During Harris’ campaign, the vice president faced backlash over her ties to Hollywood and billionaire donors, with endorsements from celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé and Usher. On “The Megyn Kelly Show,” Kelly played a clip of Harris’s interview with Winfrey, who was reportedly paid $1 million from the campaign after the town hall event.

“Totally feckless. But by the way, did JLo get a payment for that? Did Chris Rock get a payment for that? Did anybody get paid for these endorsements that we were led to believe were just completely organic? I mean, do we really care? Because they’re all losers. They lost badly and have been rendered utterly powerless and feckless in the eyes of the electorate. Nobody will be asking for their endorsement again. No one smart. I mean, no one who wants to win,” Kelly said.

Kelly went on to state that Democrats are already starting to identify potential candidates for the 2028 presidential primary race, including names like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

WATCH:

“It’s funny because there’s already a Democratic primary underway for 2028, believe it or not, yes, there is. It’s people like Josh Shapiro. Gavin Newsom out in California is already organizing his resistance to Trump’s agenda. Good luck, sir. The California liberal has already been rejected resoundingly by the electorate,” Kelly said.

“Why would the Democrats be so stupid as to elect another next go around? Your little widow’s peak does not distinguish you that much. It may be hard to believe he’s even more radical than Kamala Harris is,” Kelly said. “His crazy ass gender stuff is even more radical than hers was. It’s not going to be Gavin Newsom.”

Following Harris’ loss to Trump last week, Democrats like Shapiro, Newsom and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg have reportedly floated the idea of seeking the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, according to Politico. Just two days after election night, Newsom called a special session of the California legislature to prepare “to support the ability to immediately file affirmative litigation challenging actions taken by the incoming Trump Administration.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

She has six employees. When she was fired by NBC in 2018, she believed that it was the end of her career. She went to dark places in her mind.

But she bounced back with her own broadcasting company and has never been happier or more influential.

The same story has been told by Tucker Carlson, whose network is gigantic and whose influence is far beyond even the heights that he obtained at Fox in the old days. I have no direct knowledge of how many people work for his personal channel, but it is a reasonable guess that it is no more than a dozen.

Everyone knows about the success and reach of Joe Rogan’s show. Apart from that, there are many thousands more with influence in their own sectors of reach. The share of influence dominated by legacy seems to be falling dramatically. You can detect their influence in this election season in which candidates are working the podcast circuit.

You might chalk this up to technology: Everyone has the capacity now to make content and distribute it. Therefore, of course, people do it.

The real story, however, is more complicated.

A new poll from Gallup offers an intriguing look. The latest polls show trust in major media is at an all-time low. It’s fallen from a post-Watergate high in 1976 of 72 percent to 31 percent today. That is an enormous slide, impossible to dismiss as mere technological change. Along with that, the poll documents dramatic losses of trust in government and essentially all official institutions.

The loss of trust has hit all age groups but more profoundly affects people younger than 40 years old. These are folks who have grown up with alternatives and developed a sophisticated understanding of information flows, and are deeply suspicious of any institution that seeks control over public culture.

Gallup stated: “The news media is the least trusted group among 10 U.S. civic and political institutions involved in the democratic process. The legislative branch of the federal government, consisting of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, is rated about as poorly as the media, with 34 percent trusting it.”

In contrast, “majorities of U.S. adults express at least a fair amount of trust in their local government to handle local problems (67 percent), their state government to address state problems (55 percent), and the American people as a whole when it comes to making judgments under our democratic system about the issues facing the country (54 percent).”

It seems based on this poll that, in people’s hearts and minds, we are defaulting back to the America of Alexis de Tocqueville, a network of self-governing communities of friends and neighbors rather than a centrally managed and controlled monolith. The farther the institutions get from people’s direct experiences, the less they are trusted. That is how it should be, even aside from other considerations.

In this case, the causal factors are not only the distance and not only the technology that allows for alternatives. Legacy media has been so aggressively partisan for at least nine years that it has alienated vast swaths of the viewing audience. Top executives have known about this problem for a very long time and worked to fix it, but they face tremendous pressure from within, from reporters and technicians with Ivy educations and a dedication to woke ideology.

The New York Times after 2016 attempted to repair the damage from having so completely mishandled and miscalled the election. It hired new editors and writers, but it was only a matter of time before they were driven out in a reminder to the top brass that there was a cultural revolution afoot, and that the personal is the political and visa-versa.

The newspaper defaulted back to extreme partisanship, leaving owners and managers to figure out other paths to sustaining profitability.

As a result, it appears that an entire industry is in the process of a long meltdown with no available fixes. Huge audiences have turned away from it toward alternatives that are not necessarily partisan on the other side but simply display a dedication to telling facts and truths about which actual readers care.

A question has long mystified me: Is this loss of trust entirely because of a change in media bias, or is it that new technological options have fully revealed what might always have been there but was not widely known? I don’t have the answer to that but it is worth some reflection.

When I was a kid, there were exactly three channels on television and one local newspaper. There was never a chance to see The New York Times except perhaps at the public library. The nightly news came on at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. It lasted for 30 minutes. It opened with international news, moved to national news, turned to sports, and then the local affiliate took over with local news and weather.

There was perhaps 10 minutes per day of national news on three separate channels, each reporting more or less the same thing. That was it. People in those days chose their station based on whether they liked the voice and personality of the broadcaster. News media was highly trusted. But was that trust based on reliable and excellent reporting, or simply a reflection of all that people did not know?

In those days, my own father was deeply distrustful of what he saw on television. Somehow, he intuited that Richard Nixon was being railroaded by the Watergate scandal. He theorized that someone was out to get him, not for bad things he had done, but for the good he had done and had planned to do. He preached this opinion constantly and it set him apart from all conventional wisdom. Indeed, as a young man I knew for sure that my father was the outlier: None of my friend’s parents agreed and none of my teachers did, either.

Since then, much has come out that seems to reinforce my father’s views.

If Watergate happened in today’s world, there would be a huge explosion of opinions in all directions, with motives of all actors pushed out on every channel, and there would be widespread competition to find the real story. We certainly would not be relying on two relatively inexperienced reporters at The Washington Post.

I happen to believe that this is a good thing, even though it has come with a loss of trust. Maybe the old trust was not nearly as merited as people thought, simply because there were so few options. As the years went on, there were even more sources, starting with PBS but moving to CNN and C-SPAN. After the web came online and social media took off, that’s when the veil was really pulled back and media wholly transformed.

People on all sides of the political spectrum today express profound regret for this change. Former presidential candidate John Kerry has said that today’s media environment makes governing impossible, and Hillary Clinton has floated the idea of criminal penalties for misinformation, a word tossed around so frequently these days but rarely defined as anything other than speech that some people do not like.

All told, the rise of alternative media has surely contributed to the decline in public trust in the mainstream media. This might not reflect a fundamental change in the bias of media sources but simply the reality that we are only now fully aware of what has always been true. In that case, we are better off seeing these trends as good news all around, provided that we have an attachment to seeing reality as it is. In any case, we all should.

Returning to the Kelly/Carlson business model: They are doing far more with fewer staff members than was ever thought possible. It’s a solid prediction that many legacy media companies will be downsizing in terms of personnel in the future. They can do more with less. And they can do it with more fairness and less bias. Economic realities will likely make it so.

The entire landscape of information and media economies is dramatically shifting. That is precisely why we are hearing ever more calls for censorship. Many elites long for the old days of canned and constructed narratives with no other options. But the well-documented loss of trust makes that little more than a pipe dream. It cannot and will not happen.

The only viable path to earning audience loyalty in our times is to write and speak with fact-based integrity. Trust has to be earned.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Things have changed. Today, she’s a strong supporter of his campaign and he has endeared himself to her with multiple interviews. They aren’t best buddies but they have an appreciation for each other that has developed into a professional friendship.

Following the ABC News debate between Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris, Kelly went off. She didn’t attack Harris. She went after the debate moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis. They demonstrated a level of partisan favoritism that has never been so blatant in American debate history.

Watch [Language Warning]:

BREAKING: Megyn Kelly just went on an intense rant calling out the disgusting ABC hosts for working with Kamala Harris to sink Trump and STEAL THE ELECTION

"I'm ashamed of those moderators at ABC News. They did exactly what their bosses wanted them to do. The person who runs ABC… pic.twitter.com/Xsq2Mm9Huo

— George (@BehizyTweets) September 11, 2024

Kelly is spot on. The “moderators” participated in a level of lying that has hitherto never been seen during a presidential debate. They “fact checked” Trump on a dozen points while willfully ignoring blatant lies told by Harris. Kelly’s shame for Muir and Davis should be shared by any American who values the truth.

He rarely does interviews but made an exception for former Fox News host Megyn Kelly. During the interview, he described how being outspoken about his political views have cost him but that he’s not going to stop since this is still the United States of America… for now.

Others who work in Hollywood often come to him secretly and tell him things such as they’re considering voting for Donald Trump. But those who haven’t established themselves cannot be as open as Woods, Jon Voight, or the handful of well-known actors who made their mark before being a conservative meant being blacklisted.

He discussed how his role as Executive Producer for Oppenheimer was downplayed because they didn’t want Academy Awards voters, the vast majority of whom are radical leftists, to ding the movie because of his involvement.

“When Oppenheimer came out, there was a discussion about my Twitter, and it was gently suggested that I basically remain invisible, which was painful,” he said. “On the other hand, I’m a pragmatic person and I thought, a lot of people put their effort into this, so I’m just going to be an invisible pariah … I stepped back and basically took one for the team.”

But there’s good news that came from being involved in the award-winning movie. He has at least two projects coming as part of his “second act,” including an upcoming project with Oliver Stone.

As has always been the case, Woods didn’t hold back. He has always spoke his mind and is not averse to being controversial even when being playful.

“I can’t believe I just asked Megyn Kelly on-air to have a threesome,” he said at one point.

Here’s the interview:

Lest we forget, there was a bipartisan “consensus” that we should invade Iraq. Twice. There was manufactured unity among conservatives that John McCain and Mitt Romney were the best Republican warriors to take on Barack Obama. And let’s not dismiss that nearly three out of four Americans are “fully vaccinated” while over 80% have taken at least one jab.

This is why I’m not opposed to the various battles taking place among conservatives over the Israel-Hamas war. Most of them are petty, such as the tiff between Candace Owens and Megyn Kelly over whether or not pro-Hamas students should be “blacklisted” by corporate America. It all started with a Tweet by Vivek Ramaswamy claiming kids are stupid and should not be permanently harmed by their stupidity. Kelly had a problem with that. Owens chimed in to remind her that she was once a pro-abortion leftist as a stupid kid. I’m not going to post the threads because it’s a bunch of silliness coming from both sides.

With that said, I’m glad it’s happening. I’m glad that Ben Domenech, co-founder of The Federalist, is out there accusing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk of being an anti-Semite even if I completely disagree with the assessment. Kirk questioned whether parts of the Israeli government and/or military were involved in the Hamas attacks.

I’m glad that there are those on the right who are siding with Palestinians even if I’m not among them.

The reason I’m glad there is all this bickering over a war that’s on the other side of the globe is because the larger conservative movement is in desperate need of a revamp. It has become about as feckless as the Republican lawmakers they help elect. Big words, little action. Sadly, the same cannot be said about the leftist movement. Their words are idiotic but their actions are effective. Those actions may be devious, misguided, intimidating, and destructive, but they’re effective at accomplishing their goals.

The collectivists are beating the individualists because the individualists are being told we need to operate collectively. The modern conservative movement claims we need to unify behind bad ideas and bad people so we can counter the worse ideas and worse people leading the left. As a result, our “victories” are often insanely stupid.

Case-in-point: Bud Light. The takedown of a beer brand that put a dude pretending to be a woman on their cans has not had the desired effect. Sure, Anheuser-Busch is bleeding but the overall push for corporate wokeness barely skipped a beat. Other beer companies engaged with LGBTQIA+ marketing and didn’t get hit. Bigger companies doubled-down on trans-supremacy and didn’t even get a story printed about them on Breitbart or Daily Wire. Conservatives had one glowing “victory” in which we taught one company a lesson that other companies generally ignored.

Meanwhile, drag queens are still holding parades and tossing condoms at children. Popular shows and movies continue indoctrinating Americans into woke ideologies. Billions of dollars are being funneled to help women get abortions-on-demand, even if they have to cross state lines to do so. Climate change cultists are seeing their ranks grow, not diminish.

In short, the false unity within the conservative movement has barely been a speed bump as America barrels down the highway to hell.

When (if?) the dust settles from the Israel-Hamas war and Americans get back to (hopefully) focusing on our own problems here, the anger that’s splitting conservatives apart will dissipate. That won’t necessarily heal wounds, but it will force us to use our individual strengths to fight the good fight rather than relying on the groupthink that’s permeating across conservatives, patriots, libertarians, and populists today.

Is this the shakeup that we needed? Maybe. At this point any shakeup is better than the cozy, complacent inaction we’ve seen for the last three years. We do NOT need to get along in order to fight side-by-side against open borders, voter fraud, medical tyranny, or wokeness. We must NOT rely on groupthink to drive us into supporting bad ideas or bad people for the sake of unity.

We are patriots. We are conservatives. We are individualists. We shouldn’t be following the movement. We should be forming our own perspectives and acting accordingly. The last time there was a strong level of disunity among conservatives was 2016. The Trump Train had as many detractors as it had passengers. But despite the lack of consensus among patriots, Hillary Clinton was still defeated.

Fast forward four years and there was tremendous unity among conservatives. The Trump Train was full and destined to get more votes than it got in 2016. Victory was assured, so we got complacent. We took for granted that the left would be working on getting more ballots, not more votes. Our unity as a movement meant nobody did anything to prevent voter fraud, ballot harvesting, or tyrannical Covid measures. Everyone was pointing fingers after we lost.

Individualist conservatives sick of Obama and scared of Clinton won in 2016. Collectivist conservatives unified against Joe Biden in 2020 didn’t have a chance because our unity bred the complacency that allowed Democrats to steal the election.

We need to be uncomfortable. We don’t need a falsely unified conservative movement in order to reverse this nation’s direction. We need patriots who are angry about whatever makes them angry and to act accordingly. I don’t care who’s on Team Shapiro and who’s on Team Tate. All I want is for YOU to understand the issues that are important to you and to take a stand based on your individual perspectives. If the Israel-Hamas war tears the conservative movement apart, then there is an opportunity to rebuild it as a disjointed group of pissed off patriots who aren’t going to pay attention to the groupthink that’s being sold to us today.

When we’re fighting, we’re thinking. When we’re thinking, we’re ready to act. When we act, things get done. Unity might be able to take down Bud Light, but individualism is what’s needed to take down far bigger foes.

Sound off about this story on my Substack.

The latest combatants who may go at each other over the issue are Academy Award winning actress Charlize Theron in the “Drag Isn’t Dangerous” corner versus conservative show host Megyn Kelly in the “Keep Your Junk Away From My Kids” corner.

Theron put out a general threat on Thursday to everyone during a telethon that raised $500,000 for LGBT organization. She said, “I will f— anybody up who is, like, trying to f— with anything with” drag queens.

Kelly responded on her Friday show by saying, “Okay, so why doesn’t Charlize Theron come and f— me up? Because I’m 100% against her on this?”

So… it’s on? We’ll see how Theron responds. Coincidentally, Theron played Kelly in the 2019 movie “Bombshell.”

According to Nick Arama at RedState:

Kelly said it was wrong for Theron not to come out against the “grooming of young children.” There are “drag queen shows out there right now that are deeply disturbing and they’re happening in front of young children,” Kelly said. “So know what you’re supporting. Understand what we’re actually seeing out there which can include absolutely the grooming of young children,” Kelly added.

She said Theron should be against “sexualization in front of children.” “So it is a problem, Charlize. Believe me.”

Theron is clearly completely captivated by the liberal narrative on this.

Theron has a seven-year-old child she says is transgender. How does she know that? She says the child who was born a boy told her when he was three that he was “not a boy.” Because a three-year-old knows such things and should have his life radically changed because of it, right? No wonder she has deluded herself about drag queens in front of kids.

With so much drama surrounding this issue, both sides are emotionally invested. Meanwhile, many children are still forcibly exposed to sexual concepts their minds cannot properly comprehend. It’s brainwashing and the radical left are all-in for it.

But he didn’t just give a little shout out to his friend. He also Tweeted a video by Megyn Kelly calling for Americans to stop watching Fox News altogether.

I’m with Tucker. Time to boycott Fox until they come to their senses and let the man speak.

I’m with Tucker. Time to boycott Fox until they come to their senses and let the man speak. pic.twitter.com/dvrNlLdvgW

— Brett Favre (@BrettFavre) May 8, 2023

Reports came out over the weekend that Carlson’s allies would be applying pressure to Fox News. Is this part of that campaign?

• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has publicly warned that COVID is one of the Top 10 causes of death in children aged 5 to 11, yet when asked to produce the data, they admitted they never conducted an analysis for that age group
• The CDC has also lied about Pfizer’s study results. While claiming the Pfizer jab was 92% effective for those with previous COVID infection, the actual trial data found NO evidence of efficacy in those with previous infection
• In July 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration quietly disclosed finding an increase in four types of serious adverse events in elderly people who received Pfizer’s COVID jab: acute myocardial infarction, disseminated intravascular coagulation, immune thrombocytopenia, and pulmonary embolism. However, more than a year later, that study still has not been published
• The FDA is also hiding other studies. Buried inside a study protocol, the FDA discusses findings from an unpublished “cohort study of the third dose safety in the Medicare population where historical controls were used.” In that Medicare study the FDA found a significant risk for immune thrombocytopenia and acute myocardial infarction among those with prior COVID-19 diagnosis, as well as an increased risk of Bell’s palsy and pulmonary embolism in general
• Analysis of the CDC’s Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Reports (MMWR) reveals the CDC is systematically (and automatically) hiding jab-related deaths, particularly in categories like cancer, cardiac deaths and strokes, to make the shots appear unrelated to excess deaths

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention jointly run and, allegedly, monitor the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) for safety signals.

Both agencies have been blatantly derelict in their duties in this regard, as the safety signals in VAERS have been screaming for attention since the first quarter of 2021. Yet both the FDA and CDC claim they’ve found nothing of concern. Nothing at all.

They’re so unconcerned they even added the COVID jabs to the childhood vaccination schedule, with the first jab series to be given to toddlers and babies as young as 6 months. Meanwhile, data from around the world, including data in VAERS,¹ V-Safe and the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), suggest these shots are the deadliest in the history of vaccines. No other product comes even close.

CDC Invents Facts to Drive a Narrative

In the video above, Megyn Kelly interviews Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about the difficulty in determining how many lives may have been saved by the COVID shots, versus how many lives have been lost because of them, and highlights some of the outright false statements issued by the CDC.

For example, the CDC has publicly warned that COVID is one of the Top 10 causes of death in children aged 5 to 11, yet when asked to produce the data, they admitted they never conducted an analysis for that age group.

So how did they conclude that COVID is a top cause of death in an age group they’ve never analyzed mortality data for? The rational conclusion is that they just made it up.

As noted by Kennedy, the CDC is also discouraging autopsies of people who die post-jab, and they’re engaging in a whole host of other obfuscation tactics that make good data hard to come by, and this has been going on since the very beginning of the pandemic.

FDA Is Withholding Crucial Study Findings

The FDA is also guilty of massive data obfuscation. In a recent BMJ article,² investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi discusses the FDA’s failure to follow up on and release data showing an increase in serious adverse events in elderly individuals who received the Pfizer shot:

“In July 2021 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly disclosed findings of a potential increase in four types of serious adverse events in elderly people who had had Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine: acute myocardial infarction, disseminated intravascular coagulation, immune thrombocytopenia, and pulmonary embolism.

Little detail was provided, such as the magnitude of the increased potential risk, and no press release or other alert was sent to doctors or the public. The FDA promised it would ‘share further updates and information with the public as they become available.’

Eighteen days later, the FDA published a study planning document (or protocol) outlining a follow-up epidemiological study intended to investigate the matter more thoroughly.

This recondite technical document disclosed the unadjusted relative risk ratio estimates originally found for the four serious adverse events, which ranged from 42% to 91% increased risk. (Neither absolute risk increases nor confidence intervals were provided.)

More than a year later, however, the status and results of the follow-up study are unknown. The agency has not published a press release, or notified doctors, or published the findings by preprint or the scientific literature or updated the vaccine’s product label.

The BMJ has also learnt that the FDA has not publicly warned of similar signals detected in a separate observational cohort study³ it conducted of the third dose (first booster dose) in the elderly …

[Nor] has the agency publicly acknowledged other published observational studies or clinical trial reanalyses reporting compatible results. Experts spoke to The BMJ about their concerns about the data and have called on the FDA to notify the public immediately.”

Serious Side Effects in Seniors Are Being Hidden

As explained by Demasi,⁴ the July 2021 findings came from a surveillance system called Rapid Cycle Analysis (RCA), which provides “near real-time” monitoring of 14 “adverse events of special interest.” Like VAERS and other surveillance tools, the RCA cannot establish causality, but unlike the others, its strength lies in detecting potential safety signals more rapidly.

The FDA’s protocol document for the planned follow-up study indicates that a manuscript of the original RCA study is being prepared, but more than a year later, neither the original RCA study nor the follow-up study have been published. Why?

The FDA is also hiding other studies. Buried inside yet another study protocol, the FDA discusses findings from “a cohort study of the third dose safety in the Medicare population where historical controls were used.” In that Medicare study, the FDA found:

“… a statistically significant risk for immune thrombocytopenia (incidence rate ratio 1.66, confidence interval 1.17 to 2.29) and acute myocardial infarction (IRR 1.15, CI 1.02 to 1.29) among people with prior COVID-19 diagnosis as well as an increased risk of Bell’s palsy (IRR 1.11, CI 1.03 to 1.19) and pulmonary embolism (IRR 1.05, CI 1.0001 to 1.100) in general.”

Why were those results buried in a study protocol and never published or announced to the public? As noted by Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an emergency medicine physician in New Orleans, “If the FDA is stating publicly that they’re collecting [data], then they should be publicly reporting it. They shouldn’t be burying the results in protocols as they’ve done.”⁵

Dutch epidemiologist and president of the International Society of Drug Bulletins, Dick Bijl, agrees, telling Demasi that any warning signals found in July 2021 “should have been analyzed and published within months.”

Reanalysis of Trial Data Confirms Safety Problems

Fraiman is particularly concerned as his team recently reanalyzed data from the Pfizer and Moderna Phase 3 trials, finding results that match those that the FDA are now hiding.

Their reanalysis,⁶ which focused on serious adverse events highlighted in a World Health Organization-endorsed ‘priority list⁷ of potential adverse events relevant to the COVID-19 shots, found Pfizer’s shot was associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events at a rate of 10.1 events per 10,000. The rate for Moderna’s jab was 15.1 events per 10,000.

Fraiman’s analysis stressed that this level of risk for a post-injection event was significantly greater than the risk reduction for COVID-related hospitalization found in both trials, which was only 2.3 per 10,000 participants in the Pfizer trial and 6.4 per 10,000 in the Moderna trial.

In short, the shots are far more likely to land you in the hospital than COVID-19 itself. For every 800 jab recipients, one person will suffer a serious injury. Meanwhile, some 5,000 must get the Pfizer jab to prevent a single COVID hospitalization. This is what risk-benefit analysis is all about — comparing and weighing the benefit against the risk — and in this case, the jab clearly does more harm than good.

Scandinavian Study Confirms Cardiovascular Risks

Demasi also cites an observational study⁸ from Denmark, Finland and Norway, which found “statistically significant increases in thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes following both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.” As reported by the authors:

“In the 28-day period following vaccination, there was an increased rate of coronary artery disease following mRNA-1273 [Moderna] vaccination: RR, 1.13 … There was an observed increased rate of coagulation disorders following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222 [AstraZeneca]: RR, 2.01]; BNT162b2 [Pfizer]: RR, 1.12; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.26) …

There was also an observed increased rate of cerebrovascular disease following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 1.32; BNT162b2: RR, 1.09; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.21 …

For individual diseases within the main outcomes, 2 notably high rates were observed: 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100 000 doses, respectively, following AZD1222 vaccination.”

Christine Stabell Benn, a vaccinologist and professor in global health at the University of Southern Denmark told Demasi:⁹

“The safety signal seems to be gathering around cardiovascular and cerebral vascular events, things to do with circulation and our larger organs, and these are the same signals that appear to be popping up in the FDA surveillance data as well …

It seems to me that doctors have a much higher tolerance for COVID vaccine side effects because there’s been this sense that if you don’t take the vaccine, you die. Obviously, that is completely the wrong way to think about it.

We don’t want to create a lot of unnecessary anxiety and we can’t say there is now proof that the vaccines cause these events because the data are of poor quality, but we can say there is a danger signal, and the medical profession needs to be alerted to this.”

Jab Makers Intentionally Botched Trials

The primary reason for why the data is of “poor quality” is the fact that the COVID shots “were not tested properly” from the start, Stabell Benn notes. The control groups were eliminated by giving them the real shots a few months into the Phase 3 trials, which makes it near-impossible to evaluate long-term side effects — problems that might arise many months or years later. This seems to have been done intentionally, for that very reason.

Without a proper control group, any and all side effects can be written off as normal, as there’s no documented unjabbed group to compare with. Many of us did not get the jab, but there are no data about us (our health status and so forth) in the trial, so true comparisons become problematic.

Are Data Withheld to Prevent Establishment of Causation?

Earlier this year, the CDC admitted it was deliberately withholding data for fear they may be “misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective” and/or be misconstrued as confirming causation.¹⁰ This is not how real science should be conducted.

To ever reach the conclusion that the shots are causing injury, data are needed, and lots of it. By withholding crucial data, the CDC is effectively preventing that conclusion from being reached. Its excuse so far has been that there are “no data” to indicate there’s a problem. Meanwhile, they’re sitting on data that indicate just that!

CDC Lied About Pfizer Study Results

In addition to hiding data, the CDC has also lied about trial results. As noted in an October 31, 2022, tweet from Rep. Thomas Massie:¹¹

“Pfizer’s original vaccine trial, which contained 1,200 participants with evidence of prior infection, showed no benefit from their shots for those who had evidence of prior infection. CDC lied, said study showed it was 92% efficacious for those w/ evidence of prior infection.”

Massie — a Republican Congressman for Kentucky and an award-winning scientist — initially revealed the CDC’s error in January 2021, after having tried, in vain, to get the CDC to correct it. I detailed Massie’s efforts in “Why Do Public Health Agencies Reject Natural Immunity?” At the time, Massie said:^12,13

“There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either … It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says.”

Latest COVID Variant Favors the Jabbed 3 to 1

In related news, October 25, 2022, the Ethical Skeptic — a data analyst and fraud investigator — tweeted¹⁴ out a graphic showing the latest COVID variant, dubbed BQ, is infecting the jabbed at a rate of 3-to-1 compared to the unjabbed. It also appears to favor those who got jabbed more recently.

CDC Has Automated Data Falsification

A day earlier The Ethical Skeptic posted the second installment¹⁵ of his “Houston, the CDC Has a Problem” series, in which he details how the CDC is systematically manipulating the data to hide signs of COVID jab dangers.

Using data from the CDC’s Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Reports (MMWR), he shows how the CDC hides and deletes excess jab-related deaths, particularly in categories like cancer, cardiac deaths and strokes. In June 2022, the CDC temporarily paused its MMWR reporting to perform a “system upgrade.” That lasted two months.

When it came back online, large numbers of deaths jab-related categories had been moved, either into the COVID death category or a “holding” category for undetermined deaths, thereby making it appear as though deaths from cancer, heart attacks and strokes are far lower than they are. This gaming of the algorithm appears to have been automated as of that system update. Here’s an excerpt from Part 2, in which The Ethical Skeptic summarizes his findings:¹⁶

“The principal concerns with regard to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ‘Weekly Provisional Counts of Deaths by State and Select Causes’¹⁷ and ‘Wonder: Provisional Mortality Statistics’¹⁸ are that the reports have begun to exhibit two primary apparent goals on the part of the CDC and its agency:

• concealing excess deaths potentially caused by the mRNA vaccines, and
• attempting to make mRNA vaccines falsely appear as uber-effective in saving lives.

Please note that we will not resolve an answer to either of these issues in this article, rather herein we will only outline the efforts in disinformation, misinformation, and deception on the part of the CDC which are foisted in an attempt to achieve both goals. Accordingly, four key issues are entailed inside this two-sided-coin deception:

1.The National Vital Statistics System Upgrade (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NVSS System Upgrade’) afforded the CDC a timeframe inside which it could alter 22 weeks of NCHS-MMWR data.

During this window of opportunity the CDC surreptitiously removed excess death records from its database, and adjusted the policies and techniques as to how ICD-10 mortality codes were populated with state death certificate data thereafter.

We outline herein that a new policy was enacted during the NVSS System Upgrade break, one which centered around two categorical gaming practices. The CDC is employing categorical gaming techniques to conceal dramatic Excess Non-COVID Natural Cause Mortality.

If these excess deaths are not COVID deaths and are not vaccine related, as is commonly claimed through appeals to authority, credential, and ignorance, then there should also be no reason to conceal their associated records. Yet, that is exactly what is occurring.

2.Excess Cancer Mortality is being concealed through Cancer Multiple Cause of Death (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCoD’) categorical reassignment to COVID-19 Underlying Cause of Death (hereinafter referred to as ‘UCoD’).

3.Sudden Adult Deaths are being concealed by holding Pericarditis-Myocarditis-Conductive heart related deaths inside the R00-R99 temporary disposition bucket, far longer than per historical practice, thereby falsely depleting the associated ICD-10 mortality trend for these related deaths.

Finally, the CDC is using the exact opposite technique, exploiting Multiple Cause of Death attributions and adding in completely fictitious deaths as well, in order to make its mRNA vaccines appear to be performing better than they are.

4.The CDC is using Multiple Cause of Death categorical gaming, and is creating novel death counts, in order to counterfeit an appearance that the unvaccinated are dying at a rate 12 times that of the vaccinated.”

22-Sigma Increase in Cardiac Deaths

The article contains loads of charts and graphs and extra details for those who want to dig in. But in summary, the analysis performed by The Ethical Skeptic raises serious questions about the CDC’s handling of mortality data, as it appears to be manipulating statistics specifically for the purpose of hiding post-jab deaths.

On the upside, The Ethical Skeptic believes the CDC’s mirage will soon fall apart, as the data is already starting to get misaligned to the point that fraud is self-evident.

For example, since the system upgrade, 25% of all weekly COVID deaths just so happen to also be dying of cancer. “Such constitutes an impossibility in this important mortality account ledger, one which is analogous to the same species of mistake an embezzler might make,” he writes.

Similarly, the temporary “holding” bucket has grown by 70% since the introduction of the COVID shots, and the CDC is simply leaving them there. At present, there are 35,600 pericarditis, myocarditis and conductive disorder deaths that remain unaccounted for in U.S. cardiac mortality statistics.

If just 18% of these deaths were properly coded back into their heart-related deaths, there would be a 22-sigma increase in cardiac mortality. Based on the CDC’s data, having properly recategorized the miscategorized deaths, The Ethical Skeptic estimates there are now 385,000 excess deaths related to the jabs.

Justice for Vaccine Victims Act

Marjorie Taylor Greene, House representative for Georgia’s 14th Congressional district, recently introduced HR 7308, the Justice for Vaccine Victims Act of 2022, which would require an investigation into COVID jab injuries reported to VAERS to be completed within three months of the bill’s enactment.

The bill would also remove liability protections “that apply to the administration or use of certain medical countermeasures (e.g., vaccines) during the public health emergency.”¹⁹

Last but not least, November 1, 2022, Judicial Watch announced²⁰ it is suing the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) for all of its safety studies relating to vaccines and gene therapies to treat or prevent COVID.

All in all, it seems the wheels are coming off the COVID jab bus. Sparks are already flying. The FDA and CDC could have saved themselves by coming clean a few months into the COVID jab scam. At this point, there’s no way to save face, let alone anyone’s career. Both agencies are doomed, as are their leadership.

• ¹ OpenVAERS
• ^{2, 4, 5, 9, 10} The BMJ 2022; 379: o2527
• ³ FDA CBER Surveillance Program August 31, 2022
• ⁶ Vaccines September 22, 2022; 40(40): 5798-5805
• ⁷ SPEAC October 26, 2021
• ⁸ JAMA Network Open June 1, 2022; 5(6): e2217375
• ¹¹ Twitter Thomas Massie October 31, 2022
• ¹² Full Measure After Hours Podcast January 30, 2021
• ¹³ Full Measure News January 31, 2021
• ¹⁴ Twitter Ethical Skeptic October 25, 2022
• ^15, 16 The Ethical Skeptic, Houston, the CDC Has a Problem Part 2
• ¹⁷ Weekly Provisional Counts of Deaths by State and Select Causes
• ¹⁸ Wonder: Provisional Mortality Statistics
• ¹⁹ Coffee & COVID November 3, 2022
• ²⁰ Judicial Watch November 1, 2022

RINO icons Mike Pence and current Arizona Governor Doug Ducey have spearheaded the charge from the Swamp to take down Lake. Pence is clearly a true believer in the anti-America RINO movement, having betrayed this nation behind the scenes while pretending to defend it. Ducey has been less visible in his attacks, but the Swamp has prompted him to hit Lake with everything he’s got because their billionaire candidate, Karrin Taylor Robson, is lagging far behind.

How do we know Ducey has been co-opted? Because when Lake left her career in television journalism, Ducey speculated that perhaps she should run for office in 2022. On a recent appearance with Megyn Kelly, Lake read the text message that Ducey sent her.

“I’m not going to, you know, sit here and trash him but I will say I’m reading a message that he sent me the day that I resigned from my career and, by the way, I was always fair to him in my career,” she said. “I interviewed him on several occasions and I was always fair to him.”

According to Lake, the text message reads, “Kari, congratulations on your great career to date. You are really one of the good guys. Tough, fair, talented, and a real person. It’s all in such short supply today and you will be missed. If I can be helpful in any way please ask. Excited to see what’s next. Maybe Lake 2022?”

The call to run in 2022 was political banter on Ducey’s part, but the noteworthy comment is that he pointed out Lake is a “real person.” This runs contrary to his current Swamp-prescribed narrative that she’s “Fake Lake,” a moniker they adopted in a desperate effort to smear her. In all of his comments about the race, he’s reading from the Swamp’s script.

Watch:

The Uniparty Swamp is using RINO stooges like Doug Ducey and Mike Pence to keep as many America First patriots out of office. Kari Lake is at the top of the list of people they’re willing to lie about to keep from reaching the people.