Is Moral Relativism Too Convenient?

May 20, 2024
Is Moral Relativism Too Convenient?

Is There Good and Evil in the Investment World?

The end of your answer to a question, "My suspicion is that they would never expect to get approval from the FDA for such a [spike ridding] therapy, as it would be an admission to the severe adverse events caused by the mRNA experimental drugs that have been administered to more than 1 billion people." Don't you mean an admission of severe criminal activity? The entire pandemic was not built around a virus. It was built around a fraudulent test. The injections did nothing for general health— in fact, they are raising the disability and death rates significantly, while the FDA plays lap dog for the pharmaceutical interests who have made billions. My investment question is how long before I can short Moderna et al. as they are charged with crimes against humanity? The FDA lost its court case against Ivermectin. Now it has to remove all the false information it spread on the web. Next, we have to calculate how many people died as a result of not using safe-proven effective drugs in favor of the cash cow of mRNA and Remdesiver. These companies, along with our regulators, have perpetrated the largest RICO case in history. Anyone who made money on these companies during the last four years has blood in their portfolio. Evil must be called out — and when they rolled it out for children who have zero risk, I knew it was evil. Is there good and evil in the investment world? Or is moral relativism too convenient? — John G.

Hello John,

I appreciate you raising these issues, as there is so much nuance and complexity to what was intentionally planned and carried out by various government entities. Unless someone researches extensively, it is impossible to grasp the scale of what is easily the largest medical “crime” in history.

For the benefit of others, the “fraudulent test” that you referred to is the PCR test. If we don’t understand how and why the PCR test was used, we can’t understand the pandemic at all.

The PCR test is used to determine the presence of certain molecules in our bodies. It doesn’t all inform us if we are sick or not. The key setting for a PCR test is something called a cycle threshold (Ct).

The cycle threshold is the number of cycles of amplification needed for the test to turn positive. We can think of this like a sensitivity setting for the PCR test.

Pre-pandemic, the cycle threshold was usually set between 26-29 for PCR tests. This was common practice used to determine if a virus was present and active in the body — hence a “positive” test result.

But during the pandemic, instruction was given to PCR testers to increase the cycle threshold to 40, making the test hypersensitive. The thing to understand is one unit increase in the Ct is a doubling — an exponential increase in the sensitivity in the test. Therefore, the increase in the Ct from 26 to 40 meant that the PCR tests for COVID-19 were more than 1 million times more sensitive than what was standard practice to determine a “strong positive.”

PCR tests at a Ct of 40 mean absolutely nothing. That level of sensitivity can pick up on dead or inactive remnants of COVID-19 from months prior. A positive PCR test did not in any way indicate that the patient was infected with a live virus and capable of transmission.

However, hospitals and healthcare facilities received large bonuses from the government for admitting COVID-19 positive patients. Even coroners received bonuses for a COVID-19 death (i.e. someone that tested positive, not someone that actually died from COVID-19).

Here is a great video, just a couple minutes, of Kary Mullis, who received the 1993 Nobel Prize for the invention of the PCR test. In the video, he talks about the PCR test and how it can be used (or misused) to find just about anything in anybody.

The “crime” was that the cycle threshold was intentionally set high in order to give the appearance that COVID-19 cases were exploding, and the deaths would be in the tens of millions.

These PCR tests and false positives were the entire basis of the lockdowns, mail in voting, and ultimately the justification for ignoring standard safety protocols and testing at the FDA, which lead to the approval for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the COVID-19 mRNA experimental drugs.

We actually knew back in the summer of 2020, through seroprevalence studies conducted by John P.A. Ioannidis from Stanford, that the infection fatality rate (IFR) for COVID-19 for those less than 65 years old was less than that of the influenza. 

Ioannidis further confirmed that research again in 2023 with additional peer-reviewed research, demonstrating IFR rates even lower than what the numbers showed in 2020.

“They” tried to cancel Ioannidis for his scientific research. Google censored or buried his work to the extent that it was not searchable online because it didn’t support the ideological narrative at the time. But he has since been vindicated. His research and analysis were consistently correct throughout the pandemic.

The Johnson and Johnson “vaccine” was pulled early from the market due to side effects that it caused. Astra Zeneca’s “vaccine” was recently pulled for the same reason. Now the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA “vaccines” are next.

This is the greatest medical cover-up in history, and mainstream media continues to support the lies and propaganda. 

And yes, it is criminal that these drugs are still being pushed in the market after everything has been proven.

And while we’ll never hear about this in the news, or find it on Google, more than 17,000 physicians and scientists have called for the mRNA “vaccines” to be pulled from the market — to keep track of the numbers, you can find them at Americans for Health Freedom

As of this month, 187 elected officials and 111 candidates have called to remove these drugs from the market, due to severe adverse events and death.

Also to your point about Ivermectin, this is just an incredible story. The invention of ivermectin also won a Nobel Prize. It is safer than Tylenol, and billions of doses have been given worldwide. It was also shown to be effective in early treatment of COVID-19. 

And yet, there was a massive campaign to slander Ivermectin. Pharmacies wouldn’t even fill prescriptions because it was not “approved” for treatment of COVID-19.

The reason for this is that if there was a known treatment for COVID-19, the FDA would not be able to approve a new drug for Emergency Use Authorization, which can only be issued if there is no available treatment. The FDA got caught, lost the lawsuit, and is now retracting all of its lies about Ivermectin.

As for your bigger question about if there is good or evil in the investment world, I would say yes to both.

Every year, investment banks and financial services companies are fined for illegal activities. Here are just a few:

  • Binance — $4.3 billion for anti-money laundering (AML) crimes
  • MAN Group — $1.3 billion for violation of trading regulations
  • JP Morgan Chase — $1.7 billion as a restitution to Madoff victims due to poor oversight
  • Bank of America — $16.65 billion for selling toxic mortgage-backed securities leading up to the financial crisis
  • JP Morgan Chase & Citigroup — $13 billion and $7 billion respectively, for misleading investors about the quality of shoddy mortgage-backed securities sold before the financial crisis
  • HSBC — $1.9 billion for serving as a conduit to help Mexican drug cartels launder money
  • SAC Capital Advisors — $1.8 billion for insider trading, wire fraud, securities fraud
  • Credit Suisse — $2.5 billion for tax fraud
  • Deutsche Bank — $2.5 billion for the LIBOR price fixing scandal
  • Goldman Sachs — $5.4 billion for money laundering
  • Wells Fargo — $3 billion for creating about 2.1 million fake bank and credit card accounts to meet sales goals… without the consent of existing customers.
  • Etc.

I could go on and on.

There are literally events every year of bad actors doing bad things in the financial services industry. And they all take place at the expense of normal retail investors.

And there is also “good” in the investment world. 

There are a lot of people that work hard to provide conflict-free financial services to their clients. That has always been my goal in producing investment research, as well, and it is something that my team and I will never compromise on.

And in the private markets, I often see investors making investments into companies that they believe in and want to see successful, even though they have much lower expectations on investment returns. I have made many investments like that myself for similar reasons.

As for Moderna, the stock has already dropped about 70% from its September 2021 high. Could it go lower? Sure. Will it get “caught” for what it did with the mRNA “vaccines”? Probably not. 

The U.S. government indemnified both Pfizer and Moderna in the development and manufacturing of these experimental drugs. More than 40 billionaires were made. And many within the NIH and CDC became multi-millionaires from “royalties” paid to them from the pharmaceutical companies for mRNA-related intellectual property.

The whole event was inherently corrupt. There has been so much money involved and so many powerful interests, that the real perpetrators may never be called to justice.

I have immense respect for those that have fought, and continue to fight, to share scientific research and the truth about what has happened (and is still happening) at the risk of their careers. It takes tremendous courage to do that, and it has been a painful road for years now. But I do believe vindication will come.

We always welcome your feedback. We read every email and address the most common comments and questions in the Friday AMA. Please write to us here.

Previous Post Next Post