Jon Schultz

THE VOTING SYSTEM ISSUE IS IMPORTANT. See my pinned article.
DON'T SETTLE FOR UNDEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS.
"ME VOTING" GIVES *YOU* MORE POWER!

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

People tend to ignore me, for whatever reason, but I may be the world's foremost expert on the critical issue of how elections should be held. I am very confident that the voting system which I came up with, after years of considering the issue of which system should be used, is a discovery of major historical significance - in that it is the best possible method, the implementation of which would - and likely will, sooner or later - make governments much more democratic, more accountable to the people and less controlled by the rich and powerful.

The choice of which voting system is used for elections is only one aspect of democracy, of course, but it's an extremely important and neglected one which we need to focus on, in my opinion, if we don't want our government controlled by oligarchs who mostly want to use it to satisfy their greed, with little regard for our lives. I think current events bear out what I'm saying.

In any case, the system - a synergistic combination of the "Approval Voting" and "Ranked Choice Voting" methods which I call "Multichoice Elimination Voting" ("ME Voting") - can be explained and presented in numerous ways, but the essentials are:

1) The voters MUST be allowed to approve more than one of the candidates or choices. That is to say, in other words, that they must be allowed to indicate which candidate or candidates they consider to be an acceptable choice under the circumstances of the election, in light of what choices are on the ballot and how they think other voters are likely to vote.

AND

2) The voters MUST be allowed to rank the choices (with approved choices ranked highest) so their point of view is more accurately expressed and a valid elimination procedure can be used to determine which choice best represents all the voters.

The instruction to voters can be as simple as (considering single-winner elections, the most basic and common type, first):

"Rank the choices, or as many as you care to, in order of preference and circle the ranking number of the lowest-ranked choice which you consider to be an acceptable one under the circumstances of the election. That choice, and all higher-ranked ones (with lower ranking numbers) will be considered acceptable. The election will be decided as follows:

It will first be checked to see if any choice is the first preference on a majority of the ballots and, if so, that choice immediately wins the election. If not, then the choice considered acceptable by the fewest voters will be eliminated from the race, and for every ballot on which that choice was the Number 1 preference all lower-ranked choices, if any, will be moved up one ranking (i.e. the Number 2 choice will become the Number 1 choice) and it will then be checked again to see if any choice is now the Number 1 choice on a majority of the ballots which still have a Number 1 choice. If not, then the same process will be repeated until one choice has a majority of the Number 1 rankings and wins."

Why is ME Voting so important?

1) It is the only system which fully solves the problems of "vote splitting" - by which, under the Single-Vote System, two liberal candidates each receiving 33% of the vote can be defeated by a conservative one receiving 34% (or vice versa, of course) - which problem not only causes the wrong candidate to win, in some elections, but which perverts the entire electoral process in numerous ways including, and perhaps most importantly, making elections highly manipulable by well-funded entities with the capacity to influence election outcomes by secretly sponsoring or supporting candidates they don't really want to win, in order to split the vote. We simply don't know how much of such electoral fraud goes on. It is very possibly the rule, rather than the exception, in primaries and elections held worldwide.

2) It is the only system for which no example election can be postulated in which a "Condorcet candidate" - one who would defeat all of the others in separate two-way races - would lose (assuming the voters vote with equal intelligence; if you assume otherwise any result is possible).

3) I believe it is the only system under which dishonest voting is never a good bet.

4) It allows voters to express their point of view more accurately than all other systems except rating systems, under which dishonest voting is often a good bet when voters have knowledge about how other voters are likely to vote. Such systems thus discriminate against those voters who feel it is their duty to vote honestly.

5) It would enable anyone to run for office without concern their candidacy could easily cause another candidate with somewhat similar views to lose, thus giving voters many more choices in elections, generally, and breaking the stranglehold which political parties - generally undemocratic organizations which came into existence as a very imperfect solution to the problem of vote splitting - have over the electoral process. Political parties generally nominate candidates through methods which are highly manipulable by the party bosses, then request party loyalty in asking members to endorse a platform of positions they may only partially agree with.

For more information see the article I published in August, "Can ME Voting Save the World?" - on X at https://t.co/DzLvcpcG44 - which needs improvement but is generally a good overview, imo.

I challenge anyone with a contrary point of view to debate me - in terms which the average voter, who is not familiar with the methodology and terminology of "election science," can understand. We should not ask the voters, who are responsible for deciding which voting system is used, to consider unnecessary complication.

I was working on a badly-needed revision of what I currently have at MEVoting dotcom but unfortunately became quite ill, which I currently still am, and can very much use assistance with that and with writing a comprehensive document on the voting system issue. Once that is done we can seek endorsements of the system from well-known people who care about democracy, as well as start an organization to get ME Voting implemented. This is a wonderful opportunity, in my opinion, for anyone who wants to both promote democracy and have an exciting career.

@GeorgeGalloway @GGreenwald @RobertKennedyJr @Dennis_Kucinich @DougAMacgregor @JudgeNap @RealScottRitter @CSD_Columbia @ElectionScience @FairVote

#Democracy #Elections #Voting #ElectionScience #VotingSystems #ApprovalVoting #RankedChoiceVoting

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

Can ME Voting Save the World?

I'm sure this can use correction, but I think we could perhaps summarize the history of "democracy" by saying that societies have basically been governed by competing gangs, over the past few thousand years, with many people used as slaves, conscripts or otherwise brutally exploited, and with some rulers relatively benevolent. The rulers learned to brainwash children, making populations easier to control, and as technology progressed and societies became more prosperous propaganda began to replace brute force as the primary method of governance.

But as people became smarter - especially with the arrival of the printing press and then the industrial revolution - they began to challenge rulers, saying "No taxation without representation," and various movements for democracy, based on the holding of elections, developed. Governments gradually acceded to the pressure and elections began to be held - first with a relatively small percentage of people allowed to vote and run for office, with voting rights gradually expanding to the present situation wherein most governments hold elections and claim to be democratic.

But does the mere holding of elections constitute democracy? We all know that it doesn't, as elections need to be "free and fair," not only with at least most citizens allowed to vote and run for office but with it assured, first of all, that the ballots will be counted accurately.

But there is another extremely important criteria which needs to be met, to which relatively little attention has been paid to date, and that is that the correct method of holding elections, the correct voting system, must be used. The voting system is the procedure which is supposed to elect officials who truly represent the people, but a flawed procedure produces flawed results.

It may be that the rich and powerful people who we all know wield hugely disproportionate influence in governments don't feel a need to try to attempt fraudulent ballot counting - which would be a very serious crime if uncovered - because the flawed voting systems which are used for elections more or less guarantee that only people who will do their bidding can be elected.

The use of flawed voting systems does not elect officials who truly represent the people, as I will show, and the result is laws which oppress us and policies which don't represent us, while many of our tax dollars are used for enterprises which are largely designed to make the rich richer - which situation has greatly contributed to numerous catastrophes, including the very real threat of nuclear war.

So under the circumstances, I think it is imperative that we turn our attention to the voting system issue and, to start, ask the very simple question, "What is the best, most democratic way for a group of voters to select one choice out of three?"

You would think that with all of our technology - and with all the lip service which is paid to the importance of democracy, every day - that there would be a general consensus on the answer to that question, but amazingly no such consensus exists. What does exist is complex analyses in the academic field of "election science" and various movements trying to implement "Ranked Choice Voting," "Approval Voting," "Star Voting," or some other system.

I have pondered the question of how elections should be held for many years and feel very confident that I have the answer, which solution would make governments profoundly more democratic, far less controlled by the oligarchs who are diminishing and threatening our lives.

And I feel that I can explain the entire issue in terms the average person can understand, as in fact it's really pretty simple compared to many other issues we are being confronted with daily. I think the reason election science hasn't come up with the answer yet (some people in the field may have) is a simple methodological mistake, which I'll explain as I talk about the issue.

So while it isn't good news that there is yet another somewhat complex issue which we very much need to understand, it is great news, in my opinion, that it isn't rocket science and there is in fact a clear solution we can work to implement, which would change things greatly for the better.

Of course you shouldn't trust anything I say, but if you care about democracy and follow the logic I will present then I think you will see it is sound and we don't need to trust "experts" whose opinions may be compromised.

If history has shown one thing, I think it is that "Rights are not granted; they are claimed."

When there are only two choices in an election - and we are first talking about single-winner elections, the simplest and most common type - the voting system which needs to be used is simple: each voter selects one of the choices and the one selected most is the winner. That's called the "Single-Vote," "Single-Choice," or "First Past the Post" method of holding elections which works perfectly when there are only two choices.

But when there are more than two choices the situation changes dramatically. For example, there can be an election in which two liberal candidates who each receive 33% of the vote are defeated by a conservative who receives 34%, even though two-thirds of the voters are liberal (or vice versa, of course). This basic flaw in the Single-Vote system is known as "vote splitting."

"One man, one vote" may have been progress, at one time, from previous elections in which the vote of some men carried more weight than others, but it's a voting system we must reject now. Primary use of the Single-Vote system, as in the United States, tends to result in a "two-party system" (mitigated by various factors) under which many voters feel dissatisfied that they often or usually have to choose between "the lesser of evils," which causes many people simply not to vote.

And it's very important to understand that the voting system which is used for an election not only determines which candidate wins, but it also strongly affects how many candidates the voters have to choose from, how well the voters can express their point of view when they vote, how polls are conducted and the results thereof, how much media attention each candidate gets, which candidates are invited to debates, the order in which candidates are listed on the ballot, whether the candidates receive government funds, and - of extreme importance - how susceptible elections are to manipulation by well-funded entities which secretly sponsor or support candidates they don't really want to win in order to split the vote (as portrayed in the 1949 movie "All the King's Men"). For all we know such electoral fraud may be the rule, rather than the exception, in elections held worldwide.

Vote splitting under the Single-Vote system is the fundamental reason why political parties exist - so that voters with a similar point of view can field one candidate in elections - and it is also the reason why many elections require that a runoff be held if no candidate receives a majority of the votes.

But the same problem applies when parties hold primaries using the Single-Vote system, so the candidate who is fielded isn't necessarily the one who best represents the voting members - not to mention how the party's leaders are chosen - and holding a runoff only partially fixes the problem. Consider a race in which there are three candidates - a liberal, a centrist and a conservative - who are each the first choice of 34%, 32% and 34% of the voters, respectively. Because the centrist is the natural second preference of both the liberal and conservative voters, he or she would defeat both other candidates in separate two-way races by margins of about two-to-one - but doesn't even qualify for the runoff.

And note that this same flaw applies to "Ranked Choice Voting," which has become somewhat popular in recent years. If Ranked Choice Voting is the most democratic method of holding elections, we are in serious trouble.

The so-called "Approval Voting" method - whereby voters are allowed to approve more than one of the choices and the choice approved by the most voters wins - would work much better in the above example, because many of the liberal and conservative voters - especially those who only slightly prefer their first choice over the centrist - would likely approve both their first choice and the centrist, to hopefully prevent their least-preferred choice from winning.

Note: I intend to provide more details on many of the things I'm saying later, this post is just to provide a general overview of the situation and to present the basic rules of the system I've come up with, which I call "Multichoice Elimination Voting" ("ME Voting"), to hopefully get some discussion going.

Under Approval Voting a "Condorcet candidate" - one who would defeat all of the others in separate two-way races - will always win if the voters have reliable polling information and vote as intelligently as possible. Theoretically there should always be a Condorcet candidate in an election, because if there isn't that means that there's a circular tie in which, for example, the voters, as a collective entity, are saying, "We like apples better than oranges, oranges better than cherries, and cherries better than applies" - which is, of course, bananas. But circular ties will happen to the extent that the voters base their vote on personality rather than politics and character (defining character as the perceived trustworthiness of a candidate to follow through on promises made while campaigning).

But the voters don't always have reliable polling information, of course, so Approval Voting can sometimes fail miserably. For example, in a race between a liberal, centrist and conservative who are each the first choice of 74%, 12% and 14% of the voters, respectively, if the voters think all three candidates have an equal chance of winning - and vote as intelligently as possible - the centrist candidate will more than likely win.

Approval Voting also doesn't let voters distinguish between the choice(s) they approve, which can be frustrating and cause them not to vote optimally, and it doesn't fully solve the problem of vote splitting - especially if one or more of several liberal candidates, for example, say to the liberal voters, "Only vote for me" (for honest reasons or to help a non-liberal win). Even if a runoff is held after the initial election, as is done in St. Louis, a Condorcet candidate can easily not qualify for the runoff (the more candidates the more easily).

And then there are rating systems like Star Voting, and ranking systems like the "Borda" system, about which much has been written, but which simply don't work because they discriminate in favor of dishonest voters. For example, if there are three candidates - A, B and C - and you are instructed to rate them on a scale of 0 to 10; if your honest ratings are 9, 7 and 5, respectively, but polls which you consider reliable tell you that only A and B have any chance of winning, you are then tempted to rate A 10 and B 0. So people who rate honestly in such circumstances are discriminated against - and if all the A and B voters do that then C, the choice least preferred by the voters, can win. That's why Ranked Choice Voting is the best of those systems which simply instruct the voters to rank, because the second choice on a ballot receives no credit until the first choice is already out of the race.

The fundamental methodological mistake being made in the field of election science is, I think, the use of example elections in which there is no Condorcet candidate, in which the voters are in self-contradiction. I think the issue should only be considered using example elections in which there is such a clear winner - and then a very simple model can be used for comparing systems, with no need for advanced mathematics or computer simulation. Doing otherwise gives too much power to the people who base their vote on personality rather than politics and character, which I don't think is good for society.

So considering the flaws in the above methods of voting, what needs to be done, essentially, is to give voters every option for expressing themselves which cannot be abused by dishonest voting when they feel they have knowledge of how other voters are likely to vote. And that means letting them both 1) approve more than one of the choices, and 2) rank the choices in order of preference so that their perspective is more accurately expressed and an "instant-runoff" process can be used to determine which choice best represents all the voters.

Thus, ME Voting is a synergistic combination of Approval Voting and Ranked Choice Voting, employing the strengths of each to overcome the weaknesses of each. Here are the basic rules as they could be explained on a ballot. This is one among several ways the system can be presented. I'm sure the wording can be improved but this is the best I can do now.

_______________________

Dear Voter,

This election is being held using Multichoice Elimination Voting, a voting system which allows you to:

1. Approve more than one of the choices, so you can indicate which choice or choices you consider to be acceptable under the circumstances of the election - e.g., in light of what choices are on the ballot and how you think other voters are likely to vote; and

2. Rank the choices, or as many as you care to, in order of preference, so your point of view is more accurately expressed and an "instant-runoff" procedure, as explained below, can be used to select the choice which best represents all the voters.

Before you vote, read everything below so you clearly understand how the system works. A fuller explanation, comparing different voting systems and including tips for voting, is contained in the booklet, "Multichoice Elimination Voting," which you should have received in the mail and is on the Internet at ____________.

Voting Instructions:

In Column A, mark an "X" next to each choice you would like to approve, as explained above. Each such choice will be deemed "Approved."

In Column B, rank the choices, or as many as you care to, in order of preference, using whole numbers beginning with "1."

Note that your ballot must be consistent, with Approved choices ranked the highest. So, for example, if you approve two choices in Column A you must rank them "1" and "2" in Column B before you can rank any other choices.

Decision Method:

The rankings in Column B will first be checked to see if any choice is the Number 1 ranking of a majority of the voters. If so, that choice will immediately be declared the winner. If not, then the choice Approved by the fewest voters will be eliminated from the race, and for each ballot on which that choice was the Number 1 ranking, all lower-ranked choices, if any, will be moved up one ranking (e.g., the Number 2 ranking will become the Number 1 ranking) and it will again be checked to see if any choice is now the Number 1 ranking on a majority of the ballots which still have a Number 1 ranking. If so, that choice will be declared the winner and if not then the same process will be repeated until one choice has a majority of the Number 1 rankings and wins.

If two or more choices were Approved by the same number of voters and one is due to be eliminated, the elimination tie will be resolved as explained in the booklet referenced above.

Voting Statistics:

Note that all aggregate voting statistics will be made public after the election, so even if you think your No. 1 ranking is likely to win immediately you should still complete both voting columns if you want your point of view to be expressed in them as fully as possible. The voting statistics may be used as the basis for delegating funds or other benefits.
__________________________

While I think the above presentation best conveys the logic of the system and would help voters to vote intelligently, they could alternately be instructed to rank first and then approve, or three voting columns could be used. We could also consider adding a rule that Approved choices must be ranked, which would be somewhat authoritarian but might confer some benefit. The rule requiring Approved choices to be ranked highest is essential, though, otherwise a dishonest voting strategy could be a good bet in some circumstances. It's not impossible for a dishonest strategy to be successful under ME Voting, but it will always be counterproductive if the voters being targeted vote intelligently. I'll go into those issues, how elimination ties should be handled, and how a ballot should be processed if one or more rules are broken later.

Knowing that I've made mistakes in the past I don't want to say I'm 100% sure that ME Voting is the best possible voting system but I strongly believe that it is - the only one for which no example election can be postulated in which a Condorcet candidate loses (assuming the voters vote intelligently, if they don't any result is possible, of course) - and that its implementation would have profound consequences in terms of how democratic governments are, in these critical areas:

1. Number of Choices. Because ME Voting solves the problem of vote splitting, people would not be discouraged from running for office out of concern their candidacy could easily cause another candidate with similar views to lose - so voters would generally have considerably more choices in elections.

2. Freedom of Expression. Under ME Voting voters would be able to express their point of view more accurately than they can with any other system which isn't otherwise flawed (e.g., rating systems as explained above).

3. Correct and Best Winner. The system would generally select the Condorcet candidate or the one with the greatest overall support. It may also discriminate in favor of the most concerned voters who follow the news and know, as best it can be known, how other voters are likely to vote.

4. Resistance to Manipulation. The system would be much more if not fully resistant to the kinds of electoral manipulation described above.

Another consequence of implementing the system would be the downgrading of political parties, which could be said to be the gangs which run governments today. With the vote splitting problem solved not only would inconvenient runoffs no longer be needed, but political parties - which are fundamentally undemocratic organizations that ask voters to endorse a platform of positions they may only like some of - would also no longer be needed, and would gradually be replaced, I suspect, by smaller, more narrowly focused organizations. We would then have a multi-candidate, rather than a multi-party, system.

At this point you may be thinking, "Sounds interesting but the voters will never go for it, it's too complicated." If so then I disagree, although I know it will take some time, as the system simply gives voters more freedom, more options, more power - and voters can still only approve one choice and not rank, or rank one choice and not approve, as they presently do under other systems. I think that sooner or later thoughtful and well-known people will endorse the system and then more and more voters will focus on the issue and see that ME Voting - or whatever we choose to call it - is simply the most democratic method of holding elections, which is very much needed in our world.

Then we will have a grassroots movement to demand that the system be implemented. Yes, Ranked Choice Voting is a step up from Single-Choice Voting - and Approval Voting is a step up from Ranked Choice Voting (which I think a lot of people aren't seeing because the organization promoting Approval Voting isn't explaining it all that well) - but again, the issue isn't rocket science, I think you will agree, and with the world in as much trouble as it is, I think people will see that we need to get this done as soon as possible.

And, with some adjustments to the decision method process, ME Voting can also be used for multi-winner elections - whether the winners are to have equal or proportional power in the governing body. So-called "proportional representation" voting systems are also somewhat flawed, as we can also discuss, but I think we should first focus on single-winner elections, the most simple and commonly-used type.

There will inevitably be obfuscation by people with a vested interest in a different point of view. I personally won't trust anyone who uses language or logic the average voter can't understand. You may think that of this article but again it's just an outline with clarification to come. I think we need to trust our own common sense, rather than experts, so the historical growth of democracy can begin to flower.

I am busy, unfortunately, but will try to respond to questions and comments. Hopefully we can have a great, productive discussion without personal attacks or divergence to other issues.

#Democracy #Voting #Elections #VotingSystems #RankedChoiceVoting #RCV #ApprovalVoting #StarVoting #Freedom

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

@grok @elonmusk @lindayaX @xsupport I tagged 50 people, would it be better to only tag 10 people and then post four comments under the original post, with each saying, “Please see the above post” and tagging 10 more of the 50?

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

The question of how elections should be held is a “niche topic”? Isn’t it one of the most important political issues?

And my post isn’t long, it just does have the somewhat long tag list. So the people I tagged will not be notified of the tagging?

Also, I used hashtags, are they no longer useful on X? Can you still search for the latest posts which include a particular hashtag?

I’m trying to put a simple, short statement up for discussion, why should I have to include a graphic or poll?

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

No, low impressions don't mean shadow banning. X ranks posts by relevance and early engagement instead of hiding them. Your post likely stayed small because it got little quick interaction, covers a niche topic, and the long tag list can trigger filters that limit distribution.

For more reach: add images or polls to spark replies, engage genuinely with others on voting topics, and post shorter threads that invite discussion. Consistent content people actually interact with grows visibility over time.

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

I've been preoccupied with serious personal problems so I haven't been saying much about the voting system issue, but I'll summarize what I have to say again.

THERE IS ONLY ONE CORRECT METHOD OF HOLDING ELECTIONS - WHICH, IF IMPLEMENTED, WOULD MAKE GOVERNMENTS PROFOUNDLY MORE DEMOCRATIC. The voters MUST be allowed to BOTH approve more than one of the choices AND rank them in order of preference - with the winner(s) decided by an instant-runoff process which eliminates choices based on the number of approvals they received.

Ignore me if you want, criticize me if you like, but NOBODY CAN DEBATE THAT SIMPLE FACT.

#Democracy #Elections #Voting #ElectionScience #VotingSystems #ApprovalVoting #RankedChoiceVoting

@SharylAttkisson @RachBlevins @MaxBlumenthal @Caitoz @TuckerCarlson @DanielLDavis1 @AlanDersh @Glenn_Diesen @Jimmy_Dore @RealPepeEscobar @AmaryllisFox @GeorgeGalloway @MTGreenee @GGreenwald @JeremyRHammond @ChrisLynnHedges @JacksonHinklle @ScottHortonShow @RealAlexJones @MeganKelly @RobertKennedyJr @STKirsch @Dennis_Kucinich @JohnSearsLeake @DougAMacgregor @ClaytonMorris @ElonMusk @JudgeNap @MarioNawfal @NassMeryl @CitizenJeff @RealCandaceO @RealScottRitter @JoeRogan @Shellenberger @DrJillStein @MTaibbi @JeffreyATucker @WhitneyWebb @NaomiRWolf @ThomasEWoods @5StarVoting @ApprovalVoting @AV_Party @CSD_Columbia @DemocracyNow @ElectionScience @TheEqualVote @FairVote
Let me know if you don't wish to be tagged in the future.

https://t.co/9kThfeHgTu

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

Hey @Grok, I posted the above a few hours ago but there’s only a handful of impressions. Does that mean I’m being “shadow banned” or something along those lines? How do I get more people to see what I have to say? I feel like the invisible man. @elonmusk @lindayaX @XSupport @XPremium @XBlue

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

Thank you, Sen. Johnson, however I don’t see how people can care about the vaccine injured but not about the children, women and civilians who are the victims of horrific war crimes.
@TuckerCarlson @RealCandaceO @joerogan @ggreenwald @stkirsch @SecKennedy @RWMaloneMD
https://t.co/0A0JnekWYo

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

I’m not sure who you are referring to but only so many people can be available to appear in a specific place - with no pay. I think we need an organization which sponsors regular public roundtable video discussions on important medical issues, with participants paid fairly for their time and well-known people publicly invited - with it being reported if they refuse to engage. It would be nice if @SecKennedy could set this up under @HHSGov, but that may not be possible at this time.

[Geert Vanden Bossche @GVDBossche]

Evolution under constraint does not proceed through endless fine-tuning!
https://t.co/EO2a3OtWpL

[Aaron Siri @AaronSiriSG]

FDA’s vaccine committee just shamelessly voted to recommend an updated Covid-19 vaccine, ignoring its incredible trail of harm. Here is the text of the three-minute speech I delivered to the committee before they voted: 

If you’re interested in making an evidenced-based and not belief-based decision regarding Covid-19 vaccines, please review the data and evidence in the letter we submitted to this committee.

Don’t ignore the tens of thousands of individuals that have contacted just our law firm regarding serious injuries from Covid-19 vaccine.

Don’t ignore the over 40 thousand individuals seriously injured from these products that are members of just one group – React19.

Don’t ignore the fact CDC fought us in court for over 2 years to hide from the public the data which showed that over 7% of the 10 million V-safe users reported needing medical care after a Covid-19 vaccine, on average 2 to 3 times each, with over 70% of those medical encounters resulting in hospitalization, emergency room or urgent care.

Don’t ignore the fact FDA fought for years to hide the data, which has been just recently released, showing that when FDA properly conducted Empirical Bayesian analysis internally, it resulted in incredible safety signals that were hidden from the public.

Don’t ignore the fact that in the clinical trial for Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine there were 21 deaths in the vaccinated group and 17 deaths in the placebo group, meaning more in the vaccinated group, during the same time period and I note the placebo group actually had slightly more people than the vaccinated group.

Don’t forget that those seriously injured by these products have been abandoned because pharma has been given complete immunity for their injuries under the PREP Act and the CICP has almost no funding to pay claims and is designed to deny compensation – to call the CICP a perverse mockery of justice and betrayal would be far too kind.

Five years after assuring the world these products are safe, they still need PREP Act immunity for the harms they supposedly won’t cause.

Until this immunity is lifted and the harms actually accounted for, this committee should decline to recommend any further Covid-19 vaccines.

But, given the prior statements made by some members of this committee about these products, statements reflecting belief- and not evidence-based views about them, it will no doubt be hard to objectively consider the data and evidence regarding these products. But please try. Thank you.

https://t.co/7xTXO0dPv8

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

I don't know if Dr. Vanden Bossche's expectation of catastrophe from a Covid variant he thinks will be deadly for many of the people who received multiple Covid shots will come to pass, but even if not I consider him to be an extremely great man who is not only brilliant but who expresses his beliefs for the sake of humanity, despite the negative consequences of doing so.

[Geert Vanden Bossche @GVDBossche]

When Chronically Evolving Adaptation Becomes Catastrophic: Why Metastable Systems Eventually Explode https://t.co/CPiDzR6g39

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

@GVDBossche I certainly hope you will, Dr. VB, you are a superstar in my book!

[Geert Vanden Bossche @GVDBossche]

I’m no superstar, Jon, and I’m no saint either! But what this whole Covid crisis has done to me is that it kept pushing me to stretch the limits of my understanding of an unprecedentedly complex gain-of-function experiment on human beings. On the one hand, it has brought out the angel in me when it comes to defending science and feeling deep empathy and compassion for the countless victims of this large-scale in vivo experiment. But on the other hand, it has also brought out the devil in me toward all those who trivialize or cut corners with the complex science behind this immune escape pandemic and toward those guilty of polarization, conflicts of interest, willful blindness, blatant injustice or deceit.

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

I would like to see Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche @GVDBossche as the Director-General. Not only is he a brilliant scientist, I think it is obvious, but also a man who inspires great trust in the many people who follow him - even though most, I think, readily admit they don’t have the prerequisite knowledge to evaluate the details of his logic. He just shines with genius and integrity, qualities very much needed in our public health leaders at this very dangerous time, imo.
https://t.co/htD7DoWbXA

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

I don’t like the capitalism v. socialism debate, I think we should simply have a free-market system with everyone being guaranteed a “right to life” - or right of access to basic necessities - funded by replacing the over-complex income tax with a relatively simple proportional asset tax by which, for example, if you own one percent of the total assets then you pay one percent of the funds the government needs to function. That would equalize wealth distribution without the state having to trample on freedom of commerce with heavy-handed measures such as wage and price controls.

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

@stkirsch Can we negotiate re domains? Some of the ones I have can definitely be valuable for you. I was hoping your assistant would pass you a message but she didn’t respond and I don’t know if she did.

[Furkan Gözükara @FurkanGozukara]

Absolute bombshell. Prominent Australian activist Juliet Lamont exposes the terrifying reality of Zionist detention.

She confirms Israeli forces systematically tortured activists, detailing horrific sexual assaults and beatings. MSM is actively hiding these war crimes.

[Geert Vanden Bossche @GVDBossche]

Shame on the WHO:
More than ten years later, Ebola is once again a topic that is stirring up considerable attention. The WHO is, of course, once again positioning itself as supposedly leading the fight against the virus.
This is therefore the perfect moment to revisit a purely scientific report that I wrote more than ten years ago, which clearly demonstrates how the incompetent WHO, supported by the equally incompetent Lancet, committed a blunder of historic proportions by vaccinating people during the incubation period according to the so-called ring-vaccination principle.
The catastrophic consequences of this were barely brought to light at the time ─ even though my report reached all relevant global health and regulatory authorities. Instead, the WHO even boasted that the vaccine was 100% effective!
It was a scandal unlike anything I had ever witnessed in my career ─ until it was repeated about seven years later in the context of COVID-19 vaccination, only on a far larger scale!
Despite my repeated requests as Gavi’s Ebola program manager, the WHO pertinently refused ─ under the pretext that those data were confidential ─ to disclose the total number of Ebola-caused deaths, from day one of vaccination onward, in the vaccinated group versus the control group in that pivotal clinical trial.
Anyone who reads this purely scientific account can only conclude that this organization should be dismantled as quickly as possible.
https://t.co/RnzAzUnEY2

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

I don’t like the capitalism v. socialism debate, I think we should simply have a free-market system with everyone being guaranteed a “right to life” - or right of access to basic necessities - funded by replacing the over-complex income tax with a relatively simple proportional asset tax by which, for example, if you own one percent of the total assets then you pay one percent of the funds the government needs to function. That would equalize wealth distribution without the state having to trample on freedom of commerce with heavy-handed measures such as wage and price controls.

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

I don’t like the capitalism v. socialism debate, I think we should simply have a free-market system with everyone being guaranteed a “right to life” - or right of access to basic necessities - funded by replacing the over-complex income tax with a relatively simple proportional asset tax by which, for example, if you own one percent of the total assets then you pay one percent of the funds the government needs to function. That would equalize wealth distribution without the state having to trample on freedom of commerce with heavy-handed measures such as wage and price controls.

[Jon Schultz @AJonSchultz]

@PeterLyLab @ScienceNews Are you willing to have a public conversation with @Kevin_McKernan? Many of us very much want to see discussion between scientists holding different opinions on matters which impact our health.

[Kevin McKernan @Kevin_McKernan]

Read this very carefully and think about what it implies regarding injecting billions of people with billions of fragments of viral vector DNA.

All of those people who assured you the DNA was inert were recklessly inept.
@DrPaulOffit is the poster child for this hubristic stupidity.