Vitamin C is a vital nutrient for human health and survival. It is not only a powerful antioxidant and immune booster, it also supports collagen, connective tissue formation, and builds the extracellular matrix – the ‘glue’ that binds the body’s cells together. It is also important for faster wound healing and the prevention of various chronic conditions. Optimum amounts of vitamin C effectively protect the body and cardiovascular system against biological rusting.
Additionally, vitamin C has several other important functions. It is a cofactor for a series of biological enzymes that are important for the improved metabolism of cholesterol, triglycerides and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease. It is also an important energy molecule needed to recharge energy carriers inside the cells. Vitamin C is essential for the production of carnitine, the molecule that carries fatty acids into the mitochondria for energy production. It participates in the biological recycling of vitamin E, glutathione, and many other cell-protective molecules. When taken together with calcium, it increases calcium absorption. Vitamin C also neutralizes various toxins in the body and protects healthy cells from harmful substances, including the effects of many pharmaceutical drugs.
As humans do not produce their own vitamin C it has to be obtained from food sources and dietary supplements. Vitamin C supplements come in several forms. These include ascorbic acid, calcium ascorbate, magnesium ascorbate, and others. However, the majority of vitamin C supplements on the market contain only a single form of vitamin C, usually ascorbic acid. Simple ascorbic acid is a water-soluble compound. Therefore, it does not remain in the body for very long and is easily excreted. Unless frequently replenished, it is difficult to obtain the benefits of vitamin C from ascorbic acid alone.
Mineral salts of ascorbic acid, such as calcium ascorbate and magnesium ascorbate, are easily absorbed and well metabolized by the body’s cells. Combining vitamin C with calcium or magnesium in this way neutralizes the acidic effect of ascorbic acid and contributes to a ‘buffering’ effect, thus making it gentler on the stomach lining.
Calcium is important for the proper contraction of muscle cells, including the heart muscle cells, and is required for the conduction of nerve impulses. This mineral is also essential for the hardening and stability of our bones and teeth. Magnesium is nature’s calcium antagonist; its benefit for the cardiovascular system is similar to that of prescription calcium channel-blocking drugs – except that magnesium is natural. Clinical studies have shown that magnesium is particularly important for helping to normalize high blood pressure and irregular heartbeat conditions.
There is a misconception that calcium ascorbate can increase the likelihood of kidney stones. However, the majority of kidney stones are made of calcium oxalate, which is present in foods such as soda, coffee, chocolate, spinach, and beets. Inadequate water intake is one of the major contributors to kidney stone formation. Well-controlled clinical studies have not been able to establish any strong correlation between supplemental vitamin C and increased kidney stones.
Another unique form of vitamin C is ascorbyl palmitate, a fat-soluble form of the nutrient. This form is better absorbed by the cells than ascorbic acid alone. Cell membranes enriched with ascorbyl palmitate are more resistant to oxidative damage, which means they are better protected against disease and aging. Ascorbyl palmitate is also an effective antioxidant and free radical scavenger.
One of the advantages of taking a nutritional supplement that contains ascorbyl palmitate is that this form of vitamin C can reach areas of the body that ascorbic acid cannot. Moreover, its effects last for longer. A well-balanced vitamin C or multinutrient supplement should contain at least 25 percent of its vitamin C in the fat-soluble, ascorbyl palmitate form. However, most vitamin C supplements contain little or no ascorbyl palmitate. Optimum supplementation with a synergistically formulated vitamin C supplement can make all the difference in protecting your health!
Thoughts of people around the world will lie with bereaved families affected by the latest school shooting at Robb Elementary School in Texas.
As the search for answers begin, the cause of violent behaviour will once again go under the spotlight, along with the gun laws in the United States.
While there is never one simple explanation for what drives a human being to commit such unspeakable acts, all too often one common denominator has surfaced in hundreds of cases—prescribed psychiatric drugs that are documented to cause mania, psychosis, violence, suicide and in some cases, homicidal ideation.
The general public remain uninformed about the well-documented links between psychiatric drugs and violence. At least 37 school shootings and or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 175 wounded and 82 killed. Following the latest shooting, another 21 deaths are going to be added to the abysmal death toll.
International drug regulatory warnings and studies reveal the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of violence and homicide. There are also hundreds of cases where high profile acts of violence and mass murder were committed by individuals under the influence of psychiatric drugs.
Despite 27 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs, there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between the drugs and acts of senseless violence.
While psychiatrists are aware of the dangers associated with their prescribing habits, they continue their routine pattern of denial while the patient is left uninformed about the dangers linked to the psychiatric drugs being recommended.
Professor David Healy, a psychiatrist and pharmacologist says, “Violence and other potentially criminal behaviour caused by prescription drugs are medicine’s best kept secret.”
We cannot allow this to be the norm and we must not remain silent on this issue. The dangers of psychiatric drugs have been known for decades so, as responsible citizens, we have to continue to repeat this message so that the populace is informed and so that school shootings become confined to the history books rather than being the headlines.
During crises, people ask questions, and the Covid crisis is no exception. People are asking, “Is there any real or new illness called Covid-19—apart from vaccinations and the treatments themselves?” We are not alone in proposing that we must take a cold look at the viral theory touted as the cause of this alleged disease.
Journalist Jeremy Hammond has been the most outspoken critic of our contention that the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” does not exist and therefore does not cause Covid. In a video posted in March 2021,1 he outlines the following arguments for the existence of the “virus.” We answer his arguments, point by point.
Definition of Isolation
Hammond states that people in our camp have changed the definition of isolation, but we use the actual definition of the word “isolation” in the English language. It’s the virologists who have changed the meaning of the word from “separated from other things” to meaning “combined with other things in a foreign cell culture.”
Isolation Technology
Hammond claims that scientists do not yet have the technology to purify viral particles. Actually, scientists have been able to purify particles equivalent in size to so-called viruses for decades. The traditional method, in use since at least the 1940s, involves what is called density gradient ultracentrifugation. It uses different densities of a sucrose solution spun into layers at high speeds with an ultracentrifuge, so that the densest layer ends up on the bottom. The sample will separate into bands based on different densities, and one of those bands could contain the so-called viral particles if they existed.
For example, a 2015 article published in Methods in Molecular Biology,2 provides electron microscopy photographs of purified exosomes (see Figure 1). Exosomes are roughly the same size as that of claimed viral particles, around fifty to one hundred nanometers, and they have the same morphology and characteristics of alleged virus particles.
If you can purify exosomes, you can purify viruses using the same techniques. Scientists take exosomes directly from a body fluid; they don’t take the exosomes and put them in a cell culture. One of the challenges the authors discuss is the fact that the exosomes are present in low numbers; also, there are many different types of extracellular particles in the bodily fluid from which to separate the exosomes. These are some of the problems that have been put forth as a reason why it’s difficult to purify virus particles, but the researchers have overcome these problems with exosomes.
Bacteriophages, known as “the viruses of bacteria,” can also be purified, as shown in a 2018 article (again published in Methods in Molecular Biology)33 (see Figure 1). Bacteriophages are particles of similar size to viruses, and they also can be purified by chromatography and other methods. Mr. Hammond alleges that you can’t get a pure sample—a sample where you see only one thing in a vacuum. However, as you can see in the photos of exosomes and bacteriophages, all the objects are the same—they are the only thing in the microscope field because these have been isolated and purified, and there is nothing else in the sample, just exosomes or bacteriophages.
FIGURE 1. Isolated exosomes, isolated bacteriophages and “isolated” viruses
Isolated, purified exosomes
Isolated, purified bacteriophages
Sample taken from human fluids and grown in a tissue culture, said to be “purified” and “isolated” virus.So, biologists clearly have this technology, and it’s been around for quite a long time. It’s just that when they tried to do isolate viral particles, back in the 1940s and 1950s, after they had electron microscopes, they were actually unable to find any particle in the tissues or fluids of anyone who was ill. The problem is that they are unable to find the viral particles, not that they don’t have the technology to isolate and purify.
Cell Culture is the Gold Standard
Hammond admits that you need a cell culture to “isolate” a virus, because the virus needs cells in which to replicate in order to have enough virus to detect. According to the viral theory, the virus causes an infection in the lung, for example, when it invades the lung cells and then reproduces in the lung tissue, right in those cells, and then produces more viral particles. So, all we would need to do is go right to that tissue culture in the sick person, not one that we create in a laboratory with other conditions that are not natural.
In other words, why would we do this kind of indirect experiment when we have a cell culture right in the host—namely, virus-invaded lung tissue—from which we could extract the virus? Why can’t we do a proper isolation, where you go to the host, the natural source of the virus, which is a sick person with an infection, and purify the viral particles right out of that person’s bodily tissues or fluids?
Cytopathic Effects
Virologists claim that the pathogenic nature of viruses is evident in light microscope images of tissue cultures showing cytopathic effects (meaning cell breakdown). But what the images of “viruses” from an electron microscope show is a mixture of cellular material from the cell culture and a variety of different types of particles (see Figure 1, third image). How can we know what any of those particles actually are? And how do we know the particle didn’t come from the foreign cell culture, such as the kidney cells it was cultured in? How do we know it’s not an exosome, a particle produced inside the cell? How do we know it’s not an apoptotic body (from cellular breakdown)? How do we know it’s not another type of extracellular vesicle? How do we know it’s a virus (since it doesn’t have a label and has not been isolated and purified)? While virologists can show images of small particles, they have no way of identifying the nature or identity of any of those particles.
Genetic Sequencing
Hammond claims that scientists can do genetic sequencing of the particles found in tissue cultures. There are actually two ways of doing genetic sequencing. One way is to extract genetic material from only one organism, and then sequence the genome in its entirety. That’s how you can discover the genome sequence of a new organism.
But for viruses, scientists use a different technique, variously termed “genomic” sequencing, “next generation” sequencing or “in silico” sequencing (meaning carried out in a computer). Whatever they call it, this kind of sequencing is just piecemeal.
Hammond describes the method accurately, in that they start with lots of pieces of genetic material, and then a computer does sophisticated calculations and simulations to put them together. The problem—which Hammond does not describe—is that the starting material for these experiments is not a pure organism; it’s not just a virus. What they’re starting with is, in most cases, the lung fluid from a patient diagnosed with Covid by a PCR test. (And we know the PCR test is invalid. See sidebar page 20.)
The fluid they start with has genetic material from many different organisms—from a variety of bacteria species, probably some fungal and yeast species, as well as all of the human genetic material from the host and then anything that happened to be in the air that this person inhaled for the few breaths before they took the sample. In other words, there are many sources of genetic material. When they put those little bits of genetic material into the computer, the computer doesn’t know which organism they’re from—since they are not starting with a pure virus, there’s no way to tell.
When the computer runs the simulation and tries to fit these little strands of sequences together by overlapping ends, they don’t know whether the computer is making a real sequence of an organism, or if it’s putting little bits from different organisms together into some kind of mishmash or chimera. They have no way to check it against a reference standard, because there’s never been any true sequence of these viruses. What we end up with is just a simulation.
To give an idea of the problem, in the first sequence that they did this way with SARS-CoV-2, they actually had over fifty-six million little pieces or sequences, and they had not one but two different software programs independently take those pieces and try to construct them into a longer strand that they said was the size of a typical coronavirus genome. With one of the software programs, they just threw out the data because it didn’t give them what they wanted. So, they’re picking and choosing at each stage: “We think this is good. . . we want to use this.”
The other software program came up with over a million different possible sequences, but they just picked one. And there was no rhyme or reason to how they picked it. It was just an arbitrary selection. With all of the uncertainty about the origin of each individual piece of DNA, they just randomly select one of millions of possible combinations spit out by a computer. How could anyone believe these results represent the real genome of an actual organism? It would be impossible.
Lack of Proper Controls
Hammond states that virologists do a control experiment when they do the tissue cultures. That statement is not quite accurate. In a proper control, you have only one variable different, and as far as we know, virologists have never actually done this. The proper way to do it would be to take lung fluid from someone who is sick, but does not have Covid—sick with influenza or pneumonia, for example—or even lung fluid from someone who is healthy. Then, they would continue the experiment using the exact same methods, the same cell cultures, the same concentrations of antibiotics, the exact same nutrients, and any other additives or environmental conditions such as the same temperature, the same amount of agitation, the same protocols all around—that would be a proper control. No one is doing this type of proper control for virus identification.
Some of the papers about SARS-CoV-2 have mentioned what’s called a “mock infected culture,” but this is not the same as a control. In fact, we don’t know exactly what they do with these mock infected cultures. They’re not reported on in every paper, but in a couple they are. And curiously, they don’t describe these mock infected cultures at all. If you go to the methods sections, you don’t see any explanation of what a mock infected culture is. And they don’t mention the word “control.”
If they’re doing a true control experiment, why wouldn’t they call it a control culture? They have to use different words because they’re not really doing a proper control, but they’re trying to pass it off as one, which is why they change the words. We have read hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers on other subjects, and they always refer to the control group; they don’t say the “mock treatment group.” So, the mock infected culture is some kind of trick. We even tried to communicate with a couple of the corresponding authors on these publications. We asked an open-ended question: “Can you tell us the procedure for the mock infected cells listed in this figure?” In most cases, they didn’t reply at all.
In one case, we were unable to get a clear answer. The reply we received was, “They’re treated the same.” But what does that mean? “Can you tell us the exact conditions?” We even put our queries into a yes or no question like, “Did you use the same antibiotics at the same concentration? Did you use the same nutrition at the same concentration?” But we could not get a clear response, which suggests that they are probably hiding something.
We do have two examples of studies that included a control sample. The first comes from a 1954 article published in Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine by Enders and Peebles.4 This was the first published paper to use the cell culture technique, which later became known as “virus isolation.”
In this study on measles, the authors put the patient specimen in a foreign culture of monkey kidney cells and then they got cytopathic effects—meaning they were able to show some damage to the cell culture.
An interesting quote in this paper describes the results of the control experiment. “Monkey kidney cultures may therefore be applied for the study of these agents [referring to measles] in the same manner as cultures of human kidney. In doing so, however, it must be borne in mind that cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in a monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors.”
In other words, they saw a cytopathic effect in the cell culture that was alleged to be a result of damage from the measles virus itself—but it might not necessarily have come from the measles virus; it could have been caused by something in the kidney cells themselves, which they call viruses, or from unknown factors.
Continuing, the two authors said, “A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells.” Now, that means they did not put any sample from a measles patient in the culture; they ran the cell culture without a source of virus—just the cell culture with no patient sample in it. According to the authors, “The cytopathic changes induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles [emphasis added].” In other words, the sample with nothing added to it produced the same results as the sample containing fluid from the measles patient.
Since the control was positive, that means that the experimental procedure itself, and not the measles virus, caused the cytopathic changes.
An important recent control experiment was carried out by Dr. Stefan Lanka, who is the only virologist we are aware of who has recognized the truth about the nonexistence of a virus—and who left the field. What he did was carry out just the control experiment. There is no possible source of virus anywhere in this experiment. As you can see in Figure 2, the top row of panels is Day One and the second row is Day Five of the experiment.
FIGURE 2. Control experiment by Dr. Stefan LankaDay One is when they changed the cell culture conditions. Previous to Day One, all of these cell cultures were kept healthy with normal cell culture procedures; then, on Day One, they changed the condition. In the first column, they used the full nutrition (GlutaMAX plus 10 percent fetal calf serum) and antibiotics at the normal concentration. In the second column, they reduced the nutrition and kept the same concentration of antibiotics. There was no change on Day Five for either of these two procedures, no cytopathic effects.
The third column simulates what they do in virus cell culture isolation experiments, using reduced nutrition while increasing the antibiotic to three times the normal concentration. (The protocols use either two times or three times the normal concentration.) You can see that on Day Five, there were cytopathic effects—the cells developed vacuoles and started to break down. Normally, virologists would give this as proof of the existence of a virus, except that there’s no virus in this experiment.
In the fourth column, Lanka added yeast RNA, which doesn’t contain any viruses—it’s a pure yeast RNA specimen bought from a laboratory supply company with good quality control. You can see even more cytopathic effects on Day Five in that culture.
So, both these control experiments show that the experimental procedure itself produces the cytopathic effects. If you took the culture materials from the two dishes with cytopathic effects and looked at them under an electron microscope, you would see particles in there that you could call a virus.
Coronavirus Fringe Pattern
According to Hammond, virologists can see the characteristic coronavirus spikes on the particles they are calling viruses. Let’s review a couple of studies to see what is going on. The first was published in 2020 in Kidney360.5 In this study, researchers were looking at biopsies of people with kidney disease, mostly from before the Covid era. In the electron microscope photographs, they saw particles with the characteristic coronavirus spikes (see Figure 3). The researchers said that these were indistinguishable from coronavirus particles, which was a source of confusion for virologists. The authors pointed this out, and they even referenced a previous paper from the CDC that found the same thing.
FIGURE 3. “Viral-like particles in non-COVID19 patients’ biopsies. Electron microscopy images of viral-like particles within podocytes in a case of thrombotic microangiopathy in a (A) native kidney biopsy specimen and (B) acute cellular rejection in an allograft. Note the presence in both cases of single vesicles with an electrondense rim likely representing endocytic coated vesicles, as well as larger multivesicular bodies (arrows), which could be confounded with vesicle packets containing virions. Inset in (A): the individual small coated pits in the exterior of the vesicle bear resemblance to a viral corona. (C) Similar intracytoplasmic vesicles within tubules in an allograft with changes suspicious for acute cellular rejection.”They also said that they identified the protein that made up the spikes, and it was not the spike protein, but a protein called clathrin. So, seeing the characteristic spikes is completely meaningless; it doesn’t identify something as a coronavirus. Remember that these kidney biopsies were from people who had no disease that anyone thought was related to a virus, and it was before even the “discovery” of so-called SARS-CoV-2.
The second example comes from a “virus isolation” paper published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2020.6 A very interesting quote occurs in this paper: “Electron micrographs. . . showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles. Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.” In other words, they didn’t see any spikes so they added the digestive enzyme trypsin, which breaks or cleaves proteins at a certain sequence, and then looked at it again under the microscope—and then saw the spikes! (See Figure 4.)
FIGURE 4: “Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.”Now, isn’t that convenient? In other words, they put a spike suit on the particles so they could look like they’re supposed to look, instead of saying, “Hey, maybe there is no coronavirus in the sample.” If we have to digest a protein to make it look a certain way, then how could we say that’s what it is? It’s like having a cat but really wanting a dog, so you put a little microphone around the cat’s neck that makes a barking sound and then call it a dog. We would call this cheating.
Genome Sequencing
As Hammond and other adherents of viral theory have often stated, genome sequencing has been repeated thousands of times, and the results are published in international databases, so they can’t be a hoax. Actually, the in silico genome-sequencing procedure that we have described has been repeated over two million times—far more than Hammond claims. And of course, each time they get different results, because they can’t repeat results in an invalid experiment, so the different results are all published.
As described earlier, the way they do this is to take a bunch of pieces of unknown origin, which they run through different software simulations, and then pick out the one they like. And then they do some further magic on it by just popping things in or taking things out somewhat arbitrarily to make it look more like what they think a coronavirus genome should look like. Then they claim that this sequence is a “reference sequence” and against all of those couple of million experiments that they have repeated, they can template a reference genome. So, of course, the computer is able to put things together in such a way that it matches the so-called reference sequence somewhat closely, because the sequences that make this up are probably mostly just human sequences of non-coding RNA. (A recent analysis shows this and will soon be published.) Thus, you should be able to have similar enough sequences that you can put something together that’s close, but not exactly identical—which they then call “variants.”
Now Hammond claims that if the procedures were fraudulent, then tens of thousands of scientists all over the world would be participating together in a conspiracy; but that’s not the case at all because almost none of these scientists realizes that what they’re doing is not good science—they never question it. Doctors rarely question the things they’re taught; they just learn them and accept them as true. That’s why I (Andrew Kaufman) was recommending vaccines and using antibiotics earlier in my career, because I also just accepted those things and did them without question. Now I realize that they’re quite lethal, so I don’t do them anymore. There was a kind of individual process that I went through for that.
But the scientists involved in “virus isolation” don’t realize that they’re doing fraudulent science because they’ve never looked at it carefully. And one of the ways that science allows this kind of thing to happen is by a high degree of compartmentalization, where they don’t collaborate or talk with other people in different fields. They don’t learn how other scientists do their experiments and also how they do control experiments. And they don’t seem to talk to exosome scientists, often because they would then see that exosome scientists are able to extract and purify exosomes right from the source. And then they would try to do that and fail, because there aren’t any viruses, and then they would have to have a different conclusion and change their opinion.
But the truth is, it doesn’t matter whether all of the thousands of scientists doing “virus isolation” are in a conspiracy, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re completely ignorant, because the only thing that’s important is to look at the actual science itself—the experiments—and ask the question, can you learn something from this? Can you conclude anything from this experiment? And if the answer is no, it doesn’t matter how many people think you’re wrong, it only matters that the answer is no. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that the virologists have gotten this wrong, because in medicine this happens frequently. Take the example of beta blockers and heart failure. For many decades, it was an absolute contraindication to prescribe a beta blocker to someone with heart failure, because beta blockers make your heart beat less strongly and less rapidly. So, that was seen to make your heart weaker. But then research showed that actually, adding a beta blocker slows the progression of heart failure and allows people to live longer. It took some time for that scientific finding to be integrated into medicine, but there was no truth to the notion that doctors everywhere were in a conspiracy to hasten the death of heart failure patients. They were just ignorant to the truth of the scientific relationship between that drug in that condition. We could interpret “virus isolation” as a similar phenomenon; virologists who are doing these experiments are not able to actually show the results or provide the conclusive evidence because they are just ignorant of that fact, because they haven’t looked at it. It’s quite as simple as that.
Response to Mercola
Entering the virus debate on January 17, 2022, Dr. Joseph Mercola published a “fact-checked” article entitled, “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 is a Real Virus,”1 in which he insisted that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, photographed, genetically sequenced, and exists as a pathogenic entity.
Mercola cites studies from Italy, Germany, India, Columbia, Canada, Australia, Korea and the U.S., which claim to have isolated SARS-CoV-2 and characterized it by genome sequencing. However, none of these studies isolated any virus from the fluids of the patient; all of these studies used culturing techniques that can lead to tissue breakdown and the creation of exosomes (identical in form to “viruses”); none of these studies had a meaningful control; and all used questionable computer techniques to generate a genome in silico. Remember that these tissue cultures would also contain genetic material from the kidney cells of the culture and the bovine serum used as a nutrient medium. Even if the tissue cultures did contain viral particles, how can anyone know that the DNA the computer is analyzing comes from the virus?
As Mercola states, “Another sticking point for some is whether or not SARS-CoV-2 has ever been isolated from a human subject without passing it through animal cells, as such media could be contaminated and therefore the source of the virus.”
Indeed, this is the “sticking point!” All of the studies that Mercola cites as proof passed the sample through animal cells—cultures contaminated with fetal bovine serum and toxic antibiotics, and starved with a minimal nutrient medium.
Furthermore, no paper has proven that an isolated or pure virus obtained from a cell culture has ever made an animal or human sick in any way. Therefore, it is illogical, irrational and anti-scientific to claim that the “virus” is a pathogen.
According to Mercola, “At least part of the confusion appears to be rooted in how the term ‘isolated’ is defined. Some insist a virus is not isolated unless it’s also purified, while others say a virus doesn’t have to be purified in order to be ‘isolated.’” Actually, as we have pointed out, the confusion—deliberate confusion—results from virologists using the word “isolated” to mean “not isolated,” and insisting that “purified” and “isolated” do not mean the same thing.
More Genome Sequencing
One study Mercola highlights is a “genome sequencing” study published in January 2021 in Gut Pathology.7 In this study, the genetic material (RNA) was extracted directly from stool samples of a patient identified as having Covid-19 using the meaningless PCR test.
This paper relies on an in silico genome-sequencing procedure whereby they extract all of the RNA that is present in a body fluid or tissue sample, which would include a number of different sources of genetic material, including the person’s own. The material would include non-coding DNA that has been transcribed, spliced and recombined to make all sorts of novel sequences.
They then throw out the long fragments and just look at the short ones. This is a really important point, because the longer the sequence, the more you can be sure that it came from one source; whereas if you have short sequences, when they put them together in a longer sequence, parts of it could have come from different sources. It’s more reliable to have longer sequences, but then they can’t do the sequencing as fast. So, they put all those short sequences into the computer and let various computer software programs put them together, mapping them to the “reference” standard genome—which has been done in the same way—and then give you a result. The result is a little bit different each time, which is why they have over two million “variants.”
In this 2021 paper, they used fecal material, which they said contained the same genetic material as that extracted from the nose using a nasal swab. And interestingly, in this case, they did use a control group, which is very unusual—they actually used a purchased heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 toxic cell culture that served as a negative control.
The other unusual procedure was that they used shorter strands of RNA than normal. Usually, they look at strands of up to one hundred fifty base pairs, but in this study, they limited the length to seventy-six base pairs. This would result in even more error in terms of the source of each particular little strand.
They also skipped an important step, which they call making “contigs” (from the word contiguous). Usually, what they do is take all those little sequences of short strands—there are often over fifty million of them—and put them into software number-crunching programs that try to pair up overlapping sequences on the ends to make longer and longer strands—this is what they call “contig.” Then they pick one of the longest strands and use that as the base genome.
In this case, they didn’t do that. They just took the sequence strands and templated them right away against the reference standard from the database. In other words, they chose the pieces that would fit into the puzzle and entered them into the program, and then the software filled in the gaps and rearranged things as necessary. In this way, they made sure that the genome looked the way they wanted it to look.
All of the studies Mercola lists as proving the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are done in similar fashion to come up with a computer simulation, not a real genome taken intact from a real organism.
When Hammond talks about finding a genome of twenty-eight to twenty-nine thousand base pairs, it’s important to understand that they have never found this genome in any bodily fluid, just like they have never found anything they could call a virus. They have never found a strand of twenty-nine thousand base pairs; instead, they have created it in the computer by matching pieces together based on a template. In other words, they find the sequence only because that’s the sequence they’re telling it to find. This is not science!
More Covid-19 Virus Studies
Another paper cited by Mercola comes from Italy, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in August 2020.8 The researchers took a sputum sample from a sixty-five-year-old woman and diagnosed her with Covid-19 using a PCR test. Then they cultured the sample in kidney cells, followed by genome sequencing as described above. It’s the same in all the studies that Mercola cites. Nobody isolates the virus from the patient directly; nobody takes that virus and determines the genetic material in that virus; nobody takes that virus and exposes somebody else to it and shows that it causes disease.
Mercola cites a study from Colombia that is the same exact experiment—a nose swab cultured in a toxic cell culture, followed by genetic sequencing and electron microscopy.9 According to the researchers, “Electron microscopy images obtained from infected cells showed the presence of structures compatible with SARS-CoV-2”—not structures that are, but that are compatible.
These structures are also “compatible” with kidney failure and probably many other things. The authors state that the genetic composition of their isolates was consistent with the predominant variant—not saying it was the predominant variant. In other words, they are hedging at every turn.
At the end of his article, Mercola mentions “antibody dependent enhancement (ADE),” but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support something called ADE. Virus theory posits that we make antibodies against viral diseases. In July 2020, the head of the Bulgarian Pathology Association stated that they had found no monoclonal (coming from the same cell) antibodies in any of the people said to have died of Covid.10
This is like saying that no one has died of Covid, because since they haven’t found antibodies, they must conclude that the patients didn’t have Covid.
Does It Matter?
Hammond dismisses those who question the viral theory of disease as his “pet peeve” and “divisive” of the health freedom movement. According to Mercola, “Getting too far into the weeds of theories that refute the existence of viruses altogether will only slow down and hamper the truth movement rather than aid it along, and I would strongly discourage anyone from engaging in this highly unproductive narrative.” In other words, if you question the viral theory, you are the bad guy, hindering the movement for health freedom. One virus advocate has referred to “virus-deniers” as domestic terrorists!
And yet the virus debate has immense importance to the health freedom movement. All the objectionable “public health” measures— masks, social distancing, isolation, testing and above all toxic vaccines—are predicated on the belief that we are threatened by a virulent, contagious virus. If there is no virus—not for Covid-19, not for any disease—then the justification for forcing these measures on the public disappears.
SIDEBARS
Electron Microscopy
Scientists use an electron microscope in order to see the structures inside a cell. To view a sample under the electron microscope, they must prepare it using special procedures. One reason is that the beams of the electron microscope are extremely powerful and can heat the sample up to 150 degrees C. The preparation method requires the following steps:
FIXATION: The sample is placed in some kind of chemical fixative, such as formalin, glutaraldehyde or osmium tetroxide. This preserves the structure of the tissue.
DEHYDRATION: This step requires bathing the tissue many times in alcohol (ethanol or acetone) to remove all water from the tissue.
EMBEDDING: The tissue is put inside a small mold that is filled with paraffin wax or epoxy resin, which is then cooled to harden.
SLICING: The hardened resin is sliced into extremely thin pieces.
STAINING: The tissue is stained with some type of heavy metal, such as uranyl acetate, another name for uranium, or lead acetate, so you can have more contrast when you’re viewing the tissue through the electron microscope.
These methods will obviously have effects on biological samples. For example, formalin in the staining process is formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen and neurotoxin; glutaraldehyde is specifically dangerous for the gastrointestinal tract and the lungs, and osmium tetroxide causes pulmonary edema. Ethanol used in the alcohol baths can cause severe liver damage, and acetone damages the kidneys, the lungs and the brain. Paraffin wax and epoxy resin used for embedding can also affect biological tissues.
Most toxic are the heavy metals uranium and lead used for staining; they are bound to have toxic effects on biological samples. The result is that what you see using the electron microscope has little resemblance to living tissue—it is an artifact and a distortion, from which no conclusions about cell structure can be made.
A Mouse Study
Recently, Dr. Robert Malone stated that the omicron variant is not as dangerous as the others and that we should rethink our vaccines. One of the papers he cited was “Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model,” published in December 2021 in Emerging Microbes and Infections.11
In the abstract of this paper we read, “Older individuals are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. In addition, how age modulates SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infections remain largely unexplored. Here, we investigated age-associated SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune responses, and the occurrence of re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infection utilizing a wild-type C57BL/6N mouse model. We demonstrated that interferon and adaptive antibody response upon SARS-CoV-2 challenge are significantly impaired in aged mice compared to young mice, which results in more effective virus replications and severe disease manifestations in the respiratory tract. Aged mice also showed increased susceptibility to re-infection due to insufficient immune protection acquired during the primary infection.”
Now, when well-known spokesmen such as Dr. Robert Malone comment on the importance of a study like this, it works to convince the public that SARS-CoV-2 is real and the omicron variant is real. Maybe omicron is not so bad, maybe it is worse in the elderly, but in any event, the new “variant” is real.
According to Malone, the reason this study is important is that it explains the significant adverse event profile of the vaccines. We would agree that these adverse events combined with a milder disease profile of omicron raise the possibility that boosters may not be good medicine, even for the elderly, but the suggestion that viruses have anything to do with this only perpetuates the kind of misinformation that justifies everything that is wrong with how the health authorities have handled the pandemic—masks, social distancing, isolation, hand sanitizing and vaccinations.
According to the authors, the antibody response was severely impaired in aged mice leading to more severe disease. In the Materials and Methods section, we see that the SARS-CoV-2 variant was “isolated” from a confirmed Covid-19 patient in Hong Kong and that the virus was cultured in Vero (kidney) cells and stored at negative 80 degrees C.
Now, the important part: they expose the mice to a “variant” of the “virus”—to what they think is the omicron variant. One would expect that what scientists would do is take purified virus and expose the mice in the way that humans are exposed, by breathing it in the air. But what did these scientists do? They did a standard viral culture, meaning they inoculated monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) with fetal calf serum and an unpurified sample from a person with alleged “Covid.” (Fetal bovine serum, by the way, is taken from live aborted slaughterhouse calves whose blood is sucked directly from their hearts.) So, they didn’t, in fact, use a virus—that is a flat-out lie. Instead of a virus, they used a culture of kidney cells that contained some of the primers allegedly from a variant strain, a variant that has never been isolated.
Now, you would think that they must have sprayed this culture onto the mice, or gently into their noses, but that’s not what they did. Instead, they anesthetized the mice with toxic drugs—essentially poisoning them—and then squirted a mixture of phosphate-buffered saline and the toxic kidney culture under high pressure down their noses through an intranasal cannula directly into their lungs. No rational person would say that this type of experiment has any relation to what happens in old or young people or to anybody exposed to a “virus.” It’s ridiculous to call this science.
And then they found out whether the young mice did better than the old mice. Upon intranasal inoculation, the young mice transiently lost a maximum of 5 percent body weight for a short period. In contrast, the older mice lost 12 percent of body weight, and they didn’t recover. Moreover, the young mice did not show any sign of disease. The older mice showed hunched postures and labored breathing, which was more severe at higher doses of toxic cell culture injection into their lungs.
If you wanted to be precise in your language, you would say that young mice—injected, anesthetized and subjected to high-pressure squirts of toxins directly into their lungs—seemed to be okay; they just lost a little weight. That’s probably the definition of a bad day for a mouse. But they seemed to recover, whereas the older mice didn’t do as well. That’s what they found.
And then they did all kinds of biochemical histological genetic studies, analyzing the tissue after they ground up the nasal turbinates, the lungs and so forth. They then concluded, “Yep,” these mice have a lot more antibodies than they should—which means they are trying to protect themselves against being poisoned with toxic cell cultures injected right into their lungs.
The authors found that the staining of the nucleocapsid protein was more intense at higher doses of the stuff squirted up the mice’s lungs. Later, they say these findings indicate that SARS-CoV-2 “replicates more effectively in the respiratory tract of aged mice than young mice upon virus exposure.” We would submit that they never actually took out any virus and never saw any replication of any virus in any lung of any mouse.
In other words, the researchers essentially said, “This study does not prove what we thought it was proving, but is just another way to convince us that there is a virus and that the virus is the cause of disease.” When in fact, all this study really tells us is that older, poorly-fed mice do worse when exposed to poisons than younger ones.
Does it matter whether this disease is caused by a virus or not? When the Chief Medical Officer of the World Health Organization predicts that half of the United States is going to get sick in the next six to eight weeks, yes, it does matter. The problem with all this talk about viruses is that it completely obscures the reasons why people are getting sick. We know that a lot of people are getting sick from the injections, but they are not the only people getting sick. Unfortunately, as long as we stick to this nonsense called the viral narrative, we will never ask the right questions, and we will never get any answers as to what otherwise is making people sick.
Rapid Tests for Covid-19 Virus
Recently, the CDC announced—quietly and without explanation—that as of January 1, 2022, they were no longer going to use PCR tests for “diagnosing Covid.” Many people saw this as a kind of capitulation by the CDC, as if to say they had finally seen the light; or perhaps there was enough pressure on CDC that they realized they had to back down quietly from the PCR test. Many people interpreted the CDC’s move as an end to testing, and since this pandemic is really a pandemic of testing, they believed this would go a long way toward ending the pandemic. After all, if they stopped doing the test, nobody would test positive. However, the CDC didn’t say they were going to end testing.
The problem is that these people are playing chess, while the rest of us are playing checkers—if they’re playing chess, we need to play chess, too, and understand the motivations and the rationale behind some of the moves we’re hearing about. And this is particularly true in the case of things that seem to be small victories—sometimes even fairly large victories—because upon closer examination, they don’t all turn out to be the victories that we imagined.
The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is not a diagnostic test, it’s a manufacturing tool, and it does not test whether or not anybody has any virus. Rather, the PCR is a method to rapidly make millions to billions of copies (complete copies or partial copies) of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it (or a part of it) to a large enough amount to study in detail. The inventor, Kary Mullis, was emphatic that his test could not be used to diagnose or determine disease.
The PCR amplifies the DNA sample anywhere from twenty to forty cycles in order to get enough genetic material to detect—the test does this by showing a color change. To use the PCR as a diagnostic test requires two assumptions. The first is that you know that the genetic sequence you are amplifying comes from the virus you are looking for; the second is that there are no other biological organisms in the sample—no microbes, bacteria, fungi or human DNA. To repeat, the premise of using the PCR for diagnosis is that you already know the sequence of the virus, and you know that this primer sequence is one of the pieces of the entire virus genome, and that no other biological organism has that same sequence of DNA. We know that both these premises are not true with PCR Covid tests. Actually, one of the people who came up with the original primer sequences was Christian Drosten, who admitted in a paper that they never had a copy of any virus.12
Now, just think about that for a minute. If you never had a copy of the virus, how can you possibly know that this piece of the genome is a piece of the virus, that it actually came from a virus? If we gave you a sentence and asked you whether this sentence came from a certain book, the obvious common-sense question that any rational human being would ask is, can you show me the book? How can you know whether a sentence comes from a certain book if you don’t have the book?
Furthermore, how can you prove that no other living being has this same sequence? You can determine this by doing what is called a BLAST search, which searches the database of all the genome sequences of all the organisms that have ever been sequenced. Scientists have done this and found out that the same sequence used in the PCR test primers for SARS-CoV-2 is found in at least ninety human sequences and ninety microbial sequences (meaning bacterial or fungal sequences).
Thus, the second premise, that a sequence is unique to a specific virus, is also not true. The sequence is found in humans and in bacteria. If you start with a sample that has sequences that come from humans and that has bacteria and fungus in it, there is no way of knowing whether the positive match—the sticking of the primer to a sequence in the sample that will then be amplified—comes from a virus, the person, bacteria, fungus or maybe from something else.
So, the PCR test is invalid—there are no “false positives,” there are no “false negatives,” there are just false results. So, shouldn’t we applaud when the CDC finally acknowledges that they are not going to do a PCR test anymore?
The question is, what are they going to replace it with? According to government announcements, they are going to use a “higher throughput and multiplexed assay with biotinylated primers.” To explain further: “This developed invention is multiplex and uses the Luminex bead-based liquid assay, which contains one hundred different unique bead oligonucleotide probes with sequences complementary to the target sequences covalently coupled to these unique beads. These capture beads are mixed with viral samples obtained from the patient via cheek swabbing or throat wash and subjected to PCR in a conventional thermocycler. The amplified target sequences then hybridize to complementary capture oligonucleotide probes via forward biotinylated primers; if this bead probe amplicon unit contains the target nucleic acid, it will be bound by the reporter molecule and fluorescence will be detected by flow site cytometer. This multiplex assay would thus be able to detect and identify respiratory pathogens present in hospital and clinical settings.”
English translation: Instead of the old PCR test, they are going to use one hundred different unique beads. These beads contain the primer sequences, and they’re all attached to the other beads. These beads are mixed with viral samples from the patient, and then they are put into PCR amplification cycles.
Now, the only real difference between this and the normal PCR test is that there are more of the primer sequences—like one hundred more—attached to a compound called biotin. These biotinylated primers stick easily to the sequences in the sample, which then get put into the old-fashioned PCR thermocycler, so that they can be amplified. And then you get a result. Now, instead of a PCR test for Covid, one test will test for all the “viruses.”
The upshot of this is that now they will be able to say that you have many different viruses, all at the same time. Since all these viruses can make you sick (so they will argue), you may need a vaccine for each one of them.
This is a checkmate: They now are able to find the code for the original “virus” as well as the delta variant and the lambda variant, right on through the Greek alphabet, because they can make it look like you have multiple different sequences. These sequences amplify more easily because they figured out a way to make the primer sequences stick more readily to whatever is in your sample. And this is not a single-plex test. This is a multiplex assay, which means they can find any number they want, just by increasing the amplifications. And checkmate, they got us.
So, they replaced the old-fashioned PCR with something that will make the whole thing even worse. The lesson is that we should not be fooled by false minor victories, because they are not necessarily good news.
The Seven U.S. Government Payoffs to Kill You in Hospitals
by Dr. Peterson Pierre13
If you have Covid, and you end up in the hospital, you’re put on a rigid protocol. There’s a high mortality rate in the hospital, and your family is kept in the dark about what is happening. So, what’s going on here?
The CARES Act is providing bonus payments to hospitals whenever they have a diagnosis of Covid, while the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is waiving patient rights. This is a deadly combination.
The hospital gets the first payment when they offer a free Covid test in the emergency room, and they get another payment if they can come up with a diagnosis of Covid. Number three, they get another bonus payment if they admit a patient with Covid. Number four, they get another bonus payment if the patient is put on remdesivir. Number five, another bonus payment if the patient is put on a mechanical ventilator. Number six, another 20 percent bonus if the diagnosis on your death certificate says Covid, even though you may not have died from Covid. And then number seven, there are bonus payments for the coroners.
Does the public understand the gravity of what’s happening right now? The government is literally paying hospitals to kill you. That’s what’s happening. These are real human lives we’re talking about, priceless human lives. It’s estimated that about one hundred thousand dollars per patient is what the hospital is getting. Think about that.
Rai A, Fang H, Fatmous M, et al. A protocol for isolation, purification, characterization, and functional dissection of exosomes. Methods Mol Biol. 2021;2261:105-149.
Vanderheuvel D, Rombouts S, Adriaenssens EM. Purification of bacteriophages using anion-exchange chromatography. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1681;59-69.
Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954;86(2):277-286.
Cassol CA, Gokden N, Larsen CP, et al. Appearances can be deceiving – Viral-like inclusions in COVID-19 negative renal biopsies by electron microscopy. Kidney360. 2020;1(8):824-828.
Caly L, Druce J, Roberts J, et al. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia. Med J Aust. 2020;212(10):459-462.
Papoutsis A, Borody T, Dolai S, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing. Gut Pathog. 2021;13(1):7.
Colavita F, Lapa D, Carletti F, et al. SARS-CoV-2 isolation from ocular secretions of a patient with COVID-19 in Italy with prolonged viral RNA detection. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(3):242-243.
Díaz FJ, Aguilar-Jiménez W, Flórez-Álvarez L, et al. Isolation and characterization of an early SARS-Cov-2 isolate from the 2020 epidemic in Medillin, Colombia. Biomedica. 2020;40(Supl. 2):148-158.
Chen Y, Li C, Liu F, et al. Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11(1):368-383.
Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045.
John Pierce Law has filed a lawsuit against Atlas Air, on behalf of US Freedom Flyers (USFF) and Atlas employees, and plans to sue all major airlines, 18 altogether, plus the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT), contending that the vaccine mandates imposed by these agencies on the airlines’ employees infringed on their constitutional, religious, and medical liberties.
The lawsuit against Atlas Air was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida, with over 100 plaintiffs pursuing litigation.
“Fundamentally, this case is about whether Americans should be required to choose between their livelihoods and being coerced into taking an experimental, dangerous medical treatment,” reads the lawsuit (pdf).
Plaintiffs are mostly unvaccinated pilots, flight attendants, as well as other Atlas staff.
“It is also about the safety of America’s airline industry. Should pilots—under federal regulation required to be among the healthiest workers in the United States—who have taken an experimental ‘vaccine’ that is now shown to have potentially deadly, long-term side effects, be allowed to fly massive aircraft in our skies? While those who have (smartly) refrained from such a course be forced out of their jobs?” it states.
Atlas Air is one of the industry’s largest cargo carrier companies and the world’s largest operator of the Boeing 747 aircraft.
The law firm was founded by Att. John Pierce, who founded the National Constitutional Law Union. He previously represented George Papadopoulos in connection with the 2016 “Russia Hoax,” reaching a dismissal of the DNC’s case and helping secure a presidential pardon. He is also currently representing defendants being charged in connection to the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
“So the complaint has been filed. We’re in the process of serving everyone. And then, we’ll likely be looking for some kind of injunctive relief here soon to make sure that all the COVID-related mandates stop immediately. And then we’ll proceed [with] litigation, motion, practice, and discovery and then onward to trial eventually,” Pierce told The Epoch Times.
This week, John Pierce Law plans to file another lawsuit against United Airlines.
“We’ll be hitting basically all of them in sequence, and then we’ll be going after the FAA as well. We’re gonna get these vaccine mandate type of rules and COVID restrictions ruled unconstitutional. And we’re gonna get findings that there was discrimination under Title Seven. We’re gonna get punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and things like that,” Pierce said.
“It’s going to require a big fix, ultimately. And that’s probably going to require legislation and kind of getting all the stakeholders at the table, but the first step is civil litigation.”
Airlines, which are government contractors, are affected by President Joe Biden’s order from September of last year that states all employees of those companies have to be vaccinated against the Chinese Communist Party virus.
Pierce said that as soon as he heard about the airline mandates he predicted that it would be the next big wave of litigations.
“[These lawsuits are] absolutely crucial. It’s a very, very red line—If you get to the point where you have to choose between getting an experimental drug shot in your arm and your paycheck, that’s just unAmerican, it’s unconstitutional, it’s outrageous, it’s sickening.”
“If that’s not the hill to die on when it comes to liberty, that’s about as close as I can imagine it,” Pierce said.
Josh Yoder, a major airline pilot and a spokesperson for Freedom Flyers who recently supported the trucker-led “The People’s Convoy,” says that there has been harassment, threats, intimidation, vaccine injuries, and even “suicides that have come out of these mandates.”
“We’re not doing class action. We’re doing individual litigants. And the reason we’re doing it that way is because so many people have been harmed and people have experienced different levels of harm. We have the unvaccinated who have been harassed, threatened, and intimidated into getting vaccinated. Then we have many people as well who got vaccinated against their will, who were coerced and forced into doing it under threat of losing their employment,” Yoder said.
“And then, in addition, we have the vaccine-injured, and the numbers of vaccine-injured are growing by the day,” Yoder went on, “It’s just incredible what’s happening with pilots.”
Pilots have to maintain a flight physical in order to maintain their licenses.
The Epoch Times recently reported that a pilot for American Airlines, one of the top 3 largest airlines in the country, suffered a cardiac arrest between two flights, about 6 minutes after landing.
“And so what we’re seeing is many pilots are experiencing health conditions. Specifically, cardiac issues [are] what we’re seeing a lot of. And many of these pilots are afraid to come forward because if they come forward they lose their flight physical, they lose their flight medical. So they’re continuing to fly. We have a lot of pilots that are flying with chest pain and neurological conditions, because if they come forward they lose their careers,” Yoder said.
Freedom Flyers is now acting as an advocacy group between the pilots, the FAA, and the companies in order to assist them in coming forward and speaking out on their conditions.
“We have a massive team of medical professionals who are helping these people, but we’re asking everyone to come forward. While it’s absolutely devastating to their careers, we need them to come forward because this is the safety of the American public that we’re talking about,” Yoder said.
According to a group of attorneys, doctors, and other experts—and a pilot who says his career ended due to adverse reactions from a vaccine—the FAA has been breaking its own rule that states pilots should not fly after having taken medications that have been approved for less than a year, The Epoch Times reported in December.
One of the most extraordinary achievements of the so-called Great Reset has been to create a massive new wave of worldwide resistance to its overall programme!
While Schwab et al may well have hoped that this movement would be halted by the sudden switch of emphasis from “pandemic” to war, the long-term effect looks more like broadening and solidifying resistance to a monstrous system whose many heads are now very obviously all connected to the same slimey body.
Italy, for instance, is witnessing a certain convergence, under the Great Resist banner, of opposition to vaccine passports, the EU and NATO.
Lazio councillor Davide Barillari is well known for his opposition to the “Green Pass” and associated injections.
He is also a leading opponent of the American military presence in Italy – there are dozens of US bases there, some secret, hosting 13,000 troops.
The Ukraine conflict has stoked opposition to this de facto post-WW2 occupation of Italy, with various campaigns and protests springing up.
At the end of April, Barillari published on his website an incendiary third-party text entitled “Enough lies! Italy must get out of NATO!”.
The anti-system convergence has also been noticeable at protests like that in Genoa, where people marched for “peace and freedom”.
The same phenomenon is apparent in Germany, another place with a heavy US military presence.
In France, just a week after Emmanuel Macron managed to win the presidential election, there was a massive Mayday anti-government protest in Paris which saw the police pick up on the levels of militarised brutality used against the Gilets Jaunes since 2018.
And in Ireland, photo-journalist Robert Pierzynski has been recording a series of freedom demonstrations, such as this one in Galway on May 22.
As our recent online poll unsurprisingly revealed, the vast majority of human beings have no desire to become slaves of the ruling mafia in a technocratic transhumanist world state!
Since a new wave of ‘domestic terror attacks’ have erupted over the past two weeks both in Buffalo and now more recently in Texas, the citizens of the USA and trans-Atlantic community more broadly are being whipped up into a frenzy of fear and confusion over the causes of ‘domestic terror’ which can only be remedied by increased dictatorial powers of the population.
As has often been the trend in our post-9/11 age, such highly publicized atrocities have tended to carry in their wake ever expanded state powers to surveille, censor and manipulate the confused and fearful population who lacks an ability to discern the true causes of the horrifying events framed for their consumption on mainstream media.
Before acquiescing to greater tyrannical powers to those agencies controlling western governments in exchange for promised security, it were wise to evaluate how and why terrorism – domestic or otherwise – has tended to arise over the past century.
If, in the course of conducting this evaluation, we find that terrorism is truly a “naturally occurring phenomenon”, then perhaps we might conclude alongside many eminent figures of the intelligence community and Big Tech, that new pre-emptive legislation targeting the rise of a new conservative-minded domestic terrorist movement is somehow necessary. Maybe the censoring of free speech, and the surveillance of millions of Americans by the Five Eyes is a necessary evil for the sake of the greater good.
However, if it is revealed that the thing we call “terrorism”, is something other than a naturally occurring, self-organized phenomenon, but rather something which only exists due to vast support from western political agencies, then a very different conclusion must be arrived at which may be disturbing for some.
But how to proceed?
Before it was revealed that ISIS was being supported by a network of Anglo-American intelligence agencies and their allies in a failed effort to overthrow Bashar al Assad, an exhaustive 2012 study was conducted by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. This study provides a convenient entry point to our inquiry.
In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil. Reporting on the Fordham study, The Nation stated:
“Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants—who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own—have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism.”
Of course, this trend preceded 9/11 itself as we see in the case of FBI informant Emad Salem (formerly associated with the Egyptian Military) who recorded hundreds of hours of conversation between himself and his FBI handlers which were reported publicly by the New York times on October 28, 1993. Why is this important? Because Emad Salem was the figure who rented the van, hotel rooms, provided bomb-making instruction, tested out explosives on behalf of Mohammed Salamah and 15 other terrorists who carried out the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing which injured 1000 and killed 6 people.
Even though several large-scale military war game scenarios were conducted between October 2000 and July 2001 featuring planes flying into both the World Trade Center buildings and Pentagon, the incoming Neocon administration were somehow caught with their pants down when the events of 9/11 finally took place (conveniently at a moment that NORAD had suffered a total breakdown of their continental warning and response systems). When all flights were grounded over the coming several days, Cheney and his PNAC cohorts ensured that the only flights permitted to leave the USA was crammed with high level Saudi royals- including the Bin Laden family.
Why was this done?
As the declassified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission report went far to demonstrate, the Saudis- largely coordinated by Prince Bandar Bin Sultan (Saudi Ambassador to the USA from 1983-2005 and Bush family insider) had provided the foundation for a cover story that was carefully scripted to justify the 9/11 incident.
Whether the plot was hatched by CIA-Saudi sponsored terrorists as some assume, or whether it was a controlled demolition as hundreds of architects and engineers have testified to (or whether it was a combination of both stories), one thing is certain: The official narrative is a lie and no matter how you try to explain it, two airplanes cannot cause the collapse of three WTC buildings.
Another thing is certain: Biden was happy.
Not only did Joe Biden act as one of the most aggressive voices for the invasion of Iraq in the days following 9/11, but he even bragged publicly that John Ashcroft’s 2001 Patriot Act was modelled nearly verbatim on his own failed 1994 Omnibus domestic surveillance legislation drafted in response to the first 9/11 attack and 1994 Oklahoma City bombing.
Another important outcome of 9/11 involved the re-organization of the FBI with a focus on domestic terrorist surveillance, prevention, disruption and entrapment.
In 2001, MI5’s Chief came to the USA where then-FBI director Robert Mueller was assigned the task of carrying out this new remix of U.S. intelligence that involved re-activating many of the worst characteristics of the FBI’s earlier COINTEL PRO operations that were made public during the 1974 Church Committee hearings.
“They have done a number of things to move them in the direction of an MI5,” says a person close to the changes. “They’ve created agents who are trained to have an intelligence function. They’re monitoring organizations within the U.S. that pose threats to national security … not with an eye toward prosecuting, but toward collecting and analyzing that information.”
An incredible report by investigative Journalist Edward Spannaus listed a short list of some of the most extreme cases of FBI entrapment between 2001-2013 in the USA:
“One of the most egregious of these cases is the so-called “Newburgh Four” in New York State, in which an informant in 2008-09 offered the defendants $250,000, as well as weapons, to carry out a terrorist plot. The New York University Center for Human Rights and Justice reviewed this case and two others, and concluded: “The government’s informants introduced and aggressively pushed ideas about violent jihad and, moreover, actually encouraged the defendants to believe it was their duty to take action against the United States.”
The Federal judge presiding over the Newburgh case, Colleen McMahon, declared that it was “beyond question that the government created the crime here,” and criticized the Bureau for sending informants “trolling among the citizens of a troubled community, offering very poor people money if they will play some role—any role—in criminal activity.”
In Portland, Ore., it was disclosed during the trial of the “Christmas Tree bomber” earlier this year, that the FBI had actually produced its own terrorist training video, which was shown to the defendant, depicting men with covered faces shooting guns and setting off bombs using a cell phone as a detonator. The FBI operative also traveled with the target to a remote location where they detonated an actual bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the planned attack.
In Brooklyn, N.Y., in 2012, an FBI agent posing as an al-Qaeda operative supplied a target with fake explosives for a 1,000-pound bomb, which the FBI’s victim then attempted to detonate outside the Federal Reserve building in Manhattan.
In Irvine, Calif., in 2007, an FBI informant was so blatant in attempting to entrap members of the local Islamic Center into violent jihadi actions, that the mosque went to court and got a restraining order against the informant.
In Pittsburgh, Khalifa Ali al-Akili became so suspicious of two “jihadi” FBI informants who were trying to recruit him to buy a gun and to go to Pakistan for training, that he contacted both the London Guardian and the Washington-based National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, and told them that he feared the FBI was trying to entrap him. The National Coalition scheduled a press conference for March 16, 2012, at which al-Akili was to speak and identify the informants, but the day before the scheduled press conference, the FBI arrested al-Akili, charging him not with terrorism, but with illegal possession of a firearm.
The chief informant trying to entrap al-Akili turned out to be Shaden Hussain, a longtime FBI informant who had set up two earlier terrorism cases: the above-cited Newburgh, N.Y., case for which he was paid $100,000, and another in Albany, N.Y., for which his payments are not known.”
In the months since the events on January 6, 2021 we have only seen that this practice continued in full swing within the United States, as reports of FBI agents provocateurs began to circulate widely even being covered extensively by Tucker Carlson on June 15. Recent revelations that the “domestic terrorist” cell which recently plotted the kidnaping of Michigan’s Governor Whitmer were composed primarily of FBI informants and even the Proud Boys Enrique Tarrio was proven to be an FBI informant earlier this year along with leading strata of the Oath Keepers. The fact that Steve D’Antuono (FBI bureau chief in Michigan overseeing Whitmer operation) was promptly promoted to FBI bureau chief of Washington D.C. where his skills were put to good use on January 6 should not be lost on anyone.
Just to add a cherry atop this poisoned Sundae, during this same period of time, it was revealed by leaked FBI documents that Joshua Caleb Sutter- controller of the white supremacist group Atomwaffen and also the satanic Temple of Blood cult was paid over $180,000 by the FBI since 2003 ($80,000 of which was paid out after 2018).
Not Only the USA
This post 9/11 practice was not isolated to the USA, as a Canadian appeals court overruled guilty sentences handed down to an idiotic couple who were caught by the RCMP before their July 2016 jihadi plot to bomb a public venue on Canada Day could occur. Why did the appeals judge overrule their sentence? Because it became clear that every single member of the operation which radicalized the young couple, trained them to make bombs and even scripted their attack were RCMP informants!
Earlier cases of controlled domestic terrorist movements in Canada saw CSIS (Canada’s Security and Intelligence Service) erase thousands of hours of wiretaps of Sikh terrorists that detonated bombs in 1984 which lead to 329 dead in the worst act of aviation terrorism until 9/11. Despite this destruction of evidence, CSIS was absolved of its sins in 2005 by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). It was also this same organization that was revealed to have co-founded the white supremacist Heritage Front in 1988, and continued to finance it with tax payer funds using CSIS agent Grant Bristol as the conduit and Heritage Front controller until at least 1994.
Anglo-Canadian intelligence controls of domestic terrorism actually go as far back as the bomb-loving Front de Liberation Quebec (FLQ) of the 1960s that set dozens of mailbox bombs across the province. Not only did the RCMP Security Services get caught red handed managing FLQ cells, spreading FLQ graffiti on buildings and even supplying explosives to the group itself, but the FLQ’s “intellectual leader” (Pierre Vallieres) was also the Editor-in-Chief of the very same magazine (Cite Libre) which was run for a decade by none other than Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau!
When major press agencies blew the whistle on the federal intelligence agencies behind the FLQ which justified months of Martial Law in Quebec in 1970, Trudeau’s right hand man (and fellow Cite Libre writer) Michael Pitfield created a new organization called the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in 1983 as a branch of the Privy Council Office in order to continue psychological operations going under a new name.
If anyone wishes to look through the voluminous RCMP/CSIS files accumulated on Pierre Trudeau’s strange connections with the FLQ and broader Fabian Society networks during the Cold War, they would be out of luck as historians were informed in 2019 that the entire Trudeau record archive were secretly destroyed by CSIS in 1989 simply because they “weren’t interesting”.
It is important to keep in mind that the RCMP’s techniques were not specifically Canadian, but were innovated by the FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTEL PRO) which J. Edgar Hoover launched in 1956 in order to subvert “dangerous civil rights groups” then emerging under the leadership of Paul Robeson and Martin Luther King Jr. From the program’s inception until its nominal death in 1975, not only did the FBI infiltrate every anti-establishment grouping from the U.S. Communist Party (CPUSA), to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), NAACP to the Black nationalist movements throughout the 1960s, but ensured that its informants played leading roles in instilling internal conflict, radicalized groups towards violence and even set up leaders like Fred Hampton for assassination.
The strange case of Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers who enjoyed vast institutional support and protection after their time running domestic terrorism as leaders of the Weather Underground is something that should also be investigated. The fact that both domestic terrorists not only became affluent Soros-tied education reformers, and early sponsors of Barack Obama’s political career is more than just a tiny anomaly which can simply be dismissed. (1)
Where did Hoover’s FBI generate COINTEL PRO tactics?
To answer this question, we need to look further back to British Intelligence’s Camp X, established in December 1941 in Canada with the mandate to train American and Canadian spies under the control of spymaster William Stephenson (station chief for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in New York).
The motive for Camp X had two interconnected components:
1) Prepare the groundwork for a deeper integration of U.S.-British Intelligence in preparation for the purge of patriotic U.S. intelligence officers allied to FDR’s vision of the post-war age, and
2) Train U.S. spies in the art of “secret warfare” which included counterfeiting, psychological warfare, propaganda, counter insurgency, assassination, and infiltration of target groups.
Under Stephenson’s direction and staffed with Canadian RCMP operatives, the first generation of OSS spymasters were trained; including leading figures of the FBI’s Division 5 who went onto reformulate their WWII Camp X training in the form of assassination operations such as Permindex (operated by Camp X’s Major General Louis Mortimer Bloomfield).
In Conclusion
While I could have said more about the origins of America’s Secret Police which arose under Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, or the earlier deployment of domestic terrorism by Freemasonic lodges affiliated with Albert Pike (founder of the Ku Klux Klan) in an effort to undo Lincoln’s vision for industrial restoration of the South, these stories will have to be left for another time.
For now, it is enough to state that the “war on terror” set into motion by the World Trade Center attacks of 1993 and 2001, is now expanding to target a broad spectrum of the American population who would be morally resistant to the sorts of anti-human policies demanded by Great Reset Technocrats. This dishonest effort must be exposed and rejected before those actual controllers of terrorism attain their objectives: The destruction of nation states, the imposition of a new ethical paradigm premised on depopulation and entropy.
Footnote
(1) By the late 1970s, the creation of controlled terrorist movements was applied vigorously to the Middle East in the form of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s great idea of channeling money, weapons and other support to radical madrasas across Afghanistan as part of an asymmetrical warfare against the Soviet Union. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, these operations vastly expanded with the help of Saudi intelligence and Mossad involvement on the ground- always coordinated by Anglo American intelligence handlers. Islamic terrorism, just like “domestic American terrorism” always had much less to do with Islam and more to do with political agendas wishing to destroy national governments.
1. Normal people have no interest in killing children, especially ones they do not know, especially in large numbers.
2. In my view, only people subject to mind control (please investigate Sirhan Sirhan or read about US intelligence agency attempts to create mind controlled assassins beginning in the 1950s) or people taking certain drugs, or special trained assassins are even capable of carrying out such an act. [In the case of Sirhan Sirhan, who did fire wildly on a crowd, but did not kill Kennedy, the actual assassin was an intelligence asset. From the WaPo in 2018:
Though Sirhan admitted at his trial in 1969 that he shot Kennedy, he claimed from the start that he had no memory of doing so. And midway through Sirhan’s trial, prosecutors provided his lawyers with an autopsy report that launched five decades of controversy: Kennedy was shot at point-blank range from behind, including a fatal shot behind his ear. But Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was standing in front of him.
3. School shootings are the most provocative and effective way to initiate a change in gun laws, which means taking away the guns from some or all of the people who privately own them.
4. The large number of American gun owners pose a daunting challenge to the globalists who wish to control them. Police and military will not be willing to enter the homes of gun owners to remove their guns or for other purposes.
5. Few Europeans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders own guns, and it is believed by many that the imposition of much harsher lockdowns on the citizens of these nations, compared to the US, was enabled by this fact.
6. There have been shortages of guns and ammunition in the US since the onset of the pandemic. Whether this is due to supply-demand, including increased purchases by the federal government, or to other market forces, is not clear.
7. There has been very little exploration into the past history of those who committed mass murders in the US in recent years, especially in schools. I want to know if any or all of these mass murderers may have been enrolled in black mind control projects.
8. I want a full accounting of the mind control programs paid for with taxpayer dollars in the US and elsewhere.
9. I want an investigation into the many thousands of self-reported “targeted individuals” (TIs) who complain of voices beamed into their heads and other forms of what can only be termed torture.
10. I want an investigation into the implants some of these people claim were introduced into their bodies.
11. A reader sent me this piece by David Swanson, revealing that at least a third of mass US shooters have been trained in the US military. Were they put through mind control programs while serving their country?
12. Why have so many assassins and mass shooters appeared to be in an altered state of consciousness immediately after the event, and/or at other times? Think Sirhan Sirhan, Mark David Chapman, Reagan’s attempted assassin whose father was having dinner with GHW Bush the week of the attempt? Has anyone analyzed their behaviors systematically? Their histories and connections to the powerful?
13. We are being attacked in many perverse ways, and we must open our eyes, take our power back, or the attacks will continue and will destroy us.
One thing I’ve learned from giving lectures to audiences over the years: never meet expectations.
“Expectations” is a large container waiting to be filled up. People have these containers. They lug them around with them. They want them to be filled up.
For example, if they expect shocking information from the speaker, and they get it, their expectations are met.
Audiences train themselves to be audiences, and their expectation-containers are ready when they sit down to listen.
There is something missing. Something monumental.
The present moment. The present now. The alive moment. Because, for all its fanfare and interest, the event is not really in the present.
This is by design. No one wants the moment. People’s whole lives are devoted to avoiding the moment, because it is spontaneous. That’s what a moment is. Spontaneous.
“Everyone can act. Everyone can improvise. Anyone who wishes to can play in the theater and learn to become ‘stage-worthy.’” (Viola Spolin)
No one is used to spontaneity. No one is prepared for it.
No one knows what they would do or how they would react in the spontaneous moment. That’s why it is avoided.
“Through spontaneity we are re-formed into ourselves.” (Viola Spolin)
Yet, the paradox is: people yearn for the spontaneous moment. They yearn for that freedom. It’s not freedom as an idea or concept, but freedom as a living thing.
I bring all this up because passivity is the universal effect of living for most people. In that state, they still have expectations and those big containers, but the way they receive information—they certainly don’t intend to climb up out of their own passivity. That’s the last thing they would do.
“It [spontaneity] creates an explosion that for the moment frees us from handed-down frames of reference, memory choked with old facts and information and undigested theories and techniques of other people’s findings. Spontaneity is the moment of personal freedom when we are faced with reality, and see it, explore it and act accordingly. In this reality the bits and pieces of ourselves function as an organic whole. It is the time of discovery, of experiencing, of creative expression.” (Viola Spolin)
So when I speak to audiences at live events, I find a way to remind them that we’re in a kind of false relationship. It’s interesting and false at the same time. There we are in a room, and I’m the speaker and they’re the audience. I’m active and they’re passive.
Those are our roles. Those are our functions. It’s accepted, but it’s unworkable. It’s self-defeating, unless we all want to be existing in a dead space outside the living present moment. And I don’t.
This means I have to readjust things. I have to let people know that I know they’re there. Right now. I know they’re listening, and I know they’re absorbing, and I know that beyond a certain point (10-15 minutes), they’re going to shift down into passive mode.
Finding a way, an interesting way to let them know is a challenge.
It’s really a challenge that extends to the whole world.
Are we alive or are we doing it by the numbers?
Look at any set-up, which is “the way things are supposed to be,” and “the parts that people are supposed to play,” and you can see light. The light is what could happen to upset that situation and turn it into something else. Something that would bring people in from the cold, into the moment itself.
Here’s something I can guarantee anywhere in the universe where beings populate planets, where they think, plan, strategize. They’re not living in the moment, but they claim they are. They’ll say, “How could I be anywhere else? We’re all in the present. That’s all there is.”
But they’re wrong. Their big containers are in the moment, and they’re waiting outside to accept the flow of information from the containers.
If a person (usually a hard-headed realist) thinks he’s already in the moment, have him go up on a stage with another person and take on the role of a galactic cop on patrol, questioning a suspect who is accused of stealing a planet. If the realist can eventually improvise and do it, he’ll experience being in the moment in a way he never has before.
Likewise, if he painted 200 paintings, something different would happen to him. He would come to the edge of what he already knows (which he’s expressing in the paintings), and then he would step off. He would do something on the paper or canvas which is not what he knows. It would arise spontaneously, and he would feel a new space, a new energy, a new now.
Imagination. Alive imagination. That’s the key. The key to the door that leads out of the Matrix.
What’s wrong with Zen?
Nothing is wrong with Zen, except the people who practice it.
That’s a joke. Sort of.
In the modern style, especially in America, Zen is mostly meditation, and more meditation, and more meditation, and the point of it seems to be to get to a zero point, where you can watch your own mind, your own thoughts, and finally, without effort, stay separate from them, separate from all that radio static, and separate also from your own unbidden parade of emotions that swing by with tooting horns and crashing cymbals and clacking drums and gawking dancing clowns.
A laudable goal.
But on the whole, how many people who do this wind up becoming passive? That’s the thing. People tend to opt for quietness.
Whereas, the whole idea ought to be: launch a tremendous amount of dynamic action from the platform of zero-stillness.
Because stillness as a way of life sooner or later begins to disintegrate.
In original Zen, there were ordeals. The teacher gave the student things to do, tasks which eventually became absurd, without discernible purpose. The teacher spoke to the student in riddles and wisecracks. The teacher drove the student into a state of desperation, because the student’s rational faculties, which were obsessively involved in systems, couldn’t supply answers to questions which defied logic.
The teacher did whatever he had to do to bring the student out over the edge of the cliff, where in mid-air, there were no foundations…and the student felt terror. But the teacher persisted.
And then, in one explosive moment, the student found himself floating in the air. He saw there was no need to explain his existence. There was no need to place a veil between himself and the present moment. He didn’t die. He was, finally, alive.
Who knows how this radical approach actually worked out in the many cloisters and huts and cottages where it was practiced, where the stories grew and expanded in their retelling.
Those old teachers were tough characters. They weren’t merely meditation instructors.
There was another aspect of Zen, which survives to this day. It could be summarized as: “become the other.” The archer becomes the target. He becomes the bow, the arrow, and the target.
The runner becomes the road and the air and the sky and the clouds. The artist becomes the canvas.
The theater of merging with the other.
And as in any theatrical setting, the actor can, by choice, merge with, and un-merge from, his role.
But again, in these times, the main thrust of Zen teaching seems to be meditation, and the culture of stillness, quietude, and passive acceptance.
I’m not saying the meditation is easy to do. It isn’t. But somehow, its environment has become circumscribed.
This is unsurprising in America, where every philosophic and spiritual import from Asia has been distorted and watered down for the seeker-consumer. The overriding intent has been to create The Quiet Person.
The world of action has been painted as too disturbing to the “student seeking inner peace.” Therefore, retreat. Therefore, set up a buffer zone within which all is harmonized and balanced.
Where is the Zen now that sends people out into the world to revolutionize it down to its core, that stimulates the desire to find and invent a Voice that will shatter delusions and create new realities that have never been seen before?
If the moment of insight, satori, doesn’t instigate this, what good is it?
How can satori be “seeing into one’s true nature,” if the result is a wan gaze out on a uniform landscape of soft-boiled bupkis?
The answer is obvious. Breaking apart, exploding the primary illusions and fears that hold an individual in check is not the goal of most Zen as it is now practiced. That objective has been replaced with the false promise that some ultimate “consciousness” will reconcile the soul with itself.
The way this promise is offered and the way it is taught and the way its surrounding social culture is embroidered is a dud. Dead on arrival.
It’s time for a few new koans.
What is the real sound of David Rockefeller? What does Henry Kissinger say when somebody finally puts him in a small bottle with a cork on it? How does an android disguise himself as a human?
If I need a Zen teacher, I’ll go to Henny Youngman: “A doctor gave a man six months to live. The man couldn’t pay his bill, so he gave him another six months.”
In the beginning, the whole point of Zen was to shake things up, not calm them down.
The master assumed a new student was an annoying clod. But that doesn’t comfortably mesh with today’s “tolerant culture.” Today, annoying clods are a special interest group.
Silence, as a key Zen feature, isn’t only about a desired inner condition now. It’s about a synthetic attitude. So show me a temple where the meditation room is outfitted with a few dozen giant TV screens. The students do their meditation while CNN, Christingle Matthews, Sean Hannity, Oprah, news-boy-on-a bike Brian Williams, Hawaii Five-O, the Shopping Channel, Pawn Stars, Jimmy Fallon and his screaming pubescent audience, and four or five Spanish soaps are going full blast.
That would be a start.
Or throw on 20 or 30 TED lectures simultaneously—prancing grasshoppers extolling the future of technology.
I submit that if the one of the ancient Zen teachers walked into a modern American Zen cloister today, that’s exactly what he’d do. Turn on a few hundred TV sets, computers, and mobile devices and say, “Okay, try being quiet in the middle of this!”
Zen is sacred? What? When was it ever sacred? Soft bells, empty halls?
No, you must have Zen confused with a funeral home.
Every age has its massive collection of heavily loaded apple carts, and the job of Zen is to overturn them. When up is down, and insanity is called normal, that’s where you begin…
“A pill with a tiny chip that sends a signal to relevant authorities when [the pill] has been digested…imagine the implications…the compliance…”
Patient compliance is a very big deal in the pharma/medical universe. The patient gets his orders. He follows them.
From a purely $$ perspective, the chip is a major advance. No pills left in bottles. People finish their meds. They go back to the doctor. He authorizes a new script or changes the drug. More pills taken, more money rolls in.
But of course, the larger bonus is control.
“You see, Mr. Jones, we know you didn’t finish taking the meds you were prescribed. So we can’t keep treating you. It’s a waste of time if you won’t follow orders…”
And this is just the first phase of ultimate control. Over time, it gets heavier. Cancelation of health insurance for non-compliance. Mandates.
COVID has been a training ground for citizen obedience. But the medical dictatorship wants more. Always more. And they’ll dream up one occasion after another to secure more.
Bird flu. Monkeypox. Smallpox. Whatever STORYTELLING it takes.
The medical cartel is in the business of making horror movies and promoting them as real.
A pill with a chip is the soft version of nanotech—by which tiny transmitters and receivers are placed in the body and brain. The nanos are also sensors. They report on all sorts of ongoing body processes—which leads to medical diagnoses, toxic drugs, and toxic vaccines in an endless parade.
This is not science fiction. This is not a hundred years in the future. We’re almost there.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that humans are going to be on the receiving end of all the reports which the nano sensors issue from inside humans. This operation is planned as AI. Eventually, algorithms will interpret those reports and make decisions about treatment.
Many doctors will eventually take on roles as comforting guides, PR flacks, pitchmen, counselors. “Of course this is all for your benefit, Jim. It’s a good diagnosis. The treatment is standard. Think of Carol and the kids and what they need you to do. We caught it in time. You’ll be fine. But for God sakes, stop reading that nonsense online about toxic side effects. What do you think clinical trials are for? We did the prep work. The FDA approved this drug. It’s safe. I looked at your chart myself. The Pfizer antiviral is the preferred choice in your case. This is routine. If you need a human therapist, rather than the AI psychologist, I can recommend a good man. He lives in your town. Your insurance will cover it. But just suck it up and take the medicine. Believe me, you don’t want to progress to the stage where surgery is necessary. Then we would be talking hospitalization and recovery…”
Some of your children will be talking about earning a PhD in Bedside Manner.
Health Freedom and Medical Freedom are the alternative.
Everything coming down the medical pipeline makes this freedom absolutely vital. YOU decide what’s good for your body and mind, and what’s bad.
You assert that right, come hell or high water.
No matter how many court cases are won or lost, FREEDOM to say yes or no to medical treatment is the ultimate back up. This is what I kept writing and saying early on in the COVID hustle.
Meanwhile, the Pfizer CEO, Albert Boura, is a shark. In every sense of the word.
Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel is complaining about having to ‘throw away’ 30 million doses of Covid-19 vaccine because ‘nobody wants them.’
“It’s sad to say, I’m in the process of throwing 30 million doses in the garbage because nobody wants them. We have a big demand problem,” Bancel told an audience at the World Economic Forum, adding that attempts to contact various governments to see if anyone wants to pick up the slack was a total fail.
“We right now have governments – we tried to contact … through the embassies in Washington. Every country, and nobody wants to take them.”
“The issue in many countries is that people don’t want vaccines.”
Watch:
Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna:
“it’s sad to say, I’m in the process of throwing 30 million doses in the garbage because nobody wants them. We have a big demand problem.”
— Efron Monsanto ???? (@realmonsanto) May 23, 2022
Bancel’s comments come days after Bloomberg reported that EU health officials want to amend contracts with Pfizer and other vaccine makers in order to reduce supplies.
During a virtual meeting organized by Polish Health Minister Adam Niedzielski, governments shared a joint letter to the EU Commission which reads: “We hope that the discussion with the commission and among member states will allow flexibility in the vaccine agreements,” adding “We are also counting on vaccine producers to show understanding to the exceptional challenges that Poland is facing supporting Ukraine and giving shelter to millions of Ukrainian citizens fleeing the war.”
Some countries are seeking to amend so-called advanced purchase agreements signed with producers, as demand for shots wanes and budgets come under strain from the fallout of the war in Ukraine and the costs of accommodating refugees.
Adjusting deals with suppliers could grant member states the right to “re-phase, suspend or cancel altogether vaccine deliveries with short shelf life,” Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania’s prime ministers wrote in a joint letter to Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen late last month.
Meanwhile, in a separate letter the health ministry of Bulgaria called for an “open dialog” with the commission and pharmaceutical companies, arguing that the current arrangement forces member states to “purchase quantities of vaccines they don’t need.”
The irradiation of Heaven and Earth continues to accelerate, as SpaceX marches ever more quickly toward a constellation of 42,000 satellites. It launched 53 satellites on May 13; 53 more on May 14; and 53 more on May 18. And it has reached agreement with UK-based OneWeb, which plans its own fleet of 7,088 satellites, on how to share the skies. OneWeb will sell its services to telecommunications providers, governments, airlines, and ships, while SpaceX will sell to individuals.
OneWeb, which was launching its satellites from the Russian-operated Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, has been forced to temporarily halt its launches because of the war in Ukraine. But it is expected to resume launching satellites shortly. As part of its agreement with SpaceX, OneWeb’s satellites will be launched from the United States on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets going forward.
Honey bees, birds, whales and trees the world round, their future in peril, are depending on the human race to wind down, and get rid of, their satellites, their antennas, and the devices that are creating the demand: their mobile phones. And people from many countries are beginning to organize together to spread that message widely. Stay tuned.
Osteoporosis and Broken Bones
A reader alerted me to research proving that electromagnetic radiation causes osteoporosis. A 2016 study in Turkey by Kunt et al. found that electrical workers had significantly lower bone mass density, as well as an increased tendency to severe osteoporosis, than a control population. The average age of both groups was 38.
Sieroń-Stołtny et al., in an astounding experiment in Poland, kept 10 young rats in a plastic cage for 28 days and put one Nokia 5110 mobile phone underneath the cage. The phone operated in silent mode and was only turned on for 15 seconds every half hour between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. and again between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. In other words, the animals were exposed for a total of four minutes per day for 28 days. Ten control animals were in an identical cage but without a mobile phone beneath it.
At the end of the experiment, the rats were sacrificed and examined. The vertebrae of the exposed rats weighed on average 12.5% less than the vertebrae of the unexposed rats. The leg bones of the exposed rats had on average 12.44% less calcium and fractured more easily. Most of the calcium loss occurred during the first week of exposure. Blood analysis also indicated that collagen was lost from the bones.
In 2013, Ahmet Aslan et al., in Turkey, exposed 30 five-month-old rats, whose legs had been broken, to mobile phone radiation for 30 minutes per day, 5 days per week, for 8 weeks. At the end of 8 weeks, healing was significantly delayed in the exposed compared to the unexposed rats.
In 2011, Fernando Saraví, in Argentina, found that carrying a mobile phone on your hip causes osteopenia in that hip. Men who carried their phone on their right hip had lower bone mass density in their right hip than in their left hip. Men who carried their phone on their left hip had lower bone mass density in their left hip.
And from readers:
Marie-Reine, in Québec, broke her left humerus in three pieces on April 2. A friend of hers in Nova Scotia broke her humerus in March.
Jackie, in Wisconsin, writes that she developed osteoporosis after she moved into a house with radio towers outside her bedroom window.
Leonore, in Massachusetts, writes: “A friend who never broke a bone in his life, recently broke his femur when he tripped playing basketball.”
Sara, age 55, wonders why she suddenly became susceptible to breaking bones in 2018. She broke a bone in her right foot that year, and then in 2021 she broke a bone in her left foot. “The thing that was so odd about both of these incidents is that I did almost nothing to provoke it. In one case I was trying to keep my sandal from getting sucked off my foot by the current during a rafting trip. All I was doing was flexing my foot. The second time I just tripped while inside my house, walking on a flat surface and I ended up with a fracture.”
Denise, age 66, broke her hip on April 19. Her father and mother, in their eighties, both broke hips several years ago, and this March her mother broke her other hip.
Marilyn, in California, writes that “Despite a strong exercise history and a strong healthy diet, I have been plagued with two broken hips (femur necks) and a fractured shoulder” since “a cluster of cell towers were installed 100 feet from my bedroom.”
WiFi Routers and Microwave Ovens
Don, in Idaho, writes: “This year we relocated our seedlings next to the router in our pantry for convenience. We have experienced an across-the-board failure with them. Skinny plants, some of them dead. This includes tomato seedlings. Your email really struck a chord with me. Thank you!”
Carolyn, in France, writes: “This is the first time I have ever heard anyone else say that they had stomach pain from eating restaurant food that had been microwaved! I have realized the same thing — that foods that I normally eat with no problem, cause me stomach pain, often severe when I eat it in a restaurant in which it has most likely been cooked or reheated in a microwave. I can usually sense it with the first bite I take as well — it just doesn’t feel right… I have to be so careful about ordering things that will be definitely cooked fresh, and request that nothing be heated in a microwave. Sometimes I forget though, and then I pay for it.”
Smart Birds
Wildlife biologists routinely place radio tracking devices on birds, mammals, snakes, fish, whales, butterflies, bees, and anything else that moves in order to study them — completely ignoring all the studies showing that the radiation causes weight loss, reproductive failure, increased mortality, and even altered sex ratio in offspring. The results of these studies are shocking. For example, Swenson et al. experimented with moose calves in Sweden. Calves with plain ear tags and calves without any ear tags had equal mortality rates — about 10 percent — while calves with ear tags that contained radio transmitters had 68 percent mortality.
Now, some birds are fighting back. In Australia, a population of magpies, tormented by their GPS tracking devices, figured out how to remove them from one another and have completely rid themselves of these instruments of torture.
Scientists had trapped five magpies — one adult male, two adult females, and two juveniles — and had attached GPS devices to them in order to study their movements. These devices could only be released — so they thought — by a magnet that the birds would encounter at a feeding station. But it was not to be. After being freed, one of the juveniles was observed to be pecking unsuccessfully at its GPS device. Not to worry: an untagged adult female swooped down and came to its aid. She pecked at the harness holding the device in various places, and within 10 minutes had discovered its only weak spot — a one-millimeter section — and released it. Within one hour after being trapped and fitted with the device, the bird was free of it. Other magpies were observed helping each other out of the devices, and two days later none of the birds were tagged any more.
The birds were not re-tagged. Ornithologist Dominique Potvin, the leader of the study, said: “They clearly don’t like the trackers, so we have decided it’s not very ethical to continue to try to track something that doesn’t want to be tracked.”
The last 38 newsletters, including this one, are available for viewing on the Newsletters page of the Cellular Phone Task Force. Some of the newsletters are also available there in German, Spanish, Italian, French, Norwegian, and Dutch. To subscribe, go to www.cellphonetaskforce.org/subscribe.
Richard Cox of DeepStateConsciousness.com and author of The Essence of Anarchy joins me today to help answer a question about anarchy: How can we defend voluntarism in the face of arguments about the positive benefits of state regulation?
“Monkeypox” – who could have seen it coming? Well, apparently the organisation founded by Ted Turner in 2001 called the ‘Nuclear Threat Initiative’ (NTI) saw it coming when they published a report in November 2021 called, “Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats.” The report states that in March 2021, they partnered with the Munich Security Conference to run an exercise scenario involving a, “deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months…the fictional pandemic resulted in more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.”
The Nuclear Threat Initiative introduces Plandemic 2.0? This time it is even bigger and monkeypox takes centre stage.
Amazingly, the scenario had the monkeypox outbreak emerging as a result of an act of bioterrorism in May 2022, right where we are now. We have dealt with gain of function garbage involving non-existent viruses in several other videos, while Dr Stefan Lanka has also dismantled such fallacies. Regardless, the NTI’s report suggests that what is required in a fantasy outbreak is, “aggressive measures to slow virus transmission by shutting down mass gatherings, imposing social-distancing measures, and implementing mask mandates”. The winning countries, in their hallucination implemented, “large-scale testing and contact-tracing operations and scaled-up their health care systems.”
Their charts, which seem to be produced by Neil Ferguson’s calculator, show that countries that don’t comply with their restrictions and medical interventions will be far worse off. The report goes on to state, “both the exercise scenario and the COVID-19 response demonstrate that early actions by national governments have significant, positive impacts in managing the impact of the disease”. When they say “positive impacts” it is not quite clear who is on the receiving end, although they note that “the COVID vaccine market will exceed $150 billion in 2021.” All in all the NTI’s report reads like Event 201 on Ritalin. (Event 201 took place on 18 October, 2019. It was an exercise involving a, “coronavirus pandemic” just months before the COVID-19 “pandemic” was declared.)
Monkeypox attacks right on cue!
As with COVID-19 it appears that other parties have also been eagerly awaiting a market such a “pandemic” would present. Likewise, these fortune-tellers were preparing vaccines to go where no vaccine had gone before. In this case the biotech company Bavarian Nordic gained approval from the FDA in 2019 to market JYNNEOS, a smallpox and monkeypox vaccine. Other health authorities were also primed to react to a previously rare condition that has been of no concern for their nations…until now apparently. For example, on May 20, 2022, the UK Health Security Agency published a document titled, “Recommendations for the use of pre and post exposure vaccination during a monkeypox incident”. Like COVID-19, it’s starting to feel like all roads lead to vaccines again…
Just a matter of time before the “rare” monkeypox vaccine comes to your neighbourhood.
So now that the scene has been set we can get into the “science” of monkeypox starting with an official description of the alleged viral disease. The CDC states that, “Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 when two outbreaks of a pox-like disease occurred in colonies of monkeys kept for research, hence the name ‘monkeypox.’ The first human case of monkeypox was recorded in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo.” They go on to state that, “in humans, the symptoms of monkeypox are similar to but milder than the symptoms of smallpox.” The illness is said to be flu-like with the addition of lymph node swelling and then development of a rash, and then lesions that progress from macules to vesicles to scabs.
In terms of the lethality of monkeypox, the CDC state that, “in Africa, monkeypox has been shown to cause death in as many as 1 in 10 persons who contract the disease.” This 10% fatality rate has already stoked the fear narrative and was also used as the case fatality rate in the NTI’s monkeypox pipe dream. It should be noted that historically monkeypox has been virtually unheard of in first world countries and the rare cases are usually in people that have recently arrived from Africa.
Indeed, one of the only recorded “outbreaks” of monkeypox in the first world was in the United States in April 2003. Cases were declared in 6 states and said to be caused by rodents that were imported to Texas from Ghana. This was the first time monkeypox had been reported outside of Africa and the CDC published a paper in 2006 analysing the incident. The paper states that, “person-to-person spread of the virus is thought to occur principally via infectious oropharyngeal exudates” although it is clear that this has never been scientifically established. They continue to say that, “the virus is thought to have been transmitted from African animals” – in other words, it’s another species-jumping pathogen tale.
Blaming it on minority groups, when have we seen that before?
They reported that, “individuals who had illness onset within 21 days after exposure to MPXV [Monkeypox virus] who experienced fever (defined as a body temperature greater 37.4°C) and vesicular pustular rash or rash (potentially uncharacterized) plus orthopox IgM antibodies were classified as having probable cases of infection.” Now 37.4°C is not a fever in our book, it is a normal body temperature and we would suggest 37.6°C and above qualifies as a fever. We noted in their chart that they were using the classification ≥39.4°C, but this appears to be an error as in another paper, we’ll get to soon, it was once again 37.4°C. The second paper even said the “fever” could be subjective, so they appear to be using this loose criteria and pathologising a normal state. Additionally, the CDC’s weekly report from the 11th of July 2003, stated that from a total of 71 cases, only “two patients, both children, had serious clinical illness; both of these patients have recovered.” The remainder had a variety of respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms.
The CDC’s cases were confirmed on the basis of specimens that showed: “monkeypox virus isolation, detection of monkeypox-specific nucleic acid signatures, positive electron-microscopy findings, or positive immunohistochemical findings”. We had a look at the electron micrographs presented by the CDC including the image shown below of a skin sample from one of the patients. The caption informs us that the round particles on the right are immature monkeypox virions, while the oval particles on the left are mature viruses. However, all they have is a static image of dead tissue and no conclusions can be made about the biological role of the imaged particles. None of them have been shown to be replication-competent disease-causing intracellular parasites and so should not be called ‘viruses’.
Looking at the CDC’s weekly report from 2003 again, it appears that the 35 “laboratory-confirmed cases” all involved polymerase chain reaction (PCR) “tests”, so we investigated the scientific evidence behind this claim. One of the citations for the development of PCR detection of monkeypox is a 2004 paper titled “Real-Time PCR System for Detection of Orthopoxviruses and Simultaneous Identification of Smallpox Virus”. Now a PCR protocol requires them to know the genetic sequences of the alleged monkeypox virus, which takes us to this 2001 paper titled, “Human monkeypox and smallpox viruses: genomic comparison”. The paper claimed to have “isolated” the monkeypox virus in a rhesus monkey kidney cell culture from a scab of a monkeypox patient. Here the virologists are up to their old tricks again by asserting that: (a) the patient’s scab contains the monkeypox virus, and (b) it is now in their culture brew. They claimed to have sequenced the “viral genome” by referring to a process described for sequencing an alleged variola virus in 1993.
But when we look at this paper there is no virus demonstrated either, simply an assertion that it was “isolated” from, “the material from a patient from India” in 1967. They go on to make the claim that, “the virions were purified by differential centrifugation and viral DNA was isolated” – however, there is no demonstration of what they purified or how they were determined to be virions. In none of these experiments did they perform any controls by seeing what sequences can be detected from other human-derived scabs or similar specimens from unwell individuals. This is where we need to remind the virologists of what a virus is supposed to be – that is a replication-competent intracellular parasite that infects and causes disease in a host. It is not detecting genetic sequences contained within scabs and claiming that it belongs to a virus.
So returning to the CDC’s paper describing the 2003 “outbreak”, it is unclear how they established they could be diagnosing anyone with monkeypox by using the PCR. Their PCR can only have been calibrated to sequences of unproven provenance. Additionally, it doesn’t matter what kind of analytical specificity their PCR protocol had, there was no established diagnostic specificity – in other words it was not a clinically-validated test, an issue that goes beyond whether the “virus” exists or not. (From the MIQE Guidelines: Analytical specificity refers to the qPCR assay detecting the appropriate target sequence rather than other, nonspecific targets also present in a sample. Diagnostic specificity is the percentage of individuals without a given condition whom the assay identifies as negative for that condition.)
The 47 US cases they ended up describing were all in some sort of contact with imported African prairie dogs and the CDC’s paper concludes that, “individuals contracted MPXV infections from infected prairie dogs; no human-to-human transmission was documented, but there were many different potential scenarios of infection involving respiratory and/or muco-cutaneous exposures, percutaneous and/or inoculation exposures”. Now there were some problems with the study design which they admitted to including that, “the analyses were limited by incomplete reporting or recall of information by patients. And, because of the retrospective nature of the study, we were unable to obtain highly detailed data”.
However, even allowing some wriggle room for them here, the inconsistencies go further still. Firstly, no one in the US incident died from the disease which is said to have a 10% fatality rate in Africa. No doubt, the inconsistent lethality rates will be attributed to different “variants”, but there can’t be variants of something that doesn’t exist.
There were few images available of the skin lesions that were reported in the 2003 incident but two of the US cases are depicted below and an image from a monkeypox case in Africa is shown for comparison. The reader can make up their own mind but those skin reactions do not look remotely comparable to us.
Next, the CDC claim that, “the natural reservoir of monkeypox remains unknown. However, African rodents and non-human primates (like monkeys) may harbor the virus and infect people” – in other words it’s all rather vague and remains an unproven hypothesis. Now, obviously some people became unwell in the US in 2003 but with the viral theory we are supposed to believe that it jumped from some prairie dogs to some humans and the latter became infected with the alleged virus…but then no human could pass it on to another human. The theory falls flat – a virus needs to spread, if it can’t spread, it’s dead and thus it’s not a virus. And the historical patterns of alleged monkeypox virus outbreaks make no sense – why did it pass to these people so easily and yet it can go a decade between alleged “outbreaks”?
Unfortunately, the 2003 incident was investigated as though the viral contagion theory had already been established and other explanations were ignored. If people were allegedly getting sick from these African rodents, wouldn’t it be a good idea to check the animals for other toxicities, particularly in their faeces and also for any ticks or parasites? We did note another reference state that with regards to the US cases, “many of the people had initial and satellite lesions on palms, soles, and extremities”. However, according to the CDC, monkeypox usually starts on the face so the clinical picture in the US cases was not consistent with cases that are typically described in Africa.
In any case, a review of the scientific evidence revealed that with regards to monkeypox: (a) there is no evidence of a physical particle that meets the definition of a virus, (b) there is no evidence of anything transmitting between humans, and (c) there is no way to confirm a diagnosis of monkeypox unless you believe in clinically-unvalidated tests such as the PCR kits that have been produced. In other words, if we see a monkeypox “pandemic” that is used as an excuse to role out more globalist terrorism, it will be on the back of another PCR pandemic, not one that has any basis in nature.
For those of you wanting to explore more problems with the various monkeypox claims, Mike Stone of ViroLIEgy has written a couple of interesting commentaries. The first article is, “Was Smallpox Really Eradicated?”, which among other things deals with the convenient emergence of monkeypox while smallpox was apparently being eradicated. The second article is, “Did William Heberden Distinguish Chickenpox From Smallpox in 1767?” This outlines the fact that the pox conditions are not as readily distinguishable from each other as the text books suggest and appear to relate more to the severity of a similar disease process. You can also watch our video, “Chickenpox Parties and Varicella Zoster Virus?” to see why there is no evidence of a virus in that related condition either.
From the perspective of terrain theory it is a fundamental mistake to attribute a person’s illness to a supposed virus, as the subsequent “treatments” don’t address the underlying issues. If someone is unwell, then they are usually deficient in nutrients and need to restore balance, or they have been exposed to environmental toxins and need to help the body detoxify. Wars against alleged pathogens that involve treating everyone the same way with civil rights restrictions and vaccines are certainly not about heath. It is good to see more people waking up to the COVID-19 fraud so there is hope that a monkeypox scamdemic, if attempted, will bring even more light to the situation. As always, your best health is in your own hands, not in the hands of a globalist cult and their cronies.
If you have been outsourcing your health, there has never been a better time to free yourself from the virus fear narrative and begin manifesting your full potential instead.
For anyone who thinks the federal government is created to solve your problems, be they financial or health-related, marital or parental, think again! People have grown complacent when federal dictates, mandates, or Acts are acceptable as the Rule of Law to be followed without question where you live.
In his article, There is No Federal Solution, author Lawrence Vance sets the broken record straight on the differences in purpose between state government and federal government:
Biden then surprisingly said that “there is no federal solution” to the COVID-19 pandemic and declared that it “gets solved at the state level,” before he boarded a helicopter and departed for his home state of Delaware.
The federal government wants you to believe that an entity, such as itself, can send a check in the mail and draft the Save America Act to create peace, prosperity, and health for all. For those who fell for the last Act, there is another Act coming, unless you can tell an Act from CoroNOvirus Reality. First know that the federal government is set up only to regulate commerce across state lines. Alternatively, it is State governments that regulate what happens to people within their state boundaries.
Federal Overreach
Through federal Acts, the federal government steers people into a confused herd called “The Public,” and uses terms such as “Public Health,” to control and regulate people as commodities.
In reality, there is no such thing as “Public Health.” Public Health does not exist outside of individual health. You cannot wear a life jacket to keep others afloat. So to consent to “Public Health mandates” is to give up bodily autonomy in exchange for “Public Rights” (i.e., Children’s rights, Gay rights, Parent rights, Women’s rights) granted by the State. State Rights can be modified, suspended, and revoked. Therefore, they are not Rights at all. Rights come from the Creator. They are inborn. See how the state of California revoked all vaccine-related exemptions.
Beware of ALL Federal Acts, old and new, naughty and NICE. If there is a federal Act, there are also multiple loopholes called exemptions that hold “the public” to the grindstone, while allowing whole industries to ignore the Act to do as they please. By the looks of it, federal Acts appear to do the opposite of what they claim to do. In other words, “Its all an Act, folks.”
From the first Act, passed in 1784, to the latest draft government Act, ALL Acts appear to be an extension of The CIRCUS Act. Yet, more than 30,000 statutes have been enacted since 1789. From the people’s perspective, success rates are dismal thanks to exceptions to every Act. A few examples include:
The US PATRIOT Act of 2001 and US Patriot and Reauthorization Act of 2005 “to unite and strengthen America,” with exemptions to banking agencies which serve to divide and weaken America.
The PREP Act of 2005, allows government to bypass Rights and Freedom. The DHHS Amended Version authorizes an increased workforce to administer COVID (experimental) vaccines. And The PREP Act 2022 – limits liability for COVID countermeasures.
In his article, Lawrence Vance shares founding father, James Madison,’s essay on the functions of state and federal governments: Federalist Essay No. 45 –
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.
The Federalist No. 46;
The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.
It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former.
Americans have neglected their duties to ensure that federal powers remain in check. As a result, federal government has assumed and subsumed powers it was never delegated. The United States was established as a federal system of government where the states, through the Constitution, granted a limited number of powers to a central government — not the other way around.
A Real Solution
If reading any federal Act, use it as an educational tool. Does the Act do the opposite of its intended purpose? Are these Acts distractions for other crimes, international crimes against humanity? Do you need to be saved by your government?
Do you need to be saved from your government?
As a first step to forming a real solution, it is important to understand the federal language of legalease, which is written, by design, to confuse. By taking the Public out of “Public Health,” we can begin to wake up to the truth about the governmental system, and the truth of who we are as humans. We can then begin the process to know how to see through the federal Acts to reclaim responsibility on an individual level in our own states where we live.
That select group of elites from around the world who come together at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland really are conspiring to control the direction of society and politics worldwide. It is a conspiracy in practice, not just a conspiracy theory. That is the admission of WEF Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab in his Monday welcoming remarks for this year’s WEF annual meeting.
Here is the conspiracy admission from Schwab’s speech:
Let’s also be clear. The future is not just happening. The future is built by us — by a powerful community as you here in this room. We have the means to improve the state of the world, but two conditions are necessary. The first one is that we act all as stakeholders of larger communities, that we serve not our only self-interest but we serve the community. That’s what we call stakeholder responsibility. And, second, that we collaborate. This is the reason why you find many opportunities here during the meeting to engage into very action and impact oriented initiatives to make progress related to specific issues on the global agenda.
The WEF annual meeting is not just some people getting together to chat, socialize, and hear some speeches. It is about, as Schwab states, bringing together a “powerful community” that pushes initiatives that “make progress related to specific issues on the global agenda” and by whom “the future is built.”
By the way, don’t be too comforted by Schwab’s assurance that the conspirators do all this conspiring while acting as “stakeholders of larger communities.” It is unlikely that many people at the WEF annual meeting are looking out for you as part of their communities. As the comedian George Carlin famously said, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”
The doctors, scientists and journalists featured in THE VIRAL DELUSION examine in detail the scientific papers that were used to justify the pandemic, and what they find is shattering. In this shocking, five-part, seven hour documentary series, they explode every single major claim, from the “isolation” of the virus to its so-called genetic sequencing, from the discovery of how to “test” for SARS-CoV2 to the emergence of “variants” that in reality, they explain, exist only on a computer. Their point: that the so-called SARS-CoV2 virus exists only as a mental construct whose existence in the real world has been disproven by the science itself.
They then go back through history to reveal how the birth and growth of virology has led to massive misunderstanding and misdiagnosis of disease: from Smallpox to the Spanish Flu, Polio to AIDS, to COVID itself – putting the pandemic in a whole new context better understood not as settled science, but the tragic culmination of misunderstood biology by the growing cult of virology, built on pseudo-science, to which much of the rest of the medical profession defers without understanding or examination, and the tragic consequences that have been wrought in its name.
In 2019, the virologists took center stage, and for the first time on film, their methods, miscues and tragedy they have wrought are put under the spotlight, revealing the extraordinary leaps of fantasy buried in their methodology, the contradictions quietly acknowledged in their papers, their desperate effort to change language to justify their findings, the obvious incongruence of their conclusions and the extraordinary stakes for our entire society in whether we continue to blindly follow their lead into a full-scale war against nature itself.
Featuring: Andrew Kaufman, MD; Tom Cowan, MD; Stefan Lanka, Virologist; Torsten Engelbrecht, journalist; Claus Kohnlein, MD; Kevin Corbett, PhD RN; David Rasnick, Biochemist PhD; Mark Bailey, MD; Dawn Lester and David Parker, Authors; Stefano Scoglio, Biochemist PhD; Saeed Qureeshi, Chemist PhD; Celia Farber, Journalist; Harold Wallach, PhD; Pam Popper, PhD, ND; Charles Geshekter, PhD; Amandha Vollmer ND, Jim West, Author; Larry Palevsky MD; and more.
The Viral Delusion (2022) Episode 1:The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV-2
When doctor Andrew Kaufman began reading the first virology papers out of Wuhan in December 2019, he was shocked to discover that the scientists had come nowhere close to proving that a new virus had emerged… yet saw the media and authorities already claiming a viral pandemic was on it’s way.
In this extraordinarily revealing opening episode, a group of biologists, chemists, doctors and journalists take apart the SARS-COV-2 narrative piece by piece — from the non-isolation of the virus, to the hidden problems with purported photographs of the virus, to the claims that it has been genetically sequenced, to the invalidity of the PCR “covid-test.”
From the treatment protocols for COVID to the assumption of its transmission, Episode One unpacks the science of the claims that changed the world – in which these doctors and scientists make the case that every single claim the authorities made about the so-called SARS-COV2 virus has been based not on evidence, but pseudoscience.
The Viral Delusion (2022) Episode 2: Monkey Business: Polio, Measles And How It All Began
How did it all begin?
How could the scientific establishment have possibly gotten so big a story so wrong?
Everyone knows the story of Polio…or do they?
What from that story is actual history and what is medical marketing?
How did a small branch of the scientific establishment come to convince the world polio was the result of a virus and not from environmental toxins?
Learn what the actual experiments were upon which this theory was based — and how shockingly unconvincing they are.
Discover too how the medical establishment’s efforts to squeeze the symptoms of polio into a virus model formed the very foundation of modern virology, and how that commercially successful model has steered modern science ever since, evidence be damned.
The Viral Delusion (2022) Episode 3: The Mask of Death – The Plague, Smallpox and The Spanish Flu
What about Smallpox?
The Spanish Flu?
The Black Plague?
Go back, back, back in time to examine the claims and counter-claims as to what truly caused these deadly epidemics.
Are the rats of Europe innocent? Turns out they have to be…
And in that discovery we see how the superstitions of our time have clouded the eyes of “science” to avoid the most obvious of insights about disease.
The Viral Delusion (2022) Episode 4: AIDS, The Deadly Deception
AIDS. It was the defining epidemic of a generation.
But it was also the coming of age for many leading scientists and doctors who came to realize that blaming the illnesses known as AIDS on a virus was not only unsupported by science, it was downright nonsensical.
What were the true causes of the many illnesses labelled AIDS around the world?
How many suffered from their misdiagnosis?
How the scientific establishment fell into the deadly AIDS delusion is crucial to understanding the pandemic, and health, today.
The Viral Delusion (2022) Episode 5: Sequencing The Virus, Without The Virus
With the rise of computing and genetic research in the 90’s the virologists go high-tech.
They move away from experiments altogether and into genetic modeling — but do the models have any connection to reality?
The wonders of genetic sequencing have been pointed to as the proof of virology’s explanatory power — but when the claimed sequencing of SARS-COV2 is put under the microscope, has the game changed from the realm of science, to science fiction?
What’s really going on the claim of genetically identifying the SARS-CoV-2 virus is made?
The picture above is of a sign outside a performing arts theater in Santa Barbara, California. Looks like everyone is welcome. Well, not really. It turns out that if you’re not “vaccinated” you’re not welcome. If you haven’t arrived at the ticket booth with ID and proof of being injected with two doses of an emergency use experimental gene treatment for “covid 19” — a treatment which has no efficacy and is associated with millions of serious injuries and deaths — this #LoveForAll message doesn’t actually apply to you. If you’re not “vaccinated” the only way you can get into the theater now is if you have taken a test proving you don’t have the plague. Don’t want a PCR swab up your nose? Too late for an antigen test? Tough luck. This rainbow venue welcomes EVERYONE, except for carriers of the plague.
“Who doesn’t love LOVE?” Apparently, the state of North Carolina doesn’t. The founder of Insist On Love For All which makes and sells the $60 sign displayed above, took a trip to Asheville, North Carolina a few years ago and was impressed by signs “embracing diversity.” Says Insist On Love’s founder,
shop owners started displaying these signs over two years ago [2018] to encourage tourism following the passage of the controversial House Bill 2 in North Carolina, which requires certain public bathrooms to be designated for use by males or females based on their biological sex. “The signs in Asheville moved me. Love is the only weapon we can use to fight hate . . . “
In this case, “hate” was displayed by 1) the idea that men and women should have separate bathrooms, 2) the idea that men (or men who think they’re women) don’t have a right to walk into women’s bathrooms, and vice versa, 3) the fact that other sexes besides male and female have not been acknowledged, and 4) the fact that the state of North Carolina thus discriminated against all those who don’t have male/female privilege. There is also the ‘hate’ involved in the unwillingness of North Carolina to provide separate bathrooms for a theoretically unlimited number of other genders. Unless #LoveForAll is somehow a front for a consortium of plumbing supply companies (this would actually be comforting news), there is nothing left for us to conclude but that ‘love’, as the term is being used here, is indeed a weapon, not to fight hate, but to fight reason. ‘Love’ is now a buzzword in a well-established “diversity and inclusion” narrative sent down from academic critical theory to the progressive left to the mainstream media to the culture at large. Has there ever been a time when good things have been so twisted into their opposite? This is not about love or inclusion. This is shallow virtue signaling by people who have been swallowed up by a political machine designed to turn cultural norms upside down, not for the purpose of bringing needed change, but for the purpose of creating chaos and a loss of rationality, after which new supposed norms can just be lifted into place.
“All sexual orientations”, cited in the sign, is also a topic at the current May 22-28 Davos forum, where “resilience through equity” and “inclusivity” for the “LGBTQI+ community” is on the formal agenda. Do the corporate bosses, social engineers, and preening politicians at this forum really care about equality, or are they just using the brand to create the upheaval necessary to bring in fantastic profits and power? The answer is obvious. The agenda is exclusion, not inclusion; fascism, not liberalism. Their plan is for the majority of humanity, gay or straight, to be excluded from their rights, autonomy, and independence, while the bosses enjoy their wealth and slave labor. Like #LoveForAll, everyone is welcome in the Great Reset except those who believe there are only two sexes — that is, just about everybody since the beginning of human history. Everyone is welcome in virtue-signaling countries, corporations, and institutions except those who choose not to accept a medical intervention also never heard of before in human history — that of altering the human genome on the pretext of defeating a virus. In other words, everyone is welcome except those who have chosen not to go insane. The insanity is called wokeness. Wokeness is nothing but a tool being used to effect a very ugly and very ambitious power grab. When the job is done, everyone duped into thinking they were fighting for the victims of oppression and equality for all will be swatted away like flies.
The would-be gods at Davos brought us their own version of the Apocalypse — plague, war, famine, and death became covid, Ukraine, food shortages, and vaccines. Do such people even remotely care about racial prejudice and gender dysphoria? No. They either massively exploited or completely made up these issues to create disorder. Indeed, their eugenicist predecessors had certain, ahem, opinions about people with disabilities, sexual deviants, and racial groups which they know can’t be mentioned in polite society today. So they went the other way. Not believing in God, the Davos elite see themselves as gods. The further this delusion takes them, the harder they will fall. There will also come a time of reckoning for the collaborators in this program — those who, wittingly or not, aided this monstrosity. Galling self-righteousness, ignorance, and hypocrisy were the least of the crimes in this class. The ones higher up — those who made the plans, gave the orders, and knew what they were doing — face a reckoning that perhaps we do not have words for. It may be a regular new round of guillotining such as we have seen before in history. Or it may be that this time wickedness has gone so far it will have to be ended forever. Prospects for the Davos crew do not look good.
Richard Hugus is the founder of Cape Cod Against Medical Mandates. “We are residents of Cape Cod, Massachusetts who support freedom of choice in all matters having to do with our own and our childrens’ health.” Connect with them here.
Monkeypox – it’s the hip new disease sweeping the globe. Allegedly appearing almost simultaneously in over a dozen different countries on four different continents.
As we wrote in the early days of the Covid “pandemic”, the only thing spreading faster than the disease is fear.
The media reported the first UK case of monkeypox on the 7th of May. Less than two weeks later, we’re seeing some very familiar headlines. Just like that…Pandemic 2: Monkey Pox!! begins playing at all your favorite fear porn outlets.
The BBC went real subtle with it, blaring: “Monkeypox: Doctors concerned over impact on sexual health”
The New Scientist has actually used the P-word, asking “Can Monkeypox become a new pandemic?”, before answering, essentially, “probably no, but also maybe yes!”. Keeping their options open.
Sciencewarns that“Monkeypox outbreak questions intensify as cases soar”
The Mirror has gone full paranoid already, headlining:
Russia looked into using monkeypox as biological weapon, claims ex soviet scientist
So that’s one direction the story might go.
To be clear, “monkeypox” (whatever that even means in this context), is NOT a Russian bio-weapon. It’s not a Western bio-weapon either. Or Chinese bio-weapon. It’s just another scare story. And a rushed, half-hearted one at that.
One of the signs that marked the Covid “pandemic” as a psy-op from an early stage was the sheer speed with which the hysteria spread. Far from learning from their mistakes, the powers-that-be have decided to go even faster this time.
Despite “cases” numbering barely in the dozens, the World Health Organization has called an emergency meeting, a strange thing to do when their annual Assembly starts literally tomorrow. But I guess when your launching a new product you need to do everything you can to get the hype going.
Despite just two “cases” in the entire United States (and indeed the fact they still don’t work), New York is bringing back mask recommendations.
Nobody has said “lockdown”…yet. But Hans Kluge, WHO regional director for Europe, is “concerned” that transmission could accelerate if people attend mass gatherings:
as we enter the summer season … with mass gatherings, festivals and parties, I am concerned that transmission could accelerate”.
(As inflation soars and the cost of living crisis only gets worse, it’s probably handy for them to have a new “public health” reason to ban protests or clampdown on civil unrest. Just a thought.)
There’s some good news though…for vaccine manufacturers, anyway. As Whitney Webb reports, two struggling pharmaceutical companies have already seen a big stock boost from the “outbreak”:
Regardless of how the monkeypox situation plays out, two companies are already cashing in. As concern over monkeypox has risen, so too have the shares of Emergent Biosolutions and SIGA Technologies. Both companies essentially have monopolies in the US market, and other markets as well, on smallpox vaccines and treatments. Their main smallpox-focused products are, conveniently, also used to protect against or treat monkeypox as well. As a result, the shares of Emergent Biosolutions climbed 12% on Thursday, while those of SIGA soared 17.1%.
Just as with Covid, and despite rumours they would be leaving the World Health Organization, Russia appears to be lining up with the WHO agenda. Already they are “tightening border quarantine” rules, vaccinating healthcare workers and supplying quick bedside tests internationally.
Looks like we might be in for an epic summer of scare-mongering, panic-buying & bucketloads of cringe.
Are the new jabs already prepped & ready to go?
Are the “our hospitals are overwhelmed videos” being filmed as we speak, complete with “monkey pox” moulage and crying nurses who turn out to have IMDB pages & multiple acting credits?
Are the sleepy masses going to be fooled yet again?
Children’s Health Defense seeks help from parents in 13 Texas counties, after a U.S. District Court on Tuesday granted CHD 45 days to amend its lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5 to 11.
A U.S. District Court on Tuesday gave Children’s Health Defense (CHD) 45 days to amend its lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5 to 11.
CHD’s lawsuit, filed Jan. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges, among other things, that the FDA — under pretext of EUA powers — “authorized a dangerous drug for minor children as young as 5 years old to address COVID-19, which poses less risk to a 5-year-old than the ordinary flu.”
CHD last month filed a motion to stay asking the court to suspend the FDA’s authorization of the vaccine for young children pending judicial review of the lawsuit.
During Tuesday’s hearing Judge Alan Albright heard arguments on CHD’s motion to stay and also on the FDA’s motion to dismiss CHD’s lawsuit.
Judge Alan Albright denied CHD’s request to suspend authorization of the vaccines until the lawsuit is resolved, stating he was skeptical of CHD’s organizational standing and the standing of the two parents named in the suit, given the lack of any children’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate in the district at this time.
Judge Albright said for CHD to have standing, it must show “diversion of resources.”
For the parents named in the complaint — Deborah L. Else and Sacha Dietrich — to have standing, they must show their children are at demonstrable risk of vaccination against the parents’ wishes.
Attorney Robert Barnes, arguing for CHD, said if the FDA’s interpretation of standing were correct, then no one could sue the FDA because it would mean the FDA is completely insulated from judicial scrutiny.
Barnes also argued the harm to plaintiffs is not simply the threat of vaccination, but includes the FDA’s false assertions that the vaccines are safe, effective and actually vaccines, i.e. products that prevent infection and transmission.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney James Harlow, arguing on behalf of the FDA, said the agency cannot mandate products and that products authorized for emergency use clearly permit patients to accept or reject them.
Harlow also argued that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued an executive order prohibiting COVID-19 mandates at schools, thus undermining an argument for any threat.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Albright said given the importance of the case, he wanted to give CHD and plaintiffs Else and Dietrich the opportunity to assert standing, and would give them 45 days to amend their lawsuit.
The judge also provided a roadmap for how to amend the case.
CHD is seeking help from the public in order to provide the court the necessary evidence to prove standing in its case against the FDA.
Parents in 13 counties in the Western District of Texas who have information about coercive COVID-19 vaccine policies for children or adolescents are asked to submit that information to chd@childrenshealthdefense.org with subject line “CHD v. FDA.”
The 13 counties are: Bell, Bosque, Coryell, Falls, Freestone, Hamilton, Hill, Leon, Limestone, McLennan, Milam, Robertson and Somervell.
CHD is especially interested in these types of situations occurring in the counties listed above:
Hospitals or medical facilities that require COVID-19 vaccination for treatment
Children in foster care, correctional settings or other institutional settings who are required to receive COVID-19 vaccinations
Vaccination clinics or vaccination stations in schools or youth facilities promoting COVID-19 vaccines for kids
Evidence of school pressure to vaccinate children even without an explicit mandate
After-school programs or extra-curricular activities requiring COVID-19 vaccines.
CHD in May 2021 filed a citizen petition with the FDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services outlining the arguments against EUA and/or licensing of COVID-19 vaccines.
The FDA on Tuesday granted Pfizer’s request for EUA of a third COVID-19 shot for children ages 5 to 11, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday signed off on the shots.
Have you heard of the World Economic Forum? It’s a secret club where the world’s wealthiest oligarchs meet with globalist politicians to develop schemes to tell the rest of us how to live.
People like Bill Gates. Xi Jinping. Justin Trudeau. And Anthony Fauci.
The WEF’s founder, Klaus Schwab, resembles a cartoonish supervillain from a James Bond movie.
But he’s real. And he has big plans for you. Including the ominous slogan, “you’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy”.
That’s why I flew all the way to Switzerland, along with a team of investigative journalists, to report on just what these billionaires are up to.
My friend Rukshan Fernando came with me from Australia, and we arrived a couple of days early to get over the jet-lag. And I’m so glad we did. Because wandering through the streets of Davos in the days before the big WEF conference was like going onto a Hollywood movie set before they turn on the cameras.
You can see just how fake everything is. They’re literally putting false storefronts over every building in town.
No expense is spared by these jet-setters, the people who tell you to eat less meat and drive your car less.
And you can see how paranoid they are: hundreds and hundreds of armed men whose job is to stop mere citizens from seeing or hearing things they’re not supposed to.
That’s the craziest part. Swiss police are swarming into the town. But not just police: convoys of military trucks bringing in hundreds of heavily-armed soldiers.
What on earth are they planning to do?
But what’s more alarming to me is seeing so many news and social media companies fully-embedded in the WEF. They are part of it — they’re in on it.
YouTube. The Wall Street Journal. Google. Dow Jones. They have giant kiosks set up at Davos.
They’re not here to report. They’re here to participate. They spent millions to be part of this carnival of the billionaires — they want to get rich off it. And they’re willing to propagate the WEF message, pretending they’re objective news reporters.
That’s why I’m here with the rest of the Rebel News team. We’ll be here all week, and we’ll also visit the World Health Organization’s meeting happening just a few hours away in Geneva. That’s just as worrying — and I’ll tell you why in another report.
But for now, please just make sure you’re going to www.WEFReports.com every day. That’s where the rest of our team and I will be publishing all of our videos from our journey.
And if you think our work as independent journalists is essential — if you think someone needs to be there to tell the other side of the story — please consider chipping in to help our economy-class travel to Davos.
World Wide Rally for Freedom movement stands for human freedoms and sovereignty as the corporate-sponsored WHO moves to take charge of every nation’s health policy
CITIES AROUND THE GLOBE MAY 21 / 22 — On the weekend of May 21-22, 2022, people organizing with World Wide Demonstration, a grassroots international freedom movement, hold their eighth weekend of global rallies to support fundamental human rights and sovereignty even as the World Health Organization (WHO) begins their World Health Assembly meeting May 22 in Geneva, Switzerland to amend the International HealthRegulations of 2005 (IHR) and continue negotiations for a new global Pandemic Treaty. The proposed amendments and treaty hearings to-date indicate thecorporate-sponsoredWHOisusing these maneuvers to attempt to gain powers that supersede rightsprotected by national constitutions. By amending existing health regulations, the WHO believes they will be able to bypass the need for direct approval from national government bodies and to avoid public debate or media coverage.
WWD stands for the sovereign right of humans to make their own individual health decisions, free from any corporate or governmental coercion or threats, affirming hard-won human rights accords.
Currently 80% of WHO funding comes from privatecorporations, including pharmaceutical companies, which demonstrates the glaring conflicts of interest the WHO has in devising health recommendations. We recognize their move to amend the IHR and push a new treaty as a straightforward corporate power grab under the guise of “health.” When corporations can use proxy organizations to order everyone in the world to take a product they make, the billions raked in create a powerful incentive to conjure the next crisis. It’s approaching common knowledge that the WHO’s draconian recommendations over the past two years were put in place not to improve human health, but to create windfall Pharma profits, to fuel fears, and to groom the population to accept tyrannical control levers over each person’s individual decisions that can be wielded by a few unelected billionaires.
World Wide Rally for Freedom events will take place in many cities in many countries all over the world. Check the official WWD telegram channel for an updated list.
One Day. Everyone Together. We Will All Be There.
We stand for 5 important Freedoms:
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Movement
Freedom of Choice.
Freedom of Assembly.
Freedom of Health.
Many of our 5 important Objectives are being realized one by one. We continue to rally to ensure these damaging infringements of rights are ended foralltime:
End Lockdowns
End Mask Mandates
Prevent Vaccine Mandates and Coercion
Return to Standard International and Domestic Travel
End all State of Emergency Declarations
We have built our Movement upon 5 important Principles:
Decentralization
Collaboration
Community
Stability
Peace
We advocate for 5 Solutions:
Non-Compliance
Empowerment
Freedom Preserving Institutions
Freedom Culture
Shift The Narrative
We will not allow our inalienable Human Rights to be re-packaged as Human Privileges, to be conditioned upon compliance with authoritarianism.
Throughout history, humanity has been tried and tested in difficult times, but in the end, freedom always wins.
We can overcome any fears by building new social relationships and new systems that do function in respect of human rights.
###
World Wide Demonstration: In the spring of 2020, the idea of a world wide demonstration to stand up for our human freedoms in the face of never-ending lockdowns was born. The idea spread virally — the idea resonated around the world — and resulted in millions of everyday people taking to the street in peaceful rallies in hundreds of cities beginning March 2021. We believe that fundamental rights are not privileges, and we stand for peace, freedom, democracy and solidarity. We are mothers and fathers, children and grandchildren, grandmothers and grandfathers, brothers and sisters, young and old. We are the People. We are the Society.
hey, let’s play a pandemic wargame and blame leopards!
NOW – German health minister Lauterbach at G7 meeting: "We will do a very realistic exercise in which a smallpox pandemic results from a leopard bite." pic.twitter.com/j0l9poJwxn
i was going to do a piece on it, but igor beat me to it and i really have nothing much to add apart from the idea that i doubt that it was paid or even coordinated.
it’s just another topic the media all grabbed onto because it might turn into something and it will sell a few papers in the meantime. they all have the same 4 sources, so it’s not like it’s hard to see how it propagates.
there is no need to suspect a conspiracy.
it’s just the emergent property of “scary thing sells papers!”
but even reuters, despite their alarmist “worst ever” and “WHO emergency meeting” headlines is calling this a nothingburger.
(this is a classic practice BTW. alarming headline that few will read past that is actually refuted/disarmed in the body of the piece if you actually read it. only scanning headline nearly always leaves one with a vastly inflated sense of crisis.)
i suspect this is more about clamoring attention, the WHO trying to look useful/needed while they try to push through their massive power grab and posing for the papers, and left leaning media seeking to distract from some other matters like this:
and this:
but as of now, apart from more of this aggravatingly consistent policy of maligning felines for the world’s woes, i suspect the odds are in our favor to ignore monkeypox and media alike.
and just remember, when the gang whose reckless ineptitude broke the world for 2 years and brought you this asks for more unaccountable, technocratic power,
“Here’s another fun fact. The entire medical cartel thrives on the insane proposition—launched
with fervor more than a hundred years ago—that people suffer from thousands of distinct
diseases, each of which is caused by a single germ, which must be treated by a toxic drug and
prevented by a toxic vaccine.
It is this great lie that that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of people.”
The headline of this article has become a battle cry among some “alternative journalists,” activists, lawyers, and doctors.
As my readers know, I’ve devoted considerable space, over the past two years, to presenting evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a scientific fairy tale, a con, and the virus doesn’t exist.
So when I hear this battle cry, I’m motivated to mention a few significant points.
Let me start by countering the claim that debating the existence of the virus is wasting time.
Here’s a shocker. A person can do more than one thing at the same time. For example, he can expose/oppose the toxic vaccine. He can expose the murderous COVID treatments (ventilators, sedatives, antiviral drugs). He can expose using simple flu-like illness to create fraudulent COVID case numbers.
And he can ALSO expose the fact that the virus has never been isolated (discovered) or sequenced.
So highlighting the non-existence of the virus doesn’t rule out dealing with other vital concerns.
This may come as a surprise, but it’s even possible to go to court to challenge a vaccine mandate, while ALSO arguing elsewhere that the virus doesn’t exist. I know. Amazing, right?
Those alarmed by “the virus doesn’t exist” also say: making that statement leaves us open to being called whackos, and leaves us unable to convince people that all our other criticisms of the pandemic are true.
I would counter that in two ways. Millions of people already believe we’re whackos, even those of us who take a sacred blood oath that the virus is real.
And second, people going against the grain, when their vital issue is still in the budding stage, are always called nuts. Trust me, there was a time when criticizing vaccines made people look like total whackos in the eyes of the general public—and it took decades of fighting the consensus to bring that criticism into the open, where many people saw the truth about jabs.
Here’s another fun fact. The entire medical cartel thrives on the insane proposition—launched with fervor more than a hundred years ago—that people suffer from thousands of distinct diseases, each of which is caused by a single germ, which must be treated by a toxic drug and prevented by a toxic vaccine.
It is this great lie that that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of people.
Therefore, the very real question about the existence of viruses in general is more than a weird preoccupation.
Next, those who claim, “OF COURSE viruses exist,” don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. They’re merely PARROTING what they learned in school or what researchers baldly claim in studies.
“Well, all virologists can’t be wrong.”
Yes, Virginia, they can all be wrong. Just as vaccinologists can all be wrong about “the remarkable safety and efficacy of vaccines.”
Some of the OF COURSE VIRUSES EXIST people are new to the way blogs and videos work. They’ve never encountered commenters in any great numbers before. So when a few dozen committed people suddenly tell them they should examine their premises more carefully and consider what really goes on in virology labs, these OF COURSE people are annoyed and irritated. They don’t like being challenged on basic issues. They don’t like feeling that the floor might suddenly shift under their feet. So they turn on their arrogance machines.
So be it.
The issue isn’t going away. Nor should it.
Despite growing digital censorship, the internet is still the Wild West in certain respects. People are going to say THE VIRUS DOESN’T EXIST, and VIRUSES DON’T EXIST.
And foundations will shake.
Foundations of the medical cartel, and foundations underlying people’s cherished assumptions.
In any area of human life, there are conflicts between “this is strategy” and “this is the truth.” There always will be.
Trying to shortchange the truth or casually say the truth is a lie doesn’t work.
NO ONE who is reading this article has ever been in a virology lab and witnessed the step by step process of “discovering a new virus.” I find that stunning. And yet all sorts of people are quite ready to assert with great finality that they know all about isolating viruses.
If by chance, someone reading this article HAS actually been in a lab and “discovered a virus,” you can bet your bottom dollar he won’t let you or me in there with a full film crew and our outlier experts asking very pointed questions about each “scientific” move he makes, as he “isolates a virus.”
To which somebody might reply: “Well, I’ve never seen a car being made in a factory, but I drive one with full confidence.”
Yes, but when the “virus discovered in a lab” results in you or someone you love being dosed with a drug or vaccine that maims you or kills your family member, you damn well should want to get into “that factory where the car is made.”
But you can’t. They won’t let you…
…Despite the fact that, as I’ve documented many times, the US medical system kills, by a very conservative estimate, 225,000 people a year, or 2.25 million people per decade. [0]
Chew on THAT for a while.
Here is one of my articles on the subject of virus isolation:
The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”
But what if the virus doesn’t exist?
People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.
“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”
I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.
I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [2].
First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.
The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. Human cells, monkey cells, antibiotics, other chemicals, random genetic material.
The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup, because they’re dropped a mucus sample from a patient in the soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.
They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.
There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.
Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus.”
Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:
STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”
KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”
STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”
KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”
STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”
KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”
STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”
KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”
KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [3]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”
STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”
STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”
KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”
STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”
KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”
—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—
My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.
Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.
And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists, and you don’t have an isolated specimen of it?
Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 375 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [4]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?
This week on the New World Next Week: courts around the world strike down biosecurity mandates, orders and overreach; gene therapy for heart attacks looms on the biomedical horizon; and the breast milk crisis puts the Q in biomilq.
PDF: “Verve Therapeutics Announces Clearance of First VERVE-101 Clinical Trial Application and Outlines Global Clinical Development Strategy; Reports First Quarter 2022 Financial Results”
Putting an End to Heart Attacks By Editing Human DNA; Verve Therapeutics Targeting Cholesterol-Causing Genes to Clear Arteries With Its Experimental Therapy
Artificial breast milk firm that offers an environmentally-friendly alternative to baby formula gets $3.5 million from investment fund backed by Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg
“Here’s a fun game… Suggest urgent investigation of rising hepatitis cases in kids based on the reasonable hypothesis of spike proteins in breast milk and watch the ‘be kind’ Ukraine flaggers tell you to shut up with your self-serving craziness…”
All of the pepper seedlings pictured above were grown under identical conditions for 200 days, except for one difference. The plants in the top three frames (A, B and C) were watered daily with tap water that had first sat in a glass flask for one hour. The plants in the bottom three frames (D, E and F) were watered daily with tap water in an identical glass flask, except the flask had first sat next to this WiFi router for one hour:
That study, done at the Islamic University of Gaza, was published in 2020.
The same scientists had previously watered corn seedlings and pepper seedlings for 30 days with water that had been heated in a microwave oven and then cooled. The journal in which that article was published did not contain photographs of the plants, but the results were just as dramatic. Plants watered with water that had been previously microwaved did not thrive. “The leaves of seedlings that were watered with microwaved water had a color of pale green and their texture was smooth as compared to the control. On the other hand, in the case of control, the leaves had a color of dark green and the texture was rough.”
Scientists in Pakistan, in a study published in 2019, obtained similar results with six different types of plants, in an experiment that also lasted 30 days. Water that had previously been microwaved for one minute decreased the plants’ root and shoot length, their diameter, their weight, their chlorophyll content, and their leaf area, and delayed their flowering. But again, the published pictures tell the story better. The “control” plants were watered with water that had not been previously heated. The “tap water” plants were watered with water heated on a stove and then cooled. The “microwave” plants were watered with water heated in a microwave oven for one minute and then cooled:
Animals fed microwaved food fare just as poorly. Scientists at the Federal University of Technology in Nigeria fed two groups of young rats an identical diet including boiled rice and stew, beans, yams and boiled fish — identical except that the food for one group was microwaved for four minutes and then cooled. After three months, all blood parameters were impaired in the rats fed microwaved food. Red blood cells decreased by 12%, white blood cells decreased by 30%, packed cell volume decreased by 25%, and hemoglobin concentration decreased by 19%. Lymphocytes, monocytes, and eosinophils all significantly decreased, while neutrophils significantly increased. This study was published in 2015.
In a followup study, published in 2017, rats were fed an identical diet for 42 days that had either not been microwaved, or had been microwaved for 2, 4, or 6 minutes and then cooled. All rats fed microwaved food had significantly lower levels of antioxidant enzymes, Vitamin A and Vitamin E in their blood. The longer their food had been microwaved, the lower the levels of antioxidants and vitamins in the rats’ blood.
Another research team, at the University of Lagos, measured antioxidant levels in the brain and liver of rats fed microwaved food for six weeks, with similar results, published in 2014. “It was observed from the result that the activities of antioxidant enzymes decreased drastically (p<0.05) in rats fed the microwaved food as compared to their controls.”
A researcher at Koya University in Iraq fed pregnant rats either food cooked in a conventional oven or microwaved food for 18 days and then sacrificed them and examined the pancreas of their embryos. The pancreas of embryos whose mothers had eaten microwaved food showed pathological changes. Pancreatic tissue was damaged, including damage to the β-cells of the islets of Langerhans, which are the cells that produce insulin.
And in 2021 still another team of Nigerian researchers, at Crawford University, fed rats for three weeks on rat pellets that had been either unmicrowaved or microwaved for 1 minute and 30 seconds. The rats fed on microwaved pellets had significantly altered levels of total cholesterol, total triglycerides, HDL, LDL, ALP, AST, ALT, total protein, and total and indirect bilirubin, by the third week. And they had significant alterations in their white blood cell count, red blood cell count, hemoglobin, and packed cell volume after just one week.
And another team of researchers, at the National University of Medical Sciences in Pakistan, fed adult mice microwaved mice pellets for four weeks and then examined their testes. The mice fed microwaved food had significantly smaller diameter seminiferous tubules and significantly smaller height of the germinal epithelium in their testes.
Back in the 1980s I wondered why I would get stomach pain after eating restaurant food, a pain which would last for about 30 minutes. It did not happen every time I went to a restaurant, but only sometimes, and at random. One day, as an experiment, I began a policy of specifying, whenever I ordered food in any restaurant, that I did not want any of it to have been cooked or heated in a microwave oven. From that day until today, I have never had that kind of stomach pain from eating at a restaurant. I have also never, in my life, microwaved any food at home.
A microwave oven does not heat your food directly. Instead, it puts electrical energy into your food, which is converted indirectly into heat. Water is a polar molecule, which means it has a positive and a negative pole. An electric field forces any polar molecule to line up in the direction of the electric field. Since a microwave oven operates at a frequency of 2.45 GHz, i.e. 2.45 billion hertz, its effect is to force all the water molecules in your food to line up in the same direction, and to flip back and forth 2.45 billion times per second. The friction from all that motion heats your food. But it doesn’t just heat your food, it puts a type of electrical charge into your food, and if you eat the food right away, that electrical energy is transferred to your stomach, and it can hurt.
Clearly there are also long-term effects on the body, since the above studies have found that eating microwaved food has profoundly deleterious effects on your blood and organs.
This is a follow-up to my recent piece about millions of bot Twitter accounts—no humans, just propaganda.
Newsweek is reporting on an independent audit revealing that half of Biden’s Twitter followers and 70% of Musk’s followers are fakes. Bots.
I’m making inquiries about how these accounts are launched, and whether it’s possible to discover all of them. If I find competent answers, I’ll let you know.
Since Twitter is standing in for the “Town Square,” it’s quite astonishing to discover that so many of the opinions emanate from non-human robots designed to create a false consensus around vital issues: immigration, racism, climate change, party politics, gun control, censorship, abortion, etc.
It’s on the order of staging candidate debates where the humans don’t show up at all, but are represented by programmed holograms; or staging elections where fake votes outnumber real ones.
Actually, we’re doing rather well on those scores with real humans already. Nevertheless, bots take things one giant step further.
The CIA started infiltrating news media in the 1950s with its Mockingbird program. Now we have infiltration by imaginary humans.
Well, ever since I started NoMoreFakeNews 22 years ago, I’ve asserted that reality is invented; Twitter confirms this on a scale that is quite fantastic.
If you were in control of Twitter, and your goal was the creation of a biased national culture, think of the influence you could wield. You could set up a secret internal section of the platform, staffed by loyal assistants, or collaborate with the CIA; and invent millions upon millions of bot accounts expressing views you were intent on promoting.
You would create the illusion that The People were speaking. You would say FINALLY THIS IS DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
It wouldn’t surprise me if one of the reasons for the hold is the looming exposure of Twitter as the biggest disinformation operation in the world. Think of the fallout, if this Board were compelled to announce its first finding—the platform of the people is a giant fake.
The Board and Twitter are on the same basic team. They’re both dedicated to censoring and promoting the same chosen sets of information.
OVERREACH is how disinformation ops fall apart. They abandon their drip by drip lies and, grabbing for the stars, tell the huge lies. People suddenly realize they’re being asked to buy truly insane notions, and they rebel.
What we’re seeing with Twitter is even more than huge lies; we’re gazing at an apparatus, a machine DESIGNED to spout a Niagara of disinfo.
That’s not supposed to be exposed.
It’s as if, in the 1950s, the public suddenly became aware of a few thousand internal memos describing the CIA’s plan to overthrow a Central American government; and also the existence of a CIA section exclusively devoted to fomenting fake foreign insurrections and coups—which were actually CIA propelled schemes.
A machine that invents and forces reality.
Don’t open your eyes half-way when you stare at this. Open them all the way.
I came across this Facebook post recently by Dr Tom Cowan. He is yet another qualified and intelligent voice of reason steadfastly and dedicatedly censored by the corporate media in an ongoing and increasingly desperate effort to prevent the People getting wise to things they don’t want you to know.
The truth of the matter is these highly qualified a voices of reason are growing in number and ubiquity at an accelerating rate and the enemies of Humanity are having dickens of a job keeping lid on the volcano.
The entire biochemical paradigm of the pharmaceutical-industrial complex that results in the systemic poisoning of Man, which itself is intended to render human beings tired, sick and introverted on their health – and thus neutralised as potential sources of trouble (ie liberty) -is now in jeopardy.
All we have to do is keep going, keep speaking out, keep right on advocating Reason and common sense and keep on bringing to the attention of the People the huge reservoir of wisdom and more workable paradigms that are being kept from them by those with a vested interest in prolonging the Dark Age 0f their barbarism.
In other words, simply REFUSE to shut up.
And the more we can unite and work together, the sooner the Dark Age will be over and the Age of Reason begun.
Dr Tom Cowan is a highly recommended voice of reason.
And here by way of a taster is his post from Facebook
As you can see from this blockbuster article published on Aug. 9, 2016, in the prestigious journal Nature, researchers conclusively demonstrated that whenever fetal calf serum is added to any cell culture (as is done in virtually all modern virology studies, including those used during the past two years), it is simply impossible to use the results of this culture to determine the RNA sequence of any new vîru$. As they demonstrate, fetal calf serum itself is a rich source of many types of RNA sequences. Once this is introduced into the cell culture, from then on, there is no way to determine the origin of the RNA that researchers find.
The significance of this study cannot be overstated and validates what we’ve been saying for many months. Virologists use cell cultures to prove the existence of a new vîru$ and its cytopathic effect. If the culture is contaminated, as this study demonstrates, any claims about a new vîru$ and its genetic makeup are meaningless.
1. Every thirty seconds vivisectors around the world kill another thousand animals. They use cats, dogs, puppies, kittens, horses, sheep, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, monkeys, baboons and any other creature you can think of.
2 .While waiting to be used in laboratory experiments, animals are kept in solitary confinement in small cages. Alone and frightened they can hear the screams of the other animals being used.
3. Some of the animals used in laboratory experiments are pets which have been kidnapped, taken off the streets and sold to the vivisectors.
4. Animals used in experiments are blinded, burned, shot, injected and dissected. They have their eyes sewn up or their limbs broken. Chemicals are injected into their brains and their screams of anguish are coldly recorded.
5. Three quarters of the experiments performed by vivisectors are done without any anaesthetic.
6. Most vivisectors have no medical or veterinary training.
7. Scientists claim that animals are not sentient creatures and are incapable of suffering mental or physical pain.
8. All animals respond differently to threats of any kind depending on their circumstances (diet, cage size, etc.). None of these factors is allowed for by vivisectors. By locking an animal up in a cage, experimenters have already invalidated their experiment because by altering the animal’s surroundings, the experimenter alters the animal’s susceptibility, its habits, its instincts and its capacity to heal itself. Since these variations are not controlled (cages and surroundings differ) experiments performed on animals kept in cages are of no scientific value.
9 Many of the diseases which kill or cripple human beings do not affect any other members of the animal kingdom. It is, therefore, impossible to use different species to test drug therapies for these illnesses.
10. Doctors wouldn’t test a drug intended for old people on children (or the other way round). So why test drugs intended for pregnant women on rats? No one would test a drug for premenstrual problems on small boys and yet that would make far more sense than testing such a drug on male rats.
11. Drug tests done on animals can produce dangerously unreliable and misleading information. Thalidomide safely passed tests on animals. Penicillin and aspirin both kill cats. When Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin growing on a culture dish in 1928, he tested the drug on rabbits and discarded it when it seemed useless. Later the drug was tested on a cat and a human patient at the same time. The cat died and the human being lived. If doctors had relied upon animal experiments to decide whether or not penicillin was of any value, the drug would have been discarded long ago. Penicillin even kills guinea pigs – the classic test animal for many drugs. Aspirin can be toxic to rats, mice, dogs, monkeys and guinea pigs as well as cats. Morphine sedates human beings but excites cats, goats and horses. Digitalis, one of the best established and most effective drugs for the treatment of heart disease, is so toxic to animals that if we had relied on animal tests it would have never been cleared for use by humans.
12. Vivisectors admit that most animal experiments are unreliable and produce results which are not relevant to human patients. But they don’t know which experiments are unreliable. Logically, that means that all animal experiments are useless. If you don’t know which experiments you can rely on, you can’t rely on any of them.
13. The very unreliability and unpredictably of animal experiments is what makes them commercially valuable. Drug companies test on animals so that they can say that they have tested their drugs before marketing them. If the tests show that the drugs do not cause serious disorders when given to animals the companies say: `There you are! We have tested our drug – and have proved it to be safe!’ If, on the other hand, tests show that a drug does cause serious problems when given to animals the companies say: `The animal experiments are, of course, unreliable and cannot be used to predict what will happen when the drug is given to humans. We have, however, tested our drug.’ Tests which show that a drug causes cancer or some other serious disease when given to animals are ignored on the grounds that animals are different to people. However, tests which show that a new drug doesn’t kill animals are used as evidence that the drug is safe for human consumption. If you try a drug on enough different animals you can usually end up with at least one set of results which suggest that a drug is safe. Scores of drugs which cause cancer or other serious health problems in animals are widely prescribed for human patients. (See www.vernoncoleman.com for the names of 50).
14. Four out of ten patients who take a prescribed drug which has been tested for safety on animals can expect to suffer severe or noticeable side effects.
15. Surveys show that most practising doctors are opposed to vivisection on scientific grounds.
Taken from The Wisdom of Animals by Donna Antoinette Coleman and Vernon Coleman. Available as a paperback and an eBook.
As expected, those who want safety at all costs will clamor for more gun control measures (if not at an outright ban on weapons for non-military, non-police personnel), widespread mental health screening of the general population and greater scrutiny of military veterans, more threat assessments and behavioral sensing warnings, more surveillance cameras with facial recognition capabilities, more “See Something, Say Something” programs aimed at turning Americans into snitches and spies, more metal detectors and whole-body imaging devices at soft targets, more roaming squads of militarized police empowered to do random bag searches, more fusion centers to centralize and disseminate information to law enforcement agencies, and more surveillance of what Americans say and do, where they go, what they buy and how they spend their time.
All of these measures play into the government’s hands.
As we have learned the hard way, the phantom promise of safety in exchange for restricted or regulated liberty is a false, misguided doctrine that serves only to give the government greater authority to crack down, lock down, and institute even more totalitarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry.
Add the Department of Homeland Security’s “Disinformation Governance Board” to that mix, empower it to monitor online activity and police so-called “disinformation,” and you have the makings of a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.
After all, it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth.
Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.
If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.
It’s been a long time since free speech was actually free.
On paper—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—we are technically free to speak.
In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow.
That’s not a whole lot of freedom, especially if you’re inclined to voice opinions that may be construed as conspiratorial or dangerous.
This steady, pervasive censorship creep clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness and inflicted on us by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) is technofascism, and it does not tolerate dissent.
These internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns. They’re laying the groundwork now to preempt any “dangerous” ideas that might challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.
The internet, hailed as a super-information highway, is increasingly becoming the police state’s secret weapon. This “policing of the mind” is exactly the danger author Jim Keith warned about when he predicted that “information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network, providing an opportunity for unheralded control of what will be broadcast, what will be said, and ultimately what will be thought.”
What we are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning which involves doing away with dangerous ideas—legitimate or not—and the people who espouse them.
Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.
Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go and nothing left to say that cannot be misconstrued and used to muzzle us.
Yet what a lot of people fail to understand, however, is that it’s not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how you think that is being tracked and targeted.
We’ve already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime legislation that cracks down on so-called “hateful” thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on various subject matter.
With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”
Little by little, Americans have been conditioned to accept routine incursions on their freedoms.
This is how oppression becomes systemic, what is referred to as creeping normality, or a death by a thousand cuts.
It’s a concept invoked by Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist Jared Diamond to describe how major changes, if implemented slowly in small stages over time, can be accepted as normal without the shock and resistance that might greet a sudden upheaval.
Diamond’s concerns related to Easter Island’s now-vanished civilization and the societal decline and environmental degradation that contributed to it, but it’s a powerful analogy for the steady erosion of our freedoms and decline of our country right under our noses.
As Diamond explains, “In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism… Why didn’t they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?”
Much like America’s own colonists, Easter Island’s early colonists discovered a new world—“a pristine paradise”—teeming with life. Yet almost 2000 years after its first settlers arrived, Easter Island was reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they failed to preserve paradise for future generations.
The same could be said of the America today: it, too, is being reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they are failing to preserve freedom for future generations.
“The forest…vanished slowly, over decades. Perhaps war interrupted the moving teams; perhaps by the time the carvers had finished their work, the last rope snapped. In the meantime, any islander who tried to warn about the dangers of progressive deforestation would have been overridden by vested interests of carvers, bureaucrats, and chiefs, whose jobs depended on continued deforestation… The changes in forest cover from year to year would have been hard to detect… Only older people, recollecting their childhoods decades earlier, could have recognized a difference. Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.”
Sound painfully familiar yet?
We’ve already torn down the rich forest of liberties established by our founders. It has vanished slowly, over the decades. Those who warned against the dangers posed by too many laws, invasive surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids and the like have been silenced and ignored. They stopped teaching about freedom in the schools. Few Americans know their history. And even fewer seem to care that their fellow Americans are being jailed, muzzled, shot, tasered, and treated as if they have no rights at all.
The erosion of our freedoms happened so incrementally, no one seemed to notice. Only the older generations, remembering what true freedom was like, recognized the difference. Gradually, the freedoms enjoyed by the citizenry became fewer, smaller and less important. By the time the last freedom falls, no one will know the difference.
This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls: with a thousand cuts, each one justified or ignored or shrugged over as inconsequential enough by itself to bother, but they add up.
Each cut, each attempt to undermine our freedoms, each loss of some critical right—to think freely, to assemble, to speak without fear of being shamed or censored, to raise our children as we see fit, to worship or not worship as our conscience dictates, to eat what we want and love who we want, to live as we want—they add up to an immeasurable failure on the part of each and every one of us to stop the descent down that slippery slope.
We are on that downward slope now.
The contagion of fear that has been spread with the help of government agencies, corporations and the power elite is poisoning the well, whitewashing our history, turning citizen against citizen, and stripping us of our rights.
America is approaching another reckoning right now, one that will pit our commitment to freedom principles against a level of fear-mongering that is being used to wreak havoc on everything in its path.
Way back in 2017 I created a country-by-country guide to the biometric ID control grid that was coming into view even then. In that editorial I noted that “it doesn’t take a Nostradamus to understand where this is all heading: From the cashless society and the biometric ID grid to the cashless biometric grid.”
Well, here we are. It’s 2022 and the merger of the cashless society and the biometric ID grid is nearing completion. In fact, the current iteration of this control grid agenda is even worse than predicted. Now known as Central Bank Digital Currency, or CBDC, this programmable digital money offers the banksters numerous options, including the ability to combine the cashless society with the biometric ID grid and even a social credit system. If and when CBDCs replace other payment methods, the banksters’ control over society will be unprecedented.
But however closely you might be following the drive toward the CBDC dystopia, you might be missing the forest for the trees. Although each country’s central bankers talk as if they have come up with the idea for a digital currency all by themselves and that there is no international coordination behind the CBDC agenda, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as a recent Bank for International Settlements report indicates, 90% of central banks around the world are currently studying the feasibility of issuing their own CBDC.
Today, I am going to drive home the point that the coming CBDC prison is truly global in nature by demonstrating that it is not just being put into place in one or two totalitarian countries, but nearly every country in the world. Only when we recognize how dire the situation is can we hope to motivate communities to implement the survival currencies that will see us through the controlled demolition of the existing monetary order.
AUSTRALIA
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has been exploring the possibility of an Australian Central Bank Digital Currency since at least 2019, when its “Innovation Lab” drafted a Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology stating that “the Bank is conducting research on the technological and policy implications of a wholesale CBDC.” It made good on this threat in November 2020 with the announcement of a partnership between the RBA and Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank, Perpetual and ConsenSys Software to “explore the potential use and implications of a wholesale form of central bank digital currency.” Philip Lowe, governor of the RBA, has publicly expressed skepticism about the need to implement a retail CBDC in Australia, but the door is still open to the possibility.
THE BAHAMAS
The Bahamas became the unlikely location of the world’s first nationwide CBDC when they launched the “Sand Dollar” way back in October 2020. The island archipelago—with one of the highest per capita incomes in the Americas and a 90% mobile device penetration rate—was viewed as an ideal laboratory for the CBDC experiment by central bankers and hyped as a harbinger of a “new world economy” by the global financial press. . . . But the banksters have not been thrilled with the results so far. The IMF told the Central Bank of The Bahamas earlier this week that it needs to “accelerate its education campaigns and continue strengthening internal capacity and oversight” of the currency.
BRAZIL
Roberto Campos Neto, president of the Central Bank of Brazil, confirmed last month that the bank will be running a pilot test of its CBDC, the digital real, before the end of the year. “This is a way to create currency digitization without creating a break in bank balance sheets. This project should have some kind of pilot in the second half of the year,” Neto said at the press conference announcing the pilot’s launch.
CANADA
This past March, the Bank of Canada (BoC) announced that it had partnered with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to “collaborate on a twelve-month research project on Central Bank Digital Currency.” The project—which the BoC describes as “part of the Bank’s wider research and development agenda on digital currencies and fintech“—will “explore how advanced technologies could affect the potential design of a CBDC.” This will in turn “help inform the Bank of Canada’s research effort into CBDC.”
CHILE
Chile’s central bank issued a report this week on its plans for a future Chilean digital currency. Spouting the usual bankster platitudes about how a CBDC “would contribute to achieving a competitive, innovative and integrated payment system that is inclusive, resilient and protects people’s information,” the review ultimately concludes that “a deeper analysis of the benefits and risks” is in order, promising (or threatening, depending on your perspective) to issue a new report on the subject toward the end of the year. In the meantime, the Chilean Central Bank governor, Rosanna Costa, has said that Chile’s CBDC “should operate both online and offline,” and that it should “allow the authorities to trace the transaction afterwards” while paradoxically “safeguarding personal data.”
CHINA
The digital yuan (as readers of this column will already know) has been in the works for at least five years. It is no surprise, then, that China’s CBDC—already operational in various trials—is seen as one of the most developed CBDC projects in the world and is held up by various Western countries as the bogeyman justifying their own CBDC experimentation (“We can’t let the ChiComs beat us to the punch!”). As you may or may know (depending how closely you’re tuned in to CBDCInsider and other such sources of info), the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) did a “test rollout” of the currency at the Beijing Olympics this year, offering athletes, attendees and press the chance to use the new CBDC at the Games. That test was deemed a success, with the PBoC later declaring that the digital yuan was used to make 2 million yuan ($315,000) of payments per day during the event. Now, in the latest move toward full implementation of the Chinese CBDC, three cities across China have declared they will accept the digital yuan for tax payments.
EUROPEAN UNION
The EU is currently conducting “in-house experiments” for a digital euro and expects to start working on a prototype next year. As part of its ongoing “research” process, the European Central Bank released a working paper this past week on “The digital economy, privacy, and CBDC.” The paper suggests that a digital euro could strike a happy balance between “inefficient” offline cash transactions that preserve anonymity and “efficient” online bank deposit transactions that do not preserve anonymity. The best kind of digital currency, the report concludes, is a “CBDC with data-sharing,” a conclusion they arrive at by redefining privacy: “Privacy is not the opposite of sharing—rather it is control over sharing.” Actual Europeans are not buying this self-serving twaddle, but the ECB, unsurprisingly, seems not to be listening.
GHANA
The Bank of Ghana was one of the first African countries to announce that it was developing a digital currency and now, with the release of a design paper for the eCedi—its retail token-based CBDC—it is one step closer to implementing that vision. The bank is now soliciting feedback on the proposal from the public.
HONG KONG
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has released a number of studies, white papers, proposals and discussion papers surrounding the topic of CBDCs over the past few years, from the announcement of Project LionRock-Inthanon (a joint project with the Bank of Thailand to study the application of CBDC to cross-border payments) in 2019 to last month’s “Discussion paper on e-HKD from policy and design perspective.” The latest discussion paper invites “views from the public and the industry on key policy and design issues for introducing retail central bank digital currency,” leaving little doubt that the introduction of a digital Hong Kong Dollar is now all-but-inevitable.
INDIA
Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman made waves earlier this year by announcing that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) would launch a CBDC sometime in the next fiscal year. Lest there be any doubt about the Indian government’s intention to make good on its digital currency threat, Union Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar asserted in March that the digital rupee is a “natural progression” of the digital payment ecosystem. But for those worried about what life in the coming digital dystopia will be like, relax! RBI Deputy Governor T. Rabi Sankar says that the bank “will probably go in for a very careful and calibrated, nuanced manner” as it springs its CBDC trap on the Indian public.
IRAN
There’s an old canard in conspiracy realist circles that there are only three (?) central banks on the planet that aren’t owned by the Rothschilds. The exact list of these supposedly independent central banks varies in the telling, but Iran is usually included among them. Well, guess what? the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) is all on board with the CBDC revolution! This past January, Abutaleb Najafi—the head of CBI’s information services company—revealed that, after two years of “continuous work” on the platform, “the infrastructure needed for CBI’s cryptocurrency and now its pilot version is ready.” Details on the pilot test of the Iranian CBDC are scarce, but Najafi has confirmed that both state-run and private banks in the country will allow customers to open digital wallets for the currency during the trial.
ISRAEL
Generally speaking, central banks are finding CBDCs to be a public relations disaster. They hold “public consultations” about a central bank digital currency and solicit comments from the citizens, but find the overwhelming majority of those responses are negative. As it turns out, people are wary of a government-issued programmable money that could be used to completely exclude people from the financial system itself for engaging in whatever activities the government disapproves of. The Bank of Israel has decided to do an end run around this problem by simply declaring (without proof) that it has “received public support for its plans to possibly issue a digital shekel on grounds it would help the economy by supporting innovation in the payments system, reducing the amount of cash and bolstering the fintech sector.” Yes, they want you to believe that the majority of the public supports the idea of a digital shekel because it will reduce the amount of cash. Riiiiiiight. Don’t worry, though. The Israeli central bank says it “has still not made a final decision on whether it will issue a digital shekel” even though “all of the responses to the public consultation indicate support for continued research.” Riiiiiiight.
JAPAN
In March, Bank of Japan (BoJ) Governor Haruhiko Kuroda declared that the BoJ has no plan to issue a digital currency as of yet, but that it “will prepare ‘thoroughly’ to respond to changing circumstances that could require it to do so in future.” Last month, BoJ Executive Director Shinichi Uchida clarified that the bank would not introduce a digital yen as a means of achieving negative interest rates, as some have warned. Around the same time, Kazushige Kamiyama, head of the bank’s payment system, pledged that the BoJ would follow Sweden’s slow, cautious approach to CBDC testing before any digital yen was actually implemented. In a sign that plans for a Japanese CBDC may be further along than publicly acknowledged, however, Kuroda took a moment from fearmongering about decentralized digital assets to state that a CBDC “could be an option to secure a seamless and safe [payment and settlement] infrastructure in Japan.”
NAMIBIA
The Bank of Namibia revealed its plans to launch a CBDC last month. “We cannot ignore CBDC, it is a reality out there and for that reason, the Bank of Namibia has started researching CBDCs and they very soon will go out with consultations,” the Bank of Namibia Governor Johannes Gawaxab said at a press conference announcing the move, adding that a consultation paper on the plan is nearing completion.
NIGERIA
As discussed on a recent edition of New World Next Week, Nigeria is one of only two countries in the world with an official, nationwide CBDC (the other being The Bahamas, discussed above). The eNaira is a stablecoin minted by the Central Bank of Nigeria, making it a true digital version of the fiat currency. This CBDC has already been declared a success by the bankster class, with the IMF predicting that the eNaira will be adopted by 90 percent of Nigeria’s population. An upgraded eNaira wallet app will be available this coming week that will allow Nigerians to “do transactions such as paying for DSTV or electric bills or even paying for flight tickets.”
RUSSIA
For those who still believe that Vladimir “Get the Vaxx” Putin (and his pals at the WHO) are somehow against the New World Order despite being demonstrably on board with every part of the technocratic agenda, here’s another dose of reality: the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) has been working on its own CBDC project for years. Last year, the CBR announced the creation of a “pilot group” of 12 banks that will test a version of the digital ruble later this year. According to statements from CBR representatives, citizens will be able to use the CBDC “for purchases, transfers to individuals, firms and the state, tax payments, conversions to foreign currencies in e-wallets and as a store of value.”
RWANDA
Rwanda hopped aboard the CBDC bandwagon last June, with John Karamuka, the Director of Payment Systems at the National Bank of Rwanda, telling The New Times that the central bank was “studying the possibilities of issuing its own Central Bank Digital Currency in response to global trends in digital currency.” Ealier this year, central bank Deputy Governor Soraya Hakuziyaremye confirmed that the bank was still in the investigation phase and that it will reveal its stance on implementing a CBDC by the end of December 2022.
SAUDI ARABIA
The Saudi central bank (the Saudi Arabaian Monetary Authority, or SAMA) announced Project Aber in 2019, a partnership with the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates to determine whether a new, dual-issued digital currency could be used as a unit of settlement between the two countries. The final report of that project was released one year later, concluding that “a cross-border dual issued currency was technically viable and that it was possible to design a distributed payment system that offers the two countries significant improvement over centralized payment systems in terms of architectural resilience.” This led to an admission last October by a SAMA official that the central bank is now actively exploring CBDC as a means to digitize payments, with an ambitious target of having 70% of all payments in the country being conducted digitally by 2030.
SOUTH AFRICA
The country’s central bank, the South African Reserve Bank (SARB), revealed in May 2021 that it had commenced a feasibility study for a general-purpose retail central bank digital currency. Earlier this year, it announced that it had completed the second phase of a separate trial, known as Project Khokha 2, focusing on the creation of a wholesale central bank digital currency. Its project report on the trial concluded that the trial was successful and the next steps should include further testing and collaboration with other countries on the development of a cross-border digital currency. To that end, the bank announced in September 2021 that it signed up to a pilot program to develop a shared platform to enable cross-border digital currency transactions with Malaysia, Australia and Singapore.
SOUTH KOREA
The Bank of Korea (BoK) launched a “forward-thinking” digital currency pilot program in August 2021 with the aim of exploring the feasibility of a retail CBDC. Selecting Ground X—the blockchain subsidiary of Kakao, Korea’s largest social network—as its blockchain simulation provider and partnering with Samsung to research cross-border payments to other mobile phones or connected bank accounts, the BoK has reportedly invested 5 billion won in the project. Phase 2 of the trial, testing “payments using CBDC, remittances between countries, and applications of privacy technologies” is slated to wrap up this June.
SWITZERLAND
In December 2020 the Bank for International Settlements launched Project Helvetia, a “proof-of-concept experiment to integrate tokenised digital assets and central bank money” in conjunction with the Swiss National Bank (SNB). In January of this year, the SNB revealed the results of that experiment: Project Helvetia “has successfully used central bank digital currencies to settle transactions with five different commercial banks.” The results of the test, we are told, will allow the bank to proceed with some of the most advanced CBDC testing in Europe and “could pave the way for the implementation of a digital currency in Switzerland.”
UKRAINE
Remember Bitt, the Barbadian fintech firm that helped to develop the eNaira for Nigeria? Well, guess what they’re working on now? An electronic hryvnia for Ukraine. That’s right, the Ukrainian government paved the way for a CBDC last year by announcing a test pilot of the digital currency, which was slated to begin this year. No word yet on how Russia’s ongoing “special operations” in the country have affected that plan, but so far there has been no formal announcement that the CBDC idea has been scrapped.
UNITED KINGDOM
The Bank of England (BoE) has been looking into the possibility of creating a digital currency in the UK since at least 2015. They are still officially in the “research” phase, with the bank releasing “Responses to the Bank of England’s March 2020 Discussion Paper on CBDC” in June 2021. In November 2021, the BoE released a statement that it will “launch a consultation which will set out their assessment of the case for a UK CBDC” some time in 2022.
UNITED STATES
As you may have heard by now, the Biden White House issued an Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets this past March. Although the order generated a lot of stories about how the administration was clearing the way for the possible introduction of a digital dollar, it should be noted that the Federal Reserve has been actively exploring the concept for some time now and the “go ahead” from Biden was more window dressing than substantial policy shift. Specifically, the Boston Fed has been collaborating with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Project Hamilton—a “multiyear research project to explore the CBDC design space and gain a hands-on understanding of a CBDC’s technical challenges and opportunities”—since the summer of 2020. The first fruits of that collaboration—a report on Phase 1 of the project—was released earlier this year, resulting in new “learnings” about the best way to design a CBDC and clearing the way for Phase 2, which, we are told, “will explore new functionality and alternative technical designs.”
VENEZUELA
Although The Bahamas and Nigeria are now touted as the first countries to have a national CBDC, Corbett Reporteers will remember that Venezuela launched their own “cryptocurrency” in 2018. Of course, as I pointed out at the time, it isn’t really a cryptocurrency; it’s a Central Bank Digital Currency. It’s completely centralized, it’s closed source and there’s only one government-run block explorer and one government-issued official wallet. You might also recall that, in a remarkable coincidence, Venezuela introduced their social credit ID card—the “fatherland card”—later that same year. Well, in case you were wondering, Venezuelans are continuing to be pushed off the digital cliff into technocratic tyranny. Just this past March, President Maduro announced that the country’s minimum wage would now be pegged to the digital currency.
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.
To a physicist this is possible since all receivers are also transmitters—a radio antenna can send or receive the same signal. The rhodopsin molecules in the retinal cells absorb and emit the same visible light.
Michael Clarage, PhD, Astrophysicist and Lead Scientist of SAFIRE, explains how we could not have organic life without cells, chemicals, light, electricity, or the ecosystems of the Earth and Sun—all levels of the hierarchy communicate and exchange energy.
“I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity,” Trump said. “Without a major event where people pull together, that’s hard to do. But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing.” – Donald Trump, Jan 30th 2018
By April of 2020, within two years of Donald Trump’s prophetic message, millions of people had bowed the government’s request to “unite” by “social distancing,” under a “Live Exercise” revealed by Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. About half of the world’s population agreed to some form of lockdown. More than 3.9 billion people in more than 90 countries had been asked or ordered to stay at home by their governments. And they did.
In unison, millions donned a ritual mask to protect themselves against an invisible enemy. The effect was dubbed virtue signaling – an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media. How did so many people fall into lock-step to give up their freedom when they had previously been openly skeptical of government ethics and policies?
Social Engineering
The earliest social experiments had been successful using the tried-and true strategy of The Hegelian Dialectic: Problem • Reaction • Solution. Introduce a Problem and roll out the Solution! Past experiments included “The New Deal” under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, and “Great Society” under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. Then came the “financially sound” government programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Money and politics aside, why trust a government’s blanket medical solution when it comes to health, a personal responsibility?
If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it. – Edward Bernays
After three years of government-induced COVID, there is still no approved government Solution to the COVID Problem because the FDA-approved vaccine is still not officially available to anyone, and may never be. Nonetheless, the Live Exercise of testing, tracking, experimentation, and restrictions, continues unabated.
While vaccine makers, such as Pfizer, insisted they need 75 years of data before releasing results to the public, the “adverse events” of the public subjects are being tracked and published in medical journals, even if not widely reported.
In any true experiment, there are two groups: the cases and the controls. All subjects who consented, received vaccine lots coded by color and number. Did they receive a vaccine with a Red cap or blue cap? Did they receive saline solution or the COVID spike protein? Did they go from a “fully vaccinated” to “double boosted? Did they opt out?
Let The Experiment Continue!
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, even if the subject matter, a spike protein, has never been officially isolated, or seen with the naked eye. As of this writing, there is no proof the cause of COVID exists.
Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted… — CDC 2109 document
Even without proof, millions of people eagerly jumped aboard The Spike Protein Train to protect themselves with a mask, based on an image of a virus they believed in.
Then, by design, came the vaccines. A vaccine has always been the response to a government-declared pandemic. Recall the 1976 Swine Flu and the 1918 Spanish Flu? [See The Making of a Pandemic for more information]. Vaccine deployment is followed by the damage reports.
In any Live Exercise or Experiment, scientists cannot be expected to have any answers now, or possibly ever. Meanwhile, new symptoms to experimental mRNA vaccines create new, “rare” medical diagnoses. A quick search of Pubmed quickly shows that symptoms are the opposite of rare.
With the introduction of vaccines came the subsequent introduction of Vaccine Inflammatory Syndromes. From Autoimmune Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants,(ASIA), to Post Vaccination Inflammatory Syndrome (PVIS), and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS), all related acronyms describe one cause: Vaccine toxicity.
Since the deployment of COVID injections, the new COVID is Long COVID, ranging from back pain to sleep and digestive disorders, that go beyond 6 months. Symptoms also include postural tachycardia syndrome or POTS.
POTS affects the autonomic nervous system, or the parasympathetic nervous system that regulates voluntary and involuntary actions, as well as thinking, communication, and memory. These symptoms have been long studied as conditions of vaccine injury. Therefore, the injected spike proteins that bring on autoimmune-mediated endothelial injuries can also lead to POTS, especially in the lungs, as evidenced by this study in Clin Auton Res.
Simply go to the VAERS database to search and download the data collected from vaccine-induced injuries the government lists on its own website. VAERS data released by the CDC included a total of 7oo,ooo adverse event reports from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 15,386 deaths between December 14, 2020, and September 17, 2021. Vaccine-injured patients become lifelong customers of pharmaceutical treatments, with doctors and scientists knowing that many will never return to their normal lifestyles.
All patients were treated with non-pharmacologic therapies, and most required pharmacologic therapies. Six to 8 months after COVID-19, 17 (85%) patients had residual autonomic symptoms, with 12 (60%) unable to return to work.
Published mRNA Vaccine Toxicity Studies: Dizziness
Whether by case study, small study, epidemiological study, or case-control study, all studies are ongoing and accumulating. Searching Pubmed by “dizziness or vertigo” and “COVID vaccine” and find dozens of studies. Here are a few:
Among all the symptoms reported, localized pain, generalized weakness, headache, myalgia, chills, fever, nausea, joint pains, sweating, localized swelling at the injection site, dizziness, itching, rash, decreased appetite, muscle spasm, decreased sleep quality, and brain fogging were the most commonly reported symptoms (in descending order of occurrence). Most of the symptoms reported were nonlife threatening.
Vestibular neuritis (VN) is an acute vestibular syndrome that causes acute and spontaneous vertigo due to unilateral vestibular deafferentiation, leading to nausea or vomiting and unsteadiness that can last from days to weeks. Reactivation of latent type 1 herpes simplex virus, autoimmune disorders, and microvascular ischemia are hypothesized to be etiologies.
We reported for the first time a case of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) that developed after the first dose of inactivated virus vaccine for COVID-19. The patient developed mild fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and cough after receiving the first dose of inactivated virus vaccine. Two months later, she experienced dizziness and unsteady walking. MRI scanning of the brain revealed lesions in area postrema and bilateral hypothalamus, typical for NMOSD. Serum antibodies for AQP4, ANA, SSA, SSB, Ro-52, and p-ANCA were positive. The patient was diagnosed as AQP4-positive NMOSD with coexisting systemic autoimmunity.
The most frequently reported adverse events were headache, myalgia, and dizziness. Of the 835 reported deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, 2 vaccine-related deaths were confirmed.
A 67-year-old man who was medicated for hypertension and diabetes was admitted complaining of fever, maculopapular rash, diarrhea, headache, chills, and dizziness 6 days after the first vaccination of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Korea. The COVID-19 test was negative but with low blood pressure, leukocytosis, skin rash, pulmonary edema, and increased inflammation markers. His lab findings and clinical course were consistent with those of MIS after COVID-19 vaccination.
The 9 patients had an evoked nystagmus pathognomonic for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo; in the remaining 17 cases, peripheral vestibular dysfunction could be excluded and central disorder may be suggested. Due to the prevalence of nystagmus of non-peripheral origin, a central nervous system involvement could not be excluded.
38% mild side effects were observed from vaccination. Following were the general side-effects: myalgia (18.2%), the feeling of sickness (16%), fever (15.6%), dizziness (7.8%), joint pain (7.4%), chills (4.8%), and flu (4.8%). Following were the common neurological side-effects reported: headache (18.2%), fatigue (16.5%), muscle pain (16%), numbness/tingling (3%), and migraine (2.6%). Nausea and diarrhoea were reported in only 3.5% of respondents.
The three most frequent AEFI recorded were vagal response (30%), anxiety reaction (24%) and dizziness (21%). AEFI were more frequently observed among women [aOR= 2.24 (95%CI= 2.00 – 2.50)], and those with at least one previous disease [aOR= 1.47 (95%CI= 1.22-1.76)].
The most common AEFI was pain/tenderness at the injection site experienced by 59.3% of those who experienced any AEFI followed by headache/dizziness (35.3%), itching/rashes at the injection site (8.1%), nausea/vomiting (5.8%) and fever/chills (4.7%).
The patient was a health care worker, aged 34-year old. Past medical history was unremarkable and had not used heparin. Over the next couple of days after the vaccination, he reported headache, nausea, and dizziness as well as abdominal pain. His general status and the laboratories studies deteriorate quickly by increasing liver enzymes and severe coagulopathy. Clinically he had presented acute hepatic failure. He had been received blood products, prednisolone pulse along with broad antibiotics without benefit. He died on the sixth day.
Herein, we describe a 48 years old man presenting with rapidly progressive cognitive decline and hyponatremia diagnosed with anti LGI1 AE, occurring shortly after the second dose of mRNA COVID -19 vaccine and possibly representing a severe adverse event related to the vaccination.
Are we living out a medical experiment or social/behavioral experiment?
Has the world been Trumped?
The government forever claims that people must plan for rising healthcare costs. In 2019, U.S. medical health spending increased by 4.6% to $3.8 trillion or $11,582 per person. If the U.S. medical system is the best in the world then shouldn’t the numbers be doing down?
Whether the crisis is called The Opioid Epidemic or The COVID Pandemic, it is a Crisis of Humanity. The conclusion is always the same when the requirement for more dollars and more research takes precedence over individual healing and freedom from government tyranny:
A major component of the Great Reset-Technocratic Agenda is the implementation of a worldwide digital identity scheme. One of the first steps to realize this goal is to convince the public that digital identity programs are a “human right” worth fighting for.
Why is the push for digital identity absolutely vital to the Technocrats visions?
The world of 2030 — the one in which the World Economic Forum imagines “you will own nothing and be happy” — depends on an all-encompassing digital id program. This digital ID will allow a track and trace society where the authorities can see every purchase and every move you make.
One could argue much of society has already handed over this data with the ubiquitous use of credit cards which track purchases, and phones which log GPS data. However, the digital ID scheme will also be linked to a digital wallet holding the local Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), the digital currency of governments which will be needed for all legal transactions. Eventually, this digital ID and the digital wallet will be connected to, and impacted by, your individual social credit score.
As I have reported since March 2020, these initiatives were already in the works prior to COVID-19. However, it was the beginning of the COVID-19 panic that allowed governments around the world to push further towards their vision of Technocracy. For example, we have been told that use of cash should be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether because of reports claiming COVID-19 spread through dirty old money. This conveniently leads into the calls for digital currency programs such as CBDCs.
Of course, we see the push for “contact tracing” apps to track the alleged spread of disease, and vaccine passport/health passport apps have begun to acclimate the public to carrying a digital ID card with them everywhere they go. The vaccine passport is simply a gateway to a digital identity which has already been in the works in the United States, to one degree or another, since at least 2005 with the passing of the controversial REAL ID Act.
UN Sustainable Development Goal 16
This push towards a digital identity has its roots in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a collection of 17 interlinked objectives adopted by the United Nations in 2015 with the ostensible goal of ending poverty, protecting the planet, and spreading peace and prosperity to all people by 2030. Their actions, however, regularly belie their stated intentions.
The SDGs were part of a larger resolution known as the 2030 Agenda, or Agenda 2030, with the stated purpose of fighting climate change. While the United Nations SDGs and Agenda 2030 are often touted as a tool for establishing healthy multilateral relationships between nations, in truth, they are based in a deeper agenda to monitor, control, and direct all life on the planet.
The 17 SDGs each tackle a different area of their ostensible fight for justice and equality. UN SDG 16 focuses on “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions” and states that “by 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.”
One document from the United Nations titled “United Nations Strategy for Legal Identity for All” further defines what is meant by “legal” and “digital identity.” A legal identity is essentially a form of registration with a civil body (a government). The UN document makes it clear that “legal identity is widely acknowledged to be catalytic for achieving at least ten of the SDGs“, and the data generated by the registration supports the measurement of more than 60 SDG indicators. “Legal identity has a critical role to ensure the global community upholds its promise of leaving no one behind as espoused in the 2030 Agenda,” the UN report states.
When it comes to digital identity, the document says digital identity is generally understood as a unique and constant identity — a virtual identification card, for example — assigned to individuals that authenticates them as users of all their portable digital devices. This identity can apply to the digital and physical worlds. Using a digital identity involves passwords, cryptographic key, biometrics such as fingerprint or iris scanning.
Digital Identity as a Human Right
As we approach 2030 the “digital identity as a human right” meme is increasingly being planted in the minds of the masses. I would expect this trend to become a standard talking point amongst corporate media hacks and their followers. Not only is the public being primed to accept digital identity as a method of tracking illness (and the population), but digital identity is being sold to the bleeding hearts of the Western world as a necessity for helping the so-called “unbanked” of the world and bringing them into modern financial systems.
The term unbanked refers to those people who, for one reason or another, lack bank accounts and credit cards. This apparent lack is often reported as a flaw of modern society, an example of another poor population being left behind. What goes unquestioned is whether integration into the banking system is the best thing for an individual or not. It is assumed that all people should need or want to be involved in the debt based banking system, allowing the criminal banks behind The Great Reset to fund their projects with the people’s money.
Many of these people live in the developing world, and in places like Mexico there exists a thriving counter or informal economy of people trading, buying, and selling goods without taxes, regulations, or a digital record of any kind. This type of economic and social activity is the exact behavior the Technocrats want to eliminate, precisely because it flies in the face of the Great Reset vision.
Thus the media must do its job to convince the public that colonization is not colonization when it involves sustainability and diversity. The people need to be convinced that those poor Mexican farmers won’t be complete until they have a digital ID, with a digital wallet for receiving the digital currency as part of the Universal Basic Income program. These gushing stories promoting digital identity as the savior of the developing world fail to mention the dark side to the digitization of all life, specifically the coming terror of social credit and social impact finance tools.
Instead we get headlines like, “Digital Inclusion. The Human Right to Have an Identity” from the Thales Group, a French multinational with ties to the French government and one of the largest military weapons contractors in the world. “The lack of identity is not just a loss in terms of being seen by the system and society. It is an exclusion that prevents people from achieving their full potential. They cannot be educated, they cannot access healthcare services, and their children inherit this legacy as they’re born outside the system,” the group wrote in February 2021. Again, the general assumption is that there is no life to be had “outside the system”.
Meanwhile, Impakter Magazine, known for promoting the SDGs, published a piece titled “Digital Identity As a Basic Human Right” in May 2018. The Impakter piece promotes blockchain based ID’s and putting children’s birth certificates on the blockchain as well.
Thankfully there are some examples of pushback to the commonly held narratives surrounding digital id.
In April 2021, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice published a skeptical piece titled “Everyone Counts! Ensuring that the human rights of all are respected in digital ID systems.” This article looked at some of the ways marginalized populations are further marginalized by digital systems. They warn of the “need for the human rights movement to engage in discussions about digital transformation so that fundamental rights are not lost in the rush to build a ‘modern, digital state’.”
The group Access Now published a report, Busting the dangerous myths of Big ID programs: cautionary lessons from India, focused on the concerns surrounding India’s implementation of their digital ID system, Aadhaar. The report concludes that so-called “Big ID programs” — that is programs implemented by governments with the help of Big Tech — are not needed to give people a legal identity. Further, the report found that Big ID creates space for surveillance to flourish, as demonstrated by India’s Aadhaar system.
In May 2021, the ACLU released a blog in response to concerns around vaccine passports. The ACLU warned about digital identities, including recent efforts to mandate digital drivers licenses. “A move to digital IDs is not a minor change but one that could drastically alter the role of identification in our society, increase inequality, and turn into a privacy nightmare,” the ACLU wrote.
“If actors fail to consider the risks, ID systems can themselves threaten human rights, particularly the right to privacy. They can become tools for surveillance by the state and the private sector; they can exclude, rather than include.
There are thus risks in the implementation of an ID scheme – not only that it fails to meet the promise of SDG 16.9, but that it also builds a system for surveillance and exclusion. It is thus essential to critically engage with the interpretation of the goal, and the uses to which it has been put.”
The World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and The World Bank
The United Nations is not the only supranational body lobbying for digital identity. In January 2021, the World Economic Forum met for their annual meeting to discuss the “Davos Agenda.” As TLAV previously reported, the January meeting was focused on restoring trust and outlining the plan for The Great Reset. In the lead up to the January 2021 meeting the WEF published an article titled “How digital identity can improve lives in a post-COVID-19 world.”
The article notes, “while government’s role is key, regulators have understood that they don’t hold all the cards and that solutions are needed across the public and private sectors. Digital identity trust frameworks led by governments working with the private sector are emerging.” This discussion of “frameworks led by governments working with the private sector” is exactly the public-private partnership the WEF has been promoting for decades.
We should also remember that the WEF was one of the first organizations to begin promoting the idea of vaccine passports as part of a “new normal.” The WEF would officially announce The Great Reset initiative in June 2020, only 3 months into the COVID-19 panic.
Of course, the WEF’s Great Reset plan is ultimately a refinement of the UN’s Agenda 2030 and SDGs. Thus it should come as no surprise that the UN is also working on a form of digital identity. The UN Digital Solutions Centre (UN DSC) has developed an “innovative digital identity solution for UN personnel.”
The UN DSC, a pilot project of the UN World Food Programme (WFP) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), says they are working on a suite of digital solutions that can be shared among UN Agencies to “transform common business operations and streamline time-consuming transactional tasks.”
The UN Digital ID will use blockchain and some form of biometrics. It has been described as a digital wallet for UN personnel. The UN DSC website describes the project as “based on a blockchain, biometrics and a mobile app solution, this pilot will look to offer a unique digital ID for every UN employee for end-to-end lifecycle management from on-boarding through to retirement that will be immutable, protected, transparent and portable.”
While the UN and WEF have been promoting the acceptance of digital identity, the World Bank has been funding the development of such programs as part of the Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative. The World Bank is funding digital biometric ID programs in Mexico, pushing digital ID in poorer countries with the ostensible goal of providing legal identity to the 1.1 billion people who do not currently have one.
Luis Fernando García, the director of the Mexican digital rights organization R3D, says the programs are being funded by those interested in exploiting Mexico’s human data. “Sophisticated intelligence agencies in rich countries are delighted that poor countries are creating these databases of people that they can exploit for their benefit. They have offensive capabilities that allow them to attack, obtain, and collect information that less-developed countries create through these databases,”he stated in a 2021 interview.
“Like many other Global South national identity projects — whether in Kenya, Uganda, or Mexico — the World Bank is behind it. The World Bank is giving Mexico a loan of $225 million to implement the system. It is not promoting this approach in Germany or Canada or the U.S.: countries that do not have a national identity system. But they are promoting it in the Global South, which is very telling.”
At the same time an alliance of Microsoft, GAVI — the Global Vaccine Alliance which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — and the Rockefeller Foundation have organized their efforts under the ID2020 project. The ID2020 project is an attempt to create digital identification for every single person on the planet. In 2018, Microsoft announced a formal partnership with the ID2020 project at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The usual cast of characters — the WEF, the UN, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation — have spent the recent years lobbying for the need to create a digital identity for every person on the planet. During the COVID-19 crisis, these organizations promoted the use of vaccine passports, which itself is a form of a digital identity. Now, they are poised to use economic turmoil and fears of pandemic 2 to promote the value of digital identity, whether to receive a digital currency in exchange for dollars, or to prove vaccination status. One way or another, the Technocrats will force their digital identity prisons on the masses.
Colonization 3.0 and the Future of Identity
The colonization of the Americas and Africa took place in the obvious forms — physical slavery, murder, rape, erasing of language, customs, and culture, etc. — and in less obvious ways — psychological trauma, isolation, loss of identity. The exploits of the European empires were the first wave of the colonization, with later colonization in the form of weaponized financial aid and assistance designed to trap developing nations in debts which require them to sell their natural wealth and resources.
Now, digital colonization is on the horizon. Once again, Africa and Latin America are on the list of targets for digital id schemes. As Impakter Magazine reported, there are plans for placing infant identity on a blockchain so there may be a permanent record of the person. These programs are already taking place in South Africa. Dr. Aaron Ramodumo says the country is on a “progressive transition” towards using biometrics for an infant identity with unique ID numbers.
South Africa’s new program will begin in 2024, and provide capabilities for palm prints, fingerprint, footprint, face and iris biometrics. Ramodumo told Biometric Update he hopes it will be available for infants soon. “While we want to build a policy around biometric capture of infants and children, we still have not made a selection of the specific technology,” Ramodumo said. “And that continues to be a subject of research, and I hope researchers will provide other options to choose from.”
Despite the attempts to colonize Africa with digital identity, there is some hope. In late 2021, Kenya’s digital ID program, the National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS), was ruled illegal by the highest court because the government did not clearly establish the data privacy risks, nor did they outline a strategy for measuring and mitigating risks.
Ultimately, the crux of this discussion centers around identity and what is needed for a person to operate in the world today. For example, in many nations a person already cannot open a bank account, attend school, rent a house, take out a loan, or drive a vehicle legally without presenting some form of identification. These are conditions that many people in the modern world have come to accept as norms. However, there is a growing skepticism of the incoming digital systems, and, in some cases, even the “traditional” systems most people are familiar with.
Why should we have to show a government approved ID to be recognized as a person? Why must we submit to the government sanctioned identity if we do choose to carry a form of identity (digital or physical)?
These are important questions to ask and the assumptions we hold must be questioned. As we push further into the digital world of 2030, I encourage all readers to alert your friends and family to the dangers posed by digital identity. Help them understand how digital id will inevitably be connected to digital currency, and eventually, a social credit score. This infrastructure, along with widespread facial recognition cameras, will be the invisible enforcement arm of the Technocratic State. Together, facial recognition, digital identity, digital currency, and social credit scores represent a giant leap forward towards digital totalitarianism.
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,261,149 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 27,968 deaths and 228,477 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 6, 2022.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,261,149 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 6, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
The data included a total of 27,968 reports of deaths — an increase of 210 over the previous week — and 228,477 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 1,774 compared with the previous week. There were 5,794 additional total adverse events reported to VAERS over the previous week.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 12,899 U.S. deaths reported as of May 6, 16% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 20% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 578 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of May 6, including 341 million doses of Pfizer, 218 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
20 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
The Defender has noticed over previous weeks that reports of myocarditis and pericarditis have been removed by the CDC from the VAERS system in this age group. No explanation was provided.
65 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
650 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 638 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
166 reports of blood clotting disorders with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to May 6, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
20% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
Pfizer’s COVID efficacy fades rapidly just weeks after second and third doses
Second and third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine provide protection against the Omicron variant for only a few weeks, according to peer-reviewed research published today in JAMA Network Open.
“Our study found a rapid decline in Omicron-specific serum neutralizing antibody titers only a few weeks after the second and third doses of [the Pfizer-BioNTech] BNT162b2,” the authors of the research letter wrote.
The authors said their findings “could support rolling out additional booster shots to vulnerable people as the variant drives an uptick in new cases across the country,” Forbes reported.
Danish researchers studied adults who received two or three doses of BNT162b2 between January 2021 and October 2021, or were previously infected prior to February 2021 and then vaccinated.
They found that after an initial increase in Omicron-specific antibodies after the second Pfizer shot, levels dropped rapidly, from 76.2% at week 4, to 53.3% at weeks 8 to 10, and 18.9% at weeks 12 to 14.
After the third shot, neutralizing antibodies against Omicron fell 5.4-fold between week 3 and week 8.
COVID vaccines for kids under 6 won’t have to meet FDA 50% efficacy standard
The FDA’s top vaccine official told a congressional committee on May 6 that COVID-19 vaccines for kids under 6 will not have to meet the agency’s 50% efficacy threshold for blocking symptomatic infections required to obtain Emergency Use Authorization.
“If these vaccines seem to be mirroring efficacy in adults and just seem to be less effective against Omicron like they are for adults, we will probably still authorize,” Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA told the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.
The FDA is reviewing data from Moderna’s two-shot vaccine for infants and toddlers 6 months to 2 years old, and for children 2 to 6 years old. The company asked the FDA on April 28 to approve its COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccine for children, citing different efficacy numbers than it disclosed in March.
The FDA is still awaiting data on Pfizer and BioNTech’s three-dose regimen for children under age 5 after two doses of its pediatric vaccine failed to trigger an immune response in 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds comparable to the response generated in teens and adults.
COVID vaccine injury ends surgeon’s 20-year career
In an interview on CHD.TV’s “The People’s Testaments,” Dr. Joel Wallskog described how he was diagnosed with transverse myelitis after getting the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and why he now devotes his time to helping others injured by the vaccine.
In September 2020, Wallskog said, staff members in the clinic he referred patients to began coming down with COVID-19. Although Wallskog did not feel ill, he got an antibody test and it was positive.
When a close friend came down with COVID-19 and had to be intubated, Wallskog decided he should get vaccinated, despite reservations and having already acquired natural immunity.
About a week after receiving his vaccine, Wallskog’s feet became numb and he developed “electrical sensations” down his legs when he bent his head forward. When he began having trouble standing, he ordered emergent MRIs and was found to have a lesion on his spinal cord.
A neurologist diagnosed Wallskog with transverse myelitis, a disorder caused by inflammation of the spinal cord.
Despite various treatments and rest, Wallskog suffers pain and numbness and is unable to stand long enough to perform surgery. His career came to an end in early 2021.
Rheumatologist: 40% of 3,000 vaccinated patients reported vaccine injury
Dr. Robert Jackson, a practicing rheumatologist for 35 years said 40% of the vaccinated patients in his practice reported a vaccine injury, and 5% are still injured. Jackson has more than 5,000 patients, about 3,000 of whom received a COVID-19 vaccine.
Jackson said he’s had 12 patients die following the shot, whereas he normally sees one or two deaths in his patient base a year. About 5% of his patients developed a new condition that makes them susceptible to blood clotting.
Jackson’s observations are consistent with a study published in the BMJ that assessed the safety of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in people with inflammatory/autoimmune rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease from the EULAR Coronavirus Vaccine (COVAX) physician-reported registry.
The study showed 37% of 5,121 participants had adverse events and 4.4% of patients had a flare-up of their disease after vaccination.
The attorneys general of 20 states have threatened legal action against the US government unless they disband the newly formed Disinformation Governance Board.
It turns out that we’re not the only ones concerned about this.
What’s being done?
In a letter addressed to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the Attorney General of Virginia, Jason Miyares, spoke for the AGs of 19 other states and shared his concerns about the overreach.
As the chief legal officers of our respective States, we, the undersigned Attorneys General, are tasked not just with enforcing the laws but with protecting the constitutional rights of all our citizens. Today we write you to insist that you immediately cease taking action that appears designed exclusively for the purpose of suppressing the exercise of constitutional rights.
Every American knows that the Constitution forbids the government to “abridg[e] the freedom of speech.” US Const. Amend. I. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote nearly eighty years ago, “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 US 624, 642 (1943).
Your recent testimony before the US House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, however, indicated that the Department of Homeland Security, under your leadership, is doing exactly that: prescribing orthodoxy by slapping a federal-government label of “disinformation” or “misinformation” on speech that government bureaucrats, operating behind closed doors, decree to be improper. This is an unacceptable and downright alarming encroachment on every citizen’s right to express his or her opinions, engage in political debate, and disagree with the government. The Biden Administration’s latest effort to decide what speech is “acceptable” and “orthodox” combines McCarthyite speech policing with the secrecy of the English Star Chamber.
In short, you seem to have misunderstood George Orwell: the “Ministry of Truth” described in 1984 was intended as a warning against the dangers of socialism, not as a model government agency. “MiniTru” and its thuggish apparatchiks are the villains in that story, not the heroes. For the sake of our democracy, you must immediately disband the “Disinformation Governance Board” and cease all efforts to police Americans’ protected speech. The existence of the Disinformation Governance Board will inevitably have a chilling effect on free speech. Americans will hesitate before they voice their constitutionally protected opinions, knowing that the government’s censors may be watching, and some will decide it is safer to keep their opinions to themselves.
The resulting damage to our political system and our culture will be incalculable: as a democracy, our political debates and decisions are supposed to take place in the public square, where every citizen can participate, rather than in government office buildings where hand-picked and unaccountable partisan committees are insulated from public supervision and criticism.
The letter goes on to question the timing of the new Ministry of Truth (just as Elon Musk completes the purchase of Twitter with the stated goal of restoring free speech on the platform). It also calls into question the dubious qualifications of head honcho, Nina Jancowiz, who AG Miyares describes as “often in error but never in doubt.”
(Want to learn how to starve the beast? Check out our free QUICKSTART Guide.)
How will the AGs enforce this?
In a firmly worded promise, Miyares concludes:
Unless you turn back now and disband this Orwellian Disinformation Governance Board immediately, the undersigned will have no choice but to consider judicial remedies to protect the rights of their citizens.
We sincerely hope this puts a halt to the censorship efforts of the Biden administration.
Cover art illustration by Bob Moran (bobmoran.co.uk)
“Fight For You” Lyrics:
Through the madness and the lies As they’re holding back the truth No matter what they try I will always fight for you
I will save your innocence They are trying to remove I am here at your defense And I will always fight for you
Yes I will always fight for you I will stand here in the way And I will not give up on you I will shield you from the pain
In the battle on the field There is evil on the move But I hope that you can feel That I will always fight for you
In the darkness of the times There’s a light that shines the proof It’ll soon reveal the crimes So I won’t stop this fight for you
Yes I will always fight for you I will brave every attack And I will not give up on you I will always have your back
So to every single mother, father Stand up for your sons and daughters Do not back down, don’t let up You are all they have for armor So make this a war to win Look in their eyes and tell them
That I will always fight for you I will stand guard at the gate And I will not give up on you I will stop each shot they take
Yes, I will always fight for you I will always fight for you
The template of 1929 and 1987 is coming into focus in recent trading days.
Let’s start with the 1929 crash. The Dow Jones Industrial Average began the week of October 5 with a slight gain, and then the rest of the week (October 6-9) were all down days as well. This first week down brought stocks to new intermediate lows that had held for several months. The next week, the DJIA opened up down on Monday, October 12 and traded down each day of the week. Then, bang, on October 19, 1929 we experienced a 20% waterfall decline, which carried into Tuesday. The whole 11-day episode erased 28.94% from the DJIA.
Turning to 1987, we can see some similar patterns. The week of October 14 began with a slight up day and then the rest of week was down. The following Monday, October 21 the DJIA started the week down and was down every day that week. Monday, October 21, 1987 took out the intermediate low that had been place for a few months. Then, on Monday, October 28, 1987, the DJIA fell almost 15% in a single session. That was followed by another 10.5% decline on Tuesday, October 29, 1987. Over the course of 10 days, the DJIA lost 34.41%.
This brings us to 2022 and the current state of affairs in the stock market. Wednesday, May 5, 2022 was the last up day for the DJIA. On Thursday and Friday the DJIA closed lower, taking out the intermediate lows of February/March. This week, stocks began down on Monday, May 9 and have been down all week. If Friday is a down day, it puts into focus the prospect that we could be on the precipice of a crash. So far, we are six days into the decline. If Friday is down, that would mark the seventh straight day down and set up a template for days eight and nine of this decline that could look awfully similar to prior crashes.
The good news here is that we are only down about 5% in this 7-day selloff, and there is still time for the template to break and/or for investors to take actions to protect capital. In the 1929 and 1987 episodes, the big down days came at the end of the move. So, if Friday is down, investors might consider attuning to the 1929 and 1987 template, understanding that 30+% declines can occur in as little as 10 days.
“While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.” ~ Matthew Ehret
While the world’s attention is absorbed by tectonic shifts unfolding in Ukraine and the danger of military confrontation between NATO and Eurasia, something very ominous has appeared “off of the radar” of most onlookers. This something is a financial collapse of the trans-Atlantic banks that threatens to unleash chaos upon the world. It is this collapse that underlies the desperate efforts being made by the neo-con drive for total war with Russia, China and other members of the growing Mutlipolar Alliance today.
In recent articles, I have mentioned that the Bank of England-led “solution” to this oncoming financial blowout of the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble is being pushed under the cover of a “Great Global Reset” which is an ugly and desperate effort to use COVID-19 as a cover for the imposition of a new post-covid world order operating system. Since the new “rules” of this new system are very similar to the 1923 Bank of England “solution” to Germany’s economic chaos which eventually required a fascist governance mechanism to impose it onto the masses, I wish to take a deeper look at the causes and effects of Weimar Germany’s completely un-necessary collapse into hyperinflation and chaos during the period of 1919-1923.
In this essay, I will go further to examine how those same architects of hyperfinflation came close to establishing a global bankers’ dictatorship in 1933 and how that early attempt at a New World Order was fortunately derailed through a bold fight which has been written out of popular history books.
We will investigate in depth how a major war broke out within America led by anti-imperial patriots in opposition to the forces of Wall Street and London’s Deep State and we will examine how this clash of paradigms came to a head in 1943-1945.
This historical study is not being conducted for entertainment, nor should this be seen as a purely academic exercise, but is being created for the simple fact that the world is coming to a total systemic meltdown and unless certain suppressed facts of 20th century history are brought to light, then those forces who have destroyed our collective memory of what we once were will remain in the drivers seat as society is carried into a new age of fascism and world war.
Versailles and the Destruction of Germany
Britain had been the leading hand behind the orchestration of WWI and the destruction of the potential German-Russian-American-Ottoman alliance that had begun to take form by the late 19th century as foolish Kaiser Wilhelm discovered (though sadly too late) when he said: “the world will be engulfed in the most terrible of wars, the ultimate aim of which is the ruin of Germany. England, France and Russia have conspired for our annihilation… that is the naked truth of the situation which was slowly but surely created by Edward VII”.
Just as the British oligarchy managed the war, so too did they organize the reparations conference in France which, among other things, imposed impossible debt repayments upon a defeated Germany and created the League of Nations which was meant to become the instrument for a “post-nation state world order”. Lloyd George led the British delegation alongside his assistant Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), Leo Amery, Lord Robert Cecil and Lord John Maynard Keynes who have a long term agenda to bring about a global dictatorship. All of these figures were members of the newly emerging Round Table Movement, that had taken full control of Britain by ousting Asquith in 1916, and which is at the heart of today’s “deep state”.
After the 1918 Armistice dismantled Germany’s army and navy, the once powerful nation was now forced to pay the impossible sum of 132 billion gold marks to the victors and had to give up territories representing 10% of its population (Alsace-Loraine, Ruhr, and North Silesia) which made up 15% of its arable land, 12% of its livestock, 74% of its iron ore, 63% of its zinc production, and 26% of its coal. Germany also had to give up 8000 locomotives, 225 000 railcars and all of its colonies. It was a field day of modern pillage.
Germany was left with very few options. Taxes were increased and imports were cut entirely while exports were increased. This policy (reminiscent of the IMF austerity techniques in use today) failed entirely as both fell 60%. Germany gave up half of its gold supply and still barely a dent was made in the debt payments. By June 1920 the decision was made to begin a new strategy: increase the printing press. Rather than the “miracle cure” which desperate monetarists foolishly believed it would be, this solution resulted in an asymptotic devaluation of the currency into hyperinflation. From June 1920 to October 1923 the money supply in circulation skyrocketed from 68.1 gold marks to 496.6 quintillion gold marks. In June 1922, 300 marks exchanged $1 US and in November 1923, it took 42 trillion marks to get $1 US! Images are still available of Germans pushing wheelbarrows of cash down the street, just to buy a stick of butter and bread (1Kg of Bread sold for $428 billion marks in 1923).
With the currency’s loss of value, industrial output fell by 50%, unemployment rose to over 30% and food intake collapsed by over half of pre-war levels. German director Fritz Lang’s 1922 film Dr. Mabuse (The Gambler) exposed the insanity of German population’s collapse into speculative insanity as those who had the means began betting against the German mark in order to protect themselves thus only helping to collapse the mark from within. This is very reminiscent of those Americans today short selling the US dollar rather than fighting for a systemic solution.
There was resistance.
The dark effects of Versailles were not unknown and Germany’s Nazi-stained destiny was anything but pre-determined. It is a provable fact often left out of history books that patriotic forces from Russia, America and Germany attempted courageously to change the tragic trajectory of hyperinflation and fascism which WOULD HAVE prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII had their efforts not been sabotaged.
From America itself, a new Presidential team under the leadership of William Harding quickly reversed the pro-League of Nations agenda of the rabidly anglophile President Woodrow Wilson. A leading US industrialist named Washington Baker Vanderclip who had led in the world’s largest trade agreement in history with Russia to the tune of $3 billion in 1920 had called Wilson “an autocrat at the inspiration of the British government.” Unlike Wilson, President Harding both supported the US-Russia trade deal and undermined the League of Nations by re-enforcing America’s sovereignty, declaring bi-lateral treaties with Russia, Hungary and Austria outside of the league’s control in 1921. The newly-formed British Roundtable Movement in America (set up as the Council on Foreign Relations) were not pleased.
Just as Harding was maneuvering to recognize the Soviet Union and establish an entente with Lenin, the great president ate some “bad oysters” and died on August 2, 1923. While no autopsy was ever conducted, his death brought a decade of Anglophile Wall Street control into America and ended all opposition to World Government from the Presidency. This period of deregulation led by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (controller of the dimwitted and corrupt President Coolidge) resulted in the speculation-driven bubble of the roaring 20s whose crash on black Friday in 1929 nearly unleashed a fascist hell in America.
The Russia-Germany Rapallo Treaty is De-Railed
After months of organizing, leading representatives of Russia and Germany agreed to an alternative solution to the Versailles Treaty which would have given new life to Germany’s patriots and established a powerful Russia-German friendship in Europe that would have upset other nefarious agendas.
Under the leadership of German Industrialist and Foreign Minster Walter Rathenau, and his counterpart Russian Foreign Minister Georgi Chicherin, the treaty was signed in Rapallo, Italy on April 16, 1922 premised upon the forgiveness of all war debts and a renouncement of all territorial claims from either side. The treaty said Russia and Germany would “co-operate in a spirit of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.”
When Rathenau was assassinated by a terrorist cell called the Organization Consul on June 24, 1922 the success of the Rapallo Treaty lost its steam and the nation fell into a deeper wave of chaos and money printing. The Organization Consul had taken the lead in the murder of over 354 German political figures between 1919-1923, and when they were banned in 1922, the group merely changed its name and morphed into other German paramilitary groups (such as the Freikorps) becoming the military arm of the new National Socialist Party.
1923: City of London’s Solution is imposed
When the hyperinflationary blowout of Germany resulted in total un-governability of the state, a solution took the form of the Wall Street authored “Dawes Plan” which necessitated the use of a London-trained golem by the name of Hjalmar Schacht. First introduced as Currency Commissioner in November 1923 and soon President of the Reichsbank, Schacht’s first act was to visit Bank of England’s governor Montagu Norman in London who provided Schacht a blueprint for proceeding with Germany’s restructuring. Schacht returned to “solve” the crisis with the very same poison that caused it.
First announcing a new currency called the “rentenmark” set on a fixed value exchanging 1 trillion reichsmarks for 1 new rentenmark, Germans were robbed yet again. This new currency would operate under “new rules” never before seen in Germany’s history: Mass privatizations resulted in Anglo-American conglomerates purchasing state enterprises. IG Farben, Thyssen, Union Banking, Brown Brothers Harriman, Standard Oil, JP Morgan and Union Banking took control Germany’s finances, mining and industrial interests under the supervision of John Foster Dulles, Montagu Norman, Averill Harriman and other deep state actors. This was famously exposed in the 1961 film Judgement at Nuremburg by Stanley Kramer.
Schacht next cut credit to industries, raised taxes and imposed mass austerity on “useless spending”. 390 000 civil servants were fired, unions and collective bargaining was destroyed and wages were slashed by 15%.
As one can imagine, this destruction of life after the hell of Versailles was intolerable and civil unrest began to boil over in ways that even the powerful London-Wall Street bankers (and their mercenaries) couldn’t control. An enforcer was needed unhindered by the republic’s democratic institutions to force Schacht’s economics onto the people. An up-and-coming rabble rousing failed painter who had made waves in a Beerhall Putsch on November 8, 1923 was perfect.
One Last Attempt to Save Germany
Though Hitler grew in power over the coming decade of Schachtian economics, one last republican effort was made to prevent Germany from plunging into a fascist hell in the form of the November 1932 election victory of General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor of Germany. Schleicher had been a co-architect of Rapallo alongside Rathenau a decade earlier and was a strong proponent of the Friedrich List Society’s program of public works and internal improvements promoted by industrialist Wilhelm Lautenbach. The Nazi party’s public support collapsed and it found itself bankrupt. Hitler had fallen into depression and was even contemplating suicide when “a legal coup” was unleashed by the Anglo-American elite resulting in Wall Street funds pouring into Nazi coffers.
By January 30, 1933 Hitler gained Chancellorship where he quickly took dictatorial powers under the “state of emergency” caused by the burning of the Reichstag in March 1933. By 1934 the Night of the Long Knives saw General Schleicher and hundreds of other German patriots assassinated and it was only a few years until the City of London-Wall Street Frankenstein monster stormed across the world.
How the 1929 Crash was Manufactured
While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.
The bubbles of the 1920s were unleashed with the early death of President William Harding in 1923 and grew under the careful guidance of JP Morgan’s President Coolidge and financier Andrew Mellon (Treasury Secretary) who de-regulated the banks, imposed austerity onto the country, and cooked up a scheme for Broker loans allowing speculators to borrow 90% on their stock. Wall Street was deregulated, investments into the real economy were halted during the 1920s and insanity became the norm. In 1925 broker loans totalled $1.5 billion and grew to $2.6 billion in 1926 and hit $5.7 billion by the end of 1927. By 1928, the stock market was overvalued fourfold!
When the bubble was sufficiently inflated, a moment was decided upon to coordinate a mass “calling in” of the broker loans. Predictably, no one could pay them resulting in a collapse of the markets. Those “in the know” cleaned up with JP Morgan’s “preferred clients”, and other financial behemoths selling before the crash and then buying up the physical assets of America for pennies on the dollar. One notable person who made his fortune in this manner was Prescott Bush of Brown Brothers Harriman, who went onto bailout a bankrupt Nazi party in 1932. These financiers had a tight allegiance with the City of London and coordinated their operations through the private central banking system of America’s Federal Reserve and Bank of International Settlements.
The Living Hell that was the Great Depression
Throughout the Great depression, the population was pushed to its limits making America highly susceptible to fascism as unemployment skyrocketed to 25%, industrial capacity collapsed by 70%, and agricultural prices collapsed far below the cost of production accelerating foreclosures and suicide. Life savings were lost as 4000 banks failed.
This despair was replicated across Europe and Canada with eugenics-loving fascists gaining popularity across the board. England saw the rise of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in 1932, English Canada had its own fascist solution with the Rhodes Scholar “Fabian Society” League of Social Reconstruction (which later took over the Liberal Party) calling for the “scientific management of society”. Time magazine had featured Il Duce over 6 times by 1932 and people were being told by that corporate fascism was the economic solution to all of America’s economic woes.
In the midst of the crisis, the City of London removed itself from the gold standard in 1931 which was a crippling blow to the USA, as it resulted in a flight of gold from America causing a deeper contraction of the money supply and thus inability to respond to the depression. British goods simultaneously swamped the USA crushing what little production was left.
It was in this atmosphere that one of the least understood battles unfolded in 1933.
1932: A Bankers’ Dictatorship is Attempted
In Germany, a surprise victory of Gen. Kurt Schleicher caused the defeat of the London-directed Nazi party in December 1932 threatening to break Germany free of Central Bank tyranny. A few weeks before Schleicher’s victory, Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency in America threatening to regulate the private banks and assert national sovereignty over finance.
Seeing their plans for global fascism slipping away, the City of London announced that a new global system controlled by Central Banks had to be created post haste. Their objective was to use the economic crisis as an excuse to remove from nation states any power over monetary policy, while enhancing the power of Independent Central Banks as enforcers of “balanced global budgets”. elaborate
In December 1932, an economic conference “to stabilize the world economy” was organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and Bank of England. The BIS was set up as “the Central Bank of Central Banks” in 1930 in order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany- long after WWII began. The London Economic Conference brought together 64 nations of the world under a controlled environment chaired by the British Prime Minister and opened by the King himself.
“The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks, with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution” and that “the conference wish to reaffirm the great utility of close and continuous cooperation between Central Banks. The Bank of International Settlements should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an instrument for common action.”
Echoing the Bank of England’s modern fixation with “mathematical equilibrium”, the resolutions stated that the new global gold standard controlled by central banks was needed “to maintain a fundamental equilibrium in the balance of payments” of countries. The idea was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own development.
FDR Torpedoes the London Conference
Chancellor Schleicher’s resistance to a bankers’ dictatorship was resolved by a “soft coup” ousting the patriotic leader in favor of Adolph Hitler (under the control of a Bank of England toy named Hjalmar Schacht) in January 1933 with Schleicher assassinated the following year. In America, an assassination attempt on Roosevelt was thwarted on February 15, 1933 when a woman knocked the gun out of the hand of an anarchist-freemason in Miami resulting in the death of Chicago’s Mayor Cermak.
Without FDR’s dead body, the London conference met an insurmountable barrier, as FDR refused to permit any American cooperation. Roosevelt recognized the necessity for a new international system, but he also knew that it had to be organized by sovereign nation states subservient to the general welfare of the people and not central banks dedicated to the welfare of the oligarchy. Before any international changes could occur, nation states castrated from the effects of the depression had to first recover economically in order to stay above the power of the financiers.
By May 1933, the London Conference crumbled when FDR complained that the conference’s inability to address the real issues of the crisis is “a catastrophe amounting to a world tragedy” and that fixation with short term stability were “old fetishes of so-called international bankers”. FDR continued “The United States seeks the kind of dollar which a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we hope to attain in the near future. That objective means more to the good of other nations than a fixed ratio for a month or two. Exchange rate fixing is not the true answer.”
The British drafted an official statement saying “the American statement on stabilization rendered it entirely useless to continue the conference.”
FDR’s War on Wall Street
The new president laid down the gauntlet in his inaugural speech on March 4th saying: “The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit”.
FDR declared a war on Wall Street on several levels, beginning with his support of the Pecorra Commission which sent thousands of bankers to prison, and exposed the criminal activities of the top tier of Wall Street’s power structure who manipulated the depression, buying political offices and pushing fascism. Ferdinand Pecorra who ran the commission called out the deep state when he said “this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States.”
Pecorra’s highly publicized success empowered FDR to impose sweeping regulation in the form of 1) Glass-Steagall bank separation, 2) bankruptcy re-organization and 3) the creation of the Security Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street. Most importantly, FDR disempowered the London-controlled Federal Reserve by installing his own man as Chair (Industrialist Mariner Eccles) who forced it to obey national commands for the first time since 1913, while creating an “alternative” lending mechanism outside of Fed control called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which became the number one lender to infrastructure in America throughout the 1930s.
One of the most controversial policies for which FDR is demonized today was his abolishment of the gold standard. The gold standard itself constricted the money supply to a strict exchange of gold per paper dollar, thus preventing the construction of internal improvements needed to revive industrial capacity and put the millions of unemployed back to work for which no financial resources existed. It’s manipulation by international financiers made it a weapon of destruction rather than creation at this time. Since commodity prices had fallen lower than the costs of production, it was vital to increase the price of goods under a form of “controlled inflation” so that factories and farms could become solvent and unfortunately the gold standard held that back. FDR imposed protective tariffs to favor agro-industrial recovery on all fronts ending years of rapacious free trade.
FDR stated his political-economic philosophy in 1934: “the old fallacious notion of the bankers on the one side and the government on the other side, as being more or less equal and independent units, has passed away. Government by the necessity of things must be the leader, must be the judge, of the conflicting interests of all groups in the community, including bankers.”
The Real New Deal
Once liberated from the shackles of the central banks, FDR and his allies were able to start a genuine recovery by restoring confidence in banking. Within 31 days of his bank holiday, 75% of banks were operational and the FDIC was created to insure deposits. Four million people were given immediate work, and hundreds of libraries, schools and hospitals were built and staffed- All funded through the RFC. FDR’s first fireside chat was vital in rebuilding confidence in the government and banks, serving even today as a strong lesson in banking which central bankers don’t want you to learn about.
From 1933-1939, 45 000 infrastructure projects were built. The many “local” projects were governed, like China’s Belt and Road Initiative today, under a “grand design” which FDR termed the “Four Quarters” featuring zones of megaprojects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority area in the south east, the Columbia River Treaty zone on the northwest, the St Laurence Seaway zone on the North east, and Hoover Dam/Colorado zone on the Southwest. These projects were transformative in ways money could never measure as the Tennessee area’s literacy rose from 20% in 1932 to 80% in 1950, and racist backwater holes of the south became the bedrock for America’s aerospace industry due to the abundant and cheap hydropower. As I had already reported on the Saker, FDR was not a Keynesian (although it cannot be argued that hives of Rhodes Scholars and Fabians penetrating his administration certainly were).
Wall Street Sabotages the New Deal
Those who criticize the New Deal today ignore the fact that its failures have more to do with Wall Street sabotage than anything intrinsic to the program. For example, JP Morgan tool Lewis Douglass (U.S. Budget Director) forced the closure of the Civil Works Administration in 1934 resulting in the firing of all 4 million workers.
Wall Street did everything it could to choke the economy at every turn. In 1931, NY banks loans to the real economy amounted to $38.1 billion which dropped to only $20.3 billion by 1935. Where NY banks had 29% of their funds in US bonds and securities in 1929, this had risen to 58% which cut off the government from being able to issue productive credit to the real economy.
When, in 1937, FDR’s Treasury Secretary persuaded him to cancel public works to see if the economy “could stand on its own two feet”, Wall Street pulled credit out of the economy collapsing the Industrial production index from 110 to 85 erasing seven years’ worth of gain, while steel fell from 80% capacity back to depression levels of 19%. Two million jobs were lost and the Dow Jones lost 39% of its value. This was no different from kicking the crutches out from a patient in rehabilitation and it was not lost on anyone that those doing the kicking were openly supporting Fascism in Europe. Bush patriarch Prescott Bush, then representing Brown Brothers Harriman was found guilty for trading with the enemy in 1942!
Coup Attempt in America Thwarted
The bankers didn’t limit themselves to financial sabotage during this time, but also attempted a fascist military coup which was exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler in his congressional testimony of November 20, 1934. Butler had testified that the plan was begun in the Summer of 1933 and organized by Wall Street financiers who tried to use him as a puppet dictator leading 500 000 American Legion members to storm the White House. As Butler spoke, those same financiers had just set up an anti-New Deal organization called the American Liberty League which fought to keep America out of the war in defense of an Anglo-Nazi fascist global government which they wished to partner with.
The American Liberty league only changed tune when it became evident that Hitler had become a disobedient Frankenstein monster who wasn’t content in a subservient position to Britain’s idea of a New World Order. In response to the Liberty League’s agenda, FDR said “some speak of a New World Order, but it is not new and it is not order”.
FDR’s Anti-Colonial Post-War Vision
One of the greatest living testimonies to FDR’s anti-colonial vision is contained in a little known 1946 book authored by his son Elliot Roosevelt who, as his father’s confidante and aide, was privy to some of the most sensitive meetings his father participated in throughout the war. Seeing the collapse of the post-war vision upon FDR’s April 12, 1945 death and the emergence of a pro-Churchill presidency under Harry Truman, who lost no time in dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan, ushering in a Soviet witch hunt at home and launching a Cold War abroad, Elliot authored ‘As He Saw It’ (1946) in order to create a living testimony to the potential that was lost upon his father’s passing.
As Elliot said of his motive to write his book:
“The decision to write this book was taken more recently and impelled by urgent events. Winston Churchill’s speech at Fulton, Missouri, had a hand in this decision,… the growing stockpile of American atom bombs is a compelling factor; all the signs of growing disunity among the leading nations of the world, all the broken promises, all the renascent power politics of greedy and desperate imperialism were my spurs in this undertaking… And I have seen the promises violated, and the conditions summarily and cynically disregarded, and the structure of peace disavowed… I am writing this, then, to you who agree with me that… the path he charted has been most grievously—and deliberately—forsaken.”
The Four Freedoms
Even before America had entered the war, the principles of international harmony which FDR enunciated in his January 6, 1941 Four Freedoms speech to the U.S. Congress served as the guiding light through every battle for the next 4.5 years. In this speech FDR said:
“In future days, which we seek to secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
“The first is the freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.
“The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.
“The third is the freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.
“The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.
“That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
“To that new order, we oppose the greater conception–the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
“Since the beginning of American history, we have been engaged in change–in a perpetual peaceful revolution–a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions–without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
“This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or to keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.”
Upon hearing these Freedoms outlined, American painter Norman Rockwell was inspired to paint four masterpieces that were displayed across America and conveyed the beauty of FDR’s spirit to all citizens.
FDR’s patriotic Vice President (and the man who SHOULD have been president in 1948) Henry Wallace outlined FDR’s vision in a passionate video address to the people in 1942 which should also be watched by all world citizens today:
Churchill vs FDR: The Clash of Two Paradigms
Elliot’s account of the 1941-1945 clash of paradigms between his father and Churchill are invaluable both for their ability to shed light into the true noble constitutional character of America personified in the person of Roosevelt but also in demonstrating the beautiful potential of a world that SHOULD HAVE BEEN had certain unnatural events not intervened to derail the evolution of our species into an age of win-win cooperation, creative reason and harmony.
In As He Saw It, Elliot documents a conversation he had with his father at the beginning of America’s entry into WWII, who made his anti-colonial intentions clear as day saying:
“I’m talking about another war, Elliott. I’m talking about what will happen to our world, if after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery!
“Don’t think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn’t been for the shortsighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now.
“One sentence, Elliott. Then I’m going to kick you out of here. I’m tired. This is the sentence: When we’ve won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France’s imperialistic ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its imperial ambitions.”
This clash came to a head during a major confrontation between FDR and Churchill during the January 24, 1943 Casablanca Conference in Morocco. At this event, Elliot documents how his father first confronted Churchill’s belief in the maintenance of the British Empire’s preferential trade agreements upon which it’s looting system was founded:
“Of course,” he [FDR] remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, “of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.”
He paused. The P.M.’s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.
“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.
Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements” he began heavily, “are—”
Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”
Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. “Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.”
“You see,” said Father slowly, “it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.
“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now—”
“Who’s talking eighteenth-century methods?”
“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation—by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”
Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill’s aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.
“You mentioned India,” he growled.
“Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.”
“What about the Philippines?”
“I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down…”
“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”
“They’re artificial…”
“They’re the foundation of our greatness.”
“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?”
It was an argument that could have no resolution between these two men…
The following day, Elliot describes how the conversation continued between the two men with Churchill stating:
“Mr. President,” he cried, “I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite of that”—and his forefinger waved—”in spite of that, we know that you constitute our only hope. And”—his voice sank dramatically—”you know that we know it. You know that we know that without America, the Empire won’t stand.”
Churchill admitted, in that moment, that he knew the peace could only be won according to precepts which the United States of America would lay down. And in saying what he did, he was acknowledging that British colonial policy would be a dead duck, and British attempts to dominate world trade would be a dead duck, and British ambitions to play off the U.S.S.R. against the U.S.A. would be a dead duck. Or would have been, if Father had lived.”
This story was delivered in full during an August 15 lecture by the author:
FDR’s Post-War Vision Destroyed
While FDR’s struggle did change the course of history, his early death during the first months of his fourth term resulted in a fascist perversion of his post-war vision.
Rather than see the IMF, World Bank or UN used as instruments for the internationalization of the New Deal principles to promote long term, low interest loans for the industrial development of former colonies, FDR’s allies were ousted from power over his dead body, and they were recaptured by the same forces who attempted to steer the world towards a Central Banking Dictatorship in 1933.
The American Liberty League spawned into various “patriotic” anti-communist organizations which took power with the FBI and McCarthyism under the fog of the Cold War. This is the structure that Eisenhower warned about when he called out “the Military Industrial Complex” in 1960 and which John Kennedy did battle with during his 900 days as president.
This is the structure which is ran a coup in the USA in November 2020, and is intent on ripping the republic apart under an oncoming Civil War. This British-run deep state has been petrified that a new FDR impulse would be revived in America which may align with the 21st Century international New Deal emerging from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian alliance. French Finance Minister Bruno LeMaire and Marc Carney have stated their fear that if the Green New Deal isn’t imposed by the west, then the New Silk Road and yuan will become the basis for the new world system.
The Bank of England-authored Green New Deal being pushed under the fog of COVID-19’s Great Green Global Reset which promise to impose draconian constraints on humanity’s carrying capacity in defense of saving nature from humanity have nothing to do with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and they have less to do with the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. These are merely central bankers’ wet dreams for depopulation and fascism “with a democratic face” which their 1923 and 1933 efforts failed to achieve and can only be imposed if people remain blind to their own recent history.
Outer space isn’t what most people would think of as an ecosystem. Its barren and frigid void isn’t exactly akin to the verdant canopies of a rainforest or to the iridescent shoals that swim among coral cities. But if we are to become better stewards of the increasingly frenzied band of orbital space above our atmosphere, a shift to thinking of it as an ecosystem — as part of an interconnected system of living things interacting with their physical environment — may be just what we need.
Last month, in the journal Nature Astronomy, a collective of 11 astrophysicists and space scientists proposed we do just that, citing the proliferation of anthropogenic space objects. Thousands of satellites currently orbit the Earth, with commercial internet providers such as SpaceX’s Starlink launching new ones at a dizzying pace. Based on proposals for projects in the future, the authors note, the number could reach more than a hundred thousand within the decade. Artificial satellites, long a vital part of the space ecosystem, have arguably become an invasive species.
The band of orbital space just above our atmosphere is becoming so densely populated with satellites that it may threaten the practice of astronomy. Whereas the main source of light interference used to be the cities below, it is now increasingly the satellites above. These artificial stars can be a billion times brighter than the objects astronomers hope to study, and they emit radio waves that can interfere with telescopes. By some estimates, around one in twenty images from the Hubble Telescope are affected by the streaks of passing satellites. By 2030, the authors say, a third of Hubble’s images could be impacted.
Yet the choice by the authors of the Nature Astronomy paper to call the orbital space around Earth an ecosystem reflects the fact that it’s not just astronomers who are affected by the recent infiltration of the night sky. Rather, the cluttering of orbital space is impacting the wellbeing of creatures both above the skies and below.
To begin with, there are the handful of astronauts at any given moment who call low-Earth orbit home — and the plants, worms, and tardigrades that have been their playthings on the International Space Station. Space junk created by the rare but inevitable collisions between satellites — which can travel faster than bullet speed — is becoming a threat to that life. Last year, a 5-millimeter hole was punctured in the International Space Station’s robotic arm by debris of unknown origin.
But clutter in low-Earth orbit also threatens ways of life for entire communities of people here on the ground. The traditions and cosmologies of many Indigenous peoples, for example, are rooted in the movements of the stars. Polynesian sailors’ feats of navigation by starlight are unparalleled. The Palikur people of the Amazon see constellations as boats driven by shamans that bring rain and seasonal fish. The recent deluge of light pollution in our night skies is more than a headache to these and other Indigenous peoples, whose cosmologies may wither if the numbers of satellites aren’t kept in check. New artificial mega constellations could mask those that have been relied on for millennia. (This issue may provide rare common ground between Indigenous peoples and professional astronomers, the latter of whom have historically been aligned with colonialism and courted controversy with the construction of new telescopes on sacred Indigenous lands.)
For many non-human animals, evidence suggests that a clear night sky might be a basic survival need. The hazy stripe of the Milky Way is used by dung beetles to navigate back to their burrows. Migratory birds, harbor seals, and some species of moths all use the movement of the stars as a compass too. Who knows how many other creatures might depend on a clear view of the night sky?
To protect the space ecosystem, we should treat it the way many aspire to treat our atmosphere and our oceans: as a global commons, a resource that lies beyond national, corporate, or individual ownership. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty took steps toward this ideal by recognizing that all nations have an equal interest in the exploration and use of outer space. Yet even that treaty establishes space as a resource humans can use for our own benefit. That’s like defining an ecosystem in terms of the natural capital it offers to humans, rather than recognizing the protection of habitats and biodiversity as an intrinsic good.
More apt would be to emphasize not the potential benefits that space provides to humans but rather the potential threats that humans pose to orbital space. In this view, overuse of the global commons by any one actor imposes a shared expense on us all. In our management of Antarctica, for example, preservation goes hand in hand with human activity on the continent. In this light, we shouldn’t see low Earth orbit as the next frontier of capitalist extraction, but rather as an ecosystem to be protected — one that, like other ecosystems, has limits and tipping points beyond which there is no return.
Some groups have started to open up conversations and build initiatives to this effect. The authors of the Nature Astronomy paper, for example, propose a “space traffic footprint” akin to a carbon footprint. And in February, the International Astronomical Union launched the Center for the Protection of the Dark and Quiet Sky from Satellite Constellation Interference. The center, which will be co-hosted by the National Science Foundation’s NOIRLab and the Square Kilometer Array Observatory, aims to act as a hub of information and advocacy, bringing together stakeholders such as astronomers, ecologists, and Indigenous peoples alike. While much remains to be done, the issue is one of perspective as much as policy. It will take a shared commitment to the value of a clear night sky, and collaboration across diverse communities, to preserve orbital space for generations to come.
Unlike other ecosystems, the near-barrenness of the band of space just beyond our atmosphere is precisely what makes it unique and valuable. Preserving this transparent window grants us all access to what lies beyond.
Thomas Lewton is a science journalist who writes about astrophysics and the environment.
cover image is in the public domain: sourced from Bubba73 / Wikimedia Commons April 28, 2020. Some Starlink 6 satellites, seen April 28, 2020 over the US state of Georgia.
Six satellites are easily visible, a seventh one is very faint on the right.
They were magnitude 3.3 and visible to the naked eye. This was a 2-second exposure.
“Genetically Edited” Food – The Next Stage of the Great Reset?
For all the people outside the UK who don’t understand what the “Queens Speech” actually is, it’s a farcical state occasion in which the Queen (or, in this case, Prince Charles since her majesty is ill/secretly dead/having “mobility issues”) makes a speech about what “her government” intends to do for the next 12 months.
Of course, the Queen doesn’t actually write the speech, or have any input on its content, or have any control at all over what “her” government intends to do. She’s just a mouthpiece in a big gold hat.
It’s the UK equivalent of the State of the Union, only done in Halloween costumes made out of shiny stolen rocks.
The whole thing is nothing but a grand, gilt statement of intent from the British Deep State, wrapped in mink and draped in medals they never earned. It’s a joke, but it is worth listening to.
Or, if you have a sensitive stomach, you can just read the full text the next day on the UK government’s website (that’s what I do).
A lot of the content is entirely predictable.
More money to Ukraine, with a promise the UK will “lead the way in championing security around the world”. More online censorship via the “Online Safety Bill”. A compulsory register for homeschooled children via the “Schools Reform Bill”.
There’s also mention of “securing the constitution” by introducing the UK’s own “Bill of Rights”. We broke down that particular Trojan Horse back in February.
But the part I found most interesting is the stated plan to “encourage agricultural and scientific innovation at home” via the proposed Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.
To quote the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB), the legislation would “take certain precision breeding techniques out of the scope of restrictive GMO rules”.
Essentially, this would see new “gene-edited” foods as distinct from old-fashioned “genetically modified” foods, and therefore not subject to the same rules and oversight.
The claimed distinction is that gene editing, as opposed to genetic modification, doesn’t introduce DNA from other species. Therefore, in effect, is merely speeding up what could potentially naturally happen over time.
Now, you might think this is just semantics, and that such a law will just provide a loophole for ALL “genetically modified” foods to simply rebrand themselves as “genetically edited” foods, and thereby avoid regulation. But that is disgustingly cynical and shame on you for even thinking it.
All in all, this is pretty on-message stuff, and not especially surprising. What’s noteworthy is – by pure happenstance, I’m sure – it appears to coincide with a renewed push on the GM food front in other countries all over the world.
In December 2021, Switzerland added an amendment to its moratorium on GMO crops, permitting the use of certain “gene editing” techniques.
Last month, Egypt announced their new strain of GM wheat. Just two days ago, Ethiopia’s National Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center announced they had researched, and the country will now be growing, genetically modified cotton and maize.
Britain’s deregulation of GM food is always described as a “post-Brexit” move – with the EU chided around the world for its “precautionary principle” on GM crops – and yet as long ago as last April, the EU was calling for a “rethink” on GM crops.
In fact, just today, European Biotechnology Magazine reports:
The EU Commission has launched its final consultation on the deregulation of new breeding techniques in agriculture
WHY THIS? WHY NOW?
So, we’re seeing a sudden increase in the variety of GM crops available and a simultaneous push for deregulation of the industry in Western nations.
Why would they be doing this now?
Well, there is a food crisis.
Or, more accurately, they have just created a food crisis. And as the cliched Hegelian dialectic inevitably goes, their manufactured “problem” is now in need of their contrived “solution”.
We should expect to see genetic engineering pitched as a solution to our food crisis in the very near future…like yesterday. Or indeed, two months ago.
That’s how fast they work now, with barely a pretence at concealing the plan. Spitting out the answer so fast they make it obvious they knew the question beforehand.
On March 15th, when the “special operation” in Ukraine was less than 3 weeks old, the Time was already headlining:
War forces farmers to think again about GM crops
…and reporting:
Genetic modification could make Britain’s food system less susceptible to geopolitical turmoil
A week later Verdict published an article titled“Improving food self-sufficiency with GM crops during geopolitical crises”
Can gene editing help farmers satisfy the rising demand for food?
Four days ago, the Manila Times published an article titled “In times of food scarcity: Revisiting genetically modified crops”.
Two days ago (so before the Queen’s speech specifically mentioning the gene editing bill), Scotland’s Press & Journal ran an opinion piece headlined: “Scottish Government must lift GM crop ban to ease cost of living crisis”.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict has demonstrated the fragility and vulnerability of global and European food supply chains. Around the world, governments in leading agricultural-producing countries are now catching up with the United States, both to better legislate gene-edited (GE) products, as well as differentiate them from the older Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology, and its negative connotations to some consumers, commentators, farmers, retailers, politicians and lawmakers.
And just today, the Genetic Literacy Project published an article by Ukrainian-Canadian David Zaruk, railing against the EU’s “precautionary principle” on GMOs and calling for an embracing of “new technology” to prevent widespread hunger and increase food sovereignty.
It goes on and on and on.
…LET’S NOT FORGET CLIMATE CHANGE, GUYS
Of course, it’s not all about the food crisis – giving corporate giants free rein to genetically alter all the food we eat will also be good for the planet. They talk about that a lot recently.
On February 8th this year, the University of Bonn published a new study claiming “Genetic engineering can have a positive effect on the climate”
On February 24th this year, the Cornell-based NGO “Alliance for Science” published an article claiming “GMOs could shrink Europe’s climate footprint”, based on the study mentioned above.
In a response to the Queen’s Speech, the UK’s National Institute of Agriculture and Botany claimed that genetic modification will make farming “more sustainable”.
In a reminder we’re not just talking about crops but genetically engineering livestock as well, in February Deutsche Welle suggested that genetically altered “Climate sheep and eco pigs could combat global heating”.
The narrative is clearly set: Genetically engineered food will save us all from the food crisis, and global warming too. Plus anything else they can think of.
THE KNIVES ARE OUT FOR ORGANICS
Not content with the semi-constant fluffing of the GM business, the MSM are also turning their guns on organic farming and giving it both barrels.
Ukraine Crisis Reveals the Folly of Organic Farming: As food prices skyrocket, the world needs to admit it can’t live without modern, efficient agriculture.
The “Allliance for Science” article mentioned above goes out of its way to criticise the EU’s pro-organic “farm to fork” plans, claiming “[organic farming] has lower yields and would be associated with increases in global [greenhouse gas] emissions by causing land-use changes elsewhere”.
Meanwhile, Erik Fyrwald, the CEO of the Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta (so possessing somewhat of a conflict of interests), told Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag that the West must “stop organic farming to help future food crisis”, adding that organic farming is worse for the planet, because ploughing up fields releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
NOTE: In an interesting (again, probably totally accidental) parallel, the currently simmering “Bird Flu outbreak” has also hit organic and free-range farmers hard, with one (sponsored) Guardian article asking if “year-round” bird flu could spell “the end of free-range eggs”.
CONCLUSION
Having just seen how the Covid19 “vaccine” campaign unfolded, it’s not hard to see how the pro-GM push will go from here. Genome-edited crops and farm animals are going to become the new “settled science”.
They will be sold to the public as cheaper, more nutritious, better for the environment and good for “preventing future pandemics” (yes, they literally did say that already).
Naturally, anyone who resists the push for gene-edited food, and/or mourns the planned death of organic farming, will be accused of “questioning the science”.
Eating British GM foods will be “doing your part” and “helping Ukraine”, while people who want more expensive organic products will be deemed “unpatriotic” or “selfish”.
Just as we saw Covid sceptics denounced as spreading “Russian disinformation”, despite Russia’s willing complicity in the Covid lie, those who argue against genome-edited food will be said to be “sharing Russian talking points” or “doing Putin’s work for him” despite Russia being well onboard the gene-editing train.
It all gets very predictable from there. Organic farmers will probably be “anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Russian spies” by the end of the summer.
I was astonished by the number of people who contacted me after I broke my arm telling me they had broken theirs too — some of them this year, and others within the last few years. It occurred to me to wonder: has there been a significant increase in osteoporosis and bone fractures around the world? and if so, is this yet another health effect caused by the use of cell phones and their infrastructure irradiating our bones as well as the rest of our bodies?
I remembered reading some fascinating facts about bones in the groundbreaking 1985 book, The Body Electric, written by orthopedic surgeon Robert O. Becker. Bones, he discovered, are semiconductors, and they owe their electrical properties to being doped with tiny amounts of copper. The atoms of copper, he found, bond electrically to both apatite crystals and collagen fibers — the two main components of bone — and hold them together, “much as wooden pegs fastened the pieces of antique furniture to each other.”
“Osteoporosis,” wrote Becker, “comes about when copper is somehow removed from the bones. This might occur not only through chemical/metabolic processes, but by a change in the electromagnetic binding force, allowing the pegs to ‘fall out.’ It’s possible that this could result from a change in the overall electrical fields throughout the body or from a change in those surrounding the body in the environment.”
I also remembered, from the old Soviet Union literature, summarized in my 1997 book, Microwaving Our Planet, that radio frequency radiation redistributes metals throughout the body.
With these facts in mind, I have searched the world’s medical literature for studies on the incidence of both osteoporosis and fractures, and the evidence seems fairly conclusive: (1) There has been an enormous increase in the incidence of both osteoporosis and bone fractures of all types throughout the world in children and adults since about 1950; (2) the incidences of both continue to rise, worldwide; (3) most studies published in the past couple of decades have found that osteoporosis in children is correlated with the amount of time spent daily looking at screens; (4) rates of osteoporosis do not correlate with the amount of time children spend sitting but not looking at screens; and (5) these trends are independent of the amount of exercise people get.
The authors of these studies have been at a loss to explain their findings, but they are easily explained when one remembers the electrical properties of bones, and the effects that cell phone and computer screens, all emitting radiation, are likely to have on bones and on the copper atoms within them — and that exposure to radiation from radio, TV, radar, and (more recently) cell tower antennas has increased tremendously since World War II.
Here is a sampling of the studies I have collected:
Louis V. Avioli reviewed the world’s literature in 1991. During the second half of the twentieth century, he found, both osteoporosis and fracture rates had risen dramatically in the United States, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Italy, the UK, Belgium, Australia, and elsewhere. The incidence rate of hip fractures in the United States had been increasing by about 40% per decade. (1)
M.L. Grundill and M.C. Burger, in 2021, found that the incidence rate of hip fractures in a population in South Africa had more than doubled in men and almost sextupled in women compared to what had been reported in 1968. (2)
Emmanuel K. Dretakis et al. found that the annual number of hip fractures in Crete increased 21% in just four years, from 1982 to 1986, while the population over 50 remained the same. (3)
Hiroshi Koga et al. examined the records of children aged 6 to 14 in Niigata, Japan. The incidence rate of all fractures more than doubled from the early 1980s to the early 2000s in both girls and boys, and almost tripled in girls in junior high school. (4)
P. Lüthje et al. found that the incidence rate of hip fractures throughout Finland quadrupled between 1968 and 1988. (5)
In 2012 Ambrish Mithal and Parjeet Kaur found that hip fracture rates had increased two- to three-fold throughout Asia during the previous 30 years. (6)
Hiroshi Hagino et al. found that hip fracture rates in Tottori Prefecture, Japan had risen by almost 40% between 1986 and 1992, and by more than 60% in men and about 50% in women between 1986 and 2001. Increases in fracture rates occurred not only in the elderly, but in people in their 30s and 40s. (7)
In 1989 Karl J. Obrant et al. did an analysis of fracture trends in Malmö, Sweden, where all X-rays have been saved since the beginning of the twentieth century. They found that the yearly number of fractures in that city had increased seven-fold between 1951 and 1985, and the incidence rate of fractures among children had doubled between 1950 and 1979. “There are signs that there is a deterioration of the quality of the skeleton in successive generations,” wrote the authors. “With the same or even diminished trauma, we sustain more serious and more comminuted fractures today than previously.” The increase had nothing to do with changing estrogen levels, because fracture rates had increased even more in men than in women. The daily consumption of both calcium and Vitamin D had increased during that time. But the incidence of hip fractures was higher in cities than in rural environments where, we know, there was less radiation. (8)
Haiyu Shao et al., in 2015, looking at hours per day spent playing video games by Chinese adolescents, found that adolescents with longer video game time were more likely to have lower bone mass density in their legs, trunk, pelvis, spine, and whole body. (9)
Anne Winther et al., studying 15- to 18-year-olds in Tromsø, Norway in 2010- 2011, found that longer screen time was associated with lower bone mass density in both boys and girls, regardless of the amount of daily physical activity, calcium intake, vitamin D, alcohol consumption, smoking habits, height or weight. (10)
Sebastien Chastin, examining youths aged 8 to 22 in the U.S. in 2005-2006, found that screen-based sitting was associated with lower bone mass density in hips and spine. Non-screen-based sitting was not associated with lower bone mass density. (11)
Natalie Lundin et al. found that annual incidence rates of pelvic and hip socket fractures in Sweden increased 25% from 2001 to 2016, and that increasing incidence rates were seen in all age groups. (12)
Daniel Jerrhag et al. found that the incidence rate of forearm fractures in Sweden was 23% higher in 2010 compared with 1999, and that the increase was greater in men and women 17 to 64 years of age than in the elderly. (13)
Michiel Herteleer et al. found that the incidence rate of pelvic and hip socket fractures in Belgium doubled between 1988 and 2006, and rose another 26% by 2018. (14)
Neeraj M. Patel found that the annual incidence rate of fractures in children aged 6 to 18 in New York State almost quadrupled between 2006 and 2015. (15)
An estimated 21 million American adults experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2020. The highest rates reported for the past several years have consistently been among those aged between 18 and 25
The vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s virtually no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told
Hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children
There’s no scientific evidence to suggest depression is the result of a chemical imbalance in your brain. A lot of the evidence suggests unhealthy living conditions are at the heart of the problem
Antidepressants are not beneficial in the long term and antipsychotic drugs worsen outcomes over the long term in those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia
This article was previously published September 19, 2019, and has been updated with new information.
In the U.S., an estimated 21 million American adults experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2020.1 The reported numbers for the past several years2 have consistently been highest among those aged between 18 and 25.3 However, not only is there evidence that depression is vastly overdiagnosed, but there’s also evidence showing it’s routinely mistreated.
With regard to overdiagnosis, it’s been ongoing for a long time, with one 2013 study4 finding only 38.4% of participants with clinician-identified depression actually met the DSM-4 criteria for a major depressive episode, and only 14.3% of seniors 65 and older met the criteria.
As for treatment, the vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s little to no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told.
According to a 2017 study,5 1 in 6 Americans between the ages of 18 and 85 were on psychiatric drugs, most of them antidepressants, and 84.3% reported long-term use (three years or more). Out of 242 million U.S. adults, 12% were found to have filled one or more prescriptions for an antidepressant, specifically, in 2013. By 2021 in the midst of the pandemic, 1 in 4 Americans over age 18, or 50 million persons, were on prescription mental health drugs.6
According to data7 presented by a watchdog group in 2014, hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children.
And, a study published in The BMJ in 20138 found that “In utero exposure to both SSRIs and non-selective monoamine reuptake inhibitors (tricyclic antidepressants) was associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorders, particularly without intellectual disability” in the offspring.
Studies are also shedding much needed light on the addictive nature of many antidepressants, and demonstrate that the benefits of these drugs have been overblown while their side effects — including suicidal ideation — and have been downplayed and ignored for decades, placing patients at unnecessary risk.
The Chemical Imbalance Myth
One researcher responsible for raising awareness about these important mental health issues is professor Peter C. Gøtzsche, a Danish physician-researcher and outspoken critic of the drug industry (as his book, “Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare,”9 suggests).
Gøtzsche helped found the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 and later launched the Nordic Cochrane Centre. In 2018, he was expelled by the Cochrane governing board following the publication of a scathing critique of a Cochrane review of the HPV in which he and his coauthors pointed out several methodological flaws and conflicts of interest.
Over the past several years, Gøtzsche has published a number of scientific papers on antidepressants and media articles and a book discussing the findings. In a June 28, 2019 article,10 Gøtzsche addresses “the harmful myth” about chemical imbalances — a debunked hypothesis that continues to drive the use of antidepressants to this day. He writes, in part:11
“Psychiatrists routinely tell their patients that they are ill because they have a chemical imbalance in the brain and they will receive a drug that fixes this …
Last summer, one of my researchers and I collected information about depression from 39 popular websites in 10 countries, and we found that 29 (74%) websites attributed depression to a chemical imbalance or claimed that antidepressants could fix or correct that imbalance …
It has never been possible to show that common mental disorders start with a chemical imbalance in the brain. The studies that have claimed this are all unreliable.12
A difference in dopamine levels, for example, between patients with schizophrenia and healthy people cannot tell us anything about what started the psychosis … [I]f a lion attacks us, we get terribly frightened and produce stress hormones, but this does not prove that it was the stress hormones that made us scared.
People with psychoses have often suffered traumatic experiences in the past, so we should see these traumas as contributing causal factors and not reduce suffering to some biochemical imbalance that, if it exists at all, is more likely to be the result of the psychosis rather than its cause.13
The myth about chemical imbalance is very harmful. It makes people believe there is something seriously wrong with them, and sometimes they are even told that it is hereditary.
The result of this is that patients continue to take harmful drugs, year after year, perhaps even for the entirety of their lives. They fear what would happen if they stopped, particularly when the psychiatrists have told them that their situation is like patients with diabetes needing insulin.”
Real Cause of Depression Is Typically Ignored
According to Gøtzsche, there is no known mental health issue that is caused by an imbalance of brain chemicals. In many cases, the true cause is unknown, but “very often, it is a response to unhealthy living conditions,” he writes.14
He also cites the book,15 “Anxiety — The Inside Story: How Biological Psychiatry Got It Wrong,” written by Dr. Niall McLaren, in which the author shows that anxiety is a major factor in and trigger of most psychiatric disorders.
“A psychiatrist I respect highly, who only uses psychiatric drugs in rare cases … has said that most people are depressed because they live depressing lives,” Gøtzsche writes.
“No drug can help them live better lives. It has never been shown in placebo-controlled trials that a psychiatric drug can improve people’s lives — e.g., help them return to work, improve their social relationships or performance at school, or prevent crime and delinquency. The drugs worsen people’s lives, at least in the long run.16“
Gøtzsche rightfully points out that antipsychotic drugs create chemical imbalances; they don’t fix them. As a group, they’re also somewhat misnamed, as they do not address psychotic states. Rather, they are tranquilizers, rendering the patient passive. However, calming the patient down does not actually help them heal the underlying trauma that, in many cases, is what triggered the psychosis in the first place.
As noted in one 2012 meta-analysis17 of studies looking at childhood trauma — including sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional/psychological abuse, neglect, parental death and bullying — and subsequent risk of psychosis:
“There were significant associations between adversity and psychosis across all research designs … Patients with psychosis were 2.72 times more likely to have been exposed to childhood adversity than controls … The estimated population attributable risk was 33% (16%-47%). These findings indicate that childhood adversity is strongly associated with increased risk for psychosis.”
Economy of Influence in Psychiatry
A related article,18 written by investigative journalist Robert Whitaker in 2017, addresses the “economy of influence” driving the use of antidepressant drugs in psychiatric treatment — and the “social injury” that results. As noted by Whitaker, mental disorders were initially categorized according to a disease model in 1980 by the American Psychiatric Association.
“We’re all familiar with the second ‘economy of influence’ that has exerted a corrupting influence on psychiatry — pharmaceutical money — but I believe the guild influence is really the bigger problem,” he writes.
Whitaker details the corruption within the APA in his book “Psychiatry Under the Influence,” one facet of which is “the false story told to the public about drugs that fixed chemical imbalances in the brain.” Other forms of corrupt behavior include:
The biased designs of clinical trials to achieve a predetermined result
Spinning results to support preconceived conclusions
Hiding poor long-term outcomes
Expanding diagnostic categories for the purpose of commercial gain
Creating clinical trial guidelines that promote drug use
In his article, Whitaker goes on to dissect a 2017 review19 published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, which Whitaker claims “defends the profession’s current protocols for prescribing antipsychotics, which includes their regular long-term use.”
As Whitaker points out, there’s ample evidence showing antipsychotic drugs worsen outcomes over the long term in those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia.
The review in question, led by American psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman, was aimed at answering persistent questions raised by the mounting of such evidence. Alas, their conclusions dismissed concerns that the current drug paradigm might be doing more harm than good.
“In a subsequent press release and a video for a Medscape commentary, Lieberman has touted it as proving that antipsychotics provide a great benefit, psychiatry’s protocols are just fine, and that the critics are ‘nefarious’ individuals intent on doing harm,” Whitaker writes.20
The Scientific Bias of Psychiatric Treatment
Five of the eight researchers listed on the review have financial ties to drug companies, three are speakers for multiple drug companies and all eight are psychiatrists, “and thus there is a ‘guild’ interest present in this review, given that they are investigating whether one of their treatments is harmful over the long-term,” Whitaker notes.21
Not surprisingly, the review ignored studies showing negative effects, including studies showing antipsychotics have a detrimental effect on brain volume. What’s more, while withdrawal studies support the use of antipsychotics as maintenance therapy over the long term, these studies do not address how the drugs affect patients’ long-term health.
“They simply reveal that once a person has stabilized on the medication, going abruptly off the drug is likely to lead to relapse,” Whitaker writes.22“The focus on long-term outcomes, at least as presented by critics, provides evidence that psychiatry should adopt a selective-use protocol.
If first-episode patients are not immediately put on antipsychotics, there is a significant percentage that will recover, and this ‘spontaneous recovery’ puts them onto a good long-term course. As for patients treated with the medications, the goal would be to minimize long-term use, as there is evidence that antipsychotics, on the whole, worsen long-term outcomes.”
Vast Majority of Psychotic Patients Are Harmed, Not Helped
In his deconstruction of Lieberman’s review, Whitaker details how biased thinking influenced the review’s conclusions. It’s a rather long article, but well worth reading through if you want to understand how a scientific review can be skewed to accord with a preconceived view.
Details I want to highlight, however, include findings relating to the number needed to treat (NNT) and the percentage of patients harmed by the routine use of antipsychotic drugs as a first-line treatment.
As noted by Whitaker, while placebo-controlled studies reveal the effectiveness of a drug compared to an inert substance, they do not effectively reveal the ratio of benefit versus harm among the patient population. NNT refers to the number of patients that have to take the drug in order to get one positive response.
A meta-analysis cited in Lieberman’s review had an NNT of 6, meaning that six patients must take the drug in order for one to benefit from the treatment. The remaining five patients — 83% — are potentially harmed by the treatment. As noted by Whitaker:23
“The point … is this: reviewers seeking to promote their drug treatment as effective will look solely at whether it produces a superior response to placebo. This leads to a one-size-fits-all protocol.
Reviewers that want to assess the benefit-harm effect of the treatment on all patients will look at NNT numbers. In this instance, the NNT calculations argue for selective use of the drugs …”
Antidepressants Are Not Beneficial in the Long Term
While typically not as destructive as antipsychotics, antidepressants also leave a trail of destruction in their wake. A systematic review24 by Gøtzsche published in 2019 found studies assessing harm from selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fail to provide a clear and accurate picture of the harms, and therefore “cannot be used to investigate persistent harms of antidepressants.”
In this review, Gøtzsche and colleagues sought to assess “harms of SSRIs … that persist after end of drug intake.” The primary outcomes included mortality, functional outcomes, quality of life and core psychiatric events. In all, 22 papers on 12 SSRI trials were included. Gøtzsche found several distinct problems with these trials. For starters, only two of the 12 trials had a drop-out rate below 20%.
Gøtzsche and his team also note that “Outcome reporting was less thorough during follow-up than for the intervention period and only two trials maintained the blind during follow-up.” Importantly, though, all of the 22 papers came to the conclusion that “the drugs were not beneficial in the long term.”
Another important finding was that all trials either “reported harms outcomes selectively or did not report any,” and “Only two trials reported on any of our primary outcomes (school attendance and number of heavy drinking days).”
A few years later, in April 2022, a study using data from the United States’ Medical Expenditures Panel Survey for patients who had depression found, “The real-world effect of using antidepressant medications does not continue to improve patients” health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time.25
Antidepressants Are More Addictive Than Admitted
In a June 4, 2019, article,26 “The Depression Pill Epidemic,” Gøtzsche writes that antidepressant drugs:
“… do not have relevant effects on depression; they increase the risk of suicide and violence; and they make it more difficult for patients to live normal lives.27 They should therefore be avoided.
We have been fooled by the drug industry, corrupt doctors on industry payroll, and by our drug regulators.28 Surely, many patients and doctors believe the pills are helpful, but they cannot know this, because people tend to become much better with time even if they are not treated.29
This is why we need placebo-controlled trials to find out what the drugs do to people. Unfortunately, virtually all trials are flawed, exaggerate the benefits of the drugs, and underestimate their harms.”30
Addictive Nature of Antidepressants Skews Results
In his article,31 Gøtzsche reviews several of the strategies used in antidepressant drug trials to exaggerate benefits and underestimate the harms. One little-known truth that helps skew study results in the drug’s favor is the fact that antidepressants tend to be far more addictive than officially admitted. He explains how this conveniently hides the skewing of results as follows:32
“Virtually all patients in the trials are already on a drug similar to the one being tested against placebo. Therefore, as the drugs are addictive, some of the patients will get abstinence symptoms … when randomized to placebo …
These abstinence symptoms are very similar to those patients experience when they try to stop benzodiazepines. It is no wonder that new drugs outperform the placebo in patients who have experienced harm as a result of cold turkey effects.
To find out how long patients need to continue taking drugs, so-called maintenance (withdrawal) studies have been carried out, but such studies also are compromised by cold turkey effects. Leading psychiatrists don’t understand this, or they pretend they don’t.
Most interpret the maintenance studies of depression pills to mean that these drugs are very effective at preventing new episodes of depression and that patients should therefore continue taking the drugs for years or even for life.”
Scientific Literature Supports Reality of User Complaints
Over the years, several studies on the dependence and withdrawal reactions associated with SSRIs and other psychiatric drugs have been published, including the following:
•In a 2011 paper33 in the journal Addiction, Gøtzsche and his team looked at the difference between dependence and withdrawal reactions by comparing benzodiazepines and SSRIs. Benzodiazepines are known to cause dependence, while SSRIs are said to not be addictive.
Despite such claims, Gøtzsche’s team found that “discontinuation symptoms were described with similar terms for benzodiazepines and SSRIs and were very similar for 37 of 42 identified symptoms described as withdrawal reactions,” which led them to conclude that:
“Withdrawal reactions to selective serotonin re‐uptake inhibitors appear to be similar to those for benzodiazepines; referring to these reactions as part of a dependence syndrome in the case of benzodiazepines, but not selective serotonin re‐uptake inhibitors, does not seem rational.”
•Two years later, in 2013, Gøtzsche’s team published a paper34 in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, in which they analyzed “communications from drug agencies about benzodiazepine and SSRI withdrawal reactions over time.”
By searching the websites of drug agencies in Europe, the U.S., U.K. and Denmark, they found that it took years before drug regulators finally acknowledged the reality of benzodiazepine dependence and SSRI withdrawal reactions and began informing prescribers and patients about these risks.
A significant part of the problem, they found, is that drug agencies rely on spontaneous reporting of adverse effects, which “leads to underestimation and delayed information about the problems.”
In conclusion, they state that “Given the experience with the benzodiazepines, we believe the regulatory bodies should have required studies from the manufacturers that could have elucidated the dependence potential of the SSRIs before marketing authorization was granted.”
•A 2019 paper35 in the Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences journal notes “It took almost two decades after the SSRIs entered the market for the first systematic review to be published.” It also points out that reviews claiming withdrawal effects to be mild, brief in duration and rare “was at odds with the sparse but growing evidence base.”
In reality, “What the scientific literature reveals is in close agreement with the thousands of service user testimonies available online in large forums. It suggests that withdrawal reactions are quite common, that they may last from a few weeks to several months or even longer, and that they are often severe.”
Antidepressants Increase Your Risk of Suicide and Violence
In his June 2019 article,36 Gøtzsche also stresses the fact that antidepressants can be lethal. In one of his studies,37 published in 2016, he found antidepressants “double the occurrence of events that can lead to suicide and violence in healthy adult volunteers.”
Other research38 has shown they “increase aggression in children and adolescents by a factor of 2 to 3 — an important finding considering the many school shootings where the killers were on depression pills,” Gøtzsche writes.
In middle-aged women with stress urinary incontinence, the selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) duloxetine, which is also used to treat incontinence, has been shown to double the risk of a psychotic episode and increase the risk of violence and suicide four to five times,39 leading the authors to conclude that harms outweighed the benefits.
“I have described the dirty tricks and scientific dishonesty involved when drug companies and leading psychiatrists try convincing us that these drugs protect against suicide and other forms of violence,”40 Gøtzsche writes.41“Even the FDA was forced to give in when it admitted in 2007, at least indirectly, that depression pills can cause suicide and madness at any age.
There is no doubt that the massive use of depression pills is harmful. In all countries where this relationship has been examined, the sharp rise in disability pensions due to psychiatric disorders has coincided with the rise of psychiatric drug usage, and depression pills are those which are used the most by far. This is not what one would expect if the drugs were helpful.”
Drugmaker Lied About Paxil’s Suicide Risk
In 2017, Wendy Dolin was awarded $3 million by a jury in a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Paxil. Dolin’s husband committed suicide six days after taking his first dose of a Paxil generic, and evidence brought forth in the case convincingly showed his suicide was the result of the drug, not emotional stress or mental illness.42
The legal team behind that victory, Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman, also represented other victims of Paxil-induced violence and death. At the time, attorney R. Brent Wisner said:43
“The Dolin verdict sent a clear message to GSK and other drug manufacturers that hiding data and manipulating science will not be tolerated … If you create a drug and know that it poses serious risks, regardless of whether consumers use the brand name or generic version of that drug, you have a duty to warn.”
GSK’s own clinical placebo-controlled trials actually revealed subjects on Paxil had nearly nine times the risk of attempting or committing suicide than the placebo group. To gain drug approval, GSK misrepresented this shocking data, falsely reporting a higher number of suicide attempts in the placebo group and deleting some of the suicide attempts in the drug group.
An internal GSK analysis of its suicide data also showed that “patients taking Paxil were nearly seven times more likely to attempt suicide than those on placebo,” Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman reports, adding:44
“Jurors in the Dolin trial also heard from psychiatrist David Healy, one of the world’s foremost experts on Paxil and drugs in its class … Healy told the jurors that Paxil and drugs like it can create in some people a state of extreme ’emotional turmoil’ and intense inner restlessness known as akathisia …
‘People have described it like a state worse than death. Death will be a blessed relief. I want to jump out of my skin,’ Dr. Healy said. Healthy volunteer studies have found that akathisia can happen even to people with no psychiatric condition who take the drug …
Another Paxil side effect known to increase the risk of suicide is emotional blunting … apathy or emotional indifference … [E]motional blunting, combined with akathisia, can lead to a mental state in which an individual has thoughts of harming themselves or others, but is ‘numbed’ to the consequences of their actions. Drugs in the Paxil class can also cause someone to ‘go psychotic, become delirious,’ Dr. Healy explained.”
Hundreds of Thousands of Toddlers on Psychiatric Drugs
Considering the many serious psychological and physical risks associated with psychiatric drugs, it’s shocking to learn that hundreds of thousands of American toddlers are on them. In 2014, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a mental health watchdog group, highlighted data showing that in 2013:45
274,000 babies aged 1 and younger were given psychiatric drugs — Of these, 249,699 were on anti-anxiety meds like Xanax; 26,406 were on antidepressants such as Prozac or Paxil, 1,422 were on ADHD drugs such as Ritalin and Adderall, and 654 were on antipsychotics such as Risperdal and Zyprexa
In the toddler category (2- to 3-year-olds), 318,997 were on anti-anxiety drugs, 46,102 were on antidepressants, 10,000 were prescribed ADHD drugs and 3,760 were on antipsychotics
Among children aged 5 and younger, 1,080,168 were on psychiatric drugs
These are shocking figures that challenge logic. How and why are so many children, babies even, on addictive and dangerously mind-altering medications? Considering these statistics are 6 years old, chances are they’re even higher today. Just what will happen to all of these youngsters as they grow up? As mentioned in the article:46
“When it comes to the psychiatric drugs used to treat ADHD, these are referred to as ‘kiddie cocaine’ for a reason. Ritalin (methylphenidate), Adderall (amphetamine) and Concerta are all considered by the federal government as Schedule II drugs — the most addictive.
ADHD drugs also have serious side effects such as agitation, mania, aggressive or hostile behavior, seizures, hallucinations, and even sudden death, according to the National Institutes of Health …
As far as antipsychotics, antianxiety drugs and antidepressants, the FDA and international drug regulatory agencies cite side effects including, but not limited to, psychosis, mania, suicidal ideation, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and even sudden death.”
Children Increasingly Prescribed Psych Drugs Off-Label
Making matters even worse, recent research shows the number of children being prescribed medication off-label is also on the rise. An example offered by StudyFinds.org,47 which reported the findings, is “a doctor recommending antidepressant medication for ADHD symptoms.”
The study,48 published in the journal Pediatrics, looked at trends in off-label drug prescriptions made for children under the age of 18 by office-based physicians between 2006 and 2015. Findings revealed:
“Physicians ordered ≥1 off-label systemic drug at 18.5% of visits, usually (74.6%) because of unapproved conditions. Off-label ordering was most common proportionally in neonates (83%) and in absolute terms among adolescents (322 orders out of 1000 visits).
Off-label ordering was associated with female sex, subspecialists, polypharmacy, and chronic conditions. Rates and reasons for off-label orders varied considerably by age. Relative and absolute rates of off-label orders rose over time. Among common classes, off-label orders for antihistamines and several psychotropics increased over time …
US office-based physicians have ordered systemic drugs off label for children at increasing rates, most often for unapproved conditions, despite recent efforts to increase evidence and drug approvals for children.”
The researchers were taken aback by the findings, and expressed serious concern over this trend. While legal, many of the drugs prescribed off-label have not been properly tested to ensure safety and efficacy for young children and adolescents.
As noted by senior author Daniel Horton, assistant professor of pediatrics and pediatric rheumatologist at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, “We don’t always understand how off-label medications will affect children, who don’t always respond to medications as adults do. They may not respond as desired to these drugs and could experience harmful effects.”
In 2020 mental health experts and reviewers were still at-odds over prescribing these drugs for children, yet hesitant to call a stop to it:49
“Antidepressants are prescribed for the treatment of a number of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents, however there is still controversy about whether they should be used in this population …
Treatment decisions should be tailored to patients on an individual basis, so we recommend clinicians, patients and policy makers to refer to the evidence provided in the present meta-review and make decisions about the use of antidepressants in children and adolescents taking into account a number of clinical and personal variables.”
Educate Yourself About the Risks
If you, your child or another family member is on a psychiatric drug, I urge you to educate yourself about the true risks and to consider switching to safer alternatives. When it comes to children, I cannot fathom a situation in which a toddler would need a psychiatric drug and I find it shocking that there are so many doctors out there that, based on a subjective evaluation, would deem a psychiatric drug necessary.
I wrote this article in 2010. It’s truer now than it was then:
DECEMBER 5, 2010. About ten years ago, I decided that the medical cartel could become the most dangerous of all power groups on the planet. I have not changed my mind.
My decision is based on looking up the road 40 or 50 years and inferring what the picture will look like then.
It’s clear to me that drug companies, as they carve up markets and create new markets, are eagerly anticipating the day when every human, from cradle to grave—actually from inside the womb—has the status of Patient.
A person is born a patient and dies a patient. And in between, he receives 40 or 50 key diagnoses of physical and mental diseases/disorders and takes prescribed drug and surgery treatments.
More than that, though, he is stamped with the label, Patient, and he learns that everyone is in the same boat. “We’re all patients, this is a medical world, and it’s normal to be disabled in some way.”
People become proud, yes, proud to be victims. They wear their diagnoses as badges of honor. If you can’t see this trend, you’re not looking.
And universal health care insurance guarantees continuous treatment all the way along the line.
Every medical diagnosis becomes an excuse not to perform, not to excel, not to pursue big goals with large ambition.
Nowhere in the search to gain recognition as a victim do circumstances conspire so well as in the medical arena. It’s perfect. There’s no argument. The doctor told you you have X disease. That’s that. It’s not political. It’s not agenda-driven. It’s science. The proof is laid out on a silver platter. You ARE a victim.
In the coming future, every move a person makes, every step he takes will come under the umbrella of the doctor.
And, again, the main supporter of this system will be the patient himself. That’s how beautiful the marketing is.
In case you’ve been living in a cave for the last 30 years, drug companies and their researchers can invent any vague disease label they want to—and then they can invent five or six sub-categories of the label—and they can set out rules on how to diagnose each sliver of the label—and of course the doctors will make these diagnoses and prescribe drugs. It’s marketing and “healing” at the same time.
Parents who don’t have a clue will submit their children to this system—especially if the government pays for it—and the children will grow up trained to think of themselves as patients/victims…and the only contest will be: who has the most drastic diagnoses and treatments? Who can most proudly wear the badge of honor as Patient?
“Last month, they had to remove my head for five minutes while they fixed my brain.”
“Wow. Well, they put me in a body cast for three months and I couldn’t move, except for my left thumb.”
Cradle to grave.
If you go back and read Huxley’s Brave New World again, you’ll notice the factor of “patient pride.” It isn’t just that the society is controlled, the citizens are idealistic about it.
That’s where the victim industry is heading.
Against it, we have, what?
A little thing called individual freedom. Which includes the right to refuse medical treatment, no matter who prescribes it under what regulations.
People imagine that this right is some arcane matter best debated in medical-ethics journals. It’s an obscure curio.
They couldn’t be more wrong.
As I’ve been writing, the ObamaCare plan contains the seeds of a future in which, by law, the citizen will have less freedom to determine his own medical fate. The walls will gradually close in.
The Founders knew what they were talking about when they warned of the incursion of government and the loss of freedom. At every crossroad, since then, the issue of freedom has resurfaced as the unavoidable key factor.
This week, I took the time to watch a new documentary produced by Dinesh D’Souza titled ‘2000 Mules’ which utilizes voluminous geotracking and video evidence to demonstrate conclusively the scope of the fraud which occured in November 2020 which saw the elections stolen from US President Trump. The documentary focuses on a quantitative analysis of the data, but avoids speculating on those causal agencies that would have the means, intent and power to put such a coup d’etat into effect. This was the right decision, as D’Souza’s purpose was to conclusively demonstrate the scope of the fraud, not venture into ‘why’ it happened, or who dunnit.
Since 2000 Mules is going viral, I thought it prudent to re-publish an article that I had written in December 2020 in order to present the evidence of the British hand which managed the coup that saw a cultish technocratic takeover of the White House. The star performers in this drama will be a Don Quixote/Sancho Panza team of George Soros and Lord Mark Malloch Brown.
The British Hand Behind the Coup
Throughout the four-year drama of Russiagate, the hand of British intelligence has revealed itself continuously.
From the obvious role of Sir Richard Dearlove and his former MI6 underlying Christopher Steele who together played a driving role in shaping the dodgy dossier, to their involvement with Oxford Rhodes Scholar Strobe Talbott in composing, promoting and marketing the fraudulent dossier to targeted members of Congress and media, to British Ambassador Sir Darroch caught “flooding the zone” with British intelligence assets to shape Trump’s perception of the world, to the array of British entrapment operations that targeted Michael Flynn as early as 2014 in London… wherever one looks, the hand of British intelligence seems to be everywhere.
While vast effort is made to downplay the British roots of the deep state by the media which tends to portray this problem from a partisan narrative of “democratic party corruption”, this sleight of hand misses the causal nexus and demands we believe that the tail truly wags the dog.
The uncomfortable truth which many are either too afraid, lazy or corrupt to admit is that since the moment John F Kennedy died on November 22, 1963, both the Democratic and Republican Parties have undergone an slow take-over by this foreign parasite. The thing that has come to be known as the “deep state” was never based on one party or another, and never emanated from anything native to the Constitutional traditions of the US government itself as I outlined in my previous article “Understanding the Trifold Nature of the Deep State”.
While the Republican party of George Bush was in power, this deep state had used its controls of computerized vote counting to rig elections in 2000 and 2004 in its favor as showcased brilliantly in the 2006 documentary Hacking Democracy. Later, when it was time for a controlled opposition to take power in 2008, it did the same thing under a different cast of characters.
While one side of the unipolar world government agenda was driven by a view that the USA should forever be the primary global police force governing a zero sum system of perpetual war, with an unelected elite managing the system from above, the other side believed that the USA should surrender its claims to sovereignty to an international global body with unelected technocrats and financiers at the top managing the zero sum system of perpetual war from above.
Notice the common denominator?
Election Theft as Russiagate 5.0
Now that it has become increasingly clear that mass election fraud has swept across the USA in an effort to accomplish what four years of Russiagate failed to achieve, yet another light has fallen upon the British hand behind Biden which aims to dissolve any nationalist spirit remaining in the embattled republic.
As I outlined in my last report, the largest private computer voting system in the USA which services 30 states and 70 million voters was shown to be at the heart of the current election theft. In that article, it was made clear that Dominion Voting Systems is a Canadian company which dominates the USA’s private computerized voting systems and is closely tied to another larger company called Smartmatic whose operating systems, and even software it absorbed during Obama’s administration.
For those still out of the loop, Smartmatic furnishes voting machines and its software (backdoor codes and all) to governments all around the world and is highly enmeshed with the Clinton Foundation, Soros’ Open Society and Nancy Pelosi’s very own Chief of Staff.
Not only that, but the key figure controlling Smartmatic is none other than Lord Mark Malloch Brown, a former vice chairman of George Soros’ Investment Funds (2007), as well as Soros’ Open Society Institute and World Economic Forum, former Vice President at the World Bank (1995-1999), UN Administrator for Development (1999-2005), UN Deputy Secretary General and UK Minister of State for Africa, Asia and the UN (2007-2009). These are just a few hats he has worn in recent years which we will explore in greater detail.
Lord Malloch Brown: Not Your Typical British Agent
Through his lifelong affiliation with Soros, Lord Malloch Brown (Knight of the Order of St George and St Michael) played the role of color revolutionary godfather and key controller of such “technocrat friendly puppet leaders” as Corazon Aquino as well as her son Benigno Aquino III of the Philippines, Georgia’s George Saakashvili and even the hapless talking ego Barack Obama.
After working through an extended “apprenticeship” under the cover of UN aid worker, and marauding journalist for the London Economist, Malloch Brown found himself working for a Washington consulting firm named Sawyer Miller in 1985. It was at this time Malloch Brown was deployed to become the advisor and speech writer to Philippine opposition leader Corazon (Cory) Aquino under the supervision of then Secretary of State George Shultz. Corazon was a darling of the western establishment but had the nearly impossible task of challenging the popular nationalist President Ferdinand Marcos who had steered his country into economic sovereignty in opposition to international financiers for since his inauguration in 1965.
Applying all of the arts of perception management and marketing, Malloch Brown took control of Aquino’s campaign transforming it into the “People Power Revolution” that was in many ways the first successful color revolution of our modern times. Knowing that votes would likely favor the incumbent Markos, Malloch Brown wrote that he drafted Aquino’s victory speech before the elections and had her deliver it before votes were even finalized- and which accomplices in the media were all too happy to project publicly fueling the mythology that Corazon had won.
Describing these events years later, Malloch Brown said: “An outstanding accomplishment during the Cory campaign was to produce an exit poll that indicated that she had won. It landed on the front page of the Inquirer and had a profound impact as it planted the idea that Aquino had won over Marcos… Marcos did not really recover after that. It was a very exciting experience to watch.”
Malloch Brown failed to mention that the “polling station results” which produced the false perception that Corazon had won were manipulated by George Shultz’s local agents survey firms Social Weather Station, and Pulse Asia which have never been held accountable for their role in the anti-Marcos coup.
Shock Therapy
Soon after this “accomplishment”, Malloch Brown began working closely with George Soros on a number of projects that radically altered the world during the intense period of transition from a bi-polar to unipolar age.
In 1993, Soros had only recently carried out a speculative attack on the British pound sterling which resulted in $1 billion profit to the Hungarian speculator while providing the UK with a convenient excuse to avoid walking into the Euro trap which it had set for other European targets entering into the “post-nation state epoch”. In 1994, Soros announced a $50 million grant for “democracy building” operations in Macedonia and Bosnia which Malloch Brown was hired to administer as part of the Shatalin Shock therapy agenda.
From 1993-1994, Malloch Brown was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia where advanced the Balkanization projects of the 1990s. In 1998, Malloch Brown also co-founded Soros’s International Criminal Court (ICC) after the duo had created the International Crisis Group (ICG) in 1994. These institutions served to 1) shape “international perception” of the causes and solutions to “crises”, real or fabricated and 2) advocate solutions that removed sovereignty in military and judicial affairs from sovereign nation states where they had been enshrined in the UN Charter, Nuremburg laws and UN Declaration of Human Rights, to supranational unelected organizations under the control of “experts”.
As Vice President of the World Bank from 1995-1999 he took credit for transforming its image to a more democratic organization, and from 1999-2005 led in the creation of the Millennium Development Goals which increasingly tied UN funding to George Soros’ Open Society operations internationally (during his time in New York, Malloch Brown lived on an estate owned by Soros).
R2P and More Color Revolution
During this period, Malloch Brown was among the earliest advocates of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and did more than anyone else to incorporate the doctrine into United Nations “post-Westphalian” governance outlook in 2005 as UN Deputy Secretary General (2005-2006).
Demonstrating his imperial outlook on March 2011, the self-proclaimed “pacifist” grew impatient of nations who were reticent to blow up Libya and wrote in the Financial Times: “declare victory and get on with ousting Gadhafi”.
As co-chair of the International Crisis Group (which was born of seed money from Soros and on whose board of trustees sit Larry Summers, Joe Biden’s advisor Jake Sullivan and both George and Alexander Soros) Malloch Brown supported the narco-terrorist linked Kosovo Liberation Army which was also propped up by both the CIA and NATO during the Bosnia crisis coordinating closely with his Rhodes Scholar colleague Strobe Talbott who referred to Soros in 1995 as“a national resource—indeed, a national treasure.”
Describing Talbott, Malloch Brown recently wrote: “Strobe Talbott, is a very old friend of mine and in some ways a similar sort of practitioner and theoretician of globalisation… As such he really understood the hidden back-story of modern politics, which always gets shoved out of view by the more familiar story of nation-states.”
After bankrolling Georgia’s Rose Revolution in 2003 that put Soros’ Saakashvili in power, the Georgian state was rendered ungovernable due to a mix of vast incompetence and corruption. Here, Soros and Malloch Brown again came to the rescue by organizing a January 2004 event in New York that garnered $1.5 million for Georgian government reform programs (75% from Soros’ Open Society and 25% from the UN Development Program headed by Brown). The UNDP report justified the expense that was to pay Saakashvili’s salary as well as top government officials, and security forces when it said: “Georgia lacked the skilled professionals needed to design and execute sweeping reforms”.
The fact that these actions led to the murder of 1,600 in South Ossetia (mostly Russians) in 2008 and nearly triggered WWIII should not be forgotten, nor should Saakashvili’s nefarious role as Governor of Odessa (2015-16) where the convicted felon protected neo Nazis of the Azov Battalion. Similarly, the strange rise in popularity of Saakashvili underway in Georgia should make anyone with half a brain more than a little concerned.
Handler of Team Obama
On February 24, 2008, Samantha Power, husband to Harvard behaviorist Cass Sunstein and soon-to-be Ambassador to the UN under Obama gave an interview to the London Times describing the Malloch Brown-Obama connection in glaring detail. In this interview, Power said: “The principal conduit between Britain and the Candidate [Obama] has been Lord Malloch Brown, the Junior Foreign Minister, whom Obama came to admire when he [Malloch Brown] was Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations, Obama was really taken with him. It’s a relationship that has persisted and they have talked a number of times since.”
Indeed, Obama’s political career, like Saakashvili’s and Aquino’s, was always a creation of higher powers with Soros even providing the first $60,000 for Obama’s 2004 Senate run and then organizing the earliest fundraising parties for Obama’s Presidential run in 2007.
Samantha Power herself attributed her career to Soros and Lord Brown saying in 2004: “My book and my research was utterly unsustainable on the free market. If I hadn’t been able to get a grant from George Soros and the Open Society Institute, there is no way I could have done the kind of investigative reporting I needed to do”.
The Case of Cass Sunstein
While Power spent her time in the UN fighting viciously to push a pre-emptive P2P humanitarian regime change on Libya and later Syria, her husband Cass Sunstein worked as an advisor to Obama from 2009-2012 and authored a paper addressing the dangerous rise of “conspiracy theories” which threaten his idea of good government. Sunstein wrote “the existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks” and recommended “a series of possible responses” which include cognitive infiltration of conspiracy groups by government agents.
Additionally five options are developed by Sunstein:
“(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counter speech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counter speech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help”
On August 24, 2020 Sunstein was tapped to chair the World Health Organization’s Technical Advisory Group mandated with modifying global behaviour in compliance with the new norms of the pandemic world order. The WHO chief stated “In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are using a range of tools to influence behavior: Information campaigns are one tool, but so are laws, regulations, guidelines and even fines…That’s why behavioral science is so important.”
Dr. Sam Bailey: On Health Freedom Advocates Who Attack Anyone Who Dares to Question Virus & Germ Theory | How RFK, Jr. Was Recently Drawn Into the Viral Existence Debate
Truth Comes to Light editor‘s note: In the video below, Dr. Sam Bailey talks about specific attacks, coming from within the health freedom movement, on the work of those who are questioning the foundations of virus theory.
At this point, most people in the health freedom movement, not to mention the general population, don’t even know that there is a strong debate about the existence of viruses. But awareness is growing.
The so-called, ‘settled science’ of virology must be looked into carefully because, as Dr. Sam Bailey has stated, virus and germ theory “is a system that can and will be used repeatedly to promulgate fear and compliance in the population.”
Dr. Bailey is careful to emphasize that RFK, Jr. is not one of those attacking the work of those who question virology. In this video she shares a segment from a recent public Q&A session wherein Eric Coppolino asks RFK, Jr. some basic questions, pointing to the fact that SARS-C0V-2 has never been shown to exist outside of imagined computer models.
You will find a transcript below the video with links to referenced articles and papers.
RFK, Jr. has been a tireless campaigner in warning the public about the problems of vaccines. However, with regards to the viral existence problem, he has been reluctant to get involved.
Let’s find out what happened when he was drawn into the debate in a recent Q&A session…
Questioning the existence of viruses can be a risky business, as myself and others have found out. However, once you’ve seen the problems with viral theory, it’s not something that can be unseen. It becomes a realization that much of what you were told is factual is not founded in scientific evidence at all. You start to research the material and find that many of the narratives are driven by industry participants and folklore rather than organic science.
While most probably don’t have a dog in the fight, those defending the virus narrative can get pretty hostile.
However, others such as RFK, Jr. simply appear uneasy about mentioning the virus existence issue.
So let’s find out what happened when one of the champions of the health freedom movement was unexpectedly drawn into the debate.
From the start I would like to make it clear that I consider RFK Jr. an ally in promoting health freedom and autonomy. He is a world leader and raising awareness about the risks and ineffectiveness of many vaccines.
I would also say that he has not been ambiguous with regards to his public statements relating to the existence of SARS-CoV-2 or other viruses. As far as I’m aware, he has stated that he believes such viruses exist. Although, in many cases the risks to health and the necessity for a lot of vaccines have been overstated.
I’d also suggest that the virus existence debate does not mean the current health freedom movement will be fractured as some seem to fear.
I don’t mind if other people believe in viruses and germ theory. However, as we point out in ‘Virus Mania’ that is a system that can and will be used repeatedly to promulgate fear and compliance in the population. Once the fatal flaws in the contagion theory are understood, people no longer buy into any of it and don’t get distracted trying to explain different aspects of the scam.
But before we get into RFK Jr.’s recent statements, there have been a few other prominent health freedom fighters who have made forays into the virus existence debate this year.
One was Steve Kirsch. He has been very outspoken about the dangers of the Covid-19 vaccine. Kirsch has realized that many doctors, governments and pharmaceutical companies are playing a game of deception with the public.
But then, on the issue of virus existence he places his faith in the high priests of virology. In early January this year, he decided to announce in his popular blog that SARS-Cov-2 has been isolated and shown to exist.
First, he smeared Drs. Lanka, Kaufman and Cowan with completely inaccurate portrayals of their work and received a huge backlash from his followers in the comment section. Instead of realizing that he might need to conduct his own research into this topic, he then decided to include Christine Massey and myself in the smears.
In a subsequent article 11 days later, curiously Kirsch suggested that we would not front if a live debate was offered.
Well, I can tell you from a series of emails that took place, which Kirsch was part of, that Drs. Bailey times two [Drs. Mark and Samantha Bailey], along with Stefano Scoglio, Drs. Lanka, Cowan and Kaufman, all volunteered to take part in a live debate with any experts that Kirsch was able to produce.
Instead of admitting that he was in over his head, Kirsch posted a third article the following week, embarrassing himself even further with declarations such as: ‘The reason nobody has purified the virus is there is no need to do so in today’s world where gene sequencing is readily available.’ And, ‘if the virus doesn’t exist, then how can 600 labs across the country find the same sequences for the virus in infected samples.’
These kind of statements indicate he’s unaware of the fundamentals of the virus existence debate.
Kirsch doesn’t see that he relies on other “experts” to inform him on the issue. And my husband Mark has written about why this is not a good idea, outlining the nature of the evidence such experts present in his article ‘Warning Signs You’ve Been Tricked by Virologists‘.
As Kirsch has worked out that people selling vaccines may be misleading people, then we would suggest that he peel back another layer to check whether the pharmaceutical and virology establishment, who have billions of dollars of vested interests, may be misleading people with regards to viruses as well.
And some other information I can give you is that I reached out to Steve after he posted his articles offering him a chance to connect, as well as a complimentary copy of ‘Virus Mania’. But he never responded.
In any case, he seems to have gone quiet on the virus existence front, perhaps because he genuinely thinks it’s […] science. Although I would hope that he has some inkling now that there’s more to this than he thought.
Another interesting smear attack against me from a supposed health freedom fighter came from Dr. Roger Watson, writing for The Daily Sceptic in March this year.
This was surprising on a number of fronts. Firstly, because the website developed out of lockdown sceptics and has the motto “question everything”.
However, it seems that questioning the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and the existence of viruses in general is a bridge too far for the so-called ‘Sceptic’.
Secondly, along with my allies including Andy Kaufman and Kevin Corbett, Watson co-signed the viral challenge letter to Boris Johnson demanding that the British prime minister provide proof of the Covid-19 virus. And, if not, then all measures against the nonexistent virus should be dropped.
Obviously, Watson changed his mind at some point and I’m not clear on why that happened. In any case, I had some fun dismantling Watson’s various allegations in my articles ‘The COVID “Sceptics” Who Spread Viral Dogma‘.
Watson’s article was arguably worse […]
Like Kirsch, Watson did not want to enter into a debate about the topic and couldn’t find anyone to front up in his place either. But at least he responded to our emails.
So, now we get to RFK, Jr., which is a slightly different story, as he has not been involved in any smears against me.
In fact, those of you familiar with ‘Virus Mania’ will know that he wrote an important section for our book titled ‘Greed, Negligence and Deception in the Vaccine Industry’.
RFK, Jr. is certainly aware of the controversy surrounding the existence of HIV. As he outlined in his 2022 publication ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’, our friend Tom Cowan even gets a mention in the book when he says: “The first time that someone — Dr. Tom Cowan, a physician from northern California — suggested to me that HIV was not the sole cause of AIDS, I dismissed the comment as ridiculous.”
However, in Chapter 5, ‘The HIV Heresies’, RFK, Jr. goes on to explain how his own research made him realize that there were major problems with the HIV theory.
He is even aware of The Perth Group and the devastating criticisms of the very existence of an infectious HIV particle. Commenting, “In my conversations with Turner and Papadopulos, and in my reading of their paper, I find their arguments clear and convincing. However, I recognize that there are some fifty thousand articles on AIDS in the scientific literature. A casual novitiate like myself has little chance of unraveling this baroque controversy in a vacuum.”
However, most of RFK, Jr.’s focus in the book is on the fact that Anthony Fauci has been instrumental in controlling the HIV/AIDS model and has ruthlessly suppressed dissenting voices.
My hope is that he will read The Perth Group paper ‘HIV – a virus like no other’ one more time and he’ll see there’s no evidence that a pathogenic particle termed HIV exists. And there is no need to read most of the fifty thousand AIDS articles if they fallaciously assert otherwise.
So what happened on April 24 this year — the fundraising event taking place at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Greenwich, Connecticut?
During the Q&A session, my friend and journalist extraordinaire, Eric Coppolino, was there to put some key questions about the existence of SARS-CoV-2 to RFK Jr.
So let’s take a listen to the exchange that takes place between the two of them on that Sunday afternoon.
Eric Coppolino:
Hi Bobby. Thank you. Christine Massey in Toronto has amassed 182 responses under various Freedom of Information law requests from institutions, provincial, state, and federal, national governments which all say no one has a sample of SARS-C0V-2 taken from a human. Would you please comment on that?
RFK, Jr.:
Yeah, I really am not qualified to comment on it, but … My inclination if there are people who say that viruses don’t exist, that there is no virus… I don’t, you know, my inclination is that that simply is not, you know, that’s not true.
Dr. Sam Bailey:
At least he has admitted that he is relying on inclination, rather than having looked into the evidence himself as he has done with vaccines.
RFK, Jr.:
I can’t argue with you, and I can’t…I actually, on our list there’s a number of people who make those kind of arguments. And other people on the list server…and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.
Dr. Sam Bailey:
It’s hard to know exactly what he’s talking about here. If it’s the same virology papers we’ve been looking at, it is certainly unclear how this constitutes a lot of evidence. In my experience, they are usually reciting the paper’s title without critiquing the methodology, which is where all the problems are.
RFK, Jr.:
I am kind of amused reading the exchanges and my inclination is that viruses do exist and do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it seems like viruses are real, and … look, I should have just shut up from the beginning and say I’m not gonna answer that question.
Eric Coppolino:
The governments have said they don’t have a sample.
RFK, Jr.:
…You know what? Actually I saw an email exchange yesterday where somebody made exactly that statement and then ten people jumped on him with examples of where that’s not true.
Dr. Sam Bailey:
This was news to me and I know it was news to Christine Massey, coordinator of the SARS-CoV-2 Freedom of Information Project, who demanded the data from the 10 people on Kennedy’s list who claim to prove that the virus had been isolated.
RFK, Jr.:
…The other thing is, I do know this, when you make a freedom of information request, the freedom of information laws do not require the government agency to do science, or to answer questions, specific questions. What they do is, they, the Freedom of Information laws make it obligatory for the government to give you existing documents. So, if you’re telling the government, “I want you to verify this.” They look at their documents and say, “There’s nothing here to verify it.” It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’ve got nothing. But, listen, again, I am not a … scientist. I don’t pretend to be. I find those arguments interesting. And there’s a guy in California, who I deeply respect, Tom Cowan, who makes those arguments and it really… I can’t answer the question.
Dr. Sam Bailey:
This is another interesting statement and perhaps a chance for RFK, Jr. to reflect on the same battle he faces regarding raising awareness about vaccine problems. The mainstream could dismiss RFK Jr.’s arguments as “not being taken seriously by a lot of other people” because the majority of the medical industry still promote all vaccines. However, ‘appeal to popularity’ is a form of faulty reasoning and has no place in a scientific discussion such as this one.
My experience, and I’m sure Tom Cowan and all others in the movement can attest to, is that the majority of people are simply unaware of this debate and don’t even know that questioning the existence of a virus is a thing. And the individuals and corporations that gain from the virus theory often engage in active suppression of the debate.
Prior to widespread internet usage, dissident authors such as The Perth Group were refused publication opportunities in the medical journals. And in the modern era, material such as mine is banned on all the big tech platforms.
The virus theory was put forward in the late 1800s and, for most of us, it is a revelation to go back through the scientific literature and see the key postulants have not been fulfilled .
One of the most amusing, and perhaps tragic, things you’ll see is websites such as AIDSTruth claiming that the science is settled. In 2015 they announced that they were retiring the website because apparently their work was done. The first sentence of their self-congratulatory announcement shows just how disingenuous they are when they use the term ‘AIDS denialism’, knowing very well that what is in dispute is the HIV/AIDS theory or whether an infectious particle, termed HIV, actually exists.
The group also referred to ‘bumps in the early years of treatment’ which is an obscene way to refer to deaths caused by AZT.
In any case, I wonder if the team might consider resurrecting their website or if they are now too busy working on other projects under organizations such as the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins.
I think if they do decide to get back into it, they’ll find that the number of individuals and groups opposing their position on the HIV/AIDS theory has gone up dramatically.
Mike Stone of Viroliegy, put together a collection of some of the websites questioning viral theory. And many of them, including Viroliegy itself, have appeared in the last two years.
All the individuals I have personally spoken with, that have or are currently pointing out the flaws in viral theory, they share a number of things in common. Firstly, they all believed in the viral theory at some stage. But when they investigated it for themselves, something changed their minds. Secondly, they have all paid a price whether being publicly censured, smeared or blocked from working in the professions. Thirdly, they are all incredibly generous with their time and share the knowledge with everyone that is interested. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, they have a passion for exploring the possibilities and following the scientific trail to wherever it takes them by freeing themselves from the shackles of institutional policies, industry capture and public regulatory bodies.
My feeling is that far more people are moving into the questioning the viral theory camp rather than the other way around.
Who knows. Perhaps now that the door has been opened, RFK. Jr. might take more of a look around.
So that we don’t lose touch please find me at drsambailey.com and sign up for my free newsletter.
James Corbett: I Read Bill Gates’ New Book (So You Don’t Have To!)
In an interview with the National Geographic, Tony Fauci made comments about “alternative views” of the origin of the coronavirus. But he was really talking about all unorthodox medical information:
“Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about—and it’s very difficult for the general public to distinguish. So, make sure the study is coming from a reputable organization that generally gives you the truth—though even with some reputable organizations, you occasionally get an outlier who’s out there talking nonsense. If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”
Right you are, Tony.
So, Tony, here is a very serious statement from a former editor of one of those “places,” the New England Journal of Medicine:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
And here is another one, from the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal, The Lancet, founded in 1823:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)
Why stop there? Let’s consult a late public-health expert whose shoes Fauci would have been lucky to shine: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when Starfield revealed her findings on healthcare in America.
The Starfield review, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:
Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.
On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.
All in all, those parties who could have made effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.
On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.
Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?
A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.
Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?
A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).
Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?
A: NO.
Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?
A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.
Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?
A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!
—end of interview excerpt—
Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the heraldic published studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is completely unreliable, and impenetrable.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON—ARE SAYING.
If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.
As in: DISASTER.
But please, continue to believe everything Fauci is saying. He must be right about the “pandemic.” After all, he has a very important position, and he’s on television.
So what if his policies have torpedoed the economy and devastated and destroyed lives across the country?
So what if he accepted, without more than a glance, that fraud Neil Ferguson’s computer projection of 500,000 deaths in the UK and two million in the US? In 2005, Ferguson said 200 million people could die from bird flu. The final official tally was a few hundred.
So what?
Fauci has an important position, and he’s on television.
It is very apparent to anyone looking into the origins of antibodies that the idea of what these entities are in terms of how they look and how they function came well before any attempts to actually purify, isolate, and characterize the assumed particles. Antibodies were (and still are) nothing more than unseen theoretical constructs used to explain chemical reactions created in a lab. These fictional creations reside in the “domain of the invisible spectrum” conjured up by the “lively imagination” of a man named Paul Ehrlich. While there was no direct proof for the existence of these entities, the antibody concept was far too important to the immunological narratives forming around the growing practice of vaccination and the increased acceptance of other unseen entities known as “viruses” to just give it up. As the purification and isolation of antibodies in order to see and study them was an impossible task, researchers sought other methods to attempt to provide indirect evidence for the existence of these theoretical creations.
One man who is credited with providing such evidece is Michael Heidelberger, considered the “Founder of Immunochemistry.” He was the first to apply mathematics to the reaction of antibodies and their antigens. He is also known for “proving” that antibodies are proteins by showing that the antigens of pneumococcus bacteria are polysaccharides (or carbohydrates). Here is a brief overview of his work:
“Avery and Dochez’s initial characterization of this pneumococcal substance showed that it was resistant to both heat and trypsin—features unbefitting most proteins—but that it did contain nitrogen, a component of proteins. But its true nature was not revealed until 1923, when Michael Heidelberger—then in the chemistry department synthesizing drugs against poliomyelitis and African sleeping sickness—teamed up with Avery.
The more they purified the reactive substance the less nitrogen it contained. When it was virtually nitrogen-free, recalled Heidelberger in a 1979 article, Avery ventured a guess: “Could it be a carbohydrate?” (2). Chemical analysis confirmed its sugary character, and subsequent studies of other pneumococcal serotypes revealed that each bacterial capsule had a distinct polysaccharide signature. It was this signature that dictated the serological specificity of the organism. The duo published these findings in two articles in the Journal of Experimental Medicine (3, 4).
Their results were met with considerable skepticism, as it was then thought that only proteins could incite a specific immune response. “Nobody believed it,” says Emil Gotschlich (Rockefeller University), whose later work on polysaccharide-based vaccines stemmed in large part from Heidelberger and Avery’s discoveries. “It took them a lot of effort to convince people that the polysaccharide was the immunoreactive component.”
Antibodies solidified
Heidelberger and Avery’s discovery came at a time when antibodies were regarded—by those who believed they existed at all—as mysterious substances that floated around in serum. “It appeared to me that there was a crying need to determine the true nature of antibodies,” wrote Heidelberger in 1979, “and that until this was done there could be no end to the polemics and uncertainties that were plaguing immunology” (2). Heidelberger later purified the antibodies from his precipitin reactions and showed that they themselves were proteins. As a result, says friend and colleague Victor Nussenzweig (New York University), “there were no more mystical ideas about what antibodies were.”
Heidelberger and his postdoctoral fellow Forrest Kendall later quantitated the precipitin reaction (5), bringing much-needed mathematics to the study of antibody–antigen interactions and lifting antibodies even further out of the realm of the mysterious (see the next “From the Archive”).”
Heidelberger hard at work using his microscopic vision.
Two of Heidelberger’s papers are most often cited as the proof that antibodies are proteins. The first is a paper he did with Oswald Avery in 1923. It is used as proof that the pneumococcus antigens are carbohydrates. However, was this paper successful in drawing this conclusion? Presented here are some highlights from their collaboration:
“In 1917 Dochez and Avery (1) showed that whenever pneumococci are grown in fluid media, there is present in the cultural fluid a substance which precipitates specifically in antipneumococcus serum of the homologous type. This soluble substance is demonstrable in culture filtrates during the initial growth phase of the organisms; that is, during the period of their maximum rate of multiplication when little or no cell death or disintegration is occurring. The formation of this soluble specific material by pneumococci on growth in vitro suggested the probability of an analogous substance being formed on growth of the organism in the animal body.
Examination of the blood and urine of experimentally infected animals gave proof of the presence of this substance in considerable quantities in the body fluids following intraperitoneal infection with pneumococcus. In other words, this soluble material elaborated at the focus of the disease readily diffuses throughout the body, is taken up in the blood, passes the kidney, and appears in the urine unchanged in specificity. Similarly, a study of the serum of patients suffering from lobar pneumonia has revealed a substance of like nature in the circulating blood during the course of the disease in man. Furthermore, examination of the urine of patients having pneumonia due to pneumococci of Types I, II, and III has shown the presence of this substance in some stage of the disease in approximately two-thirds of the cases.
Recently from filtered alkaline extracts of pulverized bacteria of several varieties, including pneumococci, Zinsser and Parker have prepared substances which appear free from coagulable protein. These substances, called “residue antigens,” are specifically predpitable by homologous antisera. These observers consider these acid- and heat-resistant antigenic materials analogous to the soluble specific substance of pneumococcus described by Dochez and Avery. In spite of the fact that these “residue antigens” are precipitable by homologous sera produced by immunization with the whole bacteria, Zinsser and Parker have so far failed to produce antibodies in animals by injecting the residues.
In the earlier studies by Dochez and Avery certain facts were ascertained concerning the chemical characteristics of this substance. It was found that the specific substance is not destroyed by boiling; that it is readily soluble in water, and precipitable by acetone, alcohol, and ether; that it is precipitated by colloidal iron, and does not dialyze through parchment; and that the serological reactions of the substance are not affected by proteolytic digestion by trypsin. Since the substance is easily soluble, thermostable, and type-specific in the highest degree, it seemed an ideal basis for the beginning of a study of the relation between bacterial specificity and chemical constitution. The present report deals with the work done in this direction.
Experimental
The organism used in the present work was Pneumococcus Type II. The most abundant source of the soluble specific substance appeared to be an 8 day autolyzed broth culture; hence this material was used as the principal source of supply. For comparison dissolved pneumococci and lots of urine containing the specific substance were also worked up, with essentially the same results, as will be seen from Table I.
The process for the isolation of the soluble specific substance consisted in concentration of the broth, precipitation with alcohol, repeated re-solution and reprecipitation, followed by a careful series of fractional precipitations with alcohol or acetone after acidification of the solution with acetic acid, and, finally, repeated fractional precipitation with ammonium sulfate and dialysis of the aqueous solution of the active fractions.
Five lots of 15 liters each of 8 day cultures of Pneumococcus Type II in meat infusion phosphate broth are each concentrated on the water bath in large evaporating dishes to 1,000 to 1,200 cc. and precipitated in a separatory funnel by the gradual addition, with vigorous rotation, of 1.2 volumes of 95 per cent alcohol.The mixture separates into two layers, and is allowed to stand over night, or for several hours.
The upper layer, which is almost black and comprises the largest part of the mixture, contains only traces of the soluble specific substance, and is siphoned off and discarded. The lower, more viscous layer is run into a 250 cc. centrifuge bottle (occasionally a second will be required), capped, and rotated at high speed for ½ hour. Three layers are formed, of which the uppermost is merely a further amount of the liquid previously discarded. The middle layer consists of a compact, greenish cake of insoluble matter and gummy material, and contains most of the soluble specific substance. The bottom layer, from which salts often separate, is a brownish syrup rich in salts and nitrogenous matter and relatively poor in specific substance, and can, by careful manipulation, be poured off to a large extent.
Although a small proportion of the specific substance is lost if this syrup is discarded, its elimination represents so considerable a purification as to warrant the sacrifice of the active material contained. The gummy cake remaining in the centrifuge bottle, together with adhering salts and syrup, is now rinsed out and ultimately combined with similar material from the other lots, All of this is then dissolved as completely as possible in water, care being taken to break up the many lumps of gummy material, diluted to 1 liter, and again precipitated with alcohol. In this case about 1.3 liters are required to precipitate all but the last traces of active material from the upper layer. This is again discarded and the lower layer treated as before. At this stage there is relatively less of the bottom layer, and it is more difficult to separate it from the cake containing the specific substance, but as much as possible is removed. The remaining material is smoothed out with water, diluted to about 500 cc., and centrifuged. The precipitate is washed twice with water, and the washings are combined with the main solution. The still turbid liquid, the volume of which should be about 750 cc., is put through the alcohol purification process a third time, about 1.1 liters of alcohol being required. After having been centrifuged, the active material is again dissolved in water, made definitely acid to litmus with acetic acid, and again centrifuged. The precipitate is washed three times with water acidulated with acetic acid, and the filtrate and washings are combined in a separatory funnel and diluted again if necessary to 750 cc. Acetone (redistilled) is now added until a permanent precipitate forms, about 250 c¢. being necessary. The precipitate is allowed to settle, whereupon the lower part of the mixture containing the precipitate is drawn off and centrifuged. The clear superuatant fluid is restored to the main solution, while the precipitate, which consists largely of insoluble material and gives an aqueous solution almost devoid of activity, is discarded.
Fractional precipitation is continued, and even when the specific substance appears in quantity in the precipitate, it is occasionally possible to separate a lower, inactive, syrupy layer, as in the previous purifications by alcohol. Addition of acetone is continued until a test portion, heated on the water bath to remove acetone, diluted with saline, and neutralized, no longer gives a precipitate with immune serum, after which the upper layer may be discarded. The active precipitates are then redissolved in water, centrifuged again, and the supernatant liquid is diluted to 375 cc., reacidified with acetic acid, and again fractionated with acetone. If inactive fractions are obtained, the process is again repeated until no further purification results. Alcohol may be used for these fracfionations instead of acetone, the only difference being that a somewhat larger proportion is required. The active material is then dissolved in about 150 cc. of water and again made definitely acid with acetic acid. The solution is treated with solid ammonium sulfate until the first slight precipitate forms. This is generally inactive, and if so, may be discarded.
Finally, ammonium sulfate is added to saturation, completely precipitating the specific substance if the volume of the solution is not too great. The mixture is allowed to stand for several hours and is then centrifuged and the precipitate washed with a little saturated ammonium sulfate solution. It is redissolved in about 75 cc. of water acidified with acetic acid, centrifuged if necessary, and again precipitated by saturation with ammonium sulfate. Finally, the specific substance so obtained is dissolved in water and dialyzed first against running tap water in the presence of chloroform and toluene, and finally against distilled water until tests for sulfate and phosphate ion are negative. Addition of acetic acid during the early stages of the dialysis assists in the removal of calcium, which otherwise forms a large part of the ash.
The dialyzed solution is concentrated to dryness on the water bath and the residue redissolved in hot water. If the solution is not perfectly clear, it is centrifuged again before being evaporated to dryness, and the whole process is repeated as long as insoluble material separates. Toward the end of the final concentration absolute alcohol may be added to assist in the precipitation of the substance.
Variations in the exact volumes given are often necessary with different lots of broth, but this will occasion little difficulty if all fractionations are controlled by the specific precipitin test.
As so obtained the soluble specific substance forms an almost colorless varnish-like mass which may be broken up and dried to constant weight at 100°C. in vacuo. The yield from 75 liters of broth averages about 1 gin., although it varies within rather wide limits in individual lots.
By the method outlined above all substances precipitable with hosphotungstic acid or capable of giving the biuret reaction were eliminated. The residual material (Preparation 17, in Table I), for which no claim of purity is made, as efforts at its further purification are still under way, contained, on the ash-free basis, 1.2 percent of nitrogen. It was essentially a polysaccharide, as shown by the formation of 79 percent of reducing sugars on hydrolysis, and by the isolation and identification of glucosazone from the products of hydrolysis.”
“Table I represents a summary of the reactions of some of the earlier preparations worked with, as well as the later ones. Preparation 4 was obtained from the urine of a patient with a Type II pneumococcus infection, while No. 8 was obtained from an antiforrain solution of the pnemnococci. In both of these cases, as well as in Nos. 9, 11, and 15, the method of purification given above had not been fully worked out.
Attempts to stimulate antibody production by the immunization of animals with the purified substance yielded negative results.
Discussion.
While it has long been known that the capsular material of many microorganisms consists, at least in part, of carbohydrates, any connection between this carbohydrate material and the specificity relationships of bacteria appears to have remained unsuspected. While it cannot be said that the present work establishes this relationship, it certainly points in this direction. Evidence in favor of the probable carbohydrate nature of the soluble specific substance is the increase in specific activity with reduction of the nitrogen content, the increase in optical rotation with increase in specific activity, the parallelism between the Molisch reaction and specific activity, the high yield of reducing sugars on hydrolysis, and the actual isolation of glucosazone from a small quantity of the material. The small amounts of substance available up to the present have hindered the solution of the problem, and it is hoped that efforts at further purification of the soluble specific substance, now in progress with larger amounts of material, will definitely settle the question.
Summary.
A method is given for the concentration and purification of the soluble specific substance of the pneumococcus.
The material obtained by this method is shown to consist mainly of a carbohydrate which appears to be a polysaccharide built up of glucose molecules.
Whether the soluble specific substance is actually the polysaccharide, or occurs merely associated with it, is still undecided, although the evidence points in the direction of the former possibility.”
A beautiful mind?
Heidelberger’s original 1923 paper can hardly be claimed to be the slam-dunk proof that bacteria antigens are carbohydrates. For starters, Heidelberger admitted that he was unsure if the presumed “antigen” substance was a carbohydrate or if it was merely associated with it. Even more importantly, he could not produce any antibody response upon injecting his presumed antigen into animals. This would indicate that the substance was not an antigen whatsoever as antigens are specifically defined as “a toxin or other foreign substance which induces an immune response in the body, especially the production of antibodies.” Thus, it seems rather odd to assume antibodies are proteins based off of this work, but assume they did:
“Since the pneumococcal capsular antigen was a polysaccharide, and antibodies were thought to be proteins, Heidelberger realized that by measuring the amount of protein in specific precipitates made with the capsular antigen he could determine their antibody content. Together with Forrest Kendall, who had joined the Heidelberger lab, the protein content of immune precipitates was determined by measuring total nitrogen, using the Kjeldahl procedure that came to be the hallmark of laboratories carrying out Heidelberger-type quantitative immunochemistry.”
Since they assumed the pneumococci bacteria was a polysaccharide, that meant any nitrogen left over was the antibody content. Based on the 1923 paper, this seems to be a rather falicious premise to build from. In any case, Heidelberger carried on with his assumption and it can be seen by this second paper from 1929 how Heidelberger came to his conclusion using the precipitin test and mathematics as proof that antibodies exist. I edited out the long mathematical sections with his equations so if you are interested in Heidelberger showing his work, I recommend reading the full paper. Highlights below:
A Quantitative Study of the Precipitin Reaction Between Type III Pneumococcus Polysaccharide and Purified Homologous Antibody*
“Of all the reactions of immunity the precipitin test is perhaps the most dramatic and striking. While other immune reactions are more delicate, the precipitin test is among the most specific and least subject to errors and technical difficulties. Attempts at its quantitative interpretation and explanation have been hampered either by the difficulty of finding suitable analytical methods or by the failure to separate the reacting substances from closely related, non-specific materials with which they are normally associated.
With the aid of recent work it has been found possible to avoid these difficulties to some extent. The isolation of bacterial polysaccharides which precipitate antisera specifically and possess the properties of haptens has not only afforded one of the components of a precipitin reaction in a state of comparative purity, but has greatly simplified the analytical problem. Since many of these polysaccharides contain no nitrogen, and antibodies presumably are nitrogenous, the latter may be determined in the presence of any amount of the specific carbohydrate. Moreover, Felton’s method for the separation of pneumococcus antibodies from horse serum not only permits the isolation of a high proportion of the precipitin, freed from at least 90 percent of the serum proteins and much of the serum lipoid, but is also applicable on a sufficiently large scale to furnish the amounts of antibody solution needed to make quantitative work possible. It is realized that antibody solutions of this type do not contain pure antibodies–indeed, only 40 to 50 percent of the nitrogen is specifically precipitable–but since so small a proportion of the original serum protein remains with the antibody a far-reaching purification actually has been effected. It should thus be possible with the aid of antibodies purified by Felton’s method to obtain data of a preliminary character which should point toward the mechanism of the reaction. The present paper is concerned with such data obtained in a quantitative study of the precipitin reaction between the soluble specific substance of Type III pneumococcus and Type III pneumococcus antibody solution.
Experimental
1. Materials and Methods.–a. Solutions of Soluble Specific Substance, Type Ill Pneumococcus.–The soluble specific substance of Type III pneumococcus used was kindly supplied by Drs. O. T. Avery and W. F. Goebel of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. It was ash-free, contained 0.04 percent of nitrogen, and showed a/d = -32 °. A weighed amount of anhydrous substance was suspended in 0.9 percent saline, dissolved with the aid of 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide, and the solution was diluted with saline, adjusted to pH 7.6 and made up to volume with saline to yield a 1 percent solution. This was sterilized in the autoclave and used as a stock solution for making up other dilutions. These were prepared with sterile saline under aseptic precautions, and were kept in the ice-box.
b. Type III Pneumococcus Antibody Solution.–The antibody solutions used were prepared essentially according to Felton’s procedure (loc. cit.) from Type III antipneumococcus horse serum containing no preservative and supplied by the New York State Department of Health through the courtesy of Dr. A. B. Wadsworth and Dr. Mary B. Kirkbride. 100 to 200 cc. of serum were stirred slowly into 20 volumes of ice-cold water containing 9.5 cc. of molar potassium dihydrogen phosphate and 0.5 cc. of molar dipotassium hydrogen phosPhate per liter. The final pH varied from 5.6 to 6.3. After standing over night in the cold the supernatant was decanted and the precipitate was centrifuged off in the cold and dissolved in a volume of chilled 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken. 0.1 normal hydrochloric acid was then added until a precipitate no longer formed on dilution of a test portion with two volumes of water, after which 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide solution was added until a slight precipitate again formed on dilution. In general, 5 cc. of acid and 1.5 cc. of alkali per 100 cc. of serum were satisfactory, although as Felton emphasizes, different lots vary and no absolutely definite procedure can be given. In the present work the process of purification was followed either by testing the agglutinating power of the fractions against a heat-killed Type III pneumococcus vaccine, or by the precipitin reaction, or by both methods. After addition of the alkali the opalescent solution was diluted with 2 volumes of water and centrifuged in the cold. The almost inactive precipitate was discarded and the supernatant poured into 6.7 volumes of the chilled buffer solution previously used, (equivalent to 20 times the volume of saline employed), also adding enough 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide to neutralize the remaining acid. The resulting precipitate was collected and dissolved in a volume of 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken, and the pH was adjusted to 7.6. The solution was sterilized by passage through a Berkefeld N grade filter which previously had been washed with saline containing a drop of normal sodium hydroxide, followed by saline alone.
Antibody solutions prepared in this way were found to be rather unstable under the usual conditions of the precipitin test, and it therefore was necessary to subject them to a preliminary “ageing” treatment in order that control solutions might be relied upon to remain clear. This consisted in immersing the solution in a water bath at 37 ° for 2 hours, letting stand in the ice-box over night, centrifuging off the precipitate which usually formed, readjusting the pH if necessary, and filtering through a Berkefeld candle prepared as above. This treatment was repeated as many times as necessary, but the solutions usually remained clear after the second incubation at 37 °. Much time was lost and very inconstant results were obtained until “ageing” was resorted to.
The relative antibody content of the resulting solutions was estimated by determining the agglutination titer against a single heat-killed Type III pneumococcus suspension.
It will be seen from Table I that the agglutination titer and the maximum amount of protein precipitable by the type III polysaccharide ([total N–N in supernatant] X 6.25) are approximately proportional. The latter may therefore be taken as a more definite, though not necessarily more accurate, measure of the actual antibody content of the solutions.
It is also evident that the antibody in all of these solutions has been purified to approximately the same extent, since the ratios of protein precipitable by SSS III to total protein are not very different.”
Discussion
“For purposes of discussion it will be assumed with Felton (lot. cir.) that antibody is ,modified protein, and that, in order to provide a uniform method of measurement, it may be expressed as nitrogen precipitable by specific polysaccharide, multiplied by 6.25. Since only relative values are under consideration, the actual magnitude of the factor used is of little significance so long as it be used throughout. Moreover, Table I shows a correspondence between this measure of antibody content and the agglutination titer, so that its use as a relative measure is independent of the nature of Type III pneumococcus antibodies.
doi: 10.1084/jem.50.6.809.
The Precipitin Reaction
In Summary:
Michael Heidelberger teamed up with Oswald Avery to characterize a “soluble specific substance” found in pneumococcal bacteria that fell out of solution when incubated with type-specific antisera
When it was virtually nitrogen-free, recalled Heidelberger in a 1979 article, Avery ventured a guess: “Could it be a carbohydrate?”
Chemical analysis confirmed its sugary character, and subsequent studies of other pneumococcal serotypes revealed that each bacterial capsule had a distinct polysaccharide signature
It was this signature that dictated the serological specificity of the organism
Their results were met with considerable skepticism, as it was then thought that only proteins could incite a specific immune response
According to polysaccharide-based vaccine specialist Emil Gotschlich: “Nobody believed it. It took them a lot of effort to convince people that the polysaccharide was the immunoreactive component.”
Heidelberger and Avery’s discovery came at a time when antibodies were regarded—by those who believed they existed at all—as mysterious substances that floated around in serum
“It appeared to me that there was a crying need to determine the true nature of antibodies,” wrote Heidelberger in 1979, “and that until this was done there could be no end to the polemics and uncertainties that were plaguing immunology”
Heidelberger and his postdoctoral fellow Forrest Kendall later quantitated the precipitin reaction, bringing much-needed mathematics to the study of antibody–antigen interactions and lifting antibodies even further out of the realm of the mysterious
In 1917 Dochez and Avery showed that whenever pneumococci are grown in fluid media, there is present in the cultural fluid a substance which precipitates specifically in antipneumococcus serum of the homologous type
It was assumed that the formation of this soluble specific material by pneumococci on growth in vitro suggested the probability of an analogous substance being formed on growth of the organism in the animal body
Examination of the urine of patients with pneumococci showed the substance in only approximately 2/3rds of the samples
Zinsser and Parker found similar substances with other bacteria and believe that the substances are the same as that of the pneumococci
In spite of the fact that these “residue antigens” are precipitable by homologous sera produced by immunization with the whole bacteria, Zinsser and Parker failed to produce antibodies in animals by injecting the residues.
The process for the isolation of the soluble specific substance consisted in:
Concentration of the broth
Precipitation with alcohol
Repeated re-solution and reprecipitation
A careful series of fractional precipitations with alcohol or acetone after acidification of the solution with acetic acid
Repeated fractional precipitation with ammonium sulfate and dialysis of the aqueous solution of the active fraction
For a complete step-by-step breakdown of the numerous chemical-altering procedures done to the sample, see the highlighted tan section of the paper provided above
Even with the numerous “purification” steps, the obtained soluble specific substance formed an almost colorless varnish-like mass
The residual material for which no claim of purity was made, as efforts at its further purification were still under way, contained, on the ash-free basis, 1.2 percent of nitrogen.
It was considered essentially a polysaccharide
The method of purification given had not been fully worked out for many of the preparations
Attempts to stimulate antibody production by the immunization of animals with the purified substance yielded negative results
While it had long been known that the capsular material of many microorganisms consists, at least in part, of carbohydrates, any connection between this carbohydrate material and the specificity relationships of bacteria remained unsuspected
While it could not be said that their work established this relationship, they felt it certainly pointed in that direction
The small amounts of substance available hindered the solution of the problem, and it was hoped that efforts at further purification of the soluble specific substance with larger amounts of material would definitely settle the question
Whether the soluble specific substance is actually the polysaccharide, or occurs merely associated with it, was left undecided
Heidelberger acknowledged that the precipitin test he used during this experiment has 2 drawbacks:
Quantitative interpretation/explanation is difficult due to lack of a suitable analytical method
Failure to separate out the reacting substances from non-specific material which these substances are closely related to and associated with
He stated that it was possible to avoid these failures to some extent
It is presumed that antibodies are nitrogenous
Only 90% of the precipitin can be freed from serum proteins and “much” of the lipoid
Heidelberger admitted that these are not pure antibodies and that only 40-50% of nitrogen is precipitable while small amounts of serum remain
The antibody solutions used were prepared essentially according to Felton’s procedure from Type III antipneumococcus horse serum containing no preservative and supplied by the New York State Department of Health through the courtesy of Dr. A. B. Wadsworth and Dr. Mary B. Kirkbride
100 to 200 cc. of serum were stirred slowly into 20 volumes of ice-cold water containing 9.5 cc. of molar potassium dihydrogen phosphate and 0.5 cc. of molar dipotassium hydrogen phosphate per liter
The final pH varied from 5.6 to 6.3
After standing over night in the cold the supernatant was decanted and the precipitate was centrifuged off in the cold and dissolved in a volume of chilled 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken
0.1 normal hydrochloric acid was then added until a precipitate no longer formed on dilution of a test portion with two volumes of water, after which 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide solution was added until a slight precipitate again formed on dilution
In general, 5 cc. of acid and 1.5 cc. of alkali per 100 cc. of serum were satisfactory, although as Felton emphasized, different lots vary and no absolutely definite procedure can be given
After addition of the alkali the opalescent solution was diluted with 2 volumes of water and centrifuged in the cold
The almost inactive precipitate was discarded and the supernatant poured into 6.7 volumes of the chilled buffer solution previously used, (equivalent to 20 times the volume of saline employed), also adding enough 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide to neutralize the remaining acid
The resulting precipitate was collected and dissolved in a volume of 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken, and the pH was adjusted to 7.6
The solution was sterilized by passage through a Berkefeld N grade filter which previously had been washed with saline containing a drop of normal sodium hydroxide, followed by saline alone
Antibodies were found to be unstable during testing so they were put through preliminary “ageing” processes as many times as needed until they got the result they wanted
Much time was lost and very inconstant results were obtained until “ageing” was resorted to.
The relative antibody content of the resulting solutions was estimated by determining the agglutination titer against a single heat-killed Type III pneumococcus suspension
For purposes of discussion it was assumed with Felton that antibody is modified protein, and that, in order to provide a uniform method of measurement, it may be expressed as nitrogen precipitable by specific polysaccharide, multiplied by 6.25
There is no need to spend any more time on the rest of Heidelberger’s paper as he admitted he assumed antibodies were protein and could be expressed as nitrogen thus he did not prove anything
Why would monoclonal antibodies not form a precipitate?
It is rather obvious that many assumptions were made about a substance (antibodies) for which the researchers could not see. Michael Heidelberger assumed that antibodies are modified proteins and nitrogenous. He assumed that it may be expressed as nitrogen precipitable by specific polysaccharide, multiplied by 6.25. He assumed that the failure of the precipitin test to separate out the reacting substances from non-specific material which these substances are closely related to and associated with could be somewhat avoided to some extent. He assumed that his earlier work with the pneumococcus bacteria was accurate and that he had proved the antigen component was a carbohydrate even though he was unable to produce any antibody response upon immunizing animals using his supposed antigen. Maybe this lack of any antibody response to his “antigen” has to do with the fact that, according to the WHO, the pneumococcus bacteria is regularly found in healthy people?
“Infection is acquired mainly through pneumococci contained in respiratory droplets. There are many healthy, asymptomatic carriers of the bacteria but no animal reservoir or insect vector.”
If an antigen is a toxin or foreign substance which produces an immune response creating antibodies, the pneumococci bacteria doesn’t meet that definition at all. If it isn’t an antigen, then the pneumococcus “antigen” would not be carbohydrates as described in Heidelberger’s 1923 paper. This would mean that Heidelberger’s 1929 paper measuring any of the remaining protein content, calculating the amount, and claiming the resulting protein mass as antibodies is essentially meaningless. Can you see the problem with assuming things to be true without ever proving this to be the case?
The conclusions drawn by Heidelberger were born out of chemistry experiments and reactions using the precipitin test which have no bearing on reality while using mathematical equations attempting to quantify the unquantifiable. Whether or not these indirect experiments and assumptions provide proof that antibodies exist and are proteins, I leave up to the reader. However, keep in mind that no antibodies had ever been seen nor proven to exist by proper purification and isolation up to that time and that still holds true to date. This work is based off of theoretical explanations of immunity for which nothing could be observed. Heidelberger’s indirect chemical reactions and equations provided no direct evidence for the existence of anything other than non-specific precipitate.
Dr. Tom Cowan has recently created a series of videos where he takes a close look at what some leaders in the anti-covid-vax arena are presenting as science. Dr. Cowan’s videos can be found at his Rumble and BitChute channels.
For those of you who listen to a lot of alternative “anti-vax” presentations about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and end up feeling that you’ve just listened to a lot of faux-science gobbledygook, you’re not alone.
Below, Truth Comes to Light has clipped two key segments from the longer video where Dr. Cowan looks into Dr. Judy Mikovits’ presentations and papers related to SARS-C0V-2. Dr. Tom Cowan’s full video is also found below.
“Science has become the enterprise of people using words and concepts to make things, that everybody otherwise would understand, basically incomprehensible.”
“There are some basic ways that all of us — men, women, human beings — understand the world. It’s very clear and simple to us. And if we applied that same thinking to subjects in science and biology and medicine I think it would be fairly easy for us to find our way and to see what’s true and what isn’t true.
The problem has become that so-called scientists, especially virologists and medical doctors, have made the whole thing so confusing that most people seem to lose their bearings as far as understanding just the usual, common sense, logical, rational way of thinking and end up believing something that they wouldn’t possibly believe if they really understood the issues.”
“I’m not anti-vaccine. I just want them to be safer and more effective.”
I love that statement. It’s a lullaby. When I can’t go to sleep at night, I just repeat it to myself a few times, and I’m out cold.
It’s typical of half a revolution, which never wins.
For the past 32 years, I’ve presented overwhelming evidence that no vaccine was ever safe or effective. The whole “science” of vaccination is a rank fraud.
But stuffed-shirt journalists, who sort of go against the grain while maintaining a front of respectability, don’t want to venture that far. They know the price they’ll have to pay. They’re hedging their bets.
Occasionally, one of them will take a swipe at me. It cements their position as middle of the road. Which is where they want to be.
Except, liberty and freedom, which is what we’re fighting for, against a global coup by mass medical murders, isn’t something you win in the middle of the road.
You don’t win by trying to come off like a Washington Post reporter who just happens to have different and dissenting ideas. That’s what half-ass looks like.
That sort of person is basically saying, “I have a machine mind like other machine minds. The difference is, I’m inputting different data and therefore drawing different conclusions. If you, too, have a machine mind, read what I write and let’s establish truth and justice…”
The long-term effect of that is like pissing through a fire hose to put out a conflagration taking down a city.
This is simple. If one group of “superior” machine minds wins against another group of machine minds—regardless of which issues come out on top—there is no revolution. LIFE AND FREEDOM have been excised out of the equation.
A considerable amount of money and effort have gone into building a modern culture composed of what looks like science and rationality, but isn’t. It’s a cartoon. A fucking cartoon.
There’s no JUICE in it.
That’s why I use the phrase machine-minds. Minds that calculate and process and collate and compare and then exude “better answers.” This is your educated class. Careful, cautious. Circumspect.
“Delivery, sir. Here are flowers you ordered. I’m sorry they’re dead.”
“I don’t mind dead. But I ordered roses and you brought me tulips. I can prove it. Let me just find the receipt here on my cell phone. And then I can show you these withered blossoms are actually tulips. There are 32 differences between the two types of flowers…”
That’s your educated class.
See, I’ve been at this for 38 years. Reporting. Writing. Actually, I’ve been writing for 66 years. I’ve made the cases I wanted to make. I’ve shoved the evidence in people’s faces. The overall medical cartel is waging a VERY successful war against the people.
You have to turn that evidence with torque, with leverage, into a flamethrower. You’re not just trying to set the record straight and bring in truth, you’re using the truth to crash the gold-plated systems of machine minds.
Those minds are remote. Distant. Distant is where Big Tech domeheads operate from. They profile, they plan, they crunch trillions of pieces of data, and they develop strategies to build a civilization that looks like their minds and their computers.
When one of these high-IQ blown dry characters develops his version of a conscience, and turns whistleblower, he’s a hero to his ilk. He speaks their language. He thinks the way they do. He geeks like they geek.
If I have to guess which guy has more freedom in his belly and his brain, I’m going with the man who lives up in the hills of Tennessee with a shotgun and a dog. If he doesn’t like what I’m writing, I might think about his reasons for a half-hour. Whereas, when an “alt. journalist” claims I’m “going too far,” I know exactly what his game is. He’s spraying his usual brand of sanitizing respectable room-deodorant.
I’ll put this another way. Two men are discussing how to choose a wife. They’re looking at two different lists of characteristics a man should consider and check. But neither man mentions LOVE, so it doesn’t matter which list they decide is superior. They don’t know what love is. What they’re really discussing are machine-thoughts.
If the COVID narrative had never been launched, if we were living now as we did in 2018, we would still have a medical cartel taking away our freedom and killing and maiming an extraordinary number of people. And that will still be the case, even if all COVID mandates and restrictions are defeated.
Plus, the Brave New World on the drawing boards is fronted by medical people. Three of its main features are genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and human-computer interfaces and hybrids. If you think all possible freedom is now under fire, you haven’t seen anything yet.
Way back when, I was briefly trained in two schools. The first was formal logic, taught by a beloved college professor with an extraordinarily sophisticated mind and a huge heart. The second school consisted of two or three encounters with Ida Honorof, activist and author. She was barely five feet tall, and she had the energy, in her 70s, of ten tigers. She explained to me one afternoon, on a street corner, that officials in Los Angeles were spraying a version of deadly Agent Orange in the Angeles National Forest. She handed me a few pounds of corporate and government documents detailing the massive toxicity of a variety of pesticides. She kick-started my life as a reporter.
Neither one of these people engaged in coddling. They didn’t sit around planning their fronts and poses of respectability. They didn’t want half a revolution. They didn’t equivocate.
I’ve never been a big fan of equivocation. I’m over at the I-don’t-give-a-shit end of the spectrum.
Find answers—then shove in all your chips. At the end of the night, don’t leave anything on the table.
Fortunately for all of us, there is a life after this one. But we’re here now, so we’re fighting.
Make it COUNT.
In the wind and the rain and the storm, issue no apologies.
Next, the 
Are the new jabs already prepped & ready to go?
