Liz Wheeler: The CDC is blowing up my phone with 'invasive' questions



Over the past couple of weeks, BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler has been receiving a series of disturbing and invasive phone calls from the United States government. Not from her contacts within the Trump administration — but from the CDC.

“The Centers for Disease Control inquiring about the vaccination status of my children,” Wheeler says on “The Liz Wheeler Show.” “You and I must raise our voices to put a stop to this, because to call this a violation of privacy would be the understatement of the year.”

“To call this invasive would hardly even describe the level of government overreach that the government bureaucrats, which you and I have not elected in the CDC, are facing,” she continues.


In one of the calls from the CDC, Wheeler was told the organization was conducting a “national immunization survey” and was asked if she had any vaccine-age children from the ages of 6 months to 17 years old living in her household.

“The purpose of it is for the government to collect data about what percentage of children have complied — or parents of these children have complied — with the CDC’s recommended childhood immunization schedule,” Wheeler explains.

“So, my taxpayer dollars are not only paying for the survey; they’re paying for the government bureaucrats who hate me to purchase my phone number,” she continues, adding, “It is time for the HHS Secretary, RFK Jr., to put a stop to this.”

While others have attempted to claim this is no big deal, as it’s “standard,” Wheeler believes that anyone who cares about their medical freedom should be outraged.

“Do we want to be asking parents these questions? Do we want to be violating the privacy of children in this way? Because this is not just a personal affront to me as a mother and me as an individual. There are security risks to you that are inherent to this program,” Wheeler says.

“We don’t have to accept this simply because public health officials tell us that it’s standard,” she continues. “Public health officials also told us it was standard to social distance, to mask our toddlers, to lock down our churches, to stay in our homes, to take an experimental vaccine.”

“The era of taking public health experts' word for it has come to end, and so must this policy,” she adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Land of the free? Parents ARRESTED after refusing to vaccinate 9-month-old baby



America may be sold as the land of the free, but after the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families ripped five children from their parents' arms for allegedly refusing to vaccinate their 9-month-old baby — the word “free” seems to mean very little.

The parents, Israel Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion, were then arrested for “familial kidnapping” last month when they took their children and fled to Texas to escape the DCF.

This all began when the family’s pediatrician filed a 51A “neglect” report when the parents declined vaccination for their baby boy on religious grounds — despite the fact that Massachusetts does allow religious exemptions for childhood vaccination, and the pediatrician reported the baby boy as healthy.

“In Massachusetts, you are legally, as a parent, allowed to decline vaccines. There’s no mandate that can force you to vaccinate your child. You have a right to a religious exemption,” Liz Wheeler of “The Liz Wheeler Show” comments.


The Department of Children and Families then left a notice on the family’s front door of their apartment demanding to be let into the home in order to inspect the living situation. The parents refused, and frightened, hid.

The police came back the next day, and the family was so scared that they left and fled to Texas.

“They believed they would have more freedom to exercise their religious beliefs because though Massachusetts told them they had a right to a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate for children, that wasn’t what was happening,” Wheeler explains.

When a family member reported the family missing, the DCF filed a care and protection petition, which is an emergency order to take custody of the children away from the parents and give that custody to the state.

The judge granted the order without any due process of law.

Police then hunted down the parents in Texas, arrested them, and charged them with kidnapping their own children. The penalty, if found guilty, would be a $1,000 fine and a year in prison.

“Now, if this sounds egregious to you, it’s because this is beyond egregious,” Wheeler says.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Mandates, masks, and mayhem: Never again!



Five years ago this month, the government effectively declared martial law. In doing so, it made what may be the worst decision of our lifetime — crushing civil liberties, wrecking the economy, and causing untold deaths through mismanagement of the virus and widespread use of a dangerous vaccine.

We continue to suffer the economic and health consequences of those decisions. Meanwhile, at both the federal level and in many states, lawmakers have failed to address the core liberty issue: preventing those powers from ever being used again.

It took just three years after the Civil War to ratify the 14th Amendment. Yet five years after COVID-era abuses, no comparable protections have passed at the federal level.

After the civil rights abuses that helped spark the Civil War, the country passed sweeping constitutional amendments to protect basic freedoms. Yet Congress has taken no such action after the COVID catastrophe. The same goes for many red states, which have done little over the past five years.

Still, it’s never too late to do the right thing. The following checklist outlines what Congress and state legislatures — especially those with Republican majorities — must do to fix it.

End biomedical tyranny

The COVID-19 era revealed a dangerous truth: It is neither scientifically sound, morally justified, nor constitutionally acceptable to force one person to undergo a medical intervention for the sake of another. Congress and state legislatures must act immediately to codify the following protections:

  • No mandates: No federal or state agency should ever require individuals to use a therapeutic, vaccine, prophylactic, or medical device.
  • No limitless emergencies: A president or governor may not declare a public health emergency lasting more than 30 days unless both legislative chambers approve an extension by a supermajority.
  • No lockdowns: Except for narrowly targeted, short-term quarantines of individuals exposed to deadly, quarantinable diseases like Ebola, the federal government must not restrict individual or property rights under the guise of pandemic control.
  • No masks: Outside surgical or clinical settings, no federal or state government should compel individuals to cover their faces as a condition of participating in public life.

These protections must be enacted at the federal level. While several Republican-led states have passed laws addressing parts of the issue, few have permanently banned public and private vaccine or mask mandates in all settings.

Additionally, county health directors should not have the authority to declare emergencies with criminal or civil penalties unless the county’s legislative body explicitly approves it. Even during such declarations, constitutional rights — such as the right to worship — must remain fully protected.

No experimentation without representation

Ban all mRNA shots: Except for terminally ill cancer patients, mRNA technology should not be used. Data now shows that mRNA does not stay localized, contains DNA contamination, and causes widespread inflammation. After five years of studies and real-world outcomes, mRNA technology has surpassed the threshold that would normally prompt the FDA to pull a product from the market. States should either ban its use or at minimum prohibit state agencies from promoting it.

Repeal the 2004 PREP Act: The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act shields all public health “countermeasures” from liability, including vaccines, therapeutics, and testing tools used during emergencies. Even cases involving willful misconduct can only be brought by the federal government. Congress must repeal this law and restore accountability.

Repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act: This law exempts all vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule from liability. Congress should repeal it to restore legal recourse for vaccine injuries.

End marketing of emergency-use products: Any product approved only for emergency use should not receive government-backed promotion or special status. These products should be treated solely as private medical decisions between doctors and patients.

Restore informed consent

The FDA and state governments must not mandate or promote new vaccines or biologic products unless they undergo proper safety evaluation. No product should receive approval without long-term, placebo-controlled trials that test for:

  • Allergenicity — potential to cause allergic reactions
  • Carcinogenicity — potential to cause cancer
  • Fertility impact — effects on reproductive health
  • Immunogenicity — ability to generate an immune response
  • Genotoxicity — potential to damage genes or cause mutations

Approval should require evidence of reduced all-cause mortality over time. No vaccine should gain approval if trial data shows more deaths in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group.

Regulators must not approve vaccines for one age group while ignoring safety concerns in another, unless they can clearly demonstrate that risks do not apply to the targeted population. For example, after acknowledging that RSV shots caused Guillain-Barré syndrome and walking back its recommendation for people over 60, the FDA continued to promote the shots for those over 75.

Additional protections should include:

  • Banning self-spreading viruses and biologics.
  • Criminalizing the release of any pathogen, including self-spreading vaccines, and allow individuals to sue those responsible.
  • Prohibiting the placement of vaccine-related materials in the food supply.

Congress should also establish a commission to audit the childhood immunization schedule and review new vaccines in the development pipeline. This includes a full review of their necessity, safety data, and efficacy. Enlightened consent must serve as the foundation for informed consent.

The right to treat

Congress must prohibit the FDA from blocking doctors from prescribing fully approved drugs for off-label use.

All pandemic or emergency public health funding for hospitals must remain treatment-neutral. Funding should not favor one therapy over another. Clinicians — not federal agencies or pharmaceutical companies — should guide treatment decisions based on best practices, not profit motives.

Given ivermectin’s broad-spectrum antiviral properties and well-documented safety profile, it should be made available over the counter. Arkansas has taken the lead in adopting this approach.

Protect doctor-patient autonomy

Doctors must not face penalties — such as loss of their licenses or board certifications — for expressing dissenting views on vaccines or mask mandates. State medical boards must overhaul their complaint processes to focus only on cases with actual patient harm.

Boards should accept complaints only from:

  • Patients alleging direct injury
  • Immediate family of deceased patients
  • Medical professionals with firsthand knowledge of patient harm

All complaints unrelated to patient injury should be dismissed without review.

The Trump administration should direct the Department of Justice to drop all prosecutions against physicians charged with so-called “COVID crimes.” These include cases like that of Utah plastic surgeon Dr. Kirk Moore, who faces federal charges for allegedly providing vaccine exemptions and other patient-centered actions taken during the pandemic.

Adopt a new ‘Patient’s Bill of Rights’

Some states have taken steps in the right direction, but stronger civil and criminal penalties must be in place to protect patient rights across the country. Every hospital and senior care facility should be legally required to:

  • Prohibit denial of treatment, including organ transplants, based on vaccination status.
  • Allow at least one surrogate or visitor to be present for patients in hospitals or nursing homes.
  • Permit patients to use FDA-approved drugs off-label, prescribed by a licensed physician, at their own expense and with informed consent.
  • Guarantee the right to refuse any hospital-prescribed treatment and the right to leave the facility if the patient is mentally competent — effectively banning medical kidnapping.
  • Provide patients or their families a legal cause of action to file civil suits against facilities that violate these rights. District attorneys should also have the authority to pursue criminal charges when appropriate.
  • Revoke state tax-exempt status for hospitals found in violation of these provisions.

It took just three years after the Civil War to ratify the 14th Amendment. Congress codified its principles into law within a year of Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. Yet five years after COVID-era abuses, no comparable protections have passed at the federal level, and only a few states have enacted partial reforms. That needs to change. The time to act is now.

RFK Jr.’s confirmation would be a blow to Big Pharma and a big win for health



The Washington, D.C., Beltway publications left no doubt about who stood to lose the most after President Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of health and human services.

Politico highlighted the uproar, reporting fierce opposition from Washington lobbyists to Trump’s decision to place Kennedy at the helm of the $3 trillion health agency. Kennedy’s proposals — tighter pesticide regulations, re-examining vaccine safety, banning processed foods in schools, and overhauling health and food agencies — pose significant threats to corporate profits. Caught off guard, lobbyists are now scrambling to block Kennedy’s Senate confirmation and leveraging connections to minimize risks.

RFK Jr. has consistently unveiled critical truths and fought for transparency in public health.

As a physician committed to my patients, my community, and my country, I fully support Kennedy’s nomination. His lifelong dedication to health, safety, and medical autonomy makes him the ideal candidate for this vital Cabinet position. President Trump deserves praise for this bold and courageous choice.

The United States faces an epidemic of poor health. Over 80% of adults suffer from at least one chronic illness, while obesity rates among children and adults have reached record highs. Simultaneously, drug prices and health care costs continue to soar. Substance abuse plagues society, and mental illness rates rise every year. The role of secretary of health and human services requires a leader with diverse expertise, a broad perspective, and a deep understanding of both health care and the forces shaping the system.

For decades, Kennedy has worked tirelessly for the health and welfare of America’s children. Despite relentless accusations of spreading “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories,” Kennedy is not “anti-vaccine.” Instead, he has championed transparency in vaccine efficacy and injury data, which threatens powerful profit-driven interests. Even the treatments he promoted for COVID-19, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine — once dismissed as “discredited” — have quietly and surreptitiously returned to good standing.

RFK Jr. has consistently unveiled critical truths and fought for transparency in public health. He revealed that no double-blind randomized controlled trials exist for childhood vaccines on the CDC's schedule, a fact that demands scrutiny. Kennedy has also investigated disparities in disease prevalence, finding higher rates of autoimmune diseases, neurological disorders, allergies, and autism in vaccinated populations compared to unvaccinated ones, raising questions that require answers, not dismissal.

Kennedy has vowed to end the financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and medical journals, which have eroded research integrity and left physicians without trustworthy sources of unbiased data. He advocates removing harmful additives, such as trans fats, artificial coloring, and preservatives, from America’s food supply — ingredients banned in many other countries.

Kennedy is also committed to ending pharmaceutical advertising on television, a practice unique to the United States and New Zealand, which compromises media independence. His approach prioritizes the four pillars of medical ethics — autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice — seeking to restore medical autonomy, personal sovereignty, and an end to mandates that strip individuals of choice.

I understand that Kennedy’s nomination to oversee the massive federal health apparatus is threatening to many, including those associated with the pharmaceutical industry, doctors and the health care systems that employ them, lobbyists, insurance companies, media outlets that have become accustomed to massive pharmaceutical advertising dollars, and the food industry that maximizes profits by using inexpensive but toxic ingredients. But we need qualified leadership at HHS that prioritizes science, the protection of public health, and the well-being of all Americans. The health and future of our country depend on it.

Change, especially radical change, can be difficult — especially for those who have financially and professionally benefited from the status quo. However, our health care system is desperately in need of radical change, which is why I urge the Senate to confirm Kennedy’s appointment quickly so that he can begin the much-needed work to mend our health care system and to make America healthy again.

Meet Eithan Haim, the heroic whistleblower who’s also — a criminal?



What happens when your personal convictions put you in direct violation of the law?

That’s the question Dr. Eithan Haim, a surgeon in Texas, was forced to confront last year when he discovered some disturbing information about Texas Children’s Hospital, where he was serving his residency.

Despite the institution’s pledge to cease providing transgender medical care to minors in the wake of Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton passing a law that deemed sex changes on minors and puberty-blockers “child abuse,” Haim found that medical staff was continuing to offer services in secret.

He then stepped into the courageous shoes of a whistleblower, but part of being a whistleblower is providing proof, which in this case, is medical records. However, to share sensitive medical information is a violation of HIPAA.

Haim ultimately decided the risk was worth it and gave conservative journalist Christopher Rufo medical records to prove that the hospital was continuing to provide transgender care to minors.

Now, Dr. Haim has been indicted on four accounts for HIPAA violations.

Today, he meets with Glenn Beck to share his story.

“Thank you for what you’ve done,” says Glenn, praising Haim not only for his courage to speak up but also his willingness to go through his savings and retirement funds to pay for the attorneys — and ultimately for the protection of children.

“[My wife and I] had a decision to make,” he tells Glenn. “Do we try to fight back, or do we submit to the ideology and try to make it all go away? We knew that we were going to have kids someday, and what kind of world would we be delivering them into if there’s not men and women in this world who are willing to sacrifice in order to deliver them to a better future?”

“We’ve sacrificed a lot — everything we have, but what you gain back is so much greater,” he says, noting that his wife is currently pregnant with their first child.

“You raise [children] to have the virtues to have a good and fulfilling life,” but “this government is criminalizing those virtues; the justice system is protecting criminals going after the innocent; the medical system is creating sickness and going after the healthy; the education system is miseducating people. It’s like every institution is doing the opposite of what it’s meant to do,” Haim laments. “People like us have to do something about it even if that means sacrificing.”

We applaud Dr. Haim’s courage to stand up for the innocent and fight back against those who prey on the most vulnerable. To donate to Dr. Haim’s cause, visit givesendgo.com.


— (@)

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Damning study suggests pandemic lockdowns accelerated 'significant' memory and cognitive decline in seniors



The lockdowns and societal restrictions championed by teachers' unions and other leftists during the pandemic were not just ruinous for the mental health of children and teens. A new study out of the U.K. indicates pandemic restrictions also had a deleterious impact on the minds of the elderly.

Dr. Anne Corbett of the University of Exeter Medical School and her team examined neuropsychology data from 3,142 individuals, all 50 years of age or over, who had been participating in a multi-decade dementia study in Britain. The researchers compared data on this cohort collected before the pandemic, early in the pandemic, then once more toward the tail end of the pandemic.

The researchers observed "[s]ignificant worsening of executive function and working memory" in the first year of the pandemic across the whole cohort, the average age of which was 67.5. Working memory continued to worsen across the whole cohort in the second year of the pandemic. By the time restrictions had ultimately been eased, the damage had been done.

According to the study, cognitive decline was significantly associated with reduced exercise and increased drinking across the whole cohort. Depression, another driving factor of cognitive decline, was notable amongst those who contracted COVID-19. Loneliness proved especially detrimental to those with mild cognitive impairment.

"People aged 50 years and older in the UK had accelerated decline in executive function and working memory during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the UK was subjected to three societal lockdowns for a total period of 6 months," said the study, published in the Lancet journal Healthy Longevity.

The British government, which funded this study via the National Institute for Health and Care Research, not only limited the number of times citizens could exercise outside during the pandemic, but shuttered gyms, golf courses, sports courts, swimming pools, and indoor sports facilities.

"The scale of change is also of note, with all groups—the whole cohort and the individual subgroups—showing more than a 50% greater decline in working memory and executive function and many effect sizes reaching a clinically significant threshold of greater than 0·3," said the researchers.

The researchers further stressed that "[t]hese factors map closely to the population-wide changes in health and lifestyle seen during and after the lockdowns, raising the important question of the effect of the pandemic on cognitive health and risk across populations."

Governments across the West imposed lockdown measures on and off throughout the pandemic despite early indications there would be serious cognitive fallout, particularly amongst the elderly.

For instance, Italian scientists noted in an October 2020 paper in Frontiers in Psychiatry that social disconnection — of the kind all but guaranteed by the closure of voluntary associations, churches, parishes, gyms, and other meeting places for seniors — was a risk factor for dementia and likely to increase the risk of depression and anxiety for elderly people.

"Lockdown could affect disproportionately the mental health of old people, whom relatives contracted COVID-19, people who live alone and whose only social contacts take place outside home, and people who do not have close relatives or friends and rely on the support of voluntary services or social assistance," said the paper.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Yet another de-transitioner comes forward, suing doctors who she claims cut her up at 16 after two appointments and a single consultation: They 'affirmed that chaos into reality'



A Nebraska woman who underwent a sex-change surgery at the age of 16 is suing the medical practitioners who cut off her breasts, left her in a constant state of pain, and likely rendered her infertile.

Luka Hein's complaint, filed Wednesday in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, accuses University of Nebraska Medical Center and UNMC medical practitioners Dr. Jean Amoura, Dr. Perry Johnson, Dr. Stephan Barrientos, and therapist Megan Smith-Sallan of malpractice, alleging their "misleading descriptions and false claims" pertaining to sex-change mutilations were in violation of the state's Consumer Protection Act.

The lawsuit contends that Hein, put "on the fast track" for mastectomies at 15 years of age, ultimately had her breasts removed "when she was not old enough to understand the ramifications thereof or consent thereto" and after her "parents had been manipulated into consenting."

Prior to her delusion-affirming treatments, Luka was reportedly having suicidal thoughts and harming herself. To further compound her anxiety and confusion, Luka indicated her parents were getting a divorce and she had been "groomed online and preyed upon by an older man out of state."

According to Hein's complaint, inside an hour into her first therapy session at the UNMC Gender Clinic, her therapist "diagnosed Luka with gender identity disorder and began steering her toward transgender medical treatment with Defendant Amoura at the gender clinic."

The suit blasts UNMC and those who savaged Hein's body not only for "using surgical means to treat a mental health disorder" but for failing to "wait and see if Luka's gender dysphoria would resolve with time"; "to develop a different diagnosis"; "to warn Luka that the mental health of patients does not improve with surgery"; "to obtain a proper pre-operative mental health evaluation"; and/or "question Luka's self-diagnosis of trans-identification before amputating her breasts."

Harmeet Dhillon, the founder and CEO of the Center for American Liberty, is representing Hein in the case. Dhillon has previously represented other victims of gender ideology, including de-transitioner Chloe Cole.

Dhillon told the Daily Mail, "Coercive methods were used to coerce the family into agreeing to it, such as a false representation about the mental health fallout from not doing it. 'Your daughter will commit suicide if you don't agree to this,' was communicated to her parents."

"Doctors should not behave to vulnerable children or families in this manner, period. Doctors should not be mutilating and permanently disfiguring children, period, without some medical necessity, which did not present itself in this case," added Dhillon.

The Center for American Liberty noted, "No child should have to go through the irreversible trauma that UNMC doctors put Luka through. And if she wins her lawsuit, perhaps no child will."

Hein, originally from Minnesota, told the Daily Mail, "I was going through the darkest and most chaotic time in my life, and instead of being given the help I needed, these doctors affirmed that chaos into reality."

"I don't think kids can ever consent to having essentially full bodily functions taken away at a young age before they even know what that means," continued Hein, who is also bringing a $2,250,000 tort claim against the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. "I was talked into medical intervention that I could not fully understand the long-term impacts and consequences of."

Besides the scars on her chest, the suit notes that the testosterone treatments Hein was subjected to over the course of four years "caused the disruption of her endocrine system, heart damage, deepening of her voice, pain in her vocal cords, joints, lumbar spine, hands, wrists, elbows, and pelvic area, as well as permanent dysregulation of her reproductive organs."

Hein is one of a growing number of victims to take legal action against the medical professionals and institutions who hacked away various parts of their bodies to remedy feelings of body dysphoria.

TheBlaze reported in March that Layla Jane took action against the Kaiser Permanente hospital system, which began giving her puberty blockers at the age of 12 and amputated her healthy breasts the next year.

Chloe Cole filed a suit against the Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals who performed, supervised, and/or advised transgender hormone therapy and surgical intervention on her between the ages of 13 and 16.

Teen who detransitioned had ‘oh shoot moment' after growing older | CUOMOyoutu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Unhinged leftist Stephen King dares readers to give his new work of anti-conservative propaganda a 1-star review



Stephen King is a prolific writer who made hundreds of millions of dollars telling stories about ghosts, curses, and violence against children.

Extra to penning best-sellers like "The Green Mile," "Carrie," "It," and "The Shining," the geriatric author has also moonlighted online as an unhinged leftist, mocking conservatives, firing off identitarian missives, peddling political conspiracy theories, downplaying the crisis at the southern border, demanding that others wear masks, and calling for those with whom he disagrees to be silenced.

No longer willing to compartmentalize his passions, King has reportedly produced a work of anti-conservative, pro-COVID-vaccine propaganda.

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, the the 75-year-old Democrat acknowledged that "a lot of people are not going to like" his new novel, "Holly," particularly not critics of COVID-19 vaccines and supporters of former President Donald Trump.

Rather than wait, King pre-emptively dared "people on the other side of the COVID issue and the Trump issue" to tank his new book's ratings, telling those who might be inclined to "give it one-star reviews on Amazon," "'Knock yourself out.'"

The titular character of King's new work of agitprop, recycled from his other works, "Mr. Mercedes" and "The Outsider," spends much of the book investigating the disappearance of a young woman. Along the way, she hypes the author's worldview.

Holly rejoices at Biden's 2020 electoral victory, weeps on Jan. 6, 2021, and makes sure to repeatedly advertise the fact of her mRNA vaccination and booster status, according to a review in the American Thinker.

The author made no secret of his intention to cram his political views into the novel, particular on the topic of COVID, telling Rolling Stone, "There's this constant story that thousands of people are dying of heart disease because of the vaccinations. It's not true, but it's gained a lot of credence. So there's a lot of that. And I tried to put that in the book."

King, who made a point of telling people to "get the damn vax" during the pandemic, kills off Holly's pro-life mother for having refused to get the mRNA vaccine after first attending an "anti-mask rally," where she waved around a "MY BODY MY CHOICE" sign.

The author further suggests in the book that nursing home deaths — which were especially bad under Democratic leadership in New York — were the result of vaccine hesitation, again on the part of his ideological foes.

Whereas the protagonists in "Holly" are reportedly all women, minorities, and/or homosexuals, the villains are pair of old racist white people who don't trust vaccines and eat people.

King makes his antipathies abundantly clear, going so far as to have a Christian family gang-rape a lesbian black vegan for the "sin" of not eating meat. The lesbian later kills her unborn baby.

NPR noted that "Covid-19 pandemic, racism and homophobia, the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and Donald Trump's effect on the country's zeitgeist and political discourse are all very present in the narrative," adding, "Holly is one of his most political novels to date, and it'll surely anger all the right people."

The "right people" who might be keen on taking King up on his recommendation to give his book a one-star review on Amazon can also follow suit on Goodreads.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Don't Let Them Put That MASK Back on Your Face!
play icon

Don't Let Them Put That MASK Back on Your Face!

Medical establishment hypes lockdowns while mask regime signals a return



As fall approaches and another election season nears, there is renewed interest amongst various state and private organizations to resume the coercive COVID-19 protocols of yesteryear — this despite the fallout of the last go-around, the various outstanding doubts about efficacy of such measures, the CDC's estimate that 96.7% of the population over the age of 16 has antibodies, and the non-severity of the so-called "Eris" variant.

According to The Hill, among the organizations now reintroducing masks requirements are: Hollywood movie studio Lionsgate, per the insistence by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; Kaiser Permanente at its facility in Santa Rosa, California; Upstate Medical's University and Community General hospitals; New Jersey's Rutgers University; and Georgia's Morris Brown College.

The Daily Mail reported that there has also been some indication that the Transportation Security Administration under President Joe Biden's Department of Homeland Security is considering reintroducing face-mask requirements on airplanes, although the TSA has suggested the "rumors are false."

This sudden desire to hide faces is the result of four new hospital admissions for every 100,000 people nationwide in the week ending Aug. 12, reported CNN.

That 0.004% of the population is going to hospital with what is in the vast majority of cases a nonlethal respiratory issue has prompted doctors like Robert Wachter, professor and chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California San Francisco, to state, "If you're trying to be careful, it's time to whip out the mask again."

Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a cardiologist and professor at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, said, "If you’re a caregiver for somebody who is at increased risk of complication following infection, then I think you should also consider putting a mask on in public places."

A peer-reviewed meta-analysis of various studies published earlier this year in the highly esteemed Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews called into question the value in whipping out masks again.

In a review of 12 trials comparing wearing medical masks with wearing no masks to prevent the spread of illnesses like COVID-19, the researchers determined that "[w]earing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks."

While the researchers noted that the evidence suggested N95/P2 respirators were better at protecting against influenza-like illnesses than medical masks, this evidence too was placed in doubt.

The researchers concluded with some certainty that the "pooled results of [randomized controlled trials] did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection."

These findings appear to run contrary to former CDC Director Robert Redfield's September 2020 claim that masks are the "most important, powerful public-health tool we have," or his successor, Rochelle Walensky's November 2021 claim that mask-wearing "reduc(es) your chance of infection by more than 80%."

Regardless of the efficacy of masks, there may be greater resistance to their adoption this time around, even by medical professionals.

Dr. Albert Ko, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, told ABC News, "I don't see that as something that we're likely going to be adopting."

The chief infection control officer for Tufts Medicine, Dr. Shira Doron, made clear that the fearmongering is unwarranted based on current COVID-19 infections, stating, "An upswing is not a surge; it's not even a wave. ... What we're seeing is a very gradual and small upward trajectory of cases and hospitalizations, without deaths really going along, which is great news."

"My hospital has had between zero and three patients who have tested positive for COVID any given day since May," Doron told ABC News. "So, all week, it's been one. If tomorrow, there were two, you'd call that a 100% increase, which sounds so big, but ... it's not appropriate to use percentage terms when you're talking about increases that start really small."

As masks make a comeback, albeit presently in isolated instances, the Western medical establishment appears to be putting a positive spin on lockdowns.

Britain's Royal Society just put out a report singing the praises of lockdowns, social distancing, school closures, and limits on gatherings, calling them the "most effective" form of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

The report concluded that "there is every reason to think that the application of combinations of [non-pharmaceutical interventions] will be important in future pandemics."

Whereas the Cochrane Review suggested that the downsides of mask-wearing were not altogether clear — although studies have revealed the adverse impact they have on toddlers, particularly on their communication skills — there is overwhelming evidence that lockdowns had a devastating impact, especially on youths.

A peer-reviewed 2021 article in the journal Frontiers in Public Health noted that lockdowns were five to 10 times "more harmful to public health ... than COVID-19 can be" at a time when the virus was more potent.

Lockdowns have had a calamitous impact on: the economy; eating behavior; physical activity; academic achievement; and on mental health, especially among children and teens, whose suicide rates, a recent study indicated, are "closely tied" to in-person schooling.

Just the News highlighted how the Biden administration's April announcement that it was pouring $5 billion into developing additional COVID-19 vaccines and treatments did not mention masks or social distancing, but nevertheless signaled the Department of Health and Human Services was still focused on the virus.

Some lawmakers in Washington have speculated more statist alarmism is on the way.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) tweeted, "I keep hearing whispers of COVID restrictions coming back. Nope, not going to happen. We're not complying with that."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!