Over 660,000 courses of Pfizer’s latest bonanza drug, Paxlovid, have been administered so far in the United States alone, with almost 200,000 in the last few weeks. Pfizer earned $1.5 billion from Paxlovid in the first quarter of 2022 and has great expectations for the drug’s future; <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer-ceo-constant-waves-covid-19-coronavirus-complacency-albert-bourla-2022-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">CEO Albert Bourla said </a>just a few days ago that he believes antiviral drugs will replace vaccines as the first-line defense against severe COVID and added that his company is “doubling down” on production.But does Paxlovid work?The first answer to that question is: yes, it does. It apparently does have some anti-viral activity and can help people recover without becoming seriously ill.The second answer is: yes, but… not for long. (In other words: no.)More and more reports are coming in of a phenomenon common enough to have been named: COVID rebound. Paxlovid is a drug designed to be administered over five treatment days. People experiencing rebound say that their symptoms returned almost immediately after concluding treatment, and when they took a COVID test it came back positive. The CDC has now <a href="https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2022/pdf/CDC_HAN_467.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">issued emergency guidance</a> on the rebound phenomenon.<blockquote>Official CDC Health Advisory on COVID-19 Rebound After Paxlovid Treatment... to update healthcare providers, public health departments, and the public on the potential of recurrence of COVID-19 or “COVID-19 rebound.”... rebound has been reported to occur between 2 and 8 days after initial recovery and is characterized by a recurrence of COVID-19 symptoms or a new positive viral test after having tested negative...</blockquote>Pfizer claims just one to two percent of those treated experience rebound and have admitted that it occurred during the drug’s clinical trials. Rebound after treatment was even described in <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/155194/download?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pfizer’s submission to the FDA</a> when seeking approval in December of 2021; interestingly, it was omitted from Pfizer’s <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2118542?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New England Journal of Medicine </a>paper, and therefore, the general public had no way of learning of it.In an <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-05-04/pfizer-s-advice-for-when-paxlovid-isn-t-enough-take-more" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interview</a> conducted on May 3, Bourla appeared to blame those experiencing rebound for not being strong enough to complete the job his drug started:<blockquote>Paxlovid does what it has to do: it reduces the viral load. Then your body is supposed to do the job. [If it doesn’t] then you give a second course, like you do with antibiotics, and that’s it.</blockquote>A day later, the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/fda-updates-paxlovid-health-care-providers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FDA issued a response</a> of sorts, noting that “there is no evidence of benefit at this time for a longer course of treatment (e.g., 10 days rather than the 5 days recommended in the Provider Fact Sheet for Paxlovid) or repeating a treatment course of Paxlovid in patients with recurrent COVID-19 symptoms following completion of a treatment course.”“There is no evidence of benefit at this time for a longer course of treatment,” said FDA Office of Infections Diseases Director John Farley, “or for repeating a treatment course of Paxlovid.”However, not to worry, Dr. Fauci may be coming to the rescue. Several weeks ago he <a href="https://www.biospace.com/article/pfizer-nih-in-talks-to-begin-study-of-longer-paxlovid-dosing-regimen/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">announced</a> that the National Institutes of Health are already in discussion with Pfizer regarding conducting trials for longer courses of Paxlovid – to prevent rebound.Indeed, the rebound phenomenon is garnering an inordinate amount of media attention considering that officially, it only affects one to two percent of people who take the drug. Anecdotal reports, however, indicate that rebound is far more widespread than that, and a closer study of the Pfizer trial results suggests that the one to two percent cited is a cunning manipulation of the numbers.Twelve people in the trials were documented as experiencing rebound, apparently out of the 1,120 people in the study cohort (those who took Paxlovid rather than a placebo). But only 97 people had their virus levels tested subsequently by PCR. Twelve out of these 97 gives a rate of 12.3 percent. Based on informal polls, the figure is probably far higher, even approaching 30 percent or more.Why might this be happening?Aside from Bourla’s “explanation,” <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-03/pfizer-says-patients-who-relapse-after-covid-pill-can-take-more" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yale University immunologist Akiko Iwasaki </a>suggested a reason. “If you start treating the patients very early during the infection, they may not generate much of an immune response to the virus,” she said, because Paxlovid shuts down production of viral proteins, the very proteins that the immune system responds to.But there are other possible explanations. How many of those experiencing rebound are vaccinated against COVID? You might think that’s an irrelevant question; after all, the drug was already tested in clinical trials and presumably the effect of vaccination was controlled for or at least studied.It’s not irrelevant, though, because Paxlovid has never been tested on vaccinated people. Correction: Pfizer has never released any trial results for the effects of Paxlovid on vaccinated people. Has the FDA asked Pfizer to correct this seeming oversight? Apparently not.<a href="https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/did-pfizer-know-that-paxlovid-will?s=r" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vaccinated people were excluded</a> from Pfizer’s initial Paxlovid trials. In December, Pfizer announced that it was enrolling participants in a follow-up study for people not considered at high-risk of developing severe COVID. A few months later, they quietly altered the eligibility criteria for trial participants, barring anyone who had received a COVID shot in the prior 12 months.Are vaccinated people more likely to “rebound” into COVID infection?Or, more pointedly, are vaccinated people more likely not to respond to Paxlovid at all?On June 1, 2022, researchers from the Israeli Clalit Health Fund, the largest health insurer in Israel, published extremely worrying <a href="https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1705061/v1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">data</a> related to Paxlovid's efficacy. For those over the age of 65, they found, Paxlovid reduced hospitalization by 67 percent and COVID-related mortality by 81 percent, significant figures though not quite as impressive as the numbers Pfizer presented to the FDA and the general public. However, for those between the ages of 40 and 64, the reduction in hospitalization rates was just 22 percent, and COVID-related mortality rates actually increased, by 64 percent.The researchers also divided the data according to “immunity” status. Unfortunately, their categories are somewhat blurry, given that they defined “immune” as two or more shots, or prior COVID infection, or both. Those presumed not to be immune were people with one or no shots and no documented prior infection. (All the same, it is certainly refreshing to see authorities recognizing natural immunity as equivalent to vaccine-induced.)Analyzed this way, Paxlovid still appeared beneficial for those over the age of 65, but for those “with prior immunity,” the reduction in hospitalization rates dropped to just 60 percent. &nbsp;(Those without immunity saw a 86 percent drop.)For those between 40 and 64, however, people with prior immunity were 18 percent more likely to be hospitalized if they took Paxlovid, as opposed to 79 percent less likely if they were “immune.”Could this be why Pfizer chose to confine their clinical trials to the unvaccinated?But even for vaccine-naïve trial participants, the presentation of the results provokes a good deal of skepticism. The “fact” that Paxlovid reduces the risk of hospitalization or death by 89 percent compared with placebo was all most people noticed in the media’s portrayal of this drug. How did Pfizer come up with that stunning figure?There were just over 2,000 people enrolled in the trial, 1,120 in the treatment cohort and 1,126 in the placebo cohort. 6.5 percent of people who were given a placebo experienced severe COVID or death as opposed to 0.7 percent who were given Paxlovid. For some unstated reason, these results only refer to those people whose course of Paxlovid began within three days of displaying symptoms, even though people were included in the trial if they commenced treatment up to and including the fifth day.So Pfizer moved the goalposts during the trial. Did the FDA ask why? Apparently not.People taking Paxlovid have complained about a terrible taste in the mouth throughout the entire period of taking the drug. Pfizer claims that less than 10 percent of people experience this; anecdotal evidence suggests that the phenomenon is common enough to be described as almost universal.Why does this matter? It matters because it essentially unblinds the study. Did Pfizer somehow craft a placebo that mimics this effect? Presumably not, or they would have told us about it.And then there’s the question of the big O - Omicron. Paxlovid was trialed between July and December, 2021, when Delta was the prevailing variant. No longer – but is Paxlovid effective against Omicron (and its subvariants)?“It is also expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” says the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/fda-updates-paxlovid-health-care-providers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FDA’s John Farley</a> (italics added). But does he know? No more than anyone else, it seems.Lots of questions, no answers. Meanwhile, doctors continue to prescribe Paxlovid, generating ever more profits for one of the most successful companies in the world. And lo and behold, Paxlovid is now being touted for the treatment of another illness: Long COVID!A <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/case-testing-pfizers-paxlovid-treating-long-covid-2022-04-18/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reuters</a> article from April 18, 2022, describes reports of two patients who supposedly experienced relief from long COVID after taking Paxlovid. Neither of them should have had access to Paxlovid in the first place based on the timing of their symptoms, but never mind that.Long COVID is a curious diagnosis for a disease that has yet to be proven to exist. According to Reuters, “More than 200 symptoms have been associated with the condition ... estimated to affect up to 30 percent of people infected with the coronavirus.”“Drug companies tend to discount single-patient case studies,” Reuters continues – and well they might, especially as they discount even multi-patient case studies when the drug concerned isn’t one that might prove lucrative. But according to one Dr. Steven Deeks, a professor of medicine at the University of California (UCSF), these two cases “provide really strong evidence that we need to be studying antiviral therapy in this context.”What’s more, Reuters also informs that Pfizer has two large clinical trials underway to investigate whether Paxlovid can prevent initial COVID infection. No details forthcoming on how people would know when to start taking this new prophylactic – or should they just take a daily dose?The idea of using Paxlovid – a combination of two powerful drugs – as a prophylactic is quite bizarre. Paxlovid is made up of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, one new drug and one older one. Ritonavir is what’s known as a “booster,” because it inhibits the activity of liver enzymes. Pfizer paired it with its new anti-viral drug, nirmatrelvir, because the ritonavir stops the body from clearing the anti-viral too soon and thus “boosts” its effect. But ritonavir is a nasty drug with a long, long list of side effects. Just glance below at what WebMD has to say about ritonavir – no need to read it all, but you get the picture:<blockquote><figure class="image"><img src="/uploads/webmd_ritonavir1_821dd4c83e.png"></figure></blockquote><blockquote><figure class="image"><img src="/uploads/webmd_ritonavir2_a2a9017a6a.png"></figure></blockquote>WebMD also has an entry for Paxlovid, which, as we just noted, is a combination of this nasty, dangerous ritonavir, and Pfizer’s nirmatrelvir. Here it is:<blockquote><figure class="image"><img src="/uploads/webmd_paxlovid_20d42bece1.png"></figure></blockquote>If any Frontline News readers contact WebMD and ask for an explanation, please let us know what they reply.

iStock-1368013938.jpg

Paxlovid

Pfizer

But what happens on day six?

Paxlovid, the five-day wonder

Rebecca Riley's parents brought her to a child psychiatrist when she was just two years old. Doctor Kayoko Kifuji of Tufts Medical Center promptly diagnosed the Springfield, Massachusetts girl with bipolar disorder and ADHD. Two years later Rebecca was dead and her parents were on trial for her murder.&nbsp;Bipolar babies?To anyone unfamiliar with the state of psychiatry today, two things may strike them as odd. One: How could a child—and certainly a toddler—be diagnosed with bipolar disorder? And two: What is the point in such a diagnosis—surely, no responsible doctor would give psychiatric medication to children of two, three, four, or five years of age? Or would they?Unfortunately, there are no surprises here to those involved with pediatric psychiatry, as Dr. Kifuji could tell you. Twenty years after she “diagnosed” Rebecca and after the girl died of “prolonged abuse” (according to the medical examiner) of the drugs Kifuji prescribed, Kifuji is still in practice—she never lost her license, was never disciplined by the medical board, and even the payout made to Rebecca’s siblings following a civil lawsuit was covered by her insurance.&nbsp;Murder by prescriptionRebecca’s parents, by contrast, are still in prison—her father was convicted of first-degree murder, her mother of second-degree murder. Both of them watched the girl deteriorate in her final days without taking her to see a doctor, despite the entreaties of worried neighbors. Kifuji gave evidence at their trials but was under immunity, a fact that <a href="https://spitbristleandfury.wordpress.com/tag/kayoko-kifuji/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">shocked the jury members</a>, several of whom expressed their wish to see her in the dock as well.After all, Kifuji had seen Rebecca at many appointments and somehow failed to detect the signs of overmedication that nurses and teachers at her preschool program were <a href="https://www.uticaod.com/story/news/2010/01/21/social-worker-testifies-she-warned/47038828007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">concerned about</a>. She also knew that Mrs. Riley was giving her young daughter far more than the recommended dose of the drugs she was taking (if one can consider these drugs “recommended” at all for children). Although she apparently rebuked Rebecca’s mother for upping the doses without first getting permission, Kifuji gave that permission retroactively.&nbsp;No regretsWhile giving <a href="https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/2010/03/18/psychiatrist-no-second-thoughts-in/47971690007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">evidence</a> at the trial of Rebecca's father, Michael Riley, she was asked by his defense attorney whether, in retrospect, she would have done things differently.<blockquote>[Attorney Darrell] Now that you’ve had this time for reflection, have you changed your mind about your diagnosis and treatment of Rebecca Riley?[Kifuji] No, I have not.</blockquote>This despite the doctor having being <a href="https://www.uticaod.com/story/news/2010/01/21/social-worker-testifies-she-warned/47038828007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">warned</a> by the school nurse that Rebecca was better off with less drugs:<blockquote>I did tell Dr. Kifuji that when Rebecca was a little more awake (after the clonidine wore off), she played nicely with the other children. She was more animated. She was a very sweet little girl.</blockquote>&nbsp;One in ten American kids on psych drugsAccording to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7243a5.htm#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20children%20and,%25)%20to%202022%20(9.3%25)." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">CDC</a>, in 2022, 9.3 percent of children aged between 5 and 17 were taking drugs for their “mental health.” This translates to around five million children. As many anti-Pharma activists have pointed out, children are a very sought-after demographic for drugging, as they usually have little to no say as to whether to take the drugs or not, even when adverse events are disturbing, painful, and/or outright harmful. Furthermore, a childhood on drugs very often predicts adult life on more drugs—more of the same, plus others.Who is looking out for these children? Not the FDA it seems. Just a few months ago, the FDA decided to <a href="https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2023/021323Orig1s055,021365Orig1s039ltr.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">expand its approval</a> of an SSRI-class drug, Lexapro, to “treat anxiety” in children as young as seven years old.The authors of the clinical <a href="https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/cap.2023.0004" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">trial</a> upon which the approval was based wrote that Lexapro “reduced anxiety symptoms and was well tolerated,” adding that, “the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”One of the risks, apparently, is suicide—one child (out of 137) in the trial (in the Lexapro cohort) actually tried to commit suicide. None of the children in the trial had been actively suicidal prior to the study. The FDA approval does not mention the suicide risk. Perhaps it is considered sufficient that SSRIs in general come with a boxed warning that notes their associated risk of both homicidal and suicidal ideation.&nbsp;“Angel” parents wanting angelic kids?Those who criticize ADHD diagnoses for children who cannot seem to adapt to the demands of classroom life often claim that the “unnatural” rigidity of the school environment is to blame, rather than the child's “natural” nature. A similar claim is also often made of psychiatric diagnoses given to very young children who are basically just regular toddlers — only their parents are either unwilling to or incapable of dealing with them.Seeking advice on an online parenting forum, “Angel MDSN” <a href="https://community.babycenter.com/post/a23645227/does_anyone_else_have_a_bipolar_child_step_child" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writes</a>:<blockquote>I'm having a really hard time with my stepson he is severely bipolar and has shown severe symptoms since he was 2 he is now over 5 1/2. We tried not medicating him for a long time but he just kept getting more and more out of control … Like tantrums for hours, telling lies all day, kicking/punching holes in walls. You get my drift and let me tell you we are a very strict boudry [sic.] set home and as consistent as you can get also have tried every discipline in the book. He has now been medicated for seven months We have tried various meds. and combinations. He is still so out of control though…</blockquote>“Glesa,” answering “Angel,” apparently has experienced something quite similar (and she’s far from being alone). Although she mentions that what she calls “Red dye” in food clearly makes her son “defiant and moody with outbursts,” she also writes:<blockquote>What you describe to me, sounds just like my DS when he was 2 and 3 ... it took constant pleading from me to get the dr to send him to see a behavioral specialist. Once she did our world changed. He has ADHD and Anxiety. DS has his moments still, but he knows that not having his meds, even in the summer, he is miserable and acts out. I really did not want to medicate him, but behavior modification alone was not working...</blockquote>&nbsp;A bleak outlookCommenting on the FDA’s approval of several “antipsychotic” drugs to treat children back in 2009, <a href="https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0906/S00142/fda-throws-life-line-to-antipsychotic-pushers.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vera Sharav</a>, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, stressed that,<blockquote>The FDA's expanded marketing approval process for antipsychotics, highly toxic drugs, is unaffected by evidence uncovered by the US Justice Department showing that the studies submitted by drug manufacturers were often flawed, if not fraudulent.&nbsp;Rather than focus on protecting children's safety, FDA officials are doing their utmost to legitimize irresponsible, off-label prescribing of exceedingly toxic antipsychotics for children--thereby ensuring that far greater numbers of children will be victimized and die.</blockquote>Sharav was by no means exaggerating the dangers these drugs pose. In an <a href="https://karger.com/pps/article-abstract/77/4/198/282409/Irrational-Healers?redirectedFrom=fulltext" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">editorial</a> published in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Dr. David Healy notes that,<blockquote>For fifty years, the antipsychotics were viewed as too dangerous to use outside secondary care and were largely restricted to those with chronic psychotic disorders where the trade-off between hazards and benefits justified treatment.Yet now a new generation of possibly even more problematic antipsychotics is being given to preschoolers, in North America, on the basis that they might have a disorder that most of the rest of the world does not believe happens in children.</blockquote>

Kid medicine.jpg

Psychiatric Drug

Malpractice

How many more children will die from psychotropic medications before FDA takes notice?

Where is justice for Rebecca; diagnosed as bipolar at age 2, dead at 4 from overuse of meds

The World Economic Forum (WEF) says <a href="https://frontline.news/post/wef-says-covid-moved-us-toward-a-cashless-economy-but-do-we-have-to-go-along-with-it-part-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">COVID moved us toward a cashless economy.</a> Frontline News reported how that claim was celebrated at the WEF conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The connection between COVID-19 and the ability to move along its cashless agenda was discussed at the conference's opening plenary. Khalid Humaidan, Bahrain's chief central banker who spoke during the session, noted that people's acceptance at the time showed their trust in the government's policy about cash:<blockquote>I think the transition to fully digital is not going to be a stretch, people are used to it, people are engaged in it, and circumstances that help is adoption rates increased because of Covid.This is where contactless [payment systems] started to become something of a necessity, something of a safety, something of a requirement, and because of that there is very little resistance, trust is already there ...&nbsp;</blockquote>Frontline News concluded the first of this two-part series by asking if we have a choice in the matter or if a cashless society is inevitable, noting that cash is still needed and often the preferred choice of payment for many. We explore the future of paper currency in this part.<h2>Cash still needed&nbsp;</h2>Cash is essential to most economiesAccording to Cash Matters, “cash continues to <a href="https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/2023-payments-report-confirms-cash-is-essential-to-economies-worldwide" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">play an essential role</a> in most economies,” accounting for over $7.6 trillion in consumer spending throughout 2022.<blockquote>Cash remains the most-used payment option across Africa and the Middle East, and Latin America, with the rate of decline in its use seen globally during the pandemic levelling off. Around the world, while its use has dropped in many countries, it remains steady in some and has seen modest rises in others. In Italy, the share of cash transactions at point of sale (POS) remained steady in 2021 and 2022 at 27 percent, while it rose in America from 11 to 12 percent, and in France from nine to 10 percent.</blockquote><h3>Important in the UK</h3>Cash is very important for the UK economy for several reasons, <a href="https://www.ftadviser.com/stephanie-hawthorne/2024/04/26/cash-is-hugely-important-to-uk-economy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writes</a> FT Adviser.&nbsp;⇢ Cash use helps maintain neighborhoods.&nbsp;The presence of banks, financial institutions, and stores helps maintain upscale neighborhoods. Yet, with cash transactions declining, many stores and institutions closed and their communities have devolved into slums with fast-food restaurants. “The aroma of stinky burgers&nbsp;pervades once fine streets all over Britain. Is this the best&nbsp;a nation of shopkeepers can do for our health and wellbeing?,” FT Adviser asks.⇢ Cash is valued by the elderly and people who have low incomes.<blockquote>According to the Bank of England, which is currently running an exhibition called “The future of Money” until September 2025: “Cash remains a valued form of money for the elderly and those on lower incomes, with many using it to budget and manage their household finances.”</blockquote>⇢ Cash is needed by people with disabilities who cannot manage technology.<blockquote>Some people with physical and cognitive disabilities also find other payment methods difficult to use (they may struggle with pin numbers or passwords, for example).</blockquote>⇢ Going cashless might trigger an economic disaster.FT Adviser described five instances where the electricity and/or internet were disrupted and stores could not accept payment, resulting in lost profits, or could only accept cash. In one case, the store could accept credit cards but could only provide a handwritten receipt.&nbsp;<h3>Japan prefers cash</h3>Japanese prefer cash as it is secure and reliable and a means of being aware of how much money one has, decreasing the risk of overspending, <a href="https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/why-japan-prefers-cash" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">according</a> to Cash Matters: &nbsp;<blockquote>Assessing the reasons why Japanese consumers prefer cash, Statista notes its security and reliability are highly valued. Over 55 percent of respondents cited concerns over personal information leakage as being a major drawback of cashless options. Nearly 42 percent worried about credit cards and account details being stolen—which could allow thieves to run up huge bills in their name—and around 38 percent said cashless options made them less aware of the amount of money they are spending, increasing the risk of spending too much.</blockquote>Cash Matters included this graph from Statista showing concerns about going cashless in Japan:<figure class="image"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714905892/Japan_concerns_about_digital_currency_ee4522f0d6.jpg"></figure>Cash is also treated with respect in Japan; people with bifold wallets can keep track of their money and avoid overspending, a practice of the wealthy.<blockquote>Japan Today noted bifold wallets allow more space for cash and help keep banknotes neat and uncreased. It cited a book by accountant Junichiro Kameda—Why Wealthy People Use Long Wallets—as one source of information on the importance of careful handling of cash, which the author believes ‘will help people appreciate their money and control their spending’.</blockquote><h3>The U.S. needs cash, too</h3>Money Under 30 <a href="https://www.moneyunder30.com/what-is-the-future-of-cash/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">contemplated</a> the future of cash in the United States since many younger people are not using it, and with more and more transactions being done electronically. While this can hamper drug-related crimes and theft of cash, Money under 30 noted it will also mean the layoff of many people who handle cash transactions.&nbsp;People still rely on cashThe benefits of cash are significant enough that the future of a cashless U.S. is in doubt. Nine million U.S. households do not have a relationship with a bank and a further 24.5 million households obtain financial services and products outside the banking system.<blockquote>A survey by the FDIC in 2015 revealed that 7% of US households, or about nine million households, had no banking relationship; these households are referred to as “unbanked”. The same survey reported an additional 19.9%—or 24.5 million households—are classified as “underbanked”. That means the household had a checking or savings account, but obtained financial products and services outside the banking system.The problem for many of the poor is bank fees. This can be compounded by low or unsteady income and deposits, resulting in non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees and even account closures by banks.</blockquote>Money Under 30 also referenced a Pew Research Center study that found that more than 11% of Americans do not use the Internet.<blockquote>But apart from banks, a study by the Pew Research Center found 11% of Americans don’t use the Internet. The percentage is even higher among the elderly and those who live in rural areas. Eliminating cash could potentially exclude this segment of the population from participating fully in the economy.</blockquote><h3>Back to barter?</h3>Using paper currency eliminates or reduces the possibility of identity theft and provides privacy. If the U.S. would, ultimately, go cashless, barter may make a comeback.<blockquote>A full-on cashless society may cause a return to barter. This may start among the poor, and among those who are simply uncomfortable going completely cashless. It’s something governments are undoubtedly weighing out very carefully, and why cash hasn’t been declared illegal thus far.</blockquote><h3>U.S. bill would preserve cash</h3>The Payment Choice Act, a bill to preserve the use of cash, was reintroduced in Congress in June 2023 by Rep. Donald M. Payne, Jr., Loomis, the U.S.'s largest integrated cash distribution network, <a href="https://www.loomis.us/resources/insights/2023-update-payment-choice-act-reintroduced" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>.&nbsp;<blockquote>The bill aims to address the growing trend of businesses favoring digital payment methods over cash, ensuring that Americans retain the freedom to use physical currency for transactions. This legislation would also prohibit retail businesses from charging a higher price for using cash than for other forms of payment.</blockquote><h2>Less cash does not mean less crime</h2>Interestingly, Cash Matters <a href="https://www.cashmatters.org/blog/european-parliament-to-vote-on-cash-payment-limits" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cites studies</a> showing that restricting the use of cash does not mitigate money laundering or reduce support for terrorism. Rather, it restricts financial autonomy and personal rights and makes it harder to fight crime “since [cash's] movement is often the only surface point of otherwise hidden, illicit acts.”<h2>Teaching kids about money — without money?</h2>Teaching children about the value of money may become more difficult as cash is used less and less. The following articles offer some perspectives on the topic:<ul><li><a href="https://www.moneygeek.com/financial-planning/resources/how-to-teach-your-kids-about-money/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How to teach kids about money at every age</a></li><li><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2023/02/06/kids-cash-money-lessons/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">When the lemonade stand accepts Venmo: What does money mean to kids?</a></li><li><a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-kids-are-adapting-to-a-cashless-culture" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&nbsp;How kids are adapting to a cashless culture</a></li></ul><h2>&nbsp;</h2><h2>Countries and cash</h2>The charts below, produced by Merchant Machine's analysis, display the degree of reliance on cash by different countries as of August 2022, as reported by Payments, cards and mobile.&nbsp;<figure class="image image_resized" style="width:97.38%;"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714905892/Worlds_20_countries_using_most_cash_31da141fca.jpg"></figure><figure class="image"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714905892/Mot_cashless_countries_in_Europe_9b2a4a40c5.jpg"></figure>&nbsp;Read about the <a href="https://theconversation.com/going-cashless-isnt-straightforward-ask-sweden-or-zimbabwe-146187" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">experiences</a> of Sweden and Zimbabwe with going cashless. The Conversation <a href="https://theconversation.com/going-cashless-isnt-straightforward-ask-sweden-or-zimbabwe-146187" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">explained</a> that it wasn't straightforward. Sweden has had to backtrack and in Zimbabwe, where trust in government is low, “Bad cash is better than good plastic!” as one street vendor said.<h2>Are we becoming boiled frogs? Is there any hope?</h2>PJ Media, in its <a href="https://pjmedia.com/benbartee/2024/05/01/wef-central-banker-we-used-covid-to-destroy-cash-n4928682" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">report</a> on the WEF conference in Riyadh, concluded with a warning not to allow ourselves to be lulled into complacency when it comes to electronic transactions and digital currency. PJ Media argued that accepting what was voluntary — the widespread use of electronic payments during COVID as a safety measure &nbsp;— to become the only option allowed and a tool of social control is like boiling a frog in water. The frog, for those who don't know the analogy, is first put into a pot of cold water. The fire under the pot is slowly raised so that by the time the frog is troubled by the heat, it can no longer jump out.<blockquote>This is the frog boiling in water analogy: it starts with a voluntary program marketed to the public as a tool of convenience and efficiency, only to slowly replace any alternatives by fiat and become a transparent tool of social control, even though that’s how it was intended by the governing authorities all along. The technocrats’ bet is that at such a point that the abuse of this new technology becomes fully transparent and indisputable, any means of resistance will be nullified and it won’t matter.</blockquote>Since the WEF and others are still working to promote acceptance of the exclusive use of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), there is still time to resist going cashless. PJ Media writes, parenthetically, that once resistance is impossible they no longer need to use propaganda. So long as they attempt to persuade us, there is still an opportunity to stop them.<blockquote>This is why it’s always optimistic to remember the adage that “if resistance were impossible, the propaganda wouldn’t be necessary.” It’s only after the propaganda, whether regarding CBDC or any other social engineering cause, ceases to be useful to the state and it abandons any attempt at persuasion that we have entered the stage of totalitarianism.</blockquote>&nbsp;Related articles:<ul><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/wef-says-covid-moved-us-toward-a-cashless-economy-but-do-we-have-to-go-along-with-it-part-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WEF says COVID moved us toward a cashless economy - but do we have to go along with it? Part 1</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/europe-moves-forward-with-cbdc">Europe moves forward with CBDC</a>&nbsp;</li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/imf-central-banks-may-control-cbdc-transactions">IMF: Central banks may control CBDC transactions</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/hidden-feature-in-brazilian-cbdc-allows-government-to-freeze-funds">Hidden feature in Brazilian CBDC allows government to freeze funds</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/south-dakota-governor-vetoes-pro-cbdc-legislation">South Dakota Governor vetoes pro-CBDC legislation</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/cbdc-alternative-fed-now-to-launch-in-july-says-federal-reserve">CBDC alternative ‘FedNow’ to launch in July, says Federal Reserve</a>&nbsp;</li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/central-banks-advance-with-cbdc-development">Central banks advance with CBDC development</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/wef-summer-davos-attendees-promise-more-health-crises-cbdc-climate-punishments">WEF Summer Davos: Attendees promise more health crises, CBDC, climate punishments</a>&nbsp;</li></ul>

Sisters saving coins in a jar.jpg

Technocracy

'If resistance were impossible, the propaganda wouldn’t be necessary'

WEF says COVID moved us toward a cashless economy - but do we have to go along with it? -  Part 2

<h2>Have COVID measures created an inevitable path to a cashless world?</h2>Should we believe those who tell us that the end of cash is inevitable? Do we accept their pronouncement, throw up our hands, and do our best to get used to it, whether we like it or not? Do we ignore the signs even if it means losing personal freedoms and rights? Or do we say “No, this isn't going to happen. We must fight this?”&nbsp;A case in point is the attempt by the World Economic Forum (WEF) to create a cashless economy. This was the topic of the "Opening Plenary: A New Vision for Global Development" in Riyadh, Saudia Arabia during the WEF's two-day discussion, as <a href="https://pjmedia.com/benbartee/2024/05/01/wef-central-banker-we-used-covid-to-destroy-cash-n4928682" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a> by PJ Media. During the plenary session, COVID was declared an economic shock that necessitated going cashless as a safety measure.<blockquote>Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), highlighted the positive fundamentals for growth that the world has developed in recent years, showcasing resilience to economic shocks.</blockquote>PJ Media asked “What “economic shocks” in “recent years” is the IMF mouthpiece referring to?” and answered the question by quoting Khalid Humaidan, Bahrain's chief central banker who spoke during the session, noting that people's acquiescence at the time showed trust:<blockquote>I think the transition to fully digital is not going to be a stretch, people are used to it, people are engaged in it, and circumstances that help is adoption rates increased because of Covid.This is where contactless [payment systems] started to become something of a necessity, something of a safety, something of a requirement, and because of that there is very little resistance, trust is already there ...&nbsp;</blockquote>A tweet of Humaidan's talk in Riyadh was posted to further document the role that COVID played in people's acceptance of not using cash.<blockquote>"There's less use of cash [...] The transition to fully digital is not going to be a stretch [...] People are used to it [...] Its adoption rates increased because of COVID [...] There is very little resistance": Central Bank of Bahrain Governor Khalid Humaidan to the WEF on CBDC</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">"There's less use of cash [...] The transition to fully digital is not going to be a stretch [...] People are used to it [...] Its adoption rates increased because of COVID [...] There is very little resistance": Central Bank of Bahrain Governor Khalid Humaidan to the WEF on CBDC <a href="https://t.co/zB7nJAi48G">pic.twitter.com/zB7nJAi48G</a>— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimHinchliffe/status/1785023748539650460?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Another tweet of Humaidan included his expectation that, at some point, digital currency will just become a “digital form of cash;” actual cash will no longer used.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">"We're probably going to stop calling it central bank digital currency [CBDC]. It's going to be a digital form of cash, and at some point in time hopefully we will be able to be 100% digital": Central Bank of Bahrain Governor Khalid Humaidan to the WEF <a href="https://t.co/Pspr0M1Uuq">https://t.co/Pspr0M1Uuq</a> <a href="https://t.co/N5aOkCpzh1">pic.twitter.com/N5aOkCpzh1</a>— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimHinchliffe/status/1785022869635817781?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><h3>Digital currency is control, it's not cash</h3>X user “Resist CBDC” expressed his objection to Humaidan's referring to digital currency as cash, calling it out as wordsmithing. Rather, he wrote, it is a form of “surveillance and control.”<blockquote>Tells us that CBDC is going to be a digital form of cash.#CBDC is not "cash" or money or tender or anything like it. &nbsp;Do NOT fall for the word smithing. CBDC is surveillance and control.</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Khalid Humaidan - Central Bank of Bahrain Tells us that CBDC is going to be a digital form of cash.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CBDC?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CBDC</a> is not "cash" or money or tender or anything like it. Do NOT fall for the word smithing. CBDC is surveillance and control. <a href="https://t.co/BfZztrnPpx">pic.twitter.com/BfZztrnPpx</a>— Resist CBDC (@Resist_CBDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/Resist_CBDC/status/1786118653563527676?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 2, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </div><h2>Do we have a choice?</h2>Are Humaidan's prognostications accurate? Are they inevitable? Perhaps not. While cash use fell during COVID, it has rebounded some, and there are many reasons why people prefer to and need to hold cash. This will be covered shortly in part 2.Related articles:<ul><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/europe-moves-forward-with-cbdc">Europe moves forward with CBDC</a>&nbsp;</li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/imf-central-banks-may-control-cbdc-transactions">IMF: Central banks may control CBDC transactions</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/hidden-feature-in-brazilian-cbdc-allows-government-to-freeze-funds">Hidden feature in Brazilian CBDC allows government to freeze funds</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/south-dakota-governor-vetoes-pro-cbdc-legislation">South Dakota Governor vetoes pro-CBDC legislation</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/cbdc-alternative-fed-now-to-launch-in-july-says-federal-reserve">CBDC alternative ‘FedNow’ to launch in July, says Federal Reserve</a>&nbsp;</li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/central-banks-advance-with-cbdc-development">Central banks advance with CBDC development</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/wef-summer-davos-attendees-promise-more-health-crises-cbdc-climate-punishments">WEF Summer Davos: Attendees promise more health crises, CBDC, climate punishments</a></li></ul>

Man planting flag on pile of cash.jpg

'CBDC is surveillance and control'

WEF says COVID moved us toward a cashless economy - but do we have to go along with it? Part 1

Three weeks ago, <a href="https://frontline.news/post/msm-blackout-on-massive-rallies-in-japan-against-who-and-super-warp-speed-100-day-vaccines" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Frontline News</a> reported on massive protests taking place in Japan against the WHO treaty and the super-warp-speed “vaccines” their government appears intent on producing. The protests garnered virtually zero media attention, although one <a href="https://www.techarp.com/facts/japanese-protest-pandemic-treaty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">site</a> did attempt to “debunk” the size of the protests.To date, the Japanese government has shown no sign of taking into account either the protestors or the views of hundreds of thousands of citizens who agree with them. Meanwhile, on the Japanese street, the next big thing has already hit in the shape of pro-Gaza demonstrations, which, to the contrary, are receiving plenty of media coverage.So, is there any point in protesting, with or without media coverage?&nbsp;You want to change the world? Well, you can try…Judging by the results of one large and recent <a href="https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32342/w32342.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a>, the anti-WHO protest was virtually doomed to fail. Researchers investigated over a dozen mass movements with sweeping goals to see how many of them achieved success, and discovered that only one could claim to have done so.The study's authors used social media and other internet data, as well as surveys, to determine how public opinion altered following the mass protests. The protests they focused on included the various Women's Marches, the Impeach Trump campaign, Families Belong Together, and the George Floyd protests. The only campaign which they found to have significant impact was the George Floyd/Black Lives Matter movement.<blockquote>… the only movement that had a discernible political impact was Black Lives Matter. All the others led to spikes in tweets and Google searches but left no real mark on public opinion.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;Ten days of gloryAlthough it may seem at the time they take place that huge protests have a correspondingly huge impact, based on all the attention they garner, the study found that this effect was very short-lived:<blockquote>We find that most protests generate significant online activity … &nbsp;protests coincide with large increases in online interest, as measured by tweets and Google searches containing keywords related to the topic of the movement … but [this is] relatively short-lived: online interest decreases to baseline levels about ten days after the beginning of the social movement [emphasis added].</blockquote>&nbsp;Does a protest with no media coverage make a sound?Among their observations of the BLM movement, the study's authors noted that it was not at all the largest movement documented:<blockquote>However, it is important to note that BLM was not the only large movement in our database. In fact, it was not even the largest: the 2017 Women’s March, the 2018 Women’s March, and the 2018 March for Our Lives protests in favor of gun control all mobilized a greater number of participants according to the CCC database. Yet, none of them consistently affected attitudes and political behavior beyond short-term increases in tweets and Google searches.</blockquote>And they suggested that rather than sheer numbers being the determining factor, it could be the attention given by the media:<blockquote>One possible explanation is that this movement stood out due to its intense coverage in traditional and social media.</blockquote>&nbsp;Less than half of all protests achieve anything at allGiven that most media outlets can't be cajoled into covering whatever protest one happens to organize, what is the average demonstrator to do if he wants results?According to a second <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-88513-7_2#Fig3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a>, being focused on what you want to achieve can increase the chances for success, and it helps even more if you have some kind of leverage.This study followed hundreds of protests over a 14-year period, all over the world, and came to the conclusion that less than half of them could claim any kind of achievement:<blockquote>… our research shows that 42% of protests resulted in some kind of demonstrable achievement.</blockquote>Furthermore, what they called an “achievement” was often extremely partial, or even quite minor:<blockquote>… in the period 2006–2020 there were many protests against GMOs and Monsanto. In 2013, one of the biggest global protests had a clear demand: stop GMOs. Eventually, the objective of this protest movement was achieved in Mexico, although not in other countries.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;Keep it simple if you want to succeedSuccess was seen to a degree following protests that highlighted clearly delineated issues, for example in Chile where protesters demanded and received a new constitution; in various countries where the resignation of a leader was demanded and granted; in several countries where large labor protests achieved wage rises; in other places where infrastructure projects were halted or stalled.The study also found that protests involving a material or other significant loss for those being targeted were more successful, although this was less true for demonstrations that involved vandalism and/or looting:<blockquote>In terms of the methods of protest, the most successful—although not the most frequent—are merchant’s strikes, with a 75% achievement rate (e.g., Iran’s merchants achieving a reduction in the gold tax) followed by whistleblowing and leaks (71%), hacking (64%), and boycotts (63%). On the other hand, the less successful methods are general assemblies (23%), street theater (30%), noise making/pot banging (31%), educational actions (34%) and Twitter storms (36%). Vandalism/looting and violence only show a 43% success rate…</blockquote>&nbsp;Baby steps, especially under repressive regimesProtests demanding more sweeping changes such as “civil rights” were less likely to achieve their goals, the study found, and even when achievements were claimed, they were usually very modest:<blockquote>Civil rights also have an achievement rate of 42%; for example, after years of activism, in 2019 in Iran a law was passed stipulating hard penalties for acid attacks; in Saudi Arabia women were officially allowed to vote in 2015 and to drive in 2018; in Senegal, women could vote in the 2015 elections; in Pakistan in a 2006 law, protestors achieved the removal of zina (fornication crime) and the end of rape victims being prosecuted for adultery; in India education quotas for lower castes were preserved in 2006…</blockquote>&nbsp;China versus the United StatesThe more powerful the institutions being protested against, the less likely it was that the protests achieved anything at all:<blockquote>The more structural and distant the opponents are, the more difficult they are to fight, as we can see in the case of groups like the G20, the financial sector in a country, the IMF, or the ECB. When it comes to structural issues like free-trade, inequality, imperialism, distant elites, and the military, all protests against them have relatively low achievement rates.&nbsp;</blockquote><figure class="image"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714683555/protests_against_insts_322054bead.png"></figure>One intriguing exception was cited by the study's authors who described the differing outcomes of protests in China versus the United States:<blockquote>Protests against governments (both national and local), religious authorities, employers and corporations, have higher rates of success. Interestingly, a majority of protests against the Chinese government, normally on concrete issues, have a greater chance of achieving some result (65%), than those against the United States, which have only a 23% chance of success.</blockquote>&nbsp;“Awareness” as an achievementNonetheless, the study did note that there are certain “intangible successes” that often result from protests, such as increased awareness:<blockquote>… several of the achievements identified in the research relate to changes in public debates. This is an intangible success that however can have a significant impact in reframing debates and bringing issues into the global political agenda. This type of achievement should not be overlooked. Three examples illustrate this. The first one is Occupy Wall Street (2011), in which citizens protested against Wall Street bailouts, denounced inequality and the privileges of the financial sector in shaping the political agenda. The famous motto “We are the 99%” became a slogan heard in many parts of the world, pushing the inequality agenda to center stage. The second one is the UK Uncut (2011) movement, which also emerged during the 2008 financial crisis, denouncing austerity cuts and unfair tax practices of multinational corporations. This movement gave a push to the tax justice agenda. Lastly the #MeToo and #NiUnaMenos movements linked to women’s rights have set the agenda on gender justice and have encouraged girls and women all over the world to stand up for their rights [emphasis added].</blockquote>&nbsp;Don't open the gates to violenceAwareness, of course, can be achieved in many ways, and some are more effective than others. Knowing that injustice or corruption exists is important; knowing what can be realistically done to address it is far more critical.As recent history has shown, protests organized by conservatives often end up playing into the hands of those who seek to malign them. With the power of government and academia behind them, these elements harness the media to present conservative demonstrators as violent extremists, based on the behavior of a few (with those few conservatives often following the lead of agent provocateurs from the government or Marxist groups), leading many conservatives to <a href="https://jbs.org/video/activate/leftists-want-you-to-protest/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advise</a> against any participation in protests:<blockquote>Even if we could have pressure from above, taking to the streets is not the way to go … The media will make us look ineffective, as if only a few people are involved … Worse, they will show only the most outrageous [protesters] as examples of the entire crowd…</blockquote>Art Thompson, former Chairman of The John Birch Society, finds just one use for protests - <a href="https://jbs.org/assets/pdf/JBS-Agenda-2023.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recruitment</a>:<blockquote>Sometimes members attend rallies and carefully planned demonstrations to find prospects, however. Potential members can be found by passing out literature and talking to people.</blockquote>&nbsp;It only works for themThompson says that protestors for freedom should not expect the same results enjoyed by collectivists:<blockquote>[Leftist protestors] use a two-prong pincer movement of pressure from above and pressure from below … by getting their minions into the street, which is the bottom pincer, while at the same time pushing down from above with the media, academia and government. The Right does not have the same effect since we do not control, or even have, a free media. [1:25-1:53].</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe class="rumble" width="640" height="360" src="https://rumble.com/embed/v18m8kb/?pub=4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>&nbsp;What to do?Thompson instead encourages conservatives to “go directly to the people and that is in their homes.” This is how to build a truly grassroots revolution built on people who understand what they're fighting for, not people who only understand that they are fighting.&nbsp;To illustrate his point, he recounts a story involving Congressman Larry McDonald, who was himself a former chairman of The John Birch Society:<blockquote>There was once a large anti-forced-busing demonstration in Washington, D.C. Many who attended tried to see their U.S. representative who, conveniently, wasn’t available. Feeling rebuffed, they decided to call on Rep. McDonald since they knew he shared their opposition to the busing scheme.After a brief visit, McDonald pointed out that each of them had spent considerable resources over three days coming and going to the nation’s capital. In addition to travel expenses, they paid for two nights in hotel rooms and several meals, only to be rejected by their representative and to receive little mention in the media.If, however, they had taken the same amount of time and money and used it to doorbell their neighborhoods and create understanding among their fellow citizens, they would have accomplished far more…</blockquote>

protests.jpg

US News

How freedom protesters sometimes play into the hands of the Left

Do protests work? Of course — but for whom?

Paxlovid, the five-day wonder

But what happens on day six?

Related Articles

Electric vehicles act as 'mobile computers' that place data and safety at risk

Soros and Rockefellers fund pro-Hamas 'revolution' on campuses

95 percent of both Republicans & Democrats trust their personal physicians' advice. Should they?

Will hackers be able to stop your car with mandated 'Kill Switch?'

Latest Articles

Where is justice for Rebecca; diagnosed as bipolar at age 2, dead at 4 from overuse of meds

WEF says COVID moved us toward a cashless economy - but do we have to go along with it? - Part 2

WEF says COVID moved us toward a cashless economy - but do we have to go along with it? Part 1

Do protests work? Of course — but for whom?