Gabriel Roberts

Truth is Beauty

Category: Writing (page 1 of 2)

Miles Mathis on The Housing Market

Miles Mathis on the current housing market:

HGTV: It seems like a pretty harmless television network, right? But it’s actually a fine-tuned social engineering project that heavily promotes the idea that houses should be investment vehicles, earning you money. This is part of the essential lie of speculative capitalism, that you can create wealth disproportionate to the amount of effort you put into it. Did it ever make sense that doing a $50,000 renovation to your house increases its value by $100,000? Does another $50,000 of real value magically get created? No. But this is the kind of endless mad dash for profit that gets created by the interest-based banking system. And that’s what HGTV is designed to do for the housing market. It fetishizes homes to arbitrarily increase their value, turning what is normally a depreciating asset into an investment. What does that do in real terms? It eviscerates communities as everyone constantly buys and sell houses, never living in one place long enough to form neighborly bonds. And do you know who’s behind HGTV? It was founded by Kenneth Lowe and Susan Packard and has since been sold to Discovery, Inc., whose majority shareholders are…

Vanguard, BlackRock, JPMorgan, etc. Think about that: the same people behind the housing market are behind HGTV. Do you think this is a coincidence? Meanwhile, they make it harder and harder to buy a house, making you work harder. It’s a feeding frenzy that goes round and round, and if you buy into it, it turns you into a miniature version of them: a little speculator and landlord perpetuating their predatory system of speculation and landlordism. But no matter how rich you get acting like them, they will always get richer off you. That’s what the banking system does, and that’s why you’ll never catch up with them. Better to get out of the race altogether. Be as NIMBYish as you can possibly be, not because you’re trying to protect your real estate investment, but because you’re trying to protect your home and your neighborhood, two things which sit at the heart of everything good in this world. Why do you think the rulers are trying to buy up the housing market? Because a little family in a little house on a little street that hasn’t changed in 50 years is the biggest threat of all to their hegemony. If you don’t think that’s true, then you still don’t understand the true nature of the war that’s going on around you.

Read the full article here:

NEJM’s Pregnancy & COVID-19 Vaccine Study is Misleading

The New England Journal of Medicine recently published a study entitled “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons“, and it is being used everywhere to demonstrate that these experimental vaccines are safe for pregnant women.  If you do a search on “COVID vaccine pregnancy”, you are likely to find this study cited in the first slew of results, all articles proclaiming that the shot is completely safe and totally necessary for pregnant women.

I actually took the time to read the study, and was shocked right away at the number of “spontaneous abortions”: 104.  Out of a group of 4000 women, this seemed like a lot to me!  The study assures us, however, that there’s no cause for concern, as the “published incidence” of spontaneous abortion is between 10 and 26 percent.  So the 104 out of 827 in this group—or 12.6%—is totally normal.

Thanks to a letter from a group of Canadian MD’s, my suspicion that something was fishy about the data in the study are confirmed:


The article by Shimabukuro et al. 2021 presents preliminary safety results of coronavirus 2019 mRNA vaccines used in pregnant women from the V-Safe Registry. These findings are of particular importance, as pregnant women were excluded from the phase III trials assessing mRNA vaccines. In table 4, the authors report a rate of spontaneous abortions <20 weeks (SA) of 12.5% (104 abortions/827 completed pregnancies). However, this rate should be based on the number of women who were at risk of an SA due to vaccine receipt and should exclude the 700 women who were vaccinated in their third trimester (104/127 = 82%). We acknowledge this rate will likely decrease as the pregnancies of women who were vaccinated <20 weeks complete but believe the rate will be higher than 12.5%. However, given the importance of these findings we feel it important to report these rates accurately. Additionally, the authors indicate that the rate of SAs in the published literature is between 10% and 26%. However, the upper cited rate includes clinically-unrecognized pregnancies, which does not reflect the clinically-recognized pregnancies of this cohort and should be removed.

I couldn’t have said it any better myself!!  A two-month study like this gives us just a snapshot of pregnant women, and naturally, of the “completed pregnancies”, most will be those that were further along in their pregnancy when they got the shot.  But to calculate that 12.5% number off of this snapshot, and compare it to a population-wide statistic is absolutely downright sheisty!  This is what we call comparing apples to oranges.

Let’s say you were trying to figure out if blonde women were more likely to have a miscarriage than brunettes.  To do this, let’s say you decided to pick a random day and say “today there are lots of pregnant blonde women, and at the end of the day there were 85 children born and 15 miscarriages, therefore blonde women don’t seem to be obviously more likely to have a miscarriage”.  One might ask: “Okay great, but of those 100 completed pregnancies, how many blonde women were there?”.  “Ummmmmm let me see…. twelve?”.

Not very convincing!

Why, pray tell, did the authors settle on the date range of December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021?  Is there something special about this window?  And what became of the “scheduled follow-ups” with the women who received the vaccine in the first and second trimester.  It’s now July, and the paper has yet to be updated with that data.  I wonder why?

I’m no scientist, but it seems to me that the way to determine whether this experimental gene therapy is safe for pregnant women is to use something called a control group: un-vaccinated women.  You would get two identical groups of women, of roughly the same age, health, and gestation period, and give one group the shot and the other a placebo.  Then you would follow them for—heaven forbid—six months!!!  Six months!!!  Can you imagine spending that much time trying to figure out if this vaccine increases your risk of miscarriage?!?!  While a pandemic is raging?!?!?  I must be out of my mind!!!

We will probably never see this study.   In fact, we will probably never see a single mainstream scientific study involving vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.  We will see hundreds of meaningless papers like this that pretend to prove exactly what they set out to prove (which is precisely the reverse of the scientific method), and you will never see one that uses an unvaccinated placebo control group.

What a bunch of trash.  Shame on all twelve of these fools for putting their names on a piece of absolute garbage balogna like this, and for wasting our time as we try to wade through their mess of meaningless jumbled unrelated numbers and cohorts to try and figure out why it smells like garbage.  Please just do the goddamn study already if you actually care to determine or demonstrate anything.

Sorry Bud, You’ve Got to Keep Wearing Your Mask

We went shopping at the big supermarket in our closest big town yesterday, and got to load up our cart with an abundant haul of fruit, veggies, pickles, organic meats, and a few of our favorite snacks and indulgences. Almost everybody was mask-free, including the employees, which is a welcome change. It takes a little getting used to, seeing people’s faces again. I’d gotten accustomed to being the only maskless person in most stores, but now suddenly we’re all maskless. All except for the children of course. Our baby girl of four-and-a-half months, riding in a carrier on Mom’s chest, gets a pass, and charms all the other shoppers—especially a man wearing a bright-red Xfinity t-shirt in the checkout next to us (she loves the color red, and particularly men wearing the color red). We saw two other babies sitting up in shopping carts, also mask-free. All of the children walking under their own power, however, were wearing masks—per CDC guidelines—accompanied by parents or caretakers without masks.

How did we reach a point where people are readily demonstrating their willingness to sacrifice their children to authorities? Putting a mask on your child, while you enjoy the sweet freedom of breathing fresh air and interacting as a human, is like holding that child up naked to the maw of the beast and bowing your head and saying “here—you may have my child if you so desire”. I can imagine the saliva dripping from that maw, the slow grin of satisfaction at this fresh life being offered up for their enjoyment. “Ah yes”, says the beast, “we’ll start with a little injection”.

I have to imagine that most adults—or at least a good portion of adults—must be enjoying the feeling of not having to wear a mask in public. Perhaps they’re thinking “ahhhh, this is nice. Finally back to normal!”, and as they stretch their arms in satisfaction, maybe buy some tickets for a summer concert, and take the mask off of their rearview mirror, they turn to their children and say “Sorry bud, you’ve got to keep yours on for a while longer”.

What they’re really saying is that they are willing to jump through all of the hoops they are told to jump through, and they’re equally willing to shove their children through more hoops as instructed. The evaporating mask mandates and eased restrictions, to them, are proof that the authorities are to be trusted: “See? I knew that if we all just did as we’re told, we’d get through this”. Never mind that the kids still have to wear masks.

I watched two boys move about the store with masks on, their caretaker chatting to them about snacks, their eyes darting meekly about, their entire bodies loaded with hesitancy and trepidation. I saw a dad follow his three kids into the store, all wearing masks, and his face said he’s being a good citizen by making his kids wear their masks. I remember last summer watching a dad chew out his teenage boy for not putting his mask on right away as they made their way from one end of the beach to the other. I could see him casting about, desperate to demonstrate to all the other beach-goers that he wasn’t some ignorant Trump-voting redneck, that he was “following the science” and keeping his kids in line.

Where is the concern for the actual health and well-being of one’s children? Does that factor in at all? In order to believe that the coming vaccine is for their benefit, and thereby actually believe that it makes sense for them to be wearing masks now, you would have to believe that COVID-19 presents some sort of threat to their lives. Doesn’t everybody know that children are 10 or 15 times more likely to die of the flu? Was it really as easy as all major media outlets suddenly using the phrase “rising hospitalizations among adolescents” to convince parents that their kids need this vaccine and should keep wearing masks until they can get it?

I don’t think so. I don’t think most parents actually feel like COVID-19 is likely to kill their kids, and I don’t think they actually think the mask does a whole lot to protect them (although surely there are plenty that do). It’s hard to imagine that two pillars of the narrative thus far: that children are not at risk of serious COVID-19 disease (but may simply spread it to those who are), and that masks do little to protect the wearer (but may protect others should you unknowingly be infected), can have crumbled in the public consciousness so quickly. Masks on kids now directly contradicts both of these statements. But so says the CDC, and so the parents shrug their shoulders and shake their heads and say “sorry bud, you’ve got to keep wearing the mask”.

The sickest part of this is to imagine that these parents may very well have spent the past year explaining things to their children as follows: “There’s a flu going around bud, and lots of people are getting sick and dying”, to which the child might ask “Am I going to get sick and die?”, “No sweetie, you probably won’t, but if grandma were to catch the bug, she could die, so we’re all going to wear masks for a while to make sure that the bug doesn’t reach granny”. “When will it all be over?” “Well the scientists are making a vaccine that will protect granny, and so we’ve all just got to do our part to protect her until they finish making the vaccine and she can be safe”.

Well granny got the jab in January, Mom and Dad. What now? Now do you tell your children that they are suddenly at risk of dying, and so they also need the vaccine? Were you lying to them all of last year? Do you try and cling to your role as knowledgeable authority to your children, and explain why it’s now important that they get the vaccine themselves, or why it’s now important to wear a mask to protect yourself? Do you play a Dr. Fauci and claim that you were lying to them last year when you said it was to protect granny, and that they weren’t at risk, because you didn’t want to scare them? “I lied to you for your own good, bud. Now that granny’s safe I’m gonna level with you: you were actually at risk this whole time, I just didn’t want you to be scared”. Or do you just shrug your shoulders and explain that directions from adults don’t always make sense, that even Mommy and Daddy don’t always understand why the CDC or The School or The Government tells them to do certain things, but the important thing is to just do it, because those are the rules.

My sense is that this is the big takeaway for most families: whether explicitly stated or simply left for the sharp minds of children to put together, the message is that we follow rules no matter what, that rules don’t have to make sense, that in order to be good citizens we obey orders, and in the end everything is okay.

Great! Until it isn’t. Until you encourage your son to get the vaccine in order to attend basketball tournaments, and he gets blood clots in his brain and nearly dies. , or your daughter gets the shot before returning to college, suffers myocarditis, and dies. At that point, will the government that you trusted like a parent be there to make everything okay? I don’t think so. You will be told it was just a coincidence, that your healthy child would have developed those blood clots or heart inflammation anyway. The government will offer you nothing. You will not be able to sue the criminal companies that manufactured the vaccine. You will be left with nobody to blame but yourself.

Two New Studies that Make Me Scared of the COVID-19 Vaccine

The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alters barrier function in 2D static and 3D microfluidic in vitro models of the human blood-brain barrier:

Researchers used three different samples of human brain tissue to demonstrate all sorts of frightening effects of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, including increased inflammation and permeability of the blood brain barrier.

Makes you wonder why you’d want to take a “vaccine” that instructs your cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome:

The title says it all here. How bits of an RNA virus can be incorporated into human DNA. We have been assured that the mRNA vaccine, which codes for production of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, cannot be incorporated into human DNA. Here we see that RNA from the virus can…

An excellent analysis of these implications can be found here:

From Dr. Doug’s analysis:

…the RNA in the vaccine is a different animal than the RNA produced by the virus. The RNA in the vaccine is artificially engineered. First, it is engineered to stay around in your cells for a much longer time than usual (RNA is naturally unstable and degrades quickly in the cell). Second, it is engineered such that it is efficient at being translated into protein (they accomplish this by codon optimization). Increasing the stability of the RNA increases the probability that it will become integrated into your DNA; and, increasing the translation efficiency increases the amount of protein translated from the RNA if it does happen to become incorporated into your DNA in a transcriptionally active region of your genome. Theoretically, this means that whatever negative effects are associated with the natural process of viral RNA/DNA integration, these negative effects could be more frequent and more pronounced with the vaccine when compared to the natural virus.

In summary, there’s a proven pathway whereby the mRNA from COVID-19 vaccines can be permanently integrated into our DNA and thereby replicated forever. The vaccine mRNA instructs cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which we now see can cause brain inflammation and degradation of the blood brain barrier.

Fortunately, these products have been thoroughly tested for like 6 months, so there’s nothing to worry about!!

Good Men will Continue to do Nothing

From Clint Richardson:

Meanwhile, just as the alternative media has done for decades, Fox News will continue to report on all the horrific things government does while at the same time salivating over the Untied States flag and constitution, causing the same old dissociative, patriotic Stockholm Syndrome we are continuously paralyzed by. And we will continue to worship both the source of our legal, fictional “rights” and the source of our greatest tyranny, for they are the same source. Therefore, in other words, good men will continue to do nothing because they mistake government and its legal system as that which will ultimately protect and save them. Good men will not act because they do not see what is right in front of them, that their captor is their hero, that history is a lie designed to cause that cult-like worship of a legal fiction, an artificial person (corporation) pretending to be a legitimate government, whose sole purpose is to legally protect a political and scientistic army destined to destroy every part of Nature in order to recreate it in their own image.

Clint Richardson on January 26th, 2021, at his blog:

Is COVID fight right course of action?

By Emily Rooney-Bryan, a letter to the editor of the News and Citizen:

To the Editor:

I am a blessed to be from this place and of this place. I am grateful for the generations of Vermonters who have come before me, and those that will come after me. That being said, I came across this passage the other day and wanted to share it. I have been mulling over the use of fear as motivation for a long time now, and want to share my perspective with anyone who cares to hear it. Following is an excerpt from an old book entitled “Tao Te Ching.”

When a country is in harmony with the Tao,

the factories make trucks and tractors.

When a country goes counter to the Tao, warheads are stockpiled outside the cities.

There is no greater illusion than fear,

no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself,

no greater misfortune than having an enemy.

Whoever can see through all fear, will always be safe.

I have thought about this concept for a long time prior to knowing it as a passage from the Tao Te Ching. Particularly I have been concerned with the concept of using fear to motivate and whether goals can ever be reached from this position.

When we orient toward fear, we move away from something rather than to it. We create separation and resistance. There are times in life when fear is necessary, but those are instances of immediate survival. Fear is a very helpful and healthy response when running away from a lion for example, but we should be wary of engaging with this form of motivation for longer than it takes to outrun the lion.

If we run on fear for too long, we begin to degrade ourselves, our environment and our community, resulting in the destruction of the very life we so fearfully cling to. This passage is particularly important to me right now while we are embroiled in the COVID crisis, with fear swirling all around us.

We have been running from the lion for over a year, some of us longer. Where are we running to? What is our goal? What are we moving toward? Is it merely about self-preservation? Not dying? How many of us are perishing as a result of not dying? Has our fear of a virus and our subsequent war on it been in harmony with life? Are we safe in our double masks, quarantine bubbles, social distancing and slathering of anti-microbials?

Simply looking at these words we can begin to see how we have moved away from life in our effort to preserve it. Quarantine, mask, mandate, distance, isolate, anti. There is no room for life in these words; they are oppressive.

Are we any safer as a result of our war on disease? Are we healthier, happier and more secure, or are we slowly perishing? What if instead we oriented toward harmony and health? What if we stopped protecting ourselves and instead operated on what is good and life promoting? What if our response to COVID was to support more farmers, build soil and get people back to the land? What if instead of the trillions of dollars spent on vaccines, we put that money into nourishing food and access to the outdoors for everyone, cleaning up our waterways and removing air pollution? What if we helped those stuck in intergenerational poverty and disease rise up and become stewards of their own bodies rather than victims?

What if rather than defending against death we created opportunity for life? Ultimately death is inevitable, but a good life must be cultivated.

Emily Rooney-Bryan, Morrisville VT

Read the letter and leave a comment here:

Letter to the Editor Published in The News & Citizen

Many thanks to the editor of the News & Citizen, our Morrisville, VT-based free weekly newspaper, for publishing my letter in response to an op-ed that ran in their paper. Below is my letter, and below that, the op-ed to which I responded.

The memo that inspired the op-ed, and my subsequent reply, can be found here:

In response to “Capitalism’s day as dominant measure of social success is over,” A View From the Hill, Feb. 4, 2021, I’m afraid I don’t share Tamara Burke’s optimism about how modernizing regulatory review will put an end to capitalism — much less prove to be a boon to the common man.

Firstly, the memo itself, as quoted in Burke’s piece, lists economic growth as one of its priorities. How does one read this and infer that the capitalist model of endless economic growth — that Burke so rightfully critiques — will be challenged?

Secondly, to expect the industries responsible for polluting our planet, poisoning our bodies and guzzling our tax dollars to suddenly change course because of a memo that sports flowery language like “the interests of future generations” strikes me as hopelessly naive.

Regulatory agencies form a series of revolving doors with the most lucrative posts in the industries they are tasked with policing. Do we believe that suddenly, thanks to this document, they shall take up the cause of the common man?

While we may indeed be witnessing the end of capitalism as we know it, what rises in its stead is a shiny new brand of fascism, wherein the final vestiges of the free market are cast aside along with our privacy and civil liberties — anachronisms no longer viable in the new age of global pandemics and racial justice.

Continue reading

An Open Letter to Mary Cheh

Washington, D.C. city councilwoman Mary Cheh introduced a bill that would allow minors to consent to vaccination without parental knowledge:

Here is the email I just sent her way:

Dear Councilwoman Cheh,

I am alarmed and deeply troubled by the bill you recently introduced to the DC city council that would allow minors to consent to vaccination without parental permission.

While there are certainly arguments to be made for the benefits of vaccines, the long-term health consequences, and potentially serious side effects, of vaccinations have not been examined in any meaningful way.

Any decision around a child’s health must involve their parents or guardians. Only parents have the unique understanding and love for their children to understand what is right for their health. I believe that vaccines are not for everybody, and must be used only when the particular risks and benefits are carefully considered for each individual. This process simply must involve the parents! We do not allow children to vote, purchase drugs or alcohol, travel, drive cars, or go to the movies without adult supervision—we certainly cannot allow them to submit to potentially dangerous medical procedures!

I urge you to consider the special power of a mother’s intuition when it comes to knowing what’s best for her child, and understand how this bill denies the value of this intuition and limits the ability of a mother or father to care for their child.

The truth about viruses and disease will one day become clear, and I assure you that vaccines will no longer be seen as safe, effective, or even necessary. Are you quite sure that you want to be remembered as the person who helped grant the pharmaceutical industry backdoor access to our children’s bodies?

Should just one child’s life be compromised by a vaccine they receive without parental consent, are you prepared to live with that? I’m afraid that you won’t likely be allowed to forget it.

I understand that these are strange and desperate times, and that we’re all doing our best to cope with the madness we see in the world. Please, Ms. Cheh, let’s not forget our humanity in this moment. There are many problems worth addressing in our world today, but a parent’s right to care for their child is not one.

Gabriel Roberts
Craftsbury, VT


If you would like to share your concerns with Ms. Cheh, please email her at: , or call her office at: (202)-724-8062 or (202) 724-8118

I am aligned with the Left when I defend the COVID-19 strategy in my native Sweden. But here in the United States, when I defend very similar strategies implemented by the Republican governors of South Dakota and Florida, I am perceived as being aligned with the Right. It is a little weird. Among my infectious disease colleagues that favor an age-targeted strategy rather than lockdowns, most are left-wing progressives, while most of my Twitter followers are on the Right.

As a public health scientist, it is my duty to fight for public health independently of partisan politics. I hope that people from across the political divide can come together to end a lockdown that is so damaging to public health, and instead advocate for age-targeted counter measures that properly protect high-risk individuals. After all, we live in this world together, sharing both its beauties and its viruses.

Katherine Yih is a biologist and epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School where she specializes in infectious disease epidemiology, immunization, and post-licensure vaccine safety surveillance. Yih is also a founding member of the New World Agriculture and Ecology Group, a former and current member of Science for the People, and a long-time activist in farm labor and anti-imperialist struggles.

Read the full interview with Professor Yih and Martin Kulldorff here:

An Open Letter from Belgian Medical Doctors and Health Professionals

This pretty well sums it all up. An excellent letter detailing why the cure for COVID-19 has become far worse than the problem itself.  Read it below or click over here to read with access to all of the citations.


We, Belgian doctors and health professionals, wish to express our serious concern about the evolution of the situation in the recent months surrounding the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We call on politicians to be independently and critically informed in the decision-making process and in the compulsory implementation of corona-measures. We ask for an open debate, where all experts are represented without any form of censorship. After the initial panic surrounding covid-19, the objective facts now show a completely different picture – there is no medical justification for any emergency policy anymore.

The current crisis management has become totally disproportionate and causes more damage than it does any good.

We call for an end to all measures and ask for an immediate restoration of our normal democratic governance and legal structures and of all our civil liberties.

‘A cure must not be worse than the problem’ is a thesis that is more relevant than ever in the current situation. We note, however, that the collateral damage now being caused to the population will have a greater impact in the short and long term on all sections of the population than the number of people now being safeguarded from corona.

Continue reading

Older posts

© 2021 Gabriel Roberts

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑