Burisma

Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.

The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.

The computer was dropped off at a repair shop in Biden’s home state of Delaware in April 2019, according to the store’s owner.

Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who’s admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.

The customer who brought in the water-damaged MacBook Pro for repair never paid for the service or retrieved it or a hard drive on which its contents were stored, according to the shop owner, who said he tried repeatedly to contact the client.

The shop owner couldn’t positively identify the customer as Hunter Biden, but said the laptop bore a sticker from the Beau Biden Foundation, named after Hunter’s late brother and former Delaware attorney general.

Photos of a Delaware federal subpoena given to The Post show that both the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December, after the shop’s owner says he alerted the feds to their existence.

then-vice president admittedly pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk into getting rid of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin by threatening to withhold a $1 billion US loan guarantee during a December 2015 trip to Kiev.

“I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden infamously bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.

“Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”

Shokin has said that at the time of his firing, in March 2016, he’d made “specific plans” to investigate Burisma that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

Joe Biden has insisted that the US wanted Shokin removed over corruption concerns, which were shared by the European Union.

Meanwhile, an email dated May 12, 2014 — shortly after Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board — shows Pozharskyi attempting to get him to use his political leverage to help the company.

The message had the subject line “urgent issue” and was also sent to Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the Burisma board at the time.

Pozharskyi said that “the representatives of new authorities in power tend to quite aggressively approach N. Z. unofficially with the aim to obtain cash from him.”

N.Z. isn’t identified in the email but appears to be a reference to Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, whose first name is a Ukrainian version of “Nicholas.”

When the alleged shakedown failed, “they proceeded with concrete actions” in the form of “one or more pretrial proceedings,” Pozharskyi wrote.

“We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions,” he added.

Hunter Biden responded by saying he was with Archer in Doha, Qatar, and asked for more information about “the formal (if any) accusations being made against Burisma.”

“Who is ultimately behind these attacks on the company? Who in the current interim government could put an end to such attacks?” he added.

The exchange came the same day that Burisma announced it had expanded its board of directors by adding Hunter Biden, who was put in charge of its “legal unit and will provide support for the Company among international organizations,” according to a news release that’s since been scrubbed from Burisma’s website.

Hunter Biden actually joined the board in April 2014, according to multiple reports.

His lawyer said last year that Hunter was “not a member of the management team,” adding, “At no time was Hunter in charge of the company’s legal affairs.”

About four months after Hunter Biden’s correspondence with Pozharskyi, Archer forwarded Hunter Biden an email chain with the subject line “tax raise impact on Burisma production,” which included Pozharskyi saying that the Ukrainian cabinet had submitted new tax legislation to the country’s parliament.

“If enacted, this law would kill the entire private gas production sector in the bud,” Pozharskyi wrote.

In the Sept. 24, 2014, email, Pozharskyi also said he was “going to share this information with the US embassy here in Kyiv, as well as the office of Mr Amos Hochstein in the States.”

At the time, Hochstein was the State Department’s newly appointed special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs

In December 2017, the Naftogaz Group, Ukraine’s state-owned energy company, announced that Hochstein had joined the company as an independent director, but on Monday he announced his ­resignation.

“The company has been forced to spend endless amounts of time combating political pressure and efforts by oligarchs to enrich themselves through questionable transactions,” Hochstein wrote in an op-ed published by the Kyiv Post.

In addition to denying that’s he’s spoken to Hunter Biden about his overseas business dealings, Joe Biden has repeatedly denied any conflict of interest or wrongdoing by either of them involving ­Burisma.

Last February, he got testy during an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show when co-host Savannah Guthrie questioned whether it was “wrong for [Hunter] to take that position, knowing that it was really because that company wanted access to you.”

“Well, that’s not true. You’re saying things you do not know what you’re talking about,” the elder Biden responded.Last December, Joe Biden also lashed out during a Democratic primary town hall event in Iowa, where a man accused him of sending Hunter to Ukraine “to get a job and work for a gas company, he had no experience with gas or nothing, in order to get access to . . . the president.”

“You’re a damn liar, man. That’s not true and no one has ever said that,” Biden fumed.

Biden then continued berating the man as he stepped forward, called the man “fat” and challenged him to “do push-ups together, man.”

The FBI referred questions about its seizure of the laptop and hard drive to the Delaware US Attorney’s Office, where a spokesperson said, “My office can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.”

Hunter Biden’s lawyer refused to comment on the specifics but instead attacked Giuliani.

“He has been pushing widely discredited conspiracy theories about the Biden family, openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence,” the lawyer, George R. Mesires, said of Giuliani.

Pozharskyi and the Joe Biden campaign did not return requests for comment. Hochstein could not be reached.

9 COVID-19 Myths That Just Won’t Go Away

 9 COVID-19 Myths That Just Won’t Go Away

1 WAS COVID19 ENGINEERED OR CREATED IN A LAB?

Although Covid19 may have not been created, it was surelly engineered in a Wuhan BSL-4 lab, and without a doubt leaked from that Lab and not from the wet market.

Not only 2008 Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier said that Covid19 coronavirus disease was artificially created in a lab by biologists working on an AIDS vaccine (I don't think that that was the case) but one Chinese virologist named Dr Li-Men Yan has proof that the virus has been ENGINEERED (changed, tempered with) NOT CREATED and then leaked from a Virology Institute´s BSL-4 Lab and this is the Best Evidence Yet That Coronavirus Came From Wuhan BSL-4 Lab.

2 Wealthy elites intentionally spread the virus to win power and profit

Everyone knows that Bill Gates through his foundation and connections with U.N. and W.H.O wants to force vaccination to everyone, and that´s a few billion dollars emterprise

Bill Gates is a deeply corrupt person.

Not only him but George Soros as well.

3 COVID-19 is no worse than the flu

That´s true that Covid19 is a bit worst than the flu, but only in the aspect of it´s facility to spread and infect others, whilst the heavier targeted age group as always been people above 70, specially if this ones carry some underlying health conditions that can be trigged by the presence of the virus.

4 You don’t need to wear a mask

That´s true that masks harms you more than protects you, not to mention that they don´t stop the spread of the virus.

There´s more than enough evidence that face masks can harm your health.

• The American Medical Association just released a position paper on masks:

“Face masks should be used only by individuals who have symptoms of respiratory infection such as coughing, sneezing, or, in some cases, fever. Face masks should also be worn by healthcare workers, by individuals who are taking care of or are in close contact with people who have respiratory infections, or otherwise as directed by a doctor. Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill. Face masks should be reserved for those who need them because masks can be in short supply during periods of widespread respiratory infection. Because N95 respirators require special fit testing, they are not recommended for use by the general public.”

 This direct rebreathing of the virus back into the nasal passages can contribute to the migration of the virus to the brain. (1, 2) “Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”

5 Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment

That´s true that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment specially preventive.

It as been shown in inumerous studies in vitro and in vivo that Hydroxychloroquine being a strong ACE2 (protein that Covid19 binds to) inhibitor can help to prevent and/or help to reduce the risk.In case of already infected do a 5 to 10 day treatment with HCQ (prevent ACE2 expression and from binding to the virus , Vit D to inhibit HS (Heparan Sulphate which promotes the entry of infected ACE2 into the cells)

The effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on ACE2-related viral infection. The initial entry of SARS-CoV-2 (an enveloped virus)24 into host cells depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2. The S protein of SARS-CoV-2 binds to the functional receptor ACE2 and employs TMPRSS2 for its priming. S protein is cleaved by TMPRSS2 at S2′ site which results in virus/membrane fusion.25 Both ACE2 and TMPRSS2 facilitate the virus transport into the target cell through the early and late endosomes where eventually the viral genome will be released into the cell cytoplasm. SARS-CoV-2 infection could influence the balance of RAS, which leads to Ang II accumulation through the ACE/AngII/AT1R axis and eventually causes acute lung injury. CQ/HCQ may block SARS-CoV-2 fusion with the host cell and entry into the target cell through elevating the pH in the endolysosomal system and/or by interfering with the glycosylation of the ACE2 receptor and the S protein.

HS proteoglycans (HSPGs) and viral infections

As well as facilitating FGFR activation, the HS complexed into proteoglycan complexes to form HSPGs represent a separate entry point for viruses into human cells. This was first shown for the herpes simplex virus, whose initial interaction with cells is via binding to cell surface HSPGs.31, 32 There is now abundant evidence that coronaviruses use HSPGs to attach to the plasma membrane before internalization, with the first demonstrations provided for a murine coronavirus33 and an avian bronchitis coronavirus.34 Similarly, the human coronavirus NL63 also utilizes such HSPGs for attachment to target nasopharyngeal cells.35, 36 Interestingly, a SARS virus variant has also been shown to utilize HSPG for cell entry, which can be competitively inhibited by lactoferrin.37 Together, these data on coronaviruses suggest that SARS‐Cov2 is also likely to bind to HSPG; preliminary data have recently been released that reinforce this hypothesis.38 In this study, the authors used surface plasmon resonance and circular dichroism to measure the interaction between the SARS‐CoV‐2 Spike S1 protein receptor binding domain (SARS‐CoV‐2 S1 RBD) and heparin.38 The data strongly suggested an interaction between the recombinant surface receptor binding domain of the virus and HS. The therapeutic targeting of HSPGs thus appears a relatively straightforward way to inhibit the infectivity of SARS‐Cov2.

https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20200827/heparin-may-neutralize-virus-that-causes-covid19

Not all heparin derivatives have anti‐coagulant activity. Importantly, heparin has been shown to have a broad spectrum of activity against many viruses, including Zika58 and HIV‐1,59 presumably through a competitively inhibitive process between it and cellular HS, whereby an excess of heparin prevents a virus from binding to cell surface HS. Because coronaviruses have been shown to bind to HS to enter target cells,35, 36 it can be hypothesized that heparin should act to prevent cell attachment of SARS‐CoV‐2. Preliminary data have indicated that indeed heparin does bind to the surface protein (spike) S1 of this virus38 and may therefore be therapeutic for COVID‐19.

And what scientific evidence do they present that describes the effectiveness of masks and that warns against the use of face masks by the general public? Here is a good sampling… 

• With near universal use of cloth and medical masks worn in public in Wuhan, China during the 2019-2020 flu season leading up to the COVID-19 outbreak, the outbreak spread virtually unchecked. 

• “Available evidence shows that (cloth masks)… may even increase the risk of infection due to moisture, liquid diffusion and retention of the virus. Penetration of particles through cloth is reported to be high.” “Altogether, common fabric cloth masks are not considered protective against respiratory viruses and their use should not be encouraged.”

(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/face-masks.html)

• “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”
• The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks.”
• “Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible.” (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577)
• Textile materials (that can be used for cloth masks) can contain harmful chemicals and dyes (i.e. formaldehyde). There is no research available regarding the safety of breathing through such materials but formaldehyde is a gas that can irritate a person’s eyes, nose, throat and lungs, or trigger an asthma attack, even at low concentrations. Prolonged exposure to formaldehyde can cause cancer. (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/formaldehyde and https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10875.pdf)
• Wearing cloth masks in public can create a false sense of security and complacency in which people may neglect other hygiene practices. (https://www.who.int/publications-detail/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak)
• Frequent washing and drying of a cloth mask can decrease the filtration capacity of the mask. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6599448/)
• “Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients… the size and concentrations of SARS–CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown. Oberg and Brousseau demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter. Lee and colleagues showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical masks. The size of the SARS–CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm; assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus.” (https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764367)

In total, the document presented 18 arguments and studies against the effectiveness and use of masks and 10 showing some limited benefit. After careful scrutiny of the pros and cons, I am landing squarely against the use of them other than by medical personnel in a clinical setting, or if an individual that is in close proximity of an infected person with the risk of being directly coughed or sneezed on, as in when caring for or visiting a sick person. (https://vcportal.ventura.org/CEO/VCNC/2020-05-05_VCNC_Masks_Pros_and_Cons.pdf)

The conclusion of the Russell Blaylock M.D. article states the following:

“It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter.”

“During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them. One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make.”

So, what’s the motivation behind the mask?

Given all of that information, it’s time to ask the obvious question. What would be the possible motivation for pushing the narrative about face masks and in some cases even mandatory face mask rules? And how does that motivation interface with the extended stay-at-home orders? We have “flattened the curve” to prevent the risk of overwhelming our health care system (but so did Sweden without lockdowns – a great topic for another post), so why the continued extreme social distancing and face mask mantra?

Here is a hypothesis, but in the form of two questions. It implies malintent which I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but just indulge me for a moment. In the end, each person must decide that for themselves. Here we go….

1. If you wanted to prevent the population from gaining herd immunity, which would further support the need and desire for a vaccine, what would be the best way to do that?
2. If you were successful at preventing people from developing natural immunity by keeping all the healthy and young low-risk people apart from one another and thus wanted to increase the chances for a second wave of the virus in a few months, how could you increase the chances of those people becoming infected and ensuring a second wave once they are released from quarantine and begin mingling?

Now match those two questions with the proper answers:

A. Suppress their immune systems with fear, loss of income, lack of exercise and sunshine and face masks whenever going away from home.
B. Keep the young and healthy people at home and sequestered from each other.

If you paired 1 with B, and 2 with A, congratulations!  Welcome to the growing number of free-thinking people that are connecting the dots.

One thing for certain is that so many people have taken the wearing of face masks and social distancing to a bizarre extreme. A few days ago, I saw one woman in the neighborhood out for a walk in the heat of the day. I commented to her that it sure was a hot time of day to be out for a walk. She looked at me with an odd look of concern on her face and said, “yeah, but at least there are no other people out now”. Other common examples are the people driving alone in their car with a face mask on and people walking through parking lots and down uncrowded sidewalks or at a park wearing face masks. My purpose on mentioning these examples is not to be condescending or critical of individuals that are overly fearful or are unaware of the harm face masks may cause them. These individuals have been duped by a complicit media that has continued to run with the absolutely, ridiculously, outrageously inaccurate models and never adjusted their level of hype and fear mongering long after those models had been exposed for what they were—ridiculous. In the meantime, people that are living with an irrational level of fear as a result, are being harmed physically and emotionally.

The reduced oxygen levels will increase anxiety, fatigue and brain fog, decrease learning capacity due to decreased oxygen to the brain, weaken their immune systems and can lead to an increased rate and severity of all types of infections, not just COVID-19.

CDC’s recommendations for opening schools require children to wear face masks

Picture classrooms of children wearing face masks. This image is repulsive to me on so many levels. Yet, updated CDC guidelines on May 19th, 2020 and posted on their site titled Considerations for Schools, recommends that children older than the age of 2 wear face masks. In part, it says, “Teach and reinforce use of cloth face coverings.” It then goes on to say…

Note: Cloth face coverings should not be placed on:

• Children younger than 2 years old
• Anyone who has trouble breathing or is unconscious
• Anyone who is incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the cloth face covering without assistance (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/schools.html)

And many in the government and educational system are echoing these preposterous recommendations. My opinion based on the science we just looked at is that this would be a huge mistake. Making children wear face masks has the potential to cause long-term psychological, emotional and physical damage. It promotes an excessive fear of germs (phobia) and of social interaction. The reduced oxygen levels will increase anxiety, fatigue and brain fog, decrease learning capacity due to decreased oxygen to the brain, weaken their immune systems and can lead to an increased rate and severity of all types of infections, not just COVID-19. We know that children are at very low risk of complications from COVID-19. Yet, this practice of wearing face masks could potentially increase that level of risk.

Teaching children good hygiene practices and that their immune system can help prevent and fight “germs” if they eat healthy food, exercise and practice good health habits would go a long way to empower them with positive and practical knowledge that they can learn and use throughout their lives.

Going forward

As we learn about the miscalculations from the hugely exaggerated models, the inaccurate coding and calculations of COVID-19 deaths bloating the numbers, the large percentages of people that are already immune because they have had the infection and recovered, many not even knowing they were sick, we realize that the mortality rate from COVID-19 is nowhere near what we had thought. Then there are the mistakes made within nursing homes and long-term care facilities, including sending positive COVID patients into those facilities and the mistakes with the way we treated many cases with ventilators. In a retrospective analysis of all of these factors, I believe that we will realize that mortality from COVID-19 is not even as bad as a “normal” flu and pneumonia season.

This is not to say that initially we shouldn’t have viewed COVID-19 as a serious potential health crisis, but so is 50,000 to 80,000 people dying from flu and pneumonia every winter. My greatest concern is the destruction of the economy, loss of jobs, loss of small businesses, the effects on marriages and families, skyrocketing mental health disorders, stress related diseases and the deaths due to despair and loss of hope, people not getting the medical attention for things like heart issues, high blood pressure and cancer they would otherwise get if they had access to hospitals and routine procedures. These are all the unintended consequences of what we have already done, and if we continue to ignore the new evidence of the data, science and doctors’ experiences on the front lines, we will certainly cause much more harm than good. Going forward with the current situation (and should a viral outbreak occur in the future), risk versus benefit of every decision must be considered.