Comedian Roasts Audience Member Who ‘Works For Biden Administration’: ‘Are You Ready To Be Unemployed?’
A comedian performing at the Laugh Factory eviscerated an audience member who admitted he worked for the Biden administration.
Josh Ocean Thomas wasted no time roasting the guy in the clip that’s since gone viral.
“You work for the Biden administration. Is your job to wake him up?” Thomas asked him.
“What a shitshow of a job you have,” he continued. “I can’t believe you admitted that in front of all these people. You have the freedom to lie. You could have admitted you were a hooker and I would have been prouder of you.”
You got to watch this – works for the Biden administration ? ? ? ? pic.twitter.com/BplpSWqLrX
— Uncensored USA ?? (@CarlosSimancas) May 8, 2024
“Wow. Are you ready to be unemployed? What’s your vibe?” he joked as the audience roared with laughter.
This is just further evidence the American people see through the White House propaganda that Biden is perfectly healthy and capable of fixing the economy.
Two Trump Trials Likely Postponed Until After Election
Former President Donald Trump received good news this week, as two of his court cases appear unlikely to go to trial before the 2024 election.
On Tuesday, Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, overseeing the ex-president’s classified documents federal case prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, ruled to indefinitely postpone the trial, citing a burdensome number of “outstanding pre-trial motions” unlikely to be resolved by the anticipated May 20 trial date.
The “finalization of a trial date at this juncture … would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court,” Judge Cannon wrote in her ruling.
“Cannon said there were eight outstanding substantive pending motions for her to rule on and predicted this will take until at least late July,” reports Newsweek.
Axios notes: “Cannon’s Tuesday ruling is a win for Trump, who has successfully pushed for delays in multiple criminal trials ahead of November’s election.”
On Wednesday, Trump received more positive legal news.
An appeals court in Georgia agreed to review a challenge by Trump’s legal team arguing a judge erred two months ago when he allowed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the ex-president’s RICO case, despite a trial exposing impropriety by Willis and the prosecutor she assigned, Nathan Wade.
Last March, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who evidently donated to Willis’ campaign, ruled she could continue to oversee the case despite a trial finding she paid Wade large sums of money and went on vacations together, with her claiming she repaid him in cash.
The Georgia Court of Appeals has agreed to hear an appeal from defendants over whether the judge erred when he ruled that Fani Willis could remain on the Trump RICO prosecution in Fulton County. This pushes that trial further off, likely beyond the election. pic.twitter.com/F1gXIfwI5E
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) May 8, 2024
MSNBC reporter Joyce Alene commented the appeal “pushes that trial further off, likely beyond the election.”
While two of the former president’s court cases appear to be going well, Trump on Wednesday railed against judges in his other cases, calling them out for running interference for Joe Biden and subverting the will of American voters.
Strong Economy? Think Again
It should be evident by now that the “strong” economy of the last several years was nothing of the kind. To the contrary, the Keynesian GDP accounts were actually inflated by deferred spending runoffs that flowed from the utterly abnormal buildup of household cash during Washington’s pandemic lockdowns and stimmy extravaganza.
The story is evident in the purple line below, where the ratio of household cash balances to GDP stood at 60% back in 1985 and after some vicissitudes in the interim 35 years was still at 61% or $13.36 trillion on the eve of the pandemic in Q4 2019. Then Washington precipitously shut down the normal spending venues in the broad services sector of the US economy, thereby forcing households to save, while simultaneously injecting household bank accounts with a greater flood of free government cash than had been remotely imagined ever before, even in the biggest spending precincts inside the Washington beltway. At the peak in Q2 2020, the ratio of household cash to GDP hit 77.4%.
As it happened, several rounds of stimmies and lockdowns caused household cash balances to soar by nearly $5.0 trillion from the prepandemic level (Q4 2019) to $18.28 trillion by Q2 2022, or 71.5% of GDP. At that point, the implied excess compared to the normal 60% cash balance to GDP ratio was $2.93 trillion.
In the most recent quarters, however, household cash balances have slowly declined and have slipped to $18.03 trillion in Q4 2023, while nominal GDP has continued to expand. Consequently, the cash balance ratio has fallen to 64.5%. Still, the normal 60% ratio would have generated only $16.77 trillion of cash balances (currency, bank deposits, and money market funds) in Q4 2023, meaning that the excess cash was still $1.26 trillion above normal at the most recent reporting date.
That in itself is the true tale. To wit, fully $1.68 trillion or 56% of the Q2 2022 excess cash balance has already flowed into the spending stream. Stated differently, during the six quarters between Q2 2022 and Q4 2023, the excess cash balance runoff amounted to $280 billion per quarter, while nominal GDP rose by $2.4 trillion or $400 billion per quarter. Accordingly, the excess cash runoff accounted for nearly 70% of the average GDP gain during the post-Lockdown and stimmy-driven recovery.
Then again, that’s about all she wrote. At the current runoff rate of excess household cash, the historic 60% to GDP ratio will be reached by the end of 2024. At that point, the US economy will be freighted down with more than $100 trillion of combined public and private debt. And it will not be characterized as either strong or even resilient.
Household Cash Balances and Ratio to GDP, 1985 to 2023
Nor is that the half of it. According to the Commerce Department, nominal GDP and real GDP grew at just 6.00% per annum and 2.76% per annum, respectively, between the stimmy peak of Q2 2022 and Q1 of 2024. However, even the latter modest real GDP gain was owing to the dubious presumption that during what was ground zero for the highest inflation in 40 years the GDP deflator rose by only 3.14% per annum.
Indeed, even the trimmed mean CPI increase over that period was posted at 4.44% per year. So we’d bet that real output gains amounted to 1.5% per annum at best during the last six quarters. And that more than two-thirds of that was accounted for by the runoff of excess household cash. In short, maybe the US economy has actually been growing at 0.5% per annum.
Friday’s Jobs Report for April provides further reinforcement. In fact, the 175,000 gain in the headline jobs number represented the action of an economy that is living on borrowed time per the above-described cash cushion, and made to look even healthier by the purely bogus topline of the BLS establishment survey.
As it happens, by the BLS’ own reckoning, total hours worked in the private sector during April declined by 0.2% from the March level. And that only accelerates at a long-running weakening trend that belies the strong labor market brouhaha emanating from the Wall Street permabulls.
When you look at the proper metric for labor utilization—hours worked rather than headline job counts which conflated 15 hour per week burger-flippers with 50 hour per week oilfield roughnecks—that de-acceleration is plain as day. The long-term trend rate has fallen by nearly two-thirds:
Growth Rate Of Aggregate Private Sector Labor Hours:
- January 1964 to September 2000: +2.00% per annum.
- September 2000 to April 2024: +0.74% per annum.
Needless to say, you have to systematically unpeel the BLS’ ludicrously contorted and goal-seeked headline jobs number to grasp this underlying reality. The Fed’s fanboys would have you believe, for instance, that between June 2023 and today’s April 2024 report about 2.26 million new jobs have been created in the US economy, which amounts to a seemingly healthy gain of 226,000 per month.
But that is from the so-called “establishment survey.” The latter is based on “mail-in” ballots from about 119,000 US businesses or about 2.0% of the nation’s 6.1 million total business units that have at least one paid employee. At the present time, however, the response rate to the BLS survey is barely 43% compared to 63% as recently as 2014. Moreover, there is no special reason to believe that the missing 68,000 responses are random or consistent with the mix of firms actually mailing in their results in prior months, quarters, and years.
That doesn’t slow down the green eyeshades at the BLS, of course. The numbers for all the missing respondents and the rest of the full business economy are trended in, guesstimated, imputed, modeled in, birth/death adjusted, seasonally manipulated, and otherwise puked up out of the BLS’ goal-seeked computers. And then on Jobs Friday once per month, trillions of dollars’ worth of capital markets securities’ value moves up or down instantly and often materially on their publication.
Never mind that everything below the BLS report’s headline jobs number warns of disconnects, inconsistencies, puzzles, contradictions, and unreliability. For instance, today’s companion “household “survey, which is based on 50,000 phone interviews, as opposed to mail-in reports, indicated a job gain of just 25,000.
While that doesn’t sound nearly as robust as the 175,000 establishment survey number, it’s actually not even half of it. If we go back to what appears to be an interim economic peak for this cycle, the household survey reported 161.004 million total employed workers in June 2023, with a figure posted at 161.491 million in April 2024. The implied gain is 487,000 “workers” compared to the 2,260,000 additional “jobs” reported in the establishment survey for the ten months ending in April.
So either each new “worker” in April was holding down 4.64 “jobs” or there is a skunk on the woodpile here somewhere. And in fact, the full-time versus part-time employee factor turns out to be a special kind of big when it comes to the stink on the numbers.
According to the BLS, here are the levels and the change between June 2023 and April 2024 for these two household survey categories:
- Full-Time Employees: 134.787 million versus 133,889 million for a loss of 898,000full-time employees.
- Part-Time Employees: 26.248 million versus 27.718 million for a gain of 1.470 millionpart-time employees.
We’d say go figure or, better yet, throw a dart at the BLS report and go with the number it lands on—since nearly all of them are badly massaged and incessantly revised.
To be clear, our point here is not to give the BLS a C- for its desultory efforts at job counting. To the contrary, it’s to give the Federal Reserve an F for even presuming that it can fiddle America’s $28 trillion economy between full employment and inflation on a month-to-month and even day-to-day basis via massive open market operations on Wall Street.
The whole misguided effort at monetary central planning has been an abject failure in part because the US economy—integrally intertwined in the $105 trillion global economy—is too complex, fast-moving, opaque, and ultimately mysterious to be stage-managed by the 12 mere mortals who sit on the Fed’s Open Market Committee, and who on a daily basis command the movements of tens of trillions of securities and derivative financial instruments.
Back in the day, Hayek referred to this as the problem of socialist calculation, and it has not gone away simply because Gosplan-style socialism has been supplanted by central bank-based financial command and control.
Moreover, even if the information and calculation problem were somehow to be overcome by wiring the brains of every consumer, workers, business manager, entrepreneur, investor, saver, and speculator to a 10,000-acre farm of Cray Computers, the insuperable difficulties of the Fed’s self-assigned mission of plenary economic control would not be remotely overcome. That’s because rate cuts and interest rate suppression long ago lost their potency in an economy now saddled with $98 trillion of public and private debt.
In any event, the proof is actually in the pudding from April’s jobs report. As detailed above, between 1964 and the dotcom peak in 2000—and at a time before money-printing really went off the deep end—the BLS’ reasonably serviceable metric for total hours worked in the private economy had grown by about 2.0% per annum. Add another 2.0% per year for productivity improvement due to robust investment, technology progress, and the equipping of workers with more and better tools and production processes, and you had a 4% growth economy.
Obviously, no more. The Fed’s massive inflation of financial assets has caused a drastic diversion of capital into speculation on Wall Street rather than productive investment on Main Street. So productivity growth has faltered badly to just 1.25% per annum since 2010.
At the same time, the inflation-saturated US economy has lost much of its industrial base to lower-cost venues abroad. Consequently, since the pre-dotcom peak in 2000, the growth rate of private sector labor hours employed has plunged to the aforementioned 0.74% per annum. Thus, the ingredients of economic growth added together now amount to just 2.0% or half the historic rate.
At the end of the day, there is no doubt about it. Both productivity growth and labor growth have been systematically undermined and diminished by the kind of Keynesian monetary central planning currently pursued by the Federal Reserve. And the current inching toward a new round of destructive money-printing is just further proof of that truism.
Nevertheless, the failure of monetary central planning has not diminished the harm being imposed on Main Street America by Fed policies. For instance, during the most recent month (January) US home prices were up by 6.0% on a Y/Y basis and were therefore just one more reminder of why the Fed’s pro-inflation policies are so insidious. In essence, they set up a running battle between asset prices and wages, and the former wins hands down.
For avoidance of doubt, here is the long view on the matter, with home prices indexed in purple and average wages in black.
Index of Median Home Price Versus Average Hourly Wage, 1970 to 2023
We have indexed the median sales price of homes in America and the average hourly wage to their values as of Q1 1970. That was the eve of Nixon’s plunge into pure fiat money at Camp David in August 1971 and all the resulting monetary excesses and metastases since then.
We have indexed the median sales price of homes in America and the average hourly wage to their values as of Q1 1970. That was the eve of Nixon’s plunge into pure fiat money at Camp David in August 1971 and all the resulting monetary excesses and metastases since then.
The data leaves no room for doubt. Home prices today stand at 18.2X their Q1 1970 value while average hourly wages are at only 8.7X their value of 54 years ago.
Expressed in more practical terms, the median home sales price of $23,900 in Q1 1970 represented7,113 hours of work at the average hourly wage. Assuming a standard 2,000-hour work year, wage workers had to toil for 3.6 years to pay for a median-priced home.
With the passage of time, of course, the Fed’s pro-inflation policies have done far more to goose asset prices than wages. Thus, at the time of Greenspan’s arrival at the Fed after Q2 1987, it required 11,350 hours to purchase a median home, which had risen to 12,138 hours by Q1 2012 when the Fed made its 2.00% inflation target official. And after still another decade of inflationary monetary policy, it now stands at just under 15,000 hours.
In a word, today’s median home price of $435,400 requires 7.5 standard work years at the average hourly wage to purchase, meaning that workers now toil well more than twice as long as they did in 1970 to afford the dream of home ownership.
So the question recurs. Why in the world would our esteemed central bankers wish to impoverish America’s workers by doubling the working hours needed to buy a median priced home? And, yes, the above assault on the middle class is a monetary phenomenon. It was not caused by home builders monopolizing the price of new houses nor by shortages of land, lumber, paint, or construction labor over that half-century period.
To the contrary, when the Fed inflates the monetary system, the resulting ill effects work through the financial markets and real economy unevenly. Prices, including those for labor and assets, do not move in lockstep, because foreign competition holds down some prices and wages while falling real interest rates and higher valuation multiples inherently cause asset prices to rise disproportionately.
Thus, the reference rate for all asset prices — the 10-year US Treasury note (UST) — fell drastically in real terms during the last four decades of that period. Real rates at 5%+ during the 1980s fell to the 2–5% range during the Greenspan era, and then plunged further, to zero or below, owing to the even more egregious money-printing policies of his successors.
Inflation-Adjusted Yield on 10-Year UST, 1981 to 2023
The stated purpose of the easy-money trend depicted above, of course, was to spur more investment in housing, among other sectors. But that didn’t happen. The residential housing investment-to-GDP ratio dropped from the historical 5–6% zone prior in 1965 to an average of 4.5% during the period of the Greenspan housing bubble peak in 2005. After the housing crash during the Great Financial Crisis it barely posted at 3% of GDP before rebounding irregularly to 3.9% in 2023.
Any way you slice it, however, the aggressive monetary expansion after 1987 did not spur incremental housing investment on any sustainable basis. Instead, it led to debt-fueled speculation in the existing housing stock, sending prices rising far faster and far higher than the growth of household income and wages.
Residential Housing Investment % of GDP, 1950 to 2023
An alternative measure of the impact of easy money on housing investment can be seen in the index of housing completions relative to the US population. Since the early 1970s, that ratio has been trending steadily downward and now stands at only 45% of its 50-years-ago value.
Index of Private Housing Unit Completions to the US Population, 1972 to 2023
Needless to say, if cheap mortgage credit were the elixir it is claimed to be, the line in the chart would have trended skyward. As it happened, however, it is a stinging repudiation of the very essence of the case for low interest rates so relentlessly promoted by Wall Street and Washington alike.
At the end of the day, the US economy is not remotely “strong,” as the talking heads blathered about again last Friday. Likewise, the BLS report is once again hardly worth the digital ink it is printed upon.
So, a central bank policy based on a monetary politburo fiddling the nation’s massive $28 trillion economy toward undefinable and immeasurable full employment and 2.00% inflation can be described in only one way. To wit, a trainwreck in full flight.
EMERGENCY FINANCIAL NEWS: Economist Warns The Collapse Has Already Begun – Will Be Worse Than The Great Depression
Peter Schiff: Rate Hikes on the Horizon?
Peter’s back to recap the last week in markets and economic news. This episode starts with April’s dismal stock performance and also discusses Jerome Powell’s most recent appearance. Peter wraps up the episode by recounting the Bitcoin debate he participated in on Friday.
Peter notes that April’s losses in the stock market were in part created by doubt about the Fed’s future rate cuts:
“The reason for that was heightened talk not just about the Fed not cutting rates, but for the first time, I heard people discussing the possibility that the Fed might have to raise rates, that the next move may in fact be a hike and not a cut. Now that‘s the first time that I’ve heard any mainstream discussion of that possibility. … I’ve been saying that that is the correct policy. If the Fed really is data-dependent, and if the Fed really wants to fight inflation, based on the data, they should resume their hikes.”
Despite this possibility, markets are unduly optimistic. The Fed’s historical record is not very successful, even decades ago when America’s fiscal health was much better:
“The markets believe that the Fed is going to succeed. This is pure nonsense! I look back at the inflation statistics for the 40 years before the 2008 financial crisis— so 2008, 2007, going back to 1968, those 40 years— there were only 3 years where inflation was 2% or lower. The average inflation rate over those 40 years was 4.8%. … If the Fed wasn’t able to come close to 2% during those 40 years, why does anybody think it’s going to come anywhere near it over the next 30 years?”
Fed Chair Jerome Powell still refuses to criticize federal fiscal policy, despite the apparent need for rate hikes:
“Not only is he allowed to do it, he’s really required to do it! That’s the whole point of an independent central bank— so you can criticize the government when it makes a mistake, not hide behind your independence and fail to criticize the government. Paul Volker was Congress’s biggest critic!”
After stock prices plummeted last week for large companies like Starbucks, Peter sees the declines as a sign of future stagflation:
“I think that this is the beginning of a trend. I think Starbucks is going to have a hard time with sales in the stagflation environment that Jerome Powell doesn’t want to acknowledge. And Starbucks wasn’t the only company! I remember Clorox came out and warned it had a big drop. Remember Peloton! Peloton missed as well.”
Peter also mentions some highlights from his Bitcoin debate on Friday. He argues again that “Know Your Customer” (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulations are primarily used to prevent tax evasion, not violent terrorism:
“If they can catch a few terrorists, ok fine, that’s the icing on the cake. The cake is tax evasion. That’s what all these governments are trying to prevent when they require all these AML KYC rules at banks. How many terrorists do you think there are in the world? Out of a hundred people, how many of them are going to be a terrorist? Very few. … I don’t think there was ever a point where a terrorist tried to deposit money at my bank.”
U.S. tax policy has strayed quite far from that of the country’s Founding era:
“The country was founded by tax protesters. The country was founded by people who didn’t want to pay a tiny tax to the British crown! There’s no way King George would’ve ever imposed an income tax on the colonists. He would never do something that draconian. No! He’s talking about excise taxes. Taxes on tea, taxes on stamps, little things! We had a whole revolutionary war because of those tiny little taxes. … No government has the right to take half of what somebody earns.”
While Peter agrees on a lot with his debate opponent Erik Voorhees, they still disagree on Bitcoin’s importance to the free market movement:
“I just don’t think that Bitcoin is part of the solution. Ultimately, it’s going to be part of the problem. Part of the solution to reigning in government is a return to sound money, a return to real money, and unfortunately, Bitcoin doesn’t fit that bill. But gold does.”
EMERGENCY FINANCIAL NEWS: Economist Warns The Collapse Has Already Begun – Will Be Worse Than The Great Depression
The Fed Is Already Political
Discourse about the Federal Reserve is frequently full of myths, dishonest framing, and outright lies. Listen to a press conference by Chairman Jerome Powell or read an article from a major outlet’s lead Fed correspondent and you’re bound to hear at least a few. For instance, it’s common for the financial press to characterize the Fed’s current conundrum as “walking a tightrope.”
It’s said that the Fed is working to guide the economy along without tipping it over into either high inflation on one side or a recession on the other. The last couple years, we’re told, saw the economy wobble too far toward the inflation side, with the Fed now attempting to pull the economy back to the thin line of stability without tipping over too far and plunging into a recession.
But anybody who actually understands what causes recessions can tell that this framing is, at best, incredibly misleading. The Fed doesn’t prevent recessions, it directly causes them. These days the tightrope analogy contributes to the myth that, while difficult, a recession is possible to avoid. It isn’t. All the Fed can do is delay and amplify the painful correction that earlier monetary policy made inevitable.
Another myth that has been getting more attention in past weeks is that the Fed as an organization is separate from, above, or independent from politics.
The attention follows a Wall Street Journal report alleging that members of former president Donald Trump’s team are drawing up plans to give the president more power over the Fed should Trump win the election this November. Reporters cite an internal ten-page document that argues the president should be consulted on interest-rate decisions and have the authority to fire Fed chairs before their term is up. These plans sparked panic about a politicized Fed and provoked responses from several concerned economists.
It is absurd that this needs to be spelled out, but the Fed is already a political organization. It was established by an act of Congress in 1913. Two decades later, Congress consolidated much of the Fed’s power in Washington, DC, and set up the position of chairman, who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. It also created a single committee—most of which is also appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate—to direct open market operations for the entire country. Then in 1977, Congress passed another bill requiring the Fed to pursue specific policy goals.
So, a bunch of politicians created an organization and consolidated its power in Washington, DC, where a committee of government officials appointed and confirmed by politicians directs monetary policy for the entire country according to policy goals defined earlier by other politicians. And we’re supposed to consider this organization to be nonpolitical.
Moreover, the idea that the changes Trump’s team might be considering would represent a categorical change to the structure of the Federal Reserve is crazy. Fed chairs already consult with current presidential administrations through the Treasury Secretary. It’s not as if the Fed is isolated from the ambitions of the executive branch.
The real risk, from the establishment’s perspective, is not that Trump will turn the Fed into a political organization but that he will expose the fact that it already is one.
From the outset, the Federal Reserve System has represented the politicization of money and banking in the United States. It allows the government to finance its preferred programs with newly printed money and to manipulate the entire structure of the economy with centrally planned interest rates. This is great for politicians, government bureaucrats, and politically connected businesses that get the new money early. But it traps the rest of us in a recurring nightmare of unnecessary economy-wide booms and busts along with devastating, culture-destroying permanent price inflation.
The illusion of an independent, nonpolitical Fed is critical to keep the scam going.
EMERGENCY FINANCIAL NEWS: Economist Warns The Collapse Has Already Begun – Will Be Worse Than The Great Depression
OBGYN Doctor Calls On Attorneys to Sue Institutions That Forced ‘Dangerous’ Covid Shots on Babies & Pregnant Women
Veteran OBGYN physician Dr. James Thorp called on attorneys to take on lawsuits against medical institutions that forced the experimental and “dangerous” COVID-19 injections on babies and pregnant women.
Thorp explained in a lengthy X thread that many hospitals signed “secret, unethical, and likely illlegal” cooperative agreements with Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to force the Covid shots on “the most vulnerable patients,” and bringing forward lawsuits against these institutions “may result in extraordinarily large medical malpractice verdicts of $100 million or more.”
Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Needed for Damaged Baby Cases
— James Thorp MD (@jathorpmfm) May 5, 2024
Damaged baby cases may result in extraordinarily large medical malpractice verdicts of $100 million or more. There is now irrefutable evidence that hospitals signed secret, unethical, and likely illegal “cooperative agreements”…
“Plaintiff’s Attorneys: your futures market in these lucrative ‘damaged baby cases’ is on the verge of SKYROCKETING. If your clients have had a damaged or dead baby in the past 3 years (or in the future) inquire as to their COVID-19 vaccination status,” Thorp wrote on Sunday.
Thorp went on to provide a framework for attorneys to bring forward civil lawsuits.
Obstetricians whether you know it or not you have been duped into pushing the most dangerous drug ever rolled out on the most vulnerable patients – pregnant women, preborns, and newborns – according to Pfizer’s own data (see page 7 & 12) https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfand… your government’s own data.https://jpands.org/vol28no1/thorp.pdf…
These are both open-source databases that anyone in the world can evaluate; they’ve never been refuted. By the way, both data sources are biased toward pushing the Covid-19 vaccines in pregnancy. In contrast, the medical journal articles suggesting the safety of the vaccines in pregnancy are not open source, they’re manipulated, and the authors and institutions are heavily funded by the NIH and other major COI’s. As a perfect example, see Shimabukuro NEJM pushing the safety of the vaccines in pregnancy (see pages 170-171) https://thegms.co/medical-ethics/medethics-rw-22071901.pdf….
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Documents that The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) accepted millions of dollars of US tax payer moneys to push its 60,000 ObGyn Constituents in two continents (US, Canada, and South America) to follow the lock-step narrative of the lethal HHS/CDC policies. https://americaoutloud.news/foia-reveals-troubling-relationship-between-hhs-cdc-the-american-college-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists/…
Plaintiff’s Attorneys be prepared to litigate against hospitals, obstetricians, other physicians and organizations that continue to push the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy such as The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), American Board of Obstetrics $ Gynecology (ABOG), and The Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM). These organizations threatened 60,000 ObGyn physicians to push the vaccines in pregnancy as evidenced by the ABOG Statement of Misinformation published on September 27, 2021. https://abog.org/about-abog/news-announcements/2021/09/27/statement-regarding-dissemination-of-covid-19-misinformation…
This ABOG Statement was quite pathetic and was supported by nothing more than the grocery market tabloid they referenced. Egregiously, ABOG’s link to the CDC recommendation brings up a CNN article. In contrast to ABOG’s pathetic threat, please see my 98-page letter sent to ABOG Officers on January 12, 2022 including massive amounts of data, many other expert’s data, governmental data, and 1,019 peer-reviewed medical journal publications documenting severe complications, injuries, and deaths from the Covid-19 vaccines in just the first 12 months of rollout. https://rodefshalom613.org/2022/01/dr-james-thorp-letter-to-american-board-obstetrics-gynecology-risk-covid19-vaccine-pregnancy/…
SSM Health of St. Louis MO, a nearly $10 billion Catholic Hospital System, terminated me on June 29, 2023 because I published extensively on the dangers of the Covid-19 vaccines in pregnancy and testified on multiple high profile public platforms including US Senate, and Tucker Carlson at Fox News as to the dangers of the Covid-19 vaccines in pregnancy. I provided SSM Health with all this data and my observations of adverse effects of the vaccine in my practice at SSM Health. SSM-Health allegedly fired me for “no cause” and the CEO Kevin Elledge praised me as a “model physician” for the SSM Health System and pointed out that my “no cause” termination allowed me to continue employment for 120 days. When I refused SSM’s bribe of about $100,000 and refused to sign a hush agreement, SSM Health fired me immediately on June 29, 2023. Of note is that SSM Health accepted 306.9 million dollars of US tax monies in early 2021. https://americaoutloud.news/covid-19-government-relief-funds-turned-the-healthcare-industry-on-its-head/…
It is likely that SSM Health and many other hospitals will be held accountable by civil litigation in dead baby and damaged baby cases for pushing the vaccines in their employers and pressuring their physicians and nurses to push these dangerous vaccines in pregnancy. I will support this litigation – it is long overdue. Justice will be served. I encourage Plaintiff’s attorneys to file civil litigation in these cases. I encourage obstetricians to stand up and speak the truth. Since when was it ever appropriate to push novel substances in pregnancy without long-term follow up? Didn’t we learn from the disasters of Diethylstilbestrol (DES) and Thalidomide?
Thorp also highlighted Pfizer’s own phase 2/3 trial that showed the Covid injection harmed pregnant women with a slew of devastating side effects.
Obstetricians and healthcare professionals did you pay attention to the risks of the Covid-19 vaccines in pregnancy according to Pfizer’s phase 2/3 trial that allegedly randomized 315 pregnant women to Covid-19 vaccines versus placebo? Or did they sneak it by you? It was completed July 2022, and released July 2023. The Pfizer Phase 2/3 trial noted that those pregnant women given the vaccine compared to placebo experienced the following outcomes in their newborns:
1) Low Apgar Scores (depressed newborns) increased by 100%
2) Meconium Aspiration Syndrome (a life-threatening complication) substantially increased (zero in placebo group so no relative risk);
3) Neonatal Jaundice increased by 80%;
4) Congenital malformations (birth defects) increased by 70%;
5) Atrial Septal Defect (a hole in the heart) increased by 220%;
6) Small for Dates (preborn baby with poor growth) substantially increased; (zero in placebo group so no relative risk)
7) Congenital Nevus (vascular malformation on the skin) increased by 200%
8) Congenital Anomalies and Developmental Delays at 6 months of life increased by 310%
“Would your patients have taken the COVID-19 vaccine while pregnant if you informed them that these were potential risks from Pfizer’s phase 2/3 trial results? Of course not,” Thorp concluded. “No rational individual, especially a pregnant woman, would have considered taking the COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy had these risks been made known.”
“Did you inform your patients that you were not acting independently, but rather under threat of termination from your hospital system, or under threat from ABOG, ACOG, and SMFM to lose your state license or board certification?”