Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

The CDC Intervened in Voting Protocols

Published

8 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Jeffrey A. TuckerJEFFREY A. TUCKER 

What’s fascinating is the timing. The page was updated to mention the necessity of mail-in voting on March 12, 2020. That’s the same day at Donald Trump’s famous hostage-style video that announced universal travel restrictions for Americans traveling to and from the UK and the EU, for the first time in US history.

In the spring of 2020, a deliberately cultivated disease fear swept across the population. Everyone was urged to do everything possible to avoid the invisible enemy.

It is an implausible request.

The terrorist-era slogan “If you see something, say something” was bad enough. This was “You can’t see something, so just do whatever.”

If you cannot see it, you cannot know where it is, in which case people filled the epistemic void with fantasies of their own invention.

It’s on this sandwich! Wait, it’s on this whole bag of groceries! It’s in this room while that room seems safer! It’s probably on the pen I just used so I’d better wash my hands! I should wear this helmet and these gloves, plus wash my dishes five times before using them! And so on.

It was all madness and it immediately affected the subject of voting, which quickly became a subject of discussion. If we are social distancing and staying home, how can we have normal elections with crowds at polling places? Surely we need a completely different system.

It was in this thicket of sudden frenzy that the CDC got involved. But not eventually involved; it was involved at the very outset.

The page is now scrubbed from the CDC website as of January this year but it has long posted voting protocols as a means of controlling infectious disease spread.

What’s fascinating is the timing. The page was updated to mention the necessity of mail-in voting on March 12, 2020. That’s the same day at Donald Trump’s famous hostage-style video that announced universal travel restrictions for Americans traveling to and from the UK and the EU, for the first time in US history.

He was so nervous that he actually garbled a sentence. He said that he would stop all goods transport. He meant to say that he would not! The correction came a day later but only after the stock market crashed.

That very day, someone went to the page on the CDC site and added that good hygiene involves pushing mail-in voting. We only know this thanks to Archive.org and checking the day-by-day timeline.

States now armed with this exhortation had every reason or excuse to liberalize their laws concerning mail-in voting. Plus with the CARES act, they were suddenly flush with billions to make it happen, all in the name of disease control. People permitted practices that otherwise would never have gone through.

In addition, the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, as part of the Department of Homeland Security, also took charge of securing the elections, obviously with the new liberalized ethos as part of the goal, which is to say, the opposite of security. This is the same agency that divided the workforce between essential and nonessential workers and also led the censorship charge.

There is nothing new about the controversies concerning mail-in ballots. Only half the world’s nations permit them at all. Nations such as France ban them entirely. Those that do allow this are very strict, as the US once was. You have to write in with a good excuse and then receive your mail-in ballot and there must be an exact database match. Part of this is proof of identity. This is all in the heightened interest of security.

By contrast, when I was traveling the country in October 2020, each place I landed I would receive a notification from Facebook to get my mail-in ballots. These were states where I didn’t live. I did not attempt this but I swear I could have voted six times. And otherwise you know how much controversy this elicited.

Indeed, Trump’s raison d’etre to this day is revenge for an election he says was stolen due to mail-in ballots. Well, if so, it only happened because of decisions made by his own executive agencies, CDC and CISA in particular. He has never been asked about this, by the way.

What is the precise connection between voting lines and infectious disease spread? There was every incentive to demonstrate one, something definitive to prove that in-person voting creates a super-spreader to be avoided. Despite this, there is not one single high-quality study showing some relationship. In fact, despite extensive research, I cannot find a single study that even purports to show that in-person voting spreads disease. Not one.

However, one of the few existing studies of this question from Wisconsin shows zero relationship.

In these days of fiction over science, the CDC just assumed there was some relationship and so invoked all its powers and influences over state health agencies and further to maximize mail-in voting and minimize in-person voting. It was entirely due to mail-in votes that Trump went so quickly from winning to losing literally overnight.

Here we have the nation’s great disease-mitigating agency, operating under the banner of science, issuing an order that fundamentally compromised the integrity of the very essence of American democracy without one shred of scientific evidence to justify the decision.

It does indeed stink to high heaven.

Does this imply that the goal of the whole wild episode was to unseat Trump from power? This would not explain why many of these same protocols were followed all over the world. Was Trump’s loss, real or manufactured, a benefit for those who ran the pandemic response? Most certainly. And the unearthing of this little change from the CDC – which found itself in the middle of the most contentious political struggle of modern times – certainly underscores the point.

Author

  • Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

COVID-19

A new study proves, yet again, that the mRNA Covid jabs should NEVER have been approved for young people.

Published on

2.7 million Spanish children and teenagers. ZERO Covid deaths.

Here’s some news from Spanish researchers: contrary to what American health bureaucrats said for years to justify the increasingly insane mRNA “vaccine” experiment, Covid doesn’t kill kids.

(More facts, fewer guesses. For pennies a day.)

Yes, making categorical statements like “Covid doesn’t kill kids” is foolish.

Look hard enough, and there will be an exception, perhaps a child terminally ill with cancer pushed over the edge by Covid.

But the Spanish study, which was peer-reviewed and published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, proves yet again that Covid’s risk is too low to measure — not just not to healthy children, but to all children. It is the strongest evidence yet that the oft-repeated claim that Covid has killed 2,100 American children is fiction.¹

The researchers examined medical records from 2.7 million Spanish children and teenagers from mid-2021 through the end of 2022, a period in which the Omicron variant infected almost everyone worldwide with Covid. The vast majority of those kids and adolescents, about 2.2 million, had not been vaccinated.

Yet none of those 2.7 million died of Covid.

None. As in zero.

(Good thing we closed the schools!)

(SOURCE)

There really isn’t much more to say about the paper, except that the authors couldn’t find any difference for Covid hospitalization rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated kids under 12.

For adolescents 12-17, they calculated about 38,000 mRNA jabs were required to avoid one Covid hospitalization — an absurdly high number given the known short-term side effects of the shots and the potential long-term risks of exposing young people to mRNA.

At this point, any physician who recommends Covid jabs for kids (as a handful, mostly in blue states, still are) should be sued for malpractice.

One final note: this week’s immigration articles have gotten a LOT of likes and comments, more than any recent Covid or mRNA pieces. More new subscribers too.

I expect that will be true again today, though I hope you’ll prove me wrong. I understand. We all have moved on.

But when studies like this new one come out, covering them is crucial.

Nearly 1.5 billion people received mRNA Covid jabs worldwide, including perhaps 100 million kids and teenagers in the United States, Canada, Japan, Europe, and elsewhere. And the American public health establishment and legacy media outlets continue to push mRNA on children and fight even modest efforts to tighten restrictions on mRNA Covid jabs.

Witness the furious pushback Food and Drug Administration chief medical officer Dr. Vinay Prasad received in late November after he reported FDA reviewers found Covid shots had killed children.

So, even as I write about immigration, healthcare fraud, and other topics vital to you, I believe I have a duty to continue to update the factual record about the mRNAs. Duty is not too strong a word. In June 2023, I covered a paper from South Korean researchers about cardiac deaths of young adults who had received the mRNA jabs.

It is no exaggeration to say no one else — no other journalist or scientist covering Covid or the jabs — paid attention to that paper at the time . But now, in the wake of Prasad’s bombshell memo, I’ve again raised that paper. Even the mRNA fanatics at the Atlantic have been forced to acknowledge it.

It’s impossible to know if these articles will matter today, tomorrow, or years from now. But as long as the mRNA companies and their public health handmaidens keep pushing this troubled technology, I’ll keep trying to build the most complete possible record.

(And I hope you will support me.)

(More facts, fewer guesses. For pennies a day.)

1

That 2,100 death figure, which the American Academy of Pediatrics loves to quote, appears to come from a 2023 paper from the National Academy of Medicine paper that in turn relies on Centers for Disease Control data. But the CDC figures no distinction between “with” and “from” Covid deaths, which are particularly important in groups at low baseline risk from Covid. Further, the fact that the number hasn’t been updated in almost three years suggests that the people quoting it know it’s nonsense and don’t want to double-check it, much less try to update it.

What, kids just stopped dying from Covid in 2023 after getting mowed down during the first three years of the epidemic?

Share
Originally posted on
Unreported Truths
Unreported TruthsAlex Berenson
Independent, citizen-funded journalism
Continue Reading

COVID-19

Judge denies Canadian gov’t request to take away Freedom Convoy leader’s truck

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A judge ruled that the Ontario Court of Justice is already ‘satisfied’ with Chris Barber’s sentence and taking away his very livelihood would be ‘disproportionate.’

A Canadian judge has dismissed a demand from Canadian government lawyers to seize Freedom Convoy leader Chris Barber’s “Big Red” semi-truck.

On Friday, Ontario Court of Justice Judge Heather Perkins-McVey denied the Crown’s application seeking to forfeit Barber’s truck.

She ruled that the court is already “satisfied” with Barber’s sentence and taking away his very livelihood would be “disproportionate.”

“This truck is my livelihood,” said Barber in a press release sent to LifeSiteNews.

“Trying to permanently seize it for peacefully protesting was wrong, and I’m relieved the court refused to allow that to happen,” he added.

Criminal defense lawyer Marwa Racha Younes was welcoming of the ruling as well, stating, “We find it was the right decision in the circumstances and are happy with the outcome.”

John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), said the decision is “good news for all Canadians who cherish their Charter freedom to assemble peacefully.”

READ: Freedom Convoy protester appeals after judge dismissed challenge to frozen bank accounts

“Asset forfeiture is an extraordinary power, and it must not be used to punish Canadians for participating in peaceful protest,” he added in the press release.

At this time, the court ruling ends any forfeiture proceedings for the time being, however Barber will continue to try and appeal his criminal conviction and house arrest sentence.

Barber’s truck, a 2004 Kenworth long-haul he uses for business, was a focal point in the 2022 protests. He drove it to Ottawa, where it was parked for an extended period of time, but he complied when officials asked him to move it.

On October 7, 2025, after a long trial, Ontario Court Justice Perkins-McVey sentenced Barber and Tamara Lich, the other Freedom Convoy leader, to 18 months’ house arrest. They had been declared guilty of mischief for their roles as leaders of the 2022 protest against COVID mandates, and as social media influencers.

Lich and Barber have filed appeals of their own against their house arrest sentences, arguing that the trial judge did not correctly apply the law on their mischief charges.

Government lawyers for the Crown have filed an appeal of the acquittals of Lich and Barber on intimidation charges.

The pair’s convictions came after a nearly two-year trial despite the nonviolent nature of the popular movement.

Continue Reading

Trending

X