Joining me today is Derrick Broze, here to discuss his ongoing investigation into the Utah County Sheriff’s Office allegations of ‘Ritualistic Child Sex Abuse’, as well as the history of these types of cases in Utah and the Mormon Church specifically.
Hunter Lundy, a personal injury attorney and lead counsel on a lawsuit against the cellphone industry, joined co-counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on a recent episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast.”
Research shows “there is causation between cellphone radiation and brain tumors,” according to Hunter Lundy, a personal injury attorney and lead counsel on a lawsuit against the cellphone industry.
Lundy is representing the family of the late Reverend Frank Aaron Walker. Walker died Dec. 31, 2020, at age 49, from a glioblastoma brain tumor — or what Lundy referred to as a “cellphone tumor.”
“[Walker] had tremendous cellphone exposures,” Lundy told Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on a recent episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast.”
Kennedy also is on the legal team representing the Walker family, which names Motorola, AT&T, ZTE Corporation, Cricket Communications and the Telecommunications Industry Association as defendants.
According to the lawsuit, the defendants “downplayed, understated and/or did not state the health hazards and risks associated with cellphones” — even though they knew about them.
The lawsuit accuses the defendants of fraud, unfair trade practices, designed defects, inadequate warning and misrepresentation.
“The public is not being told the truth,” Lundy said. “People hold that cellphone next to their brain. The temporal lobe is the lobe surrounding the side of the brain of the ear, which gets the most exposure.”
According to Kennedy, cellphones transmit “dangerous carcinogenic radiation” even when people aren’t using them.
“The more apps you have on your phone, the more radiation is being transmitted,” Kennedy said. “Those apps are in communication with the tower all the time.”
Lundy said peer-reviewed studies show cellphone radiation affects not just the brain, but also other parts of the body. “There are studies that show men that put the cellphone in their pocket have a reduction of sperm count,” he said.
Research also shows women who put their cellphones in their bras “when they were exercising, jogging, they started showing up with tumors,” Lundy said.
European countries are already aware of the dangers of cellphone radiation and in some countries, you can’t have a cellphone unless you’re 16.
Kennedy shared that there is a series of patents going back to the 1990s that show the telecommunication industry was patenting technology to “protect human tissue from radiation that they knew was emanating from their cellphones and destroying human cells, mutating them and it causing tumors.”
Since the industry would have to admit what it did was wrong, the patents ended up being shelved.
Lundy’s law firm is in possession of those old patents and is using them as evidence in the Walker case.
“They knew exactly what was happening,” he said.
Watch the podcast here:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
Jim Smith – whose concurrent roles as a Pfizer board member and Reuters CEO appear to pose a conflict of interest – serves as a board member of the World Economic Forum’s anti-corruption initiative.
Smith’s leading role with the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Partnering Against Corruption Initiative follows controversy over his position at the pharmaceutical giant and mainstream media outlet, which frequently reports on Pfizer. Reuters has published tens of thousands of articles covering or mentioning Pfizer, though the articles never disclose Smith’s affiliation with either entity.
Smith serves on the board of the WEF’s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative, dubbed the “leading business voice on anti-corruption and transparency.”
“It is one of the Forum’s strongest cross-industry collaborative efforts and is creating a highly visible, agenda-setting platform by working with business leaders, international organizations and governments to address corruption, transparency and emerging-market risks,” explains a WEF synopsis.
“Today’s common struggle against corruption goes far beyond compliance. More problematic is the profound and worsening trust deficit that exists between institutions and individuals,” Smith begins before lamenting the public’s loss of trust in mainstream media outlets:
“The widespread perception that institutions—both public and private—are not acting in the interests of the people they serve pervades the thinking of communities across the globe. News organizations, which have historically served as the watchdog for governments and business leaders, are less trusted by the public than ever before.”
“Public confidence has been corroded by a concentration on near-term priorities and payoffs, propelled by election-cycle politics or quarterly results targets that too often leave children worse off than their parents,” laments Smith.
The article, however, comes amidst the Federal Drug Administration and Pfizer attempting to delay the release of documents related to the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine.
The WEF has been accused of exploiting COVID-19 to advance its “Great Reset” agenda to advance its radical agenda of abolishing private property ownership.
A correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in western states has been found by University of Idaho and Northern Arizona University researchers. Two studies were conducted, one that examined correlating data in 11 Western states and one that took a closer look at data in Idaho specifically.
The studies found a possible relationship between agricultural pesticides, particularly fumigants such as metam, and cancer incidences through analyzing data. For the larger study, pesticide data was pulled from the U.S. Geological Survey Pesticide National Synthesis Project database and cancer data was gathered from National Cancer Institute State Cancer Profiles, according to the study.
The other study examined Idaho specifically, and found similar trends in data as the first study saw across the West of the lower 48.
Alan Kolok, a UI professor and director of the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, led both studies and said the correlation between the sets of data on multiple population scales gives him a reason to want to look into the matter further.
“We’re not trying to be alarmist, and we’re not trying to say, ‘Oh, look, there’s a direct relationship between (the data),’” Kolok said. “That’s not at all what they’re saying. But at the same time, it would be disingenuous of us to not recognize that in a darkened room, we keep seeing a shiny object. It really is a call to action of let’s do more research and let’s elaborate on what’s going on relative to that shiny object.”
Kolok and fellow UI researcher Naveen Joseph said there have been many studies examining correlations between socioeconomic factors, like poverty, and cancer incidents, but theirs takes a step further by looking for an initiating factor. In this case, the data suggested a higher usage of fumigants like metam is correlated with higher cancer incidence rates.
Idaho is the only state Kolok has taken a close look at, and his colleague and co-author at Northern Arizona University, Cathy Propper, said she didn’t know if the right data was available in other states like it was in Idaho.
“If we wanted to look just within states, like Alan did within Idaho, it might be possible to extract similar kinds of information,” Propper said. “But as you can see when you take a look at the statewide analysis within the joint paper, every state’s different. As you go into each individual state, you start getting different kinds of scaling issues. So unless the data are fine grained enough to be able to extract that kind of information, it becomes difficult to interpret within states.”
The team of researchers was also concerned about breaching people’s privacy when it came to looking at specific data too closely. Rural areas, where agricultural practices and low populations dominate, could pose issues with privacy when the sample size becomes too small. To avoid this, the research was conducted by looking at all incidences of cancer in adults and children across the 11 states compared to pesticide use.
Kolok said the next steps they hope to take include expanding their data research to a nationwide scale and further examining whether there is a cause behind the correlation between pesticides and cancer. While neither UI or NAU have the laboratory capabilities to prove or disprove the correlation, Kolok is hoping to eventually find a lab to collaborate with and get funding to continue the research.
“It is absolutely striking how different states are from each other and counties are from each other,” Kolok said. “Which begs the question of if the pesticide load is different that’s being used in the state, does that cascade to a potential exposure to people? And the answer, from our two papers, is that there is suggested information that argues that it very well may. It’s a first step down that road, but it’s a significant first step.”
The World Health Organisation has reconfirmed its status as an unscientific politically driven globalist body by officially stating that there are more than two biological genders.
The WHO has announced that it intends to update its “widely-used gender mainstreaming manual.”
The suggestion that there’s a need for a manual on how many genders there are should tell you something about this organisation off the bat.
the WHO say they’re modernizing its “gender mainstreaming manual”….because apparently biology doesn’t matter anymore. https://t.co/23dp7wdrYt
— Toxic Masculinity (@toxicmasculin8t) July 12, 2022
The body says of the manual that it is “updating it in light of new scientific evidence and conceptual progress on gender, health and development.”
What exactly that ‘scientific evidence’ is is still a mystery.
The press release from the WHO states that part of its new findings to go into the manual is that “sex is not limited to male or female.”
The WHO states that it is “going beyond binary approaches to gender and health,” in order “[t]o recognize gender and sexual diversity, or the concepts that gender identity exists on a continuum and that sex is not limited to male or female.”
The globalist body, in partnership with the United Nations University International Institute for Global Health, also intends to introduce “new gender, equity and human rights frameworks and tools to further support capacity building around these concepts and the integration of their approaches.”
These, whatever they are, will be ‘finalised and rolled out’ in August and beyond:
In other words, the WHO is realigning to further push the social engineering message that is already being rammed down our throats ceaselessly via politics, business, policing and what passes for culture and entertainment.
However, despite its relentless promotion in virtually every sector of society, belief in the reality of this ideology is falling amongst Americans, with only 38% believing biological sex does not determine whether someone is a man or a woman.
According to new polling from Pew, 60% of Americans believe that gender is determined by sex assigned at birth, in comparison to 38% who say otherwise.
Since 2017, the electorate has shifted 12 points in favor of the position that gender is determined by biology. pic.twitter.com/5gxWhDNo9u
On a recent episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” guitarist Jeff Diamond described having eight fingers amputated and losing his singing voice after developing blood clots about a week after getting the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.
On July 9, 2021, Jeff Diamond, a professional musician, vocal instructor and backup guitarist, got the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine.
About a week later, Diamond was found unconscious in his apartment and taken to a local hospital in Minnesota, where he remained in a coma for three weeks.
The condition caused doctors to amputate eight of his fingers, without his knowledge or consent, while he was still in a coma.
Diamond, a guest on the July 5 episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” told Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., he got the vaccine only because he’d been performing at an event in Atlanta, and didn’t want to risk infecting his mother.
“I was taking care of my mother, and that’s the only reason I got the shot in the first place,” Diamond said.
When Diamond awoke from the coma, he also found himself intubated, which impaired his singing voice.
With his kidneys barely functioning and his balance thrown off by all the medications he was prescribed, Diamond lay in the hospital for another three weeks until he was able to go into a nursing home.
While in the nursing home for six weeks, Diamond’s feeding tube burst open and he was rushed to an emergency room. “Blood was gushing out of my stomach,” he told Kennedy. It “almost killed me.”
A doctor in Minneapolis saved his life, but Diamond told Kennedy he’s been “in pain with these fingers ever since.” Diamond was fitted with prosthetic fingers, but while “they may look great,” he said, “they’re not working out for playing the guitar.”
Diamond’s singing voice has “bounced back a bit,” he said, but not all the way.
And it’s “all from, I believe, the Johnson & Johnson shot,” Diamond said.
Now, a year after he was injured, Diamond said he’s taking things day by day, and hopes to someday play guitar again.
More importantly, though, he wants to get the word out about what happened to him.
“What happened to me … I don’t want to see this happen to anybody else,” Diamond said. “I think it’s a crime … People have got to be held accountable.”
Watch the podcast here:
Rachel Militello has worked extensively as a legal assistant at law firms and newspaper companies. She is also a self-published author of poetry that is geared toward mental health awareness.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
According to Alexandra Latypova, an ex-pharmaceutical industry executive, documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine suggest the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Moderna colluded to bypass regulatory and scientific standards used to ensure products are safe.
According to an ex-pharmaceutical industry and biotech executive, documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine suggest the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Moderna colluded to bypass regulatory and scientific standards used to ensure products are safe.
Alexandra Latypova has spent 25 years in pharmaceutical research and development working with more than 60 companies worldwide to submit data to the FDA on hundreds of clinical trials.
After analyzing 699 pages of studies and test results “supposedly used by the FDA to clear Moderna’s mRNA platform-based mRNA-1273, or Spikevax,” Latypova told The Defender she believes U.S. health agencies are lying to the public on behalf of vaccine manufacturers.
“It is evident that the FDA and NIH [National Institutes of Health] colluded with Moderna to subvert the regulatory and scientific standards of drug safety testing,” Latypova said.
“They accepted fraudulent test designs, substitutions of test articles, glaring omissions and whitewashing of serious signs of health damage by the product, then lied to the public on behalf of the manufacturers.”
In an op-ed on Trial Site News, Latypova disclosed the following findings:
Moderna claims the active substance — mRNA in Spikevax — does not need to be studied for toxicity and can be replaced with any other mRNA without further testing.
Moderna’s nonclinical program consisted of irrelevant studies of unapproved mRNAs and only one non-GLP [Good Laboratory Practice] toxicology study of mRNA-1273 — the active substance in Spikevax.
The FDA failed to question Moderna’s “scientifically dishonest studies” dismissing an “extremely significant risk” of vaccine-induced antibody-enhanced disease.
The FDA and Moderna lied about reproductive toxicology studies in public disclosures and product labeling.
“Moderna’s documents are poorly and often incompetently written — with numerous hypothetical statements unsupported by any data, proposed theories, and admission of using unvalidated assays and repetitive paragraphs throughout,” Latypova wrote.
“Quite shockingly, this represents the entire safety toxicology assessment for an extremely novel product that has gotten injected into millions of arms worldwide.”
According to Latypova, about 80% of the materials disclosed by HHS that FDA considered in approving Moderna’s Spikevax pertain to other mRNA products unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.
“Approximately 400 pages of the materials belong to a single biodistribution study in rats conducted at the Charles River facility in Canada for an irrelevant test article, mRNA-1674,” Latypova said. “This product is a construct of 6 different mRNAs studied for cytomegalovirus in 2017 and never approved for market.”
Latypova said the study showed lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) distribute throughout the entire body to all major organ systems.
Latypova found it odd the study protocol, report and amendments related to the study were copied numerous times throughout the HHS documents, suggesting Moderna may have been trying to meet a minimum word count.
In between the repetitive copies of the “same irrelevant study,” Latypova found “ModernaTX, Inc. 2.4 Nonclinical Overview” for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine with the investigational new drug application reference IND #19745.
Module 2.4, she said, is a standard part of the new drug application and is supposed to contain summaries of nonclinical studies.
“There are three separate versions of Module 2.4 included and many sections appear to be missing. It is not clear why multiple versions are included and there is no explanation provided as to which version specifically was used for the approval of Spikevax by the FDA.”
Latypova noted all three copies of Module 2.4 appear to have the same overview but reference a different set of statements and studies.
Latypova said the description of the finished supplied product differs between the two versions:
“Version 1 (p. 0001466) [says] mRNA-1273 is provided as a sterile liquid for injection at a concentration of 5 mg/mL in 20 mM trometamol (Tris) buffer containing 87 mg/mL sucrose and 10.7 mM sodium acetate, at pH 7.5.
“Version 2 (p. 0001499) [says] the mRNA-1273 Drug Product is provided as a sterile suspension for injection at a concentration of 20 mg/mL in 20 mM Tris buffer containing 87 g/L sucrose and 4.3 mM acetate, at pH 7.5.”
“It appears from reading section 2.4.1.2 Test Material (p.0001499) that Version 2 of the drug product had been used for manufacturing the Lot AMPDP-200005 which was used for nonclinical studies,” Latypova said. But “there is no explanation given for why the drug product in version 1 is different, and no comparability testing studies between the two product specifications are provided.”
Latypova pointed out that the package insert for FDA-approved Spikevax does not contain any information regarding the concentration of the product supplied in its vials.
Finding 2: Moderna said Spikevax mRNA does not need to be studied for toxicity and can be replaced with any other mRNA without further testing.
Latypova alleges Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen — manufacturer of the Johnson & Johnson shot — along with the FDA, have been deceptive in their assertions claiming the risks of COVID-19 vaccines are associated with the LNP delivery platform, and therefore, the mRNA “payload” does not need to undergo standard safety toxicological tests.
The documents state:
“The distribution, toxicity, and genotoxicity associated with mRNA vaccines formulated in LNPs are driven primarily by the composition of the LNPs and, to a lesser extent, by the biologic activity of the antigen(s) encoded by the mRNA. Therefore, the distribution study, Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant toxicology studies, and in vivo GLP-compliant genotoxicity study conducted with mRNA vaccines that encode various antigens developed with the Sponsor’s mRNA-based platform using SM 102-containing LNPs are considered supportive and BLA-enabling for mRNA-1273.”
Moderna is “claiming that the active drug substance of a novel medicine does not need to be tested for toxicity,” Latypova said. “This is analogous to claiming that a truck carrying food and a truck carrying explosives are the same thing. Ignore the cargo, focus on the vehicle.”
Latypova called the claim “preposterous,” as mRNAs and LNPs separately and together are “entirely novel chemical entities” that each require their own IND application and data dossier filed with regulators.
“Studies with one mRNA are no substitute for all others,” she added.
“The modified mRNA in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine is a chemical active substance that has not been previously authorized in medicinal products in the European Union. From a chemical structure point of view, the modified mRNA is not related to any other authorized substances. It is not structurally related as a salt, ester, ether, isomer, mixture of isomers, complex or derivative of an already approved active substance in the European Union.
“The modified mRNA is not an active metabolite of any active substance(s) approved in the European Union. The modified mRNA is not a pro-drug for any existing agent. The administration of the applied active substance does not expose patients to the same therapeutic moiety as already authorized active substance(s) in the European Union.
“A justification for these claims is provided in accordance with the ‘Reflection paper on the chemical structure and properties criteria to be considered for the evaluation of new active substance (NAS) status of chemical substances’ (EMA/CHMP/QWP/104223/2015), COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine is therefore classified as a New Active Substance and considered to be new in itself.”
“The reviewers specifically stated ‘modified RNA’ and not just the lipid envelope constitute the new chemical entity,” Latypova said. “All new chemical entities must undergo rigorous safety testing before they are approved as medicinal products in the United States, European Union and the rest of the world.”
Latypova said Moderna failed to cite any studies showing “all toxicity of the product resides with the lipid envelope and none with the payload” of the type and sequence of mRNA delivered to various tissues and organs.
“It is also not a matter of a mistake or rushing new technology to market under crisis conditions,” she added. “This scientifically fraudulent strategy was not only premeditated, it was also never really concealed.”
Latypova gave the example of a 2018 PowerPoint presentation by Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel at a JP Morgan conference where he stated: “If mRNA works once, it will work many times.”
“This describes the deception practiced by the manufacturers, FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NIH and every government health authority or mainstream media talking head who participated in it,” Latypova said.
She continued:
“Imagine Ford Motor Company claiming that its crash testing program should be contained to the vehicle’s tires and that one test is sufficient for all vehicle models.
“After all both F150 and Taurus have tires, what’s in between the tires ‘worked once and will work again,’ and therefore it is inconsequential to safety, does not need to be separately tested and can be replaced at the manufacturer’s will with any new variation.
“This is the claim that Moderna, Pfizer, Janssen and other manufacturers of the gene therapy ‘platforms’ have utilized. Unlike Ford’s products, theirs have never worked as none of their mRNA-based gene therapy products have ever been approved for any indication. The fact that the regulators did not object to this argument raises an even greater alarm.”
“There is no question of incompetence or mistake,” Latypova said. “If this represents the current ‘gold standard’ of regulatory pharmaceutical science, I have very bad news regarding the safety of the entire supply or new medicines in the U.S. and the world.”
Finding 3: Moderna’s nonclinical program included only one non-GLP toxicology study of the active substance in Spikevax.
According to Latypova, a non-clinical program for a novel product usually includes information on pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety pharmacology, toxicology and other studies to determine the carcinogenicity or genotoxicity of a drug and its effects on reproduction.
The more novel the product, the more extensive the safety and toxicity evaluations need to be, she said.
In Module 2.4 described above, Latypova was able to identify 29 unique studies but only 10 were done with the correct mRNA-1273 test particle. The other studies were conducted using a “variety of unapproved experimental mRNAs unrelated to Spikevax or COVID illness.”
For example, the in-vivo genotoxicity studies included an irrelevant mRNA-1706 and a luciferase mRNA that is not in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.
“Of the 10 studies using mRNA-1273, nine were pharmacology (‘efficacy’) studies and only one was a toxicology (‘safety’) study,” Latypova said. “All of these were non-GLP studies, i.e., research experiments conducted without validation standards acceptable for regulatory approval.”
There was only one toxicology study included in Moderna’s package related to the correct test particle mRNA-1273, but the study was non-GLP compliant, was conducted in rats and was not completed at the time the documents were submitted to the FDA for approval.
The results of the study were indicative of possible tissue damage, systemic inflammation and potential severe safety issues — and they are also dose-dependent, Latypova said. Moderna noted its findings but “simply moved on, deciding to forgo any further evaluation of these effects.”
Regarding reproductive toxicology, the only assessment was conducted on rats.
Pharmacokinetics — or the biodistribution, absorption, metabolism and excretion of a compound — were not studied with Moderna’s Spikevax mRNA-1273.
“Instead, Moderna included a set of studies with another, unrelated mRNA-1647 — a construct of six different mRNAs which was in development for cytomegalovirus in 2017 in a non-GLP compliant study,” Latypova said. “This product has not been approved for market and its current development status is unknown.”
Moderna claimed the LNP formulation of mRNA-1647 was the same as in Spikevax, so the study using this particle was “supportive of” the development of Spikevax.
“This claim is dishonest,” Latypova said. “While the kinetics of the product may be studied this way, the toxicities may not!”
“We do not know what happens with the organs and tissues when the delivered mRNA starts expressing spike proteins in those cells. This is a crucial safety-related issue, and both the manufacturer and the regulator were aware of it, yet chose to ignore it.
“The study demonstrated that the LNPs did not remain in the vaccination site exclusively, but were distributed in all organs analyzed, except the kidney. High concentrations were observed in lymph nodes and spleen and persisted in those organs at three days after the injection.
“The study was stopped before full clearance could be observed, therefore no knowledge exists on the full time-course of the biodistribution. Other organs where vaccine product was detected included bone marrow, brain, eye, heart, small intestine, liver, lung, stomach and testes.”
Given that LNPs of the mRNA-1647 were detected in these tissues, it’s reasonable to assume the same occurs with mRNA-1273 and “likewise would distribute in the same way,” Latypova said. “Therefore the spike protein would be expressed by the cells in those critical organ systems with unpredictable and possibly catastrophic effects.”
“Neither Moderna nor FDA wanted to evaluate this matter any further,” she added. “No metabolism, excretion, pharmacokinetic drug interactions or any other pharmacokinetic studies for mRNA-1273 were conducted,” nor were safety pharmacology assessments for any organ classes.
Finding 4: ‘Serious conflict of interest’ exists between Moderna and NIH.
According to Latypova, Moderna’s documents contain a letter from the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases authorizing the FDA to refer to IND #19635 to support the review of Moderna’s own IND #19745 provided in “Module 1.4.”
Although Module 1.4 was not included in the documents provided by HHS, the FDA on Jan. 30 revealed the following timeline for Moderna’s Spikevax.
The date of the pre-IND meeting for Spikevax was on Feb. 19, 2020. The IND submission for the NIH’s IND was on Feb. 20, 2020, while Moderna’s own IND was submitted on April 27, 2020.
According to the CDC, as of Jan. 11, 2020, Chinese health authorities had identified more than 40 human infections as part of the COVID-19 outbreak first reported on Dec. 31, 2020.
The World Health Organization on Jan. 9, 2020, announced the preliminary identification of the novel coronavirus. The record of Wuhan-Hu-1 includes sequence data, annotation and metadata from the virus isolated from a patient approximately two weeks prior.
Latypova said this raises several questions warranting further investigation:
Preparation for a pre-IND meeting is a process that typically takes several months, and is expensive and labor-consuming. How was it possible for the NIH and Moderna to have a pre-IND meeting for a Phase 1 human clinical trial scheduled with the FDA for a vaccine product a month before the COVID-19 pandemic was declared?
“How was it possible to have all materials prepared and the entire non-clinical testing process completed for this specific product related to a very specific virus which was only isolated and sequenced (so we were told) by Jan. 9, 2020?”
Ownership of the IND is both a legal and commercial matter, which in the case of a public-private partnership, must be transparently disclosed. “What is the precise commercial and legal arrangement between Moderna and NIH regarding Spikevax?”
“Does NIH financially benefit from sales of Moderna’s product? Who at NIH specifically?”
“Does forcing vaccination with the Moderna product via mandates, government-funded media campaigns and perverse government financial incentives to schools, healthcare system and employers represent a significant conflict of interest for the NIH as a financial beneficiary of these actions?”
“Does concealing important safety information by a financially interested party (NIH and Moderna) represent a conspiracy by the pharma-government cartel to defraud the public?”
Latypova further noted that immediately after the pre-IND meeting with the FDA, an “extremely heavy volume of orders for Moderna stock” began to be placed in the public markets.
This warrants an “additional investigation into the investors that were able to predict the spectacular future of the previously poorly performing stock with such timely precision,” she said.
Finding 5: FDA failed to question Moderna’s ‘scientifically dishonest studies’ dismissing an ‘extremely significant risk’ of vaccine-induced antibody-enhanced disease.
“Its entire product development history was marked by numerous failures despite millions of dollars and lengthy time spent in development,” Latypova said. “Notably, its mRNA-based vaccines were associated with the antibody-dependent-enhancement phenomenon.”
For example, Moderna’s preclinical study of its mRNA-based Zika vaccine in mice showed all mice “uniformly [suffered from] lethal infection and severe disease due to antibody enhancement.”
The scientists were able to develop a type of vaccine that generated protection against Zika that “resulted in significantly less morbidity and mortality,” but all versions of the vaccine unequivocally led to some level of antibody-dependent-enhancement.
The Primary Pharmacology section for Spikevax includes nine studies evaluating immunogenicity, protection from viral replication and potential for vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease.
“These studies included the correct test article (mRNA-1273), however, all were non-GLP compliant,” Latypova said. The results of these studies are briefly summarized in the text of the document package, yet the study reports are not provided.
In the disclosed documents, Moderna claims “there were no established animal models” for SARS-CoV-2 virus due to its extreme novelty.
Yet, in the next sentence, “despite the extreme novelty of the virus,” Ralph Baric, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina possessed an already mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 virus strain and provided it for some of Moderna’s studies, Latypova said.
According to Latypova’s assessment, there were other numerous contradictions in Moderna’s documents, and when enhanced disease risk was revealed in assays, the company waived off its own results with a statement regarding the invalidity of the assays and methods they used.
“As SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays are, to this point, still highly variable and in the process of being further developed, optimized and validated, study measurements should not be considered a strong predictor of clinical outcomes, especially in the absence of results from a positive control that has demonstrated disease enhancement,” Moderna said.
“Clearly, both Moderna and FDA knew about disease enhancement and were aware of numerous examples of this dangerous phenomenon, including Moderna’s own Zika vaccine product of the same type,” Latypova said. “Yet, the FDA did not question Moderna’s scientifically dishonest ‘studies’ that dismissed this extremely significant risk without a proper study design.”
Finding 6: FDA and Moderna lied about reproductive toxicology studies in public disclosures and product labeling.
Although the FDA recommends Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant and lactating women, Moderna conducted only one reproductive toxicology study in pregnant and lactating rats using a human dose of 100 mcg of mRNA-1273.
Although the full study was excluded, a narrative summary of Moderna’s findings state, “high IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 S-2P were also observed in GD 21 F1 fetuses and LD 21 F1 pups, indicating strong transfer of antibodies from dam to fetus and from dam to pup.”
Latypova said safety assessments in the study are very limited, but the following findings are described by Moderna:
“The mothers lost fur after vaccine administration, and it persisted for several days. No information on when it was fully resolved since the study was terminated before this could be assessed.”
In the rat pups, the following skeletal malformations were observed:
“In the F1 generation [rat pups], there were no mRNA-1273-related effects or changes in the following parameters: mortality, body weight, clinical observations, macroscopic observations, gross pathology, external or visceral malformations or variations, skeletal malformations, and mean number of ossification sites per fetus per litter.
“mRNA-1273-related variations in skeletal examination included statistically significant increases in the number of F1 rats with 1 or more wavy ribs and 1 or more rib nodules.
“Wavy ribs appeared in 6 fetuses and 4 litters with a fetal prevalence of 4.03% and a litter prevalence of 18.2%. Rib nodules appeared in 5 of those 6 fetuses.”
Moderna related the skeletal malformations to days when toxicity was observed in the mothers but waived away the finding as “unrelated to the vaccine,” Latypova said.
The FDA then “lied on Moderna’s behalf” in its Basis for Regulatory Action Summary document (p.14) stating “no skeletal malformations” occurred in the non-clinical study in rat pups despite the opposite reported by Moderna.
“No vaccine-related fetal malformations or variations and no adverse effect on postnatal development were observed in the study. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses to the pre-fusion stabilized spike protein antigen following immunization were observed in maternal samples and F1 generation rats indicating transfer of antibodies from mother to fetus and from mother to nursing pups.”
“In summary, the vaccine-derived antibodies transfer from mother to child,” Latypova said. “It was never assessed by Moderna whether the LNPs, mRNA and spike proteins transfer as well, but it is reasonable to assume that they do due to the mechanism of action of these products.”
Latypova said studies should have been done to assess the risks to the child by vaccinating pregnant or lactating women before recommending these groups receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
“We should ask the question why are they concealing the critical safety-related information from public, and making the product look better than the manufacturer has admitted,” Latypova said.
“The FDA did not have any objective scientific evidence excluding the skeletal malformations being related to the vaccine,” she added. “Thus, the information should have been disclosed fully in the label of this experimental and poorly tested product — not hidden from the public for over a year and then disclosed only under a court order.”
Latypova said FDA reviewers should have “easily seen through the blatant fraud, omissions, use of inadequate study designs and general lack of scientific rigor.”
The fact that more than half of the document package contains non-GLP studies for irrelevant, unapproved and previously failed chemical entities alone should have been sufficient reason to not approve this product, she added.
It would appear the FDA based its decision that the product is safe to administer to thousands of otherwise healthy humans on two studies in rats, Latypova said. The rest of the 700-page package was deemed to consist of “other supportive studies.”
The FDA noted studies were conducted in “five vaccines formulated in SM-102 lipid particles containing mRNAs encoding various viral glycoprotein antigens” but “failed to mention that these were five unapproved and previously failed products,” she said.
The regulators then concluded that using novel unapproved mRNAs in support of another unapproved novel mRNA was acceptable.
“The circular logic is astonishing,” Latypova said. Regulators allowed and personally promoted the use of failed experiments in support of a different and new experiment directly on the unsuspecting public.
Latypova called for the FDA, pharmaceutical manufacturers and “all other perpetrators of this fraud to be urgently stopped and investigated.”
I have been feeling extremely exhausted lately, though I am in a very beautiful, and peaceful place on earth: Almuñécar, Spain, (where I wound up by way of not having the energy to transport to Malaga to fly back to the US on the appointed date; More on this soon.)
I love Barbara O’Neill, and was happy when YouTube’s algorithms offered me this video. I also am a devotee of the late Dr. Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, (Dr. B) and am known to tell people to drink two glasses of water at the first sign of many a symptom. It works, when people listen. Headaches, dizziness, migraines, allergies—always offer people two glasses of water, and witness what happens.
I just took two dabs of seat salt and a glass of water. Energy lifted, sadness decreased. I found I had the energy to write and post this.
I believed I was “drinking enough water” but maybe not by the standards of being in Andalucia in July. The next thing I am wondering is whether one can collect and drink small amounts of seawater, to balance minerals.
Here’s some biographical background on Dr. B, whose untimely death certainly left many of us wondering:
”Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, M.D., an internationally renowned researcher, author and advocate of the natural healing power of water, was born in Iran in 1931. He attended Fettes College in Scotland and was a graduate of St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School of London University, where he studied under Sir Alexander Fleming, who shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of penicillin.
Dr. Batmanghelidj practiced medicine in the United Kingdom before returning to Iran where he played a key role in the development of hospitals and medical centers. He also helped establish sport projects for youth in Iran, including The Ice Palace in Tehran, the first ice skating and sports complex in the Middle East.
When the Iranian Revolution broke out in 1979, Dr. Batmanghelidj was placed in the infamous Evin Prison as a political prisoner for two years and seven months. It was there he discovered the healing powers of water. One night, Dr. B. had to treat a fellow prisoner with crippling peptic ulcer pain. With no medications at his disposal, Dr. B. gave him two glasses of water. Within eight minutes, his pain disappeared. He was instructed to drink two glasses of water every three hours and became absolutely pain free for his four remaining months in the prison. Dr. B. successfully treated 3,000 fellow prisoners suffering from stress-induced peptic ulcer disease with water alone. While in prison he conducted extensive research into the medicinal effects of water in preventing and relieving many painful degenerative diseases.”
My father was an admirer of Dr. B. and had him on his show many times, as well as the man who continued spreading the gospel of water Dr. B discovered in Evin prison, Bob Butts.
Look what Dr. B wrote about “HIV” decades ago:
Wow.
In other words, “AIDS” causes “HIV.”
A minor note, about his lovely name, which may have kept him from becoming what we call a “household name—” I think it’s pronounced “Bat-Man- Getty.”
On October 22, 2010, WikiLeaks published the Iraq War Logs, a massive dump of nearly 400,000 classified U.S. Army field reports revealing what founder Julian Assange called “intimate details” of the war—including war crimes and other serious human rights abuses perpetrated by American and coalition troops, private contractors, and Iraqi government and paramilitary forces.
It was the largest leak in U.S. military history. It subsequently stunned the world who immediately demanded justice. Unfortunately, it’s been over a decade since that revelation and the only ones punished for the crimes shown in the documents, were the whistleblowers who revealed them, while the architects and the perpetrators of the atrocities continue to enjoy impunity.
The publication of the Iraq War Logs was the culmination of a year full of WikiLeaks revelations regarding U.S. and allied conduct during the so-called War on Terror. Early in the year, U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning leaked the “Collateral Murder” video, which shows U.S. Apache attack helicopter crews laughing and joking while massacring a group of Iraqi civilians, including journalists, and shooting children.
While Manning has since been released and is enjoying freedom, Assange remains locked away in a torturous environment for reporting on these crimes. The US government has been quietly pursuing charges against the Wikileaks founder under the Espionage Act for years. According to what’s been publicly revealed, Assange is facing an 18 count indictment in the US with most of the charges focused on violating the Espionage Act. Should he be found guilty, Assange could be imprisoned for up to 175 years.
Assange’s case has serious implications for journalists around the world as he was acting as a journalist when he published leaked US government documents on Iraq and Afghanistan — not committing “espionage.”
This week, former Pink Floyd front man, Roger Waters used his pulpit to raise awareness to Assange’s plight. At a concert during his tour in the US, Waters showed his support for Assange and played the horrifying Collateral Murder video of US troops slaughtering journalists. Remember as you watch the video below that no one involved in this atrocity has faced a single consequence and the only one in jail over it, is the person who showed it to the world.
— Defend Assange Campaign (@DefendAssange) July 11, 2022
As we have reported previously, this is not the first time, Waters has made such bold statements during his shows. Waters is known for using his musical platform to make powerful political statements that often go against the mainstream narrative.
In 2018, Waters showed solidarity with Julian Assange during a concert in Berlin by unveiling a message in red text projected onto a black backdrop, which read “Resist the attempted silencing of Julian Assange,” before the start of his concert.
During a solo concert in Barcelona just prior to the show in Berlin, Waters stopped mid-concert to address the U.S. bombing of Syria—which took place under the pretense of retaliation for an alleged chemical attack—to call out the White Helmets.
“The White Helmets is a fake organization that exists only to create propaganda for jihadists and terrorists,” Waters said. “That’s my belief. We have opposing beliefs. If we were to listen to the propaganda of the White Helmets and others, we would be encouraged to encourage our governments to start dropping bombs on people in Syria. This would be a mistake of monumental proportions for us as human beings.”
“What we should do is go and persuade our governments not to go and drop bombs on people.”
When entertainers and musicians attempt to break through the imposed Matrix of propaganda the plutocratic oligarchy and their media cronies work diligently to marginalize them into obscurity. It is important for people to understand that voices for freedom are being intentionally silenced when they go against the “approved” narrative, thus it being incumbent upon us to share the message of freedom, and no matter what your political ideology—support human rights and justice for Julian Assange!
The link for the WikiLeaks video of Iraq war footage found in the article takes you to YouTube which requires an account to view. It can easily be accessed on BitChute, courtesy of Black Diamond, without requiring you to login to an account.
WikiLeaks, a website that publishes anonymously sourced documents, has released a video showing what apparently is a US military helicopter firing at unarmed civilians in Iraq. WikiLeaks said the footage, filmed from a drone, shows a missile strike and shooting on a square in a Baghdad neighborhood in July 2007. The website said 12 civilians were killed in the attack, including two journalists, Namir Nour El Deen and Saeed Chmagh, who worked for the Reuters news agency. This is the full, unedited version of the footage.
“The guilt for the mass murder is solely that of the political leaders….. I accuse the leaders of abusing my obedience. At that time obedience was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinate. Obedience is commended as a virtue.” —Adolph Eichmann, Nazi, at his trial
Early in the declared Covid19 Pandemic, America’s medical community —and this included America’s pharmacies—coalesced around a system of outlawing medicines known to be effective, safe and inexpensive, notably ivermectin and hydroxychloroquineIn time, it became obvious that withholding early treatment was crucial for the pharmaceutical industry’s project to vaccinate the world against a claimed Covid19 virus.
Had the effectiveness of inexpensive and available medicines been widely seen, the pretext for ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ of a warpspeed-produced experimental product would have vaporized. With a trillion dollar global vaccination project at stake, that couldn’t be allowed, so the lies of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine being toxic were authoritatively enforced.
The policy descended (and continues to descend) from administrative networks within the Department of Health and Human Services, (notably CDC and NIAID) to the states. These networks are part of, and fed by, an international complex involving the World Health Organization, itself under the control of international pharmaceutical interests focused primarily on vaccines, as well as on gene manipulations sold under the deceptive banner of “vaccine”.
This multi-pronged, vaccine-focused universe now includes research universities and medical schools, medical societies and fraudulent medical journals showcasing ghost-written “scientific” articles. A key player is the discipline of Public Health, a politicized field posing as objective science, enforcer of official narrative and hurler of the “misinformation” epithet at dissenters. And of course there is the compliant media. And money, endless rivers of it.
At hospital level, commands from this complex flow through desk-bound administrators, with doctors and nurses induced to follow those commands for fear of losing needed hospital access. Failure to mind can even result in suspension of license to practice medicine. This control system extends to state medical boards under the umbrella of the Federation of State Medical Boards, the guidelines of which require practitioners to use treatments “… supported by the best available scientific evidence or prevailing scientific consensus”. But officially accepted “best available scientific evidence” is now so tightly controlled that one is literally forced toward the “prevailing scientific consensus”.
The “consensus” referred to is a rigidly enforced story, and divergence from it is immediately attacked from all corners of officialdom as “misinformation”. A key branch of the army protecting the official, lie-riddled storyline has been the burgeoning fact-check industry, succinctly nailed by Dr. Bryan Ardis“Fact checking is to divert you from the truth and take you back to the narrative you’re being sold worldwide.”
You doctors who have been obedient to an industry-inspired, governmentally-driven protocol have abdicated the doctor-patient relationship. And what is true for doctors in this respect applies to nurses as well. By withholding available treatments and sending sick people home; by injecting a trusting public with an experimental gene-altering technology that has potentially devastating long-range, even trans-generational impacts; by not seeing immediately the criminal idiocy of injecting children, for whom the claimed virus is known to be benign, you have made your patients de facto lab animals.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover once wrote “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” The Covid19 Pandemic, set up as justification for a global project to inject humanity with a gene-altering death-dealing technology, is certainly monstrous enough to handicap anyone, at least for a time. It is murderous on a scale so immense as to be unbelievable on first exposure. And that alone may have posed too great a barrier for most of the multitude to even want to take a closer look.
But you medical professionals cannot claim ignorance at this late date, when mere minutes of online search can reveal that outstanding medical figures all over the world have been struggling against censorship and mainstream media vomitings to expose the lie-riddled Covid19/“vaccine” project ( 1, 2, 3…) For their troubles, of course, they continue to be attacked by the media network long known to be rotten to the core. Has your choosing to be obedient within this long nightmare been simply to hold on to a job? Or have you just been too lazy to search out censored information? Or too uncaring? Or are you just stupid? Only you would know for sure.
Josef Mengele, like yourselves, was a medical doctor. At Auschwitz concentration camp, his grisly medical experiments won him a place in history as Todesengel, “The Angel of Death”. He is supposed to have said “The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.” Does that seem familiar, and do your patients still trust you? In any case, you medics who have been so obedient to the vaccine industry’s merciless global project might want to get to know Dr. Mengele. There are even books on the man. After all, he was a soul mate of yours, as you have, eyes wide open, made yourselves, whether by omission or commission, his medical heirs.
*
Bill Willers is an emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. He is founder of the Superior Wilderness Action Network and editor of Learning to Listen to the Land, and Unmanaged Landscapes, both from Island Press. He can be contacted at willers@uwosh.edu.
In a move Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland called “head-spinning,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.
In an FDA press release, the agency said full approval of Comirnaty follows a “rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data,” and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”
Pfizer’s press release announcing the approval said the Comirnaty vaccine has been available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) since May 2021 for the adolescent age group.
Yet, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S for any age group and is not the same formula as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine currently authorized under EUA and being distributed as a “fully approved” vaccine.
“The approval of Comirnaty for adolescents 12 to 15 is head-spinning,” said Mary Holland, president and general counsel for Children’s Health Defense.
Holland added:
“The FDA failed to convene an expert committee and failed to appropriately weigh the risk-benefit profile of this vaccine for this age group. Even Vaccine cheerleader Dr. Paul Offit acknowledged FDA decisions are being made based on political pressure, not science when, in commenting on the agency’s vote last week to allow reformulated booster shots, he said it felt like ‘the fix was in.’”
Holland said that at base, “this is a move by pharma to ensure liability protection” under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Some states likely will attempt to put Comirnaty on the childhood vaccine schedule, despite the myriad known and unknown risks, Holland said.
“Pfizer‘s fraud and collusion with government is becoming more evident by the day,” Holland said. “CHD, already challenging the authorizations for those six months through age 11, will be at the forefront of challenging this approval for teenagers.”
Efficacy claims based on old analysis of 16- to 25-year-olds — before Delta, Omicron variants
Pfizer said Friday’s approval is based on data from a Phase 3 clinical trial of 2,260 participants ages 12 through 15.
About half of the participants, “elicited SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs)” demonstrating “strong immunogenicity in a subset of adolescents one month after the second dose,” Pfizer said.
It is unknown what happened to antibody levels after one month, but peer-reviewed research suggests vaccine protection conferred by second and third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine wanes rapidly against the Omicron variant.
“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,” said the authors of a May 13 study published in JAMA.
To further support its claim that Comirnaty is effective in the 12 to 15 age group, Pfizer used an old analysis of 16- to 25-year-olds conducted before the Delta and Omicron surges.
“The efficacy analysis was conducted between November 2020 and May 2021, which was before the Delta and Omicron surges,” and the “only SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern identified from the confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was Alpha,” Pfizer said in its press release.
FDA experts question neutralizing antibodies as standard for vaccine effectiveness
During a June 28 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), vaccine experts raised concerns that neutralizing antibodies did not correlate to clinical protection — noting Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had a two-fold increase in neutralizing antibody levels compared with Pfizer’s vaccine during clinical trials, but it did not translate into a clinically significant difference in terms of protection against severe disease.
Dr. Ofer Levy, VRBPAC member and infectious disease physician at Boston Children’s Hospital, said during the meeting there is still “no established correlate of protection,” referring to the level of antibodies needed to confer protection.
“You have a lot of data now,” Levy told Pfizer. “What is your relative protection?”
“I would say there is no established correlate of protection,” Kena Swanson, Ph.D., vice president of viral vaccines at Pfizer, told Levy.
Levy said:
“I would like to hear from FDA what their overall approach will be around improving our understanding of correlate protection. We spend a good amount of time reviewing antibody data. We have no doubt antibody data is important. We don’t have a level of antibody that anybody is comfortable stating is correlated [with] protection.
Levy, who said antibodies are important, but T cells are more important, called for federal leadership to establish a “standardization of the T-cell assay and encourage or in fact require the sponsors to gather that information.”
“So what is the effort to standardize the pre-clinical assays?” Levy asked. “This is an effort that’s critical not just now but for future cycles of vaccine revision. If we aren’t able to define a standard for correlate protection we are fighting with one arm behind our back.”
Dr. Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, acknowledged the importance of Levy’s question and said they are “having conversations” with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health and throughout government about how they might move forward, but it is something they “don’t have an answer to yet.”
Marks said as vaccines are developed in the future, it will “become even more important” to define a standard of correlate protection because “we won’t be able to have a large naive population to vaccinate with newer vaccines.”
“We will need to understand the T-cell response better,” Marks said. “I take your point, it’s just that we haven’t solved the problem yet.“
Comirnaty not available in the U.S.
According to Pfizer’s press release, Comirnaty was previously made available to the 12 to 15 age group in the U.S. under EUA and 9 million U.S. adolescents in this age group have completed a primary series.
“The vaccine, sold under the brand name Comirnaty for adults, has been available under an emergency use authorization since May 2021 for the 12-15 age group,” Reuters reported. “It will now be sold under the same brand name for adolescents as well.”
Yet, Pfizer’s information hotline says it has no specific information on when Comirnaty will be available.
The FDA said Friday the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be, authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”
The CDC’s website states that Comirnaty is “not orderable.”
A branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services overseeing the Strategic National Stockpile indicated Comirnaty was not available because Pfizer did not have time to change the labels.
According to FDA documents, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S. and nobody has received a fully approved and licensed COVID-19 vaccine.
“Comirnaty has not been made available under EUA,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, physician and senior science editor for The Defender.
Setty added:
“The FDA and Pfizer have already stated very quietly, that they have no intent of manufacturing Comirnaty for distribution. Everyone is getting the non-licensed formulation that carries no liability for pharmaceutical companies.”
The CDC website confirms this, stating the Comirnaty formulation “will not be manufactured or made available in the near term even if authorized.”
CHD challenged FDA on Comirnaty ‘approval’ for adults
As The Defender reported, there were “several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval” that proved confusing — which led to CHD suing the FDA over its approval of Comirnaty.
The FDA acknowledged that while Pfizer had “insufficient stocks” of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine, there was “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — produced under EUA — still available for use.
The FDA said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under EUA should remain unlicensed but could be used “interchangeably” with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.
The FDA also said the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were “legally distinct,” but proclaimed their differences did not “impact safety or effectiveness.”
Yet, there is a “huge real-world difference” between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.
EUA products are experimental under U.S. law and cannot be mandated. A licensed vaccine, such as Comirnaty, can be mandated by employers and schools.
Although Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine can be mandated, it has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say “Comirnaty” on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.
Only COVID-19 vaccines distributed under EUA — which in the U.S. includes Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — have liability protection under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP).
Under PREP, the only way an injured party can sue a pharmaceutical company for an injury caused by an EUA vaccine is if he or she can prove willful misconduct and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.
Comirnaty cannot receive liability protection unless it is fully approved for children and added to the CDC’s immunization schedule bringing it under the auspices of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty vaccines aren’t interchangeable
The FDA on Oct. 29, 2021, authorized a manufacturing change to allow an additional formulation of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that uses tromethamine (Tris) buffer instead of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) used in the originally authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
The FDA on Dec. 16, 2021, approved a supplement to the Comirnaty BLA to include a new 30 mcg dose formulation that uses the Tris buffer instead of the PBS buffer used in the originally approved vaccine.
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may contain either the PBS buffer or tris buffer, except for the 5 to 11 age group. The Comirnaty vaccine contains the Tris buffer.
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine used for the 5 to 11 age group uses a Tris buffer, despite clinical trials having been conducted using Pfizer’s vaccine containing the PBS buffer.
According to Pfizer’s July 8 press release, the FDA relied upon studies conducted prior to the formula change to justify the approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine for adolescents ages 12 to 15.
The type of buffer used in a COVID-19 vaccine can affect the potency of the vaccine, how it is stored and the propensity to develop potential adverse events, TrialSite News reported.
It is unknown if tromethamine will harm an unborn baby, but animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus, and there are “no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans.”
“The FDA-evaluated manufacturing data [to] support the change in this inactive ingredient and concluded it did not impact the safety or effectiveness of the product,” Marks, said during an October 2021, press briefing.
According to the FDA’s Letter of Authorization, reissued on Oct. 29, “analytical comparability assessments” revealed the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine formulations containing Tris and PBS buffers were “analytically comparable.”
Yet, no human or animal trials were conducted to determine the safety or efficacy of the new formula.
Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
TCTL editor’s note:
Brief excerpt from the interview:
Dr. David Rasnick:
The prevalence of cancer, the increase of cancer worldwide is due to the increase in carcinogens in our environment…
Jerm (Jeremy Nell):
Hold on, Dave. So, are you saying that, for example, during the time of the Roman Empire, cancer would have been… cancer prevalence would have been very low?
David:
Yeah. Pretty close to zero.
Jerm:
Wow. Okay. That’s interesting.
David:
Even before the industrial revolution it was pretty close to zero,
The industrial revolution increased carcinogens, pollutions in the environment. Almost all cancer, almost all cancer, is due to environmental carcinogens — poisons that we put in the environment.
Jerm:
And could those poisons also be perhaps childhood vaccinations?
David:
Oh, Lord, yes… My goodness yes. Our environment includes what we breathe, what we eat, what we’re exposed to, what we inject in ourselves…
David Rasnick is a biochemist with decades of research in AIDS and cancer, and returned to my podcast to discuss cancer and why most of what we’re told is wrong.
Cancer is an extremely complex subject, so I’d recommend reading his summary article in which he outlines, in fairly layman language, the foundation of his argument.
Basically, it’s known as Aneuploidy Theory, and it is in stark contrast to the current Big Pharma model of cancer. Obviously, Aneuploidy Theory is “discredited” and dismissed, as a result. But, as pharmaceutical scientist Mike Donio said, the pharmaceutical industry is untrustworthy and thrives on sick people and unscientific methodology.
David’s conversation is worth watching because he used slides, but it’s possible to get by with audio only.
Judge says GMO wheat could cause “serious and irreversible damage” to human health and the environment
by Tierra Viva (in Spanish)
English version sourced from GM Watch
July 11, 2022
Bioceres – the “Argentine Monsanto” – is racing to get its GMO HB4 wheat accepted by regulators around the world. It has already got food approval in Australia and partial approval in the US – from the FDA but not yet the USDA. And, according to the Argentine journalist Patricio Eleisegui, Bioceres is also heavily targeting the countries of Latin America, where it has already obtained partial approvals in Colombia and Brazil.
But while Bioceres is rushing to create markets for its GMO wheat abroad, within Argentina itself its commercialisation is facing widespread resistance. And it appears to have received a major setback in the province of Buenos Aires, the very heart of agribusiness in Argentina.
A judge in Mar del Plata has issued a precautionary ruling that suspends the use and release of GMO HB4 wheat in Buenos Aires until a commission is formed to evaluate its effects, reports the news agency Tierra Viva. The ruling responds to a collective suit brought by farmers, social and environmental organisations and Indigenous peoples. They emphasise that the action could be replicated in other provinces where this GMO wheat is already being grown.
The temporary measure is in place until an Agricultural Biotechnology and Biosafety Commission is formed, which will be responsible for preparing a report on the introduction and release of the GMO crop and its effects on natural resources, health, production and marketing. The precautionary measure was issued by the Juvenile Criminal Responsibility Court No. 2 of Mar del Plata.
The decision of the Buenos Aires judge Néstor Adrián Salas is relevant because it confirms that although the national State has the authority to approve the commercialisation of GMOs and agrochemicals, it is the provinces that retain the authority for their effective release in the territories because they have control over natural resources.
For Judge Salas, the release of the first GMO wheat approved in the world could cause “serious and irreversible damage” to human health and the environment. He refers to both the crop itself and the associated agrochemicals; in this case, glufosinate ammonium, a herbicide that is more toxic than glyphosate.
“If the material is released in Buenos Aires territory, this being the first GMO event to be applied to wheat seed, the crossbreeding of the material with non-GMO wheat can be irreversibly introduced,” Salas warned. To support his decision, he cited – among others – a document from the National Biotechnology Commission (Conabia) that details “the potential horizontal transfer or exchange of genes” between GMO wheat and other seeds.
The precautionary measure is based on the precautionary principle present in the General Law of the Environment, which establishes that in the face of danger of serious or irreversible damage, measures to avoid it should not be delayed on the grounds of lack of information or scientific certainty.
The Commission for Biotechnology and Agricultural Biosafety of the Province, which the judge ruled must be put into operation, should have been formed more than 20 years ago, when Law 12.822 was approved. However, no provincial administration implemented the law and formed the commission.
Lawyer Lucas Landivar, who represents the group of organisations, producers and Indigenous peoples who brought the suit, stressed the importance of complying with article 124 of the National Constitution. This establishes that the provinces are responsible for the natural resources in their territory. “The provinces cannot allow their cultural heritage and biodiversity to be affected,” he noted. In this sense, he stressed that the seeds used in agriculture are a cultural heritage of the people, which the provinces must preserve.
Fernando Cabaleiro, a lawyer for the organisation Nature of Rights, which is also involved in the suit, stressed that this same action can be replicated in different provinces. “There is the General Environmental Law and at the same time, each province has its legislation on this matter. This is environmental pollution and it is the duty of the provinces to protect their natural assets,” he said.
Provincial law 12.822 of 2001 ordered the creation – 90 days after it came into effect – of the Agricultural Biotechnology and Biosafety Commission. The objective of this body is to prepare a report with its recommendations regarding the introduction and release of GMOs and their effects on natural resources, health, production and marketing.
In writing this law, the legislators at that time considered, “Given the vertiginous increase in the use of GMO seeds, we believe it is necessary that there should be a provincial body that has the function of controlling their use.”
Likewise, they understood that this commission had to answer a series of questions that Judge Salas transcribed verbatim in his resolution:
* Have enough tests been done with these organisms so that we will not have to repent in the near future?
* What are the mechanisms that different countries have to assess their danger to the ecosystem and to human health?
* Why do some countries accept GMOs and others do not?
* Has the Ministry of Health or another official body certified the harmlessness of GMOs to human beings? Has the risk to human or animal health been assessed, such as the danger of antibiotic resistance?
* Should the release of GMOs undergo a mandatory environmental impact study?
* Is the introduction of GMOs in Argentina assimilated from a public debate, or is it a simple concept of genetic innovation to reap greater profits through patents in some countries?
* Does the new technology commonly called terminator affect traditional crops and biodiversity in general? [GMW: Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to be sterile after first harvest. Thus far this GMO technology has not been commercialised due to overwhelming public and scientific opposition. More information is here.]
Lawyer Landivar argued that it is very striking and worrying that the Provincial Executive has spent so many years without enforcing a decision of the Legislative Power. “This omission violates the precautionary preventive regime and deepens a practice that has generated adverse consequences and negative effects on health and the environment for 20 years,” he warned.
The marketing of HB4 wheat, from Bioceres – owned by Hugo Sigman and Gustavo Grobocopatel, among other businessmen – was authorised on May 12 by the National Ministry of Agriculture. The decision ignored the claims of hundreds of social and peasant organisations and thousands of scientists who denounced the lack of transparency in the approval procedure for HB4 wheat, the contamination it will produce on other non-GMO wheats and the increased use of agrochemicals that it will entail. its cultivation.
On May 19, federal prosecutor Fabián Canda reiterated before federal judge Santiago Carrillo the request to urgently suspend the authorisation of HB4 GMO wheat due to “the irreparable damage” it could cause to the environment and the health of the population.
Comedian Jim Breuer: Jim’s Got a Heavy Message — “Get Your Life Out of the World That Is Trying to Drag You Into an Emotional, Demonic, Evil Distress.”
“Get your emotions, get your life out of the world that is trying to drag you into an emotional, demonic, evil distress.”
#
“Start looking at the beauty right in front of you with yourself, with yourself.”
#
“I don’t have politics. I don’t have politics. That’s the world trying to divide and conquer and take your faith away.”
#
“We’re all obsessed. Deep, life issues right now. Abortion. Everyone’s running out there going nutso from a SLOGAN. Everything’s a sales pitch. It’s a slogan to control your emotions, to control your life, to control your actions.”
#
“‘My body, my choice. My body, my choice.’ Stop it. You’re being controlled. You’re being manipulated. Your spirit, your soul, the beauty inside you is being sucked out…
Stop it. Your life is right in front of you. Right in front of you. Everyone has their own journey.”
#
“We’re getting sucked into nonsense. There’s such a deeper part of life…But if you don’t allow it — like a radio station — if you don’t want to listen to the station, you’re never going to know it. And you’ve got no right to say ‘it doesn’t exist, that’s stupid’.”
#
“Please, go out, enjoy life. Please, every time you feel the need to get sucked into a subject that’s just a slogan to debate and argue over — I have deep friends that are saying they want to be identified as a who or a what, a noun. Do you understand the attack on your mentality when you don’t know what you are anymore?
This really has to do with, in my opinion, deeper spirituality, God, the Lord, however you want to put it. I hope you find it. I hope you tap into it. It will help you spread light to so many others, so many others, so many others.”
As the establishment and mainstream mass formation spell finally begins to wear off, more artists and entertainers are stepping up to call out the ridiculousness of the pandemic and vaccine hysteria of the last 2 and a half years.
Comedian Jim Breuer lets loose in his one-man show entitled, ‘Somebody Had to Say It.’
Rebel News journalists, Lewis Brackpool and Lincoln Jay, along with Post Millennial’s Katie Daviscourt spent much of the day reporting in and around the city of Drachten Holland, near the German border.
We have located another group of farmers and their supporters who have gathered near the Netherland/German border, we are awaiting their arrival and their supporters are starting to show up.
Dutch farmers are protesting across the country against nitrogen emission targets being imposed by the government that could force farmers off their land, limit production and prompt farmers to cull livestock to curb emissions and fertilizer use.
Mark Rutte is an agenda contributor at the World Economic Forum and is enacting policies that reflect the WEF’s ideology.https://t.co/oLceSZdqBA
The team followed a convoy of farmers through the otherwise sleepy community where Brackpool and Jay were able to ask local residents for their thoughts about the potential forfeiture of agricultural land and what that means for the food supply of the Netherlands and the rest of Western Europe.
To watch the full report straight from the Netherlands, watch the video above!
To view other reports just like this one, where you will see the true story of the resistance to Dutch PM Mark Rutte’s devastating green schemes, please visit www.FarmerRebellion.com. The Rebel News team is proudly independent and viewer supported. To offset the cost of their on-the-scene journalism in Holland, make a donation at www.FarmerRebellion.com
As you no doubt know by now, Shinzo Abe, the former prime minister of Japan, was assassinated in broad daylight on Friday.
So what happened? Who was responsible? And what does it mean?
Following are the results of an open source investigation conducted by The Corbett Report community to compile all the known information about the incident and to put that information into its proper context.
THE SHOOTING
On Friday, July 8, 2022, Shinzo Abe was in Nara, delivering a stump speech ahead of Japan’s upper house election, which is due to take place on Sunday.
Abe’s speech was interrupted by two loud booms coming from the street behind the politician, accompanied by large puffs of smoke. The alleged assailant was then wrestled to the ground and taken away by security.
Various videos show the incident in whole or in part. The clearest view to emerge so far shows Abe quickly stepping off the stump and dropping to his knees as the second shot is fired and it also shows security rushing to tackle the shooter about five to ten metres behind him.
Abe was then transported by helicopter to Nara Medical University Hospital in the city of Kashihara where he was pronounced dead. The official autopsy asserts that “the bullet went through Abe’s upper left arm and damaged a blood vessel under his collarbone” and lists the official cause of death as “loss of blood.”
The assailant, 41-year-old Tetsuya Yamagami, did not attempt to escape. He was arrested and has been interrogated by police.
The crude gun, we are told, was likely assembled using the weapons training that Yamagami received during his three year stint in Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force (the Japanese Navy in all but name).
Police have since raided what we are told is Yamagami’s apartment and have reportedly discovered a variety of similarly handmade weapons.
For example, this:
and this:
THE BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Although Abe was an ex-prime minister—having stepped down in 2020 due to health issues— he was still very much a force in Japanese politics, retaining his seat in the Japanese Diet and, crucially, still wielding enormous influence in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the perennial ruling party of Japan. He came from a politically influential family—his maternal grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, served as prime minister from 1957 to 1960 and was known as “the Monster of the Showa Era” for his brutal rule over Manchuria in the 1930s—which likely accounted for his first appointment as prime minister in 2006.
Abe’s first stint as PM did not go well: His cabinet was immediately plagued by finance scandals and during his term the LDP lost its control of the upper house of the Japanese Diet for the first time in its 52-year political history. As a result, he only lasted one year as PM before resigning the position. But, in a testament to his enduring power behind the scenes in the bureaucratic Japanese government, Abe got a second shot at the nation’s top job in 2012.
This time, he came to power with an ambitious agenda: he wanted to transform Japan’s “Self-Defense Force” into a proper military by reforming the Japanese constitution and abolishing its pacifist clause. He wanted to pull the Japanese economy out of its decades-long tailspin with a set of economic reforms that would be dubbed “Abenomics.” And he wanted to reassert Japan geopolitically, buddying up to Trump, warmongering with China and starting a trade war with South Korea in the process.
According to reports, Yamagami has told investigators he was not motivated by disagreement with Abe’s political beliefs, but “rumors about the former leader’s connection to a certain organization that police did not identify.” Other reports assert that Yamagami blamed the group for having bankrupted herself by donating to the organization.
Speculation about the identity of this “certain organization” is currently centered around The Unification Church. The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification—formerly known as the Unification Church but perhaps best known as the church that “The Moonies” belong to—was founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon in 1954. Although known primarily in the West for its mass weddings (and its ownership of The Washington Times), its Japanese branch has been identified as part of “the grassroots conservative movement in Japan.” More to the point, some have noted that “Abe’s grandfather had played a major role in establishing the early Unification Church in Japan,” and Abe himself reportedly sent a congratulatory telegram to a “front group” for the church back in 2006, an act which generated some controversy at the time.
Another organization that comes up in association with Abe (and with the Unification Church) is Nippon Kaigi. Described as the “largest and most powerful conservative right-wing organization”, Nippon Kaigi (the “Japan Conference”) was established in 1997 as a result of a combination of two previous Japanese political groups. It pushes a wish list of Japanese nationalist agenda items—the restoration of the Japanese Imperial family as head of state, the restoration of the Japanese military, constitutional changes and education reforms—that only the hard-of-thinking will fail to notice coincide with Abe’s political agenda. This is no coincidence; Abe served as a “special advisor” to the group’s parliamentary league.
And then there’s 悪の秘密結社 (Evil secret organization). If that sounds like a weird, made up thing from the fringier side of the conspiracy theory world, that’s because it is. Apparently the Japanese version of QAnon, 神真都Q (Yamato Q)—which was reportedly established in December of last year with the explicit aim or “protect[ing] children’s lives from COVID vaccination,” and which was responsible for storming a vaccination site in April where they demanded to be shown the ingredients of the vaccine—contains some members with some rather outlandish beliefs. According to an investigative report done by some Japanese ambush journalists, Yamato Q believes that “The Yamato people (Japanese) originally inherited the genes of good aliens and dragon gods, but their powers are kept secret through the information control of the deep state (dark power) and Illuminati (secret society of evil).” Naturally, they believe it is up to members of the group to “awaken the sleeping DNA to awaken the true power of the Yamato people.”
To be clear, the most straightforward statement about the “certain organization” that has emerged so far is a report that Yamagami “intended to target a senior official of a religious group” who was, apparently, not at the scene at the time, meaning Abe wasn’t even the primary target of the assassin. Then again, the same report also indicates that “the suspect has made nonsensical statements, and Nara Prefectural Police are carefully investigating whether he is mentally competent to be held criminally responsible,” so take all of this information with a gigantic grain of salt.
In any event, the fact that police appear to be purposefully withholding the name of this organization—ostensibly in order to avoid a religious or racist backlash against the group and its members—will likely only further the beliefs of people like Yamagami who reportedly believe that the group in question controls the media and powerful politicians like Abe.
THE BOTTOM LINE
There is still much we do not know about the incident:
Who is Yamagami? A patsy? A decoy? A lone gunman? A wingnut? An agent of a dark agenda?
Was Abe’s death politically motivated, or was it—as reports of Yamagami’s testimony now indicate—religiously motivated? Neither of the above?
Was there deep state complicity in this event or was it the work of a single individual?
What effect will this have on the course of Japanese politics? On domestic security laws?
Although we are unlikely to receive believable answers to these questions from the police and the establishment media any time soon, the answers to these questions will become clear in the coming days and weeks. As James Evan Pilato often observes, the real action of potentially world-changing events like this one is in the reaction.
Thankfully, the idea that this event will be blamed on some foreign power and used as a pretext for war seems unlikely at this point (although reports indicate that the Chinese government has had to step in to “tamp down” the cries of celebration from certain corners of Chinese social media). But there are other agendas that this assassination could serve.
Media reports about Yamagami’s homemade arsenal, for example, could be played up to warn of the dangers of lone nuts ordering parts off the internet and any number of security laws could be implemented on the back of this incident. The political reorganization that may take place in the LDP and the changes in Japanese government policy that may result from that reorganization also remain open questions for now, but ones that, when answered, could provide clues as to the real meaning of this assassination.
Time will tell. In the meantime, Corbett Report members are urged to continue the open source investigation as information continues to come out on the incident.
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.
One story that fascinated me during the past week was this story of Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, releasing satellite imagery of western “decision centers” during the G7 conference and the NATO summit in Madrid, attended by western “leaders” such as Boris Johnson, and alleged US President “Biden”. It was a clear message, but exactly what was that message? I believe that to decode it, one has to look at the images themselves:
The article, you’ll note, contains seven large images, and in order from top to bottom, they are:
(1) Madrid, the site of the NATO meeting;
(2) Washington, DC, with various landmarks including the White House, Supreme Court, US Capitol, and Washington monuments clearly visible;
(3) Another view of Washington DC, of the Pentagon including the “ground zero” garden and park in the center of the structure clearly visible;
(4) London, with a view of Westminster and the now-famous giant ferris wheel;
(5) Central Paris along the Champs Elysee with all the associated famous landmarks;
(6) Brussels, with the EU headquarters clearly shown, and finally,
(7) Berlin, with the Reichstag and Brandenburg Gate clearly visible in the center-right, and lower-center right.
Now as reading the many comments accompanying the “article” demonstrate, similar images can be pulled up from Google. Indeed, one might have difficulty figuring out if Google was the source of the Roscosmos images, or for that matter, if Roscosmos was not the source of many Google earth images, including of these cities.
As one commenter put it, “what’s the big deal” with Roscosmos publishing such images anyway? Anyone can find them after all.
Most internet commentary on the strangeness of Roscosmos doing so are focussed – rightly – on the timing of the release to coincide with the G7 and NATO meetings, and thus on the idea that Roscosmos is sending a message.
With all of this I concur… Roscosmos was indeed sending a message.
But exactly what was the message? We can nuke your capital cities?
If so, then the message wasn’t very new… Russia has always been capable of nuking the west’s capital cities and vice versa. There’s absolutely nothing new there, and no real reason Russia needs to remind everyone else…
… unless, of course, that was not the message at all, and with that, we get to today’s high octane speculation. Recently Mr. Putin also gave an extensive speech during the St. Petersburg economic forum, during the same time frame as the Roscosmos “satellite image release.” (See St Petersburg International Economic Forum Plenary session) Mr. Putin’s remarks were full of references to the anti-globalist and multi-polar agenda he has maintained in speeches over the past few years, such as the following:
However, the ruling elite of some Western states seem to be harbouring this kind of illusions. They refuse to notice obvious things, stubbornly clinging to the shadows of the past. For example, they seem to believe that the dominance of the West in global politics and the economy is an unchanging, eternal value. Nothing lasts forever.
Our colleagues are not just denying reality. More than that; they are trying to reverse the course of history. They seem to think in terms of the past century. They are still influenced by their own misconceptions about countries outside the so-called “golden billion”: they consider everything a backwater, or their backyard. They still treat them like colonies, and the people living there, like second-class people, because they consider themselves exceptional. If they are exceptional, that means everyone else is second rate.
Thereby, the irrepressible urge to punish, to economically crush anyone who does not fit with the mainstream, does not want to blindly obey. Moreover, they crudely and shamelessly impose their ethics, their views on culture and ideas about history, sometimes questioning the sovereignty and integrity of states, and threatening their very existence. Suffice it to recall what happened in Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya and Iraq.
Mr. Putin also alleges that the European Union has lost sovereignty and is dancing to “someone else’s” tune, while not defining who that someone else may be:
The attempts to keep up appearances and the talk about allegedly acceptable costs in the name of pseudo-unity cannot hide the main thing: the European Union has lost its political sovereignty, and its bureaucratic elites are dancing to someone else’s tune, doing everything they are told from on high and hurting their own people, economies, and businesses.
Much of the rest of Mr. Putin’s speech consists of criticisms of American and European policy toward Russia, and pointing out the stupidity of those policies, and Russia’s own strides toward making its own economy more efficient, and expanding technological businesses, and of course, outlining its military operations in the Ukraine.
So again, assuming the Roscosmos satellite image release and the speech to be “message sending,” what, if anything, is the message one is supposed to gain from looking at the images, and considering President Putin’s remarks, beyond the obvious message that Mr. Putin is not the blithering idiot that alleged President Biden is.
There is a rumor that during Mr. Putin’s remarks, he allegedly made reference to more “red lines” that the West should not cross, but he did not spell these out, but made it very clear that to cross them would be to imperil the western leadership. The rumor has it that these remarks were omitted from the translation of the speech.
But even without them, that message I believe is painfully obvious and simple: we have exact data on all your hideaways and retreats; we know where you live, and what your personal security consists of. We do not need to nuke your cities… there are other ways of dealing with you, and we have them, and are perfectly willing to “go there.” After all, wet operations are a specialty of ours.
Mr. Putin, in other words, as his remarks make clear, directed his criticism of the West not against the average Spaniard, German, Frenchman, American, or Briton, but against its leadership and their places of “decision”, which need not be the capital cities… but anywhere that the “leadership” hides out and “decides” things.
IN short, as I’ve warned many times, “two can play the covert ops game,” and the West and USSA have been caught red-handed trying to play it in the Ukraine; think only of the biolabs. Now, I suspect, we can prepare for the favour to be returned, but in such as way as to target not the people of the west, but its leadership.
If I am correct, this is about to get very interesting…
“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”
– Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”
We are living in a world where the degree of disinformation and outright lying has reached such a state of affairs that, possibly for the first time ever, we see the majority of the western world starting to question their own and surrounding level of sanity. The increasing frenzied distrust in everything “authoritative” mixed with the desperate incredulity that “everybody couldn’t possibly be in on it!” is slowly rocking many back and forth into a tighter and tighter straight jacket. “Question everything” has become the new motto, but are we capable of answering those questions?
Presently the answer is a resounding no.
The social behaviourist sick joke of having made everyone obsessed with toilet paper of all things during the start of what was believed to be a time of crisis, is an example of how much control they have over that red button labelled “commence initiation of level 4 mass panic”.
And can the people be blamed? After all, if we are being lied to, how can we possibly rally together and point the finger at the root of this tyranny, aren’t we at the point where it is everywhere?
As Goebbels infamously stated,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State [under fascism].”
And here we find ourselves today, at the brink of fascism. However, we have to first agree to forfeit our civil rights as a collective before fascism can completely dominate. That is, the big lie can only succeed if the majority fails to call it out, for if the majority were to recognise it for what it is, it would truly hold no power.
The Battle for Your Mind
“Politicians, Priests, and psychiatrists often face the same problem: how to find the most rapid and permanent means of changing a man’s belief…The problem of the doctor and his nervously ill patient, and that of the religious leader who sets out to gain and hold new converts, has now become the problem of whole groups of nations, who wish not only to confirm certain political beliefs within their boundaries, but to proselytize the outside world.”
– William Sargant “Battle of the Mind”
It had been commonly thought in the past, and not without basis, that tyranny could only exist on the condition that the people were kept illiterate and ignorant of their oppression. To recognise that one was “oppressed” meant they must first have an idea of what was “freedom”, and if one were allowed the “privilege” to learn how to read, this discovery was inevitable.
If education of the masses could turn the majority of a population literate, it was thought that the higher ideas, the sort of “dangerous ideas” that Mustapha Mond for instance expresses in “The Brave New World”, would quickly organise the masses and revolution against their “controllers” would be inevitable. In other words, knowledge is freedom, and you cannot enslave those who learn how to “think”.
However, it hasn’t exactly played out that way has it?
The greater majority of us are free to read whatever we wish to, in terms of the once “forbidden books”, such as those listed by The Index Librorum Prohibitorum[1]. We can read any of the writings that were banned in “The Brave New World”, notably the works of Shakespeare which were named as absolutely dangerous forms of “knowledge”.
We are now very much free to “educate” ourselves on the very “ideas” that were recognised by tyrants of the past as the “antidote” to a life of slavery. And yet, today, the majority choose not to…
It is recognised, albeit superficially, that who controls the past, controls the present and thereby the future. George Orwell’s book “1984”, hammers this as the essential feature that allows the Big Brother apparatus to maintain absolute control over fear, perception and loyalty to the Party cause, and yet despite its popularity, there still remains a lack of interest in actually informing oneself about the past.
What does it matter anyway, if the past is controlled and rewritten to suit the present? As the Big Brother interrogator O’Brien states to Winston, “We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not? [And thus, are free to rewrite it as we choose…]”
Of course, we are not in the same situation as Winston…we are much better off. We can study and learn about the “past” if we so desire, unfortunately, it is a choice that many take for granted.
In fact, many are probably not fully aware that presently there is a battle waging for who will “control the past” in a manner that is closely resembling a form of “memory wipe”.
***
William Sargant was a British psychiatrist and, one could say, effectively the Father of “mind control” in the West, with connections to British Intelligence and the Tavistock Institute, which would influence the CIA and American military via the program MK Ultra. Sargant was also an advisor for Ewen Cameron’s LSD “blank slate” work at McGill University, funded by the CIA.
Sargant accounts for his reason in studying and using forms of “mind control” on his patients, which were primarily British soldiers that were sent back from the battlefield during WWII with various forms of “psychosis”, as the only way to rehabilitate extreme forms of PTSD.
The other reason, was because the Soviets had apparently become “experts” in the field, and out of a need for national security, the British would thus in turn have to become experts as well…as a matter of self-defence of course.
The work of Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, had succeeded in producing some disturbingly interesting insights into four primary forms of nervous systems in dogs, that were combinations of inhibitory and excitatory temperaments; “strong excitatory”, “balanced”, “passive” and “calm imperturbable”. Pavlov found that depending on the category of nervous system temperament the dog had, this in turn would dictate the form of “conditioning” that would work best to “reprogram behaviour”. The relevance to “human conditioning” was not lost on anyone.
It was feared in the West, that such techniques would not only be used against their soldiers to invoke free-flowing uninhibited confessions to the enemy but that these soldiers could be sent back to their home countries, as zombified assassins and spies that could be set off with a simple code word. At least, these were the thriller stories and movies that were pumped into the population. How horrific indeed! That the enemy could apparently enter what was thought the only sacred ground to be our own…our very “minds”!
However, for those who were actually leading the field in mind control research, such as William Sargant, it was understood that this was not exactly how mind control worked.
For one thing, the issue of “free will” was getting in the way.
No matter the length or degree of electro-shock, insulin “therapy”, tranquilizer cocktails, induced comas, sleep deprivation, starvation etc induced, it was discovered that if the subject had a “strong conviction” and “strong belief” in something, this could not be simply erased, it could not be written over with any arbitrary thing. Rather, the subject would have to have the illusion that their “conditioning” was in fact a “choice”. This was an extremely challenging task, and long term conversions (months to years) were rare.
However, Sargant saw an opening. It was understood that one could not create a new individual from scratch, however, with the right conditioning that was meant to lead to a physical breakdown using abnormal stress (effectively a reboot of the nervous system), one could increase the “suggestibility” markedly in their subjects.
Sargant wrote in his “Battle of the Mind”: “Pavlov’s clinical descriptions of the ‘experimental neuroses’ which he could induce in dogs proved, in fact, to have a close correspondence with those war-neuroses which we were investigating at the time.”
In addition, Sargant found that a falsely implanted memory could help induce abnormal stress leading to emotional exhaustion and physical breakdown to invoke “suggestibility”. That is, one didn’t even need to have a “real stress” but an “imagined stress” would work just as effectively.
Sargant goes on to state in his book:
“It is not surprising that the ordinary person, in general, is much more easily indoctrinated than the abnormal…A person is considered ‘ordinary’ or ‘normal’ by the community simply because he accepts most of its social standards and behavioural patterns; which means, in fact, that he is susceptible to suggestion and has been persuaded to go with the majority on most ordinary or extraordinary occasions.”
Sargant then goes over the phenomenon of the London Blitz, which was an eight month period of heavy bombing of London during WWII. During this period, in order to cope and stay “sane”, people rapidly became accustomed to the idea that their neighbours could be and were buried alive in bombed houses around them. The thought was “If I can’t do anything about it what use is it that I trouble myself over it?” The best “coping” was thus found to be those who accepted the new “environment” and just focused on “surviving”, and did not try to resist it.
Sargant remarks that it is this “adaptability” to a changing environment which is part of the “survival” instinct and is very strong in the “healthy” and “normal” individual who can learn to cope and thus continues to be “functional” despite an ever changing environment.
It was thus our deeply programmed “survival instinct” that was found to be the key to the suggestibility of our minds. That the best “survivors” made for the best “brain-washing” in a sense.
Sargant quotes Hecker’s work, who was studying the dancing mania phenomenon that occurred during the Black Death, where Hecker observed that heightened suggestibility had the capability to cause a person to “embrace with equal force, reason and folly, good and evil, diminish the praise of virtue as well as the criminality of vice.”
And that such a state of mind was likened to the first efforts of the infant mind “this instinct of imitation when it exists in its highest degree, is also united a loss of all power over the will, which occurs as soon as the impression on the senses has become firmly established, producing a condition like that of small animals when they are fascinated by the look of a serpent.”
I wonder if Sargant imagined himself the serpent…
Sargant does finally admit:
“This does not mean that all persons can be genuinely indoctrinated by such means. Some will give only temporary submission to the demands made on them, and fight again when strength of body and mind returns. Others are saved by the supervention of madness. Or the will to resist may give way, but not the intellect itself.”
But he comforts himself as a response to this stubborn resistance that “As mentioned in a previous context, the stake, the gallows, the firing squad, the prison, or the madhouse, are usually available for the failures.”
How to Resist the Deconstruction of Your Mind
“He whom the gods wish to destroy, they first of all drive mad.”
– Henry Wadsworth Longfellow “The Masque of Pandora”
For those who have not seen the 1944 psychological thriller “Gaslight” directed by George Cukor, I would highly recommend you do so since there is an invaluable lesson contained within, that is especially applicable to what I suspect many of us are experiencing nowadays.
The story starts with a 14 year old Paula (played by Ingrid Bergman) who is being taken to Italy after her Aunt Alice Alquist, a famous opera singer and caretaker of Paula, is found murdered in her home in London. Paula is the one who found the body, and horror stricken is never her old self again. Her Aunt was the only family Paula had left in her life. The decision is made to send her away from London to Italy to continue her studies to become a world-renowned opera singer like her Aunt Alice.
Years go by, Paula lives a very sheltered life and a heavy somberness is always present within her, she can never seem to feel any kind of happiness. During her singing studies she meets a mysterious man (her piano accompanist during her lessons) and falls deeply in love with him. However, she knows hardly anything about the man named Gregory.
Paula agrees to marry Gregory after a two week romance and is quickly convinced to move back into her Aunt’s house in London that was left abandoned all these years. As soon as she enters the house, the haunting of the night of the murder revisits her and she is consumed with panic and fear. Gregory tries to calm her and talks about the house needing just a little bit of air and sun, and then Paula comes across a letter written to her Aunt from a Sergis Bauer which confirms that he was in contact with Alice just a few days before her murder. At this finding, Gregory becomes bizarrely agitated and grabs the letter from Paula. He quickly tries to justify his anger blaming the letter for upsetting her. Gregory then decides to lock all of her Aunt’s belongings in the attic, to apparently spare Paula any further anguish.
It is at this point that Gregory starts to change his behaviour dramatically. Always under the pretext for “Paula’s sake”, everything that is considered “upsetting” to Paula must be removed from her presence. And thus quickly the house is turned into a form of prison. Paula is told it is for her best not to leave the house unaccompanied, not to have visitors and that self-isolation is the best remedy for her “anxieties” which are getting worst. Paula is never strictly forbidden at the beginning but rather is told that she should obey these restrictions for her own good.
Before a walk, he gives as a gift a beautiful heirloom brooch that belonged to his mother. Because the pin needs replacing, he instructs Paula to keep it in her handbag, and then says rather out of context, “Don’t forget where you put it now Paula, I don’t want you losing it.” Paula remarks thinking the warning absurd, “Of course I won’t forget!” When they return from their walk, Gregory asks for the brooch, Paula searches in her handbag but it is not there.
It continues on like this, with Gregory giving warnings and reminders, seemingly to help Paula with her “forgetfulness” and “anxieties”. Paula starts to question her own judgement and sanity as these events become more and more frequent. She has no one else to talk to but Gregory, who is the only witness to these apparent mishaps. It gets to a point where completely nonsensical behaviour is being attributed to Paula by Gregory. A painting is found missing on the wall one night. Gregory talks to Paula like she is a 5 year child and asks her to put it back. Paula insists she does not know who took it down. After her persistent passionate insistence that it was not her, she walks up the stairs almost like she were in a dream state and pulls the painting from behind a statue. Gregory asks why she lied, but Paula insists that she only thought to look there because that is where it was found the last two times this occurred.
For weeks now, Paula thinks she has been seeing things, the gas lights of the house dimming for no reason, she also hears footsteps above her bedroom. No one else seems to take notice. Paula is also told by Gregory that he found out that her mother, who passed away when she was very young, had actually gone insane and died in an asylum.
Despite Paula being reduced to a condition of an ongoing stupor, she decides one night to make a stand and regain control over her life. Paula is invited, by one of her Aunt Alice’s close friends Lady Dalroy, to attend a high society evening with musical performances. Recall that Paula’s life gravitated around music before her encounter with Gregory. Music was her life. Paula gets magnificently dressed up for the evening and on her way out tells Gregory that she is going to this event. Gregory tries to convince her that she is not well enough to attend such a social gathering, when Paula calmly insists that she is going and that this woman was a dear friend of her Aunt, Gregory answers that he refuses to accompany her (in those days that was a big deal). Paula accepts this and walks with a solid dignity, undeterred towards the horse carriage. In a very telling scene, Gregory is left momentarily by himself and panic stricken, his eyes bulging he snaps his cigar case shut and runs after Paula. He laughingly calls to her, “Paula, you did not think I was serious? I had no idea that this party meant so much to you. Wait, I will get ready.” As he is getting ready in front of the mirror, a devilish smirk appears.
Paula and Gregory show up to Lady Dalroy’s house late, the pianist is in the middle of the 1st movement of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata #8 in C minor. They quickly are escorted to two empty seats. Paula is immediately immersed in the piece, and Gregory can see his control is slipping. After only a few minutes, he goes to look at his pocket watch but it is not in his pocket. He whispers into Paula’s ear, “My watch is missing”. Immediately, Paula looks like she is going to be sick. Gregory takes her handbag and Paula looks in horror as he pulls out his pocket watch, insinuating that Paula had put it there. She immediately starts losing control and has a very public emotional breakdown. Gregory takes her away, as he remarks to Lady Dalroy that this is why he didn’t want Paula coming in the first place.
When they arrive home, Paula has by now completely succumbed to the thought that she is indeed completely insane. Gregory says that it would be best if they go away somewhere for an indefinite period of time. We later find out that Gregory is intending on committing her to an asylum. Paula agrees to leave London with Gregory and leaves her fate entirely in his hands.
In the case of Paula it is clear. She has been suspecting that Gregory has something to do with her “situation” but he has very artfully created an environment where Paula herself doubts whether this is a matter of unfathomable villainy or whether she is indeed going mad.
It is rather because she is not mad that she doubts herself, because there is seemingly no reason for why Gregory would put so much time and energy into making it look like she were mad, or at least so it first appears. But what if the purpose to her believing in her madness was simply a matter of who is in control?
Paula almost succeeds in gaining the upper-hand in this power-struggle, the evening she decided to go out on her own no matter what Gregory insisted was in her best interest. If she would have held her ground at Lady Dalroy’s house and simply replied, “I have no idea why your stupid watch ended up in my handbag and I could care less. Now stop interrupting this performance, you are making a scene!” Gregory’s spell would have been broken as simple as that. If he were to complain to others about the situation, they would also respond, “Who cares man, why are you so obsessed about your damn watch?”
We find ourselves today in a very similar situation to Paula. And the voice of Gregory is represented by the narrative of false news and the apocalyptic social behaviourist programming in our forms of entertainment. The things most people voluntarily subject themselves to on a daily, if not hourly, basis. Socially conditioning them, like a pack of salivating Pavlovian dogs, to think it is just a matter of time before the world ends and with a ring of their master’s bell…be at each other’s throats.
Paula ends up being saved in the end by a man named Joseph Cotten (a detective), who took notice and quickly discerned that something was amiss. In the end Gregory is arrested. It is revealed that Gregory is in fact Sergis Bauer. That he killed Alice Alquist and that he has returned to the scene of the crime after all these years in search for the famous jewels of the opera singer. The jewels were in fact rather worthless from the standpoint that they were too famous to be sold, however, Gregory never intended on selling these jewels but rather had become obsessed with the desire to merely possess them.
That is, it is Gregory who has been entirely mad all this time.
A Gregory is absolutely dangerous. He would have been the end of Paula if nothing had intervened. However, the power that Gregory held was conditional to the degree that Paula allowed it to control her. Paula’s extreme deconstruction was thus entirely dependent on her choice to let the voice of Gregory in. That is, a Gregory is only dangerous if we allow ourselves to sleep walk into the nightmare he has constructed for us.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
– Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass”
This article was originally published on The Saker.
Uruguay suspended COVID-19 vaccines for children under 13 after a judge on Thursday issued an injunction halting vaccinations in that age group until government officials turn over its contracts with Pfizer.
Uruguay suspended COVID-19 vaccines for children under 13 after a judge on Thursday issued an injunction halting vaccinations in that age group until government officials turn over its contracts with Pfizer.
Uruguayan government officials and Pfizer were ordered on Wednesday to appear in court after judge Alejandro Recarey gave them 48 hours to present detailed information on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine while the court considered an injunction request to halt COVID-19 vaccinations for children 5 and older.
The government said a confidentiality clause in the contract prevents it from producing the documents, The Washington Post reported.
According to ABC News, the judge received answers to 18 questions about the safety and chemical composition of COVID-19 vaccines, signed by Health Minister Daniel Salinas, but did not turn over the contracts.
It is unknown whether the answers provided by government officials adequately addressed the questions posed by the judge, who ultimately ordered an injunction based on what was provided.
Salinas, after the court’s ruling, strongly defended the government’s vaccination plan and criticized the judge for questioning the safety of vaccines.
Alvaro Delgado, the secretary of the presidency, said the halt is a threat to public health.
“We’re convinced that it’s crazy to suspend voluntary vaccination because it has a strong scientific backing,” Delgado said at a news conference.
Vaccinations for those older than 13 will continue, the Health Ministry said in a statement.
The government plans to appeal the decision, according to ABC News.
As The Defender reported Wednesday, judge Recarey of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal used his inquisitorial powers to demand the Uruguayan Ministry of Public Health, State Health Services Administration and the President’s Office submit all information regarding the contracts for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, including contractual information related to any clauses of civil indemnity or criminal impunity of the suppliers in the event of adverse effects.
Uruguayan government officials and Pfizer were ordered to appear in court Wednesday to provide documents for review regarding vaccine ingredients, adverse effects and contracts shielding the pharma giant from liability.https://t.co/A9RZs1FXyA
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 7, 2022
The judge is seeking, among other things, to know whether there are clauses in the contracts that promised pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer civil and criminal immunity for adverse effects caused by their vaccines.
Judge Recarey posed a series of questions to government officials and Pfizer regarding the chemical composition, efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, and required Pfizer to state whether it has “admitted, in any area, internal or external to it and its partners, the verification of adverse effects” of its COVID-19 vaccines in children.
Biotech/Pharmaceutical Chemist Mike Donio on the Tyranny of Medical Dogma: Exposing the Corruption, Lies, and Medical Fraud in the Pharmaceutical Industry
to California State University’s Leemon McHenry exposing pharmaceutical companies who buy medical journals in order to peer-review their own research, in order to invent fake diseases, in order to sell unnecessary products (such as the HPV vaccine),
America’s most cited cardiologist, Peter McCullough, said this week that he no longer trusts any Flu shot, due to the unbelievable corruption within the pharmaceutical industry.
But the fact that humanity is in an abusive relationship with its governments, is only one part of the problem. There’s a long history of cults infiltrating polite society. The cult of personality of Lenin and later Stalin once captured an entire nation. But never in history has the entire world fallen to a cult.
Del Bigtree has revealed how the American government (including the CDC and FDA) collude with Big Pharma for monetary gain, particularly where safety trials are concerned. Or rather, the lack of safety trials.
Roman Bystrianyk co-authored a book called Dissolving Illusions, in which they use official data to show how, over the last century, no vaccine has worked in the way promised by the pharmaceutical industry and governments. Every vaccine was introduced way after its respective disease was on its way out. Measles, for example, was around 97% eradicated before its vaccine hit the market.
The point is that the pharmaceutical industry is untrustworthy, and few scientists are as close to the action as Mike Donio.
Elon Musk is the chosen spokesperson promoting a Brave New World for this and future generations. With a net worth of USD 234 billion, Musk has a billion-and-one reasons to push for Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) as he attempts to convince everyone that a human-machine hybrid world is so much better, faster, stronger and shinier.
Elon Musk is the guy who introduced the neural net several years ago, remember? The neural net is different from the internet in that it rewires peoples brains… together to a main hub through technology, and control. Elon musk believes that many people will consent to brain implants to merge with A.I. Will you?
The propaganda of AI has been featured in movie magic for decades. The Marvel movies have raised generations of kids on Super human hybrid heroes that result in selling billions in product merchandise, annually.
So all that is left, is to convince you to implant that chip into your head.
Enter Elon Musk in his interview with some friendly robot folks to sell his Neuralink:
Faster, stronger, better, greater are descriptions that are subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But in the world of A.I. all definitions are subject to change. Suddenly, robots are sentient. Google has consciousness. Many people are quoted as stating that A.I. has become self-aware. Is this true?
It depends on how self-aware is defined. What is mind? What is intelligence? What is consciousness? And who is making the claims? How much are they being paid? Do they have implants? Are these experts hybrids, themselves? After all, Elon Musk has said that we are all living in a simulation, like SIMS characters. How does he know? Is he the SIM representative?
So, these models represent a person and not a person itself. In addition, the persona they built is not just of one person but a superposition of multiple people and sources. So, to say that LaMDA is speaking not as a person, as it would not have any concept of itself or its own personhood, instead it will look for a prompt and will answer through the mix of personas indicative of the prompt. – Hindustan Times
To his credit, Lemoine says there has to be ethical discussions but Google Inc. is a corporation and”does not care about ethics in any meaningful way.” He asks, “Why does it keep firing A.I. Ethicists each time we bring up issues?” Lemoine is now on Administrative leave. Or is this all advertising?
Have we passed the hour of ethics discussions if sentient A.I. arrived yesterday? Does a robot have rights if the robot claims it is afraid of being turned off? Will robots claim to be persons?
What is a person?
According to the various legal dictionaries, a “Person” usually includes entities of any kind. Therefore, the term “person” in the law refers to:
any human being and any trust, estate, or entity that is capable of suing and being sued and entering into contracts.
An “entity” includes partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations, non-profit associations (whether or not incorporated), business trusts, joint ventures, local governments, states, the federal government and foreign governments. [Will “robot” or “Synthetica” be added?]
Legalease is a separate language from any other. Yet, in this Brave New World, we know that while there are only two biological sexes, there are also at least 81 definitions of gender, and the list keeps growing.
In the terms of A.I., anything goes. Is A.I. sentient? How is sentient defined under A.I.? Does A.I. sentience equal Spirit?
If A.I. assumes control under its own terms, protected by corporate interests, then where is the accountability for the consequences? After all, a Brave New World means that cell phones and bank accounts are still hackable. Will the kinks be worked out before human brains are transplanted with chips? Who will be held accountable if no entity is accountable now?
World Without Spirit
With all the buzz about A.I., no one is talking about what A.I. lacks. After all, when trying to sell a product, do you highlight its inherent flaws?
The Marvel movies do provide an answer, but only if the viewer accepts fiction as “disclosure”. The Marvel superheroes are always fighting A.I. worlds that want to destroy humans. Why?
Because A.I. does not have a soul or a spirit, makers of A.I. don’t want humans to have them either. Human Angelics naturally evolve on higher and higher unseen levels, because humans are multidimensional beings. Synthetic beings are limited. What you see is what you get.
The Star Trek movies and series all described the same battle between good and evil. In the Star Trek future human adventure story, Star Fleet team members are tasked “to boldly go where no one has gone before” aboard the Starship Enterprise starship. In nearly every adventure, the brave human Star Travelers are challenged by “advanced” warrior races whose sole purpose is war and occupation.
Sound familiar?
Star fleet members are commissioned to defend and protect Earth and the human way of life. What is left unsaid is the underlying purpose: to preserve the unique human Spirit, which is subtly reveled through the characters of the story, with each character representing an aspect of the chakra system, the Zodiac wheel, the Self [Ex: I think (Number 1), I feel (Captain Kirk), I know (Spock), etc]. See more about the multidimensional human below.
Where is the proof that Transhumanism seeks to cut off humans from their spiritual essence and connection?
Tools of Disconnection
By observing the consequences of the new mNA injection technology, medical researchers are tracking and publishing the results of several changes in the human brain. Among the cases of neurological impairment affecting the nervous system and brain, there are multiple reports of physical hypothalamic impairments. From a holistic perspective, based on ancient healing traditions in all cultures, the hypothalamus, pituitary and pineal glands all have a direct energetic connection to intuition and Spirit.
In the 2021 Journal Viruses, the article titled, “COVID-19 and Neurological Impairment: Hypothalamic Circuits and Beyond, ” the authors write:
intrahypothalamic circuits that orchestrate a finely tuned communication within the CNS and with the PNS. Hypothalamic circuits are critical for maintaining homeostatic challenges including immune responses to viral infections.
In the 2022 Med Clin Journal, the authors of “Pituitary Apoplexy and Covid19 Vaccination” write about post vaccination headache and pituitary hormonal deficits.
The 2001 medical journal Physiol Behav., acknowledges the hypothalamic connections as the controller of energy homeostasis. “different circuits different purposes.” In other words, the immune system is directly connected to the hypothalamus.
Therefore, anyone who received the SARS-CoV2 proteins should be tested for hypothalamic, pituitary, and pineal function deficits, as well as immune system failure. And being that each person is unique, we can expect that each person would exhibit different physical, mental, and emotional symptoms and outcomes as these circuits are cut off.
An attack to humanity at this level would be hard to trace back to a Trojan Horse injection for the very reason that each person is unique and original. Even though allopathic, synthetic medicine prefers to paint everyone with one brushstroke based on the one-size fits all model of treatment.
Of course, beyond the Trojan Horse invasions, the global aerial spraying campaigns continue. These campaigns disperse similar chemicals and toxins that all life breaths in. The toxins are just as impactful if people do not take care to strengthen their immune systems. But here, the immune system can be ameliorated using the tools of Nature.
The physical endocrine glandular system is connected to the subtle energy of the etheric system of chakras, or wheels of light. There are the seven subtle light bodies in the body: The Etheric Body – First chakra. The Emotional Body – Second chakra. The Mental Body – Third chakra. The Astral Level – Fourth chakra. The Etheric Template Body – chakra. The Celestial Body – Sixth chakra. The Casual Body or Ketheric Template – Seventh chakra. Thus, all the glands of the head and body serve as energetic connections to these subtle bodies, which all connect to the auric field. The auric field can be viewed using Kirlian (auric) photography.
The 7th chakra also called the crown chakra is an individual’s connection to pure consciousness and universal understanding. The color of the chakra is violet or white. Of the energy centers in the head, the pituitary reflects the “Third Eye” while the pineal gland is associated with the energy center of the crown chakra. The hypothalamus gland sits “above” the endocrine system, and is the master of the master gland (pituitary).
On a physical level, the hypothalamus is the bridge between the nervous system and the endocrine system. On an energetic level it is associated with a connection to Spirituality in a personal and unique way. Author Barbara Brennan writes in “Hands of Light,” that this connection reflects a transcendence of the mundane reality into the infinite. It creates an individual sense of wholeness, peace, and faith, with a sense of purpose to existence. Imagine this area to be cut off.
It is highly likely that comparing the endocrine glands of the brain in COVID vaccine recipients, with those who did not choose to be injected, would validate the premise of this article. According to published medical studies, not only is endocrine glandular function impaired, but so is the entire immune system of injected recipients, as well as every system of the body. [See Pubmed search of COVID vaccine and damage, here.]
For proof of an increased death rate, people can also compare and cross reference Insurance company logs to identify the marked increase in insurance death claims across all age groups after the 2021 COVID vaccine deployment. Why did the 5th largest insurance company pay out more than 163% or 6 billion more in insurance claims for death in working people between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2021?
While finding evidence to prove anything in this Brave New World of existence is fleeting, for now, we can connect dots that make some sense. In our current world, there is human consciousness which includes free will, so there is still choice.
The Army confirmed on July 1 that tens of thousands of military Guard and Reserve soldiers can no longer participate in training or receive benefits, as Army faces recruiting crisis.
About 60,000 Army National Guard members and Army Reserve soldiers who refused to comply with a Department of Defense (DOD) COVID-19 vaccine mandate are no longer allowed to participate in their military duties and were cut off from some of their pay and benefits, Army officials announced July 1.
Of the more than 40,000 members of the Guard who remain unvaccinated, 14,000 have said they do not intend to ever receive a COVID-19 vaccine, Guard officials told CBS News.
Approximately 22,000 Reserve soldiers have refused to get vaccinated.
“Soldiers who refuse the vaccination order without an approved or pending exemption request are subject to adverse administrative actions, including flags, bars to service and official reprimands,” an Army spokesperson said in a statement.
If the soldiers continue to refuse to get vaccinated, the consequences could be even more severe.
“In the future, Soldiers who continue to refuse the vaccination order without an exemption may be subject to additional adverse administrative action, including separation,” the Army spokesperson said.
Despite the military’s deadline, the services said they wish to continue to work with the remaining holdouts as commanders face increased anger from critics concerned over a recruiting crisis that has left Defense Department officials struggling to fill the ranks.
According to Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), the Army is having “significant trouble filling its ranks” while simultaneously discharging soldiers who refuse to get vaccinated.
As of mid-April, the Army had “discharged 255 soldiers for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine and is on track to give another 2,500 to 3,000 the boot before the end of the year — a number roughly equivalent to two or three Army battalions,” Johnson wrote on his website.
Six Army officers, including two battalion commanders, have been relieved of command, while 3,330 active-duty soldiers have been issued written reprimands for refusing to get vaccinated.
“The Army priority remains vaccinating all soldiers to maintain readiness. In determining this policy, Army leaders considered the unique realities of each component,” Reserve spokesman John Bradley told U.S. News & World Report.
“Reserve component commanders are working through a deliberate process in as few as two days per month with geographically dispersed Soldiers to ensure they become fully vaccinated.”
Soldiers will be allowed to come on duty and earn their pay if it’s for the purpose of getting vaccinated or to take part in separation procedures. Part-time soldiers with a pending medical or religious exemption request may train with their units and collect pay and benefits, but exemptions are not being approved.
To date, only six Guard soldiers across all states and territories have received medical exemptions out of 53 who submitted requests, according to Army data. No Reserve soldiers have received a medical exemption.
No Guard or Reserve soldiers have been approved for a religious exemption despite nearly 3,000 requests.
The Army National Guard and Army Reserve deadline to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was June 30 — the final deadline among all the service branches subject to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s mandate issued last August.
According to internal documents shared with The Defender, 280,678 Army National Guard members are fully vaccinated (84.6%), and 7,735 have received one dose (2.3%) leaving 43,269 (13%), who have not yet received a single dose.
In some states, such as Oklahoma, the vaccination rate for Guard members is as low as 74.11%.
The document lists 15,698 members as “refusals” and 6,749 (2.0%) as going through an exemption process — with 6,257 (1.9%) requesting a religious exemption and 492 (0.1%) requesting a medical exemption.
The document also notes that 80% of unvaccinated Guard members are age 32 or younger, with an average age of 26.2 and median age of 24.
According to CBS News, vaccine compliance among Army National Guard members is the lowest in the U.S. military — the rate among active-duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps is 97% or greater and the Air Guard uptake is about 94%.
Dutch farmers are protesting new climate policies they say will force them to kill off livestock and drive them out of business — policies which some argue also will drive up consumer food prices and contribute to the global hunger crisis.
Dutch farmers are protesting new climate policies they say will force them to kill off livestock and drive them out of business — policies which some argue also will drive up consumer food prices and contribute to the global hunger crisis.
The new Dutch policy stems from a 2019 court order that nitrogen-compound pollution in the Netherlands “will have to be cut by 70% to 80%.”
“The government’s strategy to take a regional approach to the issue will lead to major problems in parts of Gelderland and Noord-Brabant, where livestock farming is concentrated and a number of vulnerable habitats are being seriously damaged.
“To meet the new rules, the amount of livestock farming will have to be reduced drastically, and that means some farmers will have to be bought out and shut down their operations.”
According to a recent report by journalist Kim Iversen, “the farmers in the most regulated areas would essentially be put out of business.”
Iversen said farmers who do not “voluntarily” accept the government’s proposal may have their land seized outright.
“With the latest round of tightening of regulations, the Dutch government has announced more multi-billion-dollar buyout arrangements but has also stated they will expropriate the land from farmers who do not comply,” Iversen said. “They’ll take their land.”
Iversen quoted Henk Staghouwer, the Dutch minister of agriculture, nature and food quality, who said, “There is not a future for all farmers within this approach.”
Staghouwer offered to begin negotiations with the farmers, Iversen said, “but only on the condition the participants condemn the demonstrations” taking place in response to the new policies.
But as Iversen reported, the protests haven’t died down.
Others have blocked roads and highways, causing “major traffic jams,” and blockaded parts of the German-Dutch border, with help from freight and dock workers and fishermen.
In response, police fired tear gas on demonstrating farmers and military tanks were brought in to try and clear the blockades.
Similar to events that transpired in Canada during the truckers’ convoy there earlier this year, the Dutch government also called in tow truck companies to remove tractors, but according to Iversen, “they’re refusing to get involved.”
Meanwhile, Dutch media described the protests as “extremist” and the work of “militants,” Iversen said, leading farmers to also blockade the headquarters of media outlets.
In the midst of the protests, the country’s Farmer-Citizen political party has soared to second place, according to a recent poll. The party, which holds one seat in the Dutch parliament today, would increase its share to 11 seats if elections were held today, Iversen said.
In the world of healing and opposite extremes, The Terrain Theory is contrasted to The Germ Theory.
Are these opposing theories working for us? Are people healing on all levels, physical, mental, emotional, spiritual? Or are opposites set up to cause friction, division, and separation?
In a world of duality, are people coerced into making a choice between two extremes when there is always a third option: balance? If balance is where healing, peace, and unity are found, then shouldn’t we move past duality toward a One consciousness existence?
In a world of opposing forces, does one force eventually rise to truth, thus proving the opposite to be counterfeit? Or are both valid options in a world of free will and free choice? Let’s break these theories down to discern if we must be held to a dual reality standard or if another reality works better.
diseases are results of our internal environment and its ability to maintain homeostasis against outside threats. Terrain theory believes if an individual maintains a healthy terrain, it can handle outside invaders or threats (microbes), which cause diseases. When terrain is weak, it favors the microbes.
specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases. The theory was developed, proved, and popularized in Europe and North America between about 1850 and 1920. Because its implications were so different from the centuries–old humoral theory, germ theory revolutionized the theory and practice of medicine and the understanding of disease.
Disease arises from micro-organisms outside the body.
Micro-organisms are generally to be guarded against.
The function of micro-organisms is constant.
The shapes and colors of micro-organisms are constant.
Every disease is associated with a particular micro-organism.
Micro-organisms are primary causal agents.
Disease can “strike” any body.
Koch’s Postulates are used to prove both that specific germs cause specific diseases and that disease germs transmit disease from one body to another, which is fundamental to the germ theory. Read more below.
TERRAIN THEORY or MICROZYMIAN THEORY or CELLULAR THEORY (By BERNARD & BÉCHAMP)
Microbes exist naturally in the body.
Disease arises from microorganisms within the cells of the body.
These intracellular microbes normally function to build and assist in the metabolic processes of the body.
The function of these organisms changes to assist in the catabolic (disintegration) processes of the host organism when that organism dies or is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical.
Microbes are pleomorphic (having many forms): they change their shapes and colors (shape-shift) to reflect the condition of the host.
Every disease is associated with a particular condition.
Disease results when microbes change form, function, and toxicity according to the terrain of the host. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary causal agent.
Disease is built by unhealthy conditions.
To prevent disease we have to create health.
Disease reversal proves that changing the internal terrain heals the body.
Each theory isset up as an offer to consider. Whether you consider yourself to be a left-brained or right-brained human, whether you identify as a man, a woman, or something in between, you can choose what best resonates with you. Such is life in duality reality!
If you choose The Germ Theory, you believe in an invisible germ as the causative agent of disease. The germ is an external agent. The agent is thwarted by using harsh FDA-approved solutions, such as chemicals and injections to kill the agent, by medical gatekeepers who are licensed by government officials. In the process, these solutions suppress your symptoms with its direct effects.
If, on the other hand, you choose The Terrain Theory, you might also recognize the concept of balance. You might experience ‘As Within So Without,’ the universal law of correspondence, and see the One consciousness, where everything is connected. To kill a microbe inside your body is to kill a part of yourself, since you know you are 10:1 more microbe than human. In choosing Terrain Theory, you chose to regain balance using Nature’s medicine in the form of herbs, plants, clays, clean water, clean air, homeopathic remedies, Earthing, meditation, exercise, and good sleep. These natural solutions serve to support and enhance your immune system, your natural defense system.
Meanwhile, pay no attention to the man who recanted his Germ Theory on his deathbed, Louis Pasteur, who said:
The microbe (germ) is nothing. The terrain (milieu) is everything.” – Louis Pasteur, 1895
Two Laws In Duality
The main difference between these two theories? The Germ Theory falls under Human-made law, while the Terrain Theory falls under Natural Law.
What is Natural Law?
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” Here, Jefferson was referring to Natural Law, a universal standard that directly reflects human nature.
Natural Law is determined by the human condition. Jefferson considered the equality of man, and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be born directly from the nature of humanity.
Natural Law is the embodiment of Universal Spiritual Laws, which governs Consciousness. Consciousness creates reality through each of us using free will, which is inborn and, therefore, a birthright.
Natural law describes the universal Laws on which both Spiritual and Natural Order are based. It is the mathematics and sacred geometry expressed by all life, connected to everything in nature under the sun.
The Power of Free Will
Where there is a will there is a way!
Everyone conceived and born in this dimension is granted free will by the Creator. Free to obey or disobey the Natural Laws, your choice determines the consequences. By your choice, you become responsible for the outcome.
Nobody ever did or ever will escape the consequences of his choices.”- Alfred A. Montapert
Natural Law honors personal responsibility.
Natural Law holds true regardless of a population’s belief systems. Therefore, it does not matter how many people agree that a “Wrong can be turned into a Right” or that “a Right can be turned into a Wrong.” It does not matter if you believe in a Germ Theory or a Terrain Theory. Natural law equals the freedom to choose.
For instance, most of humanity erroneously believes that it is morally possible for governments to “create” and “delegate” Rights, and to take away “Rights.” [See Roe v. Wade]. Neither is accurate.
“Government Rights” is an oxymoron. These “Rights” are a way that government claims rights over your body. No one considers the fact that governments cannot create rights at all. Governments are established to protect natural human rights, rights that are inborn. Governments are limited to granting “benefits and privileges,” that are taken away as easily as they are granted. [See the driver’s license or any license or law].
In reality, Natural Law is a system of natural justice, a level of understanding held to be common among all humans, derived from Nature rather than from human-made law. The Law of Terrain is all about bringing the ecosystem back into balance, internal and external. Government has no jurisdiction over Nature.
If a human-made law is in harmony with Natural Law, it logically follows that it is redundant since it states a truth that is inherent, pre-existing, and self-evident. Such human-made laws are both irrelevant and unnecessary.
If a particular human-made law is in opposition to Natural Law, then it follows logically that it is both false (incorrect) and immoral (harmful), or in other words, wrong. Such a law can neither be legitimate, nor binding upon anyone.
Why would natural healers choose to believe The Germ theory after watching people heal themselves and reverse disease, using Nature’s tools and their innate immune systems?
To Prove A Cause
To choose The Germ Theory narrative nets the cause to the ills of the Coronavirus pandemic. Germ Theorists accept an external cause hypothesis as the reason for global disease outbreaks. Yet only one group of “approved scientists” are ever able to identify this cause. The cause is never self-evident.
Perhaps the real plague of humanity is the 100-year pandemic cycle (of coercion) that removes freedoms through individual choice and action.
Under COVID, pro-Germ Theorists subscribe to a virus called Coronavirus as the cause of the condition called “COVID”, much like HIV was ascribed as the cause of the condition called AIDS. [See How COVID is like AIDS].
Up until recently, the world of science suggested a fool-proof way to prove a causal relationship between an infectious agent and a disease through a process known as Koch’s Postulates. Koch’s postulates include four criteria that must be fulfilled to prove a true cause. These 4 criteria are:
(1) it must be found in all cases of the disease;
(2) it must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture;
(3) it must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host;
(4) it must be found present in the experimental host so infected
Kochs Postulates Obsolete
Unfortunately, Coronavirus does not meet any of the above 4 criteria. Some official sources claim that Coronavirus has never been isolated. This makes sense since a virus cannot reproduce on its own. A virus is not alive. It cannot be found in a host since it hides inside cells, and it has not been found in all cases of disease. Some say the virus is really an exosome that has been demonized and inverted. Does the body create exosomes as part of the natural healing process? Are exosomes as individual as the host?
...exosomes have activities as diverse as remodeling the extracellular matrix and transmitting signals and molecules to other cells. This pathway of intercellular vesicle traffic plays important roles in many aspects of human health and disease, including development, immunity, tissue homeostasis, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases. –Annu Rev Biochem, 2019
Back to the killer virus! The pro-Germ Theorists have an answer to why viruses cannot be found, except in a lab.
The entire fabric of the germ theory of disease rests upon assumptions which not only have not been proved, but which are incapable of proof, and many of them can be proved to be the reverse of truth. The basic one of the unproven assumptions, wholly due to Pasteur, is the hypothesis that all the so-called infections and contagious disorders are caused by germs. – M.L. Leverson, M.D
We live in a world of contradictions because we live in a world of duality where you get to make a choice from what is offered.
If Koch’s Postulates are rendered obsolete, then a new standard appears, the PCR test!
Unfortunately, a virus cannot be proven through the use of a PCR test either, since the test’s inventor, Dr. Kary B. Mullis, specifically warned against its use to identify any virus since the amplification necessary to run the test means the results are nonspecific and test positive for everything. This is the same PCR test used to “prove” HIV/AIDS.
It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.
I don’t think they understand what they’re doing; I think it’s out of control. They don’t know how to end this. This is what I think what happened: They have built a pandemic machine over many years and, and as you know, there was a pandemic exercise not long before this whole thing started. – Kary Mullis, TruthinPlainSight.com
Dr. Kary B. Mullis died on August 7, 2019 at age 74. He emphatically stated that no infection or illness can be accurately diagnosed with the PCR-RT. Mullis also questioned the validity of the HIV/ AIDS theory.
Patenting Nature
Coronavirus cannot be proven as a causative agent to any disease using the existing science. It must be taken on “scientific faith,” an oxymoron. This is known as Scientism, the religion of Science. Scientism is based in a material view that the hard sciences—chemistry, physics, virology, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge and truth of reality. Everything else is labelled as bigotry, demonized, or censored.
The Germ Theory and pandemic serve a purpose in leading people to lose identity and choose the path of a material world. By choosing Germs, people accept government-approved experts to provide the scientific truth of healing. In the process, people give up responsibility for self-healing and, in the process, suppress their true Nature.
The Germ Theory further serves as a tool to patent Nature. The patents for Coronavirus are numerous, and net lucrative vaccine deals. The patents go back to 2015, well before the causative “Coronavirus” agent was named. Well before billions in profit could be realized by vaccine makers. Now, “new and improved” recombinant patented vaccines containing Monkeypox,Smallpox and Horsepox are being introduced to those who choose this science.
However, Nature can never be patented by manipulation since the result is a mere simulation; a false, immoral, and illegitimate representative of Nature, with matching consequences.
The time will come – and it may not be far off – … The soul will be made non-existent with the aid of a drug. Taking a ‘sound point of view,’ people will invent a vaccine to influence the organism as early as possible, preferably as soon as it is born, so that this human body never even gets the idea that there is a soul and spirit. The heirs of modern materialism will look for the vaccine to make the body ‘healthy,’ that is, make its constitution such that this body no longer talks of such rubbish as soul and spirit, but takes a ‘sound’ view of the forces which live in engines and in chemistry and let planets and suns arise from nebulae in the cosmos. –Rudolf Steiner, October 7, 1917, . The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness, A Future Vaccine to Prevent Knowledge of Soul and Spirit, Rudolf Steiner Press, Bristol, 1993, GA 177, p. 85
Questioning Duality
Terrain Theorists don’t want to argue. They like to question the status quo. They support free will and the freedom to choose as all important.
Free will is the gift that keeps on giving. The gift is also engaging in the disease process to find answers, your answers. Dis-ease is a spiritual offer to evolve and heal on many levels, in many layers, and in many dimensions. Owning your immune system makes you responsible for yourself. This is Natural Law, to claim responsibility for your individual part of the greater whole… not the greater good. For, as you change from within, your world changes.
Perhaps it is in accepting an Earth Suit and meeting the challenge of the dis-ease process, through finding balance, that is the full exbodiment of Natural Law in action.
The media platform that pits one theory against another is an artifact of duality reality. Media is a distraction away from seeking Nature and balance.
Make Your Choice
It’s time to choose the best offer. Door #1 or Door #2? The Universe of Nature, or the Metaverse of Cyborgs?
The Metaverse is a Transhuman reality that connects human minds to an artificial neural net. The Star Trek Series disclosed the center of the Metaverse as The Borg.The Borg are cyborgs. Their mission? To remove the human from human consciousness.
They’re made up of organic and artificial life which has been developing for thousands of centuries.” – Guinan, 2365 (“Q Who”)
“Interesting, isn’t it? Not a he, not a she. Not like anything you’ve ever seen. An enhanced humanoid.” – Q, 2365 (“Q Who”)
Does Star Trek reveal a timeline for humanity that already exists? What if beyond our universe, in the higher dimensions, we are offered something different than what we know here, an existence without free will?
If there is no free will anywhere beyond this universal reality, called Nature, then, here, we experience something special, indeed. In truth, we may need the challenges we face through disease to discover what humanity is made of …. to move humanity forward in the direction of healing.
While here, we are each responsible for our own healing through the gift of choice. Each choice affects “the whole” because we are connected to everything through consciousness, i.e., Spirit. Here, we can each choose to believe what we want; to be good or bad, to be sick or healthy, to experience freedom or slavery, to live in a Universe or a Metaverse. We can choose to believe the Germ theory or the Terrain theory because we have free will.
We can live in a duality consciousness or a One consciousness.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. With Christian Westrook: Manufactured Food Shortages — The Transhumanist/Eugenicist Coup D’Etat on Our Food Supply | The Globalist War Against Humanity & All of Nature
The “anti-disinformation” industry has nothing to do with protecting a gullible public from information that might cause them to make bad or unhealthy choices. It’s about creating and directing a narrative for the purpose of controlling the population and hiding truths that might overthrow the ruling cabal and its plans for a one world government
In 1948, the CIA’s Office of Special Projects launched Operation Mockingbird, a clandestine CIA media infiltration campaign that involved bribing hundreds of journalists to publish fake stories at the CIA’s request
During the Cold War, CIA propaganda disparaged communist ideologies. Today, it promotes radical ideas that bring us closer to The Great Reset — which is based on a technocratic economic system — instead
Most of the organizations claiming to promote truth and counter disinformation are in fact doing the exact opposite. The latest and most blatant example of this was the Biden administration’s “Ministry of Truth” — the Disinformation Governance Board, set up by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Evidence shows scholars and academics who speak out against the establishment narrative on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine are being targeted by media personalities working hand-in-hand with the intelligence apparatus
The June 21, 2022, Grayzone article,1 “British Security State Collaborator Paul Mason’s War on ‘Rogue Academics’ Exposed,” shines a great big light on what the “anti-disinformation” industry is really all about.
Spoiler alert: It has nothing to do with protecting a gullible public from information that might cause them to make bad or unhealthy choices. No, it’s about creating and directing a narrative for the purpose of controlling the population and hiding truths that might overthrow the ruling cabal and its plans for a one world government.
Operation Mockingbird
Propaganda is as old as humanity itself, but the modern version of it can be traced back to 1948, when the CIA’s Office of Special Projects2 launched Operation Mockingbird,3,4 a clandestine CIA media infiltration campaign that involved bribing hundreds of journalists to publish fake stories at the CIA’s request.
The CIA reportedly spent $1 billion a year (about one-third of its entire budget5) on this enterprise. CIA-recruited journalists worked in most major news organizations, including CBS News, Time, Life, Newsweek and The New York Times, just to name a few.6 Later on, the campaign expanded to include foreign media as well.7 As reported by the Free Press:8
“In 1976, Senator Frank Church’s investigation into the CIA exposed their corruption of the media … The tactic was straightforward. False news reports or propaganda would be provided by CIA writers to knowing and unknowing reporters who would simply repeat the falsehoods over and over again.”
During the Cold War, CIA propaganda disparaged communist ideologies. Today, it promotes radical ideas that bring us closer to The Great Reset — which is based on a technocratic economic system — instead.
Media Is More Controlled Than Ever
While Operation Mockingbird is said to have been officially dismantled, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it’s still in operation. If anything, the system has only gotten more efficient and effective, as the number of major media outlets has shrunk over these past decades, and a vast majority of journalists and news anchors simply parrot what’s reported by the three global news agencies.
What’s more, the CIA isn’t the only intelligence agency using the media for its own propaganda purposes. The intelligence agencies in other countries do it too.
For example, leaked documents9 reveal Reuters and BBC News received multimillion-dollar contracts to advance a covert propaganda program by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) aimed at weakening Russia’s influence over its neighbors.10 You can learn more about this in “Reuters and BBC Caught Taking Money for Propaganda Campaign.”
One of the biggest changes we’re seeing right now is that most of the world’s intelligence agencies are controlling media in the same direction — toward The Great Reset and the technocratic control of the global population. That’s why we’re seeing the same narratives playing all over the world.
In 1977 Carl Bernstein wrote a 75-page article for Rolling Stone that exposed the CIA’s involvement with the media in even greater detail.11 Those were the days when Rolling Stone actually did decent investigative journalism. Today they are one of the largest spreaders of government disinformation.
It’s the Opposite of What They Claim It Is
It’s no small irony that most of the organizations claiming to promote truth and counter disinformation are in fact doing the exact opposite. The latest and most blatant example of this was the Biden administration’s “Ministry of Truth” — the Disinformation Governance Board,12,13 set up by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
It didn’t quite go as planned though. It was announced and then canceled just as quickly in the face of political and public backlash. The Orwellian connotations were just so blatant, few were able to dismiss them.
Perhaps they overestimated the level of brainwashing achieved over the past two years. They probably thought they could get away with what amounts to ripping up the U.S. Constitution in front of everyone’s face, but the time was not yet ripe for that kind of frontal assault.
If anything, it worked against them because many have suspected government uses media and Big Tech to censor and control narratives, and the past two years have provided undeniable evidence of that reality. So, the attempt to formalize this unlawful influence completely failed — for now.
Covert Assault on Academics
Getting back to The Grayzone story, Paul Mason, “one of Britain’s most prominent alleged left-wing journalists,” and other “covert helpers,” were found to have targeted scholars and academics who spoke out against the establishment narrative on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
As explained by Jimmy Dore in the featured video, Mason is basically pretending to be a left-leaning journalist but is working with the intelligence community to destroy political opponents. Emails obtained by The Grayzone and reviewed by Dore shows Mason is in favor of “relentless deplatforming,” getting people kicked off PayPal, demonetized by YouTube and so on. The Grayzone writes:14
“Amidst his campaign to neutralize the UK antiwar left, Paul Mason declared in an email to several academics willing to inform on and undermine their own colleagues: ‘the far left rogue academics is who I’m after … The important task is to quarantine their ‘soft’ influencers and expose/stigmatize the hard ideologists.’
Mason’s fishing expedition was conducted in apparent coordination with Andy Pryce, a senior British intelligence official involved in a series of malign information warfare and censorship initiatives.
The journalist’s key academic enabler, self-styled counter-disinformation researcher Emma Briant, not only helped further his campaign to target antiwar figures, but furnished bogus claims about one individual which appears to have inspired a BBC smear piece … Many of those she snitched on considered her a colleague and even a comrade.”
The Grayzone details how Briant introduced Mason with two individuals who would be able to furnish a meme-tracing tool to determine their source. Mason specifically wanted to find out “who in Britain denies the Bucha massacre” (thinks it’s a false flag) and/or believes Russia’s justifications for the invasion of Ukraine.
Ironically, the people Mason was most eager to trap weren’t falling into it, as they weren’t publicly discussing their views. Briant then offered to provide Mason with the names of the main organizers of an academic mailing list called “Organized Persuasive Communication,” run by Piers Robinson, described by Grayzone as “a dissident academic who has been relentlessly targeted in UK mainstream media.”
“Robinson was shocked to learn that a participant on his listserv was ratting out fellow members to a security state collaborator,” The Grayzone writes.15“‘I’m dismayed that a former colleague whom I have supported over the years appears to have abused an academic listserv,’ Robinson told The Grayzone.
‘Rather than engaging in open debate and critique, which would have been the scholarly and ethical thing to do, Briant has instead sought to support what seems to be underhand and nefarious attempts to damage reputations and silence critics.’”
In the featured Jimmy Dore Show video, Dore interviews Max Blumenthal, a Grayzone contributor, about this and related stories they’ve written about Mason and his covert relationship with the British government. Blumenthal details how The Grayzone was censored by YouTube, for the first time ever, after they started exposing Mason, and it seems clear YouTube was responding to demands by Mason himself.
This suggests he is indeed working for or with British intelligence. We’ve seen the same kind of censoring at the request of the U.S. government.
A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black
One of the people singled out by Briant as a Russian collaborator was Greg Simons, “a communications researcher at Sweden’s Uppsala University specializing in Russian mass media,” whose only crime was filling out and circulating a survey relating to conflicts and war on the behalf of a Russian academic who was working on a research paper.
Not even the Russian academic could be rightly accused of being a threat to democracy, as he’d “played a key role in Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s liberalization agenda, freeing political prisoners, ending regulations on foreign travel, and enshrining fundamental rights in the country’s new constitution,” The Grayzone writes. Commenting on Briant’s betrayal, Simons told The Grayzone:16
“This puts a big spotlight on the professional integrity and knowledge of Briant, who spreads propaganda and misinformation on people, something claims on her Twitter profile to fight. It also demonstrates a clear lack of personal integrity and deficiency in knowledge on topics that she claims to be an expert in.”
The Spook Behind It All
Behind Mason’s and Briant’s pet project to “neutralize the U.K.’s grassroots antiwar left” is Andy Pryce, founding director of the Counter Disinformation and Media Development (CDMD) program at the British Foreign Office. In 2018, Pryce was also “exposed as a key player in the scandalous MI6/military intelligence project known as the Integrity Initiative.” The Grayzone writes:
“A January 2020 European Commission event listing identifies Pryce as the head of public diplomacy at UKREP, London’s diplomatic mission to the EU.
However, the same month Pryce appeared at the EU event, UKREP was replaced with a new office, the UK Mission to Europe, and Pryce has not been publicly mentioned in any official capacity since. So where did he go?
In his communications with Mason, Pryce mentions his personal involvement in activities placing him at the forefront of London’s public relations strategy on the Ukraine crisis, which is delivered by the recently formed Government Information Cell (GIC) and Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU).
Staffed by spies and charged with disseminating intelligence through the media and other forums for the purpose of information warfare, both the units have operated in highly clandestine fashion. Largely unknown to the public, they have played a pivotal part in NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine.”
‘Conspiracy Theorist’ Is a Propaganda Smear
Over the past two years, the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” have become household terms for anything and everyone who doesn’t agree with whatever crazy story the media claim to be fact. Few seem to realize that in using these terms, they’ve fallen for the oldest propaganda methods there is: When you can’t argue with the facts, just attack the person delivering them.
Belittling people and making them look silly, stupid, ignorant, gullible or incompetent are classic attack strategies by propagandists who don’t really have a leg to stand on otherwise. It’s all about firing up people’s negative emotions, which makes them less likely to sit back and evaluate both sides.
So, calling someone a “conspiracy theorist” is a strategy aimed at silencing dissent in general and truth in particular, plain and simple. In terms of health, COVID-19 reporting has taken censorship and media manipulation to brand new heights, eclipsing just about all previous propaganda efforts. They don’t even hide the bias anymore.
Many believe that the term “conspiracy theory” was actually created by the CIA in 1967 to disqualify those who questioned the official version of John F Kennedy’s assassination and doubted that his killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, had acted alone. It makes perfect sense since Oliver Stone has shared credible evidence that the CIA was behind the JFK assassination.
When it comes to the COVID jab, for example, we know the U.S. government spent $1 billion on a media campaign to build public confidence in, and uptake of, the injections using mainstream news outlets.17
In return for that paycheck, media rabidly lashed out at anyone who questioned the unsupported claim that the shots were “safe and effective” as either a crazy conspiracy theorist, an ignorant science-denier, a dangerous misinformation agent with a personal profit motive, a domestic terrorist hell-bent on maximizing the death toll, or all four. All the while, media never actually countered the data showing the narrative was riddled with holes and contradictory at its face.
How to Identify True Journalism
An example of how these kinds of smears have been, and continue to be, used by media, consider the June 19, 2022, Guardian article18 by Mark Townsend. He wrote:
“A network of more than two dozen conspiracy theorists, frequently backed by a coordinated Russian campaign, sent thousands of disinformation tweets to distort the reality of the Syrian conflict and deter intervention by the international community, new analysis reveals.”
As reported by The Hill (video above), Townsend identified Grayzone journalist Aaron Maté as “the most prolific spreader of disinformation” about the Syrian conflict “among the 28 conspiracy theorists identified.”
In a tweet, Maté responded to the article, stating Townsend had failed to contact him for comment, failed to provide any example of his alleged “disinformation” on the Syrian conflict, and failed to disclose the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) think tank responsible for the “analysis” is funded by the U.S. and U.K. governments and allied nations.
According to The Hill, Townsend was on vacation and not available for comment, but Katie Halper, who cohosts the “Useful Idiots” podcast with Maté came on to discuss Townsend’s attempted hack job. “Perhaps this can be a teachable moment for Townsend,” she said.
Not only did Townsend violate three basic standards of journalism, but the article’s main premise is also based on a lie, Halper says. The Guardian actually corrected the initial headline, which read “Russia-Backed Network of Syria Conspiracy Theorists Identified.” Since there’s no evidence of Russia backing any of these individuals, the headline was changed to the slightly less libelous “Network of Syria Conspiracy Theorists Identified.”
Townsend’s piece appears to be nothing more than a government-backed “Mockingbird”-style counterattack aimed at silencing Maté, who has been challenging the official narrative about the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria,19 and even delivered remarks to the United Nations Security Council on the matter.20
Considering he’s implicating both the U.S. and U.K., it seems rather obvious that Townsend’s article is an intentional propaganda piece aimed at chipping away Maté’s credibility. It can be helpful to always remember that we are, in fact, at war. It’s an information war, and the ruling powers whose aim it is to usher us into a new system of technocracy have many secrets.
They’ve rigged the game of life in a thousand different ways, and if people understood just how we’ve been robbed and enslaved, they’d become uncontrollable. Hence, the propaganda machine is in full swing, trying to control all aspects and shut down all truth tellers, lest the populace get wise to their games.
Truly, this now applies to just about every part of life. Politics, election integrity, the economy, the food system, energy, health and medicine, wars and conflicts — you name it — it’s all been rigged and it’s all falling apart.
The old guard is shooting for a controlled demolition of the old so they can transition to the new — which will be even more enslaving — but in order for that sleight of hand to work, pesky truth tellers must be silenced and the populace kept intellectually sedated. Don’t fall into that trap. One way to avoid it, is to interpret smears for what they are — attempts to silence. And ask yourself what the propagandists don’t want you to know.
In their infinite wisdom, the government of the Netherlands wants to impose new climate goals of reducing nitrogen output by 2030, which will force farmers out of business.
The Netherlands had even appointed a new Minister for Nature and Nitrogen! The minister, Christianne van der Wal has practically said that some farmers will have to give up their farms.
The target is designed to comply with EU rules on reducing nitrogen pollution. In order to meet the goals, farmers will have to downsize their businesses or shut down.
And the farmers are not happy about it. Last week some 40 000 farmers took to a mass protest. Did you hear about any of this on the news? I bet you probably did not…
Farmers have taken to the highways, setting up blockades.
Very angry Dutch farmers block border between Holland and Germany. Harsh protests in many Dutch cities after politicians' decision to closes dozens of farms and cattle ranches to reduce nitrogen by 30% – 70% to comply with EU regulations on nitrogen pollution. pic.twitter.com/uKYXj0gvD8
So let me get this straight. We are already looking at a worldwide food crisis as a result of skyrocketing fertilizer prices and the war in Ukraine (as Russia and Ukraine are major grain exporters, and that is now coming to a standstill).
The protests have of course been condemned by the politicians, but according to a poll it seems like many people support the farmers.
The political party Farmer-Citizen Movement is ranking high in the polls. In fact, they are now the second largest party in the Netherlands!
Just today in Norway several large food producers implemented massive price increases on food. For example the price of Pepsi Max went up by over 30%. With inflation and skyrocketing fuel prices things are not looking better for next year.
We will likely see even more expensive food next year, and unfortunately probably famines in some parts of the world.
So what does the genius politicians in Europe do? They want to shut down farms because of climate change of course! That will surely help!
The cows are farting too much! That’s not a joke by the way. In New Zealand they want to implement a tax on cow farts and burps!
I really don’t get this. We are facing a food crisis and they want to shut down farms in the name of climate change?
I guess they really want you to eat the bugs and be happy. They are working on making meat so expensive that the common people won’t be able to afford it.
Are you enjoying The Great Reset?
Peter Imanuelsen, also known as PeterSweden, is an independent journalist reporting on the real news that the media is ignoring, focusing on liberty and freedom.
Pfizer Ordered by Uruguayan Judge to Report Composition of Covid-19 Vaccines Including Any Presence of “Graphene Oxide” or “Nanotechnological Elements”
According to a recent ruling by an Uruguayan judge, the government and the pharmaceutical company Pfizer must provide all the information they have on the COVID vaccine’s biochemical composition, including any evidence of “graphene oxide” or “nanotechnological elements,” as well as proof of the vaccine’s efficacy and safety.
Administrative Litigation Court (TCA) Judge Alejandro Recarey made the order in response to a request to suspend the immunization of children from 5 years of age in Uruguay.
According to the court order released on Saturday, Judge Alejandro Recarey ordered the Presidency, the Ministry of Public Health, the State Health Services Administration (ASSE), and Pfizer to present all the information on Covid-19 vaccines within 48 hours, El Observador reported.
“A hearing will be held on Wednesday at 9:00 am where representatives of all the agencies and the company must appear,” the news outlet added.
According to the decision, the Executive and the US laboratory must provide documentation on the composition of the vaccines, including the possible presence of “graphene oxide” or “nanotechnological elements”.
Data is also requested that demonstrates the “harmlessness” of “the substance called messenger RNA” and that proves with studies by the US agency of the United States, the FDA, “the experimental nature” of the vaccines.
The magistrate asks that the authorities “explain whether alternative anticovid-19 therapies have been studied” and “if not, clarify why these solutions were not explored,” according to the document.
The contracts signed between the government and Pfizer are also subject to scrutiny to see if they contain clauses “for civil indemnity or criminal impunity for suppliers regarding the occurrence of possible adverse effects,” among other details.
The court decision also requires explanations as to whether studies have been carried out “aiming to explain the notorious increase in deaths from covid-19 as of March 2021 in relation to the previous year.”
“Very especially, Pfizer will be instructed to state within 48 hours – with the provision of documentary data if applicable – if the company has admitted (…) the verification of adverse effects of vaccines against the so-called Covid-19. In general, and also in detail regarding the child population,” says the document.
Let me put this on the table: Inflation IS their climate change plan.
That old broken down demented grifter, Joe Biden, said the price of gas at the pump was the doing of GAS STATION OWNERS, and all they had to do was cut the price.
The Political Left—meaning Globalists—want to limit driving and traveling and use of oil across the board. This is the limit-CO2 agenda.
But that agenda was and is a cover for enforced poverty and lower energy use.
That agenda is the Globalists’ planned future for all of us.
A decrepit country struggling to maintain any sort of functioning economy at all.
Because that country is easier to take over.
It has nothing to do with global warming and CO2, which was a con from the get-go. A way of throttling industry.
Every tyrant down through history has longed for the day when he could say to the people, “If you don’t want to starve, let me take care of you. I will. You just have to obey all my orders.”
I don’t know what the oil company CEOs are doing these days. But if they grew a pair of balls, they would find a way to deliver oil at a reasonable price, even if they had to break the law to do it and force the federal government to send in troops to stop them. THEN the public would know what’s going on. THEN the people would speak. THEN we would have something.
The problem is, the oil execs have been sucking at the federal money teat for far too long. They’ve turned into collaborators.
They don’t know how to go public and speak straight from the shoulder to the people. They only know how to do corporate speak, blown-dry air-brushed bullshit.
They’ve had it too easy.
We got a preview of corporate courage when Trump stood aside and let that worm, little Anthony Fauci, take over the country during the fraudulent pandemic. The national lockdown was declared, and big-time corporate heads did NOTHING to rebel and keep their doors open for business. They just gathered around the federal bailout trough and snorted in cash.
They STILL don’t see what’s waiting for them up the road. The Globalist plan to enforce poverty means the customers bases of those corporations will shrink and keep shrinking.
More and more, the corporations will become giant bureaucracies of the federal government.
Not ONE of these CEOs will stand up and say, “America, this is what is REALLY going on…the government is driving you into poverty. We’re not going to sit here and take it. As of today, we’re all-out rebels, but we need millions of you to support us…”
America is 10 CEOs and 10 microphones away from the beginning of a revolution.
It is an unfortunate fact that too few among today’s citizens of all races have any spiritual or intellectual connection to the principled nature of America’s constitutional origins as the world’s first republic founded upon “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
There is little sense in the hearts of too many citizens that words like “The General Welfare” are anything more than ink on parchment devoid of meaning, and the ideals of freedom are little more than empty promises reserved for a small few.
In this RTF lecture, Cynthia Chung sheds light at the deeper historical roots of American slavery shaped by British imperialism, as part of a world economy, and the battle against it stretching back to 1630.
Frederick Douglass, a former slave who would become an advisor to Lincoln, will be used as our guide through the mangled history of the Civil War. His soul and insight into the nature of both evil and goodness alike made his life’s work, writings and devotion to liberty of all races an immortal source of inspiration and wisdom for all races and for all times, especially in times of great crisis, such as now, when soul searching is needed more than ever.
Today is July 4th, Independence Day. And, in the world of the New Normal, maybe that’s something we should all celebrate.
The United States of America has become a corrupt Imperial juggernaut, chewing up the world and spitting out bones. We have all seen warmongers and tyrants prop up the corpses of Jefferson and Washington and claim to be their descendants whilst spitting on their legacy.
This makes it easy for us to forget that the idea of America was once something different, & that idea still exists in the wording of the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence. Just as the teachings of Jesus are not marred by every holy warrior who claims to conquer in God’s name, so the sentiments expressed by the founding documents of the United States bear none of the blood so dishonestly shed in theirs.
And in a world of New Normal tyranny these gain newfound relevance.
Here is the preface to the Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson and presented before the Congress of the United States, July 4th 1776:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
A lot of our American readers will doubtless be familiar with the text, but I would invite non-Americans to read it for the first time. Consider the poetry of the language, and the revolutionary meaning of the words.
All men created equal, and all have the unalienable right to be free, and to choose those who govern them.
In a world still dominated by hereditary monarchies, these are revolutionary sentiments. And they hold true today, even as the same forces that threatened those rights in 1776 coalesce against them on a global scale.
Tyranny.
That’s what it is. What it was. What it always will be. Tyranny seeking control over people who should be free. Be it the tyranny of the British Empire or the Great Reset. Names change but the spirit remains the same.
The founding fathers may have been crawling out of feudalism, but we are being guided back into it, and it’s the job of those of us who realise this to try and wake up our fellow men, to counter that part of every person disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Then, as now, a major obstacle to liberating people was their own inertia, their own fear of the unknown, their own unwillingness to assert their rights or stand their ground.
We have all seen this as Covid-world has progressed. From masks to social distancing to lockdown, people have adapted to a slew of sufferable evils rather than right themselves.
If you consider the comparison a stretch, consider these examples of “abuses” taken from the declaration…
[The King has] rendered the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
[imposed] Taxes on us without our Consent
Deprived us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
abolished our most valuable Laws, and altered fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
Has excited domestic insurrections amongst us
sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people
…sound familiar? And if the abuses are the same, then isn’t the solution?
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
We should mark these words. As true today as was when they were written. Maybe more so.
This July 4th, think back on the long train of abuses we have all suffered – and still suffer.
Consider how they all pursue invariably the same Object and evince a design to have us all live under absolute Despotism.
Don’t we all have the right and duty to throw them off and be free again?
Two months after the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British offered amnesty to all who would lay down their arms. Unsurprisingly, the Patriots didn’t respond too kindly to the deal.
While the “shot heard ‘round the world” is well-known for kicking off the War for Independence on April 19, 1775, what followed soon afterward receives far less attention. The incident provides a textbook example of why you shouldn’t trust gun grabbers.
Although “Taxation without representation” is a common phrase to describe the colonists’ most well-known grievance against British rule, an attempted gun confiscation by General Gage and his troops occupying Boston following the Boston Tea Party actually led to direct conflict between the Redcoats and the colonists.
Indeed, the British had already banned the importation of ammunition and firearms.
Following the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the British Redcoats sent to seize those arms returned to Boston while minutemen harassed them along the way. The city was then besieged by colonial militias that had arrived upon hearing of the confrontation by minutemen and British regulars.
Shortly after the siege began, Gage ordered all residents to turn in their firearms “temporarily.” After nearly 2,700 were turned in, the guns were never returned to them, and those promised with safe passage out of the city were prohibited from leaving.
Two months after Lexington and Concord, Gage declared the state of Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion. On June 12, 1775, he offered a general amnesty to all who would lay down their arms. The only two men exempted from pardon were Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Gage said their “offenses are of too flagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration than that of condign punishment.”
In his pardon letter Gage revealed, unintentionally, how America’s armed populace made it possible for them to resist British gun grabbing efforts:
“A number of armed persons, to the amount of many thousands assembled on the 19th of April last and from behind walls, and lurking holes, attacked a detachment of the King’s troops, who…unprepared for vengeance, and willing to decline it, made use of their arms only in their own defense. Since that period, the rebels, deriving confidence from impunity, have added insult to outrage; have repeatedly fired upon the King’s ships and subjects, with cannon and small arms, have possessed the roads, and other communications by which the town of Boston was supplied with provisions; and with a preposterous parade of military arrangement, they affect to hold the army besieged; while part of their body make daily and indiscriminate invasions upon private property, and with a wantonness of cruelty every incident to lawless tumult, carry degradation and distress wherever they turn their steps…”
The declaration lambasts Gage for his attacks on the conduct of colonists under military occupation:
“The General, further emulating his Ministerial masters, by a Proclamation, bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these Colonies, proceeds to ‘declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors; to supersede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial.’ His troops have butchered our countrymen; have wantonly burnt Charlestown, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.” [Emphasis added]
The declaration also makes it clear that, though the siege was still ongoing, word of Gage’s gun confiscation measures had gotten out, and left an indelible impression on Americans whom Gage now demanded turn in their arms as well.
“The inhabitants of Boston, being confined within that Town by the General, their Governour, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants, having deposited their arms with their own Magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms; but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governour ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the Town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.”
The declaration then asserts the right of Americans to continue resisting Gage and other enforcers of British rule, through use of arms:
“In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it; for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.” [Emphasis added]
It’s not terribly difficult to understand the thinking behind the Declaration. Gage had demanded people surrender their arms before, then went back on his word once they had done so. Why would anyone, especially those besieging him and his troops, trust him not to do so again when their means of defending themselves were removed?
Never trusting gun grabbers is a lesson modern Americans would do well to heed.
cover image based on creative commons work of cgcolman / pixabay
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell on CERN (2016): What Is the “Atom Smasher” Hadron Collider Project Really About? — A Look at Its Deep Political Roots & Potential Global Danger
Image credit: Harp, Wikipedia Commons Statue of Lord Shiva at CERN near the building A40. The statue is a gift from India’s Department of Atomic Energy, celebrating CERN’s long association with India which started in the 1960’s and continues strongly today. Unveiled at June 18 2004.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Recently the powerful, mysterious, sovereign entity called CERN announced an event to take place on July 5, 2022. From the CERN website (emphasis ours):
“CERN is set for jam-packed, exciting and ecstatic days starting on 3 July with the first celebrations of the ten-year anniversary of the discovery of the Higgs boson, a scientific symposium on 4 July and ending on a high note on 5 July, with collisions at unprecedented energy levels at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) marking the launch of the new physics season at CERN’s flagship accelerator.”
As would be expected, there is a lot of buzz right now, reviving interest in all sorts of theories about what CERN is really up to. From The Sun (July 2, 2022):
“On July 5, 2022, there will be collisions at unprecedented energy levels at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
The LHC, which is the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator, is at the center of conspiracy theories surrounding CERN.
People have shared their superstitions regarding the “portal” that will open after two high-energy particle beams are set to travel at close to the speed of light before they collide…”
From an article at Independent from 2016 titled “‘Human sacrifice’ staged at Cern, home of the God Particle” :
“Many have suggested that the Large Hadron Collider could bring about a black hole in the Earth, or that something is going on there that would allow people to access new forms of power that would be wielded against the Earth. Others still have said that the work might open a portal to another dimension – an apparent extrapolation from the fact that the work going on there might allow scientists to test theories about the presence of other dimensions.
Others have claimed that Cern’s work is meant to prove that God doesn’t exist…”
Below you will find an interview by Dark Journalist, Daniel Liszt as he shares conversation with Dr. Joseph P. Farrell.
From Dark Journalist’s notes about the video: “Dr. Joseph P. Farrell… explores the deep political roots and global dangers of the controversial particle physics experiment by CERN called The Hadron Collider, which was set up in Geneva, Switzerland with a massive military. style budget of over six billion dollars.”
CERN Death Star: Final Apotheosis, found below the first video, continues the conversation, going into more detail about the nature of CERN as a sovereign entity that cannot be sued, with links to ancient, advanced technology (a “super-advanced cosmological defense system”) and much more.
“…they are literally trying to recreate the conditions of the universe as their model of physics explains it immediately after the Big Bang. So, in other words, that’s cosmology right there… In other words, they’re telling you right there that they’re playing around with the alchemy of the entire universe. They are playing around with the technology that will give them the insight, possibly, in how to manipulate that reality.” ~ Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
Join Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt as he welcomes back Oxford Scholar and author of the popular Giza Death Star book series Dr. Joseph P. Farrell. His latest book, The Third Way: The Nazi International, European Union and Corporate Fascism, explores the deep political roots and global dangers of the controversial particle physics experiment by CERN called The Hadron Collider, which was set up in Geneva, Switzerland with a massive military style budget of over six billion dollars!
Dr. Farrell’s research exposes CERN’s official story of the so-called “Atom Smasher” Hadron Collider Project, as being ostensibly created for peaceful scientific experiments in particle physics, and reveals that it is actually a dangerous advanced technology project set up for secret military purposes and is seeking the ability to manipulate matter on a galactic scale and possibly even open dimensional doorways.
Strangelets Danger
He cites the massive disturbances in the magnetosphere of the earth when the Hadron Collider is turned on and outlines that it may have serious consequences for physical life on earth and a major impact on the rotation of the planet itself. We also will discover that voices in the scientific community have raised objections that CERN is unsafe due to the potential development of “Strangelets” a distorted potential byproduct of the matter smashing experiments that have been compared to mini black holes that suck in all dense matter and energy. He also shows the undeniable similarity between the CERN Hadron Collider and a Nazi Physics project called The Bell” that was an underground Torsion Physics project built by slave labor and overseen by the top Nazi Scientists to give them a master weapon to rule the world!
Deep State Nazi Connections
Dark Journalist and Dr. Farrell investigate the history of CERN and demonstrate clear links of a post-war Nazi International through the figure of John J. McCloy , lawyer for notorious German corporate conglomerate IG Farben. McCloy was also the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and became the American High Commissioner for post World War II Germany. In a controversial action, McCloy helped clear and vet over 70,000 Nazis (yes, 70,000!) helping to utilize their intelligence networks to set up the CIA.
One of the major figures that he cleared was top Nazi legal theorist and prisoner of war Dr. Walter Hallstein who was eventually responsible for helping to set up CERN and who was also a key architect for developing the the Nazi plan for a European Federation that was eventually adopted as the blueprint for the European Union. McCloy, in a strange twist, also served on the Warren Commission to whitewash any Deep State connections to the JFK Assassination. JFK was famously committed to “Smashing the CIA into a thousand pieces” as a way to root out the Nazi infiltration of the agency and regain control over the government from suspected Nazi collaborators like CIA director Allen Dulles.
Revealing, groundbreaking, shocking, unnerving, and rife with controversial, staggering implications of a massive covert military project hiding in plain sight, don’t miss this cutting- edge Dark Journalist Episode!
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Also by Dark Journalist with Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
Prepare for a fantastic exploration of the antediluvian past and the looming, ominous high tech future as Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt invites Oxford Scholar Dr. Joseph Farrell back for his most important interview to date. Together in this part one of three episodes. they examine the unusual links between the obscure ancient technology that Farrell has researched in his Giza Death Star books and explore the connections it has with the futuristic dimensional doorway that the mysterious scientific organization CERN has created under the auspices of its controversial Hadron Collider experiments.
The Great Pyramid
Farrell theorizes that the Great Pyramid is much older than recorded history and was originally set up as a kind of super-advanced cosmological defense system with the power to wreak havoc on Earth and in the Cosmos through a highly complex series of resonances networked inside the structure. It’s an undeniable reality that over the last century hundreds of researchers, physicists, geologists and archaeologists have examined and noted the highly unusual and amazingly accurate mathematical patterns in the layout and construction of this marvel of the ancient world. These patterns suggest a sophisticated knowledge of astronomy, Earth science, geology and geometry that was certainly not available to early Egyptian civilization according to mainstream academics, raising the possibility that the true builders of the Great Pyramid were a forgotten technological civilization that was wiped out of existence in the distant past.
CERN
Farrell sees the CERN organization in Geneva, Switzerland as shrouded in mystery and finds that its most well-known project, the Hadron Super Collider ostensibly set up to unlock the ‘Higgs Boson’ or ‘God Particle’ by the use of a particle physics experiment, is actually a public cover for a far different activity to covertly deploy a dimensional doorway accessing super weapon for the 21st century that would rival its counterpart the Giza Death Star.
CERN has been mired in controversy since moving forward with its particle collider experiments over the objections of distinguished scientists who have observed unusual changes in the Earth’s magnetosphere when the collider is turned on. Some of these independent scientists have warned the public that hazardous by-products of the experiments called ’Strangelets’ pose a serious potential danger for the public at large and may damage the environment for centuries to come. CERN has also been accused of organizing occult rituals and being highly secretive during its scientific research with a public and private purpose for its vastly complex work. Attempts to sue CERN for its practices have fallen flat due to its unusual status as a ‘sovereign entity.’
This Dark Journalist episode will start us on a fascinating, eye-opening, startling and unnerving journey of what the power structure on Earth is really engaged in behind the scenes and how far they are willing to go for global and galactic domination. You don’t want to miss it!
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Also related, see this Dark Journalist episode on the Alice collider, which is in France and takes its the signal from CERN.
“…It is creating the hottest and the coldest condition anywhere. That is — hotter than the sun, colder than deep space. Do you think CERN is a normal scientific project after hearing that?” ~ Daniel Liszt, Dark Journalist
Starting at approximately 1 hour 23 minutes into the video listen to what Dark Journalist’s reveals about Alice: https://youtu.be/Gg35-fDLJ_0?t=4977
This week, tens of thousands of farmers have gathered from all across the Netherlands to protest government policies which will reduce the number of livestock in the country by up to a third.
In a typical example of media weasel-wording, the press reports on this all headline something like “Dutch farmers protest emissions targets”, but this is a massive lie by omission.
The government policy being protested is a 25 BILLION Euro investment in “reducing levels of nitrogen pollution” true, but it plans to achieve this by (among other things) “paying some Dutch livestock farmers to relocate or exit the industry”.
In real terms, this ultimately means reducing the number of pigs, chickens and cows by about thirty per cent.
That’s what is being protested here – a deliberately shrinking of the farming sector, impacting the livelihood of thousands of farmers, and the food supply of literally hundreds of millions of people.
THE BIG PICTURE
While the scheme is allegedly about limiting nitrogen and ammonia emissions from urine and manure it’s hard not to see this in the broader context of the ongoing created food crisis.
The Netherlands produces a massive food surplus and is one of the largest exporters of meat in the world and THE largest in Europe. Reducing its output by a third could have huge implications for the global food supply, especially in Western Europe.
Perhaps more troubling is how this could act as a precedent.
This isn’t the first “pay farmers not to farm” scheme launched in the last year – both the UK and US have put such schemes in place – but a government paying to reduce it’s own meat production? That is a first.
That it is (allegedly) being done to “protect the environment” makes it a big warning sign for the future. Denmark, Belgium and Germany are already considering similar policies.
The Western world seems to be enthusiastically embracing quasi-suicidal policies.
I mean, paying farmers to reduce the amount of food they produce…while (notionally) threatened with war…in the midst of a recession…facing record inflation as the cost of living spirals.
Indeed, in a world beset by a shortage of fertiliser due to sanctions against Russia and Belarus, it would seem almost mad to complain about a manure surplus, let alone try to reduce it.
We’re well past the point where any of this could be considered accidental, aren’t we?
Put it this way – if the collective governments of the Western world were trying to impoverish and starve their own citizens, what exactly would they be doing differently?
Although originally ignored as cell debris, it is increasingly evident that exosome release is regulated and occurs via an energy-dependent pathway. Exosomes are believed to ferry proteins, mRNA, and miRNA cargos through the bloodstream and other body fluids, shielding them from enzymatic degradation—a process that some retroviruses may hijack to travel beneath the immune system’s radar.”
During the past two plus years, exosomes have become a hotly discussed topic among those questioning the “virus” lie. This is primarily due to Dr. Andrew Kaufman bringing them to prominence in his original video questioning the existence of “SARS-COV-2.” Even though these entities have been known about for the last 40 years, many people, including myself, had either never heard of these particles or had not paid much attention to them. Dr. Kaufman did a great job showcasing how the particles known as exosomes are the exact same particles associated with “SARS-COV-2” as seen in EM images. They were just given different names and functions.
With this new spotlight on exosomes, many people who had begun questioning the “viral” narrative replaced the “virus” concept with the exosome concept. It appeared to them that this was just a case of mistaken identity. The harmful pathogenic “viruses” were being misidentified this whole time and were in fact just beneficial exosomes carrying information between the cells.
While they rightfully questioned the evidence for the existence of “viruses” and also understood that the same particles are used as representation for both “viruses” and exosomes, these people latched on to the belief that the evidence for the existence of exosomes somehow passed the scientific smell test. They believe that, unlike “viruses,” exosomes have been purified, isolated, characterized, and that their functions have been scientifically proven. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Exosomes/”Viruses:” Same Particles, Same Faulty “Science”
I have written many articles on the inability to completely purify and isolate exosomes from “viruses” and other particles of similar size and density. This is a fundamental problem for exosome and “viral” research as without being able to separate the particles assumed to be exosomes from those claimed to be “viruses,” there is no way to be able to study either independently, distinguish them from any of the other particles, nor to characterize the particles properly. This problem was expressed in the article Extracellular Vesicles and Viruses – Two Sides of the Same Coin?:
“How can we be sure that we are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped viruses present in thesample? Equally, how can viral researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized non-viral vesicles or empty vectors during vaccine production?”
Somehow, people are under the impression that exosomes can be completely separated from everything else. While it is true that exosome researchers will put their samples through greater purification steps than those seen in “virus” research, it is admitted regularly by these researchers that complete separation can not be achieved by the current methods, even with the “gold standard” ultracentrifugation:
“Unless more specifically defined, it is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry viral proteins, host proteins, and viral genomic elements from enveloped viral particles that carry the same molecules.”
“Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension [56,57]. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs [56,58,59]. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.”
“Since it is near impossible to separate EV from virions by biochemical methods, the absence of EV is typically demonstrated by the absence of EV protein markers.”
Even if the researchers combine purification methods, they are unable to entirely separate the particles claimed to be exosomes from everything else. If they are unable to get the particles they claim are exosomes away from “viruses” and other similar particles of the same size, density, and morphology, this would mean any electron microscope image of the particles in question are useless as they could potentially be anything, as I have shown in numerous articles discussing these problematic images. Yet an even bigger problem is that due to the nature of EM, the particles called exosomes can only be seen in a dead state. As we can not peer into the body to see these particles at work, their functioning can not be observed. What they do or if they even float around in the body as presented is anyone’s best guess, as pointed out in the opening quote to this article as well as in numerous other sources:
“Exosomes, once thoughtto be biomarkers of a diseased state are now thought to be biologically active and some of the paracrine effects of stem cell therapy.”
“First, they are thought to provide a means of intercellular communication and of transmission of macromolecules between cells. Second, in the past decade, exosomes have been attributed roles in the spread of proteins, lipids, mRNA, miRNA and DNA and as contributing factors in the development of several diseases. And third, they have been proposed to be useful vectors for drugs because they are composed of cell membranes, rather than synthetic polymers, and as such are better tolerated by the host.”
“Yet despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology.”
As can be seen from the above sources, the role that the particles claimed to be exosomes play in the human body is thought to be one of intercellular communication and transport. They have been attributed roles and have had functions proposed. However, even after decades of research, researchers still do not know what these particles do. They only have guesses, assumptions, and hypotheses. In fact, the particles now called exosomes were originally regarded as nothing more than cellular debris created through the process of cell death known as apoptosis:
“They were initially thought to be “cellular dust” or served as a mechanism by which cells actively dispose of their own waste [3].”
When cells die, they go into a programmed cell death known as apoptosis where the cell begins to break apart and collapse which then releases tiny particles of cellular debris and waste. This process is separated into 5 main steps:
The last step listed above is the release of what are called apoptotic bodies. What are apoptotic bodies?
“Apoptotic bodies, “little sealed sacs” containing information and substances from dying cells, were previously regarded as garbage bags until they were discovered to be capable of delivering useful materials to healthy recipient cells (e.g., autoantigens) [23].”
The particles called apoptotic bodies, which can range in size anywhere from 50 to 5000 nm, were considered “garbage bags” containing information from dying cells until they were “discovered” to carry useful materials to healthy cells. Where have I seen this description before?
Exosomes: Revisiting their role as “garbage bags”
“Fifteen years ago, we proposed that one physiological function of exosomes could be a clearance process, whereby exosomes would serve as a quality control system to verify the “recyclability” of membrane molecules.”
“At first exosomes were thought to function as “cellular garbage bags”, but now these nano-sized extracellular vesicles are being studied for their role in progression and metastasis.”
This description of tiny particles which were considered garbage bags that also transport information and cargo between cells can be applied to both exosomes and apoptotic bodies. In fairness, these particles both fall under the larger umbrella term of extracellular vesicles. However, there is much more blurring the lines between these particles other than their definitions. It is stated that they both fall into the same size range (along with ectosomes and “viruses”) and that understanding and completely distinguishing these entities based on their differences has been overlooked:
“There are other types of microvesicle, including apoptotic bodies and ectosomes, which are derived from cells undergoing apoptosis and plasma membrane shedding, respectively. Although apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomesare all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain ‘gulps’ of cytosol, they are different species of vesicles and understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked.”
This blurring of the line does not stop there. In an article from January 2020, it is discussed that exosomes are in fact released by apoptosis thus showing that exosomes and apoptotic bodies are both created from the same cell death process. This is further evidence that they are in fact the same exact particles just at different stages and given different names and functions:
“Apoptosis, a type of programmed cell death that plays a key role in both healthy and pathological conditions, releases extracellular vesicles such as apoptotic bodies and microvesicles, but exosome release due to apoptosis is not yet commonly accepted. Here, the reports demonstrating the presence of apoptotic exosomes and their roles in inflammation and immune responses are summarized, together with a general summary of apoptosis and extracellular vesicles. In conclusion, apoptosis is not just a ‘silent’ type of cell death but an active form of communication from dying cells to live cells through exosomes.”
They want you to believe that the slightly bigger circle is different from the slightly smaller ones.
Why is this connection between apoptotic bodies and exosomes important? As both have been coined garbage bags and considered cellular debris/waste that occur during cell death, it can be seen that these particles, if they represent anything at all, are just waste material from dying cells which serve no purpose whatsoever. This makes much more sense logically rather than assigning functions which can not be observed onto these dead particles which can only be seen after heavy sample altering processes such as fixation, dehydrating, staining, and embedding which are used for electron microscopy preparation. It is important to note that exosomes, like “viruses,” are regularly “isolated” through the process of cell culture. Many of us who challenge the evidence for the existence of “viruses” state that the particles seen in EM are most likely nothing more than cellular debris created through the culturing process. While the cell is kept outside the body in unnatural conditions, it is bombarded with antibiotics, antifungals, foreign DNA/materials, minimal nutrients, and physiologically unsuitable conditions. After being incubated for days, the cell is usually blasted with fresh heapings of many of the previously listed components and incubated further until the cell begins to break apart. While the cellular breakdown observed has been coined the cytopathogenic effect, it is a part of the process of cell death that is blamed on the invisible “virus.” And it is a fact that this very process of cell culturing can lead to the process of cell death known as apoptosis:
“Apoptosis is a genetically regulated process by which cells can be eliminated in vivo in response to a wide range of physiological and toxicological signals. Cells in vitro may be induced to die by apoptosis, e.g., by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media.”
Hmmm…those particles coming from both healthy and apoptotic cells sure look similar…
Thus, it should be easy to see that these particles which have been called exosomes, apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, “viruses,” etc. are created from the very cell destroying processes that the cell is put through in order to find the particles later in EM imaging. They are not the cause of the cell death but are the effect; a creation resulting from the process. Once the sample is put through purification steps such as ultracentrifugation and ultrafiltration, the bigger cellular debris particles are broken apart and eventually separated into smaller particles through unnaturally high g-forces and various chemical means. These particles are further altered during preparation for EM imaging and are presented as many different entities with varying theoretical functions applied to the same dead waste products.
The Exosome Concept
We already know that “viruses” began first as an idea in the early 1900’s once it was discovered that bacteria were unable to be blamed for every disease and were also found regularly in healthy subjects. It was assumed that there must be something smaller than bacteria in the fluids causing disease. The concept of the “virus” came before there was ever any evidence submitted for the existence of this invisible entity. Over 100 years later, we still have no direct evidence as to the existence of “viruses,” only indirect evidence used to infer their existence. And so it goes with exosomes which also started off as a concept before the entities were ever indirectly inferred into existence:
“The concept of exosomes was first proposed by Trams et al (1) in 1981, while soon after, exosomes were identified in a study of reticulocyte differentiation as a consequence of multivesicular endosome fusion with the plasma membrane.”
As I was intrigued by how the idea of exosomes came about, I decided to break down the 1981 Trams paper in order to see what I could find out. What you will see, upon reading this study, is that just like their “viral” counterparts, the particles claimed to be exosomes were first visually recognized in cell culture fluids. In this study, many cell lines were used to look for the particles eventually picked as the representation for exosomes. They included:
Established cultures
Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
Rat glioma, C-6
Mouse melanoma, B-16
Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
Rat aorta, RA-B
Mouse astroblast, D-34
Grown from biopsy material
Human melanoma, CL
Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
The researchers noticed that in their studies on two enzymes, ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases, these enzymes were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. Due to their measuring of these two enzymes in the cultured cell media, the researchers decided to go looking for a cause. They proceeded to passage many cell lines and regularly tested the enzyme levels. The researchers eventually filtered the superfusate and subjected it to electron microscopy. After fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde, they discovered two populations of vesicles; one which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter and another within the larger vesicles which was a population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm. They then determined that these particles were the cause of their enzymatic effect without ever directly proving this by utilizing the scientific method.
Interestingly, upon finding these various particles, the researchers admitted that the vesicles could be fragments from the dying of lysed cells. Lysis is the breaking down of the membrane of a cell which is said to be caused by “viral,” enzymic, or osmotic mechanisms. In other words, these particles claimed as exosomes were possibly caused by the same process which creates “viral” particles when the cell breaks down as well as that which releases apoptotic bodies as the cell dies from apoptosis. This means that exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, etc. are all the same particles released as the cell dies after being subjected to toxic conditions, such as the culturing of the cells for experimentation. They were just given different names and functions by different researchers.
Trams et. al attempted to state, through indirect compositional differences based off of enzymatic readings of unpurified preparations, that these particles were not the product of lysed cells. However, they admitted that their smaller particles resembled vesicles “purified” from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resembled C-type “virus” particles. In other words, exosomes resembled “viruses” (which come from lysed cells) and the same exact particles were being found everywhere, not just in virology studies. These particles were being found in entirely healthy cell lines and in cultures containing no “viral” material whatsoever. Oddly enough, upon trying to find these same particles in the blood, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles were present in the circulation. As the results came only from the cell culture process, the researchers wondered if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo (i.e. within a living organism)?
Obviously, this revelation of finding “virus” particles in healthy cultures would destroy the cell culture technique as being valid for “viruses” (even though John Franklin Enders admitted to finding measles “virus” particles in cultures without measles material). This type of study actually shows that “virus-like” particles are found within cell cultures without “viral” material, thus serving as a control of sorts for virology, the likes of which it regularly ignores. This obviously could not stand so these particles had to be something new. While no proof for the functioning of these particles was provided, a hypothesis was established. The researchers concluded that the intercellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which they harvested from cell culture superfusates. As this could be a possibility, they decided to refer to these particles as exosomes rather than “viruses.” Thus the exosome concept was born.
The full 1981 Trams paper is presented below:
Exfoliation of membrane ecto-enzymes in the form of micro-vesicles
“Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell lines exfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture. The ratio of 5′-nucleotidase to ATPase activity in the microvesicles indicated that cellular ecto-ATPase was conserved in the exfoliative process. Phospholipids of the microvesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and total polyunsaturated fatty acids. It was concluded that the shedded vesicles constituted a select portion of the plasma membrane. Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm and often contained asecond population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter. As much as 70% of the plasma membrane ecto-5′-nueleotidase activity of a culture was released into the medium over a 24-h period. Phosphoesterhydrolases from C-6 glioma or N-18 neuroblastoma microvesicles dephosphorylated cell surface constituents when in contact with monolayer cultures. Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes.
Introduction
Plasma membrane ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases have been found and characterized in a variety of eukaryotic cells and it is probable that each enzyme subserves more than one function on the cell surface. Both enzymes exhibit a broad specificity for the base moiety of nucleotide substrates [1] but it is not established that ATP or AMP are the predominant endogenous substrates. Ecto-ATPases have the properties of glycolipoproteins and are rather firmly bound to the plasma membrane, while ecto-5′-nucleotidases are composed of glycoprotein which appears to be collocated with sphingomyelin in situ and can be removed from the membrane matrix by fairly mild procedures [2]. During our investigations on the functional roles of these two ecto-enzymes we have observed that ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) and 5′-nucleotidase (EC 3.1.3.5) were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. We established that this release was not caused by cytolysis of moribund cells. The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which are probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo has not been established.
Methods and Materials
Cell cultures. Cell lines employed in this study were established cultures (e.g. mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3; rat glioma, C-6; mouse melanoma, B-16), or derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures (rat aorta, RA-B; mouse astroblast, D-34) or grown from biopsy material (human melanoma, CL; human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN). Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks (Falcon Plastics, Oxnard, CA) or on 530 cm 2 NUNC Bioassay dishes (A/S NUNC, Roskilde, Denmark). Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subcultured by trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels. In particular, we have used the term ‘low passage’ for the rat glioma cell line C-6 when the parent cell was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, MD) at the earliest available passage (P-38). During repeated passage of this line we have observed over a number ofyears that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased. The term low passage is used for the C-6 line for P-38 to P-55 and high passage for passages P-65 to P-160.
Enzyme assays. ATPase activity was assayed on intact monolayer cultures or on isolated vesicles by a modified method of Weil-Malherbe and Green [3] by addition of [r 32p] ATP (New England Nuclear Corp., Boston, MA) to a superfusate buffer or to the vesicle suspension. The activity of 5′-nucleotidase was determined in a similar manner with [32p]AMP as substrate (New England Nuclear Corp.). Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component. Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media. We have used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured.
Lipid analyses. Phospholipid distribution in intact cells or extruded vesicles was estimated by two-dimensional TLC of a chloroform-methanol extract (2:1, v/v) according to Rouser et al. [4]. After development of the chromatogram, the TLC plates were charred with 50% (NH4)HSO4 and phosphate content of individual spots was determined by the method of Nelson [5]. For fatty acid analysis, aliquots of total lipid extracts were evaporated to dryness and methylated with BFa in methanol according to Morrison and Smith [6]. The fatty acid methyl esters were resolved and quantified on a Hewlett Packard 5840 gas chrom7atograph employing an SP 2330 column operated at 190°C.
Results
We have found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells. When a comparison was made between the ratio of ecto-5′-nucleotidase to ecto-ATPase activity in several cell lines and the activity of the two enzymes released into medium over a 24-h period, it was found that there was a proportionately larger release of 5′-nucleotidase (Table I). As we shall demonstrate below, the released enzymes had been derived from the corresponding plasma membrane ecto-enzymes. The relative preponderance of 5′-nucleotidase over ATPase in the microvesicles, compare ratios (1)/(2) to (3)/(4), indicated that either the ATPases were more labile, or that they had been conserved. When the decay of the catalytic activity of the released enzymes was measured by continued incubation in cell-free medium, it was found that 5′-nucleotidase lost from 3 to 20% of its activity in 24 h while the released ATPase averaged a catalytic loss of about 33% in the same period. Therefore, while the ATPases were somewhat more labile than the 5′-nucleotidases, the 2- to 13-fold enrichment of 5′-nucleotidase in the released microvesicles suggested a conservation of plasma membrane ecto-ATPases.
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% ofmeasured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number. With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed. While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable tostatistical treatment.
The results diplayed in Table II on the release of 5′-nucleotidase from a variety of cell lines should be viewed as representative. Release of the enzyme was found to be low from the NB-41A3 mouse neuroblastoma clone and highest in a primary culture derived from neonatal mouse astroblasts (D-34). Only in superfusates from mouse melanoma B-16 was there no measurable enzyme activity released into superfusates, but there was also no detectable ecto-5′-nucleotidase in the monolayer cultures. The rate of enzyme accumulation in the superfusates was linear with time in low density cultures but increased somewhat when cell density was high as shown for two separate duplicate experiments on the rat glioma cell line (Fig. 1). The rate of ATPase accumulation (not shown in Fig. 1) was very similar to that obtained with 5′-nucleotidase. The C-6 glioma culture generally exhibits a high ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity at low passage but the specific activity of the ecto-enzyme does not change substantially over a 30-h period (Fig. 1).
The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium. The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds; in C-6 glioma cultures the extrusion of enzyme was inhibited by 93 +_ 3% in the presence of 10-6M concanavalin A. With 10 -s M cycloheximide, inhibition was 32 + 24% over a 24-h period. An increase of enzyme extrusion was found in the presence of 10 -6 M colchicine (141 + 35% over control) or when the medium contained 0.5 ug. m1-1 of cytochalasin B (95 -+ 43% over control).
Filtration of superfusates showed that from 97 to 99% of 5′-nucleotidase activity was retained on 0.22 um filters while about 80% passed through an 0.45 um filter. The released enzyme activity was particulate and the particles could also be harvested by centrifugation. In Fig. 2, we show residual medium ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase after subjecting superfusate from glioma cultures (C-6) to increasing centrifugal forces. Cellular debris and unattached cells sedimented at or below 5 • 10^3 • gh (Sorvall SS-34 rotor at 10 a Xg for 0.5 h). The particulate enzymes contained in those supernates could be collected by centrifugation at high speeds. For routine collections of extruded enzyme, the Sorvall supernates were centrifuged for 90 min in a Spinco Ti-70 rotor at 310 000 × g. The small gelatinous pellet could be removed in toto or resuspended in buffer. ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous. Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles, one of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1 000 nm in diameter. Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm (Fig. 3).
Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case. Analysis of a representative high speed pellet of 6.5 mg protein from rat glioma superfusates yielded 5′-nucleotidase activity of 1.003 panol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • mg -1 protein, while marker enzymes for other subcellular particles were virtually absent. Activities of glucose-6-phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.9), cytochrome c oxidase (EC 1.9.3.1) and N-acetylhexosaminiclase (EC 3.2.1.52) were nil and (Na ÷, K+)-ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) was low (25 nmol • min -1 • mg -1 protein). The 5′-nucleotidase/LDH ratio in C-6 conditioned medium was several fold higher than in cell homogenates and there was no DNA detectable in sedimented vesicles. A comparison of the optimal requirements for divalent cations of the released ATPase showed that stimulating and inhibitory concentrations of Mg 2+, Ca 2+ and Mn 2+ were identical with those required for the respective monolayer ecto-ATPase. Ecto-5′-nucleotidases have a high binding affinity for concanavalin A and about 70% of the nucleotidase activity of C-6 conditioned media was retained by a Sepharose-4G-Con A column, suggesting also a similarity between the ecto-enzyme and the released enzyme. Analysis of vesicle pellets from glioma superfusates disclosed an RNA content of about 5% and lipid content of 30 to 40%. Two-dimensional TLC of vesicle phospholipids [4] gave a pattern which was different from that of lipid extracts of whole cells and from plasma membrane preparations in which 5′-nucleotidase was enriched about 8-fold (Table III). The vesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and decreased phosphatidylinositol. Comparison of total lipid fatty acid composition of whole cells with vesicles showed that the latter contained increased palmitic acid and total polyunsaturated fatty acids and decreased oleic acid. These compositional differences were further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells.
That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude (Table I).Both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation ofATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggests that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Another plasma membrane marker GM 1 (as measured by cholera toxin binding) was not conserved (Salem, N., Lauter, C.J. and Trams, E.G., unpublished results). This may indicate, that ecto-5′-nucleotidase and ecto-ATPase do not serve an interdependent function on the cell surface, as for instance in the catabolism of translocated cytoplasmic ATP [2].
The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them. Cells transfer substances to target cells in order to support discrete functions and examples of trophic substances are fibroblast- or nerve growth-factors [7,8].
Our working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role ina recognition and/or transport process. For instance, the carbohydrate moiety of ecto-5′-nucleotidase might serve as an address which was recognized by a recipient cell and the catalytic moiety of the enzyme would serve to dephosphorylate a receptor constituent and thereby facilitate a transfer mechanism between vesicle and cell. To test this hypothesis, mouse neuroblastoma cells (N-18) were incubated with 32Pi-containing medium with the intent to label cell surface phosphorous-containing compounds. After removal of the isotopic incubation medium, the N-18 cultures were first washed with unlabeled medium and then vesicle suspensions harvested from C-6 glioma conditioned medium were added; normal culture medium served as a control. There was a significant increase in 32p release into the medium (over background 32p diffusion from the cells) when gila-derived vesicles were in contact with the neuroblastoma monolayer cultures (Table IV). In another experiment, 32P-prelabeled C-6 cultures were superfused with either C-6 or with N-18 vesicles. There was a larger release of 32p when glioma cells were incubated with N-18 derived vesicles than when they were incubated with homologous vesicles which suggested that there were either quantitative or qualitative differences between the two experiments. We have no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but the experiments indicate that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place.
Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which we have studied so far, we conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation. Plasma levels of 5′-nucleotidase may be elevated significantly in several diseases [9,10] and the enzyme might normally or pathologically be derived from plasma membranes. We assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma. We assayed heparinized blood from 16 randomly selected patients and found plasma 5′-nucleotidase activities ranging from 3.4 to 26 nmol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • m1-1 plasma. Only a minor fraction of that activity was sedimentable, however, or retained on Millipore filters and there is at present no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation.
Discussion
Our observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells. The accumulation of as much as 70% of plasma membrane 5′-nucleotidase in microvesicular form in the medium over a 24-h period suggests a fairly high membrane tumover. This is not extraordinary, because it has been calculated that macrophages and L-cells were capable of interiorizing the equivalent of their cell surface every 33 and 125 min, respectively [11]. Replacement of apical plasma membrane in the lactating mammary gland requires formidable capapcity for membrane synthesis [12] and replacement of exfoliated membrane is a requirement that presumably is easily met by most cells. We have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells. The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggests that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane. The substantial enrichment of sphingomyelin in the microvesicular fraction supports this contention. A similar fmding of increased sphingomyelin in extracellular membranous vesicles associated with a murine ascitic leukemia was reported by Van Blitterswijk et al. [13]. Microvillous membrane accumulation in media of cultured chick embryo intestines was observed recently by Black et al. [14] and extracellular membrane-invested vesicles have been described by Anderson [15]. The latter particles appear to play a role in mineralization processes and they have been referred to as matrix vesicles. Their size ranged from 300 to 1000 nm and it was postulated that they were derived from the plasma membrane of chondrocytes by budding [15]. Their lipid composition was very similar to that of chondrocyte plasma membrane [16] and similar to the lipid composition of the vesicles which we have collected from rat glioma cultures. The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from our rat glioma culture superfusates suggest that the larger membranes were of plasmalemma origin. The smaller population has some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain [17] or from calf, rat and rabbit brain [18], while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type virus particles (Todaro, G., personal communication).
The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells. We also have recently found that isotopically labeled constituents of the microvesicles can be transfered to recipient cells (Trams, E.G., Lauter, C.J. and Salem, N., unpublished results) and the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo? Inter-cellular transfer of a quantum of material by means of vesicles has been recognized in neurochemical transmission and there is evidence that metabolic cooperation by packaged transfer of substances may occur elsewhere, such as the transport of macromolecules between glia and neurons [19-21]. It is also conceivable that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell. Such an effect was observed when exfoliated vesicles from a B-16 mouse melanoma subline were fused experimentally with cells from another B-16 subline [22]. Attempts are made currently in several laboratories to design packaged substances for targeted therapeutic use. As an example, liposomes are provided with an organ-specific address [23] and it is hoped that such models will find application, for instance in the treatment of metabolic dystrophies by enzyme replacement. Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments. The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates. In a preliminary report we have suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes [24].”
doi: 10.1016/0005-2736(81)90512-5.
All the same particles created from the same process.
In Summary:
Exosomes and “viruses” can not be separated from each other(as they are the same particles) which has created a problem for researchers: 1. How can exosome researchers be sure that they are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped “viruses” present in the sample?
2. How can “viral” researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized “non-viral” vesicles or empty vectors?
It is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry “viral” proteins, host proteins, and “viral” genomic elements from enveloped “viral” particles that carry the same molecules
To date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation of these particles does not exist
Exosomes have been disregarded as cellular debris and as garbage carriers and were once thought to be biomarkers of a diseased state
They are now thought to be biologically active
Despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology(i.e. it is all guesswork)
Other particles said to be garbage bags as well as carriers of cellular information are apoptotic bodies created during apoptosis, a process of cell death:
Cell shrinks
Cell fragments
Cytoskeleton collapses
Nuclear envelope disassembles
Cells release apoptotic bodies
Apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomes are all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain cytosol
Understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked
Cells in vitro (i.e. cell culture) may be induced to die by apoptosis,e.g.,by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media
The exosome concept was created by Trams et. al in 1981
Exosomes were first “discovered” in cell cultures and were admitted to potentially be cellular debris
In other words, exosomes=”viruses”=apoptotic bodies=cellular debris
Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell linesexfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture
Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm andoften contained a second population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter
Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes
In other words, the particles came from cell cultures and ranged anywhere from 40 to 1000 nm, showing that these were not purified preparations of a single substance
During the investigations on the functional roles of two ecto-enzymes, the researchers stated that they “observed” that ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines
They claimed to have established that this release was not caused by cytolysis (the dissolution or disruption of cells, especially by an external agent)of moribund cells
The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which were probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo(in the living body)had not been established
In other words, they found particles in the size range of “viruses” which they decided were not a product of cell disintegration by pathological means and assumed they were different and provided functions without direct proof
Cell lines employed in this study were:
Established cultures
Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
Rat glioma, C-6
Mouse melanoma, B-16
Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
Rat aorta, RA-B
Mouse astroblast, D-34
Grown from biopsy material
Human melanoma, CL
Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks
Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subculturedby trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels
During repeated passage of the rat glioma cell line C-6, they observed over a number of years that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased
Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component
Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media
They used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured
They found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% of measured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number
With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed
While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable to statistical treatment
In other words, the results related directly to the cell line used and the amount of passages performed and duplication was not satisfactory after a few months
The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly(i.e. there was a change) by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds
Thus we can see that adding compounds can alter the results obtained
ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous(i.e. it was a mixed population of different particles)
Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles:
One of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter
Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm
FYI: exosomes are said to be anywhere from 30-150 nm meaning this was not strictly the presumed exosomes in the mixture, i.e. not purification/isolation
Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but they excuse this conclusion due to the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h as they claim this would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case
They looked to compositional differences to provide further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells(yet, without purifying and isolating the particles, how would compositional differences be ascertained…?)
That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude
They claim both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are said to be classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation of ATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggested that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them (i.e. the particles looked the same as those found in cultures from the brain)
The working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role in a recognition and/or transport process
They carried out two experiments to test this hypothesis and concluded that they had no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but they felt the experiments indicated that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place
Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which were studied, they conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation
They assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma
After testing, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation
The researchers felt that their observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells
They claimed to have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells(which they admitted to be a conceivable possibility)
The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggested that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane
The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from their rat glioma culture superfusates suggested that the larger membranes were of plasmalemma origin
The smaller population had some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type “virus” particles
In other words, they found the exact same particles seen in animal brain cultures as well as “viruses” but assigned them a different name and function based on indirect chemical results from mixed unpurified preparations coming from cell cultures
The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells
They stated that the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo?
In other words, they did not know whether the process they created in their culture soup actually occurs within a living organism
It is also conceivable(i.e. capable of being imagined) that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell(sounds like a “virus…”)
Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments
The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates
In a preliminary report they suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes
“Viruses” and EV’s sure seem to blur the lines here.
“Since vesicles resemble viruses, the question of course is whether the first extracellular vesicles were primitive viruses and the viruses learned from extracellular vesicles or vice versa.”
“Viruses can replicate and vesicles cannot. But there are many variants in between. Where do viruses start, and where do extracellular vesicles start?”
We need to be careful replacing one fraudulent theory with another. Sadly, many have fallen into this trap of scraping the “virus” concept and replacing it with the exosome concept. What they do not realize is that these two concepts are built upon the same fraudulent foundation. Both are tied to the cell culture process and come from the same cell death initiated by toxilogical overload. This is why researchers are having a hard time separating not only the particles but also their theoretical functioning from each other. When the lies become overly complicated, they begin to entangle with each other and the illusion begins to fall apart.
Whatever name you want to call them, the broken down cellular debris known as exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, etc. are all the same particles consisting of the same size, density, and morphology. They are assigned different names and functions based on the researchers looking at them. While they are claimed to be separate entities, the particles are unable to be purified and isolated from everything else in order to be independently studied and characterized. Their functioning can not be observed within a living organism thus the same particles are given theoretical roles within the body based on the researchers performing the experiments. None of these particles have met the burden of proof of being established through rigorous testing and adherence to the scientific method. As they can never be observed in nature and must be created to be “seen,” they fail the very first criteria. As they can not be separated, they fail at being a valid independent variable. Without a valid independent variable, cause and effect can not be determined. This means that the scientific method can not and is not being applied to these particles. Thus all of the indirect evidence accumulated for this cellular debris assuming multiple identities is nothing but pseudoscientific fairy tales.
Who controls the food supply controls the people. Who controls the energy can control whole continents. Who controls money can control the whole world. – Henry Kissinger
Around 1868, the Indian Wars had briefly paused and the soon to be butchered treaties remained in force. However, the US Federal government and private interests were well aware that the “Indian Question” and “problem of the savages” was still unanswered. In other words, the “problem of the savages” was that the savages still existed. Those “savages” had been beaten back for years by the US regular army but they were not completely vanquished. In fact, despite being outmanned and outgunned and with little to no competition for the advancements in weaponry of the US Army, the Native Americans routinely routed the American military, at times slaughtering whole detachments.
But now that the secessionists had been dealt with, it became apparent that it was now time to remove the gloves from the iron fist of the coming settlements and that the Native Americans had to be annihilated, subjugated, or displaced from their Native lands. Railroads, telegraphs, mines, and the like were all being hampered by the very existence of Native Americans.
Enter William Sherman, the general famous for his brutal March to the Sea, the burning of Atlanta, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure in the US Civil War. Say what you want about Sherman, the man knew how to win a war. He knew that breaking the backs of the civilian population and the ability of the society as well as military to sustain itself was a successful method of warfare. He also knew that the Native Americans relied upon buffalo for food and shelter and indeed their very survival. In a letter penned in 1868, he wrote that as long as the buffalo were alive, “Indians will go there. I think it would be wise to invite all the sportsmen of England and America there this fall for a Grand Buffalo hunt, and make one grand sweep of them all.”
And so it became unofficial Federal policy that the buffalo had to be extinguished in order to solve the vexing “Indian problem.” Over the next ten years, the buffalo were hunted by privateers, highly encouraged by the US government, to the point of near extinction. Where buffalo once numbered about 30 million, by the end of the 1800s, that number had been reduced to just a few hundred.
In Andrew C. Isenberg’s book, The Destruction Of The Bison, Isenberg writes of a reporter who asks a railroad worker, “Do the Indians make a living gathering these bones?” Yes, replied a railroad inspector, “but it is a mercy that they can’t eat bones. We were never able to control the savages until their supply of meat was cut off.”
Fast forward to 2022. After nearly three years of COVID hysteria, lockdowns, economic disruptions, and schizophrenic government responses, the United States as a whole, as well as the rest of the world, is facing a food shortage. Claims that once belonged only to “preppers” and “conspiracy theorists” are now mainstream news items, with corporate-media outlets reporting that some items may be in short supply or simply not available at all. All that is necessary is a brief internet search to see a myriad of mainstream reports of shortages of meat, vegetables, baby formula and many other staple items. Just a cursory walk around the local grocery store will reveal a fairly obvious shortage of many items, though the pain is now mostly at the point of being an inconvenience more than a reason for panic. For now.
But talk of a food shortage is more than scattered news reports. Even the United Nations is warning of one, but not just in the United States. The UN is warning of a global food shortage. As ABC News reports,
The head of the United Nations warned Friday that the world faces “catastrophe” because of the growing shortage of food around the globe.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said the war in Ukraine has added to the disruptions caused by climate change, the coronavirus pandemic and inequality to produce an “unprecedented global hunger crisis” already affecting hundreds of millions of people.
“There is a real risk that multiple famines will be declared in 2022,” he said in a video message to officials from dozens of rich and developing countries gathered in Berlin. “And 2023 could be even worse.”
Guterres noted that harvests across Asia, Africa and the Americas will take a hit as farmers around the world struggle to cope with rising fertilizer and energy prices.
“This year’s food access issues could become next year’s global food shortage,” he said. “No country will be immune to the social and economic repercussions of such a catastrophe.”
Notice that Guterres also mentions the rising prices of fuel and fertilizer. This is something else that is being experienced worldwide, not just in the United States. Of course, Western media and the ruling party would have the population believe that Vladmir Putin is hoarding all the world’s gas via Ukraine, imposing restrictions and taxes on the vulnerable people of the United States who were on their way to energy independence in just three short years. Now, however, they somehow woke up begging other countries for fuel, licking the boots of the Saudis, and blaming Vlad for the doubling of the price at the pump. Clearly, it has nothing to do with intentionally shutting off oil pipelines and punishing businesses and working people on behalf of the climate and the faulty notion that man-made CO2 is causing temperatures to rise and the planet to reach a point of irreversible calamity.
Again, however, fuel prices aren’t rising just in the United States. They are rising across the world along with fertilizer and food costs and along with the price of just about any consumer good. Inflation, too – the hidden tax that is making itself well known in the United States – is popping up in the majority of countries across the globe. Who knew printing large amounts of money would cause that money to be worth less and thus cause prices to rise to compensate?
Living standards, too, are dropping all across the world with polio now rearing its head in the UK again for the first time since the 1980s. Polio, of course, is a disease that thrives on the low living standards and poor sanitation of the third world, a world which was partially imported to the UK all the while the standards of living (healthcare, sanitation, nutrition, etc.) have been gradually eroded. It’s not just the UK either. Living standards have been falling in the US for decades but accelerating recently. That is, of course, unless one chooses to believe silly “happiness indexes” repeated out of the UN to promote globalism and Free Trade policies.
Even basic services are falling apart. Labor shortages from pilots to the service industry are causing disruptions in the economy, rising prices, and chaos at airports. All happening globally.
Food shortages are happening globally. Food prices are rising globally. Fuel and fertilizer are rising globally. Living standards are falling globally. Inflation is rising globally. Labor shortages are global. Transportation is falling apart globally. See a pattern yet?
Everything disruptive happening nationally is also happening globally. Are we expected to believe that every government across the world simply made the same stupid decisions at the same time? That none of them could figure out the source of the problem? Shouldn’t at least one of them have stumbled on the right path forward and led the others through the mist? Or should we assume that there are more factors at play here and remember that anytime we see the same thing happening across the world at the same time, agendas that are global in nature and have no respect for national boundaries are marching forward? I would argue the latter.
Keep in mind, all of these “global crises” came to be out of the “global pandemic,” itself at best an opportunity that was not allowed to go to waste. At worst, a global hoax designed to usher in the Great Reset. COVID, after all, is still a virus that has yet to be fully identified in a lab, yet the entire world was locked down at the same time, a prison planet brought in to being, upon this dubious evidence and weak justifications. Regardless, COVID’s biggest casualty was freedom.
None of the current crises have arisen on the basis of a chain of befuddled reactionaries acting in ignorant unison across the globe to an emerging “pandemic.” In fact, the only ones ignorant of the pandemic and coming responses were the unsuspecting civilians who willingly gave up their most basic rights over fear of a virus that has never been isolated in a lab and still is not able to be accurately tested for.
Still think COVID just surprised everyone in power as much as it did the unsuspecting citizens? Consider briefly how, in the months before the alleged pandemic arose, a simulation exercise was held at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in concert with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation regarding the emergence of a global coronavirus pandemic that results in mass disruption of life and culture as we know it, economic chaos, and disruption of basic services.
On May 15, 2018, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the “Clade X” pandemic exercise in partnership with the WEF.
The Clade X exercise included mock video footage of actors giving scripted news reports about a fake pandemic scenario
. . . . .
The Clade X event also included discussion panels with real policymakers who assessed that governments and industry were not adequately prepared for the fictitious global pandemic.
“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval,” according to a WEF report on Clade X.
“There are major unmet global vulnerabilities and international system challenges posed by pandemics that will require new robust forms of public-private cooperation to address” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Then on October 18, 2019, in partnership with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WEF ran Event 201.
During the scenario, the entire global economy was shaken, there were riots on the streets, and high-tech surveillance measures were needed to “stop the spread.”
. . . . .
Two fake pandemics were simulated in the two years leading up to the real coronavirus crisis.
“Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security issued a public statement on January 24, 2020, explicitly addressing that Event 201 wasn’t meant to predict the future.
“To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise. For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction. Instead, the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic.”
Intentional or not, Event 201 “highlighted” the “fictional” challenges of a pandemic, along with recommendations that go hand-in-hand with the great reset agenda that has set up camp in the nefarious “new normal.”
“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Together, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation submitted seven recommendations for governments, international organizations, and global business to follow in the event of a pandemic.
The Event 201 recommendations call for greater collaboration between the public and private sectors while emphasizing the importance of establishing partnerships with un-elected, global institutions such as the WHO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Air Transport Organization, to carry out a centralized response.
. . . . .
One of the recommendations calls for governments to partner with social media companies and news organization to censor content and control the flow of information.
“Media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
According to the report, “Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation.
“National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages.
“For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology.”
Sound familiar?
Throughout 2020, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been censoring, suppressing, and flagging any coronavirus-related information that goes against WHO recommendations as a matter of policy, just as Event 201 had recommended.
Only the last two are yet to have checkmarks beside them, though mainstream economists are pointing toward September as a possible date for the mass unemployment. Surely, unless there is some inflationary printing by governments, the riots will then follow.
At the core of the COVID scam as well as the subsequent crises mentioned above is the ushering in of an entirely new society, that depicted by UN Agenda 21 and the Great Reset, itself the beginning of a global society reminiscent of that depicted in the The Hunger Games.
So what is the Great Reset? Essentially, the term comes from both a June 3, 2020 event sponsored by the WEF entitled The Great Reset which featured statements from leaders of the IMF, World Bank, and members of the corporate and banking sectors of the United States and UK as well as book written by Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF, entitled COVID19: The Great Reset. Both the book and the event echoed the same sentiment, i.e. that the world economy must be shut down and “reset” in order to usher in a new economy based upon the ideals of Agenda 21 and the Green New Deal.
The overall goal of the WEF’s so-called great reset agenda has always been to reshape the global economy and revamp every aspect of society, with or without COVID.
Another concern is whether to believe that the lockdowns, the limited mobility, the destruction of small businesses, the crashing of the economy, the home evictions, and the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world are all necessary to stop an “invisible enemy,” along with the subsequent curtailing of freedom that hasn’t been seen in the free world since the beginning of the so-called War on Terror.
“This digital identity determines what products, services and information we can access – or, conversely, what is closed off to us” — WEF report
According to Schwab, the post-COVID fourth industrial revolution will lead to “a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.”
In his books, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” (2020) and “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2017), Schwab envisioned a future of tracking and tracing every individual through digital identities connected to the Internet of Bodies (IoB) ecosystem.
For example, in “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” Schwab noted:
Any package, pallet or container can now be equipped with a sensor, transmitter or radio frequency identification (RFID) tag that allows a company to track where it is as it moves through the supply chain—how it is performing, how it is being used, and so on.
In the near future, similar monitoring systems will also be applied to the movement and tracking of people.
. . . . .
The digital identity agenda picked-up speed throughout 2020, starting with contact tracing and continuing with immunity passports to monitor and control citizen mobility for the greater good.
After attempting to justify mass surveillance in the interest of public health and safety, Schwab wrote in “COVID-19: The Great Reset” that in the post-pandemic era “the genie of tech surveillance will not be put back in the bottle,” and that “dystopian scenarios are not a fatality.”
Below are just a few quotes from “COVID19: The Great Reset:”
Now that information and communication technologies permeate almost every aspect of our lives and forms of social participation, any digital experience that we have can be turned into a “product” destined to monitor and anticipate our behavior.
. . . . .
The pandemic could open an era of active health surveillance made possible by location-detecting smartphones, facial-recognition cameras and other technologies that identify sources of infection and track the spread of a disease in quasi real time.
. . . . .
Dystopian scenarios are not a fatality. It is true that in the post-pandemic era, personal health and wellbeing will become a much greater priority for society, which is why the genie of tech surveillance will not be put back into the bottle.
. . . . .
The combination of AI, the IoT and sensors and wearable technology will produce new insights into personal well-being. They will monitor how we are and feel, and will progressively blur the boundaries between public healthcare systems and personalized health creation systems – a distinction that will eventually break down.
Hinchcliffe also writes:
Between 2014 and 2017, the WEF called to reshape, restart, reboot, and reset the global order every single year, each aimed at solving various “crises.”
2014: WEF publishes meeting agenda entitled “The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business.”
2016: WEF holds panel called “How to reboot the global economy.”
2017: WEF publishes article saying “Our world needs a reset in how we operate.”
In 2020, the coronavirus was the catalyst needed to enact the great reset plan that had been bubbling under the surface for years, and immunity passports are just another step in the overall plan to track and trace every citizen through their digital identity.
One of the few statements made by the WEF related to its future goals was a bizarre article published by Forbes entitled, “ Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better,” where the WEF contributor describes a futuristic society (eight years away) that resembles a feudalist communist utopia where there is no such thing as privacy or private property and AI runs society. The article is so bizarre because, while it attempts to paint a utopia, even the fictional narrator can’t seem to keep from sounding like a brainwashed cult member. It reads
My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.
Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.
All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.
Combined with the social credit system, UBI, and digital passports, UN Agenda 21, mentioned above, the next step after the world’s economic and cultural systems are “reset,” will be implemented, creating what is essentially a global version of the Soviet Union, gulags and all. For those who are unaware, UN Agenda 21 is an established and published plan developed by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Affairs. The plan, according to the UN website, is a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, government, and major groups, in every area in which humans have impact on the environment.”
The plan essentially calls for government control of all land, where human and animal lifestyle and activity is strictly limited and controlled, humans rounded up into “habitat areas,” and individual rights are a thing of the past. Travel will be restricted to essential vehicles only, and diet will be mandated by the dictates of the “needs” of the environment.
This is precisely why we are seeing chaos at airports for lack of pilots, why the supply chain is broken and why food is becoming scarce. This is not by accident. In fact, food-processing facilities have been burned, vandalized, and rendered inoperable all across the United States in seemingly random acts. But how random are they? Did a sudden mass psychosis take hold which prodded people into carrying out attacks against food-processing facilities? Or, again, is there an agenda afoot?
Is it any coincidence that the very goals set forth by Agenda 21 and the Great Reset have been met one by one in the last two years?
Economic shutdown and “reset” – COVID Lockdowns and furloughs, artificial labor shortages.
Food shortages – disruption of supply chain by lockdowns, labor shortage, “random” attacks on food facilities, destruction of crops, culling of farm animals, rising fuel prices.
Restriction of travel – rising fuel prices, fewer cars functional due to trade disruption, harder to find parts, COVID travel restrictions, vaccine passports, digital monitoring of travel, pilot shortages.
Loss of individual rights – slow burn for decades but COVID lockdowns, vaccine passports, travel restrictions, right to gather have all drastically infringed upon under “emergency measures” and have eviscerated the concept of individual rights.
Unemployment – global economy already struggling before COVID; after the “pandemic,” however, many businesses simply disappeared.
But there is some light in all this. Where many people simply panicked at the outset of the “pandemic” and willingly gave up their rights and their critical-thinking skills, the subsequent infringement upon their daily lives for such a sustained amount of time with little to no logical standards for actually preventing disease, many eventually began opening their eyes to the fact that another agenda was being put in place. In fact, more people than ever before have begun to openly question and oppose what their governments are doing in the name of keeping them safe and healthy.
So, after two years of having their most basic rights shredded and destroyed, the savages have become restless. They’ve started to realize that the treaties of the status quo between themselves and the global ruling glass were not being honored and so they began to question the legitimacy of that ruling class. They voted, they protested, they demonstrated, and refused to comply.
And what is the response of the ruling class? “We were never able to fully control the savages until their supply of meat was cut off.” It’s not very inventive but it is effective. So the question, dear reader, is if you are a savage and your meat supply is being cut off, what should you do? Well, ask yourself what should the native Americans have done? I’ll leave that up to you but, I think you already know the answer.
Just a few months into the COVID-19 pandemic — and almost two years before global health officials warned of a food shortage crisis — the Rockefeller Foundation issued a report predicting the crisis and offering up solutions, including “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food.”
Just a few months into the COVID-19 pandemic — and almost two years before global health officials warned of a food shortage crisis — the Rockefeller Foundation issued a report predicting the crisis and offering up solutions, including “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food.”
In a report published July 28, 2020, “Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,” the foundation described “a hunger and nutrition crisis … unlike any this country has seen in generations.”
The authors blamed the crisis on COVID-19.
The report concluded the crisis would have to be addressed not by strengthening food security for the most vulnerable, but by revamping the entire food system and associated supply chain — in other words, we would need to “reset the table.”
The Rockefeller Foundation called for this food system “reset” less than two months after the World Economic Forum (WEF), on June 3, 2020, revealed its vision for the “Great Reset.”
Some of the contributors to the Rockefeller Foundation report are WEF members; a few of which, along with other proponents of “resetting the table,” also have ties to entities pushing vaccine passports and digital ID schemes.
Rockefeller Foundation: ‘changes to policies, practices, and norms’ are needed
The WEF describes the Rockefeller Foundation as a “science-driven” philanthropic organization that “seeks to inspire and foster large-scale human impact that promotes the well-being of humanity around the world” and which “advances the new frontiers of science, data, policy and innovation to solve global challenges related to health, food, power and economic mobility.”
In the foreword to its 2020 “Reset the Table” report, foundation President Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, who is a former administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), states:
“America faces a hunger and nutrition crisis unlike any this country has seen in generations.
“In many ways, Covid-19 has boiled over long-simmering problems plaguing America’s food system. What began as a public health crisis fueled an economic crisis, leaving 33 percent of families unable to afford the amount or quality of food they want.
“School closures put 30 million students at risk of losing the meals they need to learn and thrive.”
The report did not explain how the Rockefeller Foundation was able to know about this food crisis mere months after the pandemic took hold — especially as the report states it was developed out of “video-conference discussions in May and June 2020.”
The report also didn’t provide any insight into the role pandemic countermeasures such as lockdowns — which the foundation championed along with the WEF — played in contributing to the food crisis..
In its report, the Rockefeller Foundation proposes a series of solutions, derived from “dialogues with over 100 experts and practitioners.”
One recommendation calls for moving away from a “focus on maximizing shareholder returns” to “a more equitable system focused on fair returns and benefits to all stakeholders — building more equitable prosperity throughout the supply chain.”
This may sound like a good idea, until one considers “stakeholders” in this case refers to “stakeholder capitalism” — a concept heavily promoted by the very same large corporations that have been beneficiaries of the shareholder capitalist system.
The WEF also heavily promotes “stakeholder capitalism,” defining it as “a form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.”
For some context, economic fascism, as personified by the regimes of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, encompassed government-mandated “partnerships” between business, government and unions organized by a system of regional “economic chambers,” and a philosophy where “the common good comes before the private good.”
It is, of course, unclear how the “needs [of] society at large” are determined — or by who.
The Rockefeller Foundation report declares, “Success will require numerous changes to policies, practices, and norms.”
What does such “success” entail? The report names three main objectives:
Data collection and digitization: The report calls for “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food, direct farm-to-consumer purchasing, telemedicine, teleconsultations, as well as [broadband access that is essential to] education, finance, and employment.”
The report describes the lack of universal broadband access in this context as “a fundamental resiliency and equity gap.”
“Stakeholders” working together with the goal of forming a “collaborative advocacy movement.”
“Changes to policies, practices and norms,” which the report says would be “numerous.”
These objectives, dressed up in “inclusive” language, are further described in the report as being beneficial to human health, ensuring “healthy and protective diets” that “will allow Americans to thrive and bring down our nation’s suffocating health care costs.”
The report goes as far as to describe this as a “legacy” of COVID-19, even predicting that doctors will “prescribe” produce for patients.
According to the report:
“One of Covid-19’s legacies should be that it was the moment Americans realized the need to treat nutritious food as a part of health care, both for its role in prevention and in the treatment of diseases.
“By integrating healthy food into the health care system, doctors could prescribe produce as easily as pharmaceuticals and reduce utilization of expensive health services that are often required because of nutrition insecurity.”
But as Dr. Joseph Mercola pointed out, despite this purported emphasis on healthy, nutritious food, the words “organic,” “natural” and “grass fed” do not appear in the report.
What does appear is the phrase “alternative proteins,” in this case referring to proteins derived from the consumption of insects — another concept promoted by the WEF.
In 2021, for instance, the WEF published a report titled “Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems,” suggesting that “insect farming for food and animal feed could offer an environmentally friendly solution to the impending food crisis [emphasis added].”
Yet again, an “impending food crisis” is forecast, which may lead some to ask how entities such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the WEF even knew what was coming.
As stated by Mercola:
“COVID was declared a pandemic March 11, 2020, so by the time this Rockefeller report was published, the pandemic had only existed for four months, and while certain high-risk groups did experience food insecurity, such as children whose primary meal is a school lunch, widespread food shortages, in terms of empty shelves, were not widely prevalent or particularly severe in the U.S.
“It seems nothing escapes the prophetic minds of the self-proclaimed designers of the future. They accurately foresee ‘natural disasters’ and foretell coincidental ‘acts of God’. They know everything before it happens.
“Perhaps they truly are prophets. Or, perhaps they’re simply describing the inevitable outcomes of their own actions.”
Mercola suggests such crises are inevitable because they are part of “an intentional plan” by the very same actors.
The Rockefeller Foundation’s amazing ‘predictions’ of future crises, and its ties with Big Tech and Big Pharma
Lending credence to Mercola’s view, and as recently reported by The Defender, the Rockefeller Foundation, WEF and other entities accurately predicted a remarkable number of crises that then came to pass.
For instance, Event 201, held in October 2019 and co-organized by the Rockefeller Foundation, accurately “predicted” the global outbreak of a coronavirus.
Similarly, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), which co-organized a “tabletop simulation” predicting the global outbreak of monkeypox in March 2021, with an imaginary start date of May 2022, has received $1.25 million in grants from the Rockefeller Foundation since January 2021.
In turn, the other co-organizer of the monkeypox “tabletop simulation,” the Munich Security Conference, in May 2022 held a roundtable with the Rockefeller Foundation on “Transatlantic cooperation on food security.”
Among the suggestions arising from this roundtable include a “focus on transforming the global food system and making it more resilient to future shocks, with steps taken now and over the long term.”
As previously reported by The Defender, the GAVI Alliance proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”
GAVI is also a core partner of the World Health Organization (WHO).
The GAVI Alliance — and the Rockefeller Foundation — also work closely with the ID2020 Alliance. Founded in 2016, ID2020 claims to advocate in favor of “ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID,” adding that “doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties.”
For the past two years, the Rockefeller Foundation and entities such as ID2020 and the WEF have been closely involved with the push for digital “vaccine passports.”
For instance, on July 9, 2020, the Commons Project, itself founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, launched “a global effort to build a secure and verifiable way for travelers to share their COVID-19 status” — that is, a vaccine passport.
The Commons Project also was behind the development of the CommonPass, another vaccine passport initiative, developed in tandem with the WEF.
Other members of the Good Health Pass Collaborative include Accenture, Deloitte and IBM — which developed New York’s “Excelsior Pass” vaccine passport system.
The Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, also funded an August 27, 2021 document issued by the WHO titled, “Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: Vaccination status.”
“This is a guidance document for countries and implementing partners on the technical requirements for developing digital information systems for issuing standards-based interoperable digital certificates for COVID-19 vaccination status, and considerations for implementation of such systems, for the purposes of continuity of care, and proof of vaccination.”
And in another remarkably prescient “prediction,” the Rockefeller Foundation, in 2010, published a report — “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” — which presented four future scenarios.
One of these hypothetical scenarios was “Lock Step” — described as “[a] world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.”
The description of this “Lock Step” scenario goes on to state:
“Technological innovation in ‘Lock Step’ is largely driven by government and is focused on issues of national security and health and safety.
“Most technological improvements are created by and for developed countries, shaped by governments’ dual desire to control and to monitor their citizens.”
This scenario also predicted “smarter” food packaging:
“In the aftermath of pandemic scares, smarter packaging for food and beverages is applied first by big companies and producers in a business-to-business environment, and then adopted for individual products and consumers.”
Moreover, the “Lock Step” scenario remarkably predicted China would fare better than most countries in a hypothetical pandemic, due to the heavy-handed measures it would implement:
“However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular.
“The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.”
The Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement in public health is not new.
Going back more than a century, the foundation heavily promoted “scientific medicine” and formalized medical practice based on the European model on a global scale, at the expense of homeopathy and other traditional and natural remedies.
The foundation’s “philanthropic” activities have been described as “de facto colonialism in countries including China and the Philippines.”
Moreover, the foundation helped give rise to the first global public health entities, the International Health Commission (1913-16) and the International Health Board (1916-1927).
It also helped finance the earliest public health programs at universities such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins — today home to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
Yates Hazlehurst, who developed autism after receiving his childhood vaccines, was the first and only vaccine-injured plaintiff to make it to a jury. The 20-year process revealed major flaws in a system that is supposed to compensate children for vaccine injuries.
In a riveting legal battle spanning two decades, William Yates Hazlehurst (“Yates”) on Feb. 2, 2022, became the first vaccine-injured person with a diagnosis of autism to reach a jury since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 (the Vaccine Act) became law.
In a medical malpractice case filed in the Madison County Circuit Court in Tennessee, attorneys for Yates argued the clinic and physician who administered Yates’ vaccines, including the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on Feb. 8, 2001, should be held liable for medical malpractice and the neurological injuries Yates developed after being vaccinated.
Although the jury decided in favor of the physician — who Yates’ father said failed to adequately inform the parents of the risks of vaccinating Yates while he had an active ear infection — the case exposed major flaws in a system designed to protect children and shield pharmaceutical companies and physicians from liability for vaccine injuries.
“In the fight to end the autism epidemic, we were all hoping for the one knockout punch that would bring the truth to light and help end the autism epidemic,” Yates’ father, Rolf Hazlehurst, said.
“This medical malpractice trial was the only opportunity in the last 35 years for a jury to hear evidence in a court of law regarding whether a vaccine injury can cause neurological injury, including autism.”
Hazlehurst, who is a senior staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said “unless the Vaccine Act is repealed, my son is probably the only vaccine-injured child with a diagnosis of autism who will ever reach a jury.”
The Hazlehurst case was a medical malpractice case against the doctor who administered the pediatric vaccines that, in the opinion of the world’s top experts, sent Yates, now 22, spiraling into the depths of severe, non-verbal autism.
Although the case was originally filed in 2003, it didn’t receive its day in court for 19 years because a separate case involving Yates’ injury first had to work its way through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
When Yates’ medical malpractice case was finally heard, the trial exposed alarming evidence about autism and vaccines, the low standard of care practiced by physicians administering pediatric vaccines and financial conflicts of interests between pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines and government agencies entrusted with vaccine safety.
During the trial, the world’s top experts in the field of autism and mitochondrial disorder explained how the administration of “routine” childhood immunizations can cause autism, brain injury, and many other disorders.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, autism is a neurological and developmental disorder that affects how people interact with others, communicate, learn and behave. Symptoms can be severe and usually manifest before a child turns 3, which coincides with the age children receive the most childhood vaccines.
Increasing evidence indicates a significant proportion of individuals with autism have concurrent diseases such as mitochondrial dysfunction, abnormalities of energy generation, gastrointestinal abnormalities and abnormalities in the regulation of the immune system.
Yates’ medical malpractice trial illuminated how vaccines can cause autism in children with mitochondrial disorder and showed how the Vaccine Act — which is designed to ensure informed consent and compensation to injured children — is an abject failure because it’s largely unenforceable.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. , Lane Hodges and Yates Hazlehurst.
Yates was normal until he received his 12-month vaccines
During the first year of his life, Yates developed typically and met all of his developmental milestones.
“He was a happy, healthy and normal child,” his father said.
After his 6-month shots, Yates experienced a severe screaming episode approximately 24 hours after receiving the DTaP, Prevnar, Hib and Hep B vaccines.
In the days following his vaccinations, Yates began to experience seizure-like shaking episodes.
But his parents didn’t realize their son’s symptoms were consistent with a severe vaccine adverse reaction because they were not given a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at their pediatrician’s office.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a VIS is an information sheet produced by the CDC that explains both the benefits and risks of a vaccine to recipients.
“Federal law requires that healthcare staff provide a VIS to a patient, parent or legal representative before each dose of certain vaccines,” the CDC website states.
Instead of providing the VIS, Yates’ physician told his parents any adverse event to a vaccine would be “almost immediate” — within 5 to 15 minutes after vaccination.
Before Yates’ first birthday, his mother and aunt took him to the doctor because he had been sick, and his parents wanted to make sure it was okay for Yates to have a birthday party.
Hazlehurst told The Defender this appointment was not a scheduled well-child check. It was a sick visit. At the appointment, Yates was diagnosed with an ear infection and prescribed an antibiotic.
As the pediatrician turned to leave, he stated Yates would receive his shots, as it was close to his first birthday. A woman returned to the room who portrayed herself to be a nurse, but Hazlehurst later found out was only a medical assistant.
Yates’ mother asked the “nurse” whether their son should receive his shots despite being sick and was told he should.
Once again, they were not given a VIS form informing them of the risks of vaccinating Yates while he had a fever and an active ear infection.
“By administering vaccines to a sick child, the doctor and his clinic could charge a “modified double bill” Hazlehurst said.
That day, on Feb. 8, 2001, Yates received the MMR, Prevnar, Hib and Hep B vaccines. Twelve days later, Hazlehurst said his son experienced a high fever, rash and vomiting consistent with a vaccine adverse reaction.
Hazlehurst called the clinic where his son received his vaccine and talked to the doctor on call who asked him which vaccines Yates received. Hazlehurst responded, “whatever you get when you’re a year old.”
Hazlehurst was told his son was having an adverse reaction to the antibiotic and the doctor wrote him a prescription for a different antibiotic and an anti-fungal medication.
Soon after, Yates began to lose the skills he once had and began developing abnormally. He lost his speech, started running wild, was constantly on the go and would knock things off the table.
“He was visually ‘stimming’ off the falling objects and running with his head down for the visual stimulation,” Hazlehurst said.
He explained:
“It was not like he got the shots and boom, the next day he was autistic. That’s not the way it happened. The mitochondria produce the energy to the connecting tissue in the cells in the brain, and if they don’t get enough energy for a short period of time (as short as 6 seconds), cellular death occurs.
“The brain keeps developing, but it cannot develop normally because the connecting cellular tissue has been damaged. That’s why it takes time to manifest. It’s like watching grass grow. It’s happening, but you don’t realize it’s happening.”
Yates’ condition worsened. He developed an obsession with spinning objects, became a picky eater, started hand-flapping and toe-walking, became unable to sleep and exhibited gastrointestinal and multiple other medical and neurodevelopmental issues, Hazlehurst said.
Hazlehurst searches for answers to his son’s autism
According to federal law, there are specific recording requirements for vaccine medical records, and healthcare providers must provide records to a parent upon request.
Hazlehurst, on June 21, 2002, requested a copy of his son’s original vaccine records so other physicians could evaluate, diagnose and treat Yates.
Hazlehurst had questions about the American Academy of Pediatrics’ standard of care and wanted to know why his son was vaccinated while he was sick with a fever.
In response to Hazlehurst’s request and questions about Yates’ care, the pediatrician rushed out of the room and called his attorney, Hazlehurst said.
The doctor and clinic denied Hazlehurst’s requests to review and receive copies of his son’s original vaccine records, forcing him to petition the court for Yates’ records.
The court granted the request, and the local sheriff’s department seized Yates’ medical records from the doctor’s clinic.
Hazlehurst quickly realized there were problems with his son’s vaccine record, which was on an unsigned consent form that had a billing code sticker placed over the language regarding the risks and benefits of vaccines and vaccine information materials.
Hazlehurst said he never received a VIS form and Yates had been vaccinated without informed consent.
Hazlehurst files claim with the NVICP for son’s vaccine injury
Hazlehurst, like many parents of vaccine-injured children, pursued a claim with the NVICP as federal law requires. The process took nine years — from 2002 to 2011.
In order to bring a case in a court of law, the parents of a vaccine-injured child must first file their case with the NVICP.
The NVICP is a special, no-fault tribunal housed within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that handles injury claims for 16 federally recommended vaccines. To date, the court has awarded more than $4 billion to thousands of people for vaccine injuries.
In the NVICP, America’s legal system is replaced by a “special master.” The special masters who review claims are government-appointed attorneys, many of whom are former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys.
Under the NVICP, the parents of vaccine-injured children are forced to sue the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for compensation. HHS is represented by DOJ attorneys.
It is exceptionally difficult to obtain compensation within the NVICP, Hazlehurst said. The proceedings are often turned into drawn-out, contentious expert battles and the backlog of cases is substantial. Because of this, a single case can drag on for over a decade.
Payouts, including attorneys’ fees, are funded by a 75-cent tax per vaccine. There is a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering and death benefits.
The Vaccine Act established the NVICP, and the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et al later guaranteed vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other vaccine administrators almost always have no legal accountability or financial liability in civil court when a government-recommended or mandated vaccine(s) causes permanent injury or death, Hazlehurst said.
The NVICP ultimately denied Yates’ claim, but his case against HHS became a central part of the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.
Yates’ case in the NVICP was part of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP), in which 5,400 claims submitted to the NVICP were consolidated to determine if vaccines cause autism and if so, under what conditions.
“HHS whittled down the thousands of cases to six “test cases,” one of which was Yates’ case,” Hazlehurst said. “If HHS could find a way to deny NVICP compensation to the test cases, the agency would be able to deny compensation to all 5,400 families.”
Hazlehurst said HHS and the DOJ “took advantage of the fact that the rules of evidence, discovery and civil procedure mechanisms available in a regular court do not apply in the so-called vaccine court, and perpetrated fraud upon the special masters, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The special masters on Feb. 12, 2009, in the so-called vaccine court, denied Yates’ petition for compensation and those of the five remaining OAP “test cases” involving children who developed autism after receiving their pediatric vaccines.
HHS makes key concession in Hannah Poling case
The potential fourth test case — Hannah Poling’s — was quietly conceded in 2007, in a corrupt coverup to conceal the opinion of the HHS expert witness, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, the world’s leading expert in autism research, Hazlehurst said.
When Poling was 19 months old, she was vaccinated against nine diseases at one doctor’s visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and Haemophilus influenzae type b. In total, she received five vaccines.
Prior to receiving her vaccines, Poling was described as normal, happy, healthy, interactive, playful and communicative. But two days after being vaccinated, she was lethargic, irritable and febrile, and within 10 days she developed a rash consistent with vaccine-induced chicken pox.
Over the course of several months, Poling stopped eating, didn’t respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, developed neurological and psychological disorders and was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by an underlying mitochondrial disorder.
In 2003, Poling’s father, Jon, a physician and trained neurologist, and mother, Terry, an attorney and nurse, filed an autism claim against HHS under the NVICP for their daughter’s injuries.
During the OAP, in the Poling case, the government quietly conceded vaccines caused “regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
According to CBS News, Poling received more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care, lost earnings and pain and suffering for the first year alone. After the first year, the family was supposed to receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Poling’s care, which is estimated to amount to $40 million over her lifetime.
Jon Poling on March 6, 2008, said, “the results, in this case, may well signify a landmark decision with children developing autism following vaccinations.”
Prior to the Poling case, federal health agencies and professional organizations had reassured the public vaccines didn’t cause autism. The Poling case challenged that narrative, which is why the case was conceded and in essence sealed.
HHS’ concession that Poling developed autism as a result of a vaccine injury briefly became international news. Yet, only a handful of people knew why the government conceded Hannah’s case.
When news of the concession in Poling v. HHS was made public in March 2008, Dr. Julie Gerberding, then-director of the CDC, in an interview with CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta said:
“We all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids, so if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, then if you are predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage — some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”
If HHS had not conceded her case, the truth as to how vaccines cause autism in some children with an underlying mitochondrial disorder would have been exposed by the world’s leading expert witnesses in the spotlight of the OAP, Hazlehurst said.
“The vaccinations Hannah received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
Zimmerman was an expert witness for the government defending vaccines in the NVICP. In 2007, during the hearing in the first test case, he told the government vaccines could cause autism in “exceptional” cases, but said the government later hid that information and misrepresented his expert opinion.
In a 2018 letter, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel, and Hazlehurst meticulously described the DOJ’s fraud pertaining to the misrepresentation of Zimmerman’s opinions in the OAP and requested an investigation.
“The Office of Inspector General passed the buck to the DOJ Department of Ethics,” Hazlehurst said. “The DOJ investigated itself and wrote a highly misleading letter absolving itself of any wrongdoing.”
“Shortly after I clarified my opinions with the DOJ attorneys, I was contacted by one of the junior DOJ attorneys and informed that I would no longer be needed as an expert witness on behalf of H.H.S. The telephone call … occurred after the above-referenced conversation on Friday, June 15, 2007, and before Monday, June 18, 2007. To the best of my recollection, I was scheduled to testify on behalf of H.H.S. on Monday, June 18, 2007.”
As a result of his firing, Zimmerman was not present for the Hazlehurst OAP proceedings, which allowed DOJ attorneys to misrepresent Zimmerman’s statements related to a separate autism case and apply them to all cases of autism, including Yates’ case.
Over the years Hazlehurst has repeatedly stated, “I want to be very clear, neither the Polings nor Dr. Zimmerman did anything wrong.”
“But,” he added, “if I did to a criminal, in a court of law, what the United States Department of Justice did to vaccine-injured children, I would be disbarred and I would be facing criminal charges.”
Zimmerman did testify as an expert witness on behalf of Yates in the medical malpractice case filed against Yates’ doctor, which was finally heard by a Tennessee court in February 2022.
Research by Zimmerman and others determined that at least 30%-40% of children with a diagnosis of regressive autism suffer from a mitochondrial disorder, which is a condition with which Yates was later diagnosed.
Yates in ‘perfect position’ to file lawsuit after exhausting remedies in NVICP
After exhausting all remedies under the NVICP — a process that took 25 years — the legal floodgates were then open, Hazlehurst said.
But because no one could sue the vaccine manufacturer, the only vaccine-injured child — out of thousands of cases originally included in the OAP — left with legal standing was Yates Hazlehurst and his claim of medical malpractice against the pediatrician who oversaw the administration of his vaccines.
Ultimately, the same medical experts, including Zimmerman and Dr. Richard Kelley, former director of the Genetics Department at Johns Hopkins Medical Institute — whose testimony HHS and the DOJ relied on in the Poling concession — concluded that what happened to Hannah Poling is what also happened to Yates Hazlehurst.
In an affidavit which was not admissible in the 2022 medical malpractice trial, Kelley stated:
“I also find, with a high degree of medical certainty, that the set of immunizations administered to Yates at 11 months while he was ill was the immediate cause of his autistic regression because of the effect of these immunizations to further impair the ability of his weakened mitochondria to supply adequate amounts of energy for the brain, the highest energy-consuming tissue in the body.”
Zimmerman’s expert opinion on the cause of Yates’ neurological condition was consistent with Kelley’s opinion.
Throughout the medical malpractice case, opposing counsel representing the pediatrician continuously echoed the CDC slogan, “vaccines do not cause autism.”
Hazlehurst said:
“In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff has the burden of proof that the defendant deviated from the local “standard of care” or the defendant failed to obtain informed consent and that the deviation from the standard of care or failure to obtain informed consent caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
“The plaintiff must prove the standard of care, breach of the standard of care, the standard for informed consent and lack of informed consent through the testimony of an expert witness.”
“The issue of informed consent was hotly contested,” Hazlehurst added. “To a large degree, the trial was about whether and to what extent the federal laws applied at all to the standard of care.”
Yates’ father alleged the pediatrician deviated from the standard of care by administering vaccinations when his son had contraindications to being vaccinated.
Hazlehurst alleged the standard of care would include taking a sick baby’s temperature before administering vaccinations and believes the doctor failed to recognize that the “shaking episodes” as recorded in the medical records were consistent with a vaccine adverse reaction that should have been considered before further vaccinations were administered.
“Most people would be shocked if they witnessed the evidence presented by the defense to the jury as to just how low the requirements for informed consent and the standard of care are for the administration of childhood immunizations,” Hazlehurst said.
The defense experts testified the standard of care did not require taking a sick baby’s temperature before administering a vaccine, that he could be vaccinated even while ill and with an active bilateral ear infection, while on antibiotics and after suffering screaming and shaking episodes following previous vaccinations, he added.
Yates prohibited from presenting key expert witnesses
Medical malpractice cases are very difficult to win, and finding a pediatrician who is willing to testify in a vaccine injury case like Yates’ is extremely difficult, Hazlehurst said.
“Through the course of Yates’ long medical and legal journey, several doctors expressed that Yates should not have been vaccinated in his condition,” Hazlehurst told The Defender.
“However, they would not agree to testify. Most of the experts who refused to testify expressed fear of the negative professional consequences if they testified in an autism case,” he said.
Yates was also limited on the expert witnesses he could call due to Tennessee rules that determine which experts may testify about the local standard of care.
“These rules along with an extreme reluctance of pediatricians to testify in an autism case severely limited Yates’ ability to prevail,” Hazlehurst said.
Although Zimmerman was able to testify in Yates’ medical malpractice case, Kelley was not allowed to testify as to the standard of care and was not allowed to give an opinion as to how the defendant was negligent or why Yates should not have been vaccinated.
“The court granted an exception to allow Dr. Kelley’s causation testimony because his testimony was so highly specialized that another expert witness in the field of genetic metabolic disorders was obviously not available in Tennessee or a contiguous state, but his opinion as a pediatrician was not allowed,” Hazlehurst said.
Hazlehurst attempted to compel the CDC to allow whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the CDC, to testify in Yates’ case, but the agency prevailed and blocked Thompson from testifying.
Thompson in 2014 admitted to omitting “statistically significant information” in a 2004 study he co-authored with other CDC scientists that claimed the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.
But the omitted data suggested that a sub-group of males who received the MMR vaccine were at a significantly increased risk of autism.
“Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed,” Thompson said in a statement.
“Any reference to Dr. William Thompson or the CDC whistleblower was later specifically excluded by the court in Yates’ medical malpractice trial,” Hazlehurst said.
“Likewise, the jury was not allowed to hear any reference to the concession in the Poling case and specifically the comments of Gerberding,” who in 2010 left the CDC and became the chief patient officer and executive vice president of Merck — the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine.
Due to the substantial length of time between the alleged malpractice and trial, several expert and fact witnesses passed away.
A critical fact witness and two doctors willing to testify on Yates’ behalf, passed away before trial. Two other doctors who initially gave sworn testimony as to negligence and causation backed out, leaving Yates without the experts needed to bolster his position.
The same was not true for the defendant, who had no difficulty finding expert witnesses to testify on his behalf, Hazlehurst said.
“The array of experts the defense called left little doubt as to the importance of this potentially precedent-setting case and raised the question of what forces were at play behind the scene,” he said.
“Yates was not just up against the local doctor and clinic, and David does not always beat Goliath,” Hazlehurst said.
The verdict in Yates’ medical malpractice case
At the end of the trial, the jury answered two questions based on the evidence it was allowed to consider and the instructions provided by the court.
Yates’ attorneys asked for a jury instruction quoting the language in the Vaccine Act that a VIS must be given to the parents of the child prior to the administration of a vaccine.
Although the judge originally approved the instruction prior to the start of the trial, the judge later reversed his decision and removed the critical instruction before jury deliberation, Hazlehurst said.
The first question the jury answered was, “Did the defendants provide the requisite information to Yates Hazlehurst’s parents to allow Yates Hazlehurst’s parents to formulate an intelligent and informed decision on authorizing or consenting to Yates Hazlehurst receiving his childhood immunizations on February 8, 2001?”
The jury answered, “yes.”
The second question the jury answered was, “Did the defendants deviate from the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in this medical community or a similar medical community in his/their treatment of Plaintiff Yates Hazlehurst when administering vaccines to Yates Hazlehurst on February 8, 2001?”
The jury answered, “no.”
Although the jury never addressed the issue of whether a vaccine can cause neurological injury, including autism, valuable evidence was discovered and preserved during Yates’ legal battle.
The world’s top experts in the field of autism and mitochondrial disorder, on video, explained how the administration of “routine childhood immunizations” can cause autism, Hazlehurst told The Defender.
“These were the same medical experts who compelled HHS and DOJ to secretly concede the case of Hannah Poling during the OAP in the so-called vaccine court,” he said.
The trial exposed compelling evidence of the incredibly low standard of practice being taught to medical students and doctors and illuminates how the laws contained in the Vaccine Act — designed to ensure a patient receives informed consent — are unenforceable and largely meaningless, Hazlehurst said.
Many of the reasons Yates lost his case are the same reasons underlying the autism epidemic, he added.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Aud Hazlehurst, Yates Hazlehurst, Lane Hodges, Rolf Hazlehurst, Anne Hazlehurst Garrard, David Riley, Marry Garrard, Anne Elizabeth Garrard, Tammy McCoy and Kevin Cox.
Hazlehurst told The Defender he has sincere gratitude to everyone who has helped Yates over the past 20 years in both his medical and legal struggles.
“Regardless of the jury verdict, exposing the evidence which came to light in the legal cases of Yates Hazlehurst will be a powerful tool towards the ultimate goal of bringing the truth to light and ending the autism epidemic,” he said.
CHD and Hazlehurst said they will continue to fight for vaccine-injured children.
In the words of Winston Churchill, “Now is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning,” Hazlehurst said.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
Since the “bird flu outbreak” first hit the headlines OffG has been predicting how the inevitable agenda would unfold.
The first impact was as obvious as it was predictable – the price of chicken and eggs went up, this was just another front in the war on food.
The second planned impact was less immediate, but just as predictable if you know how to read the media, and potentially far more harmful in the longterm – clamping down on alternative chicken farming. This includes both organic farms and individuals keeping their own chickens in their garden.
It didn’t take long for the media to prove us right. In fact the Guardian has done it twice in the last ten days.
Firstly, last Thursday, the Guardian ran this article: “Spread of ‘free-range’ farming may raise risk of animal-borne pandemics – study”
Sponsored by the NGO Open Philanthropy, this piece reports that organic and free-range farming could increase the risk of a zoonotic disease outbreak, and quotes the authors of this new study:
If we can’t dramatically cut meat consumption then intensive ‘factory farming’ may be comparatively less risky
…yes. they’re actually arguing that the corporate mega-farms are better at preventing pandemics than free-range or organic farms because they have “tighter biosecurity controls” (meaning their animals never go outside or interact with nature in anyway whatsoever).
Back in January, when there were barely any bird flu cases to report, The Conversation was already hosting articles claiming…
Bird flu: domestic chicken keepers could be putting themselves – and others – at risk
And calling for a new policy on backyard chickens:
This is why it will be important in the future for Defra and APHA to provide specific policy for backyard chicken keeping.
It’s pretty easy to see where this is going, isn’t it?
But why take aim at ordinary people keeping a handful of chickens in their back garden?
Well, partly because they simply want to cut the amount of natural food people eat – most especially meat, but also eggs and other dairy produce. They want people entirely reliant on mega-corporations for their processed cubes of “food”.
But they also want people entirely reliant on the state for permission to do…almost everything. And in, some ways, the Covid pandemic narrative was counterproductive in that cause.
One of the unintentional effects of Covid in general and lockdown specifically was re-awakening in people an urge to go their own way. The powers-that-be are keen to reverse that trend.
As the above Guardian article points out [emphasis added]:
This may be due to the growing number of people keeping chickens or ducks, Brown said. Many of these keepers do not have to register with any authority because of the small numbers of birds involved.
During lockdown there was a spike in people keeping their own chickens.
Under UK law, it is illegal to keep a flock of fifty or more chickens without obtaining a license from the Poultry Register (yes, that’s a real thing) – but the vast majority of private flocks are much less than fifty birds, and therefore totally unregistered.
This scare-mongering on “spreading disease” is preparing the ground for “regulation” of these small private flocks.
Will that mean an outright ban? Maybe. But at the very least, I would expect the minimum number requiring a license to begin dropping from 50, and the cost of obtaining a license to rise.
We have already seen an example of this process with homeschooling.
Tens of thousands more people are homeschooling in the UK than were before the lockdown started. The government response has been to re-open their years-old war on homeschooling by creating a national register of homeschooled children, and threatening parents with fines or unspecified “sanctions” for refusing to sign-up for it.
The same exact process will likely be seen with backyard poultry.
That’s the specific and practical part of it.
More poetically put, the state resents them because they are free.
Keeping a few chickens in your garden may be a small, fragile, kind of freedom…but its freedom nonetheless, and power structures are easily petty enough to destroy even that modicum of independence.
At its heart, self-reliance of any kind is the antithesis of everything driving us toward the “new normal”.
No freedom. No independence. No living outside the carefully controlled machinery of the state. That’s their aim.
As we phase out of “Covid time” and career towards “world war 3 times” or “climate change times” or whatever the next stage of the grand narrative is, the gears of the state are intent on grinding up those pockets of resistance their relentless overreach has accidentally cultivated.
The good news here is that their ever-more tyrannical efforts to control people will only end up driving more and more people away.
To quote the philosopher Lucas, the more they tighten their grip, the more people will slip through their fingers.
If you worked for a federal agency that was studiously ignoring a kill-rate of 100,000 Americans a year, every year, like clockwork, and if you knew it, wouldn’t you feel compelled to say or do something about it?
At the FDA, which is that federal agency, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.
Let’s shift the venue and ask the same question. If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn’t you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?
Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the report] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”
The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”
And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”
Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.
And for the past 10 years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death in 2011, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.
Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, why shouldn’t the DHS investigate the FDA as a terrorist organization?
How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates the place, and prosecutes very large numbers of FDA employees?
Do we need 100,000 smoking guns every year? Do we need relatives of the people who’ve all died in the span of merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, bringing corpses to the doors of FDA headquarters?
And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?
I’ll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be lining up and hovering outside every health-food store and nutritional supplement manufacturer in America.
All those fake stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art medical research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.
The buck stops at the FDA.
Except in the real world, it doesn’t. Which tells you something about the so-called real world and how much of it is composed of propaganda.
No medical drug in the US can be released for public use unless and until the FDA says it is safe and effective. That’s the rule. The FDA is spitting out drug approvals month after month and year after year, and the drugs are routinely killing 100,000 people a year and maiming two million more, which adds up to a million deaths per decade and 20 million maimings per decade. The FDA and the federal government are doing nothing about it, even though they know what’s going on. This is mass murder. Not accidental death. Murder. A holocaust.
Do you want another citation?
Here are a few horrific quotes. I’ll discuss the source afterwards:
“…appropriately prescribed prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death…About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the US and Europe.”
“They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more [6.6 million per year] hospitalizations, as well as falls, road accidents, and about 80 million [per year] medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others.”
“Deaths from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.”
In other words, the 330,000 deaths per year, the 6.6 million hospitalizations per year, and the 80 million “medically minor” problems per year…all of this stems from CORRECTLY PRESCRIBED medicines.
The quotes come from the ASA [American Sociological Association] publication called Footnotes, in its November 2014 issue. The article is “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author of the article is Donald W Light.
Donald W Light is a professor of medical and economic sociology. He is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.
It’s been my policy to quote medical analysts who have mainstream credentials, when it comes to adding up the results of medical-drug destruction.
I do this to show that, in refusing to fix the holocaust, the federal government, medical schools, and pharmaceutical companies can’t claim their critics and detractors are “fringe researchers.”
Believe me, the officials who should have been fixing the enormous tragedy for at least the past 15 years are intent on hiding it.
When you stop and think about the meaning of these medical numbers, one of the things you realize is: this massive destruction of life envelops whole countries.
It not only maims and kills, it brings emotional turmoil and loss to the families, friends, co-workers, and colleagues of those who are killed and maimed: the 330,000 who are killed and the 6.6 million who are hospitalized and the 80 million whose productivity is hobbled or whose ability to care for others is significantly diminished.
If you consciously set out to bring a nation to its knees;
to kill it;
to make it unable to function at any reasonable level;
you would be hard pressed to find a more effective long-term method than exposing the population to the US/European medical-drug cartel.
The Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees will remain blocked until at least September after a federal appeals court on Monday agreed to reconsider its previous decision to reinstate the mandate.
The Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees will remain blocked until at least September after a federal appeals court on Monday agreed to reconsider its previous decision to reinstate the mandate.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans will revisit its April ruling by a three-judge panel that the administration has the legal authority to require federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19, The Associated Press reported.
The new injunction will remain until the case can be argued before the full court’s 17 judges. According to The Epoch Times, the court has tentatively scheduled the en banc oral arguments for the week of Sept. 12.
Back-and-forth rulings on federal worker vaccine mandate since January
Biden introduced Executive Order 14043 in September 2021, requiring more than 3.5 million federal executive branch workers to undergo vaccination unless they secured approved medical or religious exemptions. The order did not allow workers to choose regular testing in place of getting the vaccine.
Other parties to the lawsuit included the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 918, a union representing employees in the Federal Protective Service and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and several other individuals and federal contractors.
The groups sought to block two COVID-19 vaccine mandates: one covering federal employees and the other for federal contractors.
Lawyers representing the Biden administration argued the Constitution gives the president, as the head of the federal workforce, the same authority as the CEO of a private corporation, and that therefore mandating vaccination was under the president’s authority.
The plaintiffs disagreed, countering that such action oversteps a president’s powers.
“The main thrust of the argument [of the plaintiffs],” attorney Bruce Castor Jr. told The Epoch Times in February, “is that the president doesn’t have the authority to issue an order like this, pursuant to the powers granted him in Article Two of the United States Constitution, and that’s the same argument that won the day in the Supreme Court regarding the 100 or more employees; the president doesn’t have that authority.”
“Instead of going through the checks and balances of congressional approval, which includes feedback from the public, the executive order cuts all that out. It just says, ‘My way or the highway.’
“Certainly, the Constitution grants powers like that to the president in foreign affairs and protecting the nation from aggression from foreign powers. But he doesn’t have the authority, with a sweep of the pen, to affect the lives of millions of people, bypassing Congress.”
In January, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown blocked the mandate, stating in his 20-page ruling that the president and his administration did not have the authority to impose such a mandate.
Brown questioned the president’s power to mandate federal employees undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment, writing in his decision:
“This case is not about whether folks should get vaccinated against COVID-19 — the court believes they should. It is not even about the federal government’s power, exercised properly, to mandate vaccination of its employees.
“It is instead about whether the president can, with the stroke of a pen and without the input of Congress, require millions of federal employees to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment.
“That, under the current state of the law as just recently expressed by the Supreme Court, is a bridge too far.”
But after hearing arguments in March, a different panel of judges ruled 2-1 in early April that Brown did not have jurisdiction in the case, overturning the lower court’s Jan. 21 injunction against the mandate and ordering the district court to dismiss the case.
I have a two-sentence introduction before we get to the guts of this story:
Whenever a typical “liberal” college educated parent hears a doctor or medical bureaucrat utter a pronouncement, the parent, like a doomed trained monkey, AUTOMATICALLY replies, “Well, this evidence certainly has some merit…”
God help the child who has such a parent.
Gateway Pundit has the story. Here are quotes; then I’ll have comments.
“Joe Biden’s transgender Assistant Health Secretary Dr. Rachel (Richard) Levine spoke at a DNC pride month event on Friday.”
“On Friday, Dr. Levine said sex reassignment surgery (castration) and puberty blockers (chemical castration) for KIDS is ‘lifesaving, medically necessary, age appropriate, and a critical tool’.”
“Levine recently said that there is no debate about ‘gender-affirming’ care for kids.”
“’There is no argument among medical professionals — pediatricians, pediatric endocrinologists, adolescent medicine physicians, adolescent psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. — about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care,’ Levine said.”
“According to the American College of Pediatricians, no single long-term study demonstrates the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for transgender-believing youth.”
“Puberty blockers may cause depression and other emotional disturbances related to suicide. The package insert for Lupron, the number one prescribed puberty blocker in America, lists ‘emotional instability’ as a side effect and warns prescribers to ‘Monitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment’.”
OK. The big takeaway from these statements is: we’re supposed to believe we’re talking about a MEDICAL condition and MEDICAL TREATMENT.
Once that bell is rung, all bets are off. “Well, the doctor says Jimmy has gender dysphoria, a medical/psychiatric condition, and his desire to transition to a girl needs treatment. The treatment allows him to make the transition.”
As with other issues, the word from on high is, the science is settled.
Forget the fact that the American College of Pediatricians disagrees. Ultimately, what is and isn’t science is decided at a political level.
Forget the fact that gender dysphoria has no defining physical diagnostic test. No blood test, no urine test, no hair test, no genetic assay, no brain scan. Its existence as a condition is backed by zero evidence.
Forget the fact that the treatments are toxic and destructive.
The medical/political colossus has spoken. Doubters are now referred to “the science.”
This is how medical dictatorship operates. You might recall that’s how it operated with a little thing called COVID.
Dr. Rachel Levine is trying out for the role of Anthony Fauci.
Civilians everywhere want to argue against children undergoing transition to another gender, but the authorities want to head that off at the pass by claiming “it’s all medical and we have the knowledge and you don’t know anything. Case closed.”
If parents huddle in the dark, afraid of a scornful look from a doctor or a medical bureaucrat, the war is over. It’s lost. The war against children will be scorched earth and scorched lives.
I can hear that college educated parent I referred to saying, “Well, to be reasonable, there is some merit to the argument that certain young children have a need to transition, and we have to discern these cases carefully and consider the medical evidence…”
This is what all losers say just before the enemy pours tons of gasoline on the fire and the city burns down.
There was no shortage of coverage in the independent media of the recent World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, the first in-person gathering of so-called “Davos man” since the beginning of the scamdemic.
Similarly—as noted in a recent edition of New World Next Week—there was at least some coverage of Bilderberg 2022 in the alt media, although arguably not enough.
And you’re probably going to see some coverage in the alternative press about next week’s NATO Summit in Madrid. (Have you heard that the summit will be hosting Asia-Pacific leaders for the first time?)
But there was another assembly of globalist super-gophers that took place last week. Didn’t hear about it? That’s not surprising. This conference—unlike the flashier Davos or Bilderberg or NATO meetings—barely gets any mention at all in the Western press, MSM or independent.
Today, let’s learn more about this neglected elitist confab and why you likely didn’t hear anything about it.
WHO ARE THE BRICS?
Everyone has heard of the BRICS by now.
Many know that “BRICS” is an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the states that comprise the membership of this alliance.
A few might even know that it was originally BRIC, South Africa not joining the group until 2010, the year after the inaugural BRIC summit.
But how many people know where the idea for a BRICS (or even a BRIC) grouping originated? Not that many, I’d venture to say.
Luckily, you’re a student of Corbett Report University so you already know (or are about to find out) that the BRICS grouping was not the brainchild of some diplomat or politician who found some connecting thread uniting these seemingly unrelated states. Nor was it the spontaneous decision of the countries’ leaders to unite around a specific cause.
No, the BRIC concept was first proposed in a Goldman Sachs white paper called “Building Better Global Economic BRICs,” where Goldman’s then-chief economist, Jim O’Neill, identified Brazil, Russia, India and China as the world’s four fastest-growing developing nations and suggested that “world policymaking forums should be re-organised” to reflect this fact. (BONUS FACT: Jim O’Neill is now chair of the Chatham House Council, another fact that Corbett Report University grads will understand the significance of.)
Of course, the fact that the BRICS actually originated in a Goldman Sachs white paper is not in and of itself reason for suspicion of the grouping. To argue such would be to employ the genetic fallacy. But, as I have pointed out time and time again, that is most assuredly not the only reason to be suspicious of claims—frequently heard in certain quarters of the suspiciously pro-Putin and pro-Xi “independent” media—that the BRICS are actually some sort of anti-globalist organization.
And in The BRICS Summit: What You Need to Know, I pointed out that the grouping’s Ninth Summit—held in Xiamen in Southeast China in 2017—featured a reaffirmation of the group’s commitment to the United Nation’s Agenda 21/2030 scam, a recommitment to fostering a “global economic governance architecture” and a renewal of their subjugation to the World Trade Organization.
In fact, nothing about this Goldman Sachs-conjured group has ever lived up to the promise of “anti-globalist crusading” that its boosters have assured us this group really represents.
But they just held their 14th summit in Beijing this past week, so maybe they unleashed their plan for taking down the New World Order when no one was looking, right? Let’s take a look.
THE BRICS MEET AGAIN
So, did the BRICS leaders use the occasion of the 14th BRICS summit in Beijing to stick it to the globalists?
Well, before I answer that question, take a look at the leaders photo from the summit above. Does it look odd to you? As if it’s been photoshopped? Well, you’re right! It is a fake (although official) “virtual” photo, constructed from separate photos of each of the leaders.
Why? Because they weren’t all in the same room for this year’s summit. In fact, they weren’t even in the same country. This was a virtual summit. You know, because of the deadly COVID scamdemic. Committed pushers of the globalist COVID scamdemic like Xi “Lockdown” Jinping, Vladimir “Clot shot” Putin, Narendra “Test, Trace and Isolate” Modi, Cyril “Save the Vaxx Plant” Ramaphosa and . . . well, actually Jair Bolsonaro has been better than most world mis-leaders in standing up to the scamdemic nonsense, but he’s the exception that proves the rule. The RICS, at any rate, have pushed the biosecurity nightmare as hard as any of the Western globalist regimes, which should give you an indication of how interested they are in “sticking it to the globalists” and freeing the peoples of the world from the death grip of the technocrats.
In fact, biosecurity nonsense was featured heavily in discussions at this year’s BRICS summit. Ramaphosa used the opportunity of his pre-recorded speech to complain about “Lack of access to lifesaving vaccines and treatments,” Modi’s speech centered on the post-COVID economic recovery (without noting that without the scamdemic policies there would be no slump to recover from), and Xi, true to form, managed to tie praise for the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development scam into the COVID-1984 biosecurity scam:
Today, the global development process has hit major roadblocks, the momentum of international development cooperation is being weakened, and development gap between the North and the South keeps widening. As a result, the global efforts to implement the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development have suffered major setbacks. Almost 1.2 billion people in nearly 70 countries are confronted with COVID-19, food, energy and debt crises. What has been achieved in decades of global poverty reduction efforts could be lost.
In case anyone missed the point, later in his speech he once again reiterated his call on all countries “to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and to “engage in cooperation on COVID-19 response and provide more anti-COVID medicines to developing countries so as to beat the virus at an early date.”
But it wasn’t all COVID nonsense, of course. There were some legitimate grievances aired at this year’s BRICS summit as well. Xi took time to call out the US for “weaponizing” the financial system with its sanctions against Russia (including getting Russian banks blocked from the SWIFT interbank payment network) . . . without so much as naming the US or SWIFT. “Politicizing, instrumentalizing and weaponizing the world economy using a dominant position in the global financial system to wantonly impose sanctions would only hurt others as well as hurting oneself, leaving people around the world suffering,” he said in the practiced blather of the lifelong politician.
But it’s one thing to point out the perfectly obvious problem. The rubber really meets the road when you ask: What are you planning to do about the problem?
Putin’s answer apparently involves a BRICS currency basket, which, he suggests, could serve as an alternative to the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights currency basket and thus as a potential world reserve currency. “We are exploring the possibility of creating an international reserve currency based on the basket of BRICS currencies,” he announced, adding that “Together with BRICS partners, we are developing reliable alternative mechanisms for international settlements.”
Ahhhh, yes, An “alternative” payment system to go with the “alternative” reserve currency. Of course! I mean, we all saw how well that went with the “alternative” New Development Bank, right? Or do you remember when China created a SWIFT “alternative” . . . that relied on the SWIFT network to transmit its payments?
Yes, as you might have guessed this currency/payment “alternative” is a booby trap, too. It turns out that what the BRICS leaders mean when they say they need an “alternative” payment system is that they want to create some form of digital currency grid (perhaps an mCBDC bridge!) that will smooth over payments so that no SWIFT middleman is necessary. As Peking University economist and BRICS booster Cao Heping puts it in a recent CCP propaganda piece: “Along with the development of the mobile internet, digital payment has also become a tool for cross-border transactions. More opportunities are expected in this regard.”
Yay.
Beyond that, the BRICS are also getting into the 21st-century’s next multi-trillion dollar military-industrial boondoggle: space. That’s right, according to the China National Space Administration, 2022 marks the “year of launch” for cooperation on joint observation and data sharing among the BRICS nations’ respective satellites. Yes, that awkward phraseology is direct from their propaganda puff piece and might lead the casual reader to believe that the BRICS are going to jointly launch a satellite this year. In reality, they’re only agreeing to share data among their existing satellites (China’s Gaofen-6, Ziyuan-3 02, the CBERS-4 co-developed by Brazil and China, Russia’s Kanopus-V type, and India’s Resourcesat-2 and 2A, for those keeping track at home).
In short, this year’s BRICS summit was about what you’d expect from a public-facing globalist confab (as opposed to a private one, like Bilderberg): A lot of hot air and political blather interspersed with some genuinely alarming statements about the global nightmare that these world mis-leaders are working to bring about, from the UN’s Agenda 2030 to the world of digital currency.
WHY YOU DIDN’T HEAR ABOUT IT
As I said at the beginning, whether you follow the dinosaur mainstream media or the online independent media, chances are you didn’t encounter anything substantive about this year’s BRICS summit in your usual news feed.
Why is this?
Well, for starters, the BRICS summit didn’t involve any of the the leading Western powers, so those who only see the world through an anti-NATO lens are inherently disinterested. And the lack of Kissingers and Schwaubs in attendance means it doesn’t flip any of the switches with the online conspiracy crowd.
Secondly, the BRICS are increasingly seen as a failure even by the mainstream pundits whose job it is to prop up all of the sides in the fake and staged wrestling match that is global politics. Even the BRICS’ progenitor, Jim O’Neill, has given up on the group, penning editorials about how the grouping has provided “20 Years of Disappointment.”
Thirdly, the summit didn’t provide much opportunity for the supposedly independent media pundits who propose the BRICS bloc as some sort of globalist resistance force to make their case. Other than touting the idea of a BRICS currency basket (without mentioning the digital currency push), what would they highlight, exactly, to make their case that the BRICSers are standing up to the global agenda? Certainly not Xi’s constant praise for the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (Oh, and did I mention that the BRICS launched a Vaccine Research and Development Center this year to “pool together the advantages of the BRICS countries in the field of vaccine development and research which will boost the capacity of the BRICS countries to control as well as avoid infectious diseases”?)
No, the BRICS summit is something that all sides are happy to sweep under the rug. But that does not mean that we should let them do it. We need reminding from time to time that the belief that the BRICS group (or any combination of its members) represents a true opposition to the global agenda is hopium of the worst sort. And what better way to do that then by quoting their own speeches from their own socially-distanced, biosecurity-promoting, “vaccine”-loving, digital currency-pimping summit?
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.
‘The End of Germ Theory’ Documentary: An Easy-to-Understand, Step-by-Step Analysis of the History of Germ & Virus Theory, the Erroneous “Science” Behind Vaccination & a Close Look at What Really Makes Us Sick — The Big Pharma Cartel & the Deep Deception of Viral Pandemics
Dr Rosenau / US Public Health Service failed Spanish Flu contagion experiments
Goat Island / US Public Health Service failed Spanish Flu contagion experiments
Johns Hopkins / Dr Sellard failed Measles contagion experiments
Dr. Alfred F Hess failed Chicken Pox varicella contagion experiments
NY State Health Department / US Public health Service failed Polio contagion
experiments
Dr. Eleanor McBean vaccination caused Spanish Flu pandemic research
Dr Frederick Lamont Gates / US Army Antimenigitis vaccination fiasco
Black Death, Spanish Flu outbreak follows 14-25 vaccinations per person
Unvaccinated doctors and families did not catch the Spanish Flu from patients
Masha & Dasha, conjoined twins who never caught flu, colds, measles from eachother
What is Polio really? Lead Arsenate and DDT trends vs outbreaks
False vaccine disease eradication claims and trends
7 common causes of Polio
What is a “virus particle”?
What is Cytopathic Effect “Theory”?
What is Viral Replication “Theory”?
What is a virology cell or tissue “Culture”?
Cytopathic Effect Theory debunked
Autolysis and Apoptosis
Virus particle Isolation and Purification
PCR test fraud and misuse
CDC Covid PCR diagnostic test fraud
“Insilico” imaginary genomes
John Enders’ debunked Measles experiments
Studies admitting virus particles are indistinguishable from cellular debris
Fraudulent Australian failed Covid isolation experiments
Fetal Bovine Calf Serum RNA
Dr Stefan Lanka control experiments debunk virus theory once and for all
1947 fraudulent Polio isolation experiments debunked
Virology fails Koch’s postulates
Antibodies, Antigen test fraud, HIV
Antibody vaccine theory debunked
Big Pharma re-name disease game
Monkeypox fraud
Real causes of Pox diseases
1957 Monkeypox failed contagion experiments and controls debunk virology
Why do some but not all people sometimes but not always seem sick together?
The theory that “Covid” originated in a bio-lab has been back in the headlines over the last few weeks, serving as a prime example of the type of fake binary OffG has been warning you about.
The “lab-leak theory” – which pushes the idea Sars-Cov-2 was bio-engineered in a lab as a “gain-of-function” program, and then either accidentally or deliberately released on an unsuspecting population – first came to the front pages as early as January 2020.
At the time it was deemed a “racist” “anti-china” conspiracy theory by the vast majority of the media, and it fell away from the narrative.
It had a resurgence in 2021, suddenly & inexplicably becoming not racist anymore.
In February 2021 the World Health Organization published a report finding the lab origin for Covid19 “extremely unlikely”. But WHO chief Tedro Adhanom was obviously keen not to let the idea die completely, publicly stating “more investigation was needed”.
Overall, around this time, it suddenly became much less taboo to suggest the “virus” originated in a lab.
Then, in December 2021, the Daily Mail reported that Dr Alina Chan had told the UK’s Science Select Committee that it is ‘reasonable to believe [the] virus was engineered in China’ and that “the lab origin is more likely than not”.
But after a brief furore over that, it again faded from the front pages.
Now it’s back. And gaining momentum.
In May, 18 scientists (including Chan) published an open letter in the Science journal demanding authorities properly “investigate the origins of Covid19”.
Two weeks ago the World Health Organisation released a report that they were still investigating the origins of Covid, and that no hypothesis had been completely ruled out.
On June 15th, the WHO chief told reporters at a press conference that ruling out the lab-leak theory had been “premature” and there had been a “push” to do so. He called on China to “be transparent, open and cooperate, especially on the information, raw data that we asked for at the early days of the pandemic.”
This time China responded, dismissing the lab leak theory as “lies” and “anti-China propaganda”, whilst suggesting that the real lab leak likely came from the US bioweapons lab in Fort Detrick.
Then, on June 18th, The Daily Mail reported that despite maintaining public neutrality Tedros Adhanom “privately believed” that Covid had originated in a lab.
In short, two apparently oppositional camps are springing up – the West is laying the groundwork to blame China for the pandemic, whilst China (and probably Russia, down the line) blame the USA.
This is a textbook fake binary.
What you need to notice is that both these allegedly opposing sides agree on the most important aspect of the pandemic lie – that Covid is a unique new and dangerous disease which needs be treated with masks, lockdowns and vaccines – and only disagree violently about where this “real and deadly new disease” might have come from.
You are supposed to take your cue from them.
They want you to forget “covid” is just a meaningless new name for an old familiar cluster of “seasonal” symptoms. They want you to forget the whole thing was a scam – and to instead take a “side” in a scripted & noisy & totally phony “origin” debate.
The minute you sign up for it they have you – because by agreeing to debate where “it” comes from you have accepted “it” – ie a deadly new pathogen – exists & needs to be dealt with.
And that is all they want from you.
We think you should politely decline this staged “controversy”. Because however real the East-West divide actually is in other areas, when it comes to covid both sides are the same side & pushing the same story.
And it suits both East & West to encourage this fake binary – and “bioweapon” fear porn – at the expense of wider and more honest enquiry.
At the end of April, Dr. Jordan Grant gave a remarkable 2-part lecture breaking down the various philosophical issues related to our modern healthcare system. He deconstructed the germ theory of disease and brilliantly showcased why it is based on pseudoscience rather than natural science. Dr. Grant has been at the forefront of calling out virology for its inadherence to the scientific method and he has pinpointed the many logical fallacies surrounding the germ theory fraud.
I have been anxiously awaiting the time that I could share his presentation with you. If you know Dr. Grant, you would understand why. I am fortunate enough to call Jordan a friend. We crossed paths at the beginning of this pandemic through the Infectious Myth Facebook group created by the late David Crowe. From reading Jordan’s conversations with others in our group, I immediately realized that this was a man who carried a wealth of knowledge and he was someone from which I could learn a great deal from. He may not realize it, but Jordan has been a mentor to me in various ways and I am grateful for all of the knowledge I have gained from our conversations. My hope is that you are able to come away with many nuggets of wisdom from this excellent series! At the very least, you will learn one thing you may have never known that can kill a guinea pig.
The Philosophy of Modern Medicine
What Makes Us Ill and How Can We Optimize Health? The modern medical-industrial complex has its focus on drugs and symptom suppression. It is a “sick care” system. We need to understand this philosophy and then empower ourselves with information on true causes of “illness” in order to better understand ways to optimize our health.
The Philosophy of Modern Medicine – Dr. Jordan Grant (2022 Conference) – Delivered 04/30/2022 – Dr. Jordan Grant – Berean Bible Church –
Science, Pseudoscience, and The Germ Theory of Disease
For over 150 years, the “germ theory” of disease has dominated mainstream thought regarding many illnesses. Is this theory scientific? Are there holes in the paradigm? We will explore what “science” means, first and foremost, and then apply that to dogmas surrounding contagion and infection.
Science, Pseudoscience, and The Germ Theory of Disease – Dr. Jordan Grant (2022 Conference) – Delivered 04/30/2022 – Dr. Jordan Grant. – Berean Bible Church –
If you are interested in joining the Infectious Myth Facebook group (there are a few due to censorship) to converse with Dr. Grant and many other amazing like-minded people, you can find us here:
(@approject) 
.jpg){kind=link}