Monday, December 28, 2020

Antiparasitic drug Ivermectin kills coronavirus in 48 hours


Antiparasitic drug Ivermectin kills coronavirus in 48 hours

Around the world, scientists race to develop a vaccine or treatment against the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Now, a team of researchers has found that a drug already available around the world can kill the coronavirus in a lab setting in just 48 hours.

Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 Colorized scanning electron micrograph of an apoptotic cell (green) heavily infected with SARS-COV-2 virus particles (yellow), isolated from a patient sample. Image captured at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility (IRF) in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Credit: NIAID
Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 Colorized scanning electron micrograph of an apoptotic cell (green) heavily infected with SARS-COV-2 virus particles (yellow), isolated from a patient sample. Image captured at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility (IRF) in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Credit: NIAID

The drug, Ivermectin, an antiparasitic medicine, is an inhibitor of the virus SARS-CoV-2 in-vitro and can effectively cause a reduction in virus at 48 hours in cell cultures. The FDA-approved drug can be used for repurposing to treat patients affected by COVID-19, which has spread to 184 countries and territories.

The researchers at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, have published their study in the journal Antiviral Researchshowing how this already widely-used drug may help combat the current global pandemic rippling across continents.

Reduced COVID-19 viral RNA

The team worked with the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity. They showed that Ivermectin reduced COVID-19 viral RNA present in cell culture by as much as 93 percent after 24 hours and by 99.8 percent after 48 hours, at around a 5,000-fold reduction in coronavirus RNA, hinting that the medicine can potentially eradicate the virus.

"We found that even a single dose could essentially remove all viral RNA by 48 hours and that even at 24 hours, there was a significant reduction in it," Dr. Kylie Wagstaff of the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, said.

"Ivermectin is very widely used and seen as a safe drug. We need to figure out now whether the dosage you can use it in humans will be effective – that's the next step," Dr. Wagstaff added.

The researchers, however, cautioned that the tests performed in the study were in vitro, and human trials are still needed to determine the efficacy and safety of the drug against the coronavirus. Ivermectin has also shown effectiveness in vitro against a wide range of other viruses, such as the influenza virus, Zika virus, and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

Repurposing Ivermectin

Ivermectin is an approved drug to treat parasitic conditions, such as rosacea, head lice, and scabies. It was developed in 1975 and has been widely used across the globe since the early 1980s.

"In times when we're having a global pandemic, and there isn't an approved treatment, if we had a compound that was already available around the world, then that might help people sooner. Realistically, it's going to be a while before a vaccine is broadly available," Dr. Wagstaff explained.

Though the mechanism of action by which Ivermectin works on the coronavirus is still unknown, the drug works on other viruses by stopping them from inhibiting down the host cells' ability to detect and fight them.

Ivermectin, therefore, warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans. Further trials should be performed to make sure the drug is effective. If it is effective on humans with coronavirus, it can be widely used to treat affected populations since it already went through approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Countries grapple against COVID-19

Many countries are unprepared for the coming of the coronavirus disease, which has emerged in China in December 2019. Since then, it has spread to most countries across the globe, touching all continents except Antarctica.

The United States reports the highest infections, with more than 368,000 people affected by the virus. It has a staggering 10,923 deaths. Italy has the highest number of deaths, with its death toll reaching 16,523, while Spain has more than 136,000 confirmed cases and 13,341 deaths. Canada has more than 16,000 confirmed cases, while Germany, France, and China have more than 103,000, 98,000, and 82,000 cases, respectively.

The coronavirus has dramatically affected the United Kingdom and Australia also, with more than 52,000 and more than 5,700 cases, respectively.  

Journal reference:


Sunday, December 27, 2020

COVID-19: Canada's Limits on Governments’ Emergency Powers

COVID-19: Limits on Governments’ Emergency Powers

Even in the face of COVID-19, governments cannot act without constraint.

First, the executive can do only what the legislature has empowered it to do. The Cabinet, individual ministers, and other government officials may have broad statutory authority, but “there is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled ‘discretion’ ... ; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose, however capricious or irrelevant, regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute” (Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, at p. 140, per Rand J.).

Second, the executive and the legislature are both bound by the Constitution. The Constitution Act, 1867 specifies the separate jurisdictions of Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), meanwhile, requires governments to impose only reasonable limits on Canadians’ constitutional rights, and allows legislatures to enact laws beyond those limits only in limited circumstances and for limited periods.

These constraints shape how governments can respond to the COVID-19 crisis. They may also ultimately be enforced by the courts.
Constitutional constraints on governments’ emergency powers

Declaring a state of emergency, or a public health emergency, does not dilute the Charter’s requirement that limits on Canadians’ rights and freedoms be reasonable, prescribed by law, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1.

Nor do emergencies generally alter the division of powers between Parliament and the provincial legislatures in the Constitution Act, 1867, though the federal government may intrude on areas of provincial jurisdiction to respond to an emergency, as discussed below.

The Charter

Many emergency measures imposed in response to COVID-19 could limit Canadians’ rights as guaranteed in the Charter. For example:
orders restricting individuals’ movements (see, g., s. 8(1)(a) of the federal Emergencies Act) would likely limit the “freedom of peaceful assembly” under s. 2(c) of the Charter, “the right … to move to and take up residence in any province” under s. 6(2)(a), and possibly even “the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned” under s. 9;
orders requiring individuals to be immunized against COVID-19, if such a vaccine were developed (see, g., s. 16(1)(a) of the British Columbia’s Public Health Act; s. 38(1)(c) of Alberta’s Public Health Act), could limit the “freedom of conscience and religion” under s. 2(a) of the Charter, or “the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” under s. 7, or even “the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination” under s. 15(1); and
orders involving the collection and use of personal information, including through mobile apps for contact tracing or quarantine enforcement (see, g., s. 7.0.2(4)13 of Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act), could limit “the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” under s. 8 of the Charter.

That said, Charter rights are not absolute; as noted above, s. 1 provides that they are guaranteed “subject … to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. If a government measure in response to COVID-19 limits a Charter right, and if that measure is challenged in court, then the government will be required to show that the limit is justified. Whether the limit is justified will be, “by its very nature[,] a fact-specific inquiry” (RJR—MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199, at para. 133, per McLachlin J.).

Courts will likely accord a broad measure of deference to governments under s. 1 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly speculated that even “a violation of the right to life, liberty or security of the person which is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, might be justified under s. 1 during “national emergencies”, including “epidemics” (see R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 671, at pp. 802-803; Reference re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (British Columbia), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at p. 518).

Still, this is not a blank cheque. In particular, the government must “show the absence of less drastic means of achieving [its] objective in a real and substantial manner” because “the deprivation of Charter rights [must be] confined to what is reasonably necessary to achieve the state’s object” (Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, at para. 102, internal citation omitted).

Further, where a limit on a Charter right cannot be properly justified, only Parliament or a provincial legislature can invoke the “notwithstanding clause” in s. 33 of the Charter to limit it nevertheless. The notwithstanding clause is not available to the executive branch. If an executive order made under federal or provincial legislation were struck down as an unconstitutional infringement of a Charter right, then the government could re-impose the measure only if Parliament or the legislature enacted new legislation that invoked the notwithstanding clause. Such legislation would need to declare expressly that it would operate notwithstanding the Charter. The declaration would automatically expire after five years, unless the legislation provided for a quicker expiry, or further legislation renewed the declaration sooner.

Federal and provincial jurisdiction

Unlike the Charter, the Constitution does not contemplate reasonable limits on the division of powers between the federal and provincial legislatures specified in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. If federal or provincial measures imposed in response to COVID-19 transgress jurisdictional limits, they will be unconstitutional.

Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over, among other things, the regulation of trade and commerce, navigation and shipping, border control, airports, and inter-provincial undertakings such as railways and pipelines. Provincial legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights and matters of a local or private nature in the province, as well as hospitals and municipal institutions.

Courts will not afford any deference to governments if their emergency measures are challenged as unconstitutional on the basis of the division of powers in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, at para. 55). Nor is there any equivalent to s. 33 of the Charter; neither Parliament nor a provincial legislature can legislate notwithstanding its jurisdictional constraints.

However, courts have recognized an “emergency branch” to Parliament’s power under s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to “make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada”. The emergency branch permits Parliament temporarily to legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction if it has a “rational basis” for seeing the intruding measure as “temporarily necessary to meet a situation of … crisis imperiling the well-being of the people of Canada as a whole and requiring Parliament’s stern intervention in the interests of the country as a whole” (Reference re Anti-Inflation Act, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373, at p. 425, per Laskin C.J.). Parliament would likely be afforded significant deference under the emergency branch; courts will likely lack any appetite to second-guess democratically accountable politicians about what constitutes an emergency.

Thus, were the federal Cabinet to proclaim a “public welfare emergency” and invoke its extraordinary powers under the federal Emergencies Act, it would have some leeway to venture beyond Parliament’s ordinary jurisdiction. That is not true of provincial Cabinets invoking provincial public health or emergency legislation, however. Even in an emergency, the provincial legislatures are subject to the usual division of powers rules.
Statutory constraints on governments’ emergency powers

When governments exercise their powers under emergency or public health legislation, they are constrained by the terms of the applicable legislation; they have only such powers as the legislature has given them. Limits on their powers may be enforced through the courts – which have a constitutional duty to ensure that statutory decision-makers act within the bounds of their authority – in judicial review proceedings governed by the principles of administrative law.

In most judicial review proceedings, the question is whether the decision-maker (e.g., a minister) has made a decision that exceeded the scope of, or was otherwise inconsistent with, the legislator’s grant of power. A court will generally defer to a decision-maker’s interpretation of her or his enabling legislation, provided the court sees the interpretation as reasonable.

For example, under s. 13 of the Statistics Act, the Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada can require any business to provide any documents or records that contain information sought “in respect of the objects of this Act”.

If the Chief Statistician made an order under s. 13 in aid of the federal government’s response to COVID-19, and that order were challenged as being beyond the s. 13 power, then the success of the challenge would turn on whether the information sought was “in respect of the objects of this Act”. The court would defer to the Chief Statistician on this issue; the order would likely be upheld unless the court determined that the Chief Statistician’s interpretation of the Statistics Act’s objects was unreasonable – i.e., not “consistent with the text, context and purpose” of the legislation (Vavilov, supra, at para. 120).
Bottom line

If emergency measures adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic are challenged in court, governments will usually enjoy significant deference. In considering whether limits on Charter rights may be justified under s. 1, courts are unlikely to second-guess government decisions, necessarily made rapidly, about which measures were (or are) necessary to save lives. Nor, in the administrative law context, would courts quash emergency orders unless they rely on an unreasonable interpretation of the legislation under which they have been made. The single exception to the courts’ deferential posture would be in most challenges based on the division of powers; if the rules of Canadian federalism allegedly have been broken, then no deference is warranted unless Parliament is said to have invoked the emergency branch of its peace, order, and good government power.

Judicial oversight of government action is an essential feature of Canada’s legal landscape. Still, modern principles of public law have never been applied in a pandemic, or in its aftermath. In the coming months, courts may well have to apply those principles urgently, as the extraordinary measures implemented in response to COVID-19 implicate the interests of Canadian businesses, organizations, and individuals. The courts’ task in doing so – and the responsibility of governments – will be to ensure that Canada’s efforts to manage this crisis are consistent with our constitutional commitments and the rule of law.

For more information

Elsewhere, we and our colleagues have discussed:
the powers that governments in every province and territory – British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut – have exercised, or could exercise, under their respective public health and emergency legislation, and the powers that governments could use to enforce emergency orders made under such legislation;
the powers that the federal government has exercised under the Quarantine Act and the Aeronautics Act, and that it could exercise if it proclaims a “public welfare emergency” under the Emergencies Act; and
the powers that governments have used, or could use, to order businesses to close.

We and our colleagues are also maintaining an up-to-date list of measures that governments across Canada have implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in our Emergency Measures Tracker. For up-to-date information on COVID-19, and for McCarthy Tétrault’s perspective on the legal issues it presents, please visit our dedicated hub, here.



Covid-Vaccines, DREADDS & Hermes a.k.a. Thoth narrating to Asclepius

Egypt, in reference to The Corpus Hermeticum below, is to be construed as the entire world. Below, in parts 25 and 26 of the Hermeticum, Hermes narrates the future of Humankind to Asclepius. He then reveals God's final intervention, and how God will undo the evil that has overtaken His creation.

The warnings of the Hermeticum are especially significant when it speaks to the "Religion of the Mind".  Today, the Technocrats are attempting every conceivable form of mind manipulation and destruction to control and eradicate humanity. Examples include algorithms, media propaganda, musical chords/words, technology, pharmacology, Black Magic and science. To control and destroy humanity they must first dismantle and sabotage the human mind. The Trans-humanist agenda seeks to preserve Mother Nature and the construction of the Ages, but not who built it. Perhaps why global war is not wise depopulation choice.

Vaccines and DREADDS, are likely the binary companions of science and technology. Vaccines will deliver the necessary nanotechnology to disrupt and mutate our RNA/DNA, and DREADDS will provide technology the ability to control our minds.

Chemogenetics is an especially compelling approach because, after an initial surgery, it requires no invasive procedures. The technology works by putting specially designed receptors into a chosen cell population in the brain. The receptors are delivered by injecting a special virus into the target brain region (this is the spatial restriction). The virus is genetically modified so that it contains instructions to produce the receptor. The instruction will work only in certain cell types (this is the genetic restriction). Some well-known groups of cells that can be targeted in this fashion and are implicated in psychiatric illness include the dopamine-producing cells of the substantia nigra and the serotonin-producing cells of the raphe nuclei. Once the cells contain the genetic information to produce the receptors, their activity can be modulated at any time by giving the subject the specific molecule that activates the specific receptors. So, a patient with receptors inserted into dopamine cells could activate them at a later point by simply taking a pill with that molecule.

It is my understanding that DREADDS can be delivered via drinking water, chem-trails and vaccines. The possibilities are likely endless. While many of you view Covid-19 as a virus, I view it as a device to destroy the MIND. Once again, the mind is the ethereal software that connects consciousness, or God, to the human brain.

With "pot" now being legalized in many countries throughout the world, and with pot dispensaries popping up everywhere, would it not be coincidental if genetically modified strains of marijuana would in fact be DREADDS activation mechanisms?

In an earlier email, I concluded that dopamine was covertly introduced into seniors residing in eldercare facilities. Dopamine, when introduced in specific populations (ex individuals with Parkinsons) will create the same symptoms as someone with severe Covid-19 symptoms (i.e. high fever and major organ shutdown). This is likely why 85% of the Covid related deaths in Canada are attributable to eldercare facilities. The experimentation has gone live!


1. Why dost thou weep, Asclepius? Nay, more than this, by far more wretched,—Egypt herself shall be impelled and stained with greater ills.

For she, the Holy [Land], and once deservedly

the most beloved by God, by reason of her pious service of the Gods on earth,—she, the sole colony 1 of holiness, and teacher of religion [on the earth], shall be the type of all that is most barbarous.

And then, out of our loathing for mankind, the World will seem no more deserving of our wonder and our praise.

All this good thing, 2—than which there has been fairer naught that can be seen, nor is there anything, nor will there [ever] be,—will be in jeopardy.

2. And it will prove a burden unto men; and on account of this they will despise and cease to love this Cosmos as a whole,—the changeless work of God; the glorious construction of the Good, comprised of multifold variety of forms; the engine of God’s Will, supporting His own work ungrudgingly; the multitudinous whole massed in a unity of all, that should be reverenced, praised and loved,—by them at least who have the eyes to see.

For Darkness will be set before the Light, and Death will be thought preferable to Life. No one will raise his eyes to Heaven; the pious man will be considered mad, the impious a sage; the frenzied held as strong, the worst as best.

3. For soul, and all concerning it,—whereby it doth presume that either it hath been born deathless, or that it will attain to deathlessness, according to the argument I have set forth for you,—[all this] will be considered not only food for sport, 1 but even vanity.

Nay, [if ye will] believe me, the penalty of death shall be decreed to him who shall devote himself to the Religion of the Mind.

New statutes shall come into force, a novel law; naught [that is] sacred, nothing pious, naught that is worthy of the Heaven, or Gods in Heaven, shall [e’er] be heard, or [even] mentally believed.

4. The sorrowful departure of the Gods from men takes place; bad angels 2 only stay, who mingled with humanity will lay their hands on them, and drive the wretched folk to every ill of recklessness,—to wars, and robberies, deceits,

and all those things that are opposed to the soul’s nature1

Then shall the Earth no longer hold together; the Sea no longer shall be sailed upon; nor shall the Heaven continue with the Courses of the Stars, nor the Star-course in Heaven.

The voice of every God 2 shall cease in the [Great] Silence that no one can break; the fruits of Earth shall rot; nay, Earth no longer shall bring forth; and Air itself shall faint in that sad listlessness.


1. This, when it comes, shall be the World’s old age, impiety,—irregularity, and lack of rationality in all good things.

And when these things all come to pass, Asclepius,—then He, [our] Lord and Sire, God First in power, and Ruler of the One God [Visible], 3 in check of crime, and calling error back from the corruption of all things unto good manners and to deeds spontaneous with His Will (that is to say God’s Goodness),—ending all ill, by either washing it away with water-flood, or burning it away with fire, or by the means of pestilent diseases, spread

throughout all hostile lands,—God will recall the Cosmos to its ancient form 1; so that the World itself shall seem meet to be worshipped and admired; and God, the Maker and Restorer of so vast a work, be sung by the humanity who shall be then, with ceaseless heraldings of praise and [hymns of] blessing.

2. For this [Re-] birth of Cosmos is the making new 2 of all good things, and the most holy and most pious bringing-back again of Nature’s self, by means of a set course of time,—of Nature, which was without beginning, and which is without an end. For that God’s Will hath no beginning; and, in that ’tis the same and as it is, it is without an end.

Thank you,
Joseph Pede


Boston doctor says he almost had to be INTUBATED after suffering severe allergic reaction from Moderna Covid vaccine

Boston doctor says he almost had to be INTUBATED after suffering severe allergic reaction from Moderna Covid vaccine

Boston doctor says he almost had to be INTUBATED after suffering severe allergic reaction from Moderna Covid vaccine
A physician in Boston said he suffered one of the worst allergic reactions he’s ever experienced after receiving Moderna’s Covid-19 jab, following a string of similar cases resulting from Pfizer’s vaccine.

Dr. Hossein Sadrzadeh, a hematology oncology fellow at Boston Medical Center, was given the drug on Christmas Eve. The health care worker, who has a severe shellfish allergy, said his heart began to race after taking the vaccine. Initially, he thought his increased heart rate was due to anxiety he had about the jab, stemming from reports of serious medical episodes occurring after people with allergies were injected with Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine.  

However, he soon realized that he was suffering from something far more dangerous. Within minutes, Sadrzadeh’s tongue and throat began to tingle and go numb, a reaction that he associated with his shellfish allergy. Even more concerning, his blood pressure then dipped so low that it wasn’t even detectable with a monitor. 

Luckily, the doctor had brought his own EpiPen, which he administered on himself before hospital staff rushed him to the emergency room. He was given several medications, including steroids and Benadryl. A record of his hospital visit stated that he was admitted to the ER for “shortness of breath, dizziness, palpitations and numbness after receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.”

By Friday morning, he said that he was feeling normal. But the doctor seemed to suggest that the episode could have been far more harrowing had he not come prepared for the worst. 

“I feel that if I did not have my EpiPen with me, I would be intubated right now, because it was that severe,” he said, adding that it was the worst allergic reaction he had experienced since he was 11 years old. 

The physician said he now recommends that people with allergies receive the vaccine in a hospital setting, instead of getting it from a clinic or local provider. 

“I knew the symptoms. I had the experience. I was a physician, and I was scared to death. Imagine someone who does not have the information,” he noted. Sadrzadeh has offered Moderna a blood sample in an effort to help the firm identify what ingredient in the vaccine may have triggered the allergic reaction.

“I really don’t want anybody to go and experience this and go through this event that I had,” he said.

The concerning case is the first of its kind to be linked to the Moderna jab. Officials with the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are investigating at least six cases of severe allergic reactions occurring in people who took the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. However, it is still being determined whether an ingredient in the vaccine is responsible for the health episodes.


Apple plans to launch its first self-driving car in 2024

Apple plans to launch its first self-driving car in 2024

Apple's self-driving car concept.

Apple is moving forward with self-driving car technology. According to the “rumors”, the hi-tech giant, Apple would have decided to produce an electric car equipped with industrialized batteries from the same brand with a design that would reduce its cost and increase the vehicle’s range. It is planning to launch its first passenger car in 2024 using its own technology. 

The idea, however, is not new since it is a part of the iPhone maker‘s automotive efforts, known as Project Titan, which had proceeded unevenly since 2014 when it first started to design its own vehicle from scratch. The one with several breaks has been running since 2014. Reuters received information from two people with knowledge of Apple’s plans. The work is said to have progressed so much that the launch of commercial production is already seriously considered.

Apple is creating a “single-cell” design that expands the volume of individual battery cells and frees up space inside the battery pack. This may allow more battery packs to be included in a smaller package, resulting in greater autonomy.

Apple is also studying the chemistry of a battery called LFP, or lithium iron phosphate, which is inherently less prone to overheating and, therefore, safer than other types of lithium-ion batteries. This year, it became public that Tesla is also considering switching to this type of battery, reducing the use of cobalt to reduce costs and increase the level of safety.

2024 is the target, but as reported by various online magazines and published by the Reuters news agency, a possible delay due to the pandemic situation could cause the electric car to be launched in 2025 or even later. The project is handed over to Doug Field, an Apple veteran who worked at Tesla Inc and returned to oversee the project in 2018.

It should be noted that Apple’s goal of creating a vehicle for the mass market would contrast with the analogs already started by rivals such as Waymo of Google’s Alphabet, which has decided to produce a driverless taxi robot. For the moment, there is no comment on the matter from Apple.


Friday, December 25, 2020

A 2020 Merry Christmas sent to Canadian Politicians

We must, by now realize, that the next decade will offer more challenges than opportunities for humanity. The rules for survival will be dictated by compliance and adherence to the emerging syntax. Humans will unknowingly migrate from the “infinite absoluteness of the universal hologram” to a “defined and restricted technological matrix”.

BigPharma which once promised extended life for all, will now do all to eradicate a non-compliant elder population. For how else could the new globalist technocracy advance? Seniors create many obstacles for the “global re-set” (i.e. they are not computer literate, they exhaust the medical system, they lack the skills which are required for the new technological age, but most importantly, their historical knowledge poses a threat to the future dialectic). The “truth of the past” poses a real and present danger for the future. Wisdom.

Parsing and purging humanity will be all the rage as vaccines merge with quantum technology. The rise of human obsolescence has been never been more notable than in 2020. An example is the small family run business. It served absolutely no purpose in the year of the “plan-demic”. Instead, corporate giants whose computers, which have already merged with the matrix, grew in authority and market dominance.

Mankind is being directed into a shadowy darkness - corridors filled with enigmatic shadows - undecipherable hieroglyphics depicting the tale of paradise lost.

I often sit and think why people don’t think. An example of the lunacy is that governments are convincing everyone to download and subscribe to the Covid-alert app. While we are predisposed to believe that our privacy is somewhat protected and not available to policing and intelligence organizations, that belief is completely false. The Covid-alert download will provide government agencies direct access to your mobile phone. You have given them the ability to track and monitor you, but you thought they wanted to protect you.

Nonetheless it is Christmas Day and my hope is that Christians have made time to re-embrace their faith. After all, you have never had so much free time. That connection is more probable because it allows you to be one on one with Jesus. No church, no priest, no parishioners, just you contemplating, thinking and praying. This is the medicine for the next decade, for should it run out, you will be residing in a living hell.

A Theomorphic who spoke of love and compassion can't be all bad. Below is a poem I wrote some time ago. A dangerous Egregore is rising from the East.

Merry Christmas,

Joseph Pede

Dragon and Bear
Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Ominously glaring down from a mountainous gorge
Talons piercing the dirt beneath it
Bellowing fire creates steam atop the dancing Yangtze
Enduring is its power over the mighty waters below

Across the valley a thundering roar
Footsteps mimic the sounds of a quaking earth
Piercing eyes radiate a fearless calm
Power and patience reflecting from each mighty fang

The prodigious Dragon deliberate in its response
Ursus clandestinely camouflaging its mighty strength
The two meet in the land of the Great Khan
There the spirit of Temujin unites the two great powers

Cossack and Mongol transformed to one mighty beast
Careful is their watch over the famished eagle
Flying lost in its attempt to place a deadened quarry to the ground
Peace in the distance awaits the fall of the tragic bird.

Thank you,
Joseph Pede

Monday, December 14, 2020

IVERMECTIN will CURE any form of Covid

 Pierre Kory, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at St. Luke's Aurora Medical Center, delivers passionate testimony during the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on "Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II." 

He is part of a group of 2,000 peer-reviewed geniuses from around the world. He gave testimony that IVERMECTIN will CURE any form of Covid. This is an additional cure to hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and zithromycine.

The vaccine is designed to kill you. The politicians and technocrats don't want a cure. They want to control your minds, and kill you. The news you will never hear.