Anybody with a brain (which is becoming less and less as time goes by) can clearly see that our own government is colluding with the Chinese Communist Party. What’s shocking is to what degree.
Sure, many conservatives know about America’s collusion with the CCP in regards to covid-19, trade and governmental issues. But did you know that our own government is colluding with China to ensure we abort as many babies as possible?
Why would our own government work with China to make sure that Americans are getting abortions by the millions? Because China is buying up the dead bodies of the aborted babies, that’s why.
During today’s episode of The Breakdown, Mitchel Gerber, an investigative journalist specializing in China’ black market for human organs, explained:
The CCP has been using the DNA, the organ tissue and the organs from aborted US babies to sell back to the Chinese Communist Party.
The Director of the Chinese Communist Party’s National Health and Family Planning Commission, Li Bin, announced that he would contribute $528 million to Planned Parenthood in exchange for continued donation of tissue samples.
And now the Chinese Communist Party has become the largest repository of US DNA in the world, used for the material to develop biological weapons.
So this is insane, this is treason.
Our own government is colluding with the Chinese Communist Party with biological weapons, and that’s a whole other story.
But yes, they’re using these organs for massive amounts of money and they’re doing it to take over the world.
That’s right, China is a customer of Planned Parenthood, buying up as many dead babies as they possibly can.
Later in my interview with Gerber, he explained that China is using these dead American babies to develop bioweapons and artificial intelligence, which can then be used against us. And, you guessed it, Joe Biden and our own government and working in collusion with China to accomplish this goal.
The purpose of Climate Change is to tax the air we breathe like our food, water, land, shelter, energy and etc. Mother earth provides food, water, land shelter energy and air so why are we paying for something that should be free throughout the world. I think we know. Everything is being revealed. This is about the light and darkness and we are all part of it. We all have a role in this global battle, to raise our vibration and help Co-create a new world.
Report on Russia and the West
We are in the greatest spiritual war the world has ever known. We are the plan
Warning: This Documentary Is Not Recommended For Sensitive People!
The documentary, ‘The Silent Scream’ released in 1984 contributed to the abortion debate in the 1980s.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s classic video shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first-trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child’s pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and the fetus (girl) opened its mouth in what Nathanson calls a “Silent Scream” as her body is torn apart.
The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist’s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a “Silent Scream.” the child’s heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist’s suction tip begins to rip the baby’s limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. To “dehumanize” the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby’s head as “number 1.” the abortionist crushes “number 1” with the forceps and removes it from the uterus.
Vaccines for 6-Month-Olds ‘Makes Absolutely No Sense’: Dr. Jeffrey Barke
There is no safety profile for the effects of vaccines on children
By Masooma Haq and Steve Lance
June 25, 2022Updated: June 25, 2022
As the Biden administration rolls out vaccines for the nation’s youngest children (6 months to 5-year-olds), Dr. Jeffrey Barke, chief medical officer at the Convention of States, said there is absolutely no evidence supporting that these youngest children are at any serious risk of death from COVID-19 and should not get be broadly vaccinated.
“I think it’s important that we tell the truth first, and then let parents and adults make informed decisions about whether or not to get vaccinated,” Barke said during a recent interview with NTD’s Capitol Report. “And to recommend this product to 6-month-olds makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So, to start with, there is no COVID emergency, especially as it relates to younger people. It simply doesn’t exist.”
Barke referenced the CDC’s own website, saying that according to the CDC’s data, just over 1,000 children have died since the beginning of the pandemic as of the interview. “While every death of course is tragic, the reality is every one of those deaths occurred in a child that had significant underlying comorbidities. Healthy children simply do not die from this illness,” said Barke.
Meanwhile, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha made a contrary statement, saying that the infant vaccines “have been thoroughly tested. Millions of children above the age of 5 have gotten these vaccines. They’re exceedingly safe,” Jha told CBS News in a June 20 interview.
The CDC last Saturday signed off on giving both Moderna’s and Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to infants and children between 6 months and 5 years old. It came after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel unanimously voted to authorize the use of the vaccines.
Jha also said while the majority of children likely have natural immunity, getting the vaccines will help keep children out of the hospital if they get it again.
The White House is echoing the FDA and CDC’s message to get young children vaccinated.
“COVID has been quite common in children actually. We think maybe almost 70 percent of kids have ended up getting infected with COVID, [but it’s] still worth getting the vaccine. It really offers an extra level of protection, an extra layer of protection,” said Jha.
Barke disagreed with Jha and said there is a risk to young children from vaccines themselves because they have no long-term safety profiles.
“It’s ridiculous what’s going on here. And the part that makes me the saddest is the FDA and the CDC already have trust issues amongst the American public, and for them now to authorize and recommend that a 6-month-old receive a COVID-19 vaccine when they’re not at risk, and there have been no long-term safety studies with these products, is going to erode whatever little trust is left in these organizations,” said Barke.
He added that if a child has an adverse reaction to the vaccine, that child’s parents could not sue for damages because the authorization prevents the companies from being held liable.
“[The vaccine] is experimental by definition. A product that’s being used under emergency use [EU] authorization definitionally is investigational, and it makes no sense whatsoever. The EU authorization gives these vaccine companies blanket liability protection,” said Barke.
In addition, the virus has mutated since the vaccines were developed, so we don’t know if these vaccines protect against strains like Omicron, Barke said.
They never thought people who filmed the attacks on 9/11 with their JVC handycam would post it to social media years later. There were never any planes.
Patrick Byrne Recaps 2000 Mules & Shares What You Can Do to Prevent Fraud
Crimes against humanity
Democrats Silent as Republicans Rip Into Secret Royalty Checks to Fauci, Hundreds of NIH Scientists
White House Chief Medical Adviser on Covid-19 Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Md., on Feb. 11, 2021. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
By Mark Tapscott
May 11, 2022Updated: May 11, 2022
Top Democratic leaders with oversight of the National Institutes for Health (NIH) are keeping quiet about the $350 million in secret payments to agency leaders like Dr. Anthony Fauci and hundreds of its scientists.
The Epoch Times received no responses from multiple requests to Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) for comment on a report by a non-profit government watchdog estimating that Fauci, former NIH director Francis Collins, and hundreds of NIH scientists got as much as $350 million in undisclosed royalty payments from pharmaceutical and other private firms between 2010 and 2020.
The revelations from Open the Books, which were first reported on May 9 by The Epoch Times, are based on thousands of pages of documents the group obtained from NIH in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in federal court. The suit was filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Open the Books.
Open the Books is a Chicago-based nonprofit government watchdog that uses the federal and state freedom of information laws to obtain and then post on the internet trillions of dollars in spending at all levels of government.
Pallone is chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, while Murray is chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Their panels are the main congressional oversight tools for NIH. A spokesman for NIH also did not respond to multiple requests from The Epoch Times for comment.
Because NIH hands out $32 billion in research grants to medical institutions and researchers annually the undisclosed royalty payments, which are usually for work on a new drug, may indicate the presence of massive and widespread conflicts of interest or the appearance of such conflicts, both of which violate federal ethics laws and regulations.
Collins resigned as NIH director in December 2021 after 12 years of leading the world’s largest public health agency.
Fauci is the longtime head of NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), as well as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.
Lane is the deputy director of NIAID, under Fauci.
Fauci received 23 royalty payments during the period, while Collins was paid 14. Clifford Lane, Fauci’s deputy, got eight payments, according to Open the Books.
While Pallone and Murray were silent on the secret NIH payments, Republicans expressed outrage at what they see as serious conflicts of interest.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) told The Epoch Times, “the NIH is a dark money pit. They covered up grants for gain of function research in Wuhan, so it is no surprise that they are now refusing to release critical data regarding allegations of millions in royalty fees paid to in-house scientists like Fauci.
“If the NIH wants to keep spending taxpayer dollars, they have a responsibility to provide transparency.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “This report is disturbing and if it is true that some of our country’s top scientists have conflict of interest problems, the American people deserve to have all the answers.”
Similarly, Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) called for an investigation, noting that, “Of course it’s a direct conflict of interest for scientists like Anthony Fauci to rake in $350 million in royalties from third-parties who benefit from federal taxpayer-funded grants.
“Anthony Fauci is a millionaire that has gotten rich off taxpayer dollars. He is a prime example of the bloated federal bureaucracy. This royalty system should be examined to ensure it isn’t making matters worse.”
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) said the latest revelations are further evidence that Fauci should be fired.
“Fauci and the NIH have repeatedly abused the trust of the American people.
“From lying about gain of function research to walking back claims about COVID-19, this latest allegation is just another nail in the coffin of the integrity of our public health system.
“Dr. Fauci should have been fired a long time ago, and that remains true today,” Carter told The Epoch Times.
Mike Howell, a veteran congressional counsel and investigator who is now senior adviser on government relations at the Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times he thinks NIH could be in for trouble on the Hill in 2023 if voters return Republicans to majority control of the Senate and House in November’s mid-term elections.
“This Congress has not only failed to perform any serious oversight of the Biden administration, but is in many cases complicit in covering for them.
“When new majorities take over next over year, they will have a mandate to get to the bottom of scandals like this.”
Another Heritage expert, Douglas Badger, pointed to the need for a systematic re-examination of federal ethics statutes and an oversight investigation of the NIH royalties by Congress.
“Government scientists who are collecting royalties in connection with work they did in the course of their official duties must disclose this information to the public. The potential for conflict of interest is obvious,” Badger said.
“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should revise its ethics guidance to require such disclosure, federal agencies should respond fully and promptly to freedom of information act requests concerning these royalties, and Congress should conduct an oversight investigation to assure that royalties paid by private companies to government scientists do not compromise the integrity of executive branch agencies.”
Badger is a senior fellow in Heritage’s Center for Health and Welfare Policy.
Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, also pointed to the potential seriousness of the apparent conflicts of interest, and the need for a congressional probe.
“The obvious conflict of interest for the public health scientist recipients of the hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments calls into question who they have been working for,” Manning asked.
“Congress must demand a full, non-redacted accounting of these payments along with the projects these public employees have been involved in and stakeholder interests in those projects.
“At a time when the truthfulness of public officials like Dr. Fauci, have come under intense scrutiny, it is critical for these relationships to be fully disclosed,” he said.
In a related development earlier this week, Rep. Brett Guthrie told a meeting of an energy and commerce subcommittee examining Biden’s 2023 budget proposal for HHS that the department that includes NIH needs much more congressional oversight.
“Oversight is especially important given the huge increases in funding requested by the Biden administration. The HHS budget before us today calls for a 12 percent increase in discretionary spending at HHS for Fiscal Year 2023,” Guthrie told the subcommittee.
“The budget specifically gives more than a $6 billion combined boost in funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, both of which have come under fire recently over controversial masking guidance and COVID-19 research funded by NIH using American taxpayer dollars,” Guthrie continued.
“We need to hold NIH accountable and ensure taxpayer dollars are not going to labs engaging in risky gain-of-function research and ensure researchers are transparent about how they are spending taxpayer funded research grants,” the Kentucky Republican said.
The economic system is rigged. The [CB]/[DS] is currently being exposed. The Biden administration is implicated in this. This is not about an election, it is about bringing down the system. The system is rigged and people are now understanding. The people are now watching the Biden administration, everything that was promised the people see the opposite happening. Think mirror, everything the [DS] threw at Trump is coming back to them. Covid is mysteriously disappearing, cases are dropping like a rock. Trump was seen a golf course and he said we are not finished yet.
President Joe Biden signed a presidential memorandum on Jan. 28 rescinding the ban on U.S. funding for international nonprofits that provide counseling or referrals for abortion.
President Donald Trump reinstated and expanded the ban, known as the Mexico City Policy, during his first days in office in 2017. It was previously rescinded by Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
The policy was first announced in 1984 during the Reagan administration and has been rescinded and reinstated along party lines since. The policy requires non-governmental organizations to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” in order to receive U.S. taxpayer money for global health initiatives.
White House Press Secretary Jan Psaki, when asked if Biden would take this and other pro-abortion steps, responded that the president is a “devout Catholic.”
“Across the country and around the world, people—particularly women, Black, Indigenous and other people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and those with low incomes—have been denied access to reproductive health care,” the White House press release announcing the rescission of the Mexico City Policy states.
“The memorandum reflects the policy of the Biden-Harris Administration to support women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States, as well as globally.”
Trump’s expanded ban affected approximately $7.3 billion in U.S. global health aid, according to an estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci told the World Health Organization’s executive board on Jan. 21 that Biden would rescind the Mexico City Policy in the coming days. Fauci said the move would signal a “broader commitment to protect women’s health and advance gender equality at home and around the world.”
Biden’s memorandum also directs the Department of Health and Human Services to consider rescinding regulations under its Title X family planning program. Trump had prohibited taxpayer dollars from Title X from going to abortion providers.
“Another day, another partisan Executive Order from the unity president,” Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) wrote on Twitter on Jan. 28. “What’s unifying about sending Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars overseas to pay for abortions?”
Americans overwhelmingly oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions abroad. A January 2017 Marist Poll found that 83 percent opposed or strongly opposed “using tax dollars to support abortion in other countries.” That figure reflects overall opposition among Americans to unrestricted abortion. Only 16 percent said abortion should be “available to a woman any time during her entire pregnancy.”
More than 73 million unborn children were killed in abortions every year between 2015 and 2019, according to the World Health Organization.