They've banned lots of chemicals on data far more tenuous than this: COVID vaccines and population control. "That's not a bug, it's a feature!" Bill Gates

/

Extrapolating effects on humans from experiments with rats, even when using human-equivalent doses, is not a sure thing — what’s toxic to a rat may not be toxic to humans, and vice versa — but it’s certainly evidence that should be considered, not, as our COVID masters did, ignored.

COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility Significantly

David Strom:

“According to a peer-reviewed study published in Vaccines, mRNA COVID vaccines destroy 60% of female ovum supplies, which are non-renewable. 

“Granted, the studies were conducted in lab rats given human-equivalent doses of the vaccines, so the effects in human beings may be different, but this sure blows a hole in the claims that the COVID vaccines posed no risks to women's fertility. 

“The claims made by all those "experts" were made with absolutely no scientific evidence to back them up, and the evidence to the contrary is now overwhelming.”

Our findings suggest that both mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines may detrimentally impact ovarian reserve in rats, primarily through accelerated follicular loss and alterations in apoptotic pathways during folliculogenesis. Given these observations in a rat model, further investigations into the vaccines’ effects on human ovarian reserve are needed.

“It has long been known that women who were administered the COVID-19 vaccines suffered from menstrual changes--this effect was noticed early on and is now well-established--so it shouldn't be shocking that the vaccines had a detrimental impact on fertility itself. 

“Despite this fact, public health officials went on a campaign to reassure women that there was no danger at all to their fertility and that any suggestion that there might be was misinformation--misinformation that was, of course, censored for quite a while. 

“Oops. 

“Here’s what the study found in simple terms:”

Severe Destruction of Ovarian Reserve

  • Rats injected intramuscularly with a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine — at a human-equivalent dose — experienced a >60% reduction in primordial follicles, the foundational egg supply for future fertility (p < 0.001).

  • The inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac) also caused loss, but to a lesser extent.

  • The primordial follicle pool is finite and non-regenerating — females are born with all the eggs they will ever have.

  • Destruction of this pool is irreversible, leading to permanent fertility loss if translated to humans.

  • AMH, a hormone reflecting ovarian reserve, dropped significantly in the mRNA group — both in serum and in ovarian tissue (p < 0.001).

  • Lower AMH is associated with poor fertility outcomes and earlier menopause.

  • Increased expression of caspase-3 (a cell-death enzyme) and inflammatory markers like TGF-β1 and VEGF were found in vaccinated rats.

  • These biomarkers are linked to ovarian atresia, fibrosis, and long-term tissue damage.

  • Compared to the inactivated vaccine, the mRNA group had:

  • Fewer growing follicles (primary, secondary, antral, preovulatory)

  • More dying follicles (atretic)

  • Greater reductions in hormone markers of fertility

Strom:

“It can't be repeated enough that the claims that the vaccine wouldn't impact fertility were entirely unfounded by even the most cursory scientific study. No evidence at all. 

“Yet public health officials performed a full-court press to gaslight people into believing that they were "following the science," even though no science had been done, nor could it have been in the short period of time between the creation of the vaccine and its wide-scale distribution. 

“Worse, since the mRNA vaccines were fundamentally different in kind from prior vaccines, it wasn't even possible to extrapolate from prior experience to make a decent guess whether there was a danger. mRNA technology isn't remotely similar to traditional vaccines. 

I”f these findings indeed apply to humans, the implications for global fertility rates are profound. This kind of damage — to a woman’s lifelong egg supply — is biologically irreversible.

“Unfortunately, a recent study by Manniche et al indicates that these ovarian reserve destruction findings likely DO translate to humans. Among ~1.3 million Czech women aged 18–39, those vaccinated against COVID-19 had ~33% fewer successful pregnancies compared to unvaccinated women:

“While I doubt that any of the people pushing these vaccines knew that they would cause a loss in fertility--there was no data to go on or, as far as I know, a reason to predict that this would happen--we do have reason to believe that it wouldn't be seen as a tragedy by many of them. They are, as a class, if not all individually, in favor of reducing the population. This may explain their indifference to the possibility. 

“Or it could just be groupthink and excessive zeal. 

“Whatever the case, almost no childbearing age women were at risk from COVID itself, so there was no urgency to get the vaccine out to this cohort. By any reasonable cost/benefit calculation, it was a terrible idea. 

“One could even say a crime against humanity.”

RELATED:

Senate Report Alleges that Biden Officials Downplayed Covid Vaccine Myocarditis Risks

I inadvertently buried the lede: read this article that summarizes that Senate hearing. Devastating.

Little Rocket Man announces massive new hiring plan for North Korea's shipbuilding industry as hundreds of top positions are suddenly vacated

/

t’wasn’t meant to be

We knew this was coming when news of the mishap hit the airwaves Thursday:

Kim Jong Un left fuming after North Korea's new destroyer damaged in failed launch

North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un was left fuming this week when he attended the botched launch of a new 5,000-ton naval destroyer.

The launch, at the northeastern port of Chongjin, was intended to tout the communist nation’s military advancement, but ended in embarrassment for Kim after the ship slid off a ramp and became stuck, state media reported.

The flatcar failed to move alongside the ship, throwing it off balance and crushing parts of the ship’s bottom, North Korean news agency KCNA reported. Its stern slid down the launch slipway, while its bow section failed to leave the ramp.

The total extent of the damage was unclear and it isn’t known if there were any injuries.

North Korea did not release photos from the scene, although satellite imagery released by South Korea on Thursday indicated that the ship was lying on its side in the water after the failed launch.

According to KCNA, Kim, who was present at the ceremony on Wednesday, blamed military officials, scientists and shipyard operators for a "serious accident and criminal act caused by absolute carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism." 

Kim warned that the errors caused by the "irresponsibility of the relevant officials" would need to be investigated at a ruling Workers’ Party meeting slated for late June.

…. Moon Keun-sik, a navy expert who teaches at Seoul’s Hanyang University … suspected that the incident likely happened because North Korean workers aren't yet familiar with such a large warship and had been rushed to put it in the water.

It was the second naval destroyer the secretive nation launched in a month after Kim attended the successful launch of another 5,000-ton destroyer from Nampo, a port on the west coast of North Korea. Kim later watched missiles fired from the ship, with experts saying that it appeared to have been built with Russian technology.

A report by the North Korea-focused 38 North website assessed last week that the destroyer in Chongjin was being prepared to be launched sideways from the quay, a method that has rarely been used in North Korea. The report said the destroyer launched in Nampo, in contrast, used a floating dry dock.

And sure enough: all you young, ambitious Hermit Kingdom engineers and dockyard workers, put down your slide rules, put aside your lunch boxes, and start polishing your resumes.

North Korea vows to arrest those responsible for failed ship launch

North Korea has begun steps to arrest and investigate those responsible for a failed launch of its second naval destroyer this week

It’s a good bet that everyone involved, however peripherally, with this fiasco will not live to regret it.

Money, elections and judges (Updated)

/

Joe Biden's $93 Billion Scandal That No One's Talking About Yet

[T]he Department of Energy handed out a staggering $93 billion in loans and commitments during the final 76 days of the Biden administration, a figure that more than doubled the loan total from the previous 15 years combined.

Kennedy, in classic fashion, drilled in with precision. “The 76-day period you’re talking about, that’s the period between the time that President Trump was elected and President Biden left office. Is that right?” 

“That is correct,” Wright confirmed.

Kennedy didn’t mince words when he asked how any agency could properly vet such massive spending in such a short window. “How do you do due diligence on one loan, much less $93 billion?” he asked. 

Wright’s answer was damning.

“I think it’s probably pretty clear it wasn’t done in many cases,” he said. “There were commitments made from businesses that provided no business plan, no numbers about their own financial solvency, or how this project actually worked.”

The senator appeared almost incredulous and asked for clarity: “So, so you're telling me that the Department of Energy in the 76-day period before their boss was gonna leave office, gave or loaned money to, to entities that had no business plan?” 

“Correct,” Wright replied bluntly.

“No financials?” Kennedy asked.

“Correct,” Wright told him. “I've come in with great concern about how this institution, this great American institution, has been run and how American taxpayer money has been handled.”

Wright also acknowledged that his department is now conducting a sweeping review of those loans and grants. 

“We are… and yeah, my blood pressure is rising just thinking about what we have seen and what did happen at the department.”

“Does anybody ever come to the Department of Energy to get some of this free money and lie to you?” Kennedy asked. 

While Wright said he hadn’t experienced that yet, he said it was “a reasonable assumption that that has happened.”

Kennedy raised concerns about the nature of applicants who sought these funds, pointing out the potential for fraud. 

“Is it conceivable that some of these folks… came to you with a half-baked idea?” 

“Very conceivable,” Wright told him. “In fact, I’ve seen such plans… that didn’t have a business plan — just a promise to develop one later.”

What shocked Kennedy most wasn’t just the lack of oversight but the arrogance of it all: “They were spending money at the Department of Energy like it was ditchwater,” he said, noting the department’s ballooning budget. “Their budget went from $60 billion to $160 billion since fiscal year 2021.”

Wright didn’t defend the indefensible. He pledged to turn down wasteful projects and refer “the thieves” to the Department of Justice. “They shouldn’t be upset,” he said. “They should be ashamed.”

This “discovery” isn’t completely new; the DOE’s been trying to claw back billions of the dollars shoveled out by the Biden cabal between the election and eviction, it’s just that the size of that perfidy continues to grow as the investigation proceeds. Unfortunately, for so long as the Democrats’ judicial branch operates to thwart those efforts, the chances of ever recovering any of the money is nil, and, so far, it’s succeeding in doing just that: Here are three of dozens (hundreds?) of examples:

.

UPDATE: The Week in Pictures is up, and I see that someone beat me to the punch on the ATM angle. Worse, theirs is better than mine.

Who'd have guessed this was next?

/

VDH nails it:

Here’s that moral paragon conducting an indoctrination class at George Washington University in 2018:

Jake Tapper Stresses Moral Courage, Decency in Politics

The CNN anchor spoke about his new book, “The Hellfire Club,” and the media’s coverage of Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.

Mr. Tapper noted similarities in how the media covered both Mr. Trump’s rise and Mr. McCarthy’s rise. Journalists covered Mr. McCarthy without much analysis early on, publishing his baseless smears and inflammatory rhetoric without challenging the facts. The media also over-covered Mr. Trump’s political ascension in 2015, he said.

“You see the compromises come and eventually... you do see a lot of people just selling off little bits of their soul until there is nothing left,” Mr. Tapper said. “You take one step into the swamp, and then another, and then another, and the next thing you know, you’re up to your eyeballs in swamp water.”

Mr. Tapper credits Jeff Zucker, president of CNN, for acknowledging the wall-to-wall coverage of Mr. Trump’s early primary rallies was too much. He wishes Fox News and MSNBC leadership would come out and say the same.

Mr. Tapper sees himself as one of the tougher journalists who covered Mr. Trump as a candidate.

During a June 2016 interview, Mr. Tapper pushed Mr. Trump on his assertion that a Hispanic judge could not fairly preside over a case against Trump University because the candidate touted plans to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. It was the last time he would interview the future president.

“Could I have been tougher? Yeah, I’m sure that there were times I could have been tougher, but I feel like I did a lot of tough interviews,” he said. “I feel like if my children study this era the way I studied the ’50s, I think I’m going to look OK.”

His children may think he was courageous and brave during his career, but history will judge him, at best, as a mewling lickspittle tool of his Democrat overlords, and at worst, a co-conspirator.

Because electricity is generated from hot unicorn farts and NPR mouth-breathers' emissions, not natural gas and coal

/

One New York politician got the message:

And this one just contributed her own pile of excrement:

A guaranteed prescription for backyard neighborhood fun

How can the NYT editors sleep at night, knowing there is just SO much to worry about, so many questions to be asked and answered?

/

NYT Frets: How Will Bloody Hands And Dead Bodies Impact the 'Pro-Palestinian' Extremists?

Ed Morrissey:

Yes, yes, this is precisely the question on everyone's minds before the victims of the assassin chanting "Free Palestine" have even been buried. Americans watched in horror the last couple of days with the question How will this impact the mostly non-violent "Globalize the Intifada" movement dominating their thoughts.

At least, that's what dominates the minds of moral idiots. And the New York Times. But I repeat myself.

This is their actual headline today, at a moment when the unfolding events around the assassination of two Israeli embassy workers by a pro-Hamas assassin didn't even make their digital front page:

….[T]he killings of the Israeli embassy workers, Yaron Lischinsky, 30, who grew up in Israel and Germany, and Sarah Milgrim, 26, who was from Kansas, cast a harsh spotlight on the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States and the impact even peaceful protests might be having on attitudes against people connected to Israel.

The killings also risked painting all pro-Palestinian activists, the vast majority of whom do not engage in violence, with the same brush, which could lead to further repression of their movement. The tragedy occurred just as the movement has been trying to sustain attention in the United States on a blockade by Israel that has put Gaza residents at risk of widespread starvation.

The late Norm MacDonald was a comedian, not a NYT reporter, and as such, he was prophetic, not pathetic.

From his 2016 FaceBook post:

Greenwich's Democrat delegation teams up with the rest of their party to bring state-imposed low-income housing projects to Greenwich

/

proud sponsors of the latest attack on Greenwich, because this is who they are, this is what they do

Riverside’s Mike Bernstein has been sounding the alarm on this for at least the past week after the Democrats sprung their surprise, and it sounds like it’s finally getting the attention it deserves.

However, I checked just now, and although last night’s vote was postponed, it wasn’t cancelled, and these horrible people will be back in session Tuesday to try to ram it through. I have a pdf of HB 5002, but I can’t figure out a way to post it here. It’s as bad as you’d expect.

Here’s Greenwich Sentinel’s coverage and summary of the bill:

Housing Bill to Decimate Local Control Lands Unexpectedly at 92 Pages, Vote Called within 24 Hours

The housing bill that started as a sentence became a novel overnight.

With less than 24 hours’ notice, Connecticut lawmakers were handed a 92-page substitute amendment to House Bill 5002 late Wednesday night—transforming a one-paragraph placeholder bill into one of the most consequential housing reforms in recent state history. At press time, the vote was expected Thursday, May 22, in the House of Representatives.

The legislation, which started the session as a vague proposal to study homelessness, now contains sweeping mandates on local zoning, state oversight powers, and two key policy frameworks: Fair Share housing quotas and Transit-Oriented Development (Live, Work, Ride). And local leaders in Greenwich are making it clear—they’re not just concerned. They’re furious.

“This is a total assault on Connecticut’s towns in terms of zoning and a major challenge to the concept of Home Rule,” said State Representative Tina Courpas (R–Greenwich). “I will make every effort to kill it in the House.”

Courpas is also preparing a slate of amendments aimed at removing the bill’s most damaging provisions. “The supermajority has the votes to pass anything and everything—and maybe this bill,” she said. “But I’m focused on defending our town.”

The final bill, LCO 8974, was quietly uploaded after business hours on Wednesday. Until then, the working version of HB 5002 remained a single paragraph—giving the public no opportunity to testify on the sweeping policies it now includes.

Adding to the tension in Greenwich: Two sections of the final bill were originally authored by the town’s own Democratic State Representatives, Stephen Meskers and Hector Arzeno.

Section 1 mirrors HB 6946, introduced by Reps. Meskers and Arzeno, and requires local Housing Authorities to submit detailed compliance data to the state.

Section 2 adopts the language of HB 6534, also theirs, which strips the First Selectman of authority to appoint Housing Authority members.

That contribution has not gone unnoticed.

“I think it’s an absolutely horrible bill that they put in,” said First Selectman Fred Camillo. Reps. Meskers and Arzeno “are on record last year when they ran talking about how they would defend local control, and yet the worst bill in the history of the state is up for a vote and they are a part of it.”

For Camillo, the bill doesn’t just threaten home rule—it directly undermines the work of Greenwich Communities, the town’s housing authority.

“This particular bill adds more bureaucratic red tape and does nothing to protect local control of zoning,” he said. “And it’s a slap in the face to our Housing Authority, which has actually done a terrific job at producing more affordable housing and improving the ones we already have.”

Greenwich Communities has been recognized as one of the top-performing housing authorities in the state. Under the new bill, critics say, it would be reduced to a bureaucratic agency executing state mandates—stripped of its ability to plan based on Greenwich’s unique infrastructure and needs.

“This bill will make it just another bureaucratic red tape organization,” Camillo warned.

State Representative Meskers did not responded to a request for comment. State Representative Hector Arzeno texted the following as of press time: “Let’s see if passes the House!!!!” We will update the story as it unfolds.

What HB 5002 Would Do

  • The amended bill includes:

  • Section 10: Statewide “Fair Share” housing quotas assigned to each town.

  • Section 5(b)(11): Requires as-of-right approval of 2–9 unit “middle housing” on all commercial-zoned land.

  • Section 6: Eliminates town-set parking minimums, replacing them with developer-submitted “needs assessments.”

  • Section 9: Requires state-approved local housing plans in newly established “priority housing development zones.”

  • Section 19: Grants the Attorney General power to sue towns over zoning outcomes alleged to have “discriminatory effects.”

  • Other provisions include portable sanitation infrastructure for the homeless (Section 7), a ban on hostile architecture (Section 11), and the creation of regional stormwater and waste management roles (Section 15).

Here’s an AI summary David Bernstein provided FWIW:

The document you provided, LCO No. 8974, is a 2025 amendment to House Bill No. 5002 titled “An Act Concerning Housing and the Needs of Homeless Persons.” This amendment proposes a comprehensive overhaul to Connecticut’s housing statutes with numerous changes and additions. Key highlights include:

1. Zoning and Affordable Housing Changes

    •    Mandatory as-of-right development of “middle housing” on commercially zoned lots (Sec. 5(b)(11)).

    •    Prohibition of minimum off-street parking requirements unless supported by a needs assessment for large developments (Sec. 6).

    •    Zoning regulations may no longer impose hard caps on multifamily housing units, nor deny applications based on “neighborhood character” unless clearly defined (Sec. 5(d)(8)–(10)).

2. Priority Affordable Housing Plans

    •    Municipalities in the top 80% of fiscal wealth (Adjusted ENGL per capita) must create and submit priority affordable housing plans identifying how they will develop their assigned number of affordable units (Sec. 9(e)–(h)).

    •    These plans must detail zoning changes and land allocations to meet goals.

3. Fair Share Housing Allocation

    •    Establishes a “fair share” methodology for distributing affordable housing development responsibilities across towns based on fiscal capacity and housing need (Sec. 10).

    •    No town can be required to add more than 20% of its current dwelling units as affordable units.

4. Tenant and Housing Authority Governance Reforms

    •    Requires housing authority reports detailing inventory, rents, and affordability data (Sec. 1).

    •    Alters how commissioners of housing authorities are appointed and trained (Sec. 3).

    •    Prohibits housing authority commissioners from holding other municipal office (Sec. 3(5)).

5. Anti-“Hostile Architecture” Rule

    •    Bans municipalities from constructing or maintaining hostile architecture designed to deter unhoused individuals from resting in public spaces (Sec. 11).

6. Pilot Programs for Homeless Services

    •    Establishes portable shower and laundry pilot programs in at least three municipalities (Sec. 7).

    •    Authorizes direct rental assistance pilot programs through nonprofits, with safeguards to prevent loss of benefits (Sec. 13).

7. Middle Housing Development Grants

    •    Creates a grant program for middle housing development targeted at towns with fewer than 50,000 residents (Sec. 12).