magazine, was error-riddled. As Magness noted, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’s latest argument is to claim that the original 1619 Project—as published in the New York Times as part of a multimillion dollar advertising blitz—was just a rough draft, and the new book is the revised version by which it should be judged. Seriously.”
There was also an education blitz. Immediately upon the publication of the original in 2019 prepackaged lessons were shipped to 3,500 schools, a number which soon rose to 4,500. It is hard to know how many teachers are using these materials today. Hannah-Jones has many teachers among her hundreds of thousands of...
