C Leland Cab

The head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health ran what may be the largest vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study ever done. When I asked him, "Is there a better way to do this study?" He said, "I can't think of any way you could do it better." "Is this study important?" "It's very important." "Will you publish it?" "I'm not going to publish it because it'll destroy my career." "If the climate was different, would you publish this as it is?" "I would publish it exactly as it is." That's the man who ran the study, in his own words, on hidden camera. That's why I made the film. Watch An Inconvenient Study. 👇AnInconvenientStudy.com @MaryBowdenMD

@bobcycle2014 @twc_health It’s referenced in Pierre Kory’s book on ivermectin. The attorney in most/all cases was Ralph Lorigo. Per grok:Pierre Kory’s Substack (Pierre Kory Medical Musings) — Kory has posted detailed timelines and personal accounts of the lawsuits, including early cases in Buffalo, NY…

@twc_health I've heard variations of this story from multiple sources, with slightly different numbers. Nobody has been able to point to hard data. Can you? Is there a written report on this? If not, why not?

80 lawsuits to force doctors to prescribe ivermectin for COVID. 40 won & got ivermectin, 40 didn’t. 38 out of 40 who got ivermectin lived. 38 out of 40 who didn’t get ivermectin died. The chances that Ivermectin had no impact are something like the chances of you guessing a random 15 digit number on the first try.

This driver is an absolute legend.

The rich need to pay their fair share

The worst thing isn't the mistake but that they used the mistake as the whole premise for their snark.

For shits and giggles, I decided to see just how hard it would be to replace my birth certificate, Social Security card, AND my marriage license, since Democrats think women are too stupid to figure it out. Here's how it went: 1. Birth certificate: Contacted the health department of the county where I was born. They OVERNIGHTED a certified copy to me the next day - total cost, $14. 2. SS Card: Contacted Social Security on their site. They asked if I was sure I needed the card, since I 'won't likely be asked for it.' I went ahead and got it - took five business days to arrive - total cost, $0. 3. Marriage License: Went to the 'vital docs' site of the county where we were hitched. Filled everything out online, arrived in three days - total cost, $5. It cost less than $20 to obtain all three certified/legal documents, and it took less than five business days to receive them. Note: if I had lived where I was born or married, it would have been a day. Tops. Anyone telling you this is too hard or unfair is lying and hiding the real reason they want to stop Voter ID. I know you guys knew that already... lol

Unbelievable

lol the FBI investigated Mike Flynn under the Logan Act for far less than this. But neocons get a pass because reasons.

Notice how the anti-ICE protests stopped and the Iran protests started? It’s because these are not grassroots protests, they are coordinated operations being financed with foreign cash. @NateFriedman97 is exposing it all.

In Elon Musk’s 2018 leaked Tesla memo, he lays out 7 blunt rules for getting more shit done:

How the New York Times covers a traitor winning medals for our greatest adversary vs. How the New York Times covers our boys winning medals for the glory of the U.S. Just appalling beyond belief.

Is everyone paying attention...?

All part of the plan, right down to limp rags like @HuffPost writing pieces exactly like this. 🇺🇸🦅

This is the opposite of the halftime show

On top of the world. 🥇🥇 #WinterOlympics

In 2013, Time Magazine predicted “a world without bees.” They’re totally WRONG. Yet the environmental groups’ scare just won’t go away:

Wow. Huge by @RepNancyMace. Puts the question point blank to the CIA. This is a development to follow 👇

Remember my little rant about Save the Children and how I wish I could find out just how much flowed in and out? Hands held high clapping for @DataRepublican here’s the thread 🧵 I’ve been waiting to do-> click to see all

Can you, the people, “vote your way out of this?” Honestly, not if you get your news from these folks. The swamp has tricks for deceiving the public, and most even work on congressmen. Here’s an example of how Laura and Greg played along as happy tools of the swamp. Please ask yourself why your own congressman has never talked about this. He either hasn’t gotten this far in the game (80% chance), or he likes the way the swamp obscures what’s going on (10% chance), or he dislikes the system but the price he’d pay for telling you is too high (10% chance). If a congressman sees this post and wants to debate me, I accept! The House has rules we adopt at the beginning of each Congress. Honestly we should just use those - some go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. Some are like Robert’s Rules of Order which branched from House rules a century ago. But we have a rules committee that modifies the rules every week. I served on the rules committee for two years. When I was on the committee, I refused to vote for rules changes if the purpose was to mislead or obscure. Every week, the rules committee bends the rules to suit the Speaker, but you can’t place the blame just on the committee or the Speaker. Every rules change must be approved by the whole House with a majority vote. Rank and file congressmen are told to vote for these rules modifications each week for the sake of party loyalty because the rules are temporarily modified by the majority to keep the minority from using the permanent rules against us. This is partly true, so most congressmen never question beyond this. Typically, every week the rules committee meets before other committees and writes a rules package to protect bills that will come to the floor that week. Then the whole house votes on this rules package early in the week before significant legislation comes to the floor. The vote is typically on party lines. Sometimes a block of congressmen in the majority will take the rules package hostage and withhold their vote to get something else that has nothing to do with the rules. I’m not a big fan of this, but after 13 years, my hands aren’t completely clean of this tactic. The high-road position that I try to maintain is that if the rules package is bad, you shouldn’t vote for the rules package, and in general you shouldn’t withhold your vote from a rules package if there’s nothing wrong with the rules package… even if you disagree with the policy that is enabled to come to the floor by the rules package. There are more details, but that’s all you need to know to understand what I’m going to explain next. This week the Speaker wanted to do two things outside of our base rules, so he put those inside of the rules package that also had the rules for bringing bills like the popular SAVE Act to the floor, knowing members would be afraid to vote against something associated with SAVE. THIS IS INTENTIONAL. The Speaker wanted to circumvent the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to avoid voting on tariffs and he wanted to turn off the ban on bringing a spending bill to the floor the same day it’s introduced. The first rules package that came to the floor this week failed because myself and other republicans objected to it. The rules committee met again, wrote a new rules package without the tariff-trick, and we voted on the second rules package. I voted no but internet goons, like clockwork, characterized this as a vote against the SAVE Act. The swamp used that second rules package to give them authority to pass a bill before anyone could read it. They hid that authority inside the rule for the SAVE act because they knew people like Laura and Greg would help them disparage anyone who didn’t go along. If you fell for Laura and Greg’s slop you were cheering for the Pelosi doctrine that we should pass bills to see what’s in them. If the rules package had failed, the rules committee would have written a better one and SAVE Act would have still come to the floor.

His wife Victoria Nuland just got $315 million to fund whatever she likes from a Republican House and Republican Senate. What do you think she’s going to be funding with that money? They’re calling the gov’t who gave them that money a hostile threat.