Catch every segment of the show at

Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Content, Become a Premium User.

Karen Kingston says that there’s a plot for the mass murder of the American people, and she has the receipts to prove it.

Karen says it’s all buried in a normal-looking law called the 21st Century Cures Act, a bill pushed by Democrat Diana DeGette and Republican Fred Upton. Despite the name of the bill, Karen says the bill’s purpose was to gut the legal and ethical standards that govern the FDA and keep it from approving dangerous or defective drugs and medical devices. The bill also made it easier to collect research data from human subjects. Fans of the bill included Big Pharma, medical device manufacturers, and the National Institutes of Health. You know, the place Tony Fauci works.

The actual FDA itself at the time opposed the bill. They begged Congress to not pass it, because they said it would sabotage their safety efforts. But you won’t be surprised to learn that well-paid Big Pharma lobbyists carry a lot more weight in Washington than FDA safety inspectors.

The CURES act gave the NIH the right to spend billions of millions of dollars on “high risk, high reward” research, without the oversight that would usually be used in research. Traditionally, high-risk high-reward research was done by DARPA in the U.S. military. It’s for advanced military projects of crucial national security importance. Now, Congress is using it to power up Big Pharma.

The CURES Act also allows for the institutional review boards at the FDA to waive the right of informed consent, which is supposed to make sure that experimental subjects know what is being done to them and what the risks are. Now, that rule can just be ignored if the board claims that providing informed consent would make it difficult to conduct the study. All they have to do is say the risk is “minimal.” What guarantees that it actually is? Why, the judgment of the same people who have spent two years telling you that masking kids for two years isn’t a big deal, and that it’s a great idea to inject five-year-olds with a barely-tested shot with unclear side effects and operating on novel medical technology.

If The Election Was Today, Who Would Get Your Vote? - Trump or DeSantis?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Red Voice Media, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

By the way, we might be on the brink of CURES Act 2.0. That bill got proposed last November. It would spend several billion more dollars on new, even less-regulated research activities, and it would force the FDA to meet with Big Pharma representatives to be pressured on ways they can have more “innovative approaches.”

Karen says this is all bad news, and could lead to outcomes far worse than we’ve already seen from Covid and its vaccines. And she says she has the receipts to prove it.

Karen Kingston joins us.

Follow Stew on Gab.

Follow Red Voice Media on social media.

See all of Stew’s content at StewPeters.TV.

Watch full episodes here.

Check out Stew’s store.

Support our efforts to keep the truth alive.

Advertise with RVM

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary. Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.