On Substack.com I have followed contributors for years; thinkers and writers who prefer not to be editied or censored. One such is Tessa Lena. In a recent post she wrote…
“For the historical context, I’d like to offer an insightful perspective from my friend Steven Newcomb who is a Shawnee/Lenape scholar of the Manifest Destiny and the Doctrine of Domination. This interview with Steven is from April. I think that the parallel he brings up is very poignant, and just like the original people of this land who had no idea about the “new normal” coming for them when the first ships arrived—the “new normal” in which they were not entitled to free will or spiritual authority— we here are facing a similar dilemma.”
https://tessa.substack.com/p/soul-authority
Tessa’s conversation with Steven Newcomb is part of her post, it is worth every minute to view it, and can also be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm495xQJDfM&t=3228s
My sister who has been teaching grade school for 30+ years has made the comment several times over the last 6 or 8 years how many more Autistic children there are showing up. When she hears someone say “there are not more, there is just more diagnosis” she curtly states “obviously you have not had to deal with an autistic or several autistic children in a classroom all day or you wouldn’t say that”. SOme of them have gotten quite violent with her too, causing injury, She is very petite.
I can’t believe A country that gave birth to Monsanto would put profit and power before safety and health
Dave,
I dont believe no regulation leads to monopoly. Just the opposite. Monopolies are generally created by government. It is very difficult to create a monopoly without government interference. Governments are not breaking up monopolies anywhere so I dont know where this idea [ that we need government to prevent monopolies ] comes from.
We have alot more government and alot more regulation than we had 100 years ago and we also have WAY more monopolies than they had. So the idea that governments have anything to do with breaking up monopolies is demonstrably wrong.
Just look at the FDA…who runs it? Its run almost entirely by Pfizer/Bayer executives, they arent approving drugs from independent people. That government agency CREATES and ABETS the monopolies of the big pharmaceutical giants. Same goes with the EPA, and literally every government regulatory agency in the country.
Alexander Fleming could never have invented penicillin in today’s world. He did it in an environment of a freer market and little regulation. Come to think of it, just about every cure ever invented came about in that environment. In today’s highly regulated America with massive computers, state of the art labs, and millions in government grant money…where are the cures? They all came 100 years ago.
In my opinion, little regulation is the way to go. Yes there are dangers in making consumers personally responsible for their choices, but those dangers pale in comparison to the dangers presented by inevitable totalitarian mandates issued by omnipotent government agencies.
The regulatory process and agencies will always eventually become tools for creating and maintaining monopolies.
It seems that there are some with integrity in the UK, as the injuries and death from the injection are getting too hard to cover up.
Watching with interest….
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2926
https://t.me/voicesforfreedom/573
Dave,
To the core of my original post on this subject. I can’t define that as capitalism. I do accept that there is a drive toward singularity. And that theory essentially ignores the “buy 'em out!” aspect of the market economy we have built. In a perfect system, there would be no buying out of competition, that option simply wouldn’t exist, and doesn’t where there is true competition in a market supplying a generic good, but in a system where regulation only blocks competition, not eliminating bad actors, all that happens is companies are secured in their unethical competetive advantage. Reality works differently than theory but reality is an interchange between stakeholders and the company, of which the government definitely is one. Not quite bribery or coersion, just overlapping interests that tend to dominate the long term corporate strategy. In the end shareholders lean toward secure and guaranteed wealth from government rather than the competition of the free market. So long as government is an economic interest in the market, they will drive market incentives toward monopoly. But in generic products, the only leg up is through regulation (ie the case of Ivermectin). That is NOT capitalism by my definition.
It’s true that Big Pharma has been guilty of putting profit before health any number of times. But that isn’t the really pressing question.
The real question is: why have vaccines got all mixed up with the question of how the brain and the rest of the body interact?
There could be some overlap in the two issues, sure. It’s possible that vaccines have affected the brain of some people, and we’ve seen the arguments in the video.
But that isn’t the whole story, as I see it. Because whenever somebody starts talking about vaccines too much, it’s as if inevitably they will get pulled into one direction or the opposite one. Where are the people in the middle ground? What is it about vaccines that seems to affect people’s brains? Or some other ideas, I’m sure you are aware of others like it.
We all know the state of your body will affect your mind. If you are sick, you won’t think as clearly and you may feel depressed or frustrated. Many will agree that the state of your mind can affect the rest of your body, too. And if that is true, could that explain the otherwise inexplicable attitudes of some people? Is it possible that “vaccine” can be, in the minds of some people, a dangerous idea, not because of what the actual vaccine can do, but because of what the idea of “vaccine” can do?
I know it may sound wild, to say that an idea can be dangerous to your body. And, to be clear, I don’t mean necessarily that just thinking about it may harm you. Ideas don’t exist just inside your brain, they are shared among people. I’m trying to say that the way people share the idea of “vaccine”, can make “vaccine” a harmful idea.
Is what I’m saying making any sense to you?
MariaDWhite:
You wrote:
Is it possible that "vaccine" can be, in the minds of some people, a dangerous idea, not because of what the actual vaccine can do, but because of what the idea of "vaccine" can do?Maria, I can't speak for others but for myself it is the idea of forced medical intervention that drives me to distraction. There is a good reason for this. On one occasion, I was almost killed my the malpractice of a health professional. On another occasion, I was seriously injured by malpractice by someone else. On a third occasion I was pushed to have - what eventually turned out to be - an unnecessary operation. On that third occasion - after my previous experiences - I flat out refused the surgery because the things that the doctor was saying did not make sense to me. On that third occasion the condition - which I was told would get progressively worse and worse - vanished in a few months. That was thirteen years ago. With that history, it infuriates me when someone says "trust the medical experts." If there is one thing that I will never do again, it is to surrender medical decision making to "the experts." The idea of having a vaccine forced on me "since the doctors agree that it is best for me" absolutely infuriates me.
I read in my email from Alex Berenson that the FDA advisory panel has rejected boosters. Though this is meaningless unless the FDA approvers actually heed this recommendation. But if anyone were looking for a signal for regulatory capture it will be the second time in as many months the experts will be over-ruled… maybe. Something to keep an eye on for now.
The Military-Industrial Complex (this includes weapons manufacturers and pharmaceutical manufacturers) is wrecking our once-great nation. Thanks to RFK Jr. for filling that one in and giving credit to the speech of an outgoing president.
Great interview Chris!
The FDA advisory committee overwhelmingly rejected boosters for everyone 16 and older. But there were subsequent considerations, based on very little discussion or time to consider the limited science. The committee unanimously approved boosters for 65 and older plus those at high risk. I don’t know whether FDA is bound by what the committee says.
Maria, many of us here have said that we are not against vaccines in general, just these mRNA jabs masquerading as vaccines. There is your middle ground. More than that is hard to give you. It is not possible to have a needle inserted halfway into one.
In my opinion, bodily autonomy trumps everything. Otherwise we are slaves and may as well be branded. Oh, wait, that’s the QR codes…
Transcript is up now, Sand puppy!
Kat43,
Recently, the FDA advisory panel nearly unanimously (10 to 1 I think it was) rejected Aducanumab (Aduhelm) as an Alzheimers treatment. Despite this overwhelming vote of no confidence, the FDA approved this drug anyway. The whole panel resigned in protest. They absolutely don’t need to follow the panels recommendation, and evidently don’t even need justification for their decisions, so the panel is simply there to lend credibility to the approval process, not to actually be heard.
I’m not sure how the advisory board actually works but since the Aduhelm debacle caused the lot of them to resign, these new ones would likely be hand picked to toe the party line. The unanimous vote against for any age group or co-morbidity is a very bad sign for the virtues of these jabs.
I know for a fact what Kennedy said is true because it happened to my son and hell will freeze over before the public will accept, or pharmaceutical companies will admit to, the fact that they poisoned our children.
He is an extremely honorable man and I’m so sorry for the hurt he’s had to live through for speaking out.
There are two imperatives to capitalism participants: ROI, and shareholder value. Whatever it takes to increase ROI, and shareholder value, is what companies are duty bound to do.
If capturing regulators increases shareholder value, then they’ll do that.
If acquiring competitors and securing monopolies or fixing prices increases shareholder value, then they’ll do that too.
For the participant, “competition” is to be avoided wherever possible - competition is expensive, and a zero sum game. All the participants lose when there is competition, because prices will drop to their minimum acceptable level. But if all the participants cooperate to set prices - well now. That DOES increase ROI, and by extension, shareholder value. For everyone! Yay! Price-fixing!
My point here: while “capitalism” as a theoretical construct where competition ends up providing the greatest good makes sense, from the standpoint of the participants, competition absolutely sucks, because that structure serves to minimize their ROI, and thus, shareholder value. Competition hoses participants to the same extent as it helps consumers. You can see why participants really hate competition.
Participants are duty-bound to find a way to avoid competition, due to their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. Its why Merck is virtually required to trash Ivermectin - their shareholders will suffer if Merck’s generic product they made 40 years ago beats out Merck’s brand new proprietary pill. And that shareholder-suffering must be avoided at all costs.
So while “capitalism” as a structure is theoretically grand, the individual participants have a structural interest in doing everything they can do to reduce or eliminate competition.
And so they do. Capturing regulators & government, acquiring competitors, fixing prices - motivations for this behavior is built in to the capitalist structure itself. “Maximize shareholder value” is the imperative for the participant. All else is secondary.
Does that make sense?
Note - I’m not saying “don’t do capitalism”, but I am saying we need to be smart about understanding the structural motivations of the participants. Participants hate competition. So rules need to be in place to ensure competition. And non-captured government regulators need to be able to enforce these rules. “No regulation” isn’t an option - it will lead directly to monopolies & price-fixing in short order, cuz that’s how the structure is set up to work.
Part of the issue is size: too big = controlled prices and/or regulatory capture. Preferably, participants shouldn’t be more than 10% of the total market. (I just picked that 10% number out of my you-know-where.) Likewise, penalties for price-fixing. Likewise, prohibiting government regulators from working in industry for 10 years post-government-service = no revolving door. No rewarding regulators with patents. No “user fees” from industry. No bribes. Etc.
Of course these rules won’t pass because - currently - participants control Congress. Of course they do. You would seek this out also, if you were a participant. ROI increases, and thus shareholder value goes up, if participants get to write the laws of the country.
Great interview. I can’t wait to see more in the book.
Will, thank you very much for posting this vid and the links. Unfortunately, Dr. Weiler and Dr. Paul’s study was retracted, but of course that does not mean anything in terms of veracity, now does it?
I lived it. I’ve told this story several times. My first two kids were vaxxed like it was a religion and the two younger kids were not vaxxed. Night and freakin day in the kids health. The first two were constantly chronically sick and suffered terribly. The two younger kids NEVER WENT TO THE DOCTOR. They were never sick. One got impetigo, so we had to use an antibiotic. That was it.
I highly recommend the film “Vaxxed” and the Peeps TV America Tour. I watched 100’s of parents describe their children’s decline in health and cognitive skills as they got vaccinated. This is a crime of unimaginable proportion.
Vaccination is no different than blood letting, the use of leaches, or giving mercury as medicine; ditto for cancer treatments. Tell me how it is considered ‘health care’ to give the sickest patient in the room a ‘medicine’ that requires a hazmet suit to handle?
We have gone insane.
Signed by a former vaxxer.