by Dr. Stephanie Coxon, America Outloud:
The Nuremberg trial was supposed to change the world forever. Evil elitists faced the consequences of their psychotic outcomes, which scarred the planet. They actively promoted “eugenics,” or attempts to improve humankind through “racial improvement” and “planned breeding” of people. These ideas were supported within the United States by people like Henry Ford and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood (a history that many people would like to forget). During those times of the Nuremberg trial, the Belmont Report was produced. The Belmont Report was the U.S.’s own version that outlined the ethical considerations a scientific study must adhere to.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
From that report, the National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-348) was signed into law in 1974. It forever changed how experimental studies were performed, notwithstanding Covid-19 in 2020. The Act states that in order to carry out a scientific study (still happening with those receiving the vaccines), “(i) the boundaries between biomedical and behavioral research and the accepted and routine practice of medicine, (ii) the role assessment of risk-benefit criteria in the determination of the appropriateness of research involving human subjects, (iii) appropriate guidelines for the selection of human subjects for participation in such research and (iv) the nature and definition of informed consent in various research settings.”
These statements of basic ethical principles apply to scientists, Institutional Review Boards, and Federal Employees… the very people whom today are especially failing all of society in the name of COVID-19 prevention and protection. Let there be no doubt; we are being plowed over with a freight train that has barreled through our own system of ethical practices and protections resulting from the horrendous eugenics experiments fostered on the human race in the name of science.
We have all been part of a huge social and medical experiment without consent and in the name of fear. Brownstone.org put out an article outlining 400 plus studies pointing out the failures of the draconian COVID lockdowns and mandates. At best, an exaggeration; at worst, an outright lie, the restrictions that were declared a success were shown to increase depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and psychological harm. In my own life, I watched my mother’s oncology appointment get canceled because it was too “dangerous” for her to see a doctor. How many people were left to suffer from illness, unable to get necessary medical attention and treatment?
When people needed their doctors, the medical institutions failed at the highest level. From the start, many people within the medical community (with the exception of those brainwashed), knew that this virus would never be eradicated. Like every other common cold, an age-risk stratification approach of having the coronavirus circulating through the trenches of the immune system would have been the way to go. Instead, democrat governors sent covid positive patients into nursing homes which care for some of the most health compromised among us, while holding the minimally at-risk children at home with no real form of education or outlet. A set-up for disaster. Of course, Covid raged throughout the nursing centers. That will happen when you deliberately send ill people into isolated facilities housing already ill people…unless, of course, you were Rachel Levine, the P.A. Secretary of Health, who removed his/her mother from said nursing home during the lockdown, preferring the comforts of a 5-star resort for caregiving purposes. That move gets you promoted to U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health. No such opportunity for the elderly residents of county homes and other facilities. But I digress…
But what about the children? If born during this plandemic time, a child is most likely behind in verbal and motor skills, along with decreased cognitive performance. Pediatric guidelines changed during this time, accounting for delays across a spectrum of children. This whole thing led me to one thought; how many times has this happened? Looking at how children have historically achieved at a much younger age makes me wonder, how long have we been saying that delays are okay and normal? Is this a result of medical interventions that we hold on to so dearly in the name of science?
Let’s consider some of the outtakes of the Brownstone article to define the outcomes of the government interventions that unraveled our lives. First, the lockdowns. Citizens across the world were kept at home, away from school, and prevented from going to work unless it was deemed necessary (and the definition of “necessary” seemed to be a dart throw, depending on which government official owned what or wished to go where).
A person could go to a big box store, but not an independent one because the virus was so smart. Yet, numerous researchers found data similar to this sentiment, “Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19… After subtracting the epidemic and IrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country.”
Essentially, there is no evidence the non-pharmaceutical interventions helped to stop cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States.” I think it’s safe to add the rest of the world to this. [Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19, Bendavid, 2020]. Many studies even concluded that school closures and lockdowns led to increased deaths [Effects of school closures on mortality from coronavirus disease 2019: old and new predictions, Rice, 2020] and [SARS-CoV-2 waves in Europe: A 2-atratum SEIRS model solution, Djaparidze, 2020].
But we also strayed into the absurd. I always did wonder if the arrows in the grocery store, along with the six-foot rule, actually helped anyone. Did you know the basis of those mitigation efforts was the high school science project of a 14-year-old? It really is no wonder it was a colossal failure. It was consistently argued that these lockdowns and measures would lower the death count, and yet, in the end, those places that did not take strong measures faired the same or better than those geographic regions that did (i.e., Sweden, Taiwan, etc.).
Read More @ AmericaOutloud.com
