prev | next
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
(1)Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2)Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3)Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Key Points of Interest: 08:51 How Western media are parroting Chinese communist propaganda about coronavirus 10:50 The normalization of the Chinese Communist Party 13:37 The hidden cost of having supply chains in China 15:25 Understanding Chinese communist propaganda and how the regime controls the global narrative 17:51 Why don’t we hear about Tibet anymore? 23:54 The uncomfortable moral dilemma of Tibet 29:52 Is it racist to call Covid-19 “Chinese coronavirus” or “Wuhan coronavirus”? 32:56 Understanding the internal power struggle within the Chinese Communist Party is critical to understanding the regime’s response to coronavirus 35:53 Don’t think the Chinese Communist Party can’t win. 36:43 What is the current situation in Tibet now? 42:52 Is China still communist? 52:24 Countries with closer ties to the Chinese regime also have more cases of coronavirus 56:35 The world needs to stop propping up the Chinese Communist Party.
With the spread of the coronavirus pandemic, what are the dangers of accepting official information from China as fact? And how are Chinese leaders trying to control the narrative surrounding coronavirus?
How exactly was the Chinese Communist Party “normalized” in the West? What impact did this have on the movement to secure human rights for Tibet?
And why is associating coronavirus with the Chinese regime and Wuhan not only legitimate, but also important?
In this episode, we sit down with China watcher Maura Moynihan, an author and journalist who has worked extensively with Tibetan refugees.
This is American Thought Leaders , and I’m Jan Jekielek.
This is NOT an opinion. This was the ruling of the United States Supreme Court shortly after the "Civil War" in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) which yet stands to this day:
"The Constitution for the United States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace…at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine…was ever invented… than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the exigencies [emergencies/urgencies] of government."
“...there is no law for the government of the citizens, the armies or the navy of the United States, within American jurisdiction, which is not contained in or derived from the Constitution.”
In 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, a legal encyclopedia of United States law, suspension of the Constitution is prohibited, as follows:
“It is sometimes argued that the existence of an emergency allows the existence and operation of powers, national or state, which violate the inhibitions of the Federal Constitution. The rule is quite otherwise. NO emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution."
"...Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of an emergency…"
Therefore, ANYONE who declares the suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights (to freely travel, peaceably assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) and/or attempts to enforce such suspension within the 50 independent, sovereign, continental United states of America is making war against our constitution(s) and, therefore, we, the people. They violate their constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity and that means ANYONE; even the Governor and President!
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” – Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (SCOTUS—1803)
“An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.” – Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (SCOTUS—1879)
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (SCOTUS—1886)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (SCOTUS—1966)
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement.
It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it...A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 177
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
The government’s expanding its power as it deals with the pandemic. If it’s not already trampling civil liberties, it’s coming close. That may seem necessary, but it’s never good. Conservatives know that governments want to grow, and that they rarely shrink on their own. Once they have power, they don’t like to give it back.
State and county governments across America are requiring people to stay indoors and forcing businesses to shut down. The new powers should be temporary. But will they be? The government may end up making them permanent. This crisis may go on for a long time. And the nation will experience others. And we haven’t even seen new steps that may be taken within the next month or so. So why wouldn’t a government keep the powers it thinks it needs?
But worse, the decisions are based on who the government favors. And doesn’t favor. Like churches.
Against the Bill of Rights
Let’s look at the way government reads the first five amendments to the Constitution.
There’s the first, guaranteeing freedom of religion and the right to assemble. Abortion clinics are considered essential businesses. But in some places churches aren’t (some are still meeting because there’s not yet a ban on large group gatherings in their state or because they’ve been granted an exemption to emergency rules).
For example, Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne was arrested in Hernando County, Florida. He was charged with the misdemeanor charges of unlawful assembly and violation of a public health emergency order. Michael Moreland, director of the Ellen H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy at Villanova University, said, “So long as (group gathering) restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them.” But if they’re picking and choosing what groups they apply to, then they’re not constitutional.
While it may have been inappropriate of the pastor to hold services after the order was issued preventing large gatherings, it could have been resolved without going so far as arresting him. The police could have showed up at the church and ordered everyone to leave. They could have fined the pastor. There were civil ways to address the issue, without resorting to treating him like a criminal.
Some localities have imposed curfews. Ordering curfews for healthy people may be trampling on the First Amendment right to free assembly.
There’s the Second Amendment, guaranteeing the right to bear arms. California’s Santa Clara County considers marijuana dispensaries “essential businesses.” They can stay open. But gun stores are not. They can’t stay open. What’s the difference? No one will explain.
The Fourth Amendment bans unreasonable searches and seizures. In Rhode Island, the police and National Guard are pulling over cars with New York license plates. They will be going door to door looking for New Yorkers to force them into 14-day self-quarantine. The White House has also called for New Yorkers who live in the state to do this.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to due process. Targeting certain businesses but not others may violate it. Those businesses may be entitled to a hearing before being shut down. Shutting down businesses may constitute illegal seizure of private property. Because after being shut down for a couple of months, many businesses will not survive.
Federal Government May Authorize Quarantines, With Caveats
Then there’s the Fourteenth Amendment. The law permits the federal government to impose quarantines for public health reasons. However, under the amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, such conditions can’t be “arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable.”
And also the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Some constitutional scholars say President Trump could use it as authority to impose a national lockdown. Trump briefly threatened to quarantine New York, New Jersey and Connecticut last Saturday. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce among the states.
Support The Stream: Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts. Faith. And No Fear.
It has been grossly abused to expand federal power over the years. In the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court relied on it to rule that a federal act could prohibit a farmer from growing extra food on his farm for his own personal use.
Trump backed down. He had the CDC issue a travel advisory for the three states instead. It urges people to avoid nonessential travel for 14 days.
Surveillance and Detention
The private company X-Mode caused quite a stir when it tracked the smartphones of young people partying over spring break on Florida beaches. It mapped out across the country where they went when the partying ended, to show how they could have spread the virus.
The government is considering this in order to make sure people are staying at home. Governments in Italy, Germany, Austria, China, South Korea and Taiwan have already started.
The DOJ has asked Congress to allow it to petition a judge to detain people indefinitely without a hearing. This could take place for several reasons. One is if the courts are shut down. Norman L Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told Politico, “I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.”
Surveillance May Be Starting
We saw a crackdown on civil liberties in recent years due to another big disaster, 9/11. Congress passed the Patriot Act, which allowed the government to collect citizens’ phone records among other things.
Lawsuits are starting over the drastic measures the government is taking. But judges can be all over the board on their rulings, and they authorized a lot of the Patriot Act. So there is a real fear we will see massive violations of civil liberties.
There’s no sign the pandemic will be slowing anytime soon. The earliest predictions are a month from now. So the measures being taken could get worse. Much worse. We may not be able to get back the Constitutional freedoms this country has enjoyed since 1776.
A German study in one of the hardest-hit regions of the country found an infection fatality rate five times lower than the national average, researchers said.
According to The National, an English-language newspaper in the United Arab Emirates, the Heinsberg Protocol study was conducted in Gangelt, a rural town where the Heisenberg region's first fatalities from the virus occurred.
A team of virologists, led by Hendrik Streeck of University Hospital Bonn, discovered that 15 percent of the population in the town was infected, leading his researchers to a tentative conclusion that the death rate from the disease in the population they studied was only 0.37 percent.
Germany's case fatality rate -- which is a crude number that measures the number of deaths against all people diagnosed with a condition -- was 2 percent as of Friday, according to Johns Hopkins University data.
According to Reason, the researchers also concluded that those who have had coronavirus and recover are immune to the disease, at least for a while.
Streeck and his team warned that the findings, which were preliminary, couldn't necessarily be extrapolated to the entirety of Germany -- much less the rest of the world -- but the study gave new hope that the mortality rate for coronavirus could be much lower than the range of estimates currently being postulated.
The study used antibody tests on those it examined. Researchers were "hoping to test 1,000 people in the town and to date 85 per cent of them have given their permission to be tested," The National reported Wednesday.
An antibody test -- a relatively new development in the fight against coronavirus -- detects if an individual has natural antibodies created by the body to fight the virus in their blood. If detected, it obviously means the individual has already been infected.
'Robert F. Kennedy's daughter, who was fighting Bill Gates on vaccine policy, mysteriously ended up dying along with her boy in a "freak canoe accident". Obviously it's not hard to get two bodies dead from asphyxiation loaded onto a canoe and then tip the canoe over in deep water, but the BIG mystery is how both bodies sank to the bottom when dead women float breast up. So obviously Robert is pissed, and he is now letting it all out. See these quotes from Robert with regard to Bill Gates:
This was all said on April 8 2020:
Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft's ambition to control a global vac ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control over global health policy - the spear tip of corporate Neo-imperialism.
Gates' obsession with vaccines seems fueled by a messianic conviction that he is ordained to save the world with technology and a god-like willingness to experiment with the lives of "lesser humans."
Promising to eradicate Polio with $1.2 billion, Gates took control of India's National Advisory Board (NAB) and mandated 50 polio vaccines (up from 5) to every child before age 5. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating vaccine-strain polio epidemic that paralyzed
496, 000 children between 2000 and 2017.
In 2017, the Indian Government dialed back Gates' vaccine regimen and evicted Gates and his cronies from the NAB. Polio paralysis rates dropped precipitously.
In 2017, the World Health Organization reluctantly admitted that the global polio explosion is predominantly vaccine strain, meaning it is coming from Gates' Vaccine Program. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, the Philippines, and Afghanistan are all linked to Gates' vaccines. By 2018, About ¾ of global polio cases were from Gates' vaccines.
In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by GSK and Merck, on 23, 000 young girls in remote Indian provinces.
Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died.
Indian government investigations charged that Gates funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country's Supreme Court.
In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a trial of a GSK's experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,049 children.
During Gates' 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates' operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Between 50 and 500 children developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, "We are guinea pigs for the drug makers."
Nelson Mandela's former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates' philanthropic practices as "ruthless and immoral."
In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO promising to REDUCE POPULATION, in part, through new vaccines.
A month later, Gates told a Ted Talk that new vaccines "could reduce population".
In 2014, Kenya's Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a phony "tetanus" vaccine campaign. Independent labs found the sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing sterility vaccines for over a decade. Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.
A 2017 study (Morgensen et.Al.2017) showed that WHO's popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it pretends to prevent.
Vaccinated girls suffer 10x the death rate of unvaccinated children. Gates and WHO have refused to recall the lethal vaccine which WHO forces upon millions of African children annually.
Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of hijacking WHO's agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal fetish-that good health only comes in a syringe.
In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI and PATH, Gates funds private pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines, and a massive network of pharmaceutical-industry front groups that broadcast deceptive propaganda, develop fraudulent studies, conduct surveillance and psychological operations against vaccine hesitancy and use Gates' power and money to silence dissent and coerce compliance.
In his recent nonstop Pharmedia appearances, Gates appears gleeful that the Covid-19 crisis will give him the opportunity to FORCE his third-world vaccine programs on American children.
Bill Gates is testing his new corona vaccine on humans. The testing started yesterday in Africa. This vaccine being fast tracked with NO animal studies! Gates is totally fine injecting 7 African children died yesterday!!!
Did Bill Gates KNOW Vaccination Push Would Paralyze Children?
The action makes South Dakota the first state in the nation to implement a trial to test the drug's effectiveness in treating and preventing COVID-19.
In order to collect data about the potential treatment, doctors in the state have been instructed to prescribe the drug, along with the antibiotic azithromycin, to willing COVID-19 patients who desire to be a part of the trial.
"From Day One, I've said we're going to let the science, facts and data drive our decision-making in South Dakota," Noem said in a statement, according to Fox News.
Noem said that she has been in cooperation with the federal government in preparation for the trial.
"I made direct requests to President Trump and Vice President Pence to supply us with enough hydroxychloroquine so that it could be made available for every hospitalized person the state may have, as well as those for health care workers on the frontlines and those in the most vulnerable populations," Noem said.
"Today, I'm pleased to report we have received the initial doses we need," she added.
President Trump has been optimistic about hydroxychloroquine since three separate studies showed it to be a potentially effective at treating and preventing the disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked the drug for the treatment of COVID-19 in late March.
Health experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci have tempered the president's optimism, saying that proof of the drug's effectiveness is anecdotal.
"[Tests were] not done in a controlled clinical trial. So you really can't make any definitive statement about it," Fauci suggested, according to ABC News.
Now, South Dakota will attempt to scientifically settle that issue. READ MORE
The U.S. will suspend funding to the World Health Organization while it reviews the agency’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, President Donald Trump announced Tuesday, saying the international health agency made mistakes that “caused so much death” as the coronavirus spread across the globe.
“Today I’m instructing my administration to halt funding of the World Health Organization while a review is conducted to assess the World Health Organization’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus,” Trump said at a White House press conference.
Trump criticized the international agency’s response to the outbreak, saying “one of the most dangerous and costly decisions from the WHO was its disastrous decision to oppose travel restrictions from China and other nations” that Trump imposed early on in the outbreak.
“Fortunately, I was not convinced and suspended travel from China saving untold numbers of lives,” he said.
Governor Gavin Newsom Unveils Six Creepy Conditions California Must Meet Before Reopening the Economy
Posted at 6:30 pm on April 14, 2020
California Governor Gavin Newsom unveiled a six-point proposal for getting the Golden State back on the road to economic reopening. His new favorite phrase- “meet the moment”- enjoyed several iterations during the Governor’s Tuesday presser. Newsom was vague about any sort of end date for statewide lockdown measures.
“I hope all of us are sobered by the reality of the moment but left with a little optimism that this is not a permanent state. You’ve met this moment in a remarkable way for us to present a roadmap but it is all conditioned on us staying the course, staying at home and continuing to practice appropriate social distancing.”
1. The ability to monitor and protect communities through testing, tracking positive cases, properly isolate and support individuals who are positive and/or exposed to COVID-19.
So, let’s think about this…the state of California has released hardened criminals from prison over coronavirus fears, has declared itself a sanctuary state that refuses to track, report or deport illegal aliens (even those wanted for heinous crimes), has denied law enforcement the ability to arrest vagrants for health violations like open drug use and public defecation (seemingly an important thing to be on top of in these times, no?), won’t allow business owners to clear homeless encampments from their own properties, and now has outlawed independent contracting as of January 1st…but if you’re a law-abiding, taxpaying, peaceful citizen just trying to earn and move about freely you will be monitored, tracked and traced by the state. Not the homeless people. Not the felons they just released into the streets. Not the illegal aliens. You…the taxpayer. You’re the dangerous one.
2. The ability to prevent infection in high-risk groups, including older residents, homeless and those with underlying health conditions.
How does a government stop a virus? You don’t. You stop people. Notice how vague this point is. Think about what it would mean to have the ability to “prevent infection” in high-risk groups. That requires some serious policing. Again, policing that would be enforced on law-abiding, peaceful taxpayers but not on those currently breaking the laws of this state.
3. The ability for hospitals and health care systems to handle a potential surge in cases through adequate staffing, hospital beds and supplies including ventilators, masks and other personal protective equipment.
Did we not just send 500 ventilators out of our state to other states in need? Is Newsom working to shore up this point or is he just pulling words out of his pie-hole? Also, California dismantled their state of hospital readiness all the way back in 2011. Again, another example of the state asking people to make sacrifices for their own incompetence.
4. The ability to develop therapeutics to meet the demand.
So…we’re not getting out of our homes until a vaccine or 100% effective treatment has been developed? How long can California claim the mantle of the world’s fifth-largest economy if everything that drives this economy – sports, the entertainment industry, arts, Silicone Valley – is shut down? What happens to Hollywood when they realize they can’t film in this state for the next 6 months but South Dakota is open for business? Do they stay in L.A. or simply take their dollars to a free state and set up a new mecca? These are things a governor must consider.
5. The ability for businesses, schools and child care facilities to support physical distancing guidelines as well as provide supplies and equipment to workforces and customers to keep them safe from illness.
Newsom says offices and retail spaces will have to redesign, restaurants will have to have half the tables, etc. This is a man who has never missed a paycheck or had to struggle to make a payroll saying he and a handful of others intend to redesign the entire California economy.
6. Developing guidelines to determine when to reinstitute certain measures such as Safer at Home guidelines if necessary based on relevant data.
Fancy words for “We’ll always have the last word.”
Newsom admits that “social distancing” has drastically changed the trend of the virus in California. As we’ve seen nationally the models are changing day to day. There is no way to gauge where California will be a week or a month from now. Newsom has also admitted that he sees this pandemic as an “opportunity” to enter a new phase of progressive governing.
Put that thought together with this creepy, overreaching list of dictates for a free population to resume their freedoms and it’s enough to make your hair stand on end.
Kira is a freelance writer and Editor-at-large for RedState. She has appeared on Fox News, OANN, The Blaze and The Dr. Phil Show. Kira is also a regular guest host at KABC radio in Los Angeles. Her podcasts"Just Listen to Yourself" and "Smart Girl Politics" are heard by tens of thousands of listeners across the country and the globe. Kira lives in Southern California with her husband and two children. She is a dog person but has been known to tolerate cats from time to time.
in that Video
between approximate times 25:15 and 25:54
it shows some " screen shots " of a document,
written by some people in India, and published on a so called pre-print server
However, those " screen shots " do not show a URL while
some of the authors names can be seen.
It would be " interesting " to know if that Video Documentary
was created Before or After the document was
Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag
Cases of the novel coronavirus in Chile have climbed past 7,500, including 82 deaths, while over 2,300 have recovered from infection as of Tuesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.
But coronavirus patients in Chile who have died are being counted among the country's recovered population because they are "no longer contagious," Chile's Health Minister Jaime Mañalich said this week.
"We have 898 patients who are no longer contagious, who are not a source of contagion for others and we include them as recovered. These are the people who have completed 14 days of diagnosis or who unfortunately have passed away," Mañalich announced at a press conference.
It is unknown when Chile began including the dead among the number of people who have recovered. But the calculation has reportedly been adopted following validation by international health experts, the government claims.
Newsweek has contacted the World Health Organization (WHO) and Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) for further comment on the inclusion of deaths in Chile's tally of total recoveries.