As to what it is in the beautiful object that is responsible for eliciting the affective response in the individual, Thomas lists the three objective properties of beauty—integrity, proportion, and clarity—touched on at the end of the last chapter.[1] By integrity or perfection, Thomas means something close to what Tolkien has in mind in his requirement that sub-created, secondary world’s exhibit the “inner consistency of reality.” Integrity, in other words, refers to a thing’s completeness, wholeness, or togetherness, its having and displaying the structure and requisite parts proper to a thing of that particular essence or nature. The second aesthetic property of proportion, sometimes referred to as harmony or consonance, is of Pythagorean extraction and designates in Thomas’s usage a sense of qualitative proportion that he calls convenientia, or what Liberato Santoro-Brienza describes as an “intrinsic attunement” or “correspondence between inner…
During the first weeks of the COVID-19 “pandemic” in 2020, when nationwide protocols were setup to be used in hospital settings, some frontline doctors began to question the practice of putting COVID-19 positive patients on ventilators, because so many of them were dying, and these doctors made it clear that they were dying from being wrongly placed on these ventilators.
In other words, the ventilators were actually killing them, in many cases by collapsing their lungs.
Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell was one of the first to speak out on this issue, as he had setup a COVID ICU center in New York City. He made it clear that the hospital protocols that called for putting these patients on ventilators was wrong, and addressed the issue in a YouTube video that went viral.
Other doctors beside Dr. Kyle-Sidell also began speaking out about placing COVID patients on ventilators, stating that about 80% of those vented were dying, and that it was the wrong procedure.
As health officials around the world push to get more ventilators to treat coronavirus patients, some doctors are moving away from using the breathing machines when they can.
The reason: Some hospitals have reported unusually high death rates for coronavirus patients on ventilators, and some doctors worry that the machines could be harming certain patients.
The evolving treatments highlight the fact that doctors are still learning the best way to manage a virus that emerged only months ago. They are relying on anecdotal, real-time data amid a crush of patients and shortages of basic supplies.
Mechanical ventilators push oxygen into patients whose lungs are failing. Using the machines involves sedating a patient and sticking a tube into the throat. Deaths in such sick patients are common, no matter the reason they need the breathing help.
Generally speaking, 40% to 50% of patients with severe respiratory distress die while on ventilators, experts say. But 80% or more of coronavirus patients placed on the machines in New York City have died, state and city officials say. (Full article.)
A young nurse from Nevada volunteered her services to treat COVID patients in New York City, and was appalled at how patients were dying in these hospitals, NOT from COVID, but from hospital mistreatment, including the wrong use of ventilators. I included a clip from her whistleblower testimony in the video I produced a few days ago, The Greatest Lie Ever Told.
Here is her entire testimony which was originally posted on Facebook. (Warning – graphic language.)
Another clip I included in The Greatest Lie Ever Told was from a respiratory therapist who also exposed the ventilator scandal.
I am a respiratory therapist and I’ve been doing this for 21 years.
I wanted to show you our equipment room.
The first thing I want to say is, does it look like there is a ventilator shortage? There’s not. As a matter of fact, we’re running less ventilators now than we would normally run, and that’s because people are just staying home. They’re not having elective surgery.
Any patient that came in with a respiratory problem was labeled as “Covid.” It doesn’t matter if you have Stage 4 lung cancer, pancreatitis or heart disease, liver failure and everything else.
Because you come in with breathing problems, you’re labeled a Covid patient.
You have to recognize that if every single patient is under investigation as Covid… and dies, then that goes into a Covid death. And they’re showing the numbers like a football game, to scare you.
They’re showing you loading bodies into a tractor trailer to scare you.
I’ve never in my career ever seen bodies loaded into a tractor trailer. It just doesn’t happen. I wonder if those were even bodies – I really don’t believe it. All this stuff is fake.
Let’s talk about ventilators and why there would be a shortage of ventilators. Well, this (pointing) is non-invasive ventilation here, CPAP or BiPAP. This is a mask that gets strapped on you and we can help you breath with that.
We’re not allowed to use those.
For the most part, since Covid came out they said “absolutely not,” that’s going to cause the virus to spread all over the place by spraying aerosols everywhere. And so we can’t use it.
You have to let the patient crash and go straight to a ventilator.
Traditionally, that’s not the way we would treat a patient.
We also have aerosolized medication, bronchol dilators, but we’re not allowed to use those either.
So everything we would traditionally do, we’re not allowed to do.
Every patient that comes in, no matter what their history, is labeled Covid under investigation. So if that patient dies, that becomes a Covid death.
Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, in California on March 28, 2022. (York Du/The Epoch Times)
A psychologist is accusing Google of manipulating American citizens to influence the outcome of the November midterm elections.
Robert Epstein and his research team from the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology have been monitoring online political content being sent to voters in swing states. As part of the research, the team is looking into search engine results on Google and Bing, messages displayed on Google’s homepage, tweets sent by Twitter, email suppression on Gmail, auto-play videos suggested on Google-owned YouTube, and so on.
The study found over 1.9 million “ephemeral experiences” that Google and other firms were using to “shift opinions and voting preferences,” Epstein wrote in a Nov. 6 article for the Daily Caller. “Ephemeral experiences” are short-lived content that immediately disappears without leaving a trace after user consumption.
The team expects such “ephemeral experiences” to number over 2.5 million by Election Day. Epstein has identified roughly a dozen new forms of online manipulation using ephemeral experiences which are almost exclusively controlled by Google and a few other tech firms.
The impact created by the experiences is “stunning,” Epstein says.
Search engine results that favor one political candidate were found to influence undecided voters so much that up to 80 percent of such people in some demographic groups shifted their voting preferences after only a single search.
“Carefully crafted search suggestions that flash at you while you are typing a search term can turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split with no one knowing they have been manipulated,” Epstein writes.
“A single question-and-answer interaction on a digital personal assistant can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by more than 40 percent.”
Ahead of the 2022 election, “a high level of liberal bias” is being seen in Google search results in swing states like Arizona, Florida, and Wisconsin, Epstein wrote. Search results from Bing did not indicate such bias.
In multiple swing states, liberal news sources make up 92 percent of auto-play videos being sent to YouTube users, which can potentially shift “hundreds of thousands of votes” on Election Day, he warned.
County officials are not allowed to order a full hand count of ballots cast in the 2022 midterm elections, a judge ruled on Nov. 7.
Two members of the Cochise County Board of Supervisors recently approved a plan for a “100 percent county wide audit” of the election, saying the hand count would “enhance voter confidence.”
They were sued by the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, a nonprofit that said the plan violated state law governing hand counts.
Pima County Superior Court Judge Casey McGinley agreed, ruling that A.R.S. §16-602 does not permit an election official to conduct a hand count of manual audit “starting with and consisting solely of 100% of the ballots cast in an election, rather than by using the increments of ballots established by statute.”
While hand counts of electronically tabulated results are required by state law, the law forces officials to randomly select a portion of the ballots, not count each ballot that was cast, McGinley said. A full count is allowed only if there is a difference between the two sets of results.
He ordered election officials in Cochise County to follow state law, as opposed to the board’s resolution, when it performs hand counts.
The Pima County judge received the case because it involves Cochise County board supervisors. That is typical in cases involving the supervisors, according to the board.
“What we intended to do was legal and if I can find the will in other key participants and way to do it, I will proceed,” Cochise County Supervisors Peggy Judd told The Epoch Times via email. “Pima County is our most liberal county in Arizona. It was in our judge’s DNA to side with the plaintiff. Our attorneys presented the best defense that could be had and we lost due to political bias. Hand counting is as American as apple pie. I am extremely blessed to be serving alongside visionaries, statesmen, and defenders of truth from our county and beyond that have our backs all the way. I am not licking wounds today and I assure you, they are not either.”
Judd approved the hand count plan with fellow supervisor Tom Crosby.
The ruling means that “it’s illegal to check the accuracy of your voting machines,” Crosby told The Epoch Times in an email.
Saundra Cole, president of the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans’ Arizona chapter, said in a statement that the ruling “is a big win for all voters in Cochise County, particularly older voters who are more likely to vote early in Arizona.”
The office of Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, also celebrated the decision as “a win for Arizona’s voters.”
“Drastic changes to election processes, especially during an election, would create chaos and confusion,” Allie Bones, deputy secretary of state, said in a statement.
In an earlier motion to dismiss the case, Cochise County Recorder David Stevens said that the plan “will merely serve as an additional confirmation of the accuracy of that process, consistent with Defendants’ legitimate interests in safeguarding our elections and reinforcing public confidence in the elections process.” The expanded hand count was legal under the law, he said.
Crosby and Judd, both Republicans, approved the plan to count all ballots in October. Democrat supervisor Ann English opposed it. Crosby and Judd later said the count would only involve certain races. Their plan was supported by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican whose office said the plan was legal.
Cochise County hand-counted about 1,100 votes in the 2022 primary election in one day, and about 1,700 in the 2020 presidential election across two days. The most recent count matched with the electronic tabulation. The 2020 count was within the variance outlined by the Arizona secretary of state’s office.
David DePape in Berkeley, Calif., on Dec. 13, 2013. (Michael Short/San Francisco Chronicle via AP)
By Frank Fang
November 2, 2022Updated: November 3, 2022
David DePape, the man who allegedly assaulted Paul Pelosi, was on a “suicide mission” and had plans to target other California and federal politicians, according to a court document filed on Nov. 1 by the office of San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins.
DePape, 42, appeared briefly in San Francisco Superior Court on Nov. 1 and pleaded not guilty to the attempted murder of Pelosi and other charges. It was his first public appearance since last week’s hammer attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband.
He was ordered held without bail. His next court hearing is scheduled for Nov. 4.
Assistant District Attorney Allison Garbutt Macbeth filed the motion to detain DePape, writing: “This case demands detention. Nothing less.”
“Defendant’s intent could not have been clearer: he forced his way into the Pelosi home intending to take the person third in line to the presidency of the United States hostage and seriously harm her,” the court filing reads. “Thwarted by Speaker Pelosi’s absence, Defendant continued on his quest and would not be stopped, culminating in the near-fatal attack on Mr. Pelosi.”
“I didn’t really want to hurt him, but you know this was a suicide mission,” DePape allegedly said. “I’m not going to stand here and do nothing even if it cost me my life.”
DePape is alleged to have told Paul Pelosi he “has other targets,” the court filing says. Later when the police asked him if he had any other plans, DePape allegedly “named several targets,” including a local professor and “several prominent and state and federal politicians” and their relatives.
The court document didn’t identify any potential targets.
DePape allegedly told the police he intended to hold the House speaker hostage and interrogate her.
“If Speaker Pelosi lied to him, he intended to break her kneecaps,” Macbeth wrote.
Intrusion
The court filing also contains details about what happened before Pelosi was injured.
According to Macbeth, DePape smashed his body through a window to break into the Pelosis’ Pacific Heights home, while carrying a hammer and several plastic zip ties. After breaking in, he allegedly confronted Paul Pelosi at his bedside at around 2 a.m. and began asking for the whereabouts of the congresswoman.
Paul Pelosi said his wife was in Washington and wouldn’t return home for several days. DePape then allegedly threatened to tie him up—the first of about 10 such threats, the court filing says.
When asked why he was looking for Nancy Pelosi, DePape is alleged to have said, “Well, she’s number two in line for the presidency, right?”
After Paul Pelosi agreed to what was said, DePape allegedly went on to say “they are all corrupt” and “we’ve got to take them all out.”
Eventually, Paul Pelosi called 911. But before the police arrived, he “reached out and put his hand” on the handle of the hammer, over his fear that DePape would strike him with it.
Two police officers arrived and, seeing both men with their hands on the handle of the hammer, one of the officers ordered DePape to drop it, but he didn’t comply.
DePape then allegedly “wrenched the hammer away” from Pelosi, stepped back, and lunged at him, “striking Mr. Pelosi in the head at full force with the hammer.”
“The officers rushed into the house, tackled Defendant, and disarmed him,” the court filing says. “Mr. Pelosi remained unresponsive for about three minutes, waking up in a pool of his own blood.”
In DePape’s backpack, police allegedly found another hammer, a laptop, and bags of zip ties.
Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk” (Billion Photos/Shutterstock)
It was never about data or science; it was about following the top-down script they had from the beginning. And this recent admission by a Pfizer executive proves it would be called out as fraudulent in any other industry. So how have they managed to pull the wool over so many people’s eyes?
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19
In early October 2022, during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout
Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk”
We’ve known for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption. In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted that trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission. Yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that
It was never about science or protecting others. It was always about following a predetermined narrative that sought to get experimental mRNA technology into as many people as possible
February 9, 2021, I published an article that clarified the medical and legal definitions of a “vaccine.” In the article, I noted that mRNA COVID-19 jabs did not meet those definitions, in part because they don’t prevent infection or spread. In reality, they’re experimental gene therapies. In July that year, The New York Times published a hit piece on me citing that February 9 article:1
“The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were ‘a medical fraud’ and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.
Instead, the article claimed, the shots ‘alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch.’ Its assertions were easily disprovable …”
Pfizer Moved ‘at the Speed of Science’
Fast-forward to early October 2022, and my claims were officially confirmed during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament. Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.
As noted by Roos, the entire premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19. Small replied:
“No. We had to really move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk.”2
This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. I find this shocking — even criminal.
— Rob Roos, MEP
As noted by Roos, “This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.” Roos added that he found this deception “shocking — even criminal.”3
In the video below, biologist and nurse teacher John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews this growing scandal. He points out that U.K. government officials emphatically assured the public that everything that was normally done in clinical trials for a vaccine was done for the COVID shots. Now we’re told that was not the case after all.
The question is why? According to Small, these basic trials were not done because they “had to move at the speed of science.” But just what does that mean? As noted by Campbell, these are “just words without meaning.” It’s complete nonsense.
Moreover, what does it mean to “do everything at risk”? Campbell admits he has no idea what that means. I don’t either, but were I to venture a guess, I’d guess it means they knowingly skipped certain testing even though they knew the risks of doing so.
Government and Media Promulgated a Blatant Lie
Over the past three years, mainstream media have promulgated the lie that the COVID shots will prevent infection and transmission, telling us that anyone who doesn’t get the shot is selfish at best, and at worst, a potential murderer at large. Anyone who refuses poses a serious biomedical threat to society, hence the need for heavy-handedness.
Alas, it was all a lie from the start. The frustrating part is that we’ve KNOWN for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption, yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that.
In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted the fact that the trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission, which is key if you want to end the pandemic. He wrote:4
“None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
So, by October 2020, at the latest, it was clear that no studies had been done to determine whether the shots actually prevented transmission, which is a prerequisite for the claim that you’ll save the lives of others if you take it.
By then, Moderna had also admitted they were not testing its jab’s ability to prevent infection. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, stated that this kind of trial would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy he called “operationally untenable.”5
So, neither Pfizer nor Moderna had any clue whether their COVID shots would prevent transmission or spread, as that was never tested, yet with the aid of government officials and media, they led the public to believe they would. Below is just one example where Pfizer clearly obfuscated the truth.6 If stopping transmission was their “highest priority,” why didn’t they test and confirm that their shot was accomplishing this priority?
My Awesome Fearless Blog 